Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Dann, Gardner, Lakhmana, Nelson, Riley, Seaman-Digby and White.

To receive the minutes of the meetings held on 26 February and 14 May 2015 (attached)

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 26 February 2015 and 14 May 2015 be agreed as correct records. 

The Mayor advised that an application was underway to register the Mayor's Charity with the Charity Commission so that the associated benefits could be realised. 

 

It was noted that the Mayor and Mayoress had attended numerous events since their appointment at the last Council meeting.  Of particular note had been a performance involving local residents at Cadogan Hall on 5 July 2015 and the 125^th anniversary celebrations of the Yiewsley and West Drayton Band.  Insofar as the latter was concerned, the Mayor advised that the Leader of the Council had kindly agreed to fund the transportation of the band and their instruments to a national competition in Cheltenham in September 2015. 

 

The Mayor stated that his youngest son had recently undertaken a sponsored walk to the top of Ben Nevis to raise money for the Mayor's charities.  The Mayor thanked those who had supported his first quiz night and advised that the next would take place on 9 September 2015. 

5.1    QUESTION FROM MS ANITA MACDONALD OF WHITEHEATH AVENUE, WEST RUISLIP TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH AND HOUSING - COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE

 

"What provision has the Council made for the transfer and in some case reduction of the Independent Living Fund, to ensure that disabled Hillingdon Residents still receive the provision they deserve and are entitled to?"

 

Councillor Corthorne advised that the Independent Living Fund (ILF) started in 1988, with the aim of offering financial support to people with disabilities across the UK.  The largest group of recipients (about a third) had severe learning disabilities, and the second largest group had cerebral palsy, but it was given to people with many different disabilities.  It paid out an average of £300 a week to approximately 18,000 disabled people.  Mainly, it had been used to help people pay for carers and personal assistants, and its aim was to ensure that these disabled people could live in their communities, rather than in residential care homes.

 

The fund was closing because the Government believed it had always been an anomaly, operating outside of local authority budgeting and that, as 94% of users also received social care support from their local authorities, it would be more effective for money to be from a single unified system.

 

The Council was committed to meeting the care needs of the 34 residents of the Borough who were in receipt of ILF and eligible for support under the Care Act.  In order to take responsibility for residents who received the Independent Living Fund, officers in Adult Social Care had been carrying out assessments and discussing future care arrangements with them and their families, before designing appropriate support packages.  Until these were in place, residents would continue to receive the care that they currently received.

 

The Government had confirmed that grant funding of £428k would be made available to the Council during 2015/16 to fund the cost of these clients for the 9 month period from 1 July 2015.  From the Council's initial assessment, the level of funding looked sufficient to meet the needs of these clients.  However, the longer term funding arrangements had yet to be announced and the Council would need to keep a watch to ensure that the longer term funding was secured and maintained.

Councillor Puddifoot moved the recommendations as set out in the Order of Business.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Simmonds and it was:

 

RESOLVED:  That:

a)    the urgency decisions detailed in the report be noted; and

b)   Mr John Higgins, Head of Safeguarding, Quality & Partners, be named as a substitute for the Statutory Director of Adult Social Services on the Health and Wellbeing Board. 

To consider the adoption of the Plan

Councillor Burrows moved the recommendations.  This was seconded by Councillor Corthorne and, following debate (Councillor Duncan), it was:

 

RESOLVED:  That:

a)    the outcome of the independent Examination in Public of the West London Waste Plan be noted;

b)   the West London Waste Plan be adopted as part of the Borough's Local Plan; and

c)    authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Residents Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling to agree minor text and graphic layout changes prior to final publication.

8.2    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DAVIS TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

"Now that the Davies Commission has delivered its report to the Government, what course of action does the Council intend to take?"

 

Councillor Puddifoot advised that, following the publication of the Davies Report, he had issued a statement that a new runway at Heathrow would simply not happen and that the Council would fight to protect the local environment and residents' health and wellbeing. 

