Wirral Council valued Lyndale School land and buildings at £2,696,103.00 in February 2013
Wirral Council valued Lyndale School land and buildings at £2,696,103.00 in February 2013
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
One of the issues that was raised during the consultation on Lyndale School (and the call in) was how much The Lyndale School would be worth to Wirral Council as an asset if in the future the school was closed, declared a surplus asset and sold by Wirral Council? The 2012/13 asset register assigns a value to the buildings of £1,788,103.00 and land of 908,000.00 (total £2,696,103.00) valued on 22nd February 2013 (as part of its regular quinquennial or five yearly valuation).
A summary of the responses given by David Armstrong at the meetings I was at (such as the consultation meeting in June and the February call in) was that he personally had deliberately not visited the site to avoid the rumour spreading that Wirral Council was disposing of the site and that there were hoops Wirral Council would have to jump through before even getting to that stage, three of those being a decision that the school would have to close, then declared a surplus asset by a politician/s and permissions from the Secretary of State too before even reaching the stage where they could dispose of it.
The issue of the extra capital work on other schools (which costs the council money) to provide extra places for the Lyndale School children if it closed was known and quantified as obviously building work has to start well in advance of being completed due to obtaining planning permission, contract tender rules (such as getting quotes and bids for the work) and the fact that building work on schools tends to be done during school holidays to prevent disruption to what schools are there to do.
What’s interesting is in a recent response to a Freedom of Information request to former councillor Ian Lewis, Wirral Council have (finally) released the 2012/13 asset register. I read the 2012/13 asset register this morning and it does contain an entry for The Lyndale School. Bear in mind this is for the 2012/13 local authority year (1/4/2012 to 30/3/2013) which was audited as part of the audit of that year (12/13)’s accounts at some point between 1/4/13 and 30/9/13.
As is well known already, formal plans to close the Lyndale School became known to the public around December 2013 but there were rumours of closure plans before then. The entry for The Lyndale School is as follows:
RAM Ref Building 000341 RAM Ref Land 000342 NLPG 42069200 Address The Lyndale School Street Lyndale Avenue Town Eastham Postcode CH62 8DE Description Special School Controlling Department CYPD Asset Type PPE Status Land and buildings Valuation Basis (See below for definitions) FV(DRC) Buildings Value (Required for DRC and EUV valuations only) 1,788,103.00 Land Value (Required for DRC and EUV valuations only) 908,000.00 Value (Applies to MV entries only) Asset Value 2,696,103.00 Value addition check ok Asset Life Years (Required for DRC & EUV valuations only) 30 Date of revaluation 22/2/2013 Date assets physically verified (if not – state reason) 22/2/2013 Valuer Sarah Duncan Comments Valuation year 2012/13 Valuation required 12/13 y Valuation reasons Quinquennial Disposal reason Disposal proceeds Revisions made y Is property held solely to earn rentals or for capital appreciation or both? Is property used in the production or supply of goods or services or for administrative purposes? Is property for sale in the ordinary course of operations? Is earning rentals the outcome of a council policy (e.g. regeneration policy)? Is the property social housing? Investment Property Classification Not Investment AHFS Criterion 1: Available for immediate sale, etc? AHFS Criterion 2: Sale highly probably, etc? AHFS Criterion 3: Actively marketed? AHFS Criterion 4: Expected to qualift for recognition as a completed sale within 1 year of date of classification? AHFS Classification Not AHFS
This entry in the asset register of course raises a lot of questions. A regular five yearly revaluation was done on the Lyndale School in February 2013. Any valuation (if a further one was done) between 1st April 2013 and 30th March 2014 would be on the 2013/14 asset register.
The 2012/13 asset register was audited as part of the 2012/13 accounts over the period 1st April 2013 to 30th September 2013. However the asset register would’ve been available for management purposes well before this audit was complete. Within two months of that audit being complete the public became aware of the plans to close the school.
So management at Wirral Council would’ve had the Lyndale School valuation from February 2013 available in informing their plans (whether they asked for this information to be provided is another question though).
However, as the school and land that The Lyndale School is on is an asset of Wirral Council now used for education (and specifically adapted for use as a special school), surely it makes no economic sense to close it down?
