Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Mrs Prendergast for whom Sir Paul Carter, CBE was in attendance as substitute.

1.    The Chairman declared that he spoke at the County Council meeting on the 7^th November 2024 in relation to Item E4.

2.    Mrs Game declared that she was a Governor of Laleham Gap School.

3.    Ms Binks declared that she spoke at the Children, Young People and Education Cabinet Committee on 21^st November 2024 in relation to Item E4.

4.    Mr Webb declared that he was a Senior Officer within KCC when the Family Hubs were designed and he was a KCC employee at Danley Middle School which was where Seashell’s Family Hub was located.

5.    Mr Whiting declared that he spoke at the County Council meeting on the 7^th November 2024 and the Children, Young People and Education Cabinet Committee on 21^st November 2024 in relation to Item E4.

6.    Sir Paul Carter, CBE declared that he was a Director at the Leigh Academy Trust.

7.    Jenni Hawkins declared that she spoke at the Children, Young People and Education Cabinet Committee on 21^st November 2024 in relation to Item E4.

8.    Mr Brady declared that he spoke at the Children, Young People and Education Cabinet Committee on 21^st November 2024 in relation to Item E4.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held on 5 November 2024 and 4 December 2024 were correct records and that they be signed by the Chair.

Mr Peter Oakford, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services introduced the report and stated that the budget was updated and balanced, including minor changes since it was last presented to Members. Additionally, he extended his thanks to the finance team for their work on the budget.

1.    In response to comments and questions:

1. The Chairman shared his thanks to Mr Oakford and finance team for their attendance at the Committee.
2. A Member raised ideas such as moving more services in house to take control of the provision, delivering services in a more targeted manner, believing there was a clear argument for this in the Adult Social Care Directorate. Also, raising the idea of cutting contributions to local authorities and emphasising prevention as a policy. Mr Oakford explained that a large capital investment would be needed to bring services in house. There was a £6 million grant for the Children, Young People and Education Directorate which was to be spent on prevention.

A Member noted that the cost of the Adult Social Care Directorate was the greatest financial risk for council. The Member believed that residentMr Peter Oakford, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Traded Services introduced the report and stated that the budget was updated and balanced, including minor changes since it was last presented to Members. Additionally, he extended his thanks to the finance team for their work on the budget.

In response to comments and questions:

c.     The Chairman shared his thanks to Mr Oakford and finance team for their attendance at the Committee.

d.    A Member raised ideas such as moving more services in house to take control of the provision, delivering services in a more targeted manner, believing there was a clear argument for this in the Adult Social Care Directorate. Also, they emphasised prevention as a policy for delivering longer term savings. Mr Oakford explained that a large capital investment would be needed to bring services in house. There was a £6 million grant for the Children, Young People and Education Directorate (CYPE) which was to be spent on prevention.

e.    A Member noted that the cost of the Adult Social Care Directorate and the delivery of its savings target was the greatest financial risk for the council. The Member believed that residents would not be better served by greater private sector provision, more thought more ruthless decision making was needed. Mr Oakford agreed with the Member that the care system was poorly managed, commending the Corporate Director of CYPE and the team for their work, noting that this had taken some financial pressure off the Adult Social Care directorate. Mr Oakford recognised that tough decisions had to be made. Mr Gough added that there had been a significant amount of progress within the CYPE Directorate and SEN transport in managing services within budget. There had been a significant level of pressure on the Adult Social Care Directorate recognising that whilst across most services demands in terms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

1.    Mr Love gave an overview of the report sharing that the work was to continue and be constantly refined to get the best outcomes.

2.    The Cabinet Member and Officers responded to questions and comments which included the following:

a.    A Member questioned how feedback was taken on board. Mr Love shared that feedback could not be collected on issues such as funding until a direction of travel of the special school review was set. Feedback was carefully considered and learnt from. Ms Dann explained that there were various methods of receiving feedback that were used, all feedback was sent to the Quality Assurance Team, which assessed and acted on it.

b.    A Member asked if there were appropriate reviews in place of whether young people need to be placed in specials schools or if they could cope in a mainstream school. Additionally, questioning whether social services had moved residents on a temporary basis and how that would affect children’s schooling. Mr Love explained annual reviews of EHCPs were being implemented, two thirds of the annual reviews were completed on time in the last year which was an improvement on previous years. In terms of transport reviews were taking place, through these reviews savings had been found in the budget, such as renegotiating contracts with the information collected. Mrs Hammond added that every effort was made to place a child properly. Mr Chapman explained that the paper was in response to feedback received not to the work overall, there had been significant improvements to the phased transfer process which allowed for reviews to take place.

c.     A Member questioned the numbers of mainstream school headteachers who resisted taking SEND children into their schools and whether more stringent rules were needed. Mr Love shared that there was an effort to bring headteachers together to share best practice and encourage inclusive practices. Mr Adams added that it was important to ensure people had confidence that the service could meet requirements, identifying there was still work to be done.

