Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

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

Meeting Date:
11/24/2008 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

COUNCILLORS MISS BARTON, J EVANS, FIDO, LENTON, MRS PITTEWAY (VICE-CHAIRMAN) MRS STOCK and D WILSON.

MR GIBBONS (PORTSMOUTH DIOCESAN REPRESENTATIVE) AND MRS MINTERN (OXFORD DIOCESAN REPRESENTATIVE)

SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
COUNCILLORS BASKERVILLE, MRS BURSNALL, MRS ENDACOTT, MRS HERDSON, MRS HUNT, MRS LUXTON AND MAJEED

ITEM	SUBJECT	WARD	PAGE NO
1	ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN To elect a Chairman for the remainder of the municipal year.
2	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence.
3	DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive Declarations of Interests from Members of the Panel in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
4	MINUTES To confirm the Part I minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 29th September 2008.		i-vi
5	TWINNING COMMITTEE To receive a presentation by the Chairman of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Twinning Committee.		--
6*	EVALUATION OF FIRST YEAR OF PHASE 2 OF CHILDREN’S CENTRES To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 22 January 2009 on the evaluation of the first year of phase two of Children’s Centres.	Pinkneys Green, Furze Platt, Clewer South, Eton Wick, Old Windsor, Oldfield and Datchet	1
7*	ANNUAL CONSULTATION ON SCHOOLS ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 18th December 2008 on the Annual Consultation on Schools Admission Arrangements.	All	5
8*	APPOINTMENT OF LEA REPRESENTATIVES TO GOVERNING BODIES OF SCHOOLS IN THE ROYAL BOROUGH To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 18th December 2008 on the Appointment of School Governors.	All	33
9*	SERVICE MONITORING REPORT To receive the latest service monitoring report in respect of Children’s Services and Leisure services.	All	65
10*	PRELIMINARY BUDGET 2009/10 To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 18 December 2008 on the Preliminary Budget 2009/10.	All	84
11*	FEES AND CHARGES 2009/10 To comment upon the report being submitted to Cabinet on 18 December 2008 on the Fees and Charges 2009/10 report.	All	To follow
12*	HOLYPORT MANOR SCHOOL REPROVISION To receive a verbal progress update on the re-provision of Holyport Manor School at Cox green, Maidenhead.	All	--
13	LOCAL 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 14-16 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"

Date: January 22^nd 2009

Member Reporting: Cllr Mrs Quick

Contact Officer(s): Debbie Verity - Early Years and Childcare Manager

Wards Affected: Pinkneys Green, Furze Platt, Clewer South, Eton Wick, Old Windsor, Oldfield and Datchet

1.1 The Royal Borough is keen to ensure that children get off to a good start in life. Even the best parents and carers are challenged at some point by the job looking after children and ensuring that their health and development are progressing. Children’s centres are a “one-stop shop” for delivering services to families of young children. Services include parenting advice, health advice and support for parents and carers seeking employment. They are a valuable resource to parents in accessing a range of multi-agency support.

1.2 This report summarises progress during the first year of operation of Children’s centres in the Royal Borough and gives key points for action during the coming year.

1.3 Currently, there are six designated children’s centres in the Royal Borough. Based on population figures, each centre has a “reach target” that indicates the number of children in the community it is expected to serve. The six centres with their reach targets are shown below:

Dedworth (570)
Ellington (988)
The Lawns, Windsor (1085)
South Ascot Village School (1014)
St Mark’s, Maidenhead (608)
Woodlands Park (703)

This report is produced for information at the request of Cabinet. Members are asked to note its content and to continue their support for the development of Children’s Centres in the Royal Borough.

Background

3.1 The Childcare Act 2006 placed a range of duties on local authorities in relation to Early Years and Childcare Services for children and their families. Part 1 Section 1 of the Act requires local authorities to reduce inequalities and improve the well-being of all young children in their area. Children’s centres are front line services (alongside schools) providing accessible support to all families with young children - and is one of ways in which this duty is met.

3.2 The Royal Borough did not receive funding for any children’s centres during Phase 1 of the national SureStart programme, but we did receive funding in Phase 2. Phase 2 ran from April 2006 until March 2008. The Royal Borough was required to “designate” six children’s centres during this period (National Indicator 109) An allocation of £1,090.780 capital and £885,129 revenue was received from central government. In practice the Royal Borough developed seven children’s centres during this period. Royal Borough children’s centres offer a distinct menu of services, which deliver over and above, that which was required. This has been achieved through effective partnership working both within children’s services and with our partner agencies

3.3 Children’s centres have to be developed in partnership with agencies other than local authorities. A variety of management models is recommended across the country. There are three kinds of management arrangements in the Royal Borough. As indicated in the May report to Cabinet on children’s centres, the types of our Phase 2 centres are as follows:

Local Authority Managed Sites	Primary Care Trust (PCT) Managed Site	School Managed Sites
South Maidenhead – Woodlands Park Village Children’s Centre	Central Maidenhead St Mark’s Children’s Centre	Ascot and surrounding area – South Ascot Children’s Centre
North Maidenhead – Ellington Extended Services Centre		East Windsor – The Lawns Nursery School and Children's Centre
		West Windsor – Xtend Extended Schools and Children’s Centre – Dedworth School’s site

3.5 In terms of outcomes for young children, children’s centres contribute to several National Indicators:

NI 72 Achievement of at least 78 points across the Early Years Foundation stage with at least 6 in each of the scales in Personal Social and Emotional Development and Communication, Language and Literacy

NI 92 Narrowing the gap between the lowest achieving 20% in the Early Years Foundation stage and the rest.