If it’s closed, the costs of the building (Council Tax, maintenance etc) will still be there.
If it’s closed, the children would be moved to another school so staff costs would stay, Wirral Council would be paying for building costs on two buildings then, the school they move to and Lyndale School sitting empty.
If we look back to the closure of Cole Street Primary School in Birkenhead, there was a very long time between the school being closed and it being sold. During this time it appeared to be unused each time I passed it especially after it was declared surplus to requirements.
There is another question this raises though.
Do the capital works on buildings to increase places elsewhere in the schools system so the Lyndale School children have somewhere to go to should the school close exceed the valuation of the Lyndale School?
If they do, then don’t these plans not make any economic sense whatsoever (unless I’m missing something)?!
The Cabinet decision on 4th September to go ahead to the next stage on closing Lyndale School was “called in” by Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors yesterday (lead signatory Cllr Paul Hayes (Conservative)) and will now not be implemented until there is a future meeting of the Coordinating Committee soon to decide what to do next.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Cabinet to decide on 6-week consultation on closure of children’s centres
Cabinet to decide on 6-week consultation on closure of children’s centres
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith, Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Now for what I promised earlier with a story about children’s centres. Basically Cabinet is going to have to decide tonight whether or not to proceed to a six-week consultation on recommendations for the early years service and children’s centres.
The proposals which may/may not go out to consultation is to try to save £2 million. Staff at risk of losing their jobs (if a decision to go to consultation tonight) will also be consulted.
Admittedly the report has the odd type, for example at 6.1 it refers to the 2104 budget which should read the 2014 budget as Wirral Council officers don’t tend to consider the budgetary implications in ninety years time of their decisions! 😀
The proposals that may/may not go out to consultation would involve the closure of at least eight children’s centres with four being downgraded to satellite/outreach. The outright closure of some could result in a grant clawback of the money Wirral Council got to build them.
Of course if the Labour Cabinet does decide to go down this path of consultation on closure, eventually a decision will have to be made.
I’m sure at that stage or even before (if consultation is agreed tonight) the Conservatives will be reminding Labour of the election leaflets they’ve put out in recent years that told the people of Wirral that the children’s centres are not safe in Tory hands so please vote Labour. 😀
Oh dear, and what will the local newspapers make of it all?
Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter
Legal advice from Surjit Tour to 62 Wirral Council councillors on Lyndale School matter
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Below this is a copy of the multi page legal advice written by Surjit Tour on the 11th July 2014 and distribute to all 62 councillors present at the Council meeting on 14th July 2014 on the Lyndale School motion.
This was provided (rather surprisingly to me as it must mark a change from the past towards more openness and transparency) in response to a Freedom of Information Act request of mine made on the 14th August 2014.
In view of the Notice of Motion relating to The Lyndale School being debated at Council on 14 July 2014, I have set out below some advice for your consideration in relation to the issues of ‘Pre-determination’, ‘Pre-disposition’ and ‘Bias’ given the significance and high profile nature of this particular subject matter.
This Note is intended as guidance only and provided to help you in your consideration of these issues in the context of The Lyndale School Notice of Motion arising at Council on 14 July and thereafter.
Pre-determination and Pre-disposition
Pre-determination is defined as:
“occurring when a Member has fixed views on a matter and retains a closed mind when it comes to making a determination”.
Pre-disposition is defined as:
“a Member being open to the possibility that, however unlikely, they will hear argument during the debate about the issue that will change their mind about how they intend to vote. As long as they are willing to keep an open mind about the issue they are entitled to take part in any vote on it”.
First – the behaviour complained of has to be relevant to the issue.
Second – the situation has to be one where a notional fair-minded and well-informed observer, looking objectively at all circumstances, would consider that there is a real risk that the decision maker has refused even to consider a relevant argument or would refuse to consider a new argument.
In summary, there are no restrictions on a Member holding a provisional view on an issue (pre-disposition) but there is a problem if he/she acts with a closed mind on a subject (pre-determination).
The pre-disposition can be strong and can be publicly voiced. It might be in favour of or against a particular point. The expressing of an intention to vote in a particular way before a meeting (pre-determination) is not the same as when a Member makes it clear he/she is willing to listen to views of all sides before deciding on how to vote (pre-disposition).
