Phil Norrey Chief Executive

To: The Chairman and Members of County Hall the Cabinet Topsham Road Exeter Devon EX2 4QD (See below)

Your ref : Date : 5 April 2016 Email: [email protected] Our ref : Please ask for : Rob Hooper, 01392 382300 Fax :

CABINET

Wednesday, 13th April, 2016

A meeting of the Cabinet is to be held on the above date, at 10.30 am in the Committee Suite, County Hall, Exeter to consider the following matters.

P NORREY Chief Executive

A G E N D A

PART I - OPEN COMMITTEE

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Minutes

Minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2016 (previously circulated).

3 Items Requiring Urgent Attention

Items which in the opinion of the Chairman should be considered at the meeting as matters of urgency.

4 Chairman's Announcements

5 Petitions

6 Question(s) from Members of the Council

. 7 Call-in of Cabinet Decision: Sutcombe Primary School Closure (Minute *484/9 March 2016)

In accordance with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, the requisite number of members (Councillors Owen, Hannan, Hannaford, Hill and Wright) had invoked the call-in procedure in relation to the above decision of the Cabinet, to enable the People’s Scrutiny Committee to consider this matter on the grounds ‘...that not all the relevant factors were made known’.

The Cabinet is advised that the People’s Scrutiny Committee considered the ‘call-in’ at its meeting on 21 March 2016 (Minute *144) and endorsed the Cabinet’s decision; the Scrutiny Committee therefore not having requested reconsideration or amendment of the Cabinet’s decision it had been implemented with immediate effect.

[NB: The Joint Report of the Heads of Planning, Transportation & Environment and Education & Learning and County Treasurer (PTE/16/14) is available at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/decision_making/cma/index_exc.htm]

FRAMEWORK DECISION

Nil

KEY DECISIONS

8 Education Travel Policy for 2016/17 (Pages 1 - 4)

Report of the Head of Education & Learning (EL/16/3) on the outcome of consultations on travel policy for the 2016/17 Academic year, attached. Electoral Division(s): All

9 County Road Highway Maintenance Capital Budget (Pages 5 - 28)

Report of the Head of Highways, Capital Development & Waste (HCW/16/31) on progress with 2015/16 programmes and approval of schemes and proposed programmes for capital funding of highway maintenance programmes in 2016/17, attached. Electoral Division(s): All

10 County Road Highway Maintenance Revenue Budget and On-Street Parking Account 2016/17 (Pages 29 - 38)

Report of the Head of Highways, Capital Development & Waste (HCW/16/32) on the allocation of highway maintenance funding for 2016/17, attached. Electoral Division(s): All

11 Waste Management - Sharing of Financial Savings (Pages 39 - 44)

Report of the Head of Highways, Capital Development & Waste (HCW/16/33) on proposals for sharing financial savings through collaborative working with District Councils to reduce treatment and disposal costs, attached. Electoral Division(s): All

12 Flood Risk Management Programme (Pages 45 - 56)

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment (PTE/16/21) reviewing progress of schemes in 2015/16 and seeking approval of plans and expenditure for 2016/17, attached.

Electoral Division(s): All 13 District Heating Networks (Minute 574/14 November 2012) (Pages 57 - 66)

Report of the Head of Economy & Enterprise (EE/16/7) seeking approval to the procurement process for selection with other stakeholders of an Energy Services Company, attached.

Electoral Division(s): All

MATTERS REFERRED

14 Place Scrutiny Committee - Pollinators and Neonicotinoids (Pages 67 - 70)

The Place Scrutiny Committee, at its meeting on 7 March 2016 (Minute *118), considered the Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment (PTE/16/13), attached, upon the impact on Pollinators of Neonicotinoids prepared in response to the Notice of Motion by Councillor Hook submitted to the County Council on 10 December 2015 and referred by Cabinet to the Scrutiny Committee.

That Committee was asked to comment upon the desirability of a Pollinators Action Plan being produced through which more detailed consideration might be given to any relevant restrictions on the use of Neonicotinoids on County Council property and any opportunities to support the conservation of bees and other pollinators and subsequently resolved:

‘(a) that the Committee welcome and endorse the principle of a Pollinators Action Plan being produced covering the issues outlined in Report PTE/16/13 and that Cabinet be recommended to adopt and implement such a Plan at the earliest opportunity;

(b) that, in addition, Cabinet be strongly advised to take all necessary steps where possible to prohibit the use of Neonicotinoids on land under the control or ownership of the County Council including existing and new tenants of the County Farms Estate;

(c) that the County Council engage other Councils in Devon and partner organisations to take similar action to that outlined above’

Recommendation: that the Scrutiny Committee’s views be noted and approval, in principle, be given to the adoption of a Pollinators Action Plan and Officers be asked to further explore the practicalities of the proposed actions at (b) above, seeking also the views of the County Farms Estate Committee as appropriate, and report further to Cabinet as soon as practicable.

. 15 People's Scrutiny Committee - Educational Outcomes Task Group (Pages 71 - 110)

The People’s Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 21 March 2016 (Minute *147) considered the Report of its Task Group (CS/16/16), attached, looking at the exclusion process including preventative measures, school and off-site provision, funding to support students at risk and the use of multi-agency engagement, incorporating the views and experiences of pupils and staff. The Task Group’s recommendations included examining the extent to which disadvantaged pupils and those with Special Educational Needs featured among those excluded; that all teaching and support staff were able to enhance their skills in relation to emotional and social education; that schools were provided training on the how effective pastoral support systems could be developed and provided for all pupils; the legality and effectiveness of providing ‘late’ and ‘early’ schools and the use of part-time timetables in schools; multi-agency partnerships with particular attention to pupils with mental health needs and how schools worked with the Child and Adult Mental Health Service and for the Council to investigate the impact of Elective Home Education on pupils in Devon. The Scrutiny Committee agreed that ‘the Task Group's findings and recommendations be commended to the Cabinet for approval and action’.

Recommendation: that the Task Group's recommendations be welcomed and the Cabinet Member for Children Schools and Skills be asked, in concert with the relevant Head(s) of Service to take all appropriate action, to take the recommendations forward.

16 Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee - Commissioning Task Group (Pages 111 - 130)

The Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 24 March 2016 (Minute *92(a)) considered the Report of its Task Group (CS/16/15), attached, exploring the Council’s approach for the scrutiny of commissioning processes and commissioned services, reflecting the changing face of the Council and how it delivers services, looking at particular on strengthening communication and collaboration between Cabinet Members, Heads of Service and Scrutiny Committees, the contribution Scrutiny can play in commissioning and reviewing services provided to assist the Council in the developing policy to ensure the proper discharge the Council’s functions. The Scrutiny Committee endorsed and commended the Task Group's findings and recommendations to the Cabinet for approval and action.

Recommendation: that the Task Group's recommendations be endorsed and the Cabinet Member for Performance & Engagement be asked to explore, in conjunction with relevant Cabinet Members and Head(s) of Service how best to take the recommendations forward.

17 South Hams Highways & Traffic Order Committee - 20mph Speed Limit, Marldon

The South Hams HATOC at its meeting on 1 April 2016 (Minute 55) considered a request from the Parish Council and local residents for the introduction of a 20mph speed limit on roads in Marldon Parish; this matter having previously been considered in November 2015 when it had been deferred pending the findings of the interim Department for Transport report on the effectiveness of 20mph speed limits and zones and the subsequent review of the Council’s policy on local speed limits. That guidance had been expected to be published in 2016 but was now anticipated in 2017.

The HATOC had been advised by the Head of Service that the application for a reduced speed limit would not meet the Council’s criteria for Local Speed Limits. However, the Committee had asked that the matter be referred to the Cabinet for determination as a departure from policy, the Committee being of the view that road safety concerns and accident statistics now submitted were sufficient to override current policy and that Cabinet should introduce a 20mph speed limit for the Parish of Marldon.

Recommendation: that the request for a 20mph speed limit on roads in the Parish of Marldon be not approved as it does not meet the criteria stated in the County Council’s policy for Local Speed Limits. 18 Notices of Motion (County Council Minute 173/18 February 2016 and Cabinet Minute 488(a)/9 March 2016)) (Pages 131 - 132)

The following Notice of Motion submitted to the County Council by Councillor Wright had previously been referred to the Cabinet in accordance with Standing Order 8(2) for consideration, to refer to another committee or make a recommendation back to the Council.

