Agenda, decisions and minutes

Cabinet
Tuesday, 29 January 2019 2.00 pm

Venue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN

Contact: Vicky Hibbert or Angela Guest  020 8541 9075 Email: angela.guest@surreycc.gov.uk

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

1/19

Apologies for Absence

2/19

Minutes of Previous Meeting: 18 December 2018

3/19

Declarations of Interest

    All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter

    (i)            Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or

    (ii)           Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting

    NOTES:

    ·         Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest

    ·         As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)

    ·         Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    There were none.

4/19

Procedural Matters

4/191

Members' Questions pdf icon PDF 134 KB

    The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (23 January 2019).

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    There were eight questions received from four Members.  The questions and responses are attached as annex A.

    Minutes:

    There were eight questions received from four Members.  The questions and responses are attached as annex A.

     

    Several supplementary questions were asked by Members:-

     

    Q1. Mr Will Forster asked if support would be available to the families of EU staff.  The Deputy Leader responded that guidance for the general public was available on the Government website and links would be put on the Council’s website as well as social media.

     

    Q2. Mr Will Forster asked what insurance had the Council received, or would receive, as a result of Lakers Youth Centre.  The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families responded that she would send that information to Mr Forster.

     

    Q4. Dr Andrew Povey was pleased with the revised recommendations for the community recycling centres and asked for assurance that the assessment would be open and published and that ideas from residents would be sought. The Cabinet Member for Environment & Waste gave assurances and stated that further details would be discussed under item 7a on the agenda.

     

    Q5. Mr Jonathan Essex asked if it could be confirmed what the predicted monthly expenditure was for agency and interim workers in the 19/20 year.  The Cabinet Member for Corporate Support would send a written response for this.

     

    Q6. Mr Jonathan Essex asked:

              (a)        In relation to children’s centres he asked for an explanation why it was considered that only one mobile bus was deemed to be enough to provide effective coverage

              (b)        for consideration of the Government guidance of distance of community recycling centres

              (c)        for further consideration of methods for increasing recycling and increasing revenue from recycling, e.g. sorting paper

              (d)        for assurances that further proposals would not reduce recycling rates and this is looked at properly

     

    The Leader stated that the questions b) to d) regarding recycling centres would be dealt with under the agenda item when more information would be reported.

    With regards to question a) the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families stated that more information would be discussed under agenda item 7a but in a nutshell what the Council was proposing was for an outreach service that doesn’t focus on buildings.  What came out of the consultation is that the mobile centre would be focussed on hard to reach communities e.g. Gypsy/Roma communities and would provide flexible outreach service.  The remaining children’s centres would be hubs from which outreach service would be provided to a much wider area.

     

    Q8. Mr Jonathan Essex asked for confirmation how the new Investment Strategy would develop and how one could contribute to it.  The Leader responded that the Investment Board would be considering the future Investment Strategy in the near future that will consider whether investment continues out of the county but at the moment the focus will be on the Surrey estate.

     

5/19

Public Questions pdf icon PDF 71 KB

    The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (22 January 2019).

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    There were three questions received from members of the public. The questions and responses are attached as annex B.

    Minutes:

    There were three questions received from members of the public. The questions and responses are attached as annex B.

     

    Supplementary questions were asked by:

     

    Q1 Mrs Blake made several points:

    ·         She questioned the data used in the response to her question and stated that the figures using car parking before the charges was double that figure used by the Council and that since charging the use had dropped considerably

    ·         She asked if the negative effect of the parking charges on health of Surrey residents and on the health and social care budget be taken into account when the scheme is reviewed and if not, why not

     

    The Cabinet Member for Environment & Waste did not support the figures quoted by Mrs Blake and explained that the revenue received from the charges was used to protect the environment.

     

    Q2. Mr Oliver asked that the Council conduct an urgent independent review of the Cabinet area of responsibility for the environment and its relationship with Surrey Wildlife Trust, an organisation which was failing all its objectives and if not, why not.

