Hampshire County Council

Culture and Communities Select Committee

24 January 2008

Review of Outdoor and Field Studies Centres

Report of the Chief Executive

Item 7

Contact: Martin Combs 01962 847479 martin.combs@hants.gov.uk

1. Summary

1.1 At the April 2007 meeting of the Policy and Resources Select Committee, outdoor and field studies centres were identified as a subject for review, following proposals to withdraw revenue funding for the Stubbington and Minstead field studies centres. An internal financial review of these business units has identified a plan for these centres to achieve financial viability, however the combination of budgetary pressures and the challenges before the centres, suggested the need for a greater understanding of Hampshire's provision of `education outside the classroom' and the funding that is provided to support it.

1.2 The Culture and Communities Select Committee was subsequently asked to review outdoor and field studies centres. This report sets out their recommendations.

1.3 The County has eight centres of its own, and provides revenue grant funding for a further five independent centres run by charitable trusts. It also provides funding in support of the unitary authority run outdoor activity centres of Southampton and Portsmouth. Hampshire has 534 schools, excluding those in the unitary authority areas, therefore it would appear that significant demand exists within the county for services provided by outdoor and field studies centres, and that part of the demand has to be satisfied outside the county boundaries and by independent providers. The Panel has sought to better understand, in the context of increased pressure on departmental budgets, the funding arrangements around the provision of Hampshire County Council's outdoor education and field study centres, including that provided by independent charitable trusts and unitary authorities that also receive funding from the County.

2. Recommendations

3. Coherent and Consistent Approach

3.1 Currently outdoor education and field studies centres are run and delivered by three departments: Children's Services, Recreation and Heritage and Property, Business and Regulatory Services. The Panel observed, as a consequence, that the County's provision of outdoor and field studies services to schools and organisations would benefit from a single point of management within the County Council that would allow, for example, the following variation to be addressed:

3.2 The evidence strongly suggested to the Panel that a single point of responsibility would simplify management of the centres and greatly facilitate coherence and consistency of approach. The single exception is the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens Charitable Trust Education Service whose educational role is integral to the aims of the Trust as a whole. Consideration would have to be given to transfer of assets in any change of management responsibility.

4. Independent Charitable Trusts Funding and Fit of Services with Hampshire Centres

4.1 Because there is no single approach to managing and planning outdoor and field studies centres, it was difficult for the Panel to determine how or whether the centres run by charitable trusts complement or duplicate the work of the County's own centres. The Panel concluded that in the absence of an explicit policy or guidelines supporting the funding of the independent centres, there would be a benefit to reviewing funding to ensure that the centres are delivering a range of services that offer good value for money, fit well with the County's own centres, and that support the delivery of corporate objectives.

5. Unitary Authority Outdoor Activity Centres

5.1 The Panel noted that on the basis of the available information, the cost of funding the unitary authority outdoor centres appeared to be relatively high, if calculated as the amount of subsidy per person, per session used by Hampshire schools or organisations. The Panel had concluded that a review of funding of these outdoor centres should take place, however Members note that the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage now proposes to reduce the amount of funding provided by the County to the centres by 10% a year over the next three years (see Appendix Nine: Funding Support to Southampton and Portsmouth Outdoor Activity Centres from 2008/9, 15 November 2007). Therefore the Panel will not be making a recommendation in this regard.

6. Market Research and Maximising Usage

6.1 Evidence suggests that centres tend to experience predictable periods of high and low demand, typically associated with the school year, such as the avoidance of examinations. The Panel concluded that consideration should be given to undertaking market research with a view to promoting the use of centres by other potential target customer groups in order to maximise the use of centres evenly throughout the year.

7. Views of local councillors

8. Legal implications

9. Financial implications

10. Personnel implications

11. Conclusions

11.1 The Panel has considered information drawn from the relevant departments to construct a summary overview spreadsheet of outdoor and field studies centres, including how they are funded and what services they provide. The Panel has also had opportunity to seek additional evidence from departments to gain a better understanding of current funding arrangements and the background to them. As a result, the Panel concluded that four areas should be considered by the relevant Executive Members and the Leader:

LINK(S) TO CORPORATE STRATEGY

 

Yes

No

Hampshire safer and more secure for all

    
     

Maximising well-being

_

  
     

Enhancing our quality of place

_

  
     

OR

    
     

This proposal does not link to the Corporate Strategy but, nevertheless, requires a decision because:

    

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB: the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

Reference

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/scrutiny/scrutiny-committees/culture-communities/cx-scrutiny-outdoor.htm

Appendix One: full `Report of Outdoor and Field Studies Centres Review' December 2007.

Appendix One: full `Report of Outdoor and Field Studies Centres Review' December 2007.

Hampshire County Council

Culture and Communities Select Committee

Report of Outdoor and Field Studies Centres Review

December 2007

Table of Contents

Section

Page

1. Introduction

4

2. Terms of Reference

5

3. Review Organisation

6

4. Findings of the Review Panel

    4.1 Conclusions

      4.1.1 A Coherent and Consistent Approach

      4.1.2 Independent Charitable Trusts Funding and Fit

      4.1.3 Unitary Authority Outdoor Activity Centres

      4.1.4 Market Research and Maximising Usage

    4.2 Recommendations

      4.2.1 A Coherent and Consistent Approach

      4.2.2 A Further Review is Undertaken

      4.2.3 Independent Charitable Trusts Funding and Fit

      4.2.4 Market Research and Maximising Usage

    4.3 Commentary

      Introduction and Overview of Issues

      Outdoor and Field Studies Centres

          Centres run by Children's Services

          Centre run by Property Business and Regulatory Services

          Centres run by Recreation and Heritage

          Independent Centres run by Charitable Trusts

          Southampton and Portsmouth Centres

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

11

11

13

13

16

18

Appendix One:

`ad hoc' grant awards to centres 2005 - 2007

20

Appendix Two:

List of Outdoor Centres approved for Hampshire Schools

21

Appendix Three:

Outdoor Centres - use of - Statistics 2006/7

28

Appendix Four:

Revenue Budget 2007-2010, Report of the County Treasurer and Director of Children's Services, 18 January 2007

31

Appendix Five:

Cabinet meeting minutes, 9 February 2007

61

Appendix Six:

Funding for Residential Centres 1 March 2007

65

Appendix Seven:

Report on Internal Review of Residential Field Studies Centres, 1 November 2007

67

Appendix Eight:

Report on Internal Review of Residential Field Studies Centres - (Appendix II)

71

Appendix Nine:

Funding Support to Southampton and Portsmouth Outdoor Activity Centres from 2008/9, 15 November 2007

78

Appendix Ten:

Map - Hampshire catchment Mountain Centre

81

Appendix Eleven:

Map - Hampshire catchment Tile Barn/Beaulieu Centres

82

Appendix Twelve:

Map - Hampshire catchment Calshot Centre

83

Appendix Thirteen:

Map - Hampshire catchment Avon Tyrell Centre

84

Appendix Fourteen:

Map - Hampshire catchment Countryside Education Trust Centre

85

Appendix Fifteen:

Map - Hampshire catchment Privett Centre

86

Appendix Sixteen:

Map - Hampshire catchment Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Centre

87

Appendix Seventeen:

Map - Hampshire catchment Gilbert White Centre

88

Appendix Eighteen:

Guide to the Law for School Governors 2007, Section 23: Charging for School Activities

89

Appendix Nineteen:

Centres Summary Spreadsheet

93

Appendix Twenty:

Partnership Funding to Independent Outdoor Centres 2003/4 - Gilbert White

94

Appendix Twentyone:

Options for funding savings, 16 November 2006

98

Appendix Twentytwo:

2007-8 visit schedule for Stubbington Study Centre

104

Appendix Twentythree:

Supplementary Notes on Outdoor and Field Studies Centres

109

1. Introduction

1.1 At the April 2007 meeting of the Policy and Resources Select Committee, outdoor and field studies centres were identified as a subject for review, following budgetary pressures in Children's Services. The department proposed a reduction in core funding of £95,000 distributed to Stubbington and Minstead, the two residential field studies centres in the Children's Services budget for 2007/08. These centres were setup as `business units' with the intention that they become self sufficient. The department plans to remove the remaining £145,000 of core funding in the following year (see Appendix Four: Revenue Budget 2007 - 2010 Report of the County Treasurer and Director of Children's Services, 18 January 2007, also Appendix Six: Funding for Residential Centres 1 March 2007).

1.4 Following concerns that more time would be needed for the centres to make the transition to a self funding position, the issue was raised at Cabinet. The Leader of the Council subsequently suggested that for one year only, the subsidy withdrawn by Children's Services for the centres, be replaced as a discretionary grant (Appendix Five: Cabinet meeting minutes, 9 February 2007).

1.5 The Culture and Communities Select Committee was subsequently asked to review outdoor and field studies centres.

1.6 Hampshire's outdoor and field studies centres have earned a reputation for high quality provision, and have enjoyed the strong support of Members over many years. Apart from demonstrable value that can be deduced in part from activity data, the value of learning outside the classroom is acknowledged by the Government, "We believe that every young person should experience the world beyond the classroom as an essential part of learning and personal development, whatever their age, ability or circumstances" (Department for Education and Skills, Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto, 2006)

1.7 The County has eight centres of its own, and provides revenue grant funding for a further five independent centres run by charitable trusts. It also provides funding in support of the unitary authority run outdoor activity centres of Southampton and Portsmouth. Hampshire has 534 schools, excluding those in the unitary authority areas, therefore it would appear that significant demand exists within the county for services provided by outdoor and field studies centres, and that part of the demand has to be satisfied outside the county boundaries and by independent providers.

1.8 Hampshire and the unitary authority schools are able to choose any outdoor education or field study they want, however these are vetted on their behalf by the Outdoor Education Service, primarily to ensure basic safety management is in place. Approximately 80 of these centres (outside Hampshire) have been vetted and approved by the service on behalf of schools. Statistics of ventures undertaken by Hampshire schools and groups non Hampshire centres and for centres other than those run by Children's Services and at Calshot are included at Appendix Three. Possibly 40% of pupils and groups from Hampshire went on ventures outside the county.

1.9 Capacity and usage of Hampshire County Council's own centres are more difficult to determine, in part due to differences between departments in providing information. Children's Services centres provide up to 5,300 residential places and up to 9,750 day places per year. Recreation and Heritage forcast usage of 200,000 sessions (of 1.5 hours) and 48,000 bed nights for its centres for 2006/7. The reported figures do not differentiate between Hampshire and out of county user schools, although they can be provided on request. Usage of the independent centres by Hampshire schools and groups as a proportion of their wider user base, varies considerably, for example, in one case a single Hampshire school is the major user of the Privett Centre, whilst Hampshire schools are a minority user of Avon Tyrrell which is a national centre for UK Youth.

