Cabinet Minutes 4th June 2007

CABINET

Meeting held 4th June, 2007

PRESENT:		Councillors Jan Wilson (Chair), Harry Harpham, Mary Lea, Bryan Lodge, Tim Rippon, Mick Rooney and Chris Weldon.

…………….

1.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
	An apology for absence was received from Councillor Steve Jones.

2.	DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
	There were no declarations of interest reported at this meeting.

3.	PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
	Petitions
	There were no petitions from members of the public on issues to be considered at this meeting.

	Public Questions concerning proposals to replace Myers Grove and Wisewood Secondary Schools
	With reference to issue 23 set out in the report to be considered, Penny Watkin asserted that it was not possible to predict parental preference until such time as a possible new school was provided and she questioned why consultation on catchment areas was being carried out when it would be better to wait and see where parental preference was going.
	Janet Grant expressed her appreciation at the way officers had carried out the consultations and asked the Cabinet to support option 1 to retain the current pattern of catchment areas in recognition of the fact that, whilst the Bradfield catchment area was vast, it was the nearest feeder school for many residents.
	Nigel Wright, as Secretary of the Wisewood Parent Teachers’ Association and Friends of Wisewood School, pointed out the extent of cynicism and disillusionment still felt by many residents and stated that, whilst residents would be pleased to hear about the proposed review, they would need absolute assurances that the members of the Review Panel were truly impartial and that the option of keeping open Wisewood and Myers Grove would be seriously considered. As he would be reporting back the Cabinet’s decision to a meeting that evening, he asked if a decision on the Review Panel membership could be deferred.
	In response to Mr. Wright’s concerns, the Chief Executive commented on the credentials of the Panel members and confirmed that they had no pre-formed views and had not been involved in the reorganisation proposals. The terms of reference enabled the Panel to look at all options in forming a view on the best way forward for the communities and the City. The Panel would be advisory and its report would be made public and submitted to Council in September for a decision. He stressed that a formal resolution was required by the Cabinet at this meeting for referral to the Council meeting on 6th June, 2007. He undertook to provide Mr Wright with additional details of the Panel members and to meet with him to discuss any other issues of concern arising from his meeting that evening.
	Councillor Harry Harpham, the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, sought to allay people’s fears that the Council had formed pre-conceived views and referred to changes that might be implemented, subject to the Panel’s report. He stated that he was impressed by the level of responses to the consultation and sympathised with many of the views expressed. In relation to the independent review, he declared that he did not know any of the Panel members and reiterated the desire to ensure that the proposals would provide the best educational opportunities for the communities and for the City as a whole.

4.	OUTCOME OF FURTHER CONSULTATION RELATING TO THE REPLACEMENT OF MYERS GROVE AND WISEWOOD SECONDARY SCHOOLS
	With reference to a report considered by the Cabinet on 28th February, 2007 detailing the outcome of an extensive consultation on a proposal to replace Myers Grove and Wisewood Secondary Schools with a new school, the Executive Director, Children and Young People submitted a further report summarising the rationale for the proposed reorganisation, attaching, as Appendix B, a copy of the original report, and highlighting two key issues that were raised during the processes which had been followed up with further consultation on alternative solutions. He stated that the first issue was an alternative approach to the provision of 14-19 education put forward by the Governing Bodies of both Wisewood and Myers Grove schools. The second issue related to catchment areas, which many respondents in the consultation felt could be altered to provide a more appropriate pattern of admissions priorities.
	In order to explore those issues further, the Executive Director had undertaken further consultation on the alternative option of creating an 11-19 school and on three options related to catchment areas. It was stressed that the further consultation would concentrate on the specific issues in question, rather than further consultation on the original reorganisation proposal. He commented on the outcome of the further consultation, as detailed in the report, and put forward recommendations. He also pointed out that the wording of paragraph 5.53 of the report should state “options 2 or 3” and not “options 1 or 2” and that this had been corrected in the report published on the Council’s website.
	He emphasized that it was still his view that the most appropriate course of action would be to proceed with the publication of statutory notices and the proposals for closure and replacement of the two schools. However, it had been suggested that, in order to ensure that there was full confidence in the process that the Council had undertaken with respect to the proposal to replace Myers Grove and Wisewood Schools, an independent review of the process should be commissioned. The Chief Executive circulated a letter to the Leader of the Council summarising the context for such a review and containing proposals on the terms of reference for the review and membership of the Review Panel.
	The Executive Director, Children and Young People, also reported on a development concerning the competition process since the report to Cabinet on 28th February, 2007 in that an opportunity had arisen to explore seeking an exemption to the competition process and the report explained the context for this and the change it would make to the process for deciding who would provide the new school. He stated that the Secretary of State could give consent for the Local Authority to publish proposals for a new Community School or for consent for governors or parents to publish proposals for a Foundation School instead of a competition process.
	RESOLVED: That (a) the issues raised in the consultation and suggestions for the new school to cater for pupils between the ages of 11- 19 be noted and, accordingly, a change to the original specification for the new school be approved:
	(b) the Executive Director’s recommendation, after taking account of the responses in the consultation process, to retain the status quo in relation to potential catchment changes by adopting Option 1 set out in the report now submitted to retain the current pattern of catchment boundaries be approved;
	(c) authority be given for the Executive Director, Children and Young People, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and the Assistant Chief Executive, Legal and Governance, to seek consent from the Secretary of State for permission to publish proposals for a new Community School, or, were that to be unacceptable to the Department for Education and Skills, for consent to be sought for a Foundation School preferably led by a group representative of the local community (e.g. governors/parents);
	(d) it be noted that there has been consultation on proposals to replace the two community schools at Wisewood and Myers Grove, in accordance with statutory requirements and guidance, and that the proposals have resulted in a strong response, particularly in relation to the proposed closure of Wisewood School;
	(e) to ensure that there is full confidence in the process the Council has undertaken, the Chief Executive be requested to arrange for the establishment of an Independent Panel to review the following questions: - 1. What plan provides the best way forward for secondary education in the Myers Grove and Wisewood Communities? 2. What plan provides the best way forward for the City?
	(f) the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, be given delegated authority to establish an Independent Review on the basis of the details now circulated, with a report back in September 2007.

	(NOTE: 1. This item is referred for consideration by the City Council and cannot therefore be called-in for scrutiny; and
	2. The report is circulated to all Council Members with the Council Summons.)

How useful is this page?

[ Comment On This Page? ]

Browsealoud |