Skip to content

Meeting documents

Cabinet

Committee Minutes

Wed Mar 09 2016

Related Documents:
agenda for these minutes

Present:-

Councillors Hart (Chairman), Barker, Clatworthy, Croad, Davis, S Hughes, Leadbetter, McInnes and Parsons

Members attending in accordance with Standing Orders 8 and 25:-

Councillors Connett, Dempster, Dewhirst, Gribble, Julian, Moulding, Owen, Randall Johnson, Westlake and Wright

*478 Minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 12 February 2016 be signed as a correct record.

*479 Matters of Urgency:

There was no item raised as a matter of urgency.

*480 Announcements

There was no announcement by the Chairman at this meeting.

*481 Petitions

There was no petition received from a Member of the Public or the Council.

*482 Questions from Members of the Council

There was no question from a Member of the Council.

*483 Questions from Members of the Public

(Councillor Parsons declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of his previously expressed views on the proposed closure of Sutcombe Primary School and having pre-determined his position in respect of this matter withdrew from the meeting).

The Chairman having exercised his discretion to vary the order of business to enable this item to be considered at this point in the meeting, and in accordance with the Council's Public Participation Rules, the relevant Cabinet Member responded to a question from a member of the public on the closure of Sutcombe Primary School and responded orally to a supplementary question arising from the above.

[NB:

1. See also Minute *484 below

2: A copy of the question and answer is appended to these minutes and is also available on the Council s Website at and any supplementary questions and answers may be observed through the webcast of this meeting see Notes below]


KEY DECISION

*484 School Organisation: Sutcombe Primary School Closure

(Councillors Connett, Julian, Owen and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

(Councillor Parsons declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of his previously expressed views on the proposed school closure and having pre-determined his position in respect of the proposal and withdrew from the meeting during its consideration).

The Cabinet considered the Joint Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation Environment, the Head of Education Learning and County Treasurer (PTE/16/14 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/16/14) on the outcome of consultations on the future of this School.

The Cabinet was advised that the Governing Body of Sutcombe School had taken the decision to proceed to consult on its future as a result of it being unable to secure leadership and provide continuity and consistency in the leadership of teaching and learning with low pupil numbers and precarious future financial viability given that there were sufficient school places at adjacent schools to accommodate displaced children. The School had a net capacity of 56 pupils but currently only had 21 pupils on roll and numbers which were not forecast to improve; there was no early years provision at the School.

Statutory consultations on the future of the School had taken place between 8 September and 20 October 2015 following a public consultation meeting on 16 September 2015 which had been well attended by parents, staff, residents and community representatives. 37 objections had made to the possible closure of the school and one anonymous response in support of the proposal to close the school. None of the objections could however, be classed as materially significant and thereafter formal consultations were undertaken concluding on 4 February 2016. 14 objections had been received to that consultation including an electronic petition with 212 signatures a copy of which had also previously been presented to the County Council (County Council Minute 165 refers).

The Head of Service advised that a number of alternatives had been explored with the Governing Body, including considering federation, joining a multi-academy trust within Devon and with federations or academies in neighbouring authorities but because of the school s viability and falling rolls other schools had not come forward to share leadership. nor was the level of future housing in the area likely to be sufficient to sustain the school.

In recognising the difficulties faced by small rural schools reference was also made to recent pronouncements by Government on future funding arrangements for schools acknowledging also that the Government s' definition of a small rural school was one with 200 pupils on roll which was not the position in Devon. While the County Council supported small schools the particular difficulties faced by Sutcombe Primary School as now outlined placed it in an invidious position both educationally and financially.

