Agenda Item 8 - East Sussex · PDF fileAgenda Item 8 . Committee: Cabinet . Date: 4 March 2014...

Agenda Item 8

Committee: Cabinet

Date: 4 March 2014

By: Interim Director of Children’s Services

Title of Report: Proposed closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School

Purpose of Report: To consider the outcome of the consultations on the proposed closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School and make a final decision on whether the School should be discontinued

Recommendation: The Cabinet is recommended to: 1. Approve the closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School with effect from 31 August 2014; and 2. Recommend to Full Council not to support the Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Kathryn Field for the reasons given in the report.

1. Financial Appraisal

1.1 Revenue: It is possible that there would be revenue costs associated with closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School (e.g. redundancy payments to staff, disposal of equipment etc). Upon closure, the school’s balance of resources (be that a surplus or deficit) would transfer back to the Council. The Council would decide how any balance would be managed. It is currently estimated that there will be a surplus of approximately £70,000 at the end of the 2013/14 financial year. This will be carried forward to the 2014/15 financial year. It is anticipated that the carry forward, together with the 2014/15 budget, would be sufficient to cover any revenue costs associated with closure of the school.

1.2 Capital: The original land and buildings were donated and are held in Trust by the Diocese of Chichester and the local church. Any capital liabilities incurred as a result of closure would fall to the Diocese and Trustees. It would be for the Diocese and Trustees to decide what should happen to the land and buildings once a decision about the future of the school has been taken. A decision to withhold the building in the event of future need would carry significant costs for the Diocese and Trustees.

2. Supporting Information

2.1 On 9 December 2013 the Lead Member for Learning and School Effectiveness approved the publication of statutory notices in relation to the proposed closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School on 31 August 2014. The proposal for closure is being made because of concerns about the long term sustainability of the school on the grounds of its capacity to sustain improvements in standards and in the context of declining popularity and financial viability. Currently the school has only three children on roll. The Diocese of Chichester shares these concerns and agreed that the Council should consult on closure of the school.

2.2 The statutory notice was published in the Battle Observer on Friday 20 December 2013. In addition the Notice was posted at the entrance to the school and in Battle Library. A full copy of the proposal was sent to the school’s Interim Executive Board and to members of staff. The full proposal was also posted on the Council’s website. A copy of the notice, as it appeared in the Battle Observer, can be found in Appendix A.

2.3 Publication of the statutory notice was followed by a six-week period of representation, when comments or objections could be made to the Council. The representation period closed on 31 January 2014. During this time six responses were received. In addition the Council received two enquiries via email regarding the future use of the school site.

2.4 Prior to publishing notices the Council undertook a period of public consultation which ran from 13 September to 25 October 2013. Approximately 800 consultation documents were distributed during this time and by the close of the consultation period 65 replies had been received. This equated to a response rate of 8.1%. Of the 65 responses: 6 (9.2%) supported the proposal 56 (86.2%) did not support the proposal 3 (4.6%) gave no answer

2.5 Cabinet is asked to note that Councillor Kathryn Field has formally submitted the following Notice of Motion:

125

‘This Council will take the necessary steps in conjunction with all partners to mothball Mountfield & Whatlington school until such time as the true need for places is established after the proposed expansion of surrounding villages has taken place’.

2.6 As indicated in 1.2 above, the land and buildings are held in Trust by the Diocese of Chichester and the local church. While the Council can request that consideration is given to mothballing the school site, ultimately it would be for the Diocese and Trustees to make that decision. In considering the Notice of Motion, Cabinet should be aware of the following information.

2.7 The Council’s pupil forecasting model does not predict an increase in primary school places for the Mountfield and Whatlington area. Rother District Council’s 2011 Submission Core Strategy and the 2013 Schedule of Main Modifications do not propose housing site allocations directly in the Mountfield and Whatlington Area. In the surrounding parishes the Submission Core Strategy proposed circa 516 dwellings, which has since increased to circa 670 dwellings in the Main Modifications. There are four schools in the surrounding parishes, all of which are likely to be better placed than Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School to accommodate additional children from new housing in their area.