d.    A Member emphasised the importance of support from school staff and the difficulties of recruiting and retaining staff. Mr Adams explained that there was a pressure on the high needs funding block, from the demand for 1:1 support, and questioned whether this approach promoted independence as children age through the system. There was work being done to give schools greater flexibility for how funding was used to support students.

e.    A Member highlighted the importance of parents being informed before EHCPs were amended. Additionally, questioning what conversations were happening in terms of funding following a child, to prevent reapplication. The Member emphasised the importance of transition processes being child centred, so they would be placed in the best school for their needs. The Member noted the importance of SEND children having a fair amount of choice for school settings. Finally, requesting transparency with Members on the outcomes of this report. Mr Love explained that there was a culture of continuous improvement within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

1.    One of the call-in Members, Ms Dean, explained the reasoning behind the call in, stating that the decision was published before it could receive scrutiny from the Children, Young People and Education Cabinet Committee and the Scrutiny Committee. Additionally, it was believed there was a lack of information about timing and finance available.

2.    The other call in Member, Sir Paul Carter, emphasised that Kent’s special schools were an area of pride, believing that the special school review was unnecessary and had the potential to force children into home education. Sir Paul, explained the risk of categorisation and the detrimental effects of mixing children with different needs.

3.    Mr Love explained that this decision was ‘in principle’ and was in line with usual time scales. Mr Love expressed pride in all of Kent’s special schools and acknowledged the need for improvements within some. The decision to revise designations for seven out of the twenty-four special schools within this review was justified by evolving needs and circumstances since the last review 20 years ago. The changes would be gradual with proper consultation with special schools, any delays these decisions could impact the implementation and the 2026/27 budget. Additionally, this decision enabled Officers to sit down with special schools and work out the way forward collaboratively.

4.    In response to comments and questions it was said:

a.    When asked if any progress had been made with the special schools, Mr Love explained that there had been differences of opinion but he believed there had been positive work done with special schools. Mr Adams added that the special schools had been heavily engaged in the process, albeit school leaders may not have always agreed with that process, and that there had been transparency with schools. There were positive conversations and work being done with the SEMH head teachers to understand and work on the consequences of the decision. Mr Chapman shared that discussions of the amount of work to be done had taken place, there must be a balance of decision benefits and consequences.

b.    A Member questioned whether the financial issues within the special school review were critical in order to stay within budget. Additionally, questioning whether the Council’s relationship with special school head teachers were recoverable from any animosity. Finally, asking whether the Cabinet Member agreed that it was important to first understand why there was such a demand in Kent for special school education. Mr Love explained that financial considerations played a part in this process as a part of the high needs block. This enables the service to have the right number of special schools available locally. There has been positive conversations and work conducted with special schools, sharing that 41% of Kent students with EHCPs were placed in special schools which was higher than the national average of 32%.

c.     A Member questioned the meaning of an ‘in principal’ decision. Mr Love shared that it gave the go ahead for the resources to be spent so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

1.    John Betts, Corporate Director of Finance, introduced the report and gave an overview of its content.

2.    In response to comments and questions it was said:

a.    A Member questioned the delivery of savings and the lack of financial support for SEN children.

b.    A Member questioned the nature of conversation with government about the statutory override. Mr Betts shared that the statutory override was due to end on 31^st March 2026. If this was to happen in Kent it was believed it could put the Council on the brink of a Section 114 notice. Many authorities were to put in Section 25 statements text which would state that their budget had been put together expecting a resolution to the statutory override, the Department for Education had acknowledged the issue. There was an expectation that in late spring/early summer 2025 there would be guidance available on the next steps to be taken to resolve this issue.

c.     When asked whether the safety valve was having an effect on the number of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCP) available. Mr Love explained that the safety valve had no bearing on number of EHCPs issued, however the 2014 SEND Code of Practice did have an effect. EHCPs were for those with the most complex needs, the authority was now making  these determinations more accurately. The safety valve provided £140 million which otherwise would have had to have been found elsewhere, the Council was not avoiding the prospect of the government removing the statutory override. The Council had previously overspent on the high needs block, this was becoming under control, it was extremely important to lobby for changes to the SEND system nationally, KCC was getting the spending under control and assessing the causes of this.

d.    A Member explained that there was a Kent analytics paper that stated that new thresholds and a financial overlay were being applied to the number of EHCPs issued, expressing a desire to present this paper to Mr Love. 

e.    A Member questioned to repay the current year’s safety valve there was an intention to limit the number of EHCPs issued. Additionally, questioning the effect of the transformation scheme. Mr Love explained that the implementation of the SEN funding model would be devolved and support collaboration between nearly schools to manage SEN more effectively. The model aimed to streamline funding and ensure compliance with the 2014 SEND Code of Practice. The goal was to restore financial balance by 2027/28.

f.      A Member asked how with 50 groupings of schools, most containing one special school, money would be allocated without impacting services for SEN pupils. Mr Love explained that the High Needs Block was set by the Government, funding would only change if the Government reduced it. New special schools were being opened and some special schools were being expanded to allow for more spaces, to reduce the requirement to spend significant amounts of funding on private schooling.

g.    When asked about the timeframe of delivery.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

1.    Mr Gough explained that Kent County Council had applied to join the devolution priority programme, a decision was expected soon. The council was expecting two announcements: whether KCC and Medway had been accepted onto the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP) and setting out parameters on local government reorganisation. If accepted it would lead to the establishment of a Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA) and local government reorganisation. A web page had been set up to give details about devolution.