     

    The Cabinet Member for Environment & Waste gave details of the Woodland Strategy adopted by the Council and other work undertaken to protect wildlife and the environment.  He also stated that he would provide written details to Mr Oliver on how the Surrey Wildlife Trust worked.

     

    Q3. Mrs King asked if the Council would support the offer that Reigate and Banstead Borough Council had made to work with the County on a local delivery model for a service that engages with existing providers including Dover’s Green Children’s Centre.

     

    The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families explained that it would be several months before centres started closing and that the Council would work closely with district and borough councils to see what services that residents valued could be located. That will be taking place across the whole county and not just Reigate and Banstead.

     

6/19

Petitions pdf icon PDF 62 KB

    The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and 9 petitions have been received.  Six of these are in relation to Community Recycling Centres and three are regarding Children’s Centres.

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    There were nine petitions submitted.  Three of these concerned children’s centres and six concerning community recycling centres. Details and responses to the petitions are attached as annex C.

    Minutes:

    There were nine petitions submitted.  Three of these concerned children’s centres and six concerning community recycling centres. Details and responses to the petitions are attached as annex C.

     

    Mr George Potter presented the petition is support of Boxgrove Children’s Centre and made the following points:

    ·         That Boxgrove Children’s Centre was a vital resource

    ·         That if it closed residents would have to take two buses or a one hour journey to the nearest hub

    ·         If it closed it would be social workers and teachers having to pick up the pieces

    ·         That the number signing the petition was larger that the Conservative majority at the last election.

     

    Ms Hannah Nicholson presented the petition in support of Cranleigh Community Recycling Centre and made the following points:

    ·         Recycling rates had reduced

    ·         There had been increases in fines, fly-tipping and litter

    ·         There was increased build-up of waste in gardens which led to vermin

    ·         Hundreds of new homes were built in Cranleigh which increased waste

    ·         There would be a 20 mile round trip to the nearest centre if Cranleigh closed

    ·         She understood the need to save money but not at the expense of the environment and stated that residents would rather pay a small fee to use the current site

     

    Hazel Watson presented the petition in support of Dorking Community Recycling Centre and made the following points:

    ·         Further signatories to the petition were tabled

    ·         Highlighted the impact on drive times if the centre closed and that it would be 20 to 30 minutes more to drive to the next nearest centre

    ·         The Leatherhead centre suffered massive queues and there was reduced opening times at other centres

    ·         Requested to keep the Dorking centre open for at least three days per week, if not seven.

     

    Mr Charles Lister presented the petition in support of Warlingham Community Recycling Centre and made the following points:

    ·         He was pleased that the Council were going to review the options

    ·         He described the anger felt by residents over the initial proposed closure

    ·         Warlingham was the smallest site in Surrey and it averaged one use every two minutes it was open

    ·         Caterham site was not big enough to cope with extra users

    ·         There needed to be a better solution to recycling and that kerbside collections did not compensate.

     

    Ms Sylvia Whyte presented the petition in support of Lyne Community Recycling Centre and made the following points:

    ·         She was happy that the centre was going to stay open

    ·         Additional signatories to the petition were tabled

    ·         She spoke of increased fly-tipping and 100’s of new homes being built

    ·         The A320 was saturated and spoke of journeys to alternative sites

    ·         Closure would mean more burning of waste in back gardens

     

    Daniel Gee presented the petition in support of Farnham Community Recycling Centre and made the following points:

    ·         He spoke of another online petition that was not presented to Cabinet

    ·         He spoke of the need to relocate the Farnham site so this position was not replicated in the future.

    ·          

7/19

Representations received on reports to be considered in private

8/19

Reports from Select Committees , Task Groups, Local Committees and other Committees of the Council pdf icon PDF 56 KB

9/19

Leader / Deputy Leader / Cabinet Member Decisions/ Investment Board Taken Since the Last Cabinet Meeting pdf icon PDF 116 KB

    To note any delegated decisions taken by the Leader, Deputy Leader, Cabinet Members and Investment Board since the last meeting of the Cabinet.