2.8 The Diocese of Chichester agrees with this view. In a communication to the Council on 24 January 2014 the Diocese stated that ‘…new housing would need to be on a huge scale to make a case for reopening Mountfield and Whatlington School. The Diocese could not advise the Trustees that paying for mothballing would be a good use of their charitable funds’ and ‘… can see nothing in the projections to suggest there are plans for the substantial housing developments that would be necessary to make a case to the Secretary of State to reopen the school. There is still spare capacity in several local schools and we expect many new parents will continue to choose existing popular and successful schools and favour their growth to a full one form entry, rather than choose a new small local school’. In addition the Diocese stated that ‘…Many parents say they would prefer a high performing rural primary school with seven classes – one for each age group with enough staff to offer a wider curriculum offer than small schools can provide alone…’ and ‘If there were a moderate rise in pupil numbers locally the Diocese would first wish to explore expanding existing high performing schools to a full one form entry’.

3. Factors to be considered by the decision maker and types of decision

3.1 Proposed changes to the organisation of schools have to follow a prescribed process established by the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) and the accompanying Regulations. The School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools) Regulations 2013 came into force on 28 January 2014. However, under the Regulations, where a proposal was published prior to 28 January 2014 the procedure set out in the previous Regulations, the School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), should be followed.

3.2 The School Organisation Guidance 2014 sets out a number of factors that Cabinet should have regard to before making a final decision on the proposal to close the school. These are set out in Appendix B, together with the types of decision that can be taken on this proposal. Cabinet must also have due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in taking a decision on whether or not to close the school. More detail on the PSED, and the Equality Impact Assessment are set out in Appendix C.

4. Conclusion and Reason for Recommendations

4.1 In conclusion, the Council and the Diocese of Chichester are concerned about the long term sustainability of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School on the grounds of its capacity to sustain improvements in standards in the context of declining popularity and financial viability.

4.2 For this reason, Cabinet is recommended to:

Approve the closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School with effect from 31 August 2014;

and

Recommend to Full Council not to support the Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Kathryn Field for the reasons given in the report.

GED ROWNEY Interim Director of Children’s Services Contact Officer: Fiona Wright, Assistant Director (Schools, Youth and Inclusion Support) Local Member(s): Councillor Kathryn Field Background documents: None

126

APPENDIX A: Statutory notice as published in the Battle Observer on 20 December 2013

127

APPENDIX B: Factors that Cabinet should have regard to before making a final decision on the proposal

1 Did the published notice

comply with statutory requirements?

The notice complied with statutory requirements as set out in 3.1 in the report.

2 Was a statutory consultation carried out prior to the publication of notices?

A six-week period of consultation was carried out between 13 September and 25 October 2013. Approximately 800 consultation documents were distributed during this time and by the close of the consultation period 65 replies had been received. This equated to a response rate of 8.1%. Of the 65 responses:

- 6 (9.2%) supported the proposal - 56 (86.2%) did not support the proposal - 3 (4.6%) gave no answer

The main objections related to the loss of the school as a community facility; concern about where children from the planned new housing developments would go to school and whether enough was done to support the school to improve, including the inability to appoint a new headteacher. Some argued that if the school is to close it should only be a temporary measure until such time as the places are required by children from the new housing. Those who responded in support of the proposal felt that the school should close because they believe it is uneconomical and unable to fulfil its obligations to provide an appropriate education; its location and popularity are drawbacks; there are better schools locally and that the school has been failing for a number of years.

3 Are the proposals related to other published proposals?

The proposal to discontinue Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School is not related to other published proposals.

4 The effect on standards and diversity?

In April 2012 Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School was inspected by Ofsted and was judged to be ‘inadequate’ and went into Special Measures. The school is currently under the governance of an Interim Executive Board (IEB) and an Interim Headteacher. Following the inspection in April 2012, results for the 2011/12 academic year showed that attainment at the end of all key stages was below the Council and national averages. The results for the 2012/13 academic year showed a good increase in attainment at the end of all key stages and the Council recognised the hard work and professionalism of staff at the school which led to this improvement. However, the improvement was also a result of the significant additional support which the school received over the year and this level of support cannot be sustained nor does it provide for an effective use of public funds over the longer term. The Council has a duty to ensure that all children have access to good education and is committed to securing the best possible outcomes for all pupils. It is concerned about the long term sustainability of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School on the grounds of its capacity to sustain improvements in standards in the context of declining popularity and financial viability. The Church of England Diocese of Chichester shares these concerns. The wider local area around Mountfield and Whatlington already benefits from a number of Voluntary Controlled Church of England primary schools, all of which were rated good at their previous Ofsted inspections.

