Meeting documents

Children's Services and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Wednesday 1 August 2007

Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Meeting Name:
Children's Services and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel

Meeting Date:
08/01/2007 Pick

Meeting Time:


Location:


Sub Committee / User Forum etc (if required):




Members Present:

Non-Members Present:

Confidentiality: Part I


Document Type: Agenda


Document Status: Final




N O T I C E

O F

M E E T I N G

CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND LEISURE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

will meet on

Wednesday 1 August 2007

at

7.30 pm

in the

COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, MAIDENHEAD

TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

COUNCILLOR MRS HAWKES (CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLOR LENTON (VICE-CHAIRMAN)
COUNCILLORS BASKERVILLE, MRS BURSNALL, MRS LUXTON, MRS PITTEWAY AND MRS STOCK

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
COUNCILLORS MISS BARTON, BICKNELL, MRS HERDSON, MRS HUNT, MAJEED, MRS NAPIER & MRS NEWBOUND
Lloyd White
Head of Democratic Services

Issued: 24 July 2007

Members of the Press and Public are welcome to attend Part I of this meeting.

The agenda is available on the Council’s web site at www.rbwm.gov.uk or contact the
Panel Administrator Ian Hunt (01628) 796345
In the event of the fire alarm sounding or other emergency, please leave the building quickly and calmly by the nearest exit. Do not stop to collect personal belongings and do not use the lifts. Congregate in the Town Hall Car Park, Park Street, Maidenhead (immediately adjacent to the Town Hall) and do not re-enter the building until told to do so by a member of staff.
AGENDA

PART I

ITEMSUBJECT
WARD
PAGE
NO
1APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive any apologies for absence.
2DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive Declarations of Interests from Members of the Panel in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
3MINUTES

To confirm the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 5 June 2007.
i-ii
4*2007/08 CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND LEISURE MONITORING REPORT

To receive the latest 2007/08 Children’s Services and Leisure Monitoring report.
All
1
5*APPOINTMENT OF SCHOOL GOVERNORS

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 August
2007 on the Appointment of School Governors
All
9
6*SCHOOLS’ CATERING SERVICES CONTRACT

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 August
2007 on the Schools’ Catering Services Contract.
All
19
7*

HOLYPORT MANOR

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 23 August 2007 on Holyport Manor.
All
23
8CULTURAL HERITAGE STRATEGY

To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 27 September 2007 on the Heritage Strategy.
All
33
9 Social Services Complaints Annual Report

To receive details on the Social Services complaints process and the level and nature of the complaints and compliments received by the Directorate relating to Children’s Services during the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007.
All
50
10

social care performance – children’s services

To receive a report on the Learning and Care Directorate’s performance against the children’s social care performance assessment framework (PAF) indicators for the year 2006/07.
All
57
11LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 – EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

To consider passing the following resolution :-

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on items 12, 13 and 14 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1-7 of part I of Schedule 12A of the Act"
* Education Related Item




1

4. 2007/08 CHILDREN SERVICES AND LEISURE MONITORING REPORT

    CHILDREN’S SERVICES AND LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL: 1 August 2007

    OFFICERS REPORTING:
    CLIFF TURNER, HEAD OF CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE SERVICES
    DAVID SCOTT, HEAD OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
    ALAN ABRAHAMSON, LEARNING & CARE GROUP ACCOUNTANT
    JENNY BAILEY, COMMUNITY SERVICES GROUP ACCOUNTANT

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
    To receive the latest 2007/08 Children Services and Leisure monitoring report.

2. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

2.1 Wards Affected
None – This internal report considers the Royal Borough’s performance against budget

2.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation
Cabinet receive and consider the latest financial and non financial information in respect of the revenue and capital budgets. Mangers use this information to assess and advise on any likely variations for the 2007/08 financial year.

2.3 This is a new format report that will develop over the next few reporting cycles. Initially the report concentrates on the financial aspects affecting cost variations but will ultimately include a number of relevant performance indicators. More detailed papers are available through the Financial Services web page on Hyperwave. Eventually this will also be available on the Royal Borough’s web site.

2.4 The report provides members of each Overview and Scrutiny the opportunity to better understand the reasons for movements in cost, and the action managers are taking to keep to budget allocations.

2.5 There have been a number of revenue and capital budget movements from the Original budget approved by Council in February 2007, these are summarised as follows:
2.6 It remains early in the monitoring cycle for managers to provide end of year projections with confidence. However, managers have reviewed the areas under their control and are indicating that, at this point and unless corrective action is taken, there may be an end of year over spend on the Children and Young People budget of £277k, and no year end variances are currently anticipated for Leisure Services.

2.7 Appendix A provides a summary of manager’s variance forecasts and proposed corrective actions. These will continue to be developed and reported to forthcoming Scrutiny Panels, together with non-financial data that help explain the main drivers that impact on the Council’s ability to deliver services and the impact on its budget.
    2.8 Options Available
    OptionComments
    1. Accept the reportThe Local Government Act 2003 requires the Royal Borough to monitor its financial position and bring this to members the attention. Cabinet considered and approved the revised programme at its October meeting.
    2. Reject the reportThe Overview and Scrutiny Committee has the option of asking for more detailed analysis of any areas of the budget that it feels warrant closer examination
      2.9 Relevant National / Regional Guidance
        The Local Government Act 2003 Section 28 specifically requires an authority to monitor its financial position during the year and take such action to ensure its financial position is not worse than that budgeted.
      2.10 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies
      The Councils budget is fundamental to the delivery of all the Council’s Strategies. The recommendations in this report do not directly contribute to the Community Strategy

      3 CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT
      Consultation was carried out as part of the budgeting process.

      4 IMPLICATIONS

      4.1 Financial
      The annual revenue and capital budgets are fixed as part of the Council Tax setting process. However, changes in service emphasis and movements in capital scheme timetables can and do occur and these have been reflected in the financial statements above.

      4.2 Legal
      The Council’s external auditor has powers to qualify its annual accounts if there were regular and significant annual budget variations. Such qualification would affect the authority’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment standing.

      4.3 Human Right Act
      None

      4.4 Planning
      None


      4.5 Sustainable Development
      None

      4.6 Diversity and Equality
      None
        Background Papers:
        Report to Council 27 February – Revenue and Capital Budget 2007/08
      APPENDIX A
      MONITORING REPORT CHILDREN’S SERVICES & LEISURE SERVICES

      DATE: 1 August 2007

      PURPOSE
      To update members on activity within Childrens & Young Peoples Services and Leisure Services during the period to 30 June 2007.

      BACKGROUND
      It is early in the budget monitoring cycle to make any accurate predictions on the year end situation, however the following items are worthy of note at this time.

      SPECIFIC AREAS FOR ATTENTION

      1. Local Authority Funded Education and Childrens Services
            Speech & Language, there is a variance of +£40k against a current budget of £255k following caseload exceeding expectation.
            There will be a continued dialogue with the PCT regarding the level of service provision, the waiting list and unmet needs, and possible changes in working practices. If necessary the level of budget allocation will be reviewed.
      2. Local Authority Funded Education and Childrens Services
            Foster Care Placements, there is a variance of +£100k on a current budget of £626k
            The number of looked after children and foster care placements have increase in first three months of the year. The current average is 52 per week compared to 45 during 2006/07. The Head of Safeguarding will continue to ensure regular reviews are held for all children in accordance with best practice. The number of "children looked after" have increased 7% since March and now stand at 100. It is difficult to predict the future pattern for the remainder of this year.
      3. Local Authority Funded Education and Childrens Services
            Joint Funded Children's Placements; there is a variance of +£100k against a current budget of £2.7m. The budget assumed continuing care funding for a specific placement would be received. Currently the view is that a continuing care determination is less certain and the projected outturn position now assumes no such income is received.
            Pressure will be maintained on the PCT to fund this child, and for robust representations will be made to help ensure Continuing Care funding is allocated where appropriate.
      4. Local Authority Funded Education and Childrens Services
            Within Adult Education the Developing connections funding is provided in part by external partners. There is a variance of +£30k against a current income budget of £40k as anticipated contributions have proved over optimistic. It is proposed to continue to seek out sources of income and undertake a review to determine a sustainable level of service provision.
      Capital Programme
      5 There is slippage of some £1m slippage in the Childrens element of the Learning and Care capital programme. Schools receive Devolved Capital Funding grant to support their programme and this grant is available to spend over an eighteen month period. The slippage into 2008/09 recognises the extended period of the grant funding. At this point the majority of non school work is on-site and school work is programmed to commence during the summer break.

      meetings_070801_cslosp_monitoring_report_appxA.pdf Meetings 070801 Cslosp Monitoring Report Appxa

      meetings_070801_cslosp_monitoring_report_appxB.pdf Meetings 070801 Cslosp Monitoring Report Appxb




      13

      5. APPOINTMENT OF LEA REPRESENTATIVES TO GOVERNING BODIES OF SCHOOLS IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH (DECISION)

      CABINET : 23 AUGUST 2007

      MEMBER REPORTING: CLLR MRS QUICK

      1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
        To advise Members of vacancies that have arisen or will shortly arise for education authority representatives on school governing bodies within the Royal Borough, and of nominations that have been received, so that appointments by members from amongst these may be made.


      2. MEMBERS’ RECOMMENDATION : That the following appointments be made in accordance with the borough’s Code of Practice from the names of those persons listed in the table below and appendix A of this report.

      3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
      3.1 Applications were received for the following vacancies:

      School
      Ward
      Name
      St Edwards RF Ecumenical Middle SchoolClewer NorthCllr John Fido
      Courthouse Junior SchoolPinkneys GreenHugh Foster
      Cox Green SchoolCox GreenDennis Cullinane
      Cox Green SchoolCox GreenGwenda Lilley
      Cox Green SchoolCox GreenSudarshan Soar

      The final approval of which applicant becomes an LEA governor lies with Cabinet.
      To encourage applications governor services e-mailed all ward councillors and the leader on 2nd July 2007 with appropriate vacancies. This process will continue on a monthly basis.

