Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
Apologies for absence were received from Committee Members, County Councillors; A Davies and G Ratcliffe. Cabinet Members, County Councillors; R Devlin, D Thomas and R Church Officers J Chappelle, N Owen and G Davies
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
The Committee reviewed the minutes of the previous meetings and confirmed their accuracy; however, Members revisited a longstanding query regarding the impact of the revised school funding formula on small primary schools. A Member reiterated that this question had been raised several times previously without a clear response and highlighted an indicative reduction of approximately £60,000 for a 55‑pupil school. The Portfolio Holder explained that the formula was highly complex, school‑specific and could not be summarised through a single example in public session. Following extended discussion, the Chair proposed that a formal written request be submitted and that detailed figures be circulated to the Committee prior to the next meeting. The Committee additionally requested that performance‑related appendices previously submitted to Cabinet be shared to ensure complete records. Officers agreed to circulate the requested documents. With these actions noted, the Chair asked the Committee whether the minutes were a correct record, members indicated agreement, and the Chair confirmed approval on the basis of general consent. The minutes of 15 January and 13 February were approved.
Background The Council had been reviewing post‑16 education due to long‑standing concerns about declining standards, falling learner numbers, and the limited sustainability of small sixth forms. Performance at Key Stage 5 had not met expectations, and learners across the county experienced inconsistencies in subject choice, access to vocational pathways, and availability of Welsh‑medium and ALN provision. Learner feedback showed that teaching quality, breadth of offer, transport, and perceptions of greater independence in out‑of‑county colleges significantly influenced post‑16 decisions, contributing to notable outward movement at age 16. Special schools had been involved in shaping the developing model, with work under way to expand ALN pathways and strengthen specialist provision. Work had been organised into three strands: immediate improvement of current sixth‑form standards; alignment of vocational routes with economic needs; and development of long‑term structural options, recognising that the existing configuration of eleven sixth forms was unlikely to remain viable. Efforts to enhance Welsh‑medium provision and expand hybrid learning models were also in progress. Gaps in learner‑movement data, especially regarding those studying in England, highlighted the need for improved tracking systems. The Council was also developing a broader communication strategy to ensure communities, stakeholders and partners were fully involved in the next phases of transformation. Overall, the background demonstrated that significant reform was necessary to create a fair, coherent and financially sustainable post‑16 system capable of meeting learners’ needs and supporting future economic growth. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Inclusion of Special Schools & ALN • Members questioned why special schools had not been more clearly included in the Post‑16 review process. • Members asked how the needs, progression and outcomes of ALN learners across both mainstream and special schools had been addressed. • Members sought clarity on what ALN‑related data would be provided to inform future planning. The Officer explained that special schools had been included in the review through their participation in the Headteacher Working Group, and that ALN learners had also been consulted directly within their own settings. The Officer stated that ALN pathways had been recognised as an area requiring further strengthening and confirmed that work had already begun to expand provision, including relocating the Reed Centre to the Penmaes site to increase capacity and preparing additional short‑term partnership arrangements with another provider to widen opportunities. The Officer acknowledged that the report had not reflected this involvement clearly enough and confirmed that the language would be strengthened in future papers. Engagement & Governance • Members queried why governors and wider Council membership had not featured consistently in engagement activity. • Committee asked how future engagement would include governors, town and community councils, employers and voluntary organisations. • Members raised concerns about community confidence and asked how the authority would demonstrate that community feedback had shaped the work. The Officer confirmed that governors had been consulted in the earlier phase of engagement but that the subsequent phase had focused primarily on learners and school communities. The Officer reported that a Governor Working Group would be established to ensure full involvement going forward. In response to Committee concerns about wider community engagement, the Officer stated that a new communications strategy for the service was being developed, which would expand direct communication channels and ensure that future engagement would reach town councils, local businesses and voluntary organisations. The Officer accepted that community confidence needed rebuilding and stated that a more transparent approach to demonstrating how feedback had shaped the work would be adopted. Standards, Outcomes & Attainment • Committee questioned the reasons for declining Key Stage 5 standards and asked what steps had been taken to secure improvement. • Members asked when measurable improvements were expected and how Scrutiny would receive regular, transparent updates. • Members queried the limited visibility of value‑added data and asked whether more detailed progress analysis could be shared. The Officer acknowledged that standards at Key Stage 5 had not been at the level expected over recent years and confirmed that a programme of improvement had been initiated. This included enhanced school‑to‑school collaboration, strengthened quality assurance and closer monitoring of target‑setting and progress tracking. The Officer confirmed that performance data, including value‑added analysis, would continue to be used internally to monitor progress, although some datasets such as ALPS could not be published due to licensing constraints. The Officer reported that improvement targets had been included within the authority’s strategic planning framework and that Scrutiny would receive performance updates, including autumn term reports on attainment outcomes. Welsh‑Medium Post‑16 Provision • Members asked what participation and retention targets had been set for Welsh‑medium learners. • Committee queried which subjects were being made available through the medium of Welsh and whether equal access had been secured across the county. • Members questioned how small cohort challenges would be managed and how hybrid or e‑learning options would support Welsh‑medium delivery. In response to questions regarding Welsh‑medium education, the Officer explained that the authority had doubled the Welsh‑medium offer for the forthcoming academic year by developing specific area‑based planning arrangements focused on Welsh‑medium schools and dual‑stream providers. The Officer stated that the small size of Welsh‑medium cohorts required close collaboration across the county and that the authority had planned to make greater use of e‑learning platforms, including hybrid classroom models, to improve access. The Officer added that subject lists were available within the supporting documentation and that long‑term growth in Welsh‑medium pathways would reflect the phased establishment of new Welsh‑medium schools. Targets for retention and participation were acknowledged as areas for further development. Learner Movement, Retention & Out‑of‑County Flow • Members asked for detailed learner movement information at transition points and the impact of such movement on the sustainability of individual sixth forms. • Committee questioned weaknesses in available data, particularly the inability to capture cross‑border movements accurately. • Members asked what factors were influencing learners to choose out‑of‑county provision and how the authority intended to increase local retention. The Officer confirmed that learner movement was tracked through roll data but acknowledged that current national datasets did not capture the movement of Powys learners into English institutions. The Officer explained that this limitation created gaps in historical data but stated that a new county‑wide approach was being developed to record destinations more accurately from the current year onwards. The Officer also reported that the ORS study had provided detailed insight into the reasons why learners chose out‑of‑county providers, including perceptions of quality, travel, reputation and links to higher education, and that these findings would inform future planning. Curriculum, Pathways & Economic Alignment • Committee questioned what formal mechanisms had been put in place to secure strong collaboration between education and economic development. • Members asked how the success of this partnership would be measured, particularly regarding local skills needs and learner destinations. • Members raised concerns that the approach risked focusing too heavily on the current labour market rather than future and emerging sectors. • Members queried the extent of engagement with higher‑education providers in both Wales and England. The Officer stated that colleagues from Economic Development had been made full participants in the Post‑16 Project Board and that the authority intended to formalise this arrangement further through the establishment of a Future Pathways Board. The Officer reported that vocational mapping work had been undertaken to ensure alignment between educational pathways and economic needs, and that collaboration with regional partners had been strengthened, including work with neighbouring local authorities and the Regional Skills Partnership. The Officer confirmed that both immediate and future labour‑market needs had been considered, emphasising the inclusion of digital and emerging sectors within planning discussions. Online, Digital & Hybrid Learning • Members questioned why learners had expressed dissatisfaction with current online provision and what improvements had been planned. • Committee asked whether a county‑wide aligned timetable had been explored to support remote access across all secondary schools. • Members asked whether additional on‑site support would be available for learners participating in hybrid or remote learning. The Officer acknowledged that learner feedback had identified current online delivery as less engaging than in‑person provision. As a result, the Officer reported that a capital bid had been submitted to improve the digital infrastructure required for hybrid teaching, with the aim of creating immersive classroom environments that would better replicate face‑to‑face teaching. The Officer stated that professional learning for staff would be strengthened to improve the quality of online pedagogy. Regarding timetable alignment, the Officer confirmed that this had been explored but explained that staffing patterns, curriculum structures and costs made full synchronisation across all secondary schools extremely challenging, although ongoing work continued in this area. Financial Sustainability & Structural Reform • Members questioned whether the current pattern of secondary schools and sixth forms was financially viable in the medium term. • Committee asked whether the five‑area model could be sustained and whether some degree of rationalisation was likely. • Members sought clarity on when the authority expected to reach a conclusion on a long‑term, sustainable Post‑16 model. The Officer acknowledged the financial pressures created by declining cohort sizes and stated that the five‑area model had been designed to strengthen current provision but was unlikely to remain sustainable in the longer term without some degree of structural change. The Officer stated that a future review of sixth‑form configuration would be required after the next election cycle, with new models to be brought forward for consultation. The Cabinet Member commented that the number of secondary schools in the county exceeded what would be created if designing a system from scratch and that rationalisation was likely to be necessary over time. Resourcing & Capacity • Members asked whether officer capacity was sufficient to deliver the full Post‑16 transformation programme, particularly in light of staffing changes. • Committee queried how school improvement and school‑to‑school support capacity would be strengthened to ensure delivery of the programme. The Officer confirmed that the scale of the Post‑16 transformation programme required appropriate staffing and acknowledged that additional capacity would be needed following the departure of key personnel. The Officer stated that a review of staffing arrangements was underway to ensure that the programme could be delivered effectively. The Officer also reported that school improvement capacity was being strengthened through an increased focus on school‑to‑school collaboration, supported by local authority facilitation rather than direct intervention.