N1 118 Take up of formal childcare by low income working families.

It is encouraging to note that overall there are improvements across all the scales of the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile. The Royal Borough is also on target in relation to narrowing the achievement gap at the Early Years Foundation Stage.

3.6 In terms of processes children’s centres are now fully staffed (albeit only with one full-time equivalent co-ordinator each) and are operating within budget. The revenue budget for the three financial years from April 2008 has been agreed with centre co-ordinators and senior managers of the Royal Borough. Each centre has a service delivery plan that has been agreed with partners (and senior managers within the Royal Borough). The Royal Borough’s Family Information Service publishes details of all children’s centres and their services on their web site. Each centre distributes its own publicity within its own community, e.g. leaflets in doctors’ surgeries and school entrances. The Early Years and Childcare Service has provided all centres with a comprehensive data set on the population within each designated area to enable them to understand the distinct needs of their communities. Systems are in place to collect basic biographical details on all users of children’s centres to make sure that centres are achieving their “reach” targets within their designated areas. Quarterly meetings are held with the children’s centre co-ordinators to share good practice, problem solve and mutual support. In addition each co-ordinator meets with the Children’s Centre Programme Manager on a quarterly basis to monitor progress against the service delivery plan. Training for co-ordinators has been via the termly training programme and covers all the core requirements, such as health and safety as well as broader areas for their professional development. The Children’s Centre Programme Manager is currently following the national accredited training scheme for children’s centre leaders.

3.7 In future efforts will continue to be focused on delivering outcomes as determined by the National Indicators (regarding achievement in the Early Years Foundation Stage, narrowing the gap, and improving the take-up of the child care tax credit). There is concern from the Government Office of the South East (GOSE) about the fact that take up of childcare tax credit is slipping below the national target. (NI 118) GOSE are offering advice on how to publicise this opportunity more effectively.

3.8 There are broader improvements to delivery that will be sought in the coming year. Potentially, children’s centres have an important role to play at the heart of communities. This may be even more important given the national decline in the economic situation and the risk of higher unemployment. In practice this means that we want encourage residents to take more ownership of their local children’s centre and see it as a venue for a broad range of community activities. Some groups of parents and carers are known to be at risk of “missing out” e.g. those families where there is a child with disabilities, where a male is the main carer and where there is a history of other difficulties such as mental health. There is therefore scope to develop partnerships further with Family Friends (a local voluntary organisation that delivers individual and group-based parenting support). Similarly, links with Parent Partnership (supporting families of children with additional needs) are being developed. The Early Years and Childcare Service will work with the children’s centre co-ordinators to publish a corporate leaflet for distribution across the Royal Borough raising the profile of the centres for residents. The Royal Borough will provide challenge and support to the co-ordinators of children’s centres. As part of this commitment to performance management the Royal Borough’s Children’s Centre Programme Manager will also be conducting an “annual conversation” with each centre co-ordinator.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Risk assessment

No risk assessment has been conducted as this report is a review of progress to date.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

5.1 This report has not been the subject of external consultation.

6. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

6.1 Text.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Date: Cabinet, Thursday 18^th December 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Mrs Eileen Quick

Contact Officer(s): Rhidian Jones, Principal Education Officer, Children’s Commissioning (tel. 01628 796779)

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

This report fulfils the statutory requirement to consult annually on admission arrangements.

Specifically to seek Members’ approval to consult as set out in the attached Consultative Paper on School Admissions for Entry in 2010, which contains six annexes, as follows.

On the principle of admitting children full-time to mainstream schools twice a year in September (for those becoming five years of age during the autumn term) and January (for those becoming five during the spring and summer terms);

on the principle of removing completely from the admission criteria any consideration of medical or social reasons;

on the Criteria for Admissions to Community and Voluntary Controlled Schools within the Royal Borough (annexes 1 & 2),

on the established Co-ordinated Admissions Scheme for primary and secondary schools for September 2010 (annexes 4 & 5),

and on admission numbers for the Royal Borough’s schools (annex 6).

It also seeks approval to consult on continuing an option for the Specialist Schools 10% Selection by Aptitude Criteria for 2010 (annex 2).

The annexes are as follows.

Annex 1: Proposed Admission Criteria for RBWM Primary Schools including Windsor’s First Schools from 1^st September 2010

Annex 2: Proposed Admission Criteria for RBWM Secondary Schools including Windsor’s Middle and Upper Schools from 1^st September 2010

Annex 3: Distribution List of those bodies to be consulted

Annex 4: Co-ordinated Admission Scheme for RBWM Primary Schools including Windsor’s First Schools, 2010

Annex 5: Co-ordinated Admission Scheme for RBWM Secondary Schools including Windsor’s Middle and Upper Schools, 2010

Annex 6: Admission numbers of schools

Annex 7: Note about revenue implications for admission of ‘rising 5s’ to school

2. RECOMMENDATION

That approval be given to the proposal to consult on the matters set out in the Consultative Paper on School Admissions for Entry in 2010 (i.e. annexes 1 –6).