‘This Council notes that:

- Tax avoidance by big business is rife and the Public Accounts Committee last year criticised HMRC for not doing more to tackle the problem; - Austerity measures mean that £174m funding has been cut from this council over the past five years, this year £34m will be lost - and many more millions are set to be lost in the coming years, prompting damaging service cuts; - The Devon portion of avoided corporation tax could total around £380m; - The practice of tax avoidance among corporate giants also has a negative effect on small and medium-sized companies who pay more tax proportionately; - That tax evasion and avoidance by multinational companies is costing developing countries up to $300 bn a year, according to the IMF – more than these countries receive in aid

This Council further notes:

In early 2015 new regulations required public bodies, including councils, to ask procurement qualification questions of all companies for tenders over £173,000 for service contracts and £4m for works contracts.

However, there are stricter standards available. This Council believes that bidders for council contracts should be asked to account for their past tax record, using the most rigorous possible government guidance (as in Procurement Policy Note 03/14)

This Council therefore calls for procurement procedures to be amended to require all companies bidding for council contracts to self-certify that they are fully tax-compliant in line with central government practice, using the standards in PPN 03/14, applying to contracts of the size specified above.

This Council asks the Cabinet to publicise this policy and to report on its implementation annually for the next three years.

While the Cabinet had, at its previous meeting, acknowledged the suggestion that the Council should not take any further action on the Notice of Motion in light of the action already being taken to comply with the Cabinet Office Directives (which formed part of its published procurement policies, as set out fully in Report BSS/16/5) - provided also that in future instances of supplier non-compliance be published annually on the Council’s website – it was nonetheless agreed, in light of further representations then made, that the Council could adopt more rigorous, higher thresholds, that consideration of this matter be deferred until this, the next meeting.

Head of Business Support & Strategy to report. The factual briefing/background paper (BSS/16/5) is recirculated for Members’ convenience.

STANDING ITEMS

19 Question(s) from Members of the Public

. 20 Minutes (Pages 133 - 138)

Devon Education Forum, 16 March 2016

[NB: Minutes of the Devon Education (Schools) Forum are published at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/schoolsforum.htm ]

21 Delegated Action/Urgent Matters (Pages 139 - 140)

The Registers of Decisions taken by Members under the urgency provisions or delegated powers will be available for inspection at the meeting in line with the Council’s Constitution and Regulation 13 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. A summary of such decisions taken since the last meeting is attached.

22 Forward Plan

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Cabinet is requested to review the list of forthcoming business (previously circulated) and to determine which items are to be defined as key and/or framework decisions and included in the Plan from the date of this meeting.

[NB: The Forward Plan is available on the Council's website at:http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/decision_making/cabinet_committee/forward_ plan.htm ]

PART II - ITEMS WHICH MAY BE TAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

Nil

MEMBERS ARE REQUESTED TO SIGN THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER

Notice of all items listed above have been included in the Council’s Forward Plan for the required period, unless otherwise indicated. The Forward Plan is published on the County Council's website at http://www.devon.gov.uk/cma.htm Notice of the decisions taken by the Cabinet will be sent by email to all Members of the Council within 2 working days of their being made and will, in the case of key decisions, come into force 5 working days after that date unless 'called-in' or referred back in line with the provisions of the Council's Constitution. The Minutes of this meeting will be published on the Council's website, as indicated below, as soon as possible. Members are reminded that Part II Reports contain confidential information and should therefore be treated accordingly. They should not be disclosed or passed on to any other person(s). Members are also reminded of the need to dispose of such reports carefully and are therefore invited to return them to the Democratic Services Officer at the conclusion of the meeting for disposal.

Membership Councillors J Hart (Chairman), B Parsons, S Barker, R Croad, A Davis, A Leadbetter, J McInnes, J Clatworthy and S Hughes Cabinet Member Remits Councillors Hart (Policy & Corporate), Barker (Adult Social Care & Health Services), Clatworthy (Resources & Asset Management), Croad (Community & Environmental Services), Davis (Improving Health & Wellbeing), S Hughes (Highway Management & Flood Prevention), Leadbetter (Economy, Growth and Cabinet Liaison for Exeter), McInnes (Children, Schools & Skills) and Parsons (Performance & Engagement) Declaration of Interests Members are reminded that they must declare any interest they may have in any item to be considered at this meeting, prior to any discussion taking place on that item. Access to Information Any person wishing to inspect the Council’s / Cabinet Forward Plan or any Reports or Background Papers relating to any item on this agenda should contact Rob Hooper on 01392 382300. The Forward Plan and the Agenda and Minutes of the Committee are published on the Council’s Website. Webcasting, Recording or Reporting of Meetings and Proceedings The proceedings of this meeting may be recorded for broadcasting live on the internet via the ‘Democracy Centre’ on the County Council’s website. The whole of the meeting may be broadcast apart from any confidential items which may need to be considered in the absence of the press and public. For more information go to: http://www.devoncc.public-i.tv/core/

In addition, anyone wishing to film part or all of the proceedings may do so unless the press and public are excluded for that part of the meeting or there is good reason not to do so, as directed by the Chairman. Any filming must be done as unobtrusively as possible from a single fixed position without the use of any additional lighting; focusing only on those actively participating in the meeting and having regard also to the wishes of any member of the public present who may not wish to be filmed. As a matter of courtesy, anyone wishing to film proceedings is asked to advise the Chairman or the Democratic Services Officer in attendance so that all those present may be made aware that is happening.

Members of the public may also use Facebook and Twitter or other forms of social media to report on proceedings at this meeting. An open, publicly available Wi-Fi network (i.e. DCC) is normally available for meetings held in the Committee Suite at County Hall. For information on Wi-Fi availability at other locations, please contact the Officer identified above. Questions to the Cabinet / Public Participation A Member of the Council may ask the Leader of the Council or the appropriate Cabinet Member a question about any subject for which the Leader or Cabinet Member has responsibility. Any member of the public resident in the administrative area of the county of Devon may also ask the Leader a question upon a matter which, in every case, relates to the functions of the Council. Questions must be delivered to the Office of the Chief Executive Directorate by 12 noon on the fourth working day before the date of the meeting. For further information please contact Mr Hooper on 01392 382300 or look at our website at: http://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/guide/public-participation-at- committee-meetings/ Emergencies In the event of the fire alarm sounding leave the building immediately by the nearest available exit, following the fire exit signs. If doors fail to unlock press the Green break glass next to the door. Do not stop to collect personal belongings, do not use the lifts, do not re-enter the building until told to do so. Mobile Phones Please switch off all mobile phones before entering the Committee Room or Council Chamber If you need a copy of this Agenda and/or a Report in another format (e.g. large print, audio tape, Braille or other languages), please contact the Information Centre on 01392 380101 or email to: [email protected] or write to the Democratic and Scrutiny Secretariat at County Hall, Exeter, EX2 4QD.

Induction loop system available

Agenda Item 8

EL/16/3 Cabinet 13 April 2016

EDUCATION TRAVEL POLICY FOR 2016-17

Report of the Head of Education and Learning

Please note that the following recommendation is subject to approval by the Cabinet and confirmation under the provisions of the Council’s Constitution before taking effect.

1. Note the travel policy was proposed and consulted on by the Local Authority 2. Consider the recommendations at section 2.1. 3. Approve the proposed timetable for determination of future policies at section 3.6. 4. Determine the recommended travel policy for 2016-17 at www.devon.gov.uk/admissionarrangements (and for 2017-18 with dates rolled forward).

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 The Local Authority (LA) has statutory responsibilities to provide free transport to and from school for children of statutory school age who meet set criteria. It may also exercise its discretion to provide assistance for children in other circumstances, for which it may charge a fee or contribution. The LA must also support travel for post-16 students only where there is a need to do so and may charge a contribution.

1.2 This paper is to report the outcome of a consultation on amendments to the education travel policy which would affect travel during the academic year 2016-17 and to seek approval for the amended policy.

1.3 None of the proposed amendments would affect statutory entitlements to free education transport.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members are requested to:

1. Increase the contribution level for all subject to pay a contribution from £520 to £560. 2. Remove the reduction in contribution for those on low income, currently at 50%.