Scrutiny made the following observations: The Committee endorsed that: • The service had undertaken substantial work to strengthen the existing post16 system through more collaborative area-based curriculum planning and improved pathways. • A whole system improvement approach was required, recognising the link between Early Years, Key Stages 2–5, and post16 outcomes. • Stronger collaboration with Economic Development and other partners had been established to shape future pathways and align post‑16 provision with skills needs. • Learner voice insights had been effectively gathered and were being used to inform next steps. • A long-term post16 model needed to be developed, with the expectation that rationalisation of provision would be required. The Committee welcomed that: • Special schools and ALN learners had been included in engagement, with additional capacity and new collaborative pathways being created. • The Welsh medium post16 offer had been expanded, including more subjects and plans for enhanced hybrid classroom technology. • Collaborative school to school improvement activity had increased, including shared quality assurance activity and strengthened links with subject specialists. • Work had begun to improve online and hybrid learning following clear learner feedback on the need for better digital provision. • A wider communications and engagement strategy was being developed to rebuild confidence and involve communities more effectively. The Committee requested that: • The role of special schools and ALN provision be made more explicit in all future reports and decision-making papers. • Governors be more formally re‑engaged through a dedicated working group to ensure broad representation. • More granular data be provided, including value added information, learner movement analysis, and deeper understanding of out of county retention factors. • Online and hybrid learning opportunities be further investigated, with clear actions included in the programme timeline, including exploration of a more aligned timetable across settings. • Labour market analysis be broadened to include future skills needs and wider regional economic intelligence. • Clear targets be set for Welsh medium participation and retention, with reporting to scrutiny. • Resourcing for post‑16 transformation be reviewed to ensure sufficient officer capacity. The Committee remained unconvinced of: • The long-term sustainability of the current five area model across eleven sixth forms, given financial and demographic pressures. • The accuracy and completeness of retention and cross border movement data, noting historical gaps. • The effectiveness of current online learning arrangements, following learner feedback highlighting weaknesses. • Whether current collaboration with Economic Development sufficiently reflected future focused rather than present focused skills planning. The Committee expressed concern of: • The ongoing decline in post‑16 standards and the need for timely, measurable improvement with regular reporting to scrutiny. • The risk that maintaining the current dispersed sixth form model could continue to limit learner choice, breadth, and quality of provision. • The sustainability of Welsh medium post16 pathways without stronger collaboration and clearer progression routes from earlier phases. • The need to improve clarity and consistency in communication with communities, particularly in light of feedback received during earlier consultation stages. • Whether the transformation programme had been adequately resourced, particularly in light of staff changes and the scale of work required. Scrutiny’s Recommendation Accept (plus Action and timescale) Partially Accept (plus Rationale and Action and timescale) Reject (plus Rationale) 1 That ALN provision within Post‑16 pathways be strengthened. Accept. Special School Headteachers will continue to be part of the Headteachers Working Group. Special School Governors will form part of the Governor Working Group. Action: ALN pathways in mainstream settings will be strengthened through rationalisation of duplicated L3 subjects Timescale: • September 2027 curriculum offer • September 2029-30 future delivery model 2 That more