Month: April 2014

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council only receives 50% of the resale price for its thousands of old computers

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council only receives 50% of the resale price for its thousands of old computers

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Council only receives 50% of the resale price for its thousands of old computers

                            

On Monday I asked a question at the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee. Wirral Council had at the start of this month has 3,780 computers running Windows XP. It’s planning to spend £2.5 million on new computers to replace the old computers so that Windows 7 can be installed.

My question was firstly whether Wirral Council was getting anything for these thousands of old computers (the estimate given was that 90% would need to be replaced whereas the other 10% could run Windows 7) and a technical question about SCC plc who Wirral Council is paying to help them install the new computers.

The answer surprised me and is below (which the councillors on the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee have been copied into).

=======================================================================================================

From: “Sankey, Steve”
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:33:53 +0100
Subject: Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee – Unanswered question about what happens to the old computers

Dear Mr Brace

Thank you for your questions regarding what happens to the old computers, when we move to new computers running Windows 7.

I can confirm that the Council has a contract with a company called SITR, which handles the secure disposal of IT equipment. The company picks up the old computers and securely removes all data in compliance with agreed standards and directives (eg Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment directive WEEE). It issues the Council with a certificate confirming we comply with UK government standards of disposal.

The company recycles/sells the computers on the open market. The Council does not pay for the collection of the equipment, and receives 50% of any resale value when the equipment is resold.

Finally you enquired about the framework agreement we have used to procure SCC services. I can confirm that the process for the appointment of SCC was via the Crown Commercial Service (formerly Government Procurement Service) Framework – RM720 – Sprint II.

Yours truly,

Steve

Steve Sankey

Wirral Council
Treasury Building, Cleveland Street, Birkenhead, Wirral, CH41 6BU
Tel: 0151 666 3029
E-mail: stevesankey@wirral.gov.uk
Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

=======================================================================================================

So let me just get this straight. Wirral Council is only getting 50% of the resale cost of thousands of old computers, but it’s currently consulting on closing Lyndale School over a projected shortfall of £120,000 a year from 2015/16 onwards.

Here are some ballpark figures on the sale of the computers.

Wirral Council estimate that 90% of the machines will need replacing. 90% * 3,780 = 3,402 machines.

An estimate of £100 each for each unit (computer, monitor and keyboard) that SITR sell £100 * 3,402 machines = £340,200.

Amount that Wirral Council gets £170,000, amount that SITR gets £170,000. £170,000 is enough to keep Lyndale School open for a further year, if Wirral Council were to do this themselves. If Wirral Council were to do it in house instead and we take off from that £340,000 amount the costs of two full time staff (£50,000) to securely wipe the hard drives before they’re resold and do the certificates they say are required (assuming each person can wipe seven hard drives a day with enough time left to organise selling the rest) it’s a considerable sum of money! So what do you think?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Councillor Adam Sykes wants Wirral Council to “be a guiding light for freedom of information for other councils”

Councillor Adam Sykes wants Wirral Council to “be a guiding light for freedom of information for other councils”

Councillor Adam Sykes wants Wirral Council to “be a guiding light for freedom of information for other councils”

                        

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Video of Wirral Council’s Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance meeting of the 14th April 2014. The item on the Freedom of Information Scrutiny Review starts at 1:53

The covering report for this item and the final report of the scrutiny review can be downloaded from Wirral Council’s website.

Below is a transcript of this item as it didn’t attract much discussion.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM
This is the final report, despite having draft as an imprint. I’m sure that when, if this evening agrees, this report goes to Cabinet the draft will be removed. I’d like to invite Adam if you want to introduce this item.

COUNCILLOR ADAM SYKES
Thank you Chair. Building on what’s on page twenty-seven in my opening statement basically we took upon this review as the Council had been under monitoring action from the Information Commissioner and had already improved its result on FOI to over 85%.

We didn’t want to merely reach the baseline, we wanted to exceed this figure and be a guiding light for FOI for other councils. So taking on various strands of the whole process, how actually it goes through the system to how we can improve items coming in, how they’re managed once they’re here and also how we can reduce the number of requests in the first place because obviously the actual costs of these FOI requests are quite significant.

It’s quite shocking actually well when you see how much we’ve spent on a weekly basis on FOI requests that could be better spent elsewhere in the Council. So, I don’t know whether I need to go into much more detail as the recommendations are all in the pack. Obviously we’re happy taking any questions, I’m sure the other members of the group are.