3 CONSULTATION ON ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS 3.1 The LA consulted on the proposed policy for 2016-17 during February and March 2016. Consultation took place for six weeks with a notice at www.devon.gov.uk/admissionarrangements. Information was sent to all schools and colleges in the county.

3.2 In previous years, the Education Travel Policy has been included in the admissions consultation and Members have been requested to consider them at the same time. For 2016-17, additional time has been taken to review and formulate policy, with particular reference to discretionary arrangements. This is in response to increasing pressure on the home to school transport budget and the need to secure savings. There has been an overspend of £1.7 million in the academic year 2015-16. This presents an unsustainable financial pressure for the LA. The 2016-17 policy includes provision for post-16 students.

Page 1 3.3 Notice was also given of a consultation on proposed amendments to arrangements for post-16 students for the 2017-18 academic year. This features a change in policy to remove support for post-16 students except where there is an exceptional need for support from the LA, evidenced by the student or parent1. It should be noted that colleges and schools receive funding from central government to provide a bursary scheme for post-16 students. The bursary is intended to support students’ expenses including transport. Devon has been funding transport support in this area on a discretionary basis. While savings to the budget from increasing the contribution and removing the low-income discount are anticipated to be relatively modest, they would add to savings achieved by withdrawing discretionary provision for post-16 students who can access the school and college bursary. Over 4 years, this is anticipated to be £675,000. Members will be asked to consider these arrangements in July 2016 to give more time for consultation.

3.4 There are no current proposals to make further amendments to the Travel Policy for children of statutory school age for 2017-18. It is intended that the arrangements for 2016-17 for children of statutory school age will form the arrangements for 2017-18, with dates rolled forward.

3.5 The next consultation will coincide with the admission arrangements consultation in December 2016 to January 2017. This will be for transport in 2018-19 for both statutory school age children and post-16 students. This will allow more notice for parents and enable them to make better informed decisions about admissions and transport2.

3.6 The following table details when Members will be asked to consider education travel arrangements, following consultation:

statutory school age Post-16 students children 2016-17 April 2016 April 2016 2017-18 April 2016 July 2016 2018-19 February 2017 February 2017 2019-20 February 2018 February 2018

4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 4.1 Where travel support is provided by the LA on a discretionary basis, LAs may charge a fee. Devon does this by providing a concessionary seat scheme on appropriate routes. It charges a contribution towards costs which was set at £520 per annum for the 2015- 16 academic year. It is proposed that this contribution level be increased to £560 per annum from the 2016-17 academic year. There would be no impact on the families of post-16 students as the school and college bursary scheme is intended to support these costs.

4.2 Where a contribution to costs is required, the current arrangements allow a 50% reduction for those children and post-16 students who live in a household in receipt of a low income. It is proposed that this discount be removed. All passengers taking advantage of discretionary entitlement would be liable to pay the full contribution towards costs in 2016-17. There would be no impact on the families of post-16 students as the school and college bursary scheme is intended to support these costs.

1 This would potentially affect new applicants for 2017-18, those children currently in Year 10 who will be post-16 in September 2017. Students in Year 13 and above with existing provision would be unaffected. 2 Should there be an overriding need to review discretionary transport. Members may be asked to consider arrangements outside this timescale.

Page 2 5 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 The proposals in this document are intended to reduce the financial liability of the LA. By removing some discretionary entitlement and increasing the expected income from contributions, the LA would be seeking to lower the overall spend on education transport.

6 SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 The travel policy supports the principle of promoting access to education and meeting the LA’s statutory responsibilities.

7 EQUALITY CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Equality of access to education opportunities is a fundamental feature of transport arrangements. The policy for consideration has been subject to an Equality Impact Needs Assessment, at www.devon.gov.uk/admissionarrangements

8 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 Education transport for eligible children is a statutory function of the LA. Setting fair and transparent arrangements ensures that the LA meets its duty and enables parents, schools and other interested parties to have confidence in them. The policy has been proposed and the subject of consultation.

9 RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 9.1 The key risk is that the Education Transport is not determined by the LA ahead of applications for transport from September 2016 submitted over the summer by parents and post-16 students.

10. CONCLUSION 10.1 The LA has two functions to consider in education transport: it has statutory responsibilities to provide free transport in certain circumstances. These responsibilities are unaffected by proposed amendments. The LA’s additional function is to exercise its discretion to provide free or chargeable support for other children as it deems appropriate. In exercising is discretion, it must balance the desirability to support parental choice of establishment with financial pressures.

The recommendations in this paper recognise ongoing pressure to reduce costs and provision that is not statutorily required. The proposed policy ensures that Devon County Council meets its statutory responsibilities in respect of school transport.

Sue Clarke Head for Education and Learning

ELECTORAL DIVISION: All

Cabinet Member for Children, Schools and Skills: Councillor James McInnes Strategic Director People: Jennie Stephens

Contact for enquiries: Andrew Brent Education and Learning Policy Officer 01392 383000

Local Government Act 1972. Background Papers:

Page 3

Agenda Item 9

HCW/16/31

Cabinet 13 April 2016

County Road Highway Maintenance Capital Budget: Progress on 2015/16 Schemes and the 2016/17 Programmes

Report of the Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste

Recommendations: That: (a) progress on 2015/16 capital funded Highway Maintenance schemes detailed in Appendices I and II to this report be noted; (b) the capital funded highway maintenance programmes for 2016/17 as set out in Appendices III and IV be approved; (c) detailed allocation of the available budget be determined by the Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste in accordance with the Highways Asset Management Plan, and within the limits of the approved budget; (d) authority to amend the programme to maximise the impact of the programme be delegated to the Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste, within the agreed policy guidelines subject to consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highway Management and Flood Prevention for any budget changes to individual schemes exceeding £25,000.

1. Summary

Government has decided its formulae for the allocation of highway capital maintenance funds, which includes a Needs Allocation, an Incentive Fund and a Challenge Fund.

The level of available capital funding falls short of that needed to maintain all elements of the highway in a steady state.

Within the anticipated Government Allocation for 2016/17, programmes of capital funded highway maintenance schemes have been developed in accordance with Devon’s Highway Asset Management Plan. This is to address the priority needs of the network and ensure that where possible preventative maintenance is carried out so that as much of the network as possible is held in a reasonable condition.

This report presents information on the programmes of highway capital maintenance work delivered in 2015/16. It also presents the latest high level information on the condition of carriageways for A, B, C and unclassified roads.

The report details proposals for capital funding of highway maintenance programmes in 2016/17. These include for investment in carriageways, footways, cycleways, drainage systems, road restraint systems, street lighting and traffic signals, bridges and other highway structures.

Page 5 2. Background

Cabinet agreed the Highway Asset Management Policy, Strategy and Plan at its meeting in March 2013.

As the Local Highway Authority, Devon County Council has the duty to maintain a road network of 12,850 kilometres comprising:

970km principal (A) roads, 660km non-principal (B) roads, 4,510km non-principal (C) roads, 6,710km unclassified roads, over 4,000km of footways, over 3,500 bridges, 1,579 retaining walls with a total length of 117km, highway embankments, road restraint systems, traffic signal installations, cycleways, over 80,000 street lights and illuminated signs and bollards.

There are basically three types of maintenance works undertaken:

(a) Reactive repairs such as pot-hole filling, vehicular damage to highway bridges, dealing with flooding, replacing road signs and markings, clearing vegetation which, if neglected, would pose a potential danger to road users. Additionally during the winter period precautionary salting and snow clearance are carried out as needed. (b) Routine or cyclic maintenance such as gully emptying, grass cutting, minor works to bridges and structures, cleaning and clearing of drainage pipes, ducts and channels and the like mostly carried out to a defined frequency. (c) Planned, programmed or structural maintenance, for example carriageway resurfacing, reconstruction and surface treatments, bridge and retaining wall strengthening, major examinations of bridges and structures, road restraint system renewal, drainage renewal, street lighting and traffic signals replacement.

Funding of all three types of maintenance works is closely linked. Pressure on revenue funding risks under-investment in reactive and routine highway maintenance, which can reduce the service life of assets. This will therefore tend to reduce asset value in time. Insufficient capital investment in the highway asset will lead to a fragile network, which is prone to failure, for example in severe weather conditions. It places extra demand on reactive safety defect repair work and can increase the revenue costs of interventions to keep the network available to highway users and to maintain network safety.

