Stockport Council Executive - 1 November 2010

1. MINUTES To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 October 2010. (Enclosed) 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillors and officers to declare any interests which they may have in any of the items on the agenda for this meeting. 3. URGENT DECISIONS To report any urgent action taken under the Constitution. 4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair and Executive Councillors on any matters within the powers and duties of the Executive, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice. (Questions must be submitted no later than 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting on the card provided. These are available at the meeting and at local libraries and information centres. You may also submit your question by e mail to [email protected] ). 5. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC INTEREST TEST To consider whether it is in the public interest to exclude the public during the consideration of agenda item 14 (Housing Benefit Overpayment Write Off) as it contains information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority) the disclosure of which would not be fair and would therefore be in breach of Data Protection principles.

No. 2 Committee Room Meeting: Monday, 1 November 2010 Town Hall Tea: 5.00 pm (Committee Room 1) Stockport Business: 6.00 pm

Chief Executive’s Directorate Town Hall, Stockport SK1 3XE

Contact: Democratic Services on 0161 474 3505 Email: [email protected]

Web: www.stockport.gov.uk/democracy

Executive Meeting

AGENDA

Key Decisions 6. IMPROVING WASTE SERVICES – COLLECTION POLICY REVIEW (ENV 54) Report of the Executive Councillor (Environment). (Enclosed) 7. LAND AT CROSSWAITE ROAD, OFFERTON (FIN 87) Report of the Executive Councillor (Finance). (Enclosed) 8. TO CONSIDER ANY POLICY FRAMEWORK BUSINESS WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING

General Items 9. MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN - FINANCIAL LANDSCAPE AND FORECASTS 2011/12 TO 2014/15 Report of the Executive Councillor (Finance). (Enclosed) 10. CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSAL TO CLOSE OFFERTON SCHOOL Report of the Executive Councillor (Children & Young People). (Enclosed) 11. OFFERTON PARK PARISH COUNCIL - COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW Report of the Leader of the Council. (Enclosed) 12. 54 GREAT MOOR STREET: CONSENT TO RESCIND COMPULSORY PURCHASE RESOLUTION Report of the Executive Councillor (Communities). (Enclosed) 13. APPOINTMENT TO THE FOSTERING PANEL Report of the Leader of the Council. (Enclosed) 14. HOUSING BENEFIT OVERPAYMENT WRITE-OFF Report of the Executive Councillor (Finance). (Enclosed) (Note: The report has a 'not for publication' appendix which has been circulated to Executive Councillors only) 15. TO CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS OF SCRUTINY COMMITTEES ON:- (a) Matters (if any) referred to the Executive Meeting (b) Any called-in Executive Decisions Contact: Democratic Services on 0161 474 3505, e-mail [email protected] or fax 0161 474 3240

If you require a copy of the agenda or a particular report(s) by e mail or in large print, braille or audio, please contact the above person for further details. A minicom facility is available on 0161 474 3128. A loop system is available in the meeting rooms in the Town Hall. Please contact the Town Hall Reception on 0161 474 3251 for further details.

3

AG

EN

DA

IT

EM

1

EXECUTIVE MEETING

Meeting: 4 October, 2010 At: 6.00 pm PRESENT Councillor Dave Goddard (Leader of the Council (Chair)) in the Chair; Councillor Sue Derbyshire (Deputy Leader of the Council and (Finance)) (Vice Chair); Councillors Stuart Bodsworth (Environment), Martin Candler (Customer Focus), Helen Foster-Grime (Communities), Kevin Hogg (Regeneration), John Pantall (Adults & Health), Mark Weldon (Children & Young People) and David White (Transportation). 1. MINUTES The minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 6 September, 2010 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST No declarations were made. 3. URGENT DECISIONS No urgent decisions were reported. 4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME One question had been received prior to the meeting from a questioner who was not present at the meeting and in accordance with the procedure for asking questions it was stated that a written response would be provided. Two questions were asked at the meeting and responses given. The first question asked about the cancellation by the Stockport Primary Care Trust (PCT) of corporate parking permits at the Council's town centre car parks, the loss of income as a result and details of any discussions to negotiate fresh arrangements or mitigate losses in income to the Council. The Executive Councillor (Transportation) replied that discussions with the PCT were in hand. The second question referred in detail to discussions which had taken place at a recent meeting of the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee about the Harcourt Street School site in Reddish and in particular responses delivered by the Executive Councillor (Children & Young People) in respect of site contamination issues. The Executive Councillor (Children & Young People) reiterated his response that the remediation plan for the site had been amended in order to comply with current legislation and would be carried out to the highest standards.

5

Executive Meeting - 4 October, 2010

5. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC INTEREST TEST No 'not for publication' items were included on the agenda.

Key Decisions

6. EXECUTIVE RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE CORPORATE, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT & GOVERNANCE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOLLOWING ITS REVIEW INTO CUSTOMER CONTACT: STREET LIGHTING AND HIGHWAYS (CF/T 1) (See minute 11 of 19 May, 2010) The Executive Councillors (Customer Focus) & (Transportation) submitted a joint report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Executive Meeting to consider a draft response to recommendations following the Scrutiny Review undertaken by the Corporate, Resource Management & Governance Scrutiny Committee into “Customer Contact: Street Lighting & Highways.” RESOLVED - (1) That the response to the scrutiny review set out in the report be approved. (2) That gratitude and appreciation be recorded for the work undertaken by members of the scrutiny review panel and supporting staff involved in conducting the review. 7. EXECUTIVE RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOLLOWING ITS REVIEW INTO CYBER-BULLYING (CYP 32) (See minute 6 of 9 August, 2010) The Executive Councillor (Children & Young People) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Executive Meeting to consider a draft response to recommendations following the Scrutiny Review undertaken by the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee into “Cyberbullying.” RESOLVED - (1) That the draft response to the scrutiny review set out in the report be approved. (2) That in view of the inevitable changes to and developments in new technology particularly those relating to social networking, the Executive Councillor (Children & Young People) be requested to make arrangements for submission to the October, 2011 Executive Meeting of a further report on progress made. (3) That gratitude and appreciation be recorded for the work undertaken by members of the scrutiny review panel and supporting staff involved in conducting the review. 8. IMPROVING WASTE SERVICES – COLLECTION POLICY REVIEW (ENV 54) The Executive Councillor (Environment) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Executive Meeting to consider a revised and updated Recycling & Refuse Collections Policy to support the Council's Waste Collection Strategy.

6


The revised policy had been considered by the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee on 15th July 2010 and a response to their comments was included in the report. RESOLVED - That the revised and updated Recycling & Refuse Collections policy set out at Appendix One to the report be approved and adopted for implementation with immediate effect. 9. MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY REVIEW (ENV 57) The Executive Councillor (Environment) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Executive Meeting to consider a revised Municipal Waste Management Strategy. The Municipal Waste Management Strategy establishes a framework for the development of waste management in Stockport and covered the period 2010 to 2020. The strategy included a commitment to review every 3 years. RESOLVED - That the revised and updated Municipal Waste Management Strategy set out at Appendix One to the report be approved and adopted.

General items 10. JESSICA FUNDING – THE EVERGREEN FUND

A joint report (copies of which had been circulated) of the Executive Councillors (Regeneration) and (Finance) was submitted advising the Executive Meeting that the bid to create a Joint European Support for Sustainable Development Fund (JESSICA) in the North West had proved successful. The fund had now been renamed the 'Evergreen Fund'. The report set out the next steps required and invited the Executive to give approval in principle to the Council's proportion of the set up and running costs of the fund. RESOLVED - (1) That the success of the bid to create a Joint European Support for Sustainable Development Fund (JESSICA) in the North West, be noted. (2) That approval be given to -

the making of a 'one off' contribution of £51,000 in 2010/11 allocated from

General Balances for administration of the fund; and thereafter, £25,000 per annum be identified within the Council’s Medium Term

Financial Plan. 11. EXECUTIVE DECISION REFERENCE ED1254: SUSTAINING QUALITY LEISURE FACILITY PROVISION FOR STOCKPORT RESIDENTS: RATIONALISATION OF COUNCIL OWNED FACILITIES (See minute 8 of 6 September, 2010)

7


The Leader of the Council, on behalf of the Executive Councillor (Leisure), submitted a report (copies of which were circulated at the meeting) advising the Executive Meeting on the recommendations of the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee following consideration by that committee of the ‘called-in’ decision relating to ‘Sustaining Quality Leisure Facility Provision for Stockport Residents: Rationalisation of Council Owned Facilities’ ED1254. On behalf of the Executive Meeting the Leader of the Council acknowledged with gratitude the manner in which the Executive Councillor (Leisure) and the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee had conducted the 'call in' process relating to this decision. RESOLVED - (1) That the decisions of the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee, as set out in the report, be noted. (2) That Executive Decision reference ED1254 be revoked. (3) That no decisions on the future of Avondale Leisure and Target Fitness Centre and Peel Moat Sports Centre be taken pending a public consultation exercise and consideration at the Executive Meeting of a comprehensive review of leisure provision within the Borough as part of the Leisure Strategy. (4) That an Equality Impact Assessment be included with the report referred to in resolution (3) above. The meeting closed at 6.52 pm. G:\Secretariat\Minutes\August, 2010\Executive - 4 October 2010.doc

8

AG

EN

DA

IT

EM

6

AGENDA ITEM NO. 6

STOCKPORT COUNCIL

REPORT TO EXECUTIVE MEETING – SUMMARY SHEET Subject: Improving Waste Services – Collection Policy Review Report to Executive Meeting Date: 1st November 2010 Report of: Executive Councillor (Environment) Key Decision: YES Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency (Tick box) Summary: On the 23rd June 2008, the Executive considered a report on the implementation of the Council’s new waste collection strategy. A supporting Recycling & Refuse Collections policy was approved to ensure that delivery of the plan was successful. The first phase of the new collection strategy successfully concluded on 19th November 2009. The second phase has commenced on 4th October with the delivery of black wheelie bins (for waste that can’t be recycled), internal waste caddies and compostable liners to support the introduction of a food waste collection. From November 2010 the Council will collect food waste weekly with garden waste to 88,000 properties with a garden waste collection service. A separate outside food waste container will be provided for those properties that do not have a garden bin. The supporting Recycling & Refuse Collections policy (attached at Appendix One) was reviewed and updated for these new services and approved by the Executive on 4th October 2010. In the review of the policy one issue was overlooked in that the missed collections element hadn't changed to align with the new zoned collections approach. From November waste collections will be undertaken in ‘zones’ this means the contractor is collecting in larger areas of activity in one area of the borough each day releasing operational and financial efficiencies. The existing requirements to rectify ‘missed collections’ is not environmentally, economically or operationally sustainable in zoned collections and it is recommended that the requirement is changed to the next week when the collection vehicles are next in that zone, rather than the next working day. The Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee considered the revised missed collections element of the policy at their meeting on 21st October 2010 and their comments will be given verbally at the Executive meeting. Comments/Views of the Executive Councillor: It is unfortunate that we have had to return to correct an omission in the policy governing recycling and refuse collections. The move to correcting missed collections the following week, when the appropriate collection vehicle is back in the relevant collection zone, is important. This change will support the council’s aim to provide residents with the best possible value for money for services and to become a leading Green borough. This efficiency has been made possible by the contractor’s success in reducing missed collections to just 0.03% of all collections. Even though the number of missed collections in the borough is vanishingly small a single missed collection is still one too many, the

9

council and our collection contractors will continue to work to try to reduce further the number of missed collections.

Recommendation(s) of Executive Councillor: The Executive are recommended to: Consider the amendment to section 16 of the Recycling & Refuse Collections

policy (Appendix One) and the Environment & Economy Scrutiny comments Approve the amended policy for immediate implementation.

Relevant Scrutiny Committee (if decision called in): Environment & Economy Background Papers (if report for publication): Executive Report – Improving Waste Services – 8th October 2007. Executive Report – Minimising the Costs of Waste Communications and Consultation Strategy – 7th January 2008. Executive Report – Improving Waste Services – implementation – 23rd June 2008. Executive Report – Improving Waste Services – Public Consultation Results – 13th October 2008. Executive Councillor Report – Improving Waste Services – Weekly Food Waste Collection – 15th December 2008. Executive Councillor Report – Improving Waste Services – Residual Waste Wheeled Container Capacity – 22nd January 2009. Executive Report – Improving Waste Services – Collection Policy Review – 4th October 2010. Contact person for accessing Officer: Megan Black background papers and discussing the report Tel: 0161 218 1410 ‘Urgent Business’: (g) YES / NO (please circle) Certification (if applicable) This report should be considered as ‘urgent business’ and the decision exempted from ‘call-in’ for the following reason(s): The written consent of Councillor and the Chief Executive/Monitoring Officer/Corporate Director - Business Services for the decision to be treated as ‘urgent business’ was obtained on /will be obtained before the decision is implemented.

10

Improving Waste Services –Collection Policy Review Page 1 of 22

EXECUTIVE Meeting: 1st November 2010

IMPROVING WASTE SERVICES – COLLECTION POLICY REVIEW

Report of the Service Director – Environment

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 1.1 To seek the approval an amendment to the revised Recycling & Refuse

Collections policy. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Stockport Council is committed to reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill to

provide a Greener borough. 2.2 The first phase of the new collection strategy was the delivery of blue (for paper,

card and cartons) and brown (for glass, cans and plastic bottles) wheelie bins to all suitable properties. This successfully concluded on 19th November 2009.

2.3 The second phase commenced in October 2010 with the delivery of black wheelie

bins (for waste that can’t be recycled) and the introduction of a weekly collection of food waste in the garden waste bin (or a separate outside food waste container for those properties that do not have a garden bin).

3.0 RECYCLING & REFUSE COLLECTIONS POLICY 3.1 On the 23rd June 2008, the Executive considered a report on the implementation of

the Council’s new waste collection strategy. A supporting Recycling & Refuse Collections policy was approved to ensure that delivery of the plan was successful.

3.2 From November 2010 the Council will collect food waste weekly with garden waste

to 88,000 properties with a garden waste collection service. A separate outside food waste container will be provided for those properties that do not have a garden bin.

3.3 The supporting Recycling & Refuse Collections policy (attached at Appendix One)

was reviewed and updated for these new services and approved by the Executive on 4th October 2010. In the review of the policy one issue was overlooked in that the missed collections element hadn't changed to align with the new zoned collections approach.

3.4 Waste collections from November will be undertaken in ‘zones’ this means the

contractor will collecting in larger areas of activity in one area of the borough each day. Working in this way has released significant financial and operational efficiencies and the existing requirements to rectify ‘missed collections’ on the next working day is not operationally, financially or environmentally sustainable. A refuse collection vehicle uses 1 gallon of fuel for every three miles it travels, returning to collect missed containers the next working day could incur additional fuel costs of £45K. It also incurs additional air pollution, carbon emissions and unnecessary congestion.

11


3.5 The Executive will be aware that since Solutions SK commenced the collection of waste in April 2007, missed collections have significantly reduced. In March 2007 1347 missed collections out of 984K collections (0.14%) were recorded and in September 2010 just 376 out of 1.234 million collections (0.03%) were reported as missed. Most householders are aware of the requirement to place their waste out for collection at their designated collection point for 7am, ensuring their collection.

3.6 As the likelihood of a missed collection is low 0.03% and in the interests of efficient

and economic collections a genuine missed collection should be rectified the next week when the collection vehicles are next in that zone.

3.7 The Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee considered the revised missed

collections element of the policy at their meeting on 21st October 2010 and their comments will be given verbally at the Executive meeting.

4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 The Executive is recommended to:

(i) Consider the amendment to section 16 of the Recycling & Refuse Collections

policy (Appendix One) and the Environment & Economy Scrutiny comments. (ii) Approve the amended policy for immediate implementation.

BACKGROUND PAPERS Executive Report – Improving Waste Services – 8th October 2007. Executive Report – Minimising the Costs of Waste Communications and Consultation Strategy – 7th January 2008. Executive Report – Improving Waste Services – implementation – 23rd June 2008. Executive Report – Improving Waste Services – Public Consultation Results – 13th October 2008. Executive Councillor Report – Improving Waste Services – Weekly Food Waste Collection – 15th December 2008. Executive Councillor Report – Improving Waste Services – Residual Waste Wheeled Container Capacity – 22nd January 2009. Executive Report – Improving Waste Services – Collection Policy Review – 4th October 2010. Anyone wishing to inspect the above background papers or requiring further information should contact Megan Black on telephone number 0161 218 1410 or alternatively email [email protected]

12


Appendix One Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Communities, Regeneration & Environment Directorate Environmental Services

Policy ES 02: Recycling & Refuse Collections This policy specifies Stockport Council’s methods for dealing with recycling and refuse collections. The policy has been written to:- Support the implications of local, national and European pressures for

change to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste that is sent to landfill.

Address tightening health and safety law. This means moving from manual to mechanical handling operations wherever possible.

Ensure that the Council maintains safe, economic and efficient recycling and waste collections.

The policy details: 1.0 Individual Properties ........................................................................ 4 2.0 Multi Occupied Properties/Flats .......................................................... 6 3.0 General arrangements for the collection of recycling and refuse.............. 6 4.0 Designated Containers...................................................................... 7 5.0 Excess Residual Waste – Larger Households/Insufficient Capacity

Claims/Medical Conditions................................................................. 7 6.0 Excess Recycling Waste .................................................................... 8 7.0 Excess Waste – Side Waste ............................................................... 8 8.0 Excess Waste – Closed Lids ............................................................... 8 9.0 Collection Points .............................................................................. 8 10.0 Collection Times .............................................................................. 9 11.0 Contamination............................................................................... 10 12.0 Replacement Containers ................................................................. 10 13.0 Enforcement ................................................................................. 10 14.0 Special assistance for residents with difficulties with the standard

service ......................................................................................... 12 15.0 Action where recycling and refuse is not presented correctly ................ 16 16.0 Missed Collections.......................................................................... 16 17.0 Properties that are difficult to access for collection vehicles.................. 16 18.0 Properties with steps / slopes making wheeled bin manoeuvring

hazardous..................................................................................... 17 19.0 Garden Waste – Economic Collections ............................................... 17 20.0 Wheeled Bin Cleaning..................................................................... 17 21.0 Opting out of the Recycling Service .................................................. 17 22.0 Property Suitability ........................................................................ 18

13


1.0 Individual Properties Wherever operationally possible Stockport Council’s preferred method of storage and collection for individual properties of recycling and refuse is a wheeled bin. Householders will be offered wheeled bins as a first choice. Only in circumstances where it is operationally unsafe, uneconomic or inefficient will alternative methods of storage and collection be offered. The prescribed types of recycling and refuse containers used to collect from Stockport individual properties are:

1.1 For properties determined by the Council as having adequate storage and

access for wheeled bins Colour Capacity Material Container Style

Number Of Containers To Be Presented On The Scheduled Collection Day unless exceptions have been agreed under section 5

Blue 180 litre mixed paper, card and cartons

Wheeled bin One

Brown 180 litre glass, cans and plastic bottles

Wheeled bin One

Black 140 litre residual waste (waste that can’t be recycled)

Wheeled bin One

Green 240 litre garden and food waste

Wheeled bin One

Green 23 litre waste food Lidded lockable container (for properties without a garden waste bin)

One

Green 7 litre waste food Lidded vented food caddy

N/A

1.2 For properties determined by the Council as not having adequate

storage and access for wheeled bins Colour Capacity Material Style


Blue 90 litre residual waste (waste that can’t be recycled)

Plastic sack, T10 film. 770mm half perimeter (with tie handles).

Two

14


Colour Capacity Material Style


Black 55 litre glass, cans and plastic bottles

Black Box One

White 45 litre mixed paper, card and cartons

Plastic Sack, 610mm x 760mm with no tie handles

One

Green 23 litre waste food Lidded lockable container

One

Green 7 litre waste food Lidded vented food caddy

N/A

15


2.0 Multi Occupied Properties/Flats 2.1 Where it is operationally possible Stockport Council’s preferred method

of storage and collection for properties in multiple occupation (e.g. flats) are communal containers.

2.2 The Council may by notice ensure recycling and refuse is placed for

collection in receptacles of a kind and number specified. The Council is entitled to and will make the standard charge for the rental of communal refuse containers. The Council will not charge for recycling containers to encourage waste diversion.

2.3 Householders and landlords who choose to purchase their own

approved container(s) should note that all repairs and maintenance are their responsibility. The Council will not accept liability for any damage sustained to containers during collection.

2.4 Householders in multi occupied premises will be offered communal

recycling facilities as a first choice. Only in circumstances where it is operationally unsafe, uneconomic or inefficient will alternative methods of recycling storage and collection will be offered.

3.0 General arrangements for the collection of recycling and

refuse 3.1 Households are notified of their collection dates and times through the

provision of a collection calendar. Any planned changes to the standard collection of their recycling and collection service will be notified in the press and on the Council’s website at www.stockport.gov.uk/waste.

3.2 Except in the cases of residents with particular issues (please see

section 14.0), the general requirement will be that only recycling and refuse presented at an accessible point adjacent to the highway (e.g. pavement) will be removed by the collection crews. In the event of this not being practicable or safe due to issues with vehicle access for example, then an alternative suitable location will be specified. Where appropriate consultation with the households’ concerned will be undertaken.

3.3 In the event that recycling and refuse can only be presented by placing

it on the highway then advice will be given as to how to minimise obstructions.

16


4.0 Designated Containers 4.1 Except for refuse and recycling collected and stored in sacks, as

determined by Stockport Council and communicated to the residents affected, only Stockport Council approved containers will be emptied.

4.2 Householders must place their refuse and recyclable waste in the

appropriate designated container where provided. Failure to do so could lead to enforcement action as per section 13.0.

5.0 Excess Residual Waste – Larger Households/Insufficient

Capacity Claims/Medical Conditions 5.1 Where a household claims that they have insufficient capacity to store

their waste in the Council issued container, they will be visited by a community recycling officer who will assist them. If it is shown that the current capacity is still inadequate after careful recycling and composting on a regular basis then,

5.2 The Council will assess the quantity of waste produced and:

a) If there is excess domestic residual waste and it is determined that maximum recycling is taking place in that household then the Council will provide an additional container free of charge.

b) Where recycling is not taking place, the Council will write to the householder explaining that an additional container will not be provided and provide further advice on how to maximise recycling. Failure to follow this advice could lead to enforcement action as per section 13.0.

5.3 Larger households (6 persons or more) will not be required to have a

waste assessment but will be asked to apply for an additional waste container. The householder’s use of the additional bin will be subject to review.

5.4 A household with excess domestic residual waste due to an occupier

having a recognised medical condition – due to the use of incontinence pads, catheters, catheter bags, stoma bags and anal plugs – will not be required to have a waste assessment but will be asked to apply for an additional waste container. The householder’s use of the additional bin will be subject to periodic review.

17


6.0 Excess Recycling Waste 6.1 Householders can request additional recycling containers free of

charge, subject to the agreed collection point not being deemed unsafe due to the volume of containers presented for collection.

7.0 Excess Waste – Side Waste 7.1 Side Waste is excess bags or waste from the household, which are

presented for collection at the side of the container. 7.2 Any side waste left by households will not be collected. A notice will be

left on the bin explaining why the waste has not been collected. The householder will be advised to use the Household Waste Recycling Centre/Local Recycling site, or wait until the next collection.

7.3 During the Christmas/New Year period alternative arrangements

maybe made. Households will be notified of any amended collection arrangements as described in 3.1

8.0 Excess Waste – Closed Lids 8.1 Wheeled containers presented with waste that does not fit comfortably

within the container and the lid is ajar will not be collected. A notice will be left on the container explaining why the waste has not been collected.

9.0 Collection Points 9.1 In situations where collections cannot be made from adjacent to the

front edge of the householder’s property then the Council will (in order to maintain economic and efficient collections) identify central or other agreed collection points.

9.2 This will involve Council officers identifying a safe place for a number

of bins to be temporarily stored by householders by a specified time prior to emptying. This will apply to properties on walkways or those remote from an adopted highway.

9.3 In determining collection points for those affected properties,

consultation will take place with the householders concerned. Householders will be required to place their recycling or refuse bin at the specified collection point on their scheduled day and then retrieve their bin from the collection point at the end of the day once emptied.

18


10.0 Collection Times 10.1 Properties where refuse is collected in sacks. In order to ensure that

refuse can be efficiently collected and minimise the risk of spillage refuse sacks must:

a) Be presented in either a refuse sack meeting the requirements of

1.0 or in a black sack of at least the same quality. b) Fully contain the refuse, be undamaged and be securely closed to

prevent spillage. c) Be presented either at the edge of a property near to the

highway or at an alternative suitable location (see section 9.0) and be easily accessible.

d) Be presented by 7:00 am on the programmed day of collection to

ensure collection. e) Not be presented any earlier than 5:00 pm on the evening before

the programmed day of collection. 10.2 Properties where Recycling or Refuse is collected in wheeled bins.

In order to ensure that refuse can be efficiently collected wheeled bins must:

a) Be presented either at the edge of a property near to the

highway or at an alternative suitable location (see section 9.0) and be easily accessible.

b) Be presented by 7:00 am on the programmed day of collection to

ensure collection.

c) Not be presented any earlier than 5:00 pm on the evening before the programmed day of collection.

d) After collection the wheeled bin will be returned to the place

where it was presented for collection or in the event that this place is not suitable then to a suitable place as close as possible to where it was presented minimising obstruction of the highway.

e) Households will be expected to return their empty container back

onto their property on the day of collection, by no later than 7pm.

19


11.0 Contamination 11.1 A recycling container may be contaminated with the wrong

recyclates(s) or the refuse container may contain waste that could be recycled.

11.2 If a recycling container is found to be contaminated prior to collection,

it will not be emptied and a notice will be left on the container explaining why the waste has not been collected and the householder advised to remove these items by the next collection. The Council will offer a chargeable service to empty contaminated containers, upon request.

11.3 If refuse is found to contain items that could be recycled the collection

crews will empty the container and leave a notice on the container explaining the situation and the consequences of further occurrences. In the case of individual properties using sacks written notification will be posted through the door of the household.

11.4 Where it is established that recycling and refuse containers are

repeatedly not being used correctly, enforcement action will commence as per 13.0.

12.0 Replacement Containers 12.1 Householders will be responsible for the container(s) provided to them.

The Council provides labels to enable householders to identify their container(s). The cost for any repair or replacement will be for the householder to bear unless the damage is proven to be through the fault of the Council. The Head of Environmental Services has discretion in considering extenuating circumstances.

12.2 Collection operatives have a duty to report any damaged containers

caused through the operation. 13.0 Enforcement 13.1 The Council recognises that the service requirements contained in this

policy will take time to be fully communicated and understood. Consequently the Council has decided to adopt an approach that will offer advice, support and guidance as the first and preferred way to establish this policy. However, the Council is fully aware that resorting to the use of formal powers will be necessary in some circumstances and is committed to seeing such measures applied in an open, reasonable and proportionate way.

13.2 As a signatory to the Government’s Good Enforcement Concordat the

Directorate has produced and the Council Executive approved a

20


Directorate Enforcement Policy. This Concordat will cover all service specific guidance.

13.3 Enforcement where household recycling and refuse is presented

incorrectly either by the position of the container, time of presenting for collection or content.

The following identifies the approach that will be taken in cases where

robust evidence is obtained that the requirements in paragraph 10.0 are not met.

a) Stage One

On the first occasion, officers who witness incorrect presentation by a householder will, where possible, advise householders verbally and in any event provide written advice. This will inform them of the correct method of presenting the container and the contents.

If necessary the Council will endeavour to remove recycling and /

or refuse presented in the containers (i.e. not excess) on this first occasion if there is no significant risk to the health & safety of the collection crews.

b) Stage Two

On the second occasion a notice as required by Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be served on the householders.

If possible the Officer will contact the resident in person and

advise them of the issue and seek to determine the resident’s reasons for failing to present their refuse correctly. The Area Conditions Officer will offer help and advice to the resident to solve the problem.

If at any point before Stage 3 a resident requests the help of the

Community Recycling Team (CRT) then no further action will be taken until that help has been provided. However, if following such a request a resident refuses three appointments offered by the CRT then action can proceed to stage three.

c) Stage Three

On the third occasion an Officer will serve a fixed penalty notice (FPN) on the householder.

If the householder continues to present their refuse incorrectly or

fails to discharge their liability by payment of the FPN, then the Council will consider taking legal action at the Magistrates Court to prosecute the alleged offender.

21


13.4 Enforcement where trade refuse is presented

Where evidence is obtained that trade recycling or refuse has been unlawfully placed in the household collection containers, the Council will in the first instance issue a section 34 notice under the provision of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 followed by a FPN if the correct documents are not produced. Should further incidents occur then the Council will consider legal action at the Magistrates Court to prosecute the alleged offender and recover full costs.

13.5 Enforcement regarding Duty of Care When a trader is asked to provide a proper duty of care waste transfer

note with regard to their arrangements for the collection and disposal of their trade refuse and the necessary documentation cannot be immediately produced, then the trader will be given twenty one days to produce the necessary documentation.

If after twenty one days the trader has not produced the necessary documentation, the Council will issue an FPN. If there is a second such incident of failure to immediately produce the duty of care then the Council will consider legal action at the magistrates court to prosecute the alleged offender and recover full costs.

13.6 Enforcement of Fly Tipping Where evidence of fly-tipping is obtained an investigation will begin

and in the absence of any evidence of extenuating circumstances the Council will always initiate legal proceedings to prosecute the alleged offender and recover full costs.

14.0 Special assistance for residents with difficulties with the

standard service 14.1 The Council is dedicated to enabling all Stockport’s citizens to

participate in the boroughs recycling and refuse services. The Council recognises that some residents will have particular problems using the standard Council services and therefore, the Council needs to make alternative arrangements. One of the arrangements is the Assisted Collection Service (see 14.4 and 14.12 for definitions)

14.2 The Council will provide, upon request, an Assisted Collection to

residents who are:

(a) registered as a Blue Badge holder, (1) (b) unable to participate without assistance due to a qualifying

health condition, mobility issue or disability. (1)

22


(1) Provided that there are no other members of the same household who are able to assist in the participation of the service. The Register of Electors maybe checked to confirm the adult occupants of the household.

In order to reduce abuse of this service the Council will require all applicants under 14.2(b) to return with their application form a medical assessment form signed by their general practitioner, which will be included with the application form. This does not apply to applications under section 14.3 of this policy. Documentary proof will not be required if referrals are made to the Council directly from recognised referring partners who confirm in writing that their client meets the criteria in this Policy.

14.3 Documentary proof will not be required if referrals are made to the Council directly from recognised referring partners who confirm in writing that their client meets the criteria in this Policy. Referring partners include Walthew House (formerly Stockport Eyeline), Disability Stockport and Age Concern Stockport (current as of December 2009). This is not a definitive list and other groups may be added at a later date. The list will be maintained and held by Environmental Services.

14.4 Application Process – Household Recycling and Refuse

Collection Service 14.5 Definition – Assisted collection; household recycling and refuse

collection services

An assisted collection is “the collection of a refuse or recycling container, by the recycling and refuse crew from an agreed collection point at the resident’s address and return of the said empty container(s) back to the agreed collection point” A collection point is” an agreed location which is open to the air on the residents’ property which is closest to the highway1 (i.e. not inside a building)”.

The Council will assess each application individually but reserves the right to refuse offering this service if:-

(a) The application does not meet any of the criteria detailed in

section 14.2 of this policy,

1 In agreeing the collection point for properties with steps / slopes / condition of the land issues residents may have to relocate their

containers as the Council must have regard to the health and safety risks to the operatives.

23


(b) The offer of the assisted collection leads to significant operational difficulties or unreasonable expense for the provider of the collection service, although the Council will investigate all practical solutions before adhering to this clause.

14.6 Application forms to access the Assisted Collection Service may be

requested via telephone, fax, e-mail, or letter. 14.7 Application forms will be made available within 5 working days of the

initial request. Upon request, the following formats are available: translated, Braille, large print, and Audio (these formats are provided by external sources and therefore the availability may be delayed by 14 days).

14.8 Applications will be assessed and the applicant notified of the outcome,

within 4 weeks of receipt of a fully completed application, in accordance with the Assisted Collection Policy. The application will be assessed against the criteria in section 14.2 of this policy. An interim service will be provided for 21 days or until the application has been determined – which ever is sooner.

14.9 In the case of refusal the applicant is notified of the decision, detailing

the reasons for refusal, and advising them of their right to appeal the decision (for details please refer to section 14.19 of this policy)

14.10 If the Council has reason to believe that the recipient is no longer

eligible for the Assisted Collection Service an application form will be reissued along with a request for a medical certificate (for details please refer to section 14.14 of this policy).

14.11 Application Process – Bulky Waste Collection Service 14.12 Definition – Assisted collection; bulky waste collection service

An assisted collection is “the collection of bulky items of waste from within the residents property at an agreed appointment”

This service is available to residents who are:-

(a) Referred by the recognised referring partners (listed in section

14.3 of this policy) (b) Already in receipt of the Assisted Collections service, under

section 14.11 of this policy. 14.13 The Council will assess each application individually but reserves the

right to refuse offering this service if the offer of the assisted collection leads to significant hazards, operational difficulties or unreasonable expense for the provider of the collection service.

24


14.14 Monitoring and Reviewing 14.15 There may be occasions where a significant proportion of individual

residents in multi-occupied premises (e.g. sheltered accommodation) would be eligible for an assisted collection and the design of the premises is such that communal containers cannot be utilised. In the interest of efficiency the Council reserves the right to maintain a bin site collection at the property, without the need for the residents to apply individually for assisted collections. These arrangements must be agreed by the Head of Environmental Services.

14.16 The Council may, from time to time, but no more than annually,

reissue an application to all those approved for an assisted collection, either directly or through the referring partner, to confirm that the applicant still meets the criteria under section 14.2 of this policy.

14.17 The Council reserves the right to withdraw this service if it has reason

to believe a household is no longer eligible. 14.18 A thorough investigation will take place before a decision is made to

suspend or remove the assisted collection service from an individual household.

14.19 Appealing against a decision 14.20 Where a resident wishes to appeal against a decision to refuse an

application for an Assisted Collection they may do so in writing within 10 working days by contacting:

Head of Environmental Services Stockport Council Endeavour House Stockport SK1 3XE E-mail: [email protected] Or by telephone on 0161 217 6111

14.21 Data Protection 14.22 Details provided by the applicant through the application process will

not be shared with any other part of the Council or external organisation other than:

a) to identify the applicant’s address and collection details to the

provider of the collection service (b) to share information between the Council and the recognised

referring partner

25


15.0 Action where recycling and refuse is not presented correctly 15.1 Whilst the Council will make every reasonable attempt to collect

recycling and refuse from households, it cannot guarantee collection if containers are presented incorrectly. The Council also reserves the right to exercise its enforcement powers and to raise such additional charges as it is lawfully empowered to do in order to deal with situations where the incorrect presentation of refuse and recycling is causing or is likely to cause problems.

16.0 Missed Collections 16.1 Where a container has been presented correctly and has not been

collected then if the Council is notified of the mistake before 13.00 hours on the collection day then the refuse and or recycling container will be emptied that day. For notifications received after 13.00 hours on collection day will be dealt with the next week when the collection crews are back in the area. In these circumstances residents will asked to return the refuse and or recycling containers to their property until the collection. The Head of Environmental Services has discretion in considering extenuating circumstances.

16.2 Where either recycling or refuse containers have not been presented

correctly, e.g. presented too late and they have not been collected then the refuse and or recycling must wait until the next programmed collection before it is removed. In these circumstances residents will be required to return the refuse and or recycling containers to their property until the next collection.

17.0 Properties that are difficult to access for collection vehicles 17.1 Due to the condition of some road surfaces particularly unmade

/unadopted /private/weight restricted and rural roads, some roads in the borough are unsuitable for 26 or 13 tonne collection vehicles. Access can also be severely limited by the physical width of the road or parking of other vehicles meaning the collection vehicle cannot access the property or collection point.

17.2 Where the Council maybe held liable for any damage caused if a

collection vehicle passed over the road surface or damage could occur to the vehicle due to the condition of the road, the Council will reserve the right to agree an alternative collection point. Further consideration is possible in the case of a private/ unadopted road if written authority from all residents concerned is received indemnifying the Council from any claim for damages in taking the collection vehicle on the said road2.

2 Where the Council has been undertaking refuse collections for a number of years it is understood that there is a continued right of access and the authority of residents is not required.

26


17.3 In rural areas where the Council cannot maintain economic and efficient collections to specific properties, recycling services will not be offered to those affected householders. Whilst we would encourage the householder to recycle using the bring sites infrastructure, until such time that we can provide a recycling collection service the householder would be able to place such items in with the refuse.

17.4 When a collection cannot be made due to access being restricted by

parked cars or other vehicles, collection operatives have a duty to inform Stockport Direct. Two further attempts on the next 2 working days will be made to make the collection (in most cases this will be in the presence of a supervisor). If access is restricted on both further occasions then the collection must wait until the next scheduled collection. Householders will be informed of the situation.

18.0 Properties with steps / slopes making wheeled bin

manoeuvring hazardous 18.1 In situations where safe, efficient and economic collections cannot be

made it will be necessary for the Council to specify alternative storage and collection arrangements for the property. In determining the collection points for those affected properties, consultation will take place with the householders concerned.

19.0 Garden Waste – Economic Collections 19.1 Where the number of suitable properties on a street makes collection

inefficient, the Council reserves the right to make alternative arrangements. Residents may appeal this decision to the Head of Environmental Services.

20.0 Wheeled Bin Cleaning 20.1 The Council does not offer a wheeled bin cleansing service. 21.0 Opting out of the Recycling Service 21.1 The Council is committed to driving down the amount of waste it sends

to landfill and increasing the proportion of waste it recycles. If an individual property is considered suitable by the Council for a recycling service and the householder refuses the offer of the appropriate container, they will be informed that this type of waste will not be collected through the refuse collection service. The householder will be asked to sign a ‘Declaration of Understanding’ that they are aware of their responsibilities. Only on receipt of this form will the recycling bin be retrieved from the householder.

27


22.0 Property Suitability 22.1 Terraced Properties - The criteria for determining property

suitability was agreed in an Executive Report ‘Improving Waste Services – Public Consultation Results’. This report was received on 13th October 2008. The following decision matrix was agreed to determine terraced property suitability for wheelie bins. Property suitability will be determined by Environmental Services and communicated to residents on the delivery of the bins along with information on their collection point.

Ginnel Surface

Ginnel Ends

Front Storage

Pavement Suitable for wheelie

Point of Collection

Suitable Suitable Yes Less than a metre

Yes Collection Point3

Suitable Suitable Yes More than a metre

Yes Choice of collection at ginnel or from front of property on pavement

Suitable Suitable No Less than a metre

Yes Collection Point

Suitable Suitable No More than a metre

Yes Choice of collection at ginnel or from front of property on pavement

Suitable Unsuitable Yes Less than a metre

No -

Suitable Unsuitable Yes More than a metre

Yes Front of property on pavement

Suitable Unsuitable No Less than a metre

No -

Suitable Unsuitable No More than a metre


Unsuitable Suitable Yes Less than a metre

Yes Collection Point

Unsuitable Suitable Yes More than a metre


Unsuitable Suitable No Less than a metre

No -

3 householders will be required to present and retrieve their wheelie bins from this point

28


Ginnel Surface

Ginnel Ends

Front Storage

Pavement Suitable for wheelie

Point of Collection

Unsuitable Suitable No More than a metre

No -

Unsuitable Unsuitable Yes Less than a metre

No -

Unsuitable Unsuitable Yes More than a metre


Unsuitable Unsuitable No Less than a metre

No -

Unsuitable Unsuitable No More than a metre

No -

Suitable Unsuitable Ginnel Surface Paved or Cobbled and in

reasonable condition. Unmade and / or overgrown or the paved / cobbled surface is considered unsafe to wheel bins over.

Ginnel Ends Space available to safely store the maximum number of bins presented.

No or insufficient space available to safely store the maximum number of bins presented.

Front Storage Physical space available to store bins on the property.

No space available to store bins.

Pavement Pavement width more than 1 metre.

Pavement width less than 1 metre.

22.2 If an individual or small group of properties is considered unsuitable by

Environmental Services for a wheelie bin recycling and refuse service other arrangements will be specified.

22.3 If an individual property in a group of suitable households is determined

by the Council as unsuitable for wheeled bins they will be designated with containers as per 1.2. Collection crews may use a neighbour’s bin to make the collection into the vehicle. Other householders will not be able to sign a declaration, have wheeled bins removed and then place out non-designated containers for collection using this methodology.

29


30

AG

EN

DA

IT

EM

7

AGENDA ITEM NO. 7

STOCKPORT COUNCIL

REPORT TO EXECUTIVE MEETING – SUMMARY SHEET Subject: Land at Crosswaite Road, Offerton, Stockport Report to Executive Meeting Date: 1 November 2010 Report of: (a) Executive Councillor (Finance) Key Decision: (b) NO / YES (Please circle) Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency (Tick box) Summary: The site on Crosswaite Road is owned by the Council and is appropriated to the Housing Revenue Account. The Manchester and District Housing Association wish to acquire the site to develop 14 dwellings providing a mixture of houses and flats. Due to the existence of abnormal development costs and restrictions in grant funding the Housing Association are unable to meet the Councils valuation of the site. The Council has the power granted under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 1988 for the disposal of land to registered social landlords 2005 to provide financial assistance to Housing Associations which includes the sale of land at what may be termed an undervalue. It is considered that the proposed scheme will provide significant benefits to the locality as well as meeting a Housing need which has been identified by the Councils Head of Strategic Housing. The Council will receive 50% nomination rights for the completed units. It is recommended that the site be sold to the Manchester and District Housing Association at the future which they request in order that their scheme may be implemented. Comments/Views of the Executive Councillor: (c) The Executive Councillor (Finance) approves the transaction as set out in the report. Recommendation(s) of Executive Councillor: (d) To authorise the Corporate Director, Business Services to negotiate the sale of the land on Crosswaite Road to the Manchester and District Housing Association for the sum stated in the report or such other figure which is considered acceptable given the purpose to which the use of the site will be put. Relevant Scrutiny Committee (if decision called in): (e) Corporate, Resource Management & Governance

31

Background Papers (if report for publication): (f) Contact person for accessing Officer: Ian Keyte, NPS background papers and discussing the report Tel: 495 6093 ‘Urgent Business’: (g) YES / NO (please circle) Certification (if applicable) This report should be considered as ‘urgent business’ and the decision exempted from ‘call-in’ for the following reason(s): The written consent of Councillor and the Chief Executive/Monitoring Officer/Corporate Director - Business Services for the decision to be treated as ‘urgent business’ was obtained on /will be obtained before the decision is implemented.

32

Report to Executive 1 November 2010

Report of the Corporate Director, Business Services

Land at Crosswaite Road, Offerton, Stockport

1 Matter for Consideration

1.1 The sale of land at Crosswaite Road Offerton to the Manchester & District

Housing Association.

2 Information

2.1 The land shown edged on the attached plan is owned by the Council and is appropriated to the Housing Revenue Account. It was the former site of a care home which demolished in 2007.

2.2 The Manchester & District Housing Association wish to acquire the site and develop it with a scheme comprising 14 dwellings providing a mixture of houses and apartments.

2.3 The disposal of the site was considered by the Stepping Hill Area Committee

on the 20th October 2008 which approved the sale to a Registered Social Landlord (Housing Association).

2.4 The site was valued by NPS in August 2008 assuming the development of the above scheme at £ 208,000. Recent negotiations with Manchester & District Housing Association have revealed that the maximum they are able to offer for the site is approximately £ 167,000.

2.5 The Housing Association have explained that there are significant abnormal

cost associated with the development in addition their scheme has been forced to change from shared equity to social rented as a consequence of the current residential market. These impacts on the level of grant funding they are able to obtain.

