Agenda item

To consider and note the details of the process.

Mr K Pulsford, Asset Strategy and Disposals Manager, was in attendance for this item.

1.            The Cabinet Member, Mr Cooke, introduced the report and explained that it had been produced at the request of the Sub-Committee, arising from a discussion about school sites at previous meetings. Ms Spore and Mr Cooke responded to comments and questions from Members, as follows:-

a)     the request for clarification of process had arisen specifically in relation to the disposal of part of the site of the Chaucer School in Canterbury and a desire by Members that they and the public should be able to see that the correct process had been followed. Ms Spore set out the process followed when identifying the proportion of the Chaucer site which could be declared surplus and she and Mr Cooke undertook to advise questioners in more detail, before the next meeting of this Sub-Committee, about the process followed for the Chaucer School and when and how the disposal had been reported to County Council committees;

b)    Mr Cooke assured Members that all proposed disposals which were over the limits of officer delegations were reported to the Property Sub-Committee for comment before any decision was taken;

c)    the Vice-Chairman suggested that a simplified flow chart of the process, on one page of A4, be sent to Members of the Sub-Committee before the next scheduled meeting (on 21 March 2017) and that any questions arising from that be raised at the next meeting.  Mr Cooke agreed that this would be done;

d)    in response to a question about the reinvestment of proceeds when an education site was disposed of, Ms Spore advised that she was required, as part of the formal processes set out by the Department for Education, to report how the proceeds of the disposal would be used. The DfE had the power to direct the County Council about how funds were used in any specific case but had never done so;    

e)    the question was raised of school sites being declared surplus at a time when the school population was rising across the county, and clarification was sought about the role of Sport England as a consultee in disposing of school playing fields.  Mr Cooke explained that the Commissioning Plan for Education Provision, which set out a strategy for future land use, had undergone extensive consultation and took full account of differing requirements in different parts of the county.  It was, of course, important to accommodate parent choice of school as far as possible, but need for additional places, when identified, was being met by expanding existing good schools rather than building new ones.  Surplus sites would arise naturally from this process.  Ms Spore assured Members that Sport England was fully consulted by the County Council as a statutory consultee to any planning application where the development would affect the playing field capacity of the school; and

f)     in response to a question about the extent to which the County Council could monitor playing field provision in schools which it did not control, Ms Spore explained that the Council had limited influence over such schools.  Information about these was held by, and managed by, the Department for Education (DfE).  Ms Spore undertook to provide a questioner with links to the DfE website dealing with this information.    

2.    RESOLVED that:-

a)    the details of the process around identifying school sites as surplus to requirements be noted; and

b)    a simplified flow-chart of the process, on one page of A4, be sent to Members of the Sub-Committee and any questions arising from that be raised at the next meeting. This information should include that requested in paragraphs 1 a), c) and f) above.