To receive Report No. 173/2016 from the Cabinet on recommendations referred to the Council for determination and to note the Key Decisions taken at its meetings held on 19 July 2016 and 16 August 2016.

 

(Note: There have been some amendments to Report No. 154/2016 as published for 16 August 2016 Cabinet Meeting.  The recommendations approved by Cabinet for Council approval on 16 August 2016 remain unchanged.  The amended Report can be found at Appendix B to report 173/2016).

Report No. 173/2016 from the Cabinet was received to consider the recommendations of Cabinet referred to Council for determination and report the Key Decisions made by Cabinet since the publication of the agenda for the previous ordinary meeting of the Council on 11 July 2016.

 

1)     Council NOTED the Key Decisions made since the publication of the agenda for the previous ordinary meeting of Council on 11 July 2016.

 

2)     16 August 2016

Decision No. 199

Report No. 155/2016

Corporate Plan including Strategic Aims and Objectives

 

Mr Mathias introduced and moved the recommendations in the report.  Mr King seconded the recommendations.

 

During debate of the recommendations, points raised included:

 

       i.       The Chairman of the Resources Scrutiny Panel expressed his appreciation that the recommendations from the Resources Scrutiny Panel had been incorporated into the Corporate Plan.

 

RESOLVED

 

2.1.        To APPROVE the adoption ofthe Rutland County Council Corporate Plan 2016 to 2017.

2.2.        To APPROVE the preparation of an annual report for Council updating on progress against the plan to include an annual review of the plan.

2.3.        To APPROVE that work on the next Corporate Plan should commence immediately after the election of the new Council in June 2019 to be completed by the end of that calendar year.

 

3)     16 August 2016

Decision No. 200

Report No. 151/2016

Efficiency Plan

 

Mr Mathias introduced and moved the recommendation in the report.  Mr King seconded the recommendation.

 

During debate of the recommendations, points raised included:

 

               i.        The Efficiency Plan gave a positive picture of where savings were being made to deal with pressures at this time.  The Councils Medium Term Financial Plan would be an emerging plan to deal with uncertainty in funding in coming years.

 

 

 

RESOLVED

 

3.1.      To APPROVE the acceptance of the Government’s multi-year settlement offer.

 

4)     16 August 2016

Decision No. 202

Report No. 154/2016

Funding Support for Barleythorpe Primary Free School Bid

 

Members were asked to note that there had been some amendments to Report No. 154/2016 as published for 16 August 2016 Cabinet Meeting.  The amended report under consideration at this meeting started on Page 15 of the agenda pack.

 

Mr Wilby introduced and moved the recommendations in the report.  Mr King seconded the recommendations.

 

 

During debate of the recommendations, points raised included:

 

               i.        It was prudent to begin planning for the predicted increase in demand for Primary School Places in Rutland;

              ii.        Additional capacity for secondary places was also being addressed by the proposal to relocate the Visions Children’s Centre from the Catmose Campus to create space for additional secondary  pupil places;

            iii.        When expressions of interest were sought for the provision of a new Primary school for Oakham, the only firm interest came from The Rutland and District Schools’ Federation (RDSF), two other schools have recently expressed an interest (Lanham and Brooke Hill) but have not put forward any formal proposition;

            iv.        The Catmose site would be the most sensible place to locate the new Primary School in light of planning implications, location and facilities that already exist at this site;

              v.        The School Admission Code provides that schools (Including Academies)  cannot admit on the basis of a County Boundary and therefore there was some concern regarding assurances regarding provision of sufficient places for Rutland children;

            vi.        The Admissions Policy for the proposed Barleythorpe Primary (Free School) included a distance criteria to prioritise requirement for places from children in Rutland.  Children living nearer to the school would be higher up the hierarchy for admissions, as such the admissions criteria would enable them to meet against the assurance to provide places for Rutland children;

           vii.        Forecasts had been made on the assumption that most parents living in Oakham will want their children to remain in Oakham and there may well be some villages that currently have children coming into Oakham that may find it more difficult in the future.  Pupils from outside of County will continue to take places in Rutland schools and very few Rutland children will take places out of Rutland.  There was still a responsibility to work with schools in order to encourage them to prioritise Rutland, even though it was not possible to make it a criteria for admission policies;

          viii.        There was concern regarding children from the proposed Barleythorpe Primary School being given priority for places at Catmose College, which was already over-subscribed and as an Academy was free to set its own admission policy;

            ix.        The education community in Rutland were working together to endeavour to ensure places for Rutland Children.  Any assurances would be based on provision of extra capacity for secondary places in years to come;

              x.        The proposed provision at Catmose Campus may be the only proposal put forward but might be viewed as less than ideal in terms of being an imaginative and attractive setting and ethos around inclusive admissions;