5 The need for places and whether there is sufficient capacity to accommodate displaced pupils in the area?

All children attending Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School at the time of closure would be offered a place at an alternative school. Rother District Council’s 2011 Submission Core Strategy and the 2013 Schedule of Main Modifications do not include any proposed housing site allocations directly in the Mountfield and Whatlington Area. The new housing is planned for the surrounding parishes where other schools are considered better placed to accommodate any growth in pupil numbers. The Council believes there is sufficient capacity in other schools to accommodate displaced pupils on the basis that, of the 54 children on roll at the school in January 2013, only three remain at the school at the time of writing. All children that have chosen to leave the school since January 2013 have been able to find alternative primary school provision without the need for additional places to be provided.

6 Where the school has a religious character, the impact of the proposal on the balance

There are five Voluntary Controlled Church of England primary schools in the surrounding area. The Council does not believe that the proposed closure would adversely affect the balance of denominational provision in the area or have an

128

of denominational provision in the area and the impact on parental choice?

impact on parental choice as Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School has regularly been under subscribed in recent years.

7 The likely impact of the proposal on the community?

Although the proposed closure of the school would remove provision from the immediate vicinity, the Council believes that the impact on the local community would be limited as the majority of children living in the community area choose not to attend the school. In fact, none of the children currently on roll at the school live in the community area. There are five schools in the surrounding area offering alternative provision, each of which was rated good at their previous Ofsted inspection. The majority of responses received during the consultation period were from members of the local community and the Council recognises that there is a strong attachment to the school for some. For the reasons set out the Council believes that other schools in the local area are better placed to meet the needs of the local children. The land and buildings are held in Trust by the Church of England Diocese of Chichester and the local church. It would be for the Trustees to decide what would happen to the land and buildings once a decision about the future of the school has been taken. It is proposed that the villages of Mountfield and Whatlington would become part of the Salehurst admissions community area in the future.

8 The proposed arrangements for travel of displaced pupils to other schools and the distances to other local schools?

Free transport would be provided for eligible pupils, i.e. provided they meet the criteria. The criteria can be found in the current school admissions booklet which is available on the ESCC website at: http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/educationandlearning/schools/findingaschool/ The distance from Mountfield and Whatlington to each of the schools in the surrounding area is shown below.

- Battle and Langton CE Primary School – 5.16km or 3.21 miles - Netherfield CE Primary School - 5.46km or 3.39 miles - Salehurst CE Primary School - 2.74km or 1.7 miles - Sedlescombe CE Primary School - 5.39km or 3.35 miles - Staplecross Methodist Primary School - 5.5km or 3.42 miles

9 As the proposal relates to a rural primary school: a) The likely effect of

discontinuance on the community?

b) The availability and likely cost to the Council of transport to other schools?

c) Any increase in the use of motor vehicles as a result of discontinuance?

d) Any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school?

The Council does not believe that discontinuance of the school would have a significant impact on the community as currently no children who live within the Mountfield and Whatlington community area choose to attend the school. The Council believes that any increase in the use of motor vehicles would be minimal as local children already choose to travel to alternative provision in the wider area. Children that have already moved from Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School to alternative provision have not incurred any costs in relation to transport as they have tended to go to schools nearer their home address. The Council explored alternatives to discontinuance including collaboration and federation with other local schools but these options were not considered viable for the longer term.

10 Have any particular issues or objections been raised during the representation period which could directly affect the proposal?

During the representation period six written responses were received, all of which object to the proposal. The Council does not believe that any of the representations received raise particular issues which could directly affect the proposal. In addition, the Council received two enquiries regarding future use of the school site should it close. The responses can be viewed in Appendix D. At the time of writing, one response had been received following closure of the representation period. This has not been included in Appendix D.