Pre-disposition in decision making is fine.
Whereas, decisions made by Members later judged to have pre-determined views have been quashed by way of judicial review.
Bias
Bias is defined as:
‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents impartial consideration of a question; prejudice’.
‘…the question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.’
It is therefore important that each Member considers his/her stance from the position of a ‘reasonable onlooker’ and decides whether there would be or could be the appearance of bias.
Only you can say whether you are biased or not.
Localism Act 2012
Section 25 of the Localism Act states that a Member should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because he/she has previously said/or acted in a way that may have directly or indirectly indicated the view he/she may take in relation to a matter.
Section 25 does not attempt to change case law in respect of pre-determination and bias, but it has attempted to clarify it.
The section applies if there is an issue about the validity of a decision, as a result of an “allegation of bias or pre-determination”, or “otherwise” and it is relevant to that issue whether the decision maker, or any of the decision makers, had or appeared to have had a closed mind (to any extent) when making the decision. Thus it is drafted so as to catch as many cases as possible in which an allegation of pre-determination might be made which might affect the validity of a decision.
Section 25 catches allegations of actual, and apparent, pre-determination (however tenuous).
The provision is also widely phrased in another sense. It applies to views not just about the subject matter of the decision in question, but to anything a Member has done which might show, directly, or indirectly, what view he/she takes, or would take, or might take, about any matter which is relevant to the decision.
The explanatory notes to the Localism Act 2011 in relation to section 25 state that ‘Predetermination occurs where someone has a closed mind, with the effect that they are unable to apply their judgement fully and properly to an issue requiring a decision.
Section 25 is set out on pages 4 and 5 below for your reference.
5. Summary
In summary, Members are asked to consider the above advice when considering all items of Council business requiring Members to make a decision; however particularly so in relation to the Notice of Motion re: The Lyndale School.
Members are aware that no firm/final decision has been taken by the Administration in relation to The Lyndale School and therefore the Council’s Executive decision making arrangements have yet to be administered and concluded. These arrangements also include options that are still relevant to non-executive Members and accordingly you are advised to consider the implications/impact of pre-determination, pre-disposition and bias on the decision making arrangements relevant to this subject matter.
If you have any queries concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
Surjit Tour
Head of Legal & Member Services
and Monitoring Officer
11 July 2014
LOCALISM ACT 2011
Section 25
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) as a result of an allegation of bias or predetermination, or otherwise, there is an issue about the validity of a decision of a relevant authority, and
(b) it is relevant to that issue whether the decision-maker, or any of the decision-makers, had or appeared to have had a closed mind (to any extent) when making the decision.
(2) A decision-maker is not to be taken to have had, or to have appeared to have had, a closed mind when making the decision just because—
(a) the decision-maker had previously done anything that directly or indirectly indicated what view the decision-maker took, or would or might take, in relation to a matter, and
(b) the matter was relevant to the decision.
(3) Subsection (2) applies in relation to a decision-maker only if that decision-maker—
(a) is a member (whether elected or not) of the relevant authority, or
(b) is a co-opted member of that authority.
(4) In this section—
“co-opted member”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a person who is not a member of the authority but who—
(a) is a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or
(b) is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or joint sub-committee of the authority, and who is entitled to vote on any question which falls to be decided a any meeting of the committee or sub-committee;
“decision”, in relation to a relevant authority, means a decision made in discharging functions of the authority, functions of the authority’s executive, functions of a committee of the authority or functions of an officer of the authority (including decisions made in the discharge of any of those functions otherwise than by the person to whom the function was originally given);
“elected mayor” has the meaning given by section 9H or 39 of the Local Government Act 2000;
“member”—
(a) in relation to the Greater London Authority, means the Mayor of London or a London Assembly member, and
(b) in relation to a county council, district council, county borough council or London borough council, includes an elected mayor of the council;
“relevant authority” means—
(a) a county council,
(b) a district council,
(c) a county borough council,
(d) a London borough council,
(e) the Common Council of the City of London,
(f) the Greater London Authority,
(g) a National Park authority,
(h) the Broads Authority,
(i) the Council of the Isles of Scilly,
(j) a parish council, or
(k) a community council.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million
Biffa asks Wirral’s Cabinet for a 10 year extension to bins & street cleaning contract worth at least £120 million
Biffa Waste Service Limited November 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1036840.28Biffa Waste Service Limited December 2013 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28Biffa Waste Service Limited January 2014 Invoice Wirral Council £1032201.28
Above are three of the recent monthly invoices to Wirral Council from Biffa Waste Services Limited for November 2013 (£1,036,840.28), December 2013 (£1,032,201.28) and January 2014 (£1,032,201.28).