granular Post‑16 performance data, including expanded ALPS analysis, be developed and used to provide deeper insight into learner outcomes and progression patterns. The sharing of unverified ALPS data is reliant on the agreement of all headteachers. The use of this data for granular analysis requires care as results don’t consider the collaborative nature of delivery within Powys i.e. that individual learners access courses across a range of providers. However, officers are currently investigating alternative ways of collecting performance data which could be used to report more accurately. Action: Continue to develop an approach to data tracking and reporting which considers delivery settings and medium of delivery to allow from more accurate reporting. Timescale: September 2026 onwards 3 That the feasibility of implementing a county‑wide aligned Post‑16 timetable be fully explored to increase learner access to courses across Powys schools. Whilst the Council’s Powys Chweched Sixth collaborative model provides the umbrella approach for the whole county, curriculum planning is now being undertaken with smaller groups of school, which enables improved timetable alignment and operational arrangements. However, schools are under financial pressures, and any timetable changes must consider the impact on learners, staffing and budgets. Any change in the school day which results in a change to the start/end time must also be consulted on. Action: Headteachers to continue to explore how timetable inefficiencies can be reduced to improve learner experience. Timescale: September 2026 4 That labour‑market analysis be broadened to incorporate wider regional, national and emerging economic intelligence, ensuring future pathways reflect both current and future employment needs. The Regional Skills Partnership has already commissioned labour-market analysis that incorporates wider regional, national and emerging economic intelligence. This has informed the newly launched Economic Development Priorities which are currently being consulted upon. This information will inform the development of a future post-16 delivery model. 5 That sections 7.2 and 7.4 of the main report be explicitly referenced within the final recommendations to strengthen clarity and alignment with the action plan. Accept. This will be noted verbally at the Council meeting. 6 That immediate challenges identified within Workstream 1 be addressed urgently so that improvements to standards and learner experience could be delivered without delay. Accept. Action: Ensure that the Learning Improvement Team have specific targets in its Delivery Plan regarding post-16 teaching and learning. Timescale: March 2026 onwards 7 That measurable Welsh medium Post16 participation and retention targets be developed to support improved take up and continuity for Welsh medium learners. To accurately measure retention, participation data pre-16 needs to be improved. Action: Continue to develop an approach to data tracking and reporting which considers delivery settings and medium of delivery to allow from more accurate reporting. Timescale: March 2026 onwards 8 That the quality of online and hybrid learning delivery be improved so that digital and blended options could effectively support wider subject access and learner engagement. Accept Action: E-sgol professional learning offered to all sixth forms in the summer term. Learning and Improvement Team to work with post-16 practitioners to improve online delivery. Timescale: March onwards 9 That the Future Pathways Board be formalised to ensure structured collaboration between Schools Service and Economic Development. Agree. New Future Pathways Board to be established May 2026. 10 That community engagement be significantly increased so that town councils, businesses, voluntary groups and the wider public were more directly involved in shaping the Post‑16 model. Agree. Further engagement to be carried out. 11 That a long‑term 10‑year sustainability model for Post‑16 provision be developed to address the financial and viability challenges of the existing sixth‑form structure. Agree. The timescale noted within the Cabinet report provides a framework for delivering a new model.