I’d just like to conclude by thanking the officers for their time in the you know producing the report, Jane Corrin, Surjit and also support from the scrutiny officer Mike and it was really very helpful and an interesting review to be part of.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Thank you very much. Christina, do you have anything to add?

COUNCILLOR CHRISTINA MUSPRATT
Just apologies for being late.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
OK, I’d like to thank Adam and thanks to the officers for this overview and scrutiny review and thank both yourself and Christina for what I really think is a …

COUNCILLOR ANDREW HODSON (CONSERVATIVE SPOKESPERSON)
I was going to say members of the committee were told by the effective leader of yourself, Christina and Adam of all the work you’ve put in on this, but obviously if you wasn’t aware of … so very good.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Yes, thank you. Right, Phil?

COUNCILLOR PHIL GILCHRIST (LIBERAL DEMOCRAT SPOKESPERSON)
Could I say that I welcome the sort of crisp and concise way that the report was written and the recommendations but might I asking while Mr. Blott’s beaming at the moment, through you Chair, whether we can perhaps have a bit of advice on what can be done with the search facility on the website. The work the Committee sought was to try and reduce requests that could be answered in any other way and clearly when I try and find things searching it always says “are you sure you’ve spelt it right?” which is about the only guidance the website gives us.

I wondered if officers rather perhaps than note the use and power of that, whilst we were noting perhaps they could give advice on how it could be progressed elsewhere and what sort of timescale.

JOE BLOTT (STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR TRANSFORMATION AND RESOURCES)
Yeah, thank you Chair. Thanks very much indeed, I think a couple of comments on that. Certainly in terms of a response to the particular question from Councillor Gilchrist. Yeah, certainly as part of our overarching improvements to public access and our customer channels, anything we can do to improve, that that possibility will do so. In terms of timeliness of that, we are looking, we have launched the intranet as we know at the turn of this year, so that’s been reviewed and we are about to embark on a change to the internet access points as well. So I think your point’s well made.

It’s well timed and everything within a very short space of time we’ll be able to improve on that I think and anything we can do to improve the search arrangements in terms of behind our ICT program build we’ll certainly do that. Perhaps we could, if I can, if we note that as part of a minute item which we pick up in June to see where our business is up to.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Any other comments?

JOE BLOTT (STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR TRANSFORMATION AND RESOURCES)
Thanks Chair, just if I may. They’re contained within the report anyway but I think it really does strike me as a really positive approach for the policy and performance committees to drill down into such matters and I think that from an officer perspective, to receive the balanced report is really encouraging. I think more than anything else it demonstrates progress that we had taken. I think it demonstrates progress that we were taking in advance of the ICO’s intervention, nevertheless quite clearly we were duty bound to follow that and I think it is important to see both in terms of context which I think is helpful on page nineteen in terms of the numbers of requests we get, but in terms of page eighteen in terms of how we responded to those requests but I guess as the report sets out it’s really important that this is a journey that we’re on here and we haven’t reached our end game yet.

The end game is the consistency of response times to the FOI requests that links heavily into Councillor Gilchrist’s point that the more information we can provide upfront, then hopefully less number of FOIs we’ll have to deal with which equally comes back to the Chair’s comments around the costs of FOI enquiries which are extremely high and I was quite sure in the briefing that we can use the resources to greater effect in terms of impact on service users and our residents.

So certainly from an officer perspective regarding the report, happy to again as an officer to accept all the recommendations and ensure they will see due progress over the coming months.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Thank you Joe, Surjit do you have anything to add?

SURJIT TOUR
No.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
OK, anyone else got any further comments or questions? OK, I’ll move onto the recommendations. 4.1 agreed? It’s on page ten. 4.1 the Committee is asked to note the contents of the report. Agreed?

COUNCILLORS
Agreed.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
OK, at 4.2 we’re requested to consider whether or not we wish to refer the report to Cabinet. I suggest that we do, is that agreed?

COUNCILLORS
Agreed.

COUNCILLOR STUART WITTINGHAM (CHAIR)
Thank you.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Planning Committee approves planning application for houses in Irby by seven votes to five

Planning Committee approves planning application for houses in Irby by seven votes to five

Planning Committee approves planning application for houses in Irby by seven votes to five

                        

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Video of Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting of the 16th April 2014

The Planning Committee meeting started as usual with her usual spiel about who were sitting around the tables (which considering that everyone had name plates seems a little unnecessary). She said that to her left was the solicitor (Rosemary Lyons) to “make sure everything is done legally” and that the officers (of which there were four) to her left where there to “guide us through our decisions and make sure everything is done appropriately with planning legislation”.