Types of decision: In considering proposals for a school closure, the decision maker can decide to: Reject the proposals, in which case the school would remain open; Approve the proposals, in which case the school would close on 31 August 2014; Approve the proposals with a modification (e.g. a change to the date of closure)

129

http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/educationandlearning/schools/findingaschool/

In this instance, Cabinet is recommended to approve the proposals without a modification (i.e. the school would officially close on 31 August 2014).

130

Appendix C: Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 and Equality Impact Assessment

Under the Equality Act 2010 the Council is required to have due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty when making decisions. In order to comply with the PSED members must have ‘due regard’ to the equality aims, as set out in the Equality Act 2010, i.e. the need to:

Eliminate direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimization and other conduct prohibited under the Act;

Advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not share that protected characteristic; and

Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

To assist members in having the necessary ‘due regard’ to the duties set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (‘the PSED’) when making this decision, an Equality Impact Assessment (‘EqIA’) has been completed. The EqIA seeks to identify any adverse impacts that may arise as a result of the proposal for those with protected characteristics and to ensure that the proposals do not discriminate against any disadvantaged or vulnerable people. The EqIA is set out below.

131

Equality Impact Assessment

Project or Service Template

Name of the proposal, project or service

Proposed closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School

File ref: Mountfield & Whatlington

Issue No: Version 1.0

Date of Issue: December 2013 Review date: March 2014

Contents

Part 1 – The Public Sector Equality Duty and Equality Impact Assessments (EIA)1

Part 2 – Aims and implementation of the proposal, project or service .................... 4

Part 3 – Methodology, consultation, data and research used to determine impact on protected characteristics. ................................................................................... 6

Part 4 – Assessment of impact ............................................................................... 7

Part 5 – Conclusions and recommendations for decision makers ........................ 16

Part 6 – Equality impact assessment action plan ................................................. 18

132

To complete – press F11 to jump from field to field

Page 1 of 21

Part 1 – The Public Sector Equality Duty and Equality Impact Assessments (EIA)

1.1 The Council must have due regard to its Public Sector Equality Duty when making all decisions at member and officer level. An EIA is the best method by which the Council can determine the impact of a proposal on equalities, particularly for major decisions. However, the level of analysis should be proportionate to the relevance of the duty to the service or decision. 1.2 This is one of two forms that the County Council uses for Equality Impact Assessments, both of which are available on the intranet. This form is designed for any proposal, project or service. The other form looks at services or projects. 1.3 The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) The public sector duty is set out at Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It requires the Council, when exercising its functions, to have “due regard‟ to the need to

Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited under the Act.

Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected

characteristic and persons who do not share it;

Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (see below for “protected characteristics”

These are sometimes called equality aims. 1.4 A “protected characteristic‟ is defined in the Act as:

age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race (including ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality) religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation.

Marriage and civil partnership are also a protected characteristic for the purposes of the duty to eliminate discrimination. The previous public sector equalities duties only covered race, disability and gender. 1.5 East Sussex County Council also considers the following additional groups/factors when carry out analysis:

Carers – A carer spends a significant proportion of their life providing unpaid support to family or potentially friends. This could be caring for a relative, partner or friend who is ill, frail, disabled or has mental health or substance misuse problems. [Carers at the Heart of 21stCentury Families and Communities, 2008]

Literacy/Numeracy Skills

133

Equality Impact Assessment Revised Version 4 Nov 2011

Page 2 of 21

Part time workers Rurality

1.6 Advancing equality (the second of the equality aims) involves:

Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristic

Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these are

different from the needs of other people including steps to take account of disabled people’s disabilities

Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other

activities where their participation in disproportionately low

NB Please note that, for disabled persons, the Council must have regard to the possible need for steps that amount to positive discrimination, to “level the playing field” with non-disabled persons, e.g. in accessing services through dedicated car parking spaces. 1.6 Guidance on Compliance with The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) for officers and decision makers: 1.6.1 To comply with the duty, the Council must have “due regard” to the three equality aims set out above. This means the PSED must be considered as a factor to consider alongside other relevant factors such as budgetary, economic and practical factors. 1.6.2 What regard is “due” in any given case will depend on the circumstances. A proposal which, if implemented, would have particularly negative or widespread effects on (say) women, or the elderly, or people of a particular ethnic group would require officers and members to give considerable regard to the equalities aims. A proposal which had limited differential or discriminatory effect will probably require less regard. 1.6.3 Some key points to note :

The duty is regarded by the Courts as being very important. Officers and members must be aware of the duty and give it conscious

consideration: e.g. by considering open-mindedly the EIA and its findings when making a decision. When members are taking a decision,this duty can’t be delegated by the members, e.g. to an officer.