Background: The Council had been working to address a wide range of safety risks across school sites. Safeguarding considerations—particularly relating to rights of way, vehicle access, pupil movement, public entrances, parking arrangements and bus drop‑off points—had been incorporated into the design stages of all new school buildings to prevent known issues from being replicated. A programme of reviews had previously identified more than one hundred safeguarding issues across the school estate. As work progressed, around half of schools had become fully compliant, while the remainder continued to operate safely through updated risk assessments. Several schools still had multiple live safeguarding jobs, with a small proportion assessed as higher‑risk and requiring priority action. Funding specifically allocated to site safeguarding formed part of the wider capital improvements programme. However, adverse weather and ground conditions earlier in the year caused delays, resulting in lower‑than‑anticipated in‑year expenditure. To support timely delivery, officers held regular programme meetings, re‑balanced workloads, and prioritised projects according to the established Schools Asset Management criteria. Strengthening school‑level safety processes formed another major part of the background. Annual building‑safety and fire‑risk assessments had been introduced, delivered by specialist officers, with plans to share those assessments more systematically with governing bodies and, where appropriate, with Scrutiny and Cabinet. Training had also been provided for school leaders on risk‑assessment practice, asbestos management and site‑safety responsibilities, although participation levels had not always met expectations. The Council emphasised that, while support was offered, the responsibility for completing high‑quality risk assessments ultimately lay with individual schools, and escalation procedures were in place where compliance fell short. Most safeguarding and condition‑related work had been undertaken by external contractors, supported by contractual protections such as warranties, defects‑liability periods and delay‑damage provisions. Where schools had failed to carry out necessary health‑and‑safety work themselves, the authority retained the power to commission the work and recover costs directly from school budgets. Points raised by the Panel: Responses received from Officers or Cabinet Members. Safeguarding in New School Planning & Design • Members asked what assurance the authority could provide that safeguarding risks relating to rights of way, vehicle access and pupil movement had been fully identified and mitigated during the planning and design stages of new school builds. • Members sought clarity on how issues such as public access to entrances, car‑parking layouts and bus pick‑up/drop‑off points had been assessed to prevent safeguarding problems being inadvertently built into new school sites. The service explained that safeguarding considerations had been placed at the forefront of all new school build designs. It was stated that matters such as rights of way, vehicle movements, pedestrian access, public entry points, parking layouts and transport arrangements were incorporated into the early design stages rather than addressed retrospectively. The officers acknowledged that this had not always been the case in the past but confirmed that improved processes had since been implemented. These improvements ensured that design teams now worked more closely with those responsible for maintaining and operating the buildings, enabling safeguarding risks to be identified and mitigated before any design was finalised. The service emphasised that safeguarding had become an integral requirement for all future school design projects. Compliance Status, Outstanding Jobs & Risk Distribution • Members requested information on how many schools were currently fully compliant, partially compliant or non‑compliant with outstanding site‑safeguarding requirements. • Members asked what proportion of outstanding safeguarding jobs were concentrated within particular schools. • Members requested a detailed breakdown of the remaining safeguarding tasks, including how they were geographically distributed and the risk rating attached to each outstanding item. The service clarified that the 112 site‑safeguarding jobs formed part of a rolling programme and had not appeared all at once. Where work had already been completed, those particular safeguarding concerns had been fully resolved. Officers stated that new issues could continue to emerge due to the nature of school sites, meaning ongoing activity was always required. They reported that as of the latest monitoring point, 45 safeguarding jobs remained live across 36 schools, with seven of those schools having more than one outstanding job. The Committee was informed that 51 schools were now considered compliant, while 36 schools remained non‑compliant but had appropriate risk assessments in place to ensure mitigation. The geographical distribution of outstanding work was also explained: 58% in the north, 18% in the mid‑county area and 24% in the south. Officers further noted that most of the outstanding items carried a residual risk rating of six or below, with a minority rated at eight, and only two jobs holding a residual risk rating of twelve or higher. Budget, Financial Queries & Explanation of Variances • Members sought clarity on the reason for the difference between reported safeguarding budgets, querying an apparent financial variance and requesting a breakdown of how figures had been calculated. • Members questioned why only a proportion of the annual safeguarding capital budget had been spent by the reporting date and asked how this compared to the planned expenditure profile. • Members requested information on what actions were being taken to ensure that all programmed safeguarding works were delivered within the financial year. The service confirmed that the figure presented as the safeguarding budget represented only the specific allocation drawn from the wider major improvements programme. This accounted for the difference between the higher total previously quoted for all school infrastructure improvements and the smaller sum assigned solely to safeguarding works. When questioned about the pace of expenditure, officers explained that the proportion of the year’s budget spent by late January aligned with the programme’s scheduling, although progress had been disrupted by significant adverse weather conditions and poor ground conditions earlier in the year. They emphasised that safeguarding works were prioritised