2.    Amanda Beer, Chief Executive Officer of KCC, acknowledged the impact of the uncertainty for staff across KCC so noting that once a decision was received from the government there would be more information about timelines and the work of setting up the MSA and Local Government Reorganisation.

3.    In response to comments and question from Members it was said:

4.    Mr Jeffrey assured Members that training would be provided for devolution and local government reorganisation, there was a desire to extend this to district councils and Medway Council.

5.    A Member raised the importance of Members being kept up to date and given the opportunity to scrutinise the process. Mr Jeffreys explained that the General Counsel was to write to parish councils to ensure they were fully informed of the process. Mr Gough added that if Kent was to be successful in the bid for devolution, structures would be established to ensure there was engagement. On the topic of parish councils Mr Gough had met with KALC, within those conversations there was a genuine desire for transparency.

6.    A Member questioned whether under LGR KCC’s powers would go to unitary authority not to combined authorities. Mr Gough explained that most of the powers would go to the unitary authority. There would be areas at the strategic level that would go to the MSA, emphasising that the MSA would not just be one individual, but would bring together the Mayor and the unitary councils.  In any case, it would have to remain a strategic body..

7.    A Member believed that the Council must remain business as usual, emphasising the importance of governance and finance. Mr Gough noted that this was hugely complex, there was a large responsibility on KCC to deliver a sound budget and deliver services. There would be a handover and election of shadow authorities, this would be a process of disaggregation.

8.    Mr Rayner noted that the KCC Cabinet was taking a proactive approach, KALC had been quick to notify parish councils of the information available. Mr Rayner attended a KALC meeting in the capacity of KCC representative, providing Members with an update on devolution.

9.    A Member noted that the reforms were long overdue, emphasising the importance of engagement with district councils, discussing the potential of KCC outreach by visiting towns and informing residents of the devolution process. The Member mentioned the importance of areas without parishes being recommended to set up their own parishes. Additionally, the importance of future proofing the council. considering growth when boundaries were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

The Chairman proposed that this item be deferred to a future meeting, this was agreed.

1. In response to a request from a Member the Clerk added an item on the Household Support Grant to the agenda.

2. A Member requested that an item on the decision to stop the commissioned youth services be added to the work programme.

3. The Chair added an item on the sale of assets of Kent County Council.

RESOLVED that the work programme was noted.

1.    The Chairman invited one of the call-in members, Ms Meade, to provide an overview of the reasons for the call-in. Ms Meade set out her reasons for the call-in and explained that it was believed that the decision was not in line with the Council’s decision framework or policy framework. Ms Meade shared that these centres had a higher footfall and lower cost per client compared to other hubs, from April to November 2024 the Seashells Hub had a 25% larger reach than the six hubs that surrounded it. Whilst the report stated that KCC would receive a £426,000 annual saving by not renewing the contracts, it was considered that there was a lack of detail regarding additional costs alternative hubs would have to cover due to this.

2.    Ms Meade requested: complete funding plans and analysis in relation to this decision, full disclosure of the existing contracts and the contract extension requirements and full detail of what the £4.1 million additional family hub funding from central Government was to be used on.

3.    The other call-in member, Mr Lewis, explained that there was a significantly higher footfall of users for the Millmead Family Hub than those hubs surrounding it. The closure of this hub would cause inconvenience and higher travel costs for its 120 monthly users. Mr Lewis believed that closing Millmead Family Hub and keeping open Cliftonville Family Hub would increase costs significantly, adding that the Millmead Family Hub had agreed to work on a reduced budget of £165,000 for the next year.

4.    Ms Chandler, Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services, shared that within the 2025/26 KCC Budget there was funding for the equivalent provisions within those districts from alternative venues. The additional family hub funding had been already encompassed into the budget. The Millmead Family Hub was to become a Healthy Living Centre, which would provide additional services funded by the public health budget. The proposal for equivalent provisions within those districts at alternate venues, had been incorporated into the overall budget for 2025/26. There was a desire to offer more services in-house, allowing for the management of costs, some of which were to be shared across the county and would allow for a parity of quality across the county.

5.    Ingrid Crisan, Director of Operational Integrated Children's Services, added that family hubs were a national programme that had specific requirements in areas such as perinatal mental health, parent infant relationships and parenting support. A comprehensive manual issued by the government detailed how areas of work were to be delivered including KPI’s and overall expectations. An assessment of services provided at the hubs revealed that Seashells Family Hub provided 14 hours of family hub services a week, and Millmead Family Hub provided nine hours.

6.    Mr Lewis asked how many hours of family hub services the Cliftonville centre provided weekly. Ms Crisan explained that the work conducted at Cliftonville was in line with the national programmes of delivery for these services.

7.    A Member asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.