 

He regarded the detail of the proposal to be flawed and shallow.  Although it had been suggested that the issue of pollution would be addressed if a third runway was built at Heathrow, Councillor Puddifoot queried why this action had not already been taken to address the existing pollution issues caused by the airport. 

 

There had been strong opposition to a new runway at Heathrow from local communities, local councils, environmental groups, TfL and the GLA.  Councillor Puddifoot advised that the Council would work with them all to pursue every opportunity to ensure that the proposal for a third runway was ruled out. 

 

Whilst the Council supported business expansion and profit, it would not do so at the expense of its residents.  In 2009, David Cameron had said, "No ifs, no buts.  There’ll be no third runway at Heathrow".  The Council would scrutinise the Airports Commission's final report and ensure the resources were available to find ways of challenging this implausible recommendation. 

 

Councillor Puddifoot advised that the Council would continue to support residents in challenging the proposals.  He was confident that expansion at Gatwick would be considered a more suitable option and that there would be no third runway at Heathrow. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

8.13  QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR OSWELL TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR FINANCE, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS SERVICES – COUNCILLOR BIANCO

 

"Could the Cabinet Member for the above explore the possibility of providing a Portaloo or 'French Toilet' in Charville Lane for Bus Drivers to use on turnaround?"

 

Councillor Bianco thanked Councillor Oswell for mentioning this issue, which had been a particularly vexing and unpleasant problem for local residents, who had to put up with some completely unacceptable behaviour, mostly associated with the 195 and U7 bus services which terminated at the junction of Romney Road and Charville Lane.  Officers had already taken this matter up directly with London Buses and they, in turn, had also spoken to the relevant bus operator, Metroline.

 

Both Metroline and London Buses had shown a willingness to address this issue but both mentioned that this problem was difficult to solve without catching perpetrators in the act.  However, whilst London Buses did not rule out financing toilet facilities at this location, subject to agreement with the Council, they had advised that they had other higher priority locations across London.

 

To address this matter further, Metroline had agreed to remind drivers about their conduct.  In the meantime, officers would press London Buses further on the idea of funding and providing a toilet and consideration would be given to what action could be taken by TfL and the Council. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

8.1    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR CROWE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES - COUNCILLOR SIMMONDS

 

"Can the Cabinet Member tell me the extent to which places in Hillingdon schools are, as a consequence of the Greenwich Judgement and lack of places elsewhere, taken by students from other local authorities and the extent to which we are able to recoup the costs, both current and capital, of making this provision?"

 

Councillor Simmonds advised that this was an issue of concern for many residents in Hillingdon.  The cost of Hillingdon's school places programme was significant but would maximise the number of places available, providing an additional 6,500 places through the expansion programme.  Consideration was also now being given to the expansion of secondary schools to ensure that the increasing number of children in primary schools could continue their education once they reached Year 7. 

 

Although pressure on school places was predominantly focussed in the south of the Borough, pressure was emerging in the north, specifically along the Borough boundary with Harrow.  It was noted that Harrow's provision was such that, one in four of its children would not have a school place in 2020.

 

The Greenwich Judgement meant that councils were unable to prioritise their own residents over those from other areas.  The Council therefore had no powers to recover the costs of capital expenditure from other local authorities whose children attended an expanded school in Hillingdon.  This was further complicated by the fact that the funding provided to a school for a child was not affected by where that child lived. 

 

Whilst the authority continued to meet its obligations, the Council was currently reviewing options to ensure that priority could be consistently and fairly awarded to Hillingdon children for Hillingdon school places.

 

Councillor Crowe, by way of a supplementary question, asked what action the Council could take to ensure that the London Borough of Harrow met its obligations in terms of the provision of school places rather than pressure being placed on Hillingdon schools. 

 

Councillor Simmonds advised that the Greenwich Judgement meant that the Council was unable to recoup any expenditure in relation to Hillingdon school places being taken by non-residents.  However, consideration could be given to a more creative management of catchment areas.

