To consider the above report.

 

As per Part 2 C6.2 of the Council constitution, the Mayor has agreed the addition of this urgent item for the following reason:

 

Following a review of the expansion project at Lowbrook, an urgent Council item is required to consider the additional capital required for the project to progress.  By taking this item now it will be possible to complete the next stage in time to provide certainty of places for those applying for school places in September 2018

Members considered approval of additional capital for the delivery of an expansion scheme at Lowbrook Academy.

 

Councillor Dudley, who had declared an interest, made representations before withdrawing from the debate and vote on the matter. He stated that he had not come to the meeting with an open mind; it was clear to him that Lowbrook should be expanded and without conditionality on the budget because there was a need to ensure 30 pupils who wanted to go to the school in September 2017 could do so. Without certainty it would mean these pupils may never go to Lowbrook and in some cases siblings would be split. Lowbrook was an outstanding school; the best Primary academy in the country. The council could afford to agree the funding with everything the Borough Local Plan would bring and the enormous wealth holdings. Lowbrook was a jewel in the educational crown and a beacon of excellence.  As a Conservative he stood for beacons of excellence and giving parents the opportunity to send pupils to the school of their choice.

 

Councillor N. Airey introduced the report.  She thanked the school for their questions and recognised the commitment of the parents who had passionately campaigned on the cause.

In April 2016 the Council was facing an unprecedented position: no local children could access the Outstanding Lowbrook Academy, one of the best schools in the country, without relying on siblings already being in the school. The Office of the School Adjudicator upheld the complaint from catchment area families and a new admissions policy prioritising catchment children ahead of out-of-catchment siblings had come into effect.

At the time, in seeking to find a solution for those families, the council made a decision in agreement with the Academy to spend £1.8m of local capital, borrowing which was paid for out of council tax receipts, to expand the school to provide four more classes, additional hall space and a staff room.  Those pupils joined the school in September 2016 with the Academy making changes to accommodate them.  This figure included £200,000 allocated in Part II of the Council meeting to cover two unknown risks: the project contingency and the cost of the land held by Cox Green. £150,000 had been used to secure the land into RBWM control ready to support the expansion. £50,000 contingency was still available for the project.

In September 2016 the design of the school evolved as it became clear that the existing hall space would be challenging to extend to deliver a space large enough for all the pupils to meet together.  A new block with a 290 square meter hall in addition to the four classrooms came to the fore. It was identified that this design would cost more than the budget allocated for the project and other sources of funding were sought: the Academy bid to the DFE; the council looked into sports hall funding sources.

In January 2017, the administration indicated that the decision faced today needed to come to Council and while supportive of the expansion, the issue of the hall and fairness to all schools were raised with the Lead Member.  No one could dispute that the initial arrangement specified 165 square meters of additional hall place as this was in the initial brief provided to the Architect by the school.  In seeking to explore ways to meet the requirements of the Academy while ensuring fairness for all schools, a number of options were explored, including the proposal for the Academy to contribute a figure of £225,000 on top of the £50,000 already committed through the provision of an interest free loan by the council.  The figure of £225,000 was an estimate of the additional cost of 290 square meters space compared to one of 167 square meters as initially committed to the Academy.

The paper recommended a further budget investment of £775,000 on top of the £1,650,000 already approved to progress the project to a final Design and Build tender price.  The total budget of £2,425,000 for an expansion of 120 places represented £20,625 per place and was comparable to the most expensive school building projects undertaken in the Royal Borough in recent years.  If approved, the commitment was unequivocal and an implementation plan based on the floor plan in the report, a 290 square meter hall and four classrooms in addition to the staff room currently under construction, should be developed as quickly as possible.

The report further recommended that officers and the Academy work together under the auspices of a steering group to strive to deliver the project within that budget, with the council taking the chair as it would carry the financial risk.  The Lead Member stated that both she and the Academy would welcome transparency and scrutiny of the decisions of that steering group so that situation did not come full circle to the same position again. However this was not and could not be an open-ended commitment, at any cost.  It would be unwise for any council, on any decision, to provide a blank cheque when there were commercial negotiations to take place. 

She was aware that this was not the unconditional backing the school had sought in recent months, however, and for the avoidance of any doubt, the report included an explicit recommendation that should the project need more budget once the detailed specification and tenders were completed, then the existing council procedures would be used to consider the implications.  It was not possible to pre-judge those decisions and, indeed if the scheme required even more money, then it should rightly come back and the council should assess the value for money of the scheme.