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Background

In accordance with Section 89B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, all local authorities must have a Co-ordinated Admissions Scheme for primary and secondary schools. Should an authority fail to put such a scheme in place, a scheme may be imposed on the authority by the Secretary of State.

Under the Co-ordination of Arrangements Scheme, the authority must be responsible for sending parents a single letter offering their child a school place. This requirement extends to all voluntary aided schools, where the offer is made on behalf of the governing body. A Secondary Co-ordinated Admissions Scheme enables parents to complete their ‘home’ authority’s application form and to receive a single letter offering one school place. The Primary Scheme is similar, but parents may fill in a second application form from another authority if they wish to apply for a school in the area of a neighbouring authority.

The provisions of Section 102 of the School Standards and Framework Act enabled maintained schools to consult upon the selection of up to 10 per cent of pupils for admission to their school, by reference to their aptitude in a prescribed specialist subject or subjects. The Windsor Boys’ School (performing arts) and Charters School (sports) currently have criteria for selection by aptitude.

It is proposed that consultation be carried out between 1^st and 31^st January 2009, with a paper to be presented to Cabinet at its meeting on Thursday 26^th March finally to determine the admission arrangements for entry in September 2010. The list of bodies to be consulted is contained as Annex 3 to this report.

Members are invited to note significant changes to previous arrangements:

For all schools:

It is proposed to remove the rule allowing parents to adduce social or medical reasons for a place at a particular school. This is for two reasons: first, operation of this rule inevitably leads to subjectivity in its interpretation; second, pupils with the greatest such needs are likely either to be Looked After or be the subject of statements of special educational need, either of which confers a priority in admission.

For primary and first schools:

The Consultation formally seeks comments on new arrangements for first admission to school. Members agreed in May 2008 that this statutory consultation should include consultation on the principle that children should be first admitted full-time to mainstream school twice a year, on 1^st September (those becoming five years of age during the autumn terms) and 1^st January (those becoming five in the spring or summer terms).

Depending on the outcome of the relevant decision making process, South Ascot Village Primary Schools and South Ascot Village Nursery School are to be amalgamated with effect from 1^st September 2009.

For secondary, middle and upper schools:

Should members prefer to retain the medical or social rule, then it is proposed that it should be moved after, rather than before, the sibling rule, to bring it into line with the primary school arrangements.

It is also proposed that when there are more children living in the designated area for a school than there are places remaining, the tiebreaker should be changed so that it matches the primary school arrangements. This would mean that in this situation places would first be allocated to those children with older siblings attending the school. Proximity to school – which is the only tiebreaker for secondary schools at present – would be used as a tiebreaker (a) if there are more children with older siblings than places available; or (b) where there are still places (but not enough) once all the designated area siblings have been admitted. The proximity measure alone is then used as a tiebreaker on all subsequent rules.

Charters School has gained Trust status as of 1^st September 2008, and its governing body will be responsible for its own admission arrangements for entry in 2010 and beyond. The school must, however, abide by the published admissions arrangements for September 2009 (agreed by the Royal Borough in March 2008).

Consultation is currently in progress (from 1^st December 2008) on changing the designated areas for Maidenhead’s secondary schools. Its outcome is to be reported to Cabinet in March 2009 as part of the Determination of School Admission Arrangements.

Most of the above points relating to secondary, middle and upper schools were first raised in the report to Cabinet on the 23^rd October 2008 titled ‘Secondary School Designated Areas’.

Members are invited to note that national consultation has recently taken place on a new Code of Practice for School Admissions, the results of which are due to be published early in 2009 by the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. To agree to carry out the consultation	It is a statutory requirement that consultation take place before an admissions scheme is determined	There are none arising from the consultation itself
	2. Not to approve the consultation	Should the Council fail to agree a scheme, the Secretary of State can impose his own scheme	There are none arising from the consultation itself

The possible risk is as mentioned above in paragraph 4.1.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Consultation relating to Annex 4 and 5 is currently required to be undertaken each year with neighbouring admission authorities and these annexes detail the Co-ordinated Admissions Scheme for primary and secondary school respectively. The scheme is based on guidance and a suggested model scheme from the Department for Children Schools and Families.

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

To be inserted.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Legal. S.89 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 provides that the admission authority for every maintained school must determine the school’s admission arrangements every school year. The Education (Determination of School Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1989, as amended, set out the details of this duty, which includes that arrangements must be determined before 15^th April in any given year.

S.9 of the Education Act 1996, as amended by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, obliges an authority to have regard to the concept of parental preference, whereby parents express a preference for their child to attend a specific school. Education in accordance with parental preference is subject to the provision of efficient education and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.

The admission arrangements are governed by a strict legislative framework. Unless there is a major change in circumstances the admission arrangements cannot be altered at short notice.

Human Rights. The convention right under the Human Rights Act relevant to this report is Article 2 of the First Protocol, the right not be denied an education. This convention right will not be affected by this decision. This decision does not affect any victims as defined under the Act.

