Agenda item

Purpose of report: Scrutiny of services

To report improvements to the process of school expansion

Witnesses:

Keith Brown, Schools & Programme Manager, Property; Business Services

Julie Stockdale, Head of Commissioning and Admissions, Schools and Learning

Dominic Forbes, Planning and Development Group Manager, EIA     

Peter-John Wilkinson, Assistant Director for Schools and Learning

Key points raised during this discussion:

1.    Officers outlined how the demand for school places will be met over the next year as set out within the School Place Planning and Expansion Programme. The Committee was informed that processes had been reviewed and improvements made. Officers were questioned over statistics regarding the importation and exportation of school places between Surrey and neighbouring counties. The Committee was informed that approximately 5,000 places were exported and 8,000 imported during 2014 and that both numbers have shown a downward trend since 2010.

2.    The Committee questioned how the Council monitored the impact on local areas where existing schools were being expanded. Officers commented that mitigation measures were put in place as part of the planned expansion where appropriate, but following any expansion work it was the school’s responsibility to monitor the impact on the local community. Members questioned whether school head teachers should be expected to take responsibility in this area. Some members expressed the view that the impact of expansion was a school issue that should be resolved within the community and that Local Committees should play a role since they offer a forum where local residents can raise concerns.

3.    The Committee commended officers on the success of delivering the school expansion programme within budget during difficult financial times.

4.    The Committee was informed that in relation to the School Travel Plan positive steps have been taken in bringing the process in-house with a dedicated School Travel Plan Team. A new officer role had been created in relation to compliance and planning applications. Officers added that the different teams involved within the school planning process were working together in a bid to unify future projects through improved communication and a more holistic approach.

5.    The Committee was informed that there is a challenge in creating school places in the Key Stage 2 (KS2) bracket as most infant schools’ sites were small and lacked the scope for expansion.

6.    The Committee questioned how best they could understand the risks related to the School Expansion Programme and critical points for scrutiny. Officers stated that future reports would include a risk register; the focus would mostly be around central government funding for school places. It was also highlighted that most sites with the potential for expansion had already been developed and there was therefore a future risk due to the higher cost for new developments.

7.    The Committee drew attention to the fact that local authorities have no control over the provision of free schools and questioned officers on the potential impact this may have. The Committee was informed that the Council was supportive of free schools where it addressed a need for school places.

8.    Officers highlighted the School Travel Plan Team’s role in monitoring all travel plans no matter where they were established and ensuring they are implemented effectively, including seeking to enforce when necessary.

9.    The Committee asked if there was any correlation between the actual delivery of education and school expansion. Officers commented that the school expansion programme had been well received by head teachers. Linked to this, the Committee was informed that an officer is assigned to interface between head teachers and expansion project managers; the feedback of which has been positive.

10.  The Committee questioned whether there was scope for collaborating further with neighbouring counties given Surrey’s pressure for pupil places and high net imports. Officers responded by highlighting that the majority of Surrey residents do not live on the border, therefore most planning was done in relation to providing school places for Surrey residents. However, it was noted that significant communication existed between Surrey and its neighbouring counties, especially in relation to special schools where the catchment area was much larger than for mainstream schools.

Recommendations:

The Committee recognises and thanks officers for the work undertaken to improve the processes and delivery of the School Expansion Programme, particularly in light of the increasing pressures to provide school places. It recommends:

a)    That Local Committees promote community engagement in relation to the School Expansion Programme.

b)    That a risk register evaluating the strategic risks connected to the School Expansion Programme is circulated to the Committee, in order to inform its future scrutiny of this item.

c)    That a further update is brought to the committee following the delivery of the September 2015 places.