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.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- title ix of the education amendments act of 1972
- the value of college education essay
- title ix of the education amendments
- the importance of physical education class
- the future of higher education in america
- title ix of the education amendments act
- the importance of college education essay
- the failure of the american education system
- history of the education system
- evolution of the education system
- minutes of shareholders meeting form
- the sum of the opposite of a number and 6 is less than 5