2.6 The Housing Association has confirmed that the Council will receive 50%

nomination rights to the new dwellings. The Council’s Head of Strategic Housing has further commented that there are significant benefits to be derived from the Housing Associations development of the site which will help meet the significant need for affordable housing. In addition it is anticipated that funding from the Housing and Communities Agency which is assisting this scheme may be unlikely to continue into next year as a consequence of public spending cuts.

2.7 The gap between the two parties opinion of value for the site is £ 41,000 and

whilst a negotiated settlement would be the best solution it is not anticipated that the parties will be able to agree a mutually convenient figure.

33

2.8 Given the help that the Housing Association development of this site will bring

to the locality and the benefits which will be derived in meeting housing need in the borough it is requested that consideration be given to the disposal of the site at the figure requested by the Manchester and District Housing Association. In the circumstances this is considered to be at what may be termed an `undervalue’.

2.9 There is a general consent under Section 25 of the Local Government Act

1988 for the disposal of land to Registered Social Landlords 2005 which permits Local Authorities to provide to Registered Social Landlords (Housing Associations) financial assistance including the disposal of land at an undervalue . The limit for this assistance is £ 10m in any one financial year. The amount of undervalue requested on the subject site is £ 41,000

2.10 The proposed disposal has been referred to the Executive Councillor (Finance) who has approved the transaction on the terms set out in this report.

3.0 Recommendation

3.1 The Executive is requested to authorise the Corporate Director, Business

Services to negotiate the sale of the land on Crosswaite Road to the Manchester and District Housing Association for the sum stated in the report or such other figure which is considered acceptable given the purpose to which the use of the site will be put.

Background Papers Report to Stepping Hill Area Committee Report to Executive Councillor (Finance) For any further information please contact Ian Keyte NPS Stockport Ltd 495 6093 or [email protected]

34

- - 1

AG

EN

DA

IT

EM

10

AGENDA ITEM 10

STOCKPORT COUNCIL

REPORT TO EXECUTIVE MEETING – SUMMARY SHEET Subject: Consultation on the Proposal to Close Offerton School Report to Executive Meeting Date: 1 November 2010 Report of: (a) Executive Councillor (Children & Young People) Key Decision: (b) NO / YES (Please circle) Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency (Tick box) Summary: In June 2010, the Council’s Executive agreed to undertake consultation on a proposal to close Offerton School. Consideration of school closure was required because of excessive surplus places, falling pupil numbers, the resulting impact upon funding, building condition backlog and standards at the school. The consultation exercise took place from 20 July to 13 October 2010 and a significant number of responses have been received with the majority of respondents opposing the proposal. Further recommendations are now presented as a result of the consultation exercise. Comments/Views of the Executive Councillor: (c) The report outlines in detail the problems of maintaining and improving education in a sustainable manner at Offerton School. As schools are primarily funded on a per pupil basis, excessive surplus places have an impact on the resources available for education. Offerton School is at present about 40% empty. This has had a detrimental impact on the school budget, and subsequent impacts on standards. The school will have an overspend of £350K this year and cumulatively over £1million next year. The Offerton community responded to the formal consultation in great numbers, in support of their school, coupled with two petitions and Facebook campaigns to keep the school open. The governing body also submitted a response, mostly criticising the process of the consultation. An earlier report by the Governors to the C&YP Scrutiny Committee of 14th July 2010 proposed a smaller school with novel and unorthodox governance arrangements. All the consultation responses are detailed within the report and appendices. The Secretary of State's Guidance for decision makers on closing a maintained school states "It is important that education is provided as cost-effectively as possible. Empty places can represent a poor use of resources - resources that can often be used more effectively to support schools in raising standards." It goes on to further state, "the decision maker should normally approve proposals to close schools in order to remove surplus places where the school proposed for closure has a quarter or more unfilled places." The guidance goes further and indicates a school's standards, are also a legitimate aspect for the decision maker to consider, to quote directly from the guidance, "where the rationale for the closure of a school is based on the removal of surplus places, standards at the school in question should be taken into account." Therefore in the light of the guidance, I have considered carefully all the issues raised by the consultation and the C&YP Scrutiny Committee of the 20th July 2010, including the associated costs of closing the school, the possible retention of a smaller school, robustness of pupil projections, the impact upon community cohesion, the impact on local

37

- - 2

businesses and all the concerns about the robustness of transition arrangements. I am satisfied that these factors have all been addressed and that no serious sustainable alternative to closure has been identified. This leads me to reluctantly conclude that in the best interests of Stockport's young people, including the young people currently attending Offerton School that we proceed to publish the Statutory Notice to close Offerton School, and the subsequent recommendations regarding transfer of pupils, and changes to catchment areas. Recommendation(s) of Executive Councillor: (d) The Executive is requested to: 1 Consider the outcomes of the consultation exercise. 2 Decide on whether or not to pursue the alternative options submitted. 3 Decide on whether or not to publish a statutory notice for the closure of Offerton

School. 4 Endorse proposals for transition/transfers of pupils. 5 Endorse proposals for changes to catchment areas, as agreed with headteachers,

in the event that a decision is taken to close Offerton School. 6 Note the proposed changes to primary catchments for Stockport School which will

form part of the annual Admissions consultation round. Relevant Scrutiny Committee (if decision called in): (e) Children & Young People Background Papers (if report for publication): (f) Attached report of the Corporate Director, Children & Young People Appendix 1: Guidance on proposals to close maintained schools Appendix 2: Consultation Summary Report Appendix 3: Chair of Governors Response to Consultation Appendix 4: Statutory Guidance – Factors to be Considered by Decision Makers Report to 14/06/10 Executive Report to 14/07/10 C&YP Scrutiny Committee Contact person for accessing Officer: Richard Bates/Stephen Bell background papers and discussing the report Tel: 0161 474 3832/0161 474 3846 ‘Urgent Business’: (g) YES / NO (please circle) Certification (if applicable) This report should be considered as ‘urgent business’ and the decision exempted from ‘call-in’ for the following reason(s):The written consent of Councillor and the Chief Executive/Monitoring Officer/Corporate Director - Business Services for the decision to be treated as ‘urgent business’ was obtained on /will be obtained before the decision is implemented.

38

1

Report to: Executive Date: 1 November 2010 Report of: Corporate Director, Children & Young People Title: Consultation on the Proposal to Close Offerton School 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Stockport is experiencing a large fall in the numbers of 11-16 year olds entering its

secondary schools. In 2004 our secondary schools catered for 17,000 students; in the academic year 2014-15 it is projected that there will be as few as 13,350. Despite a small rise in numbers after 2015, we will not return to our current position with 15% surplus places (SP) until 2021. Local Authorities are currently expected to manage provision with 10% SP, therefore at 2021, if nothing has been done to curtail excessive surplus places, Stockport will have been above expectations and running an inefficient system for over a decade.

1.2 The level of potential inefficiency is significant. Schools’ funding is largely determined by student numbers. As numbers decline the central fund will diminish by approximately £6million compared to the 2004 peak. Many secondary schools are struggling now to manage their accounts and balance their budgets. There is simply more surplus capacity than will be needed for over a decade and it is not feasible to keep as many schools and as many empty poor quality buildings maintained and open for this time.

1.3 A review of surplus capacity demonstrated the issue was more significant in the

East of the Borough. In order to begin to address this, in June 2010 the Executive agreed to start public consultation on a proposal to close Offerton School. Consultation was agreed on the basis of the school having the largest percentage of excessive surplus places, falling pupil numbers, a challenging budget forecast, ,a building condition backlog and low standards at the school.

1.4 The decision was called-in for consideration and further debate at the 14 July 2010

meeting of the C&YP Scrutiny Committee which resolved that no further action be taken. Consultation on the proposal therefore commenced on 20 July 2010.

2. UPDATE ON SCHOOL CIRCUMSTANCES 2.1 Standards 2.1.1 When secondary school GCSE results were announced in August 2010, Offerton

School had 48% of pupils achieving 5 A*-C including English and Maths. This is a significant improvement on previous years’ results and an 11% increase on 2009 results which were highlighted in the basis for consultation. However, in terms of this measure, it remains the lowest performing school in the East of the Borough (see table below). In terms of contextual value added analysis, the school has provisionally achieved 995.3 in 2010 (compared to 987.3 in 2009). This result is again a good improvement. For comparative purposes the East area schools performance is detailed in the table below.

39

- - 2

East Area Schools: standards 2010 % of GCSE 5+A*-C including English and mathematics (2010)

Harrytown Catholic school 74.7% Marple Hall 73.9% Stockport 61% Hazel Grove High 59.6% Reddish Vale Technology College 54.5% Werneth 52.2% Offerton 48.2% East Area Schools: standards 2010 Contextual Value added

2010 (provisional) Werneth 1012.3 Stockport 1007.5 Offerton 995.3 Harrytown Catholic 994.7 Hazel Grove High 990.7 Marple Hall 988.3 Reddish Vale Technology College 988.2

2.1.2 In addition, the School has recently undergone an Ofsted inspection. Although the

outcome has not yet been formally reported, it is expected that the result will be a positive outcome for the school and it will be removed from its “Notice to Improve” category.

2.2 Surplus Places/Falling Numbers 2.2.1 Following the announcement of the Council’s intention to undertake consultation

on the proposal, a considerable number of parents chose to transfer their children to other schools despite assurances during the consultation that the education of Offerton pupils would be protected. Similarly, the majority of applicants for Year 7 places changed their preference or undertook an appeals process for alternative schools on the basis of the proposal. This has had a significant additional negative effect on the school’s circumstances and increases the difficulties of the school to set a balanced budget.

2.2.2 The expected numbers on roll for September 2010, prior to the consultation period,

were 716 (a fall from the previous year’s 760). However, the school’s number was reduced to approximately 488 at the start of the September term.

2.2.3 This considerable drop in pupil numbers will have a significant impact upon the

school’s future budget. 2.3 Funding/School Budget 2.3.1 All school budgets are based upon the number of students counted in the January

census and on the basis of current numbers the school will face a reduction in funding of over £1million in 2011/12 compared to 2010/11. The school already has a significant budget deficit projected for 2010/11 which will mean a potential deficit in 2011/12 of approximately £1.3million. This situation would worsen further still

40

- - 3

when larger year groups leave the school and smaller year groups join Year 7 in future years.

3. CONSULTATION 3.1 In accordance with the requirements of the School Organisation Regulations,

consultation has been undertaken with interested parties. The Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance for consulting on proposals to close maintained schools is attached at Appendix 1 for reference.

3.2 Consultation has included:

The School’s governors Parents/carers of pupils Staff Pupils Associated primary schools Secondary schools The wider school community College Principals Parents/carers of children at associated primary schools, including three

Brinnington primary schools Trade unions Members of Parliament Ward councillors C&YP Scrutiny councillors Greater Manchester Police Inclusive Communities Partnership Board Neighbouring local authorities The local Parish Council The YPLA School’s contractors Council staff

3.3 The main consultation exercise ran from 20 July to 13 October 2010, allowing the recommended minimum of six weeks outside school holidays.

3.4 Hard copies of a consultation leaflet, along with a response form, were made

available via the school to all staff and governors with a hard copy posted direct to parents/carers of pupils at, and applicants to, Offerton School. Hard copies were also delivered via schools to all parents/carers of pupils at Offerton’s associated primary schools, including the three Brinnington Primary Schools. Additional information was sign-posted to the Council’s website. Emails were sent to the remainder of consultees and notifications were placed on the Council’s website, intranet site and Office Online, allowing all Council staff and all schools access to the consultation.

3.5 Meetings took place with staff and governors and a series of public drop-in

sessions were held at the school. An additional drop-in session was convened for parents/carers living in Brinnington to allow ease of access for those wishing to

41

- - 4

attend. In addition, drop-in sessions were hosted for staff at the school in case they had individual issues they wished to raise.

3.6 Meetings have also been held with headteachers of secondary schools in the East

of the Borough, headteachers of the associated primary schools and trade union representatives.

3.7 Consultation with pupils was undertaken by facilitating two assemblies (one for

Year Groups 7, 8 and 9, and one for Year Groups 10 and 11). A separate pupil-focused leaflet was distributed to all pupils and the majority of these were completed in tutor groups.

3.8 Wide ranging publicity has surrounded the consultation and has included radio

interviews, press articles in local newspapers and online, a Facebook campaign and a campaign by a group of active parents against the proposal. A public meeting was also convened by parents and was attended by officers and councillors by invitation.

3.9 Overall there has been a significant response to the consultation. Over 250

responses have been received in total and 68 people attended the consultation drop-in sessions.

3.10 Two petitions have also been received opposing the proposal, one with 294

signatures and one with approximately 930 signatures. 3.11 Some consultees have responded more than once, sometimes using alternative

methods to do so. Some responses were received in advance of the formal consultation process but these have also been taken into account.

3.12 The vast majority of respondents are opposed to the proposal. Many consider that a

decision has already been made and some complaints were received regarding the timing of the consultation and the inevitable impact they perceived this had on parents who chose to transfer their children to other schools.

3.13 The main issues raised by those against closure include:

Improved GCSE results in 2010 Students are happy and have done well Closing the school would be detrimental to their education Distances to other schools are unacceptable They believe other schools are full They believe a school should be retained on the site, but that it could be downsized

or re-shaped as a smaller establishment Closure would negatively impact the local community GCSE results improved in 2010 and this should be an argument against the issue of

poor standards at the school Parents could attempt fund-raising in support of the school.

3.14 A small number of respondents have expressed support for the proposal and this is

largely due to their perception that the school has a bad reputation. 3.15 Further details of feedback received during consultation are attached at Appendix 2.

42

- - 5

3.16 A substantive response has been received from the Chair of Governors on behalf of

the School’s Governing Body and this is attached in full at Appendix 3. 4. RESPONSE TO GENERAL CONSULTATION THEMES 4.1 The key themes arising from the consultation are outlined below along with

responses to the issues raised. 4.2 Don’t close Offerton School / Keep the School Open 4.2.1 There is a whole system problem of over-capacity in our secondary schools which

is more pronounced in the East of the Borough. It is difficult for parents at any school considered for closure to accept that if a school has to close, it should be theirs. However Offerton School already had the highest percentage of surplus places which was already creating financial difficulties for the school, a high estimated repair and modernisation cost and a history of lower standards. These are the reasons why Offerton School was proposed for closure rather than others in the East of the Borough. If Offerton School does not close, the over supply of secondary places will place many more schools in financial difficulty and uncertainty as the secondary budget fund shrinks in line with student numbers. If Offerton School remains open, it is almost certain at least one other larger and more successful secondary school would have to close.

4.3 The proposed closure / decision to consult on closure would / is having a

negative impact on student’s education and emotional wellbeing 4.3.1 It is acknowledged that the proposal will cause emotional unrest for families and

pupils. It is never easy to propose a school closure and inevitably there will be concerns, however, the Council will make it a priority to continue to support students and families as much as possible. Unfortunately, Offerton School has previously been the subject of negative rumours and as a result numbers have continued to fall.

4.4 The School has been good for their child / the child has been happy there 4.4.1 There is no question that many students have been supported and have gained

high quality exam results during their time at Offerton School. It is also true that over several years some left the school without the academic challenge that would have secured better results which would have served them well as the foundation for their future careers. The Council is determined that if the school were to close, the existing Key Stage 4 students will be supported through to their GCSE exams in 2012 and we hope that the higher results achieved in 2010 can be maintained.

4.5 Issues regarding the consultation 4.5.1 There has been criticism of the timing for the consultation exercise consultees who

have raised the issue have identified themselves as being against the proposal so it is understandable that they question the logic or timing of it. We are legally bound to undertake formal consultation in line with the School Organisation Regulations prior to taking any decision. The process followed has allowed the required consultation time across schools’ terms, with the addition of the summer break for parents and other stakeholders to consider the issue.

4.6 Unhappy about children travelling distances to other schools 4.6.1 This is a matter of widespread concern to parents/carers and was raised by almost

half of the pupils who responded to consultation. Work is currently underway with

43

- - 6

the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) to consider appropriate routing of school busses and any additional requirements for transferring pupils. This process is reviewed on a regular basis by the GMPTE as a matter of course, is largely based upon patterns of pupil travel and is therefore responsive to the needs of the majority of pupils. It should be noted however, that the statutory guidance for school travel distances does support the view that pupils of secondary age are able to travel independently. A large number of pupils across Stockport already travel by bus or walk longer distances to attend their school.

4.7 Reduce the size of the school 4.7.1 See Section 5 in response to alternative options. 4.8 Other schools are full / will there be enough room in other schools 4.8.1 Prior to the announced consultation, there was a total of 940 spare places across

the schools in the East of the Borough. Although there has been a large number of transfers from Offerton School, over 700 spare places remain at the other schools. If Offerton School were to close, the Council will do everything possible to support the 300 Key Stage 4 students at the School, and will undertake a managed transfer process for the remaining 190 Key Stage 3 students.

4.9 What will the land be used for / the council is doing this to raise money from

the land / the land has to be reserved for free schools 4.9.1 No decisions whatsoever have been taken regarding disposal of the site. There is

no intended future purpose for it at this time, nor is there any offer in place by potential developers in respect of the site. This would be considered as part of future planning once a decision about the future of the school has been taken.

4.9.2 It is true that if the site were to be sold, a capital receipt would be forthcoming,

however, the extent of the receipt would not be large and is certainly not the driver for the proposal. Any balance would first need to meet the significant closure costs of the School.

4.9.3 It should also be noted that some respondents indicate that there are educational

covenants in place on the land. The covenants which apply to the site do not include educational purpose.

4.9.4 We do not yet know the full detail of the Government’s indication that sites may

have to be set aside for a period of time in case any groups wish to establish free schools. This is a policy which the Council will need to respond to appropriately when details are confirmed.

4.10 If you have to close the school don’t do in-year transfers 4.10.1 This comment is about the idea of closing the school over 4 years by not accepting

a year 7 intake from an agreed year and letting each existing year group at the school continue through to the end of Year 11. Whilst this may seem sensible from some perspectives, it could have a detrimental effect on students as staff and students would be leaving over time and teaching expertise may not be replaced easily. It would also require the Council to keep the school open for a further 4 years with all the expense that entails.

44

- - 7

4.11 Not enough has been done by the Council to keep the school open / the school should be used for the local community

4.11.1 The Council did make the continuance of Offerton School a part of its plan for the BSF programme but that scheme has now been cancelled due to the current government’s withdrawal of the scheme. The limited funds the Council has at its disposal have been spent fairly at Offerton as they have elsewhere: this can be seen in the new pathways around the site, the refurbished changing rooms in Curzon block, the improvements to drains and downspouts and support for the investments in ICT rooms; the Drama Studio and the Dance studio. However, all secondary sites are in need of repair and modernisation and Offerton is amongst the most needy of them all. In terms of the school being used by the local community there has been little use out of school hours in recent years.

4.12 Closure will be detrimental to staff 4.12.1 Offerton School employs approximately 130 staff, around 44 of whom are

teachers. It is possible that there will be some redundancies, however, some staff are of an age where they may wish to stay at the school until early retirement is an option and there may well be some staff who wish to stay at the school until the proposed date of closure if a decision is taken to close the school. The Council has substantial experience of assisting staff in such situations and would offer all possible support.

4.13 Offerton has good clubs / extra curricular activities / we need to use the site

more for the local community 4.13.1 Offerton School does have a strong track record of extra-curricular activities and

clubs although these are already beginning to suffer due to the falling numbers of students. As noted above the site is little-used outside of standard school hours.

4.14 Separating children from their friends 4.14.1 Parents/carers will be able to state a preference for schools and part of their

decision making about alternative schools may include reference to friendship groups. It is unfortunate that not all pupils may be able to stay with their friends, indeed this was the most common concern expressed by pupils during the consultation.

4.15 Governing Body Report Responses 4.16 The Governing Body report cites a number of points in relation to the basis for

consultation in light of factors for consideration by the Decision Maker in relation to proposals for school closure. The points referenced in the document from “Statutory Guidance - Factors to be Considered by Decision Makers” are attached at Appendix 4 for reference.

4.17 Offerton School’s percentage of catchment choosing the school is strong,

and other secondary schools in the Borough are worse 4.17.1 The tables created in the governors’ paper identify Catholic schools as the ‘worst’

examples. These schools do not have catchment areas as Community schools do but have Parishes with associated schools which are much wider areas. Over the past five years, the School’s intake from its catchment area has been around 50% of the pupils actually living in the catchment area.

45

- - 8

4.18 If all schools in Stockport lowered their intake then Offerton could continue as a 690 place secondary school

4.18.1 This approach is suggested in the Offerton Governors’ final response and bears a marked similarity to the previous, now abandoned policy under BSF. However, in order to make this work the Council would need to physically remove teaching space from a dozen more popular secondary schools and on several sites this would mean investment to move or re-create specialist facilities. We do not have the funds for that investment. In addition, this policy would not fully equate with successive government emphasis on the development of successful schools, nor with the right of parents to express their preferences.

4.19 The costs of repairs and modernisation at Offerton site are much lower in

today’s context than when they were worked out in 2008-9, also the school could itself undertake these repairs far more cheaply

4.19.1 This is point is presented as an argument that the £4.82Million repairs and modernisation which has been presented by the Council as a factor in selecting the school as the one to be considered for closure. The Council has been clear from the start that this is a comparative cost and if the repairs would now be less at Offerton they would also be less at other secondary school sites. What is beyond dispute is the fact that many secondary school sites are in a poor condition and require millions of pounds to tackle. The suggestion that Offerton School could find these funds at a point where it has a substantial deficit and is projected to have in excess of £1million deficit budget next year is not tenable.

4.20 The way the LA calculates net capacity (Net Capacity Assessment or NCA)

mitigates against Offerton: there are other schools with just as many empty seats

4.20.1 The recognised national process for measuring surplus places is as a percentage of the capacity of the school buildings, and it is this that the Council is obliged to report to Department for Education each summer alongside a commentary of what actions are being undertaken to address the issue of over or under capacity. Therefore there is a possibility that a very large school could ‘carry’ more empty seats than a smaller one in numeric terms. Looking back to the situation when consultation started and studying raw numbers we projected that Offerton would sink to 636 students on the 1130 place site and would become the smallest secondary school in the authority in 2014-15. Marple Hall School was predicted to fall to a low of 1210 students in 2015-16 which in context is still a sustainable secondary school. The additional numbers that Marple Hall has recently gained means that our projections will change and we expect Marple Hall now to stay above 1300 in size on a site we have already said (Executive Report 14th June 2010) needs to be reduced to an NCA of 1650 places.

4.21 C&YP Scrutiny Committee Comments 4.21.1 At its meeting on 20/10/10, The Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Committee

considered feedback received during the consultation period and whether it wished to make any comments for consideration by the Executive.

4.21.2 The Scrutiny Committee agreed to recommend the following points: that the

Executive give consideration to: 4.21.2.1 the associated costs of closing the school and for retention of a smaller

school,

46

- - 9

4.21.2.2 pupil projections, allowing for differential birth-rates, 4.21.2.3 the potential impact upon community cohesion, including council housing

policy and local businesses, 4.21.2.4 concerns about transition arrangements to ensure they are robust and

cause the least disruption possible. 5. RESPONSE TO ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS PROPOSALS 5.1 The Secretary of State’s Guidance for Closing a Maintained School recommends

that: “At the end of the consultation the proposer should consider the views expressed during that period before reaching any final decision on whether to publish statutory proposals. Where, in the course of consultation, a new option emerges which the proposer wishes to consider, it will probably be appropriate to consult afresh on this option before proceeding to publish statutory notices.”

5.2 One clear alternative option has been presented in response to the proposal. This

has been expressed in different ways by various respondents. 5.2.1 The “New Vision for Offerton School” presented by the Chair of Governors of Offerton

School (and included as part of Appendix 3 to this report): “…which proposed the conversion of Offerton School into what we called a Pathfinder Community School with 500 to 700 pupils. “In that submission we envisaged that the formal arrangements for co-operation (e.g. Federation) would be needed. However, since then our experience of working more intimately with Stockport School convince us that informal arrangements and collaborations may be enough. Those arrangements would be greatly enhanced by active promotion by the LA.” (extract from Governing Body response)

5.2.2 Proposals from a number of staff and parents/carers similarly suggest re-organisation of the School site, disposing of one of the buildings and operating as a smaller school.

5.3 A number of other options were also considered prior to the consultation exercise,

including Building Schools for the Future investment, pursuing Academy status, amalgamation or federation. A response to these and the options arising from the consultation are outlined below.

5.4 Building Schools for the Future (BSF) 5.4.1 The Council has previously undertaken work to develop options for its secondary

schools as part of the BSF Programme. BSF has previously given multi-million funding to some local authorities to improve their secondary schools and the Council considered re-building Offerton School as part of that programme.

5.4.2 Stockport’s approach outlined in its BSF submission was to re-build or re-model

many of its secondary schools into smaller capacity establishments. This approach would have retained all of Stockport’s maintained secondary schools whilst solving the issue of excessive surplus places.

5.4.3 Stockport was not entered into the BSF programme and will not have the funding to implement the options explored for its secondary schools. The Government has also stopped the BSF Programme and there is no indication of future capital funding

47

- - 10

streams which may become available until a national review is completed in late 2010.

5.5 Academy Status 5.5.1 Under previous rules, the threshold for a school to become an Academy was that less

than 30% of pupils were achieving 5 A* to C GCSE grades. Offerton School’s standards were at 37% in 2009.

5.5.2 Under new rules, schools must be financially secure and able to make a business case to bring about improvement at a coasting or faltering school as an Academy. The school is not financially secure and would find it difficult to make any such business case.

5.6 Amalgamation or Federation with Another School 5.6.1 Amalgamating with another school would mean creating a split-site school and would

not address the condition of the school buildings without significant investment, which is not available.

5.6.2 Federation is a formal governance arrangement with another school which can be

seen as a method to enable some improvement to standards, however, it would not deal with the issue of funding and there would still be no additional funding to improve the school buildings, nor is it likely that another school’s budget would have the capacity to take this additional work on. This option would depend on whether the governing body of another school would wish this to occur.

5.6.3 The option would also require investment to re-create specialist facilities in one block

of Offerton’s existing school. Without all the specialist curriculum areas and resources available on site, students would have to travel, perhaps several times a week, to the federated site. We lack funds for investment and have safeguarding concerns over younger students moving unsupervised between school sites several times a week.

5.6.4 Another route to this federated approach would be that the federated school(s) place

their Key Stage 3 students at one site, then Key Stage 4 at the other. A split site is always difficult to manage, and difficult to create a shared ethos from. In addition parents may actively wish for a particular geographic location and be unsupportive of a transition between sites and KS3 - 4.

5.6.5 If the school is allowed to continue as a small school in reduced premises this would

maintain a school to serve the Offerton community should they choose this as a preference. However, in order to be viable in terms of income, breadth of curriculum and provision of specialist functions as a “business and enterprise” secondary school, the school would need to be of a minimum size between 600 and 700 students. Currently the school has shrunk to 485 students. Although some parents have suggested that they may return if a decision were taken not to close Offerton School, there is no guarantee that this would occur.

5.6.6 All of Stockport’s secondary schools were invited to express an interest in formal

federation arrangements with Offerton School: none were forthcoming. 5.7 Specialist Key Stage 3 Base 5.7.1 One suggestion by Offerton School’s governors is that that the school operates as

a specialist KS3 base for children in need of a particular type of educational development that Offerton School excels at. This expertise would be a part of the

48

- - 11

existing staffing and if a smaller establishment is to continue with this work that staffing core would, of necessity, shrink. The particular staff whose expertise is alluded to may not remain and indeed some staff may feel that long-term service in a KS3 only unit may hamper their later career options.

5.7.2 If there is a group of children who need a particular supportive approach, that

group may be disadvantaged by having another transitional point in their educational journey at the end of year 9. Linking up with the secondary system would require the active participation and support of the neighbouring schools for such a scheme to not only work, but to offer any advantage over and above what standalone secondary schools could offer: to date no neighbouring school has expressed any interest in supporting this plan.

5.8 It should be noted that if the school continues as a smaller unit then the central

issue of over-capacity in the secondary sector will still remain: if only 500 surplus places are taken from Offerton School, the Council would still need to find approximately 2,000 surplus places from elsewhere to remove. This would mean at least one, and possibly two, further school closures of more successful and popular schools.

6. TRANSFER OF PUPILS TO OTHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS 6.1 Under the proposal to close Offerton School, it is intended that pupils currently in

Years 10 and 11 will continue their education as pupils of Offerton School and will not therefore require transfer to alternative secondary schools. This will provide continuity for them in their chosen options. Work is underway to ensure that appropriate staffing levels and support are available to minimise any disruption to pupils during their final years at secondary school.

6.2 For pupils currently in Years 7, 8 and 9, it is proposed, as previously stated in both

notices and the consultation document, that they will transfer to alternative secondary schools to complete their secondary school education. In the event that a closing school is not replaced and children transfer to different schools, the Admissions Code 2010 suggests that the following are “…good practices which have been successfully adopted:

a) “The local authority identifies schools with places available, negotiating with

them and other schools which may be able to help, then offers places to children from the closing school.

b) “The local authority carries out a preference exercise with parents of children on

roll at the closing school, considering their preferences and, where necessary, negotiating with schools to provide additional places. In these circumstances, it is acceptable to give precedence to these children over any on waiting lists (see paragraphs 3.19 to 3.21) and, along with admitting in accordance with a Fair Access Protocol (see paragraphs 3.43 to 3.47), to admit above the school’s published admission number.

6.3 “In the scenarios above, parents still have a statutory right to apply for a place at

any school, with a right of appeal if refused a place at any of their preferred schools.”

49

- - 12

6.4 With this in mind, it is proposed that parents/carers of pupils in Years 7, 8 and 9 will be asked to state their preference for alternative school places should a decision be made to close the school. This will occur within the Autumn term to allow for the appropriate planning of places. For pupils in year 9, this process will need to be undertaken at such a time that options available at alternative schools can be considered, ie by December 2010. This will enable parental choice to be exercised within the limitation of available places. Officers are working with secondary school headteachers to consider the best way to secure provision for all Key Stage 3 pupils from September 2011.

7. PRIMARY SCHOOL CATCHMENT AREAS 7.1 Offerton School has 6 Community primary schools within its own catchment area:

Banks Lane Infant and Junior, Fairway, St Paul’s CE, Vernon Park and Warren Wood. Under the current system these primary school catchment areas will need to be allocated to alternative secondary schools if it is eventually decided that Offerton School will close. Parents have already been informed that if this decision is made then there would be no Year 7 allocation in 2011.

7.2 Officers have met with the primary school headteachers within Offerton School’s

catchment area to discuss proposals for re-allocation should a decision be taken to close Offerton School. As a result of those discussions, it is proposed that the following changes take effect:

Banks Lane Infant and Junior and Vernon Park Primary Schools to be allocated

to Stockport School, St Paul’s CE Primary School to be allocated to Werneth School, Warren Wood and Fairway Primary Schools to be allocated to Marple Hall

School. 7.3 Moving two schools into the Stockport School catchment area would greatly

increase the numbers associated, therefore a proposal has also been put forward to move two schools out of the Stockport School area: St Matthew’s CE Primary School to be allocated to The Kingsway, Cale Green Primary School to be allocated to Bramhall High School.

7.4 These proposals are largely based on geographical links, whilst acknowledging

some existing patterns of parental choice. The proposals have been discussed with the headteachers affected and will require wider consultation as a variation from current published admission arrangements.

7.5 Proposals affecting catchment areas will be formally reported to the November

meeting of the Admissions Forum. 8. YEAR 7 APPLICATIONS FOR SEPTEMBER 2011 8.1 With changes proposed which would affect September 2011 admissions, further

consultation will be undertaken with parents/carers applying for Year 7 places for September 2011 within Offerton’s catchment area.

50

- - 13

8.2 Consultation will be on the basis of the proposed changes to catchment areas and a dual admission process will be run alongside the current standard admissions round which is due to close at the end of October. This will not affect the normal deliberation of preferences but will allow an early indication of alternative provision needing to be identified should a decision be taken to close Offerton School.

8.3 Early notification of alternative preferences will also enable better consideration of

the best way to secure adequate provision for transferring pupils. 9. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT 9.1 Many concerns have been raised by parents in relation to the costs which will be

incurred if their children are required to travel to alternative secondary schools. 9.2 Under Stockport’s current Free School Transport Policy, some children may qualify

for free travel passes on the basis of distance between home and school, if parents are in receipt of qualifying benefits or if transport is considered necessary to facilitate school attendance.

9.3 Applications for free school travel are assessed and approved if one of the

following sets of conditions apply:

(a) The distance between the home and the catchment/associated area school to be attended is more than 3 miles (statutory distance) Or

(b) The distance between the home and the catchment/associated area school (even if it is not to be attended) is more than 3 miles and the distance between home and the school to be attended also exceeds 3 miles

9.4 Where parents/carers are in receipt of qualifying benefits, the distance between

home and the suitable school to be attended reduces to 2 miles. 9.5 In order to respond to parental concerns and to offer a level of support for

transition, it is proposed that the criteria for parents/carers in receipt of qualifying benefits be extended. This would mean that any parent/carer of a child transferring from Offerton School as part of the Council’s managed transfer process would be eligible for free school travel where the distance between home and the nearest suitable school exceeds 2 miles. It is proposed that this arrangement would be in place for the remainder of each child’s secondary education. This would not apply to subsequent siblings not already attending Offerton School and would be withdrawn in the event of a future transfer to another school.

9.6 As indicated previously, work is underway with the GMPTE to consider appropriate

routing of school busses and any additional requirements for transferring pupils. 10. SCHOOL UNIFORM COSTS 10.1 Another cost associated with the proposal, and for which concern has been

expressed by parents/carers, is that of purchasing new school uniforms. 10.2 The Council operates a discretionary policy in relation to grants for school

uniforms. Grants are currently paid to parents/carers in receipt of income support and job seekers allowance. Year 7 pupils’ parents/carers receive £80 and Years 8 to 11 parents/carers receive £20.

51

- - 14

10.3 It is acknowledged that under the current proposal, additional uniform costs would

not be offered to those parents who have decided to move their children prior to a final decision being taken by the Executive. It is proposed that receiving schools will provide their uniforms to children transferring from Offerton School as part of the Council’s managed transfer process. The Council will then reimburse the school with the cost of the uniform. This proposal is subject to the agreement of receiving school headteachers and will mean a fair approach where school uniform costs differ from one school to the next. This would be a one-off arrangement in the year of transfer only.

11. CONCLUSIONS 11.1 It is acknowledged that parents/carers, staff and governors have deep concerns

about the potential impact of the proposal. However, the position of the school is such that it has had low pupil numbers for several years. It is not clear from alternative proposals submitted that the school could attract sufficient numbers of pupils and sustain a high enough level of funding to justify further consultation. Consideration has also been given to factors with regard to any potential equality impact.

11.2 The school has also struggled to manage within its budget and has a significant

deficit in the current financial year. This was set to increase considerably in 2010/11, regardless of the sudden drop in pupil numbers as a result of the announced consultation. We now know that the projected deficit budget for April 2011 will be over £1million and possibly as high as £1.4million.

12. RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 The Executive is requested to: 12.1.1 Consider the outcomes of the consultation exercise. 12.1.2 Decide on whether or not to pursue the alternative options submitted. 12.1.3 Decide on whether or not to publish a statutory notice for the closure of Offerton

School. 12.1.4 Endorse proposals for transition/transfers of pupils. 12.1.5 Endorse proposals for changes to catchment areas, as agreed with headteachers,

in the event that a decision is taken to close Offerton School. 12.1.6 Note the proposed changes to primary catchments for Stockport School which will

form part of the annual Admissions consultation round.

52

Appendix 1

1

Secretary of State’s Guidance for Consulting on Proposals to Close a Maintained School Extract from “Closing a Maintained Mainstream School - A Guide for Local Authorities and Governing Bodies”

The statutory guidance sections are indicated by shading, the word must in bold refers to a requirement in legislation, whilst the word should in bold is a recommendation.

Stage 1 – Consultation (Paragraphs 1.1-1.8)

1.1 Under section 16 of EIA 2006, those considering bringing forward statutory proposals to close a school must consult interested parties, and in doing so must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance. The statutory guidance for this purpose is contained in paragraphs 1.2 to 1.5. Where an LA or governing body carries out any preliminary (informal) consultation to consider a range of options, and/or principles, for a possible reorganisation, this would not be regarded as the statutory (formal) period of consultation as required by regulations. The statutory consultation would need to cover the specific closure proposal of the school in question. 1.2 The Secretary of State requires those bringing forward proposals to consult all interested parties (see paragraph 1.3 below). In doing so they should:

allow adequate time;

provide sufficient information for those being consulted to form a considered view on the matters on which they are being consulted;

make clear how their views can be made known; and

be able to demonstrate how they have taken into account the views expressed during consultation in reaching any subsequent decision as to the publication of proposals.

1.3 The Secretary of State considers that the interested parties who should be consulted by proposers include:

the governing body of any school which is the subject of proposals (if the LA are publishing proposals);

the LA that maintains the school (if the governing body is publishing the proposals);

families of pupils, teachers and other staff at the school;

any LA likely to be affected by the proposals, in particular neighbouring authorities where there may be significant cross-border movement of pupils;

53

Appendix 1

2

the governing bodies, teachers and other staff of any other school that may be affected;

families of any pupils at any other school who may be affected by the proposals including where appropriate families of pupils at feeder primary schools;

any trade unions who represent staff at the school; and representatives of any trade union of any other staff at schools who may be affected by the proposals;

(if proposals involve, or are likely to affect a school which has a particular religious character) the appropriate diocesan authorities or the relevant faith group in relation to the school;

the trustees of the school (if any);

(if the proposals affect the provision of full-time 14-19 education) the Learning and Skills Council (LSC);

MPs whose constituencies include the schools that are the subject of the proposals or whose constituents are likely to be affected by the proposals;

the local district or parish council where the school that is the subject of the proposals is situated;

any other interested party, for example, the Early Years Development and Child Care Partnership (or any local partnership that exists in place of an EYDCP) where proposals affect early years provision, or those who benefit from a contractual arrangement giving them the use of the premises; and

such other persons as appear to the proposers to be appropriate.

1.4 Under Section 176 of the Education Act 2002 LAs and governing bodies are also under a duty to consult pupils on any proposed changes to local school organisation that may affect them. Guidance on this duty is available on the Teachernet website: www.publications.teachernet.gov.uk and is entitled “Pupil Participation Guidance: Working Together – Giving Children and Young People a Say”.

Rural Primary Schools – Consulting on Closure (Paragraph 1.5)

1.5 Section 16(1) of EIA 2006 places a statutory duty on those proposing the closure of a rural primary school to consult:-

the registered parents of registered pupils at the school;

the LA (where proposals are to be made by the school governing body);

54

Appendix 1

3

in a case where the LA are a county council in England, any district council for the area in which the school is situated;

any parish council for the area in which the school is situated; and

such other persons as appear to the relevant body to be appropriate.

Conduct of Consultation (Paragraphs 1.6-1.8)

1.6 How statutory consultation is carried out is not prescribed in regulations and it is for the proposers to determine the nature of the consultation including, for example, whether to hold public meetings. Although regulations do not specify the consultation’s duration, the Department strongly advises that the proposers should allow at least 6 weeks for this. This will allow consultees an opportunity to consider what is being proposed and to send their comments. Proposers should avoid consulting on proposals during school holidays, where possible.

1.7 At the end of the consultation the proposer should consider the views expressed during that period before reaching any final decision on whether to publish statutory proposals. Where, in the course of consultation, a new option emerges which the proposer wishes to consider, it will probably be appropriate to consult afresh on this option before proceeding to publish statutory notices.

1.8 If the need for the closure arises from an area wide reorganisation e.g. as a result of long-term LA planning, any related proposals should be consulted on at the same time. Notices for related proposals should be published at the same time and specified as “related” so that they are decided together (see 2.5 ).

Remember:

Do Don’t Consult all interested parties Consult during school holidays

(where possible) Provide sufficient time and sufficient information

Use language which could be misleading, e.g. We will close the school – instead, use ‘propose to’.

Think about the most appropriate consultation method

Consider feedback and views Consider alternative options Explain the decision making process

55

of 36

Appendix 2 Offerton School Closure Proposal – Consultation Summary 1 CONSULTATION 1.1 Following approval by the Council’s Executive in June 2010, formal consultation on the

proposal to close Offerton School took place between 20 July and 13 October 2010, allowing the recommended minimum of six weeks outside school holidays.

1.2 Hard copies of a consultation leaflet, along with response form, were made available via

the school to all staff and governors with a hard copy posted direct to parents/carers of pupils at, and applicants to, Offerton School. Hard copies were also delivered via schools to all parents/carers of pupils at Offerton’s associated primary schools, including the three Brinnington primary schools. A separate leaflet was devised for pupil consultation and this was issued to pupils via the School.

1.3 Additional information was sign-posted to the Council’s website. Emails were sent to the

remainder of consultees and notifications were placed on the Council’s website, intranet site and Office Online, allowing all Council staff and all schools access to the consultation.

1.4 A series of public consultation drop-in sessions were hosted as detailed below.

Date Time Wednesday 8 September 2010 8.15am to 10.15am Offerton School Thursday 9 September 2010 3.00pm to 7.00pm Offerton School Tuesday 14 September 2010 6.00pm to 8.00pm Offerton School Thursday 16 September 2010 8.15am to 10.15am Offerton School Monday 20 September 2010 8.15am to 10.15am Offerton School Wednesday 22 September 2010 3.00pm to 6.00pm Offerton School Tuesday 28 September 2010 8.15am to 10.15am Offerton School Thursday 30 September 2010 5.00pm to 8.00pm Offerton School Monday 4 October 2010 3.00pm to 6.00pm Offerton School Wednesday 6 October 2010 5.00pm to 6.45pm First House, Brinnington Thursday 7 October 2010 8.15am to 10.15am Offerton School

1.5 Staff meetings and consultation drop-in sessions were hosted and meetings took place

with staff trade unions as well as with the School’s governing body and with the School Council. Meetings were also held with Headteachers of secondary schools and the associated primary schools. The consultation document and response form were also posted on the Council’s website.

1.6 A public meeting on 30 September 2010 was convened by parent representatives and

this was attended by Councillors and Council Officers. 2 RESPONSE METHODS 2.1 Overall, there has been a significant response to the consultation. 253 responses were

received. 2.2 183 written responses were received, of these 75 came through via the online response

form, 88 were feedback forms, and there were 10 letters and 10 emails. Nine letters /emails were received before formal consultation began, and these have been recorded as part of the consultation feedback. Three respondents gave their views by telephone.

56

of 36

2.3 Attendance at the feedback sessions was irregular, with some sessions attended by

only one or two people. A number of parents complained that the session times were inconvenient, although a variety of session times had been organised for different times/days of the week to accommodate different needs. The total turnout at consultation sessions was 68.

2.4 Whilst there was no requirement for respondents to provide their names, nearly half of

all respondents did so. As a result it is evident that a small number of people have responded more than once and using the various methods, which can be seen as a reflection of the strength of their feelings.

2.5 Two separate petitions were submitted, a “Save Offerton School, Say No to Closure”

petition which gathered 930 signatures and a second petition organised by a student which amassed 294 signatures.

3 SUMMARY OF VIEWS 3.1 The overwhelming response to the consultation was against the proposal with 220

respondents stating their opposition and 127 directly calling for the Council not to close Offerton School or to keep it open in some form.

3.2 There is a strong perception among respondents that the proposal is a “foregone

conclusion” and that the school will definitely close. “We are already aware that closing the school is a foregone conclusion…we have seen this same letter around the local area before and no matter how many parents complain or react little will be done to prevent the inevitable”.

3.3 Early respondents in particular expressed the opinion that their views would not be considered and that the outcome had already been decided, with one parent suggesting that there is “some great conspiracy to ensure numbers continue to fall at Offerton School, cementing its closure”.

3.4 The main issues raised by those against closure / in favour of the retention of Offerton

School include that:

3.5 Many responses make reference to the improved GCSE results as an argument against the issue of poor standards at the school. Reference has been made on a number of occasions to other schools in Stockport having worse Ofsted results, namely the Academy, and queries raised as to why this isn’t also faced with closure. It has been explained that academies fall outside of Local Authority control.

