To provide General overview and scrutiny committee with the opportunity to review and comment on the progress made in developing a schools capital investment strategy, including considering a presentation of evidence at the committee meeting.

The Chairman reminded the committee that a presentation on the council’s approach to the strategy had been received at the 10 March 2015 meeting and invited officers to update the committee.

The Assistant director commissioning and education introduced the item with the following comments:

i.             The strategy was being prepared in the context of the council’s priorities: to keep children and young people safe and give them a great start in life; enable residents to live safe, healthy and independent lives; and invest in projects to improve roads, create jobs and build more homes. 

ii.            The strategy was an important development for Herefordshire and the schools capital estate. 

iii.          The council was working with a range of school and community leaders with a bottom-up approach.

iv.          The draft principles, identified in Appendix 1 to the report (page 21 of the agenda), were essential to the development of the strategy.

v.           The committee was invited to comment on the principles, the presentation, and the approach being taken.

vi.          The strategy would be put forward to Cabinet in early November 2015.

The Head of educational development gave a presentation on the background, the principles and applying the principles.  The key points made under each slide are summarised below:

Where we are in the process…

a.           The work was in phase 4, the phases were: phase 1 - project set up; phase 2 - data collection; phase 3 - verification and analysis; phase 4 - consultation and development of strategy; phase 5 - agreement of high level outcomes of the strategy; phase 6 - detailed development of a strategy and agreement; and Council approval and implementation.

b.           Officers had been consulting with various groups, including governors, local communities, and diocesan boards.  Discussions with school clusters had been productive, with further sessions to be held during term time.

c.           With the emergence of academies and free schools and different governance arrangements, the role of the council was changing and thought needed to be given to the types of environment that the authority wanted to see for children.

d.           There was a spectrum in terms of the quality of buildings but this was not the only factor, particularly as there were some outstanding schools in less than outstanding buildings.  Consideration needed to be given to how such schools could be supported and how education and schooling could be presented in the best light, particularly to ensure that Herefordshire was a place where businesses wanted to invest and people wanted to live and work.

Principles

e.           In addition to being detailed in the appendix, the draft principles were summarised as:

1)           Schools serving the community

·             right amount of places in the right place

·             meet parental preference

2)           High quality learning environments

·             good condition - maintenance up to date and not disproportionate to  value

·                     suitable buildings and grounds

·             supportive of curriculum delivery

·             not in temporary classrooms

·             energy efficient

·             accessible to all

3)      Expansion of high quality popular schools

4)      Consolidation and all through school opportunities

5)      Plans – particularly for schools with less than 105 on roll

6)      Finance from different sources

7)      Transport

f.             In view of the rural nature of the county and the relatively large number of small schools, it was emphasised that schools were not under threat but it was implicit that suitable curriculum delivery and financial viability had to be maintained.  Education provision had to be planned over the longer term and finance was a significant issue.

g.           The direction of government strategy was on creating new places, potentially putting Herefordshire at a disadvantage, and the strategy needed to ensure that investment was obtained and other sources of funding identified.

Update on Colwall CE Primary School

h.           It was reported that the circumstances with Colwall typified the need for a strategy, such as: an historic increase in the number of classrooms but not in the hall and other facilities; issues with damp and maintenance; and the use of temporary buildings.

Existing school information

i.             Examples were provided of existing school information that had been collected, under the headings: site; building; maintenance work; occupancy and demand; inspection/outcome; energy consumption; and disability access.

j.             It was noted that some of the planned admission numbers of some schools were below capacity and an understanding was needed of what that meant and what opportunities it could provide.

k.           It was reported that maintenance work was one of the most contested areas.  It was also reported that, given that academies could bid for central capital funding, it was difficult to obtain a consistent picture about all the properties across the county.

l.             In terms of occupancy and demand, many parents did not send their child to the nearest school.  Maps were produced to show where pupils came from and there had been engagement to understand parental preference and to reflect on the implications of such choices over time.

Options and ideas to achieve principles

m.         Examples were also provided of options and ideas to achieve principles, under the headings: site; building; maintenance and efficiency; occupancy; and leadership.

n.           Where sites were over compliant, consideration could be giving to selling part for suitable residential development, thereby releasing funding for capital investment in buildings.  It was recognised that this would not work universally but could form the basis of a discussion.

o.           Attention was drawn to the strategy consultation on the council’s website:

www.herefordshire.gov.uk/education-and-learning/schools/schools-capital-investment-strategy-consultation

The Chairman, referring to difficulties experienced by the authority historically, commented on the need for broad consultation about potential changes.  The committee’s education co-optees were invited to comment on the report.