This report deals with the capital funding of planned, programmed or structural maintenance work, to restore or replace worn out components and add value to the asset (c above). The capital investment in the highway network is to keep the assets structurally sound thus reducing risks to highway users and reducing long term maintenance costs.

Revenue funding for 2016/17 is covered in a separate report to this Cabinet (HCW/16/32).

3. Asset Management Strategy

The Asset Management approach when applied to the management of Devon's Highway infrastructure provides a methodology for deciding when is the best time to carry out capital

Page 6 maintenance to minimise the total cost of maintaining an asset over its whole life (Whole life cost).

The approach requires the establishment of service levels for highways assets, which are, for the Devon Highway Network, set out in the approved Highway Asset Management Plan. The approach involves identifying where work is required from survey data and choosing the most appropriate maintenance treatment and the timing of maintenance work, to achieve the lowest whole life cost.

The Highway Asset Management approach enables consistent investment decision making. Where insufficient budget is available to meet all maintenance needs, the approach can ensure that the best overall level of service is achieved for the available funding.

The Devon Highway Asset Management Plan reflects the different needs of roads based on the hierarchical categorisation of the road network. So, for example, the A and B road networks, which are the busiest roads supporting business activity, access to other services and leisure use, and which carry relatively high levels of traffic, are prioritised for capital investment over minor unclassified roads. However, for rural communities, the Plan recognises the need to maintain key access routes to communities.

The Asset Management Plan provides for preventative capital investments. A low cost intervention delivered at the right time in the life of a road provides better overall whole life cost outcomes compared to full reconstruction of an alternative section of dilapidated road. With insufficient capital funding to meet all of the demand for maintenance, this does mean that some sections of lower category roads will remain in a poor condition. They will however, be kept safe by appropriate revenue funded essential repair work.

4. Financial Considerations and Sources of Funding

In November 2014, following consultation, the Department for Transport (DfT) announced a new formula for allocating Local Highway Maintenance funding allocations until 2021. The new funding is made up of a Needs Formula, an Incentive Fund and a Challenge Fund. The new approach enables highway authorities to improve long term works planning as the announcement details the Needs Formula allocation for a six year period.

Devon has been awarded £38.785 million in 2016/17 for the needs based formula which is based on the DfT calculation on the quantity of all highway features, not just carriageway length.

Future needs formula allocations announced by DfT are shown in Table 1 below.

With regard to the Incentive formula, a self-assessment questionnaire has been submitted for the year 2016/17 to the DfT claiming Band 2 level for Devon. If accepted this could secure an additional £2.35 million for 2016/17 (see Table 1).

The criteria for evaluating the Incentive formula includes; efficiency in service delivery, good compliance with asset management principles, collaboration with other highway authorities and good supply chain management. Consultation with other authorities in the South West indicates that no authority is currently assessed as Band 3. Devon is targeting Band 3 for future years.

Page 7 Table 1 DfT Needs Based and Incentive formula allocations.

Devon Indicative incentive element by “band” of self-assessment ranking (£) Total needs/formula allocation (£) Band 3 Band 2 Band 1 announced in highest band medium band lowest band December 2014 2015/16 42,306,229 No incentive funding 2016/17 38,784,623 2,347,737 2,347,737 2,112,964 2017/18 37,610,754 3,521,606 3,169,446 2,112,964 2018/19 34,042,193 7,090,167 4,963,117 2,127,050 2019/20 34,042,193 7,090,167 3,545,084 709,017 2020/21 34,042,193 7,090,167 2,127,050 0

During 2015 Devon was successful in securing an additional Challenge Fund of £10.2 million to provide replacement street lighting luminaires on all main roads with low energy alternative. This will reduce revenue funded maintenance and energy costs and will reduce street lighting carbon emissions. Work on the Street Lighting Energy Efficiency project will continue in 2016/17 and the following year.

Bids for other Challenge funding will be made when the opportunity arises.

In summary, funding for 2016/17 is:

DfT Settlement (needs based) £38,785,000 DfT Incentive Funding (anticipated) £2,348,000 Carry over from 2015/16 £361,000 DFT Challenge Fund (street lighting) £5,079,000

Total £46,573,000

5. Trends in Road Condition

Machine based ("SCANNER") carriageway surveys are carried out annually to provide condition data on road carriageways.

In presenting summary findings of the surveys, road lengths that have only minor deterioration are shown in green, lengths that should be considered for maintenance works immediately are shown in red and lengths that are at stages of deterioration in between are shown in amber. See Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 attached.

The summary findings show that Devon's A, B and C roads are being maintained is relatively steady state and good condition. This reflects the aims set out in the approved Highway Asset Management Plan.

Unclassified roads combined with C roads, make up 87% of Devon's road network. The summary findings show that the unclassified road network has a relatively high proportion that should be considered for maintenance work immediately i.e. 23% in red condition and 47% in the amber condition. This reflects the fact that the level of available capital funding is insufficient to carry out structural maintenance on the entire Devon road network.

Page 8 The condition trend shows that from 2007/08 to 2010/11 or 2011/12 the proportion of roads in the red condition was increasing. Since 2011/12, the trend is for a reduction of road length in the red condition. This supports the Asset Management approach to target preventative maintenance treatments, like surface dressing, rather than higher costs programmes of reconstruction work, which would enable less road length to be maintained.

Work on the major road network and key links into communities has been made a high priority. This matches the primary winter salting network, which is designed to keep communities and businesses on the move when winter weather affects the county.

Despite capital investment in carriageways, the condition of a large part of the C and unclassified road network remains a concern. The evolved nature of these roads, combined with limited resources to carry out strengthening work, and the normal process of wear and tear under usage leaves such roads vulnerable to the formation of potholes and other surfacing failures.

6. Analysis

Devon's highway network represents the largest capital asset managed by the Council.

The asset has been valued at £12.99 billion (Gross Replacement Cost) under CIPFA guidance (excluding land costs). This includes all highway assets such as footways, bridges and street lighting. Carriageways (road surfaces and the underlying construction layers) form by far the greatest part of Devon's highway assets by value. The value of carriageways alone is £11.13 billion.

The accumulated depreciation of the highway asset has been calculated as £1.21 billion. This figure represents the loss in value of the asset due to ongoing deterioration. Using asset management models the annual rate of depreciation has been estimated as approximately £86 million per annum which is the level of investment required to maintain all elements in a steady state condition. Whilst there will always be a level of residual defects (those that are awaiting repair) in the asset, the accumulated depreciation figure indicates that there is a lag in maintenance which is the equivalent of 14 year’s worth of “steady state” funding.

Modelling of the carriageway component of the asset indicates a need for approximately £62 million per annum to maintain carriageways in a steady state.

The current budget does not provide sufficient funding to meet the annual cost of deterioration of the asset and as a consequence the condition of certain elements of the highway asset will get worse.

Whilst the funding prioritises the strategic routes, the authority’s asset strategy has a wider remit in ensuring all communities have access to a road infrastructure which is resilient, well connected and safe. It is necessary that the investment in the main roads is complimented by ensuring that good access to local communities is maintained. Therefore an investment will continue to be made on roads outside of the A and B network that are included in the primary salting network, and other roads prioritised by maintenance category.

Recent winters have been more severe in terms of adverse weather events than any in the last 30 years and December 2015 was the wettest month ever recorded. The effects are felt not just in the revenue cost of dealing with the events as they arise and in the immediate aftermath but also in serious ongoing attrition of the surface and structure of the County's highway infrastructure.

Page 9 During 2016/17 a proportion of the available funding will still be required to continue to repair the legacy of storm damaged surfaces that have suffered a high number of potholes.

The programme to upgrade bridges on the principal roads to meet the 44 tonne gross vehicle weight capacity has been substantially completed although a few smaller structures on minor roads will require strengthening over the coming years.

Overall, Devon’s bridge stock is classed as “Good” in the nationally adopted method of assessing and reporting condition. The size of Devon’s bridge stock is such that despite this overall score, there remain over 800 structures classed as “fair” or “poor”. The “poor” structures are managed and the level of risk is mitigated by weight restriction signs and other physical measures.

The overall condition of the highway retaining wall stock is assessed as “poor” and this is reflected in the number of retaining wall collapses in recent severe weather conditions.

