Although the Forward Plan doesn’t mention it, Cabinet will be asked to accept a recommendation from officers to settle a claim made by B&M Retail Limited arising from the The Wirral Borough Council (Grange Road, Birkenhead) Compulsory Purchase Order 2008.
Two of the people at Wirral Council named on the equality impact assessment for the recommendation to June’s Cabinet to settle the compensation claim of B&M Retail Limited will be familiar to those who have read the media coverage about the court case involving the tenants of Fernbank Farm back in January. They are EIA Lead Officer Tony Simpson (line manager for David Dickenson) and Chief Officer David Armstrong. Head of Section Jeannette Royle is also named on the Equality Impact Assessment.
How much the compensation claim of B&M Retail Limited is for is not known, however it is likely to be for a large amount. It is listed as a key decision on the Forward Plan, which means it is either for £500,000+ or is for ten percent or more of the agreed budget for this area. The Cabinet Member for this area is Councillor Adrian Jones (Cabinet Member for Central and Support Services).
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Scrutiny reviews are not held in public. It could be argued that scrutiny review panels are subcommittees of their parent committee, therefore as a subcommittee they should meet in public. Although Wirral Council’s constitution states that citizens have the right to “participate in the Council’s question time and contribute to investigations by the Policy and Performance committees”, this scrutiny review was just officers and councillors meeting behind closed doors and there is no mention of anyone else being involved such as councillors actually talking to people who make Freedom of Information requests to Wirral Council.
Councillors seem to just be relying on information from Wirral Council employees (which then appears in their final report. The report mentions the monitoring action undertaken by the Information Commissioner’s Office between January and March of 2013 and July to September of the same year.
The way things are written in the report are a little misleading too, for example “The scrutiny review was conducted to ensure Wirral Council is moving in the right direction to manage Freedom of Information in compliance with the Information Commissioner’s Office.” Wirral Council have legal requirements to comply with the Freedom of Information legislation, whereas this sentence implies that Wirral Council just have to persuade the Information Commissioner’s Office that they’re improving and everything will be OK.
Recommendation one renames what used to be called the Freedom of Information departmental leads as “Freedom of Information Champions”. It also means that each champion will have a deputy and receive training and hopes this will be done by December 2014. Maybe the training is to try to speed up requests by the “Freedom of Information Champions” not having to ask Wirral Council’s legal department so much whether exemptions apply. However with so many exemptions and existing cases which determine the interpretation of how these exemptions should be applied (as well as guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office as to how exemptions should be applied) I still think that “Freedom of Information Champions” will be asking Wirral Council’s legal department for advice in the future.
Recommendation two (Freedom of Information Champions access to the customer relationship management software) should also include their deputies too if it’s going to be effective. If a request is made to Streetscene by email then an automatic email is sent out allocating a case number. I really don’t understand why this couldn’t be the case with Freedom of Information requests made via email and why they have to be entered manually which leads into recommendation three. If this is already being done for Streetscene requests why does they need a “technical solution identified” and “proper business case developed”? I have no problem with Wirral Council using case management software for freedom of information requests as it would save staff time.
Recommendation five states that the percentage of Freedom of Information requests responded to within twenty days (broken down at department and directorate level too) should be included in the information going to the Chief Executive’s Strategy Group.
Recommendation six is interesting as it suggests “identifying emerging themes and trends” of all Freedom of Information requests received by Wirral Council and publishing this information as well as including it in the Council’s publication scheme. It refers to other bodies publishing Freedom of Information requests. Wirral Council could go further than this and publish (with the requester’s details removed) its responses to Freedom of Information requests. This forms part of recommendation seven (but only for commonly asked requests). Problems with the search function on Wirral Council’s website leading to Freedom of Information requests for information that is already published is referred to. Recommendation eight recommends that the search function should be improved.
This particular paragraph in the report (page eleven) states what was known already, that Wirral Council involves its press department over some Freedom of Information requests.
“The Panel was interested in how departments dealt with disclosing information that could be deemed sensitive or damaging. Officers explained that if any exemptions to information being disclosed were to be applied, as defined by the Freedom of Information Act, these could be made by departments. Advice from either the Information and Central Services Manager or the Head of Legal and Democratic Services is available if required. The Council has a legal duty to disclose information and reputational damage does not enter into the equation. There is a quality assurance process by Legal and Member Services and, where appropriate, Press and Public Relations.”