according to an established set of criteria within the Schools Asset Management Plan and that project teams met weekly to monitor progress, manage contractor capacity, and ensure resources were redirected where needed to maximise end‑of‑year delivery. Rights of Way, Adjacent Routes & Access‑Related Risks • Members asked why the programme focused on specific rights of way adjacent to school sites, querying why other nearby routes had not been treated with equal priority. • Members sought assurance that each right of way crossing or bordering a school site would be individually reviewed, with appropriate mitigations identified where necessary. The service responded that the rights‑of‑way workstream was specifically designed to provide clear understanding of all routes that passed through or adjacent to school grounds. Officers explained that the initial task involved establishing an accurate register of each right of way and determining its legal status and safeguarding implications. They clarified that while only certain rights of way had been prioritised for immediate action, the intention was to review all routes systematically. Where works were deemed necessary, they would be proposed formally; where risks were minimal, no further action would be taken. Officers stressed that, pending completion of works, all schools with outstanding issues had risk assessments in place, and support had been provided to ensure that these were robust and effective. Delivery Capacity, Programme Risks & Potential Slippage • Members requested clarity on the service’s capacity to deliver all outstanding safeguarding works, including risks that might cause delays or underspend. • Members asked what prioritisation criteria were being applied to ensure that the most urgent or highest‑risk safeguarding issues were addressed first. In response to concerns about delivery capacity, officers explained that the programme had been fully resourced across the property and consultancy teams, with workloads balanced through resource‑smoothing measures to prevent bottlenecks. They confirmed that contractor delays caused by weather and ground conditions had presented the most significant risk, but additional monitoring and re‑profiling had been undertaken to minimise slippage. The service noted that prioritisation continued to be informed by the Major Improvements Prioritisation Criteria, ensuring that schools with the highest levels of safeguarding risk were addressed first. They also undertook to provide further information on financial profiling at a future meeting. Quality Assurance, Governance & School Accountability • Members asked what mechanisms existed to ensure that schools were implementing safeguarding requirements correctly, and that governing bodies were receiving the right level of information and training to hold school leaders to account. • Members requested confirmation on whether audit and inspection reports arising from site‑safety visits would be made available to governing bodies, Scrutiny and Cabinet. • Members sought clarity on the process for escalating concerns where schools did not complete risk assessments to the required standard or within expected timeframes. Officers reported that a new cycle of annual building safety assessments and fire risk assessments had been introduced, meaning every school would now receive two professional safety visits per year. These assessments would be followed by written reports issued to schools, with processes being finalised to ensure governing bodies also received appropriate information to support challenge and oversight. The service further explained that risk assessment training had recently been provided for school leadership teams, and additional training on asbestos management and other statutory responsibilities had been scheduled. Officers emphasised that while the local authority had strengthened its support, the completion and maintenance of risk assessments remained the legal responsibility of each school. They added that the authority was actively developing a process for escalation where schools failed to meet required standards or did not engage adequately with the training and support offered. Charging Schools & Delegated Budget Processes • Members asked for clarification on situations in which schools had been charged for safeguarding works, particularly where voluntary or community support could have reduced costs. • Members requested an explanation of the authority’s decision‑making process when commissioning works and subsequently charging those costs to school budgets. In relation to concerns about schools being charged for certain safeguarding works, officers explained that the authority had acted in line with the scheme governing finance in schools. They clarified that where health and safety works were required and where delegated funding had already been provided to the school for such purposes, but the governing body had not carried out the work, the authority was entitled to undertake the work and recharge the costs to the school budget. This approach was said to be consistent with the legal framework under which all schools operated. Contractor Performance, Delays, Defects & Warranty Use • Members questioned what proportion of safeguarding and condition‑related work was reliant on external contractors, and what contractual tools (such as delay damages or warranties) the authority had to enforce remedial action. • Members asked who was responsible for the cost implications of prolonged delays—such as scaffolding remaining in place for extended periods—and what actions were being taken to ensure defects were resolved within agreed timescales. The service confirmed that the majority of safeguarding and condition‑related jobs—approximately ninety per cent—were carried out by external contractors. Officers explained that different contract types provided different levels of recourse for underperformance, including delay damages where contractors failed to complete work within the agreed period. They also stated that for major projects, warranties and defects‑liability periods were built into the contractual arrangements, giving the authority clear rights to require defects to be remedied at no cost. Smaller remedial projects did not typically include retentions, but contractors were still held accountable through contract management processes. Where delays occurred, responsibility for associated costs depended on the terms of the contract and whether the contractor was at fault. Officers added that specific cases of ongoing defect claims were being actively managed within the authority’s consultancy team.