     

    An annex setting out the decisions taken will be made available in advance of the Cabinet meeting.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    RESOLVED:

     

    That the decisions taken by the Cabinet Members under delegated authority be noted.

     

    Reason for Decision

     

    To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by the Leader / Cabinet Members under delegated authority.

     

    Minutes:

    RESOLVED:

     

    That the decisions taken by the Cabinet Members under delegated authority be noted.

     

    Reason for Decision

     

    To inform the Cabinet of decisions taken by the Leader / Cabinet Members under delegated authority.

     

10/19

Transformation Proposals - Delivering Better Services for Residents

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    RESOLVED:

     

    Children’s Centres

     

    1.    The remodelling of the remaining Children’s Centres to create Family Centres as part of a wider Family Service to support families with children aged 0-11 that are the most vulnerable was endorsed.

     

    2.    That the number of Children’s Centres in Surrey be reduced from 58 centres to 21 centres and satellite sites, to be located in areas where children are most likely to experience poor outcomes. At least one main centre in each district and borough supported by the use of satellites, outreach workers and community venues.

     

    3.       That the number of mobile Family Centres in Surrey be reduced from two to one in order to reach areas where there are small numbers of vulnerable children and families.

     

    Reasons for decision

     

    Moving to a new model of Family Centre services will help develop a more effective way of supporting families that need help earlier to improve their outcomes. By reorganising Children’s Centres into more targeted models of provision, we believe this will support more children and young people to avoid becoming subject to child protection or public care.

    The Family Centre model will enable us to help more families and children to become more resilient who would otherwise be more likely to experience poor outcomes without support.

    Retention of a mobile Family Centre means we can maintain outreach support to children and families across the county who may struggle to access a main centre or community venue.

    By prioritising the location of Family Centres in areas of high deprivation, or where children are likely to be living in households that have low incomes or unemployment, this will enable us to prioritise resources for children who need services most. Deprived areas have been identified using the 2015 Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, which shows the proportion of children under the age of 16 living in low-income households in different neighbourhoods.

    Recognising that some needs cross the boundaries of deprivation, such as domestic abuse and parental mental health, funding allocations are also being based on the total population of children within communities.

    The composition of the families the Centres support have children across a range of different ages, which fall outside the current service offer for 0-5 year olds. Centres are already supporting families with children who fall outside of this age bracket. We therefore propose to expand the age range of children supported to 0-11 years as part of the service offer going forward.

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    Special Educational Needs & Disabilities

     

    4.    That the broad support from consultation respondents for the proposed principles for transformation of SEND services was noted, namely:

    ·         Children with special educational needs are identified earlier and supported in a timely and effective way in order to improve their outcomes and wellbeing. 

    ·         There is an increased focus on earlier intervention and prevention to offer help and meet needs at the earliest opportunity, reducing the demand on high cost, high need interventions. 

    ·         Children and young people are helped to become resilient and independent so that they can  ...  view the full decision text for item 10/19

    Minutes:

    The Leader reported an error in the report:  In Annex 4, Table 5, the total estimated saving figure for 2020/21 was incorrect.  It currently read as £1,060,000 when is should read £1,110,000.

     

    Mr Chris Botten addressed the Cabinet and expressed concern about the possible lack of children support for the Tandridge area and south of the M25.  He highlighted many of the current services that he said needed a building to provide a means of safety and security.  He requested that Cabinet reconsider the possibility of a satellite centre in this location as without details of what the proposed outreach service would provide then he was not reassured.

     

    Mr Stephen Cooksey addressed the Cabinet and spoke about the Dorking Children’s Centre which had an outstanding rating by Ofsted and provided good services to some of the most deprived in Surrey.  The current budget proposals meant that only a shadow of the current services could be provided.  He requested that Cabinet rethink its proposals.  He also spoke of the Dorking Community Recycling Centre and was glad to see the revised recommendations to keep it open whilst a review was undertaken but again requested that Cabinet find a way to keep this centre open permanently.

