Loading
The Committee scrutinised the draft school admissions policy for 2027/28 before Cabinet considers it on 19 March, and Cardiff's bid to renew its UNICEF Child-Friendly City status. On both, it agreed that the Chair should write to the Cabinet Member with its comments. It also agreed to use the April slot differently during the pre-election period, and to pause the ALN Task and Finish group to look at young people who are not in employment, education or training.
Apologies were received from Cllr Melbourne and Patricia Arlotte (Roman Catholic representative).
The Chair reminded Members of their responsibility under Part III of the Members’ Code of Conduct to declare any interest in general terms and to complete personal interest forms at the start of the meeting and then, prior to the commencement of the discussion of the item in question, specify whether it is a personal or prejudicial interest. If the interest is prejudicial, Members would be asked to leave the meeting and if the interest is personal, Members would be invited to stay, speak and vote. The following declarations of interest were received in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct: Name Agenda item Nature of Interest Reason for Interest Cllr Hopkins 4 Personal Governor at Lakeside Primary School Cllr Humphreys 4 Personal Governor at St Francis RC Primary School Cllr Reid-Jones 4 Personal Governor at Thornhill Primary School Carol Cobert 4 Personal Governor at Bishop of Llandaff Church in Wales High School Bridgid Corr 4 Personal Governor at Llanederyn Primary School Elisabeth Hagen 4 Personal Governor at Rhydypenau Primary School
The minutes of the Budget meeting held on 23rd February were approved by the Committee as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
This agenda item provided Members with the opportunity to undertake a pre-decision scrutiny including the annual consultation process used and changes made to the Admissions Policy for 2027/28 (Appendix 1), prior to its consideration by Cabinet at its meeting on 19th March. The Chair welcomed: Cllr Sarah Merry Cabinet Member for Education Melanie Godfrey Director of Education & Lifelong Learning Richard Portas Programme Director, School Organisation Programme Brett Andrewartha Planning Manager, School Organisation Programme The Cabinet Member introduced the item, noting that it was an annual report which would come into effect the following year rather than in September 2026. Officers added that like last year there were some minor amendments, in particular picking up issues raised around primary catchment arrangements in St Mellons. They had received four responses, two formal and two informal, including from the headteacher of St Illtyd’s and the vice chair at Mount Stuart primary, with responses included. The Chair opened the floor to questions from the Committee. Members noted the variety and scale of housing developments across the city and asked how catchment areas took this into account and enabled futureproofing. Officers agreed with the need to ensure alignment, acknowledging that some schools had very small catchment areas. Members asked when catchments were last assessed, and heard that the last formal consultation for Welsh medium was in 2020 and English medium in 2017. Officers added that the falling birth rate was affecting primary admissions and would affect secondaries in time too, with the current peak intake period projected to be followed by a 5% drop in a few years. Members acknowledged the shifting situation and the challenges of planning eighteen months or more ahead, and asked when the next formal catchment review was likely to be undertaken. Officers responded that this was unlikely to happen within the next twelve months, citing capacity challenges and the focus on delivering ALN provision. Any sort of city-wide change would be disruptive, and it was important to time major pieces of work well so that it didn’t need reassessing soon after. Members asked that officers provide further detail when possible regarding timescales for the next catchment review and associated consultation. Members asked about the impact of inward migration on school demand and heard that this was considered to be a relatively minor factor, with around 700 to 800 new houses being needed for an additional form of entry at primary school. While inward migration could be more acute in localised areas near major developments, an annual housing monitoring report was published as part of the LDP process, and requests were made for financial obligations when there was a clear need due to the impact on school provision. Changes in housing from older people’s accommodation to family accommodation was also not deemed to have a major impact. Members queried specific examples of oversubscribed schools and the concerns they had heard from parents about this. Officers reiterated that it was a peak intake year for secondary provision, with a fall in numbers in primaries which would carry on through to secondary. Demand within catchment had not changed dramatically in recent years, but they suspected shifts in parental preference and were analysing the data accordingly. Members asked how changes to admission numbers were determined, and heard that when the capacity of a school exceeded enrolment for several years, a reduced admission number could be applied in agreement with the school. This had been the case at both Ninian Park Primary and Fairwater Primary. and allowed them to reutilise some of their accommodation, for instance for ALN needs. Members asked whether any oversubscribed secondary schools had seen a decrease in their admission number and heard that this had not been the case, although in the past there may have been temporary increases which ceased after a period of time. Members sought clarity on the definition of compelling medical or social grounds and who exactly was qualified to provide evidence of them. Officers explained that they had amended the way they defined this a few years ago, effectively making it more of a tick-box assessment, and they had the discretion