Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Peter Smallwood OBE, with Councillor Colleen Sullivan substituting.

Apologies had been received from Councillor Kishan Bhatt, with Councillor Farhad Choubedar substituting.

Apologies had also been received from Councillor Narinder Garg.

None.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed

Officers introduced the Budget & Spending report for Month 9.

Members were informed that Month 9 showed a pressure of £6.4m, an increase from £6.0m reported at Month 7. This increase was attributed to continuing asylum pressures as well as additional pressures within children’s social care, particularly the costs of children’s placements and children’s homes.

Officers reported that the directorate had achieved 96% of its £4.5m savings target, with no identified risks to the delivery of the remaining savings.

Officers advised that the DSG position had remained broadly stable compared with previous reports, with a projected in?year deficit of £9.6m. While demand continued to increase, particularly in advance of forthcoming SEND reforms, officers considered the position to be relatively positive. It was noted that significant progress had been made over recent years in stabilising DSG pressures.

In response to a question regarding the Government’s proposed 90% write?off of SEND deficits, officers explained that local authorities would be required to submit a SEND Reform Plan by late June, which would be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Only once the plan was approved would the High Needs Stability Grant be released. If approved in the first submission round, payment was expected to be received in the autumn term, with a later payment in spring 2027 if approval was delayed. Officers noted that while some information had been received from Government, further clarity was still awaited.

Members asked whether the reduction in the DSG deficit had impacted outcomes for children with SEND. Officers responded that outcomes were closely monitored and that the main driver of cost reduction had been a move towards educating children locally and within maintained schools, rather than in high?cost independent placements. Officers were confident that outcomes remained strong, noting that maintained special schools in the borough delivered outstanding outcomes despite significantly lower costs that INMSS (Independent and Non-Maintained Special School) settings. However, there was increased demand and continued close monitoring was required.

Members sought clarification on the DSG deficit that would remain after the application of the 90% grant and how ongoing overspends would be addressed. Officers explained that the 90% included this year and so would go against the cumulative balance at the end of this financial year, meaning the £9.6m projected in?year deficit was included within that figure. Officers estimated that the authority could receive around £69m, leaving a residual deficit of approximately £6m. Officers highlighted that the in?year DSG deficit had reduced significantly over time, from £28m two years ago to £9.6m currently, demonstrating a strong downward trajectory. Members were advised that demand could increase further due to a surge in EHCP requests ahead of SEND reforms. It was noted that with the 90% paid off, the Council would save money within the General Fund on interest charges.

Members asked if there would be conditions on the 90% due to the historically high deficit. Officers advised that, with the exception of a suitable SEND reform plan being approved, officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Officers introduced the School Organisation Plan.

Officers advised that the School Organisation Plan had first been presented to the Committee two years prior, with the expectation that annual updates would be provided.

Members welcomed the existence of a School Organisation Plan but expressed concern about the reported reduction of 28.7% in nursery?age children, highlighting that this cohort would progress through infant, junior, and secondary phases in future years. Members noted that falling rolls were already placing pressure on primary schools and asked whether there was evidence of improvement through late admissions into the cohort. Officers acknowledged that birth rates and pupil numbers had been declining and that this had been known for some time. The projections were monitored closely and actual numbers broadly aligned with projected figures. However, officers continued to monitor sufficiency closely and were placing increased emphasis on the importance of the School Organisation Plan as a strategic planning tool. Officers outlined proposals to run workshops with schools to support them in understanding projections and using them for forward planning, and when preparing three?year budgets. It was noted that falling rolls created significant financial challenges for schools and that this issue linked closely to proposals such as amalgamation. Officers also confirmed that the School Organisation Plan was updated annually and that work was underway to strengthen its coverage of early years and SEND, with the intention of developing a broader sufficiency plan across education settings.