Mr. Burbidge commented on a number of matters, including:

§    Noting that around half of the nearest children went to the local catchment school, it was questioned what the analysis had revealed.  The Head of educational development said that further engagement was being undertaken and some of the issues included: staff bringing their own children to school; proximity to workplaces; and nearby relatives to look after children before and after school.  In response to a comment, the Head of educational development noted that school performance was a factor but parents’ reasons could be many and varied, other issues might include: standards; the charisma of the head teacher; and approach to care.

§    Reference was made to reductions in pupil numbers.  The Head of educational development noted that understanding population change would be an important factor in how the strategy was put together.

§    Home to school transport had been much talked about over the past year and it was questioned whether the costs of transition and the availability of transport would be factored into the strategy.  The Head of educational development confirmed that there would be a mechanism to identify how miles increased or decreased by undertaking particular actions.

Mrs. Fisher commented on the need for clarity and transparency in terms of the principles going forward, particularly to manage expectations and to mitigate the potential for misunderstandings.  The Assistant director commissioning and education confirmed that information was available on the council’s website and said that it would be helpful if councillors also directed constituents to the consultation.  The Chairman suggested that information be circulated to parish councils.  Mr. Fuller endorsed Mrs. Fisher’s comments.

Mr. Sell made a number of points, including:

1.           The Diocese of Hereford had written to the council to express its support and offer any help that it could with the surveys being undertaken.  Parallels were drawn to the Diocese’s own review of churches and attendance.

2.           A bottom-up approach was essential.  In view of the increasing autonomy of schools, it was unlikely that a council ‘masterplan’ would be accepted.

3.           Having attended some of the consultation exercises, it was noted that feedback had been broadly encouraging. 

4.           The emphasis on the best quality learning environments was welcomed. 

5.           Referring to the principle ‘High quality popular schools will be supported to expand…’, there was some concern about what the judgements would be based on; reference was made to the performance of Kingsland CE Primary School and its provision for children with special needs.

6.           It was suggested that, to support successful schools to grow and be maintained, a three pronged approach was needed to consider buildings, funding, and models of leadership.  It was also suggested that there was a need to review funding formula. 

7.           In terms of models of leadership, parallels were drawn to changes in parish support arrangements.

8.           It was commented that many schools had less than 105 pupils on roll and there was a need to understand the geographic suitability of alternatives; for example, the next school might be a number of miles away, causing attendance difficulties during inclement weather.

9.           In response to a question about the funding available to the Diocese, Mr. Sell explained that the Diocese did not have any control or call on capital released by the disposal of land by the Church Commissioners.  He commented on the nineteenth century roots of church schools and advised that, when schools closed, reversion orders often required property to return to the heirs and successors of the family that originally provided for the school.  Occasionally the Diocesan Board was designated and capital returns could be used for improvement works and education provision elsewhere.

The Chairman invited comments from councillors, the principal points and officer responses are summarised below:

§    A committee member said that, although there was generally little to disagree with, there could be differences of opinion between principles 3 and 4 and consideration would need to be given about how the potential for conflict would be resolved.  The Head of educational development recognised the need to look at each individual case and the weight given to particular principles.

§    In response to questions, the committee was advised that the number of spare places was about 13% of the pupil population of approximately 23,000 and the county was a net importer of pupils; a written response would be provided.

§    A committee member questioned the implications of the Core Strategy and anticipated housing numbers upon school provision going forward.  The Head of educational development said that a real issue was when development may come on-stream, as this uncertainty made it difficult to make predictions with high degrees of accuracy; the department examined all planning applications but some were subsequently withdrawn or not progressed.  It was noted that care had to be taken regarding expectations about the need for school places arising from new housing; it often depended on the types of housing built.

§    The Head of educational development emphasised that it was not being suggested that schools under a certain admission level would be under threat of closure but it was important to avoid any spiral of decline which could further reduce numbers and disrupt the education of pupils.  He said that there was a need for realism about future housing developments and to think through the implications over extended periods of time.

§    The Assistant director commissioning and education commented on related issues, including: that the number of surplus places varied considerably across the county; Herefordshire achieved a high percentage in terms of parental first preference; the potential for expansion would not just apply to smaller schools; and the strategy needed to look at the whole of the county and consider whether schools were in the right place for parental demand.