I did not request the invoices for other months during that financial year (2013/14), but I would assume that the other nine are for similar amounts of around a million pounds. So why am I writing about this and what does Biffa Waste Services Limited actually do for it’s ~£12 million it receives each year from the taxpayer?
Well as shown on the invoices it’s for collecting the bins, cleaning the streets and extra amounts for working on a Bank Holiday. I’ll be looking more closely at the current contract with Biffa Waste Services Limited (which runs to 2017) tomorrow morning (if all goes well).
However there is some political news on the Biffa front, in fact Wirral Council seems to be bolstering itself for a bit of bad press coverage judging by the Cabinet papers for tonight’s Cabinet meeting (only tonight if you happen to reading this on the 11th September 2014).
I remember Mark Smith (a Wirral Council officer who is Head of Environment and Regulation) getting a grilling by the Chair (Rt Hon Frank Field MP) at a recent Birkenhead Constituency Committee meeting about what the Rt Hon Frank Field MP seemed to see as a lack of openness and transparency in the area of how Wirral Council manages the Biffa contract.
In the Rt Hon Frank Field MP’s view (from my memory of the meeting) he wanted (rather reasonably some might say) to know exactly what the public were getting for the ~£12 million a year that the taxpayer pays Biffa Waste Services Limited through Wirral Council. Sadly there was no one present at the meeting to answer for Biffa Waste Services Limited and Mark Smith seemed to struggle a little to give the kind of answers that Rt Hon Frank Field MP seemed to want to hear. However moving on from the frustrations of Birkenhead’s MP/Chair of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee to more local politics (although isn’t all politics local)?
Rather helpfully Appendix 5 to the Streetscene Environment Services Contract Extension item contains the following two entries on the risk register (copied below):
Risk No
Description of risk
Risk category
Risk Owner
Gross likelihood Score
Gross impact score
Total Gross Score
Net Likelihood Score
Net Impact Score
Total Net Score
Proposed Controls
Responsibility
Target date
RAG Status
1
District Audit scrutiny on decision process likely
Legal / Regulatory
Tara Dumas
3
4
12
3
2
6
Member decision based on thorough analysis of risks. Best value comparison work to be undertaken – Local benchmarking plus APSE/Audit commission comparison Update on market position sought from previous consultants contracted to review Biffa contract. Process to be reviewed by internal audit
TD TD TD MGa
07/07/14 completed 07/07/14 07/07/14
G C G G
2
Negative political and
media attention
Political/societal
PR team – Kathryn Green
5
3
15
3
2
6
Proactive approach by PR with press releases Confirm offer not linked to service/workforce changes
LF
Post decision 31/5/2014
G C
In other words, Wirral Council know (before any decision is formally made tonight to enter into negotiations) that it will cause all kinds of trouble. They’ve already decided (it seems) on a public relations line of telling the press it won’t lead to job losses/workforce changes and giving them the “gift” of a press release in the hope that most of the media will just print the press release more or less verbatim and not ask too many awkward questions about the matter.
They even know their external auditor (Grant Thornton) will be asking them a whole bunch of questions to do with it too but surprisingly there are even bigger risks than the media and Wirral Council’s auditors to tackle, although read the risk register at appendix 5 and hopefully you’ll see what I mean.
So how can I sum up what is proposed to be decided tonight quickly? The current contract will Biffa Waste Services Limited will end on March 2017.
The impression I get from reading between the lines of the Cabinet papers, (a lot of the detail has been kept deliberately secret by officers who are recommending to politicians to keep it secret too on grounds of commercial confidentiality) is that Biffa Waste Services Limited seemed to be somewhat concerned that if their multi-million pound 11 year contract ends on March 2017, that they would have to bid in a competitive tender against other companies and organisations for the new contract.