 

The cost of 90 out-of-borough children attending Hillingdon schools amounted to approximately £3m.  Whilst the Council would put pressure on neighbouring authorities, the number of school places in Harrow was such that it would not be able to accommodate those children from within its boundaries that needed a school place.  As Harrow was also experiencing budgetary challenges, Councillor Simmonds was not confident that the authority would be able to contribute financially to Harrow children being schooled in Hillingdon.

 

8.14  QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR SWEETING TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES - COUNCILLOR SIMMONDS

 

"Based on Ofsted's report of December 2014, the proportion of Hillingdon pre-school children meeting target development levels is the lowest of any of the 33 London boroughs at 52%.  What progress has the Council made over the last 6 months in improving the statistic?"

 

Councillor Simmonds was conscious that the Council was not the sole provider in this regard and that this issue involved a variety of settings.  He noted that the issue raised by Councillor Sweeting was a cause for concern that had been highlighted some years ago. 

 

The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) was essentially a pre-school test which, unlike other tests, was based solely on teacher assessment with no audit or comparison.  The Council had adopted a targeted focus on three aspects of early years where there was an identified need for improvement - this included literacy, physical development and expressive arts and design which had been selected due to low attainment in 2014.  Mathematics had been targeted for improvement during the previous year and had led to an increase in attainment of over 11%.

 

The Council would continue to target those schools that were under performing and would continue to challenge schools to improve where there was a cause for concern.

 

Councillor Sweeting, by way of a supplementary question, asked what timescales had been set to achieve parity with the best performing London Boroughs through the actions identified. 

 

In response, Councillor Simmonds advised that many children in Hillingdon were disadvantaged by English not being their first language.  He noted that benchmarks would not be set to undermine teachers and create an unnecessary tick box system.  The Council would continue with its collaborative approach.

 

8.3    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GILHAM TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

"I have heard a rumour that the West Drayton Ward has been disadvantaged as regards expenditure on road resurfacing. From my own ward work and observations, I find this very hard to believe. Would the Leader of the Council please provide Council with the actual facts and figures?"

 

Councillor Puddifoot advised that, rather than looking at one residential area, road resurfacing should be viewed on a Borough-wide basis.  To this end, details of the roads that had been resurfaced had been published in Hillingdon People. 

 

It was noted that there had been a record spend on roads with more than 200 being resurfaced during the last year, which included 24 in West Drayton and 16 in West Ruislip.  Councillor Puddifoot stated that the road resurfacing programme in Hillingdon was the envy of residents in other boroughs. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

8.15  QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BURLES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES - COUNCILLOR SIMMONDS

 

"Over a quarter of children attending Hillingdon Primary Schools are in schools which have been assessed by Ofsted as 'in need of improvement'. Can you please describe the ways in which the Council is supporting and working with these schools in order that the more than 7,000 children in them are given the education they need and deserve?"

 

Councillor Simmonds advised that progress had been made over the last year and recognised that raising standards in schools went hand in hand with school expansion.  Although robust local accountability was required regarding school standards, schools were now more autonomous than previously.  Notwithstanding, Councillor Simmonds was clear that the Council needed to hold schools to account and take action where necessary. 

 

A range of work had already been undertaken to liaise with schools and identify emerging problems at an early stage and a programme of improvement reviews of community schools was underway to assess how they were meeting expected standards.  In addition, under-performing schools had been challenged and Head Teachers had been removed where necessary. 

 

Furthermore, the Council had seen significant improvements by working closely with Head Teachers to broker targeted school-to-school support for schools at risk of underperformance.  A conference had also been arranged for schools to discuss the key improvement needs and action schools would take. 

 

Councillor Simmonds advised that the Council would continue to work closely with schools to develop a more joined up approach to raising the standards of schools in the Borough.

 

Councillor Burles, by way of a supplementary question, asked whether the Council would consider reversing its decision to expand schools.