1.10 At the very least, it is clear that Hampshire schools and groups choose to send a significant proportion of children to centres outside the county or to non Hampshire centres in the county, for outdoor education and field studies. It is not so clear why schools choose centres outside Hampshire; this would need further research, nor what proportion of ventures are undertaken in Hampshire run centres versus in centres outside the county. It is also not clear from information provided, the patterns of demand for each of the centres over the yearly cycle.

1 Terms of Reference of the Review

2.1 Purpose:

2.2 Objectives:

2.3 Scope:

2.4 Deliverables:

3. Review Organisation

3.1 Stakeholders

3.2 Customer

3.3 Centres Review Panel

3.4 Process

3.5 The outcome of this review will also take into account the internal financial review of Stubbington and Minstead, the residential field studies centres run by the Children's Services Department. The internal review has been undertaken in conjunction with members of the Schools' Forum.

3.6 Information in the summary spreadsheet has been provided by departments, derived from statements of accounts submitted to the Charity Commission, and from various other sources.

3 Findings of the Review Panel

4.1. Conclusions

The Panel has considered information drawn from the relevant departments to construct a summary overview spreadsheet of outdoor and field studies centres, including how they are funded and what services they provide. The Panel has also had opportunity to seek additional evidence from departments to gain a better understanding of current funding arrangements and the background to them. As a result, the Panel concluded that four areas should be considered by the relevant Executive Members and the Leader:

4.1.1 Coherent and Consistent Approach

4.1.1.1 Currently outdoor education and field studies centres are run and delivered by three departments: Children's Services, Recreation and Heritage and Property, Business and Regulatory Services. The Panel observed, as a consequence, that the County's provision of outdoor and field studies services to schools and organisations would benefit from a single point of management within the County Council that would allow, for example, the following variation to be addressed:

4.1.1.2 The evidence strongly suggested to the Panel that a single point of responsibility would simplify management of the centres and greatly facilitate coherence and consistency of approach. The single exception is the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens Charitable Trust Education Service whose educational role is integral to the aims of the Trust as a whole. Consideration would have to be given to transfer of assets in any change of management responsibility.

4.1.2 Independent Charitable Trusts Funding and Fit of Services with Hampshire Centres

4.1.2.1 Because there is no single approach to managing and planning outdoor and field studies centres, it was difficult for the Panel to determine how or whether the centres run by charitable trusts complement or duplicate the work of the County's own centres. The Panel concluded that in the absence of an explicit policy or guidelines supporting the funding of the independent centres, there would be a benefit to reviewing funding to ensure that the centres are delivering a range of services that offer good value for money, fit well with the County's own centres, and that support the delivery of corporate objectives.

4.1.3 Unitary Authority Outdoor Activity Centres

4.1.3.1 The Panel noted that on the basis of the available information, the cost of funding the unitary authority outdoor centres appeared to be relatively high, if calculated as the amount of subsidy per person, per session used by Hampshire schools or organisations. The Panel had concluded that a review of funding of these outdoor centres should take place, however Members note that the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage now proposes to reduce the amount of funding provided by the County to the centres by 10% a year over the next three years (see Appendix Nine: Funding Support to Southampton and Portsmouth Outdoor Activity Centres from 2008/9, 15 November 2007). Therefore the Panel will not be making a recommendation in this regard.

4.1.4 Market Research and Maximising Usage

4.1.4.1 Evidence suggests that centres tend to experience predictable periods of high and low demand, typically associated with the school year, such as the avoidance of examinations. The Panel concluded that consideration should be given to undertaking market research with a view to promoting the use of centres by other potential target customer groups in order to maximise the use of centres evenly throughout the year.

4.2. Recommendations

4.2.1 Coherent and Consistent Approach

4.2.2 A Further Review is undertaken following Centres coming under a Single Point of Management

4.2.3 Independent Charitable Trusts Funding and Fit of Services with Hampshire Centres

4.2.4 Market Research and Maximising Usage

4.3. Commentary

4.3.1 Based on consideration of written and verbal evidence provided by witnesses, information provided by departments, reports, committee documents and other background information, such as financial statements submitted to the Charity Commission by charitable trusts, the Panel identified the following as issues:

Outdoor and Field Studies Centres

4.3.2 Currently there is no single overall view of Hampshire's provision of outdoor and field studies centres. Each department has its own approach to running its centres, and its own departmental priorities for funding and service provision. Most of the issues referred to above could be addressed by putting all centres within one department. The exception to this would be the Sir Harold Hillier Education Service which is an integral part of the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and Arboretum Charitable Trust which has a remit to educate. In addition, if the other Hampshire run centres were within one department and one management structure, it would facilitate reporting against common performance criteria, reports should be simpler to produce, and it would therefore make it easier for Members and senior management to receive information of high quality that would allow meaningful comparisons to be made across all centres.

4.3.3 A single service approach would also simplify any attempts to assess the provision of centres as a whole, and where necessary, identify benefits of synergy, consolidation, or further centre developments where little provision currently exists. On the other hand, if all centres were to be brought together into one service, the transition to a single pay structure and common terms and conditions would have to be managed.

4.3.4 Figures used in the following sections to provide information about outdoor and field studies centres are not always consistently represented, however they reflect the different ways in which information is provided and the different funding arrangements that exist. In order to enable comparisons to be made across different centres, the summary spreadsheet (Appendix Nineteen) had to make some crude assumptions, for example it assumed that all centres are open during term time only; it also assumed that centres operate to full capacity during those periods. The figures are used solely for comparison. In practice, centres do not normally operate to full capacity throughout the year, some centres are not limited to term time only, and some are limited by seasonal factors.

Centres run by Children's Services

4.3.5 Usage of Children's Services centres is not measured in sessions, and the recent reports on the funding of these centres (Appendices Six and Seven) do not indicate how close to full capacity the centres operate. The Stubbington Study Centre website, however, indicates that 4056 children visit the centre each year which equates to the maximum number of places available, this therefore assumes a 100% occupancy rate for that centre. Otherwise usage assumes that both Minstead and Sparsholt operate at full capacity (however see Appendix Twentytwo for actual bookings for Stubbington 2007-8).

4.3.6 These centres have been subject of an internal financial review. The centres are classified as `business units'. Children's Service reduced support to these centres by £95,000 for 2007/8, with the intention to withdraw the remaining £145,000 core funding in the following financial year with a view to the centres becoming self-supporting (see Appendix Four: Revenue Budget 2007 - 2010 and Appendix Six: Funding for Residential Centres, 1 November 2007). The internal review has indicated that the charges made by the centres will have to increase; Stubbington by approximately 28%, and Minstead by about 64%, if they are to be economically viable.

4.3.7 Whether Minstead would be able to survive a 64% rise in charges must remain an open question at this time. A `one off' grant of £95,000 from the Policy and Resources Executive Member's budget was agreed as replacement of the withdrawn funding in order to provide more time for consideration of options and for the centres to adjust to the new challenges. Portsmouth City Council provides about £25,000 of the income for Stubbington and £9,000 for Minstead (Appendix Seven: Report on Residential Centres), the actual amount is determined by how much use is made by Portsmouth schools of the centre.

4.3.8 Within the last two years substantial funding has been provided to upgrade the Minstead Study Centre, receiving over £1,000,000 of funding for the development of an eco-friendly dormitory building. This innovative design has received an award for sustainable architecture. The decision to withdraw funding from these centres appears to be based on budgetary pressures in the department, and the expectation that business units should aim to achieve financial independence. In October 2004 the Hampshire Outdoor Service submitted evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Skills which was addressing the decline in learning outside the classroom. The Second Report refers to how, "...During the 1980s and 1990s Hampshire bucked the trend of LEAs that sold off or privatised their outdoor centres in the face of budget pressures and protected its centres from changes to educational funding arrangements by moving its centres into a department outside of education...". It may be that budgetary pressures will again be a factor in considering how the longer term viability of the centres can be assured? Whilst no department is without budgetary pressures, the key to the future of Hampshire's centres may be in the close alignment to the County's priorities and in careful targeting of resources to maximise the benefits of `out of classroom education' for those who will benefit most?

4.3.9 For visits scheduled for Stubbington in 2008 see Appendix Twentytwo.

4.3.10 The Sparsholt Schools' Centre is identified on its website as receiving support from Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth City Council. Portsmouth City Council provides about £6,000 of the centre's income - actual amounts relate to how much use Portsmouth schools make of Sparsholt. The Centre's Booking Policy explains the `free entitlement' for Hampshire and Portsmouth schools which is one free day for every 125 pupils on the school roll. Based on the estimated amount of `subsidy' per student per day, it appears high at £8 compared, say to the Sir Harold Hillier centre at approximately £2.40, but understandably the income generated at the latter is considerably higher than at Sparsholt.

4.3.11 The rationale for free entitlement is apparently based on Section 23: `Charging for School Activities' in the `School Governance Regulations 2007' (see Appendix Eighteen), because parents cannot be charged for curriculum content during school hours. The reasoning does not explain why the policy allows charges to apply once the free entitlement has been used up, nor why charges apply at other outdoor and field studies centres that provide curriculum content. The same regulations, however, also allow schools to invite parents to give voluntary contributions in order to "make school funds go further". No other centre offers the free entitlement. The difference in charging policy may indicate a need for clarification on how the Education Act on charging for school activities should be interpreted.

Centre run by Property, Business and Regulatory Services

4.3.12 The centre is an integral part of the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and Arboretum Charitable Trust. The Education Service plays a key role in furthering one of the aims of the Trust which is to "maximise the plant collection's formal and educational potential". Given the unique history and context of this `centre', the Panel's view is that the existing arrangements should remain in place, although provision should be considered in the context of, and charging should be as consistent as possible with, other Hampshire centres.

4.3.13 Nearly 12,500 people used the education centre during 2006/7, about 10,000 of which were from primary and secondary schools, although it is not clear whether all these were from Hampshire. The centre generated £58,000 income and received £30,000 funding to cover costs. In effect the funding subsidised each pupil by £3.00, or by £2.40 per person.

Centres run by Recreation and Heritage

4.3.14 Centres run by Recreation and Heritage quantify usage of centres on the basis of sessions (= 1.5 hours each) in order to provide a common unit by which all centres can be compared. Where possible this unit is used in the Review Spreadsheet (Appendix Nineteen) as a rough basis for comparing usage and subsidy costs for centres. This difficulty of making comparisons between centres, particularly across departmental boundaries, exemplifies the need for a common approach.

4.3.15 The Recreation and Heritage centres: Hampshire Mountain Centre, Beaulieu Development Centre, Tile Barn and Calshot, along with the centres in Portsmouth and Southampton were transferred from Education to Recreation and Heritage on 1st April 1990. Funding responsibility for the independent centres also passed to the department.

