Issue - meetings

Cabinet received a report which outlined the proposal around meeting the statutory requirement for school places in Peterborough. The School Organisation Plan drew together the latest demographic data, the capital programme and identified the need for further school places. It also acted to support the growth agenda of the Council, including delivery of the ambitions set out in the Peterborough Local Plan.

          Councillor Holdich introduced the item and advised that there had been difficulty in allocating school places due to the large number of new residents in the city. Between October 2012 and October 2013 there had been an additional 1100 young people in Peterborough’s schools over and above that which the birth rate had catered for and over the summer period, from the closure of the schools to when they re-opened, there had been an additional 500 applications for school places, coming mainly from outside of the city.

          Further key points highlighted by Councillor Holdich included the rebuilding and expansion of all of the secondary schools and the new schools due to be opened; the expansion of the primary schools, creating 1100 new places and the difficulties faced with regards to school placements due to the lack of knowledge with regards to people coming into the city.

Cabinet debated the report and key points raised, along with responses to questions provided by the Council’s Assistant Director, Education included:

·         Peterborough was a net importer of pupils from outside the city, there were a number of independent schools in the area and there was dynamic movement;

·         There had been no new houses built in the Hampton area for a number of years, however the impact on school places was increasing year on year;

·         A new secondary school was due to be built in Hampton and opening in 2017;

·         Hampton was not the problem area that it had once been, and the choice for parents in the area had improved greatly; and

·         Concern was expressed around the issue of the registration of the population in the city. If figures were accurate and suggested a large influx into the city, a case could be made to the government for more funding. This would assist in relieving some budget pressures. It was advised that this issue would be taken away and further explored.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED:

To approve the School Organisation Plan in light of the pressures on school places and in terms of planning growth in the city.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The report was for Cabinet to approve. Appropriate action was being undertaken to deliver the statutory requirement for school places.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The alternative option was not to adopt the strategy, however the impact would have been a lack of co-ordination around new housing development and negotiations with developers and a lack of clarity for the public around the council’s intentions around school place planning.

The report was introduced by the Assistant Director Education and Resources and provided the Committee with an outline of the proposal for meeting the statutory requirement for school places in Peterborough.  The Committee were asked to comment on the Plan which had also gone out to schools for consultation.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         Members referred to page 90 of the report and the mention of ‘land provision for a second phase at St Michaels which can extend the intake to 60 but only £400,000 funding’ and asked if the funding would be from the Diocese of Ely. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that the funding was the remnants of the Section 106 agreement the initial funding was £2M for the first phase which was generous and the £400,000 was legacy funding. No funding has been received from either phase from the Diocese of Ely.

·         Members asked if there was an implication that rural schools would be left behind in terms of investment in buildings. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that the document dealt with growth and the increase in pupils. There was a separate document that would deal with capital maintenance. Capital maintenance was based upon need not geography however there was growth in rural areas and there were asset management plans in place for all schools.

·         Councillor Lane referred to page 71 and asked about the £2.8M allocated for out of area school placements and asked for assurances that this would be reduced. The Assistant Director Education and Resources stated that the cost of out of area school provision was not borne by the tax payer and was not a local authority function.  It was part of the dedicated schools grant from government and two years ago it was £4 million but a lot of work had been done to reduce that figure over time. The challenge was that some of the needs were very specialist such as autism and physical disabilities. The focus was to try and keep children with  special needs local  and therefore investment was being made in schools locally to accommodate this and therefore reduce out of area spend.

·         Members commented that Academies were responsible for their own admission arrangements.  How did this work in terms of catchment areas?  Could they choose the area from which they draw their pupils from and how much discretion did they have to decide upon admissions arrangements. Members were advised that there were 23 admissions authorities within the City.  Church schools also had their own admissions authority as well as Academies.    If a school wanted to change their admissions process they would have to go out to consultation and the LA was a statutory consultee.  If the LA was not happy with a change in an admissions process they could appeal to the School Adjudicator.  Catchment areas for secondary schools no longer really applied.

·         Members asked regarding the Fair Banding admission criteria for Thomas Deacon Academy which had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7