 

Councillor Simmonds advised that schools could quickly move from being rated as 'good' to 'requires improvement'.  In Hillingdon, one such school had been expanded and was subsequently rated as 'good' again.  Councillor Simmonds emphasised the importance of ensuring that the expansion programme was undertaken in tandem with raising standards. 

 

8.4    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DUDUCU TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES - COUNCILLOR SIMMONDS

 

"Can the Cabinet Member for Education and Children's Services tell us the financial contributions made by key partners including police, NHS bodies, and schools to the work of the Local Safeguarding Children Board?"

 

Councillor Simmonds advised that the Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) played an important role.  Although key partners contributed £68,750 towards the work of the LSCB (HCCG - £61,200, Metropolitan Police - £5k, Ministry of Justice - £1k, London Community Rehabilitation Company - £1k, CAFCASS - £550) the majority of the costs fell to the Council.  Now that a new independent Chairman had been appointed, consideration would be given to the financial contribution made by partners and how to maximise commitment and resources across the delivery infrastructure. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

8.12  QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR KHATRA TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH AND HOUSING - COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE

 

"Could the Cabinet Member please tell us how much money has Hillingdon Council paid to private sector landlords as a cash incentive to take homeless households during the 2014/15 financial year?"

 

Councillor Corthorne advised that the total amount paid to private sector landlords in 2014/2015 was £210,368, which was made up of: Finder's Fee - £105,357; PSL In House - £26,500; HALS /HALD Scheme - £37,000; Trinity Housing - £13,527; and Find Your Own - £27,984.

 

Councillor Khatra, by way of a supplementary question, asked whether the Council had a better long term strategy for housing rather than using Council Tax payers' money in this way.

 

Councillor Corthorne advised that his response to question 8.7 should provide Councillor Khatra with some comfort.

 

8.6    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR GRAHAM TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH AND HOUSING - COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE

 

"Would the Cabinet Member explain how Adult Social Care in Hillingdon performs in relation to delayed hospital discharges?"

 

Councillor Corthorne advised that Adult Social Care in Hillingdon had, in the past, always performed reasonably well in this area and, in the last 18 months, had performed exceptionally well.  Improvements had been made through Adult Social Care significantly improving and clarifying pathways in and out of hospital for residents, whilst at the same time improving the quality and productivity of services the Council either commissioned or directly provided.  For example, the Council's Reablement Service, which supported people out of hospital, to re-gain as much independence as they could, in December 2013/14 worked with 60 people at any one time.  Now, with no increase in the number of staff, the service dealt with 130 people at any one time.

 

The Council's performance in relation to acute Delayed Transfers of Care was perhaps best illustrated by some snapshot comparisons against the rest of London and England:

·         In quarter 1 of 2013/14, Hillingdon had 60.66 delays per 100,000 of residents, where the London Average was 144.52 and England Average was 116.07;

·         In quarter 1 of 2014/15, Hillingdon had 9.84 delays per 100,000, against the London average of 196.61 and the England average of 123.39; and

·         In Quarter 1 of 2015/2016, the London average was 197.58 delays per 100,000, the England average was 126.94 and Hillingdon had 0 delays - one of only 15 authorities in England to achieve this.

 

Councillor Corthorne thanked officers for delivering this excellent result which he hoped the Council would be able to sustain.

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

8.9    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MORSE TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH AND HOUSING - COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE

 

"For the past five financial years, what is the monthly cost of placing families and individuals in bed and breakfast accommodation inside the Borough and outside with the costs being identified for the different placements? These are people for whom we have accepted a duty to accommodate under Sections 188, 190, 193 or 200 of the Housing Act 1996."

 

Councillor Corthorne advised that the average monthly bed and breakfast costs over the last 5 years were: £124,080.79 in 2014/15; £140,654.24 in 2013/14; £25,752.96 in 2012/13; £23,014.98 in 2011/12; £34,584.94 in 2010/11. 