4.3.16 The total number of sessions for the centres run by Recreation and Heritage in 2006/7 was approximately 198,000 and the total bed nights was 48,000. Usage figures for individual centres are not normally provided, therefore subsidies (below) are calculated on the basis of maximum occupancy during term time only.

4.3.17 If greater use of commercial potential were to be considered, for example, in order to improve occupancy through the year, there is a possibility that competition for the use of centres between commercial and school customers would have to be managed. There might therefore be a need for a policy to give priority to schools.

4.3.18 This is the only Hampshire centre located outside the County. It is also the only Recreation and Heritage centre located outside the New Forest area. The centre provides a number of curriculum and activity based sessions/choices for schools and youth organisations. The centre generated £104,000 in 2006/7 which equates to approximately 58% of its gross expenditure. The revenue grant funding of £75,000 in effect subsidises each session by £2.50 per person - but this figure assumes full occupancy during term time.

4.3.19 Bookings from schools, including Hampshire tend to bunch because of the school year, some periods being less convenient than others in relation to the school timetable. Prices charged by the centre are locally competitive and favour Hampshire schools. The intention is that they are set at a level to encourage an inclusive approach such that parents with lower incomes may still be able to afford to send their children. Commercial use provides the centre with a valuable complement to income derived from schools, and also helps to balance occupancy/demand. Since the centre's transfer from Education to Recreation and Heritage, reportedly, there has been a greater emphasis on marketing.

4.3.20 The Hampshire catchment area includes groups from the New Forest area, Southampton, Fareham, Gosport, Portsmouth and schools in the North and East of the County (Appendix Ten: Mountain Centre catchment map)

4.3.21 Is based within Lord Montagu's Beaulieu estate. The centre provides day sessions/courses and is not residential, however it works very closely with Tile Barn which does have accommodation. Bookings for Beaulieu are arranged through Tile Barn, the range of courses/experiences offered to prospective groups is therefore wider when looking across both sites. Some instructors and other staff may work on either site, according to demand.

4.3.22 Beaulieu also offers complementary experiences that can be of interest to some Calshot customers, thereby, again extending variety and customer choice. The Beaulieu centre, for example, is used by corporate groups for exercises such as team building and assessment; it is also used by schools and youth organisations.

4.3.23 The Beaulieu and Tile Barn centres are considered as one for the purposes of funding. Their revenue grant of £77,000 in effect subsidises each session by approximately £0.86 per person. The £281,000 income generated by the centres, covers 78% of the gross expenditure. Again, these figures assume the centres are working to maximum capacity.

4.3.24 The Hampshire catchment area includes groups from the New Forest area, Southampton, Fareham, Gosport, North of Portsmouth, Havant, Eastleigh, Andover, and schools in the North East of the County (Appendix Eleven: Tile Barn and Beaulieu map)

4.3.25 Tile Barn provides residential and camping facilities, and has a close working relationship with The Beaulieu Development Centre (see above). Both Tile Barn and Beaulieu experience uneven, though predictable peaks and troughs of demand over the year. The summer, for example is busier than the winter months, in particular. In addition the camping facilities are limited to the period between April and October. But because the residential and outdoor facilities at Tile Barn lend themselves more to summer-based experiences for schools and youth groups, the demand patterns at Tile Barn differ slightly from Beaulieu.

4.3.26 Increased marketing, and the promotion of the centres to possibly new target audiences or for other purposes, may help to boost demand during quieter periods.

4.3.27 The Calshot Activities Centre website represents itself as, "one of the largest Outdoor Adventure Centres in Britain". It is well positioned and has earned a reputation for excellence. The centre offers field studies courses as well as a wide range of outdoor activities. The field studies courses are "designed to meet and extend National Curriculum and Examination requirements via the use of experiential and enquiry based learning" (http://www.calshot.com/field.html). Approximately 2,250 Hampshire pupils have taken field studies courses over the last year (KS2 to A-level). Calshot may be better known generally for its outdoor activities rather than for the field studies courses it provides, in which context it is better recognised by schools and colleges.

4.3.28 The appeal of Calshot is to a broad spectrum of customers. It is used by schools and youth organisations, but also by corporate customers and individual members of the public. Residential capacity is 160, but Calshot also runs day courses, and visitors can book onto outdoor activities courses as individuals.

4.3.29 Calshot's revenue grant of £149,000 in effect subsidises each session by approximately £2.50 per person. The £2,265,000 income generated by the centres, covers 94% of the gross expenditure. The centre would appear to have significant potential to generate additional income should it choose to do so. Marketing activities would have to be directed to appropriate target customer groups, building on current materials and approaches. Again, the amount of subsidy assumes the centre works to maximum capacity during term time, however whilst the demand is not constant, the centre is open throughout the year, running courses during term time and holiday periods.

4.3.30 The Hampshire catchment area includes groups from most areas of the County (Appendix Twelve: Calshot map)

Independent Centres run by Charitable Trusts

4.3.31 Figures for the number of sessions provided by the independent charitable trust centres are taken from Partnership Funding application forms submitted to the County Council, but the sessions in these cases seem to be `day sessions' where a session represents one person per day at the centre.

4.3.32 In total, nearly £130,000 of revenue grant funding is provided to these centres. In addition, some centres apply for and win `ad hoc' grant funding for capital or `one off' projects from the County. (see Appendix One) If funding changes were to be made to the independent charitable trusts, consideration should be given to the potential impact on the viability of the centres, as well as to the highly dependent relationship some centres appear to have with regard to Hampshire County Council.

4.3.33 Avon Tyrrell is the National Activity and Residential Centre for Youth Clubs UK, an organisation that provides outdoor and environmental sessions for schools and other groups, including adults. Grant funding is sought by Avon Tyrrell for specific improvements/projects.

4.3.34 The centre works with a number of groups from `hard to reach' backgrounds, Hampshire youth groups, play schemes, and a number of young offenders groups.

4.3.35 According to the last financial submission to the Charity Commission, Avon Tyrrell's income amounted to about £527,000. Hampshire's grant of £6,300 therefore represented about 1% of the total. In 2006/7 Avon Tyrrell provided 3,400 sessions for young people, and over 200 sessions for adults from Hampshire. Hampshire funding would subsidise each session by approximately £1.75 per person, based on Hampshire use only.

4.3.36 From within Hampshire, groups visit Avon Tyrrell primarily from around the New Forest area, Fareham, Andover, Winchester, Eastleigh and North East of the County (see Appendix Thirteen: Avon Tyrrell map)

4.3.37 The CET provides environmental education and access to the countryside for groups of all ages. The centre has residential accommodation and operates all year, including some evenings. Grant funding from Hampshire has typically been sought for the support of salaries for education officers and the administrator.

4.3.38 The centre has expanded its work with `hard to reach' groups and has targeted deprived locations to promote its activities. CET has sought additional funding from elsewhere to enable them to reduce costs to these groups. Otherwise the centre works with community groups, pre-school and other school clubs.

4.3.39 According to the last financial submission to the Charity Commission, CET's income amounted to £298,000. Hampshire's grant of £46,500 therefore represented about 15% of the total. In 2006/7 over 3,500 young people and nearly 490 adults from Hampshire visited the CET. Hampshire funding would subsidise each session by approximately £11.65 per person, based on Hampshire use only.

4.3.40 From within Hampshire, groups visit the Countryside Educational Trust primarily from areas in the New Forest, particularly Waterside, Eastleigh, the North East of the County, and North of Portsmouth. (Appendix Fourteen: CET map)

4.3.41 The Privett Centre receives approximately £28,000 as core grant from the County which accounts for 79% of its total income of £34,000. The property, previously a disused listed primary school, belongs to the County Council, but is run by the Trust. The centre is self-catering and self-led, not providing any courses or sessions. It serves as a base for outdoor activities in the area, and has considerable use by a specialist secondary school in Basingstoke for children with learning difficulties. The centre is used for learning `life' skills.

4.3.42 The trust pays the County £9,500 p.a. for rent and a further £868 for building maintenance. During 2006/7 the centre was used by 649 young people from Hampshire. Hampshire funding would subsidise each young person by approximately £43 per person per visit, based on Hampshire use only.

4.3.43 The Hampshire catchment area includes groups mainly from the Basingstoke, Fareham and Gosport schools and in the North East of the County (Appendix Fifteen: Privett Centre map)

4.3.44 Situated within the County's Manor Farm Country Park, the centre focuses on providing challenging and motivating outdoor educational and adventure activities for people with special needs of all ages. There is residential accommodation used by over 1,000 people a year, but day activities are also available. In 2006/7 over 1,280 young people from Hampshire and a further 4,800 adults with special needs attended day sessions.

4.3.45 Hampshire funding for 2006/7 was £13,000 amounting to about 8% of the trusts total income of £155,000 The centre has struggled to remain financially viable, but has good management with representation from the County on its board of trustees. Hampshire funding would subsidise each session/person by approximately £10 per Hampshire young person, or £2.10 if all adults are included with Hampshire young people.

4.3.46 The Hampshire catchment area includes groups scattered around the County, with most from areas surrounding Southampton (Appendix Sixteen: QE II map)

4.3.47 The Gilbert White Field Studies Centre is part of The Oates Memorial Library and Museum and the Gilbert White Museum Charitable Trust. Situated North of Petersfield, and East of Winchester, it is the Northmost independent Centre. The field studies activities and courses are "totally integrated within the National Curriculum", and according to a report prepared for the Executive Member in 2003, Gilbert White is "providing a service to the County Council that complements our own direct provision with little overlap between them" (Appendix Twenty: Partnership Funding to Independent Outdoor Centres 2003/4 - Gilbert White). It is a `day use' centre, therefore not residential. The relatively high cost of subsidising the centre was explained in the report by the centre not being able to absorb some cost in residential prices as other centres might.

4.3.48 The trust's income amounts to approximately £266,000 the Hampshire grant provides £35,750 or about 9% of the total. In 2006/7 some 2,338 Hampshire LEA pupils attended the centre for field studies courses, and a further 600 went from independent schools. Hampshire funding would subsidise each session by approximately £15.30 per person, based on Hampshire LEA use only.