However the following areas of Freedom of Information requests are either only referred to briefly or not at all. The only reference to internal reviews is “The hours and respective costs for Legal Services also includes: The additional time and resources expended by solicitors dealing with internal reviews”. No mention is made over the fact that there have been freedom of information requests made to Wirral Council where the requester has submitted an internal review request and even years later has not received a response! Although the Information Commissioner’s Office suggests (if memory serves me correctly) a maximum time of forty days for internal reviews, there is no specific time limit for internal reviews specified in the legislation and in the past Wirral Council has taken full advantage of it by effectively ignoring internal review requests for requests it doesn’t wish to be answered or appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Once Wirral Council has completed an internal review, the requester can appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The past four years have seen the Information Commissioner’s Office issue thirty nine decision notices about Freedom of Information requests made to Wirral Council. Most appeals are upheld. Here’s a brief summary of each decision notice.
Decision notice FS50141012 3/3/08 Wirral Council claimed a s.43 (commercial interests) exemption, then a s.22 (information intended for future publication) exemption. The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed with both (complaint upheld).
Decision notice FS50234468 18/5/10 Wirral Council claimed a s.14 (vexatious) exemption. The Information Commissioner considered that Wirral Council should’ve considered the request under the Environmental Information Regulations and therefore breached Regulation 14(3) by not providing an adequate refusal notice.
Decision notice FER0262449 22/11/10 The Information Commissioner’s Office found Wirral Council had failed to comply with regulation 5(1), 5(2) and 6(1).
Decision notice FS50398901 21/11/11 Wirral Council claimed a s.12 (Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) exemption. The information was later supplied to the requester after the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved. The Information Commissioner’s Office said that Wirral Council breached s. 10 by not supplying the information within twenty working days.
Decision notice FS50414910 15/11/11 Wirral Council failed to provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.
Decision notice FS50414911 15/11/11 Once again Wirral Council failed to provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.
Decision notice FS50414915 15/11/11 Wirral Council didn’t provide a response to a request within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.
Decision notice FS50414916 15/11/11 A response to a request was not provided by Wirral Council within the required twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the request.
Decision notice FS50406724 15/2/12 Wirral Council claimed a s. 40 (personal information) exemption. The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed that a s.40 exemption applied and required Wirral Council to provide the information to the requester.
Decision notice FER0422498 8/5/12 Wirral Council claimed they didn’t have to release the information because of exemptions under Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(5)(b). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that this applied to some of the information, but decided that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the exemptions claimed under Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) and therefore required Wirral Council to release some of the information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2012/0117 was allowed.
Decision notice FS50416628 13/8/12 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act. It required Wirral Council to disclose the information and reminded Wirral Council of Greenwood v ICO (EA/2011/0131 & 0137).
Decision notice FS50428877 30/8/12 Wirral Council relied on a s.36(2)(b)(i) and s.36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) exemption. Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved Wirral Council also claimed an exemption under s.40 (personal information). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that some information would fall under a s.40 exemption, however disagreed that either a s.36 or s.40 exemption applied to the rest of the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office found that Wirral Council had breached 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and required Wirral Council to supply the information it didn’t agree was covered by the s.40 exemption.
Decision notice FS50435531 16/8/12 The requester made various requests to Wirral Council to which it failed to respond to within twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to respond to the requests.
Decision notice FS50440547 16/8/12 Various requests were made that were not answered by Wirral Council. The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that this breached s.10(1) and required Wirral Council to answer the requests.
Decision notice FS50440548 16/8/12 The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to answer the requests made by the requester as they had not done so within the twenty working days.
Decision notice FS50440553 16/8/12 Wirral Council failed to respond to various requests within the twenty day time limit. The Information Commissioner’s Office saw this as a breach of s.10(1) and required Wirral Council to respond to the requests.
Decision notice FS50440555 14/8/12 Wirral Council stated it didn’t hold the information requested. During the course of the investigation Wirral Council provided the requester with the names of staff requested. However as this information was recalled from memory it fell outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore the Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s view that it did not hold the information requested.
Decision notice FS50445302 10/10/12 Wirral Council did not provide a response to the Freedom of Information Act request or a refusal notice. The Information Commissioner’s Office required it to either respond to the request or provide a refusal notice to the requester.
Decision notice FS50430602 22/11/12 Wirral Council stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Information Commissioner’s decision was that on the balance of probabilities it did not.
Decision notice FS50438500 29/11/12 Wirral Council refused a request claiming a s.40 (personal data) exemption applied. It later disclosed information on the severance payments to two individuals. The Information Commissioner agreed with Wirral Council that a s.40 exemption applied, however ruled that Wirral Council had breached 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act by taking longer than twenty days to respond and a further breach of 10(1) by taking longer than twenty days to disclose the information on severance payments. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2012/0264 was dismissed.
Decision notice FS50468400 30/4/13 Wirral Council relied on a s.40 (personal data) exemption. Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved, Wirral Council stated that the information was publicly available. The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.1(1)(a), s.1(1)(b) and s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and upheld the complaint.