      3.2 Wards Affected
      Clewer North, Pinkneys Green and Cox Green

      3.3 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

      3.3.1 Details of vacancies that have arisen within the borough are given below. Details of candidates seeking appointment are given in the attached Appendix A.

        All appointments should be made in accordance with the authority’s Code of Practice on the Appointment of Education Authority Governors, given as Appendix B.

      3.3.2 Existing vacancies
        On 18th July 2007 there were 6 vacancies for education authority representatives at schools within the Royal Borough at the following schools:
          SchoolWard
          No. Vacancies
          Courthouse Junior Pinkneys Green
          1
          Cox Green Cox Green
          1
          Dedworth Green FirstClewer North
          1
          Kings Court FirstOld Windsor
          1
          St Edwards RF Ecumenical MiddleClewer North
          1
          St Mary’s Catholic PrimaryFurze Platt
          1
      This represents a vacancy rate of 0.6% of the total number of governors or 4.1% of LEA governors.

      Ward Councillors for these vacancies have been notified via an e-mail.

      Nominations have been received for 3 of the vacancies listed above and Members are invited to consider making the following appointments:

      SchoolWardRepresentatives Seeking Appointment
      St Edwards RF Ecumenical MiddleClewer NorthCllr John Fido
      Courthouse Junior SchoolPinkneys GreenHugh Forster
      Cox Green SchoolCox GreenDennis Cullinane
      Cox Green SchoolCox GreenGwenda Lilley
      Cox Green SchoolCox GreenSudarshan Soar
        Details of all applicants are given in Appendix A.
      3.3.3 Governors Seeking Re-Appointment
        The following education authority representatives are about to reach the end of their current
        term of office and have submitted nomination forms seeking re-appointment for a further
        term of office.

        Representative seeking
          School Ward Reappointment
          Cookham NurseryBisham & CookhamJenny Woodruff
          The Lawns NurseryClewer EastRekha Rani Bassi

      No Education Authority representatives will reach the end of their current term of office before 31st August 2007.
        3
      3.3.4 Future vacancies

        Education authority representatives at the following schools will reach the end of their current
        term of office before September 2007. Letters are sent to each governor inviting them to apply
        for re-appointment. Nominations are invited from Members and other interested
        individuals for consideration for these positions at the time of the next report.
      Current representative’s
      School Ward term of office ends
      Cookham NurseryBisham & Cookham31/08/2007
      Cookham NurseryBisham & Cookham31/08/2007
      The Lawns NurseryClewer East31/08/2007

      3.4 Options Available and Risk Assessment

        Under the authority’s Code of Practice, nominations will only be considered if submitted
        on the appropriate application form prior to a published closing date. Appointments to fill
        any of the vacancies in this report can only be made from the nominations listed in the
        schedule at Appendix A.

        Members may also choose to defer one or more appointments to a future meeting, although
        the DfES recommends that appointments should normally be made to fill vacancies
        within three months.
      3.5 Reasons Supporting Recommendation

        Under the authority’s Code of Practice, schools have the right to advise the authority of their governing body’s needs in terms of balance of skills, gender or any other consideration for the good of the school, and to submit names for consideration.

        If the person appointed does not match the specified needs of the governing body and/or the governing body’s preferred candidate is rejected, the governing body may request the authority to give its reasons.
        Candidates have the right to decline an appointment if it does not meet their preferences.


      3.6 Relevant National/Regional Guidance
        The DfES Code of Practice on Local Education Authority-School Relations (2001) states that authorities:
      § should publish the process and criteria by which they identify candidates for appointment.
      § can support schools by appointing as Local Education Authority governors those who are best qualified to help schools improve. In making appointments to particular schools, authorities should have regard to the skills and experience of which those schools have the greatest need, and to candidates’ support for the schools’ ethos and mission.

        3.7 Relevant Council Policies / Strategies

          The Royal Borough has agreed and published a Code of Practice for the Appointment of Education Authority Governors. All appointments are made under the terms of this Code, which is given at Appendix B.

          The appointment of school governors contributes to the Community Strategy in the following ways: it supports the three guiding principles of working together, leaving no-one behind and involving people. Those appointed as school governors can support schools to address three of the five key themes, namely learning for life, being safe and secure and caring and health.


        4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT


        4.1 Governing bodies are invited to comment on candidates’ suitability for re-appointment and to submit nominations to fill these and any casual vacancies that arise. Where a school has expressed a view, this is noted in the candidate’s details, as listed in Appendix A.


        4.2 Following the closing date for receipt of applications, those applicants who have not requested one particular school are matched to current vacancies, taking account of a variety of factors including any expressed requirements or preferences of both schools and candidates, and the proximity of a school to a candidate’s home or business address. As far as possible, schools and applicants are then contacted to discuss the options available and to ascertain that they have no objection to the recommendation proposed.


          OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL COMMENTS.

          The report will be seen by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel on August 1st 2007.
        5. IMPLICATIONS

        5.1 Financial
        There are no additional financial implications in this report.


        5.2 Legal
          The composition of governing bodies is set out in the Education Act 2002 and the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003. Transitional arrangements make provision for the appointment of governors as set out in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Education (School Government) Regulations 1999 until such time as a governing body re-constitutes or until 31st August 2006, whichever is the earlier. There is a clear responsibility on the authority to appoint governors within the framework outlined above.
        5.3 Human Rights Act
          There are no Convention Rights under the HRA relevant to this report.
        5.4 Planning
        There are no planning implications in this report.

        5.5 Sustainable Development
          Education Authority representative governors could seek to promote the Council’s
          sustainable development policies within their governing bodies.

        5.6. Diversity and Equality
          In terms of the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment Policy, the recommendations in this
          Report have no negative equality and diversity implications.

        Background Papers:
          Code of Practice on Local Education Authority-School Relations DfEE 0027/2001
          School Governance Constitution Regulations 2003 – Report to Cabinet 28th August 2003

        14

        APPENDIX A

        DETAILS OF CANDIDATES

        Criteria for Appointment

        LEA governors will be chosen on the basis of the contribution they can bring to a school in terms of their skills and experience as specified in their nomination form, taking account of any supporting information provided by the candidate or by the school.

        CLLR JOHN FIDO

        ST EDWARDS ROYAL FREE MIDDLE SCHOOL



        ONE APPOINTMENT
        Previous
        Experience
        The applicant has held the following posts:
        Charters School, Sunningdale – Parent Governor c1975-1980
        Montem Infant School, Slough C1995-2004
        Dedworth Middle School - Current
        Reasons for ApplicationSchool is in Applicants ward. The applicant has been an RBWM representative as trustee of Royal Free Foundation since 2003, which has a close link with school. The applicant has a deep interest in education (wife is former deputy headteacher and daughter is currently a deputy headteacher.)
        Other relevant
        information
        The applicant has been involved in voluntary community work in Windsor/Borough since 1959. The applicant was chair of finance at Montem Infant School and currently member of finance committee at Dedworth Middle. Borough councillor at Clever North since 2003.
        JENNY WOODRUFF

        COOKHAM NURSERY

        RE-APPOINTMENT
        Previous
        Experience
        The applicant has been a Governor with Cookham Nursery since July 2002.
        Reasons for ApplicationThe applicant believes that if education is not lead properly the early primary years are more difficult to cope with. At Cookham Nursery the Governors and staff have worked hard in achieving a varied range of tasters with education for a wide variety of children. It is very rewarding to give something back the community by being part of decision process and wishes to continue.
        Other relevant
        Information
        18

        NAME / OCCUPATION
        BACKGROUND

        HUGH FORSTER

        COURTHOUSE JUNIOR SCHOOL

        ONE APPOINTMENT
        Previous
        ExperienceThe applicant has served as a parent governor since 1998, spending four years with Burchetts Green Infants before moving to Courthouse Junior School in September 2003.
        Reasons for ApplicationThe applicant is very keen to continue his support of the school and remain on the governing body after his children have left the school at the end of this academic year.
        Other relevant
        InformationActive involvement with the organisation of charity events. The applicant has also served as Chair of governors whilst serving at Burchetts Green School.
        The school supports this application.
        REKHA RANI BASSI

        THE LAWNS NURSERY

        RE-APPOINTMENT
        Previous
        ExperienceThe applicant has been a governor with The Lawns Nursery since 2000 and currently carries out the role of Vice Chair and Development Link governor for the body.
        Reasons for ApplicationThe applicant has developed strong links with the governing body and head teacher and also brings connections through the applicants work at after school and holiday clubs. The school supports this application.
        Other relevant
        InformationCurrently running after school and holiday clubs for the 5 –11 age range
        DENNIS CULLINANE

        COX GREEN SCHOOL

        ONE APPOINTMENT
        Previous
        ExperienceThe applicant has been a governor at a variety of schools since 1978 and is currently an LEA governor at Knowl Hill C of E School.
        Reasons for ApplicationThe applicant believes that a good education is necessary towards a good quality of life and by serving on a governing body helps steer a school in the right direction to ensure children can reach their potential.
        Other relevant
        InformationPreviously served on staffing and curriculum committees.
        GWENDA LILLEY

        COX GREEN SCHOOL

        ONE APPOINTMENT
        Previous
        ExperienceThe applicant is an experienced Chemistry teacher, Head of Sixth Form, Head of Careers and a school inspector.
        Reasons for ApplicationThe applicant has a strong sense of community and wishes to help an area where they feel they have considerable expertise.
        Other relevant
        InformationUntil January 2007, the applicant also ran a Brownie unit
        SUDARSHAN SOAR

        COX GREEN SCHOOL

        ONE APPOINTMENT
        Previous
        ExperienceThree years experience working as a Samaritan at the Slough Centre and currently working in a busy HR department demanding a high level of accountability and reliability.
        Reasons for ApplicationThe applicant is keen to help give children a good standard of education and therefore a good start in life.
        Other relevant
        InformationThe applicant also feels that with Maidenhead being a multi-cultural town, it is important to represent the ethnic minorities.


