4.3.49 The Hampshire catchment area for this centre is mainly in the North Eastern parts of the County (Appendix Seventeen: Gilbert White map)

Southampton and Portsmouth Centres

4.3.50 Analysis of the summary spreadsheet data appears to show that relative to Hampshire's outdoor activity centres, the subsidy provided for Southampton and Portsmouth is relatively high at £10.00 and £13.50 respectively. In total £150,000 of grant funding is provided to these centres. (see Appendix Twentyone: Options for funding savings, 16 November 2006)

4.3.51 On 15 November 2007, a report to the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage recommended an annual reduction of 10% in funding to the Southampton and Portsmouth outdoor centres. This is to be reviewed in three years. The proposal is to release funding to support the necessary and longer term development of the Outdoor Service, and specifically the potential outdoor centre in Farnborough. (Appendix Nine: Funding Support to Southampton and Portsmouth, 15 November 2007)

4.3.52 In 2006/7 Hampshire obtained 7,000 sessions from Southampton, and 5,100 from Portsmouth, however this would imply that on average, the Hampshire subsidy would be approximately £12.40 per person per session.

Appendix One: `ad hoc' grant awards to centres 2005 - 2007

SUMS AWARDED FROM POLICY & RESOURCES BUDGET TO COMMUNITY CENTRES IN HAMPSHIRE

Countryside Education Trust

16.1.05 - £5,000 - replacement barn in the Out of Town Centre

18.7.07 - £5,000 - New Forest Treehouse Study Centre project

13.9.07 - £50,000 - further capital sum towards the Treehouse project

Calshot Activities Centre

9.7.01 - £3,000

13.11.2001 - £5,000 - subsidising children's activities weekend

Avon Tyrrell Activity Centre, Bransgore

16.6.06 - £5,000 - Log Cabin Appeal

Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Activities Centre, Bursledon

17.5.06 - £5,000 - extend and improve facilities

Gilbert White House and Oates Museum Selborne

14.7.05 - £5,000 - conference at Southampton University

Stubbington and Minstead Residential Study Centres

£95,000 following a cut in funding given by Executive Member for Children's Services

Portsmouth Cathedral Development Trust

25.01.07 - £150,000 - developing educational facilities at Portsmouth Cathedral

Appendix Two: List of Outdoor Centres approved for Hampshire Schools

Appendix Three: Outdoor Centres - use of - Statistics 2006/7

Appendix Four: Revenue Budget 2007 - 2010, Report of the County Treasurer and Director of Children's Services, 18 January 2007

Hampshire County Council

Executive Lead Member for Children's Services

Item 1

18 January 2007

Policy and Resources Policy Review Committee

Item

1 February 2007

Revenue Budget 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10

Report of the County Treasurer and The Director of Children's Services

1 1 Summary

2 1 Executive Summary

3 2 County Council Budget strategy

4 3 County Council Budget guidelines

5 4 Revised budget 2006/07

6 5 Base budget 2007/08

7 6 Change for Children

8 7 School funding changes 2007/08

9 8 Schools Budget proposals 2007/08

10 9 LEA budget 2007/08 pressures and priorities

9.7 The DfES made a funding announcement in December 2006 in relation to LEA grant allocations. The resulting Standards Funds grant implications for the County Council mean no change and the proposal is to continue support to the same services in 2007/08 as in 2006/07.

11 10 Children's Social Care for 2007/08 pressures and priorities

12 11 Summary of service pressures and priorities for 2007/08

13 12 Cost pressures, redeployment proposals and efficiency improvements - 2007/08 to 2009/10

14 13 Review of charges

15 14 Other expenditure

16 15 Business Units

17 16 Legal implications

18 17 HR Implications

19 18 Provisional budget for 2008/09 and 2009/10

20 19 Impact assessment

Appendix Five: Cabinet meeting minutes, 9 February 2007

AT A MEETING of the CABINET of HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at The Castle, Winchester on 9 February 2007.

Chairman:

p Councillor T.K. Thornber, CBE

Councillors:

a

Mrs P.G. Banks

p

D.A. Kirk

p

C.R.H. Davidovitz

p

R. Perry

p

J.K. Glen

p

Mrs M.D. Snaith

p

Felicity Hindson, MBE

p

M.J. Woodhall

p

M.J. Kendal

    

Also present: Councillor Mrs E.M. Byrom; M.F. Cartwright; K.G. Chapman; A.P. Collett; B.D. Dash; Dr R.J. Ellis and Mrs C.A. Leversha

229. APOLOGIES

230. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

231. MINUTES

232. CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

a) The Chairman welcomed Cynthia Shanmugalingam from the Local
Government Team at HM Treasury to observe the meeting.

233. CORPORATE BUSINESS PLAN

234. REVENUE BUDGET AND PRECEPT 2007/08 AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2008/09 TO 2009/10

235. CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007/08 TO 2010/11

236. EDUCATION AND INSPECTIONS ACT 2006 - IMPLICATIONS FOR THE LOCAL AUTHORITY

Appendix Six: Funding for Residential Centres 1 March 2007

Appendix Seven: Report on Internal Review of Residential Field Studies Centres

Hampshire County Council

CSDMT

Item

1 November 2007

Residential Study Centres

Report of the Director of Children's Services

Contact: Terry Rath, tel: 01962 846457, email: terry.rath@hants.gov.uk

1. Background

20.1 As part of the Children's Services budget for 2007/08 and 2008/09 the Executive Member for Children's Services took the decision to withdraw a third of the financial support for the residential study centres at Minstead and Stubbington in the 2007/08 financial year and to remove all support in 2008/9. Subsequently, the Cabinet agreed to provide the Children's Services budget with funding equivalent to that agreed to be withdrawn from the study centre budget for 2007/08 from the Leader of the County Council's grant budget. This was to provide time for the department to plan the future of the study centres. No additional funding was provided for 2008/09 and the Children's Services budget for 2008/09 contains no funding to support the residential study centres. This funding has been used to moderate the fees charged to parents for a child's attendance at the study centres.

20.2 A working party was established to assist in developing proposals about the future of the residential study centres. Membership of the working party, which met on four occasions, is attached as Appendix I.

20.3 At its first meeting on 16 May 2007 the working party agreed its terms of reference:

21 Working Practices

21.1 The Working Party was assisted in undertaking analyses and in carrying out research with ten other centres and three local authorities by Lynn Mead from Treasures Consultancy. Attached as Appendix II of this report is the summary produced.

21.2 Lynn Mead also undertook financial analyses and projections on behalf of the Working Party to examine and test the impact of various ways forward.

22 Minstead and Stubbington

22.1 Minstead and Stubbington are the two residential study centres, maintained through the Children's Services Department by the County Council. Minstead accommodates 32 children and Stubbington 104. They both focus on primary age children. The centres operate as residential centres term time only, although both centres are used at other times. For example, Stubbington is used in the summer holiday period for youth sporting activities and Minstead runs a programme of community use. Both centres are used by schools from Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth. They have both traditionally run to full capacity. Inevitably, only a minority of schools in the three local authorities have been able to send children to the centres as the as the overall annual capacity at Stubbington is 4056 and 1248 at Minstead per school year. During the last three years they have been open Stubbington has been used by 72 of the 302 primary/junior schools in Hampshire and Minstead by 38.

22.2 Both centres are run as business units under County Council regulations. This means that they are able to carry forward surpluses and deficits over a financial year against an agreed business plan. The centres have Management Committees to assist in their running.

22.3 In 2007/08 the Minstead centre received funding of £102,000 and Stubbington £146,000 from the County Council to assist in meeting running costs. Additional funding of £9,000 is provided by Portsmouth Local Authority to Minstead and £25,000 to Stubbington. Similar arrangements were in place up to the 2005/06 financial year with Southampton Local Authority. The impact of this change is discussed more fully later in their report. The majority of income raised by the centres is from charges to parents. The current charge to Hampshire and Portsmouth parents for a week at Stubbington is £125.00 and for Southampton parents £180.00. The charges at Minstead are calculated as a weekly charge for the use of the centre by a school party and are currently £3,600 per week for Hampshire and Portsmouth parents and £4,600 for Southampton parents (based on 32 children this equates to £112.50 and £143.75 per week respectively).

22.4 Portsmouth's local authority has stabilised its support for the study centres by transferring its funding, used to moderate the fees charged to Portsmouth children, to its dedicated schools budget. The Portsmouth Schools Forum have agreed that this funding should then be used to support the study centres.

22.5 The table below sets out in summary the financial results for the two centres over the last three years and the forecast for 2007/08.

Stubbington

        

Minstead

      
 

Actual £'000

Forecast outturn £'000

Actual £'000

Forecast outturn £'000

 

2004/5

2005/6

2006/7

2007/8

2004/5

2005/6

2006/7

2007/8

Income

622

689

689

  

243

236

267

  

Expenditure

571

600

624

  

235

343

254

  

Surplus/deficit

51

89

65

66

8

(107)

13

(32)

Reserves

195

246

336

401

114

122

15

28

Total reserves

246

336

401

467

122

15

28

(4)

23 How the other centres operate: some broad conclusions

23.1 The ten centres contacted to gather experience of the issues involved in moving towards self funding were a mix of local authority, private and charitable centres. One of the centres had moved between these categories. The responses of the centres, therefore, were individual and idiosyncratic reflecting both where they were when the move to self funding took place and the nature of the facilities, expertise offered and the range of local competition they faced to establish their position in the market. There are, nevertheless, more general points which emerge and need to be tested against the position that Stubbington and Minstead will find themselves in following the County Council's decision to withdraw direct funding from April 2008.

23.2 Throughout any changes, the research identified a clear need to ensure that the quality and reputation of the services provided by the centres were maintained. Some suggested a short survey to determine what users truly value. It has been very helpful to the work of this Working Party to receive this information from headteachers on the Working Party, on their own and colleagues behalf. A more commercial outlook to the operation of the centres, with a sharper focus on costs and their recovery, and the attraction of new customers and activities were seen to be important. An example given was the opportunities presented by the Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto. But change in attitude and culture was important to make this work.

23.3 Four of the centres had experienced significant price increases which were followed by a loss in bookings. However, this was recovered over time and the centres developed. Centres had looked to expand their times of operation. Expanded use in Easter and Summer school holidays had proved very difficult to achieve. A more successful approach had been the use of the centres during weekends which had been popular and allowed more children to use the centres. Seasonal pricing was used by many of the centres to ensure that they were occupied as much as possible, particularly outside of term time use.

23.4 Inevitably, other centres have focussed closely on reducing costs and expanding the use of the centres. Staff have been moved from teachers' contracts and conditions of service to enable the centres to be open for longer periods. Residential accommodation, on-site, for staff has been removed and used to increase the facilities available for hire. Evening provision and supervision has been made the responsibility of school staff with centre staff on call with robust hand over processes to cover health and safety. No one had experienced any significant difficulties. Expanded use has been staffed by support staff being on casual or call-off contracts.

23.5 Some centres have made special arrangements to help with the charges made to children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Friends associations and charitable trusts have been set up to raise money for this purpose.