Decision notice FS50468862 23/5/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act and required Wirral Council to respond to the request.
Decision notice FS50470254 4/6/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office disagreed with Wirral Council’s interpretation that a s.40 (personal data) exemption applied to information which contained names of its employees. It found that Wirral Council was in breach of s.10 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to release the information requested by the requester that it didn’t agree that the s.40 exemption applied to.
Decision notice FER0488228 5/8/13 The requester requested an independent viability assessment report in relation to a planning application for a site on Ingleborough Road, Birkenhead. Wirral Council released some information from the report but relied on an exemption in Regulation 12(5)(e) in the Environmental Information Regulations over the rest of the information. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s application of the exemption in Regulation 12(5)(e), but ruled that Wirral Council had breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4).
Decision notice FS50475685 15/8/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on an exemption under s.40 (personal data). The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed with Wirral Council’s use of the exemption but ruled that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) by not providing a response within twenty days.
Decision notice FS50485049 8/8/13 The Commissioner’s decision was that, on the balance of probabilities, Wirral Borough Council did not hold the requested information so the complaint was not upheld.
Decision notice FS50482286 9/9/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on exemptions in s.32 (court records, etc) and s.40 (personal information). Once the Information Commissioner’s Office was involved Wirral Council decided not to rely on s.32 (court records, etc) and released the document with the names redacted. The Information Commissioner ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing a response within twenty days.
Decision notice FS50512385 26/9/13 The Information Commissioner found that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) by not providing a response and required Wirral Council to provide a response.
Decision notice FS50474741 3/10/13 Wirral Council refused a request relying on exemptions in s.41 (information provided in confidence) and s.42 (legal professional privilege). During the Commissioner’s investigation Wirral Council dropped its reliance on s.42 (legal professional privilege). The Commissioner’s decided that Wirral was not entitled to rely on section 41 in relation to some of the information, as it was not provided by another party and had not provided sufficient justification for the application of section 41 to the remainder of the information. It required Wirral Council to disclose the requested information.
Decision notice FS50478733 30/10/13 In response to a request Wirral Council linked to some information in the public domain but claimed a s.40 (personal information) exemption applied to the rest. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation it released a further three documents to the complainant. The Information Commissioner ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) as its response to the complainant had taken longer than twenty days.
Decision notice FS50491264 8/10/13 Wirral Council relied on s.14 (vexatious or repeated requests) to refuse a request. The Information Commissioner disagreed that a s.14 exemption applied to the requested information and that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office required Wirral Council to issue a fresh response without relying on a s.14 (vexatious or repeated request) exemption.
Decision notice FS50496446 17/10/13 The Information Commissioner’s Office ruled that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing a response within twenty working days.
Decision notice FS50501894 18/12/13 Wirral Council refused a request using a s.40 exemption (personal information). The Information Commissioner decided that s.40 wasn’t engaged and therefore couldn’t be used to withhold the information. It ruled that Wirral Council issued a refusal notice outside of the twenty days breaching s.17(1). It required Wirral Council to provide the information.
Decision notice FS50489913 13/1/14 Wirral Council stated that it did not hold information in response to a request. The Commissioner’s decision was that the Council is likely to hold relevant information so had therefore breached sections 1 and 10 of the Freedom of Information Act. Wirral Council was required to issue a fresh response to the complainant.
Decision notice FS50496910 15/1/14 Wirral Council refused a request relying on an exemption in s.40 (personal information). During the Commissioner’s investigation, Wirral Council provided some of the information requested. The Commissioner agreed that Wirral Council had correctly applied the s.40 exemption to the rest of the information but that Wirral Council had breached s.10(1) by not providing the information it did provide within twenty days of the original request.
Case FS50506771 11/2/14 Wirral Council refused a request stating that a s.40 (personal information) exemption applied. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed but ruled that Wirral Council had issued a refusal notice outside the twenty day period breaching s. 10(1).
Case FS50506844 11/2/14 Wirral Council stated that information requested was not held. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed but ruled that Wirral Council had provided a response outside the twenty day period breaching s. 10(1).
Decision notice FS50502536 19/3/14 Wirral Council claimed that in response to a request that exemptions under s.40 (personal information) and s. 42 (legal professional privilege) applied. The Information Commissioner’s Office agreed that Wirral Council had correctly applied the s.40 exemption, however as its response was outside the twenty day limit ruled it had breached s.10(1).
Decision notice FS50506802 26/3/14 Wirral Council had not provided a response to a request within twenty working days. The Information Commissioner’s Office found that Wirral Council had breached s. 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
A notice was not published five days before the decision detailing agreement of the chair of the relevant policy and performance committee that it was an urgent decision and could not be reasonably deferred (see Regulation 10 (General Exception).