The Lead Member explained that the decision would be taken on a free vote.  The council was being asked to invest local council tax, not government grant or money from developers.  The investment had an opportunity cost across the Borough; it was borrowing a further £775,000 against future capital receipts, which if spent on school expansion in one area, would not be available to spend on other community projects, including other schools, in other areas, or would not be borrowed at all.

The Council had a statutory duty to ensure there were sufficient school places and the council worked to a strategic plan to deliver this, which was in addition to this investment.  Every one of the 30 pupils who had not been offered a place at Lowbrook that the expansion was originally expected to provide, had been offered a school place in a Good or Outstanding school in the Maidenhead area.  Those families would be disappointed if they could not attend the particular school and, in common with 15% of families across the Borough and, indeed across England, would have to cope with the complexities of not securing a space in their first preference school if the council decided not to support the expansion with additional investment.

Children only got one chance at their education while schools typically only got one chance at expansion or investment in a generation.  This was Lowbrook’s opportunity to expand and build on their outstanding track record. Lowbrook was an outstanding school and this should be celebrated. However it must also be made clear that no other primary school in the Borough had the same facilities the academy was asking for. The question tonight was did the council think the revised cost of £2,425,000 for these 120 places meant that expansion of Lowbrook was still the right thing to do?

Whatever was decided tonight, the Lead Member assured all schools that council was fully committed to expanding good and outstanding schools and helping all schools become good or outstanding.

 

Councillor Saunders seconded the motion. He commented that there had been many exchanges about the financial aspects of the proposal. The council’s approval of £1.6m last summer had been based on the national benchmarking for additional capital required; in conjunction with officers he, as Lead Member for Finance, had determined £200,000 for contingency. This figure was within a range of possible additional costs between £0 and £400,000 including the need to pay Cox Green Academy for a piece of land. He had hoped that there would be no need for a fee to be paid to transfer a piece of land owned by the borough between one Academy and another. The emerging design required further investigation and analysis resulting in the need for a new hall costing circa £740,000, identified now as the additional cost. The council’s Budget Steering Group in January 2017 chose not to include the additional sum in the budget approved in February but identified the likely additional cost. Any tendering process would be in a very interesting market. There were far too many variables including contractors’ profit based on the capital available to undertake the job. If the procurement process identified a higher cost the first port of call would be to consider redesign within the figure of £775,000. If this was not possible, the decision would come back to Council. If it were not approved Phase 2 would not be funded by the borough. The funding would not come from the educational capital programme as no spaces were required at the school. Therefore money would come from general capital funds which would in the main be funded by borrowing supported by capital receipts from the Maidenhead Regeneration programme.  As a financial professional and Lead Member for Finance it was clear to him that the council should support the additional funding.

 

Councillor Brimacombe acknowledged the passion and persistence of the school community and the parental engagement. He hoped that Council could be relied upon to do the right thing, as it should have done so in May 2016. He had written to all Members individually at least, consequently he hoped the facts were now well established. The council and the school had met on 16 May to discuss the scale and scope; the report was back to where the process had started with the exception of the basic sports hall (not an expensive sports hall) costing £220,000 more than originally estimated. The financial provision was now feasible and adequate as detailed in the report. The whole discussion had started because of inadequate primary provision in Cox Green. The proposal was outside of education policy but within manifesto commitments.   The Governors of Lowbrook took some convincing to go on the journey, this could be read about in the Conservative ‘In Touch’ newsletter distributed in Cox Green last autumn. The governors had a fiduciary duty to protect the school and were only entitled to move forward when there was absolute certainty.  Whilst RBWM must not be reckless in its offer, the governors had to be equally diligent in acceptance. It was already clear that Lowbrook provided excellent primary education, which was the foundation for social mobility contributing to society and the economy. These elements were at the root of his Conservative principles.  It was important not to conflate policy with principle; this was not a policy decision, but a political one. Whether Members liked it or not the council had made a promise which Lowbrook and parents had relied upon. If the council tied its resources too tight, this needed correcting. The proposal was for the benefit of the many not the few.

 

Councillor Werner commented that the decision was about the basics: parents and their children. He had been through the admission process for his own daughter. It had been a stressful process but he had celebrated when his daughter had received her first choice preference. The council had the chance to ensure such happiness for others in the future. Lowbrook was an outstanding school therefore he posed the question why would anyone not want to expand it? The council had also made a promise and given the impression the council wanted the expansion to go ahead. He understood there was no shortage of spaces across the borough but there was in Cox Green. Liberal Democrats fundamentally believed in choice.

