Agenda item

To note and feedback on the proposed capital strategy for Education & Learning.

The Forum considered a report which presented the proposed capital strategy for Education & Learning.  The Forum was encouraged to provide feedback on the proposals.

Chris Hilliard advised that the duty to provide sufficient school places was for all age ranges in both maintained and academy schools.  Whilst the government had not defined what “sufficient” meant, the Department for Education (DfE) recognised that an excess of 5% surplus places would need to be addressed.  Likewise, a deficit of places in excess of 5% would also need to be addressed.

There were no current issues regarding Early Years childcare capacity across the Borough.  However, for mainstream primary schools in the Borough, forecasts indicated a surplus of places significantly exceeding the 5% target over the next five years.  There was no immediate concern for the secondary sector, and it was broadly manageable but needed to be kept under review.  Regarding Post-16 education, whilst there was no statutory duty to ensure sufficiency, the Council had identified a need to look at the balance of Post-16 provision and the courses available. 

There was currently a deficit of SEND places within the Borough, meaning that a third of children with complex needs were being educated outside of the Borough.  Therefore, the Council had proposed to consult with Headteachers, Governors and Trustees whether any surplus mainstream accommodation could be used for SEND.  The intention was to consult on both of those issues (surplus mainstream places and the deficit of SEND places) and then bring any proposals back to feature as part of the Council’s capital programme.

Chris Hilliard, Chris Taylor and Nichola Jones had met with the three geographical clusters within the Borough (North Bracknell, South Bracknell, and Sandhurst and Crowthorne) and had engaging discussions with those colleagues.  They had invited feedback to be made by 10^th January 2022.  The SEN sufficiency document would also be prepared by that date, which would feed through to the Capital Strategy. 

The Forum expressed that some incorrect information had been included in the presentation shared with the Headteachers; slide 11 referred to an older version of the Local Plan.  Chris Taylor agreed to review, correct and reissue as necessary. 

Action: Chris Taylor

The Forum noted that Kings Academy Binfield had published their intention to increase their Primary phase Planned Admission Numbers (PAN) from 1FE (Forms of Entry) to 2FE.  This was felt to disadvantage other local primary schools, and the Forum asked why this was happening now, especially in light of the Council being in a process of gathering information.  Chris Taylor replied that Kings Academy Binfield had not increased their PAN yet and the proposal was to increase from September 2022.  Chris Taylor acknowledged that this expansion would add to the problem of surplus primary places in North Bracknell, but the agreement to do so was reached between the Council and the academy some time ago.  However, following discussions between the Council and Kings Academy Binfield, in acknowledgment of the Council’s concerns about surplus places, the academy had made a concession to delay their primary expansion plans to September 2022 (it was originally planned to increase from September 2021).  Chris Hilliard added that this was the subject of robust discussion with the North Bracknell cluster.  The Forum asked whether there was a requirement for Kings Academy Binfield to do another consultation to increase their PAN.  Chris Taylor replied that there was no requirement for consultation to increase their PAN, and admissions arrangements were published and set 18 months ahead of any planned change to the PAN, and because that time had passed, the September 2022 PAN was fixed. 

The Forum noted the request for feedback from Headteachers and asked what format that should take.  Chris Hilliard replied that there was guidance in the email that was sent out to Headteachers on 12 November 2021 which suggested four areas to feed back on.  Chris Taylor added that any format would be welcome. 

Chris Taylor confirmed for the secondary school representatives of the Forum that the headteacher cluster meetings referred to above were for primary school colleagues only, and it was just primary school Headteachers who were expected to reply to the consultation.  Chris Hilliard added that this was due to the biggest challenges being the surplus places within the primary sector and the pressing demands of SEND, meaning those areas needed to be looked at first.  Separate discussions were needed with the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) and special schools and that had been planned for next term.  Whilst there was less concern with secondary schools about surplus spaces, there was a desire to cover all sectors, so discussions with secondary schools were planned for the autumn term in 2022.  The Forum highlighted that SEND discussions were relevant to all schools, including secondary schools. 

The Forum asked whether funding was available as part of the SEND capital strategy.  Chris Taylor confirmed that the Council was bringing together a funding envelope under the capital umbrella to put together an overall package.  There was some funding available from the DfE via their SEND grants, and some funding available through the Section 106 process (developer contributions from new housing).  There was also an appetite within the Council to ensure there were enough facilities for SEND, so the Council may in future consider additional funding from its own resources.  Chris Hilliard added that, if there were increasing numbers of children being educated within the borough rather than being educated outside the borough, this would represent financial savings in terms of revenue. 

The Forum noted that over time, any trends within the primary sector would translate to the secondary sector.  Chris Taylor agreed with this and explained that they make predictions for secondary schools up to seven years ahead.

The Forum expressed surprise in being able to predict declining birth numbers.  The Forum also asked whether there were any calculations regarding impact of additional housing around North Bracknell.  Chris Taylor replied, regarding estimates of declining birth numbers, figures were obtained from different sources.  The ONS published population data, but more focused local data was available from the NHS by postcode, which meant that the Council could see the numbers of children being born in each catchment area.  Whilst ONS and NHS figures did not exactly coincide, they both showed the same trend of a decrease in birth numbers.  Regarding new housing, this was still prevalent, particularly in the north of the Borough.  Since 2005, the Council had been undertaking surveys using consultants to the occupants of new housing in the Borough to undertake research on pupil yields.  This was done every two or three years and had revealed that pupil yields had been reducing since 2016.  Therefore, even though construction levels had been sustained, this had not seen an equivalent increase in children coming into Bracknell Forest schools from that housing.  The figures also showed that, where families moved within the Borough, 85% chose not to move children from their existing schools, so the impact of new housing was not likely to be felt for some years after they had been built. 

RESOLVED to NOTE the proposed capital strategy for Education & Learning as set out in the Appendix to the report.