Background Papers:

Education Act 1996
School Standards and Framework Act 1998
Education (Determining School Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1998
Education (Determination of School Admission Arrangements) Regulations 1999
Education Act 2002
Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, Department for Education and Skills, 2004
Specialist Schools Programme Application Guidance 2004/5
School Admissions Code, Department for Education and Skills, [28 February] 2007





 Meetings 081124 Cslosp School Admission Arrangements Appendix

1.1 To consider the vacancies that have arisen or will shortly arise for Local Education Authority (LEA) representatives on school governing bodies within the Royal Borough, and of nominations that have been received, so that appointments may be made.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Members appoint either Juian Tisi or Tom Bursnall to Windsor Boys’ School, Susan Leighs to Eton Wick C of E First School, Asghar Majeed to Oldfield Primary School, Grant Thompson to Holy Trinity Primary School Sunningdale and re-appoint Nigel Smith to Larchfield Primary School and Dorothy Kemp to Woodlands Park Primary School.

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Background

3.1 Applications were received for the following vacancies:

The final approval of which applicant becomes an LEA governor lies with Cabinet.

3.2 Wards Affected

Castle Without, Eton Wick, Oldfield and Sunningdale

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

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 LEA Governors.

3.4 Existing vacancies

On 4^th November there were 14 vacancies for LEA governors at schools within the Royal Borough at the following schools:

School	Ward	No. Vacancies
All Saints C.E. Junior	Boyne Hill	1
Alwyn Infant	Pinkneys Green	1
Braywood C of E First	Bray	1
Clewer Green C of E	Clewer East	1
Courthouse Junior	Pinkneys Green	1
Datchet St Mary’s	Datchet	1
Dedworth Green First	Clewer North	1
Eton Wick C of E First	Eton Wick	1
Hilltop First	Clewer South	1
Holy Trinity Primary Sunningdale	Sunningdale	1
Oakfield First	Clewer East	1
Oldfield Primary	Oldfield	1
St Luke’s C of E Primary	Bray	1
Windsor Boys’	Castle Without	1

3.6 Future vacancies

LEA governors at the following schools will reach the end of their current term of office before the end of January 2008. Letters are sent to each governor inviting them to apply for re-appointment. Applications are invited from Members and other interested individuals for consideration for these positions at the time of the next report.

Current representatives

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.

4.1 Options

4.2 Risk assessment

4.2.1 The risk assessment identified the role of a focused, continual marketing campaign to attract applications, to ensure a diverse choice of applicants for Members final decision.

4.2.2 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

4.2.3 Relevant National/Regional Guidance

The DCSF has now issued guidance on the governance constitution regulations as mentioned in paragraph 5.2 below.

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.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

5.1 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.

5.2 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.

6. COMMENTS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

6.1 Text.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

Date: 23 October 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Hilton

Contact Officer(s): Andrew Brooker, Head of Finance, x6341

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This service monitoring report provides a monthly update on service delivery with emphasis on the impact on the council’s financial position.

1.2 Services are currently projecting expenditure £646k more than the approved estimate (last month £488k). Balances at year end are projected to be £5.381M.

1.3 There are no significant overspends reported in the capital programme. £2.665m of the capital programme has slipped to 2009/10 (last month £1.1m), of which £0.6m relates to Smith’s Lane Community Project, £0.3m on a Fire Health & Safety Compliance Project and £0.185m on Windsor Library improvements.

2. RECOMMENDATION: That:

i) The provisional revenue and capital outturn figures be noted.

ii) The capital programme variances and slippage identified in Appendix C be approved.

iii) That Directors work with Lead Members to develop proposals to contain expenditure within current budget limit.

3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION

3.1 Background

3.2 As at 30 September 2008, total service expenditure for 2008/9 is expected to be £86,529k (up £159k from last month’s £86,370k).

3.2 Summaries of the Council’s provisional outturn Revenue and Capital financial reports are contained in Appendices A and B respectively. The revenue report includes income and expenditure statements together with a short Directorate report drawing members’ attention to key activities affecting the current and future years.

3.3 The Director of Learning & Care reports that its 2008-9 costs are projected to be overspent by £431k (up £158k from last month’s £273k).

The Children and Young People budget shows an increase of £124k in expected overspend to £491k since last month. Home to school transport, residential care for disabled and looked-after children have all seen further increases in projected outturn in the last month, partially offset by a further
reduction in costs for external fostering.

Adult Social Care now reports an expected overspend of £20k (last month an underspend of £14k). Net external homecare costs have increased by £70k because of greater use of spot purchase contracts, whilst older people’s residential and nursing care costs have gone down by £26k as average contributions from service users are greater than budget. There is an additional net underspend of £10k on salary budgets.

3.4 The Director of Community Services reports a variance of £150k (down £30k from last month’s £180k) from the approved estimate.

There has been a grant of £10k within planning services for School Travel Plans. The expected shortfall in car parking income has increased by £5k to £170k. Ongoing vacancies within the Development Control Unit and Building Control Unit (-£30k) and a slight improvement in projections for some income areas (-£15k).

The Chief Executive reports that Corporate Services expenditure is expected to be £65k higher than the approved estimate (up £30k from last month’s £35k).

Registrars are anticipating that income will be £30k lower than budgeted in 2008/9 for wedding ceremonies due to the current economic conditions and a general year-on-year decline in the number of weddings conducted.

OVERALL POSITION

3.5 Appendix A summarises the project outturn position and shows project year-end reserves to have decreased by £159k to £5.381m

3.7 CAPITAL

Overall Gross Expenditure Budget

3.7.1 Total capital expenditure for 2008/09 is expected to be £34.412m, which is £2.740m below the approved gross budget of £37.152m. This is made up of -£75k variances and £2.665m slippage, summarised as follows: -

Exp Inc Net
£'000 £'000 £'000
Approved Budget August 2008 37,152 -24,004 13,148
Variances identified in July -75 0 -75
Slippage to 2009/10 -2,665 1,291 -1,374
Projected capital programme 2008/2009 34,412 -22,713 11,699


Projected Variances and Slippage

3.7.2 Community Services report that in comparison to the approved budget, there will be a net under spend of £91k. Learning & Care reports, as per last month, a net overspend of £16k in Schools (other). See appendix C for further details.

3.7.3 In addition to the £1.143m slippage identified in previous months, a further £1.522m has been identified in September. Details are in appendix C.

Overall Programme Status

3.7.4 The project statistics show the following position:

Number of Schemes in Programme 445
Yet to Start 8%
In Progress 57%
(Of which Ongoing Annual Programmes 7%
e.g.. Disabled Facilities Grant)
Completed 22%
Devolved Formula Capital Grant schemes 13%
(Data not available on budgets devolved to schools)

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT9+.a\| -

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Accept the report	Directors have a responsibility for managing their Services within the Budget approved by Council. Cabinet has limited power to vary those budgets within the overall budget and policy framework or to re-define the priorities agreed when the budget was approved. Cabinet does however have responsibility for considering the impact on future year’s budgets of the decisions taken.	Revenue Capital
	2. Reject the report	This is not an option as The Local Government Act 2003 requires the Royal Borough to monitor its financial position	Revenue Capital

Risk assessments are carried out as a matter of course for the delivery of individual services. The main Financial risks are included on the Council’s Risk Register . paragraphs 3.8 to 3.15 discuss the risks associated with the current economic downturn.

The Councils Financial Strategy outlines the measures available to it in the event of a series of events that lead to significant projected budget variances being reported.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

No specific consultation is carried out as this is a regular monitoring report

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

Relevant components of this report will be considered by each of the four scrutiny panels as part of their next round of meetings.

IMPLICATIONS

7. The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 081124 Cslosp Service Monitoring Report

Date: 18 December 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Hilton

Contact Officer(s): Andrew Brooker, Head of Finance, 01628 796341

Peter Brown, Chief Accountant, 01628 796207

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

1.1.1 The preliminary budget report sets the scene for discussions to be held in various Council forums in coming weeks prior to setting the Budget for 2009/10 which will go to Cabinet on 12^th February 2009 and Council on 24^th February 2009.

The report discusses the impact of the “credit crunch” on Council service delivery, which at present is marginal. However it is widely acknowledged that the causes of this particular recession are different from any experienced in the past, this means that future impact has to be uncertain. The only certainty is that it is likely to have a negative impact on the Councils financial position.

The report covers Government settlements and reminds members that we are in the middle of a three-year settlement. Whilst this brings a degree of certainty it highlights an ongoing real-term reduction in the level of financial support from the national Government with the consequential impact on Council tax payers

The section under the Medium Term Financial Plan outlines some the assumptions that have been made and issues under consideration in preparing the budget. The section covers inflation, service pressures, capital financing and the challenging efficiency agenda.

The section headed Council Tax Income complements the Council Tax Base report elsewhere on this agenda and reinforces the Councils commitment to keeping Council Tax increases below the level of inflation.

The report concludes with a section on School Funding and rehearses some of the challenges that the Council faces, together with the School’s Forum in agreeing to the distribution of the Dedicated Schools Grant. School Budgets will face some of the challenges facing other Council services with below inflation increases in per capita funding, falling pupil rolls and emerging cost pressures, principally from complex SEN placements.

2. RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet notes the content of the Report

3.1 Background

“CREDIT CRUNCH”

Budgets for the next two years at least will be set against a background that has not been experienced in recent years, significant economic insecurity. There are a number of well-publicised issues impacting the national and global economies that have been well rehearsed in the press over recent weeks. In summary, therefore, we are facing:

Reduction in property values
Rising unemployment
Volatility in stock markets
A significant increase in inflation over the past six months to a figure (5.0% RPI September 2008) well above the Bank of England’s target rate.
Admission from Bank of England that the national economy is entering recession
Inflation likely to show a significant fall in coming months
Interest Rates likely to be subject to further cuts globally in an attempt to reverse the move towards recession
Loss of confidence having an impact on inter bank lending which, in turn, is impacting on availability of credit.

Such a range of challenges leaves few Council services untouched but some of the main risk areas that have been identified include:

Income from Commercial Estates
Income from Leisure Centres
Demand for Housing Support – Bed & Breakfast and Housing Benefit
Car Park income
Investment income
Cost of contracts – a number are driven by September RPI particularly in Adult Social Care
Land Charge and Development Control income.
Level of Developer contributions

At present service monitoring has identified minimal impact: some increase in activity for Housing Policy; one of our commercial estate tenants has gone into liquidation and car park volumes have not reached anticipated levels..