 

Although the split between in and out of borough bed and breakfast placements was not readily available, Councillor Corthorne noted that the vast majority of placements were made in immediately neighbouring boroughs, often very close to the border with Hillingdon.

 

Councillor Morse, by way of a supplementary question, asked how many residents had been placed in bed and breakfast accommodation for 6, 12 or 18 weeks and what reparation was in place for costs. 

 

Councillor Corthorne advised that, as at 3 July 2015, 13 households had been in bed and breakfast accommodation for 6 weeks.  As he didn't have the figures to hand, Councillor Corthorne advised that he would provide the total number for 12 and 18 weeks in writing.  He stated that the Council was working hard to reduce the amount of time that families and individuals spent in bed and breakfast accommodation.

 

N.B.  The response was subsequently provided as follows:

 

In addition to the answer given at the meeting, I am now in a position to inform you that, as at 3 July 2015, 13 households had been in bed and breakfast accommodation for 6 weeks.  I am now in a position to inform you that, as of the same date, 3 households have been in non self contained B&B for 12 weeks or more - two of these during appeal and one pending closure. 

 

Of these households, two have been in non self contained B&B for 18 weeks+, both of these are pending appeal. 

 

As stated at the meeting, the Council continues to do all it can to minimise the number of families placed in B&B accommodation whilst, at the same time, ensuring we continue to look after our most vulnerable residents. 

 

8.7    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR BARNES TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH AND HOUSING - COUNCILLOR CORTHORNE

 

"Would the Cabinet Member please update Council on progress to maximise the availability of all forms of accommodation, the actions to make sure we make the best possible use of Council housing stock, and the work to drive up standards in the private rented sector?"

 

Councillor Corthorne advised this issue had been a significant challenge but that Hillingdon had a good track record in meeting housing targets overall.  The Mayor of London set housing targets for each London borough, which for Hillingdon had increased from 425 to 559 from April 2015.  Hillingdon had consistently exceeded the annual target and figures for 2014/15 would be available in December 2015 - it was anticipated that the number would be similar to the previous year.

 

The Council had identified a healthy supply of specific deliverable sites that had the capacity to deliver well in excess of the minimum housing provision target.  Taking into account dwellings already delivered, the minimum annual requirement for the remaining period of the London Plan to 2020 was 344.  Surplus delivery against the minimum 5 year target was likely to be greater than 1,000 dwellings.

 

The Council had been working with partner Registered Providers to deliver new affordable housing schemes including supported housing schemes, to build properties for affordable home ownership, and to build and acquire properties for affordable rent which would benefit from GLA grant funding.  Hillingdon's nomination arrangements allowed the Council nomination rights for the vast majority of these properties.

 

Other work being undertaken or progressed included:

·         The first time buyers initiative;

·         A range of new builds;

·         Leasehold buy back scheme;

·         Procurement of new temporary accommodation;

·         Landlord grants and a landlord accreditation scheme;

·         Maximising the Council's housing stock (for example, securing vacant possession);

·         Providing a package of support for under occupiers;

·         Fixed term tenancies;

·         A robust approach to tenancy fraud;

·         HMO Licensing scheme;

·         Prosecutions against rogue landlords; and

·         Public sector housing enforcement.

 

Councillor Corthorne advised that, although the Council was working hard to make the best possible use of its housing stock and to drive up standards in the private rented sector, this work was in danger of being undermined by other councils that were not as good at maintaining standards.  As such, he commended Hillingdon officers for the work that they had undertaken. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

8.10  QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR MONEY TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY, COMMERCE AND REGENERATION – COUNCILLOR D.MILLS (ANSWERED BY COUNCILLOR BIANCO)

 

"The Information Centre at Cranford Countryside Park has been closed since it was damaged by fire on 22 September 2014.  Its extended closure, and particularly the loss of the disabled toilet it contains, is causing hardship for the volunteers of the park Friends Group and all park users, who have no alternative facility nearby. The derelict state of the building has created an eyesore and one which is an invitation to further vandalism. As a result the Friends Group volunteers, who have been working with the council to improve the park, currently have only rudimentary toilet and hand-washing facilities and no indoor facility. Can the Cabinet Member give an indication as to when restoration of the information will begin reassuring the community that it will be completed before the start of the bad weather in Autumn?"