        APPENDIX B

        Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
        Code of Practice for the Appointment of Education Authority Governors


        This Code of Practice is drawn up in response to the DfES Code of Practice on Local Education Authority-School Relations.

        Introduction and Background
        Education Authority governors are the appointed representatives of the Education Authority on a school’s governing body.

        Education Authority appointed governors are representatives, and not delegates. As such, they may present the Authority’s view, in the same way as other categories of governor represent the views of their constituency, but they cannot be mandated by the Authority to take a particular line.

        Relationships
        An Education Authority governor’s first loyalty should be to their school and to the community it serves.

        The Authority may establish such links with its appointees as it and they see fit, but these will not take the place of formal consultation with governing bodies, or with the local association of governing bodies.

        Appointment Process
        Appointment decisions rest with cabinet. The Director of Education will be present at these meetings to advise Members.

        Appointments will be considered by the Cabinet as necessary, but at least once every two months in order to ensure that appointments are made promptly when vacancies arise.

        Applications will only be considered from individuals who have submitted a completed nomination form to the Governor Services section to arrive by the specified closing date, which will be not less than 7 working days prior to the Cabinet meeting at which the appointments will be considered.

        Schools have the right to advise the Authority of their governing body’s needs in terms of balance of skills, gender or any other consideration for the good of the school, and to submit names for consideration by Cabinet.

        If the Authority fails to fill an Education Authority vacancy for three months after it has been presented at Cabinet, the governing body can make an appointment.

        Criteria for Appointment
        Education Authority governors will be chosen on the basis of the contribution they can bring to a school in terms of their skills and experience as specified in their nomination form, taking account of any supporting information provided by the candidate or by the school.

        If the Education Authority appointee does not match the needs of the governing body and/or the governing body’s nominee is rejected, the governing body may request the Education Authority to give its reasons.
          Removal from Office
          The Education Authority may remove an appointed governor from office at any time, providing there is good reason to do so. Governors failing to attend meetings for a period of six months or more without valid reason will be disqualified under the school government regulations.


          22

          6. SCHOOLS’ CATERING SERVICES CONTRACT

            CABINET: 23 AUGUST 2007

            MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR MRS QUICK

          1. PURPOSE OF REPORT:
            The purpose of the report is to provide information to Members and members of the public on the background of the school meals contract with Harrison Catering Services Limited.
          2. MEMBER’S RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations are contained in the Part II report and that information will be released into Part I reporting as appropriate.
            3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

            3.1 Wards Affected

              All
            3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decisions are Based
            ckground
            3.2.1 Background
              In June 2005 Members approved the acceptance of the tender for the school meals contract from Harrison Catering Services Limited on the basis that it provided best value and helped to achieve the Council’s objectives in relation to healthy eating. The contract was for a term of three years to July 2008 with an option to extend for a further two years. Fifty-one schools joined this contract.

              The Council has now entered a period of consultation with the schools concerning the option to extend the contract from July 2008 – July 2010. The Council has asked the schools to respond by 24 September in order to allow time for a new tendering process should the majority decision be to recommend that the contract does not continue.

              Schools are happy with the good quality, healthy meals that Harrison provides. The new menu to be introduced in September will contain 93% of fresh ingredients – meat, fish, fruit and vegetables. The meals are made from scratch from Harrison recipes and cooked on site wherever possible. Harrison complies with the Nutritional Standards currently in force and will continue to comply with new standards as they are introduced over the period to 2010.

              As reported in the National School Meals Survey 2007 published by the Local Authority Caterers Association (LACA) nationally there has been a decline in the uptake of school meals since the Jamie Oliver programme and the introduction of the 2006 Food-based Standards In Primary Schools the decrease reported by LACA members averaged 7% and 17% in Secondary Schools.



            3.3 Relevant National/Regional Guidance
              DfES/School Food Trust guidance on School Lunches – standards and guidance on Food at times other than lunch to be introduced in September 2007.
              The Education (Nutritional Standards for School Lunches) (England) 2000 updated in 2006 sets out the frequency with which items from different food groups must be served and specifies food based standards for the provision of school meals. Nutrient based standards will be introduced between 2008 and 2011.
              The Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires the inspection of school meals by Ofsted.
              Blueprint for Healthy Living (DfES 2004) aims to help schools support children in leading a healthy lifestyle.
              Every Child Matters agenda – Be Healthy
              National Healthy Schools Certification
            3.4 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies
              Free School Meals Policy which states that a hot, two course meal be provided that meets the standards required and Fair Funding - Delegation of Funding for the Provision of School Meals (ED23/99).
              The Children and Young People’s Plan and the Local Area Agreement both have targets to increase the number of Healthy Schools. This includes ‘to encourage all Schools to achieve Healthy Schools Status’ of which one of the four main themes is Healthy Eating.

              The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

              Relevant?
              Yes / No
              Key Themes:
              getting about.
              No
              learning for life
              Yes
              being safe and secure
              Yes
              caring and health
              Yes
              living and working in a good place.
              No
              Guiding Principles:
              working together
              Yes
              leaving no one behind
              Yes
              involving people
              Yes
              safeguarding the young
              No

              Learning for life - Pupils have experience of a healthy balanced diet and therefore learn the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.
              Being safe and secure – In the central contract food safety is paramount and all Harrison staff have enhanced CRB disclosures.
              Caring and health – The contract promotes healthy living with help for those most in need by providing a hot, nutritious meal to those eligible for free school meals.
              Working together – evidenced by the partnership between Schools, Harrison and the Council
              Leaving no one behind – access to healthy meals for everyone with tailored offer to meet some minority ethnic community needs.
              Involving people – as part of the service Harrison and the Contracts team attend School Council meetings to hear the views of pupil representatives and for the forthcoming new menu, tasting sessions have been arranged in three schools to engage pupils in menu development.
            4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

              Regular termly meetings are held with Harrison, Officers and Headteacher Representatives at which all issues relating to the contract are discussed.

              With regard to the extension or otherwise of the contract, a Consultation Meeting was held on 18 June 2007 to which Headteachers, Governors and Bursars of schools in the contract were invited. Approximately 75 attendees received presentations from an external catering specialist, Harrison Catering Services Limited, the Group Accountant for Learning and Care, the Berkshire East PCT Dietitian and the Adviser for Healthy Schools. Each attendee received a folder containing the agenda, a question sheet, a letter detailing the options available and their associated benefits and risks, copies of the presentations and booklets issued by the School Food Trust on the revised nutritional standards for school lunches and the new standards that will be introduced in September 2007 covering food in school at times other than lunch – Breakfast, Break, After-School Clubs etc. Copies were e-mailed to those Headteachers who were unable to attend.

              A further pack of information concerning the planned financial strategy for 2007-08 and beyond was sent to schools in the contract during the second week of July 2007 following consultation with the Schools’ Forum on 9 July.

              All of the above information will enable schools to consider and discuss in detail their decision as to whether they wish to:
            - extend the contract with Harrison for a further two years;
            - go out to tender for a new contract for five years;
            - appoint their own single-site (or cluster group) contractor;
            - operate the service themselves, or
            - provide a packed lunch service.

              The consultation will end on 24 September 2007 in order to provide adequate time for a) Headteachers and Governors to consider their decision (bearing in mind that schools are closed in August) and b) to go out to tender if that is the majority decision of schools.
            5. IMPLICATIONS
              5.1 Financial
                In 2005-06 the DfES introduced two Standards Fund Grants to support the transformation and sustainability of school meals in all local authorities. One grant - 105a - is retained by local authorities and the other - 105b - is delegated to schools.
                In the first instance contract costs will be met by income from the sale of school meals, by free school meal funding and the DfES grants and then if necessary from school budgets.
              5.2 Legal

                The contract with Harrison was tendered and let in 2005 in accordance with the Council’s Contract Rules for a period of three years with an option to extend for a further two years.
                Under the powers contained in the Education Act 1996, as amended, the Council has the power to provide meals and other refreshments to pupils, including free school meals to those eligible for them. The Council has the power to charge for meals provided for those parents not entitled to free meals.

                These functions are now transferred to schools. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998, as amended, and Regulations made under the Act (SI 2000/1777 and SI 2001/1784) specify Compulsory National Nutritional Standards for School Meals which sets out, for example, the frequency with which items from the main food groups must be produced and specifies food-based standards for school lunches. Nutrient based standards will be introduced between 2008 and 2011.

                Section 512 of Education Act 1996 (Provision of meals etc at schools maintained by local education authorities) as amended by Section 201 of the Education Act 2002 applies and in particular Section 512 ZB (Provision of free school lunches and milk) which states that where the local education authority provides a school lunch in accordance with Section 512 (3) to a person who is eligible for free lunches, the authority shall provide the meal free of charge. Section 201 of the Education Act 2002 extends this to say that the authority must also provide paid lunches if requested as long as it would not be unreasonable for the authority to provide the lunches. Section 512 ZA states that a local education authority shall charge every person the same price for the same quantity of each item.
              5.3 Human Rights Act

                The rights most likely to be involved in this report’s recommendation are:

                Article 2 of the First Protocol – the right to education
                This states that no person shall be deprived of the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The UK has accepted the second sentence of this Article only so far as it is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.

                Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination
                The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention on Human Rights shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds.
              5.4 Planning

                There are no planning implications arising directly from this report.
              5.5 Sustainable Development

                There are no Sustainable Development implications arising directly from this report.
                The contract complies with Borough policy.
              5.6 Diversity and Equality

                In terms of the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment Policy, the recommendations in this report
                have no negative equality and diversity implications.
                Background Papers: None
              32

              7. DETERMINATION OF PROPOSAL TO TRANSFER HOLYPORT MANOR SCHOOL TO A NEW SITE

                CABINET: 23rd AUGUST 2007

                MEMBER REPORTING: CLLR MRS QUICK

              1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
                To seek a formal decision by Members on a proposal to transfer Holyport Manor School from Ascot Road, Holyport to a site off Cannon Lane, Maidenhead, by April 2010.
              2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That:
              (a) the Cabinet approves the proposal to transfer Holyport Manor School to a site off Cannon Lane, Maidenhead with effect from April 2010 without modification; and that
              (b) the approval of the proposal to transfer Holyport Manor School to that site is conditional upon the granting of planning permission for the site and buildings.
                3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

                3.1 Wards Affected
                  All wards.
                3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation

                3.2.1 On 22nd February 2007 the Cabinet determined that statutory notices be published formally proposing the relocation of Holyport Manor School from the current site in Holyport to a new site off Cannon Lane, Maidenhead.

                3.2.2 This decision followed informal public consultation on the issue in December 2006 and January 2007. Under this proposal the relocated school would retain its independence, be of about the same size as currently (around 150 to 165 pupils), would provide education for children with a variety of special educational needs and would continue to serve children from across the whole borough. It would also include a residential unit, as now, which may include respite provision for children whose needs are so severe that their families need help in caring for them. The school would open on its new site in April 2010.

                3.2.3 The move would be funded by the then DfES (now the DCSF – Department for Children, Schools and Families) under the One School Pathfinder (OSP) programme.

                3.2.4 Publication of the statutory notices (following the February 2007 Cabinet decision) was, however, delayed whilst the borough awaited information about the level of OSP funding from the DfES. Confirmation of the amount - £23.6m – was not received until late March, meaning that the notices could not be published without contravening council rules on public consultation during an election period.

                3.2.5 The statutory notice was, therefore, published on Thursday 14th June 2007, formally proposing the transfer of Holyport Manor School to a new site. Parents, staff, governors and the public were given a six-week period, ending on Friday 27th July 2007 The statutory notice period ends on the Friday to allow a full six weeks for the notice published on Friday in the Windsor papers to run., in which to lodge comments on or objections to the proposal.

                3.2.6 Consultation responses – number received and reference to consultation section below to follow once the consultation period is over on 27th July 2007.
                  Determination of proposal and next steps

                3.2.7 The statutory notice was published under new regulations governing school organisation proposals that came into effect on 25th May 2007. The main effect of these regulations, as far as this proposal is concerned, is to abolish the School Organisation Committee and empower the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, as the local authority, to determine the proposal.

                3.2.8 Accordingly, the borough has a two-month period from the end of the formal consultation period on 27th July 2007 to consider and determine the proposal, otherwise the proposal must be passed to the Schools Adjudicator for consideration. A decision should, therefore, be taken by 27th September 2007. In considering the proposal the Cabinet can:

                · reject the proposal;
                · approve the proposal without modification; or
                · approve the proposal with modification

                  Prior to any modifications, however, the borough will need to have consulted with the Governing Body of Holyport Manor School, unless those modifications have been proposed by the Governing Body. Any suggestion to modify the proposal will need to take account of the borough’s decision-making process, the school holidays and the need to determine the proposal by 27th September 2007 to avoid it being passed to the Schools Adjudicator.

                3.2.9 The Cabinet can also choose to make the approval of the proposal conditional on the successful conclusion of one or more of a number of prescribed events (which are given in full in Section 5.2 below). The only one of any relevance to this project is the granting of planning permission. Planning permission has not been approved – an application is expected to be submitted later this year - and so any approval of this proposal will need to be conditional on obtaining it.

                3.2.10 In considering the proposal, the local authority is legally required to ‘have regard’ for the relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Paragraphs 3.2.14 to 3.2.36 below address this guidance.

                3.2.11 It is the recommendation of this report, therefore, that the Cabinet approves the proposal to transfer Holyport Manor School to a site off Cannon Lane, Maidenhead, without modification, but with the condition attached that planning permission for the site and buildings is obtained.

                3.2.12 The Royal Borough will then need to send an ‘approval’ notice containing the decision, together with the reasons for that decision, to a range of stakeholders, including the governing body, the Secretary of State, the Church of England and Roman Catholic Diocesan authorities, each objector and the Schools’ Adjudicator. This notice will also need to include details of any conditions to be met, as per paragraph 3.2.9 above.

                3.2.13 The Diocesan authorities and the Learning and Skills Council will then have four weeks from the date of the Cabinet meeting to refer the decision to the Schools Adjudicator if they so wish. If the proposal related to a foundation or voluntary aided school, or was an ‘excepted’ expansion of a community school, then the respective school governing bodies would also have the power to refer the decision to the Schools Adjudicator.

                  Guidance to be considered in determining the proposal
                3.2.14 The local authority is legally required to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in determining this proposal. This guidance consists of two documents:

                · Planning and Developing Special Educational Provision – A guide for local authorities and other proposers; and
                · Making changes to Mainstream Maintained School (other than expansion) – A guide for local authorities and other proposers.
                  3.2.15 This guidance states in particular that in considering options for change the local authority should:
                        “aim for a flexible range of provision and support that can respond to the special educational needs of individual pupils and parental preferences, rather than necessarily establishing broad categories of provision according to special educational need or disability.”
                    3.2.16 It also states that when determining any proposal to change SEN provision, decision makers (i.e. the local authority in this case) should consider how the proposed arrangements are likely to lead to improvements in the standard, quality and/or range of educational provision for children with special educational needs. The guidance sets out a number of key factors that must be taken into account. If these requirements are not credibly met, then the proposal should not be approved. This is the so-called Special Educational Needs Improvement Test.

                    3.2.17 These key factors are addressed below.
                      Improved access to suitable accommodation
                    3.2.18 The current buildings and site at Holyport Manor School are no longer fit for purpose. This proposal seeks to remedy this by providing buildings that:
                    · are fully accessible for physical disabilities, including mobility related, visual and auditory needs;
                    · have sufficient space for pupils with severe and complex needs, who may have bulky medical or mobility related equipment;
                    · are designed with consideration for the sensory needs of pupils;
                    · have sufficiently large class bases for each year group, with adjacent small group rooms and bays for various activities such as physiotherapy;
                    · have sensibly located hygiene and toilet facilities, easily within reach of all parts of the school; and
                    · incorporate modern technology and design to maintain the dignity and privacy of each pupil, whilst also developing self-help and independence skills.

                    3.2.19 The residential provision for up to 32 children will incorporate the same accessibility and safety considerations into the design as the main school. In addition, the residential accommodation will:
                    · be designed to be easily accessible from the core facilities of the main school;
                    · accommodate children and young people in single-occupancy en-suite rooms that are well-equipped; and
                    · be designed to allow care workers on duty to provide discreet assistance, whilst taking into account child protection issues.

                    3.2.20 The new school buildings are required, under the terms of the DfES One School Pathfinder program, to meet very high standards in terms of sustainability and energy efficiency, and the borough will be working to ensure that the imaginative use of design, materials and technologies reduce the impact of the school on the environment as far as possible.

                    3.2.21 The new facilities described above will benefit the education of all children on roll at Holyport Manor School by enabling them to offer a broader and more balanced curriculum, as well as more flexibility for individual learning, by:
                    · having centrally located core facilities, such as the hall, dining room, library facilities and ICT provision;
                    · maintaining the separate identity of foundation, primary, secondary and post-16 phases of education;
                    · having specialist teaching facilities for Science, Technology, Food Technology, Music and Art;
                    · using light and space to create a stimulating but orderly and calm atmosphere;
                    · providing imaginative and innovative internal and external learning environments, through careful use of landscaping materials and colours; and
                    · minimising unnecessary distractions for pupils in the classroom that might come from noise or movement of people.

                    3.2.22 The project will also assist Holyport Manor School with its bid to become a ‘Specialist’ school, offering particular expertise in the area of Communication and Interaction. Whilst this bid is not dependent on new buildings, it will be unquestionably easier for the school to both achieve this status and maintain it successfully in new accommodation, designed for 21st century communications technology.
                      Improved access to education and associated services, including the curriculum, wider school activities, facilities and equipment
                    3.2.23 This project involves moving the school to a new site in Maidenhead in order to place the school at the heart of the local community. The current Holyport Manor School site is very isolated, being roughly a mile outside the centre of the nearest village, Holyport, and accessible only by road. This means that the pupils have very limited opportunities to interact with the local community and with pupils from mainstream schools, and vice versa.

                    3.2.24 A move to Cannon Lane will offer pupils at the school opportunities to attend lessons in mainstream school, whether in Lowbrook or Cox Green schools, or further afield. Where appropriate, the attendance of children and young people with special educational needs in some classes in mainstream school can benefit everyone involved. Clearly, pupils on roll at Holyport Manor School will still need to spend most of their time at that school, but this move will give them an opportunity that at present is simply impractical much of the time.

                    3.2.25 Important educational advantages will arise through easier access to specialist teaching provision. With Holyport Manor School closer geographically to the Maidenhead schools there will be increased opportunities for the sharing of specialist provision. Although there is already collaboration between these schools, the need for fewer journeys by road (which can eat into time available for teaching) will make it significantly easier for pupils to share specialist facilities. This will mean that, where appropriate, Holyport Manor pupils will gain access to subjects and resources that are not currently open to them.

                    3.2.26 These benefits will, of course, also be available for pupils in mainstream schools from across the borough who may want to take advantage of facilities that will, if the proposal goes ahead, be available in the new Holyport Manor buildings. In particular, pupils with special educational needs who are not taught at the school but in mainstream provision will find it easier to access the new provision.