The Council has some challenging decisions to make. At one end of the range of options the Council could establish a provision to reflect all the uncertainties in next years gross budget requirement. However, if council Tax commitments are to be honoured this would have the consequence of reduced spending on services and service reductions would inevitably be required to make room for this provision. At the other end of the range would be to reflect the current healthy levels of reserves and wait for a clearer picture to emerge. A more proactive approach would be to identify one off measures/investments that can be taken to protect, as far as possible, current income/service levels. An example might be to provide additional resources for Housing Policy or CAB so that residents at risk of being made homeless get the necessary advice promptly. These measures, being relatively short term, could be funded from Reserves.

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENTS

Next year will be the second in the current 3-year settlement so the Council can be relatively confident that it knows what level of support it can expect from Central Government.

The budget report to Council in February 2008 talked at some length about the revision that had been made to Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) funding mechanism, which shifted significant levels of funding away from those authorities it perceived to have the ability to raise additional revenue for themselves. In common with many local authorities in the South East the Borough can expect minimal increases in general grant in coming years whilst the current funding regime is in place. The increases proposed reflect changes in responsibility but no provision is made for increase to the number of service users (demographic pressures) or capital financing costs and minimal allowance is made for price increases (1.75% in 2009/10 and 1.5% in 2010/11). It is clear therefore, with the impact of inflation on Council run services expected to be 4.1% next year, that this alone represents a real term reduction in funding of £600,000, close to 1% on Council Tax.

A technical adjustment to the Formula has been made as reported to Cabinet earlier in the year. As part of the national Government initiative to provide local authorities with greater freedom over the use of grant, a range of previously service specific grants have now been moved into a new category of grant, the Area Based Grant, which can be used for any purpose. These monies have not, at this stage, been allocated through DCLG’s Formula Grant methodology to avoid any redistribution but guidance requires Councils to account for the grant as External Support, as we do Formula Grant, rather than as service specific grants.

	2008/9 £’000		£’000	2009/10 £’000	% Increase	£’000	20010/11 £’000	% Increase
Formula Grant Base				18,257			18,536
Floor Increase			319		1.75	278		1.5
Technical Adjustments			-40	279		-15	263
Formula Grant	18,257			18,536			18,799
Area Based Grant	5,200			7,136	Note 1		6,980	Note 2
Total External Support	23,457			25,672			25,779

Note 2 – Reflects end of Extended Schools Start Up Grant (£341k reduction)

As reported in the Council Budget report the Formula Grant methodology assumes that Councils will deliver 3% cash releasing efficiency measures. Over the last four years since the ‘Gershon’ targets were introduced, the Borough is ahead of its cumulative targets; in common with most other authorities this remains a challenging target going forward. The assumed saving from the ‘programme’ is in excess of £3m each year,

MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN (MTFP)

The MTFP has been under regular review since it was last updated as part of the 2008/9 Budget report. The version shown in Appendix A includes updated inflation and service pressure assumptions.

The MTFP is a planning document which allows ‘what if’ questions to be asked. A number of assumptions have had to be made about some important issues, notably:

Inflation
Pay awards
Pensions increase
Service pressures
Capital financing
Council Tax revenue

Inflation

CSR07 included the assumption that inflation would be 2.7% as it applies to the public sector over the three-year settlement period (2008/9 – 20010/11). This has proved an optimistic assessment. Current assumptions indicate that inflation will impact on Borough Services at 4.1% next year although it is anticipated that this will fall by 2010/11. Whilst current predictions are that inflation, by whatever measure, will fall over coming months it is important to note that a number of the Councils contracts are inflated by measure of inflation taken in September each year, as are State Pensions.

Inflation going forward is clearly difficult to predict but a working assumption has been made of 3% for future years.

Pay Awards

Pay awards nationally are becoming contentious. The settlement negotiations due for implementation in April 08 are currently being mediated through ACAS. An interim award of 2.45% has been agreed by LG Employers. Provision was made for a 2.5% award in the 2008/09 Budget.

A similar provision is currently being proposed in 2009/10. Although RPI is currently at 5% and Union Representatives are already preparing above inflation pay claims it is anticipated that falling inflation and the prospect of economic recession will enable Employers to contain much of this pressure.

It is important to record that provision of an additional 1% for pay (in non-school services) would cost close to £600k. Given the fact that Government support is unlikely to increase and that the Council has a clear commitment regarding Council Tax increases this additional provision would be at the expense of further efficiency measures.

For future years 2.5% pay awards have been allowed for

Pensions Increase

Employer Pension contributions are currently set until April 2011 at their current level 14.7%. There is clearly some concern that the stock market turbulence will require an increase in both employer and employee contribution rates. Between May 2008 and September 2008 the fund lost £209m of its value (14%). However it is important to remember that:

The Berkshire Fund started at a relatively high level of funding
Each month more cash is received from Employers and Employees contributions, which currently exceeds outgoing pension payments. This creates the opportunity to take advantage of some relatively cheap investment opportunities
The current low level of stock market enables, over the long term (30 years), a relatively optimistic view to be taken of future investment growth
The Actuaries and Pension Fund Manager take a long-term view (“40 years rather than 40 days”).

