To consider the above report (moved from Part II to Part I on 17/6/16)

Members considered the urgent decision, taken with the necessary approval of the Mayor in the absence of a Chairman of the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel, to add a £1.6m capital budget to the capital programme to build an extension to Lowbrook School.

Councillor N. Airey highlighted that Lowbrook had been rated Outstanding by Ofsted; the proposal would allow a good school to expand to take a further 30 pupils. The decision had been made in response to urgent negotiations with the school due to a large number of children not getting into the school, which they had listed as their first preference. The school had taken in 30 children, two of whom were looked after children, the rest were allocated a place based on a sibling already being in attendance at the school. This meant that three children with a sibling already in the school and 27 children living in the catchment area did not get a place at the school.

The school was an academy, but the borough retained responsibility for school places. The proposal would increase the choice for parents. The cost of £13,300 per place was lower than primary school average of £13,700 published by the Education Funding Agency (EFA).

Councillor Dudley highlighted the council’s manifesto commitment to give more choice. The Headteacher and his team at Lowbrook had done a fantastic job to achieve Outstanding status. On National Offer Day Councillor Dudley had been concerned at the tight situation for primary places, with less than 30 spare places across Maidenhead. School expansion was difficult, particularly in Green Belt areas. The opportunity to expand an outstanding school should be taken.

Councillor Bullock spoke on behalf of the Ward Councillors for Cox Green who fully supported the proposal. The only concern associated with the proposal was the likely increase in traffic in the area, which was already an issue.  There were two other schools in the vicinity; he suggested phased intakes could help the situation.  

Councillor D. Evans stated he was fully supportive of the proposal. The council had responded to demands from parents; officers should be credited for moving so quickly.

Councillor Werner welcomed the report; it was vital that parents were offered as much choice as possible. He was however disappointed that this had not happened a year earlier. He had heard from parents the previous year who could not get a place even though they lived close by.  He hoped that information on birth rates would be used in future to ensure more parents were not disappointed.  Councillor Jones stated that she fully supported the proposal; it had been very concerning that catchment area children had not got a place. She would like more information on the figure of £13,700 as published by the EFA. She suggested a table showing the average cost of each expansion programme would be useful.

Councillor E. Wilson highlighted that the average cost of the proposal was way above the average cost and that spent at Holyport college. It was therefore a great deal for taxpayers. The council was finding that academies were coming up with meaty costs as a result of the distributed model. Currently there were a couple of dozen admission authorities; eventually there would be 67. The council would need to plan because f it did not schools would be popping up asking for funding for expansion projects, which were large and un-costed. The Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel had found numerous instances of the borough spending money it did not have to spend at Academies, for example skiing trips and bike shed repairs. A proposal for a £230,000 astro-turf at Dedworth was also non-statutory.

Councillor Bicknell commended that Head of Schools and Education Services who had done an excellent job to achieve the average cost of £13,300.

Councillor Airey explained that the council was trying as far as possible to give parents their first place choice. She commented that the traffic issues raised by Councillor Bullock would be taken into account. A academy was able to set its own admission criteria; Lowbrook had chosen to put sibling connection above catchment area. In relation to Councillor E. Wilson’s comments , the council had repaired the bike shed as it had originally put the structure in. The council had a statutory responsibility for school paces whether or not a school was an academy. The council had no way of knowing a parent’s first choice until the normal admissions round. Ofsted ratings could change year on year. It was therefore difficult to predict where demand would be highest. It had been known this was a bulge year and all children had received  a school place. It was not possible to expand all schools because then there would be empty places across the borough.

Councillor Saunders highlighted that as a result of the admissions process, the council had immediately prompted a response from the council including negotiations with the school and creation of a coherent plan. He had admiration and respect for the clear and seamless coordination between the Lead Member and key officers to achieve what residents wanted.  The council’s focus on delivering more for less gave the council flexibility to deliver on such priority issues of resident need.

It was proposed by Councillor N. Airey, seconded by Councillor Saunders, and:

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Council notes the inclusion of a £1.6m capital budget in the 2016-17 capital programme for the construction of an extension to Lowbrook School along with temporary works for September 2016.