                    3.2.27 Together with the new buildings, a new site will enable the school to provide a greater range of options for 14-19 year olds. The current range of accredited qualifications offered by Holyport Manor School is restricted by poor accommodation and distance from specialist facilities for vocational and academic learning at other schools

                    3.2.28 Locating the school within Maidenhead will also enable children and young people at the school to access a range of amenities in the community, such as shops, buses and libraries. This will enrich their social and independence skills learning – some pupils may be able to travel to school on foot or by public transport, which is currently extremely difficult. It is hoped that this will then encourage some pupils to seek out further educational and social opportunities in mainstream school.

                    3.2.29 The combination of new buildings and a location in the centre of the community will, therefore, offer children and young people at the school:
                    · fully accessible site and buildings;
                    · access to a broader and more balanced curriculum, with more subjects and more flexibility on offer. In short, the pupils will be offered learning opportunities dictated by their needs, not by the limitations of the building and site; and
                    · inclusion within the local community and not marginalization on an isolated site.

                      Improved access to specialist staff, both education and other professionals, including any external and/or outreach services.
                    3.2.30 A specialist outreach service already exists. Plans are in place to develop this service further. The relocation of the school will extend links with mainstream schools and facilitate access to specialist staff and provision. It is envisaged that the school will support an increasing number of pupils with severe, profound and multiple learning disabilities as the facilities provided will enable these pupils to placed in the school rather than seeking placement elsewhere. Therefore a wider range of expertise will be developed in the school, and could be used as a resource to support other settings.

                      Improved supply of suitable places
                    3.2.31 The proposal will not affect the number of available special school places as Holyport Manor will remain a school for around 150 pupils. There is, accordingly, no need for details here about alternative provision being made available (as specified in the guidance referred to in paragraph 3.2.14).

                      Home to school transport arrangements
                    3.2.32 Pupils attending the relocated Holyport Manor School will, under this proposal, continue to receive home to school transport in accordance with the borough’s published policies. Some changes may be necessary to existing taxi routes to take account of the new location, and some pupils may be able to walk to school (which is not possible now).

                      Funding the proposal
                    3.2.33 As one of the 25 authorities nationally to be earmarked Pathfinder funding the Council now has access to DCSF capital funding that it may use for the reprovision of Holyport Manor Special School. This funding was confirmed as £23.6m by the then DfES on 22nd March 2007.

                    3.2.34 It is anticipated that the capital cost of the development will be met by this grant. Revenue costs for the new school will continue to be met from within the existing school formula funding arrangements. Further financial details to be added with agreement of finance.
                      Planned staffing arrangements
                    3.2.35 It is expected that staffing arrangements at Holyport Manor School will remain generally as at present if it is relocated. Staffing numbers may, however, rise in subsequent years as the number of pupils with more significant needs increases, although it is not yet possible to say by how much. Any staffing increases will be funded through the existing school formula funding arrangements.
                      Summary
                    3.2.36 It is the view of the borough, therefore, that the proposal to transfer Holyport Manor School to a new site off Cannon Lane, Maidenhead, passes the Special Educational Needs Improvement Test and so can be approved by Cabinet.

                    3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment
                      Option
                      Comments
                      Recommendation A: the Cabinet approves the proposal to transfer Holyport Manor School to a site off Cannon Lane, Maidenhead with effect from April 2010 without modification
                      1. Reject the proposalNot recommended. This option will leave Holyport Manor School with buildings and a site that will become increasingly unfit for purpose.
                      2. Approve the proposal without modificationRecommended.
                      3. Approve the proposal with modificationNot recommended. If, however, modifications are proposed then these will need to be raised with the Holyport Manor School Governing Body. To avoid the Schools Adjudicator a final decision must be made by 27th September, and so Cabinet would need to decide whether to consider the issue again at the 27th September Cabinet meeting or delegate authority to the Lead Member for Children’s Services or a sub committee.
                      Recommendation B: the approval of the proposal to transfer Holyport Manor School to that site is conditional upon the granting of planning permission for the site and buildings
                      4. Reject the conditionNot recommended. This would mean that the Royal Borough would be legally required to implement the proposal, even without planning permission. The duty to implement could in this case only be removed through another full public consultation process and the publication of statutory notices.
                      5. Approve the conditionRecommended.


                    3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance
                    (i) Education Act 1996
                    (ii) School Standards and Framework Act 1998
                    (iii) Education and Inspections Act 2006
                    (iv) The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007
                    (v) DCSF guidance - Planning and Developing Special Educational Provision
                    (vi) DCSF guidance - Making changes to Mainstream Maintained School (other than expansion)
                    (vii) DfES TCF Bid Guidance
                    (viii) DfES Building Bulletin 99
                      3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies
                        Children & Young People’s Plan (CYPP) – The rebuilding of Holyport Manor School at the Cannon Lane site will support several of the strategic priorities in the CYPP, in particular number 6, Achievement – ‘The life chances for all children and young people are improved by helping them to achieve the highest possible standards in both formal and informal education’ and number 8 Inclusion – ‘More children and young people with complex needs are educated and supported closer to home through the development of local provision including respite care’.

                        RBWM Local Plan – any proposed development would have to comply with policies in the Local Plan.

                        The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:
                        Relevant?
                        Yes / No
                        Key Themes:
                        getting about.
                        Yes
                        learning for life
                        Yes
                        being safe and secure
                        Yes
                        caring and health
                        Yes
                        living and working in a good place.
                        Yes
                        Guiding Principles:
                        working together
                        Yes
                        leaving no one behind
                        Yes
                        involving people
                        Yes
                        safeguarding the young
                      4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

                      The Consultation Process
                      4.1.1 A full description of the informal consultation process, the responses received and the Royal Borough’s comments on those responses can be found in the 22nd February 2007 Cabinet Report, available on the borough’s website at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/meetings_070222_agenda_cabinet.htm. For the purposes of this report:

                      · Autumn 2006 – staff & governors at Holyport Manor, Lowbrook and Cox Green schools informally approached about the proposal
                      · 23rd November 2006 – Cabinet approves public consultation on the proposal
                      · 6th December 2006 to 29th January 2007 – informal public consultation period
                      · 22nd February 2006 – Cabinet considers the outcome of the consultation

                      4.1.2 A total of 601 responses to the consultation were received and a range of issues were raised. In summary, these were:
                      · the impact of the proposal on traffic in Cannon Lane and the Cox Green
                      · the impact of the proposal on the playing field space at Cox Green School
                      · the sharing of facilities between Cox Green and Holyport Manor (both for and against)
                      · the view that the school should be rebuilt on the current site
                      · the possibility of good (new friends) or bad (bullying) relationships between Cox Green and Holyport Manor pupils
                      · the view that Holyport Manor would benefit from investment in new buildings
                      · the location of the buildings on the proposed new site
                      · whether or not inclusion of SEN pupils on a mainstream school site was desirable
                      · the view that the proposal was brought about to release funding from the sale of the existing site
                      · the possibility of disruption to pupils and residents during building works

                      4.1.3 Having considered the outcome of the consultation, the Cabinet approved the publication of statutory notices formally proposing the relocation of Holyport Manor School. The notice was published on Thursday 14th June 2007. Parents, staff, governors and the public were given a six-week period, ending on Friday 27th July 2007 The statutory notice period ends on the Friday to allow a full six weeks for the notice published on Friday in the Windsor papers to run., in which to lodge comments on or objections to the proposal.

                      4.1.4 Consultation responses – number received and reference to consultation section below to follow once the consultation period is over on 27th July 2007.

                      OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL COMMENTS

                        To follow
                      5. IMPLICATIONS
                        5.1 Financial
                          As one of the 25 authorities nationally to be earmarked Pathfinder funding the Council now has access to DCSF capital funding that it may use for the reprovision of Holyport Manor Special School. This funding was confirmed as £23.6m by the then DfES on 22nd March 2007.
                          It is anticipated that the capital cost of the development will be met by this grant. Revenue costs for the new school will continue to be met from within the existing school formula funding arrangements. Further financial details to be added with agreement of finance.
                        5.2 Legal
                          Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 places a general duty on LAs to secure sufficient schools for providing primary and secondary education and requires them in particular to have regard to securing special educational provision for children with special educational needs; Section 315 of the act requires that these arrangements are kept under review.

                          Many children with special educational needs will also be disabled, and some disabled children, though they may not have special educational needs, may have particular access requirements. LAs are under a statutory duty under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to increase the accessibility of schools and to prepare accessibility strategies showing how they intend to do so.

                          The transfer of the school is regarded as a prescribed alteration under Section 19(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006.

                          Paragraphs 3.2.7 to 3.2.13 outline in greater detail the next steps for the borough, which include the need to determine the proposal within two months of the end of the statutory notice period, the options to reject or approve (with or without modifications) the proposal, the legal duty to publish an approval notice and the right of a number of bodies to appeal against the decision of the Royal Borough.

                          Paragraph 3.2.9 also refers to the possibility of the approval of the proposal being made conditional upon a number of specific, prescribed events being concluded. Although the only event of any relevance to this proposal is item (a) below, the full list has been reproduced here.

                        (a) the granting of planning permission;
                        (b) the acquisition of any site required for implementation;
                        (c) the acquisition of any playing fields required for implementation;
                        (d) the securing of any relevant access to the site and/or playing fields;
                        (e) the granting PFI credit approval from the DfES;
                        (f) the completion of any ‘building project agreement’ with the DfES under the Building Schools for the Future programme;
                        (g) an agreement to change admissions arrangements of any other school(s);
                        (h) the making of any scheme relating to any charity related to the school;
                        (i) the formation of any federation of which it is intended that the school should form part, or the fulfilment of any other condition relating to a federation of which the school is already part;
                        (j) the approval from the Secretary of State for Education for a proposal to create a Foundation body;
                        (k) a declaration from the Secretary of State for Education that a school must form part of a group for which a Foundation body acts;
                        (l) the successful conclusion of any of items (a) to (g) where they relate to another school or schools and upon which the proposal depends.
                          5.3 Human Rights Act
                          1 – The convention right under the Human Rights Act relevant to this report is Article 2 of the First Protocol – the right not to be denied an education.