It is currently assumed therefore that there will be no requirement to increase Employer contribution rates in the foreseeable future but this will only be confirmed by the actuarial review in 2010.

Service Pressures

Every effort will be made, as always, to contain service pressures within existing budgets but national issues such as demographic pressures and waste management legislation are largely unavoidable. Allowance is, therefore, made for these additional costs.

Service Pressures identified to date are outlined in the attached Appendix B.

Capital Financing

The Council continues with its long term objective to fund a greater proportion of its capital spend from Revenue. This ambition is reflected in the MTFP in the form of additional annual revenue contributions to the Capital Fund.

Historically, the Council spends £1.3m per annum on ‘short life assets’, Leisure Centre equipment; IT Hardware; Vehicles etc. Looking forward some significant technical investment in IT should enable this sum to be reduced to an average of £1m per annum. The base budget for 2008/09 includes provision for a £900k contribution to the Capital Fund. An increase of £100k would enable the initial objective of funding all short life assets from Revenue.

There remains significant recurring expenditure on Highways, Streetlights and Property that are currently funded from capital resources. It remains an objective of the Council to fund a greater proportion of these costs from revenue, thereby saving financing costs. This ambition is still reflected in the MTFP.

Government Departments announced as part of the 3-year settlement its spending allocations 2010/11. Whilst some of these allocations come to the authority in the form of grants most are in the form of ‘supported Capital Expenditure’, the revenue cost of which is, in theory, reflected in Formula Grant assessments. However, as the Council is below the grant floor, there will be no increase in grant to cover these allocations. Consequently, the impact of all capital financing directly impacts on the Council Tax.

Cabinet received at its October meeting an update on its Asset Management Plan. There will be a continued emphasis on ensuring that maximum benefit is obtained for the Council’s physical assets. Surplus assets will be identified wherever possible and where appropriate those assets will be sold to support the Council’s Capital programme but only where appropriate. Before assets are sold the Council will ensure, especially in the current economic climate, that it is the right time to sell but more importantly whether these assets can be better used to generate revenue for the Council.

In the short term in order to finance priority infrastructure maintenance and development the Council will have little alternative to borrowing funds. Decisions over whether this is funded short term (utilising cash reserves) or longer term (utilising PWLB loans) will be taken by the Head of Finance in conjunction with Lead Members as part of his Treasury Management responsibilities. An assumption, carried forward from previous MTFP’s is that £6m of capital spend will require corporate funding each year.

A significant proportion of the capital programme has over the past few years been funded from s106 contributions. Renewal of this source of finance must be at some risk in the short term given the present economic climate.

Fees & Charges

A report on Fees & Charges appears elsewhere on this agenda but the Medium Term Plan assumes that income from Fees & Charges will keep pace with inflation. It is however part of the Council Financial Strategy to review those fees which carry an element of subsidy for service users.

Efficiency Savings

CSR07 assumes that 3% cashable efficiency savings are available in each of the three years 2008/9 – 2010/11. Para 3.1.9 quantifies this at £3m pa.

In order to meet the cost of emerging service pressures, principally driven by demographic pressures, and the increased cost of services, driven by inflation, without any significant increase in financial support from DCLG, whilst keeping to Council Tax increase commitments means that efficiency savings in excess of those indicated in CSR 07 will be required. Directorates have been asked to identify savings of £4.7m in order to provide the Council with the flexibility to set a Council Tax in line with its public commitments.

April 2004 when the phrase “Gershon Savings” was first introduced into the Local Government Finance vocabulary the Council has identified efficiency savings of £11m, against a target of £10m. However in common with most other local authorities the scope for further efficiencies is becoming more difficult to identify

In recent years the efficiency agenda has been addressed by a combination of wide ranging “corporate initiatives” and smaller scale reviews carried out by individual service managers. If the savings targets going forward are to be delivered it is important for the Council to adopt and resource a new strategy for delivering these efficiencies.

Interest Rates

Interest Rates have an important impact on Council Finances. Current changes to interest rates will have no effect on the cost of borrowing as the Council’s long term loans were taken out at fixed rates.

The more important impact is on the interest that the Council earns on its cash balances. Currently volatility in interest rates makes it difficult to plan ahead. The recent Treasury Management report that Cabinet received showed that the Council could have average cash balances approaching £35m. The reductions in bank base rate, if reflected in reduced investment income, will result in a reduction of £700k in investment income per annum. Many “experts” are predicting that interest rates will rise again in 18 months time but budgeting for that increase is a significant risk.

The decision that the Council will need to make when it sets its budget is to what extent it maintains its longer term approach of making a cautious assessment of its investment income so that in times of higher levels of investment income, “windfall” receipts are taken into reserves, and when interest rates fall the revenue budget is supported from reserves.

COUNCIL TAX INCOME

Council Tax is the most important source of revenue for the Council, and funds a greater proportion of Council spend than most other authorities. In 2008-9 78% of the Councils Gross Budget Requirement (that element funded from Formula Grant and Council Tax) was funded from Council Tax. When compared to all other local authorities this is the 7^th highest of all 388 Local Authorities in England, the average being 43.6%.