There’s then uncertainty (from Biffa’s perspective) over whether they would end up being the successful bidder or not. It’s called “competition” and is generally required for such large multi-million pound contracts because of all kinds of laws I won’t go into at this point and competition is therefore required for a whole bunch of good reasons.
So someone as Biffa Waste Services Limited has read through the contract they have with Wirral Council and found a caveat. There was a part in the contract that could extend it a further ten years (current prices of ~£12 million a year but yearly increases and variation are usually built-in). This contract covers “all household waste and recycling collections, street cleansing and fly tip removal, waste collection from schools and council offices and wheeled bin deliveries.”
All Biffa had to do to get a further ten years (at ~£12 million a year) was make a formal offer to Wirral Council (which they did) and have this agreed to by Wirral Council (which hasn’t happened yet with the earliest date expected being October 2014).
Due to the size of the amounts involved it has to be a decision made by politicians, specifically Wirral Council’s Cabinet and the councillor with responsibility for this area is the new(ish) Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability Councillor Bernie Mooney (who replaced Brian Kenny earlier this year when he lost an election in May to the Green Party councillor Pat Cleary).
However what’s in the currently exempt appendices?
Well appendix 1 covers the “value and suggested terms of the formal offer from Biffa in return for the Council extending the contract to 2027. In summary the proposal offers the Council a one-off saving split between 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 followed by a continued annual reduction in the core contract price throughout the remainder of the extended contract period to the equivalent value. Officers asked Biffa to clarify the benefits to Biffa if the contract extension was agreed.”
I’m not allowed to link to appendix 1 (as it’s currently a big secret and you’d get an “access denied” type message from Wirral Council’s website if I did), but as the language used by a Wirral Council officer is rather opaque, it has to boil down to how I imagine a summary of what Biffa offered Wirral Council … “give us a further ten years and we will give you very good price if you pick us. Our price is very reasonable, many savings to be had, very good price, you buy from us again we treat you well. We are very good supplier and will take your bins to tip and keep streets clean for another 10 years for a very reasonable price.”
Wirral Council officers asked Biffa to clarify what Biffa would get out of extending the contract a further ten years.
Biffa responded to this on the 10th February 2014. Again I’m not allowed to show you Biffa’s response either on the instructions of Wirral Council officers!
The summary of this response is again in rather opaque language “Biffa indicated that the savings they could offer arose from avoiding future procurement and mobilisation costs, the ability to re-finance their operations and a reduction in overheads due to the stable nature of the contract. The discount is not linked to any service changes.”
In other words Biffa are saying “grant us a monopoly, save us the cost of having to retender for the contract in 2017, Wirral Council will save money from having to retender the contract” (which is a bit of a debatable point really anyway considering the extra costs this will cause doing it this way) “and Biffa will be able to borrow money cheaper because we’ll have a longer contract.” To be honest I don’t agree entirely with Biffa’s point about overheads being significantly lower to justify this.
Another letter from Biffa (exempt appendix 3) is also currently being kept secret by Wirral Council officers (pending a decision by politicians). This letter is about an offer to redesign the fleet of bin lorries from 2017 to collect things such as food waste (to meet Wirral Council’s recycling targets).
However Biffa make it clear that this is absolutely Biffa’s final offer (well unless Wirral Council’s Cabinet say no to negotiations or no to the offer in October 2014 and Biffa have to bid for the new contract starting in 2017)!
Wirral Council officers seem very keen to have the Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet agree to Biffa’s plan. “80p cheaper per a Wirral person than Liverpool” they state in the report, but strangely 15p more per a person than in Sefton!
Of course Wirral Council’s Cabinet could just choose to reject Biffa’s proposal and decide to bring the service in-house from 2017.
The recent street cleansing cuts to the contract, have been the source of both political and media attention in the recent past. However, what’s the officer’s recommendation?
Oh and before I get to that, Wirral Council asked Eunomia (are they consultants?) in 2012 to look at the Biffa contract, the consultants in fact suggested the contract should be retendered! Eunomia also suggested that if Wirral Council did agree to extend the contract by a further ten years than there should be changes to “contract clauses relating to indexation, labour cost inflation and future efficiency gains” which would be extremely sensible to do considering the current contract is linked to RPI (and let’s face it inflation is quite high)! However the Eunomia assessment is now two years out of date and things have changed somewhat since then.
