Agenda item
Strategy to Provide Primary School Places in Brent up to 2014/15
- Meeting of Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Thursday 6 October 2011 7.00 pm (Item 7.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 7.
Minutes:
Rik Boxer (Assistant Director Achievement and Inclusion) introduced a report to the committee detailing the severe shortage of primary school places in Brent and the measures required to address the shortfall. It was noted that this deficit of primary school places in Brent echoed a national trend and one which was particularly acute in London. The report proposed a three pronged approach to this issue, encompassing a robust lobbying campaign to central government, a medium term strategy to deliver a fit for purpose school portfolio, and a short term strategy to maximise the capacity of the existing portfolio. This report had been considered by the Executive on 17 August 2011, at which time the recommendations set out in the report had been agreed.
Rik Boxer advised that it was modestly estimated that by 2014/15, a further fifteen forms of entry would be required in Brent; by 2020 this deficit was predicted to rise to twenty three. It had been determined that £52m of capital would be necessary to meet the predicted shortfall for 2014/15. At its meeting on 17 August 2011, the Executive had agreed that £20m of the required £52m would be provided via the Council's Main Capital Programme and from Section 106 Capital Receipts. It was highlighted to the Committee that the government had announced that an additional £500m would be allocated nationally to fund more school places in areas of greatest need; however, an allocation model had not yet been provided and it was possible that these funds might prove insufficient. Consequently, the Council would be lobbying central government, along with the GLA and London Councils to emphasise the acute nature of the problem and to ensure Brent's case was made with respect to the additional funds to be supplied by the government.
In providing further detail of the council’s approach to the issue of the deficit of primary school places, Rik Boxer advised that for the short term the council was prioritising schools to be considered for permanent expansion by September 2012. A short list of schools (included at Appendix 6 to the report) had been compiled based on criteria including risk, shortage of places in the local area and availability of funding. Of these, four schools had been selected as being most suitable for expansion and would be subject to feasibility studies. These plans for short term expansion were being developed in the context of the council's longer term strategy for providing primary school places. This strategy would be underpinned by a set of proposed planning principles, set out at paragraph 8.19 of the report, and would include a review of the entire education portfolio and consideration of new models for schools, including five form entry primary schools, all-through schools and 'urban' style schools.
Rik Boxer concluded his introduction to the report by drawing members' attention to the recommendations agreed by the Executive at its meeting on 17 August 2011, set out at paragraph 2 of the report.
During members' discussion several queries were raised. The Chair sought an update on the implementation of the recommendations agreed by the Executive on 17 August 2011. Rajesh Sinha (Interim Programme Manager) advised that the feasibility studies for the four schools shortlisted for potential expansion had commenced. It was estimated that decisions as to whether to proceed with the expansion schemes would be made by early November. Discussions had already been held with the governing body of Fryent Primary School, which had indicated that it was in support of expanding the school. Following receipt of the results of the feasibility studies, where the results were positive the council would liaise with the governing bodies of those schools to seek their approval. It was emphasised that the school expansion schemes were required to be completed by September 2012; however, it was possible due to the restricted timescales involved, that a partial result in which the reception year classes would be completed but other facilities and classrooms would follow, may be achieved.
Rajesh Sinha added that recommendation 2.10, the allocation of £150k from the Council’s Main Capital Programme for updating the information on school condition and cad database, was underway. Data collected via this process had already revealed that the number of pupils on roll at many schools exceeded the respective net capacity figures. It was suggested that this was due to the acute pressure on school places which had led to various short term solutions including the addition of bulge classes. With regard to the allocation of the total sum of £20m from the council’s Main Capital Programme and the Section 106 Capital Receipts, these funds had yet to be received and the latter source was dependent on the finalisation of the Section 106 agreements.
Councillor Harrison queried whether any of Brent’s schools had expressed an interest in becoming all-through schools. The committee was advised that Wembley High School and Capital City Academy had expressed an interest in becoming all-through schools. Councillor Arnold (Lead Member for Children and Families) added that a thorough consultation on the various models of schools would be conducted. In addition, a wider audit of all of Brent’s Schools would be undertaken. In response to a further query, Rik Boxer advised that a report would be brought to the committee setting out the evidence base for the different models of schools. Rik Boxer clarified that urban style schools were those which occupied sites of a limited size and which made innovative uses of the space available. An urban style school would make use of tall buildings and complementary facilities such as a play spaces located on the roof. Rajesh Sinha added that such schools might also focus on providing only statutory facilities, for example, by choosing to establish an agreement with a local leisure centre rather than providing a play space on site. Arrangements of these types had already started to be implemented in Free Schools.
