Minutes:
The following questions were received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5) and was put to the Chairman of the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee:
Question asked by Mr. P. King:
“Parent
and carers in the Market Harborough West and Foxton division have informed me
that they are increasingly concerned about the provision of respite care for
parents of children with special needs in the Market Harborough area. Recently,
both Melton and Glenfield respite centres run by Praxis Care were closed
overnight by Ofsted on the 1st of December 2022 due to safeguarding issues.
Parents
carers are concerned that despite repeated attempts to secure alternative
provision nothing has been put in place as yet, to enable regular respite for
parents/carers from their often highly complex, stressful and demanding carer
roles.
Residents have asked me to ask what policies and procedures Leicestershire
County Council has in place for when services like this are closed through
emergency measures?
And what are children’s services doing to help affected parents/carers, and
especially those in the Market Harborough West and Foxton locality?”
Reply by the Chairman:
When Ofsted places a
Children’s provision into special measures, as Praxis has been, then the Local
Authority has processes and procedures in place to ensure quality assurance of
provision and appropriate action is taken in respect of any children living at
or accessing the service. These process and procedures were activated as soon
as Praxis Care was put into special measures.
Since the closure of PRAXIS, the children’s social care team have been working
with children and families to review their packages of short break support.
Where possible the Department has commissioned alternative packages, including
where suitable, overnight care in the family home to support the child and
their family. The Department is continuing to seek alternative provision that
will support the children and their families in the local area, whilst longer
term solutions are put in place.
Question asked by Mrs. A. Hack:
“In a recent survey, 22,000
school buildings were assessed from which a report that was published in May
2021. In this report 260* school buildings in Leicestershire and Rutland* were
identified as grade C (poor) and more worryingly 77 were classified as category
D condition which is described in the report as Life expired or at serious risk
of imminent failure.
*the report
includes 22 schools in Rutland.
1.
As
the authority responsible for allocating students to school, what oversight
does the County Council have over the condition of Leicestershire Schools?
There was a recent
round of funding announced by the Government, 32 schools in Leicestershire have
been allocated funding for 38 different improvement projects. Works included a recently transferred academy
school Ravenhurst Primary in my division for ‘Life Expired Condition Roof. Of the remaining projects the word ‘urgent’
appears 21 times. This funding was in
addition to the 5 schools selected for rebuilds. Which seems to offer repairs to a fraction of
the schools identified in the 2021 report.
2.
Does
the authority have a clear view to the condition of the remaining schools that
are maintained as well as those managed by the Multi Academy Trusts. This includes
the safety of children and the workforce at the sites that have been
identified as having category C and D defects?
3.
What
liaison does Leicestershire County Council have with the Head Teachers about the
condition of Leicestershire Schools?
4.
If
the information is available, can Councillors receive an update on the
condition of the schools highlighted with category C/D defects within their
divisions?
5.
Of
the school estate that has been transferred from locally maintained (including
Ravenhurst in my division), was there a clear maintenance plan agreed ahead of
any transfer and how is the condition of the schools managed where there have
been Category C and D defects in the buildings?
6.
For
the remaining maintained school, what is the inspection regime for managing the
school estate and how does this change when schools are transferred to
Academies?”
Reply by the
Chairman:
1.
Leicestershire
county Council is responsible for assessing the condition of maintained
Leicestershire Schools. Maintained Schools are inspected every 5 years, as
recommended by Department for Education (DfE). The inspection information is
then used to plan the maintenance required on the buildings.
2.
The
authority has a record of the condition of the Maintained schools, including
sites that have been identified as having category C and D defects. LCC have a record of the condition of those
Academy schools, where the Multi-Aacademy Trust’s (MAT) commissions the Council
for a professional fee to carry out a survey.
3.
The
authority has good relationships with maintained school head teachers and those
MAT’s that buy into the Council’s property scheme
4.
The
Department can share with Councillors the information for maintained schools in
their area.
5.