 

Councillor Targowska commented that if she had a child she would be fighting for it to be able to attend the best school; however it was incumbent on Members to do the best for all children in the borough. During the Borough Local Plan debate Members had heard resident concerns about the infrastructure needed for the new development. These were all valid; £120m of investment in schools would be needed including the building of up to 18 forms of entry at primary level; this could not be done on an ad hoc basis. The council needed a clear and transparent policy for building new schools or expansion of existing ones.  The cost of over £20,000 per pupil compared to the national average of £13,000 did not feel a prudent financial or policy decision. She could therefore not support the proposal.

 

Councillor Coppinger commented that there were four issues: Should money be given to an Academy where there was no shortage of places?; Was communication between both parties good?; Should the council take any notice of parent’s views?; Should the funding be approved? The proposal was not council policy, therefore Members needed to make the decision. There were communication faults on both sides. He was the Chair of Governors at Holyport Primary; virtually all the parents wanted their children to go to the Outstanding secondary Academy down the road but this year only one got a place. He therefore understood parental concerns and supported the proposal.

 

Councillor Cox commented that it was clear work had already been done at the school to prepare for the expansion. Some pupils were being taught in non teaching areas including a staff room. He had two children and another on the way. He was sure the teachers were doing their best but teaching environments were important in encouraging excellence. He therefore supported the proposal. It was important that controls were in place as it was council tax payer money that would be used. It would also be important to manage expectations as it was not possible to give absolute certainty.

 

Councillor C. Rayner commented that it was very important to keep siblings together in the junior years. He had attended a secondary modern with good teachers but bad buildings. Good buildings were needed therefore he supported the motion.

 

Councillor Stretton commented that Councillor Dudley had already mentioned the discussion at the Conservative Group meeting the previous week. This had been her last meeting as she had since resigned from the Group. A secret ballot had been taken which was an unusual step. The free vote this evening was also a rare occurrence. At the meeting last week the Group had been told that the risk of the project going over budget was low. When Councillor Brimacombe had proposed removing the third condition in recommendation 2 he was ignored. Councillor Stretton felt the third condition was unnecessary if conditions 1 and 2 were in place. She therefore proposed an amendment to remove the third bullet point in recommendation 2.

 

Councillor Hollingsworth seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Da Costa commented that the third condition should be removed because it showed a lack of commitment or a lack of confidence in officers. He felt officers should be trusted and the council should be committed to the end.

 

Councillor N. Airey stated that she would be in favour of keeping the third bullet point as this was one of three principles by which tenders were agreed with all schools. If it were removed this would be preferential treatment for Lowbrook. It was not a lack of commitment, but fairness to all schools.

 

Councillor Saunders commented that he realised it was contentious but he had worked for thirty years in a range of financial roles and the idea of only two legs to the stool seemed bizarrely silly. If due to circumstances beyond the council’s control the budget was not enough, it always had three choices: seek permission to spend more, adjust the scope of the intent within the original budget, or if it was not possible to compromise on any element then it could cut its losses and the project would not proceed.

 

Councillor Werner commented that he would ordinarily agree with keeping the option but the Council had form in this regard and had not treated the school well during the process. The school had invested time and resources. The council had to show the school at this moment that it was committed to providing the extra places.

 

Councillor D. Evans commented that he had spent his life negotiating. The motion as drafted was the best bet for the school to get the expansion. If the amendment passed, Members who had concerns about the proposal would be further concerned and it was less likely to pass. The motion had been carefully crafted to get the maximum support. He urged Councillor Stretton to withdraw the motion.

 

Councillor McWilliams stated that he would like nothing more than to guarantee the school the funding required. However he knew there were genuine concerns abut the council simply signing a blank cheque. The motion as crafted was the best option to get the expansion.

 

Councillor Brimacombe commented that he understood where Councillor Stretton was coming from. However it was not possible to put too much expectation on the project until there was certainty to proceed. Speed would be of the essence to get to a secure position. Goodwill and trust would be important in negotiations. Politics was the art of the possible.

 

Councillor Stretton commented that she had discussed the issue with the school, who had asked her to withdraw her proposal. She therefore confirmed that the amendment was withdrawn.

 

Councillor Smith highlighted that National Audit Office statistics showed the average cost per primary place between 2009-2015 was £10,900, in an overall range of £6,200-£13,300. The reasons for a variation were understandable including the market and site issues. It could also indicate that not all local authorities were creating places in the most cost effective way. When Riverside Primary in his ward had doubled in size to 210 the cost per pupil had been £9,523 and did not include a new hall. All basic grant funding had been allocated therefore this proposal was discretionary capital spending which required a higher degree of scrutiny. Councillor Smith said he was on the point of being convinced but the decision lacked clarity. The school did not appear to be meeting the council half way. The Governors had declined to consider different designs at a lower cost.