Members raised a further concern regarding the planning of secondary school places, particularly the proportion of pupils travelling from the south of the borough to the north, which was reported as 23%. Members noted that this was compounded by housing pressures, and asked whether more strategic planning could be undertaken to address this pattern. Officers responded that this issue had recently been discussed at a high?needs group meeting and acknowledged that a number of families chose to travel to schools outside their immediate area, despite the availability of strong local schools. Officers explained that parental preference played a significant role, particularly in a context of falling pupil numbers where choice was greater. There was also a challenge of changing parental perceptions where, for example, schools had previously received poor Ofsted judgements, noting that reputational recovery could take time. While officers were engaging with schools on these issues, it was recognised as a complex area where change was difficult to implement quickly.

Members referred to the report’s description of the borough as a net exporter of pupils and asked for clarification as to why families were choosing schools outside the borough. Officers advised that the absence of grammar schools within the borough was a contributing factor, as was the location of some schools near borough boundaries, where the nearest school for some families was outside Hillingdon. Officers highlighted a new school recently built just beyond the borough boundary which could draw pupils who would otherwise have attended schools within Hillingdon.

Members sought clarification on the reported decline in nursery numbers, questioning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Officers introduced the report on the proposal to amalgamate Whitehall Infant School and Whitehall Junior School.

Members were advised that similar amalgamation proposals had previously been considered by the Committee and that this proposal formed part of the authority’s wider approach to supporting school sustainability. School amalgamation was one of the mechanisms available to improve financial stability, governance, and long?term viability for schools, particularly in the context of falling pupil numbers.

Members asked about the outcome of the consultation and whether there was general support for the proposal from parents and staff. Officers explained that an informal consultation had already taken place, during which 90 responses had been received. Of those, 58% were in favour of the proposed amalgamation. The formal consultation was ongoing. Engagement events had been held with parents and school staff and feedback received to date had been generally positive.

Members asked what the principal concerns were among those who did not support the proposal. Officers responded that the concerns raised were consistent with those seen in previous amalgamation proposals. These included anxieties about younger infant pupils mixing with older junior pupils and concerns about the financial implications. Officers had sought to reassure parents that the schools would continue to operate in a way that avoided mixing of age groups.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families & Education Select Committee:

1. Reviewed the proposal to amalgamate Whitehall Infant School and Whitehall Junior School, by closing Whitehall Infant School and extending the age range of the Junior School from 7-11 year olds, to 3-11 year olds; and

2. Delegated comments to be included in the Cabinet report which will be presented on 23 April 2026 to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead

Members noted the minutes of the Corporate Parenting Panel.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the minutes

This item was considered after item 5.

The Chair introduced the draft final report of the Committee’s fostering review. Members were advised that the purpose of the item was to agree the final report and its submission to Cabinet.

Members thanked officers for the preparation of the report and noted the relatively short timescale of the review.

Members asked about officers’ ambitions in terms of increasing the number of foster carers, and how many additional carers the service would ideally like to recruit. Officers advised that while increasing numbers was important, the primary focus was on recruiting the right type of foster carers, rather than achieving a specific target. There was particular difficulty in recruiting carers for adolescents and for children with significant trauma, mental health needs, or disabilities. As a result, the service intended to focus on more targeted recruitment, aligned to specific cohorts and needs, a point which was reflected in the Committee’s recommendations.

Officers further explained that while a number of Cared for Children continued to be placed with external or out?of?borough foster carers, some of these placements were long?term and stable, and it would not be appropriate to disrupt them. However, there remained other children for whom having a wider choice of in?house foster carers would be beneficial. Officers reiterated the service’s strong commitment to fostering and to foster carers, highlighting the significant progress made in recruitment. Members were informed that, to date in the current year, 17 new fostering households had been approved, compared with fewer than five approvals per year in previous years. Officers emphasised that these approvals reflected full completion of the assessment and panel process, which typically took eight to nine months. Officers expressed pride in the fostering team’s achievements and gratitude to foster carers for their ongoing work, and thanked Members for the time and effort they had dedicated to the review.

RESOLVED: That the Select Committee:

1. Agreed the final report for its review into fostering;

2. Delegated any final wording amendments to the Democratic Services Officer in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Opposition Lead; and

3. Agreed the review’s submission to Cabinet thereafter

Members considered the Forward Plan.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families & Education Select Committee noted the Cabinet Forward Plan

Members considered the Work Programme.

RESOLVED: That the Children, Families & Education Select Committee considered the report