The Local Authority had to give priority to the safeguarding and protection of pupils, the impact on teaching and learning and the future educational and financial sustainability of the School and the Report concluded that there was no alternative but to recommend closure of the School with effect from 31 August 2016. The Head of Service s Report also incorporated an Impact Assessment relating to the possible impacts of the decision which had been circulated previously for the attention of Members at this meeting and insofar as the Cabinet might need to have regard to the exercise of its Public Sector Equality Duty, under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. The Assessment recognised the need for every child to have fair access to schools providing the highest standards of teaching, acknowledged that the process had also conformed with the requirements of the Council s Education Infrastructure Plan and the Department for Education Guidance for Proposers and Decision Makers and that there were sufficient school places in wider area to accommodate any displaced pupils. The transport and travel needs of any such pupil would be fully assessed in accordance with the Council s Environmental and School Transport policies.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, environmental impact, risk management, equality and legal considerations and Public Health impact) set out in the Head of Service s Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor McInnes, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED

(a) that approval be given to the closure of Sutcombe Primary School following completion of the statutory process with effect from 31 August 2016;

(b) that the People s Scrutiny Committee be asked to examine (possibly through a Task Group) the issues faced by small rural schools with the intention of designing a toolkit to help rural schools meet the challenges facing them in the future.

[NB:

1. The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/].

[2. See also responses to Question referred to at Minute 483 above]

*485 Call-in of Cabinet Decision: Devon School Crossing Patrol Service (Minute *470/12 February 2016)

(Councillors Connett, Dewhirst, Moulding, Julian, Owen and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet noted that, in accordance with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, the requisite number of members (Councillors Connett, Hook, Way, Greenslade and Younger Ross) had, on 12 February 2016, invoked the call-in procedure in relation to the above decision of the Cabinet to enable the Place Scrutiny Committee to consider this matter and (i) assess the financial implications of likely mitigation measures where patrols are withdrawn, (ii) consider the equality impact assessment and impacts of cuts in areas of social deprivation and (iii) assess the potential and robustness of operating models for externalisation of the school crossing patrol service.

The Place Scrutiny Committee, which was due to have considered this call-in at its meeting on 7 March 2016, then recognised that the Leader of the Council had, in the intervening period, announced (having reviewed representations received from parents and families across the county since the Cabinet s earlier decision which had far exceeded in number those received during previous consultation exercises) he was of the view that the proposals approved under Minute *470 should not be implemented or have effect and that the service should continue to be provided; inviting the Scrutiny Committee to make appropriate representations to the Cabinet at this meeting. While recognising that in the circumstances the call-in might appear to have been overtaken by events, the Scrutiny Committee nonetheless formally agreed to urge the Cabinet to revoke its earlier decision and reinstate funding for the School Crossing Patrol Service (Place Scrutiny Minute 111 refers), to continue to supply the service as now and to monitor and review sites with a view to maintaining road safety at relevant locations.

The Leader, as also indicated at the Scrutiny Committee and now similarly requested, commented further on the funding for the retention of this service which, as previously intimated, would not fall upon existing Place Services budgets but would instead be met from the Outturn or from Reserves.

It was MOVED by Councillor Hart, SECONDED by Councillor Clatworthy, and

RESOLVED that the position be noted, Minute 470 be revoked and the Scrutiny Committee s recommendations be endorsed.

[NB: The Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment previous considered by the Cabinet and Place Scrutiny Committee (PTE/16/9 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/16/9) is available at:http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/decision_making/cma/index_exc.htm

*486 A379 Sandy Park Junction, Newcourt, Exeter

The Cabinet considered the Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation Environment (PTE/16/15 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/16/15) seeking approval to a detailed scheme for upgrading this junction at Newcourt which was a strategic development site in the Exeter Local Plan and which included up to 400 dwellings and 8.3 hectares of employment accessed off the A379 Sandy Park junction.

In light of the site's importance it was deemed necessary to upgrade this junction to a full movements, signalised junction instead of the current left-in, left-out arrangement and provide adequate capacity for traffic, including widening Sandy Park Way and the A379 westbound approach to the junction of Russell Way and associated speed restrictions on the A379 and prohibiting unsafe manoeuvres through the new junction and to amend the existing clearway to include the new junction.

The Head of Service's Report also set out the results of the on-line public consultation held in the summer of 2015 to which 48 people responded of whom 60% agreed that an improvement to the junction was required and 45% supported the proposal. 20% were unsure and 35% against. Of those who did not support the scheme, 50% were against the installation of another set of traffic lights on this corridor; 20% of residents did not realise that the scheme was for the proposed development and not just for the existing businesses.