3.6 Students are happy and have done well there and that closing the school would be

detrimental to their education. 3.7 The suggestion is made by many respondents, not only parents, but also students and

members of the local community, that a school should be retained on the site, but that it could be downsized or rebuilt as a smaller establishment.

3.8 Concern is expressed over the distances children would have to travel to get to other schools, which many respondents believe are already full.

3.9 Some of these respondents point out that in addition to affecting students and staff, closure would also negatively impact the local community.

57

of 36

3.10 Since the most recent Ofsted visit respondents have highlighted that the expected outcome removes one of the key arguments for closure.

3.11 13 respondents indicate support for the proposal, with the main perception being that

Offerton has a bad reputation and that as a result parents won’t send their children there.

3.12 15 respondents did not openly state their views on the proposal, but put forward

queries, expressed concerns or made substantive comments. 3.13 Some of the respondents who recognise and accept the need for change in principle

raise a number of concerns and issues to consider in its implementation. In the main, these include whether there will be enough room in receiving schools should the proposal be passed; issues over travel and transportation and the potential use of the site.

3.14 A number of respondents expressed dissatisfaction about the consultation, with 43

people making specific reference to the timing and handling of the consultation in their feedback. 9 respondents make reference to “rumours” circulating over recent years that the school would close, and 25 others state that they believe that information regarding the proposal was “leaked” to the press in 2009. Respondents perceive that this had negatively impacted upon the popularity among parents of potential future students.

3.15 These same respondents argue that by commencing the consultation in July, before the

end of the 2009/10 academic year, the Local Authority caused “panic” and “scared off” parents, both of existing students and those of Year 6 primary school pupils who had already selected Offerton. More than one respondent criticises these parents for “acting hastily” and in total 38 indicate their belief that that the number of transfers across all year group, exacerbated the issue of low student numbers at the school and reduced the chances of the school remaining open. “The proposal has added another downside in relation to pupil numbers – will this affect the final decision?”

3.16 Some parents have provided feedback indicating that they or people they know would

move their children back to Offerton if the school were to remain open. 3.17 Some respondents complain that they were informed by Councillors, Officers or

teachers at other schools that the school was definitely closing and that those enquiring about transferring their children were misinformed about the availability of places in other secondary schools.

3.18 One parent complained in a letter written in June that pupils were informed in an

assembly that there was to be a consultation to discuss the proposal to close the school, yet parents received the letter later that day. The parent asks why they weren’t informed first so that they were prepared to deal with the distress caused by the news shared in the assembly.

3.19 Towards the end of the consultation period, parents complained that Offerton appeared

not to be an option made available for parents of children in Year 6 via the online system. This was checked and assurances offered that Offerton remained a choice that could be indicated.

3.20 The few parents who have already moved their children and who responded to the

consultation indicated that they felt that they had no choice but to move their children. One parent who moved their child to Marple Hall said that the reason for doing so was that they did not want their child’s education disrupted further down the line.

58

of 36

4 GOVERNING BODY CONSULTATION 4.1 The Chair of Governors submitted a detailed proposal to the Council on 12 June 2010,

before the official start date of the consultation period, offering an alternative to closure and this has been included as an appendix to the report. This document, entitled “A New Vision for Offerton School”, concluded with two recommendations;

4.1.1 A call for the Executive to suspend the consultation until such time that a broader and

more imaginative range of possible policy options can be consulted upon.

4.1.2 If, despite recommendation 1, the Executive proceeds to immediate consultation to close Offerton School, the proposal of the Governors as represented by this document be included in the formal public consultation. This will be consistent with the Executive’s publicly stated desire that alternatives emerge through the consultation process and with Section 1.4 of Department of Education advice on processes for “closing a mainstream school”

4.2 A consultation briefing session was held with the Governing Body of the school enabling

questions to be put directly to Council Officers and allowed for comments, objections and suggestions to be put forward.

4.3 The Governing Body sought clarification on the extent of consultation. They also

expressed concerns on behalf of parents about the timing of consultation sessions and the perceived negative messages conveyed to parents by officers. There was also an assertion that Council officers have stated that any improvement in the school’s performance has been solely due to the Council’s input.

4.4 A further consultation feedback session was held with governors. This took place after

the public meeting and governors used the meeting to seek further clarification on statistical information used by the Local Authority, both in its consultation document and at the public meeting.

4.5 A substantive written response was submitted by the Governing Body and is included

as a separate appendix.

4.6 There were no further written submissions from individual governors. 5 PARENT CONSULTATION AND DROP-IN SESSIONS 5.1 The drop-in sessions were attended by parents and carers, giving them the opportunity

to put queries and concerns directly to Council Officers. Those attending the drop-in sessions were encouraged to complete and submit feedback forms or provide written comments; however, notes were taken at each session to capture feedback.

5.2 A total of 135 respondents identified themselves as parents or carers. These can be

broken down as follows;

Parent Type Number Current 82 Current / Future 15 Current / Future / Past 8 Current / Past 8 Future 12

59

of 36

Future / Past 3 Past 7

5.3 It should be noted that some of the parents who fall into the “past” category have grown

up children who have now concluded their secondary education, but a few do indicate they are parents who have already moved their children from Offerton School as they see that closure is inevitable. It should be noted that these respondents are keen to stress that their decision to move their children should not be seen as a reflection of their unhappiness with the school, but that they have acted in order to minimise disruption to their children’s education.

5.4 Whilst it was not a requirement to do so, almost half of the parents indicated what year

group their child was in. A breakdown of this information is provided below;

Year Group Number of respondents College and 2 Primary unspecified 1 Reception 1 Year 2 1 Year 6 1 Year 7 3 Year 8 9 Year 9 12 Year 10 9 Year 11 4 Year 4, Year 6, Year 10 1 Year 6, Year 10 5 Year 7, Year 8, Year 10 1 Year 7, Year 10 2 Year 7, Year 11 3 Year 8, Year 10 3 Year 9, Year 10 1 Year 9, Year 11 1 Not specified 77

NB: All year groups are for the academic year 2010/11, in cases where parents responded earlier the year groups have been amended to reflect the 2010/1 academic year

5.5 80 parents responded to the consultation in writing. Of these 34 submitted feedback

forms, 39 responded form online, one submitted the same response by email and online, 5 wrote letters and 1 sent an email.

5.6 52 parents/carers gave feedback at the consultation sessions and of these two parents

submitted completed feedback forms at the sessions. 5.7 One parent provided feedback at a Banks Lane amalgamation consultation session as

they have children at both Banks Lane and Offerton. 5.8 An overwhelming majority of parents/carers, 122 of 135 indicated that they were against

the proposal. 5.9 Only 5 respondents who identified themselves as parents were in favour of the proposal

and all of these were parents of potential future students, though one also indicated that an older child had been a past student of the school.

60

of 36

5.10 A further 8 respondents did not directly express an opinion regarding the future of the school though they did voice concerns. Of these two were parents of future students and five were parents/carers of current students, whilst the eighth indicated that they had a child at Offerton and one who would move up to the school.

5.11 A substantive written response was received from a parent who is also the organiser of

the Facebook “Save Offerton School, Say No to Closure” Campaign. This contains detailed criticism of the consultation process and also includes illustrations of alternative options to closure including applying for a “Fresh Start” or “Collaborative Restart” for Offerton School.

This will remove all current budgeting issues problems and allow the school to re-open with the back-up of extra funding from the Department for Education. This respondent also indicates that “free school status could be pursued by parents if necessary. This is a move which has already been suggested by several parents AND pupils”.

6 Responses against the proposal 6.1 The key areas for concern expressed by parents are addressed in more detail below,

ranked in order of importance based on the responses received. 6.2 Don’t close Offerton School / Keep the School Open 6.2.1 As indicated above the overwhelming majority of parents/carers indicated opposition to

the proposal, with 75 submitting feedback that directly called for the school not to close or to remain open as these few representative comments illustrate.

6.2.2 I strongly think (and I know others agree) that you should not close Offerton school. 6.2.3 PLEASE DONT CLOSE DOWN OFFERTON SCHOOL.ITS A BRILLIANT SCHOOL. 6.2.4 It is my opinion that the school should remain open. 6.2.5 I am very opposed to the closure of Offerton School. 6.2.6 As our representatives please do all you can to save Offerton School for our children

and their future children 6.2.7 You as a council could, and more importantly, should reconsider your plans and SAVE

OFFERTON SCHOOL! 6.2.8 I feel that the school is worth saving from closure. I would appreciate it if you would

reconsider the closure off Offerton High School, as our children are our future. 6.2.9 If you actually listen to the parents of the children who've been to the school and not

base a decision of this magnitude on the numbers on a spreadsheet there is only one decision to make. The school stays open.

6.2.10 I think it is diabolical that you should even THINK about closing this school….. please

listen to PEOPLE.... and reconsider you decision.

61

of 36

6.3 The closure / decision to consult on closure would / is having a negative impact on student’s education and emotional wellbeing

6.3.1 The key concern expressed by parents was the impact that closure would have on their

child’s education and emotional well being, indeed a high number make reference to the detrimental affect that the consultation alone has had on their children, pointing out that they are at a crucial time in their lives. Concern as to whether children would be able to study their chosen options and the use of supply teachers were frequently raised as queries at consultation sessions and in parent’s feedback.

6.3.2 An early respondent, who states her daughter would be 15 by the time the school

closed in 2012 writes that they are “sick and furious of the Council and Government playing GOD with our children’s lives”

6.3.3 One parent who responded online says that this proposal has come at a “very important time” in her daughter’s education and “the threat of the school closing is making her very very upset, please take into account how all the children are feeling now.” She ends her feedback with the plea “please don’t put the children through this upheaval after all the children are our future, just listen to the children”.

6.3.4 Another parent who is strongly opposed to the proposal to close the school states “I

personally think that no-one has the right to play with children’s education. You decided on a programme to educate them and at a very crucial stage of their lives you changed this programme. This will cause disruption and distress to all pupils involved and will affect their progression in life.”

6.3.5 “it is inevitable that our daughter is going to suffer emotional distress due to the closure” 6.3.6 “I am worried that any upheaval of changing schools miles away will cause problems” 6.3.7 “my daughter tells me this situation is having an adverse affect on students as they are

becoming anxious and unable to concentrate on their work”. 6.3.8 “my son (Year 10) is now frightened to death he has got the options he wants at

Offerton but we are all worried those will be taught by substitute teachers that are not trained in the subjects.”

6.3.9 “Our daughter starts in Year 9 in September, if the school closes down she is not

moving to a new school in year 10 when she has started her GCSE course, apparently some schools take exams in Year 9.”

6.3.10 “I am concerned about continuity of curricular provision for my son (Year 10) through

the two years of his diploma programme, what would happen if his teachers left before the end of the two year programme?

6.3.11 Among the concerns parents have is that the managed transfer, as suggested in the

proposal document. One parent who attend a consultation session asked “can you guarantee year 10 and 11 will be able to remain for their education no matter what the numbers?”

6.3.12 Another parent at a consultation session asked if pupils who have started their GCSEs

will be able to finish at Offerton and stated that they did not want children to be taught by supply teachers, whilst another asked if the decision to close is taken, would the school close sooner than 2012 and wanted assurances as to how the standards of education would be maintained.

62

of 36

6.3.13 Some parents recognise that with the threat of closure the school teachers are likely to

seek other positions and there is concern about what will happen when teachers start to leave. The potential use of supply teachers at the school is not popular with parents, with one parent responding online that “I hope that if the school closes (my son) doesn't end up with supply teachers as the current staff will want to look for new jobs”, whilst another writes “how can you assure me that my son's education will not be affected if he stays at Offerton School when I have learnt that 67 children and some teachers have already left . I appreciate that the teachers have mortgages and bills to pay like anyone else so they are likely to want a permanent and secure job. I don’t want my son being taught by supply teachers, he needs the continuity of regular teachers who know him.”

6.3.14 A parent writing in towards the end of the consultation period stated that they were

worried that “you will disadvantage my son by teachers leaving” expressing the view that “teaching to highest caliber will leave [sic]” and that substitute teachers who do not understand the subject they are teaching would be used.

6.3.15 Another parent, who indicates that they are currently studying for a degree in psychology writes that they have “grave concerns about the situation”, pointing out that children need to be psychologically and emotionally secure in order to do well” This parent warns of affects “that will not been seen on paper” and makes reference to studies that show boys are more likely to join a gang and that a leading factor in this is that “the education l system let them down” and also that people need to feel a sense of belonging”.

6.3.16 A parent who wrote in towards the end of the consultation period indicates that their main concern is “that the good quality of teaching remains consistent for my son's two GCSE years”. They go on to ask "What guarantees are there that the specialist GCSE teachers will not 'jump ship’ before July 2012? Have you provided incentives for them to stay rather than just relying on their continued commitment to the students? What I do not want to see is an array of supply teachers plugging the gaps of teachers who have left. The children need consistency (or as much as can be provided during the staggered closure of the school) and to know that the teachers are still prepared to support them to the end of their GCSEs regardless of what is happening to the school. I considered transferring my son to another school, but decided to allow him to stay as he is settled there & as he was just about to start his GCSEs it was the best I could do for him. It was not an easy decision, and I'd like some kind of proof that the council will safeguard my son's education during the closure as they say they will. (Already one of my son's original GCSE options has been withdrawn due to "insufficient specialist teachers").

6.4 Issues regarding the consultation 6.4.1 When looked at collectively, issues regarding the consultation were the second highest

concern for parents who responded to the consultation, with the greatest number of complaints in this category relating to the timing of the consultation.

6.4.2 A parent who called for a public meeting early in the consultation period called, pointed

out that “you've had these in the past when you wanted to shut schools”. This parent stated the view that “there have been rumours about closing the school before and then there was the leaking of information in the media. People are moving their children now!”

6.4.3 A parent who attended a consultation session raised “the leak to the press” and argued

that “the consultation period is wrong and you are not having public meetings”. In this

63

of 36

parent’s view “the council has not handled it well and people have been scared off in great numbers. The Council should have stopped children moving”.

6.4.4 One parent who responded online towards the end of the consultation period writes “I

feel that information about the consultation has been very limited; for example parents of children in the feeder schools were not informed until 30th September and the local residents have not been informed at all. Whilst I am aware that the council have fulfilled its minimum LEGAL requirement in respect of the consultation, it has fallen well short of its MORAL requirement. This leaves the feeling that the closure is a "done deal" and that the members of the council are merely going through the legal motions with complete disdain for the people who the have been elected to represent.”

6.4.5 A parent who has been instrumental in garnering public support to stop the closure of

the school writes in a lengthy response to the consultation that “As parents we are being given very mixed messages about this consultation process”. This individual details a number of issues and argues that the consultation “has not been overtly public”. In the view of this respondent the impression has been given throughout the process that “the decision to close has already been taken” and points out that if this was a consultation into “possible” closure then other options should have been presented.

6.4.6 The way this is being dealt with is a joke 6.4.7 No wonder this years intake was low with all the scare mongering 6.4.8 “Unfortunately the council releasing details of the possible closure in the manner in

which they did, just before the summer holidays only caused greater number of parents to panic and pull their children out…thus causing more problems for Offerton School.

6.4.9 I am disheartened by the mood in the local community regarding the proposed closure -

newspaper reports and word of mouth have led most people I know to believe that it is inevitable, or even actually confirmed. This surely has stopped some parents sending their children to the school this year and will do for next years applications, making the case for closure even stronger. It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. Suspicious?

6.4.10 In terms of dwindling numbers, its not surprising as the council seems to have made its

decision to close the school and encourage (in my view) parents and future pupils to select other schools by stating the school is to close before consultation has been concluded.

6.4.11 figures from the last few years have also been skewed by a number of factors, not least

being the rumours that have abounded about the closure –I was first informed of this by a friend of a friend 18 months ago and as I am sure you are aware once this sort of rumour starts parents begin to act irrationally, having no faith in the council to do the “right” thing.

6.4.12 The decision is seen by many as a foregone conclusion with comments such as “this is

probably a waste of my time and paper” and I hope that min and the publics views are not ignored, I’m concerned that the decision to close was made a long time ago and is already a “done deal” reflect these views.

6.5 The School has been good for their child / the child has been happy there 6.5.1 Those parents against the proposal to close make reference to how beneficial Offerton

has been for their children. One parent who moved their child from another school in the borough because she hadn’t been doing well there has come on “leaps and bounds”

64

of 36

since moving to the school and has since moved up a set, whilst another describes how their daughter has been “empowered” since moving up the school from primary school. Another parent simply wrote “Offerton is a very good school. I would be sad to see (the) school close. My son would have to start a new school. Not good.”

6.5.2 There are also parents who have written indicating that whilst Offerton was not their first

choice and in some cases they appealed to try and access other schools, they have since changed their opinions of the school, where their children have been happy and have performed well.

6.5.3 One parent of a past pupil, a current pupil and who has one more child who would

attend the school writes “anyone who visits Offerton will be struck by the happiness and security pupils there feel”.

6.5.4 Parents who have already moved their children out of the school write in support of

Offerton nonetheless and state that they felt they had no option but to do so as they did not want their child’s education disrupted. One parent of a Year 6 pupil says she would want her child to attend the school, but not if she thought she would face a transfer part way through her education.

6.5.5 There are a number of examples of responding parents who have moved their children

to Offerton from other secondary schools in the borough. These parents indicate that they were unhappy with their child’s progress at the other schools or had concerns that bullying was not being addressed. They make reference to the fact that their children’s progress has improved since they have moved to Offerton. One parent who responded online wrote that “since my daughter has been at Offerton school she has doubled her grades in almost every subject she was struggling with at her previous school” and goes on to point out that “my daughter knows just how bad she felt whilst in the progress of her transferring to another school and she doesn’t want to go all through that again”.

6.5.6 A number of parents make direct reference to the fact that they chose Offerton or

actively didn’t choose other schools. 6.5.7 “We never wanted our daughter to attend Marple Hall and will work tirelessly to prevent

her from having to do so.” 6.5.8 Many parents whose children have now left make a point of making reference to their

academic success, highlighting that their children are now at university or college and quote the number of A*-C grades they achieved at GCSE.

6.5.9 Responses have been received from parents who have already moved their children,

with one stating that “though we have left Offerton School we feel that we need to write to offer our support for this fabulous school and all its’ staff”, whilst another parent whose daughter was at Offerton School but has now started Year 9 at another neighbouring school points out that “this in no way reflects any disappointment in Offerton School, only in Stockport Council. It is very interesting to note that her and her friends who have moved at the start of Year 9 to neighbouring schools are not struggling in any way with the work and hence obviously their education at Offerton was in no way lacking!”

6.6 Reduce the size of the school 6.6.1 Many parents who are against the closure of the school put forward the alternative

suggestion of downsizing the site to two buildings to enable the school to remain open. One parent at a consultation session asked what size of school would be needed to

65

of 36

make it viable, whilst another argued that “the council should have closed one of the three buildings on site or stopped intake”.

6.6.2 A parent of two current pupils who responded online suggests that “if it is a matter of a

low percentage of pupils attending and costs of repairs, why not shut one of the buildings down and sell off part of the land?”

6.6.3 A parent who responded online and describes herself as “a former pupil, wife of former

pupil, mother of two former pupils one of which had learning difficulties and yet left with 8 GCSE's, mother of current pupil who has learning difficulties and is receiving excellent help, care and education, aunt of numerous pupils past and present” acknowledges that “the school is too large at the moment and there is a strong case for downsizing” and suggests that “maybe meeting in the middle would be the answer, Lower school or Curzon school is in a poor state so could it be let or demolished to make way for a new building or buildings, maybe something that could be of use to all the community”.

6.6.4 Another parent also suggests that the school should be downsized and better use made

of the facilities for the benefit of the community. “There are 3 buildings and extensive grounds it could be made into something really special and beneficial for the community. Why not incorporate a leisure centre that could be used by the community at weekends and evenings and school holidays? Utilize the buildings by having night classes for everyone. There are so many things that the school could be used for as well as educating our children.”

6.6.5 “Offerton School sits on a very large site. Surely consideration can be given to continue

to operate the school on less of a sized site?” 6.6.6 “Surely the existing secondaries will have to have work done to extend so why not just

build at OHS a newer smaller building to adapt to local children’s needs.” 6.6.7 “Why not close one building on the site and use it for another purpose such as a college

or for hired use?” 6.6.8 Run the school from two buildings, reduce the pupil admission number to reduce the

percentage of surplus places and change the use of part of the site.” 6.6.9 “Isn’t it possible to condense the remaining school population into one or two of the

buildings to save money?” 6.6.10 “This school has many assets, it should go for downsizing” 6.6.11 “Make it a smaller site and use the money for the refurbishment of what is left” 6.6.12 “Offerton is unique in lots of ways and one is that three buildings make it surely a school

to downsize not shut completely.”

6.6.13 “Downsize, use the ’other’ buildings for alternative activities or commercial uses. 6.6.14 “There are other options such as reducing the number of 'live' school buildings from 3

down to 2.”

66

of 36

6.7 Other schools are full / will there be enough room in other schools / class sizes will be too big

6.7.1 Parents are worried which schools their children will be able to attend if Offerton School

is closed as they understand that other local schools are full, particularly Stockport School, which is the nearest other school for almost all Offerton pupils.

6.7.2 One parent who responded online writes “I have 2 children currently at Offerton School.

In September 2010 one will be commencing year 10 and the other year 8. Although I chose the option to move both children I have been informed by the council that this is not possible. The desired school is full. I was given the option of 3 further schools which I find unsuitable for various reasons”.

6.7.3 A parent who responded online asked how other schools would cope with the children

who will move to them or whether building work has already been done in schools in the area.

6.7.4 Another parent who responded online expressed concern about her son’s future arguing

that not only is the threat of closure disrupting is education “he is also starting to worry about which school he'll be placed in. Schools in the area are already saying they are full and I feel that anyone who hasn't already jumped ship will be ‘dumped’ anywhere … and we won't have much choice in the matter.”

6.7.5 Parents worry not only about the relocation of current pupils but also future pupils in

Offerton, one parent asks “if Offerton school closes where are all the children who are there now and who would be due to start in the future supposed to go, there are not enough spaces in schools for all of these children.”

6.7.6 One parent wrote in their feedback that “it is such a shame that you are proposing to

close the school just to save money on repairs. Surely this can only have a bad effect on the neighbouring high schools? i.e. Classes too high intakes too high, so many children won't be able to get their first choices schools. Bigger classes mean lower teaching levels.”

6.7.7 A parent who wrote in a detailed response at the end of the consultation process and

who indicates that they have already moved their child from Offerton School “as they sadly believe that the council have made up their minds” writes that On looking around Stockport school my main concern would be the overcrowding. It is all well and good to say “we are getting four more teachers and creating a new form” but where are they going to be put. Stockport is a listed building (maybe the reason for not closing it??) and has a relatively small plot of land hence the building options are not endless”.

6.7.8 “we will not be fobbed off with a school that is miles away when there is Stockport

School within walking distance and Marple Hall school that is a short bus ride away.” 6.7.9 “I tried to move my children to Stockport School and was advised by the Headteacher

that the school was full” 6.7.10 There is no space at Stockport School, this is a concern” 6.7.11 There are overcrowded classes at Stockport school and they need loads of teaching

assistants 6.7.12 “There is concern regarding over-subscription at receiving schools”

67

of 36

6.7.13 “There are not enough surplus places in other schools to take all the Offerton pupils… Marple people can’t get into Marple Hall”

6.8 Unhappy about children travelling distances to other schools 6.8.1 In addition to worrying about there being sufficient room in other local schools, the

distances children would have to travel to attend other schools if Offerton did close is another key concern for parents, with many raising concerns over the health and safety of their children.

6.8.2 One parent describes the difficulties they would face if their daughters who are both

KS3 would have in getting to Stockport School, pointing out that there is no bus route from Marple Road and that it would necessitate two bus journeys which would mean very early starts and be financially costly. A parent who attended a consultation session had health and safety concerns with a Year 7 child having to walk 2 miles to Stockport School over 2 main roads.

6.8.3 A parent of 7 children, all of who have attended or currently attend the school argues

that “the school should be left open because not all kids can travel to different schools, Marple school and Stockport school are now full which would mean that my child would have to travel by a number of 2 buses to get to school. I am very unhappy that my child may be having to travel by bus to school, with the dark winter mornings and all this trouble with paedophiles it is very un-nerving.”

6.8.4 A parent who indicates in their response that they have already started to look at other

schools in case Offerton School does close, says that having reviewed the options, “my children would have to travel out of the area to attend another school at my own costs because we don’t live 3miles away from the selected secondary school my children would be expected to catch a bus as I couldn’t expect them to walk 6miles a day in the society we live in and I am not prepared to put my children at risk in all elements”.

6.8.5 “there is no easier access to any school for miles for the children to safely get to and

with peace of mind for their parents” 6.8.6 “travel will be a real problem” 6.8.7 “the journey to other schools would be difficult” 6.8.8 “I live in Curzon, travel is difficult to other schools and walking 4 miles is not acceptable” 6.8.9 Parents have concerns over children travelling in the dark. 6.8.10 Offerton children should have the right to walk to a school within their area 6.8.11 One parent who attended a consultation session called for a review of the bus pass

criteria remarking “3 miles is ridiculous!” 6.9 Closing the school will be detrimental for the community 6.9.1 More than one parent makes reference to how important the school is for the local

community and highlights that if it were closed it would have a negative impact. 6.9.2 One parent who attended the drop in sessions stated that the community needs to fund-

raise and support the school.

68

of 36

6.9.3 An online respondent with children currently at Offerton states that in their view “Offerton School is a marvellous school, which has served this community very well and deserves to be supported by the authorities, Offerton needs this school.”

6.9.4 Another parent writes: “this is the only school serving the community and you are going

to destroy this for the future generations of Offerton. Already many people leave the area to attend Marple etc, and thus friendships and community spirit is lost, Offerton is losing its identity… closing Offerton school will erode this community.”

6.9.5 One parent, who attended a consultation session expressed understanding about falling

numbers, but said that “it is a terrible waste, such a large site” and was worried about what would happen to the land if the school closes.

6.9.6 Another parent at a consultation session stated that the school is the focus of the local

community. 6.9.7 More than one parent indicated in their feedback that they opted to live in Offerton

because the area had both primary and secondary schools 6.9.8 I am so worried that local shops will be forced to close and then we will have such an

empty and closed off area maybe boarded up buildings etc. The costs are not always monetary, there are so many human costs which are far greater and more far reaching to society as a whole than is realised.

6.10 Staff have been supportive / Offerton acts against bullying / offers specialist support

6.10.1 Repeated references are made to how supportive and encouraging the staff has been,

with a number of respondents making reference to specific teachers. 6.10.2 “We think that the hard work and dedication of the staff at the school have helped him

grow in the fantastic young man that he is” 6.10.3 “The staff are brilliant and care very much for all the children, they are willing and do go

the extra mile to ensure our children have every possibility to succeed” 6.10.4 Teaching staff gave him fantastic support and guidance”

6.10.5 “Some of the teachers at the school have bonded really well with the pupils enabling

them to achieve their maximum potential” 6.10.6 “anybody who visits Offerton School will be struck by the happiness and security pupils

feel there, it is run by professional, dedicated staff who make this school a beacon for the community.”

6.10.7 One parent, who indicates that they moved to Stockport to escape domestic violence praises the school for the support it has given and says that her children feel “safe and secure” there.

6.10.8 Another parent writes that in their view Offerton offers “much more than education, this

is almost a home to some children, they are made to feel part of a great community”. 6.10.9 Reference is made by a number of parents over the caring supportive ethos at the

school, one parent states that ADHD support is superb, whilst another expresses the view that no other school in Stockport supports students over bullying like Offerton.

69

of 36

6.10.10 One parent describes Offerton as “a fully inclusive school, where pupils are

treated equally and children with Special Educational Needs are successfully integrated into the mainstream classroom.”

6.10.11 A number of parents make reference to the fact that Offerton has a good track

record in dealing with bullying. One parent makes direct reference to the fact that she moved her child to Offerton as there had been bullying at another school, whilst another parent writes “there are no other schools who will support students over bullying”

6.10.12 A few other parents have made reference to ill feeling between parents of

children attending Marple Hall and those with children in Offerton, whilst another states the view that teachers at Maple Hall “don’t like Offerton kids”.

6.10.13 A parent who responded towards the end of the consultation process writes that

“I know of bullying that is going on in other schools from which pupils that were from Offerton [sic]”, whilst another parent makes reference to “Stockport School, Mile End serious bullying issues, my mother lives (nearby) and sees all sorts”.

6.11 What will the land be use for / the council is doing this to raise money from the

land 6.11.1 Some parents express the opinion that the school has been earmarked for closure

because the Council wishes to profit from the sale of what is a large site whilst others voice concern over the future of the site were the school to close. A number of parents voice concern that traffic would increase as a result of the closure not only with students needing to be transported to other schools either by car or bus, but also with a larger number of commuters, should the school site become a housing development.

6.11.2 One parent who attended a consultation session asked if either Stockport County or the

Dialstone Centre were moving to the Offerton site. 6.11.3 One parent who submitted a response online simply wrote “the land was left for

"EDUCATION PURPOSES ONLY" 6.11.4 A parent of current and future students asked in their feedback “what are the plans for

the site as it has only two access routes?” 6.11.5 Another parent who indicates they have a child at the school and also have a

child/children who would attend in future highlights “the new government policies regarding free schools” and expresses concern that should they become law “what will happen during the seven years that the site has to be kept available in case on interested ‘party’ comes forward to open a free school?”

6.11.6 Another online respondent accuses the council of wanting to “sell to the highest bidder

where more houses can be built for more council tax, therefore more road congestion and no thought for quality of life for the people in and around the area?”

6.11.7 “at the end of the day, the decision to close Offerton is entirely money led. It disgusts

us. Wait 10 years and that site will be a huge housing estate. Then where will you send all those children?!”

6.11.8 “it is clear to us that the land Offerton School sits on is prime residential development

space and that Stockport Council could indeed secure large revenue from its regeneration”

70

of 36

6.11.9 “I expect the land has already been sold off to a big shot construction company to build

yet more houses on it.” 6.11.10 “would the real reason be that OHS sits on 52 acres of land and would be a

prime development site” 6.11.11 “the council is being underhand over selling this land and making money” 6.11.12 The only reason for closure is to sell the land and build houses” 6.12 Offerton’s not failing / Standards have improved 6.12.1 Many parents query the fact that standards at the school are a reason for justifying the

proposal to close Offerton. More than one states in their feedback “the school is not failing”, and quote the latest GCSE results. One parent asked at the consultation “how can the Ofsted report have been so bad if the children are doing so well and wonder if “an improved Ofsted inspection (would) be a factor in the final decision?”

6.12.2 “Regardless of what the Ofsted reports have said about Offerton School both my

children are doing extremely well” 6.12.3 A number of parents highlight that other schools have reported worse results than

Offerton, though in some cases these have referenced Stockport Academy and it has been pointed out by Council Officers that this establishment falls outside Local Authority control.

6.12.4 “As for the Ofsted report-RUBBISH! We were proof of the pudding; as it were, my

daughter has never done so well. And that was as a result of the wonderful teaching she received.”

6.12.5 The 2010 exam results and last week’s Ofsted report show the amazing work that has

been happening at Offerton School. Low standards are no longer a cause for concern. 6.13 If you have to close the school don’t do in-year transfers 6.13.1 Many parents suggest in their feedback that if the school does have to close that there

should not be in-year transfers and call for the school to remain open until all current pupils have completed their education.

6.13.2 A parent who responded towards the end of the consultation period and submitted a feedback form with their own comments and those of their child (a current pupil) stated “it’s not fair they should just let the pupils stay for (a) period and not have any more intakes”.

6.13.3 “If feel OHS should stay open until 2015 or at least until all pupils have left and no more

taken in”. 6.13.4 “Why can’t you consider keeping the school but not letting new children in so they filter

out year by year?” 6.13.5 If there is to be a closure it should be over 4 years”

6.13.6 Would consideration be given to allow year 8 pupils who currently attend the school to

finish at the school?

71

of 36

6.14 Not enough has been done by the council to keep the school open / the school

should be used for the local community 6.14.1 Some parents accuse the Council of failing to invest in the school buildings, whilst

others are more general in their criticism arguing that they don’t feel that enough has been done to keep the school running.

6.14.2 A parent who replied online early in the consultation process wrote “I am very

disappointed that this school has not had the support it has needed. The proposal for a new building was very exciting, I was very pleased to hear about this, finally the school would have some money spent on it, giving it the future it so deserves. As you can imagine I was very disappointed to hear that the plans had been scrapped.”

6.14.3 One parent who responded online asks “how can the other schools cope with the

children who will come to them or has building work been done in schools in the area already? This same parent states that when it came to considering where to send their child to secondary school they were told improvements were going to be made to Offerton and money put into it and asks “what happened to that? Why were we misled?”

6.14.4 Another parent who responded online wrote “it is a disgrace that Offerton is closing. No

money has been invested in the school for many, many years and the surrounding area in Offerton will suffer as many families will move to where there is a school.”

6.14.5 One parent of current Offerton pupils who attended the school herself when it was Goyt

Bank writes “Yes the school is in disrepair, but is that because you as our council have not made any major repairs/upgrades in years? The school still looks the same as when I attended in the eighties!! Had the repairs/upgrades been carried out over the years like other schools then surely it wouldn't take the estimated 5 million to make further improvements!!”

6.14.6 One parent writing online argues that he reasons stated in the proposal for closure have

to be questioned and states that “one that shocks myself is the fact the buildings are in such a state of disrepair - why? Who is responsible for this when other schools in the area appear to have the funding?”

6.14.7 “we feel the school has been left to go downhill deliberately” 6.14.8 “The council has let the school go into disrepair” 6.14.9 “I know for a fact that tenders have been submitted for a list of upgrades and remedial

repairs to Offerton…These have now been “shelved’”. 6.14.10 I think the school has never been used to its full potential, sporting areas should

have been opened to the public and the school hasn’t provided lessons for the wider community. Surely this could be looked at before the drastic situation of closure is taken into consideration…... we must look at other options as this is such a big and useable site for the community”.

6.14.11 I would very much like to see Offerton get the building it so deserves (the only

reason it is in the state it is now is because it has had years of neglect) and the staff to get the support and help needed in order to improve the Ofsted report.

6.14.12 You have a new council building, a school is more important than new offices; we

shouldn’t be paying for new council kitchens.”

72

of 36

6.15 Birth rates are rising how can you accommodate future generations of Offerton

students? 6.15.1 A number of parents who attended consultation sessions expressed concern over the

rising birth rate and with one parent asking how future generations of Offerton students could be accommodated “if Stockport School is the only local school?”

6.15.2 A parent with a child already at Offerton and who indicates that they have a child who would also attend the school in future writes “Stockport is already struggling with a lack of secondary school. To close another doesn’t make any sense at all, what about the future when our schools are overcrowded, you’ll rue the day when you closed Offerton.”

6.15.3 This view is reflected by another parent who states “I feel Stockport council are making

a big mistake and in the long run it will cost much more money, as the drop in school children is only a lull, and will increase again very quickly, which means in the end another school will have to be built.”

6.15.4 A parent who responded online writes “I feel Offerton should stay open and could be

used as an overspill school if the birth rate goes up in Offerton or other surrounding areas then it could be used to take in the excess of pupils if other schools become oversubscribed.”

6.15.5 A parent who wrote in online states “I believe sometimes the council is short sighted.

The population is generally increasing, despite the temporary drop in the birth rate to 2014 and in future a new school could be built on the site if need be.”

6.15.6 One parent quotes the Draft Infrastructure Plan in which the council acknowledged that

by 2018 the current rise in birth-rate will be having a noticeable effect in secondary school places in the borough and argues that despite BSF falling through “that has not made a difference to the currently rising birth-rate, it still exists and those children will still need to be accommodated.

6.15.7 “High birth rates coming up mean we will need places in future” 6.16 Why are you building at other schools and not Offerton? 6.16.1 A number of parents make reference to the fact that other local schools, namely

Stockport School and Marple Hall are both referenced. 6.16.2 One parent who wrote in early in the consultation process argued that it was there

understanding that numbers were falling in all Stockport’s Secondary Schools yet “including Bramhall who have managed to secure £170K of funding to build a new conservatory style dining room..Marple Hall are proposing to build!!!!

6.16.3 One parent writing online asks if there is really the 4000 or so shortfall in students in the

borough to fill school places why is Stockport School having new classrooms built? 6.16.4 One parent writes “I find it very convenient that Councillor Dave Goddard is Governor at

Stockport School, and money has been thrown at it yet everything has been stopped and been put on hold at Offerton School. Therefore they have been unable to improve.

6.16.5 One parent who submitted a written response at the end of the consultation process

wrote “the Government has stopped building at schools and why then is the gym and swimming pool being demolished and class rooms being built?”

73

of 36

6.17 Offerton has good clubs / extra curricular activities / we need to use the site more

for the local community 6.17.1 Many parents make reference to the activities offered by the school and expressed

concern that should the school close and their children are forced to move to another school they will not benefit from the same wide range of activities.

6.17.2 Activities offered by Offerton that are mentioned in parents’ feedback include the Lego Club, the Cheerleading Team and the Library facilities all being mentioned. Parents also point out that the school’s sports facilities are used by the local community and that more could be done to make school buildings, playing fields and equipment available for the community.

6.17.3 One respondent who identified themselves as the parent / carer of a current pupil states the “Lego Club is immense”, whilst another point out that “(the) library has lots of money i.e. Lego, computers, Wii, popcorn.”

6.17.4 One parent pointed out in their feedback that the “Music Society uses the buildings, why

no one else?” 6.17.5 Parents also point out that the school’s sports facilities are used by the local community

and that more could be done to make school buildings, playing fields and equipment available for the community.

6.17.6 A parent who wrote in at the end of the consultation process points out that “the

Dialstone Centre has now been put up for sale” and highlights that the wide ranging activities that take place there could now be lost “which has a knock on effect to the local community” and comments “I don’t suppose the council has thought of the possibility of transferring these activities to Offerton School”. This same suggestion is made by a number of other parents.

6.18 Closure will be detrimental to staff 6.18.1 In addition to voicing concern for their children a number of parents also make reference

to the fact that closure would negatively impact staff. 6.18.2 One parent who wrote in towards the end of the consultation period points out that

“many of the teachers have been at Offerton for many years. Obviously it is not easy for them & I would like to think that measures are in place to ensure such good teachers are not wasted by being made redundant, and that as much as possible is being done to help them transfer schools or get another job elsewhere on the closure of the school.”

6.19 Separating children from their friends 6.19.1 In addition to worrying about the general emotional impact closure would have on their

children, many parents make reference to the fact that it would split their child up from their friends, whilst another parent warns that Offerton pupils moving to other schools would be treated as “outcasts”.

6.19.2 One parent of a current pupil who responded online before the schools’ summer break

has a daughter who “also wanted to go to go to this school and is due to start in September”. This mother writes that “her daughter had been “very upbeat about going even with the possible closure” but goes on to say that “I am now left with a very upset young girl who came back from her last days at junior school only to find out two of her

74

of 36

friends have now got in to Marple High School for September, she is wondering if she will know anyone in September. “

6.19.3 A parent of a child in Year 10 writes that 5 of her friends have gone to other schools

because of the upset this has caused. 6.19.4 “Our daughter loves to spot her fellow pupils when she is in the local area and has a

great number of friends. Closing Offerton School will mean the people she shares the same street with may be unknown to her and this is wrong.”

6.19.5 I am unsure as to what is best for my son he feels he will be lose friends as local

schools have only a few places and the alternative is for him to get on a bus and not be part of the community that we live in”.

6.20 Offerton is suffering again 6.20.1 A number of references are made to this proposal being a repeat of what happened at

Dialstone, and that the closure of Dialstone School and the changing of catchment areas five years also has “engineered” the decline in numbers at Offerton School. More than one respondent queries why Offerton has been disadvantaged yet again.

6.20.2 This view is reflected in the response of another parent who submitted a response

towards the end of the consultation period “the council has let the numbers fall by changing the catchment area that happened 5yrs ago they made the catchment smaller and made Stockport School’s catchment larger”.

6.20.3 One parent writing online argues that the reason the school is faced with this proposal is

“all due to the inconsiderate decisions from the council in the past, i.e. lack of funding for repairs which has meant that the repairs are now urgent & will cost more than the general up keep which should have been done in the first place, changing of catchment areas i.e., Offerton estate children attending Stockport school!!!!! These are just a couple of many.”

6.20.4 A parent who recalls the merging of Dialstone School and Goyt Bank to form Offerton

High School” writes that “many children’s lives were disrupted at a time that was VITAL to their education and to my knowledge no impact assessment has even been carried out on the closure of these schools”.

6.20.5 “the last school you closed down was in Offerton as well, Dialstone School, is there a

reason why Offerton is getting picked on?” 6.20.6 The decision about Dialstone created chaos and we do not want to see this replicated. 6.21 Impact on the Brinnington cohort 6.21.1 A consultation session was held in Brinnington for parents of pupils from the area who

attend Offerton School. Whilst this was attended by only two parents there were other respondents who highlighted the impact any closure of Offerton School would have on pupils from Brinnington an area that has already lost their local secondary school and some primary schools.

6.21.2 One parent who responded online writes “This is a school where children from

Brinnington go and seeing as the only secondary school was closed in Brinnington some years ago Brinnington children were split between 3 schools, where would they go now to be split between 2 schools both of which are very overcrowded as it is.”

75

of 36

6.21.3 One of the parents who attended the Brinnington consultation session gave the

following feedback “You are absolutely off your trolleys proposing this. We’ve already lost Brinnington Secondary, this is another loss for the community. This is the 3rd time my family has been affected, first there was Maycroft, then Bruntwood, now Offerton”. This is not acceptable. Offerton is very strong on pastoral care, they genuinely care, parents are made to feel important. Offerton is a real community school.”

6.21.4 Another parent writing online stated “When Brinnington school closed Offerton took on

the majority of the students. We have to stop this cycle from happening over and over again.”

6.21.5 A parent who wrote in towards the end of the consultation period makes reference to

the Council’s Building Schools for the Future documentation and points out that “the report stated that the schools in need of improving were those that took the children from the town’s poorest region – Brinnington and yet you now want to close Offerton – the most successful of these schools for Brinnington children. What was written in 2008 about the children of poorer areas surely still holds true and if they are happy and thriving at Offerton School then to shut the school is counter productive.”

6.21.6 A parent who submitted a lengthy response at the end of the process also refers to the

Brinnington cohort writing that “this council has not learnt from past mistakes” and points out that when Brinnington Secondary was closed down it had a very negative impact on an area where children were and still are socially deprived. It’s taken 30 years for them to build standards for young people from this area to get above 14% performance level of five GCSEs Grades A*-C.

6.22 The following points were also raised by parents

Traffic problems in the Offerton area will worsen if the school closes Other schools are in a worse state of repair than Offerton Shut another school not Offerton What happened to the plans for investing in the school (BSF)? Parents aren’t aware that they can still choose Offerton for 2011/12 The consultation cannot be seen as representative as the parents of children who have

already moved them out of Offerton can no longer take part Use part of the site for a 6th Form College The costs quoted for improving the school are inflated / are not as high as the council is

making out. 6.23 Parent Responses in Support of the Proposal 6.23.1 As already indicated a very small number of parents voiced support for the closure

proposal. The main reasons expressed are that Offerton “has a bad reputation” and that its educational standards are “poor”.

6.23.2 One parent who states that “unfortunately my house is in the catchment area”

expresses the view that “the school, its building, its staff and its pupils are a disgrace to Stockport.”

6.23.3 Another parent who lives in the Offerton area says in their feedback that the school has

“always had a poor reputation among friends and colleagues of mine and I was worried about my child’s future if he had to go there.” Her main concern for the future would be

76

of 36

how alternative places would be offered and if parents like her would get their first choice of school.

6.23.4 A third parent of a child who currently attends one of Offerton’s associated primary

schools says that “I did not want my daughter to go to Offerton” as it has “a bad reputation” and would not want her learning abilities to fall back.