            xi.        There would be some children who would not go through the Catmose campus system through to Harrington  as they will not get the required grades at G.C.S.E, provision for these children could only be met at other local providers of further education including Tresham, Brooksby and Stamford New College;

           xii.        There was an increase in demand in the Barleythorpe area due to the new housing development;

          xiii.        This might not be the perfect solution, but it was the most pragmatic and viable option at this time;

          xiv.        The Langham bid had come very late and although it was also very close to the Barleythorpe area in terms of location, no formal bid had been received in response to the consultation and there was an immediate need emerging.  A certain amount of due diligence needed to be completed with regards to the Catmose bid over the coming year and through that process Catmose may make a decision that they do not want to proceed.  If they do continue, the support from this authority would give the opportunity of working together and give Catmose increased status when making their application to the Department of Education.  Langham could make a bid to the Department of Education in September, or any time for an increase in size;

           xv.        The proposed primary school  will be required to provide the national curriculum, but specialist areas will also be offered;

          xvi.        The Leader and Portfolio Holder for Finance and Development, Mr King and the Portfolio Holder for Lifelong Learning, Mr Wilby had written to the new Secretary State for Education to point out the error that department made in granting the Harrington School and ask for assurances that similar errors were not made.  In terms of primary schools, there is a need to provide places in the area of the demand.  Existing Catmose Primary School is full and therefore parents clearly see it as a preferred option for their children; and

        xvii.        The recommendation at 1.1.6 of the amended report should be amended to take account of the decision at Cabinet by adding the wording “subject to further discussion”.

 

Miss G Waller proposed that the recommendations be voted on individually.  This was seconded by Mr Thomas. 

 

Council AGREED a separate vote for each recommendation in report 154/2016.

 

RESOLVED

 

4.1.    To SUPPORT intervention in the pupil place market.

4.2.    To APPROVE the focus of support on ensuring sufficient places for children in Rutland only.

 

4.3.    To APPROVE that the Officers and the Portfolio Holder for Education continue to work with Rutland Schools, Trusts and Federations to review the impact of ‘Out of County’ pupils on schools.

 

4.4.    To APPROVE that annual report be submitted to Cabinet starting in 2017 that outlines how the Council are planning to meet the requirements for a ‘sufficiency’ of schools places across the County based on a 15 year projection.

 

4.5.    To APPROVE that further reports be provided to Cabinet as follows:-

 

(a)  A review of SEN provision across the County – November 2016

(b)  A review of the impact of MOD developments on the viability of schools – November 2016

(c)  A review of the medium/long term provision of Secondary capacity in Oakham by the end of 2016/17

 

4.6.    To SUPPORT the creation of additional secondary capacity at Catmose Campus subject to further discussion.

 

4.7.    To APPROVE in principle (subject to the issues outlined in recommendation 1.1.8 contained within Report No. 154/2016, 4.8 in these decisions) to support and allocate where appropriate Basic Needs Funding for:

 

(a)  The creation of a new Free School to serve the Oakham area at the Catmose Campus site: and

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 11, Recording of Votes, five members of the Council requested that a recorded vote be taken on the above proposition.

 

The following Members voted in favour of resolution  4.7 a):  Mr Baines, Mr Begy, Mr Bool, Mrs Burkitt, Mr Clifton, Mr Conde, Mr Dale, Mr Foster, Mr Gale, Mr Hemsley, Mr King, Mr Lammie, Mrs MacDuff, Mr Mathias, Mrs Stephenson, Mr Wilby.

 

The following Members voted against resolution  4.7 a):  Mr Bird, Mr Callaghan, Mr Oxley, Mr Parsons, Mr Thomas, Miss Waller, Mr Walters.

 

The following members abstained from voting on resolution 4.7 a): Mr Stewart

 

(b)  Additional places at Oakham Church of England Primary School

 

4.8.         To APPROVE ‘In principle’ support be conditional on satisfactory ‘due diligence’ and detailed discussions relating to the following issues:

 

(a)  Timing and number of additional places

(b)  Balance and level of Basic Needs Funding to the Schools own contribution

(c)  Value for money considerations

(d)  Planning risk and viability

(e)  Development issues including (not exhaustive) – access, parking, drainage

(f)   Impact on other provision (on site and nearby) including Secondary and SEN

(g)  Breadth of curriculum

(h)  Knock on effect to Out of County pupils and the balance of access to provision by Rutland children

 

4.9.To APPROVE that authority to progress and determine 4.7 and 4.8 be DELEGATED to the Chief Executive, relevant Directors and Portfolio Holders for Education and Finance and Development.