The Report outlined the different junction layouts assessed, including a roundabout, but none were regarded as being as effective as the proposed traffic signals. Highways England recognised the advantage of removing U-turning traffic from Junction 30, which was saturated during peak times. Detailed analysis showed that the proposed traffic signals had capacity to prevent queues from extending back towards the motorway junction.

The Head of Service s Report also incorporated an Impact Assessment relating to the possible impacts of the proposal, which had been circulated previously for the attention of Members at this meeting in order that as part of its determination of the next steps in the process the Cabinet might have full regard to the responsibilities placed upon it to exercise its Public Sector Equality Duty, under s149 of the Equality Act 2010, where relevant. While that Assessment acknowledged that the environmental aspects of the proposals would be fully assessed through the separate Environmental Impact Assessment process the Head of Service was of the view that the scheme would make a positive impact on the wider road network, improving access to existing businesses with whom there would be the fullest consultation, opening up access to employment land to provide skilled employment. It also recognised that the scheme would ease congestion, reduce queuing and journey times for users and that no unmanageable impacts had been identified.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, environmental impact, risk management, equality and legal considerations and Public Health impact) set out in the Head of Service s Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor Hart, SECONDED by Councillor Clatworthy, and

RESOLVED

(a) that the proposed junction improvement shown on drawings E11044/007 and E11004/008 attached to Report PTE/16/15 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/16/15 be approved at an estimated cost of 2,680,000;

(b) that approval be given to the 2016/17 capital programme being enhanced by 1,025,000, funded by developer contributions;

(c) that approval be given to secure the required land by negotiation and/or Compulsory Purchase Order to facilitate the widening of Sandy Park Way;

(d) that approval be given to advertise and, if no substantial objections are received, make and seal Traffic Regulation Orders as detailed in Report PTE/16/15 - text only | pdf | supplementary information PTE/16/15 and also shown on drawing E11044/010;

(d) that the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment be authorised, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Policy and Corporate and the local County Councillor to make minor amendments to the scheme design and Traffic Regulation Orders.

[NB: The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/].

*487 Budget 2015/16 - Monitoring Report

(Councillors Connett, Dewhirst, Owen and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet considered the Report of the County Treasurer (CT/16/26) on the position at Month 10 outlining areas where there were specific pressures on budgets, potential under- and over-spendings in the current financial year and on management action being taken where individual budget lines were experiencing pressures.

The Report revealed that the overall projected revenue overspend at the year end had increased by 400,000 to 2,200,000. While this was disappointing Members also noted that, with the application of the policy change approved by the Council on 18 February 2016 relating to the treatment of capital financing costs which would for this year be applied at the Outturn, the year end position would translate into an underspend of 9,400,000.

The Cabinet noted that the potential overspend for People s Services was now 8,800,000 which had increased since the previous monitoring report as a consequence of care cost sharing with Health not having materialised, a delay in recovering unused direct payments, higher independent residential care and nursing placements costs and transport costs as set out fully in Report CT/16/26.

Place Services currently indicated a projected underspend of 1,000,000 and an underspend of 1,900,000 was forecast for Corporate Services principally because of further delay in legislation relating to the Medical Examiner service, favourable negotiations on mortuary contract costs and savings arising from staff vacancies, energy and maintenance costs and increased income.

The approved capital planning level for the Council was 174,400,000 with spending at Month 10 being 90,800,000 and a projected outturn figure of 136,000,000 accounting for slippage in a number of schemes.

The matter having been debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors set out in the Report and/or referred to above having been considered:

It was MOVED by Councillor Clatworthy, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED that the position based on Month 10 be noted.

STANDING ITEMS

488 Notices of Motion (County Council Minute 173/18 February 2016)

(a) Taxation

(Councillor Wright attended in accordance with Standing Order 8 and spoke to this item).

