Contacts: Bob Eardley, telephone 01962 846275, e-mail [email protected]

Richard Gooden, telephone 01962 813831, e-mail [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 This report gives details of the implications of the government's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme for Hampshire and outlines progress towards implementation of the initial BSF wave in the Havant 14-19 Consortium area.

2 Recommendations

1) That the Buildings, Land and Procurement Panel advises the Executive Member for Policy and Resources that approval be given to the strategy for implementation of Building Schools for the Future, as set out in this report.

2) That the Panel nominates three members to guide officers with regard to matters requiring an urgent response.

3 Background

3.1 Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is a national initiative intended to rebuild, remodel or refurbish all secondary schools, including secondary age special schools and education centres, in England over a 15 year period, beginning in 2005. This renewal programme must take place within the context of a locally developed agenda to transform secondary education to meet the demands of the present century. The required approach can, therefore, be summarised as Building Schools for the Future, not School Buildings for the Future.

3.2 The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has set in place a detailed framework within which BSF operates. Delivery is managed through Partnerships for Schools (PfS), which has been set up by the DCSF to oversee the initiative nationally and to work with individual local authorities once they are included in the programme. To secure BSF funding local authorities are required to:

· provide local leadership for BSF;

· develop and implement a "Strategy for Change", which sets out an education vision;

· undertake long-term planning of school places across their areas: this means that current numbers, locations and groupings of schools will not be taken for granted;

· agree transformation strategies with schools and other partners;

· support individual schools in developing their Strategies for Change;

· procure and deliver design and building work.

3.3 It is likely that Hampshire could attract investment through BSF totalling up to £1bn, probably over a period of 8 - 10 years. The scale of this investment is unparalleled and the work required to ensure that this is successful is far-reaching, ranging across many disciplines and involving a large number of stakeholders. It is a one-off opportunity for the County Council to make a radical impact on secondary education in Hampshire and to modernise provision for the next generation. Local authorities are expected to contribute financially to at least 10% of the overall programme costs through maximisation of investment opportunities, e.g. by recycling capital receipts.

3.4 When BSF was announced in 2003, the prioritisation of resources nationally was based on deprivation factors (GCSE performance and free school meal entitlement) rather than building need, as in the past. As a result, Hampshire was programmed to receive no funding until 2011.

3.5 However, in February 2008, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) invited authorities in Waves 7 - 9 of BSF to make an expression of interest in joining an interim BSF wave in advance of their scheduled start of 2011. Hampshire is one of 32 Wave 7 - 9 authorities, some of which have been included in earlier waves of BSF.

3.6 A Statement of Readiness to Deliver (RtD) was submitted to the DCSF on 11 April 2008 in order to qualify for consideration for inclusion in this interim programme. On 16 July the County Council was informed that it would not be included in the interim wave. This is disappointing, as inclusion would have provided an opportunity for earlier entry to the programme. It is likely that the next opportunity for entry will be early in 2009 and it is important to ensure that appropriate preparatory work is carried out to put the County Council into a strong position for the next round of applications.

3 The framework for Building Schools for the Future in Hampshire

Project governance

4.1 The Executive Lead Member for Children's Services will be responsible for the educational transformation and school place planning aspects of BSF. The Buildings, Land and Procurement Panel will decide on major design and procurement issues. The Panel may wish to consider nominating say three members to guide officers with regard to matters requiring an urgent response.

4.2 The Chief Executive has set up and chairs a Project Board to develop and oversee the strategy for BSF. Members of the Board include the County Treasurer, Director of Children's Services, other senior managers and school governor and headteacher representatives. Partnerships for Schools will also be invited to appoint a representative once the County Council's inclusion in the programme is confirmed.

Funding

4.3 The planned delivery model for BSF established by central government envisages funding split more or less equally between capital grant (for refurbishment work) and Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits (for most new builds). There is a presumption that authorities will set up Local Education Partnerships (LEPs) in partnership with the private sector to achieve effective procurement and project delivery. The DCSF has stated that "Ministers expect local authorities to use BSF to deliver a step-change in attainment levels by increasing school diversity and enhancing parental choice in their areas".

4.4 BSF funds are allocated through a pupil number driven formula on the basis that 50% of the floor area within each local authority's BSF wave can be "new build", i.e. completely new facilities will be built. The remaining floor area is funded so that 35% can be remodelled and 15% undergo refurbishment. The floor area is calculated using the national space guidelines for secondary schools in DCSF Building Bulletin 98 for the current number of schools in that particular wave.

4.5 When considering possible options for the Havant area, therefore, a number of factors must be taken into account and care must be taken to ensure that projects can be funded within the available resources.

Design and procurement

4.6 The DCSF default model for delivery of BSF is the establishment of a LEP and procurement of new build schools through a PFI contract with a private consortium to design, build, finance and operate that part of the estate. However, it is possible that the likely scale of work, at least in the initial wave, would not prove particularly attractive to the private sector and, for this reason and in the context of Hampshire's experience of large-scale building projects and innovation in procurement, an alternative model was put forward in the RtD. This envisages a Hampshire LEP, in which the County Council, rather than the private sector, would be the majority partner and which would make use of existing contractor arrangements through the Improvement and Efficiency South East (IESE) framework to procure the work. Property Services, with its extensive experience of major capital projects, would provide the design service and manage the contracts through IESE.

