Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to St John Harris of Democratic Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Tuesday, 18 March, three working days before the day of the meeting. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:-
· at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);
· when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.
If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
There were six public questions and statements submitted to the committee. Question 2 was considered at Minute 128 – Schools update report. All members of the public were in attendance to put their questions except Matthew White. Responses are also set out below.
Public questions and statements
Can the Chair give me the fullest assurance that sufficient space is to be created for the safe and efficient operation of a boat hoist on West Pier?
Reply
At this time, we cannot give that assurance. The space required for the boat hoist was to be created by the demolition of two buildings which was included in the planning application for the West Pier Regeneration Project.
At its meeting on 30 January 2025 the Strategic Planning Committee resolved to defer the application pending receipt of further information.
In the absence of a planning approval required to create the space we cannot give any assurance that the space will be provided.
Supplementary question
Mr Roberts then sought assurance from the Portfolio Holder, Councillor Mark Crane that the funding would be secured to deliver the boat hoist to ensure the future sustainability of Scarborough Harbour.
The Chair reminded Mr Roberts of the different funding sources for the boat hoist including York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority and of the council’s intent to deliver the scheme but would arrange for a more detailed response from the Portfolio Holder.
The report does not fulfil its purpose “to inform Members of the local educational landscape, educational achievement and the financial challenges in the Scarborough and Whitby committee area” in sufficient detail. We would urge Members to reject the report as it stands and ask for a more detailed report, particularly in relation to the challenges faced in Whitby.
The report provides little commentary or analysis of the issues and challenges schools in our area are facing and for Whitby in particular, it is totally silent on the immediate issues in the recently reorganised secondary school.
The report provides only aggregated data, raises significant issues about schools in key areas, but fails to provide data at the individual school level or indicate what support schools are receiving from the local authority (if they are maintained schools) to overcome the issues raised.
From the data we learn that:
Issues of concern in Whitby secondary education
The secondary surplus capacity figures are unclear since the table still includes Eskdale School and the figures have not been adjusted to reflect the closure of Eskdale school. The report states that:
“Although this process has reduced the surplus in secondary places in the Whitby area it has maintained a sufficiency of places to meet current and projected demand”.
This is misleading as the capacity of Caedmon (now Whitby School) in 2024 was 1530 and it is likely that there is, and will continue to be, a surplus of around 400 places (25%+) across the two sites rising to around 500 (33%) as pupil numbers continue to fall.
NYC’s Transport from Home to School policy, adopted in September 2024, where families are asked to send their children to the nearest secondary school even if that is ‘out of county’, may mean that students from Cowbar, Staithes and Hinderwell attend Freeborough; students from Danby, Castleton, Commondale and Kildale may attend schools in Guisborough or Stokesley. This policy may be responsible for further depopulating the secondary school in Whitby.
The latest Ofsted report on Whitby School judged it to require improvement. It has had a succession of temporary head teachers and there is still no consultation with parents on it becoming an academy. The future remains uncertain. This is an issue of huge importance to Whitby. Parents have no other choice of school.
We do not believe that the site options appraisal process addressed or considered the building of a new school on one site, or the use of the capital receipt from the disposal of Eskdale School as the key driver for school improvement. The Eskdale site, near a new build housing site, remains empty and part boarded up.
The market value of the school sites was not obtained or considered in the decision making for the amalgamation proposal and, hence, the educational objectives were very much constrained. We believe that it is a barrier to embedding school improvement and, crucially, without any reinvestment of the capital receipt the school will continue as a split site with all the educational and financial downsides of that.
We would urge councillors to reject the Schools Update Report and
to:
Reply
The Chair commented that the Schools Update Report could not be rejected by the committee but could serve as a launchpad for further investigations by the committee which may influence the committee’s work programme. Further, local division councillors were encouraged to contact the Children and Young People’s Service should they require further detail about educational attainment in their local schools.
Officers then added that the schools report is designed to provide members in the area with an overview of key, high level matters pertinent to schools in the committee area.
Information about individual school performance is already published online on the DfE performance tables website, but the report today aims to aggregate this information at area committee level and allow comparisons to national and county performance.
The report represents the situation as it was on 31August 2024. This is so that we can make year on year comparisons at the turn of each academic year and so that all six Area Committee reports reflect the same point in time, regardless of when the meetings take place. In August 2024, the secondary school changes were still taking place in Whitby and so the report reflects the data held at the time. Whitby School surplus capacity has since reduced, now there is just a single school operating on two sites.
All LA schools are supported by the LA, and this is documented and discussed in detailed presentations to the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Mr McGovern’s concerns relating to Whitby school are noted.