 

Councillor Hilton commented that policy would indicate the cost was far too expensive and that the hall was an extravagance larger than was needed. Principle would argue that the council should keep its word. He had been unable to find a definitive statement that said the council had made a commitment but on balance he believed this had been done therefore he supported the proposal.

 

Councillor Ilyas commented that he was astonished that the issue had reached this point.  He questioned how, when initial funding had been agreed, a higher figure had now been reached despite a contingency being included. It was not appropriate for him to seek out who was at fault but to consider what was most important: the pupils. There was a clear need for increased places for those within the catchment area. Councillor Ilyas stated that he worked in the educational field and believed all pupils should be able to access quality education and facilities. There was a proposal to expand the secondary school in his ward. This should be open to other outstanding and good schools to increase the life chances of the greatest number of pupils. He requested Members to review the case for the future in terms of the funding process to ensure it was fair for all. He supported the expansion.

 

Councillor S Rayner focussed on recommendation 5. As Lead Member for Culture and Community Services she asked the Lead Member for Children’s Services to ask the school if it would consider a formal use agreement to ensure the wider community would benefit from the council’s  investment. There was no ambition to make money out of any community use. The agreement would be flexible for future generations and to consider the school’s needs and could be regularly reviewed by the steering group.

 

Councillor McWilliams highlighted that parents had been required to split their children between schools. He was also aware of his colleagues’ concerns about increasing costs. There was a need to move beyond who said what and why and move to an overwhelmingly positive case for expansion. One of the fundamental Conservative beliefs was dropping down ladders and creating opportunity. Cox Green was not a wealthy part of the borough. He believed students should be given the opportunity for a springboard to the future. This was a golden opportunity to make a difference, to back the school and give an opportunity for generations to come.

 

Councillor Ed Wilson commented that all agreed Lowbrook was outstanding and expansion should be supported. However he had issues about governance and the money required to keep the project going. In June 2016 he predicted that if the council went for this type of project without proper planning and control the council would end up in the mess it now found itself in. For the council to agree to expand an Academy school, funding had to be absolutely agreed up front. He did not believe this ever existed for Lowbrook, which put at risk the expansion. The council could not offer an open chequebook as there were 66 other schools in the borough and the council had to recognise they also had needs. The money proposed to be spent equated to the entire basic need spend across all schools in the borough.  Proper agreements and safeguards for residents were needed. There had to be a better way; the council could not keep having the same debate.

 

Councillor Dr L Evans commented this was an uncomfortable position for the parents. She was however a councillor for the whole borough and needed to consider the educational needs of all children. Lowbrook had very good results. If the council wanted to improve the performance of all primary schools, she would expect to see people from Lowbrook going to help other primary schools, not just focussing on 30 extra pupils at their school. She highlighted that the cost per pupil for Oldfield school, also outstanding, was lower than for Lowbrook. It was known that by 2023 there would not be significant housebuilding in Cox Green so there would be no need for additional places; the demand was higher in other areas. She would be voting against the proposal.

 

Councillor Kellaway highlighted some contradictions. The Academy wanted to maintain its independence but had come to the borough for funding. By definition any funds going to Lowbrook were at the expense of the rest of the borough. He was concerned that a precedent would be set. However he suspected that the council had made a commitment a year ago. He was still undecided.

 

Councillor Luxton asked the Lead Member whether all other schools with the same excellent results would get the same benefits as Lowbrook, such as Charters?

 

Councillor D Evans commented that this was not an easy decision either way. Councillor Targowska had raised some important issues about how the council would deal with future expansion once the Borough Local Plan was approved. The council needed a clear policy for all future expansions. When he had first become involved in this issue, the proposal would have cost £3m or £26,000 per pupil. That level of expenditure was not sustainable. He thought there was now a fair compromise. Provided the tenders met the required benchmarks the expansion should be approved, but there should be no blank cheque. It should be ensured that the facilities were available for use by the public.

 

Councillor Grey stated there was no need to debate how good Lowbrook was; any parent would want their child to go to the school. It was a question of fairness and the distribution of funds.  There had been a weight of emails and pressure from parents. However all Members had to think collectively to see the whole picture. The proposal was not fair to other schools and would be used as a precedent. He would not support the motion.

