Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Committee: i. Note the correspondence update arising from recent scrutiny meetings; ii. Sign off any updates to the work programme (Appendix A); iii. Note the updates to Task & Finish Group activities (including Appendix B); iv. Consider and agree any way forward arising from the letter from the Chair of the Governance & Audit Committee (Appendix C); v. Note (and consider) links to relevant papers from other Council Committees; vi. Note (and consider) links to recent Inspection Reports.
Apologies were received from Cllr Boes and Celeste Lewis (Parent Governor Representative).
There were no declarations of interest.
The minutes of the 12th November 2024 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Members were advised that this item sought to provide the Committee with the opportunity to carry out pre-decision scrutiny of proposals for the relocation of Lansdowne Primary School and procurement of the contractor for construction, prior to their consideration by Cabinet on 23rd January 2025. The Chair noted that Appendices 2 and 4 were confidential as they contained information of the description set out in paragraphs 14, 16 and 21 of Parts 4 and 5 of Schedule 12A of the 1972 Local Government Act, and as such any questions relating to them would have to take place in exempt session. The Chair welcomed Cllr Sarah Merry (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Education), Melanie Godfrey (Director of Education and Lifelong Learning), Richard Portas (Programme Director for the School Organisation Programme), Donna Jones (Assistant Director, County Estates), Mian Saleem (Head of Design, Construction & Maintenance, County Estates) and Brett Andrewartha (School Organisation Programme Planning Manager). The Cabinet Member was invited to make an opening statement, in which she emphasised that the current site was near end of life. The buildings were monitored daily with enhanced health and safety support, but despite this it had been closed four times in the last year. The papers outlined a full list of risks and the work done to date, and there was a detailed risk assessment in place with a dedicated project manager. Health and safety risks could not be fully eliminated without significant investment in the structured works, and it was not possible to keep pupils on site while work of this magnitude was done. A planned relocation was intended to reduce the risk of future unplanned closures, and the use of demountable accommodation alongside existing buildings had been judged best value for money. She thanked school staff and the headteacher for their efforts, and officers for their support of the school. Officers added that the school’s listed status made undertaking repairs more complex and limited the council’s ability to move as swiftly as they would like. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments; the discussion is summarised below: The Committee explored whether this would be a permanent change of location or a temporary decant allowing for work to be done on the school. Officers explained that the report did not indicate either way, and another Cabinet paper would need to come forward in the future to establish the long-term position. Members noted that this could have an impact on the Replacement Local Development Plan, which officers acknowledged was not ideal, but they stressed that it was an emergency situation where the safety of children and staff was key. Members queried whether closing one part of the school at a time had been considered, and heard that it would all be done in one go due to the significance and complexity of the changes needed. Members explored the meaning of an emergency situation given that the school was currently deemed safe, and heard that it was an emergency due to the risk register and the pressures that managing the existing building was placing on staff. The option of procuring demountable buildings had been selected because it allowed the school to be relocated for the new academic year while giving them flexibility to reuse the accommodation in the future. Members sought clarity on the likely timelines and heard that the target was for occupation in September, although October half term might be more likely. It was a significant move that would be planned extensively in advance. It would be at least six to twelve months before the longer-term proposition for the school would become clear, as there was a lengthy process to go through first including consultation, options appraisals and a business case. Members requested that officers come back to the Committee when they were in a position to update them on this. The Committee explored a number of specific aspects, including land matters and student movements. Officers explained that the land matters related to the Fitzalan area as it was already being utilised as a live education site, so there were no covenants to prevent this work being undertaken. They added that in the future it was anticipated that active travel and ICT investment would reduce student movements around the site and wider city. Members queried the availability of play areas and physical education facilities, and heard that the relocated site was around 1,500 square metres in total and had substantial space for play areas, parking and a large hall in good condition. The new external facilities, although temporary, were better than those currently at Lansdowne Primary, and the quality of education on that front would be fully protected. Members asked what impact the proposals would have on the Sustainable Communities for Learning program in the future, and heard that it all fell under the 2024-2033 Education Investment Strategy. The Committee emphasised the need to minimise disruption of students’ learning, and were reassured that this was a key priority. The council was used to moving schools as part of its building program and had moved the whole Fitzalan High School last summer. Moving in the summer was preferable to a mid-year change, and the planning and handover process would seek to mitigate disruption and ensure buildings were used properly straight away, with ICT frameworks set up in advance so everything could hit the ground running. Officers underlined that a planned transfer of this nature was far less