The responsibility for the running of the school remains with the governing board. Councillors can be assured that LA officers continue to work with the board to ensure that education standards are monitored, and plans are made to improve outcomes as the two school communities come together.
The decision to amalgamate the schools was made following a statutory process that concluded in an Executive decision on 20June 2023. Separate decisions about the future of the former Eskdale school site have not yet been made.
Comments about the Home to School Travel Policy have been covered in earlier responses.
As a governor of Whitby School, Councillor Trumper confirmed that the school was investigating the option of academisation.
Supplementary question
Mr McGovern urged the committee and officers to expedite the disposal of the Eskdale School site because the resulting capital receipt could serve to improve the quality of education provision in Whitby, and further it was unacceptable that the site had been left vacant and susceptible to vandalism now two years after the statutory public consultation.
Mr Jon Holden, Strategic Planning Manager responded that it was a long established principle that the statutory decision making process to close a school as an entity was entirely separate to the decision making process to close the building and to determine the building’s future. It was important that consideration of the building’s future use did not influence the separate decision to close a school as an entity. While the future use of the Eskdale site remained to be determined, steps had been taken to secure the site. Security was regularly reviewed and if found to be insufficient to protect the site from vandalism, then the security would be enhanced.
Thank you for the opportunity allowing me to highlight an issue that I believe is cause for significant concern. As you are all now aware, Scalby School is to move to a newly built facility on the former site of Lower Graham School off Lady Edith’s Avenue. Pupils and staff at Scalby deserve to learn and work in a high-quality environment, and I appreciate the effort and planning that has gone into this new development. I know these proposals will be welcomed by many, including myself.
However, I am concerned that the current plans do not take into account the effect on my business that currently operates from the gymnasium and sports pitches on the site of the new development. Hawkes Health provides sporting opportunities for hundreds of young people from across the Scarborough, Whitby, and Ryedale area. Primarily, we offer football coaching courses, but we also offer cricket, netball, badminton, as well as a variety of other sporting opportunities for young people of all ages. At a time when obesity and childhood inactivity are contributing to the enormous pressure on our NHS, it is absolutely vital that young people are given every opportunity to engage in sporting activities. The physical and mental health benefits of taking part in sporting activities are well known to you all.
At a recent meeting of NYC Executive, Gary Fielding said NYC would assist me in trying to find alternative facilities allowing me to continue to provide this much-needed provision. I am hoping this committee will offer your support by recognising the crucial role sporting activity plays in promoting good physical and mental health of residents and by asking NYC executive members to ensure my business is not put at risk as a result of Scalby School moving to this site.
Together, we can ensure that young people continue to have access to essential sporting opportunities. By supporting Hawkes Health, the new site can become a hub for community sports and wellness. I am eager to work with NYC Executive members to find a solution that benefits everyone. I kindly ask the committee to support finding alternative facilities for Hawkes Health.
In summary, I seek your support to ensure Hawkes Health can continue its vital work. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your support.
Reply
Many thanks for your question in relation to the proposed relocation of Scalby School to the former Lower Graham School site and raising how this will affect your business that is based on the site.
We are unable to go into the detail of any commercial agreement in this public forum, but NYC officers will continue to work with you to try to identify alternative sites, where possible. We will also arrange for our Leisure Service to contact you to discuss the Leisure Strategy for the Scarborough area.
At this time, the timescales associated with the school relocation are not yet confirmed, but officers will continue to liaise with you in relation to the current agreement.
The Chair added that a review of local leisure provision was a potential topic for the area committee. Councillor Colling requested that Mr Hawkes provide the Principal Democratic Services Officer, Mr Harris with details of how many young people use his facilities on a weekly basis, and of overall usage since his facilities opened in 2017 to help inform the committee’s work.
Please explain why the NYC Executive Committee at its meeting in July 2024 considered a motion subject to approval from the DfT to appropriate land on West Pier when the Council has consistently maintained this land is in its ownership since at least 2007 as minuted by the former SBC S151 officer?
Reply
The Council does own the freehold of the land at West Pier. Appropriation relates to use, not ownership.
Supplementary question
Mr Corrigan then referred to a Pre-Action Protocol Letter before Claim for Judicial Review issued by the company who owns his fishing vessel which challenged that Executive decision on the basis that it was unlawful. He understood that the Executive decision had been reversed in light of the Pre-Action Protocol. He was disappointed that the public record had not been amended to reflect this development, and that members of the area committee seemed not to be aware of the original decision when it was taken nor of this development. He had asked for the correspondence concerning the Pre-Action Protocol to be circulated to the committee and urged members to attend the Executive when the matter was considered again.