to consider letters from senior medical professionals. Cardiff was one of very few local authorities that retained specific criteria relating to medical and social grounds. Members asked whether the admissions team had a medically trained member of staff, and heard that this was not considered to be necessary. Members discussed the impact of compelling medical or social reasons on early years funding, and heard that it was very rare to be provided on those grounds, with early years funding sometimes provided when there was no provision within two miles. Compelling medical or social grounds could be supported by a written recommendation from a social worker or medical consultant no more than three months prior. In cases where the council didn’t have sufficient information to judge the reasons (i.e. why that specific school was the appropriate one and the others weren’t) then they would go back to get that information. Members queried why data collected throughout the year by School Appeals clerks was not addressed in the draft policy, and heard that under GDPR rules legal officers were not permitted to share individual grounds on which appellants were successful or unsuccessful. Members asked how the community representatives on the Cardiff Admissions Forum were selected, and heard that they were representatives of school sectors rather than specific communities. They sought a balance of views from across the city, both English and Welsh medium, and would write out soon to seek more parent governor representatives. Members explored the wider consultation process and heard that four responses was relatively high for a consultation of this type, compared to neighbouring authorities. Arrangements were sent out to consultees with a cover letter, as well as to local councillors and publicised online. Different types of changes, such as catchment area reviews, would require a different type of consultation with more direct engagement with parents and children. Members queried a reference to ‘appropriate consultation’ regarding inequalities arising from socioeconomic disadvantage, which officers clarified was part of the same consultation. 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 Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
This agenda item provided Members with an update on progress to date in advancing Cardiff’s reaccreditation as a UNICEF Child-Friendly City. Joining Cllr Merry and Melanie Godfrey, the Chair welcomed: Lee Patterson Child Friendly City Programme Coordinator The Cabinet Member introduced the item, explaining that it had been a proud moment for Cardiff to become the first child-friendly city recognised by UNICEF, and now the formal re-accreditation process had to be undertaken. Officers gave a presentation providing further detail, noting that UNICEF would visit Cardiff on April 8th, before an independent panel of experts convened at the end of April to consider recommendations and make their assessment. The outcome would be shared with senior leaders in late May or early June. They emphasised that it was an independent assessment of how well Cardiff was embedding children’s rights and putting their voice at the heart of local government decision making. If successful, they would be the UK’s first re-accredited city. Officers added that they had produced extensive papers for submission to UNICEF, including an evaluation report, case studies showing the impact across council services, and feedback from children and young people. The sustainability plan for 2026-29 also set out how they would further embed children’s rights in policy and practice. It was based on four main priorities: rights education; participation; place; and equal and included. In particular they highlighted that the number of Rights Respecting Schools had hugely increased, now covering 82% of all schools, with 34 of 127 considered gold standard, 31 silver and 40 bronze. Officers added that understanding the lived experience of young people and addressing gaps they identified was central to their work. Participation was increasingly understood as a shared corporate responsibility, and there were clearer expectations around inclusive engagement and feedback to CYP, as well as more informed decision-making and prioritisation, improved responses to disparities, workforce development and system change. The Chair opened the floor to questions from the Committee. Members noted the focus on engagement with schools and asked how children and young people who weren’t in school could be reached. Officers explained that while schools were the main conduit, they were not the sole focus, and the voices and experiences of those who had left mainstream education or chosen not to go there (for instance due to caring responsibilities) were equally important. It could be challenging to engage with as wide a group as possible, and Hubs and youth workers played a key role in this. Members asked whether the service engaged with refugees, asylum seekers and faith groups, and heard that it did. Partners such as Oasis and the Schools of Sanctuary award were key, and there were opportunities to work more closely with faith-based organisations, as well as other groups like the Cadets. Members emphasised the importance of place, and asked how community safety and antisocial behaviour could feed into the approach taken to planning matters and the Local Development Plan (LDP). Officers suggested that while the specific question was one for Planning to answer, as a coordinating central team they sought to empower every department and service to consider children and young people’s voices. Technical guidance relating to play in development was typically packaged together with sport, but clearer guidance for developers would be useful. Officers also added that nearly 2,000 children had contributed to the latest LDP. Members were in agreement that senior planning officers be invited to attend a future committee meeting to discuss the matters raised. Members welcomed the expansion in Rights Respecting Schools and asked when the 2023 baseline data would be