                          2 – The convention right will not be affected by this decision.
                            3 – This decision does not affect any victims as defined under the Act.

                              5.4 Planning
                                The construction of a new school on land off Cannon Lane, Cox Green, Maidenhead will require planning permission. Details of planning permission timetable to follow.
                              5.5 Sustainable Development
                                If the proposal goes ahead, then it will need to take into account the latest local and national guidance on building to a sustainable standard. A green travel plan will also need to be implemented for the relocated school.
                              5.6 Diversity and Equality
                                In terms of the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment Framework, the recommendations in this report should have a positive impact on equality target groups, particularly through encouraging inclusion of children with special educational needs within the wider community.

                                Background Papers:
                                Cabinet Prioritisation Sub Committee 13 07 06
                                DfES Guidance BSF One School Pathfinder
                                Cabinet Report – Building Schools for the Future: One School Pathfinder 24 08 06
                                Cabinet Report – Building Schools for the Future: One School Pathfinder 21 09 06
                                Cabinet Report – Building Schools for the Future: One School Pathfinder 23 11 06
                                Cabinet Report – Building Schools for the Future: One School Pathfinder 22 02 07
                              36

                              8. CULTURAL HERITAGE STRATEGY

                                CABINET: 27 SEPTEMBER 2007

                                MEMBER REPORTING: COUNCILLOR GREY

                              1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
                                This report outlines the main points of the revised Cultural Heritage Strategy, and seeks the approval of the strategy by cabinet.
                              2. MEMBER'S RECOMMENDATION: That
                              i. the proposal to adopt the Cultural Heritage Strategy be approved.
                              ii. the proposed action plan to realise the Strategy be approved
                              iii. a steering group of representatives from public, private, and voluntary sector heritage organisations be formed to oversee the implementation of the strategy

                              3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

                              3.1 Wards Affected
                                All Wards
                              3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based & Reasons Supporting Recommendation
                                The Cultural Heritage Strategy is attached as Appendix A. The proposal for Library and Information Services to revise the heritage strategy was endorsed by the Policy Forum for Leisure Environment and Culture in November 2006.
                                The Strategy will enable Library and Information Service to progress plans for partnership working, for increasing access to heritage services and museum collections, through outreach, remote displays and digitisation, pursuing accreditation for the Windsor & Royal Borough Museum, and continuing to seek external funding opportunities to improve services.

                                The Strategy covers the following
                              · Aims and background information
                              · Current situation for heritage services as part of Library and Information Services
                              · RBWM collections and services relating to heritage
                              · Sub regional support from Berkshire for Archives, Museums and Archaeology
                              · Local Collections, Societies and Groups
                              · Vision for the future with route and milestones
                              · 4 case studies showing how use of new technology, new ideas increases access
                              · Heritage action plan for Library and Information Services

                              The Strategy indicates the formation of a steering group. This will include representatives
                              From each directorate, and will include representatives from Learning and Care, Planning,
                              Democratic Services, external heritage providers and voluntary organisations.






                              3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment
                                Option
                                Comments
                                1. Do nothing loss of opportunity for partners to work together to address issues associated with heritage, as well as a risk of loss of registered status for RBWM owned Windsor & Royal Borough Museum unable to pursue accreditation due in 2008
                                2. Proceed with current plan for partnerships and additional display space but without continuing to seek museum locationloss of registered status for Windsor & Royal Borough Museum in 2008 – unable to pursue accreditation
                                3. Proceed with current plan including long term action planRecommended option
                                option
                                Advantages
                                Disadvantages
                                1.No costs Risk of loss of status and opportunities to progress plans, and access potential funding
                                2.Create additional display and raise profile without costs of a buildingNo central base for activities
                                3.Heritage services have opportunity for raising profile. Museum collection is accessible in the form of remote displays and progressing towards fixed location. Partnership or Trust needs to be able to raise income. A separate museum building will require funds to cover the revenue costs and staff or volunteers to support opening times
                              3.4 Relevant National/Regional Guidance
                              i) Museums Libraries and Archives : Museum Accreditation Scheme 2006
                              ii) Best Practice as illustrated in case studies for Sevenoaks in Kent, Hampshire Discovery Centre.
                              iii) MLA ‘Blueprint for Excellence’ 2007
                              iv) Department for Culture Media and Sport– Heritage Protection in the 21st Century 2007
                                3.5 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies
                                i) Adult and Community Learning Development Plan
                                ii) Children and Young Peoples Plan
                                iii) Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Development Framework
                                iv) LIS Unit Service Delivery Plan 2007-2008

                                  The recommendations contained in this report also contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:


                                  Relevant?
                                  Yes / No
                                  Key Themes:
                                  Contribution
                                  getting about.
                                  yLocal museum for local people – reducing travel requirements
                                  learning for life
                                  yEncourage the interest of all age groups pre-school to older people, in their history, building informed communities
                                  being safe and secure
                                  yPromoting citizenship, by teaching understanding and respect for the past
                                  caring and health
                                  yScheme to develop reminiscence collections and oral histories from older residents for deposit with Libraries, Information Heritage and Arts
                                  living and working in a good place.
                                  yMuseum collection fosters appreciation of local history and environment in widest sense
                                  Guiding Principles:
                                  working together
                                  yAiming for partnership approach and strong links to other local heritage providers
                                  leaving no one behind
                                  yAiming for inclusive services to reach out to all sectors
                                  involving people
                                  yVolunteers and seeking opportunities to involve non users, pursuing community engagement
                                4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT
                                i) a draft strategy document was released in early March 2007 to a wide circle of interested parties inside and outside the Borough.
                                ii) a meeting was held with the Friends of the Windsor and Royal Borough Museum in March 2007
                                iii) an open meeting was held in April 2007
                                iv) comments were received up until June 1st 2007
                                  Comments were received by telephone, email, letter and in person. Organisations responding included Maidenhead Heritage Trust, The Stanley Spencer Gallery, Eton Wick Literary Association, Reading Museum Service and several others. The Museum, Library Archives Council: South East has been asked for comments and these are awaited. Several helpful suggestions were made and within the comments there was:
                                · a call to ‘revisit the 2004 proposal to extend Windsor Library to accommodate a museum’ from the Windsor and Eton Society.
                                · The Windsor Local History Group wanted a ‘firm commitment to establishing a proper Museum, and that there should be an action plan not words’.
                                · The Friends of the Windsor & Royal Borough Museum also wanted ‘a firm commitment to a local museum of at least 300 square meters’.
                                  5. IMPLICATIONS
                                    5.1 Financial
                                      The current estimated costs of certain parts of the first year’s action plan are detailed
                                      below, and will be met from the current existing revenue budget.
                                    · An audit of the collection requires a valuation and assessment for insurance for which the estimated costs of about £5,000 over two to three years.
                                    · Display cabinets for community locations at a cost currently estimated at £2,000 per cabinet will be purchased over a number of years
                                        The opportunity to attract funding through planning and S106 contributions for increased services relating to Heritage is covered by the current Supplementary Planning Document.
                                        The document is undergoing a review for completion in September. It will continue to identify some broad aims for a heritage facility in both Windsor and Maidenhead, and also list specific projects. The current recommendation is for a contribution of 0.5% of the estimated standard building cost, to be shared across public art and heritage, within the town centres of Windsor and Maidenhead.
                                      5.2 Legal
                                        There are no direct legal implications. There is no statutory duty to provide museum facilities. The audit of items held by Corporate Services and by the museum collection has highlighted issues about custodianship and insurance. Documentation for any future partnership agreements will require the support of Legal Services.
                                      5.3 Human Rights Act
                                      None of the Convention Rights will be affected by this decision, and this decision does not affect any victims as defined under the Act.

                                      5.4 Planning
                                        There are no planning implications. Any proposed plan for a museum building would be subject to the normal planning procedures.
                                        5.5 Sustainable Development
                                          In terms of the Sustainable Development Policy, the recommendations contained in the report will have the following significantly beneficial sustainable development implications.
                                        · A positive impact on recycling because museums demonstrate the value of heritage, care of the environment and recycling objects for people to learn from the past and create a better future.
                                        · A positive impact on health, by creating reminiscence boxes for use with the elderly to contribute towards improved or maintaining mental health.
                                        · A positive impact on raising awareness and community participation by the formation of partnerships, working with other heritage providers to raise the profile of cultural heritage, particularly in the run up to the cultural Olympiad period of August 2008-2012, by creating displays around the borough and involving the community in preserving local history and creating oral histories.

                                        5.6 Diversity and Equality

                                          In terms of the Council’s Equality Impact Assessment Policy, the recommendations in this report have no negative equality and diversity implications.
                                        56

                                        9. CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE SERVICES

                                            CUSTOMER CARE ANNUAL REPORT 2006/2007

                                            LEARNING AND CARE DIRECTORATE

                                            REPORTING OFFICER: DAVE HORLER,
                                            HEAD OF STRATEGY & RESOURCES

                                        1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

                                        1.1 To inform Members about the Social Care complaints process and the level and nature of the complaints and compliments received by Children’s Social Care services, Learning and Care Directorate during the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007.

                                        2 SUPPORTING INFORMATION

                                        2.1 The Children Act 1989 requires the operation of the complaints procedure to be reported to Members. The information covered should be anonymised information about the numbers and types of complaints and compliments received.

                                        OFSTED’s view is that more complaints should be recorded with them being resolved at stage 1 of the process. This identifies any trends and also indicates that service users concerns are being listened to and acted on.

                                        In addition to this Annual Report, complaints are monitored by

                                        · Monthly report for Learning and Care Directorate Information Bulletin
                                        · Monthly report for Corporate Centre which is discussed at Directors Group
                                        · Quarterly report to Directorate Management Team
                                        · Quarterly report to Cabinet

                                            Recommendations arising from complaints are monitored for implementation.