In reply, the Chair commented that it was not appropriate to discuss in public legal matters of this nature but she would seek further information and was sure that she and other members of the committee would attend the Executive when the matter was reconsidered.
I am a school governor on the governing board for Castleton Primary School, a small
village primary school located in the Upper Esk Valley. I am also a parent of a child
who attends that school and the parent of a child who is in Year 8 at Whitby School
There has been a lot of coverage and discussion in recent months around the change to the council’s School Transport policy - much of which has been driven by proactive, concerned residents in other areas of the county such as Richmond who have very clearly highlighted the detrimental impact of the policy change on their areas.
I am unsure, however, whether everyone here today is fully aware of the impact that this is also having and will have on our area - specifically Whitby and the surrounding villages which has led me to issuing a statement today. Schools in the Esk Valley are considered to be ‘feeder’ schools for secondary education in Whitby and the children of Castleton and neighbouring villages such as Danby live within what has always been Whitby’s catchment area. However, the change in policy means it is now impossible to predict which secondary schools these children will now attend. At least one family living in Castleton does not have Whitby appear at all within their ‘five nearest schools’ and, for others in Castleton and Danby, the top three schools vary depending on address. In practical terms, this means that, a cohort of five children from a primary school could very well each end up getting a place at five separate secondary schools.
This presents two significant issues:
I understand that the council’s impact assessment report has identified that the change in policy would put 1 in 4 schools with under 100 students in danger of losing pupils. Can Councillors please advise whether Castleton and Danby schools have been identified as being at risk?
An almost certain impact of the policy is that Whitby School will have fewer students joining in future years as it also affects other feeder schools such as Seton in Staithes and Oakridge in Hinderwell. Much of the justification for recently moving to a single school model was to protect Whitby’s longer-term security amidst reduced projected numbers, it is therefore surely vital that Whitby School receives every student possible. I imagine that Whitby School is going to effectively be forced into subsidising or funding transport for those affected by the policy which would require the school to divert funds from other areas of educational need. The alternative is that Whitby School watches on as budget for pupils who would previously have attended that setting is directed to other schools in other local authorities.
To those Councillors who previously voted in favour of this policy change last year, I hope I have provided some useful first-hand insight into what this actually means for the residents within your wards and I hope you will give this due consideration going forward when contributing to any further decision making.
The change in policy is damaging and detrimental to the young people, families and organisations within our local area and risks the collapse of well-established, resilient communities.
Reply
Councillors know that the council has a statutory duty to provide home to school travel for eligible children of compulsory school age in accordance with legislation and statutory guidance issued by the Department for Education (DfE). We spend £52m on home to school travel.
Parents have the right to preference any school of their choice when applying for a school place, they do not however have a right to free-of-charge travel arrangements to that school.
Increases in the cost of fuel, transport and insurance resulted in full council voting, by a majority, to adopt a revised H2ST policy that is both in line with the Department for Education guidance, and targets resources at those who need it most and who are entitled to travel assistance in line with legislation.
Parents are responsible for choosing where to send their children to school. Catchment areas do not prevent parents who live outside the catchment of a particular school from expressing a preference for the school. Castleton school sees around 20% of children living in its catchment travelling to attend other schools out of the catchment area, and equally about 20% of the current cohort travel in from out of the catchment area. Across the county, we know that around 1in 3 of secondary children, and 45% of primary children, attend a school that is not their catchment school. In Whitby, we know that children living in the catchment area for Whitby school attend at least 8 other mainstream secondary schools in the county. This has been the case over many years, and it continues today – because it is a parental choice. And because of this, schools are used to managing transition activities for children joining them from a range of settings.
We recognise that many families take travel into account when choosing a school. So it may be helpful to refer you to the DfE’s blog, ‘Free school transport explained: From who’s eligible to how it works’ (Nov 2023).
When choosing which schools to apply for, it is important to consider how your child will get there. Some children are eligible for free travel, but this isn’t the case for everyone.
Most parents should expect to be responsible for making arrangements for their child to get to and from school. [The Government] set the national eligibility criteria for free travel to school and your local authority is responsible for deciding whether your child meets these criteria.
To support families in making informed choices about school applications, we launched a distance calculator tool, schools were contacted to inform them of the new policy on 6 September 2024 and we also sent slides to schools so they could share them with parents at their open evening. The distance calculator, available on the admissions part of the council’s website, was used over 5500 times during this year’s admissions cycle.