If the Chair thinks the role of the officers to her left is to make sure that decisions about planning applications are made according to planning legislation, then what’s the purpose of having a solicitor too? When every other committee at Wirral Council manages to cope with one legal adviser why does the Planning Committee need five to advise it on such matters?

She then went on to recap the rules on speaking for petitioners and applicants. The only change to usual is that she said, “A ward councillor can come forward and talk upon any item in their ward and they can speak for longer than five minutes but everybody only gets a chance to address the Planning Committee once.”

Until recently ward councillors were under the impression they could address the Planning Committee at any time when a planning application concerning their ward was being discussed. The Code of conduct for Planning Committee meetings and Wirral Council’s constitution have nothing in them about ward councillors talking at Planning Committee meetings. Certainly in the recent past at least one councillor thought they could speak at any time but the Chair told them they couldn’t. The only reference in the constitution to councillors and Planning Committees is that ward councillors can decide that they want a planning application to be decided by the Planning Committee rather than by officers.

The constitution states that any councillor can decide that a planning application is decided by the Planning Committee. The fact this isn’t limited to councillors in the ward the planning application relates to has been misused in the past. With fictional names I’ll give an example.

Mrs Smith is standing as the Labour candidate in Puddleton (a made up ward that doesn’t exist on the Wirral). Unfortunately for Mrs Smith Puddleton has three councillors from a different political party who know she is the Labour candidate in Puddleton. Mrs Smith spots a planning application that she thinks she can get a large petition of residents against it and gain votes of local residents affected by it. As the lead petitioner she will also get to speak against it for five minutes, if a councillor takes it out of officer’s hands and makes sure it is decided by the Planning Committee.

Unfortunately for Mrs Smith it’s over a minor matter and wouldn’t usually be decided by the Planning Committee. The planning officer wants to approve the planning application. Mrs Smith asks a Labour councillor (who doesn’t represent Puddleton) to make sure that it will be decided by the Planning Committee, therefore ensuring it is decided nearer the election and that there will be more media coverage of Mrs Smith’s campaign. The Labour councillor makes sure that this happens, thus making the residents think that Mrs Smith is influential and when the application is turned down a better choice than the existing councillor (also a candidate) which didn’t want it to be decided by the Planning Committee as he/she knew it was part of a party political ploy by Mrs. Smith to gain votes from local residents.

However, going back to the Planning Committee. The minutes of the meeting held on the 20th March 2014 were agreed. Nobody declared any interests and no requests for site visits were made.

The first planning application to be decided was OUT/14/00094: 38 Thurstaston Road, Irby, CH61 0HF: Outline planning application to create 2 No. new residential properties. A Wirral Council officer said that there had been seven letters of objection detailing various issues which she listed. Despite the objections officers felt it was compliant with national and local planning policies and recommended it for approval subject to conditions.

Councillor Wendy Clements said that had Tony Cox not resigned as a councillor that he would’ve attended the Planning Committee meeting and detailed the concerns of local residents. She talked about trees, British standards and asked planning officers about a tree survey.

Matthew Davies replied that there had been a tree survey with the application and it had also been assessed by the Council’s arboricultural officer. He pointed out that some of the trees mentioned by Cllr Wendy Clements were not part of the planning application and that they couldn’t impose conditions on trees outside of the boundary. He said that if trees were damaged outside of the boundary it was a civil matter.

Councillor Wendy Clements said that that was difficult to understand as the existing standard referred to trees on or adjacent to the site. She referred to appearance and amenity issues but accepted that whether it was unacceptable harm was a matter of opinion, but she felt that the way officers had written the report it implied that some harm would result. Cllr Clements passed around photos to show the effect on light on neighbouring properties. She referred to policy HS4 and how the scale of what was proposed fitted into the surrounding area.

Councillor Elderton asked to see the plan, but he pointed out that as it was an outline planning application that the position of the houses was only indicative at this stage. He thought different positions of the houses would be more suitable but stated that it couldn’t be turned down based on the indicative positions as they were only indicative. He asked officers for advice as he was not happy with the proposed development.

Matthew Davies said that as it was an outline planning application that all matters would be reserved and that the plan was only for indicative purposes. He said that if the application was approved then Wirral Council would have significant control over the scale, site, appearance and where the properties were sited.