As Wirral Council officers freely admit in 5.3.4 of this report, they don’t really know if this will save any money at all versus retendering the contract, it all just seems to be educated guesswork and unknown quantities.
The estimated savings have been listed, but surprisingly (and isn’t this usually the case?) not the increased costs (such as an increased audit bill from Grant Thornton for extra work).
It’s the report gets to “legal implications” that things start to get interesting!
Here’s a quote from 10.2 “The Legal colleagues have highlighted that it is necessary to limit the amount of material changes to the contract in order to minimise the risk of the Council being challenged on the legalities of the extension.”
In other words, do it right otherwise one of Biffa’s competitors, or in fact anyone could sue Wirral Council over how it was done.
Then entering into catch 22 territory the legal advice continues:
“Due consideration has been given to establishing whether the Biffa proposal offers Value for Money (Sections 4 and 5 refers) as required under the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules. However, it is important to note that the only decisive way to determine whether a more advantageous contract could be secured by the Council would be through retendering the contract.”
In other words, Wirral Council don’t know whether this saves them money without retendering the contract in 2017, but if they agree to Biffa’s proposal they won’t be retendering the contract in 2017 so they’ll never really know or be able to prove “value for money” to their external auditors Grant Thornton.
However let’s see, what do officers want? They want politicians to agree to them to enter into negotiations with Biffa, more specifically the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment (currently Kevin Adderley) and then report back to Cabinet no later than October 2014.
Personally (and this is just an opinion) I think politicians on the Cabinet will probably agree to enter into negotiations with Biffa tonight (even though Labour’s tendency in the past has been to bring back services in-house), if only just to keep their options open in October 2014. Quite what the Rt Hon Frank Field MP’s views on this latest development in the Biffa saga are at the time of writing unknown.
Coming up next today: What Wirral Council’s Cabinet is planning to do about Children’s Centres.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Wirral Council publish draft minutes on 4th September Cabinet decision on Lyndale School
Wirral Council publish draft minutes on 4th September Cabinet decision on Lyndale School
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services) at the Special Cabinet Meeting of 4th September 2014 to discuss Lyndale School L to R Cllr Stuart Whittingham, Cllr Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services), Cllr Bernie Mooney and Lyndzay Roberts
Wirral Council has published the draft minutes of the special Cabinet meeting held on the 4th September 2014 to consider the future of Lyndale School.
Councillors have between the date the draft minutes were published and the 18th September 2014 to decide whether they wish to “call in” the Cabinet decision and have it reviewed by a meeting of the Coordinating Committee as long as a minimum of six (out of sixty-six) councillors call for it to be called in.
A copy of the draft minutes for the Cabinet meeting are below.
40.
Members’ Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest
Members of the Cabinet are asked to consider whether they have any disclosable pecuniary or non pecuniary interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state the nature of the interest.
Minutes:
Councillor S Whittingham declared a personal interest by virtue of his appointment as a school governor at Millbrook Special School.
41.
Minutes
The minutes of the last meeting have been printed and published. Any matters called in will be reported at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: That the minutes be approved and adopted.
Minutes:
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the last meeting held on 7th July 2014 be approved as a correct record.
42.
Chairs Announcement
Minutes:
The Leader of the Councillor indicated that following requests received, prior to the consideration of TheLyndale School item, the Cabinet will be show a video from The Lyndale School first
At its meeting held on 14 July 2014, Council considered a Notice of Motion proposed by Councillor Paul Hayes in relation to The Lyndale School.
Council requested the Cabinet consider this along with all options relating to Lyndale School together with the outcome of the consultation exercise at a special meeting.
(Minute 18 is attached)
Minutes:
At the meeting of the Council held on 14 July 2014 (minute 18 refers), the attached Notice of Motion, proposed by Councillor Paul Hayes and seconded by Councillor Jeff Green, in relation to The Lyndale School, was debated.
Council requested the Cabinet consider this along with all options relating to the Lyndale School together with the outcome of the consultation exercise at a special meeting.
RESOLVED:
That the Notice of Motion in the relation to The Lyndale School be noted.
Prior to consideration of the item the Cabinet considered a video which had been submitted by Ms D. Hughes.