A prioritised programme of replacing street lighting columns will continue to focus on older vulnerable lighting columns to mitigate the risk of column failure. Investment has been made in the street lighting remote monitoring system and the implementation of LED lighting, the latter funded from the successful Challenge Fund bid, on all main roads. This will reduce the demand for revenue funding of energy and routine lighting maintenance.

7. Capital Highway Maintenance Programmes: 2015/16

Appendix I shows progress with the Highways programme. Appendix II shows progress with the Bridges and Highway Structures programme.

8. Capital Highway Maintenance Programmes: 2016/17

The available funding for 2016/17 is £46,573,000. It is proposed that the funding is allocated as follows:

Highway Structural Maintenance £38,678,000 Bridges & Structures £6,200,000 Schemes carried forward from 2015/16 programme £1,695,000

Total £46,573,000

A more detailed breakdown of the allocation is outlined in Appendix III and Appendix IV.

Based on the network condition data, presented in figures 1 to 4, the level of funding for the A and B road network, has been reduced compared to 2015/26. This is because the proportion of the A and B road network in the red condition has been reduced to between 2 and 3 percent in recent years, and the target for this network is 4%. This adjustment enables more of the available funding to be used to maintain the C and unclassified road network.

Key elements of the proposed allocations include:

(i) Highway Structural Maintenance (HSM): Principal Roads (A class roads):

£2.7 million for specific larger schemes with a high pothole count and structural defects or which will rectify carriageways with potential skidding defects.

£2.3 million for surface dressing and preparatory patching works. This will surface dress

Page 10 carriageways in 2016/17 and prepare for the 2017/18 dressing programme.

All will target roads where the condition survey data shows roads to be "red" and "amber" The total is £5 million, compared to £5.4 million in 2015/16.

The right level of Skidding Resistance is an important contribution to road safety. The County’s Skid Management Strategy has been reviewed in 2015 (Appendix V) and is based on the Highways England standard HD28/15 “Skidding Resistance” which identifies survey method, the level of skidding resistance required at differing locations and a risk based approach to analysis and treatment of those sites identified as being deficient in skidding resistance.

The levels put forward in the code are defined as investigatory levels which trigger an engineering analysis to establish what if any action should be taken. HD28/15 was developed for trunk road use and Devon has adapted the approach within the code for local roads where vehicle speeds and volumes tend to be lower. It is neither good value for money or practicable for all roads on the highway network to be surveyed for skid resistance. Devon therefore carries out routine annual surveys on the principal road network. In addition sites identified as being skid collision sites through the annual review of collision are included in the programme of surveys.

Initial analysis of the 2015 survey data has identified 3284 sites for skid resistance treatment investigation. The sites make up approximately 17% of the principal road length in the County which is broadly similar to previous years and compares favourably with the most recently published national average of 22%.

It is not possible to treat all parts of the principal road network that are currently below the current standard. Therefore the investigation is prioritised and limited to potentially high risk sites with a history of collisions. This includes sites with a reported skidding resistance deficiency and a history of collisions on wet surfaces, and others with a high deficiency (greater or equal to -0.15) and collisions on dry surfaces.

(ii) HSM Non-Principal Roads:

£2.164 million for non-Principal roads to undertake preparatory patching and surface treatment on local roads.

£11.8 million for surface dressing and surface dressing preparatory patching work. This will surface dress carriageways in 2016/17 and prepare for the 2017/18 dressing programme.

£0.5 million for unclassified urban estate roads for preventative maintenance.

(iii) Footways:

£1.7 million for footways. A significant programme of footway slurry sealing is planned. It is proposed to target £250k of footway budget to repairing slab footways in urban areas. Such footways generate a lot of defects reports. Consideration will be given to replacing such footways with alternative surfaces in consultation with local communities.

(iv) Drainage:

£1.1 million for drainage repair and upgrading. Drainage problems on the winter salting network and other major roads will be a priority.

(v) Road Restraint Systems:

Page 11 £1.7 million for the upgrading and replacement of road restraint systems. This will mainly focus on barriers on major roads, high risk sites, A road timber posts, timber post systems that cross the M5 motorway or trunk roads and roads crossing or adjacent to railways.

(vi) Street Lighting and Traffic Signals:

£7.232 million for replacing streetlight components including the 2016/17 DfT Challenge Fund allocation of £6.512 million for the LED (low energy) programme on major roads.

£0.5 million for replacing dilapidated Traffic Signal equipment, including new low energy consumption electrical options.

(vii) Bridges and Structures:

£0.45 million for bridge strengthening schemes. A programme is proposed to strengthen five priority sub-standard bridges on lower category roads during 2016/17. These have either a very low carrying capacity or show significant signs of distress. Where appropriate, other sub-standard bridges are being managed using a risk-based approach “Management of Sub-standard Structures”.

£2.574 million for repair and strengthening of highway retaining wall structures. The increased rainfall in recent years has resulted in significant number of failures of retaining walls, highway embankments and cutting slopes. Priority structures retaining the highway will be strengthened and repaired.

£0.49 million for scour protection. The effects of extreme weather events continue to impact on all highway structures with bridges being particularly vulnerable to scour in extreme flooding events.

£0.525 million for replacing dilapidated components on major routes such as the A380, A361 and A39. This will focus on priority worn out components, like bridge joints, bearings and bridge deck waterproofing.

£0.65 million for bridge and retaining wall inspections and bridge strength assessments. Structural inspection and assessments are necessary to identify and prioritise essential works to maintain and improve the condition of the stock of highway structures.

(viii) Storm Damage:

£2 million for storm contingency work. This is required because DfT has said that local highway authorities need to make provision within the overall DfT funding allocation. It has said that extra money will not be provided in the future.

9. Options/Alternatives

The programme for 2016/17 optimises the use of the available funding in accordance with the agreed Highway Asset Management Plan.

The programme uses the allocation made directly by Government for capital maintenance of highway assets. Devon’s analysis is that the level of funding is not enough to meet all of the highway needs of the local road network.

An alternative to the Asset Management Plan preventative regime would be to repair roads on a 'worst first' basis. However this would cost about a third more over time to maintain

Page 12 road condition. In going against sound asset management principles it could also adversely affect future financial settlements from DfT who have said that they will take this into account in future funding allocations.

10. Consultations

The results of the 2015 National Highways and Transport (NHT) Public Satisfaction Survey reflect public perception of performance, importance and desire for various activities to be funded. Analysis shows that the condition of the highway network and the speed and quality of repairs are important to the public.

The complete survey can be seen at http://nhtsurvey.econtrack.com

A summary of the results illustrating condition of road surfaces since 2009 is shown at Appendix VI. The survey shows that the level satisfaction with the condition of the highway in Devon is low at 36%. Although this is an improvement on the 2014 results (30%) the longer term trend has been one of reduced level of public satisfaction in the last 6 years. A similar trend is evident in the results for neighbouring authorities in the South West Region.

11. Sustainability Considerations

The ability to efficiently transport people and goods around the County underpins Devon's economy and has a direct impact on the quality of the environment.

When maintenance work is undertaken it is managed to ensure that the effect on the surrounding environment is kept to a minimum. On carriageways, surface treatment and reconstruction work is tightly controlled to achieve long term durability. Recycled materials and secondary aggregates are used whenever possible. When carriageway surfacing incorporating primary materials is required, a durable low noise material such as stone mastic asphalt is considered.

Construction contracts include for recycling plans to ensure that the use of natural resources is reduced where recycled alternatives exist.

12. Carbon Impact Considerations

The carbon impact of this highway maintenance programme through the manufacture and planning of the materials is likely to be offset by reduced emissions from highway users utilising a better maintained network, and using suitable alternatives such as walking and cycling.

The replacement of street lighting and traffic signal equipment with low energy components, including the introduction of LED lighting on main roads will contribute to reducing the County Council’s carbon footprint.

13. Equality Considerations

Where relevant to the decision, the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty requires decision makers to give due regard to the need to:

 eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other prohibited conduct;  advance equality by encouraging participation, removing disadvantage, taking account of disabilities and meeting people's needs; and  foster good relations between people by tackling prejudice and promoting

Page 13 understanding.

Taking account of age, disability, race/ethnicity (includes Gypsies and Travellers), gender and gender identity, religion and belief, sexual orientation, pregnant women/new and breastfeeding mothers, marriage/civil partnership status in coming to a decision, a decision maker may also consider other relevant factors such as caring responsibilities, rural isolation or socio-economic disadvantage.