 

Councillor Burbage commented that councillors were there to make a difference. There would be no better opportunity to expand one of the best schools in the country and the council should be getting on with it. The administration had a manifesto commitment to expand outstanding schools and there was a shortage of places in outstanding schools. Cox Green was not a wealthy part of the borough therefore the council should put taxpayers money in a good location.  He wholeheartedly supported the motion.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that he was troubled with the cost, particularly as the school had chosen to take Academy status. However on balance he would support the motion because education was really important, as was keeping families together.  There was also a shortage of spaces in the south of the borough; he knew of one child who lived two doors away who did not get into the local school. This was just the tip of the iceberg. The council should take the right action and expand the school.

 

Councillor Diment commented there were three principles: the manifesto commitment to support outstanding schools, the importance of parental choice and the importance of keeping siblings together.  She had been troubled by what she had heard of the process. Going forward she hoped lessons would be learned. This should not set a precedent but lessons used to help other schools to improve. It was important to support an outstanding school and create life changing opportunities.

 

Councillor Bicknell commented that there were 66 schools in the borough and this was not the only one that was good or outstanding. The way funding was apportioned was very important. He had four children so understood the emotions. However this was not about emotion, but about money. One point on council tax equated to approximately £600,000, therefore this was a lot of money to put in one place. Funding for Academy schools should come from central government not from the council tax payer. A prudent process was needed.

 

Councillor Hunt highlighted that Lowbrook was a beacon of excellence. If she could she would give whatever money was needed to expand outstanding schools. One of her grandchildren was taught in a school with second hand classrooms. She had a problem as she wanted fairness all round.

 

Councillor Carroll commented that in considering the decision he took into account three elements. Originally he had been concerned but had been satisfied that the process had now arrived at a suitable place. The second element was the principle of doing the right thing and enabling pupils to go to the school of their choice. It was not about who to blame; the key was that at bare minimum an expectation had been given to parents that the council would be supportive. Thirdly, the manifesto included an unequivocal commitment to expand outstanding schools.

 

The Lead Member responded to questions or issues raised by the following Members:

 

·         Councillor Werner had said there were not enough places in Cox Green. In January 2017 the School Census data showed there were 36 children attending Lowbrook who lived outside the catchment area.

·         Councillor Smith had raised the cost of places at Riverside. This was around £11,000 per place including a dining hall but it was not large enough for all pupils.

·         Councillor S Rayner had highlighted the community use. The Steering Group could discuss this going forward. There was no precedent for seeking revenue from the lettings.

·         The Electoral Review later in the agenda showed 29 new houses expected in Cox Green by 2027.

·         Councillor Dr L Evans had suggest Lowbrook should help other schools. The headteacher was deputy head at Holy Trinity Cookham and had helped it move out of Requiring Improvement to Outstanding in 2015. The council was grateful for his work there.

·         Councillor Luxton had asked a question about Charters. A report to Cabinet in July 2017 would include a programme for around £4m at Charters to provide 14 classrooms.

·         Councillor Sharpe had commented on schools in the south of the borough. She asked for details of the specific case to which he referred.

·         Councillor Diment referred to parental choice. Councillor Airey highlighted that there was only a legal right to parental preference. The council therefore aimed to have a 5-10% surplus so there was sufficient choice.

·         Councillor Hunt referred to Waltham St Lawrence Primary School. The mobile dining hall was from Riverside. Waltham St Lawrence was an outstanding school.

 

Cllr Targowska referred to the infrastructure resulting from the development of the Borough Local Plan. A wholesale scheme costing £220m would come forward in September. All schools would be invited to discuss proposals, with basic infrastructure principles in place for the whole scheme.

 

The Lead Member stated that she would be abstaining from the vote. She had been involved in the process since last May. She was not against expanding an outstanding school, but she was also conscious that she would be leading the process of negotiating on the circa 25 forms of entry and £220m of places in September so would like to be able to have it as a principle of fairness across the piece.

 

RESOLVED: That the motions contained in the report not be approved.

 

(23 councillors voted for the motion: Councillors Brimacombe, Burbage, Carroll, Coppinger, Cox, Da Costa, Diment, D Evans, Gilmore, Hill, Hilton, Hollingsworth, Ilyas, Lion, Majeed, McWilliams, C Rayner, Saunders, Sharp, Sharpe, Stretton, Werner, and D. Wilson. 23 councillors voted against the motion: Councillors M. Airey, Alexander, Beer, Bhatti, Bicknell, Bowden,  Clark, Dr L Evans, Grey, Hunt, Kellaway, Lenton, Love, Luxton, Mills, Muir, S Rayner, Shelim, Smith, Story, Targowska, E. Wilson and Yong. Two Councillors abstained: Councillors N. Airey and Richards. As the vote was tied, the Mayor used his casting vote in accordance with Part 2C Rule 17.2.2 of the Council Constitution and voted against the motion.)