The undermentioned Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Wright had been referred to the Cabinet in accordance with Standing Order 8(2) for consideration, to refer it to another committee or make a recommendation back to the Council:

This Council notes that:

Tax avoidance by big business is rife and the Public Accounts Committee last year criticised HMRC for not doing more to tackle the problem

Austerity measures mean that 174m funding has been cut from this council over the past five years, this year 34m will be lost - and many more millions are set to be lost in the coming years, prompting damaging service cuts

The Devon portion of avoided corporation tax could total around 380m

The practice of tax avoidance among corporate giants also has a negative effect on small and medium-sized companies who pay more tax proportionately

That tax evasion and avoidance by multinational companies is costing developing countries up to $300bn a year, according to the IMF more than these countries receive in aid

This Council further notes:

In early 2015 new regulations required public bodies, including councils, to ask procurement qualification questions of all companies for tenders over 173,000 for service contracts and 4m for works contracts.

However, there are stricter standards available. This Council believes that bidders for council contracts should be asked to account for their past tax record, using the most rigorous possible government guidance (as in Procurement Policy Note 03/14)

This Council therefore calls for procurement procedures to be amended to require all companies bidding for council contracts to self-certify that they are fully tax-compliant in line with central government practice, using the standards in PPN 03/14, applying to contracts of the size specified above.

This Council asks the Cabinet to publicise this policy and to report on its implementation annually for the next three years.

The Cabinet also received and had regard to a factual briefing/background paper prepared by the Head of Business Support Strategy (BSS/16/5 - text only | pdf BSS/16/5) to facilitate the Cabinet s discussion of this matter. While Cabinet acknowledged the suggestion that the Council should not take any further action on the Notice of Motion in light of the action already being taken to comply with the Cabinet Office Directives (which formed part of its published procurement policies, as set out fully in Report BSS/16/5 - text only | pdf BSS/16/5) - provided also that in future instances of supplier non-compliance be published annually on the Council s website - in light of further representations made at the meeting that the Council could adopt more rigorous, higher thresholds, the Chairman (with the consent of the Cabinet) deferred consideration of this matter until the next meeting.

(b) Future Railway Provision

The undermentioned Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Connett had been referred to the Cabinet in accordance with Standing Order 8(2) for consideration, to refer it to another committee or make a recommendation back to the Council:

Great Western Railway (GWR) be congratulated on stepping forward with funding for essential Reports on the resilience of our rail networks after the Government failed to deliver on the Prime Minister s promises;

Devon County Council continues to make campaigning for rail reliance a priority

The Cabinet also received and had regard to a factual briefing/background paper prepared by the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment (PTE/16/16 - text only | pdf PTE/16/16) to facilitate the Cabinet s discussion of this matter.

It was MOVED by Councillor Hart, SECONDED by Councillor Ledbetter, and

RESOLVED that the County Council be recommended to accept the Notice of Motion as the Cabinet and the Peninsula Rail Task Force (PRTF) is committed to and will continue to make the strongest case for work to improve resilience at Cowley Bridge, Exeter and at Dawlish and across the Somerset Levels alongside improvements to the peninsula rail network in line with key aims of the PTRF which are to achieve improvements not only in relation to the resilience of the network but connectivity across the South West Peninsula railway.

*489 Minutes

It was MOVED by Councillor Hart, SECONDED by Councillor Clatworthy, and

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the following and recommendations to Cabinet therein be approved:

(a) SACRE 10 February 2016 (Page )

(b) Farms Estates Committee 19 February 2016 (Page);

(c) Devon Exeter Rail Working Party 19 February 2016 (Page).

[NB: Minutes of County Council Committees are published on the Council s Website at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/your_council/decision_making/cma/index_exc.htm ]

*490 Delegated Action/Urgent Matters

The Registers of Decisions taken by Members and under the urgency provisions or delegated powers were available for inspection at the meeting in line with the Council s Constitution and Regulation 13 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012; a summary of decisions taken since the last meeting had been published with the Agenda for this meeting. Decisions taken by Officers under any express authorisation of the Cabinet or other Committee or under any general authorisation within the Council s Scheme of Delegation set out in Part 3 of the Council s Constitution may be viewed at https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/officer-decisions/

*491 Forward Plan

In accordance with the Council s Constitution, the Cabinet reviewed the Forward Plan and determined those items of business to be defined as key and framework decisions and included in the Plan from the date of this meeting onwards reflecting the requirements of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 (at https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/how-the-council-works/forward-plan/)

KEY DECISION

*492 Living Well at Home - Domiciliary Care Provision and Personal Care Services Contract

(Councillors Connett, Julian and Westlake attended in accordance with Standing Order 25(2) and spoke to this item).