6.23.5 This view is reflected by another primary school parent who states that she was

“reluctant” to send her daughter to the school “due to severe low academic achievements”. This parent goes on to say that “the school is in desperate need of repair, the neglect of the buildings reflects in the students who can show disrespect for the school and surrounding areas.

6.23.6 The one parent in favour of closure who has already had a child at the school and has

other children who would attend in future writes that over the last 10 years “a regime has manifested itself within the school walls that has rotted the very core of this local seat of learning” and believes “that closure is inevitable”.

6.24 Questions/Concerns from Parents 6.24.1 Most queries came from parents who attended consultation sessions. Key concerns

were how the council could ensure that their child’s education wouldn’t be affected and that the standard of education will be maintained; how the Council would manage the transfer of students and ensure that parents got their first “alternative choice” of school; what travel arrangements would be made and if financial assistance would be made for bus fares; similarly if money would be available to pay for new school uniforms.

6.24.2 One parent responded online and indicated that they recently moved to Offerton

because of the good primary schools and proximity to the secondary school put forward a list of questions and concerns:

What schools do the council propose children living in Offerton attend? What travel arrangements the council will be making for those who would have attended

Offerton School in the future? How will those schools be able to cope with an influx of pupils? (especially those

schools such as Stockport School where the grounds are surrounded by housing so no further development would be available)

What will happen to the site where the school currently is? Can the council assure us that there will be no unnecessary development on the school

site? 6.24.3 Other queries submitted by parents during the consultation include

What use will the land be put to? Are there plans to close or amalgamate other schools in Stockport? Will the school close sooner than 2012? What will happen if teachers start to leave? Will courses be rushed in case teachers leave? What assurances can be given about curriculum provision? Is there room in Stockport School? Will children be taught by supply teachers? Should Offerton close would there still be pedestrian access across the grounds? If not

pupils at Fairway would have a long walk or be forced to travel to school by car. What will happen to boundary changes?

77

of 36

Why is Offerton not an option on the website as an option for Year 7 from September 2011?

7 STUDENT CONSULTATION 7.1 Following discussion with the acting headteacher, a number of methods were used to

engage with students. 7.2 Two dedicated assemblies where held where a member of the Youth Participation team

explained the background to the proposal and the methods of engaging students. 7.3 A specific consultation form was designed for students and time was set aside in the

school day to allow students to complete the forms and provide their feedback to the proposal.

7.4 One student organised a petition which amassed 294 signatures. 7.5 364 student feedback forms were submitted

Year Group Number PercentageYear 7 29 8.0%Year 8 48 13.2%Year 9 58 15.9%Year 10 97 26.6%yr 11 101 27.7%Unknown / blank 31 8.5%

7.6 The feedback forms provided students with the option to choose potential concerns and

potential benefits were the school to close. The breakdown of responses is as follows:

Question Option Count

Split from my friends 262

Other schools might be too crowded 196

Might not get the options I want 192

Other schools not as nice 172

Worry about travel to another school 153

Might be bullied 111

Help with transport 97

Make new friends 94

Organise visits/open evenings to new school 83

Meet new pupils to get to know them 78

Able to chose the same options or other options I'd like 75

Different school could be better 73

Let me help plan changes 65

Might get good exam results 59

Might be better equipment 55

Happy to travel to another school 50

Might be more clubs 30

78

of 36

7.7 As can be seen from the table above, a greater number of students selected the options that reflect the negative impact of closure to those reflecting potential positives.

7.8 Concern over being split from their friends was the greatest concern across all year

groups, not surprisingly concern over options was less of an issue for Year 11 students as the proposal states that this year group should conclude their education at Offerton.

7.9 Students were given the opportunity to express their concerns in free text boxes on the

consultation form and put their questions to the Local Authority. 7.10 More than one child drew a sad face in the free text box and more than one student

comments that the questions are “rather one-sided”, whilst others write “this questionnaire is rubbish” with another student stating “Your [sic] not going to do anything with this”.

7.11 The most common question put by students is “why are you closing Offerton School?” 7.12 More than one student wonders what affect the school closure will have when they w

apply for college. 7.13 43 students submitted additional feedback to the proposal. Of these 7 attended

consultation sessions, one made a phone call and 35 submitted written feedback. 7.14 As would be expected all of the students are against the proposal to close the school

and 27 call for the school not to close or to remain open. 7.15 Of the students who wrote in 25 completed feedback forms, 6 replied online, 3 sent

emails and one sent in a letter. 7.16 Correspondence was received from 3 students prior to the formal consultation on the

proposal, all of whom submitted pleas to reconsider the decision to close the school. 7.17 Two of these responses came from students who at that time were in Year 7. One

states “we at Offerton school are confused how you have to considered to close our school down from all those in the Stockport area”. This student goes on to say that the news has “upset and unsettled pupils”, pointing out that whilst the letter to parent’s states that “your child’s education is our main priority the closure will disturb their education”.

7.18 The other year 7 student indicates that they were formerly at Peacefield Primary School,

which closed in the Summer of 2009. This student states that although she was in her final year she nonetheless found the imminent closure “stressful” and “upsetting” and is now “extremely angry” to hear that Offerton is threatened with closure as she’s experienced this situation once before and doesn’t want it to happen again, asking:

7.19 “how would you feel if you got made redundant twice and had to find new jobs?” 7.20 The other early student respondent was in Year 9 at the time and points out that whilst

she might not be fully affected by the closure, having only two years remaining at school; there will nonetheless be an impact. She indicates that she understands the position regarding empty places and the corresponding cost, but highlights that the closure of Offerton would impact not only her school and its staff and pupils, but also other schools, and the community. This student makes reference to the good GCSE results and asks “why would you want to destroy this, and take away the pride Offerton School has to offer”. Like other respondents the student suggests reducing the size of

79

of 36

the school. She concludes “bear (in mind) the thoughts of the pupils at Offerton, we are the brains, and heart of the future, so don’t destroy our education”.

7.21 7 students attended the organised consultation drop-in sessions and provided their

feedback and all indicated that they were unhappy with the proposal to close the school. Whilst the year group of three of the students was not indicated, one was in Year 7, another in Year 10 and the two were both Year 11 students.

7.22 The key concern of pupils who attended consultation sessions related to the

consultation process itself. 7.23 The Year 11 students both submitted detailed comments. 7.24 One describes the school as “very supportive… and has encouraged me to do well”,

going on to describe the teachers as “fantastic” doing “more than is required of them to help us succeed”. This student acknowledges that the school needs repairing, but argues that buildings are still in good enough condition to teach in”. As well as making reference to the good GCSE performance at the school, the student expressed that the “leaks to the public that led to 250 children pulling out of the school should have been controlled”.

7.25 The other year 11 pupil also makes reference to the improved results and states that “a

school who does not provide high results should be brought forward for consultation of closure”. This student argues that the council is responsible for the recent fall in numbers and that the rumours “biased people and confused parents” and expresses the opinion that Offerton should be “supported not bullied”.

7.26 The Year 10 pupil had many questions as to why Offerton had been earmarked for

closure and not another school in the borough. This student, who “really likes the school, it does a good job” proposed the reduction of the school to only two blocks.

7.27 In the view of the Year 7 student the school has good teachers and lessons, and they

are worried about travel, losing friends and missing activities 7.28 The pupils whose year group was not recorded stated that they knew lots of primary

pupils who were told Offerton is definitely closing. In their view students were being “messed around and Stockport School shouldn’t have taken students”. These pupils expressed the belief that “students should be given the right to have a say where we want to be!” They pointed out that the school is “the centre of the community” and worried that there would be no need for business and people to come to the area.”

7.29 More than one student at feedback sessions asked what would happen to the teachers

if the school were to close. 7.30 The key concerns of pupils who submitted responses other than via the pupil feedback

form or consultation sessions were; the affect closure would have on their education or that the proposal to close is already having a negative affect on their education; issues with travel and transport to other schools; the leaking of information and pupils moving before the outcome of the consultation was known had a detrimental impact on numbers at the school; staff had been encouraging and supportive; classes at other schools were already too big and that Offerton was not a failing school but had recently achieved its best set of results at GCSE.

7.31 Two students’ comments were submitted in joint response with their parents. One of

these pupils wrote “I really want the school to stay open because I have made lots of new friends and I know all of the teachers”, whilst the other wrote “if you were to close

80

of 36

the school then you could let the students finish year 11 and don’t let any more year 7s come in”.

7.32 This suggestion of avoiding “in-year transfers” was expressed by a further pupil who

submitted their own feedback form, who wrote “even if you wish to close the school at least could you let all the children finish but don’t let any more year 7 students in”.

7.32.1 The school’s GCSE results are on the rise and the highest in the area 7.32.2 The current school’s GCSE results have been steadily improving with the vast majority

of students gaining at least 5 C-A* grades. This in itself should mean the school does not require closing as there is still a fabulous learning environment and also

7.33 Students who opted to use the standard consultation form for providing feedback, either

online or in paper form were unhappy that there was not a “pupil/student” option to identify them, ticking “other “ and stating that they were a student.

7.34 One respondent who completed the online response form identified themselves as a

pupil but did not provide any view or comments. 7.35 One student submitted two responses online and appeared concerned that as a

student, their views would not be considered, with the plea “don't delete this as soon as you know I am a student” and “don’t delete this just because I am not an adult”.

7.36 This Year 10 student goes on to say that he has “had the best education I think I

could've had” and points out that the school librarian is in the Top 5 school librarians in the country and the other four are from private schools!

7.37 He calls on the council, who he sees as being a fault, to “fork out some money to help

the school be even better than it is”. 7.38 One student, who was in Year 7 at the time called the Local Authority in the early stages

of the consultation to argue that far from putting student’s education at the highest priority” they were disadvantaging them with the proposed closure of Offerton School. This student suggested that one building should be closed and the school kept open.

7.39 A similar view was expressed by a pupil who submitted a feedback form towards the

end of the consultation process. “Well first of all, WHY? Out education is your 1st priority and in my opinion it’s not helping at all…. I understand (we) were low in numbers, close one building down, less room, less students”.

7.40 One of the online respondents identified themselves as a student, and it is clear from

her feedback that she was formerly at Offerton school, stating that “For the moment I have had to find a temporary school so that in case you do make the wrong decision to close it I will have another school to go to. However I am on the edge of my seat and hoping desperately (to the point of tears) that you will keep it open so that I can move back to the school where me and my heart belong… The majority of students (including myself) would move back to Offerton if you made the right decision to keep it open.”

7.41 Whilst this student has felt compelled to move, she describes Offerton as “a very very

very good school” and “a friendly warm-hearted school.” 7.42 Another Year 10 student who responded online, who indicates that they are an A*

student states that they are “disgusted by the councils idea to close the school.”

81

of 36

7.43 He points out that the school “is a big part of the local community and the closure of the school would leave Offerton without any high school.” He feels that “the problems started with the headteacher of the school who has damaged the school’s reputation and not followed the correct procedures has affected the school with the council. “The student concludes his feedback with the comment “This is a brilliant school and should be completely funded and backed up by the council as we vote for them not the other way round.”

7.44 A further online response has been received from a current Offerton student, though

there is no indication of her year group. This student asks “Where are ALL the pupils going to go? What about the teachers where will they go? What if they can’t get another job anywhere else?”

7.45 As with other respondents, this student suggests a reduction in the size of the school

asking “why can’t you just knock one of the buildings down eg. Curzon?” The student calls on the Council to consider her questions and “think it through again!!!!”

7.46 A student who filled in and posted a feedback form early in to the consultation period

called closing Offerton School a “rash, inconsiderate and ignorant decision” and expresses “outrage” that students “were never asked how we felt about closure”. This individual feels that an Ofsted inspection does not give a true reflection of the potential of the school and points out that the students have been achieving highly. They state that students have been left “distressed and crying uncontrollably because of the pathetic decision” and asks that if another school in Stockport is to be closed that the council “will actually try and bother about children’s feelings and what they are doing to the community.”

7.47 A student who submitted a feedback form stated “if our school closes how GREAT is it

going to look at job/college interviews (Interviewer) - What school did you go to? (Interviewee) - Offerton (Interviewer) - The one that’s closed now

7.48 Another student who submitted a standard feedback form wrote “I have ADHD, so I get

extra support”. 7.49 14 of the feedback forms submitted by students were received at the end of the

consultation period. These responses all largely reflect the same points, the pupils are all happy at the school and don’t want it closed and suggest that the way to save the school is to shut one building and use the money from the sale of that to support the school, and also for their to be fundraising to assist the school’s continuation.

You could get people to sponsor each child for something and if every child raises £1 each we’ll still get over £700 for the school to stay open. Do some fun days to raise money by just doing lucky dips, raffles using classes to do fun things.

7.50 One of these pupils writes “people judge this school by the way it looks but the inside of

this school (is) superb and full of students who want to learn and teachers who want to teach”.

7.51 Another writes “to keep all the years and when year 11 go don’t get a new year 7 so

when we’re in year 11 it will shut down so we will all graduate”.

82

of 36

7.52 One of these respondents ends their feedback with the words:

“I am most disappointed that the council are proposing to close the school. I want to use it not lose it.”

8 LOCAL COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION 8.1 33 respondents indicated that they were members of the local community only, though

many parents who responded to the consultation also made a point of ticking this option.

8.2 Most of the community respondents, 18 in total, provided feedback online. One

individual wrote a letter and the remaining respondents submitted feedback forms. 8.3 Of these respondents a minority were in support with 7 in favour of the proposal and 21

stating opposition. Of those against closure 9 directly stated they wanted the school to remain open or not to close.

8.4 Four did not express a view, but aired concerns, whilst one, who responded via the

online response form, did not specify any view or provide any comments. 8.5 Whilst not all of those who indicate that they are in favour of the proposal provide any

detail to support their views, arguments put forward in favour of the proposal to close Offerton include that the school is “a dump” and “the whole school is a disgrace and should be closed”.

8.6 One individual who identifies themselves as a former pupil puts forward the opinion that

the school has had an “uncaring attitude…for at least the last 20 years or more”. 8.7 Another individual identifies themselves as a member of the local community rather than

a parent of a child who would attend Offerton School, despite having a child of 7 and living within Offerton’s catchment. This respondent indicates that even if the school remains open they would not be sending their child to Offerton.

8.8 Conversely one respondent, who identified themselves as a member of the local

community and a former pupil of the school, asks that the school remains open “because I would like my child to go there”.

8.9 One local community respondent, who is the chair of governors of another secondary

school within the borough states the opinion that: “With the mounting financial pressure on education nationwide, but specifically within Stockport, it is clear that action needs to be taken to reduce the over capacity within secondary education. Whilst closing Offerton will be a challenge to some, it is something that needs to be done for the greater good of the whole of the borough and it is something that we should not shy away from.”

8.10 However another respondent who indicates support for the proposal calling for any

savings made to be invested in other schools within the borough warns that: “The behaviour of the council on the closure of the primary school at Cherry Tree cannot be repeated. Local people’s views were completely over-ridden and now school places in Romiley are problematic because local schools there are over-subscribed. If Offerton School is closed, the council has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient places in local schools for those pupils to go to“.

83

of 36

8.11 A local ward councillor submitted a number of queries relating the proposal indicating that the main concern was that sufficient space would not be available at Stockport School, even after remodelling, to accommodate all those who would wish to go there and calls for proper “local” provision. The councillor also highlights the issues of travel and transportation of pupils, should Offerton be closed, expressing the view that walking would not be a safe option for Offerton pupils attending Marple Hall School.

8.12 The main arguments made by members of the local community who say they are

against the closure focus on the impact closure would have on Offerton as a community and also the affect it will have on children’s education, not only those studying at Offerton, but also those at other schools that may have to receive Offerton pupils.

8.13 A member of the local community wrote on their feedback form “think of the children”

and indicates that there is already bullying at other schools calling the children “Offerton Drop Outs”. This respondent also states “bet none of the decision makers’ children go to the school”.

8.14 Another local community respondent states that they strongly disagree with the

proposal the reason being “all the schools in Stockport are already overcrowded with pupils and they can not cope with more children from the other schools.” Another community respondent who attended the public meeting on 30 September provided feedback expressing concern as to “how can over 800 children be integrated into schools without having larger classes?”

8.15 This same respondent writes “(It) rips the heart out of the community”, whilst another

member of the community writes that closing the school would create “a serious void in the community”.

8.16 Another member of the local community who indicates they attended the public meeting

writes that they were “totally appalled” and that those who attended the meeting got the impression that the decision to close the school had already been made.

8.17 I felt that our feelings as a community were not being considered al all. We feel this

council is on a mission to destroy Offerton. 8.18 The comments of some other local community respondents reflect the fact that they feel

it is important for the area to have its own secondary school. 8.19 The school should stay open for local children 8.20 The school should remain open to ensure that local children maintain the option to learn

within their own local community 8.21 Local school for local people!! 8.22 One community respondent simply states their support with the words “Offerton School

is a fantastic school and one that has such dedicated staff and pupils.” 8.23 A further local community respondent who states that they are also a grandmother of

former and current students at the school praises the school for the positive influence it had on her grandson who performed well despite not being academically bright and potentially disruptive. In her opinion “I don't think it is right to have the threat of closure hanging over the new students.”

84

of 36

8.24 A few of the members of the local community voice their unhappiness over the consultation, with one highlighting that local residents had not been notified of the proposal to close the school.

8.25 One member of the local community wrote in with suggestions as to how to make the

best use of the accommodation at Offerton, proposing the closure of one of the buildings, which would “release money for the other two”. The respondent suggests that the disused building could be used as an alternative if Dialstone Centre should close and also that “instead of using resources at other schools to facilitate accommodation for pupils at Offerton School use those resources to ensure the retention of Offerton School.”

9 STAFF CONSULTATION RESPONSES 9.1 In total 19 staff provided responses to the consultation. 9.2 14 individuals who responded in writing identified themselves as members of staff and

of these 4 responded online, one submitted an email, 2 sent in letters and the other 7 submitted feedback forms.

9.3 All were against the proposal to close Offerton School and 6 called directly for the

school not to close or to remain open. 9.4 There were 3 consultation drop-in sessions held for staff, but these were only attended

by 5 staff members. Four of these wanted to discuss their personal circumstances were the decision to close and only one provided feedback on the proposal.

9.5 The staff member who provided feedback was critical of the timing of the consultation

making the following points: 9.6 “The release of the proposal was ill-judged and it should have been when all of the

proposed year 7 arrived at the school – that is, late September.” 9.7 “Children should not have been allowed to transfer” 9.8 “Understood the demographic of over-capacity in secondary schools, feels the LA’s

timing is at fault.” 9.9 7 individuals who responded in writing identified themselves as members of staff and of

these 2 responded online, with the others submitting feedback forms. All were against the proposal to close Offerton School and 5 called directly for the school not to close or to remain open.

9.10 One individual, who submitted a response in August, relatively early in the consultation

period, stated that in their view the consultation had been “handled very poorly so far for students, staff and parents.” No genuine interest in the school, this has been clear all year. Wrong information given from town hall, telling parents that the school is definitely closing and they should send their child somewhere else or transfer.

9.11 Reflecting the feedback given at the staff consultation session, the main issues raised

by staff who wrote in were linked to the consultation; its timing and the impact that had in reducing pupil numbers; and the fact that information was “leaked”. However staff also voice concern over the impact closure would have on students and the local

85

of 36

community and a number propose that the school should be downsized rather than closed entirely.

9.12 Two staff wrote in giving as their only feedback “close one of the buildings and keep the

school open”, though this suggestion is also made by a number of other staff in their feedback. One staff member writes that whilst they appreciate “that the council needs to save money I suggest this could be done by closing one (or possibly two) buildings rather than shutting the whole school down. This would save money in terms of heating and maintenance and possibly allow the land to be sold or used for other purposes.”

9.13 The state of the buildings: closing one building would make immediate savings on

upkeep and maintenance. Selling off some of the land would raise enough to see major improvements to the fabric of the two remaining ones.

9.14 I propose they shut one of the buildings and keep the other two open which would make

the school and the site smaller for the amount of students we have left and also the money we would be saving.

9.15 Other issues raised by staff were that other schools are receiving money for their

buildings with one member are staff asking, “why not use this for helping Offerton? The Council is at fault for this situation, failing to invest in and support the school”, whilst another writes “Offerton School has had relatively small scale building projects in the last few years whereas some other schools have enjoyed greater investment. Why, for example, is ours the only school never to have had a sports hall?”

9.16 Reflecting the views of some parents, one member of staff who responded after the

public meeting on 30 September 2010 and has worked for the school for a number of years expressed the opinion that “from day one (I) got the feeling that we as a school for the local community was and would always be the poor relation as far as the local authority were and are concerned”. This same member of staff makes reference to the Building Schools for the Future programme and the fact that Offerton was top of the list for investment “yet 14 months later you are threatening to close the school. Where is the justice?”

9.17 A member of staff who responded towards the end of the consultation period, who also

indicated that they were related to a pupil at the school expressed their “disappointment at the method in which this proposal has been handled. I believe no care or thought has been given to the children, parents or staff”. This individual, who has spoken to “upset and distressed parents who now regret moving their children. They feel they were not provided with correct information and inaccurate press reports.”

9.18 Staff who responded to the consultation also highlight the negative affect the proposal

would have on the community. 9.19 The staff member who wrote of their disappointment over the proposal also writes that

“as a resident of Offerton, I and many other have great concerns about the unemployment that will be caused….many shops and local businesses will suffer and the Offerton community will almost certainly become a ghost town with the heart ripped out of it”.

9.20 Another staff member who is also the parent of a student at the school argues that “the

community and children of Offerton don’t deserve to lose our school” and calls for “a viable solution to continue the future of Offerton School” and reflects responses received from students in expressing willingness to fundraise in order to keep the school open.

86

of 36

9.21 A member of staff who submitted feedback in writing expressed the view that “the role

[sic] at the school has fallen because the catchment area is unfairly aligned”. This member of staff argues that the school “is a community in its own right” and makes reference to the extra curricular activities it offers”.

9.22 One staff member writes in detail about the extra curricular activities offered at the

school said “these activities are important not only for the school, but also for Offerton and the surrounding communities.”

9.23 A member of staff who responded online describes Offerton as “an excellent school,

with excellent caring staff”. This individual believes that “Notice to Improve notices were given out "like confetti" by Ofsted after the new guidelines came into force in September 2010 [sic]. This is no reason to be closing the school as the issues raised are being addressed”. They point out that “the Headteacher has resigned and the school has a very positive forward thinking approach” and call for the school “to be given that chance to show the authority what it can do!”

9.24 A member of staff who submitted a substantive response after the most recent Ofsted

visit wrote in to express a number of concerns mostly relating to those students who still remain at the school, asking who continuity of their education is to be maintained if the school closes and argues that closure is not “in the best interests of these students”. This individual highlights the impact that closure would have on disadvantaged students “forced to move to large schools with much larger classes, pointing out that exam results show that “students from Brinnington do best at Offerton and warns that forcing children to move could potentially lead to increased truancy.

9.25 The impact that the closure of Offerton School would have on vulnerable pupils is

reflected in the feedback from another member of staff who responded online.

the closure of Offerton school will great impact the education of some of the most vulnerable students in Stockport. They need stability not upheaval, security not knowing what will happen, moving on mass to another school which will probably be much bigger where they will not be known and where prejudice about where they have come from will not help them to achieve their potential. If there are so many spaces in other schools why are students in schools where some of Offerton ex pupils have gone to being taught in classes of 35 plus, this is not good for any child's education.

9.26 This same staff member complains that “the policy of allowing students to move without proper planning has not helped students in any Stockport school. The authority could have refused the moves until a decision had been made and proper plans put in place so as not to jeopardise children's education. The whole process appears to have been badly planned and not thought the consequences not planned for.” Like other colleagues this staff member suggests downsizing the school and asks ”what will happen to the newly moved music service? What a waste of money to create an amazing Drama studio and new Dance studio”.

9.27 The issue of standards are raised by quite a few members of staff. One individual who

responded online towards the end of the consultation asks “why does the documentation refer to "Low standards" at Offerton as a reason for suggesting closing the school? The exam results for 2010 exceeded the authority set target by 3% - do you deem schools exceeding their targets as performing to a "low" standard?

9.28 Standards were also raised in the feedback of another staff member who wrote “the

GCSE results were fantastic…. Also we had a very good Ofsted.”

87

of 36

9.29 A member of staff who responded online at the end of the consultation writes: “The

‘declining standards’ charge: Ofsted have just pronounced the school as satisfactory with good features so any claim of falling standards is false. Our percentage of students with 5 or more GCSE’s at A*-C is now 79%, putting us higher than a number of other local schools with a more naturally ‘academic’ catchment area. Our CVA figure will be better than most if not all of the others. These are the school’s best ever results.”

9.30 This same member of staff concludes their feedback by raising “one procedural

question I have is whether those students who left the school since May 2010 have been contacted directly for their views on the possible closure. I spoke to many of the parents who (very reluctantly) transferred their children out of OS. A number were in tears. Have they been consulted? If not, why not? I am not aware of consultation forms being sent directly to them but I would be pleased to be corrected on this point. I look forward with great interest to seeing the full text of the public’s response to this consultation once it is concluded.”

9.31 Another member of staff, who indicated in their written response that they had worked at

all the schools in Stockport that “this is by far the nicest and cleanest I’ve been working in”.

10 FRIENDS / RELATIVES AFFECTED 10.1 13 respondents identified themselves as having friends or relatives affected by the

proposal and of these, 7 indicated that they were grandparents. 10.2 All of these respondents submitted their feedback in writing; 7 submitted feedback

forms, 5 wrote in online and one submitted an email. 10.3 The majority of these respondents, 10 in total, are against the proposal. 10.4 One of the respondents, who replied online, did not submit an opinion or comments. 10.5 Two respondents did not express an opinion on the proposal, but expressed concerns. 10.6 The overwhelming concern for those with friends or family affected by the closure

proposal is the affect it would have on their relations’ education. Almost half of these respondents also make reference to the fact that Offerton is not a failing school. Other key concerns include the perceived “full” state of other secondary schools and the growth in class sizes.

10.7 Lib Dems?? Or Tory Slaves?? Our kids deserve better and remember these kids will

grow up and remember what you have done!!!!!!

10.8 Have you “really” considered how this closure will affect the parents and pupils involved with the closure of “OUR” school? Probably not!!

10.9 One of these individuals, who identified themselves as a grandparent of a Year 6 pupil

(2009/10) was worried about the potential options for his move to secondary school, requesting information regarding the availability of places in other Stockport Schools, the impact on class sizes at other schools if Offerton were to close, how places would be allocated when the Local Authority began the in-year transfer of Offerton pupils, should the school close and also what guarantees there were that her grandson could attend his nearest school (Stockport School) as travelling further would not be an option.

88

of 36

10.10 Concern regarding class sizes and where future generations of children from Offerton

will be educated is also expressed by two other grandparents with one writing “I have heard from one grandparent who has family in Stockport School saying that the class sizes are too big now and will get worse if Offerton School closes”.

10.11 Another respondent voicing concern, who not only identified themselves as having

friends and family affected by the proposal, but also indicated that he was a former pupil asked:” how HMI disseminate what they perceive to be 'good practice', is this a two way process? It seems to me that the report does nothing more than pass judgement without offering any support and that the council is equally if not more culpable for educational poor performance. What part has the council played in trying to improve the school's performance; can the council provide any assurances or a policy document to show how they monitor/help any school's performance. What evidence is there that closing this school and distributing students across the rest of the borough will improve the student's performance? Have any alternative options been considered, if so what are they? How does this proposal fit with the council's environmental policy, with students now having to travel much further to school?”

10.12 One of the family respondents indicates that they are the auntie of both a current and

recent past student, who the respondent points out achieved 15 GCSEs. “the results she has achieved show what very high standards Offerton High [sic] have”. This respondent urges reconsideration “as many children will suffer as they did many years ago when you closed down Brinnington Secondary, the only secondary in the area”.

10.13 Two of the grandparents who responded also quote the academic success that their

grandchildren have achieved at Offerton with one asking if the 3A*, 5A and 7B grades at GCSE are “the result of a failing school? I don’t think so!”, whilst the other highlights that standards in the school have risen in recent times, let the pupils and staff keep up these standards and I am sure there will be more high achievers as there were in the last GCSEs”.

10.14 One of these respondents identified themselves as a parent of a Year 7 student at

Stockport School and strongly against the closure of Offerton. They express concern about the existing size of classes at Stockport School, arguing that closing Offerton would result in over-crowding and queries whether Stockport School has either the facilities or the land to accommodate its own pupil population regardless of taking more in from Offerton. This respondent goes on to suggest that “Offerton should just be made into a smaller school… it has 3 separate buildings which can work independently.”

10.15 A response was received from another grandparent, who has two grandchildren

currently attending the school, who states that her “main concern is the welfare of my granddaughter and all the new starters this September, it is most unsettling for them.” This respondent makes reference to parents reacting to “scare mongering”, taking their children to other schools and that this has also “had a negative effect on my granddaughter”. This grandparent worries that if the school closes her granddaughter “will have to move school once again which surely cannot be good for children at such an important stage in their education when they are studying for exams”. As with other respondents who have expressed their opposition to closure, this lady praises Offerton School, stating that on a recent visit, “the atmosphere was welcoming warm and comfortable and the impression was one of commitment and dedication of the teachers.”

10.16 Yet another grandparent makes reference in their response to the “cutting down” of

primary schools and states that “they are now short of primary places” and asks what

89

of 36

will happen when the children are due to go to secondary school and how it will be possible to prevent children going long distances when their local school has shut. They conclude “make it an academy if needed, but keep it open”.

10.17 Another relative voicing support for the school and opposing its closure highlights

Offerton’s recent strong performance at GCSE level, stating that in their opinion the these results speak for themselves. The respondent argues that closure would affect the children and their up and coming GCSE'S.

10.18 A different respondent, who also identifies themselves as having family or friends

affected by the proposal writes “the Ofsted report seems like the real positive the school has needed to defy what negative critics have been circulating.

10.19 Two respondents submitted feedback forms highlighting the impact that the proposal

would have on traffic in the area, not only with children travelling to other schools, but also more commuters, should the site be sold off for housing. One of these respondents states “I think it terrible that there are young people (that) are always at the butt of the cuts, Offerton is a close community and the school plays a big part of that”.

11 UNSPECIFIED RESPONDENTS 11.1 Four respondents did not categorise themselves in their responses. One of these

respondents replied online, one responded with a letter and two attended consultation sessions and could therefore be either parents or members of the local community. All of these respondents indicated they are against the proposal. One respondent who replied online expresses views that summarise most of the key concerns that have been voiced throughout the consultation process.

11.2 The authority already seems to have made its mind up on the closure and it is obvious

that they are just going through the motions. I wonder whether the LA have a plan to put into place if the consultation was to reject the closure and the decision was made to keep the school open? I am sure no plan exists as the leak to the press in October 2009 and the way the whole process has been mis-managed has lead to a significant number of parents to remove their children leading to a financial situation which is unsustainable, particularly in the current economic climate. I am sure the LA is very keen to shut the school as soon as possible and get their hands on the 52 acres of land in order to save money and raise funds with the land. I only hope that the needs of the children at that school and the staff are supported and are dealt with as human beings. The school has achieved its best ever exam results this year and I would hope that the next Ofsted report would be a lot more positive, moving it out of its category. I know that my objection to the closure will be read, filed and ignored but I still want to express my support for the school, staff, parents and children and my absolute disgust at the way the LA have handled the whole process. The leak back in October was a replay of what happened many years ago at Dialstone - it worked then and it will have the desired effect again.

12 INTERESTED PROFESSIONALS’ RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION 12.1 3 respondents identified themselves as interested professionals; 2 primary

headteachers from within the borough and a Children’s Social Worker. 12.2 One headteacher highlights that the Council’s closure of a failing primary school and

expansion through amalgamation of another had “a dramatic and positive effect” as illustrated by the outcome of an Ofsted inspection after the expansion and

90

of 36

amalgamation and that this “is powerful evidence that closing a failing school can dramatically improve outcomes for children and vastly improve their life chances.”

12.3 The other headteacher, called for the current students of Offerton to remain at the

campus at least temporarily to complete their education and asked that the Local Authority “act with compassion and understanding as many of the pupils at Offerton High have already suffered as a result of the closures of Offerton Hall Primary School/ St Stephen’s”.

12.4 In contrast the Children’s Social Worker, who indicates that they have been involved

with students who attend the school from all over Stockport, states that in their opinion “it would be contrary to the best interests of children who attend this school to have to move to another school, or for local children to have to travel further out of area to go to school.” This same individual also states that they are “very impressed by the dedication and professionalism of staff at Offerton School, who go above and beyond and who really care about their pupils.”

91

Appendix 3

1

Offerton School Governing Body

Submission in response to Consultation on school closure Introduction The local authority case for closure of Offerton School rests on four main points:-

Excessive surplus places Teaching Standards State of the Buildings Financial Situation

The Governors believe that the LA has failed to make a convincing case on any of these points as we will demonstrate in this document. We also believe that the process of arriving at the view that Offerton School should close has been procedurally flawed and has left the LA open to a prima facie case of maladministration, which we understand can be pursued by parents with the local Government Ombudsman if they should feel that the actions of the LA have materially damaged their children. Surplus Spaces What and where are the surplus places? The Governors observe that the LA argument concerning surplus spaces has been very difficult for parents and others to verify due in part to the way in which different types of statistics and statistical projections have been mixed by the LA while making their case. In the interests of clarity the Governors would like to state that they agree that surplus places are a serious issue in Stockport secondary schools and that they are committed to ensuring that Offerton School shoulders its fair share of responsibility to help reduce this current surplus. The Department of Education’s basic calculation is called Net Capacity (NCA) which is based on floor area for schools. It is a measure of the physical capacity of a school in terms of classrooms, specialist facilities such as laboratories and workshops, and communal areas. The basic definition of surplus places is:-

NCA – Number of pupils on role It is the LA view is that raw NCA tends to overestimate the number of practical surplus places. However, NCA based calculations seem to us to be the only calculation of school capacity that is both easy to understand and consistent. We would prefer to use the straight NCA calculation of surplus places but accept that the nearest measure that has been well circulated by the LA, and therefore available to the Governors, is the modified NCA so we will use that measure in making our argument.

92

Appendix 3

2

Accepting the LA projection of surplus places in 2014 and working backwards from the July estimate of Modified NCA and School Roles in 2009 as calculated from the LA own data leads to the following table which shows approximately the numbers on the school roles to remove the predicted surplus places by taking equal fractions of the surplus places from each school. This is a 13.6% reduction in school places and a removal of 2556 places out of the system. The figures in the table below will be close to the final capacities of the schools.

Kingsway 1262 Marple Hall 1212 Bramhall 1151 Reddish Vale 1143 Priestnall 1062 Cheadle Hulme 1050 Hazel Grove 997 Werneth 957 Stockport School 832 Offerton 691 Harrytown 673 St James 669 St Anne 594

The Governors note that this table suggests that all the schools are likely to be financially viable at this level of role. At this point in discussions the LA have fallen back on the assertion that the Department of Education is only interested in percentages of surplus spaces within individual schools. However, the Governors have seen no objective evidence that this is the case. With evermore interdependence between providers of courses and the broadening of syllabuses regardless of the fate of Diploma lines, it seems unlikely to us that the new government will reject a reduction of surplus places on the basis of number if a well argued case is made for it by the LA. That case will have to be placed in borough wide context where were better co-ordination between schools in facilitating movement of pupils between sites can be demonstrated. But we note that already such arrangements are getting more common in many schools. This principle under-pinned our submission to the Scrutiny Committee on the 14th July 2010, A New Vision for Offerton School, Appendix A of this document, which proposed the conversion of Offerton School into what we called a Pathfinder Community School with 500 to 700 pupils. In that submission we envisaged that the formal arrangements for co-operation (e.g. Federation) would be needed. However, since then our experience of working more intimately with Stockport School convince us that informal arrangements and collaborations may be enough. Those arrangements would be greatly enhanced by active promotion by the LA. Has Offerton School been rejected by its catchment? The LA argument has also tried to show that Offerton has seen a steady migration of support from its local area with fewer and fewer people sending pupils to the school from its local catchment area. They have seen this as proof of lack of the support for the school and as a marker that the school is not worth saving.

93

Appendix 3

3

Stockports LA’s attitude to catchment areas has been at best shaky for many years. Not many years ago they were found to be in breach of the law and had to redefine in a hurry what they meant by a catchment area. In this consultation they have consistently argued that children transferring to other school was ‘democratic’ a view whose logical extension would be the abolishment of catchment areas altogether and a free market ‘free for all’ between secondary schools. The truth is that how many children a school attracts is not just a matter support from the locality, though this is very important. It is also be a matter of specialities and the way a school is perceived. However, if we use the size of the catchment area in number of students as a yard stick of how successful schools are at attracting pupils we can get a grasp on how these varied factors play out in affecting a school’s general performance in recruitment of pupils. The figure below shows the average intakes for the boroughs secondary schools from 2002 to 2009 which places Offerton in the mid-range of Stockport schools. The further left in the figure a school is the better matched to its local area it is. The further right in the figure the more borough-wide the appeal of a school.

Averag e % of catchm en t taken from 2002 to 2009

50.0055.0060.0065.0070.0075.00

80.0085.0090.0095.00

100.00

Priestnall

Reddish V

ale

Kingsw

ay

Avondale

Werneth

Offerton H

igh

Marple H

all

Stockport

LA A

verage

Harrytow

n

St Jam

es'

Cheadle H

ulme

Bram

hall

Hazel G

rove

St A

nne's

School

%

We expect that parental choice based on specialism and/or school ethos will increase as the link between particular choices of curriculum and sites weaken. Broadly our model of a comprehensive school of only a few years hence will be a local school taking in local children in younger years, whilst having an increasing borough-wide intake as a product of its style and ethos. It will provide specialist services (in Offerton’s case probably Business and Enterprise) for the wider school community and ensure that curricula suitable to the needs of individual children are available to all pupils up to GCSE on site or by arrangement with other providers.

94

Appendix 3

4

Teaching Standards Current situation Early in the discussion of the policy that has lead to this consultation, Offerton School was given a Notice to Improve by Ofsted. During the discussion of the policy there has been considerable misunderstanding between a Notice to Improve and Special Measures even in discussions with senior members of the Council Executive. A school subject to Special Measures is presented with an action plan it has to execute by inspectors. Regular short-notice Ofsted inspections monitor its improvement. The senior managers and teaching staff can be dismissed and the school governors replaced by an appointed executive committee. If poor performance continues the school may be closed. In contrast a school with a Notice to Improve has in the view of the inspectors the capacity to improve under current leadership. Their action plan is developed in conjunction with their LA and they are given a monitoring inspection by Ofsted after about six months. They are reinspected after one year. The existence of the Notice to Improve has been used extensively in the consultation process to ‘prove’ that the teaching standards of the school are unacceptably low and have been for some time. The Governor’s note with satisfaction that as of 7th October 2010, following a re-inspection of the school by Ofsted, the school has been declared to be performing satisfactorily with some measures of its performance in the good category. This effectively returns the school to the position it had after the previous Ofsted inspection of 20071 when the school was described as ‘rapidly improving… where Key Stage 3 and GCSE results have risen at a faster rate than nationally over the past three years.’ That result led the then schools minister Beverley Hughes MP, to commend the school as ‘one of the most improved schools in Greater Manchester’. Headline performances in the recent GCSE results are shown below. 5 A* - C (E & M) Diff 5 A* - C (E &

M) 2009-10 5 A* - C (All) Diff 5 A* - C (E &

M) 2009-10 Offerton School 48.1% 11.6% 76.2% 28.6% LA Average 62.2% 6.3% 79.1% 9.6% National 50.0% 68.0% For a school taking significant numbers of children from socially disadvantaged areas where KS2 scores at entry to the school are likely to be low, a measure that shows the value added to the children’s performance by the school is very important. A well respected measure of such performance is supplied by the Fisher Family Trust which provides a method of comparing a schools performance after allowing for social mix. This is the preferred measure of deprivation used by the LA. The current exam results show that for GCSE 5 A*-C (E&M) Offerton school performed within the top quarter of comparable schools (FFT D). For

1 In fact Ofsted gave the school more good categories of performance that in the 2007 inspection which means, arguably, the schools present situation is better than it was in 2007.

95

Appendix 3

5

5 A*- C the school exceeded the standard for the top quarter of schools. In other words we are performing well above the average of comparable schools with similar social mix of intake. A second important measure is that of Corrected Value Added (CVA) scores for the school performance as a whole and in specific subgroups of pupils. Detailed CVA figures for this year’s GCSE are not yet available from the Department of Education but it is clear that the school will see a very significant increase in its overall and group by group CVAs. The figure below shows a comparison for whole school CVA for all the schools for which the Governors have data from 2006 to 2009. A satisfactory CVA is 1000. The graph shows that Offerton has been better on average than at least three secondary schools which might be regarded as its competitors.

K S 2-4 C V A

950.0

960.0

970.0

980.0

990.0

1000.0

1010.0

1020.0

Cheadle H

u lme

Stockport

Schoo l

Bram

ha ll

K ingsw ay

Offerto

n

Haze l Gro

ve

Marp

le H

all

We rn

eth

S chool

CV

A (

sati

fact

ory

val

ue

is 1

000)

2006-07

2007-08

2007-09

An important measure of Offerton’s performance is how well it does in teaching its part of the Brinnington Cohort, i.e. the share of children that the school takes from Brinnington. Brinnington does not have its own local secondary school. Brinnington is the most socially disadvantaged area in the borough, being in the 4th centile of index of national deprivation. Offerton takes the largest share of the Brinnington Cohort which goes to two other schools. Our performance this year has been the best of the three schools measuring the performance of the Brinnington Cohort separately from the general performance of the schools. The performance of the Brinnington Cohort is important for the Borough as a whole as it has been seen in the past (e.g. in the BSF bid) as an index of LA efficiency of dealing with social disadvantage. One irony of the standards issue has been raised regularly at consultation in relation to the schools buildings: ‘Why did the school not become an academy.’ The answer is straightforward. The criterion for becoming an academy under the previous government’s scheme, which was aimed at improving failing schools, was teaching standards. Offerton was never near the limit required. In the eyes of the government we have never been a failing school.

96

Appendix 3

6

The State of the Buildings Refurbishment and reduction of costs Offerton School estate consists of three separate building, built in the late 1960s, originally as three separate schools of different types: a boys’ technical school (Curzon Building), a girls’ school (Vernon Building) and a secondary modern boys’ school (Woodbank). The effect of this history has been to give the present school duplication in some types of facilities (e.g. school halls) and has concentrated some types of facilities in specific buildings (e.g. technical workshops in Curzon). This distribution of facilities offers the opportunity to mothball duplicated facilities, though it makes it hard to completely close one building e.g. Curzon, without investing in providing alternative specialist facilities in the remaining building or buildings. One argument used by the LA in justifying its intention to close the school is the cost of repairs of the existing buildings, where the figure of £5 million has been used. This figure was derived by the LA using the approved Department of Education method in 2007 and published in 2009, as part of the BSF bid. In fact the survey indicated £4.82 million repairs/remedial work over a five year period. The survey divided repairs into four categories:-

P1 Urgent work that will prevent immediate closure of the premises and/or address immediate H&S risks

P2 Essential work required within two years that will prevent serious deterioration of the fabric or services and address medium H&S risk

P3 Desirable work required within three to five years that will prevent deterioration of the fabric or services and address minor H&S risks

P4 Long term work outside the five year planning period that will prevent deterioration of fabric or services.

The figure below shows these priorities for major Stockport Secondary Schools.