A notice wasn’t published claiming special urgency and detailing agreement of either the chair of the relevant policy and performance committee, Mayor or Deputy Mayor that it was urgent and couldn’t be reasonably deferred (see Regulation 11 (Cases of special urgency).
It’s a legal requirement that an annual report (see Regulation 19) is brought by the Leader to a meeting of all Wirral Council councillors about decisions where a case of special urgency is used since the last report. Despite this being a legal requirement since the 10th September 2012, to my recollection no such report has ever been brought to a Council meeting.
Councillor Phil Davies’s decision could still be called in by councillors as a call-in deadline of 24th April 2014 has not yet passed. The reason for the urgency was given as “to allow the OJEU Competitive Dialogue process to be finalised and a preferred developer for the Hoylake Golf Resort project to be selected and announced prior to the Open Golf Championship at Royal Liverpool in July 2014.” At least one Conservative councillor has previously asked at a public meeting about when the public will be consulted on Wirral Council’s Hoylake Golf Resort plans.
How did the Lyndale School closure consultation begin?
How did the Lyndale School closure consultation begin?
Councillor Tony Smith (Cabinet Member for Childrens Services) talks at a meeting of Wirral Council’s Cabinet about deciding to consult on closing Lyndale School (16th January 2014)
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Video footage starts at ends at 1:53 ends at 28:48 (just under 27 minutes)
Next week Wirral Council will start a consultation on closing Lyndale School. I thought it would be useful prior to the consultation to publish a transcript of the Cabinet meeting held back in January where it all started. I will state this caveat though. Some of the things stated at the January Cabinet meeting are now incorrect as Wirral Council withdrew its application to the Education Funding Agency for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee (the minimum funding guarantee guarantees the school gets at least 98.5% of last year’s funding).
Cabinet 16th January 2014 Committee Room 1, Wallasey Town Hall Agenda Item 14. Report seeking approval to consult on the closure of Lyndale School
CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Now I’ve been given notice that we have a parent of Lyndale School, Dawn Hughes. Welcome Dawn. So it’s my intention to allow Dawn to address the Cabinet, then I think Julia Hassall (the Director of Children’s Services) will introduce the report and then Tony Smith Cabinet Member will want to make some comments. So that’s the procedure that I intend to adopt. So Dawn, can I invite you to come forward and speak to us. Could you just give us your full name and address first of all before you say anything to us?
DAWN HUGHES
Yeah, it’s Dawn Hughes, 24 ??? Road, Bebington, Wirral.
CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Now Dave is just going to switch on the microphone for you, OK. So just take a seat, in your own time just say what you want to say to us.
DAWN HUGHES
Can I ask if these could be passed round?
CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Of course, absolutely, yeah, yeah.
DAWN HUGHES
My name is Dawn
CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Just take your time, that’s fine, yeah, thank you.
DAWN HUGHES
Hello everyone, my name is Dawn Hughes which you’ve just heard.
My daughter Ellie attends Lyndale School and the disruption that is being proposed is a lot worse than Miss Hassall’s report. It would take me longer than five minutes just to explain my child’s diagnosis and all the ways it affects her daily life.
She is not unusual at Lyndale, this is the level of capacity that the nursing staff deal with every day. But to deal with practical matters first, I want to ask you to show us that you are sincere when you say that you have the needs of our children at the heart of this process by further extending the twelve week consultation and allowing our governors access to resources like Council staff time so that we can explore other options. Then we can take all the time needed to give due weight to this important issue.
Miss Hassall’s report details falling roll numbers at Lyndale, leading to escalating costs with little qualifying information. The truth is that Lyndale has lived under the threat of closure for eight years which leads pre-school services to discourage prospective parents.
Lyndale parents have strongly supported a two to nineteen option for Lyndale for many years so that their very vulnerable children can avoid the unnecessary and cruel distress of transition to an unfamiliar environment and community. This option along with inviting in children from out of area would have increased roll numbers and it is still possible for this to happen if the will is there.
This report says that Lyndale is not financially viable, but the national average spent, the amount on PMLD children is £29,000. That’s against Lyndale’s spend of £33,000, a shortfall of £4,000 per a child and that’s not considering the complexity of needs. Also not a great deal of scope in terms of the local authority budget. This shortfall would be lessened by greater occupancy. The high need of our children means that the cost of education would be the same provided by an alternative school or an alternative.
Our parents feel that the £16,000 top up for PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] children is simply not enough to cover their needs and clearly we’re looking at how this figure was arrived at. Is it based on need or cost?
We know national government decisions have made things difficult but the Discretionary Schools Grant is administered locally and it is within your powers to allocate more where there is need. The SEN [special educational needs] Improvement Test legally means that you have to provide as good as or preferably better provision for our children.