This may be achieved, for example, through completing a full Equality Impact Needs Assessment/Impact Assessment or other form of options/project management appraisal that achieves the same objective.

A copy of an updated overview of the impact assessments for all service areas has been circulated separately and is available to all Members of the Council at: https://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/published/budget-setting-201617/ which Members will need to consider for the purposes of this item.

This assessment shows that over 75% of those responding felt that major roads should be given priority in the budget decision making and similarly over 80% felt that minor roads should be given a priority.

14. Legal Considerations

The lawful consequences of the recommendations have been considered in the preparation of this report.

The reduction in the revenue allocation will put more pressure on the amount and type of work that will be completed in the capital budget. This will lead to an overall reduction in maintenance standard and potential road closures, particularly on the minor part of the network. This may be legally challenged by local residents and other road users.

There is also likely to be an increase in user dissatisfaction and complaints which could lead to challenges to the Authority under Section 56 of the Highways Act.

A reduction in routine maintenance could also result in more safety defects that will lead almost inevitably to an increase in third party claims and potentially litigation.

15. Risk Management Considerations

The proposals contained in this report have been assessed and all reasonable actions are taken to safeguard the Council's position.

The cumulative reduction in the revenue budget has significant implications for this capital allocation. Inability to undertake enough planned and general preventative maintenance work will result in an increased depreciation to the highways asset. This will lead to increased deterioration and defects and as a consequence, increased repair costs with potential for claims, which will put pressure on revenue and staffing budgets.

Where risks have been identified such as those associated with cost inflation or inclement weather, which could disrupt the capital programme by causing higher than anticipated costs or delays respectively, the implications have been taken into account in preparing this report. This includes developing long term programmes and the provision for reasonable contingencies in the estimates for capital highway and bridge maintenance schemes.

Page 14 16. Public Health Impact

The cumulative reduction in budgets could also have an impact on public health with reduced maintenance having an effect on sustainable travel alternatives, and potentially more injuries resulting from crashes, trips and falls.

17. Reasons for Recommendations/Conclusion

The DfT capital settlement for 2016/17 provides the funding for capital maintenance of highway assets and this report sets out proposed programmes for different highway assets.

However, it should be noted that it only provides funding to 54% of the amount of maintenance funding required to keep the highway assets in their current condition.

The proposed programmes are designed to make best use of the available financial resources using the Cabinet endorsed approach to highway asset management.

David Whitton Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste

Electoral Divisions: All

Cabinet Member for Highway Management and Flood Prevention: Councillor Stuart Hughes

Strategic Director, Place: Heather Barnes

Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers

Contact for Enquiries: David Whitton

Room No: AB1 Lucombe House, County Hall, Exeter

Tel No: 01392 383379

Background Paper Date File Ref.

None

ch170316cab CRHM Capital Budget Progress on 2015 16 Schemes and the 2016 17 Programmes hk 05 040416

Page 15 Figure 1 To HCW/16/31

Figure 1

Figure 2 To HCW/16/31

Figure 2

Page 16 Figure 3 To HCW/16/31

Figure 3

Figure 4 To HCW/16/31

Figure 4

Page 17 Appendix I To HCW/16/31

Page 18 Appendix II To HCW/16/31

Bridge Assessment & Strengthening Programme 2015/16

Scheme Name Budget Scheme Line £'000 Bridge Strengthening Schemes

Creedy Bridge (1568) 110 Wisdome Bridge, Cornwood No 0447 40 Waterstave Bridge (legacy completion work) 6 Langford Shuffhayes 5

Retaining Walls Programme Development 5 A386 Landcross 200 Bray Quarry +650m 160 Byter Mill 400 Combe Martin 140 Diptford 15 Fairview Road 16 Farrants Hill 122 Hardstone 100 Nadrid Cross 57 Cloonavon 105 Marlborough Road 30 Strand Hill 85 West of Ward House 95 A379 (Brixton to Yealmpton) 48 East Allington 10 Gatcombe Mill 10 Buckland Court 41 The Mill, Umberleigh 60 Bray Quarry -550m 1 Old Sidmouth Road 2

Scour Protection

Stage 1 Assessments (Jacobs) 110 Stage 1 Assessments (EDG) 8

Sub-Standard Parapets

Bridford Mill 20 Fatherford 45

Principal Inspections (Bridges) 200 Principal Inspections (Retaining Walls - Jacobs) 133 Principal Inspections (Retaining Walls - EDG) 5 Principal Inspections (Bridges)- Laser Scans 20

Page 19 Scheme Name Budget Scheme Line £'000

Bridge Strength Assessments (EDG) 15 Bridge Strength Assessments (Jacobs) 52

Post Tensioned Special Inspections 100

Traffic & Signing Replacing damaged/obsolete signs at low headroom bridges 60

Management of Sub-Standard Structures 3

Major Refurbishments Shaldon Bridge Lifting Span 105 A380 Teign Estuary Viaduct 3,160 Shaldon Bridge Tie bars and painting (part complete) 575 Fremingtom Viaduct (part complete) 390 Rock Park Viaduct (part complete) 390 River Exe Viaduct 460 River Yeo Cyclebridge (part complete) 25 River Bray Viaduct (fwd design) 2

Minor Refurbishment (Bridge Maintenance) 200

Forward Design (Bridges) Alma F/B 10 Denham Bridge (scour) 10 Axmouth Bridge (scour) 15 Norley (parapets) 10 Bovey Bridge 50 Bideford Long Bridge 28 Ironbridge Exeter 20 Hornshayes 5 Devonport Leat 12 Sidford Two Bridges 5 Higher Crook 25 Crediton Station Leat 6

Page 20 Scheme Name Budget Scheme Line £'000

Forward Design (Retaining Walls) Bow Road, Harbertonford 37 Hillside Road, Ilfracombe 50 Rockside 15 Tuckermarsh 61 Russelll Court 35 Stoke Woods 40 Bittaford 20 Beacon Lane 10 Brayford Quarry +950 5 A377 Blackboards 25 Newton Ferrers Riverside Rd West 2 Byter Mill 5

Total 8,441

Page 21 Appendix III To HCW/16/31

Page 22 Appendix IV To HCW/16/31

Bridge & Structures Programme 2016/17

Scheme Name Estimate £'000

Bridge Strengthening Schemes 450

Retaining Wall Strengthening Schemes 2,574

Scour Protection Schemes 490

Sub-Standard Parapet Replacement Schemes 105

Principal Inspections (Bridges) 300

Principal Inspections (Retaining Walls) 150

Post Tensioned Special Inspections 100

Bridge Strength Assessments 100

Upgrading Height Restriction Signs to comply with Euopean Standards 150

Component Replacements on Major Route Bridges (A380 & A361) 525

Major Refurbishment 400

Minor Refurbishment (Bridge Maintenance & Shaldon Br) 326

Management of Sub Standard Structures (monitoring) 25

Forward Design Bridge Schemes 185 Retaining Wall Schemes 145 Major Refurbishments 175

6,200

Page 23 Appendix V To HCW/16/31

Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Appendix VI To HCW/16/31 Page 27 Page

Agenda Item 10

HCW/16/32

Cabinet 13 April 2016

County Road Highway Maintenance Revenue Budget and On-street Parking Account 2016/17

Report of the Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste

Recommendations: That: (a) the budget allocations for highway maintenance for 2016/17 be approved as detailed in Appendix I; (b) authority to amend the allocations between different work types to maintain overall the budget within the total allocation and to maximise the impact of the maintenance programme be delegated to the Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste; (c) the programme funded from the On-street Parking Account for 2016/17 as set out in Appendix II be approved.

1. Background

This report recommends the allocation of revenue highway maintenance funding for 2016/17 by maintenance function. In addition it also recommends for approval a programme of work identified in accordance with the provisions of Traffic Management Act 2004, to be to be funded from the On-street Parking Account.

Revenue funding for highway maintenance provides for the funding of reactive repairs and routine/cyclic maintenance.

The demand for reactive revenue funded highway maintenance is affected by the amount of capital investment in the highway asset. The need for structural repair of the network has been assessed using an asset management, data led approach. This shows that the level of Capital Funding currently available is not enough to prevent part of the network, particularly lower category rural roads and estate roads, from continuing to deteriorate. The result of this is that expenditure on reactive and safety related maintenance can be volatile, especially during and after severe weather events.