Annual increases in Council Tax on individual properties is supplemented by increases in the taxbase (increase in the number of properties on which the tax is levied). It is perhaps this fact that DCLG have recognised (but arguably overcompensated for) in its grant distribution models.

The Council has a very clear commitment to keep its tax increase below RPI as measured in the previous September; this is consistent with the increase in State Pensions and Benefits. RPI increased by 5% in the year to September 2008

The taxbase for 2009-10 is assessed elsewhere on this agenda but suffice it to say it reflects the general slowdown in the housing markets. At present collection rates are being maintained although this is one of the risks that needs to be assessed in the Budget report.

Members should note that, dependent on tax base, 0.5% increase in Council Tax generates approx £340k additional revenue for the Council.

SCHOOL FUNDING

The main source of school funding is the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). The grant must be used in support of the Schools Budget as defined in regulations, and is supplemented by other sources of funding such as standards fund grants, and Learning and Skills Council funding for sixth forms.

RBWM’s 2008-09 DSG allocation was £73.044 million. The 2009-10 will be determined by pupil numbers in January 2009 but latest estimates suggest a fall in total pupil numbers of around 130 compared with 2008-09. The unit rate on which DSG is calculated is fixed for the period 2008-11 and will increase from £4,040 per pupil in 2008-09 to £4,193 in 2009-10, a rise of 3.8%. This compares with an increase of 4.6% per pupil in the previous year.

The minimum increase schools can expect to receive in their 2009-10 budgets is 2.1% per pupil, as defined by the Minimum Funding Guarantee set by the DCSF. In practice most schools will see increases above the minimum level and in accordance with known inflationary uplifts used to set the Council’s budget. The level of DSG funding available once inflationary and contractual pressures have been met is known as ‘headroom’. In the past headroom has been used to fund new initiatives and priorities both in schools and central services (subject to the Central Expenditure Limit - CEL) as discussed with Schools Forum.

For 2009-10 the level of headroom is likely to be significantly less than in previous years because

a) the per pupil increase in DSG funding in 2009-10 is lower than it has ever been previously

b) the cost of out-of-borough special school placements has risen significantly due to an increase in the number of high cost placements, and is facing a pressure of up to £600k or more in 2009-10. Funding for this can only come from DSG headroom or from a reallocation of existing resources within the Schools Budget. The scale of this budget pressure is such that little or no headroom may be left for other priorities. Any net increase in the out-of-borough SEN budget is likely to impact on the relative balance of resources between the ISB and central DSG expenditure. Schools Forum would need to formally approve this allocation if it resulted in the central expenditure limit being exceeded.

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Accept the report	This report is for information and explains what factors affect the budget making decision	Contained within the report
	2. Reject the report	This is not an option. The Council is required to complete its Council Tax making process

A number of the risks associated with the preparation of the budget are discussed in the body of the report. Individual risk assessments have been made for the detailed proposals being made for inclusion in the Budget for 2009-10

The biggest single risk to the Council is the impact of the “Credit Crunch” which is outlined in paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.4 above

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

Budget proposals are being guided by Manifesto commitments made before the May 2006 elections

Regular meetings are held with both the Windsor and Maidenhead Chambers of Commerce

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

N/A

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 081124 Cslosp Preliminary Budget Appendix 2

 Meetings 081124 Cslosp Preliminary Budget Appendix

Date: 18 December 2008

Member Reporting: Councillor Hilton

Contact Officer(s): Andrew Brooker, Head of Finance, 01628 796341

Peter Brown, Chief Accountant, 01628 796207

Wards affected: All

1. SUMMARY

The report considers increases in the Fees and Charges roughly in line with the September 2008 inflation (5%).

2. RECOMMENDATION

That Cabinet approve the Fees and Charges contained in Appendix A of the report

Fees and Charges

September RPI sets the level that Government will use in assessing increases in 2009/10 pensions and benefits and at 5% is the baseline chosen for increases in fees and charges.

In setting the charges for 2009/10 the Council has sought to ensure that any change will not adversely impact on its strategy to support recreational activities or affect the trading position of the services it offers generally.

The detailed Fees and charges proposals are contained in Appendix A

4. OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Options

	Option	Comments	Financial Implications
	1. Approve the fees and charges as set out in Appendix A	This is in accordance with the Medium Term Financial Plan and will enable	Revenue: some (-)£1m
	2. Modify the fees and charges proposals	May reduce the Councils ability to restrict Council Tax increases	Revenue: Unknown

The current economic climate may reduce income from areas susceptible to economy changes. Examples include car parks, land charges, planning fees, Leisure income etc. It is difficult to assess the impact of changes in these areas. However, a 1% reduction in income equates to some £260k. As the economic changes are expected to be short term it is possible to utilise balance to cover small shortfalls, However, the Head of Finance will keep this situation under strict review during 2009/10.

5. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT

All lead members consulted

Chambers of Commerce will be consulted

6. COMMENTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL

Awaited.

7. IMPLICATIONS

The following implications have been addressed where indicated below.

 Meetings 081124 Cslosp Fees Charges Report