The test would have to look at provision in the suggested alternative schools. Miss Hassall has said that Stanley School and Elleray Park are equipped to take Lyndale children but they are already full to bursting. I spoke to both schools recently. Stanley said they had 97 children already against a capacity of 90 and Elleray Park has 92 pupils and only 75 actual places. Where are our children going to fit?
If you plan to extend these schools why not invest that money to continue to provide good quality PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] provision at Lyndale? Stanley School has never in its history had a PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] child so it has no experience in this field. Lyndale parents are very worried about the safety of their children and their needs.
We contemplate the mix of PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] and children with behavioural difficulties. Many of our children are on life support, oxygen, naso-gastric or gastroscomy feeds and should any of this equipment be pulled out it could be fatal within seconds.
Many of our children cannot purposefully moved at all, and should they be bitten or hit, and should they be bitten or hit they cannot defend themselves. It is madness to put these two types of children together.
Lots of our children are hyper-sensitive to noise or some movement for example. For some children noise is unbearable and induces seizures. My own daughter’s hypersensitive and contracts painful muscle spasms which can last for months leaving her unable to sleep, eat or swallow amongst other horrible symptoms. I don’t even have family around at Christmas because Ellie can’t tolerate bustle, how would she cope in a big, noisy school?
The alternative to mixed disability classes would be to segregate our children within a mixed school. The problem here is that in an emergency (such as a child needing resuscitation or having a seizure which happens frequently to many of our children) medical staff would have to navigate their way through keypad locked doors losing valuable seconds which again could prove fatal to our children.
Aside from these very real safety concerns, Stanley and Elleray are not suitable in this way. Lyndale provides a community atmosphere where children can move freely and safely around the school, visiting each other’s classrooms and socialising at lunchtime and other activities. Why should they be locked away for their own safety in a school which is unsuitable for them in the first place?
No one would sensibly suggest putting heart patients and meningitis sufferers on the same ward with the same doctors for the obvious reasons that they require different environments and treatments despite both having the label of “being ill”. In the same way we can’t treat all children that who have got the label of learning disabilities in the same way either.
Autistic and PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] children have very different medical, environmental, educational and emotional needs. For example PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] children need a stimulating, colourful sensory environment, exactly the opposite of what the type of environment autistic children need.
Parents have asked me to tell you that should Lyndale close, they will either keep their children at home or send them to schools out of area. This will incur a huge cost to the local authority.
The truth is we don’t think that it serves our children’s best interests to move at all. Many people feel our children are “just sitting there” with no consciousness of what happens around them, but I know that when Ellie looks at me with a twinkle in her eye it means she wants to play. I know that when other people see blankness she is in fact concentrating hard. I know when she is in pain or sad or anxious or ill and the staff at Lyndale have taken years to build up the same knowledge – that our children have an inner life as rich as yours or mine despite their inability to communicate it through normal means.
If you force them to move, they will feel the loss of all the people they trust and love and the loss of a placement that they were safe in for years. I ask yourself to put yourselves in their shoes for one minute.
Imagine being completely reliant on others for everything that happens to you and then imagine going to a strange place, where you know no-one and no-one is able to understand you when you try to tell them how you feel. Many of our children could not cope with the upheaval of a move. Change induces anxiety in our children and anxiety significantly worsens their disabilities and illnesses. They then suffer in a way that you would find unimaginable.
I’ve come to accept it with sadness over the years that Ellie will never learn to speak, eat or play independently or be able to take GCSEs. Many of our children don’t even make it to the end of primary school. It is painful for many parents with PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] children to be constantly talked at by educationalists about “achievement” and the need to move on.
Ellie is 11 and still likes peek-a-bo. All she needs is a special place where she is happy and she can rely on the consistency and environment and the adults around her. Lyndale allows for the days when the children frequently feel under par and brings therapy or treatment into the classroom.
Lyndale staff know that ill health is part and parcel of our children’s lives and to accommodate this into their individual sensory curriculum. I don’t believe that you can provide that at bigger schools with no PMLD [profound and multiple learning difficulties] experience. I don’t believe you better Lyndale to pass the SEN improvement test, you certainly can’t convince me or the other parents.
I imagine that most of you who have children or grandchildren and that they are the apple of your eye, quite rightly so. Now imagine that you are forced by some authority to send them to a place for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week to a place where you know that they will unsafe, unhappy and possibly grossly, maybe fatally misunderstood. How would that feel?
And how much worse must that be for us who care for such fragile children every day? I ask you not as councillors or as administrators, but as parents, grandparents and decent human beings, please do not close our school.