The year on year reduction in revenue funding for highway maintenance has led to the development of the current strategy; to drive efficiency in the delivery of the service, manage demand and enable community self-help.

Highway maintenance policies are being evolved to a more risk based approach. This means that increasingly, in considering the required investment in a maintenance activity, the likehood of severe inconvenience or injury is factored in.

Approval of the Capital funded Highway Structural Maintenance and Bridge Assessment and Strengthening Programme for 2016/17 is dealt with in a separate report. (Ref: HCW/16/31)

Page 29 2. Introduction

As the local highway authority, Devon has the duty to maintain a road network of 12,850 kilometres comprising:

970km principal (A) roads 660km non-principal (B) roads 4,510km non-principal (C) roads 6,710km unclassified roads

There are basically three types of maintenance works undertaken: (a) Reactive repairs such as pot-hole filling, dealing with flooding, replacing road signs and markings, clearing overhanging vegetation and the like, which, if neglected, would pose a potential danger to road users. Additionally during the winter period precautionary salting and snow clearance are carried out as needed. (b) Routine or cyclic maintenance such as gully emptying, grass cutting, cleaning and clearing of drainage pipes, ducts and channels and the like, mostly carried out to a defined frequency. (c) Planned, programmed or structural maintenance such as resurfacing, reconstruction, surface treatments, which is aimed at keeping roads structurally sound and reducing long term maintenance costs. This work is largely funded from the Capital budget.

This report deals with the funding of reactive repairs and routine/cyclic maintenance.

Within the County Council target revenue budget for 2016/17 the highway maintenance base budget has been set at £26,975,000. This figure includes an extra £1 million from the £8.4 rural and other grants funding approved by Cabinet on 12 February 2016. This curtails the reductions originally planned and will be used to support emergency response work; enhance routine maintenance of drainage systems; and enhance surface patching treatment to address areas with high frequency pothole problems.

The budget is made up as follows:

Road Maintenance £15,733,000 Street Lighting £4,446,000 Winter Maintenance, Emergencies & Depots £6,796,000 Total Revenue Budget £26,975,000

The service is under extreme pressure to deal with the impacts of historic Capital underfunding of highway structural maintenance and the effects of severe winter weather such as prolonged cold periods and flooding events, in recent years. Progress towards providing resilience across the whole of the network is proving to be very challenging, as evidenced by high numbers of potholes and recurring flooding related issues. This will remain a significant issue for the service in the foreseeable future.

3. Strategy and Analysis

The strategy of Devon Highways is to:

 drive efficiency in the planning, preparation and execution of works programmes,  enable Devon communities to help themselves thus allowing them to carry out some highway work where it is safe to do so,  manage expectation and demand for highway services,  deliver a programme of preventative maintenance based on sound asset

Page 30 management principles to hold the condition of as much of the network as possible,  deliver a focussed programme on a local resilience network,  agree with communities roads for planned decline (the lowest category roads),  identify options for stopping-up or reduced levels of service of some roads.

The above strategy has been used in deciding highway revenue budget savings for 2016/17.

Some savings have been made through efficiency gains. Other savings are based on adjusting levels of service.

The service has developed a range of community self-help schemes including the Snow Warden Scheme, Community Self-help (for individual projects), the Parish Partnership Self- Help schemes and the Road Warden Scheme. These schemes enable people to support, organise and carry out work on the highway that is a local priority but which cannot be provided as part of the core service delivered by the County Council, due to budget constraints. An allocation of £10,000 has been made from within the cyclic maintenance element of the highway revenue budget to support community self-help initiatives. It will for example allow for the purchase of equipment and materials.

4. Detailed Allocations

Detailed allocations by work function are given at Appendix I. These are based on Devon's asset management principles and experience of maintaining the network.

The overall reduction proposed for 2016/17 compared to 2015/16 is £1,180,000. This follows successive annual revenue reductions leading to a compounding of the effect on the highway network and does not account for unavoidable inflationary cost increases. Inflation has had to be added to some essential functions such as winter maintenance to sustain the level of service provided to deliver the current winter policy and this will affect delivery capability on some of the other work functions.

Specific proposals for revenue budget reductions are as follows:

Safety Defects: The budget is to fund the current level of service. It reflects reduced works costs due to improvements in methods of working. The safety inspection regime is undergoing a review and will be the subject of further reports to Cabinet. The review may lead to policy changes to enable better targeting of funding for safety defect repairs.

Street Lighting: The budget is for a reduction in planned work funded from this budget and a reduction in energy costs secured through a collaborative approach to energy procurement

Emergency Works: The budget reflects the cost outturn in 2015/16.

Bridge Works: The budget is for a reduction of planned routine structural maintenance works.

Hedge and Tree Maintenance: The budget reflects the cost outturn in 2015/16 on potentially dangerous trees.

Fencing: The budget allows for work on boundary fencing limited to safety issues.

Patching: The budget allows for reduced reactive patching work. This is offset by using other types of planned treatments to repair minor roads damaged by winter weather.

Page 31 Public Rights of Way: The budget allows for reduced seasonal vegetation cutting.

Incident Reaction: The budget reflects the cost outturn in 2015/16 and an improvement in the recovery of third party damage costs.

Winter Service: The budget allows for reduced resilience of white out fleet i.e. reduction in plant available to respond to snow events. We have experienced long periods of cold weather, but not large snow falls.

5. On-Street Parking Account

The expenditure of on-street parking income is restricted by legislation.

The costs of operating the on-street parking service is the first call on the income held in the On-Street Parking Account.

Any remaining funds/surplus must then be used in accordance with the eligibility criteria set out in legislation.

The current draw against the On-Street Parking account exceeds annual income by approximately £1million. This is currently afforded due to a surplus accrued over previous years.

Significant additional pressures have been applied to the account such that the rate of expenditure is no longer sustainable. Current projections see the surplus reducing to nil in the next 3 years (a small surplus being retained in the account as a contingency).

Once the surplus hits a minimum level, funding will need to be cut to projects/initiatives currently drawing from the On Street Parking account. In order to prepare for this the Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste will be working with relevant service leads to ensure transitional measures are taken. It is intended that this will include the setting of indicative three year funding allocations, incorporating phased reductions to funding as opposed to hard final year cuts, so as to enable better planning and any necessary consultations to be undertaken.

Highways and Traffic Orders Committees (HATOC) Waiting Restriction Project

As previously reported to HATOCs, 2016/17 sees the introduction of a managed process to deliver an annual programme of works to deal with the requests for waiting restrictions to be introduced or amended that the County Council regularly receives.

A budget of £100,000 has been allocated and it is recommended that this is divided equally between the 8 HATOC areas for the first year, each being allocated £12,500. If any HATOC has surplus funds these will be shared between other HATOC areas.

It is proposed that in future years the split of monies is informed by the contribution of each HATOC to the On Street Parking account; monies being allocated proportionally based on Pay & Display contribution.

The proposed On-Street Parking Account programme for 2016/17 is shown in Appendix II.

6. Options/Alternatives

The revenue funded programme for 2016/17 optimises the use of the available funding to provide for reactive and clear up activities, winter maintenance, safety defect repairs and

Page 32 routine and cyclic maintenance activity.

The distribution of funding is based on experience of managing the network, data on asset management and consultation feedback. It strikes a balance between the competing needs of the network and the needs of the travelling public and compliance with the statutory duty to maintain the highway.

There is a need for in-year flexibility in the funding of work functions to enable the service to respond to unforeseen and extreme events.

7. Consultations

The results of the 2015 National Highways and Transport (NHT) Public Satisfaction Survey reflect public perception of performance, importance and desire for various activities to be funded.

Analysis shows that the condition of the highway network and the speed and quality of repairs are important to the public.

The complete survey can be seen at http://nhtsurvey.econtrack.com

A summary of the results illustrating condition of road surfaces since 2009 is shown at Appendix III. The survey shows that the level satisfaction with the condition of the highway in Devon is low at 36%. Although this is an improvement on the 2014 results (30%) the longer term trend has been one of reduced level of public satisfaction in the last 6 years. A similar trend is evident in the results for neighbouring authorities in the South West Region.

