Minutes of the meeting of the Education and Skills Cabinet ...



To: All Members of the Panel, Leader of the Council, John Harris, Justin Donovan, Zoe Whatley, all officers named for ‘actions’ |From: Legal, Member and Statutory Services

Ask for: Fiona Corcoran

Ext: 25560

My ref:

Your ref: | |

EDUCATION AND SKILLS CABINET PANEL

12 MAY 2011

M I N U T E S

ATTENDANCE

MEMBERS OF THE PANEL

R H Beeching, N Bell, C L Berry, M S Crawley, T L F Douris (Vice-Chairman),

M J Frearson, T C Heritage, A F Hunter, F R G Hill, J K Maddern, C A Mitchell,

R A C Thake (Chairman, Executive Member for Education and Skills), M A Watkin

Parent-Governor/Church Representative (Voting)

N Betteley

Also present:

F Button, S Milligan, D Thomson, D Williams

Upon consideration of the agenda for the Education and Skills Cabinet Panel meeting on 12 May 2011 as circulated, copy annexed, conclusions were reached and are recorded below:

PART 1

| | | |ACTION |

|1 | |MINUTES | |

| | |The minutes of the meeting of the Education & Skills Cabinet Panel and the joint meeting of the Education & Skills| |

| | |Cabinet Panel and the Highways & Transport Cabinet Panel held on 1 April 2011 were confirmed as a correct record | |

| | |and signed by the Chairman. | |

|2 | |PUBLIC PETITIONS | |

| | |There were no public petitions. | |

|3 | |PROPOSAL TO RELOCATE THE PARK EDUCATION SUPPORT CENTRE (KS3 PART) TO PART OF THE FORMER SUNNY BANK SCHOOL SITE IN | |

| | |POTTERS BAR | |

| | |Officer contact: Dick Bowler, Estate Manager (01992 556223) | |

| | |Kate Ma, Senior Planning Manager (01992 555858) | |

|3.1 | |The Panel considered a report providing information on the outcome of a public consultation on the proposal to | |

| | |relocate the Key Stage 3 part of The Park Education Support Centre (ESC) to a part of the former Sunny Bank School| |

| | |site in Potters Bar. | |

|3.2 | |Members discussed the location of the former Sunny Bank school and were informed that a site search had been | |

| | |carried out to identify all suitable sites and the former Sunny Bank school site was the only suitable option | |

| | |given time frame within which it would be needed and the size and quality of facilities required. A response was | |

| | |given to members who asked for information on the other sites considered, and the reasons why they were not | |

| | |suitable. It was suggested that it would have been useful to have included brief details in the report. | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

| | | | |

|3.3 | |The Panel heard that the Passenger Transport Unit had carried out modelling work to look at pupil journeys to the | |

| | |proposed new site by public transport and it had been established that all pupils would in theory be able to get | |

| | |to the site within 75 minutes, which was the maximum journey time set out in County Council guidelines. | |

|3.4 | |Members highlighted the importance of including relevant maps with reports relating to relocation of services. |Kate Ma |

| | |Officers agreed to provide a map of the area surrounding the former Sunny Bank School site, including the nearest | |

| | |bus stops, for Members (attached). A Member raised the option to consult with the public service providers on the | |

| | |possibility of an additional bus stop for the school. | |

|3.5 | |It was highlighted that children would be encouraged to use public transport rather than private taxis in order to| |

| | |provide them with the opportunity to develop their confidence, independence and social skills. Some children may | |

| | |need to travel by taxi if their behaviour made travelling by public transport an unsuitable option and this would | |

| | |be decided on a case by case basis. | |

|3.6 | |The need to communicate the decision, the reasons for the relocation of the facility and all relevant information | |

| | |to the children attending The Park ESC and their parents/carers was highlighted by Members. It was suggested that | |

| | |an information pack could be provided for all new service users. | |

| | |Conclusions | |

|3.7 | |The Panel endorsed the proposal and recommended to Cabinet that, on the basis that the site needs to be vacated | |

| | |following a decision on the waste disposal procurement, Cabinet decides to proceed with the proposal to relocate | |

| | |the Key Stage 3 part of The Park ESC to part of the former Sunny Bank School site (the former Infants building and| |

| | |suitable site and curtilage); from September 2011 or such other date as may be agreed by the Director Children, | |

| | |Schools and Families (and following restructure in October the Director Education and Early Intervention Services)| |

| | |in consultation with the Executive Member for Education and Skills. | |

|4 | |IMPLICATIONS FOR SOUTHFIELD SPECIAL SCHOOL HATFIELD FOLLOWING THE DECISION TO APPOINT A PREFERRED BIDDER FOR THE | |

| | |HERTFORDSHIRE WASTE PROCUREMENT PROJECT      | |

| | |Officer contact: Dick Bowler, Estate Manager (01992 556223) | |

| | |Kate Ma, Senior Planning Manager (01992 555858) | |

|4.1 | |The Panel considered a report on the potential need for the temporary relocation of Southfield Special School in | |