The Committee endorsed that: • The service had placed safeguarding at the forefront of new school build design, ensuring that issues such as rights of way, public access, traffic flow, parking arrangements and bus drop‑off points were being considered at the earliest stages, with improved cooperation between design teams and building managers to mitigate risk appropriately. • A programme of annual building safety assessments and fire‑risk assessments had been established, ensuring that every school would receive two professional safety visits per year, strengthening the authority’s oversight and compliance processes. • The authority had taken steps to provide professional learning and risk‑assessment training for school leadership teams, recognising its importance in raising standards of safeguarding practice across the school estate. The Committee welcomed that: • A significant portion of previously identified safeguarding concerns had already been resolved, with 51 schools now compliant and all remaining schools having risk assessments in place while outstanding work progressed. • The authority had established a clear understanding of the geographical distribution of outstanding safeguarding jobs, supported by detailed risk ratings that enabled prioritisation of high‑urgency items. • The service had strengthened its internal processes by conducting weekly programme meetings, improving contractor oversight, and applying resource‑smoothing measures to maintain programme resilience despite delays caused by adverse weather and capacity constraints. • The authority had adopted a structured approach to reviewing rights of way through and adjacent to school sites, ensuring each was assessed, clarified and, where necessary, scheduled for mitigation works. The Committee requested that: • Further clarity be provided on the financial profiling of the safeguarding capital programme, including how spend‑to‑date compared with planned expenditure for the remainder of the year. • Consideration be given to how governing bodies could receive clearer access to audit outcomes, including reports linked to building safety and fire‑risk assessments, to strengthen their ability to scrutinise safeguarding matters effectively. • The authority continues to develop and refine its approach to risk‑assessment quality assurance, including the escalation process for schools that failed to complete assessments to the required standard or within required timescales. • More information be provided on the handling of defects and contractor delays, especially in cases where extended scaffolding or prolonged remedial works had implications for cost and site safety. The Committee remained unconvinced of: • The sufficiency of focus on adjacent roads and byways, noting that the emphasis on the 26 identified routes might not fully address safeguarding vulnerabilities related to nearby public access points beyond formal rights of way. • The adequacy of current contractor performance safeguards, expressing uncertainty around whether contractual mechanisms always provided timely redress where work was delayed or fell below required standards. The Committee expressed concern of: • The number of outstanding safeguarding jobs still requiring completion, with 45 jobs live across 36 schools, including several schools carrying multiple unresolved issues, and potential implications for learner safety while works remained in progress. • The potential for slippage, particularly given earlier delays caused by weather and ground conditions, and the ongoing pressures on contractor capacity, which risked delaying the full resolution of safeguarding works. • Instances where schools had been charged for safeguarding works without prior engagement, including concerns about missed opportunities to utilise community support or more cost‑effective solutions. • The inconsistency in school engagement with professional learning, with some schools not taking up essential training, thereby placing greater strain on the authority’s escalation responsibilities and impacting overall safeguarding assurance. Recommendations made to Cabinet that: • Cabinet endorses the introduction of mandatory site‑safeguarding training for headteachers, business managers and site managers. The Committee noted that this programme was intended to improve understanding of legal responsibilities, strengthen consistency in safeguarding practice and achieve a high level of attendance across all school groups. • Cabinet agrees to the creation of an annual safeguarding reporting framework. This would require a formal compliance report to be submitted to Scrutiny each year, setting out audit outcomes, recorded incidents and progress made against all safeguarding actions. • Cabinet ensures safeguarding considerations continued to be fully integrated into the early planning and design stages of new school buildings. This included clear expectations around vehicle access, pedestrian movement, public access points, car‑parking layouts and the management of rights of way. • Cabinet continues to support the completion of all outstanding safeguarding works across the school estate. The Committee emphasised the importance of maintaining oversight of the remaining site‑safeguarding jobs to ensure timely resolution and effective mitigation of risks. • Cabinet endorses continued work to identify, review and assess all rights of way running through or adjacent to school sites. The Committee stressed the need for appropriate follow‑up action where risks were identified, together with clear communication and monitoring arrangements. • Cabinet support strengthened quality‑assurance processes, including annual building safety inspections, fire‑risk assessments and clear escalation procedures for schools that failed to meet required safeguarding standards. The Committee highlighted the importance of maintaining accountability and ensuring that every school complied with the necessary safeguarding expectations.
Noted.
The Committee agreed that the strengthened Work Programme should underpin a more informed, data‑driven and forward‑looking model of scrutiny, enabling Members to monitor improvement, understand emerging risks, and support a more cohesive whole‑system approach to learning and skills.
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.