I will extend an invitation to all members of the Cabinet to attend a meeting with our parents and visit our children. Come along and get to know them and see the wonderful work that Lyndale does. Thank you for your attention.
CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Thank you for a very clear presentation. Thank you very much.
(applause)
CLLR PHIL DAVIES
OK, can I now ask Julia Hassall (Director of Children’s Services) to come and put forward and introduce the report, Julia.
JULIA HASSALL
Thank you Chair. I just want to start by saying I appreciate that what I’m going to say now will sound very cold and factual following on from Dawn’s description of the some of the children at Lyndale and indeed our own report and I just want to acknowledge that before I start my presentation.
From the outset, I think this report is saying that this report is being brought to Cabinet this evening to seek permission to consult on closing the school and it’s not seeking permission to actually close the school.
Meeting the needs of the children is actually central to our concern and we are starting by working in partnership with the school to create an up to date needs assessment for each child. There’s real commitment and I put it to you now that the process is to be very transparent and open.
The report sets out the background and the reasons why it’s felt necessary to consult on closing Lyndale School down. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient places, school places in their area to ensure fair access to educational opportunity to promote the fulfilment of every child’s potential.
To do this any plans must consider the educational benefits for children, value for money and the way schools can develop collaborative practice for the benefit of the children. In this instance the local authority will need to take into account current provision for children with complex learning difficulties and profound and multiple learning difficulties at the Lyndale School, Elleray Park and Stanley primary schools, Foxfield and Meadowside secondary schools.
The reasons for considering on consulting on closure of the school are set out in paragraph 2.4 of the report. Closure of the school is being proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by the small size and falling roll which both contribute to a difficult financial position.
This proposal is not being made to Cabinet because of the quality of educational standards at the school. The most recent OFSTED inspection from November 2012 judged that Lyndale School was a good school and that pupil care and support, behaviour and safety were assessed to be outstanding.
In terms of the falling school roll, by way of background if every available place was taken then the occupancy would be 100%. Over the last seven years, the Lyndale School’s average occupancy has been 59% and there are currently twenty-four children at the school out of a total of forty places.
The size of the school and the numbers of pupils contributes to, as I’ve said previously, a difficult financial position with the likelihood of a deficit of £72,000 without any other action for 2014/15 which is 9% of the school’s budget and the potential for this to increase to £232,000 based on the numbers of children at Lyndale on the school roll.
Just to say a little bit by way of background about the funding reforms. Funding for pupils with special educational needs changed in April last year. The new system is called place plus. This means that the government pays £10,000 for each child that the schools place. In Wirral this year it’s being introduced gradually, but in future with £10,000 paid per a place, with 24 children in a forty place school this could mean a shortfall now of sixteen places or £160,000.
A Cabinet report that we’re presenting later this evening recommends a new approach to high needs top ups of … dependant on the child’s level of needs. This …
The top up now per a child is dependant on the additional needs of the child. It’s set by the local authority in agreement with the special schools and high needs providers on the Wirral who make recommendations to their representatives on the Schools Forum.
The majority of the children at the Lyndale School will receive the maximum top up payment per a child of £16,000 based on their profound and multiple learning difficulties which was described to us so clearly by Dawn.
This is the highest band which applies to all four special schools on Wirral for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. These national funding reforms have brought the Lyndale School provision into sharp focus. One of the difficulties the school faces is in terms of its small size and therefore large unit costs.
Should a decision be taken in the future to close Lyndale School, then the proposal at this stage would be to expand Elleray Park School and Stanley School so that the children with complex learning difficulties including the children with profound and multiple learning difficulties are educated and cared for on the same school site whilst recognising the individual needs of each child. This would not simply be a case of adding children into existing schools. We’re very carefully considering how each school will need to change to fully meet the needs of the children from the Lyndale School.
It’s proposed to expand the numbers of children across both schools up to two hundred and thirty children. Building work at Elleray Park is already planned to address sufficiency and suitability issues and this will be through a one-off capital investment. .. recent OFSTED reports, Elleray Park School was judged to be an outstanding school whilst Stanley School was judged to be a good school with outstanding leadership and partnership.
It’s very important to say that at this stage, the closure of the school appears to be the most viable option after having considered a number of different options attached as appendix two. However if this report is agreed by Cabinet, this will be the start of a lengthy consultation process with parents, staff and stakeholders but all available options will be considered including previously considered options set out in the appendix.
In terms of consultation, if Cabinet agree, then what will follow is a period of twelve weeks consultation after which a further report will be presented to Cabinet detailing the findings of this initial consultation. If the second report recommends the closure of the school and Cabinet agrees, a further formal six week consultation will follow. This is known as a representation period and the final report will .. to before Cabinet. It is only at this stage that a decision to close the school should that be approved can be taken.