 

Councillor Bianco advised that, following a procurement process, the Council was now in a position to commence work on the Centre, which was planned to be completed by the autumn.

 

Officers had been working with the Friends Group to put together proposals for the restoration of the listed buildings and structures, and the improvement of the gardens, at Cranford Park.  This would provide a cafe, toilets, visitor centre, education room, better security and an on-site office for a full-time Site Manager.  This would be submitted to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) under their Parks for People programme, and could, potentially, be funded from the building of a community venue and perhaps two or three live-work units, carefully designed and sited.

 

The initial response from the HLF suggested that the park could be eligible for such funding, whilst the recent public consultation at Cranford Park, in the local libraries and on the website showed that local people (200 responses) were overwhelmingly in favour and excited at the possibilities.  Consultants were now writing the feasibility document for discussion with the HLF officers so that a formal pre-application response could be obtained.

 

Two key principles of the current administration were Hillingdon's heritage and environment.  The fantastic project at Eastcote House gardens had illustrated that the Council would invest, protect and enhance its historic buildings in Hillingdon and Councillor Bianco looked forward to the same result for Cranford Park. 

 

Councillor Money, by way of a supplementary question, asked whether the Cranford Park project would include the restoration of the mysterious grey lady statue that had been the victim of fire damage. 

 

Councillor Bianco assured Council that the repairs to the statue would come under the auspices of the scheme. 

 

8.5    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR DHILLON TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL – COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

"Could the Leader confirm for the benefit of doubt to residents, that elected Members are duty bound by the constitution to represent constituents of the borough irrespective of gender, religion, sexual orientation and their political allegiance?"

 

Councillor Puddifoot responded that there was no such mention within the Council's Constitution but that Members needed to be aware of the content of the Members Code of Conduct, applicable to all Councillors, which was consistent with the seven principles of standards in public life (Nolan Principles): selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; and leadership. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

8.11  QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR KHURSHEED TO THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL - COUNCILLOR PUDDIFOOT

 

"On 9 September 2015, HM Queen Elizabeth the Second will be Britain's longest reigning monarch. Does the Council have any plans to commemorate this important milestone?"

 

Councillor Puddifoot advised that the Queen had specifically requested that there be no lavish celebration of this milestone on 9 September 2015.  The record for longest serving monarch was currently held by Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II was keen to be respectful of her memory and her reign.  To mark the occasion, an illuminated address would be prepared which all Members of the Council would be invited to sign. 

 

There was no supplementary question.

 

As the 45 minute time limit had been reached, it was noted that a written response would be provided for the remaining question as follows:

 

8.8    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLOR EGINTON TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR EDUCATION AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES - COUNCILLOR SIMMONDS

 

"Can the Cabinet Member provide details of proposed changes to the Scheme for Financing Schools so as to provide certainty for schools regarding the costs of redundancy?"

 

N.B.  The response was subsequently provided as follows:

 

Thank you for your question addressed to me at full council, which unfortunately I was unable to answer due to time constraints.

 

You asked if I was able to provide details of the proposed changes to schools' financing regarding the cost of redundancy. I would have been unable to provide these details in the Council Chamber. If you had followed the accepted protocol for Councillors requesting information and submitted a Member's Enquiry; Finance Officers would have been able to inform you that in February 2014 the Department for Education issued new statutory guidance on this specific question.

 

Our local scheme for schools' financing has yet to be consulted upon and revised to incorporate these changes. However, this is planned for September 2015. Notwithstanding this fact, as the new scheme issued by the Department for Education is statutory, it obviously supersedes any existing local scheme.

 

Details of the guidance can be found on the www.gov.uk website.