Meeting documents

1 THE ISSUE

1.1 On the 15 June 2006 the DfES advised of the acceleration of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme and invited the Council along with a number of other local authorities to take up funding for a one-school pathfinder project as a `down payment' on BSF with project completion required by 2009. Members agreed on 12th July to accept this offer and instructed officers to bring a report to a future meeting of the Council Executive with recommendations for the choice of pathfinder school based on the criteria set out in the DfES guidance. This report provides details of the assessment process undertaken to identify the pathfinder school and makes recommendations as to which school should be the Bath & North East Somerset pathfinder school.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 Writhlington School is the Council's One School Pathfinder project.

2.2 Instruct officers to notify the DfES of the chosen school and submit further details to the DfES as required to secure the necessary approval to progress the scheme.

3  FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 The DfES use a formula based on the planned number of pupils at the pathfinder school to determine the level of funding available from the DfES. The DfES deem that this will be sufficient to fully fund the cost of building the pathfinder school. This includes a regional location factor linked to construction costs and an inflation forecast. The DfES are proposing to fund the project by a 100% capital grant with 25% payable in 2007-08, 50% in 2008-09 and 25% in 2009-10 although precise phasing will be discussed with the DfES once the Council's proposal is agreed. Therefore there should be no cash flow or consequent interest payment impact on Bath & North East Somerset.

3.2 The DfES calculator shows that for Writhlington School the funding level would be £22.7m. However, the initial assessment undertaken by Mace/Gleeds shows that from knowledge of recent and current building projects within and outside Bath & North East Somerset, including other BSF projects in which they've been involved, construction costs would be £24.4m for Writhlington School. This leaves a potential funding shortfall of £1.7m. The DfES state that generally they will not fund above the level of the initial allocation derived by the costs calculator, however, some other local authorities have successfully negotiated an uplift in their school pathfinder allocation by establishing that their costs reflect the reality of delivering their pathfinder school. If however a funding gap remains this would be a call on the DfES formula capital allocation 2008/09 and 2009/10 which is expected to remain at the current level of £2.6m approximately per annum.

3.3 It would be an option to opt out of the scheme prior to commencement if agreement cannot be reached with the DfES regarding the level of funding required or if the funding gap could not be met from. available resources.

4 COMMUNITY STRATEGY OUTCOMES

5 CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

6 CPA KEY LINES OF ENQUIRY

7 THE REPORT

7.1 Following the Council's decision to accept pathfinder funding it was necessary to identify the pathfinder school. The pathfinder school project must be consistent with the Authority's long term existing secondary strategy and Children and Young People Plan. In addition the chosen project must meet the following mandatory requirements.

(1) links to school improvement targets and how the project will contribute to raising standards

(2) the chosen school must have high suitability and condition need

(3) the need to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, including excellent science, design and technology facilities and PE and sports facilities

(4) the need to support an area approach to delivery of the 14-19 entitlement

(5) the extended schools/community use agenda, in line with the extended schools prospectus

(6) the need to embed the use of ICT across the curriculum

(7) the project should aim for completion and be ready for occupation by September 2009

7.2 Mace and Gleeds contractors both of whom have extensive experience in procurement and delivery of major schools projects including BSF, were commissioned to provide an objective methodology for prioritising Bath & North East Somerset's 13 secondary schools against the DfES criteria. A selection criteria matrix was devised with weightings applied to each criterion to reflect the emphasis given in the DfES guidance. Greatest weighting was given to condition and suitability need and deliverability.

7.3 Gleeds had undertaken surveys of all secondary schools in preparation for BSF and so consistency of assessment was assured. Condition scores were based on an assessment of maintenance backlog and future maintenance liabilities of each school. Suitability assesses how accommodation or lack of it impacts on curriculum delivery. e.g. classrooms too small, insufficient science labs. For both condition and suitability total value and per metre costs were taken and considered in order to ensure that higher total values (more likely in physically larger schools) did not disadvantage smaller schools.

