Archived decisions

Contact: Bob Eardley, Strategic Planning Manager, 01962 846275

1. Summary

1.1 A draft response to the DfES consultation paper "Building Schools for the Future" is attached to this report. The consultation covers major proposed changes to the policy for allocating capital funding to LEAs. It suggests that from 2005/06 onwards a substantial proportion of available capital resources will be targeted towards replacement and major renewals of secondary school buildings in specified geographical areas.

1.2 The proposals are seen to be inconsistent both with the County Council's interests as an LEA and with existing DfES strategies, which stress that the allocation of capital funding should follow needs based on LEAs' assessments of survey and other data about their schools.

1.3 The Executive Member, Education is being recommended to approve the response to the DfES consultation paper "Building Schools for the Future" set out at Appendix 1 for submission to the DfES.

1.4 Prior to the Executive Member considering the proposed response, this report is being presented to the Education Policy Review Committee to provide the Committee with the opportunity to comment to the Executive Member on the proposals.

2. Background

2.1 "Building Schools for the Future" was issued in February 2003, in the context of earlier announcements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about growth in capital allocations for education from 2005/06 onwards.

2.2 Existing DfES policy is based on Asset Management Plans, which have been developed over the past four years as an objective means of identifying the need for capital investment between and within LEAs. Capital allocations have moved away from the bidding culture of previous years towards a formulaic approach, which takes account both of pupil numbers and the relative needs for investment across authorities. These allocations can then be applied to specific projects by each LEA, according to the priorities set out in its Asset Management Plan. "Building Schools for the Future" identifies tensions in the current approach because of delays in procuring schemes and alleged instances of funding being used for "patch and mend" projects, rather than in a strategic way, to make a long-term, radical impact on building problems.

3. Summary of proposals and implications for the County Council

3.1 "Building Schools for the Future" suggests a radical departure from the existing approach to allocating capital resources, with a substantial proportion of available funding, some £2,200m p.a., being earmarked for targeted allocations aimed at the comprehensive renewal and replacement of secondary schools in specific geographical areas. Of this £2,200m, £1,200m would be PFI credits; the remainder would be conventional capital funding. The tenor of the proposals suggests that, at least in the early years, priorities will lie in urban areas. The four main criteria proposed for prioritising funding allocations are:

· raising standards, with investment supporting ambitious and strategic plans, reorganising the pattern of provision where necessary;

· the extent of local deprivation and the implied level of educational need;

· the state of school buildings;

· how well organised an area is to deliver capital investment on time, achieving the educational vision and best value; in particular whether all consultation and planning processes can be completed, with all schools and partners committed to any necessary strategic changes.

3.2 The proposals envisage a 10 to 15 year programme from 2005-06 onwards, during which all secondary schools would be improved or replaced to provide up-to-date buildings and facilities. Funding would be more concentrated among LEAs than at present, through an end to the policy of allocating some resources to all authorities and its replacement by funding concentrated in narrow geographical areas. It is suggested that some 300 typical schools, possibly in groups of about 20 each, could be renewed at an average cost of around £150 million per group, suggesting average expenditure of about £7m to £8m per school. Proposals embrace the involvement of a wide range of partners in local communities and include the expansion of popular schools and the identification of specialisms at all secondary schools.

3.3 The figures included in the paper suggest that other formulaic funding will continue at least at current levels. The issue for the County Council is whether it will be in a position to secure a proportion of the secondary targeted resources, in the context of the proposals pointing strongly at deprived urban areas, rather than building generated needs, as the driver.

3.4 Strong emphasis is laid on the importance of good design and the use of "exemplar designs" is proposed. While this may well be of benefit to many LEAs, there is a risk that, in authorities such as Hampshire, where there is a mature record of high quality design and procurement, the exemplar design approach could become a strait-jacket.

3.5 Use of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is central to the proposals. There is also a proposal to establish a new national body intended to solve procurement problems facing both central and local government. Its role would be to manage the programme of investment generated by the funding allocations across all the LEAs involved, ensuring a smooth follow on from year to year. It would also be expected to seek synergies among projects to improve value for money in procurement, and to encourage the development of a market among suppliers. The exact nature of the body and its role in relation to LEAs is not spelt out.

4. Response to the consultation

4.1 Responses are sought by the DfES to the following points:

· the case for a new approach;

· better collaboration across funding and decision-making bodies;

· the targeting of secondary renewal funding on geographical areas, including criteria for allocation;

· development of exemplar designs;

· a new national body to act as a vehicle for procurement and support.

4.2 A proposed response to these points is set out at Appendix 1 and is recommended for approval.

Recommendations

1. That the Executive Member, Education be advised that the Committee endorses the response to the DfES consultation paper "Building Schools for the Future" set out at Appendix 1 for submission to the DfES.

Section 100D - 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.

DfES consultation paper "Building Schools for the Future", February 2003.