Agenda item

OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE - BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE (BSF)

The Leader has agreed to take the above item on the grounds of urgency under Cabinet Procedure Rule 7d as a decision is required by Cabinet by the end of February 2010 in order to allow submission of an ‘approved’ Outline Business Case to Partnerships for Schools (the Government body responsible for delivering the BSF Programme). This will enable the Council to secure the remaining funding for Leicester’s BSF programme and proceed with implementation without delay.

The report for Cabinet and a minute extract from a Special Meeting of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee held on 11 February 2010 will be circulated as soon as they are available.

OUTLINE BUSINESS CASE - BUILDING SCHOOLS FOR THE FUTURE (BSF)

The Leader agreed to take the above item on the grounds of urgency under Cabinet Procedure Rule 7d as a decision was required by Cabinet by the end of February 2010 in order to allow submission of an ‘approved’ Outline Business Case to Partnerships for Schools (the Government body responsible for delivering the BSF Programme). This enabled the Council to secure the remaining funding for Leicester’s BSF programme and proceed with implementation without delay.

Councillor Dempster submitted a report that set out to present to Members a synopsis of the BSF Programme, the long-term financial implications of the programme as a whole and the detailed financial and design plans for the Rushey Mead School project.

Councillor Dempster stated that she was proud that Cabinet supported the expansion of the project to include special schools and behaviour support, as this meant that all young people would benefit from the improvements. She noted that the Children & Young People Scrutiny Committee agreed with the recommendations and supported Option C in the report.

RESOLVED:

                        that Cabinet:

1)     approves the Outline Business Case with Option C: the preferred model, on the basis of revenue affordability to schools and the Council. This model proposes that the two voluntary-aided schools continue their existing facilities management and lifecycle arrangements through the Diocese and special schools and PRUs continue with the existing arrangements provided by themselves and the Council.  Consultation with schools and the Diocese have begun and there are currently no contra-indications to this model;

2)     notes the intention to provide flexible access for communities to facilities in schools and the use of ‘zoning’ of the school buildings to provide a more cost-effective and environmentally sustainable solution to community use of these public buildings;

3)     authorises the Strategic Director - Children, in consultation with the Cabinet Lead, to take such decisions as she thinks fit to implement the programme (subject to the limitations noted below);

4)     requests a further report confirming the approval of PfS or outlining any significant changes to the programme as a consequence of negotiation;

5)     authorises the Strategic Director, Children, in consultation with the Cabinet Member, Children and Schools, to adjust the allocations for each school, as necessary, in order to match funding with cost as each scheme is developed, noting that final approval will rest with Cabinet as each Financial Close is brought to Cabinet for approval;

6)     pursuant to (c) above, notes the expenditure required to progress the project until the end of April 2010 as set out in Appendix 2. This amounts to a total of £4.6m, of which £1m would be funded from the TLE budget and £3.6m recoverable from PfS once new projects are approved;

7)     authorises the Chief Finance Officer to sign the appropriate Section 151 Officer letter of support, drafted in accordance with PfS and CIPFA guidance and which is ancillary to the implementation of the BSF Programme and projects as approved. (An outline of the letter is attached at Appendix 3 of the report). Note that this will commit the Council to deliver its transformational vision and make every endeavour to bridge the affordability gap; and

8)     approves the use of future receipts from land sales at specified schools to support the programme as discussed in the OBC.

Note: In relation to recommendation c) above:

i)                    the Director’s authority shall not include authority to proceed with any project or related matter which is subject to significant change as a result of the negotiations and approvals of PfS as detailed in this report;

ii)                  the Director’s authority shall not extend to authorising financial close and / or any early works agreements;

iii)                the Director’s decisions will generally relate to those routine matters required to maintain progress on the programme such as the issue of new project requests and Stage 1 approvals;

iv)                before issuing any Stage 1 approval, the project proposals will be presented to Cabinet Members and local ward councillors.