Agenda item

To consider a report of the Strategic Director of Children, Families and Adults.

Fintan Bradley, Head of Service: Strategy, Planning and Performance, explained the draft framework had been written at a time of a rapidly changing legislative framework and educational landscape which had seen growth in the number of Academies and Free Schools. Central Government changes in relation to schools and education capital funding, schools admissions and Schools Funding Formula meant that the role of the Local Authority was changing. However, the Council still had a statutory responsibility for commissioning sufficient school places for children and young people in its area. Fintan Bradley therefore noted that it was essential that the key policy that underpinned this role was agreed so that the priorities of the Council informed its school organisation process.

Barbara Dale, School Admissions and Organisation Manager, explained that the draft framework had been informed by a data set relating to the population of Cheshire East and as a corollary this data had therefore informed the proposals. Barbara Dale noted however that his data would be the subject of a biannual review and audit and it was likely that the demographic information would be updated following the data received from the 2012 census.

In terms of the priorities in the draft framework, Barbara Dale explained that previously local authorities had been expected to take action to reduce the number of surplus places in schools in order to maximise efficiency. A change of government had brought a change of emphasis and the Council was now expected retain a number of surplus places to enable parental choice.

The Committee was invited to feedback their comments on the draft framework so that they could be included prior to the consultation closing date of 19 October 2012.

A number of comments were made about the quality of the draft framework particularly around how comprehensive it was.

It was queried whether the Council planned to support those schools with a surplus number of places. Fintan Bradley reported that it would be the responsibility of the school to manage surplus places as there would no extra money provided. Having said this, Fintan Bradley noted that the Council would attempt to maintain the number of surplus places at around 10% overall.

It was requested that the Committee receive a 5 year estimate of school finance as a result of the new school formula funding arrangement. This was suggested due to a concern that the new funding arrangements could affect the viability of schools. Fintan Bradley confirmed that he would be able to provide information up to the end of 2014/15 based on modelling that the Council had produced. Any information beyond that point would be provided in the form of predictions on what the funding landscape might look like.

It was questioned whether the Council would monitor schools with surplus places and if any interventions could be implemented for schools with falling places. Fintan Bradley reported that the Council would work with schools on the best way to re-organise if they were struggling to fill their Published Admission Number (PAN). This could possibly include options such as federation or becoming a free school. As a supplementary point, it was questioned whether the Council would help a school to maintain a faith ethos, if its future was threatened. Fintan Bradley confirmed that the Council would work closely with the respective Diocese in such a case.

A number of comments were made with regards to the pressure that proposed housing developments could have on school places. Barbara Dale and Fintan Bradley acknowledged that this was an issue, particularly as the Council had a responsibility to ensure that there were sufficient school places in an area. Links with the planning department existed and the Children’s Directorate made the case that the requisite Section 106 monies were allocated for education purposes. Barbara Dale noted that this process would become even more important once the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) replaced Section 106 as the Directorate would need to bid for the money, stating that education needed to be made a priority.

Attention was drawn to paragraph 7.3.8 on page 82 of the agenda. It was asserted that the inclusion of this paragraph weakened the Council’s position in accessing Section 106 monies for education provision as the distances (2 and 3 miles) were too far. It was suggested that this paragraph be removed from the draft framework. Barbara Dale acknowledged the point but noted that the criterion was taken from the Council’s draft Section 106 policy. Therefore, if the paragraph was to be removed, the implications would need to be fully considered to assess its implications and the draft Section 106 policy would need to be amended.

It was suggested that the Children’s Directorate should be able to recommend that a planning application be refused if sufficient development monies could not be achieved for fulfilling the education infrastructure requirements. It was agreed that this would be raised with the planning department to verify process.

RESOLVED:

a)    That the report be noted.

b)    That it be requested that the Committee receive an estimate of school finance as far as the current modelling allowed within the context of the new school formula funding arrangements.

c)    That it be recommended that paragraph 7.3.8 on page 82 of the agenda be removed from the draft framework and that attempts be made to consolidate this with the Council’s Section 106 policy.

d)    That it be recommended that the Children’s Directorate should be able to make representations to refuse a planning application if sufficient infrastructure requirements for education provision are not in place.