C ond itions S urvey 2007 (P ub lished 2009)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Kin

gsw

ay

Offe

rton

Ch

ea

dle

Hu

lme

We

rne

th

St A

nn

es

Prie

stna

ll

Re

dd

ish V

ale

Sto

ckpo

rt

Ma

rple

Ha

ll

Bra

mh

all

Ha

zel G

rove

ST

Jam

es

Ha

rry To

wn

S chool

£ 00

0

P 1

P 2

P 3

P 4

97

Appendix 3

7

The Governors feel that given the time lapse between this survey and the current consultation it is very unlikely that the figures for repair and refurbishment costs based on this survey are any longer realistic and severely undermine the credibility of the argument made by the LA concerning the condition of Offerton’s building. They also place the LA in a sharp logical bind. In the three years since the survey £2.28 million should have been spent on Offerton’s fabric to make it safe (sum of P1 and P2 estimates). Similar sums of money should have been spent on the other secondary schools. If those sums have not been spent then it follows that either the secondary schools in general have important H&S problems which threaten their closure on safety grounds or the Department of Education methodology systematically over estimates the costs. The Governors are inclined to believe the latter. In this case we would expect that if we went to tender for refurbishment and repair of our buildings, bearing in mind the significant reduction in prices for this type of work in the light of the current state of the building industry, we would not have to pay as much as the LA predict, especially if we based our refurbishment around the two buildings in best repair, Vernon and Woodbank. This type of discrepancy explains why we have been able to successfully and sustainably renovate sections of the Woodbank and Vernon buildings to enrich the learning environment of the school. This has been done by using our delegated capital funding and project specific funds from external sources, including specialist schools fund, and LA funding. Among these refurbishments have been the Vernon Dance Studio, Dining Hall, Drama Workshop/Immersive Environment and the Library/ICT facility. We would also note that it is very likely that refurbishment of Vernon and Woodbank will be much more economic than the extra money needed to bring other schools up to a standard so that they can take the pupils from Offerton at or before closure. We are astonished that the LA is so committed to closure when closer working between Stockport School and Offerton School might save money for the authority in what is an exceptionally cash strapped time. The community importance of Offerton School Offerton School as a community building is the main public building in the Offerton area, which includes the Offerton Estate, which is within the most deprived 1st quintile of the index of national deprivation2. At present the other significant public building in the area is the Dialstone Centre. However, it is a long standing aim of the LA to close this centre and sell the site for development. The Governors have been led to believe that negotiations with a house builder is in an advanced stage for the Dialstone site. The closure of the Dialstone Centre would leave Offerton School as the only significant public building in Offerton. Offerton School already hosts two significant community facilities. The schools music service was only recently transferred to our site. The school also has a community police post which increases 2 Department of Health, Health Profile 2010: Stockport. NB the scale provided in the NHS documentation has had to be inverted to allow this measure of deprivation to be compared directly to the figure for Brinnington quoted in the Teaching Standards section of this report.

98

Appendix 3

8

the police outreach into the community. These endeavours are vigorously supported by the school and the Governor’s feel that they would be much reduced in their community impact if the school were closed. The school has played host for a number of parenting courses (Surviving Teenagers, Speak Easy, IT Courses and Cyber Safety). We have also held Family Learning Course and Holiday Activities. All these have been for families in the Local Community. These activities have given us the opportunity to work with other agencies including the Youth Service, the Police and Young Carers thus providing a valuable service for some of the most at risk children in the community. We also take regular for lettings by local football teams (Spurley Hey JFC, Torpedo Grove Football Club). Closure of the Dialstone Centre is likely to decant much of the musical activity in the way of children’s choirs and bands onto the Offerton site. We are already taking casual lettings by Stockport Youth Orchestra. Closure of the Dialstone site would leave us as the logical home for the Offerton Library and the Youth Service/Youth Club, both based at Dialstone. The Governors note that sections 4.36 to 4.38 of Closing a Maintained Mainstream School3, the regulations under which this consultation is being conducted, indicate clearly that impact on the community as a ‘focus for family and community activity’ (section 4.36) and ‘the views of other agencies and partnerships with community and family services’ (section 4.37) must be taken into account in making the final decision on closure. Also section 4.38 indicates that ‘the impact on community cohesion’ as expressed by ‘different sections of the community’ should be taken into account in the light of alternative provision. The Governors also note that taking sections 4.36 to 4.38 together and comparing them to the sections 4.34 to 4.35 which deal with surplus places suggests that community issues are to be considered as important as the issue of surplus places in making a final decision.

3 See www.dcsf.gov.uk/schoolorg

99

Appendix 3

9

Financial Situation Well before the end of the financial year 2009/10 it was clear that the school would have to apply to run a deficit if it was to balance its budget in the required three year period. Whilst the financial situation of the school was not at this stage good, the Governors had successfully managed a deficit budget in 2007 and were confident they could manage this new instance. As a result the school started to negotiate with the LA concerning its budgetary situation, in preparation for reducing staffing through the Panel A/Panel B redundancy procedures. However, following a meeting in June 2010 with the LA it was deemed inappropriate to move to make any staff reductions at that time, given the difficult situation the school was in as a result of the LA announcement of the intention to consult on closure. The announcement had triggered the educational equivalent of a ‘run on the bank’ as parents, who have since told us, had no previous intention to do so, applied to remove their children from the school for fear of the disruption to the children’s education and the numbers of parents taking up offers of places for the new school year dropped. The number of pupils admitted this year, which would normally have been expected to be near 140 finally stabilised at 37. The Governors were finally able to submit a budget to the LA on 27th September 2010 which could not satisfy the balancing the deficit budget in the required three years. The Governors would submit that much of the financial argument on which the LA base their declared intention to close the school was precipitated by their own actions which made their predictions a self-fulfilling prophecy for which they take no responsibility.

100

Appendix 3

10

Our Criticisms of the Process At the beginning of this document we stated our belief that the process of arriving at the view that Offerton School should close has been procedurally flawed and has left the LA open to a prima facie case of maladministration, which we understand can be pursued by parents with the local Government Ombudsman if they any should feel that the actions of the LA have materially damaged their children. The Governors met on Monday 27th of September to discuss their approach to the consultation on closure of Offerton School prior to us framing this written contribution. At that meeting we affirmed the following principles that would guide our response and future actions depending on the outcome of the consultation.

Priority to promote the wellbeing of the children and staff of the school in what is and will continue to be a disruptive and difficult time in the life of the school.

Commitment to improving educational standards at Offerton and enriching the life of the school to the benefit of the children regardless of the outcome of the consultation.

A willingness to shoulder our responsibilities in respect of falling school roles. However, we also criticised the process of the consultation and policy development that had led to the consultation to close the school, particularly concerning:-

The narrowness of the process that has been employed in developing the policy for secondary schools reorganisation

The basis on which this consultation about closure has been launched. Narrowness of Vision The Governors were first involved with this process on 9th October 2009 when Dr Beatty as Chair of Governors along with Ms Leslie the Headteacher attended a meeting at Stopford House with Richard Bates. At that meeting it was made clear to us that part of the LA’s preferred response to falling school roles in the secondary schools was the closure of Offerton School. The Governors neither in the person of Dr Beatty nor collectively have been provided with any evidence that the LA has wavered from their position of 9th October 2009. To us what has happened has been characteristic of a climate of opinion having developed in the CYPD about this matter that has never really changed. That is not to say that we think the proposal to close Offerton School has been the result of a conspiracy but that this climate of opinion has led to the discussion of the problem of how to respond to the borough wide problem of falling school rolls in the secondary sector in a very narrow and closed manner that has made the proposal to close Offerton inevitable, as it will make subsequent proposals to close at least one other school and possibly one after that in the borough. Dr Beatty expressed this in two letters to Andrew Webb, Director of CYPD in October and November 2009. These are attached to this document as Appendix B

101

Appendix 3

11

In the first Dr Beatty proposed the terms, conditions and membership of an independently chaired committee of enquiry to develop options for debate and action to the LA. In that letter he argued that it is important to do this to create a consensus among parents, teachers, officers and governors in an area where interschool rivalry is far too common. The second letter of 2nd November 2009 he criticised the terms of reference of process that was then being pursued by CYPD as being narrow and likely to lead to conflict between schools. When the Council’s policy proposals were called in at Scrutiny we offered a document, A New Vision for Offerton School (Appendix A), which proposed the conversion of Offerton School into what we called a Pathfinder Community School, which we envisaged would have about 500 to 700 pupils. The proposal envisaged co-operation with Marple Hall and Stockport School to preserve much of the ethos of Offerton and its place as a community school and facility. We have argued the case for this or a similar proposal again in this response to the consultation. We felt that this contribution was of sufficient significance to warrant being part of the consultation process under the rules of Closing a Maintained Mainstream School but this was rejected and the document only accepted as a contribution in response to the consultation which has meant that it has received only limited discussion within the consultation process. We feel this closed approach to discussion has failed to maximise the opportunity for constructive alternatives to emerge and has contributed to the dissatisfaction of our parents so amply demonstrated at the recent public meeting. The basis of this consultation This consultation was launched at a time that had disastrous effects on the numbers of children coming this September to the School. It also precipitated a large number of withdrawals of pupils as described in the previous section of this report. As a Governing body we quite understand that, under the LA’s timetable, consultation about closure in the autumn term was essential. However, we see no reason why the LA needed to make its announcement in June. No meaningful delay to the consultation would have been incurred by making the announcement in September. We feel sorry that the LA has not seen fit either through its officers or the relevant Executive Member to apologise to the parents, the staff of the school or ourselves for the effect that the June announcement has had in disturbance to individual children and families. We do not accuse the LA of desiring this disruption, but we would have appreciated that they admitted that the effect was an unintended consequence of their action as a token of acceptance of their responsibility. It is in this area that we feel arguments to the Local Government Ombudsman might be made.

102

Appendix 3

12

Conclusion The Local Authority have failed to sustain it four reasons for favouring closure on the following main, though not only, grounds:- Excessive Surplus places

Surplus places in Offerton School are not significantly better or worse that other secondary schools.

Stockport has a wide spread surplus place problem to which the closure of Offerton will not provide a decisive solution.

Teaching Standards

Despite the LA’s best attempts to represent it as such Offerton School is not a failing school The results of the Ofsted inspection of 6th – 7th October which classified the school as

satisfactory with good categories show that the school has teaching standards comparable with several other secondary schools in Stockport not being considered for closure

Teaching standards cannot be used as an argument to close the school State of Buildings

The LA severely over estimates the cost of refurbishing at least two of Offerton’s buildings The LA have failed to make a proper value for money comparison of the costs of

refurbishments on the Offerton site to new buildings on other school sites required to house displaced Offerton children

The LA have not given enough emphasis to the community impact of their proposals as required by the relevant sections of Closing a Maintained Mainstream School

Financial Situation

The financial situation of the school has been significantly affected by decisions of the LA which they have not yet taken appropriate responsibility for

13th October 2010 Signed on behalf of the Governors Dr Paul Beatty Chair

103

Appendix 3

13

Appendix A – Submission to Scrutiny Committee 14th July 2010

A New Vision for Offerton School

An Alternative to Closure The Challenge

1. The demography of Stockport has altered since the last strategic change in Secondary Education in the 1980s4, in such a way that the geographical dispositions of secondary schools are no longer well matched to the communities they purport to serve.

2. In the same period increasingly centralised ‘the money follows the child’ policies from

national government have led to a competitive rather than a collaborative atmosphere between schools. Falling school rolls have enhanced this problem with schools seeing their neighbours as competitors if not opponents.

3. This competitive atmosphere has been enhanced by confusing messages about catchment

area policies, changes in the funding balances between primary and secondary sectors and the inability of the local authority to enable change using extra money from its dwindling discretionary spending.

4. Unintentionally, the pass-porting of money from government directly to schools has

encouraged a view that the local government cannot be trusted to act fairly or efficiently in managing resources for schools. It has also led to a feeling in some council circles that schools don’t belong to us, there’s little point in strategic planning, leave it to the market and stay out of electoral trouble.

5. On top of these issues there are radical new challenges about what secondary education

should provide. The last Government talked in terms of a unified 11-19 policy, effectively raising the modern equivalent of the school leaving age to 19. This gives secondary schools a much bigger role in out of school training through such things as Modern Apprenticeships.

6. Awareness of a skills gap in industry and the UK’s relatively poor performance in

vocational education has produced a diversity of syllabuses available at year 11 and beyond, many of great benefit to students. It can also be argued that the current OFSTED inspection regime favours larger schools.

7. There is a revolution coming in secondary education that may be slowed by the current

government’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for Diplomas but is unlikely to be resisted in the longer term. This revolution may well require larger school facilities and more square footage per student providing one of the pressures towards larger secondary schools. Any replacement for Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is likely to encourage larger schools on economic grounds.

8. Against these pressures for bigger schools are the views of parents who prefer smaller local

schools, with smaller class sizes.

4 The adoption of a sixth form college approach to 16 to 19 provision.

104

Appendix 3

14

9. In all this educational change the importance of schools, especially secondary schools, to the wider community is easily lost. Extended school policies have led those in education to consider their position as a centre of community activity carefully, especially in more socially disadvantaged areas where the school may be the only place available for the community to meet. Unfortunately, being a good extended school has not brought money with it nor much tangible advantage at all.

10. However, schools are community assets in the widest sense, supported by public money

with a role to play in providing community benefit. The community as a whole as well as parents, students and teachers are genuine stakeholders in secondary schools. In a period when people, particularly in socially disadvantaged areas, are going to be in need of both voluntary and governmental support services, the preservation of community based schools should be a priority.

The current policy of a simplistic closure of Offerton School fails to intersect many if any of these vital challenges in acceptable depth. A policy vision for Secondary Education in Stockport

1. The competitive culture that exists between secondary schools has made it impossible for schools to come to compromise/consensus ways of addressing the challenges given above in their area.

2. In the face of this problem the local authority has adopted a laissez-faire approach to the

problem. Offerton will close because of excess places and everything will be left to the magical hidden hand of parental choice which we cannot know until Offerton has closed.

3. It is worth noting that the move towards sixth form colleges in the town was initiated by a

process very different from the current one. It had a firm political lead, offered choices of policy for schools and the wider community to discuss and sought consensus of both political and community view. As a result the community settled for the most radical of the policy options.

4. The local authority has couched the problem of the secondary schools in Stockport

exclusively in terms of excess places. As a result their solution is based exclusively around reduction of this ‘over capacity’. However, excess places are not the disease but a symptom of the disease of poor matching between existing schools and the changed demography. Any solution that does not seek to address this issue offers little more than temporary relief.

5. What needs to be done is to build the governance structures of new schools which though

they cannot be built now will have to be built in a few years if for no other reason than the decrepitude of the current secondary school buildings.

6. Those governance structures should be encouraged by building relationships between groups

of existing schools which can at the right time run the new schools. Ideally these relationship should be formal school federations with single governing bodies, staff organisation and finance but the current combative relationships between schools rules this out for the time being and the habit of collaborative working needs to be encouraged by

105

Appendix 3

15

setting up what might be called confederations with more limited planning, financial and timetabling processes shared between the members.

7. These confederations should be given clear targets on reduction of excess capacity in the

context of developing a longer term strategy for the future. They should envisage and plan the new school building they will need in the future, as well as fostering new forms of community involvement and activity.

8. One would hope that the desire to plan for the future and help their home communities

would be enough to encourage co-operation but the local authority should make it clear that it will only invest in new buildings or capital projects where such projects develop the confederation as a whole and not individual schools. In this way the local authority will do something to break down the culture of competition and create a culture of collaboration.

9. The confederations should also consider how to best to balance the need for larger schools

with parental preferences for smaller local secondary schools.

10. One possible solution to this may be to have a middle rank of local contact schools in each confederation, specialising in years 7-9 to build esprit de corps in the cohort from a given community. This would be especially true for cohorts coming from socially disadvantaged areas of the Borough.

The future of Offerton School should be as a pathfinder for community contact schools throughout Stockport. How would this vision work at Offerton? Phase 1 The plan would centre on Vernon building having already been identified in work for the BSF bid as possible to regenerate.

Regenerate and refurbish Vernon Building Form a confederation with Stockport School and Marple Hall Take advantage of specialist business school status of Offerton to open a specialist Business

and Skills Centre for the use of all Stockport Schools Phase 2 With a suitable external investor develop a businesses services incubator/centre on the Offerton School site with the smaller artisan run businesses that are numerous in Offerton in mind. This could be housed in a regeneration of the Curzon Building. This development would be paid for through regeneration monies rather than education budget. Functions of the Business Services Centre (BSC):-

Business advice (Financial, IT, Management etc.) Conference/meeting room facilities Small business health checking

106

Appendix 3

16

The businesses in touch with the BSC would have close relationships with the students in the school’s Business and Enterprise Centre. Phase 3

1. Having established a relationship between the Business Services Centre and The Offerton Community Contact School a further developmental phase would be considered to utilise the site for the community and offer possible routes to regeneration or replacement of existing school buildings. Here are four possible directions which could be considered:-

2. A New Offerton Medical Centre. The plans for a new school on the Dialstone Site developed

as the Borough’s approach to BSF which saw strategic value in the continuation of Offerton School considered a new medical facility at Dialstone. Even with a more limited role for the PCT in planning in this area under the policies of the Coalition Government the possibility of a new medical facility on the Offerton School site remains a possibility.

or

3. The Offerton Folkshallen. Modelled on similar community institutions in Scandinavia, the

Folkshallen would open the Community Contact school in holidays and/or evening so that families could study together (e.g. bring your granny to school courses so that young and old learn together). This would improve overall skill levels in the community but also cement links between families, students and the school.

or

4. The Offerton Family Music Centre The advantages in terms of social cohesion of making

music together and other community artistic endeavours are not to be underestimated. A focus on music for such activities at Offerton would build on the presence of the music service on the site.

or

5. A Faith Dimension on the Offerton School site One of the aspects of the BSF bid for

Offerton was the possibility of developing stronger ties between the school and Christian denominations. Support was forthcoming from the Anglican Church and The Methodist Church. Discussion went as far as talking about a new ecumenical church on the site of any new school. Willingness to consider developing stronger ties remains. A faith based element in the school life at Offerton was one of the things identified as important to parents in a survey at the time of the BSF bid.

Recommendations

1. The Executive suspend the consultation for closure of Offerton School until such time that a broader and more imaginative range of possible policy options can be consulted upon.

107

Appendix 3

17

2. If, despite recommendation 1, the Executive proceeds to immediate consultation to close Offerton School, the proposals of the Governors as represented by this document5 be included in the formal public consultation. This would be consistent with the Executive’s publically stated desire that alternatives emerge through the consultation process and with Section 1.4 of Department of Education advise on processes for ‘Closing a Mainstream School’.

Dr Paul Beatty Chair of Governors Offerton School. 12th July 2010

5 The document will be fleshed out with statistics and impact assessment on the community for the consultation by the Governors.

108

Appendix 3

18

Appendix B – Letters from Dr Paul Beatty to Mr Andrew Webb

91 Station Road, Marple,

Stockport SK6 6NY

26th October 2009 Dear Andrew, I write because of my growing concern about the discussions of the Borough’s response to falling secondary school rolls, in the aftermath of the recent BSF application. In this context Evelyn Leslie and I have been involved with discussions with Richard Bates at a school level and I also attended the Chairs of Governors meeting last week. At both these meeting the distinct impression was given by Richard that the recommendation to the Executive would be to close Offerton and St Anne’s. No real attempt at a discussion of alternatives was given at either meeting. What is worse in Offerton’s situation is that we have evidence that what was said at the Chairs of Governors meeting has got back to our staff. Can I assure you that what I’m going to propose is not the beginning of a Save Offerton campaign. Well before BSF, Evelyn and I agreed that we would not fight to keep Offerton open at all costs if we were convinced that the education of the broadly socially disadvantaged children it serves could be guaranteed in a new secondary structure. The problem I have is that it seems that the current process will not to produce such a solution. In fact it seems to be repeating all the mistakes of the first round of primary school closures and is likely to precipitate an even bigger political storm. I suspect that you and I think that it would be highly desirable if a consensus about the objectives and provision of 14 to 19 education in Stockport could be established. The relationships between the secondary schools in the Borough might be characterised as an educational version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The schools would like to act collectively to provide a new overall settlement of better benefit to the socially disadvantaged pupils but are under pressure to act selfishly since they are in competition to maximise their student numbers against background of under-funding. It was an amazing feat to have got agreement to restrict intake numbers between schools prior to BSF. It does not surprise me that such an agreement has failed due to the appeals procedures and a lack of willingness from schools to hold the line of the agreement. What I would like to propose at the next consultation meeting on November 6th is a process aimed at creating such a consensus or at least that might establish a range of alternative strategies for debate. I would like to propose an independent enquiry into the provision 14 to 19 education in Stockport under a neutral chair. The terms of the enquiry would essentially rule no solution in or out. However, it would be charged with considering a list of problems, including the following:-

Strategies for dealing with falling school roles in the secondary and eventually the college sector

The overall pattern of 16 to 19 education in the borough The wider effects of 16 to 19 education on social cohesion and community needs

109

Appendix 3

19

The provision of appropriate school buildings both geographically and in terms of quality All stakeholders would be able to give evidence to the enquiry and it would also be able to take evidence from external experts. This would allow everyone to argue their cases openly. Rather than foreclosing on debate about alternatives this would open up the debate giving a greater chance of a consensus emerging. The LEA officers could give their opinions just like everyone else. Schools need not be left out of the process. As to membership I suggest something like the following:- Chair Independent educationalist (e.g. Prof. Ainscow, Greater

Manchester Challenge) Deputy Chair Chair of appropriate Scrutiny Committee Sector Representatives Secondary (Head or Chair)

College (Principal) External Educationalists Two expert independents (e.g. academics MMU, Salford,

Independent specialists) Union One representative from the professional organisations Parents Representative of one parent stakeholder group

I believe there is an opportunity to attempt what I know is an ambitious plan. No new applications for BSF or anything requiring government funding can be meaningfully planned for until after the general election so we have a natural window of opportunity. The college situation and the role of possible sixth forms in schools is changing with the demise of LSC and the possible rise of more academy like schools. The Borough has lived for too long under a self imposed notion that the secondary schools pattern was set by where secondary schools were build by its predecessor UDCs and Borough Council. That notion has meant that schools lopped off the tree when pupil numbers have fallen or for other reasons for short term pragmatic reasons (e.g. Brinington, Manor). That notion lead directly to the failure of BSF because of it meant that no BSF proposal could ever be radical enough in the way the BSF system wanted. If you think this proposal has some merit then I will start to canvass support for it among invited to the 6th November meeting and in the political parties. Yours sincerely, Paul Beatty

110

Appendix 3

20

91 Station Road, Marple,

Stockport SK6 6NY

2nd November 2009 Dear Andrew, I write to follow up on my previous letter to you on 26th October, where I expressed my concern about the process that your department was engaged in concerning discussions as to what should be done about falling school roles in the secondary sector. The main thrust of my argument was that the terms of reference of options that Richard Bates and his colleagues were considering in drawing up proposals to be submitted to the Executive were far too limited and failed to address the urgent need for a wider vision of the future of 14-19 education in Stockport on which to base future policy decisions. I pointed to areas where I thought there were serious shortcomings in what was being considered in this consultation, particularly the lack of importance of secondary schools to social cohesion in the more deprived parts of the Borough. The review makes scant reference to the problems of the college sector as well which has a clear bearing on the 16-19 cohort and the shape of secondary feeder schools. Behind my letter was the fear that a vacuum of alternatives would be formed. In that vacuum Stockport would do what it has done in similar circumstances in the past, that is throw the least popular school to the wolves by closure and hope things will sort themselves out. Generally, the schools thus sacrificed have been those that serve the most socially disadvantaged areas and children. I was also concerned that the way the consultation was being conducted that it would soon lead to the press and be trailed as School X faces Closure. This would be devastating on the morale and reputation of School X. This is exactly what happened last week in the Stockport Express, with School X being Offerton School. In my original letter of 26th October I proposed an Independent Enquiry as a means to generate a wider collection of policy alternatives and as a basis for community consensus on the long term objectives of 14-19 education in Stockport. I went as far as to suggest some of that Enquiry’s terms of reference and membership. I am sorry that you have still not replied to my suggestions, particularly in the light of the Stockport Express article and the immanent publication of Ofsted’s Report on Offerton. I remain convinced that an Independent Enquiry is the best method of proceeding and I am still willing to propose this at the meeting on 6th November and give a short presentation on my reasoning. Whilst I think we have a window of opportunity until the general election next year to develop a new and visionary policy framework for 14-19 education in Stockport, I think we have only a small window of opportunity if we are to have a rational, considered debate on this matter to the benefit of all the children of Stockport whose interests we all say we have as a priority.

111

Appendix 3

21

I await your response. Yours sincerely, Paul Beatty

112

Appendix 4

1

Secretary of State’s Guidance on Factors to be Considered by Decision Makers when deciding on Proposals to Close a Maintained School Extract from “Closing a Maintained Mainstream School - A Guide for Local Authorities and Governing Bodies”

The statutory guidance sections are indicated by shading, the word must in bold refers to a requirement in legislation, whilst the word should in bold is a recommendation.

Stage 4 – Decision

Surplus Places (Paragraphs 4.35-4.36)

4.35 It is important that education is provided as cost-effectively as possible. Empty places can represent a poor use of resources - resources that can often be used more effectively to support schools in raising standards. The Secretary of State wishes to encourage LAs to organise provision in order to ensure that places are located where parents want them. LAs should take action to remove empty places at schools that are unpopular with parents and which do little to raise standards or improve choice. The removal of surplus places should always support the core agenda of raising standards and respect parents' wishes by seeking to match school places with parental choices.

4.36 The Decision Maker should normally approve proposals to close schools in order to remove surplus places where the school proposed for closure has a quarter or more places unfilled, and at least 30 surplus places, and where standards are low compared to standards across the LA. The Decision Maker should consider all other proposals to close schools in order to remove surplus places carefully. Where the rationale for the closure of a school is based on the removal of surplus places, standards at the school(s) in question should be taken into account, as well as geographical and social factors, such as population sparsity in rural areas, and the effect on any community use of the premises.

IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AND TRAVEL

Impact on Community (Paragraphs 4.37-4.38)

4.37 Some schools may already be a focal point for family and community activity, providing extended services for a range of users, and its closure may have wider social ramifications. In considering proposals for the closure of such schools, the effect on families and the community should be considered. Where the school was providing access to extended services, some provision should be made for the pupils and their families to access similar services through their new schools or other means.

4.38 The information presented by those bringing forward proposals to close such schools, particularly when they are in receipt of funding as part of

113

Appendix 4

2

regeneration activity, should therefore include evidence that options for maintaining access to extended services in the area have been addressed. The views of other relevant agencies and partnerships with responsibility for community and family services should be taken into account, alongside those of the local police, Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies having responsibility for the New Deal for Communities.

114

AG

EN

DA

IT

EM

12

AGENDA ITEM NO. 12

STOCKPORT COUNCIL

REPORT TO EXECUTIVE MEETING – SUMMARY SHEET Subject: 54 Great Moor Street: Consent to Rescind Compulsory Purchase Resolution Report to Executive Meeting Date: 1 November 2010 Report of: Executive Councillor (Communities) Key Decision: NO Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency (Tick box) Summary: In October 2005 the Executive Committee supported a recommendation that the Council Solicitor and Secretary be authorised to make and submit an Order under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 for the compulsory purchase of a number of empty properties including 54 Great Moor Street, Great Moor under the Authority’s Empty Property Strategy. The Council subsequently managed to achieve a negotiated solution to the problems this property presented without the need to pursue this option. The dwelling has now been extensively refurbished and is currently occupied and for sale on the open market. As the desired outcome has now been achieved this report recommends that the previous compulsory purchase order resolution be rescinded. Comments/Views of the Executive Councillor: The compulsory purchase programme has played a vital role in the Authority’s pro-active approach aimed at bringing long term problematic empty properties back into use and I fully endorse the contents of this report. Recommendation(s) of Executive Councillor: That the compulsory purchase order resolution on 54 Great Moor Street, Great Moor be rescinded Relevant Scrutiny Committee (if decision called in): Adults & Communities Background Papers (if report for publication): Contact person for accessing Officer: Andy Kippax background papers and discussing the report Tel: 0161 474 4219 ‘Urgent Business’: NO Certification (if applicable) This report should be considered as ‘urgent business’ and the decision exempted from ‘call-in’ for the following reason(s):

115

The written consent of Councillor and the Chief Executive/Monitoring Officer/Corporate Director - Business Services for the decision to be treated as ‘urgent business’ was obtained on /will be obtained before the decision is implemented.

116

AGENDA ITEM NO. 12

EXECUTIVE Meeting: 1 November 2010

54 GREAT MOOR STREET: CONSENT TO RESCIND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER RESOLUTION

Report of the Corporate Director, Communities, Regeneration and Environment

1.0 MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION 1.1 This report seeks permission to rescind the compulsory purchase order resolution

on 54 Great Moor Street, Great Moor, Stockport. 2.0 INFORMATION 2.1 The Council has adopted an Empty Property Strategy under which long term

problematic empty properties are targeted for action with the objective of bringing them back into use. This Strategy involves persuasion, advice and in some limited case, the offer of financial assistance to the owners. Compulsory purchase is only considered as a last resort when this approach fails to produce a realistic likelihood of achieving the desired outcome.

2.2 54 Great Moor Street, Great Moor was previously a long term problematic empty

property that generated considerable complaints from local residents. It was frequently vandalised and regularly suffered from ingress of pigeons. In 2005 the house was considered to be filthy & verminous and totally unsuitable for occupation.

2.3 The Council tried to resolve matters informally with one of the co-owners but

eventually it was decided that formal action under the Empty Property Strategy was the only practicable route to resolving the matter. As a consequence on 10 October 2005 the Executive agreed to a recommendation that the Council Solicitor and Secretary be authorised to make and submit Orders under Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 for the compulsory purchase of this and a number of other dwellings in the Borough.

2.4 In this particular case, the Council subsequently managed to achieve a negotiated

solution to the problems this property presented without the need to pursue the compulsory purchase option further. The dwelling has now been extensively refurbished to a habitable standard and it is currently occupied and for sale on the open market.

2.5 The compulsory purchase resolution against this property is no longer relevant as

the desired outcome of Strategy has now been achieved. This resolution, however, is currently blighting the sale of this dwelling by the current owner occupier, in that the purchaser’s lender will not release the funds until the resolution is formally rescinded.

117

3.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 3.1 There are no financial implications in the adoption of the recommendations in this

report. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 It is recommended that the compulsory purchase order resolution on 54 Great Moor

Street, Great Moor be rescinded. BACKGROUND PAPERS There are none Anyone wishing to inspect the above background papers or requiring further information should contact Andy Dunn on telephone number 0161 474 4216 or alternatively email [email protected]

118

AG

EN

DA

IT

EM

13

AGENDA ITEM NO. 13

STOCKPORT COUNCIL

REPORT TO EXECUTIVE MEETING – SUMMARY SHEET Subject: Appointment to the Fostering Panel Report to Executive Meeting Date: 1 November 2010 Report of: (a) Leader of the Council Key Decision: (b) NO / YES (Please circle) Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency (Tick box) Summary: At the Executive Meeting held on 19 May 2010 Councillor June Somekh was nominated for appointment as the Council’s representative on the Fostering Panel. The Liberal Democrat Group would now like to replace Councillor Somekh with Councillor Margaret McLay. Comments/Views of the Executive Councillor: (c) I commend the proposed amendment to the Council’s appointments to outside bodies. Recommendation(s) of Executive Councillor: (d) That Councillor Margaret McLay be nominated for appointment as the Council’s representative on the Fostering Panel instead of Councillor June Somekh. Relevant Scrutiny Committee (if decision called in): (e) Corporate, Resource Management and Governance Background Papers (if report for publication): (f) None Contact person for accessing Officer: David Clee background papers and discussing the report Tel: 0161 474 3137 ‘Urgent Business’: (g) YES/ NO (please circle) Certification (if applicable) This report should be considered as ‘urgent business’ and the decision exempted from ‘call-in’ for the following reason(s): The written consent of Councillor and the Chief Executive/Monitoring Officer/Corporate Director - Business Services for the decision to be treated as ‘urgent business’ was obtained on /will be obtained before the decision is implemented.

119

AG

EN

DA

IT

EM

14

AGENDA ITEM NO. 14

STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT TO EXECUTIVE MEETING – SUMMARY SHEET

Subject: HOUSING BENEFIT OVERPAYMENTS: WRITE-OFFS OVER £10,000 Report to EXECUTIVE Date: 1st November 2010 Report of: EXECUTIVE COUNCILLOR (FINANCE) Key Decision: NO / YES Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency (Tick box) Summary: The Executive is asked to approve the write-off of a Housing Benefit overpayment, which is considered to be irrecoverable because it not possible to take further recovery action. The case is summarised in the report. The total amount to be considered for write-off is £12,861.11 Comments/Views of the Executive Councillor: I am aware that every effort has been made to recover this debt. However for the reasons stated in the report, there is no further recovery action that can be taken to recover the money owed to Stockport Council. I am therefore recommending that the debt be written-off. Recommendation(s) of Executive Councillor: The Executive is asked to recommend that a Housing Benefit Overpayment of £12,861.11 is written off as irrecoverable. Relevant Scrutiny Committee (if decision called in): Corporate, Resource Management and Governance Background Papers (if report for publication): Report of the Corporate Director, Business Services - Not for publication (attached) Contact person for accessing background papers and discussing the report Officer: Alison Blount Tel: 0161 474 5107 ‘Urgent Business’: YES / NO (please circle)

121

Agenda item no. 11 STOCKPORT COUNCIL


Subject: Offerton Park Parish - Community Governance Review Report to Executive Meeting Date: 1 November 2010 Report of: (a) Executive Councillor (Communities) Key Decision: (b) NO

AG

EN

DA

IT

EM

11

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency (Tick box) Summary: This report outlines and analyses the responses received to the formal second stage consultation on the Offerton Park Parish Community Governance Review. During this second stage consultation, views have been invited by a variety of methods via a comprehensive consultation exercise. Comments/Views of the Executive Councillor: (c) The report invites consideration of the responses and a recommendation from the Executive for consideration at the Council Meeting on 2 December, 2010. Following the Council Meeting the agreed proposals will be advertised in the local press and on the Council's web site and any final objections or concerns invited. In the event of no new issues being raised the Council Meeting on 20 January, 2010 will be invited to make a Reorganisation of Community Governance Order under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act (LGPIHA) 2007. The Community Governance Review Committee has, for reasons they identified at the meeting, agreed to recommend abolition of the parish; and in view of the considerable benefit provided to the people of the area covered by the Offerton Park Parish by the facilities available, strongly urged the Executive to continue to support the provision of community facilities / activities in the event of abolition of the parish being the final decision of the Council. (Note: An extract from the minutes of the Community Governance Review Committee relating to the item is attached together with a map showing the geographical distribution of respondents. This map was circulated at the meeting of the Community Governance Review Committee.) Recommendation(s) of Executive Councillor: (d) I recommend that the Executive Meeting - endorses for consideration by the Council Meeting on 2 December, 2010

the recommendation of the Community Governance Review Committee

123

that the Offerton Park Parish and the Parish Council be abolished and dissolved respectively; and

agrees to give future consideration to community facilities for the people of the area covered by the Offerton Park Parish in the event of abolition of the parish being the final decision of the Council.

Relevant Scrutiny Committee (if decision called in): (e) Adults & Communities Background Papers (if report for publication): (f) None Contact person for accessing Officer: Mike Iveson background papers and discussing the report Tel: 0161 474 3208 ‘Urgent Business’: (g) NO

124

COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Meeting: 26 October 2010 At: 6.00 pm 4. COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW – OFFERTON PARK PARISH COUNCIL

The Assistant Chief Executive (Strategy & Democracy) submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing the findings of the second phase of consultation on the Community Governance Review carried out for the Offerton Park Parish between 23 August and 20 October 2010. The report set out the activities undertaken as part of the consultation programme and analysis of the feedback received. An additional appendix detailing feedback from stakeholders and maps showing the geographical distribution of respondents (copies of which were circulated at the meeting) were submitted also. Members asked a number of questions and made comments, including:-

Whilst the results of the consultation made it clear that the majority of parish residents were in favour of abolition, regard should be had to community governance reflecting the identities and interests of the community and that such governance was effective and convenient;

Although Department for Local Government & Communities/ Electoral Commission Guidance stated that it was undesirable to abolish parishes without effective governance arrangements in place, it was recognised that there were alternative arrangements in place in the area that provided a satisfactory opportunity for community engagement and representation, including the Stepping Hill Area Committee, Offerton Ward Committee, Stockport Homes East Area Forum, East Area Neighbourhood Policing Team meetings, Stockport LINk and the Offerton Estate Community Empowerment initiative;

There had not been widespread support for the establishment of a Parish Council when established in 2000 and the majority of respondents to the original consultation did not support the proposal;

There was a clear message from residents through the consultation that they did not consider that the Parish Council was working well for their area, nor that it provided an effective and convenient community governance opportunity;

There had been consistent opposition to the Parish Council during its eight year existence demonstrated by the fact that a consistent majority of respondents remained opposed to it. The message from the majority of the community was that the Parish Council did not reflect the interests of that community, provide effective community cohesion nor play a positive role in the area;

It was important to ensure that there continued to be facilities and activities provided in the area, in particular on the Offerton Estate, as these were clearly much valued by the community as borne out by the consultation feedback.

There was very little support in the responses for altering the parish boundaries, therefore this option should not be pursued further.

125

Committee Governance Review Committee – 26 October 2010

RESOLVED – (Four in favour, one abstention) (1) That in light of the consultation feedback from residents and stakeholders set out in the report and the reasons set out above, the Council Meeting be recommended to make a Reorganisation of Community Governance Order under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act (LGPIHA) 2007 abolishing the Offerton Park Parish and dissolving the Offerton Park Parish Council. (2) That the Executive Meeting be strongly recommended to give consideration to ensuring that community facilities continued to be provided within the area of the current Offerton Park Parish in light of the results of the feedback from residents about the value of having such facilities in the area, should the Council Meeting agree to the abolition of the parish. (3) That the gratitude of the Committee be conveyed to all those involved in the Community Governance Review and in particular the consultation for their hard work and success in engaging with the community on this issue and ensuring a robust consultation and significant response rate. (4) That the Assistant Chief Executive (Strategy & Democracy) be requested to provide members with details of the financial implications to the Council of abolition of the Parish and the Parish Council.

126

Community Governance Review Committee – 26 October 2010 Executive – 1 November 2010

COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW – OFFERTON PARK PARISH COUNCIL

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive (Strategy and Democracy) 1.0 Purpose of Report 1.1 This report outlines and analyses the responses received to the formal second

stage consultation on the Offerton Park Parish Council Community Governance Review. During this second stage consultation, views have been invited by a variety of methods in a comprehensive consultation exercise.

1.2 The report invites consideration of the responses and agreement of a

recommendation for consideration at the Council Meeting on 2 December, 2010. Following the Council Meeting the recommendation will be advertised in the local press and on the Council's web site and any final objections or concerns considered. If a change to the existing arrangements is made and in the event of no new issues being raised the Council Meeting on 20 January, 2010 will be invited to make a Reorganisation of Community Governance Order under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”).

2.0 Background 2.1 The Council Meeting on 1 July, 2010 agreed to undertake a community

governance review of the parish following the receipt of petitions from residents of the parish requesting abolition of the Parish Council. The Council Meeting agreed terms of reference for the review which included the stages and timetable for conducting the review. The review commenced upon publication of the terms of reference. The Council was responsible for determining how the review would be undertaken.

2.2 In line with Community Governance Review guidance, the Council meeting on 1

July, 2010, established a Community Governance Review Committee with the following terms of reference -

"To progress the Executive Meeting’s decision that the Offerton Park Parish be reviewed under the provisions of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and to report back to the Council Meeting with recommendations following the review."

2.3 Also at this time, a parish meeting requested that a poll be conducted in the

parish putting the following question-

"It has been proposed that the Offerton Park Parish Council be abolished. Do you agree with that proposal?"

The Council was legally obliged to conduct the poll (at the expense of the Parish Council). The poll took place on Thursday, 8 July, 2010. The result of the poll was that 275 (66%) residents were in favour of the proposal to abolish with 139

128

(34%) against. This represented a turnout in the parish of 16% of those eligible to vote. This poll was an entirely separate exercise from the Community Governance Review.

3.0 Consultation Overview 3.1 The Community Governance Review Committee on 11 August, 2010 considered

responses to the stage 1 consultation and endorsed the consultation programme which was to be conducted between 23 August and 20 October, 2010.

3.2 The second stage of consultation began as planned on 23 August. During the two

month period a range of consultation events were arranged to ensure all residents had the opportunity to get involved and have their say. Appended to this report (Appendix 1) are details of the comprehensive stage 2 consultation exercise.

3.3 Residents were invited to indicate their preference against one of the following

options -

Abolish the Parish Council Keep the Parish Council as it is Change the Parish Boundary (reduce or extend the boundary)

3.4 An overall summary of resident opinion from all stage 2 consultation activity is

provided below in table.1. An overview or all resident opinion from the formal written responses is provided in table.2.

Table.1 – Engagement breakdown by activity:

Response

FormsE-response

formsDoor Step

SurveyForums

Drop-in sessions

Street SurveyHalf-Moon

LaneYouth

Consultation

619 10 286 10 18 3 88 46

# 412 8 23 5 1 7 1

% 67% 80% 8% 28% 33% 8% 2%

# 168 1 35 8 1 22 2

% 27% 10% 12% 44% 33% 25% 4%

# 31 1(reduction)

0 0 1 0 0

% 5% 10% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0%

# 8 0 228 5 0 59 43

% 1% 0% 80% 28% 0% 67% 93%

Total number engaged

Residents indicating Option.1 - Abolish the Parish Council as their preferred option

Residents indicating Option.2 - Keep the Parish Council as their preferred option

Residents indicating Option.3 - Change the Parish Boundary as their preferred option

No clear preference indicated

Attendees were not asked to inform

facilitators of their

preference at this event

129

Table.2 - Formal written responses is provided below in table.2

Reduce the Boundary

Extend the Boundary

Preferred Option 412 168 14 17

% response by total received

67% 27% 3% 2%

% response by population

-3,672% response by

electorate-2,486

1. Abolish the Parish Council

2. Keep the Parish Council

as it is

3. Change the Parish Boundary

5% 0.4% 0.5%

17% 7% 0.6% 0.7%

11%

The majority of responses indicate preference for abolition of the Parish Council. In responding to the consultation, a number of residents have made additional comments, detail on these is included in Appendix 1. A summary of the key points is also included within section 4 of this report.

3.5 It is relevant to point out that the Council is at liberty to arrive at a different decision to that which has been petitioned for.

4.0 Wider Considerations 4.1 This section provides an overview of other considerations which may need to be

taken into account when determining recommendations. 4.2 Response from the Offerton Park Parish Council

A formal consultation response was received during the first consultation stage from the Offerton Park Parish Council. This is appended to the report (Appendix 3).

4.2.1 It will be observed that the Parish Council has made a number of observations

reflecting on Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) guidance but in particular suggest that the boundary of the parish should be revised to incorporate an area and network of footpaths to the southern boundary of the parish.

4.2.2 In response to the suggestion by the Parish Council, there is only one property

involved in that area, located on Cow Lane. It should also be noted that there are a number of footpaths on the land in question.

4.2.3 The power to maintain footpaths and bridleways under the Highways Act, 1980,

rests with Stockport Council. It is permissible for the Council to devolve those powers to the Parish Council. To date Stockport Council has not devolved any powers directly to the Parish Council.

130

4.2.4 The net effect of including this land within the parish boundary is to include one additional property. There is therefore no significant income generation for the Parish Council.

4.2.5 It is appropriate for a community governance review to consider boundary changes

to reflect local identity. DCLG guidance indicates, for example, that a parish may be based on a small but discreet housing estate rather than on the town within which the estate lies.