Education vision

4.7 The County Council believes that a range of principles should guide educational provision for all learners in all educational settings. In planning and implementing BSF it will actively promote partnership between schools, colleges and all those supporting their work to ensure that they are at the heart of their educational provision. These principles underpin the development of the County Council's vision for BSF, which is currently being prepared in consultation with schools and other local partners. Details will be reported to the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education) for approval.

Educational choice, diversity and surplus place management

4.8 A key component of qualifying for BSF investment is the need to demonstrate a commitment to the Government's choice and diversity agenda and a capacity to manage surplus places effectively, particularly where this involves the achievement of significant reductions in unfilled capacity across an area.

4.9 The DCSF wishes to see an imaginative, forward-looking approach, which is designed to meet future needs, rather than an adherence to historic patterns. Where appropriate, the rationalisation of school places should be linked to a competition for new provision which could add to the range of available school types, e.g. through the establishment of a Trust school or Academy.

4.10 The Office of the Schools Commissioner (OSC), which has responsibility for choice and diversity issues, reviews local authorities' submissions for BSF. Discussions have been held with the OSC to determine their expectations in relation to BSF in Hampshire and particularly the Havant Consortium area

4.11 Proposals for changes to the school organisation arrangements in the Havant Consortium area are being reported to the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education).

5. Future national strategy for BSF

5.1 In view of its size, Hampshire will figure in all the remaining Waves of BSF, with areas of the county being prioritised according to relative need, as required by the DCSF. 14-19 consortia areas, which reflect existing area-based collaborative frameworks, are well suited as the basis for BSF planning.

5.2 The DCSF has recently consulted on proposed changes to the management of future waves of BSF. This envisages a greater flexibility in prioritising funding nationally, with more emphasis being placed on authorities' readiness to deliver than on the rigid approach based on relative deprivation and GCSE performance which has operated so far. It is also likely that funding will be available to target specific schools or groups of schools meeting defined criteria, instead of the comprehensive area based approach which currently applies. While this greater flexibility is generally welcome, it is essential that the investment stream continues until all schools have been reached.

5.3 The anticipated changes for future BSF waves underline the need for work to be carried out to identify likely building needs, educational and community requirements and school organisation issues across the county. This is essential if the County Council is to be in a position to take advantage of future funding streams in a timely manner.

5.4 The DCSF consultation envisages authorities submitting revised expressions of interest in October 2008, which would set out the proposed approach to BSF implementation, including the principles underlying the transformational vision. It is likely that prioritisation of projects will also be expected. The next opportunity for authorities to demonstrate readiness to deliver and to secure entry to the BSF programme is expected to be early in 2009.

6. Tasks and resources required

6.1 The following actions will be required to compile the necessary information to prepare a revised expression of interest for October 2008 and to demonstrate readiness to deliver in early 2009:

· continuing development of an educational vision for the Havant Consortium area, which is underpinned by policies applicable to BSF implementation elsewhere in the county;

· engagement with other relevant stakeholders and ensure that their views are fully integrated into the County Council's strategy;

· decision by the Executive Lead Member for Children's Services (Education) on a preferred option for future school organisation in the Havant Consortium area for formal consultation in the autumn term, leading to a Cabinet decision in January 2009;

· development of a strategy for a managed ICT service as an integral part of the change management and investment programme;

· visits to each of the schools to confirm investment requirements;

· review of prioritisation of work within the wave and development of further detail for each project;

· further development of the Hampshire LEP model, including in-principle discussions with Framework Contractors and other IESE authorities;

· development of strategies for carbon reduction and sustainable development across the Havant schools estate;

· development of PFI strategy if the Hampshire LEP proves not to be a viable or acceptable alternative procurement model;

· development of a revised expression of interest for the overall BSF programme in Hampshire;

· drawing up a priority order for BSF projects in Hampshire, based on the revised criteria proposed by the DCSF.

6.2 The following external appointments are considered necessary to support in-house resources:

· specialist educational transformation and ICT advice

· environmental/sustainability advice to help guide the formulation of a coherent estate wide carbon reduction strategy.

· structural engineering advice

· specialist flood risk advice

· procurement/finance/legal advice on development of LEP model

7 County Council requirements

7.1 Legal implications - None at this stage.

7.2 Financial implications - These are set out in the report, as far as they are known at this stage.

7.3 Personnel implications - None directly arising from this report.

7.4 Community cohesion, inclusiveness and partnership working - These are central tenets of the BSF programme.

7.5 Crime prevention issues - Opportunities to prevent and reduce crime will be included in development of the BSF strategy.

Impact assessment

7.6 The proposals in this report are derived from the departmental service plans and central government policies and are in accordance with the budget strategy and the County Council's financial management policy. An impact assessment of the departmental service plans and the financial management policy has been carried out and the proposals in this report are not considered to be discriminatory.

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:

Published works

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

None.