EIAs must be evidence based. There must be an assessment of the practical impact of decisions on equalities,

measures to avoid or mitigate negative impact and their effectiveness. There must be compliance with the duty when proposals are being formulated by

officers and by members in taking decisions: the Council can’t rely on an EIA produced after the decision is made.

The duty is ongoing: EIA’s should be developed over time and there should be evidence of monitoring impact after the decision.

The duty is not, however, to achieve the three equality aims but to consider them – the duty does not stop tough decisions sometimes being made.

134


Page 3 of 21

The decision maker may take into account other countervailing (i.e. opposing) factors that may objectively justify taking a decision which has negative impact on equalities (for instance, cost factors)

1.6.4 In addition to the Act, the Council is required to comply with any statutory Code of Practice issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. New Codes of Practice under the new Act have yet to be published. However, Codes of Practice issued under the previous legislation remain relevant and the Equality and Human Rights Commission has also published guidance on the new public sector equality duty.

135


Page 4 of 21

Part 2 – Aims and implementation of the proposal, project or service

2.1 What is being assessed?

a) Proposal or name of the project or service.

Proposed closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School

b) What is the main purpose or aims of proposal, project or service?

The Council has a duty to ensure that all children have access to good education and is committed to securing the best possible outcomes for all pupils. It is concerned about the long term sustainability of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School on the grounds of its capacity to sustain improvements in standards in the context of declining popularity and financial viability. It is for these reasons that we are proposing closure of the school. c) Manager(s) and section or service responsible for completing the

assessment

Gary Langford, School Place Planning Manager, Standards and Learning Effectiveness Service, Children’s Services Department

2.2 Who is affected by the proposal, project or service? Who is it intended to benefit and how?

Children and their families and the local community

All children attending Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School would be offered alternative school places; at the time of writing there were sufficient places available at surrounding schools to accommodate all the children currently at Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School. All of the surrounding schools are Voluntary Controlled schools (like Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School) and were rated ‘good’ at their previous Ofsted inspections.

2.3 How is, or will, the proposal, project or service be put into practice and who is, or will be, responsible for it?

The East Sussex County Council Cabinet is responsible for making the final decision on the proposal. If approved, the school would close by 31 August 2014.

2.4 Are there any partners involved? E.g. NHS Trust, voluntary/community organisations, the private sector? If yes, how are partners involved?

Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School is a Voluntary Controlled school. The Diocese of Chichester shares our concerns about the school and has agreed that the Council should consult with key stakeholders about the proposed closure of the school.

136


Page 5 of 21

2.5 Is this proposal, project or service affected by legislation, legislative change, service review or strategic planning activity?

Proposals for closure have to follow a prescribed process established by the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and The School Organisation (Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended).

Background documents:

Report to the Lead Member for Learning and School Effectiveness on 8th July 2013:

http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/yourcouncil/about/committees/meetingpapers/cabinetchildren/2013/8july.htm

2.6 How do people access or how are people referred to your proposal, project or service? Please explain fully.

The Local Authority consulted with pupils, parents and carers, staff, other local schools and trade unions between 13 September and 25 October 2013. It is also consulted with a wide range of other groups including the Borough Council, the local MP, the Church of England and Catholic dioceses and the wider local community. The consultation document was distributed to all consultees. The document was also available on the ESCC website at: http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/yourcouncil/consultation/current.htm

2.7 If there is a referral method how are people assessed to use the proposal, project or service? Please explain fully.

N/A

2.8 How, when and where is your proposal, project or service provided? Please

explain fully.

As referred to in 2.5 above, the Local Authority must follow a prescribed process in proposing closure of a school. It cannot shorten the process. The proposed date for closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School is 31st August 2014. The Local Authority has a legal obligation to educate any child that wishes to remain at the school until the date of closure.