4.3 Department for Communities and Local Government Guidance on Community Governance Reviews

The Department for Communities has jointly with the Local Government Boundary Commission produced comprehensive guidance on community governance reviews and it is appropriate to consider here relevant aspects of that guidance to ensure full compliance. This guidance is issued under section 100 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and therefore the Council must have regard to the guidance. The Guidance highlights the legislative requirements that when undertaking the review the Council must have regard to the need to secure that community governance

(a) reflects the identities and interests of the community in the area under review, and

(b) is effective and convenient. The legislation also provides that the Council, in deciding what recommendations to make, must take into account any other arrangements (excluding the parish) that have already been made or could be made (section 93(5)). The DCLG has indicated in its guidance that it expects to see a trend in the creation rather than the abolition or parishes. Exceptionally there may be circumstances where abolition is appropriate but the Principal Council should consider local opinion including those of parish councillors and local electors. DCLG guidance requires the Council to find evidence that abolition is justified and that there is clear and sustained local support for such action (local support for abolition over two terms (eight years) is cited as an example.). The Guidance states that contentious issues are not seen as justification for abolition.

4.3.1 Impact on community cohesion

The 2007 Act requires Principal Councils to have regard to the need to secure that community governance reflects the identity and interests of local communities and the impact on community cohesion is linked strongly to that.

The Act also requires the Principal Council to take into account any other arrangements (apart from those relating to parishes) that have already been made or that could be made for the purposes of community representation or community engagement. Details of alternative arrangements in place are considered later in this report.

131

4.3.2 Size, population and boundaries

The guidance states that parishes can be based on small but discreet housing estates but should be in a position to provide some basic services. The Offerton Park Parish meets this criterion and does provide services to the community.

Without doubt, in the opinion of the Parish Council, the parish centre is the 'jewel in the crown' of the parish and to an extent is a focal point for some residents using it for advice and information. If the Committee wished to consider recommending abolition of the parish, the Council may wish to consider the retention or even enhanced provision of this facility.

4.3.3 Alternative forms of community engagement currently in place

The Guidance provides that the council must consider the wider picture of community governance for the area in carrying out a review. Therefore it is necessary to holistically consider all of the community governance arrangements for the area and to consider alternative arrangements that are in place to engage with the community.

Area committees

Described in the guidance as a key initiative enabling local government to fulfill community governance roles and to deliver government policy on issues affecting social inclusion in local communities. Since 1974, the Offerton Park Parish has been served by the Stepping Hill Area Committee, one of the seven currently operating within the borough. Area committees in Stockport are held in high esteem in Stockport and represent an excellent opportunity to engage locally with residents about local issues.

Neighbourhood management

Described in the guidance as a tool to promote delivery of more responsive services, through their empowerment of citizens and communities. The Connecting Communities project in Offerton, led by Stockport Homes with support from partners including the Council’s Neighbourhood Renewal Team, aimed to make communities stronger and more cohesive. One of the outcomes of the project is to set up a Neighbourhood Management approach in Offerton which will be monitored by the Place Board along the lines of other priority areas.

Tenant management organisations

Described in the guidance as a mechanism for the housing authority to give communities a say on principle or local issues. The Stockport Homes East Area Forum meets three times annually allowing engagement with tenants.

132

The tenants' federation works in partnership with Stockport Homes and the Council to improve life for tenants and leaseholders

Residents associations

Described in the guidance as enabling local people to participate in local issues. They can be set up by any group of people living in the same area. In the case of associations on estates, they may receive direct support from the principal council.

While there are no formal residents associations in Offerton at present, recent activity through the Connecting Communities project has extend involvement with residents in addressing issues in their local area.

Community associations

Described in the guidance as offering a particular democratic model for residents and community based organisations to work together for the benefit of the neighbourhood. A Communities Together Forum is currently being developed in Offerton which will bring together key individuals, organisations and residents. This will effectively be the start of forming a Community Association. Alongside this there are a number of community groups and activities in the area, including Moving and Developing Offerton Community Group (MADOCG). Please note, the Offerton Community Association boundary includes the area covered by the Offerton Park Parish.

4.4 Equality Impact Assessment 4.4.1 A draft Equality Impact Assessment has been completed and is attached to this

report (Appendix 3). This will be updated to reflect the recommendation of the Committee prior to the report to the Council Meeting. The key consideration highlighted through the assessment was the possible impact of the closure of the Parish Centre on residents in the area.

4.5 Written responses 4.5.1 As raised in section 3, a number of written and verbal comments have been fed

back during the course of the consultation period. These are outlined in detail in the appendix however two key themes have been consistently referred to during the consultation, these are summarised below -

Concerns that the abolition of the Parish Council would lead to the closure of the

Parish Centre. Concerns were raised that without the Parish Centre, Offerton Park Parish would not have access to a suitable community resource.

Views that abolishing the Parish Council would save money, through removal of the precept, greater transparency and awareness of how money is spent. There was limited awareness of how money was spent by the Parish Council.

133

5.0 Summary and Options 5.1 The options available to the Community Governance Review Committee to be

taken forward as recommendations include the following –

a) Abolish the parish – 67% of response forms returned favour this option A request for abolition of the parish acted as the catalyst for the review and the majority of the responses received by the Council are in favour or abolishing the parish. As stated above, DCLG has indicated that it expects to see a trend in the creation rather than the abolition of parishes. Exceptionally there may be circumstances where abolition is appropriate but the principal council should consider local opinion including those of parish councillors and local electors. The Guidance provides: “the abolition of parishes should not be undertaken unless clearly justified. Any decision a principal council may make on whether to abolish a parish should not be taken lightly. Under the previous parish review legislation, the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, the Secretary of State considered very carefully recommendations made by principal councils for the abolition of any parish (without replacement) given that to abolish parish areas removes a tier of local government. Between 1997 and 2008, the Government rarely received proposals to abolish parish councils, it received only four cases seeking abolition and of these only one was approved for abolition by the Secretary of State. “Exceptionally, there may be circumstances where abolition may be the most appropriate way forward. Under the 2007 Act provisions, the principal council would need to consider local opinion, including that of parish councillors and local electors. It would need to find evidence that the abolition of a parish council was justified, and that there was clear and sustained local support for such action. A factor taken into account by the Government in deciding abolition cases, was that local support for abolition needed to have been demonstrated over at least a period equivalent to two terms of office of the parish councillors (i.e. eight years), and that such support was sufficiently informed. This means a properly constituted parish council should have had an opportunity to exercise its functions so that local people can judge its ability to contribute to local quality of life.

“Where a community governance review is considering abolishing a parish council we would expect the review to consider what arrangements will be in place to engage with the communities in those areas once the parish is abolished. These arrangements might be an alternative forum run by or for the local community, or perhaps a residents’ association. It is doubtful however, that abolition of a parish and its council could ever be justified as the most appropriate action in response to a particular contentious issue in the area or decision of the parish council “ The Committee is asked to have regard to this guidance in considering this recommendation. It should be noted that clearly there are other forms of community governance currently in place to represent those living within the parish area including -

134

Stepping Hill Area Committee - the main locally focused decision making body

of Stockport Council. Offerton Ward Committee - comprising the three Offerton Ward representatives

in which the entire Offerton Park Parish is included. Other Stockport Council bodies and committees including the Council Meeting,

Executive, scrutiny and ordinary committees. Stockport Homes East Area Forum - which takes place three times annually

allowing engagement with tenants. Greater Manchester Police - the East Area Neighbourhood Policing Team hold

meetings and surgeries in communities they serve and carry out consultations with residents in problem areas.

Stockport LINk - a network of groups and individuals across the community with the aim of improving health services in the community.

Tenants' federation - working in partnership with Stockport Homes and the Council to improve life for tenants and leaseholders.

Offerton Estate Community Empowerment - an initiative aimed at developing and training those involved in grant bids from 'grass roots' local groups.

Stockport Impact - offering funding to groups to start up health projects and activities.

Stockport NHS Foundation Trust - offering nomination for election to office as one of the four Stepping Hill area representatives.

Connecting Communities - aiming to make communities stronger and more cohesive.

In the event of abolition the property rights and liabilities of the Parish Council revert to the Principal Council. (b) Do nothing (status quo) – 27% of response forms returned favour this option The Council had a duty to embark upon the community governance review process following receipt of the petition requesting abolition. The Council may decide in the light of the response to and outcomes of the review that the Parish Council provides an effective and convenient tier of local governance for parish residents and that no further action should be taken. This option will mean that there are no changes to the existing arrangements and the Parish Council will continue.

(c) Alter the geographic area of the parish – 5% of response forms returned favour

this option This option has been raised by a number of those responding including a specific suggestion by the Offerton Park Parish Council. The Parish Council has made a number of observations on the identity of some areas currently within the parish (see Parish Council response included at Appendix 2) but has made a formal suggestion that the boundary of the parish should be extended to include an area and network of footpaths to the southern boundary of the parish.

135

In the event of the Committee deciding to pursue this or other suggestions for boundary change further, a further stage of consultation would be launched with those affected to develop proposals for a new geographical area.

5.2 Whilst the decision following the community governance review is specifically excluded from 'executive' business, the Executive Meeting has a duty to guide the Council Meeting in respect of functions which are reserved to the Council Meeting.

6.0 Recommendations 6.1 The Community Governance Review Committee and the Executive Meeting are

invited to -

make a recommendation for consideration at the Council Meeting on 2 December, 2010;

give consideration to and recommend any future proposals for the parish centre in the event of abolition being recommended; and

authorise the Assistant Chief Executive to take any necessary action. 7.0 Next Steps 7.1 Following consideration by the Council Meeting on 2 December, 2010 it is proposed

to publish in the local press and on the Council's web site notice of the intentions of the Council Meeting and inviting final comment.

7.2 In the event of significant or new issues being raised they will be considered by the

Community Governance Review Committee prior to final consideration at the Council Meeting on 20 January, 2010 at which the final decision and authority to make a Reorganisation of Community Governance Order will be requested.

Background papers Responses received to date in respect of the Offerton Park Parish Council Community Governance Review. DCLG guidance on Community Governance Reviews. Officer contact Any person wishing to discuss the report should contact: Mike Iveson, Head of Committee Services, 0161 474 3208, [email protected] Holly Rae, Improvement and Performance Officer, 0161 474 3014, [email protected]

136

1

Appendix. 1 – Offerton Park Parish Community Governance Review Stage Two consultation results 1.0 Introduction 1.1 This appendix provides further detail around the Community Governance Review

stage 2 consultation. The consultation ran between 23rd August – 20th October and the results are discussed below.

1.2 Please note, a number of typing errors and minor amendments have been addressed

within the appendix since the report was presented to the Community Governance Review Committee on the 26th October 2010. These changes do not affect the overall information provide in this appendix. Specific amendments include:

Inclusion of section 7.2.4 (stakeholder comments) Completion of final sentence in paragraph 5.8.1. Clarification of wording in paragraph 6.4.

2.0 Methodology of the Consultation 2.1 The first stage of the Consultation invited residents of Offerton Park Parish to mark

their preference, Yes (I agree) or No (I disagree) against each of the three possible outcomes of the Community Governance Review. The outcomes were worded as statements to reflect the language used in the Review terms of reference. Residents were also given the opportunity to provide written comments. In total Stockport Council received 335 responses: this equated to 317 (approximately 9%) of the 3,672 residents (approximately 13.5% of the 2,486 electors) although only 273 stated a clear preference for one option over another.

2.2 After looking at the responses the Community Governance Review committee decided

that there were three possible options for the future of Offerton Park Parish. These were developed into draft proposals and formed the basis of the second stage consultation:

Option 1 - Abolish the Parish Council Option 2 - Keep the Parish Council as it is Option 3 - Amend the Parish Boundary

Make it larger Make it smaller

2.3 The Service Director (Legal and Property) and the Assistant Chief Executive (Strategy

and Democracy) agreed the draft proposals document. This document was distributed to all residents in Offerton Park Parish as well as to interested parties. A list of recipients is detailed in section 2.4. The draft proposal document was sent as part of a consultation pack: the contents of this pack are detailed in section 2.8.

2.4 Stakeholders

The consultation pack was sent to all stakeholders, this included residents and interested parties. A full list of stakeholders is outlined below:

137

2

All residents living within Offerton Park Parish Businesses operating within Offerton Park Parish Political representatives including;

o Member of Parliament for Hazel Grove o Three Ward Councillors for Offerton o Ten Parish Councillors for Offerton Park Parish

Other interested parties, including; o National Association for Local Councils – Lancashire Association of

Local Councils. o Social housing providers operating in the area; Stockport Homes,

Manchester and District, Equity Housing, Contour Homes and Guinness Northern Counties

o Greater Manchester Joint Authorities o Churches operating within the area: St John’s CE and St Phillips the

Apostle RC. o Greater Manchester Police o Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue o NHS Stockport o Voluntary Sector: Stockport CVS, Community Foundation, Age Concern

Stockport, Stockport District Citizen’s Advice Bureau. o Schools operating within the area: Dial Park Primary School, St Philips

RC Primary School, Lisburne School, Offerton Hall Nursery School o Community hubs: 3rd Offerton Scout Group.

2.5 Consultation Programme

To support the decision making process a programme of consultation opportunities was arranged for residents in the area. A timetable of activity can be seen in table.1. Activity included: Response forms – sent to every resident on the electoral register as well as all

businesses and key stakeholders in the area. This asked respondents to mark their preference against one of the options above. Forms were coded to prevent multiple responses being cast. A freepost envelope was provided with the consultation pack to support the return of forms. A ‘collection point’ in the form of a drop box was also established at Dialstone Library for residents and businesses who may wish to hand in their response form.

Online e-form - An online consultation e-form was also developed and was linked to Stockport Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ consultation homepage as well as the Community Governance Review webpage.

Drop-in sessions – organised at a range of venues across the Parish. Purpose was to provide support to residents, answering queries about the review and to record views.

Forums – A more detailed discussion session. An opportunity for residents to learn more about the review, ask questions, and discuss the options in detail. These were independently facilitated by representatives from NHS Stockport.

Street survey - purpose was to raise awareness about the Review, answer any questions and remind residents about the deadline to return their forms.

138

3

Door step survey – purpose was to raise awareness about the Review, answer any questions and remind residents about the deadline to return their forms.

Youth Consultation – A focussed consultation event seeking the views of young people in Offerton Park Parish about the future of the Parish Council. Young people would not feature on the electoral register and are the future electorate of the Parish; as such a tailored session was required to ensure their views were heard.

Stakeholder consultation sessions – all interested parties which featured on the stakeholder consultee list were invited to request a specific tailored consultation session for their organisation should they wish.

2.6 Table.1 – Timetable of Consultation activity

Week Activity Week 1

(23rd Aug) Arrival of consultation pack (including response forms)

Week 2 (30th Aug)

Drop-in session – Dialstone Library: Tuesday 31st August, 2 – 3:30pm Thursday 2nd September, 2 – 3:30pm Saturday 4th September, 10:30am – 12pm

Week 3 (6th Sept)

Door step survey: (random sample of all households) Tuesday 7th September, 5 – 7pm Wednesday 8th September, 5 – 7pm

Week 4 (13th Sept)

Drop-in sessions – Parish Centre: Monday 13th September, 2 – 4pm Wednesday 15th September, 10am -12pm Door step survey: (random sample of all households) Tuesday 14th September, 5 – 7pm Wednesday 15th September, 5 – 7pm Thursday 16th September, 5 - 7pm

Week 5 (20th Sept)

Drop-in session and street survey – Dial Park Primary / Half Moon Lane: Tuesday 21st September, 8 – 9am, 2:30 – 3:30pm Wednesday 22nd September, 8 – 9am, 2:30 - 3:30pm Thursday 23rd September, 8 – 9am, 2:30 – 3:30pm

Week 6 (27th Sept)

Street survey – Lisburne Lane shops: Monday 27th September, 2 – 4pm Forum 1 – Dialstone Centre: Wednesday 29th September, 2 – 3:30pm

Week 7 (4th Oct)

Door step survey: (random sample of non-response households) Tuesday 5th October, 5 – 7pm Wednesday 6th October, 5 – 7pm Forum 2 – Dial Park Primary School: Thursday 7th October, 7 – 8:30pm

139

4

Week 8 (11th Oct)

Drop-in sessions – Dialstone Library: Tuesday 12th October, 2 - 3:30pm Thursday 14th October, 6 - 7:30pm Saturday 16th October, 10:30am – 12pm Door step survey: (random sample of non-response households) Wednesday 13th October, 5 – 7pm Youth Consultation event: Saturday 16th October, 4:30 – 7pm, various locations

Week 9 (18th Oct)

Door step survey: targeted at non-response households Monday 18th October, 5-7pm Tuesday 19th October; 5-7pm Wednesday 20th October; 5-7pm Consultation deadline – 20th October

2.7 Communication Programme 2.8 As mentioned in section 2.3, a consultation pack was sent to every resident on the

electoral register, all businesses in the area, and key stakeholders operating in Offerton. This consultation pack included:

A letter inviting residents / businesses / stakeholders to get involved in the

consultation. This included the draft proposal document. A Fact Sheet – part of a series of communications about the Review. 1 Response form and a freepost envelope.

All the information was available from the Council on request or for download from the Council’s website.

2.9 As part of the communications of the Review, as well as the residents’ information

pack, the consultation was publicised on a webpage dedicated to the Community Governance Review, placed on the Council’s website. This has been referenced in all correspondence with residents and businesses. The Community Governance Review webpage itself contained the terms of reference, procedure and timetable for the review as well as a series of frequently asked questions.

2.10 In addition to the consultation pack a range of communication activity took place to

ensure awareness of the Review and to publicise opportunities for residents to have their say and to find out more information. This included:

Flyers – hand delivered to all households in Offerton Park Parish. The purpose

was for awareness raising and publicity. These advertised upcoming consultation events (e.g. drop-in sessions and forums) and provided information on how to return forms and contact details for the Review team. Three waves of flyers were distributed; waves one and two were delivered to all households, wave three was targeted to non-respondent households.

140

5

Press Releases – reflected information provided in the flyers. Posters – awareness raising and publicity of upcoming events. School newsletter – an article in Dial Park Primary school newsletter

publicising Half Moon Lane drop-in session. Staff briefings –to ensure that colleagues working within Offerton were able to

signpost residents to the Review team. “Sorry we missed you” cards – posted through the letterbox of non-answer

households during the door step survey. Awareness raising of the Review and signposting to the Review team.

2.11 Learning from the first consultation stage was taken into account during the planning

and development of the consultation and communication programmes for the second consultation stage. This included;

Ensuring clearer wording on the response form to prevent conflicting responses (i.e. where more than one option was selected).

Increasing awareness of the Review through a range of communication methods and support activity to ensure all residents had the opportunity to respond.

2.12 The Consultation and Communication programmes worked together to ensure that

residents were informed of their opportunity to get involved and have their say. Consultation activity such as drop-in sessions and door and street surveys also had a key role in raising awareness.

3.0 Engagement with the consultation process 3.1 Residents were explicitly encouraged in all communication material to respond using

the response form which had been provided to them. However residents chose to engage in the consultation exercise through a range of means, specifically other consultation events for example taking part in the door step or Half Moon Lane survey, rather than returning a response form. As such an overview of all engagement with residents has been included in section 3.2 and in more detail in section 4.

3.2 Overall the Stage 2 consultation engaged with approximately 1,136 of residents in the

area (46% of residents on the electoral register). This includes: Residents who engaged in the consultation using the response form; Occupants of all households who engaged in the consultation through the door

step survey (419, not including those 114 residents had also responded through the response form);

Residents who engaged in the consultation through the drop-in sessions, street survey, forums and Half Moon Lane survey.

As far as possible, every attempt has been made remove those who engaged in multiple events from the overall engagement figure. An overview of engagement can be provided below in table.1:

141

6

Table.1 – Engagement breakdown by activity:

Response Forms

E-response forms

Door Step Survey

ForumsDrop-in

sessionsStreet Survey

Half-Moon Lane

Youth Consultation

619 10 286(households)

10 18 3 88 46

# 412 8 23 5 1 7 1

% 67% 80% 8% 28% 33% 8% 2%

# 168 1 35 8 1 22 2

% 27% 10% 12% 44% 33% 25% 4%

# 31 1(reduction)

0 0 1 0 0

% 5% 10% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0%

# 8 0 228 5 0 59 43

% 1% 0% 80% 28% 0% 67% 93%

Attendees were not asked to inform

facilitators of their

preference at this event

Total number engaged

Residents indicating Option.1 - Abolish the Parish Council as their preferred option

Residents indicating Option.2 - Keep the Parish Council as their preferred option

Residents indicating Option.3 - Change the Parish Boundary as their preferred option

No clear preference indicated

3.3 The total number of response forms received by Stockport Council was 619 this

equates to approximately 25% of the 2,486 electors (approximately 17% of the 3,672 residents), of Offerton Park Parish, 10 online responses, and 4 stakeholders. The majority of responses were supplied using the freepost envelope provided in the information pack:

536 forms were returned using the freepost envelope 1 form was returned using the drop box in Dialstone Library 10 responses through the Have Your Say e-form on Stockport Council’s website.

3.2 In addition to this two separate emails were sent to the Community Governance

Review email inbox. These both concerned the timing of consultation activity and were acted upon and responded to individually.

3.3 The proportion of the population in the area responding to this consultation compares

favourably when considered in the context of other engagement or consultation activity in the area, e.g;

Most recent Parish election turnout (by-election, July 2009): o Offerton Hall (UD ward boundary) – 10.2% o Dial Park (UF ward boundary) – 12.3%

Parish Poll (July 2010): o 16.7% of the electorate

Offerton High School consultation (Aug – Oct 2010): o 253 responses

4.0 Headline Consultation Results – Response Forms 4.1 This section outlines the headline results from the response forms received during the

second consultation stage. For the purposes of this summary conflicting responses (where preference has been selected for more than one option) and no preference

142

7

responses (where no response given to any statement) have been removed. These responses will be addressed in section 4.4. Responses will also be summarised below by recipient (i.e. resident, business and interested individual). As such, 620 responses can be summarised below in 4.3.

4.2 Residents, businesses and interested individuals were invited to mark their preference

on the response form sent out (and online) against their preferred draft proposal option community governance review. These statements and responses are outlined in Table 2. Table.3 and Table.4 provide a summary for response forms by recipient. Table.2 – Overall responses summary (625 responses) N.B. This includes, resident response forms, e-forms, stakeholder responses.

Table.3 – Residents - response summary (611 responses)



2. Keep the Parish Council as

it is Reduce the Boundary

Extend the Boundary


% response by total

received 67% 28% 2% 3%





Extend the Boundary


% response by total

received 67% 27% 3% 2%

% response by population

(3,672)

11%

5% 0.4% 0.5%

% response by electorate

(2,486) 17% 7% 0.6% 0.7%

143

8

Table.4 – Stakeholders (businesses and interested individuals) – response summary (4 responses)

4.3 The National Association of Local Councils (Lancashire) provided a formal response to

the consultation indicating their preference to keep the Parish Council. A selection of their response is provided below:

“The abolition of the council would, in view of this Assocation, be a grave mistake which would adversely affect its residents.”

“It would be a great loss to residents to lose those extra services and in view of the Government's wish to create parish councils, the Association would suggest that it would not be in the best interests of the community to abolish the council.”

4.4 A response was also received from Andrew Stunell, OBE, MP for Hazel Grove. The

response is provided below:

“Whilst I am fully aware of the history and difficulties that there have been with the Parish Council I do believe that, on balance, it provides a useful community resource and adds to the civic capital within its area. I would therefore favour its retention as an institution. I see no particularly strong case for either increasing or reducing the area covered by the Parish and, in the event of its retention, in principle would favour its retention on existing boundaries.”

4.5 No formal response to the stage 2 consultation was received from the Offerton Park

Parish Council. An officer from the Review team was invited and did attend a Parish Council meeting on the 11th October. Parish Councillors asked questions about the process to date and next steps.

4.6 No Clear Preference responses During the first consultation stage 62 responses were returned to the Council with

duplicate, conflicting or no preference responses. These are considered as having no clear preference. At the second consultation stage 11 responses were received which





Extend the Boundary


% response by total

stakeholder responses received

25% 75% 0% 0%

144

9

are deemed as having no clear preference. Whilst these could not be included in the headline summary above it is important to summarise them below.

4.7 Conflicting Responses

8 Individual residents returned response for where preference had been indicated for more than one statement. In order to ensure a fair consultation summary these were removed from the overall summary in section 4.2, however they are summarised below. 2 stated their preference as to keep the Parish Council as it is and to reduce the

boundary. No comments were provided. 6 stated their preference as to as to keep the Parish Council as it is and to extend

the boundary. No comments were provided. 4.8 No Preference indicated

4 Responses were returned with no preference indicated. These could be broken down as follows: 1 Response was returned with no preference indicated for any option. Greater Manchester Police Authority and Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue

Authority responded to state they would not be submitting any comments on the Review.

1 Response was received from a relative stating that the resident would be unable to complete the form.

5.0 Other Consultation Feedback 5.1 This section outlines feedback obtained through other consultation activity such as

drop-in sessions, street surveys, public forums and written responses. 5.2 Written Responses

As well as indicating their preference against the three statements, respondents were invited to provide comments. 69 responses were received with written comments (this includes letters and comments submitted via the e-form online) and there were two main strands within these:

5.2.1 Keep the Parish Council to save the Parish Centre

A number of responses (13) commented that the Parish Council provided a service for

the area by providing support or running the Parish Centre. Comments included; The Parish Council had provided events and activities for children and young

people within the area. The Parish Council had provided support for residents including; advice filling in

forms and solving problems with bills, neighbours, noise or the build-up of rubbish. Abolishing the Parish Council would leave the area with nowhere for residents to

meet up.

145

10

Concerns from some residents, should the Parish Council be abolished there would be no organisation committed to providing residents residing within the Parish a voice or support.

5.2.2 Abolish the Parish Council to save money

32 responses expressed the opinion that the Parish Council should be abolished in order to save money, for example through dispensing with the Parish precept. Comments included; a lack of awareness and accountability of how the Parish Council spent money

raised through the precept; the precept was too high; low income or retired residents who did not want to pay the precept; money should be directed elsewhere; happy with Stockport Council services and did not see the need to pay for an

additional tier; abolishing the Parish Council could form part of the public sector spending cuts.

5.3 In addition to those made above other comments were made about ongoing issues in

Offerton (for example: the precinct, anti-social behaviour, street cleanliness and poor lighting) and queries concerning the Community Governance Review process.

5.4 All responses received have been included in section 7.2.1 at the end of this appendix.

Please note defamatory comments have been removed. 5.4 Drop-in Sessions 5.4.1 Drop-in sessions were held at the Dialstone Centre and the Parish Centre. The

purpose of the drop-in sessions was to provide residents and interested parties with an opportunity to discuss the review with Council officers, ask any questions they had about the process and raise any particular issues.

5.4.2 Seven drop-in sessions were held over the review period with sessions arranged for

mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends to allow maximum opportunity for all sectors of the community to attend. In total 18 people attended the drop in sessions, with the exception of one person they were all aware of the review and ongoing consultation.

5.4.3 A breakdown of those attending the drop-in sessions are provided below:

5 people stated a preference for abolishing the Parish Council. 3 people came to ask questions about the review process and the Parish

Council itself. A number of residents (8) who attended a session linked to a coffee morning at

the Parish Centre stated a preference for keeping the Parish Council. 5.4.4 Two residents raised concerns about how the Parish was set up originally, two other

residents who had since moved to the area felt that it had been forced upon them as they didn’t have a choice as to whether or not they wanted to pay for it. 3 residents

146

11

commented that they felt that for the money they paid they saw no return for it. Several residents commented that they liked the Parish Centre facility and the services it offered: one resident added to this in saying services outside of the Parish area were hard to access.

5.4.5 All responses are provided in section 7.3.3 at the end of this appendix. Any

defamatory comments have been removed and responses anonymised. 5.5 Door step Survey 5.5.1 Door step surveys were carried out across the Parish area over the course of the

review. The purpose of the survey was to encourage residents to return their consultation response form, increase engagement with residents as part of the consultation process and also to target households who had not yet responded formally to ensure they had an opportunity to take part. Residents were asked if they were aware of the review, if they had returned their consultation response form and whether they had any further questions or comments.

5.5.2 In total 770 households were visited as part of the sample, this equates to 44% of all

households (1,570) within the Parish boundary. Of these households visited 286 residents took part in the doorstep survey, 112 were aware of the review and 41 had already returned their consultation response forms prior to the door step survey.

5.5.3 Some residents stated a preference as to the three options. A break-down is provided

below:

35 residents stated that they would like to keep the Parish Council 23 stated they would prefer it to be abolished and 26 stated that they had no preference as to the outcome of the review.

5.5.4 In addition to this 4 residents inferred that they would like to keep the Parish and 2

inferred that they wished to abolish it although this opinion was not explicitly stated. 10 residents explicitly commented that they were not interested in taking part at all.


defamatory comments have been removed and responses anonymised. 5.6 Street Survey 5.6.1 A street survey was conducted outside the Lisburne Lane row of shops. The aim of

the survey was to engage with residents who might not have previously had a chance to respond to the review. Those residents who took part were asked if they were aware of the review, whether they had responded to the consultation and whether they had any further comments of questions.

5.6.2 Three residents took part in the street survey. A breakdown is provided below:

1 resident stated a preference to keep the Parish 1 stated a preference for abolition and;

147

12

1 did not state a preference.

5.6.3 All were aware of the review but only 1 had returned the consultation response form. 5.6.4 One resident felt that they did not benefit from the Parish Council at all and that

problems on the estate were not dealt with in a timely and efficient manner. Another resident praised the work of the Parish Council particularly in relation to anti-social behavior and the Parish Centre facility as a community hub.


defamatory comments have been removed and responses anonymised. 5.7 Half Moon Lane survey 5.7.1 Surveys were carried out on Half Moon Lane, at the entrance to the campus of Dial

Park Primary School, Offerton Hall Nursery School and the Lisburne School. The survey sessions were held in line with drop off, 8.30-9.15am, and pick up, 2.30-3.14pm, times for the schools so as to maximise engagement. Residents were surveyed as to their awareness of the review, their engagement thus far with the process and any further comments or questions they might have.

5.7.2 88 residents took part in the survey: of those 65 were aware of the consultation

exercise and 38 had already returned their consultation response form. 5.7.3 A breakdown of those residents participating in the survey is provided below:

22 stated an outright preference for keeping the Parish in its current form 7 stated a preference for abolition other respondents did not state a preference.

5.7.4 Two respondents stated that they felt the Parish Council benefited the community and

stated examples such as the improvements made to the park. Two respondents stated that the Parish Council had helped them with their personal circumstances. Several respondents were pleased with the childcare options provided through the Parish Council. One respondent stated that he was totally unaware of what the Parish Council did.


defamatory comments have been removed and responses anonymised. 5.8 Public Forums 5.8.1 Two public forums were arranged for residents and interested individuals. The forums

provided an opportunity for residents to gain more of an insight into the review process and to participate in round table discussions centered on the three possible outcomes of the review. The forums and round table discussions were independently facilitated by representatives from NHS Stockport. A short presentation about the review was provided by representatives from Stockport Council.

148

13

5.8.2 The first forum, held on 29th September at the Dialstone Centre, was not attended by any residents. The second forum, held on 7th October at Dial Park Primary School, was attended by 10 residents (including an existing Parish Councillor), and 1 Ward Councillor.

5.8.3 Residents were not asked to explicitly state their preference for the possible outcomes

of the review. 5.8.4 Below is a summary of some points discussed at the forums:

Comments were offered about the additional cost of the Parish Council including: happy with the services Stockport Council provide for their council tax don’t know what services they are receiving for their parish precept feel they are not getting value for money this is one of the poorest bits of Stockport so why do the residents have to

pay an extra tax? Comments were also offered about the effectiveness of the Parish Council,

including: never see the parish councillors and don’t know who they are services are not flexible enough to meet the needs of the residents main problem with the Parish Council is the lack of community facilities- no

community centre means that events have to be run through schools most of the time e.g. cheerleading

there is still a lot of animosity relating to the previous council newly elected representatives are trying to rebuild trust.

Comments were also offered about what the implication of abolishing the Parish

Council could mean: if it does go there needs to be something in its place to meet the needs of

the community the area needs something.


defamatory comments have been removed and responses anonymised. 5.9 Youth Consultation Event 5.9.1 A targeted event was organised by Children and Young People Services to gather the

views of young people living within the area on the future of the Parish Council. Young people were asked a range of questions on the Parish Council and asked about the needs and issues for young people living in the area.

5.9.2 A total of 46 young people aged between 9 and 19 took part in the consultation. With

notable exceptions most young people had little to no interest in the Parish Council, but all engaged in discussions about the needs of young people in the local area.

5.9.3 A summary of responses is provided below:

2 young people were strongly supportive of the Parish Council; 1 young person strongly opposed;

149

14

The majority of young people engaged in the consultation thought that it was a good idea for local people to be able to make decisions on about the area, however they were unsure that a Parish Council is the best way to achieve this.

6 young people felt that the Parish Council was doing a good job; 15 people felt that it was not, and: 4 were unsure; The remaining young people did not respond.

5.9.4 The vast majority of participants were unclear about what the Parish Council does and

are concerned about the additional costs incurred by local residents to pay for this governance arrangement; young people were generally happy to support the Parish Council if these issues could be addressed.

5.9.5 Participants cited the issues and needs for young people in the local area as being a

lack of activities, a lack of facilities and negative stereotypes of young people. 5.6.7 All responses are provided in section 7.3.6 at the end of this appendix. 5.10 Stakeholder consultation sessions 5.10.1 No requests for specific stakeholder consultation sessions were received by the

Review Team other than the invite for a representative from Stockport Council to attend the Parish Council meeting on the 11th October. This is outlined in section 4.5.

6.0 Consultation data use 6.1 The results of this consultation stage are intended to provide the Community

Governance Review committee with an indication of the views of Offerton Park Parish residents which can be used to base any recommendations or next steps upon. There are points which may need to be considered when using this information: these are outlined below.

6.2 As outlined in the main report 25% of the electorate in Offerton Park Parish returned

their response form. This is an improvement from the first stage and it compares well to election turnout in the area (see section 3.3). Feedback received from residents and staff operating within Offerton suggests the following as possible (though not exhaustive) reasons for residents deciding not to respond:

Apathy – residents were aware of the Review but were not interested in taking part. The most recent Parish Election as well as the Parish Poll place turnouts at less than 15% of the electorate in the area.

Already responded to the first stage of consultation and/or voted in the Parish Poll, ‘didn’t see the point’ of responding again.

Weren’t aware or didn’t understand the Community Governance Review. Lack of understanding of the role of the Parish Council. Sense that a decision had already been made and they couldn’t influence

the outcome. Please note this was a comment made both by individuals in support of abolition and retention of the Parish Council.

150

15

6.3 In relation to the differing trends between consultation activities included in the table in section 3.2 it is worth noting that a large part of the consultation programme involved face-to-face consultation with residents, specifically; door step survey, drop-in sessions, street survey and the Half Moon Lane survey. Face to face interviews tend to elicit more favourable answers to questions as a relationship is established between interviewer and interviewee that does not exist when the respondent is filling in a self completion questionnaire. As such some residents responded stating they were happy with current arrangements although not being fully aware of the different roles of the Parish Council and Stockport Council.

6.4 This appendix builds upon the information provided in the main report and the Stage 1

consultation summary and should be viewed alongside these. 7.0 All Comments 7.1 This section provides a full list of all written and verbal comments supplied during the

course of the consultation. To ensure all comments are anonymous, names of individuals, addresses and organisations have been removed. Comments which are considered ‘defamatory’ have also been removed. This has been made clear in the comments below.

7.2 All Written Comments 7.2.1 All written comments received from response forms are outlined below:

Ability of the Parish Council

From the outset, one of the first decisions of the self-styled "new Parish Council" that came into being in 2009, was not to continue to try and retain the Charter Mark previously achieved by the Council. This was clearly a negative decision not made with the best interests of the wider community in mind. They did though claim to want to retain recognition as a Quality Parish Council, without realising the criterion needed to quality - not least the need to have a NALC Certified Clerk, which they do not have. Which could explain how they have come to make some questionable (if not irregular) decisions in respect of use of the Public Purse and this is of serious concern. The new Council also ignored the recommendation of the previous Council/members, that all Councillors should be subject to a CRB check, which is almost of equal concern, given the accessibility of the Parish Centre by children. Overall therefore I'm afraid it's a vote of no confidence.

A lot promised. Little delivered but we got a flag pole, whoopee.

They have done nothing. It should be open every day or a few times a week, it's always a Wednesday.

151

16

The reason I want the parish abolished is because they have done absolutely nothing for me and my family. We have our house, fence and land vandalised on a regular basis by the children (age range 5-16). I thought the parish did activities to keep kids busy. It's not working where I live.

The present incumbents at Hexham Close are just a pointless (and useless) ornament and convenience for the MADDOG group who appear to be raking in funding from all directions.

The Parish Council should have better insight into the problems of the area, for example anti-social behaviour.

I live on [address removed], which seems to get forgotten by the Parish Council. They do not seem to do anything for the area.

I can see no evidence of what the PC has done for me at my end of the estate. The litter is still bad, there are problems with children "playing" but causing annoyance (intentionally) and damage. [sentence removed - defamatory] Final thoughts - I so wish I could afford to get off the estate!

Comments made about the boundary of the Parish Council

The Parish Council should never have included Marple Road to start with.

Combine both parishes.

Comments made about the financial aspect to abolishing the Parish Council

Waste of money.

There is absolutely no benefit to keeping the Parish Council. It is literally a 'waste of money'. Can't think of anything useful it has done. Can't even keep the area tidy, e.g. the bushes on Half Moon Lane, next to St Phillips, are so overgrown it's safer to walk on the road. Sort it out.

I am writing to abolish the Council, the reason being they do nothing on the estate. We have never been notified where the money is going, nobody knows who the Councillors are, we've never seen any accounts for over 12 months. Who are these people? How much do they get paid and for what - it's a joke. We already pay one rate that attends to all our needs on the estate and may I say very well it does it, so why do we need another expense on the senior citizens and low paid? Get rid as soon as humanly possibly please.

152

17

I support all other residents calling for the abolition of the Parish Council because it appears now to be mainly influenced by those who are also closely associated with a local community group MADDOG which is not in the interest of the wider community and I sympathise with those residents who see nothing in return for the precept money they are obliged to pay. I also believe the choice of the Parish Centre as a venue for holding informal "drop-in" sessions is a poor choice and only likely to have those residents who voted to keep it and come from a small area of the parish with links to the community group. In my opinion it should have been a neutral venue with the times giving people who work the opportunity to attend. I would therefore be interested in attending a forum, with consideration of the above point I've raised being taken into account please.

The precept in comparison with other parishes is excessive and we do not seem to get any benefit whatsoever.

The Parish Council should be abolished because: 1. It is expensive (see your own figures) - the most expensive Parish Council in the North West. 2. It is not wanted by the people: we rejected it when it was imposed and we rejected it again last month. 3. Its representatives do not command legitimate mandates - only 10% of people vote compared with c25% in council and c50% in Parliamentary elections. 4. We already have 3 ward councillors - the PC lets them off the hook. 5. The PC doesn't work well with Stockport Council. It acts as a 'road block' to effective provision of Council services. 6. We are poor here (see your own figures). How on earth can it be fair to impose an extra tax on the poor? 7. The PC is an easy target for extremists like the BNP. They could use it as a foothold in the area and drag our name in the mud. 8. Where are they going to find another 10 'enthusiastic amateurs'? 9. We pay more and receive a worse service than Brinnington and Adswood. 10. The PC has degenerated into a forum for neighbourhood squabbles. 11. The political parties avoid the PC so the representatives don't have any experience or links with people who do. 12. Although the Parish Councillors try hard and mean well they don't and can't action anything.

It is a waste of council tax money and serves no purpose other than jobs for the boys and girls.

Why do we need a Parish Council? They serve no purpose at all. What do they do with the money? Also it is time we heard what is going on with the precinct, it is a disgrace.

153

18

If I went into a supermarket, had a walk round and bought NOTHING, then when I reached the checkout the cashier said £100 please, and I said I have not bought anything, and she said if you do not pay you will end in court, this is how I feel about my extra council tax. I am Band F and on Marple Road. We get NO benefit whatsoever from the Parish Council. No hedges cut or grass verges etc, in fact nothing. So I think unless you are on the estate the unfair tax should not be paid.

I regard the Parish Council as yet another tier of bureacracy in local government which is not needed. Abolish it and save money which will help cut the national deficit. The Parish Council is not a frontline service so its abolition won't cause any pain compared with areas such as health and education which need resources more than the Parish Council.

This parish council is a total waste of our much needed and hard earned money. Exactly what is it for? What does it do except waste money on its Chess Club and soup kitchens? Who is interested? Get rid of it. Cast it into history. It is nothing but a financial burden on the working people of Offerton who have to pay for it.

They are nothing but in it for themselves. Haven’t noticed anything about them or benefits to the community. I have noticed an empty Offerton precinct, boarded up, broken windows and grafitti. An eyesore that represents Offerton Parish. Otterburn Place is littered with abandoned carpets, waste and furniture. Named as Otterburn tip and no action by Offerton Parish and a waste of council tax. Where is the council tax money spent?

In my opinion nothing more has been achieved for the extra money spent and taxed. I'd prefer my taxes to be spent on improving our whole town and feel that's a job best suited to the town's Council.

I feel that money has to be saved at the moment and cutbacks made. Cutbacks on paper/letters/forms etc - unnecessaries.

I don't see why we should pay more Council tax than the rest of Stockport. Parish Council is a waste of money.

Serves no useful purpose whatsoever in my opinion. Money would be better spent on trying to rescue our dying town centre.

Don’t do anything for OAPs (it's all the youths) so why should we have to pay to Parish Council - rip-off.

Stop spending on flashy documentation for the residents - it's unnecessary.

The state of the roads are shocking and all I've seen the Parish do is erect a flagpole with no flag! Complete waste of money. There's been no improvements since it was made a parish and strongly feel it should be abolished!

154

19

I objected strongly to starting a Parish Council but was not consulted. I pay extra council tax for something I do not get anything for as I do not get any benefits, unlike the majority of residents on the Parish, it is a large amount from my pension. Do the Council know that we on this estate pay 3 taxes: Council, parish and Manchester District Housing.

The Parish Council only helps the minority and not the majority. As a pensioner our money would be better kept in my pocket for my benefit and not for others to use. This is the 2nd letter I have sent - the other letter has not been replied to.

We have got 3 ward councillors to address our concerns to. We are just paying extra tax for a community group which does nothing for the parish of Offerton. So I vote to abolish this lot that calls themselves councillors.

The Council are paid to do the Parish Council job so I would like to save the high price charged for them doing as far as I can see very little.

I would like to say that the Parish Council should be abolished, as soon as possible, as I find it hard enough to pay my Council Tax to Stockport without the parish precept added on. I would like to say the money I save from this unfair tax would be better spent on my 8yr old child, as I did not ask to be part of the parish boundary!

As I have written before, the Parish Council is a waste of time and money. Stockport Council can do the same things in the existing Council Tax that is being paid. The Parish Council is just a talking shop that rarely gets things done. Everytime I have passed the office it is full of kids (creche) with mothers having a chinwag! And probably supping tea.

Why should we pay extra for the Parish Council, do nothing for the estate. You only get gangs of youths hanging outside the shops. This makes me feel uneasy going to the shops.

I am renting my flat from Manchester & District so have maintenance and the garden is paid to them for us. We have never had anything else which I know about. Have never understood why it invented and have not noticed any changes but have noticed the prices going up every year.

I can't see that they do anything at all waste of money Reason enough

As I find my money is spoken for I think that the Parish Council is money wasted

We pay more to be in this parish than other parishes that are in posh areas such as Poynton. This is a council estate and we can't afford that much. And in my opinion the parish is a waste of money. They do nothing to help the people of the estate - get rid.

155

20

Comments made about the Review process

How much is the governance review costing the ratepayers and will this amount be covered by reduction in council rates after removal of the Parish Council precept?

Why oh why do we have to go through with this farcical charade? In this democratic society why do we have to have a vote, after a vote, after a vote? Why do you think that people will act like ostriches, buried the heads and eventually forget about you? What next, another review? then another, then another? If the vote is NO, then act upon it and abolish the council. Just do it!!

What a waste of money this is. How much is this fiasco cost us rate payers.