     

    Mr John O’Reilly addressed the Cabinet and thanked both the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families as well as the Executive Director for Children, Families and Learning for the engagement undertaken.  He spoke of confidence in the two to take forward the transformation of children’s services.  He stated that as a realist he understood the need for change but asked Cabinet to exercise flexibility and discretion going forward.

     

    Mr Will Forster also addressed the Cabinet and spoke against the proposed closure of five of the seven children’s centres in Woking which was the second most deprived borough in Surrey.  He also expressed concern about the budget cuts for the remaining centres where one in particular would have a 40% budget cut.  He questioned the use of 2015 data which he said was not reliable and gave details of the numbers of new social properties built since then.

     

    Mr Jonathan Essex spoke of the need for the two children’s centres proposed for closure in his area.  He spoke of the high cost of living in Surrey and the subsequent areas of deprivation.  He understood the need for change and for improving children’s services but did not understand the reasoning given for the closures.  He requested that Cabinet put the proposals on hold for six months, as they are proposing for the community recycling centres, and press for a comprehensive funding settlement.

     

    The Leader thanked the speakers and stated that all 81 councillors wanted to see improved outcomes.  The Cabinet would work with boroughs and district councils going forward.  However, there was no intention of changing the recommendations on children’s centres today.

     

    Children’s Centres

     

    The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families thanked the petitioners, speakers and questioners for their interest in the wellbeing of children and highlighted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10/19

11/19

Monthly Budget Monitoring Report pdf icon PDF 129 KB

    This report presents the Council’s financial position for 2018/19 as at 30 November 2018 for both revenue and capital budgets.

     

    [The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Overview Select Committee]

     

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    RESOLVED:

     

    1.         That Cabinet noted the Council’s overall revenue and capital budget positions as at 30 November 2018:

    ·         £14.5m forecast underspend against the 2018/19 budget;

    ·         £6.7m forecast total draw down reserves;

    ·         £2.8m additional revenue funding in 2018/19 from the Department for Education to provide support for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) (Annex 1, paragraph 1), and

    ·         £132m forecast service capital programme outturn against £134m budget.

     

    2.         That the contribution to a new SEND Reserve an amount matching the overspending on the Dedicated Schools Grant High Needs Block was approved.

     

    Reasons for decisions

     

    This report was presented to comply with the agreed policy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to Cabinet for approval and action as necessary.

     

    [The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Overview Select Committee]

     

    Minutes:

    The Cabinet Member for Finance introduced a report that summarised the most significant issues for the Council’s 2018/19 financial position as at 30 November 2018 for both revenue and capital budgets.  He explained how the new method of reporting was much improved with real time data and reported that the use of reserves had reduced.

     

    The Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families recognised the huge upheaval for staff in Children’s Services of which 2700 staff would have been reconfigured by the end of March.  She sought to reassure staff that it was about delivering better services.

     

    The Leader thanked officers for their hard work.

       

    RESOLVED:

     

    1.         That Cabinet noted the Council’s overall revenue and capital budget positions as at 30 November 2018:

    ·         £14.5m forecast underspend against the 2018/19 budget;

    ·         £6.7m forecast total draw down reserves;

    ·         £2.8m additional revenue funding in 2018/19 from the Department for Education to provide support for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) (Annex 1, paragraph 1), and

    ·         £132m forecast service capital programme outturn against £134m budget.

     

    2.         That the contribution to a new SEND Reserve an amount matching the overspending on the Dedicated Schools Grant High Needs Block was approved.

     

    Reasons for decisions

     

    This report was presented to comply with the agreed policy of providing a monthly budget monitoring report to Cabinet for approval and action as necessary.