137



http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/yourcouncil/consultation/current.htm


Page 6 of 21

Part 3 – Methodology, consultation, data and research used to determine impact on protected characteristics.

3.1 List all examples of quantitative and qualitative data or any consultation information available that will enable the impact assessment to be undertaken.

Types of evidence identified as relevant have X marked against them

Employee Monitoring Data Staff Surveys

Service User Data Contract/Supplier Monitoring Data

X Recent Local Consultations Data from other agencies, e.g. Police, Health, Fire and Rescue Services, third sector

Complaints Risk Assessments

Service User Surveys Research Findings

X Census Data X East Sussex Demographics

Previous Equality Impact Assessments

National Reports

Other organisations Equality Impact Assessments

Any other evidence?

3.2 Evidence of complaints against the proposal, project or service on grounds of discrimination.

None received to date.

3.3 If you carried out any consultation or research on the proposal, project or service explain what consultation has been carried out.

The Local Authority held a public consultation on the proposals between 13 September and 25 October 2013.

3.4 What does the consultation, research and/or data indicate about the positive or negative impact of the proposal, project or service?

A total of 65 responses were received during the consultation period. This equates to a response rate of 8.1%.

The indications are that the majority of people who responded (56 out of 65, 86.2%) do not support the proposal to close the school. They cite the following reasons for their objections:

The loss of the school as a community facility;

Concern about where children from the planned new housing developments will go to school;

The money spent in recent years on refurbishing the school; and

Was enough was done to support the school to improve, including the inability to appoint a new headteacher.

138


Page 7 of 21

Those that support the proposed closure (6, 9.2%) did so on the basis that:

The school should close because they believe it is uneconomical and unable to fulfil its obligations to provide an appropriate education;

Its location and popularity are drawbacks; and

There are better schools locally and that the school has been failing for a number of years.

Part 4 – Assessment of impact

4.1 Age: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.

a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County/District/Borough?

In general, pupil numbers at the school have been in decline since 2002/03. In January 2013 there were only 54 children attending the school against a capacity of 84. Only 26% of these children lived in the Mountfield and Whatlington community area with the remainder coming from Hastings, Battle and other local towns and villages. In January 2013 there were 50 children of primary school age living in the Mountfield and Whatlington community area, of which only 14 attended the school. The remaining 36 children had chosen to attend other schools in the local area. At the start of the 2013/14 academic year the number on roll had fallen to just over 20. That has subsequently fallen further to only four, of which none live in the Mountfield and Whatlington community area. b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of

those impacted by the proposal, project or service?

As above

c) Will people with the protected characteristic be more affected by the proposal, project or service than those in the general population who do not share that protected characteristic?

The proposal will predominantly affect children of primary school age in the local community.

d) What is the proposal, project or service’s impact on different ages/age groups?

It is not anticipated that the proposal will have a significant impact on different ages/age groups; only children of a primary school age.

e) What actions are to/or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?

139


The Council believes that all children displaced by the closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School could be accommodated at other local schools, all of which were rated ‘good’ at their previous Ofsted inspections, without the immediate need to provide additional places.

f) Provide details of the mitigation.

See above.

g) How will any mitigation measures be monitored?

The Council regularly reviews its pupil forecasts to ensure there are sufficient school places to meet demand and if necessary takes action to address any shortfalls in places in line with its statutory responsibilities.

4.2 Disability: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.

a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County /District/Borough?

The following chart shows the number of children recorded as having Special Educational Needs in the January 2013 school census (children attending East Sussex maintained primary schools and academies). District/ Borough information relates to the pupil’s home address as reported in the January 2013 school census.

Number of Children with SEN recorded in Jan-13 School Census

0

200 400

600 800

1000

1200 1400

1600

Eastbourne Hastings Lewes Rother Wealden

In East Sussex there were 7,158 children recorded as having Special Educational Needs in the January 2013 school census. The figure for Rother District was 940.

Disability projections published on East Sussex in Figures (ESiF) in July 2013 put the total number of people with a disability in East Sussex at 89,006 for 2013. The figure for Eastbourne Borough is 16,746.

Page 8 of 21 140


b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, project or service?

As above


The proposal will predominantly affect children of primary school age in the local community, including those with a special educational need and/or disability.

d) What is the proposal, project or service’s impact on people who have a disability?