My report sets out how a number of meetings with all representative bodies including meetings with parents and carers of … where a number of questions have been raised. The minutes and results of some questions will be sent to all parent carers next week. There is a commitment to work with the school to ensure full up to date needs assessment on each child as soon as possible which will help determine how children’s needs can be met which is very much a sustainable way forward. Should the decision be made tonight to proceed to consultation, a full schedule of consultation events will take place and they’ll be published.
In summary, I want to conclude by saying that considering the closure of a school is difficult and distressing particularly when children have such special needs as the Lyndale School does. It’s clearly important that Lyndale is a place at the centre of our concerns and that the special educational needs assessment improvement test is applied with rigour.
The test requires any future plans to demonstrate our children will maintain the quality of current provision and indeed improve upon it. I recommend that Cabinet agree to consult on closure of the Lyndale School and that I’m authorised to compile and produce the appropriate documentation to start the consultation as soon as is practically possible. Thank you.
CLLR PHIL DAVIES
Thanks Julia very much. OK, so I’m now going to ask Tony Smith whose the Cabinet Member for Childrens Services to make some comments.
CLLR TONY SMITH
OK, thanks for that Chair. Thanks very much Dawn for that. Dawn can I first of all say that I certainly will come round with you and meet with the staff and parents at Lyndale and if necessary spend as many days as possible in the school and can I also make this clear? This is a consultation, the officers have already formed a view on Lyndale School and that.
Having worked in that area I do know the concerns of parents and the environment looking at the school at Lyndale and that. I’m also very conscious that it has been an outstanding service to the Authority. You’ve always had good or outstanding OFSTED reports and that and over the last sort of six or seven years the numbers have been falling in the school and that has to be a bit of a problem and that but I do want to make this very, very clear that with regarding how open and transparent the process is.
If you do need any questions answered, if you do need any officer support I will ensure that you know that that is available and you know anyway that will be allowed like that. No options are out at this stage, I’ll make that clear as well. Even if the options are not in the papers that have been put forward, if people have other options then we will certainly listen to those options as well and that.
We are very lucky I have to say in this Authority to have outstanding special schools. It’s not often the case in local authorities that that happens and that. Whether it’s Lyndale or Elleray or Stanley or the other special schools we do really, really well in the Authority. So we do put our children in special educational needs with a high priority and I want to ensure that continues that way.
If there was any change and I don’t know whether there that would be enough … We will listen to the cuts consultation and that we are happy to say that we do have other outstanding schools and that.
So I don’t want to say much more than that really. I will come round into the school with some other Cabinet Members, they need to come round and making sure that happens as well. If you need help and support from the Authority, if you’ve got any question you want to ask or anything you feel you has to go in then we certainly would support that.
I’m happy with the content of the Director’s report. I think it’s been fair. It’s outlined what the pros and what’s happened in the organisation over the last six or seven years and that. The position that we are in at the moment, also the changes that have been brought about nationally and that. We’ll certainly keep an open mind. I think the twelve weeks consultation should give us sufficient time to be able to engage in that process and that but feel free to come back to me at any time if there’s any queries and that if necessary I’ll certainly revisit the school and that but thank you very much on behalf of the Cabinet for that contribution and I will be seeing you …
CLLR PHIL DAVIES
OK thanks Tony. OK, can I just say a few words. I mean first of all thanks to Dawn for such a clear presentation. I think that was really helpful to hear first hand.
I mean the other thing I want to say you know there’s no question Lyndale is a fantastic school, it provides you know a high quality education for its pupils and nobody would want to take a decision like this lightly. So I think it is important that we allow sufficient time for all options to be properly considered and it is important that we as Cabinet Members and Tony as the Cabinet Member for Childrens Services keep an open mind on all the options.
Appendix 2 of this report there are eight options identified. I know from personal experience when I was Cabinet Member for Childrens Services I know that if other options emerge during the consultation then I think that’s absolutely fine and we need to consider them, but I think you know we need to make sure that the outcome being completely open and transparent process for how we go about looking at this and obviously any help, support, advice, guidance you need… that we can give to help this process and for the parents and governors and the staff and everybody to feel that their voices have been heard and we’re happy to give that help and advice.
So I think the main thing now is in my view is to agree this report. We’re not making any decision tonight about any particular option. We’re just agreeing to consult around those options.
I myself, you know I’ve been down to back into Lyndale before and I’m sure there are other Cabinet Members who will avail themselves of the opportunity to go and have a look at the school and its staff, governors and parents I think that’s absolutely fine. So by the time that we come back to Cabinet with a further report at the end of the consultation period everybody hopefully will be content that we’ve done a proper sort of job making sure that we’ve looked at every possible option and certainly Dawn you’ve spoke tonight with passion about your feelings and we will sort of take those feelings on board.