disruptive than an unplanned transfer as a result of an emergency closure. Members discussed the impact on staff and heard that the existing buildings had placed significant pressure on the school leadership as they had needed to reactively manage issues, taking them away from their core work. There had been an almost daily council presence at the school to support them through this, but the planned closure would allow everything to be back up and running by the October half term, which on balance would improve the school’s position. Members highlighted the effects of the move on school travel and heard that while the relocated site was less than a mile away, it was at the edge of the catchment area and pupils would invariably have to travel different distances to school. The council would assess this as part of their active travel plan and work proactively with the school to implement it. Members noted that Broad Street was particularly bad for traffic flow and suggested monitoring there, considering its implications on the RLDP. Members asked what engagement had taken place with parents, school staff and governors, and what their responses had been. Officers explained that they had met with the governing body twice and had regular meetings with the headteacher. Although they had not spoken directly to staff, their meetings with the headteacher had indicated support as the issues with the current site had a significant impact on the staff. The governing body’s reaction had been more mixed as they were used to the existing site, but they were understanding of the issues that led to these proposals. Officers added that the Chief Executive had written to parents around a year ago explaining that the council was considering relocating the school, and again a few days ago updating them on the situation, but more communications were planned to ensure engagement. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that parents would have questions and would want clarity about the long-term plan, and face-to-face meetings where they could ask questions of officers were always preferable. Meetings were planned with staff and parents following the Cabinet decision to gauge views. Members explored the details of the demountable buildings and heard that they were modular units which would be purchased rather than hired, giving the council flexibility to relocate them in the future if required. The units would be of high quality and an improvement on the current buildings, and were indistinguishable from permanent buildings on the inside. Members asked what would happen to the units if the long-term decision was to go back to the current site, and heard that there were a number of options including the contractor refurbishing them. Members noted that the new site was already in use, and asked whether the space would exclusively be used by primary school-age children. Officers clarified that it would be a fully-fledged school, independent of the PRU, with a full boundary fence and robust internal safeguarding arrangements. The site would have its own car park and dedicated access from the road at the back. There was a lot of space on site, and they were able to do things that were not possible in the current building due to its listed status, such as adding canopies for early years. RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraphs 14 and 16 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Committee: i. Note the correspondence update arising from recent scrutiny meetings; ii. Sign off any updates to the work programme (Appendix A); iii. Note the updates to Task & Finish Group activities (including Appendix B); iv. Consider and agree any way forward arising from the letter from the Chair of the Governance & Audit Committee (Appendix C); v. Note (and consider) links to relevant papers from other Council Committees; vi. Note (and consider) links to recent Inspection Reports.
Members were advised that this report sought to update them on a range of issues including the Committee’s correspondence; the Work Programme; Task & Finish groups; a letter from the Governance & Audit Committee; relevant papers from other committees and recent Inspection Reports. The Principal Scrutiny Officer noted that one letter was outstanding, and she would chase this up. On the Work Programme, she explained that the Sport For All item would move to either March or April depending on other items. The March meeting could have a number of Schools Organisational Planning (SOP) related items, but this would be confirmed. Members had also requested a briefing on personal dignity, which would come in April, while the May meeting would look at elective home education. Further items which Members had raised for future scrutiny included school transport costs in oversubscribed areas and a briefing around coercive relationships, which would involve a co-ordinated paper drawing from a number of different areas including the Youth Justice Service, safeguarding, domestic violence and community safety. She highlighted the letter from the Chair of the Governance & Audit Committee and asked for Members’ views. Members noted that while the letter covered a wide range of issues, there was a particular point about the scrutiny of risk management within the SOPs which could begin with looking at organisational planning proposals as a starting point. Members were in agreement with this approach. Cllr Davies noted that he was the Committee’s representative on the RLDP Scrutiny Committee, and asked that Members come to him if they had any questions or issues to raise in that forum. RESOLVED: That the Committee: i. Note the correspondence update arising from recent scrutiny meetings; ii. Sign off any updates to the work programme (Appendix A); iii. Note the updates to Task & Finish Group activities (including Appendix B); iv. Consider and agree any way forward arising from the letter from the Chair of the Governance & Audit Committee (Appendix C); v. Note (and consider) links to relevant papers from other Council Committees; vi. Note (and consider) links to recent Inspection Reports.
There were none.
Monday 24th February at 5pm. The Chair noted that this was the Budget Meeting, where they would consider the 2025/26 budget proposals and Corporate Plan.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.