The Leader of the Council, having welcomed everyone to the meeting, invited Ms Zoe Anderson, Parent Governor and parent of a child at The Lyndale School to address the Cabinet. Ms Anderson, spoke on behalf of the staff and parents of the school and spoke of the particular needs of the children at The Lyndale and gave a personal account of her own child’s needs and experiences which she felt could only be provided for at The Lyndale School.
Speaking on behalf of parents Ms Anderson made representations in strong support of retaining The Lyndale School, the consultation responses, the expert report and the proposed options.
Ms Anderson specifically stated that the staff at The Lyndale had gained the trust of all the parents to look after their child’s medical, physical and educational needs – which was the fundamental concern. Ms Anderson highlighted the excellent support, care and education provided all the children at The Lyndale School. The school had excellent facilities including very good outside space to which the children had full access. Ms Anderson commented that The Lyndale School provided the children with a wonderful sensory environment that was safe and relaxed. She asked that a full review be undertaken of the care given to each individual child by staff at The Lyndale School.
Ms Anderson commented that the school’s staff provided specialised care, support and education; they were adept at communicating effectively with the children – skills which took many years to perfect. She stated that it took time to build up trust, and it was unfair that staff did not know what was to happen from week to week. The school played an integral part in the community, and interacted and participated with other neighbouring schools. Ms Anderson shared/circulated a Parents Survey that had been undertaken that showed parents wanted their children to remain at The Lyndale School.
Within her representations, Ms Anderson asked that the funding bands be revisited to reflect the needs of each individual child that attended the school. She highlighted that the school had previously asked for the Schools Forum to revisit the schools banding due to the change in circumstances.
In relation to the consultation document, Ms Anderson reiterated that The Lyndale School was not looking for the Council to enhance the funding but to maintain the funding that was already in place. Ms Anderson stated that parents had confidence in the school but not the process that the parents were involved in. She reminded Cabinet Members that the Council had a legal obligation to listen to the parents under the SEN Test. Ms Anderson drew an analogy with medical consultants who always ask parents for their views and thoughts.
Ms Anderson stated that consultation responses clearly showed overwhelming support for The Lyndale School to be retained. Comments were also made in relation to the consultant (Ms L Wright) and her report.
Concerns were expressed that the ethos of The Lyndale School would not be replicated at either the Stanley orElleray Park Schools, not least because the children attending these schools had different needs. Ms Anderson stated that the suitability of expanding these two schools was based upon assumptions, which was not evidence; and that simply providing training to staff was no substitute for experience. Concerns were raised over health and safety issues and the need for both schools to be upgraded at considerable cost.
Ms Anderson concluded by stating that experienced and effective staff would leave due to the uncertainty and proposals. There would be no investment in The Lyndale School and it would instead stagnate; and parents would not want or be willing to subject their children to such an outcome.
The Leader of the Council thanked Ms Hughes for her informative video and Ms Anderson for her representations. He acknowledged and confirmed that he appreciated the time and effort expended by everyone in supporting the school and pupils. He indicated that Members of the Cabinet had read all reports, representations and the feedback received in relation to The Lyndale School and had also met with parents and staff. He sincerely thanked all staff and parents.
Introduced by the Director of Children’s Services, the Cabinet considered the report from the Director of Children’s Services which detailed the outcome of the consultation on the closure of The Lyndale School.
The report outlined the responses received during the consultation, reviewed alternative options identified, as well as detailing the outcome of the SEN Improvement Test.
The report indicated that, on 16 January 2014 (Minute 129 refers) Cabinet agreed to undertake a consultation on the closure of The Lyndale School. The consultation closed in June 2014. The report recommended that Cabinet considered the contents of the report and made a decision on this matter.
The Director of Children’s Services commended the care, quality and passion of the staff at The Lyndale School which was endorsed by Ofsted and noted their excellent quality of care towards all pupils who attended the school and indicated that she along with her Department would be working closely with all staff and parents to end the uncertainty surrounding the future of The Lyndale School and bring this to a conclusion as soon as possible for both children, parents, and staff.
In relation to consultation, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that she had met with parents,’ school staff, school governors and an MP; Councillors had also undertaken site visits to the schools and various public meetings had been held to encourage consultation and feedback.