     

    [The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Overview Select Committee]

     

12/19

Revenue and Capital Budget 2019/20 to 2023/24 pdf icon PDF 236 KB

    A)    To consider Transformation and service modification proposals in the following service areas:

    -        Family Resilience: Children’s Centres

    -        Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

    -        Libraries and Cultural Services

    -        Community Recycling Centres

    -        Concessionary bus travel

     

    [The decisions on this item can be called in by the Corporate Overview Select Committee]

     

    B)    To make recommendations to the County Council on the revenue and capital budgets for 2019/20 to 2023/24 and the level of council tax precept for 2019/20. 

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    RESOLVED:

    That Cabinet makes the following recommendations to Council on 5 February 2019. 

    Cabinet recommends to Council to note the following important features of the revenue and capital budget

     

    1.         The Executive Director of Finance’s statutory conclusions in his Section 25 statement.

    Proposed budget: Cabinet recommendations to Council for the revenue and capital budgets

     

    2.    Approve the net revenue budget requirement be set at £886.1 million (net cost of services after service specific government grants) for 2019/20 (Annex 6 of the submitted report), subject to confirmation of the Final Local Government Financial Settlement

     

    3.    Approve the total council tax funding requirement be set at £731.5 million for 2019/20. This is an increase in the level of the council tax of 2.99% (Annex 6 of the submitted report).

     

    4.     Notes that for the purpose of section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the council formally determines that the increase in council tax is not such as to trigger a referendum.

    5.         Set the Surrey County Council precept for Band D council tax at £1,453.50, which represents a 2.99% up-lift. This is a rise of 81p a week from 2018/19’s precept of £1,411.29. This includes £102.39 for the Adult Social Care Precept, which remains at the same rate as last year. A full list of bands is as follows:

    Council Tax Band

    2018/19

    £

    2019/20

    £

    Band A

    940.86

    £969.00

    Band B

    1,097.67

    £1,130.50

    Band C

    1,254.48

    £1,292.00

    Band D

    1,411.29

    £1,453.50

    Band E

    1,724.91

    £1,776.51

    Band F

    2,038.53

    £2,099.51

    Band G

    2,352.15

    £2,422.51

    Band H

    2,822.58

    £2,907.01

     

    6.         Approve the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Strategy for 2019/20 to meet the statutory guidelines for the use of capital receipts to fund the transformation and reform of services (Annex 8 of the submitted report)

    7.         Approve the application of a further £7.2 million in the current 2018/19 financial year to fund the transformation under the capital receipt flexibilities strategy (Annex 8 of the submitted report).

    8.         Approve the use of £16.3 million in the 2019/20 financial year, to fund the transformation under the capital receipt flexibilities strategy (Annex 8 of the submitted report).

    9.         That the underlying balance on the general fund remains set at £21.3 million as at 1 April 2019.

    10.      Approve the Total Schools Budget of £492.9 million to meet the council’s statutory requirement on schools funding. (Annex 6 of the submitted report).

    11.      Approve the overall indicative budget envelopes for Executive Directorates and individual services for the 2019/20 budget (Annex 6 of the submitted report).

    12.      Note the indicative budget envelopes for 2020-24 (Annex 6 of the submitted report).

    13.      Approve £413.8 million indicative five year capital programme, with £129.2 million capital investment in 2019/20 (Annex 6 of the submitted report).

    Capital Strategy: Cabinet recommendations to Council:

     

    14.      The Capital Strategy for 2019-24 (Annex 9 of the submitted report)

    15.      The policy for making a prudent level of revenue provision for the repayment of debt (the Minimum Revenue Provisions policy) (Annex 9A of the submitted report)  ...  view the full decision text for item 12/19

    Minutes:

    The Cabinet Member for Finance presented a report which detailed:

    ·         the revenue and capital budgets for 2019/20, including budget reductions

    ·         the council tax precept level for 2019/20,

    ·         the council’s capital receipt flexibilities strategy, including the level of investment required to deliver the transformation programme, which aims to significantly change the way the council operates and delivers its services,

    ·         indicative directorate budget envelopes to 2023/24, and

    ·         the council’s Capital and Investment Strategy, which provided an overview of how capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contributed to the provision of local public services.