Councillor Wendy Clements moved refusal on the basis that it would result in a development that was cramped, overdeveloped and that the two dwelling would cause a detrimental change to the area contrary to the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and policy HS4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor Steve Foulkes said that he felt three was feasible on the plot, he asked what the average plot size was for surrounding properties? Matthew Davies replied that the officers felt it was possible to have three dwellings on the plot. Although plot sizes were similar on one site of the application site, they were different to what was proposed on another. Therefore in his opinion it was up to councillors to make a judgement as to whether three could be accommodated taking into account the detail that would be decided at the reserved matters stage.

Councillor Geoffrey Watt seconded Councillor Wendy Clements motion for refusal.

For refusal: Councillor Wendy Clements (proposer), Councillor Geoffrey Watt (seconder), Councillor Simon Mountney, Councillor Eddie Boult, Councillor David Elderton and Councillor Philip Brightmore (6)
Against refusal: Councillor Stuart Kelly, Councillor Bernie Mooney, Councillor Denise Realey, Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor Joe Walsh, Councillor Irene Williams (6)

The motion for refusal was 6 votes to 6. The Chair didn’t say how she used her casting vote. However she deemed the motion for refusal to be lost.

There was then a vote on the officer’s recommendation for approval. This was proposed by Cllr Denise Realey and seconded by Councillor Steve Foulkes.

For approval: Councillor Stuart Kelly, Councillor Bernie Mooney, Councillor Denise Realey, Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor Joe Walsh, Councillor Irene Williams and Councillor Philip Brightmore (7)
Against approval: Councillor Wendy Clements (proposer), Councillor Geoffrey Watt (seconder), Councillor Simon Mountney, Councillor Eddie Boult and Councillor David Elderton (5)

The motion for approval was won by 7 votes to 5 so the application was approved.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

What happened between Wirral Council and the Education Funding Agency over the minimum funding guarantee?

What happened between Wirral Council and the Education Funding Agency over the minimum funding guarantee?

What happened between Wirral Council and the Education Funding Agency over the minimum funding guarantee?

                         

I’ve received a fuller response from the Education Funding Agency over my Freedom of Information request to the EFA about communications between themselves and Wirral Council over an application for exemption for the minimum funding guarantee (which was later withdrawn). Following the internal review the emails were now include who they were sent from and to and the dates as well as the emails about what happened after and Wirral Council’s withdrawal of their application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee requirements.

I see even a civil servant in the Department of Education expressed a similar sort of frustration (but in very a very diplomatic way) to that that the parents of children at Lyndale School had in dealing with Wirral Council officers. Gavin Monument (a civil servant who’s the School Funding Policy Adviser at the Education Funding Agency which is part of the Department of Education) states in an email to a Wirral Council officer dated 17th February 2014 “For some reason we are really struggling to understand your approach at this end and we do want to make sure we get it right when it gets sent to the Minister.”

As the issue of the minimum funding guarantee is connected to the issue of Lyndale School’s future that is currently being consulted on, I’m including the email exchanges below. Some of the statements made in these emails seem to directly contradict what was stated during public meetings by some Wirral Council officers on this matter.

=======================================================================================================

From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 03 January 2014 15:31
To: HOWKINS, Keith [keith.howkins@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Cc: FUNDING, ReformTeam [reformteam.funding@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: 237: Wirral 344 Special SchoFUNDING, ReformTeam ols exemption request

Hello Keith
Thanks for comments. I hadn’t picked up the change in grant conditions, or that protected rates apply only to Special Schools or Special Academies.
Option 3 is a calculation comparing each top-up band at a school with the rate used in 2013-14 (less 1.5%). I think from your comments below this no longer applies.
Option 2 compares the average amount that would be paid to a school using the new top ups and existing pupil data, with the amount that has been paid in 2013-14 (less 1.5%).

Option 1 – No MFG was supported by 4 out of 11 Special Schools
Kilgarth
Foxfield
Elleray Park
Orrets Meadow
Option 2 Average MFG was supported by 2 Special Schools
Claremount
Stanley

Regards
Andrew

=======================================================================================================
From: keith.howkins@education.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:keith.howkins@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 30 December 2013 15:24
To: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Cc: FUNDING, ReformTeam [reformteam.funding@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: 237: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request

Andrew – thanks for sending this through.

Could you explain more about the difference between options 2 and 3 please, and send through details on which option each special school supported?

We appreciate that there was some confusion over the exact wording of the protection requirements. What we said originally about these applying to each top-up rate was incorrect; the correct wording is what you have quoted below and applies to the overall budget if the number and overall type of places remained the same. I’m not sure if this changes anything you have sent.