In relation to concerns raised by parents regarding health and safety at Elleray Park and Stanley School these were sent to both Headteachers of the schools who responded to the Council who then responded to the parents questions.
In relation to staff, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that she had spoken to all staff at The Lyndale School when she visited as and reiterated that those affected would be fully supported throughout the transition as far as the Council can do.
In response to comments from parents, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that there had been no evidence to suggest that parents had been steered away from The Lyndale School by Children’s Services officers although accepted that due to the uncertainty that surrounded The Lyndale School this could be a contributing factor.
In relation to the option in which it was proposed that The Lyndale School close and a new PMLD base be opened on the new Foxfield site, the Director of Children’s Services indicated that she had recently spoken with theHeadteacher of Foxfield School who had spoken with his Chair of Governors and the Headteacher indicated that it would be inappropriate to have a primary setting even in a separate unit, therefore this option could not be considered.
The Chair welcomed Ms Lynn Wright, Independent Consultant, who had been appointed to consult on the proposal to close The Lyndale School, the options, including those which had emerged throughout the consultation period, and give her view on the SEN Improvement Test.
Ms Wright gave feedback on her findings in relation to each of the options considered; the full report was attached as an appendix.
In response to the Council’s intention to increase the closure period from 2015 to 2016, Ms Wright advised against this as this would have huge implications for the pupils and staff that already had gone through a long period of uncertainty. Ms Wright indicated that the funding system had changed nationally and that schools that were no longer viable or sustainable should not be allowed to continue.
The Leader of the Council thanked Ms Wright for her detailed report and feedback on the considered options.
The Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services thanked all staff and parents for their comments and feedback and indicated that the Cabinet had considered all options in a transparent manner and had listened carefully to what had been said. Cabinet Members were reminded to have regard to the Council Referral under the previous Agenda Item in considering this matter. The Cabinet Member reiterated the need for stability at The Lyndale School and that this had been looked at for both financial and educational reasons, which had to be taken into consideration due to the funding formula changes introduced by Central Government.
Councillor T Smith moved the following motion duly seconded by G. Davies:
(1) Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School;
(2) Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is recommended that:
Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually, with children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:
Elleray Park Special School
Stanley Special School
Another appropriate school
In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
and outlined the following reasons for the motion.
Having looked at all the options, and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is our opinion that, while we recognise the special place that The Lyndale School has in the affection of parents and children, the continued operation and maintenance of a school of this size will not meet the future educational needs of the children, nor is a financially viable option, especially when there are good alternative options available.
The Council has a responsibility to ensure for the sustainable future provision of education for the pupils of The Lyndale School. In addition, we have to manage resources effectively for all schools and the school population.
This was a difficult decision to make, and we would like to affirm our continued intention to work positively with the families and the children affected, and reassure parents of our continued commitment to their child’s wellbeing and education.
Councillor P. Davies moved an amendment, duly seconded by Councillor Mooney, that an additional point be included in the motion, namely:
The Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of The Lyndale School are completed by 31st October 2014.
which was carried unanimously.
IT WAS RESOLVED: That
(1) Cabinet thanks all those who have participated in the consultation exercise, with particular regard to submissions from parents of children at The Lyndale School;
(2) Having reviewed the responses received during the consultation process, analysed the alternative options and applied the SEN Improvement Test, it is recommended that:
Statutory notices be published in respect of the closure of The Lyndale School from January 2016.
That Wirral Council, under the leadership of the Director of Children’s Services, work individually, with children and families, towards effecting a smooth and supportive transition to an alternative place at one of the following schools:
EllerayPark Special School
StanleySpecial School
Another appropriate school
In doing so, that the Director of Children’s Services, in acknowledgement of the close relationships that exist between staff and pupils at The Lyndale School, investigates if staff could be employed, where possible, at receiving schools, (subject to legal practice and the approval of governing bodies).
The Director of Children’s Services be authorised to take all necessary steps to publish the proposals and ensure the prescribed procedures are followed, including requesting permissions from the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the proposals.
A further report be brought on the outcome of the publication of the statutory notices.
The Director of Children’s Services to ensure that Education, Health and Care Plans for all pupils of The Lyndale School are completed by 31st October 2014.