We are pleased to see that Whitby School saw similar numbers of allocations on this year’s National Offer Day as it did last year.
The council’s change in policy aims to reduce the cost to taxpayers of home to school travel, and so it will lead to a reduction in eligibility over time, but I hope that you understand, travel is only one factor that is considered when parents choose school places. Reduced eligibility does not necessarily equate to reduced children on roll in any specific school.
Supplementary question
Ms Kevan reiterated her question that are Castleton and Danby schools at risk of losing pupils as a consequence of the new policy? That Whitby School saw similar numbers of allocations on this year’s National Offer Day as it did last year may well be attributable to Whitby School deciding to subsidise school transport. Was such a policy sustainable and was it the best use of school funds?
Ms Newbold, Assistant Director Inclusion replied that she disagreed with the comment that one in four schools are at risk of losing pupils. In order to ensure that small, rural primary schools were not at any detriment as a result of the policy, the council had done an assessment for every school in regard to changes in eligibility. Ms Newbold was happy to talk with any headteacher or Chair of Governors about this assessment in respect of their school but this was not a matter for the public arena. Ms Newbold was not aware that Whitby School has decided to subsidise school transport but this was a decision for their Governing Body. She would be meeting with Whitby School in the next weeks to discuss budgets and would be happy to discuss this with them at this meeting.
Ms Newbold further commented that the Home to School Travel Policy would be reviewed in summer next year and the review’s findings would be brought to councillors for consideration.
I am the Chair of Governors of Danby Church of England School and Egton Church of England School and also a parent of a child at one of these schools. Both Schools are located in the rural Esk Valley in North Yorkshire and have 46 children and 42 children respectively.
Due to the location of Danby School, approximately 50% of our children are out of catchment and live in the county of Redcar and Cleveland. Despite this, the majority of our children have historically tended to transition from Year 6 to Whitby for Secondary School as this is in the catchment area for Danby.
The new transport arrangements that came in to force on 1st September 2024 do, in my opinion provide a high level of concern about the future of our young children’s education and mental health in our local area.
I would like to confirm that I have had sight of a statement that you have received from Joanne Kevan, Vice Chair of Castleton School and agree with all the points raised. In addition to this, I would like to raise concerns regarding the potential social impact that this change in transport arrangement may have on our young people.
Currently the government have a huge concern about the mental health and wellbeing of young children especially with regards to anxiety. At the age of 11, moving from a Primary School of 45 children to a Secondary School of over 1500 children is very daunting. Primary School practitioners work tirelessly for 7 years to prepare children for this transition, not only educationally but also by trying to install resilience and confidence in them. Part of this is helping them to build relationships with their peers and they rely on the knowledge that they will have the comfort and security of their friends when they take this big step in their childhood.
The new transport arrangements potentially mean that in a class of 7 children aged 10 and 11, 5 of them could go to different Secondary Schools as these are the ones closest in distance to their home addresses. The dilemma for parents is two-fold – do they send their child to the nearest school so that school transport is provided (even the closest Secondary School is 12 miles away with no public transport available) and risk their mental health and wellbeing which in turn could have a significant negative impact on their future or do they somehow struggle to ‘find’ an additional cost of approximately £850 per year to pay for school transport to the school that their child has been involved with all their Primary School life and keep them with their peers? It’s an impossible decision and feels unfair. For some parents who are unable to ‘find’ the additional funds for transport costs, it completely eliminates parental choice.
There is currently an attendance crisis in this country and schools are under increasing pressure to maintain relationships with their parents to ensure attendance. This situation will not help with this at all.
Reply
It is noted that Mr White supports the comments made by Ms Kevan, the earlier speaker.
As stated in the previous response, schools are used to receiving children from many different settings and they understand the importance of positive transitions. Indeed, Mr White mentioned in his statement that about half of the children in Danby primary school travel to the school from out of area – indeed, school census data confirms this is 65% of the school’s roll. At the same time one in five families living in Danby’s catchment area, attend other local schools. These families are exercising parental choice for admissions, and it is clear that Danby school is benefitting from this.
When children move from primary to secondary schools, we recognise this is a big step. But again, it is for parents to decide where to apply for places. The council listened to feedback at the consultation last spring and decided to extend the entitlement for free travel to families of children from low-income households to cover a greater distance than the national requirement, so that parents of secondary age children in low-income households can exercise meaningful choice.
(In accordance with their declarations of interests above, Councillors Swannick and Swiers left the meeting when questions 1 and 4 were being considered by the committee.)
|
At 12.20pm the Chair adjourned the meeting for lunch. The meeting was re-convened at 12.45pm |