As a point of information, the protection arrangements in the conditions of grant only apply to special schools and academies. There is no protection requirement for special units or AP, so you do not need any approval for proposals in relation to these.

Keith

Keith Howkins

Team Leader, Funding Reform Team

Maintained Schools Division

Education Funding Agency

Department for Education

2 St Paul’s Place

Sheffield. S1 2FJ

=======================================================================================================
From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 12 December 2013 12:35
To: FUNDING, ReformTeam [mailto:reformteam.funding@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: 237: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request

This letter is requesting exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG included within the 2014 – 2015 DSG additional conditions of grant. Paragraph g “In deciding on top up funding rates for the pupils it will place in special schools …. and the total number and type of places received the same in the 2 financial years the school or Academy budget would receive by no more than 1.5% in cash between 2013 – 2014 and 2014 – 2015.”

Over the past 12 months a Schools Forum SEN finance group has met to develop proposals for high needs funding and particularly to agree a banded approach for specialist SEN provision.

A banded system (with 5 bands) was developed taking account of a number of issues:

· The need for stability
· The fluctuation arising from part year places and the need to have places available.
· To take account of the increasing demands and population with social communication needs and to recognise the resource intensive nature of provision for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.

These 5 bands have also been applied to SEN resourced base provision in mainstream schools and academies. The bands used take account of the same needs identified within Wirral’s 11 special schools and in addition gives an equivalent level of funding for each child.

Changes of this nature will result in movement of resources and a number of schools will as a result receive more funding and others will receive less. However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.

The SEN top up proposals were subject to a full consultation with all schools and providers in Wirral, commencing on 3rd July and closing on 18th October. The consultation papers included an illustration for each school of the funding a school might receive using current numbers and numbers at capacity, compared with the level of funding provided in 2013 – 2014. In addition there has been a series of meetings with schools to discuss the changes suggested.

24 responses were received including 10 out of 11 special schools and 6 out of 14 school SEN resource bases. Overall the responses were supportive and in favour of the local authority’s proposals.

Since the consultation was launched schools were asked a supplementary question about views on seeking an exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG. This approach has been adopted because the MFG will not work with the new top up bands. Without capping the MFG costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.

Schools were asked for their preferences based on a table illustrating:

No MFG (7)
An Average MFG (phased over 3 years) (5)
A full MFG (0)
The responses are shown in brackets above.

This issue was discussed at the Schools Forum meeting on 13th November 2013. The recommendation from the forum was “That Forum supports an application to the EFA for an exemption from the requirement to use an MFG (Option 1) on Top Ups for 2014 – 2015, and failing that Forum request the EFA agree the use of an average MFG (Option 2)”

A number of papers are attached to this e-mail including:

School Forum Agenda from 13 November 2013:
– Element 3 Top up funding arrangements for pupils with high needs (SEN) and for pupils attending Alternative Provision. (This report includes the consultation paper and letter to schools about the MFG)
– An extract from the Schools Forum minutes

Please let me know if you would like further details.

I look forward to hearing from you

Yours sincerely

Andrew Roberts
Senior Manager – School Funding & Resources
Children and Young People’s Department
Wirral Council
Tel: 0151 666 4249
Fax: 0151 666 4338
andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk

Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

=======================================================================================================
From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 14 March 2014 10:52
To: MONUMENT, Gavin [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information

Hello Gavin
Further to our meting I am writing to confirm the withdrawal of Wirral’s application for an MFG exemption for High Needs. The clarification provided by the EFA indicates the additional cost for Maintained Special Schools be be in the region of £80,000, which is affordable within the High Needs Budget. It is the intention to make the same offer available to Resourced Base provision in Primary, Secondary schools and academies, although this may be for one year only.
Thanks you for your advice.
Regards
Andrew

=======================================================================================================
From: gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 17 February 2014 14:09
To: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information

Hi Andrew,

Sorry for the delay in coming back to you on this. I thought Keith had ruled out your original option 3 – which compared each top-up band at a school with the rate used in 13-14 – as the conditions of grant confirmed the protection applies to the overall budget level. So I thought we were down to options 1 and 2

For some reason we are really struggling to understand your approach at this end and we do want to make sure we get it right when it gets sent to the Minister. I’m due to be over in the North West later in the week and I’m wondering if the simplest solution would be to pop across for a chat and see if we can clear this up face-to-face rather than via e-mail. It probably won’t take very long to do and be less frustrating to you guys who have worked all this through whilst I’ve got a mental block on it. Would this sound a good idea? I can do Wednesday afternoon or any time on Thursday if this would work for you.