So I think really that’s all I want to say, I just want to thank Dawn and the other parents and governors for coming here tonight and I want to add my support to Tony for recommendations outlined in the report at paragraph twelve that we agree to consult on the closure of Lyndale School, that the Director of Children’s Services or her nominee be authorised to compile the appropriate consultation documentation and proceed with the consultation exercise as soon as practically possible. Can I ask Cabinet if we can agree to those recommendations?
CABINET
Agreed.
CLLR PHIL DAVIES
OK, so we’ve agreed those recommendations. I’d like to again thank everybody who’s coming tonight to hear this report for your attendance and I really do sincerely look forward to the consultation and making sure that everybody is given an opportunity to have their say. So thank you very much for your attendance tonight. OK, I’ll make a pause at that point and allow people who are just here for Lyndale if they want to leave they can do so. So we’ll just have a couple of minutes adjournment.
Wirral Council assumed it would make a successful application for an exemption from the 98.5% minimum funding guarantee. This was what led to the predicted shortfall in Lyndale School’s budget of £72,000 for 2014/15. This application was later withdrawn (before the Education Funding Agency reached a decision on it) which led to Lyndale School’s financial forecast for 2014/15 changing from a deficit to a surplus.
The detail of the rationale behind the application is interesting though and is included below. It seems to it was emailed to the Education Funding Agency by an Andrew Roberts (Senior Manager, School Funding & Resources). The date of the email isn’t included, however I’ve submitted an internal review request for that too.
What’s interesting is that it in the application Andrew Roberts states “However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.” However at the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February the eight Labour councillors voted against an amendment (six voted for the amendment who were the Lib Dem councillor, five Conservative councillors and the parent governor rep) proposed and seconded by the Conservative councillors that was “We would like to seek assurance that the required contingency funding is in place to top up the special educational funding to ensure that the level of funding required for the best care and education is provided for all children.”
Wirral Council’s Andrew Roberts also states “Without capping the MFG (minimum funding guarantee) costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.”
“Queries have been raised with regards to whether there is an impact on the outstanding call in, in relation to the Schools Budget which may have a direct impact.
One of them in particular is the proposals for changes to the school’s top up payments for schools with high needs. Members will be aware that the matter is to be considered by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee on the 27th February. The position with regards to the proposed Schools Budget is that it includes a contingency provision and that provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing and therefore you can agree the, the proposed budget is both sufficient and sufficiently flexible to address any potential implications that may arise and that therefore means that the budget can be proposed to Council forthwith.”
The contingency referred to was for £908,900. At this point you might point out that £908,900 is more than enough to cover the £800,000 extra needed by the minimum funding guarantee. However if you read this report to the Wirral Schools Forum meeting of the 22nd January 2014 it states what the £908,900 contingency is planned to be used for and I quote:
Contingency. The contingency identified of £908,900 is required to cover the potential costs of:
Adjustments with the EFA for post 16 students. There are ongoing discussions about the costs of mainstream school and academy High Needs places (£6,000 per place) which potentially will cost £372,000
Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups.
Unfunded growth in place numbers – there has been a small net increase in the planned number of High Needs places
Any mismatch between places identified with providers and places taken up.
Inflationary pressures within Non Maintained Special Schools.
Uncertainty about the overall statement numbers
So with Wirral Council officers stating that funding Lyndale School is first “unaffordable”, then another officer stating that “provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications” is it any wonder that people are confused on this point?
The minutes of the Coordinating Committee deciding the call in state “The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”
How can it be “more affordable” though? Has the designation of what the contingency fund to be used for changed from what was agreed by the Wirral Schools Forum in January (as outlined above) to a decision behind the scenes to withdraw the minimum funding guarantee exemption application and use the contingency to fund the minimum funding guarantee? Is the reason why funding is no longer mentioned with regards to Lyndale School because officers stated (at different times) that it was both affordable and unaffordable (and as the underlying budget hasn’t changed both positions can’t both be accurate can they)?
Therefore if Wirral Council started naming Lyndale School in SEN statements, rather than sending more pupils to oversubscribed special schools such as Elleray Park (currently with 91 pupils and 80 places) wouldn’t this help increase numbers at Lyndale towards its place figure of forty?
What’s interesting is that money was put in the budget for next year to increase the numbers of places at Elleray Park by ten. So why can’t Wirral Council agree to reduce the number of places at Lyndale School by ten?
Below is Wirral Council’s application (later withdrawn) from Andrew Roberts for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee which guarantees that schools receive at least 98.5% of the money they received the previous year.
——————————————————————————————————-
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:
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
This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation
This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