No wonder this country is in the economic state that it is when once again bureaucracy demands that again I am telling you that I would like to abolish the Parish Council. I never wanted it in the first place and this is one of the reasons why - it is constantly costing time and money to run when Stockport Council is adequately dealing with our needs.

Comments made in support of retaining the Parish Council

Keep the Parish boundary the same, because: (a) to reduce it would take out some of the higher tax payers (b) to extend it would add higher tax payers. I guess that it is they who do not need the services the Parish Council is iffering and thus have cause for complaint. As I see it there has been less vandalism since we had a Parish Council and a community spirit is growing. Rome was not built in a day! Sorry for the mistakes - my head was running faster than my pen!

I don't think that the Parish Council has been given enough time to prove that it has more to give than the previous Parish Council. I find more has been done over the last year by new Councillors and they need more time to shoe what can be achieved. I don't think it's fair to judge this council on what previous councillors have done. I think it should be reviewed after another year.

The Council do quite a good job and are not really thanked properly for their efforts and the cost involved is not too expensive, in fact quite cheap.

156

21

I feel that Offerton Park Parish are doing a very good job providing services for the residents of the parish which Stockport MBC are unable to provide. We pay our Council tax to you but the services that Stockport MBC provide are not personal and the Parish Council provides help and advice to residents. The Offerton Park Parish has been neglected over the years and we need an organisation to help the residents here. This is why the Parish should be extended to help people within its area as Stockport MBC do not do this for residents here. We are still waiting for a public response i.e. Offerton Precinct - what is happening? And when can we finally have a decent shopping precinct?

Please keep it open because if I need their help I can go and talk to them and they are there is you can't understand forms. They help you with them, thank you.

I am quite happy with the Parish Council as it stands at the moment. However I have been trying for over 12 months to have the footpath next to my house at [address removed] to be repaired as it is broken up and the kerbstone in one part is standing out of line at least 4 inches and is an ideal opportunity for compensation seekers feigning an accident. If someone does come to inspect my complaint he or she could look at the tree branches which are hanging across the footpath. Please don't get me wrong, I am not an old grumpy tenant, I just want this area to be kept neat and tidy.

The Parish Council is a friendly, homely place and its officials are always more than ready to help any residents in time of need. Its existence gives Offerton Estate a real sense of belonging, a sense of care and makes us feel represented. It is a core group that does a lot for the Offerton people. This can easily be taken for granted but it is a very important role. e.g. coordinates holiday activities for children and the elderly. It is a voice of the Offerton people. It is a channel through which groups can share ideas on ways forward to improve the living of the Offerton people, socially, morally and financially. It is an important official hand that can collect good ideas from the Offerton people themselves by getting them together, discuss how well the estate can move forward and this can benefit the estate in getting funding from independent groups or the government. Without our Parish Council we will feel deserted and forgotten.

My son [name removed] enjoys the parish council and so does my 10 year old daughter [name removed]. They enjoy the activities.

157

22

The majority of people who complain about the Parish Council do not either living in the immediate area, have previously been on the Council and have left and therefore have a grudge or are people who really do not know what the Council does. It's easy to blame the Parish Council for everything that goes wrong, but only too easy to accept anything for free. Personally I believe the Council does a great job. MADDOG is also very valuable for residents of the estate and does not discriminate against council tenants. Think how marvellous the estate would be if the Council had a group similar to MADDOG, and the Parish Council, MADDOG and council's branch could all share one building (i.e. Social Club). After all the Parish Council does a great job with limited resources. It's a lifeline to some people, long may it reign.

Helped me a lot. It should stay.

The Parish Council is the only place on this estate where people can get together for social activity.

I would like to ask one question: many people who object to the Parish Council do so because they do not want to pay the Parish Council precept. Why have they left it until now, 7-8 years on? It was the previous Parish Councillors who resigned who set the precept. They and their followers did not object to paying it then, why do they object now? The real issue is the cost of Town Council council tax, not the parish precept. This is miniscule in comparison with what Stockport residents pay. Services have been cut but the Stockport Council tax has gone up drastically. Objections to the Parish precept are a smoke screen hiding the fact that when Council Tex first started Band A was approx £300. Now it is over £1000. Is that fair? Money spent on this Governance Review could have been better spent to provide amenities for Offerton but perhaps this is too obvious and sensible a suggestion.

I think that the Parish Council is a friendly environment and it welcomes everyone in the community. This is what Offerton Estate needs. The councillors of the parish are fantastic with everyone, they are also here to help, no matter how big or small the job is. The centre itself is a place for people to socialise and make new friends. And also brings local services to people's doorstep, e.g. Stockport Homes Housing Officer, Greater Manchester Police, Stockport Health Trainers, Connexions, and many more. Without the Centre everyone would have to travel to Stockport town centre to use these services. I just hope one day the Centre could expand as there is a lack of space, as it is well used.

All other comments received

Big field past Winnington Green needs clearing - this would help area. When are we getting our new precinct? May have Co-op but lost all smaller traders. This has been ongoing for ages.

158

23

I've been trying time and time again but nothing makes any difference, about the tree right at the front of my dining room window, which makes the room really depressing and dark, plus about the insects that land on the window sills, it spoil it to sit outside. All I can get, it belongs to the Church, which I know but don't know who to get in touch with. What I can't understand is a few years ago they took them all down to a stump, but the last time they took the others down, but left this one which was higher than those others, so why? I wish someone could do something about it. Please let me know one way or another so I know I'm not being ignored. Please excuse writing, bad arthritis in my hands.

Still no precinct!!

I still don't know why some of the business carried out by Lisburne Lane Centre had to be transferred to Reddish.

Brinnington, Cale Green, Shaw Heath and Adswood are benefiting without a Parish. We don't need one.

NB. Kindly refer to my previous comments/protests with regard to this Offerton Parish Council!

Abolish the Parish Council

Response from daughter of electorate. Resident unable to complete form

7.2.2 E- forms

Comments provided through the e-form are outlined in full below:

"We pay the precept every year but get nothing in return. We have not noticed any improvements on the Offerton Estate since the Offerton Park Parish started....the only thing we have noticed is the ludicrous flagpole....what's that all about? We need every penny we get and it would be better in our pockets and purses to spend on what we would like,to improve our own lives in any way we wish."

"Waste of money and in these times. I don't see the need for a body which continues to in-fight and fails to serve the entire community that pays the precept."

7.2.3 Emails

Comments provided by email are outlined in full below: “Having been made aware of the arrangements for the ‘consultation’ regarding the above I have two main concerns: 1) Consultation times: 10.00 to 12.00 12.00 to 14.00 08.00 to 09.00 14.30 to 15.30

159

24

Is it the Review Committees opinion that the entire local population are living on benefits? I table this question because it is difficult to imagine when the ‘minority’ of people who actually work for a living, would be able to access these ‘consultation events’? 2) Venue: Offerton Park Parish Council offices, Hexham Close. Is it really wise to be holding a consultation regarding the future of the Offerton Park Parish Council in the very offices of that council, with their members listening in with a ‘fine tuned ear’ to any comments against them? (to say nothing about swelling the coffers of this ‘unfit for purpose outfit’ by hiring their premises)” “It has to be assumed that the latest leaflet sent to Residents re-the above, is linked/ part of the Review outlined following a 'Residents Petition' to Stockport Council calling for the abolition of the Parish Council. In which case, although I have no doubt the initiative is well intended, I am bound to say with respect, the choice of venues is not in the best democratic interests of the wider Community and in my view likely to defeat the purpose of the Exercise, because the outcome will almost certainly be predictable. Reflecting mainly the motivated self-interest views of a minority with everything to gain and nothing to lose. I have it on good authority, that Parents with young children are being told / encouraged to believe by some Parish Councillors, that "there will be nothing for children in this area (of Offerton) if we lose the Parish Council". The elderly have also been told a similar story. Regrettably this area of Offerton is a recognised area of deprivation. The number of unemployed and single Parent Families in this Community, are amongst the highest in the Borough. As a consequence, those Residents in the Parish who are in work, are bearing the brunt of an additional cost they would not have if they were living elsewhere in the Borough and they are understandably angry and frustrated about having to pay a further cost out of their household Budget, for Precept Tax for which they see no benefit and for the reasons I/we have stated above, it means in effect, for the most part their majority views are unlikely to be include in the scheduled Sessions this month and it's unfair. It has to be hoped therefore, there will at least be one Public Meeting held in the area before the Review is concluded, at a time and place likely to be convenient for most Residents.”

7.2.4 Stakeholder Comments: Comments received from stakeholders are outlined below in full.

160

25

Parish Cllr M. Torode

I have already sent a form in because I was sent a set of papers as parish resident.The Parish Council was set up by residents who felt there was a need as this estate seemed to have been forgotten and never received the attention that areas such as Adswood, Bridgehall, Brinnington etc had. If the Parish Council is abolished and all enquiries become the responsibility of the Ward Councillors they are likely to find themselves inundated with queries, as local residents have become used to speaking up for themselves and contacting the Parish Council for help and support, and also there is a great possiblity that residents will still continue to do so, and even if we are no longer Parish Councilllors, it would be extremely unlikely that we would turn them away and recommend they contact the Ward Councillors directly. If we are no longer Parish Councillors but still help our local residents and we contact SMBC on their behalf, unlike a resident, especially an elderly one who would probably not take any further steps once their initial enquiry was ignored, we would obviously either take further steps for them or advise them on what steps they should take next. We have not become Parish Councillors because we have a political angle, we joined because we believe in helping our local community in any way we can. As you discuss what you plan to do about the Parish Council please bear in mind that we manage the Parish Centre, where various agencies hold their surgeries: local community groups; SMBC Community Support worker; Connexions; PCT; Police and Stockport Homes. As you will be aware there used to be at the Dialstone Centre, but now they are based in the Parish Centre, they are central to the largest council estate in Offerton. If the centre has to close then residents will have to travel to Houldsworth Mill, Reddish, which for those on low incomes, and those with children will have to get 2 buses there, a fair walk and the same back: this is also a difficult journey for the many elderly that live on your estate.Most council estates in the borough have much better access to a community/pop-in centre than the residents here will have. The residents have as much right to services as other deprived estates.

GMFRA (Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority)

The GMFRA regards the Review as a matter for local determination and has no view on the options.

GMPA (Greater Manchester Police Authority)

Don’t wish to register comments as out of area.

161

26

NALC (National Association of Local Councils)

Offerton Park is a relatively new council and has achieved much for residents in its short lifetime. The abolition of the council would, in view of this Assocation, be a grave mistake which would adversely affect its residents. A presentation was made on the work of the council at the Association's Annual Conference a couple of years ago. Our members were greatly impressed by the council's achievements in such a short space of time. Indeed the council has achieved Quality status, the application for which involved producing evidence to meet a number of tests. The council also achieved Charter Mark.Looking back at the provision of services, these include health, safety and environmental events, football, computer and other youth facilities and events for older people. The council has provided a lengthsman service, grass cutting and summer projects. These services are in addition to services provided by Stockport MBC.It would be a great loss to residents to lose those extra services and in view of the Government's wish to create parish councils, the Association would suggest that it would not be in the best interests of the community to abolish the council.

Andrew Stunell, MP, OBE

Whilst I am fully aware of the history and difficulties that there have been with the Parish Council I do believe that, on balance, it provides a useful community resource and adds to the civic capital within its area. I would therefore favour its retention as an institution. I see no particularly strong case for either increasing or reducing the area covered by the Parish and, in the event of its retention, in principle would favour its retention on existing boundaries.

7.3 All Verbal Comments 7.3.1 Street Survey

Comments provided during the street survey are outlined in full below:

Lis

bu

rne

Lan

e Don’t do anything, no use. If you ask them for anything they pass you onto someone else. Big problem with trees, trees too high and near houses. Need some shops, been going on about it for 6 years, blame it on the garage but it's not right. A man has put up clamping, a phone number for a Liverpool firm, [address removed]. Everyone up in arms about it. Parish Councillor said it's not legal, all would like removed. Why can't we have a market? Or some shops? I can't get out, have to go all way into Stockport, too far to lug it all home.

162

27

Parish Council got involved in anti-social behaviour and they were brilliant, especially [name removed], got community police. Parish Centre was a great idea, talking of starting a dance troup again, going to ask. Too many councillors maybe but they don't do a bad job. Done very well on the park, lots of improvement. Parish Council don't let people know what they do. Social club opening as a pub at Christmas. Not a lot for kids to do on here.

Had loads of letters, not bothered.

7.3.2 Half Moon Lane

Comments provided during the survey on Half Moon Lane are provided below:

Long delay in getting disabled badge sorted; always find helpful people; no problem with Parish Council, live near it; fed up with noise; now paying more

Not quite sure if returned form, girlfriend did it.

Keep, as do lot to help the community. Bad feeling from previous person but Parish Council gone on for years fine. [sentence removed - defamatory]. Feels that not everyone knows the good work the Parish Council does, e.g. never mentioned in Stockport Review and residents should be made more aware; feel like the poor relations to Stockport Council.

Doesn't make a difference to me - not bothered.

Don't like this estate - no opinion.

They all rip you off. Look at the state of the area, it's rubbish.

Just moved into area.

Prefer to remain anonymous.

They have done some stuff: park and fruit/veg scheme; sports day events, hanging baskets, lots of stuff organised for kids.

Park? 3rd stage for toddlers, is it still happening? Good community support officer presence. Has achieved quite a bit, should stay.

Not interested.

Partner may have seen it.

Not fussed.

Hal

f M

oo

n L

ane

Not bothered with it.

163

28

Not really bothered.

Not interested.

Heard about it but would like to re-read the information for more informed opinion.

Not bothered about Parish, want to get off the estate.

Don’t mind either way, think they do some good work for £60 per year.

Already filled in questionnaire.

Just moved into area but wants to keep the Parish Council, feels they do a good job and useful when they have just moved in as a place to go.

Comes in handy, helped with debt.

Some parts ok, some parts are not.

Love the Parish Council; helped with debt; helped with Disability Living Allowance; loads of stuff going on.

Slight changes to the Parish, open about what they are doing.

Put views forward, not interested in forum.

Interested in attending forums.

Stockport Homes not helping with house.

Prefer a community centre, don't use Parish Centre.

Do things for children/activities

Reduction in council tax bills

They have done a lot for me!

Good activities for the kids.

Don't know what council do.

Do some good work, keep boundary.

Never open, mum says done it.

Has it been closed yet?

7.3.3 Drop-in sessions

164

29

Comments provided during the drop-in sessions at the Parish Council and Dialstone Library are provided below:

Had some questions about the Review: who makes the final decision on the Review, e.g. abolition, future of Parish Council. * what would the timetable for abolition be - would this be before May? * what is the threshold for decision making? * is this Review an expensive facade? (quoted CLG & Electoral Commission Guidance - 8 year terms).

* a lot of people on minimum wage in area * can't afford extra money on top of Council Tax * didn't have the chance to vote for the Parish Council * wants to know how it came about * lot of apathy on estate * would be interested in attending forums * has already attended a drop-in session at the Library * has sent in response form.

Par

ish

Cen

tre

* Government closing down a lot of places, can't get new schools built. * other people don't attend Centre - they're the ones with a problem. * sour grapes, of previous Councillors * lots of drugs. Was previously a dumping place (for the estate) * cameras in area. Stockport Council waited 12 months to get these sorted. * problem with rubbish and car theft in area * Parish Centre very important. Always got someone to talk to: comes along to yoga, helps; fruit & veg day; helped a lot of people on the estate. * in past, only open a bit, now open 5 days a week. Help with getting forms filled in. * lived on estate for over 30 years * another resident has been here for over 20 years * place for people to get together. * [name removed], Ward Councillors haven't stuck up for residents in Town Hall; don't see Ward Councillors - could have done more; apathy in area: decent Councillors would have got things done; low turnout as people don't think anything will get done. * residents and Parish Councillors feel powerless.

165

30

* information booklet: majority of people on Band A & B, so why Band D shown? * evening events: make people feel good about themselves - getting them in and motivated. * must be at events or they wouldn't run. * People think the Council will just do what they want, it doesn't matter what people say; just done things like the nursery. Offerton Hall Nursery not very good, they speak to kids poorly (a friend now takes her kids to Firsway instead of Offerton Hall). [removed sentence - comments defamatory]. Old primary school site should be a High School: isn't sure what is happening with this space: don't think this area should go to waste and do nothing with it; uniforms expensive at Mile End and do not see why I should baptize my children just so they can go to the nearest good high school (Harrytown). * very little news in Stockport Express about Offerton: Brinnington gets everything and Offerton doesn't. Two women: like the Parish Centre - nice to get out and meet people and talk about things. * biggest problem, no control point in area. No area where people can get together. People always go out of the area: isolated estate; 192 detours around estate, hard to access services outside the Parish, bus services very poor. * used to be a community bus but people don't use it. * people not sick, pensioners, not children, work, most neglected group is 30s-60s. Most people getting on with lives so don't need Centre.

* lots of people in the area on low income - was made redundant about two months ago and is now living off wife's pension. Lived here for over 20 years. * didn’t get to vote to set up Parish Council * feel like I get value for money from SMBC * they railroaded the Parish Council through, didn't get an opportunity to vote * lots of apathy around here * don't know what percentage of people are actually paying the precept * don't see anything back from Parish Council, know the precept is higher than it's worth * really makes me angry - I wonder how it came about, not democratically set up* it's highway robbery basically * the precept is just over £1 per week - it's not the sum of money, it's the principle * extra payment to find - we're on a limited budget and being asked to pay more

Dia

lsto

ne

Lib

rary

just moving to the area, working with [title of organisation removed] as part of work, asking questions about what is and what isn't working in the

area and how the Church can help to meet the needs of the area heard about the Review and interested in what responses have revealed

about the area team gave out copies of the factsheet to pass on to friends also moving to

the area will the results be made public? What top three things have been revealed by

responses about level of need in area?

166

31

why are you talking about making it bigger? think how it was set up was a fiddle. It was very strange - people came

around wanting to pick your votes up everybody I spoke to said no-one voted. I don't know of anybody who wanted

it. whole thing seems to be a waste of money, lots of paperwork for nothing last week a skip was put outside my door, the first time in years. We got a

letter through our door and I thought it was strange - maybe just being cynical but it seems odd to me.

couple, new to area ask what review is we can send consultation pack new to community, very keen on community, want to know what community

want forums - will send out fliers what do we get? resident lives on [address removed] want to scrap, what do we get for precept? at my age I'm not interested. Put stones all down Old Hall Drive but no-one

ever checks they're working right - now all stones piled up at side! I just feel where I live we pay extra money and I don't see anything for it.

do a job but no-one ever checks it's right, pavement just disappeared into the road, can't see the boundary.

talking to man about filling form in to set up Parish Council: he said he didn't get a say

I just feel that where I live we do not get anything for the extra money we pay loose stones on Hall Lane: lads come onto the estate thinking it's a race track.

At this place going down there with your trolley you can't tell if you are on the road or the pavement.

I wasn't here to sign to want the Parish Council and where I live they do not do anything at all: can't have the door you want, it's all old fashioned.

Dan Bank: they're doing it up but it's a mess - need to follow up on work. St Mary's Open Day called off but no-one told us. Old people don't walk well,

it's a struggle to fo, it's not right not to say.

where I live they're all voted against because they don't see anything else.

167

32

bitterly opposed in setting it up pestered me to be a councillor not the principle but for such a small area it makes no sense [comment removed - deframatory] lived here from when estate was first formed active in residents' association says he returned form [removed - reference to individual] should never have been set up in the first place take into account whether any other forms haven't been received been a very expensive process to remove something that shouldn't have

been set up one individual drove it because he wanted to be the big shark in the pond want to see it abolished as quick as possible never enforced rules: Asbo orders for 3 very disruptive youths were never

enforced, cost was always a driving force they try but they're a waste of space - everything is poorly attended; Open

Day a few weeks ago was brilliant but poorly publicised, find out only by accident!; attitude is to leave publicity to someone else, don't actively promote

to my knowledge and speaking to people I believe the vast majority are in favour of abolition.

7.3.4 Public Forums

Full write-ups from the public forums are outlined below. This includes comments made during the course of the round-table discussion: Table A Everyone on the table already knew which option they wanted They all wanted to abolish the parish council The reasons they gave were the cost and the fact the parish had been enforced

upon them without the opportunity to vote They are happy with the services Stockport Council provide for their council tax They don’t know what services they are receiving for their parish precept Feel they are not getting value for money As they have already got ward councillors they don’t feel they need parish ones They don’t know what the money has been spent on The comments from most of the group were from ex parish councillors so they felt

they were giving an informed opinion The councillors are running the parish like a community group not a parish council They don’t ask the residents what they want They never try to get any additional funding like the old parish councillors did Some people in the parish don’t even know they are paying extra Stockport Council provide all the services they need It is not of benefit to them There is nothing to show for it

168

33

Lots of people in the parish are receiving council tax benefit so they are not bothered either way

The only thing they do is run a cheerleading group Parish councillors tell residents there is nothing for children and the elderly to do

but that is not true Parents have to pay £3 for the cheerleading group even though the parish has a

budget Not against parish councils altogether as there are some excellent ones elsewhere The cleanliness of the estate is disgusting and they do nothing about it Never see the parish councillors and don’t know who they are Not seen any accounts for the parish council so no idea what the money has been

spent on People living on the estate are not interested, there is a lot of apathy Nobody wants to keep the parish Making it smaller wouldn’t help either as it wouldn’t be fair on those left in it They feel it is unfair that the parish councillors refused to have a CRB check as

they are working with children. All previous councillors did this It appears that all the money is being spent on the community centre and given to

community groups but the residents didn’t ask for this Felt intimidated about giving an opinion before this evening, but glad he came now One of the parish councillors doesn’t live within the 3km boundary of the parish Another parish councillor works abroad as a holiday rep all summer and therefore

is not around to support the parish The apathy about the parish is here to stay Table B Some people have not received the literature and found out about the forum

through word of mouth via council officers working within the community or through press release in the newspaper

Resident 1: [information removed to ensure anonymity] Aware that it takes a while to establish but was dissatisfied by the direction it was

going in The shutters were always down at the Parish centre, couldn’t let people in which

was the point of it in the first place Canvassing the area showed that people didn’t really want the Parish

Resident 2: [information removed to ensure anonymity] Feels like you get nothing in return for what you pay On a budget and can’t afford the extra money, when getting nothing for it The establishment of the Parish council in the first place felt forced, it was pushed

through without the support of the residents The Parish Poll tells it all, 275 people wanted it abolished The Parish Council literature is misleading, it claims that support for it has

increased since it was set up 8 years ago but the statistics suggest otherwise

169

34

The PC might do good for some people but don’t see the benefit and can’t afford the extra money

Many people on the estate get it paid for them as they are on benefits so won’t care if it continues or not

Resident 3: Unsure as to opinion The parish council doesn’t benefit the whole estate The courses are always full and you have to pay for them in addition to the precept

so it’s like you’re paying twice. Don’t suit purpose, they aren’t flexible enough for the residents- if you can’t attend one week then you can’t go back again and rejoin the course the following week

They don’t publicise what they do/ what events are on well enough so it feels like they don’t do anything

They’re right in the middle of the estate but no one knows what they do People who run it are very hard working and dedicated but they aren’t tackling the

right issues and not reaching the whole community There are lots of community groups here- we do work as a community so why do

we have to pay extra for a community service?

Resident 4: Attended a computer course at the Parish Council but found it too inflexible, when the state changed the benefit payment regime and she could not afford to attend for one week she was not allowed to rejoin the course the following week

Resident 5: [information removed to ensure anonymity] Have no opinion as to whether it should exist or not- just believe that if the people

want it they should have it and if they don’t it shouldn’t be forced upon them Concern for what will happen to the community work if it goes – is quite successful

in its community work- what will replace it? This is one of the poorest bits of Stockport so why do the residents have to pay an

extra tax? There is no choice, you have to pay. It feels like targeting, residents in Marple

would never be forced Local taxes are very inefficient, poor use of money

Resident 6: [information removed to ensure anonymity] Main problem with the parish council is the lack of community facilities- no

community centre means that events have to be run through schools most of the time eg. Cheerleading

There is still a lot of animosity relating to the previous council, newly elected representatives are trying to rebuild trust

Are some problems with the parent council Funding is a big issue, subsidise some activities but the area doesn’t receive a lot

of funding so is hard to run activities A lot of apathy on the estate means people don’t get involved

Issues raised in the general discussion: [all involved in discussion]

170

35

Option 1: Abolish The poll said abolish it, why not listen to what the democratic process said? Parish set up with one tenth of residents- doesn’t that say it all Although benefits pay my precept now I do intend to start working, not sure I’d be

happy to pay the money when I get nothing in return Services are not flexible enough to meet the needs of the residents If it does go there needs to be something in its place to meet the needs of the

community No justification for people on this estate paying higher tax than the rest of Stockport Paying to elect ten people next May- why?

Option 2: Keep it If it doesn’t stay it needs to act in a different way- should serve the community

better by bringing the community with it, using influential people to encourage participation and advertise better

The area needs something

Option 3: change the size Those residents on Marple Road and Dodge Fold have to pay the precept but get

nothing in return as they aren’t part of the estate, if it does stay it should be made smaller to not include those streets

7.3.5 Door Step Survey Comments provided during the course of the door step survey are provided below:

No

Find it confusing

Does things for the kids and keep them off the street so I don't mind them

New to the area - haven't received anything. Happy with how things are

No, Happy with how things currently run. Tameside Park have stopped letting dogs off leads. If SMBC to do the same she would have real concerns.

[address removed] - new form sent out

Not bothered, no views on whether we keep it or abolish it.

They haven't done anything for me, I'm not bothered

Don't see why it should be got rid of if its doing some good for some people

171

36

It's a good idea to keep it: Heading in the right direction, these things take time to make an impact. They've put some good things in place but don't have enough power. No further comment to make. Good things arranged by the Parish for the children. Would like to see it continue.

Send through another form

Not taking part

Really happy with Parish Council, [name removed] always helpful in dealing with Stockport Homes

Get rid of it [Parish Council] I don't want to pay extra we are pensioners

Not interested in politics; go on Parish Trips but feel forced into it; feel let down by Councilors, it's all about money; Some people round here want to keep it but they're generally in with the cllrs

[address removed] - send out another pack, need to really think about and find out what they do and what would happen if it was abolished! Undecided

[name removed] - not received consultation pack

Send out another pack, can't find one but did receive it.

Don't agree with Parish wanted help with a tree and wouldn't provide support

Happy with Parish, it does a good job

Not really bothered about it - don't have an opinion

I think it's a shame it's not more used

Just think you should keep it going

Undecided would like to know more

Do want to know more

Letter

Would like to know more about it all

Don't know enough about

Doing a lot right so why are they being taken away

172

37

New letter

New letter required

Just wish you could stop the children from playing football

Having her tea please call again

Not value for money don't see money targeting useful events review has exposed this, not joined up

No still undecided

Was Councillor on Parish Councils, took so long to do anything! Better facilities, policing, less crime. Lot cleaner. More visible police. Biggest problem: boundaries too small or taxes in Council tax bands higher for some precepts proportional to tax bands. Feel new people to area don't see benefit as weren't here when Asb was worse. NOTE: preference was to keep or maybe change.

No

Resident unable to come to door as in too much pain - asked for form to be posted through letterbox.

(Handed form at door) Voted in Parish poll to keep Parish Council.

(Handed form at door). Team very helpful at Dialstone Library. Very active on estate. Very concerned about state of estate.

Had no time to talk as about to eat dinner. Send new consultation pack.

Not heard of Parish Council, don't know what they do. Don't want to respond.

(Supplied on day). Handy on my doorstep; get a newsletter, keep me up to date.

(Left form with resident)

(Filled out form on doorstep) Don't feel I get anything.

(Left form)

173

38

Pay extra Council tax and don't get any benefit

(Left with resident)

(Resident filled in on doorstep)

No contact with Parish Council; done nothing for me, done a lot but it's things for people with children (Signed and collected) Shouldn't make it bigger - they do enough as it is, keep it how it is Not much to do with them to be honest - I pay but I don't know what for. I've never been inside the shop.

Have sent it back

I have nothing to do with it really, I'm not bothered.

Not bothered at all, don't want a replacement form, no contact with the Parish Council

Seem to be doing a good job, keep the grass cut and remove the grafitti

Don’t feel get any benefits, aimed at other areas. Don't think it's aimed at this community, quite distinct. Rang Parish Council about trees in school grounds - never heard anything else. Have to pay more but others who pay nothing seem to get more. Maybe reduce - still debating with myself.

Don’t really have a view. Poor mobility so don't go out much.

PA issue with Housing Officer: nearest is Houldsworth but low income, no cars. Put on activities for people and young people. Put information on form. No other places for services other than PC - central to activities in the area, well used. Parish Councillors always available, unlike council officers. Residents deserve to keep the service: unlike ABC/Brinnington, have no real community facilities. Concerned as Parish Councillor. Funding an issue. More local issues that Parish Councillors deal with. Other nearest facility is Marple, Stockport. Seen change and developments, ? the Parish Centre. Other community groups use PC, see it as a permanent resource. Parish councillors are not on for political reason, on to help the community, give up a lot of time voluntarily. People who complain about precept lucky when say 'don't use services' because don't need them. Help and nurture residents.

None, already responded

174

39

Paper recycling query - lives in a flat

No

Voted to be abolished - don't see them at all on this side of the estate. No communication, letters or notices etc from Parish Council. Too much in-fighting.

No, already sent back form

(Replacement form given out - not sure if responded)

Sent form back already

(new form issued)

(new form given out)

Completed form

(replacement form given). We don't want to keep it

Said not interested.

Just moved in two weeks ago.

How? Will just go with the flow, don't mind, don't want to respond.

Filled in form

Don’t get anything out of it. Only time I have dealings with them once over a complaint; what do they do? Keep the place tidy. Voted in the Parish elections so want to see something from it.

Filled in form

Left form.

Filled in form

My partner is very active with the Parish Council.

Don’t think I've had the form - replacement given.

Form collected - get rid of it.

It’s a really good idea. I sent my form back.

175

40

Has returned form.

Teenage boy - no knowledge.

Too busy to talk.

Not bothered.

Babysitter.

Not interested.

Not interested.

Partner returned.

A new form was offered but the gentleman did not wish to fill it in.

Has heard of review. Already sent back form. Nothing else to add.

No. Resident asked Council officer to fill in form on his behalf - response given verbally.

No

Said he'd already voted.

No visible benefits for pensioners.

Not spending money on the estate. Spending more in other areas of Offerton.

Gentleman was having a meal and did not want to answer any questions.

7.3.6 Youth Consultation Event

A full write-up from the Youth Consultation event produced by Services for Young People, including all comments made during the course of the consultation exercise is provided below:

7.3.7 On the 16th October, from 4.30pm to 7pm, Services for Young People (Youth Service) carried out a consultation with young people living in Offerton Parish on the Community Governance Review of the Parish Council. Young people were asked a range of questions on the Parish Council and asked about the needs and issues for young people living in the area. A total of 46 young people aged between 9 and 19 took part in the consultation. With notable exceptions most young people had little to no interest in the Parish Council, but all engaged in discussions about the needs of young people in the local area.

176

41

Age of participants 18 yrs 4 17yrs 2 16yrs 5 15yrs 10 14yrs 6 13yrs 5 12 yrs 5 11yrs 6 10yrs 2 9yrs 1 Key Findings We found 2 young people who were strongly supportive of the Parish Council and 1 young person strongly opposed, the majority thought that it was a good idea for local people to be able to make decisions on about the area, however they were unsure that a Parish Council is the best way to achieve this. The vast majority of participants were unclear about what the Parish Council does and are concerned about the additional costs incurred by local residents to pay for this governance arrangement; young people were generally happy to support the Parish Council if these issues could be addressed. Participants cited the following issues and needs for young people in the local area: 1) A lack of activities for young people 2) A lack of park facilities 3) Negative stereotypes attached to young people from the area 4) Safety issues around parks and building sites where children and young people are playing 5) Alcohol misuse ____________________________________________________________________ Consultation Results Have you heard of the Parish Council? Yes: 14 No: 9 No response/not sure: 26 It’s important for local people to have as much political control of the local area as possible (Yes/maybe or unsure/no/) 19 young people said yes 3 young people said no 24 did not respond

177

42

Stockport Council could work on the issues that the Parish Council works on more effectively (Yes/maybe or unsure/no) 9 young people said yes 4 young people said no 12 young people were not sure 11 no responses Is the Parish Council doing a good job (Yes/maybe or unsure/no) 6 young people said yes 15 young people said no 4 young people were not sure 21 no response The Parish Council is good value for money (Yes/maybe or unsure/no/) 2 young people said yes 14 young people said no 4 young people were not sure 26 no response The charge per household for the parish council is too much (Yes/maybe or unsure/no/) 22 young people said yes 5 young people said no 7 young people thought it was about right or were unsure 12 no responses Can you tell us anything you know about what the parish Council does/has done Why are they not allowed in the Parish Council without an adult I don’t really know what the council does I don’t really know what the council does I’ve heard of the Parish Council but I don’t really know anything about it I’ve heard of it but don’t know what they do I’ve heard of it but I’m not interested The place looks better now – but I’m not sure if this is down to the parish council I don’t know what the council does They built the football park They built the park – but not much else There are computers in the Parish Council, they provide arts and crafts They have done lots Clubs for the community Cheerleading I don’t know anything about them Don’t know

178

43

Nothing – there are no leaflets, they have never advertised themselves, they have never offered help They have built parks but they are rubbish; they do not come to collect broken trees

that are on the pathways and are dangerous Just the parks, other than that nothing Don’t know Sports Not a clue They cut the grass and put in new parks Activities in the Parish Council building Run clubs, help the parks and kids No idea What are the key issues for young people (13-19yrs) in Offerton at the moment? We want a junior youth club session: 4.30pm – 6.00pm Junior session 4pm – 7pm Junior session 4pm – 7pm We need a skate park I’m only interested in sport We need a motorbike track An astro-turf pitch There is nothing to do Not enough to do We need more parks We need play workers on the parks so we feel safer Get rid of the stinging nettles on the park Improve the safety of the equipment on the park Some people class this as a rough area which has a negative impact on the young

people Build more sports facilities I’m bored there is nothing to do I’d rather play on building sites than the park – can we have more climbing

equipment Hardly anything to do More parks would be good Nowhere to go Stereotyping teenagers in the area There not mush to do on the estate There’s only one youth club – maybe open more We need a boxing club Need more sports activities – Astroturf football pitch Nothing to do Anything new will just get ruined on this estate Nothing to do We need more bins around for people to put dog poo in Not enough football activities and play areas Can we have a play area at Micklehurst Green Drinking late at night

179

44

Drinking and smoking Nothing to do for teenagers Lack of things to do We need better parks We need a youth centre

180

Parish Council meeting 26 July 2010

Agenda Item 3a

Community Governance Review

Consultation received from Stockport MBC Report of the Clerk The Parish Council has been asked to respond to a consultation document received from Stockport MBC which is conducting a “Community Governance Review” (CGR) of the Parish following receipt of a petition containing sufficient signatures to require that a CGR be undertaken. A CGR looks at the way local government functions in a particular area – in this case the area of the Offerton Park Parish Council – and will produce a set of recommendations based on the CGR. The petition that initiated the review specifically mentioned abolition of the Parish Council but it is not necessarily the case that that will be a recommendation resulting from the review. The CGR must be initiated by the Principal Council with an open mind. The CGR is governed by a guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government and principal authorities Principal councils are required, by section 100(4) of the 2007 Act, to have regard to this guidance. The Parish Council and its Councillors are consultees and are able to present an opinion or view about the CGR and any alterations to any aspect of community governance within its boundary or altered boundary. Terms of reference The main issues for the Parish Council are summarised below and are taken from the terms of reference of the review agreed by Stockport MBC on 2 July 2010;

“The review must make recommendations on those matters considered and defined by these terms of reference. The review must make one of the following recommendations.

Appendix 2

181

a) recommendation that the Parish should not be abolished and that its area should not be altered b) recommendation that the area of the parish should be altered c) recommendation that the parish should be abolished”

Abolition of the Parish Council The guidance issued by the DCLG is very clear about abolition. An order resulting from a CGR could only include abolition if “there was clear and sustained local support for such action”. The advice suggests that the time criterion “sustained”, would be met if the abolition campaign had lasted for two election terms (eight years) and only then if there was “clear” support for such action. As the abolition petition/campaign is at most three or four months old and there has been no previous campaign or support for abolition then the time criterion for the order to include abolition has clearly not been met. The Parish Poll held on 8 July 2010 gave all residents an opportunity to express their opinion on an abolition proposal. The abolition vote shows that 11% of the electorate would support abolition, but the guidance is clear that the process is not a popularity contest. 89% of the electorate voted to retain the Parish Council or were so uninterested that they did not vote. Apathy does not equate to “support” and so the 11% vote for abolition can not satisfy the “clear” criterion. Alteration of the Parish Boundary The current boundary was established in accordance with previous guidance issued at the time of the establishment of the Parish Council. In 2008 the Parish Council informally discussed a possible alteration to the Parish boundary to include the new properties on the former Trident foam site, but this was not pursued. The CGR could produce requests from residents that areas currently included within the Parish boundary should be removed as part of any order because their area is “different” from the rest of the Parish. The Parish has a number of differing “interests”. Manchester and District residents have always felt “separate” from the rest of the Offerton neighbourhood unit managed by Stockport Homes. But within the neighbourhood unit itself the UD box (Marple Road side) has always felt itself a separate area than the UF box (Dial Park Road side). The same point can and has been made by the residents of Shawfield Court, Orchard Court, Battersby Court Hillcroft and Dodge Fold. Tenure is a potential basis for locating the boundary – “a community of interest” but would produce anomalous results. For example 57% of the housing bounded by Half Moon Lane and Crosswaite Road is owner-

182

occupied. This is far greater in percentage terms than the area of Dodge Fold, Battersby Court, Old Hall Drive and Hillcroft where owner occupation is 21%. The CGR guidance states;

“A community governance review offers an opportunity to put in place strong, clearly -defined boundaries, tied to firm ground features”

A boundary which deviated from that principle would be contrary to advice. The current boundary meets the DCLG guidance and subject to an amendment which is of importance to a number of residents it is would seem appropriate to retain the existing boundary. The suggested amendment is that the southern and western area of the Parish boundary is extended to include footpaths that are well used by local residents to access Hazel Grove and surrounding areas. The Parish Council is able to maintain footpaths within its boundary but the main footpaths, such as Cow Lane are outside it. Footpaths are poorly maintained by Stockport MBC and are the source of many complaints about safety. The Parish council could assist with maintenance but this would be classed as S137 expenditure. It would also require the consent of the land owner/highway authority and members are aware that Highways consent for the installation of new litter bins has been pending for over a year now. It would be simpler and legally more convenient to carry out the maintenance under the Highways Act which would be the case if they were located within the boundary of the Parish. A plan showing the proposed extension is attached with the area hatched. The extension would exclude the two properties on Bean Leach Road but would include one new property to which vehicle access is via the Parish (Alfreton Road). Recommendation; That the Parish Council expresses the following view to Stockport MBC as its response to the CGR

1. That the Council is of the opinion that there is no legal basis for the abolition of the Parish Council and that abolition is not supported by the majority of residents within the parish

2. That the current boundary should be retained with the exception of an

extension to include the hatched area shown on the attached plan

183

Appendix 3 – Draft EIA

Date: 23rd October 2010 Stage: Draft Service Area: Chief Executive’s

Title: Offerton Park Parish Community Governance Review

Lead Officer: Holly Rae Stage 1: Do you need to complete an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)? Not all policies will require an EIA, these key questions will help you to decide whether you need to conduct an EIA. Key Question: IS A DECISION REQUIRED AT THE END OF THE PROCESS? YES/NO

Stage 2: What do you know? An EIA should be based upon robust evidence. This stage will guide you through potential sources of information and how to interpret it. Understanding the current context is a key stage in all policy making and planning. KEY QUESTION: WHAT DATA CAN YOU USE? Stage 2 Consultation – Planning of the Review: During the planning stages, the Community Governance Review drew on the expertise of teams and colleagues working within the area (or similar neighbourhoods) which had already carried out extensive research and consultation within the area. This included; Colleagues working on the Connecting Communities project within the

Offerton Estate – for insight and awareness of key equality and diversity issues (in particular; community cohesion, inter-generational and socio-economic) and consultation and engagement intelligence and approaches.

Neighbourhood Renewal Communications and Publicity Officer – for insight and professional guidance on communication approaches within the area.

In addition to this, data on population breakdown was accessed through Profiling Stockport, this included; Census 2001 – including; Overall population, ethnicity breakdown and

disability. Most recent worklessness data Housing occupancy and ownership data

Using existing professional knowledge is useful as this is based on a more detailed understanding and robust data of the community which provided the Review team with a much more rounded knowledge that would have been gained simply by accessing demographic and other related data. Recommendations & Final Proposals: Responses from the second consultation stage are taken into consideration to form the basis of any recommendations resulting from the Review. Details of the consultation and the measures taken to ensure the key equality groups identified during the planning stage were positively impacted upon (i.e. able to participate in the Review) during this stage is outlined in section 2a.

186


Ensuring that the consultation was tailored towards residents living within Offerton Park Parish and was accessible to all, ensures that this information is relevant and robust enough to be used to form an understanding of the preferences of residents living with Offerton Park Parish. KEY QUESTION: WHAT DOES THE DATA TELL YOU? Offerton Park Parish comprises of the Offerton estate as well as a small number of households located off Marple Road which aren’t based on the estate. The area has a higher proportion of social housing in comparison to the rest of Stockport (63% compared to 14% in Stockport) and there are a mixture of residents who reside within the area, including; families, older people, and single person households. According to the 2001 Census most of the people living in the area (99%) consider themselves to be ‘white’. The data and existing professional knowledge of the area indicated the following key themes; Offerton estate is a ‘priority two’ neighbourhood There are a perceived lack of community venues in the area There is high resident perception of being unable to influence decisions and

have their voice heard.

KEY QUESTION: WILL THE POLICY/PLAN IMPACT UPON ANY SPECIFIC GROUPS? Any decision made as a result of the Community Governance Review will have an impact on the following specific equality groups in Offerton Park Parish; social-economic status and potentially age and disability. This is detailed below:- Abolition Any decision to abolish the Parish Council will have an impact on the future of the existing Parish Centre which is accessed by some residents in the area. The potential closure of this community venue could impact those residents who access services at the centre, for example and including; assistance with completing and understanding forms or documentation, social events and access to computers. These services are community driven and funded through the existing precept. Other externally supported services which at present operate within the Parish Centre, such as Stockport Homes and GMP drop-in sessions, would also need to be relocated. This may impact upon accessibility to these sessions, particularly those groups of the population with limited mobility, should they need to be relocated further away. A further impact of this option would be the removal of the precept thus ensuring that residents within the area will no longer need to pay this additional amount. Statutory services would continue to be provided by Stockport Council. Keep Any decision made to maintain the existing arrangements, whilst potentially ensuring the future of the Parish Centre may not consider the wider needs of the community and may serve to negatively impact on socio-economic status within the area. In particular the affordability of the Parish Council (on the part of local residents), Furthermore, the Parish Centre, in its current layout is not fully accessible to those residents with limited mobility.