Thanks

Gavin.

Gavin Monument
School Funding Policy Adviser
Maintained Schools Division

Mowden Hall
Staindrop Road
Darlington
Tel: 01325 735842
Mob: 07824 895783

www.education.gov.uk

=======================================================================================================
From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 20 January 2014 13:05
To: MONUMENT, Gavin [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: RE: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information

Hello Gavin
Keith indicated that Option 1 is not correct – the MFG applies to the overall budget (ie I think this means average values and Option 2).Similarly the calculation is only required for Special Schools not Resourced Bases (so is a lesser requirement)The request is for no MFG, but if we need to have one then it should be Option 2.
Is there any idea on timescales?
Thanks
Andrew
=======================================================================================================
From: gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 14 January 2014 11:29
To: Roberts, Andrew D.
Subject: RE: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information

Thanks Andrew,

That’s been really helpful as I’ve been able to track through the calculations for the options. Can I check my understanding though, just to make sure we’ve captured your request correctly.

Your preference is to run with option 1, which uses the banding system for the schools, but creates a much larger MFG requirement. So, you are requesting an MFG exclusion to be able to move straight to the new banding system. If this is not approved you would move to option 2, which uses an average rate for each school as this creates a much lower MFG requirement. Are you also asking for an MFG exclusion for option 2, or will you run with this option including the MFG impact?

Many thanks

Gavin.

Gavin Monument
School Funding Policy Adviser
Maintained Schools Division

Mowden Hall
Staindrop Road
Darlington
Tel: 01325 735842
Mob: 07824 895783

www.education.gov.uk

=======================================================================================================
From: Roberts, Andrew D. [mailto:andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: 08 January 2014 17:59
To: FUNDING, ReformTeam [mailto:reformteam.funding@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Cc: MONUMENT, Gavin [mailto:gavin.mounment@education.gsi.gov.uk]
Subject: Wirral 344 Special Schools exemption request- additional information

Hello Gavin
The attached is a summary of the MFG calculation. The end column shows the MFG for each school. The average band rate shown is a weighted band average for each school which is then compared with the MFG rate.
Pupil numbers used are:
Elleray and Stanley 90
Lyndale 25
Observatory 45

Andrew Roberts
Senior Manager – School Funding & Resources
Children and Young People’s Department
Wirral Council
Tel: 0151 666 4249
Fax: 0151 666 4338
andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk

Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

10 weeks left in Lyndale School closure consultation

10 weeks left in Lyndale School closure consultation

10 weeks left in Lyndale School closure consultation

                       

front of thank you card from Lyndale staff and children
Front of thank you card from Lyndale staff and children (you can click on the image for a higher quality version)

inside of thank you card from Lyndale staff and children
(you can click on the image for a higher quality version)

As you can see above, Leonora and I received a thank you card fortnight ago from the Lyndale staff and children (the scanned images probably don’t do it justice). So I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Lyndale staff and children for the thank you card.

In the three and half years since starting this blog I think it’s the first thank you card that Leonora and I have received and came completely out of the blue so I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Lyndale staff and children for creating it and sending it.

The consultation on closing Lyndale School started on April 2nd. The consultation document can be downloaded here, as well as the Cabinet report. The link from Wirral Council’s consultation page to the Coordinating Committee report doesn’t work. However it can be read on this blog at pages five to six of this document. Hopefully Wirral Council will fix the link! There is also a feedback form and Wirral Council has more detail about the consultation on closing Lyndale School on this page on their website.

Video of the original Cabinet decision of the 16th January is below (the item starts in the first video at 1:53). Video of the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February is below that. This blog has also published transcripts of the Lyndale School item at the Cabinet meeting and a partial transcript of the Coordinating Committee meeting. The transcript of the Lyndale item at the Cabinet meeting can be found at How did the Lyndale School closure consultation begin?. The Coordinating Committee item on Lyndale School last for about three and a half hours. The first transcript of it is at What did officers say at the Lyndale School call in? “we had a problem the rules mattered more than the children”, followed by What did officers say about Lyndale School in reply to “how much money you would expect to get if you sold that land?”. During the consultation period I hope to have the time to type up some more transcripts of the Coordinating Committee meeting.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Wirral Council Cabinet meeting of 16th January 2014 at which the decision to consult on closing Lyndale School was made

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Wirral Council Coordinating Committee meeting of 27th February 2014 at which the Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School was reviewed

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.