Councillor Al-Ebadi queried whether consideration had been given to purchasing spaces in private schools in Brent, as he knew of at least one school where there were approximately one hundred places available. Rik Boxer advised that he was not aware that this was an area which had been explored and that a cost analysis would be required to ascertain whether this was a viable option.
Councillor Lorber advised that he was a school governor for Barham Primary School which was one of the four schools identified in the report as being most suitable for permanent expansion. He explained that the governing body had in recent years twice rejected proposals to expand the school and had just completed an alternative project to establish a nursery. Rajesh Sinha advised that discussions had been held with the head teacher of Barham Primary School. Once the feasibility studies had been completed, detailed proposals would be presented to the selected schools. Inherent within the process was the opportunity for the selected schools to obtain some improved facilities and it was in this aspect that it was felt interest might be expressed by those schools which might otherwise reject proposals to expand.
Councillor Lorber commented that previous school development projects, particularly those for Wembley Park Primary and Sudbury Primary school had resulted in a significant overspend and that the council needed to ensure that similar circumstances did not arise. Rik Boxer noted that there had been good examples of recent school development projects as well but added that the comments would be taken on board.
Dr Levison queried whether the expansion projects encompassed the addition of supporting facilities or if they just included extra classrooms. Rajesh Sinha explained that the council had taken a holistic view to the projects and depending on the needs of each school had added additional facilities such as halls, staff rooms and food preparation and dining areas. Rajesh Sinha added that traffic assessments would also be conducted prior to expansion.
Following members’ initial discussion, Rik Boxer provided a brief update to the committee on school places in Brent. For 2011, 4203 applications for reception year places had been received. Of these, 3642 had been on time and 561 had been received after the deadline. This latter figure was indicative of the number of new arrivals to the borough, and Rik Boxer advised that this figure increased daily. Despite the provision of an additional 260 reception year places for September 2011, there were at present 241 unplaced children for this year group, with 60 reception year vacancies across the whole of Brent; however, these vacancies were not necessarily in the required areas. A further 60 vacancies would become available in November 2011 following the completion of a current school expansion project. There were also unplaced children in years 1, 2, 3 and 4 and as of 30 September 2011 there were 707 unplaced children across the system and 370 vacancies. It was highlighted that the pressure on school places was slowly working its way through the year groups.
Councillor S Choudhary queried whether the limit of 30 children per class could be raised to allow larger class sizes to accommodate all of the unplaced children in Brent. Rik Boxer advised that all Council maintained schools were subject to statutory legislation which stipulated that class sizes for Reception Year, Year 1 and Year 2 could not exceed 30 pupils. In some limited circumstances the council had approached the school to request that it exceed this limit but the council did not have the authority to enforce such measures. Mrs Gouldbourne expressed that large class sizes would impair the ability of the teachers to meet the different needs of their pupils.
The Chair requested an update on the expansion of Newfield Primary school and Brentfield Primary school. The committee was advised that phase one of the Newfield Primary school project would be finished by 27 October 2011 and phase two, by 9 December 2011. The project would be complete before Christmas 2011. There had been severe delays to the delivery of the Brentfield Primary school expansion project due to the discovery of asbestos. Phase-one of this project would now be delivered by 18 November 2011, with a final completion date set for the second week of December 2011. The expansion project for Preston Manor primary school was still on-going and phase-one was scheduled to be finished by 19 November 2011 and phase-two, by 16 December 2011. These projects had been delivered in 12 to 14 months but would usually be expected to take 48 to 50 months.
Councillor Lorber noted that there was a significant number of late applications and queried why this was. Rik Boxer clarified that the deadline for applications had been in January 2011 and therefore, the 500 late applications principally reflected the number of families which had moved into the area since that time. Councillor Al-Ebadi commented that it would be important to consider that due to the housing reforms there would be more people moving in to Brent from areas such as Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea. Rik Boxer explained that in forming the projections of the number of school places that would be required by 2014/15, several factors had been considered including the changing housing situation and specific advice on housing had been secured for this purpose.
The Chair thanked the officers for their report.
RESOLVED: -
That the report be noted.
Supporting documents:
- strategy to provide school places covering report, item 7. PDF 58 KB
- strategy to provide school places main report, item 7. PDF 1002 KB