In view of the comments made, Mr. Sell suggested that the principles should reflect the need to be responsive to anticipated growth in communities.  The Director of children’s wellbeing said that, given the ageing population, the potential for reductions in communities should also be taken into account. 

A committee member said that the authority needed to be mindful of the sustainability criteria for the growth of rural communities, as identified in the draft Core Strategy policies RA1 (Rural housing strategy) and RA2 (Herefordshire’s villages); he considered that there was critical connectivity between the two policy areas in terms of the growth and viability of rural housing and the presence of village schools.  The committee member also commented on the need for the principles to be honest, transparent and realistic.  In response to questions, the Head of educational development advised that:

§    It was considered realistic to ‘aim for 95% of parents to get their first preference school’ (principle 3) and, whilst the concerns of head-teachers were understood, challenging parental preference was not necessarily constructive.

§    It was clarified that principle 11 e., ‘A local community council tax charge if they want support the continuation of a local school’, intended to reflect the potential for a local charge to retain a school if this was wanted by the local community but it was acknowledged that further consultation would be needed as schools came forward and ideas were developed.   A committee member considered it important to consider this proposal in the context of the direction of broader council tax policy regarding participatory budgeting at a local level.  The Director of finance commented that some parishes had successfully taken on some services previously delivered by the council and that work to inform the Schools capital investment strategy would provide an understanding of the commitments for schools and the council over the next five to ten years.

A committee member commented on:

§    how the desire to meet parental preference could impact on individual schools;

§    the danger that variations in demand could mean that the strategy became more reactive than proactive; and

§    referring to principles 8 and 9, it was considered that more data was needed about school journeys, not only in terms of environmental responsibility but also in terms of the impacts where schools became oversubscribed. 

The Head of educational development outlined the admission process and the information being collated about journeys.  The Chairman commented on the need for up-to-date school travel plans and how longer journey times could have an impact on pupils.

Another committee member commented on:

1.           the need for an integrated view, with the development of the Local transport plan supported by a county level school transport plan, particularly as travel associated with schools could impact on bus routes, road loading and other strategic objectives;

2.           referring to points made at previous meetings, consideration should be given to schools’ community links and the potential for schools to provide wider benefits in terms of libraries, access to activity and exercise space, and to look more creatively in terms of new ways to deliver services;

3.           planned growth and contraction had to be tied into the principles;

4.           assurance should be given that the authority would provide backing and support for strong petitions for central funding by academies to improve infrastructure;

5.           the permeability of county boundaries and the need for dialogue with adjoining authorities to ensure that provision was not considered in isolation;

6.           the circumstances of schools in more rural areas would continue to be dynamic and the principles would provide a framework for discussions and decisions;

7.           the need for clarity about how the authority would assure itself that ‘There would be an appropriate number of faith places’ (principle 3), as an important component of school provision in terms of parental choice.

The Cabinet member young people and children’s wellbeing made a number of comments, including:

i.             it was key that the process was driven by a set of principles, with the focus on the best outcomes for school children;

ii.            there was no ‘perfect size of school’ but schools needed to be sustainable and flourish;

iii.          different and creative models would be explored and minds needed to be open to change;

iv.          freedom of choice meant that there was limited control over outcomes, so it was essential that school travel plans were robust and sustainable; and

v.           the authority wanted all children to have an excellent education.

A committee member said that long journey times not only had an environmental impact but also had cost implications.  In response to a question, the Head of educational development said that information would be provided on the percentage of schools with travel plans.

The Chairman welcomed the suggestions and noted the need for flexibility in the strategy.

RESOLVED:

That it be recommended to the executive that the Schools capital investment strategy principles:

1.           include reference to the need to be responsive to anticipated growth and reductions in communities, including the key role of local schools in the sustainability of growth villages in Core Strategy policies RA1 and RA2;

2.           (within principle 8) take school journey distance, mode and time into account, not only in terms of environmental and transportation impacts but also the effect of journey times on pupils, with schools encouraged to keep school travel plans up-to-date;

3.           recognise what schools can and should offer, outside school hours, to local communities – such as libraries, information hubs, meeting venues, open space etc.;

4.           provide assurance that the authority would provide backing and support for academies to make bids for central funding to improve infrastructure;

5.           include consideration of county boundary transitions, including dialogue with adjoining authorities to ensure that provision was not considered in isolation;

6.           clarify how the authority would assure itself that ‘There would be an appropriate number of faith places’ (principle 3); and

7.           revise principle 11 e. to ‘Participatory budgeting as a means of enabling local communities to assist in supporting a local school’.