In
the process of academy transfer the maintenance of buildings becomes the
responsibility of the Trust. As part of the transfer process the Trust
undertakes due diligence on school building condition and negotiates depending
on the situation. There is an offer of continuing with the Council’s buyback
scheme. If after academisation there is a need to repair / replace the MAT can
apply for funding to do so.
6.
The
frequency of inspection of Maintained Schools is every five years, as
recommended by DfE. Once a school transfers to Academy, the Property is removed
from the inspection list. Property Ops are available to carry out a Condition
survey for the Academy, for a Professional Fee.
Supplementary questions asked by Mrs. A. Hack
Mrs Hack asked the
following supplementary questions:
A.
“Supplementary
to the response to question 1, what is the current position with regards to
MAT’s; do we as the statutory authority responsible for the allocating of
youngsters at school and for providing enough places, have assurance that
schools are well looked after?
B.
Supplementary
to the response to question 2, where does a councillor find out the information
on MAT school building quality?
C.
Supplementary
to the response to question 3, the question I was trying to understand is the
openness within the head teachers’ group about the school buildings and if they
were confident that the programme of works needed to keep their schools free of
Category C/D defects were in place.
D.
Supplementary
to the response to question 4, as a Councillor without any maintained schools
and in fact over four primary schools that provide places for children in my
division, there are four different MATs, where do we get assurance that the
buildings are safe? Particularly in light of the list of 38 school buildings
that are receiving patch up funding from DfE, ten of these are for roof works
and 14 contain the words ‘safe’…does these mean the buildings are currently
unsafe?
E.
Supplementary
to the response to question 6, What is the requirement for MAT’s?, Who provides
assurance and whilst we had assurance when the estate was transferred from
ourselves, the longer these buildings are being managed by many bodies the risk
of standard quality gets greater. How do
we seek assurance as Councillors and where from?”
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Director of Children
and Family Services indicated that this information would be provided to Mrs.
A. Hack after the meeting.
[Subsequent to the meeting a response was
provided to Mrs Hack as follows:
a)
Article 1.20 in the Academy Trust Handbook 2021 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/academy-trust-handbook/part-1-roles-and-responsibilities) confirms that, “The
DfE expects academy trusts to manage their school estate strategically and
maintain their estate in a safe working condition.” The DfE, through the ESFA,
is responsible for the maintenance of academy buildings. The LA does not have a
role in statutory assessment of the condition of academy buildings although in
practice concerns would be raised by headteachers and impact capacity
assessments. The OFSTED inspection process would also highlight health and
safety concerns or the impact of the estate condition on the effectiveness of
teaching.
b)
This would be a matter to discuss with the MAT.
c)
Question 1 explains the responsibility for assessing and
planning maintenance for maintained school buildings. If a maintained school is
identified as having a category D defect this is addressed as a matter of
reactive urgency. Where category C issues are judged as minor (such as floor
finishes or internal decoration) these are recorded and scheduled for remedy:
category C can be used to draw attention to non-critical defects. Where the
category C defect relates to a major structural element repair is prioritised.
It is the MAT’s responsibility to identify category C/D defects and to
address these (including seeking funding from the EFSA). There is no evidence
to suggest that head teachers and trust leaders are not being open about this.
d)
Assurance of school building safety sits with the MAT.
Councillors would need to contact the MAT to seek this assurance.
Further
information about the condition grading process is available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/good-estate-management-for-schools/understanding-land-and-buildings#assessing-the-condition-of-your-estate which includes a
definition of grades A-D and a priority categorisation from 1-4. A grade D
defect may not necessarily also be priority 1 – urgent. It is also worth noting
that a bid for condition funding is more likely to be successful where the
urgency of necessary remediation is highlighted.
This
does not imply that buildings are currently unsafe: MATs have a fundamental
duty to ensure the safety of their pupils and staff. The process being
discussed is designed to prevent buildings becoming unsafe.
e)
As outlined, it is the responsibility of the MAT to
maintain their estate and the DfE recommendation of five-yearly condition
surveys applies.
Any MAT receiving a new school will undertake a programme of due diligence
including an assessment of the condition of the property and ensuing
liabilities. Councillors would need to approach MATs to ascertain details.]
Supporting documents: