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 31 August 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 20
June 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 |