Agenda item

To receive a report from the Director of Children and Families which sets out the process followed in opening, closing and making prescribed alterations to schools and academies in Leeds.

The Director of Children and Families submitted a report that set out the process followed in opening, closing and making prescribed alterations to schools and academies in Leeds.

The following was appended to the report:

-  Making significant changes to an open academy and closure by mutual agreement - Departmental advice for all types of academy trust, October 2018

-  Stages of decision making guidance

-  School Organisation Advisory Board (SOAB) – history of objections (anonymised)

The following were in attendance:

-  Councillor Fiona Venner, Executive Member for Learning, Skills and Employment

-  Phil Mellen, Deputy Director for Learning

-  Sue Rumbold, Chief Officer for Partnerships and Health

-  Tim Pouncey, Chief Officer for Resources and Strategy

The Chief Officer for Resources and Strategy introduced the report and provided some of the historical context along with an overview of the four stated options set out in the report for the Board to consider in terms of the role of Scrutiny when decisions regarding prescribed alterations to community and voluntarily controlled schools are being made.

In consideration of the four options presented within the report, the following key points were discussed:

·  In principle, Members felt that it would be beneficial for Scrutiny to have a role during the informal consultation period to investigate any initial concerns being raised at that stage.  However, it was highlighted that as concerns are invariably raised as part of any consultation process, this approach could potentially place significant resource pressures on the Scrutiny Board.

·  Linked to this, it was noted that the first report to Executive Board will summarise the informal consultation phase, including responses made to concerns expressed at this stage, and following due consideration may seek approval to progress to the formal stage of consultation, where a statutory notice is published.  It was also acknowledged that the Executive Board decision at this stage would be eligible for Call-In.

·  The Board received details of the actual formal objections previously received that had triggered a meeting of the former School Organisation Advisory Board (SOAB).  Linked to these, it was highlighted that the formal objections received had been similar, or identical, to those received in the first consultation phase.

·  There was some discussion around the implications of undertaking pre-decision scrutiny on the same basis that SOAB would have been convened.  It was noted that if Members were to choose Option 1 or 2 as set out in the report, then the Executive Board would be advised to declare the decision as being exempt from Call-In on the basis of the decision being urgent as any further delay would be deemed as seriously prejudicing the Council’s or the public’s interests (i.e. any decision not made within the two month statutory deadline must be passed to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator for a decision).

·  Discussion ensued around Options 3 and 4 within the report.  In particular, it was highlighted that the current arrangement (Option 4) still enabled two opportunities for Elected Members to Call-In a decision of the Executive Board with regard to proposals being made, which was in contrast to the decision-making processes in place for Academies and Free Schools.

·  In consideration of both Options 3 and 4, the Board agreed (by majority vote) to put in place Option 3 as follows:

The Executive Member for Learning discuss with the Chair of Scrutiny any objections received to gauge the level of the objections and identify situations that would benefit from greater scrutiny ahead of a final decision.

·  However, the Board also expressed a wish to stipulate as part of this option that the full Scrutiny Board be notified of any discussion being held with the Scrutiny Board Chair and that the outcome of that discussion is conveyed to all Board Members to enable a final decision to be taken.

·  It was noted that if following those discussions, the Scrutiny Board was convened to consider objections, a recommendation would be made in the final report to Executive Board to exempt the decision from call-in to ensure that a decision was made within 2 months of the end of the Statutory Notice period.

·  It was noted that objections relating to planning or highways issues would not normally need additional scrutiny as these would be addressed through the planning process if the proposals were to progress. 

·  Linked to the above, the Chair requested that a report summarising the Board’s deliberations and proposed way forward be brought back to the next meeting for formal approval.

RESOLVED – That a report summarising the Scrutiny Board’s deliberations and proposed way forward be brought back to the next meeting on 3^rd July 2019 for formal approval.