Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of People.

The Committee received a report which provided an update on the School Expansion Programme and related matters including procurement for the next phase of the schools capital programme delivery.

The Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools and Young People introduced the report and explained that Phase 1 of the Programme  for Primary Schools had been completed.  Phase 2 of the Programme was currently underway. This involved 29 different projects.  All of the schools had opened on time in September apart from 4 schools which had been delayed by 2 working days.

The Portfolio Holder also explained that there had been issues with the main contractor who had delivered the building works required under the Programme.  As a result of the lessons learnt from these issues, Phase 3 of the Programme would include a more robust contract with contractors that the Council could rely upon and enforce.

In relation to the Secondary School Expansion Programme, details of this had been provided in the report.  It was also expected that the possible introduction of free schools in the borough would help the provision of Secondary School places.

The Corporate Director of People acknowledged the amount of work put into the Programme by Headteachers, staff and site managers.

The following questions were made by Members of the Committee and responded to accordingly:

·                     It was important that free schools provided a good level of education for pupils who attended these schools.

This was a good point and it was fair to say that the jury was still out on whether free schools provided just as good an education as state schools.

·                     There were concerns that the use of bulge classes to deal with an increased population?

The use of bulge classes was only introduced where there no certainty on population estimates.  This meant that building works were not delivered where the extra capacity would then not be required later on.  Where bulge classes were introduced, this was always done in conjunction with the school concerned.

·                     It had to be recognised that the borough had committed to undergoing regeneration in a number of areas.  As a result this would place pressure on school places and it was important that a plan was in place to address this.  In light of this Academies were working well and provided the schools with more freedom to take decisions.

The most important thing to consider was that the school provided good education for its pupils.  There was a difference of opinion on whether Academies provided Headteachers with greater powers than state schools.  In terms of populations projections the Council worked with the Greater London Authority to estimate this going forwards.  The Council always retained flexibility to ensure that it could deal with any future demands.

·                     There was an organisation who wished to open a free school in Harrow.  However they had encountered difficulties in identifying an appropriate site.  Were the Council doing anything to help them?

The role of the Council was to facilitate the opening of a free school as far as possible if they were approached directly.

·                     There were concerns that building works at Kingsley High School were not fit for purpose and dangerous for the pupils.

The issues with Kingsley High School were acknowledged.  There were no penalties that could be enforced by the Council under the contract but there were general legal obligations that could be pursued.

It had to be recognised that at the time the Council entered into the agreement with its building contractor, the financial climate was different.  It also had to be recognised that the majority of the works under the Programme had been successful.  The lessons learnt would be incorporated into the contracts for Phase 3 of the Programme.

·                     Were there and quality and design issues for the works conducted under the Programme?

There were a few quality issues which had come to light.  There were contractual discussions taking place with the contractors on these.  Ultimately if variations had taken place to which the Council had not agreed then the Council would not pay for it.  The Council had already commenced the process of taking legal advice and it was anticipated that these discussions would be concluded by February 2016.

·                     How confident were the Council that variances between building works expected would be avoided?

The Council would be using an NIC form of content, which was more robust and provide greater security for the Council.

·                     What did the Council do regarding under performing schools?  Additionally how were gifted and exceptional students encouraged to do well?

Schools in Harrow performed exceptionally well and did not by definition have an under performing school. The Council had a School Improvement Partnership which monitored the performance of different groups within schools and looked at all of their performances and improvement measures.  All of the Academies in Harrow had bought this service from the Council.

·                     What did the appointment of EC Harris as Technical Advisers bring to the Council that we did not have beforehand?

The Council required additional technical services.  Having put this out to tender EC Harris offered the best value for money.

·                     In relation to SEP 1 schools, what was happening in relation to the outstanding delays on the Programme?

The Council were seeking a resolution of the outstanding work issues.  The Council did not wish for the building contractor to pull off site as this was likely to create further delays.  However a loss and expense claim against the building contractor was being investigated.

·                     When was the Council expecting a surplus of Year 7 pupils?

It was expected that numbers would break even up until 2018, then after that there would be a significant increase.

·                     How had road safety and traffic issues been looked at when assessing the expansion proposals?

These issues had been taken seriously when developing proposals.  Meetings had taken place and consultation with local residents.  The Council were always looking at how it could alleviate traffic issues.  Traffic was always a sensitive issue but it had to be realised that if schools did not expand, children who lived close to schools would not be able to attend them and would have to attend schools further away.

·                     There was a big difference in the original pre-feasibility estimated project cost and the latest forecast / agreed price for SEP Phase 1 for Marlborough Primary School.  What was the reason for this?

The reason for this was the framework for the building costs used by the Education Funding Agency had meant that better prices were being achieved.

·                     There were concerns if the former Wickes building was identified as a site for the free school.  There was a high volume of traffic and not much pavement space.

The Council were only aware of locations for free schools if they were asked for advice or assistance.  There was no requirement for them to inform the Council prior to identifying a site.  However if there were issues relating to a particular site, these would be identified and considered when planning permission was sought for a change of use for the building.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.