The Cabinet considered the Report of the Head of Social Care Commissioning (SCC/16/45 - text only | pdf SCC/16/45) on the background to, process for and evaluation of tenders received for the provision of personal care and support; the current Framework Contract expiring on 4 April 2016.

For the purposes of the proposed contract(s), the Council s area had been divided into 8 Zones (closely aligned to Care Direct Plus Team areas and NHS acute provider footprints across the County and shown in the Appendix to the Head of Service's Report). A separate contract would be awarded for each Zone to a Primary Contractor, who would, in turn, be responsible for ensuring that all commissioned personal care was provided directly by that Contractor or through a sub-contractor. The Living Well at Home procurement was a joint procurement between the County Council, the NHS NEW Devon CCG and the NHS South Devon and Torbay CCG (the Commissioning Bodies). Each Commissioning Body would be party to a joint contract and would be severally liable to the provider. The Devon Partnership Trust would be a named agent under the Devon County Council contract for all mental health social care packages. A full options appraisal had been undertaken prior to the determination of the approach now followed but none of the options were felt able to deliver the required outcomes. The procurement process had been conducted in line with and was compliant with EU Procurement Regulations.

The Head of Service s Report indicated that the total estimated value of the Living Well at Home contracts, including all Commissioning Bodies spend, was approximately 300m over 7 years. Individual contracts would each be let for an initial 5 year term with an option (open to Commissioning Authorities only) to extend contacts for up to a further 2 years. Contracts would come into effect on 5 April with a planned start date for services going live on or before 16 July 2016.

Members were further advised that the County Council currently purchased in the region of 4100 packages of personal care at any one time, providing for in excess of 2m hours of personal care each year. The estimated contract value for the County Council was in the order of 210m over the full 7 years although the exact value of the contract would necessarily vary depending upon any increase or decrease in care volumes purchased; the estimate costs included inflationary effects in 2016/17 and the impact of the National Living Wage.

The Cabinet was advised that while the proposed joint contract had been approved by the South Devon and Torbay Clinical Commissioning Group, the approval of the NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group to the proposal was not expected before 16 March 2016.

The Head of Service reaffirmed that the Council had a duty under the Care Act 2014 to ensure sufficiency of markets and the investment in this new contract was crucial to meeting that duty. Equality Impact Assessments had, as referred to in the Head of Service's Reports, been prepared at different stages of the commissioning process both prior to and on the proposed outcome of the process outlined above - and had been made available to the Cabinet and Members for their attention at this meeting as part of its determination of the next steps in the process. That Assessment recognised that the contract explicitly required that the full range of needs was met and that this had formed a key part of the evaluation of the tenders; no unmanageable impacts had been identified.

It was MOVED by Councillor Barker, SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and

RESOLVED that the press and public be now excluded from the meeting during subsequent discussion on this matter under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the Act namely, the financial or business affairs of preferred bidders or tenderers for the provision or supply of council goods or services, and in accordance with Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, by virtue of the fact that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

[NB: The following part of the Cabinet s proceedings on this matter took place, as summarised below, in accordance with the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 during which the press and public were excluded; no representations having been received to such consideration under Regulation 5(5) of the aforementioned Regulations].

The Cabinet then considered the Report of the Head of Social Care Commissioning (SCC/16/46) recommending the acceptance of eligible tenders for the 8 geographical lots/zones for the Living Well at Home procurement procedure; noting that all prospective providers had been inspected by The Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Following discussion of the content of Report SCC/16/46 and having regard to the information therein, the Cabinet was of the view that the press and public need no longer be excluded from the meeting during its final determination of the matter and:

It was then MOVED by Councillor Barker, SECONDED by Councillor Hart and

RESOLVED that the press and public be now readmitted to the meeting.