23.6 When the centres were faced with increasing their charges and countering the effect of a reduction in bookings, marketing and promotion became important when previously there had been little need with a high level of repeat business. The following approaches were thought to be successful:

4.7 The centres adopted very different approaches to pricing which has made comparisons difficult once you move from the outer limits of the process charged. The highest charge levied by these other centres was £227.50 per week and the lowest £49.00 per week to a particular group of users. Only two of the centres had a completely inclusive price i.e. the same as Minstead and Stubbington; a further four did have mainly inclusive charges with additional charges for specific activities, while the other two centres had completely piecemeal pricing of activities. Eight of the centres had adopted seasonal pricing.

24 Asset Values

24.1 Prior to 2006/07 capital charges included depreciation and a capital financing charge. The capital financing charge was determined by applying a specified notional rate of interest to the net amount at which the asset was included in the balance sheet - in other words how much it costs to finance the money required to purchase the asset in the first place.

24.2 Since 2006/07, as a result of rule changes in the Best Value Accounting Code of Practice 2006 (affecting all public sector organisations), only the depreciation aspect is charged to accounts, but there is still an overall cost to the authority for financing capital projects. Corporate Finance have advised that this should have no impact for a business unit as they should continue to budget for the notional interest element and use this to generate a planned contribution to reserves for future capital investment. If no contribution were to be expected towards capital works in the future then the notional interest aspect cannot be retained as this would effectively be generating a surplus. The County Council could still expect a contribution from balances towards future capital works.

24.3 Generally within the County Council capital charges are "below the line", but as business units these represent real costs for Minstead and Stubbington. This change results in an apparent reduction to the cost base of Minstead of approximately £11,000 and Stubbington £36,000 (using estimated 2007/08 depreciation charges from Corporate Finance dated July 2007).

24.4 In exploring the capital charges for the two centres it has become apparent that some current asset values are incorrect, resulting in further potential reductions in capital charges.

24.5 Asset values, which drive the level of capital charges, are revalued on a five year cycle. The next valuation for Minstead is due in April 2011, and Stubbington April 2010. Dependent on the outcome of the revaluation it can be anticipated that asset values will increase, resulting in a higher future capital charge. On this basis, and as the two study centres will be self financing, there will be a need to plan over the forthcoming years to be able to meet any respective change in capital charges.

25 Future of the Residential Study Centres

25.1 The Working Party has considered closely the evidence from the research undertaken with the other study centres, the strengths in different ways of Stubbington and Minstead and the possibilities/practicalities of reducing costs and expanding their use. These issues are interlinked e.g. the expansion of the use of the centres is restricted by the employment of staff on teachers' contracts. The movement to local government conditions of service would expand the length of time the centre staff could be expected to be running the centres, thereby increasing the opportunity to raise income to cover overhead costs. If similar salary levels were offered as are paid to staff in the Recreation and Heritage residential outdoor centres, then the overall salary costs would also be lower.

25.2 Attached as Appendix III is an analyses based on operating the centres for 52 weeks of the year (variable costs having been increased on a pro-rata basis) and paying all staff on the local government scales used by Recreation and Heritage. The impact on Minstead is much greater than at Stubbington with pay costs reducing from £186,700 p.a. to £167,995 p.a. In contrast, pay costs at Stubbington increase from £340,000 to£360,607. This differential effect is due to Minstead having a proportionately higher amount of staff costs determined by teacher pay. Although removing staff from teacher pay does potentially reduce the costs of the centres, other factors highlighted in part by research conducted with the other centres do need to be taken into account. The other centres had found it difficult to obtain residential bookings for the Easter and summer holiday period. It is likely that the Hampshire centres could find themselves in the same position, having created an opportunity that cannot be exploited. Another clear message from the research was to build on these aspects of the service offered that were really valued by users. It is clear that the current use of Minstead and Stubbington (although because of capacity only a minority of schools within the county and Portsmouth and Southampton) value the different approaches offered by the two centres. At both centres the school and centre staff work together to ensure that the children get the most out of their stay following safe and well structured educational programmes. These views of users are supported by the regular inspections of the two centres carried out by the County Inspector/adviser for geography and the County Inspector/adviser for outdoor education. A change in staffing arrangements could generate additional redundancy and re-deployment costs at a time when further analysis suggests that it will be possible to maintain the centres broadly as they currently operate without the potentially damaging upheaval of what would be a major reorganisation and possibly taking the eyes of every member of staff `off the ball'.

25.3 It is anticipated that both centres will enter the 2008/9 financial year with balances. In the case of Stubbington it is expected that there will amount to some £467,000 and Minstead some £40,000. Analyses indicates that Stubbington could continue to generate significant financial surpluses if weekly fees for Hampshire pupils were raised in 2008/9 to £160.00, an increase of some 28%. This level of change would be well within the range found in the groups of study centres and certainly below that charged by commercial operators and currently to pupils from Southampton. It is estimated that this level of charge will continue to generate a significant surplus at Stubbington. If demand for places at the centre reduced, the budget surplus could be used to cushion the impact until demand could be stimulated by marketing and promotional activity.

25.4 Minstead has fewer reserves to draw on but a remarkable new building to use to promote the centre and excite users. As a smaller centre Minstead is less able to spread its overhead costs across the children using the centre, i.e. each child's fees has to include a higher proportion of staffing and other fixed costs. It is anticipated that Minstead's charge per pupil (even if not expressed in that way) will need to be higher than Stubbington's. Moving quickly to a charge of some £185.00 per week per child is likely to cause a drop in demand, which could quickly impact on the centre's income and generate deficits and leave the facilities at the centre unused. It is proposed, therefore, to use the centres' accumulated balances in 2008/9 to cushion the impact of the rise in charges to enable schools and parents to grow accustomed to higher charges. The centre will also introduce a seasonal differential in its charges, with lower rates being charged in the winter. In this way the centre will take the `market' with it and avoid potentially having to increase fees more significantly in later years to reduce accumulated deficits. The centre will need to develop promotional marketing activities to support this approach, coupled with rigorously containing costs, particularly running costs and continue to undertake community activities, currently generating an income of some £19,000 per annum at full cost recovery.

25.5 It is recognised that increasing charges will affect disproportionately the children of those with lower incomes. One of the interesting ideas to emerge from the corporate research has been the establishment of `friends associations' or `charitable trusts' to raise money for the centres to enable the charges to be waived or meliorated for the less well off. This should be developed in conjunction with activities with schools to raise their awareness of their capacity to use school budgets for similar purposes.

25.6 One further area of cost reduction will also need to pursued. Currently the heads of the centres are accommodated rent free as are the two deputies at Stubbington. Council tax and utility bills are charged to the centres. This is a very significant financial benefit which the Human Resources department wish to examine in the light of the County Council's Pay and Benefits scheme. The County Council normally expects tenants to pay a rent for the property they are occupying even if this is fixed at less than market value. There will be further negotiations about this but its effect will be to reduce the cost profiles of the centres if council tax and utility charges were met by the occupiers of the properties. Rent charges would benefit the general Children's Services budget.

25.7 Other opportunities for cost reduction should be taken when opportunities arise. It may be possible to remove a teaching post at Stubbington when the current occupant leaves. This is possible because of the continuing success of the `ranger scheme' at the centre, under which two sandwich course students spend a year at the centre as part of their degree.

25.8 As well as reducing costs, opportunities should be taken to promote and market the centres by:

25.9 It is recognised that although this report proposes building on current arrangements to secure the future of the two residential study centres, there are risks involved. It is the Working Party's view that alternative approaches would involve a higher level of risk to the sustainability of the centres. Nevertheless if the current proposals do not create a secure financial and guaranteed future for the centres it is recognised that more drastic remodelling of their operation may be required in future.

26 Recommendation

26.1 The two residential study centres, Stubbington and Minstead raise their charges to parents to meet their running costs.

26.2 Minstead increases its charges over the next financial year using its reserves to achieve the increase, and also introduces seasonal variations to its charges.

26.3 Both centres develop more active promotional and marketing approaches and seek to recruit from wider catchment area.

Appendix Eight: Report on Residential Field Studies Centres - Appendix II

LOCAL NON-HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL FIELD STUDY CENTRES

Name

Location

Prices

Comments

Allnatt Residential Centre

Swanage, Dorset

East Dene, Isle of Wight

Field Studies Programme:

4 nights

Summer Term 2006/7 £210pp

Autumn Term 2006/7 £185pp

(ex VAT)

    · Offer a wide programme of activities, all separately priced

    · Pricing by term, lower in winter

Hooke Court

Beaminster

4 nights

Spring Term £113.50

Summer Term £124.50

Autumn Term £113.50

(ex VAT)

    · Meals included (continental breakfast, packed lunch and evening meal)

    · Range of other shorter and weekend programmes

    · "Many activities can be led by school's own staff using Hooke Court resources"

Townsend Environmental Study Centre (Greenwich Borough Council)

Swanage

4 nights

£140 per pupil for non-Greenwich Borough Schools

(ex VAT)

    · 60 places

    · Charges include adults at a ratio of 1:10, above this £66 per adult

Hill End

(charitable and Oxford County Council)

Farmoor, Oxford

Differential rates per night for different accommodation.

Non Oxfordshire schools under 16 £36/£42 per 4 nights, staff charged extra

    · 199 places

Countryside Education Trust

(Charitable Trust)

Beaulieu

£182 per child per week

(3 staff free)

(not clear whether or not VAT included)

Medina Valley Centre

Isle of Wight

£202-£240 for 5 day tutored course (waterborne activities at additional cost)

    · Field studies/environmental education courses - also caters for BCSE and A Level students

    · Links to Bournemouth University re: marine ecology

FSC

Outdoor Classroom

17 Centres across the country

5 day courses

£163-£211pp

According to season

    · Wide range of courses

Ripple Down Environmental Education Centre

(Independent Charity)

Ringwould, Kent

4 nights board

March/April 2007 £124pp

May/June 2007 £136pp

Plus staff hire of £140 per day

    · 3 adult leaders accommodated free of charge, plus 1 for every 10 children over 30.

Appendix Nine: Report to Executive Member R&H 15 November: Funding Support to Southampton and Portsmouth Outdoor Activity Centres from 2008/9

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Recreation and Heritage Item 5

15 November 2007

Funding Support to Southampton and Portsmouth Outdoor Activity Centres from 2008/09

Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage

Contact: Stuart Nundy ext: 5015 stuart.nundy@hants.gov.uk

1. Summary

1.1 This report follows a decision of the Executive Member in 2007 to consider progressive changes to future funding levels to the Southampton and Portsmouth outdoor centres from April 2008. This report recommends a policy of an annual 10% reduction in funding to the Portsmouth and Southampton City outdoor centres, to be reviewed in three years. Funding released should be used to support necessary current and longer term development of the outdoor service, specifically the potential outdoor centre in Farnborough.

