• Patching and joint repairs in Temple Road;
• Resurfacing in Christ Church Road (by the Stewponds Car Park);
• Footway repairs in Rosebank;
• Rationalisation of Road Signs in Epsom town centre;
• Repairs to block paving in Epsom town centre.

It has also recently been agreed that overlay repairs will be carried out in The Crescent, rather than just micro-asphalt surfacing. This work will also include the part of Well Way that links The Crescent to The Greenway, rather than the cul-de-sac part of The Crescent which is not part of the bus route.

See also the earlier Highways Plans for 2008-2010.

One of the key issues highlighted was the inadequate provision of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks - a national requirement for anyone working with children and young people. The report stated: “Although the council state in their self-assessment that all staff are robustly CRB checked, this information is false, with high numbers of staff identified by the human resources database as either not having had CRB checks or three yearly re-checks.”

In addition it was found that too many children with learning difficulties and/or disabilities are excluded from school. In 2006, in mainstream secondary schools, nearly half the children with statements of Special Educational Needs had fixed term exclusions.

We Lib Dems have consistently campaigned for more services to support families and keep children from needing to be brought into care; for more effective recruitment and retention of key staff; and to ensure that schools are helped to keep children with Special Educational Needs in school. But it has taken a Government Inspection to bring out the lack of CRB checks, the failure to respond to children’s needs early enough in the care process, and the failure to keep proper records.

The Inspectors also reported that the Tories’ 2006 Business Delivery Review harmed important service developments in children’s social care.

Many of the underlying problems highlighted in the report such as lack of respite care, too much reliance on agency staff and a limited range of preventative services, have been known for years. Yet the Conservative administration had failed to act and even the Executive’s action plan in response to this highly critical report is vague and woolly.

The Lib Dem group agrees with the Inspectors that the council’s leadership demonstrates a belated and incomplete response to some critical county-wide challenges. We can have no confidence in this Tory administration. It is a shame that Nick Skellett, the Conservative Leader of Surrey County Council throughout the period leading up to this report, did not resign as soon as the news broke.

Given that this is an Executive-run council, the Executive must be held responsible for these failures. The ultimate responsibility must rest with the Leader of the Council and that’s why we called on him to do the honourable thing and resign.

Lib Dem Spokesperson County Councillor Diana Smith has stated that whilst Surrey County Council boasts that its education service is first class and services to children once they are actually in care are good, if Surrey was a school the Ofsted report should put it into “special measures”.

Direct quotations from the main findings of the report are :

• ” safeguarding is inadequate”

• “there is an inadequate range of services for those children and young people who have a high level of need but who do not meet thresholds for child protection”

• “there are inadequate arrangements to ensure safe staffing”

• “the contribution of local services to improving outcomes for children and young people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities is inadequate”

• “services to meet health needs are inadequate”

• “Surrey is not on target to halve the rate of teenage pregnancy by 2010 and the overall impact of the strategy is inadequate”

• ” targeted service delivery for vulnerable groups is inadequate”

• “capacity to improve is inadequate”

I had the job of proposing the Lib Dem motion calling on SCC to involve more Surrey residents in the decision-making process. This motion was prompted by the Council’s 2007 Community Survey published last year and presented to the Executive this April 2008, which shows that only 3 in 10 respondents believed they could influence decisions affecting their local area. More than a quarter would also like to be more involved in the decisions the Council takes.

As councillors, we’re elected to represent the interests and concerns of residents. Our job is to look in the horse’s mouth - in other words to concentrate on areas of dissatisfaction and make changes accordingly.

The Lib Dem proposals included improving the way the Council consults residents, promoting the Local Committees and the work of local councillors more effectively and providing fuller information so residents can contact all councillors.

A key issue, which we also raised when this Council was first elected, back in 2005, was a call for Surrey residents to be able to petition Full Council. At the moment, the only places the public can ask direct questions or present petitions are at Executive, Select Committee or Local Committee meetings. Some members of the public do attend these meetings and ask questions, but not many.

Would you, as a member of the public, want to take time off and travel up to Kingston just to get a prepared answer from an Executive, made up of just 10 members out of 80, all from one party - and in all probability the very people against whose decision your petition is appealing? Wouldn’t you be more likely to engage if you could present your petition to the whole council?

Our request to allow the public to petition Full Council was turned down back in 2005 and sadly, it was turned down again, along with all our other proposals.

A meeting of the borough council on Tuesday 22nd July saw “Christmas Lights” once again on the agenda, but my eleventh hour intervention was unsuccessful. The borough council’s contribution remains at £6,000 for 2008/9, a one-off payment which is unlikely to inspire businesses to contribute in future years.

I had pledged up to £4,000 toward Christmas lights from my County allocation, taking external contributions to £10,000, but although the Residents’ Party councillors had previously agreed to “match” funding up to precisely that level, they stuck steadfastly to £6,000 and no more.

It’s been made quite clear at the Business Partnership Board that we need more than just £12,000 to achieve a good display which will also last for a few years. If the political will had been there and my offer had been matched, we would have had £20,000. This only goes to show that the RA councillors have just been paying lip service to residents’ concerns about our lack of Christmas spirit.

I was disappointed that, although some of his colleagues had the decency to abstain, Cllr Dallen, who has publicised his desire for a festive display at Christmas, voted against an increased contribution from the borough council. Nevertheless I will continue with my additional contribution if this will help make it possible to purchase a good and durable display of lights.

Earlier this year I drew attention to the growing shortage of primary school places in Epsom & Ewell, especially at schools on the west side of the borough, so I welcome the fact that this shortage had now been recognised.

The most acute problem is that families from Clarendon Park and Livingstone Park who could walk to Southfield Park, are currently expected to drive their children right past it to get to their allocated, more distant school, which is why the Adjudicator has imposed this catchment area.

However with more homes still being built at Livingstone Park, a planning application now under review for the St Ebba’s site, West Park in the wings and Stamford Green also over-subscribed, additional capacity is required, though this must be carefully programmed to avoid causing damage to Epsom Primary School.

The Adjudicator’s novel requirement to give priority to those within the catchment area furthest from the school, which is binding for 2009, is specially designed to favour Clarendon Park, which is of course even further from any alternative school.

However with other housing sites such as West Park to consider, it may be better in future to adopt a rule devised for another Surrey problem area, giving preference to those pupils living furthest from their nearest alternative school. Indeed if this could be adopted generally, it would not be necessary to have fixed catchment areas.

• Approved 3 Buckland Road, the signs and flagpoles at the Racecourse Hotel and widening the passageway from the High Street to the Town Hall;
• Created 6 new tree preservation orders;
• Raised no objection to the felling of Leyland Cypress trees at 2nd Ewell scout HQ.

This is good news as far as Epsom & Ewell is concerned, though the government seems determined to ride roughshod over public opinion in other parts of Surrey.

The government has forced additional housing onto Elmbridge and Reigate & Banstead.

• Approved 74 Bracken Path and 66 High Street, Epsom;
• Refused Land adjacent to 87/89 Amis Avenue and Land north of 2 Burnet Grove;
• Partly approved and partly refused the signs at the Racecourse Hotel;
• Deferred 72/74 Temple Road.