                                        2.2 Objectives of the Complaints Procedure
                                            The legislation and guidance states that the objectives of the procedure are:
                                        · Accessible and easy to understand
                                        · Provide a strong problem-solving element
                                        · Speedy
                                        · Guarantee a considered response
                                        · Provide information on how policies translate into practice
                                        · Highlight areas where the authority should be more responsive to the needs of individuals and the community.

                                        2.3 Legislative Framework
                                            The Children Act 1989 provides the legal framework for Social Care services complaints procedure together with timescales, who can access the procedure and the appointment of an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person at the second stage of the process.

                                            Local Authority Circular LAC (2004) 11 "Regulations and Guidance on Providing Effective Advocacy Services for Children and Young People Making a Complaint under the Children Act 1989" refers to the guidance from the Department for Education and Skills entitled "Get It Sorted. There is now a duty on local authorities under section 26A of the Children Act 1989 to make arrangements for the provision of advocacy to children and young people making or intending to make representations (including complaints) under the Children Act 1989. During the reporting year, one young person making a complaint has been provided with an advocacy service through VOICE.

                                        2.4 The Complaints Process
                                            In brief, the complaints process is in 3 stages: (Please see flow chart at Appendix 1)

                                            Stage 1 (Local Resolution)
                                            The operational manager of the service about which the complaint is received attempts to resolve the matter. The aim is to resolve the complaint as close as possible to the point of service delivery and the service user.

                                            Stage 2 (Investigation)
                                            The complainant decides whether they are satisfied with the outcome of stage 1 of the procedure and, if not, request to progress to the formal stage of the procedure. If the complaint is sufficiently serious, the complainant can access the procedure direct at stage 2.

                                            An Investigating Officer and an Independent Person are appointed by the Customer Care Co-ordinator. They will look into the issues of the complaint and provide a report to the Head of Service outlining their findings.

                                            The Head of Service writes a response to the complainant on behalf of the Directorate using the Investigating Officer’s report as a basis for the response. The letter states whether or not the complaint is upheld, or partially upheld, and any actions the Directorate proposes to take to remedy the situation.

                                            Stage 3 (Review Panel)
                                            The complainant decides that they are not satisfied with the response at Stage 2 and requests progression to Stage 3 of the process.

                                            A Review Panel is convened to review the investigation into the complaint, the Directorate’s response and the outcomes. The Panel consists of 3 independent people.

                                            The Director of Learning and Care responds to the complainant once the conclusions and recommendations of the Panel have been received.

                                            After the above procedure is completed the complainant can, if they so decide, refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman.


                                        2.5 Revised Process

                                            New guidance from the Department for Education and Skills was received in the autumn of 2006. This guidance outlines a revised process for statutory Social Care services complaints and is entitled “Getting the Best from Complaints”. Changes in the guidance are:
                                        · A cut off period of one year following the event which gives rise to the complaint. This can be extended in certain circumstances, for example where a child did not feel confident in bringing a complaint earlier.
                                          · Representations from children and young people should be recorded. These are not complaints but could be enquiries or comments about the availability, delivery or nature of a service.
                                            · Response time for stage 1 is 10 (was 28) working days which can be extended to 20 working days with the agreement of the complainant. The complainant can request a stage 2 if this timescale is not met
                                              · 20 working days (was 28) following the stage 1 response for the complainant to request a stage 2.
                                                · Stage 2 investigation completed and responded to within 25 working days (was 28) of the date of the statement of complaint. If this is not met, an extension to 65 working days (was 3 months) can be agreed but dialogue must be maintained with the complainant.
                                                  · 20 working days (was 28) following the date of the stage 2 adjudication response for the complainant to request stage 3 Review Panel.
                                                      Some of the new functions which may be the subject of a complaint include:
                                                  · Decision by the local authority to initiate care and supervision orders
                                                  · Effect of a care order and the LA’s actions and decisions where a care order is made
                                                  · Parental contact with children in care
                                                  · How supervisors perform their duties where a supervision order is in force
                                                  · Matters that do not relate to the court and which are specifically actions of the local authority regarding applications for and duties in relation to child assessment orders
                                                  · Matters that relate to local authorities and their use of discretionary powers in relation to emergency protection orders;
                                                  · Adoption related functions arising from the Adoption and Children Act
                                                  · Special Guardianship Support Services arising from the Regulations which came into force on 30 December 2005
                                                    2.6 Redress

                                                        The usual redress offered when a complaint or part of a complaint is upheld is to review the service offered and/or the procedure that was followed. An explanation of any action to be taken and, where appropriate, an apology will be conveyed to the complainant. An offer of an ex gratia payment could be made for the time and trouble of bringing the complaint to the Directorate’s attention and any exceptional distress caused. No ex gratia payments have been made during this reporting year.
                                                    2.7 Breakdown of Compliments and Complaints Received
                                                        During the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 the following have been notified to the Customer Care Co-ordinator.
                                                    (i) Compliments

                                                    In this reporting period, 47 compliments were notified to the Customer Care Co-ordinator as having been received in Children’s Social Care services. 35 compliments were about the quality of service provided and 12 in relation to the attitude/conduct of staff.
                                                        (ii) Complaints

                                                        Stage
                                                        Number
                                                        Cost
                                                        Stage 1
                                                        46
                                                        Stage 2
                                                        4
                                                        £8,307
                                                        Stage 3
                                                        1
                                                        £677
                                                        Overall Cost of Children’s Services Complaints for the reporting year 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 £8,894

                                                    Details are provided in Part 2 of this report

                                                    91% of complaints were resolved at stage one, the national average is 92%.
                                                        The level of complaints also compares well with other similar sized local authorities.
                                                    Inspections of children services have stated that the current processes are robust and used well by the public.

                                                    (iii) Representations

                                                    As referred to in paragraph 2.5, during this reporting year, new guidance was received which included the need to record representations. This information has therefore only been collated since September 2006 and 1 representation from children and young people has been recorded. A new system has been devised for collecting this information and it is envisaged that this number will increase considerably.
                                                    2.8 Resolution Times

                                                        Of the 46 concerns recorded, 7 were not fully responded to within the 10 working day timescale.

                                                        However, of those 7, only 2 were not responded to within the allowed 20 working day timescale. Both of the complainants were in agreement with the extended timescales.

                                                        1 of the delays was because a number of meetings were arranged and the other delay was in relation to the complaint being complex with more than one issue to respond to.

                                                    2.9 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN COMPLAINTS

                                                    (a) New Complaints Logging System

                                                    Staff in the Customer Service Centre are in the process of devising a new complaints logging system using their software package, Lagan. This process will include all complaints received by the Royal Borough and will greatly reduce the amount of double logging that the Learning and Care Directorate has to undertake.

                                                    Complaints received in the Learning and Care Directorate are at present logged in a bespoke social care services complaints database. This is because of the statutory 3 stage process and the information needed to produce the required reports. The same complaints then have to be entered on the hyperwave so that Democratic Services can report on complaints corporately.

                                                    The proposed system on Lagan can be adapted to reflect the 3 stage process and relevant reports for all Directorates will be obtainable from that system.

                                                    (b) Voices for Improvement Action Network - VIAN

                                                    This is a Department of Health initiative prior to new Government regulations which it is envisaged will come into effect in 2009 and which will bring together complaints colleagues in health and both adults and children’s social care services. There will be local and national groups consisting of complaints managers who will respond to consultations and explore the groundwork ensuring that legislation, local practice and local need are considered.
                                                        The DoH vision is that complaints managers will work jointly on individual complaints to organise single responses and in so doing will achieve:
                                                        Sharing of best practice;
                                                        Discussion of models of good investigative practice;
                                                        Sharing names of investigating officers and independent consultants
                                                        Sharing information on training, report writing and organisational learning.
                                                        It is anticipated that there will be a cross Berkshire Local VIAN group with a DoH lead.

                                                    2.10 Options Available

                                                    This report is statutory under legislation.

                                                    2.11 Reasons for the Supporting Recommendations
                                                        To inform Members as required under legislation.
                                                    2.12 Relevant National Guidance
                                                        The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990
                                                        The Children Act 1989
                                                    2.13 Relevant Council Policies / Strategies
                                                        Social Care services complaints data is forwarded on a monthly basis to the corporate centre for reporting to Members and Chief Officers. In addition, Social Care services also take part in the corporate wide Complaints User Group.

                                                    3 IMPLICATIONS

                                                    3.1 Financial
                                                        None

                                                    3.2 Legal
                                                        This report is a statutory requirement
                                                    3.3 Human Rights Act

                                                    The complaints procedure complies with a person's Right to a Fair Trial or a Right to a Fair Hearing.

                                                    3.4 Planning

                                                    None

                                                    3.5 Sustainable Development

                                                    None


                                                    57


                                                    10 CHILDREN’S SOCIAL CARE PERFORMANCE REPORT

                                                    CHILDREN’S SERVICES & LEISURE OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY PANEL: 1 August 2007

                                                    OFFICERS REPORTING: Heather Andrews, Head of Safeguarding & Specialist Services & David Horler, Head of Strategy & Resources.

                                                    1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

                                                    To make Members aware of the Learning & Care Directorate’s performance against the children’s social care performance assessment framework indicators (PAFs) for the year 2006/07.

                                                    2. OFFICERS RECOMMENDATIONS.

                                                      That Members consider and note the information contained in this report.
                                                    3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

                                                    3.1 Wards Affected
                                                      All awards are affected.

                                                    3.2 Relevant Matters Upon Which Decision is Based
                                                      From April 2004 the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) assumed responsibility for the development of the Performance Assessment Framework Indicators. These are a collection of performance indicators relating to personal social services which together give a view of how local councils are serving their residents. This function had previously been the responsibility of the Department of Health (DH) and then latterly the Department for Education & Skills (DfES). The data collections that underpin the indicators are managed by the Information Centre for health and social care and their selection continues to require the approval of Ministers.