     

    He went on to express his appreciation of staff involved in putting the report together an drew Members attention to the S151 Officer comments and emphasised how important it was for Members to read and understand these. 

     

    An amendment for recommendations 2 and 3 as published was tabled at the meeting.

     

    An error in the published paper was given as ‘paragraph 12 of the report references annex 6 which was incorrect and should say annexes 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5.

    RESOLVED:

    That Cabinet makes the following recommendations to Council on 5 February 2019. 

    Cabinet recommends to Council to note the following important features of the revenue and capital budget

    1.         The Executive Director of Finance’s statutory conclusions in his Section 25 statement.

    Proposed budget: Cabinet recommendations to Council for the revenue and capital budgets

     

    2.    Approve the net revenue budget requirement be set at £886.1 million (net cost of services after service specific government grants) for 2019/20 (Annex 6 of the submitted report), subject to confirmation of the Final Local Government Financial Settlement

     

    3.    Approve the total council tax funding requirement be set at £731.5 million for 2019/20. This is an increase in the level of the council tax of 2.99% (Annex 6 of the submitted report).

     

    4.     Notes that for the purpose of section 52ZB of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the council formally determines that the increase in council tax is not such as to trigger a referendum.

    5.    Set the Surrey County Council precept for Band D council tax at £1,453.50, which represents a 2.99% up-lift. This is a rise of 81p a week from 2018/19’s precept of £1,411.29. This includes £102.39 for the Adult Social Care Precept, which remains at the same rate as last year. A full list of bands is as follows:

    Council Tax Band

    2018/19

    £

    2019/20

    £

    Band A

    940.86

    £969.00

    Band B

    1,097.67

    £1,130.50

    Band C

    1,254.48

    £1,292.00

    Band D

    1,411.29

    £1,453.50

    Band E

    1,724.91

    £1,776.51

    Band F

    2,038.53

    £2,099.51

    Band G

    2,352.15

    £2,422.51

    Band H

    2,822.58

    £2,907.01

     

    6.         Approve the Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Strategy for 2019/20 to meet the statutory guidelines for the use of capital receipts to fund the transformation and reform of services (Annex 8 of the submitted report)

    7.         Approve the application of a further £7.2 million in the current 2018/19 financial year to fund the transformation under the capital receipt flexibilities strategy (Annex 8 of the submitted report).

    8.         Approve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/19

13/19

Admission Arrangements for Surrey's Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools and Coordinated Schemes for September 2020 and Surrey’s Relevant Area pdf icon PDF 127 KB

    To consider the responses to the consultation on proposed changes to Surrey’s admissions arrangements for community and voluntary controlled schools and coordinated schemes for September 2020 and to make recommendations to Council on admissions arrangements and coordinated schemes that will apply to all schools for September 2020.

    Additional documents:

    Decision:

    RESOLVED:

     

    It is recommended that Cabinet make the following recommendations to the County Council:

     

    Recommendation 1

    That the published admissions number for Reception at Furzefield Primary School is decreased from 60 to 58 for September 2020.

     

    Reasons for decision

    ·         It will enable children admitted to the SEND Learning and Additional Needs centre to be educated in the mainstream class more than 50% of the time

    ·         It will reduce the likelihood of the school having to take qualifying measures to meet infant class size legislation

    ·         It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of the school

    ·         There will still be sufficient places for local children if the PAN is decreased

    ·         It will have no impact on children who are currently on roll at the school

     

    Recommendation 2

    That the admission arrangements for Wallace Fields Junior School are amended so that the measuring point used to assess nearest school and home to school distance will be the nearest gate of either Wallace Fields Infant School or Wallace Fields Junior School.

