Agenda item - Whitefriars Community School

Joint report of the Corporate Directors of Children and Families and Environment and Enterprise.

RESOLVED: That

(1) statutory proposals to expand permanently and extend the age range of Whitefriars Community School to include provision for secondary aged pupils be approved, subject to the condition that planning consent was granted for the development of the all through school;

(2) the approach to the disposal of the Whitefriars Community School and Harrow Teachers’ Centre sites to the academy trust be agreed;

(3) authority be delegated to the Corporate Director, Environment and Enterprise, following consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holders, to finalise the disposal details for the academy transfer;

(4) it be noted the contractor for the development of the site would be procured via the Education Funding Agency’s (EFA) Contractors Framework.

Reason for Decision: To enable the Local Authority to fulfil its statutory duties to provide sufficient school places in its area and the land transfer for the academy conversion.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted: None.

The Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools introduced the report, which set out proposals to establish Whitefriars Community School as an all-through school on the Whitefriars School site and Harrow Teachers’ Centre site. The report provided information and recommendations to enable Cabinet to determine the statutory proposals that were published on 9 January 2014 and to approve the approach to the disposal of the Whitefriars Community School and Harrow Teachers’ Centre sites. It also updated Cabinet on the procurement of the contractor to develop the site.

A Non-Voting Non-Executive Cabinet Member welcomed the report and spoke in support of the proposed expansion which would help address the crises in school places. The Member asked if a School Travel Plan had been drawn up as there was concern about traffic generation in the area. He enquired about any discussions held with the Transport for London (TfL) with a view to addressing traffic issues as part of the School Expansion Programme. He also sought clarification on a leaflet issued by the administration which referred to £70m funding that had been secured as he understood the funding to have been considerably lower and secured by various administrations. In response to the latter, the Corporate Director of Children and Families stated that this was reference to Priority Schools Building Programme which was awarded a number of years ago where the government re-built schools and she cited the examples of Marlborough and Vaughan Schools which had benefited from this fund. The other fund was the Targeted Basic Needs Programme which required additional places to be built by Councils by September 2015. Both the funds related to investments in schools.

The Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools, referred to the work being undertaken with officers in the Traffic Section with a view to addressing the problem of traffic management in the vicinity of the school and the wider surrounding areas where other schools were situated, such as in the Wealdstone area. Traffic officers also attended stakeholder meetings where issues relating to traffic flows and the mode of transport used for the school run, including where parents parked their cars, were discussed. Discussions with the TfL were also underway.

Another Non-Voting Non-Executive Cabinet Member was of the view that this was a key site and he enquired if the School Expansion Programme included the re-building of schools in an environmentally efficient way which would benefit the borough in the longer term. A discussion ensued in which the following matters were highlighted: the budget was limited and needed to be used within the confines set by the government, environmental checks would be made on the buildings built, low emission lighting and environmentally friendly heating measures had been installed in other building(s) and could be used in school building. In addition, not all school buildings would be demolished and re?built; complete re-build of schools, which would involve borrowing, would be expensive. Eco-friendly measures would be considered, building standards, which involved no heating installation, had changed and previously accepted environmentally- friendly measures had altered, and that provision of green roofs on buildings would require insurance considerations.