2. Recommendation

2. Background

2.1 In February 2007 the decision was taken to reduce the direct outdoor centre funding from Hampshire County Council to Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils by a total of £30,000. This decision was taken in order to begin addressing the lack of parity between the proportion of support the County Council was giving to these centres as compared to its own directly managed centres.

2.2 As a consequence, in 2007/08, the proportion of direct subsidy for courses undertaken by Hampshire young people at these centres fell from 79% (Portsmouth) and 66% (Southampton) to 66% and 53% respectively. These figures are still significantly higher than the county council maintained outdoor activity centres.

2.3 It was recognised that larger, immediate reductions in funding could destabilise the centres. Therefore, officers were asked to produce a further report to consider future strategy and, in addition, linking this to the funding of a potential future `Northern' outdoor centre.

2.4 The reduction in the level of subsidy in 2007 required a fee increase to schools of approximately £2.00 per person per session. It was accepted that the proposed fee rise would disadvantage certain individual young people. To offset this impact, it was proposed that the outdoor service support fund, currently used for young people attending county council centres only, be opened to appropriate young people from the county attending the City outdoor centres. This was done, and to date four schools have availed themselves of the support. In addition, the centres themselves report very little negative feedback from schools, or fall off of county schools using the sites.

2.5 It is proposed that from April 2008 a policy of reducing support funding annually by 10% be implemented. This will necessitate an increase in fees to schools of approximately £1.00 per person per session. However, the final increase is determined by Southampton and Portsmouth City Councils. At the same time, the outdoor activity support fund should remain available to schools where children may be at severe disadvantage and be administered by the Outdoor Activities Officer.

2.6 A review of funding should take place after three years.

2.7 Funding released by this reduction should remain within the Outdoor Service budget to initially underpin the support fund, current outdoor service developments and, longer term, support the business plan and operation of the potential new outdoor centre being considered at Runways End, Farnborough.

3. Legal Implications

3.1 There is no statutory requirement upon Local Authorities to provide funding for outdoor centres.

4. Financial Implications

4.1 The base budget for support to the City Outdoor Centres is £120,200 in 2007/08. This is an integral part of the Outdoor Activities Service budget and is not a devolved element allocated to grants to voluntary bodies.

LINK TO CORPORATE STRATEGY

Hampshire safer and more secure for all _

Maximising well-being _

Enhancing our quality of place _

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

TITLE LOCATION

. Sport, Community & Outdoor Services

Appendix Ten: Map - Hampshire catchment Mountain Centre

Appendix Eleven: Map - Hampshire catchment Tile Barn/Beaulieu Centres

Appendix Twelve: Map - Hampshire catchment Calshot Centre

Appendix Thirteen: Map - Hampshire catchment Avon Tyrell Centre

Appendix Fourteen: Map - Hampshire catchment Countryside Education Trust Centre

Appendix Fifteen: Map - Hampshire catchment Privett Centre

Appendix Sixteen: Map - Hampshire catchment Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Centre

Appendix Seventeen: Map - Hampshire catchment Gilbert White Centre

Appendix Eighteen: Guide to the Law for School Governors 2007, Section 23: Charging for School Activities

Guide to the Law for School Governors 2007

http://www.governornet.co.uk/linkAttachments/GTTL%20June%202007%20-%20pdf.pdf

Appendix Nineteen: Centres Summary Spreadsheet

Appendix Twenty: Partnership Funding to Independent Outdoor Centres 2003/4 - Gilbert White

27 Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Recreation and Heritage Item 9

17 July 2003

Partnership funding to Independent Outdoor Centres - 2003/04 - Gilbert White Study Centre

Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage

Contact: Stuart Nundy Ext: 5015

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

Centre Amount

1.2 That officers be asked to liaise with colleagues in the Education Department and explore further the educational value and outcomes delivered through the centre.

2. Reason

2.1 To support Outdoor Educational provision in Hampshire.

3. Other options considered and rejected

4. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or a member or officer consulted - None

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: (signature) Date: (date of decision)

..................................

28 Councillor J. Waddington

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Recreation and Heritage Item 9

17 July 2003

Partnership funding to Independent Outdoor Centres - 2003/04 - Gilbert White Study Centre

Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage

Contact: Stuart Nundy Ext: 5015

1. Purpose

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider the application for partnership funding for the year 2003/04 from the Gilbert White Study centre.

2. Background

2.1 The Gilbert White Field Studies Centre, Selborne, is one of four independent outdoor centres with charitable status within Hampshire that is supported by the County Council. In 2002/03 partnership funding of £32,358 was awarded.

2.2 The centre has operated since 1973 with an initial brief to ensure the sustainability of the grounds and surroundings of the Gilbert White House by offering environmental education courses to schools. At that stage it was fully funded by the Local Education Authority (LEA). Since that time, the centre's role has expanded to include much of the education work in the museum and to that extent has contributed to a wider use of the museum resources by schools.

2.3 In early 2003 the Outdoor Activities Officer carried out visit to the centre, and reviewed it's operation with managers. In essence the visit revealed that the centre is providing a service to the County Council that complements our own direct provision with little overlap between them. Gilbert White offers a `day use' opportunity in a part of Hampshire where there is little other direct outdoor education provision.

3. Application for partnership funding for 2003/04

3.1 The centre is working with significant numbers of Hampshire young people. In total, some 2500 students were provided with courses by the centre in 2002/03. It should be noted that, crudely, this equates to a cost to the county council of just over £12 per person. At first glance, this compares poorly with most other partnership centres, where similar figures are, at most, only some £5 - £8 per person. However, the other centres are all residential and are able to apply a higher direct charge to the user which absorbs much of the gross cost of those centres. Gilbert White is a `Day Use' centre and, as such, meets resistance from schools to any `true cost' charge as well as suffering from the very high costs of transport incurred by schools just out for a day trip. The only comparable Hampshire centre is the Sparsholt Schools Centre, which is funded by the LEA and Sparsholt College and is completely free to all Hampshire's schools. Gilbert White charges a maximum of £3.65 per student, and this is at the upper end of fees for such provision, providing little opportunity for further significant increases without impact upon user numbers.

3.2 The centre employs two teaching staff - a Field Studies Manager (0.8 fte) and an Education Tutor (0.5 fte) costing £37,871 in 2001/02. Total expenditure at the centre was £46,928 in 2001/02 and with income of £43,540 produced an operating deficit of £3,388 for the year. Income included partnership funding from Hampshire County Council of £31,600, grants from Portsmouth totalling £3,240 and £8,700 from fees received. Audited accounts for 2002/03 are not yet available, although indications are that the deficit will be of a similar order and will be dealt with in the context of the overall budget of the Gilbert White and Oates Museum, for whom the teaching staff provide educational support.

3.3 The grant to the centre from the County Council in 2002/03 rose in line with inflation to £32,358. The order of rise was identical to that applied to all other charitable trust centres that benefit from Recreation and Heritage partnership funding. In 2003/04, these other centres were awarded a 2.6% inflation increase over their 2002/03 funding. At the same time each was asked to consider ways in which they would manage and, potentially, reduce their reliance on partnership funding. Gilbert White have left this section of their application blank this year.

3.4 On the basis of the above there appears little compelling evidence to justify a substantial increase in the level of partnership funding in 2003/04 compared to similar centres. However, the strategic position of the centre in the central/northern part of the county enables it to meet access requirements for schools in that area that would otherwise be unmet, and which a reduction in partnership funding would put at risk.

3.5 The centre has been made aware that the County Council wishes to work within a partnership arrangement and that financial assistance from 2003/04 will be assessed in terms of the provider's contribution towards the corporate objectives of the County Council. The centre is now fully aware of County Council corporate priorities and will be seeking to address these as appropriate during 2003/04. In addition, the Inspector for Outdoor Education has looked into the educational outcomes delivered through the Gilbert White Centre, and has suggested that further work would be beneficial as a means of assessing the contribution of the centre to educational outcomes in Hampshire. This is a process that is currently taking place across all outdoor centres visited by Hampshire children, including our own directly managed centres.

Recommendation

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE LOCATION

Detailed grant application forms County Outdoor Activities

Appendix Twentyone: Options for funding savings, 16 November 2006

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Recreation and Heritage

16 November 2006

Outdoor Service - options for funding savings 2007 - 08

Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage

Contact: Stuart Nundy

1. Summary

1.1 This report is an outline of the options available to save 4.2% of the current Outdoor Service budget for 2007 -08, with a specific proposal and potential impact

2. Financial position 2006/07

2.1 In 2006 -7 the budget for the outdoor Service (excluding Calshot) was £616k. It is anticipated that R&H DMT will require a saving of 4.2% to be set against this budget in 2007-08. This equates to approximately £27,000.

2.2 The current budget comprises of five elements.

2.3 Over the past three years funding has been cut across the outdoor service budget in order to provide both savings (eg Procurement savings, Gershon Savings) and to create the Policy Fund. Although the Policy Fund has also helped to support a number of service initiatives, the net result has been a year on year reduction in directly available funding. However, these reductions have had no impact either upon grants (which have been entirely protected in the past, including the addition of inflation), nor the funding to the two cities (as their funding is agreed annually, in advance of announced required savings. Thus, the savings over the past years have entirely hit the core funding of our own Centres, and the centrally held support fund. In essence, the budget available for our own centres has shrunk year on year since 2003, whilst the budget against grants and the City centres has increased

2.4 The pressures facing our own centres are increased next year beyond the 4.2% saving being proposed. As a consequence of the introduction of Pay and benefits two additional cost increases are going to emerge. Firstly, many staff in the outdoor centres are likely to benefit from P&B because of the outcome of a process that links and relates all Hampshire's roles to each other, rather than to externally benchmarked equivalents. At present outdoor staff are paid in line with national averages for similar outdoor jobs across the UK. It is a fact that outdoor jobs are not highly paid, but by keeping our centre costs in line with national averages, we are able to compete with other national providers . P&B will break this link, forcing us to pay staff more highly, and thus increase costs to customers. However, we can only increase fees at a rate which the market will bear, and will thus have to find extra savings to simply pay our own staff. In addition, because of an internal decision relating to income generating services, none of the outdoor centres will get corporate help for more than approximately 40% of the increased costs. The consequences of P&B will add approximately 3% pa additional savings requirements onto the outdoor service, on top of any annual pay rise for inflation (say, 2.5%). The combined impact is likely to mean something closer to 10% being required from the centres themselves next year.

2.5 The support fund has taken the brunt of required savings since 2002, especially those that are announced at an advanced stage of the financial year. In 2006-07 £6000 was taken from this element as `savings' prior to the start of the financial year, and an additional £10,000 - £16000 seems likely between November and March. The fund is now at the point where it is struggling to maintain its activities, and may have to curtail direct support to Hampshire's young people if cut further

2.6 It is understood that Grants to external bodies will be protected from direct cuts in 2007-08, although they will not attract inflation. This means that we will be unable to find any of the 4.2% savings from grants.