     

    Reasons for Decision

    ·         There was overall support for this change

    ·         It will ensure that the school serves the local community around both the infant and the junior schools

    ·         It will enable more local children to transfer from the infant school to the junior school

    ·         It will support families by keeping siblings at schools that are within close proximity

    ·         It will remove uncertainty for some families who have the infant school as their nearest school at Reception but not the junior school at Year 3

    ·         This proposal is in line with a separate consultation by Wallace Fields Infant School to make the same changes to their admission arrangements. The change to the admission arrangements for Wallace Fields Junior School is subject to the governors of Wallace Fields Infant School also agreeing to the same change at their full Governing Body meeting on Wednesday 16 January 2019

    ·         It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of Wallace Fields Junior School

     

    Recommendation 3

    That children previously in state care outside England who left that care as a result of being adopted are given priority under criterion two for children with an exceptional social/medical need.

     

    Reasons for Decision

    ·         It is consistent with the advice issued by Nick Gibb, Minister of State for School Standards, and advice issued by the Department for Education in August 2018

    ·         It provides as much parity as the local authority can provide with children who have been adopted from care in England, who receive priority within criterion one

    ·         It will ensure that this vulnerable group of children will receive priority in the admissions process for community and voluntary controlled schools, regardless of the country in which the child was in state care, as long as they were adopted from that care.

     

    Recommendation 4

    That Surrey’s Relevant Area is agreed as set out in Enclosure 3 to the submitted report.

     

    Reasons for Decision

    ·         The local authority is required by law to define the Relevant Area for admissions

    ·         The  ...  view the full decision text for item 13/19

    Minutes:

    The Cabinet Member for All-Age Learning presented a report which explained how Surrey County Council was responsible for setting the admission arrangements for its community and voluntary controlled schools and the coordinated schemes. Academies, foundation, free, trust and voluntary aided schools were responsible for setting their own admission arrangements and therefore their admission arrangements were not covered in the report.  She highlighted the second recommendation of the report and reported that the governors of Wallace Fields Infant School had also agreed to the change to the admission arrangements.

     

    RESOLVED:

     

    It is recommended that Cabinet make the following recommendations to the County Council:

     

    Recommendation 1

    That the published admissions number for Reception at Furzefield Primary School is decreased from 60 to 58 for September 2020.

     

    Reasons for decision

    ·         It will enable children admitted to the SEND Learning and Additional Needs centre to be educated in the mainstream class more than 50% of the time

    ·         It will reduce the likelihood of the school having to take qualifying measures to meet infant class size legislation

    ·         It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of the school

    ·         There will still be sufficient places for local children if the PAN is decreased

    ·         It will have no impact on children who are currently on roll at the school

     

    Recommendation 2

    That the admission arrangements for Wallace Fields Junior School are amended so that the measuring point used to assess nearest school and home to school distance will be the nearest gate of either Wallace Fields Infant School or Wallace Fields Junior School.

     

    Reasons for Decision

    ·         There was overall support for this change

    ·         It will ensure that the school serves the local community around both the infant and the junior schools

    ·         It will enable more local children to transfer from the infant school to the junior school

    ·         It will support families by keeping siblings at schools that are within close proximity

    ·         It will remove uncertainty for some families who have the infant school as their nearest school at Reception but not the junior school at Year 3

    ·         This proposal is in line with a separate consultation by Wallace Fields Infant School to make the same changes to their admission arrangements. The change to the admission arrangements for Wallace Fields Junior School is subject to the governors of Wallace Fields Infant School also agreeing to the same change at their full Governing Body meeting on Wednesday 16 January 2019

    ·         It is supported by the Headteacher and Governing Body of Wallace Fields Junior School

     

    Recommendation 3

    That children previously in state care outside England who left that care as a result of being adopted are given priority under criterion two for children with an exceptional social/medical need.

     

    Reasons for Decision

    ·         It is consistent with the advice issued by Nick Gibb, Minister of State for School Standards, and advice issued by the Department for Education in August 2018

    ·         It provides as much parity as the local authority can provide with children who have been adopted from care  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13/19