Following further comment and discussion and having had regard to Reports SCC/16/45 - text only | pdf SCC/16/45 and SCC/16/46 and the recommendations therein, the matter having been fully debated and the options and/or alternatives and other relevant factors (e.g. financial, sustainably, risk management, equality and legal considerations) set out in the Head of Service s Reports and/or referred to above having been considered, and balancing all of those factors and comments made at the meeting:

It was then MOVED by Councillor Barker, SECONDED by Councillor Hart and

RESOLVED

(a) that Cabinet welcomes the approach to securing sufficient, high quality regulated personal care across the health and social care system, underpinned by investment in improved terms and conditions for the workforce;

(b) that approval be given to the contract award recommendations set out in the Report SCC/16/45 - text only | pdf SCC/16/45;

(c) that, as indicated above and pending the decision of the NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group and/or should it subsequently withdraw from the procurement process, the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health Services be authorised to award and or amend the contract upon the recommendation of the Head of Service in line with para 2.18 and 2.12 of the Procedures for Tenders and Contracts (Part 5 of the Council s Constitution);

(d) that approval be given to contracts for the Living Well at Home tender being awarded as follows:

Zone 1 (Bideford/Northam, Great Torrington and

Holsworthy)

Northern Devon Healthcare Trust

Zone 2 (Ilfracombe, Lynton/Lynmouth,

Barnstaple, South Molton)

Northern Devon Healthcare Trust

Zone 3 (Tiverton, Crediton, Cullompton)

Northern Devon Healthcare Trust

Zone 4 (Exeter)

Mears Care Limited

Zone 5 (Honiton, Sidmouth, Exmouth, Seaton)

Mears Care Limited

Zone 6 (Newton Abbot, Totnes, Dartmouth)

Mears Care Limited

Zone 7 (Tavistock, Ivybridge)

Mears Care Limited

Zone 8 (Okehampton, Moretonhampstead)

MiHomecare Limited

[NB: The Impact Assessment referred to above may be viewed alongside Minutes of this meeting and may also be available at:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5uL2sCifa47cklxcFI2N3BBQUE/view?pref=2pli=1].

NOTES:

1. These Minutes should be read in association with any Reports or documents referred to therein, for a complete record.

2. Notice of the decisions taken by the Cabinet will be sent by email to all Members of the Council within 2 working days of their being made and will, in the case of key decisions, come into force 5 working days after that date unless 'called-in' or referred back in line with the provisions of the Council's Constitution.

3.The Minutes of the Cabinet are published on the County Council s website at

4. A recording of the webcast of this meeting will also available to view for up to six months from the date of the meeting, at http://www.devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/home

*DENOTES DELEGATED MATTER WITH POWER TO ACT

The meeting started at 10.30am and finished at 12.10pm.


APPENDIX

QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Wednesday, 9 March 2016

1. QUESTION FROM MS WHINNERAH

Re: Sutcombe Primary School Closure

Sutcombe School has leadership, 'Good' Ofsted rating and village support. If closed, alternatives offered are 2 large almost full schools or 1 poorer rated one. 640 homes are to be built. In light of this, how can the council fulfil its educational obligations to our children, now and in the future?

REPLY BY COUNCILLOR MCINNES

Despite considerable efforts over time, securing sustainable leadership has not been possible. Currently, after a period with no headteacher being in post, Sutcombe has only been able to achieve part-time agency leadership. Lack of contracted full-time responsibility for leadership makes the school statutorily non-compliant and the current arrangement is only acceptable on the basis that it lasts until the end of the summer term. Without appropriate leadership the School is likely to be judged inadequate should it be formally inspected.

There are 64 primary aged pupils living within Sutcombe s designated area but only 21 pupils attend the School.

There is sufficient capacity in schools in the wider area depending on parents preferences and there are currently 181 surplus places across the schools within Holsworthy Local Learning Community.

While it is correct to say that 640 homes are proposed within the Local Plan these are in Holsworthy and capacity in the local School will be supported. Only 23 new dwellings are proposed in Sutcombe and based on our formula of 0.25 pupil per dwelling this equates to only 5 new pupils during the plan period and our forecast figures to 2019/20 show very low numbers of in-area pupils. Educational and financial sustainability of all schools is essential.

Date Published: Mon Mar 14 2016

Top