| | |light of the possible options available. | |

|4.2 | |The Panel was assured that the relocation would be temporary as the permission sought from the Development Control| |

| | |Committee would be for a temporary relocation and could be enforced as such. It was also noted that Southfield | |

| | |School was the most recently built site of its kind with a high standard of facilities so the intention would be | |

| | |to continue to use it. | |

|4.3 | |In response to a question from a Member, it was noted that traffic engineers had looked at access routes to the | |

| | |proposed relocation site and had established that both access routes (Woods Avenue and Old Rectory Drive) could be| |

| | |utilised. | |

|4.4 | |In discussion, Members highlighted that the need to relocate Southfield School temporarily had not been confirmed | |

| | |although it was necessary to plan for this possibility. | |

|4.5 | |It was noted that officers had engaged with the headteacher and governing body of Southfield School and were | |

| | |working together to find ways in which the possible relocation could be managed with minimum disruption to the | |

| | |children, should relocation be needed. | |

|4.6 | |The Panel were informed that a Health Impact Assessment had been conducted, which indicated that there would be no| |

| | |impact on the school from the Residual Waste Treatment Facility. The only impact that had been identified would be| |

| | |from the construction of road improvements to provide better access to the sites. | |

| | |Conclusion | |

|4.7 | |The Panel recommended to Cabinet that it agrees: | |

| | | | |

| | |a)         Veolia ES Aurora Limited is advised carefully to take into account the presence of Southfield School in| |

| | |finalising its Scheme and to seek to mitigate any impacts on the School so that temporary relocation is not | |

| | |necessary; however | |

| | | | |

| | |b)         Authorisation of a 6 week public consultation on a proposal to | |

| | |provide temporary school premises on a site at Old Rectory Drive, Hatfield; | |

| | | | |

| | |c)         Authorisation of the making of an application for temporary planning permission for the construction | |

| | |and use of a temporary school at the Land at Old Rectory Drive, Hatfield; and | |

| | | | |

| | |d)         A further report is brought to Cabinet in due course. | |

| | |[It was noted that N Bell and N Betteley voted against the recommendation.] | |

| | | | |

|5. | |SCHOOL FUNDING CONSULTATION | |

| | |Officer Contact: Jonathan Burberry, Finance Manager | |

| | |(01992 555943) | |

|5.1 | |The Panel considered a report providing a summary of the proposals of the Government consultation on School | |

| | |Funding Reform and explaining arrangements for producing a Council response. | |

|5.2 | |The County Council response would be passed on to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Schools Forum on Monday 16| |

| | |May. If it did not concur with the County Council response, a separate response to the Consultation could be | |

| | |submitted by the Schools Forum. | |

|5.3 | |The Panel noted that this consultation did not provide sufficient detail to establish how the School Funding | |

| | |Reform would affect the county, as opinions are being sought only on the broad principle of a National Funding | |

| | |Formula. | |

|5.4 | |In discussion, Members noted that the current Designated Schools | |

| | |Grant (DSG) system was not always easy for schools to understand and that a locally distributed national formula | |

| | |could be an improvement but would need to be clear and transparent. | |

|5.5 | |Members highlighted that the new system would need to take into account the impact on schools with decreasing | |

| | |numbers and noted that any measures that could even out fluctuation in numbers and funding could help. | |

|5.6 | |N Bell welcomed the consultation and expressed a preference for a system reflecting local decision making and that| |

| | |would be more sensitive to local priorities and issues. | |

| | |Conclusion | |

|5.7 | |The Panel endorsed the proposal that, subject to Schools | |

| | |Forum and Panel comment, a Council response be developed in | |

| | |consultation with the Executive Member and opposition | |

| | |spokespersons. | |

|6 | |improving early intervention and targeted support through local partnerships | |

|6.1 | |The Panel considered a report providing an update on proposals for improving the delivery of early intervention | |

| | |and targeted support, through the establishment of Hertfordshire Integrated Targeted Support Teams and local | |

| | |partnerships which take into account the outcomes of the stakeholders’ consultation that ended on 31 December | |

| | |2010. | |

|6.2 | | In response to a question from a Member, it was noted that a ‘Think Family’ approach was intended and that | |

| | |officers had engaged with the Hertfordshire Partnership Foundation Trust. | |

|6.3 | |Members welcomed the fact that feedback from the stakeholder | |

| | |consultation had been taken into account and changes had been | |

| | |implemented as a result. | |

| | |Conclusion | |

|6.4 | |The Panel noted and accepted the proposed arrangements for the | |

| | |delivery of early intervention and targeted support for children and | |

| | |families, as amended following the consultation with stakeholders. | |

|7 | |DATE OF NEXT MEETING | |

| | |Wednesday 13 July 2011 at 10.00 AM in Committee Room B, County Hall. | |

|8 | |CHANGE OF DATE FOR MAY 2012 MEETING | |

| | |The Panel noted the Chairman’s proposal that the meeting originally scheduled for Tuesday 8 May 2012 at 10.00 AM | |

| | |would be changed to Thursday 10 May 2012 at 10.00 AM. | |

Kathryn Pettitt

Chief Legal Officer

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download