7.4 Deliverability was assessed using a matrix which identified a range of factors which may impact on the ability of the Council to deliver within the prescribed timescale. Each school was critically assessed against each delivery risk. These included planning constraints, restrictive covenants, site conditions and access, continued operation of the school during rebuild, land ownership etc. The DfES expects the project to be completed and ready to occupy by September 2009.

7.5 The ability of the school to deliver transformational change was assessed against five key areas: Raising Standards; providing a Broad and Balanced Curriculum; 14-19 Entitlement; Extended School and Community use; use of ICT.

7.6 A copy of the Mace/Gleeds report is attached at Appendix 1. Within that report Appendix B sets out the factors considered in the Deliverability Matrix and Appendix C is the completed selection criteria matrix showing the assessment scores for all schools. It can be seen that Writhlington School achieves the highest score with 81.40 points with Ralph Allen School having the second highest score of 62.80. The majority of schools scored between 40 and 60 points. Attached at Appendix 2 are the criteria for transformational change.

7.7 The assessment showed both Writhlington and Ralph Allen schools have a high condition and suitability need and have the ability to deliver the transformational change agenda. However, with regard to deliverability, Writhlington has a much higher score than Ralph Allen.

7.8 Ralph Allen School

7.9 Writhlington School

7.10 The EYCL Overview and Scrutiny Panel review of Midsomer Norton/Radstock will report on the future provision of Secondary School places in this area on October 16th.

7.11 While every effort has been made to provide an objective methodology for each of the criteria there is inevitably a degree of subjectivity both in terms of the weighting applied and the detailed decisions made within each category. However the engagement of Mace and Gleeds has as far as possible provided an objective view.

7.12 The assessment process has identified Writhlington School as the school which best meets the DfES criteria for pathfinder status and Members are recommended to agree this school as the Council's One School Pathfinder project.

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

8.1 The report author and Lead Executive member have fully reviewed the risk assessment related to the issue and recommendations, in compliance with the Council's decision making risk management guidance.

8.2 As set out in Section 7 above and as evidenced in the Mace/ Gleeds report risk has been a key factor in identifying the preferred pathfinder school. The recommendation reflects the assessment that Writhlington School offers the lowest risk option for delivering a school within budget and achieving the required timescales for delivery.

8.3 As identified in Section 3 there is a possibility that there may be a funding gap between the DfES funding and the estimated construction costs. Any shortfall would be a call on the DfES formula capital allocation 2008/9 and 2009/10 thus reducing the scope to undertake medium sized improvement projects at other schools. There is a risk that actual outturn costs may exceed funding available. This risk will be mitigated by the selection of Writhlington School which presents the least risk in term of delivery and by detailed briefing of the project and strong project management, particularly in the early stages when the detailed cost plan is developed.

8.4 There is a risk that the new school will take its full intake of pupils (as Writhlington has done for several years) bringing into question the long term viability of Somervale school.

9 RATIONALE

9.1 The assessment process has identified Writhlington School as the school which most closely meets the DfES mandatory criteria and offers the least risk.

10 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

10.1 The assessment process undertaken considered the needs of all secondary schools set against the DfES criteria. The assessment has shown that Writhlington School best meets these criteria.

11 CONSULTATION

11.1 Overview & Scrutiny Panel; Lead Executive Member; Stakeholders/Partners; Section 151 Finance Officer; Chief Executive; Monitoring Officer.

11.2 There has been no formal consultation on this proposal although Headteachers and other partners have been kept informed of the process. Following selection of the school there will be consultation with the school and the wider community about the building of the new school as required by the DfES.

12 ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN REACHING THE DECISION

12.1 Social Inclusion; Sustainability; Property; Young People.

13 ADVICE SOUGHT

13.1 The Council's Monitoring Officer (Council Solicitor) and Section 151 Officer (Strategic Director - Support Services) have had the opportunity to input to this report and have cleared it for publication.