It is not anticipated that the proposal will have a significant impact on children who have SEN and/or disability as other schools in the local area can provide appropriate facilities for those children.

e) What actions are to/ or will be taken to avoid any negative impact or to better advance equality?

As above

f) Provide details of any mitigation.

Page 9 of 21 141


Page 10 of 21

N/A


N/A

4.3 Ethnicity: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact. Race categories are: Colour. E.g. being black or white, Nationality e.g. being a British, Australian or Swiss citizen, Ethnic or national origins e.g. being from a Roma background or of Chinese Heritage a) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the County

/District/Borough?

The ethnic makeup of the school reflects that of the population across the County. In that context, we do not think there is a significant differential impact in relation to ethnicity. b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of


N/A


N/A

d) What is the proposal, project or service’s impact on those who are from different ethnic backgrounds?

N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A

4.4 Gender/Transgender: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact

a) How is this protected characteristic target group reflected in the County/District/Borough?

We do not consider gender/transgender characteristics to be relevant to the proposal.

142


Page 11 of 21

b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, project or service?

N/A


N/A

d) What is the proposal, project or service’s impact on different genders?

N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A

4.5 Marital Status/Civil Partnership: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.


We do not consider marital status/civil partnership characteristics to be relevant to the proposal.


N/A


N/A

d) What is the proposal, project or service’s impact on people who are married or same sex couples who have celebrated a civil partnership?

N/A

143


Page 12 of 21


N/A


N/A


N/A

4.6 Pregnancy and maternity: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.


We do not consider pregnancy and maternity characteristics to be relevant to the proposal.


N/A


N/A

d) What is the proposal, project or service’s impact on pregnant women and women within the first 26 weeks of maternity leave?

N/A


N/A

f) Provide details of the mitigation

N/A


N/A

4.7 Religion, Belief: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.


144


Page 13 of 21

Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School is a Voluntary Controlled school. Voluntary Controlled schools are managed in the same way as community schools but have historically been linked to a church. The local authority is responsible for school admissions and decides how pupils are admitted in the same way as community schools. It should be noted that the other schools in the surrounding area are all Voluntary Controlled Church of England schools so we do not consider that the proposal will have a significant impact on this particular characteristic.

b) How is this protected characteristic reflected in the population of


N/A


N/A

d) What is the proposal, project or service’s impact on the people with different religions and beliefs?

N/A


N/A


N/A


N/A

4.8 Sexual Orientation - Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Heterosexual: Testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.


We do not consider sexual orientation characteristics to be relevant to the proposal.


N/A


145


Page 14 of 21

N/A

d) What is the proposal, project or service’s impact on people with differing sexual orientation?

N/A


N/A

f) Provide details of the mitigation

N/A


N/A

4.9 Other: Additional groups/factors that may experience impacts - testing of disproportionate, negative, neutral or positive impact.

a) How are these groups/factors reflected in the County/District/ Borough?

We do not consider other groups/factors to be relevant to the proposal.

b) How is this group/factor reflected in the population of those impacted by the proposal, project or service?

N/A

c) Will people within these groups or affected by these factors be more affected by the proposal, project or service than those in the general population who are not in those groups or affected by these factors?

N/A

d) What is the proposal, project or service’s impact on the factor or identified group?

N/A


N/A

f) Provide details of the mitigation.

N/A


N/A

146


Page 15 of 21

4.10 Human rights - Human rights place all public authorities – under an obligation to treat you with fairness, equality, dignity, respect and autonomy. Please look at the table below to consider if your proposal, project or service may potentially interfere with a human right.

No human rights implications identified

Articles

A2 Right to life (e.g. pain relief, suicide prevention)

A3 Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (service users unable to consent, dignity of living circumstances)

A4 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (e.g. safeguarding vulnerable adults)

A5 Right to liberty and security (financial abuse)

A6 &7 Rights to a fair trial; and no punishment without law (e.g. staff tribunals)

A8 Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (e.g. confidentiality, access to family)

A9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (e.g. sacred space, culturally appropriate approaches)

A10 Freedom of expression (whistle-blowing policies)

A11 Freedom of assembly and association (e.g. recognition of trade unions)

A12 Right to marry and found a family (e.g. fertility, pregnancy)

Protocols

P1.A1 Protection of property (service users property/belongings)

P1.A2 Right to education (e.g. access to learning, accessible information)

P1.A3 Right to free elections (Elected Members)

147


Page 16 of 21

Part 5 – Conclusions and recommendations for decision makers

5.1 Summarise how this proposal/policy/strategy will show due regard for the three aims of the general duty across all the protected characteristics and ESCC additional groups.

Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;

Advance equality of opportunity between people from different groups

Foster good relations between people from different groups

The proposal will help support the aims of advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations between people from different groups by allowing children access to primary school education in their local community.

5.2 Impact assessment outcome Based on the analysis of the impact in part four mark below ('X') with a summary of your recommendation.

X Outcome of impact assessment Please explain your answer fully.

x A No major change – Your analysis demonstrates that the policy/strategy is robust and the evidence shows no potential for discrimination and that you have taken all appropriate opportunities to advance equality and foster good relations between groups.

B Adjust the policy/strategy – This involves taking steps to remove barriers or to better advance equality. It can mean introducing measures to mitigate the potential effect.

C Continue the policy/strategy - This means adopting your proposals, despite any adverse effect or missed opportunities to advance equality, provided you have satisfied yourself that it does not unlawfully discriminate

D Stop and remove the policy/strategy – If there are adverse effects that are not justified and cannot be mitigated, you will want to consider stopping the policy/strategy altogether. If a policy/strategy shows unlawful discrimination it must be removed or changed.

The Council believes that the proposal is robust and shows no potential for discrimination for the following reasons: The proposed closure of the school

is appropriate on the basis of its long term sustainability in terms of its capacity to sustain improvements in standards in the context of declining popularity and financial viability;

Rother District Council’s 2011 Submission Core Strategy and the 2013 Schedule of Main Modifications do not include any proposed housing site allocations directly in the Mountfield and Whatlington Area. The new housing is planned for the surrounding parishes where other schools are considered better placed to accommodate any growth in pupil numbers; and

The Council believes that all children displaced by the closure of Mountfield and Whatlington CE Primary School could be accommodated at other local schools without the immediate need to provide additional places.

Translation services were available on request during the consultation period for those that required them.

148


Page 17 of 21

5.3 What equality monitoring, evaluation, review systems have been set up to carry out regular checks on the effects of the proposal, project or service?

The EqIA will be reviewed in March 2014 following a final decision on the proposals by the Council’s Cabinet.

5.6 When will the amended proposal, proposal, project or service be reviewed?

March 2014.

Date completed: 3 Dec 2013 Signed by (person completing)

Gary Langford

Role of person completing

School Organisation Manager

Date: 3 Dec 2013 Signed by (Manager)

Jessica Stubbings

149


Part 6 – Equality impact assessment action plan

If this will be filled in at a later date when proposals have been decided please tick here and fill in the summary report.

The table below should be completed using the information from the equality impact assessment to produce an action plan for the implementation of the proposals to:

1. Lower the negative impact, and/or 2. Ensure that the negative impact is legal under anti-discriminatory law, and/or 3. Provide an opportunity to promote equality, equal opportunity and improve relations within equality target groups, i.e. increase the

positive impact 4. If no actions fill in separate summary sheet.

Please ensure that you update your service/business plan within the equality objectives/targets and actions identified below:

Area for improvement

Changes proposed Lead Manager Timescale Resource

implications

Where incorporated/flagged?

(e.g. business plan/strategic

plan/steering group/DMT)

X

Page 18 of 21 150


Page 19 of 21

6.1 Accepted Risk

From your analysis please identify any risks not addressed giving reasons and how this has been highlighted within your Directorate:

Area of Risk Type of Risk? (Legal, Moral,

Financial)

Can this be addressed at a later date? (e.g. next

financial year/through a business case)

Where flagged? (e.g. business plan/strategic

plan/steering group/DMT) Lead Manager

Date resolved (if applicable)

151

APPENDIX D: Comments and objections received during representation period

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

Date post:	26-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyendung
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

Agenda Item 8 - East Sussex · PDF fileAgenda Item 8 . Committee: Cabinet . Date: 4 March 2014...

Documents