Agenda item

The Committee to receive an update from the Portfolio Holder and to note decisions taken since the last meeting.

The Portfolio Holder provided the following update to the Committee:

“The focus for tonight’s PDS Committee Agenda is finance and related issues.  There are 3 areas that I would like to highlight as Portfolio Holder to Members of this Committee:

(i)  Firstly, an overview:

§  2011/12 is a really critical year for Bromley’s CYP Portfolio

§  We have needed to shape our local response to the Government’s Reform Agenda for education and wider children’s services.  This has included:

Ø  Reviews of education curriculum/methodology across all phases of children’s learning ie early years through to Post-16.

Ø  The Munro Review of children’s safeguarding and child protection arrangements.

Ø  The Green Paper and impending legislative change governing provision for children with SEN and disabilities

Ø  This is not a full list of these changes but gives a flavour of the significant national agenda to which I believe we have responded positively, given that Bromley is well placed to incorporate the changes successfully.

§  The Academy Programme – which represents a major change to our local school and education landscape – and the importance of working with schools seeking to convert, to support them with these complex processes whilst at the same time sustaining a local framework of support for the school’s seeking to remain LA maintained.

§  Responding to the national financial and economic position, the reduction in grant funding levels and the need to reduce service costs.  A difficult balancing act and we are making every effort in protecting frontline services where possible whilst at the same time addressing increases in volume and associated costs/service pressures, maintaining standards and meeting the expectations of our local residents. 

§  A challenging agenda for the CYP Portfolio and Bromley Council – but one I believe we have risen to through effective partnership and shared accountability with all key partner agencies including: schools; pre-schools; health; the voluntary sector; the Police and parents.  We share a common goal and that is to achieve positive outcomes for all children and young people in this borough by using efficiently and effectively all available resources - financial and people’s expertise to meet this aim.  The Director’s report later in the agenda (7a) provides a very useful overview of CYP Services which I am sure will generate debate under that item.

(ii)  Secondly, the Local Authority Central Spend Equivalent Grant (LACSEG) agenda:

LACSEG clawback and RSG

§  Currently Bromley has a RSG LACSEG reduction of 800k in 2011/12 and a further 640k in 2012/13 amounting to £1.44m. These figures were based on a general top slice across all local authorities regardless of academy conversion.

§  In August DfE consulted on an alternative mechanism which looked at academy conversions, national averages and historical S251 data. Using this assumption and assuming all secondary schools and fourteen primary schools in Bromley convert the potential amount that could be top sliced from the Authority is in the order of £6.25m.

§  Bromley has made strong representations to DfE and the Portfolio Holder and Director have gone to DfE to put the case forward that Bromley should not be overly affected by these changes and that the calculations themselves are flawed. S251 was never intended as a mechanism for removing funding from Authorities and is too crude and subjective a tool to be used for this purpose.

§  Bromley have done their own calculations using up to date S251 data and the figures arrive at £2.6m. This is spread across the Authority but around 50% is within CYP. Many of the areas it would notionally effect have already taken cuts and reduced services so there is a potential to double count the savings that Bromley have made.

§  It was hoped that there would be clarity on this issue in early December at the latest and there would be an announcement part of any updates on the Local Government financial settlement for 2012/13. However DfE have advised that no date has been set yet for the outcome and it will not necessarily be linked with the Local Government financial settlement date.

(iii)  Thirdly, Planning and Provision of School Places

§  The planning and provision of school places is a statutory duty for the Council.  The pressure on primary school places to meet increasing demand is a major issue for all London boroughs.

§  A previous briefing covered this issue, but for Bromley, the demand for Primary School Places has continued to increase significantly, particularly in central Bromley, the North of the Borough and the Beckenham, Penge and Crystal Palace areas.

§  Since 2009 the Council has established an additional 75 permanent reception places and 150 temporary reception places; providing a total of 3725 reception places in the current year, compared with 3500 in 2009.  This has involved negotiating additional places at 8 schools including 1 academy.

§  It is projected that Bromley will need at least the same number of places for 2012 onwards, which means that temporary places will need to be consolidated or replaced with provision elsewhere.  Consideration will also need to be given to the most appropriate schools for permanent expansions.

§  For 2012, nearly all the schools that accommodated a temporary additional form in 2011 have the capacity to admit a further temporary form in 2012. This will require some additional capital works. The matter is under active consideration currently and has been the subject of a briefing for the Portfolio Holder.

§  Bromley was allocated capital funding of £4.2m for 2011/12 to assist with the provision of additional places.  In addition, recent announcements from DfE about future capital funding streams will allocate an additional £1.277 for Bromley.

§  It is proposed that the Member / Officer working party for strategic school place planning should be reconvened for one meeting to develop recommendations for further temporary and permanent expansions of primary schools with recommendations being considered by the CYP PH early in 2012.”

The Committee considered the need to reconvene the Place Planning Working Party and the Director CYP emphasised that place planning was usually a three year cycle but due to a significant amount of turbulence in a number of London Boroughs there had been a need to review the number of available primary places on an annual basis.  The Director reported that the Council would have to negotiate with schools to make permanent the temporary measures that had been put in place in meet increased demand.

A Member sought assurances that there was sufficient funding to meet the needs of the additional pupils.  In response the Director reassured the Committee that following representations that had been made to Ministers which had highlighted the shortage of places, two essential releases of funding had been triggered.

The Director CYP also highlighted to the Committee that the Local Authority would face similar challenges with secondary schools in the future and negotiations would have to take place with secondary schools in order to ensure that enough secondary places were available to meet demand.  Over the coming year the Council would have to make representations to Ministers regarding additional capital funding to meet the future demand for secondary school places.

RESOLVED that the Primary Place Planning working Group be reconvened for one meeting to develop recommendations for further temporary and permanent expansions of primary schools with recommendations being considered by the CYP Portfolio Holder early in 2012.

The Committee also noted decisions taken by the Portfolio Holder since the meeting held on 18^th October 2011.