updated. Officers clarified that the current position reported was fully up to date, with 82% of schools involved, and the comparison with the previous accreditation baseline in 2023 demonstrated their progress. Uptake across primary schools in particular had been significant, but there was no specific target attached as it wouldn’t always be possible for every school. Members also welcomed alignment with the School of Sanctuary award as part of the wider work towards inclusion. Members asked which themes had come out strongly in the consultation process, and heard that play opportunities were a key example. As a city Cardiff had a relatively good amount of blue and green infrastructure, but children didn’t always feel safe in poorly lit public spaces, or if they lacked a local youth centre, or if they were moved on from where they wanted to be. The service sought to develop a clear vision and engage more with young people’s needs, making it clear that they had a right to play and gather while acknowledging other considerations and possible tensions. Members suggested using research data from the school health network to measure the impact of this work, for instance by identifying changes in the way students perceived their voice, wellbeing and belonging. Officers noted that this system provided useful biannual data, with several thousand young people involved, including from primary schools. It could be a useful part of setting KPIs, and although it was nationally directed so they did not get to choose the questions asked, asking consistent questions over time provided a valuable insight into the trends at play. Members noted the need to feed back to children about the impact of their contributions on policies and services, and asked how this would be strengthened going forward. Officers acknowledged that this was an ongoing challenge, as the way young people wanted to receive information was constantly changing, and differed for each person. They sought to build a variety of ways of communicating into their systems, taking into account that children were not a homogenous group, and not all of them went to school. Members asked whether the evidence provided to UNICEF would be able to demonstrate what had changed as a result of their work over the last three years, with a clear line of sight for young people to see how their voices had directly influenced policy. Officers saw this as the key question, and suggested that they were in the best position in Wales to achieve what they were setting out to do, with real political backing. Ensuring meaningful and sustainable impact by embedding the principles and frameworks was key, while consistently feeding back to young people about co-designing and co-production. The Cabinet Member added that in her view, the impact would be seen most clearly when the young people were adults and were getting involved in shaping their communities. Members discussed targets within the sustainability plan and the challenges of ensuring continuous success. Officers noted that their Rights Respecting Schools work had seen more positive uptake by primaries than by secondaries, so a RRS summit was planned in June to reflect on any issues there. The centrally funded London model was key, and the council was trying to wean itself off UNICEF and the costs associated with working with an NGO of that size. Internal assessor training was being undertaken within Cardiff at the moment, so individuals could go into schools for 18 months and give them confidence to embed the approach. Members cautioned that moving away from UNICEF could have an impact on prestige, and asked for clarification about what assessments would be done internally if this was the case. 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 any amendments to the draft work programme be agreed, including the impact of the pre-election period on committee business; and that the updates from the Task & Finish groups be noted.
The Committee was asked to agree an updated Work Programme for the remainder of the 2025/26 municipal year, a way forward for the consideration of scrutiny items during the pre-election period commencing later this month, and a proposal by the Chair on Task & Finish activities in the coming months. The Principal Scrutiny Officer noted that the April meeting was in the pre-election period, so the time might be better used for either a briefing or a committee visit linked to an area of interest such as school organisation planning. Members agreed to seek alternative uses for the 14th April slot. The Principal Scrutiny Officer added that the Committee was due to receive reports on ALN in both May and July, and suggested putting the ALN Task & Finish group on hold while they awaited that information. Members agreed that in the interim, the group would undertake a deep dive into young people who were not in employment, education or training (NEET). RESOLVED: That any amendments to the draft work programme be agreed, including the impact of the pre-election period on committee business; and that the updates from the Task & Finish groups be noted.
There were no urgent items.
The next meeting was scheduled for 14th April, but this was likely to be replaced by a committee visit following confirmation with Members. The next meeting after that was scheduled for 5th May.
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.
Cllr Hopkins: Personal interest on School Admissions Policy 2027/28
Governor at Lakeside Primary School
Cllr Humphreys: Personal interest on School Admissions Policy 2027/28
Governor at St Francis RC Primary School
Cllr Reid-Jones: Personal interest on School Admissions Policy 2027/28
Governor at Thornhill Primary School
Carol Cobert: Personal interest on School Admissions Policy 2027/28
Governor at Bishop of Llandaff Church in Wales High School
Bridgid Corr: Personal interest on School Admissions Policy 2027/28
Governor at Llanederyn Primary School
Elisabeth Hagen: Personal interest on School Admissions Policy 2027/28
Governor at Rhydypenau Primary School
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.