2.7 The City support element has remained fixed now since 2000, and has attracted both inflation and some real increase over that time. However, the costs of providing this service are very disproportionate when compared to our own centres. This funding is not a grant, and is therefore seen as a viable option for savings in 2007-08

3. Impact assessment

3.1 In order to save the required £27,000 from the Outdoor budget in 2007/08, the only viable option is to take this completely from the budget element used to support the City outdoor centres. This would equate to a figure of £13,500 being taken from support for both Portsmouth and Southampton.

Current funding comparisons for day use activities

Centre

Unit cost per student per session (£)

Direct cost to schools (£) per student per session

HCC subsidy component (£) per student per session

HCC subsidy component as % of unit cost.

Portsmouth Outdoor Centre

17.00

3.50

13.50

79

Southampton Outdoor Centre (Woodmill and SWAC)

14.50

4.50

10.00

66

Calshot (HCC)

17.50

14.00

3.50

20

Tile Barn (HCC)

£14.00

10.00

4.00

28

It is the case that the cost of HCC supporting the City Centres is already far higer than the support we give to our own centres (nb: column 5) . The variation above is partly due to historical reasons. Until 1999, Southampton and Portsmouth centres provided free provision for all schools (HCC and City). Once the decision was taken to introduce charges, this was done hesitantly and slowly. Because of our lack of direct control over the City Centres and their budgets there has also been inconsistency over annual increases in charges, linked to a real reluctance on behalf of schools to pay charges, especially in the early years. At our own centres, charges for all courses have been present for many years, and fees are raised annually at least in line with inflation. This has not been the case with the City Centres.

Southampton Centres - SWAC and Woodmill.

Current situation (2006/07

User numbers:

Year

Sessions provided

% sessions between April and September

2002 - 03

8486

73

2003 - 04

9563

75

2004 - 05

9869

75

2005 - 06

7685

83

2006 - 07

6183 (projected)

80 (projected)

Portsmouth Outdoor Centre.

Current situation.

User numbers:

Year

Sessions provided

% sessions between April and September

2001 - 02

6150

56

2002 - 03

5648

60

2003 - 04

7103

62

2004 - 05

5988

68

2005 - 06

5473

76

2006 - 07

5400 (projected)

70

Conclusion.

By removing significant amounts of funding from the centres we will inevitably impact on the centres' operations. We may even affect their stability. However, we should also be aware that in Southampton, their own decision makers are likely to have a greater impact.  £2million is mooted to be saved across Southampton across leisure services alone over the next three years, on top of significant cuts over the past five years already. eg £850K this year . There are plans for Southampton itself to raise fees to their own young people to £7 or £8 per session, and we would thus be doing nothing different

 

Also on the cards for outdoor learning is the complete withdrawal of funding for SCC schools and youth groups from next April.  This is only at the proposal stage and may well be modified to some form of compromise position.  

In Portsmouth, the City Council is engaged in a review of the Outdoor Centre, with proposals that might lead to it being `taken over' by a charitable provider, moving to Trust Status, or maintaining the status quo. No decision has yet been reached. However, the senior manager is due to retire this April. Other senior staff have already left, and it is likely that major change will follow

Longer term, if we are to be in position to fund a Northern outdoor centre of our own, beginning the process of loosening the funding ties is probably in our own interests, 2007 -08 efficiency savings apart.

If we do instigate a change that leads to an increase in costs to HCC young people, it would also be possible to off set some of the concerns of some schools by offering to open the Support Fund to children using these centres, in the same way that children using HCC's own sites are able to do currently. In fact, schools using the Southampton centres have been able to do this for the past year, following some similar fee increases in 2005. Interestingly, no school has applied for this help thus far. I would anticipate few doing to so (in the long term) with the above proposal.

Recommendations

Links to Corporate Strategy

Hampshire safer and more secure for all _

Maximising well-being _

Enhancing our quality of place _

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been replied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

Appendix Twentytwo: 2007-8 visit schedule for Stubbington Study Centre

STUBBINGTON STUDY CENTRE

SCHEDULE OF VISITS

AUTUMN 2007

 

 

SCHOOL

 

BOYS

GIRLS

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

September 10-14

Oakley CEC Junior

38

30

 

 

 

Fryern Junior, Chandlers Ford

16

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

52

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

St Mary's Catholic Primary, Gosport

19

16

 

September 17-21

Oakridge Junior, Basingstoke

18

18

 

 

 

St Lawrence CE Primary, Alton

13

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

49

99

 

 

 

 

 

September 24-28

Wicor Primary, Portchester

35

29

 

 

 

Brockhurst Junior, Gosport

16

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

50

101

 

 

 

 

 

October 1-5

Four Lanes Junior, Chineham

39

36

 

 

 

The Butts Primary, Alton

14

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

49

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foundry Lane Primary, Southampton

32

20

 

October 8-12

St Alban's CEA Prmary, Havant

11

21

 

 

 

Northern Parade Junior, Portsmouth

11

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

52

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mayhill Junior, Odiham

22

23

 

October 15-19

Preston Candover Primary

16

19

 

 

 

Swaythling Primary, Southampton

15

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

47

100

Oct 22-26

 

 

 

H A L F T E R M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 29-

Wallisdean Junior, Fareham

33

28

 

November 2

Manor Field Junior, Basingstoke

21

24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

52

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grange Junior, Gosport

21

21

 

November 5-9

Talavera Junior, Aldershot

20

20

 

 

 

Sharps Copse Junior, Havant

12

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

52

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Park Gate Primary

27

23

 

November 12-16

Grayshott CEC Primary, Hindhead

17

13

 

 

 

Hulbert Junior, Waterlooville

9

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

50

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Langstone Junior, Portsmouth

38

24

 

November 19-23

St Jude's RCA Primary, Fareham

13

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

46

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leesland Junior, Gosport

26

26

 

November 26-30

Bursledon Junior

20

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

46

92

 

 

 

 

 

December 3-7

Shirley Junior, Southampton

52

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

SPRING 2008

 

 

SCHOOL

 

BOYS

GIRLS

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

January 7-11

Castle Hill Junior, Basingstoke

23

34

 

 

 

Woolton Hill Junior, Newbury

23

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

48

94

 

 

 

 

 

January 14-18

Knightwood Primary, Chandlers Ford

29

29

 

 

 

Newtown CEC Primary, Gosport

23

23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

52

104

 

 

 

 

 

January 21-25

Shamblehurst Primary, Hedge End

29

33

 

 

 

Fordingbridge Junior

24

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

53

106

 

 

 

 

 

January 28 -

Gomer Junior, Gosport

32

28

 

February 1

Great Binfields Primary, Chineham

16

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

44

92

 

 

Townhill Junior, Southampton

25

25

 

February 4-8

 

 

 

 

 

Twyford CEC Primary

12

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

30

67

 

 

Arundel Court Junior, Portsmouth

16

25

 

February 11-15

Grateley Primary, Andover

15

14

 

 

 

Medina Primary, Portsmouth

15

5

 

 

 

Sherborne St John Primary, Basingstoke

8

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

49

103

Feb 18-22

 

 

 HALF

T E R M

 

 

 

 

Wootey Junior, Alton

27

15

 

February 25-29

Titchfield Primary

10

14

 

 

 

Winklebury Junior, Basingstoke

17

13

 

 

 

Shakespeare Junior Eastleigh

0

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

52

106

 

 

Shakespeare Junior Eastleigh

30

20

 

March 3-7

Nursling Primary

13

17

 

 

 

Isambard Brunel Junior, Portsmouth

10

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

53

106

 

 

 

 

 

March 10-14

Kings Furlong Junior, Basingstoke

33

31

 

 

 

Overton CE Primary, Basingstoke

19

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

52

104

 

 

Redlands Primary, Fareham

25

21

 

March 17-20

Warren Park Primary, Havant

15

15

 

(Mon-Thurs)

St Mark's CE Junior, Southampton

15

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

51

106

 

 

 

 

 

March 25-28

Kempshott Junior, Basingstoke

43

40

 

(Tues-Fri)

Shirley Warren Primary, Southampton

9

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

 

 

Crescent Primary, Eastleigh

20

20

 

March 31-April 4

Poulner Junior, Ringwood

22

22

 

 

 

South View Junior, Basingstoke

12

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

54

108

SUMMER 2008

 

 

SCHOOL

 

BOYS

GIRLS

TOTAL

 

 

Nightingale Primary, Eastleith

21

22

 

April 21-25

Heathfield Junior, Southampton

16

15

 

 

 

Stamshaw Junior, Portsmouth

13

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

54

104

 

 

Craneswater Junior, Portsmouth

20

27

 

April 28-May 2

Olivers Battery Primary, Winchester

22

14

 

 

 

Westfield Junior, Portsmouth

13

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

50

105

 

 

Bordon Junior

16

16

 

May 6-9

 

Bitterne CE Junior, Southampton

20

10

 

(Tues-Fri)

Cottage Grove Primary, Porstmouth

10

14

 

 

 

Riders Junior, Havant

6

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

52

104

 

 

 

 

 

May 12-16

Harrison Primary, Fareham

36

44

 

 

 

Ludlow Junior, Southampton

16

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

52

104

 

 

Ludlow Junior, Southampton

27

28

 

May 19-23

St Alban's CEA Primary, Havant

15

17

 

 

 

Stockbridge Primary

10

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

52

104

May 26-30

 

 

 

H A L F T E R M

 

 

 

 

Norwood Primary, Eastleigh

12

12

 

June 2-6

 

Beaumont Junior, Aldershot

15

15

 

 

 

Ecchinswell CEC Primary, Newbury

20

8

 

 

 

Ludlow Junior, Southampton

7

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

54

49

103

 

 

Meon Junior, Portsmouth

20

20

 

June 9-13

Newbridge Junior, Portsmouth

17

17

 

 

 

St Denys Primary, Southampton

13

9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

46

96

 

 

 

 

 

June 16-20

Hatch Warren Junior, Basingstoke

46

40

 

 

 

Hightown Primary, Southampton

10

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56

50

106

 

 

Fernhurst Junior, Portsmouth

32

16

 

June 23-27

King's Copse Primary, Hedge End

15

18

 

 

 

East & West Meon & Buriton Primaries

8

17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55

51

106

 

 

Bitterne Park Junior, Southampton

25

25

 

June 30-July 4

Beechwood Junior, Southampton

14

19

 

 

 

St Lawrence CE Primary, Alton

9

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

55

103

 

 

 

 

 

July 7-11

Stoke Park Junior, Bishopstoke

52

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

 

 

Hollybrook Junior, Southampton

20

22

 

July 14-18

Tanners Brook Junior, Southampton

20

20

 

 

 

St George's Ben CEC Primary, Portsmouth

9

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49

52

101

 

 

 

 

 

July 21-23

Milton Park Junior, Portsmouth

20

16

 

(Mon-Wed)

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

July 28-August 1

 

 

SPORTS COURSE A

 

 

 

August 4-8

 

 

SPORTS COURSE B

 

 

 

Summary of numbers of pupils from Stubbington user school areas

Hampshire

Portsmouth

Southampton

Out of County

Sub tot

2486

471

645

95

Percentage

67.2

12.7

17.4

2.6

Total

3697

Appendix Twentythree: Supplementary Notes on Outdoor and Field Studies Centres

Department

Centre

Funding arrangements

Activities

Children's Services

Lead Officer: Terry Rath

Finance: Frances Kettlewell x7547

Stubbington Study Centre, SE Hampshire

· Educational focus

· Years 4 - 6 (upper primary)

· Residential

· Capacity 104 places per week

· Schools are charged

· Schools charge parents

· Environmental Studies

      o Pond dipping

      o Bird study

      o Seashore Walk/study

      o Small mammal study

      o Harry humus

      o Minibeasts

      o Earthworks

      o Artwork

· Environmental mapping games

· Team-building activities

· Links into:

      o Geography

      o Science

      o History

Children's Services

As above

Minstead Study Centre, NF

· Caring & responsibility ethos

· Years - unspecified but seems geared to primary.