187


The data, as well as awareness of the area, does not indicate that the implications of the Community Governance Review will have a specific impact on the following groups, other than the potential impact detailed already. Race Religion & belief Sexual Orientation Gender

Stage 2a: Further Consultation If you feel that the data and past consultation feedback you have is not sufficient to properly consider the impact before a decision is made then you may wish to carry out further consultation. This should be proportionate to the scale of the decision and will depend on the gaps in your current understanding. KEY QUESTION: WHAT GROUPS(S) WILL YOU CONSULT? Additional consultation is not required as the recommendation resulting from the review will take into consideration extensive consultation conducted as required throughout the review process. Consultation conducted as part of the Review process focussed on key stakeholders including; all residents of Offerton Park Parish as well as interested parties operating within (or with) the area, this included; political representatives, schools, churches, voluntary and community organisations (e.g. Age Concern Stockport) as well as public sector organisations (e.g. NHS Stockport, GMP and GMFRS). To support the decision making process a programme of consultation opportunities was arranged for residents in the area. These are outlined below. Events were held in a range of venues and times to ensure that all members of the community were able to access them, this included daytime, evening and weekend events. Accessibility to venues was also taken into account to ensure that any residents with mobility concerns, or with families, were able to attend. Events such as the drop-in sessions, also served to support residents in understanding the information sent to them. An overview of the activity is outlined below;

Response forms – sent to every resident on the electoral register as well as all businesses and key stakeholders in the area. This asked respondents to mark their preference against one of the options above. Forms were coded to prevent multiple responses being cast. A freepost envelope was provided with the consultation pack to support the return of forms. A ‘collection point’ in the form of a drop box was also established at Dialstone Library for residents and businesses who may wish to hand in their response form. Online e-form - An online consultation e-form was also developed and was linked to Stockport Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ consultation homepage as well as the Community Governance Review webpage. Drop-in sessions – organised at a range of venues across the Parish. Purpose was to provide support to residents, answering queries about the review and to record views. Forums – A more detailed discussion session. An opportunity for residents to learn more about the review, ask questions, and discuss the options in detail. These were independently facilitated by representatives from NHS Stockport.

188


Street survey - purpose was to raise awareness about the Review, answer any questions and remind residents about the deadline to return their forms. Door step survey – purpose was to raise awareness about the Review, answer any questions and remind residents about the deadline to return their forms. Youth Consultation – A focussed consultation event seeking the views of young people in Offerton Park Parish about the future of the Parish Council. Young people would not feature on the electoral register and are the future electorate of the Parish as such a tailored session was required to ensure their views were heard. Stakeholder consultation sessions – all interested parties which featured on the stakeholder list were invited to request a specific tailored consultation session for their organisation should they wish

KEY QUESTION: HOW WILL YOU MAKE YOUR CONSULTATION ACCESSIBLE? This question is answered in the section above. Consultation was made accessible through; Use of accessible venues Arranged events at a range of times to suit all members of the community Focussing the consultation events on supporting residents to respond, i.e.

ensuring understanding and awareness of the Review and its implications. Commitment to supplying translations or accessible versions of documents as

and when requested. Supply of paper response forms to all residents on the electoral register (as

well as online e-consultation). Stage 3: Results and Measures As a result of what you have learned in Stage 2 what will you do to ensure that no group is unfairly and unlawfully impacted upon as a result of the proposed change(s)? KEY QUESTION: HAVE YOU CHANGED ANYTHING AS A RESULT OF COMPLETING THE EIA? Feedback from the Review will be shared with appropriate services within Stockport Council to support existing (and future) work taking place in Offerton. This will help ensure that the transition from current arrangements is smooth and that any emerging trends (for example, a widening inequality gap) as a result of the Review decision are monitored and responded to accordingly, in particular with reference to access to decision making and community facilities. We will suggest to appropriate services that consideration will also be given to a review of existing community facilities servicing the area, to determine whether these are fit for purpose and how they can be improved going forward. Should the decision be made to retain the Parish Council consideration may need to be given as to whether it is appropriate to review the existing precept to ensure the level of precept is appropriate for the services provided by the Parish Council and the demographic in the area. KEY QUESTION: IF YOU HAVE MADE CHANGES HOW YOU WILL KNOW THAT

189


THEY ARE EFFECTIVE? The draft Offerton Action Plan, which is currently being consulted upon with residents and key individuals will be focussed on improving opportunities for all residents living within Offerton. To ensure that the outcome of the Review is effective and minimises any negative impact on socio-economic equality groups in the area, monitoring of the Offerton Action Plan by the Place Board will be able to highlight any emerging trends and respond as appropriate. It is also proposed that a follow-on survey is conducted 12-months after the decision to determine whether residents are happy with the decision. Guidance: At all stages of the EIA process you can contact the Corporate Team or your directorate representative for advice. Before you reach the decision stage you can send the EIA form to the team for feedback and guidance. They can provide advice and make sure that there are no gaps that need addressing. Contact the team on 3167 or email [email protected] Stage 4: Decision Stage Once your plan/policy is fully developed it will need to go through the correct scrutiny and approval channels, the EIA should be included as part of this.

KEY QUESTION: HAVE YOU INCLUDED THE COMPLETED EIA FOR CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH THE REST OF YOUR DOCUMENTATION? Yes, this draft EIA is included as an appendix to the main report. KEY QUESTION: HAVE YOU SENT A COPY OF THE APPROVED POLICY/PLAN AND COMPLETED EIA FOR INCLUSION ON THE EIA REGISTER? This will be completed once the final EIA is agreed. Make sure you send your completed form, along with the policy/plan, to [email protected] . This requirement does not just apply to strategic policies but all key decisions.

190

Agenda item No. 9

STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL


Subject: Medium Term Financial Plan - Financial Landscape and

Forecasts 2011/12 to 2014/15 Report to Executive Meeting Date: 1 November 2010

AG

EN

DA

IT

EM

9

Report of: (a) Executive Councillor (Finance) Key Decision: (b) NO/ YES (please circle) (Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency) Tick box Summary This report outlines the prospects for the Council’s finances for the medium term taking the 2010/11 revenue budget as its starting point and including forecasts for 2011/12 to 2014/15. The report provides Members with a starting point which will inform The deliberations around priorities and outcomes for the update of the

Council Plan; The preparation of medium term business plans covering all of the

Council’s services; The development of a balanced and sustainable budget for 2011/12,

and an updated Medium Term Financial Plan through to 2014/15 Following the CSR announcement it is clear that from 2011/12 onwards the Council will be receiving significantly reduced levels of government grants, including a front loading of around 50% of the formula grant reduction in 2011/12 itself. However, the un-ringfencing of many funding streams will give the Council more flexibility in the deployment of grant monies. For 2011/12 there is an offer from government of a specific grant equivalent to a 2.5% council tax increase if the Council will agree to freeze the actual amount of tax paid by local taxpayers. At this stage the best estimate of the reductions necessary to bring forecast spending down to match likely resource levels suggests that savings of around £20m are required for 2011/12 and that the cumulative savings requirement to 2014/15 will amount to some £53m.

191

Comments/Views of the Executive Councillor: (c) The economic situation facing this country is severe and the previous government left an appalling legacy for the new Coalition government with the biggest budget deficit in Europe and no plans for tackling it. While the outgoing government had announced that there would be public spending cuts they had given no indication of how they would be achieved; we are now seeing the effects of those cuts. The CSR contained some good news which I welcome, the funding for a freeze on Council tax, the reduction in ring fencing giving councils more flexibility, the increase in funding for social care and the protection of schools funding. However it also made clear the extent of the reductions in the Council’s spending we have to deal with. In Stockport although the previous government was silent on how their cuts would be achieved we started work over a year ago in reviewing budgets and priorities to ensure we could respond to the challenges we knew were ahead. We have had the CSR and while we do not expect to get the final details of our RSG settlement before early December I am happy to recommend to the Executive that we update the MTFP to reflect the information and assumptions in the report and that the Executive and CLT develop the spending plans as recommended.” Recommendation(s) of the Executive Councillor: (d) The Executive is recommended to: i. Note the position for the current year 2010/11 and that a detailed half

year monitoring report will be submitted to the next meeting; ii. Approve the 2011/12 starting point set out in Appendix One including the

virements and budget adjustments set out in Appendix Two of the report; iii. Agree the adjustments and the resultant indicative spending plan as set

out in Appendix Four; iv. Note the indicative savings requirement for 2011/12 of £20.237m as

disclosed in Appendix Five; v. Request that Executive Councillors and Corporate Directors develop

spending plans and savings proposals (including those arising from the Corporate Efficiency Plan) to meet the indicative savings requirement for 2011/12 and to report on progress to the next meeting of the Executive;

vi. Take the steps necessary to agree a final balanced budget proposal for 2011/12 and an updated Medium Term Financial Plan to 2014/15 for presentation to the Council meeting on 24 February 2011;

vii. Note, and comment upon as appropriate, the range of financial forecasts for 2012/13 to 2014/15, and the key issues to be addressed in formulating a response to the financial challenges facing the Council;

192

viii. Note that a further report outlining the vision and means of achieving longer term transformational change will be submitted to a future meeting.

Relevant Scrutiny Committee (if decision called in): (e) The Corporate Resource Management and Governance Scrutiny

Committee. Background Papers (if report for publication): (f) Contact person for accessing Officers: Steve Houston background papers and discussing the report (0161 474 4000) Andy Moran (0161 474 4086) ‘Urgent Business’: (g) YES / NO (please circle)

193

EXECUTIVE MEETING – 1st November 2010 AGENDA ITEM No. 9

Medium Term Financial Plan Financial Landscape and Forecasts 2010/11 to 2014/15

Report of the Corporate Director, Business Services

1 Introduction and Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to outline the prospects for the Council’s finances

for the medium term. The report takes the 2010/11 revenue budget as its starting point and includes forecasts for 2011/12 to 2014/15.

1.2 In providing such information account has been taken of:

Budget experience and performance in 2010/11; Issues, challenges and financial prospects facing the Council in 2010/11

and over the next four years; The Coalition Government’s Emergency Budget in June 2010 and the in

year spending reductions announced shortly afterwards; The results of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) published on

20 October 2010 and related Government announcements; Views, commentaries and informed assessments concerning the specific

impact of the CSR on Local Government as a whole, including a look forward to the forthcoming finance settlement.

1.3 In line with the Council’s medium term financial strategy the figures presented in

the updated plan for 2011/12 provide an estimate of what it is likely to cost the Council to maintain current and planned performance and service levels, together with the impact of new and unavoidable spending pressures. All of the assumptions and forecasts included in this report are based upon the best information available at the time of writing. The Corporate Director, Business Services will keep these assumptions and forecasts under review and inform Members of any material adjustments.

1.4 This report will also inform the ongoing review of the Council’s Medium Term

Financial Strategy. If necessary, a refreshed and updated financial strategy will be prepared in the New Year and will enable the Council to continue to support its priorities and to address the increased risks and challenges facing the Authority over the next four years.

1.5 This report provides Members with a starting point which will inform:

The deliberations around priorities and outcomes for the update of the Council Plan;

194

The preparation of medium term business plans covering all of the Council’s services;

The development of a balanced and sustainable budget for 2011/12, and an updated Medium Term Financial Plan through to 2014/15.

2 Current Financial Position 2010/11 Forecast Outturn 2.1 As reported in the quarter one financial monitoring report there is a forecast

cash limit deficit of some £0.64m due in the main to continuing pressures on Car Parking Income (£0.5m) the Library Service (£0.065m) and in the Regeneration Portfolio (£0.079m).

2.2 A further pressure is emerging within Traffic Services resulting from a scaling

back of the capital programme. Furthermore, in the Learning Disability Service and Physical Disability Service there are significant demographic/transition pressures although these are currently being managed through the application of earmarked reserves within the Adults and Health Portfolio.

2.3 On the positive side, the small surplus reported for the Children and Young

People Portfolio looks set to continue or perhaps even improve as the service looks to fund additional eligible expenditure from surplus specific grants.

2.4 The minimum level of general fund balances needed to underpin the current

year’s budget looks set to remain at £6.8m. With balances currently standing at £7.8m this leaves a surplus of almost £1m, although it is likely this will be required to deal with some or all of the above-mentioned pressures.

2.5 A much more detailed analysis and assessment of the current year’s monitoring

position will be presented to the next Executive meeting on 29 November 2010. 2010/11 In-Year Spending Reductions 2.6 On 10 June 2010, the Government announced emergency spending reductions

across all government departments totalling £6.2bn. Local Government’s share of these reductions totals some £1.165bn. The impact on Stockport MBC amounted to almost £6.6m of in-year grant reductions.

2.7 On 12 July 2010, the Executive determined how these savings would be found.

Almost half of the reductions were contained within a reduced Performance Reward Grant allocation which had yet to be earmarked to specific projects / programmes. The majority of the remaining savings impacted on Children and Young People Portfolio through reduced Area Based Grant Allocations (£1.49m revenue) and on Transportation Portfolio due to a reduction in Integrated Transport Block grant (£1.13m capital).

195

Economic Outlook 2.8 The UK economy emerged from recession during the last quarter of 2009 and

has subsequently continued to grow. Latest figures published by the ONS showed that the economy grew by 0.8% during the second quarter of 2010. The recovery is faster than many analysts predicted but this rate of growth is expected to slow once government spending reductions take effect. Some commentators are concerned that sharp spending reductions may tip the UK economy back into recession.

2.9 As detailed in section four of this report (Comprehensive Spending Review), the

government is accelerating the rate at which it wishes to reduce the budget deficit. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects borrowing to total £149bn for 2010/11. Inflation continues to remain persistently above the Bank of England’s inflation target of 2% with the latest CPI figures recording an annual rate of increase of 3.1%. The Retail Prices Index has recently exceeded 5% but has since fallen back to 4.6%. Although the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee believes inflation risks are benign in the medium term, there is a risk that the base rate may have to increase if the rate remains persistently above target. Increases in the base rate would put further pressure on the economic recovery; particularly in the context of planned government spending reductions.

Coalition Government

2.10 The Coalition Government formed in May of this year has made it clear that

reducing the deficit between public spending and tax receipts is the main priority for this administration. The Chancellor’s Emergency Budget in June this year indicated that the Government plans to reduce the deficit at a faster rate than the previous administration had planned. The main objective is to eliminate the structural element of the budget deficit entirely by 2014/15 (i.e. that part of the deficit which cannot be eliminated by economic growth).

2.11 In the Budget, the Chancellor announced spending reductions and tax rises

amounting to £40 billion in addition to the £73 billion of fiscal tightening announced by his predecessor. By 2014/15, the plan was to raise £29 billion of this from extra taxes with the remaining £84 billion coming from spending reductions (Source: HM Treasury Budget Report June 2010 – Table 1.1 Page 15).

2.12 Since June but prior to publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review, the

Government announced a number of specific proposals which clearly signalled an intent to be radical and determined to press ahead with its deficit reduction plans. Specific policy proposals announced before the spending review included:

Emergency reductions in spending totalling £6.2bn (see paragraphs 2.6

and 2.7 above);

196

Linking pension payment increases to the Consumer Prices Index as opposed to the Retail Prices Index;

Significant welfare reforms designed to cap the total amount of benefits households can receive and to strengthen the incentive to work;

Removing Child Benefit payments from households containing at least one higher rate taxpayer;

The abolition or merger of 192 quangos and public bodies; The adoption of many of the proposals set out in the Browne report on

University funding; Publication of the Strategic Defence Review resulting in spending

reductions of 8% over four years. 3 Recent Government Consultations 3.1 Throughout the summer, the Coalition Government invited responses to a

number of consultations aimed at informing the CSR and, in particular, future Local Government Finance Settlements. The main consultations covered:

The Local Government Finance Formula Grant Distribution; Local referendums to veto excessive council tax rises; The transfer of specific health grants into formula grant (LD

Commissioning, Preserved Rights and AIDS Support Grant); Schools Funding including the new pupil Premium; Local Transport Funding.

3.2 The Council provided responses to all of these consultations through the

auspices of the appropriate Executive Councillor. 4 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) 4.1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the results of the Coalition

Government’s CSR on Wednesday 20th October 2010. Accompanying the announcement is an extremely comprehensive report containing a significant number of policy proposals alongside departmental spending targets. The key headlines include:

An average 19% four-year reduction in departmental budgets; Confirmation that the structural budget deficit will be eliminated by 2015; £7bn in additional welfare budget savings on top of the £11bn already

announced; Police funding reduced by 4% a year; The retirement age to rise from 65 to 66 by 2020; The English schools budget will be protected and there is an extra £2bn for

social care; The NHS budget in England is to rise every year until 2015; Regulated rail fares will rise 3% above inflation from 2012;

197

The Bank levy is to be made permanent. 4.2 Specific policies and spending targets impacting on Local Government include:

A 26% real terms reduction in Central Government funding for Councils over four years (a 14% decrease in Council Budgets when Council Tax receipts are taken into account – based on OBR council tax projections);

Front loading of the grant reductions, with around half of the formula grant reduction being implemented in 2011/12;

Councils which freeze their Council Tax next year will have the resultant loss to their tax base funded at a rate of 2.5% in each year of the spending review period by means of a specific grant;

A very significant reduction in ring fencing, with £3.4bn being moved into formula grant from 2011/12;

Remaining core revenue grants will include simplified schools grants, Sure Start being included within a new Early Intervention grant and a new public health grant;

A real terms increase of 0.1% per year for the 5-16s school budget, including £2.5bn to fund a ‘pupil premium’ to be targeted to schools taking additional pupils from the poorest homes;

An additional £1bn per year for personal social services grant which is to be rolled into local government formula grant as part of an extra £2bn per year of additional funding; the other £1bn being extra funding through the NHS to support joint working;

Capital funding from all departments will fall by around 45%; Community budgets in 16 areas (including Greater Manchester) to help

support families with complex needs; The retention of prudential borrowing but PWLB loan rates have been

increased by just less than 1% across the board. There is now a 1% margin above government gilt rates;

The Department for Communities and Local Government is devolving £1.6bn of its current budget to Local Government;

Permission to capitalise £200m of revenue expenditure nationally will be available next year to councils who wish to accelerate the restructuring of local services;

There will be reform of the council house finance system so local authorities have greater control over their own finances and can reinvest to meet local housing need;

Localisation of council tax benefits from 2013/14 with a 10% reduction in funding.

4.3 The CSR report contained spending targets and plans for the next four years

and headline figures for central government contributions to local government including formula grant. Section five of this report contains updated assumptions and forecasts which are informed by the details contained in the spending review report.

198

4.4 However, the Executive should note that the full implications for the Council will only start to become clear as the detail behind specific policy proposals is revealed. In particular, the Local Government Finance Settlement, which is expected to be published on 2 December 2010, should provide actual grant allocations for 2011/12 and beyond, although some commentators are predicting a detailed two year settlement with indicative figures only for the following two years.

5 Medium Term Financial Forecast 2011/12 to 2014/15 5.1 The assumptions and forecasts presented below cover the same period as that

of the Government’s spending review, i.e. to 2014/15. Given the continued uncertainty around the precise impact of the spending review on the Council three medium term forecasts have been prepared by varying the main assumptions for ‘best’ and ‘worst’ cases along with a mid-range, most likely ‘illustrative’ case. This continues the approach to forecasting first adopted in November 2009, reflecting the fact that 2010/11 was the final year of the previous settlement period and the uncertainty around the outcome of the General Election and subsequent fiscal policies aimed at tackling the national budget deficit.

Calculation of 2011/12 Starting Point 5.2 The calculation of the 2011/12 starting point for cash limit and non cash limit

budgets is shown at Appendix One. All three forecasts are based on these figures which have been calculated by adjusting the 2010/11 Approved Budget for a series of virements presented for approval in this report and listed at Appendix Two. As well as ‘tidying up’ the portfolio responsibilities for service areas these virements include transfers between cash and non cash limit budgets to reflect more accurately the degree of control that can be exercised by portfolio holders and corporate directors over the relevant items of income and expenditure. In addition, any temporary budget adjustments impacting only on 2010/11 spending plans and commitments have been excluded.

Underlying Assumptions 5.3 The key assumptions underpinning all three medium term forecasts are

discussed below and summarised at Appendix Three. The outcomes considered most likely in relation to those assumptions are contained in the ‘Illustrative’ forecast.

Grant Funding 5.4 The illustrative forecast assumes that formula grant will reduce in line with the

global percentage reduction figures published in the CSR, adjusted for Police and Fire funding estimates. The CSR implies that funding reductions are front

199

loaded with over three quarters of the savings being realised in the first two years.

5.5 The Government has announced that the various funding streams currently in

place will be rationalised from around 90 to fewer than 10, achieved in the main by transferring a number of area based and specific grants into either a simplified schools grant or into formula grant. Also announced was new funding for personal social services worth £0.5bn for 2011/12, rising to £1bn by 2013/14, which will be distributed within Formula Grant.

5.6 From the analysis conducted so far, it would appear that the formula grant

figures presented in the spending review report include all of these adjustments. This means the anticipated reduction in formula grant over the spending review period is net of funding which the Government says is either new or protected. For example, if the new personal social services funding is stripped out of the formula grant figures then the reduction in formula grant would be greater than the figures disclosed in this report in both cash and percentage terms.

5.7 With regard to Area Based and Specific Grants, the information published so far

is partial and does not enable authorities to determine the precise impact on their own resource base. As a result, the illustrative forecast has assumed that the remaining Area Based and Specific Grants will be reduced in line with global CSR estimates for ‘Central Government Contributions to Local Government’

5.8 To reflect the fact that the formulae which determine the distribution of grant

funding to individual authorities could vary over the four year period the profile of grant funding reductions has been amended by +1% per annum for the Best Case Forecast and -2% per annum for Worst Case. The Council expects to be able to refine these forecasts once the Local Government Finance Settlement is published (anticipated on 2 December).

Council Tax 5.9 The Government has stated that Councils which freeze their Council Tax next

year will have the resultant loss to their tax base funded at a rate of 2.5% in each year of the spending review period. For Stockport MBC, this funding is worth around £3.4m per annum until 2014/15. Given there is now a degree of certainty around this funding, each of the three forecasts presented in this report assume the equivalent of a 2.5% Council Tax increase for 2011/12 although the final decision will ultimately be made at the Council Budget Meeting in February 2011.

5.10 The council tax figure also assumes that the current tax base level is maintained

in 2010/11. The Executive will be asked to set the tax base for 2011/12 at its meeting on 29 November 2010.

5.11 Beyond 2011/12 the position is not as clear. The CSR papers include a

suggestion that ‘councils’ budgets decrease by around 14% once the OBR’s

200

projections for council tax are taken into account.’ This could be interpreted as the government expecting council tax increases of between 3% and 4% per annum for 2012/15. However, also being suggested is the introduction of a requirement to hold a referendum should councils wish to set an increase above a figure recommended by government, while capping powers still exist. The Illustrative forecast assumes a 2.5% increase in each year; the other forecasts vary this with the ‘worst case assuming an increase of just 2% per annum. The Executive is asked to indicate whether it wishes to include different council tax assumptions to those included in each of the three forecasts at this stage, particularly the illustrative option. Alternatively such consideration could be given at a later stage in the budget setting process. A 1% increase in council tax is equivalent to around £1.36m.

Pay and Prices 5.12 A pay freeze is currently in place throughout the public sector for all but a small

number of exceptions including the lowest paid. The illustrative forecast included in this report assumes the pay freeze will continue until 2012/13 and revert to 2% per annum thereafter. The Best Case forecast assumes a pay freeze will stay in place for the whole of the spending review period whereas the Worst Case forecast assumes pay pressures of 2% per annum or more will start to emerge next year.

5.13 All three forecasts take a range of assumptions for general price inflation also

with the illustrative case assuming 1% per annum next year and 2% per annum thereafter. The Best Case forecast assumes low price inflation will continue into 2012/13 but the Worst Case forecast assumes price pressures will emerge at 2% per annum next year increasing to 3% per annum for the latter half of the spending review period.

Income 5.14 The economic downturn experienced in 2008/2009 severely affected income

yields and some services such as Car Parking are struggling to restore yields to pre-recession levels. The illustrative case therefore assumes income yields will generally remain static next year with a modest recovery in 2012/13 followed by increases of 2% per annum thereafter. The Best Case forecast assumes yields will start to recover next year rather than in 2012/13 whereas the Worst Case forecast assumes income yields will remain static for the whole of the spending review period.

Pension Contributions and Employers’ National Insurance

5.15 In line with forecasts provided by Greater Manchester Pension Fund, all three

cases assume the employers’ superannuation rate will increase by 1% next year with illustrative and best cases continuing to assume 1% per annum for the remainder of the spending review period. The worst case forecast assumes the

201

increase will be higher at 1.5% per annum from 2012/13. This position should become clearer once the forthcoming actuarial valuation has been completed.

5.16 In the June 2010 budget, the Government confirmed there would be a 1% per

annum increase in the Employers National Insurance rate accompanied with a significant increase in the earnings threshold at which this increase becomes payable. Nonetheless, all three forecasts estimate this increase will cost the Council £0.7m from 2011/12 onwards.

ITA and WDA Levies 5.17 The Council has yet to receive updated forecasts from the ITA and WDA. WDA

levy increases are based on information supplied in February 2010 and are the same for all three forecasts. Estimates for the ITA levy increase range from 2.5% to 7% per annum with the illustrative forecast assuming a 4% per annum increase. The ITA levy will be impacted upon by the transfer of concessionary fare grant funding from the Transport Authority to local authorities

Specific Cash and Non-Cash Limit Adjustments

5.18 Appendix Four includes a number of proposed adjustments to the cash and non

cash limit allocations when compared to the current starting point for 2011/12. These include the impact of approved amendments in 2010/11 and the net additional costs of maintaining current performance and service levels together with the impact of new and unavoidable burdens and previous budget decisions taken by the Council. It is the view of the Corporate Director, Business Services that these adjustments should be included in the forecast at this initial stage of the budget setting process, in line with the Council’s medium term financial strategy and previous and good practice. The three forecasts therefore include the following additional cash limit items in 2011/12:

The full year effect of savings proposals agreed as part of the 2010/11

Budget Process (-£0.033m); The full year effect of the savings proposals tabled at the Executive

Meeting on 12th July 2010 (-£1.695m); Planned efficiencies from Individual Solutions SK (-£0.160m); Adult Services Demographic Pressures (£0.750m); Children’s Social Care and SEN Transport (£1.250m); Flood and Water Damage Legislation (£0.150m); Waste Collection Strategy (£0.678m); Statutory changes impacting on Land Charges Income (£0.120m); Carbon Reduction Commitment Scheme (£0.021m); Professional Fees (£0.010m); Sports Trust Energy Costs (£0.033m); Evergreen Fund (£0.075m); Car Parking Income and the ‘de-capitalisation’ of Highway Maintenance

expenditure (£1.05m); Traffic Management Act 2004, Special events on the Highway (£0.030m).

202

5.19 The forecasts then make varying assumptions regarding the further cash limit

adjustments that would be made in subsequent years, resulting in different cash limit totals in the illustrative, ‘best’ and ‘worst’ case scenarios.

5.20 Non-Cash Limits for 2011/12 have also been adjusted for forecast changes in

levies and a further £0.831m has been included for capital financing cost commitments. The three forecasts make varying assumptions beyond 2011/12; largely in relation to the ITA levy.

5.21 The final budget position will depend upon the extent to which:

The above estimates need to be revised in the light of new information; Portfolio Holders and Corporate Directors identify further cost pressures

which are needed to maintain current service and performance levels or manage new and unavoidable burdens;

Portfolio Holders and Corporate Directors can successfully identify and implement efficiency savings without jeopardising current service and performance levels.

5.22 The size of the savings requirement will also depend on the outcome of the

Local Government Finance Settlement (expected in December 2010) and Members’ views/aspirations with regard to Council Tax levels and priority initiatives funding.

Risk Assessment and Minimum Balances 5.23 Under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003, the Corporate Director,

Business Services is required to prepare a statement on the adequacy of proposed financial reserves and the robustness of the budget estimates. Members are reminded, therefore, that any budget proposals which are to be tabled at the Budget Council Meeting (to be held on 24 February 2011) must first of all be subject to a risk assessment undertaken by the Corporate Director, Business Services.

5.24 At this stage all the forecasts assume that minimum balances will remain at

£6.8m. However, the risk assessment, which will examine key budget assumptions and the potential for actual events to vary from those assumptions, could change that figure significantly and any increase in the minimum level of balances will increase the savings requirement.

Forecast Summary 5.25 The impact of the above assumptions and adjustments on the 2011/12 cash

limits and non cash limit (illustrative case) is shown at Appendix Five, resulting in an indicative spending total of £249.232m. In overall terms the forecast is predicting an indicative savings requirement of £20.237m for next year equivalent to almost 11% of cash limits.

203

5.26 Appendix Six summarises the full four year forecast for all three cases. By

2014/15, the cumulative savings requirement is forecast to be between £36m (best case) and £78m (worst case) with the illustrative case forecasting a £53m savings requirement equivalent to almost 28% of indicative cash limits.

5.27 It is recommended that the Executive should formulate budget proposals

for 2011/12 and a medium term plan to 2014/15 based on the illustrative forecast i.e. agree a target and identify savings of £20m for 2011/12 and plan to reduce current spending by £53m per annum by 2014/15.

6 Business Improvement Transformation and Efficiency (BITE) 6.1 In 2008/09 the BITE programme was introduced as a corporate and strategic

approach to achieving desired levels of efficiencies and improvements. After being a key element of the successful current medium term financial plan of which 2010/11 is the final year, it is recommended that BITE continues to be the overarching means by which the Council will respond to the very significant financial challenges outlined in this report. Underpinning BITE is a set of key principles which include:

Customer focus – putting customers first Employee engagement in service improvement Understanding and control of costs ‘End to end’ process review and re-design Innovation – doing things differently Demonstrating value for money Supporting the achievement of priority outcomes Collaboration with partners

The BITE programme comprises three broad themes Corporate Efficiency Plan (CEP) Service efficiencies and other reductions Transformation

6.2 The CEP focuses on the identification and implementation of efficiency savings

across of the Council, in the following areas of activity in particular:

Procurement Estate and asset management Information management and ICT Work styles and practices Income generation Partnership and collaborative working Customer contact Marketing and communications

204

Administration and support Treasury and financial management

Within the forecasts contained in this report a reduction of £0.9m in capital financing costs has been built in to the non cash limit spending total. It is anticipated that the CEP could contribute up to £3m of additional reductions in 2011/12. Specific proposals will be made to the Executive at the next meeting, together with a view on the prospects for making further savings in these areas over the next four years.

6.3 In preparation for the need to make significant reductions in service costs a detailed analysis is being undertaken of service expenditure, income and value for money. Directorates have been asked to identify options for dealing with cash limit reductions of up to 30% over the next four years and, given the frontloaded nature of the grant reduction, a 15% reduction in 2011/12. Illustrations of specific savings measures are being analysed and discussed by corporate directors and Executive Councillors.

6.4 Given the scale of the challenge facing the Council it is believed that the CEP

and service based reductions will not be sufficient over the next four years to achieve the aim of delivering efficient and effective services, and providing good outcomes for local people, at a much reduced level of resources. It is considered that a more ‘transformational’ set of changes is required. This would include a systemic approach to identifying the fundamental purposes and processes required to determine how services should be provided in the future, for example in a more coherent and integrated manner than currently is the case. The need for such a new approach, and how it might be designed and implemented, is being discussed by the Corporate Leadership Team and the Executive and reports setting out the vision and means of achieving longer term transformational change will be submitted to future meetings.

7 Conclusions 7.1 The existing medium term financial plan takes the Council to March 2011. It is

anticipated that the current year’s budget will be brought to a successful conclusion, albeit with some contribution from reserves and balances needed to deal with the more substantial pressures.

7.2 Following the CSR announcement it is clear that from 2011/12 onwards the

Council will be receiving significantly reduced levels of government grants, including a front loading of around 50% of the formula grant reduction in 2011/12 itself. However, the un-ringfencing of many funding streams will give the Council more flexibility in the deployment of grant monies. For 2011/12 there is an offer from government of a specific grant equivalent to a 2.5% council tax increase if the Council will agree to freeze the actual amount of tax paid by local taxpayers.

205

7.3 Based on the CSR figures, the most relevant and up to date information available until the grant settlement in December, a range of forecasts has been prepared. These take into account various assumptions regarding the key variables which determine the Council’s financial prospects, in relation to both resources availability and spending pressures.

7.4 At this stage the best estimate of the reductions necessary to bring forecast

spending down to match likely resource levels suggests that savings of around £20m are required for 2011/12 and that the cumulative savings requirement to 2014/15 will amount to some £53m.

8 Recommendations The Executive is recommended to:

Note the position for the current year 2010/11 and that a detailed half year monitoring report will be submitted to the next meeting;

Approve the 2011/12 starting point set out in Appendix One including the

virements and budget adjustments set out in Appendix Two of the report; Agree the adjustments and the resultant indicative spending plan as set

out in Appendix Four; Note the indicative savings requirement for 2011/12 of £20.237m as

disclosed in Appendix Five; Request that Executive Councillors and Corporate Directors develop

spending plans and savings proposals (including those arising from the Corporate Efficiency Plan) to meet the indicative savings requirement for 2011/12 and to report on progress to the next meeting of the Executive;

Take the steps necessary to agree a final balanced budget proposal for

2011/12 and an updated Medium Term Financial Plan to 2014/15 for presentation to the Council meeting on 24 February 2011;

Note, and comment upon as appropriate, the range of financial forecasts

for 2012/13 to 2014/15, and the key issues to be addressed in formulating a response to the financial challenges facing the Council;

Note that a further report outlining the vision and means of achieving

longer term transformational change will be submitted to a future meeting.

206

Appendix One

Calculation of 2011/12 Revenue Budget Starting Point

2010/11 2010/11 ** Less Budget Budget Temp 2011/12

as at * Incr./ as at Budget Starting 30/06/10 (Reduc'n) 30/09/10 Adj'ments Point Portfolio £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Cash Limits Adults and Health 64,949 (194) 64,755 122 64,877 Children and Young People 37,858 262 38,120 274 38,394 Communities 16,914 (1,413) 15,501 (462) 15,039 Customer Focus 9,071 201 9,272 26 9,298 Environment 14,574 0 14,574 (139) 14,435 Finance 14,985 (1,752) 13,233 (55) 13,178 Leisure 11,825 30 11,855 (12) 11,843 Regeneration 2,547 (68) 2,479 (288) 2,191 Transportation 10,994 108 11,102 38 11,140 Licensing, Environment and

Safety Committee 1,697 0 1,697 41 1,738 Planning and Highways

Committee 766 145 911 2 913 Total (Cash Limits) 186,180 (2,681) 183,499 (453) 183,046 Non-Cash Limits Total (Non-Cash Limits) 51,414 2,681 54,095 1,264 55,359 TOTAL 237,594 0 237,594 811 238,405 * See Appendix Two for Further Details ** Includes temporary budget adjustments such as 2009/10 carry forwards, PIF and PRG Allocations

207

Appendix Two

Virements and Other Budget Adjustments Presented for Approval by Executive Amount Item Type* £000 From To P/T** Health Innovation Funding - Welfare Rights V 11 A&H COM P - ASD Partnership V 75 A&H CHYP P CRE Restructure V 108 A&H TRN P CE Communications Post V 23 FIN CUF P Stockport Advice/Libraries V 30 COM LEI P School Meals SSK Dividend V 247 NCL CHYP P Member Services V 1,395 COM NCL P DWP Admin Grant V (1,777) NCL FIN P Single Property Budget (Grosvenor House) V 60 CHYP FIN P Land Charges Income V (180) NCL FIN P Legal Fees Contingency V 261 NCL FIN P ERP System Licenses V 145 NCL FIN P Planning Conservation Team V 145 REG PLA P Neighbourhood Service V 77 COM REG P Policy & Performance Team V 178 FIN CUF P Civic & Elections Service V 78 FIN COM P Town Hall Security V 18 NCL FIN P * V=Virement and BR = Budget Re-alignment ** P = Permanent and T = Temporary

208

Appendix Three

Medium Term Forecasts - Underlying Assumptions Illustrative 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15Formula Grant * -12.20% -7.10% -0.10% -5.80%ABG (from revised 10/11) -7.40% -4.40% -3.00% -5.10%Specific Grants -7.40% -4.40% -3.00% -5.10%SMBC Council Tax 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%Pay Award 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00%Prices 1.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Income 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 2.00%Employers Superannuation Rate 15.70% 16.70% 17.70% 18.70%Employers NI Rate Increase 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%ITA Levy 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00%WDA Levy 11.50% 20.68% 12.00% 3.00%PIF (one-off) 500 500 500 500 PIP (additional per annum) 500 500 500 500 Net spending pressures: - Cash Limits (Cumulative) 3,974 4,347 4,880 5,414 - Debt Charges (Cumulative) 831 2,781 4,336 6,547 * Profile is net of funding transferred into formula grant from 2011/12 (e.g. Supporting People) and new funding (Personal Social Services)

209

Appendix Three contd.

Medium Term Forecasts - Underlying Assumptions

Best Case 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15Formula Grant -11.20% -6.10% 0.90% -4.80%ABG (from revised 10/11) -6.40% -3.40% -2.00% -4.10%Specific Grants -6.40% -3.40% -2.00% -4.10%SMBC Council Tax 2.50% 2.50% 3.50% 3.50%Pay Award 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Prices 1.00% 1.00% 2.00% 2.00%Income 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Employers Superannuation Rate 15.70% 16.70% 17.70% 18.70%Employers NI Rate Increase 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%ITA Levy 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%WDA Levy 11.50% 20.68% 12.00% 3.00%PIF (one-off) 500 500 500 500 PIP (additional per annum) 500 500 500 500 Net spending pressures: - Cash Limits (Cumulative) 3,974 4,097 4,380 4,664 - Debt Charges (Cumulative) 831 2,781 4,336 6,547 Worst Case 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15Formula Grant -14.20% -9.10% -2.10% -7.80%ABG (from revised 10/11) -9.40% -6.40% -5.00% -7.10%Specific Grants -9.40% -6.40% -5.00% -7.10%SMBC Council Tax 2.50% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%Pay Award 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 3.00%Prices 2.00% 2.00% 3.00% 3.00%Income 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%Employers Superannuation Rate 15.70% 17.20% 18.70% 20.20%Employers NI Rate Increase 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%ITA Levy 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00%WDA Levy 11.50% 20.68% 12.00% 3.00%PIF (one-off) 0 0 0 0 PIP (additional per annum) 0 0 0 0 Net spending pressures: - Cash Limits (Cumulative) 3,974 4,947 5,730 6,514 - Debt Charges (Cumulative) 831 2,781 4,336 6,547

210

Appendix Four

2011/12 Indicative Spending Plan Adjustments - Illustrative Case 2011/12Portfolio/Item £000 CASH LIMITS Adults and Health 2011/12 Starting Point 64,877 Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 203 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 173 Adult Services demographic pressures 750 Planned efficiencies from Individual Solutions SK (160) 65,843 Children and Young People 2011/12 Starting Point 38,394 FYE Coalition Govt Emergency Savings Proposals (1,479)Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 166 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 127 Children's Social Care 900 SEN Transport 350 38,458 Communities 2011/12 Starting Point 15,039 FYE Coalition Govt Emergency Savings Proposals (201)Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 46 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 41 14,925 Customer Focus 2011/12 Starting Point 9,298 Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 85 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 66 9,449

211

Appendix Four contd.

2011/12 Portfolio/Item £000 Environment 2011/12 Starting Point 14,435 Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 11 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 10 Flood & Water Damage Bill 150 Waste Collection Strategy 678 15,284 Finance 2011/12 Starting Point 13,178 FYE of 2010/11 Savings Proposals 35 Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 88 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 72 Carbon Reduction Commitment Scheme 21 Land Charges Income 120 Professional Fees 10 13,524 Leisure 2011/12 Starting Point 11,843 FYE of 2010/11 Savings Proposals (41) Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 78 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 60 Sports Trust - Energy Costs 33 11,973 Regeneration 2011/12 Starting Point 2,191 FYE of 2010/11 Savings Proposals (5) Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 14 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 13 Evergreen Fund (Jessica) - Investment in Urban

Development Projects 75 2,288

212


2011/12 Portfolio/Item £000 Transportation 2011/12 Starting Point 11,140 FYE of 2010/11 Savings Proposals (19) FYE Coalition Govt Emergency Savings Proposals (15) Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 48 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 43 Car Parking - Income Yield 500 Highway Maintenance 550 Traffic Mgt Act 2004 - Special Events on the Highway 30 12,277 Licensing, Environment and Safety Committee 2011/12 Starting Point 1,738 FYE of 2010/11 Savings Proposals (3) Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 17 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 15 1,767 Planning and Highways Committee 2011/12 Starting Point 913 Superannuation - 1% Increase in Contribution Rate 16 Employers NI - 1% Increase above Earnings Threshold 14 943 TOTAL CASH LIMITS 186,731 NON-CASH LIMIT 2011/12 Starting Point 54,859 FYE Coalition Govt Emergency Savings Proposals 300 Waste Disposal Authority Levy 1,914 Integrated Transport Authority Levy 759 Capital Financing Costs 831 Other Levies, Subscriptions and Commitments 62 TOTAL 58,725

213


2011/12Portfolio/Item £000 OTHER ITEMS Pay Inflation 0 Income from Sales, Fees and Charges 0 Price Inflation 1,516 Forecast Reduction in Specific Grants 1,260 Priority Improvement Provision (PIP) 500 Priority Initiatives Fund (PIF) 500 TOTAL 3,776

214

Appendix Five

2011/12 Indicative Budget - Illustrative Case Portfolio £000 Cash Limits Adults and Health 65,843 Children and Young People 38,458 Communities 14,925 Customer Focus 9,449 Environment 15,284 Finance 13,524 Leisure 11,973 Regeneration 2,288 Transportation 12,277 Licensing, Env and Safety Committee 1,767 Planning and Highways Committee 943 Indicative Cash Limit 186,731 Other Items Non-Cash Limits 58,725 Other Items 3,776 62,501 Total Expenditure 249,232 Council Tax (including specific grant *) (138,950) Formula and Area Based Grants (90,045) Savings Requirement 20,237

* Equivalent to a 2.5% Council Tax Increase

215

2011/12 - 2014/15 Indicative Budget Forecast

Illustrative Case 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £000 £000 £000 £000 Resources Stockport MBC Council Tax 138,950 142,424 145,985 149,635 Formula and Area Based Grants 90,045 84,105 83,555 78,818 228,995 226,529 229,540 228,453 Expenditure Cash Limits 186,731 187,880 189,186 190,509 Non-Cash Limits 58,725 64,074 69,099 72,814 Priority Initiatives Fund (PIF) 500 500 500 500 Priority Improvement Provision (PIP) 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Forecast Reduction in Specific Grants 1,260 1,954 2,406 3,152 Pay 0 0 2,097 4,251 Prices 1,516 4,578 7,701 10,886 Income 0 (523) (1,583) (2,664) 249,232 259,463 270,906 281,448 Cumulative Savings Requirement 20,237 32,934 41,366 52,995 % of cash limit 10.84 17.53 21.87 27.82 % of total net expenditure 8.12 12.69 15.27 18.83

Ap

pen

dix S

ix

216

2011/12 - 2014/15 Indicative Budget Forecast

Best Case Worst Case 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Resources Stockport MBC Council Tax 138,950 142,424 147,409 152,568 138,950 141,729 144,564 147,455 Formula and Area Based Grants 91,060 85,964 86,262 82,234 88,013 80,447 78,312 72,306 230,010 228,388 233,671 234,802 226,963 222,176 222,876 219,761 Expenditure Cash Limits 186,731 187,630 188,686 189,745 186,731 188,890 190,880 192,894 Non-Cash Limits 58,191 63,237 67,940 71,312 59,295 65,280 71,011 75,505 Priority Initiatives Fund (PIF) 500 500 500 500 0 0 0 0 Priority Improvement Provision (PIP) 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 0 0 0 0 Forecast Reduction in Specific Grants 1,090 1,632 1,940 2,559 1,601 2,588 3,310 4,284 Pay 0 0 0 0 2,065 4,187 6,368 9,730 Prices 1,516 3,047 6,139 9,293 3,031 6,123 10,854 15,727 Income (1,048) (2,118) (3,209) (4,320) 0 0 0 0 247,480 254,928 263,496 271,089 252,723 267,068 282,423 298,140 Cumulative Savings Requirement 17,470 26,540 29,825 36,287 25,760 44,892 59,547 78,379 % of cash limit 9.36 14.14 15.81 19.12 13.80 23.77 31.20 40.63 % of total net expenditure 7.06 10.41 11.32 13.39 10.19 16.81 21.08 26.29

Ap

pen

dix S

ix

217

Stockport Council Executive - 1 November 2010

Documents

Transcript of Stockport Council Executive - 1 November 2010