                                                      The annual performance assessment process incorporates performance indicators, service inspections and the self assessment survey (SAS) (formerly known as the delivery and improvement statement - DIS) relating to adults and the children’s Annual Performance Assessment (APA) data from each council. All these pieces of performance evidence are used by CSCI, and latterly Ofsted, to get a rounded picture of performance which results in the star rating for each council. Performance is measured via 5 point bandings with 1 being the poorest and 5 the highest. From 2007, local areas are statutorily required to review the progress made in implementing their Children & Young People’s Plan to demonstrate success for improving outcomes for children and young people. This review is another key piece of evidence for the APA. Ofsted (incorporating CSCI) then award a star rating for the Council’s children’s services.
                                                    3.3 Options Available and Risk Assessment

                                                      Performance indicators are monitored on a monthly and/or quarterly basis by service areas and the Learning & Care DMT. Risk assessment arrangements against targets are discussed within service areas as a result of this performance monitoring and where appropriate actions plans are put in place to achieve targets.

                                                    3.4 Reasons Supporting Recommendation
                                                      The following table shows the Royal Borough’s performance in 2005/06 and 2006/07 against the performance assessment framework indicators which relate to children and families.
                                                    Indicator
                                                    2005/6 band
                                                    2005/6 actual
                                                    2006/7 band
                                                    2006/7 actual
                                                    Comment
                                                    % Children who are looked after with 3 or more placements during year at 31/3/04
                                                    5
                                                    5.7
                                                    5
                                                    3.6
                                                    Excellent performance,
                                                    sustained improvement over the last 4 years. Demonstrates good placement matching process for LAC
                                                    % Young people leaving care aged 16 or over with at least 1 GCSE (A-G) or GNVQ
                                                    5
                                                    100.0
                                                    2
                                                    44.4
                                                    Small cohort - this represents 4 out of 9 children. 45% would have given us a 3 band rating. Effected by numbers of disabled children in cohort
                                                    ( 6 out of 9). Plan to achieve 5 blob performance this reporting cycle. LPSA reward monies will have positive impact on performance ( increasing time of LAC EWO/additional individual tutor support )
                                                    % child protection register registrations that are re-registrations
                                                    4
                                                    10.0
                                                    3
                                                    19.0
                                                    Small cohort – 15 children in total, 10 of whom being sibling groups of 3 or more. Also a consequence of increase child protection activity, and general increase in social care activity levels by 30%
                                                    Ratio of the % of children who are looked after on 1st April in 17 year (aged 16) in education, training & employment at age 19 to the % of young people in the population who were engaged in education, training or employment at the age of 19
                                                    5
                                                    0.7
                                                    1
                                                    0.29
                                                    Small cohort - this figures represents 1 child out of 4 who was in Education, Training or Employment at their 19th birthday ( 1 pregnant, 1 had been in employment and is now employed again, 1 had been in college. Target is for 5 blob performance this reporting cycle. Work experience project being re-invigorated, and continuing development of education/employment mentoring project.
                                                    % of children who are looked after aged 10-15 including in foster placement or placed for adoption (excluding those placed with parents or short term placements)
                                                    Not Available – new PAF
                                                    54.1
                                                    Small cohort – 37, with 17 in residential care of whom only 1 had 3 placement changes. 12 young people have a disability, and 3 have SEN status and are appropriately placed in residential boarding school arrangements. This PAF will be positively affected in the long term by the redevelopment of Holyport Manor Special School, and development of respite foster care service for disabled children
                                                    Final warnings, reprimands & convictions of children who are looked after
                                                    2
                                                    4.6
                                                    2
                                                    3.5
                                                    Small cohort ( 4 children, 3 in specialist residential placements ).3 is the maximum band for this indicator. APA plan 06/07 exceeded, and ahead family group median. Protocol with YOT fully operational, development with YOT/FGC promotes early identification/prevention agenda
                                                    Health of children who are looked after
                                                    5
                                                    94.7
                                                    5
                                                    91.5
                                                    Solid 5 blob performance sustained over last 4 years. Good multi-agency working, solid health pathway monitored by LAC “being healthy” steering group.
                                                    Reviews on time of children and young people on the child protection register
                                                    3
                                                    96.9
                                                    5
                                                    100.0
                                                    Solid 5 blob performance
                                                    (even with increased child protection activity ). Performance ranging from acceptable to excellent over last 4 years
                                                    % de-registered who had been on child protection register for 2+ years
                                                    4
                                                    0.0
                                                    4
                                                    0.0
                                                    4 is the maximum band for this indicator, sustained over 4 year period, demonstrating well managed multi-agency core group activity implementing child protection plans.
                                                    % children who are looked after for more than 6 months who were adopted in year
                                                    5
                                                    9.4
                                                    4
                                                    7.0
                                                    Above average performance sustained over last 3 years as a result of Permanency Monitoring Group. Reason 5 blob performance was not achieved last reporting cycle was because sibling group with older children required placement ( adoption order now achieved ). 5 blob performance for 07/08 reporting cycle
                                                    % children who are looked after for 12 months and were of school age who missed 25 or more days schooling for any reason during previous school year
                                                    4
                                                    5.9
                                                    5
                                                    2.9
                                                    Excellent performance, above average performance sustained over last 3 years. Demonstrates good multi-agency working, and sound PEP planning a strong feature of local area performance
                                                    % of children newly looked after during year, and still looked after at end of year, who were placed >20 miles from their home address from which first placed
                                                    Not available
                                                    25.0
                                                    Revised definition and therefore not yet rated. Small cohort, 28 children 7 of whom were placed more than 20 miles, 3 less than 30, 1 less than 40, 2 less than 50, 1 less than 70. All 7 children required specialist residential placements, 4 with disability, 2 SEN. None of these young people had 3 or more placements, demonstrating appropriateness of placement matching process.
                                                    % children who are looked after aged under 16 who have been looked after for >2.5yrs and in the same placement for >2yrs or placed for adoption.
                                                    Not Available
                                                    70.0
                                                    Revised definition and therefore not yet rated. Sustained improvement over last 3 years, demonstrating commitment good multi-agency permanency planning
                                                    % of Assessed Social Work Practice Learning Days - Childrens
                                                    Not Available
                                                    10.1
                                                    Revised definition and therefore not yet rated. Well above GSCC standard of 5 days per year. Service training priorities have linked to central govt. initiatives e.g. Integrated Children’s System, CAF/Contact Point, Children’s Workforce Strategy
                                                    Participation in Reviews
                                                    5
                                                    100.0
                                                    5
                                                    100.0
                                                    Solid 5 blob performance over last 3 years, above average for 4. Demonstrates commitment to involving children in care planning/placement routine decisions
                                                    Timing of Core Assessments
                                                    4
                                                    70.0
                                                    4
                                                    76.1
                                                    Sustained improvement over last 4 years, with plan to achieve 5 blob performance this reporting cycle. Now above family median, and significantly above family median re: number of core assessments per 10,00 of children population ( 107 compared to 49 )
                                                    Children who are looked after reviews
                                                    5
                                                    95.5
                                                    5
                                                    98.7
                                                    Excellent performance, with sustained improvement over last 3 years, demonstrating good multi-agency commitment to permanency planning

                                                      A final performance monitoring meeting was held in February 2007 between the local authority and the CSCI Business Relationship Manager in preparation for the transfer of children’s social care inspection to OFSTED from April 2007. Strategic issues highlighted in the JAR have all been addressed, and the JAR action plan progress is on track. Multi-agency funding for the LSCB has been secured, with a Business Manager, and Independent Chair appointed. The completion of initial and core assessments have exceeded APA targets and are ahead of the family median. 100% of child protection review case conferences are held on time, and no child has been on the child protection register for longer than 2 years. Increase in social care activity levels of 30%, has resulted in increased identification of risk, with 22.5 children on the child protection register per 10,000 of the children’s population compared to 18.2 of the family median.

                                                      Following a service re-design in relation to the direction of travel indicated by the green paper “Care Matters” the Looked After Children and Children in Need functions have been separated. RBWM now has a Children in Care Team, from which there has been development of procedures to address Special Guardianship Orders, Private Fostering arrangements, and the role of Independent Reviewing Officers, and a mentoring scheme for “Care Leavers” has been established. The Fostering Service has been rated as “excellent” following an inspection by CSCI. Excellent 5 blob performance has been achieved in 6 area’s, above average 4 blob performance in 3, acceptable 3 blob performance in 1, with 3 area’s requiring improvement plans that are all targeted for improvement in this reporting cycle.
                                                    3.5 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

                                                      The APA and SAS are documents that contain all of the targets that central government requires local authorities to carry out as part of its ‘modernisation programme’.

                                                    3.6 Relevant Council Policies/Strategies
                                                      The corporate improvement plan sets out the need to improve performance management arrangements across the directorates. The performance indicators contained in this report contribute to the Community Strategy in the following ways:

                                                      Relevant?
                                                      Yes / No
                                                      Key Themes:
                                                      getting about.
                                                      learning for life
                                                      Yes
                                                      being safe and secure
                                                      Yes
                                                      caring and health
                                                      Yes
                                                      living and working in a good place.
                                                      Yes
                                                      Guiding Principles:
                                                      working together
                                                      Yes
                                                      leaving no one behind
                                                      Yes
                                                      involving people
                                                      Yes
                                                      safeguarding the young
                                                      Yes
                                                    4. CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT
                                                      Service managers and DMT have all had a chance to comment on the performance monitoring arrangements and action plans made as a result of under performance.

                                                    5. IMPLICATIONS

                                                    5.1 Financial

                                                      There are no financial implications arising from this report.
                                                    5.2 Legal

                                                      There are no legal implications arising from this report.
                                                    5.3 Human Rights Act

                                                      No rights are affected by this report and there are no victims as defined under the Act.
                                                    5.4 Planning

                                                      There are no planning implications arising from this report.
                                                    5.3 Sustainable Development
                                                        The recommendations in this report have no significantly adverse or beneficial sustainable development implications.