· Residential plus day visits

· Capacity 32 res places per week

· Staffed by qualified teachers

· Schools are charged

· Schools charge parents

Environmental education and environmental sustainability

Animators, astronomers, bat and moth, celts, chickens, clay play, cocoons, computers, conifer camp, dam it, deer sanctuary, earth secrets, earth stones, earth books, emoscans, greeks, grumbles, etc. etc.

Children's Services

As above

Sparsholt Schools' Centre, Mid Hampshire

(based at Sparsholt

· Educational purpose

· Supports environmental education

· Open term time (all year)

· Day visits

· Capacity 50 places per day

· Provides all teaching materials and equipment

· Staffed by qualified teachers

· Funded by HCC and Portsmouth City Council (£6,000 appx per year)

· Limited free entitlement to Hampshire and Portsmouth schools (conditions apply - see booking policy)

· Supplementary charging policy for additional support

· Cancellation fees charged if cancelled within 10 days of booked visit

Key Stages 1 & 2 (primary)

· Eco trails

· Environmental detective

· Farm investigation

· Farming futures

· Farms and farm animals

· Food, farming and health

· Measure the weather

· Waste and recycling

Etc.

Key stages 3 & 4 (secondary)

· Applied GCSE Science and geography

· Farming Issues

· Sustainability and Ecology

Working farm with dairy and beef, pigs, sheep, deer and crops. Also diverse rural facilities such as fish hatchery, glasshouses, aquatics centre, animal management centre and equine centre. Well resourced classroom with weather station, PCs, video microscope, etc. Wildlife garden with ponds, compost corner, waste recycling trolley and picnic area.

Property, Business and Regulatory Services

Lead Officer: Karen Murray x7876

Nick Wright 01794 396308

Sir Harold Hillier Gardens' Education Service (Part of the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and Arboretum Charitable Trust)

· Remit of Trust is "To maximise the plant collection's formal and informal educational potential"

· Day only

· Primarily school and children's and young people's groups, but also provide educational lectures for experts and university students

· Term time for schools, but operates through school holidays

· Capacity 120 places per day

· Total 12,772 attendees during 2005/6

· Operating to capacity during term times

· Use of volunteers as extra resource to deliver courses

· Part of the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens operation

· As a cost centre it costs £30,000 more to run than the revenue it raises, £58,000

Links all key stages of National Curriculum, plus:

    · Pond dipping

    · Children's educational garden

    · Community education outreach with special provision for those with disabilities (incl. Sight and learning)

    · Increasing primary age customer groups

    · Advertised lectures on horticultural topics

Recreation and Heritage

(local delivery centres)

Lead Officer: Stuart Nundy x5015

Finance: Marie Stokes (826623) or Ron Meekings

The Hampshire Mountain Centre, Wales

· Personal development and education focus

· Used by schools, youth groups, DoE Award Schemes

· Education KS2 to A level (upper primary to 6th form)

· YP and Adult training

· Residential

· Capacity

      o Argoed Lwyd 46 places

      o Birchgrove 18 places

· Schools or organisations are charged

· Schools or organisations can charge participants/parents

Biological study

· Rivers

· Lowland/moorland vegetation

· Conservation

· Farming and conservation

etc

Geography

· Glacial features

· Limestone features

· River study

Etc.

History

· Neolithic and iron age remains

· Romans in Brecon

· Castles and forts

Etc.

Personal development

· Trailblazer

· DoE

· Eco-centres

· Youth Service based learning

etc

Adventure Activities

· Caving

· Walking

· Canoeing

Etc

Recreation and Heritage

As above

The Beaulieu Development Centre, NF

· Personal development and education focus

· Year 5 (upper primary) to Adult

· Day courses

· Tailored courses

· Schools or organisations are charged

· Schools or organisations charge participants/parents

· Management training

· Personal development

· Problem solving

· Leadership skills

· High rope courses

· Low rope courses

· Executive coaching

· Outdoor activities

· Corporate entertainment

· Full range of courses for schools and colleges

Includes use of a 200 seat lecture theatre (?)

Recreation and Heritage

As above

Tile Barn Outdoor Centre, NF

· Delivery of education through adventure focus

· Residential and day

· Capacity 32 places (residential)

· Visiting staff accommodation available

· Schools or organisations are charged

· Schools or organisations charge participants/parents

· HW camping leaders course

· LW camping leaders course

· Midas mini bus driver training

· Low ropes personal development course

· Cooking for residential and camping groups

Activities

· Mountain biking

· Low ropes course

· Kayaking

· Climbing

· Skiing (Calshot)

· Orienteering

· Forest walk

Recreation and Heritage

As above

Calshot Activities Centre, NF

· Large outdoor adventure centre with unique mix of physical and academic activities

· Significant provision of Education KS2 (upper primary) to A level

· Outdoor adventure courses to adult

· Residential and day

· Capacity 180 visitors

· Schools, organisations or individuals are charged

· Schools or organisations charge participants/parents

Field Studies

KS2 to AS/A2 level

· Geographical

· Ecological

· Environmental

Outdoor Activities

· Development Training

· Teambuilding

· Initiative and low rope courses

· High ropes courses

· Problem solving

· Forest exercise

· Solent navigation

· River crossing

· Raft building

· Corporate events

· Activities

      o Various

· Restaurant

· Conferences

· Various sea/river facilities available to public

Independent (grant aided) Centres

(funded through Recreation and Heritage)

As above

Avon Tyrell (Ringwood), NF

The National Activity and Residential Centre of UK Youth

01425 672347

http://www.avontyrrell.org.uk/accommodation.htm

· Outdoor activity focus

· Residential and day

· Capacity appx 172 places plus camping facilities

· Primary age groups to adult

· Estimated 10,000 sessions (2006/7) used by HCC

· Groups charged for choice of activities and accommodation as appropriate

· Cycling

· Fishing coaching

· Disco

· Problem solving

· High ropes

· Low ropes

· Climbing

· Raft building

· Canoeing

· Archery

· Zip wire

· Pond dipping

· Wedding or anniversary celebrations, parties

Independent (grant aided) Centres

(funded through Recreation and Heritage)

As above

Countryside Education Trust (Beaulieu), NF

01590 612401

· Educational focus, particularly Field Studies and Environmental education, community education.

· KS1 to KS4 and adults

· All year, term time, weekends, evenings and school holiday periods

· Residential, day and evening

· Capacity 40 places plus 4 staff

· Estimated 25,000 sessions (2006/7) used by HCC

Groups charged for choice of activities and accommodation as appropriate

Little Owls Parent and Toddler Club

· Big Owls Club

· Holiday activity programmes

· Environmental education

· Garden and food activities

· Farm courses

· Geography courses

· History courses

· Science courses

· Astronomy lectures

Independent (grant aided) Centres

(funded through Recreation and Heritage)

As above

Privett Centre (Petersfield), E Hampshire

Minimalist - small residential facility in rural location - used for residential and life skills for children with special needs.

· All groups staying at centre are self-led

· All age groups

· Staffed only by centre manager

· Capacity 20 places

Groups or individuals charged for accommodation

None - groups use the facility for their own purposes.

Independent (grant aided) Centres

(funded through Recreation and Heritage)

As above

Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Centre (Bursledon) SE or SCentral Hampshire

· Outdoor activity focus used for young people and others with special needs.

· Particular support for disabilities including learning disability

· All age groups

· Residential and day

· Capacity appx 44 places

· Estimated 15,000 sessions (2006/7) used by HCC

Groups of individuals charged for accommodation and activities

· Canoeing

· Ropes course

· Raft building

· Problem solving

· Climbing

· Archery

· Orienteering

· Motor boating

· Horse riding

Independent (grant aided) Centres

(funded through Recreation and Heritage)

As above

Gilbert White Field Study Centre (Selborne) E Hampshire

· Educational focus, particularly field studies and environmental education.

· All ages

· Day centre

· Capacity 30

· Estimated 7,000 sessions (2006/7) used by HCC

Groups charged for content

School and college modules

· Landscape

· Ecology

· Natural history

· Life the 18th century

· History Antarctica & Africa

· Cross curricula themes

Unitary Outdoor Centres

(funded through Recreation and Heritage)

Southampton (Woodmill) Outdoor Centre and Southampton Water Activities Centre

· Water sport focus - particularly canoeing

· KS1 to KS4 linked courses (for primary and secondary schools)

· Day + some camping

· Capacity ?

· Estimated 7,000 sessions (2006/7) used by HCC

Schools/groups charged for courses (discount rates for Hampshire schools?)

School related courses include:

· Geography

· Environment

· Science

Other courses

· Orienteering

· Rock climbing

· Rafting

· Team building

· Kayaking courses

· Open canoe courses

· Fishing

· White water rafting

Unitary Outdoor Centres

(funded through Recreation and Heritage)

Portsmouth Outdoor Centre

· Outdoor education focus particularly water based

· All ages, particularly schools and colleges

· Day or series of days

· Capacity ?

· Estimated 5,100 sessions (2006/7) used by HCC

Schools/groups charged for courses (discount rates for Hampshire schools?)

· Field Studies

· Environmental Studies

· Outdoor activities

      o Dinghy beginners

      o Dinghy improvers

      o Windsurfing

      o Canoeing

      o Powerboating