8. Financial Considerations

The cost of this work will be met from the County Council's Revenue Budget.

9. Sustainability Considerations

The ability to efficiently transport people and goods around the County underpins Devon's economy and has a direct impact on the quality of the environment.

When maintenance work is undertaken it is managed to ensure that the effect on the surrounding environment is kept to a minimum. On carriageways, surface treatment and reconstruction work is tightly controlled to achieve long term durability. Recycled materials and secondary aggregates are used whenever possible. When cleaning and other cyclic work is undertaken soil and other material is returned to roadside verges if appropriate.

10. Carbon Impact Considerations

The carbon impact of this highway maintenance programme through the manufacture and laying of materials is likely to be offset by reduced emissions from highway users utilising a better maintained network, and using suitable alternatives such as walking and cycling.

The continued implementation of part–night street lighting and LED replacement programmes contributes to reducing carbon emissions.

11. Equality Considerations

Where relevant to the decision, the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty requires decision makers to give due regard to the need to:

Page 33 • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other prohibited conduct; • advance equality by encouraging participation, removing disadvantage, taking account of disabilities and meeting people’s needs; and • foster good relations between people by tackling prejudice and promoting understanding.

Taking account of age, disability, race/ethnicity (includes Gypsies and Travellers), gender and gender identity, religion and belief, sexual orientation, pregnant women/ new and breastfeeding mothers, marriage/civil partnership status in coming to a decision, a decision maker may also consider other relevant factors such as caring responsibilities, rural isolation or socio-economic disadvantage.

This may be achieved, for example, through completing a full Equality Impact Needs Assessment/Impact Assessment or other form of options/project management appraisal that achieves the same objective.

A copy of an updated overview of the impact assessments for all service areas has been circulated separately and is available to all Members of the Council at: https://new.devon.gov.uk/impact/published/budget-setting-201617/ Members will need to consider for the purposes of this item.

This assessment shows that over 75% of those responding felt that major roads should be given priority in the budget decision making and similarly over 80% felt that minor roads should be given a priority.

12. Legal Considerations

The lawful consequences of the recommendations have been considered in the preparation of this report. The reduction in the revenue allocation will put more pressure on the amount and type of work that will be completed in the capital budget. This will lead to an overall reduction in maintenance standard, and potentially result in road closures, particularly on the minor part of the network. This may be legally challenged by local residents and road users.

There is also likely to be an increase in user dissatisfaction and complaints which could lead to challenges to the Authority under Section 56 of the Highways Act.

Following an extreme event, the service may not be able to adequately react to it nor keep pace with safety defect repair policy timescales.

13. Risk Management Considerations

The proposals contained in this report have been assessed and all reasonable actions are taken to safeguard the Council's position.

The reduction in this budget has significant implications. Inability to undertake enough planned and general preventative maintenance work will result in an increased depreciation of the highways asset. This will lead to increased deterioration and defects as a consequence.

Where risks have been identified such as the public liability risk associated with compliance with Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 (the duty to maintain the highway and the duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow and ice) the implications have been taken into account in preparing this report.

Page 34 14. Public Health Impact

The cumulative reduction in budgets could also have an impact on public health with reduced maintenance having an effect on sustainable travel alternatives and potentially more injuries resulting from crashes, trips and falls.

15. Reason for Recommendation/Conclusion

Highway and Traffic services ensure the availability and preservation of a safe and functional highway network which support the economy of the County and region. A key strategic element for the Service, in the current financial climate, is to slow down the rate at which the asset will deteriorate by focusing on the review of service levels, specifications, system and processes to 'sweat the asset'. Nevertheless, reductions and insufficient budgets, either capital or revenue, will impinge on the standards of maintenance across the network and are almost certain to increase the rate of deterioration.

David Whitton Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste Electoral Divisions: All

Cabinet Member for Highway Management and Flood Prevention: Councillor Stuart Hughes

Strategic Director, Place: Heather Barnes

Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers

Contact for Enquiries: David Whitton

Room No: AB1 Lucombe House, County Hall, Exeter

Tel No: 01392 383379

Background Paper Date File Ref.

None ch170316cab CRHM Revenue budget onstreet parking account 2016 17 hk 07 040416

Page 35 Appendix I To HCW/16/32

County Roads Highway Maintenance Budget Allocation 2016-17

Function Narrative Total £ Routine Maintenance* 3,717,312 Cyclic Maintenance** 4,291,722 Retaining Walls & Bridges 733,719 Safety Reaction 6,364,905 Winter and Emergencies 6,796,084 Public Rights of Way 625,258 Street Lighting 4,446,000 Total 26,975,000

* Routine maintenance includes:-  patching  cycle routes  drainage  fencing  traffic signs  roadmarkings  traffic signals.

** Cyclic maintenance includes:-  grass cutting  weed treatment  siding & watertabling  hedge & tree maintenance  gully emptying

Page 36 Appendix II To HCW/16/32

On Street Parking Account 2016/17

Scheme Budget Allocation Public Transport Support 2,411,000 Park and Ride Business Rates 100,000 Stover Country Park & Grand Western Canal 212,000 Grass Cutting 200,000 Civil Parking Restriction Signing and Lining Maintenance 225,000 Route reviews and improvements to road signs and lines 100,000 Exeter Residents Parking Scheme (Carried over from 15/16) 249,000 Traffic Management Plans 100,000 HATOC Waiting Restriction Project 100,000 Speed Management 60,000 CPE Schemes & Maintenance Staffing Costs 339,000 IT costs relating to Parking and Traffic Management programmes 20,000 Support to Safety Camera Partnership 10,000 Real Time Passenger Information 78,000 Variable message signs - maintenance of 10,000 Special events , coning and signing 20,000 Disabled Bays 20,000 TOTAL 4,254,000

Page 37 Appendix III To HCW/16/32 Page 38 Page Agenda Item 11

HCW/16/33

Cabinet 13 April 2016

Waste Management - Sharing of Financial Savings through Collaborative Working with District Councils to reduce Treatment and Disposal Costs

Report of Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste

Please note that the following recommendations are subject to consideration and determination by the Cabinet (and confirmation under the provisions of the Council's Constitution) before taking effect.

Recommendations: (a) that support is given in principle to develop a sharing of savings mechanism whereby a District Council (Waste Collection Authority), working in collaboration with the County Council (Waste Disposal Authority) to deliver a significant waste collection service change which leads to a reduction in overall costs for the County Council, benefits from the net savings generated; (b) that an Agreement setting out the obligations of both parties be drafted and will be legally binding; (c) that delegated powers be given to the Head of Service (Highways, Capital Development and Waste) to agree the details of both the sharing of savings mechanism and Agreement, acting in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Community & Environmental Services, the County Treasurer and the County Solicitor.

1. Summary

Approval is sought in principle to develop a sharing of savings mechanism between the County Council as Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) and a District Council as a Waste Collection Authority (WCA) such that where a WCA introduces a significant waste collection service change that results in net savings to the WDA, these net savings are shared with the WCA.

2. Background/Introduction

It is widely acknowledged that working in partnership in waste management in two tier authorities can bring significant benefits including reduced treatment and disposal costs for the WDA. Both Somerset and Dorset have formed very successful waste partnerships which have delivered an improved single waste service across their areas. Efforts have been made over the previous three years to develop a similar single waste authority for Devon. This was supported by consultancy work to develop a sound business case but unfortunately this did not receive the necessary political support from enough authorities to enable a viable proposition to be progressed. However, the work did identify that significant savings could still be delivered by the WDA and WCAs working together without a formal partnership being in place.

The County Council Waste Management service has delivered over £5m worth of savings over the previous five years. These have arisen through retendering of contracts, and at Recycling Centres the introduction of charging for non-household DIY type waste, further restrictions on vehicles, and reduced opening hours including closure of some sites and exclusion of non-Devon residents at the Newton Abbot Recycling Centre. However, in this

Page 39 difficult financial climate, there is a need to deliver further savings and this can only be done by working in closer collaboration with the District Councils.

3. Proposal

Changes could be made to the waste collection systems which could deliver significant benefits to the WDA by enabling waste to be either treated though a cheaper process or actually reducing the overall amount of waste collected. Currently, green waste is collected free of charge by a number of Districts and mixed with food waste. This is then treated through in-vessel composting facilities, which is relatively expensive when compared to treating separately collected food waste through an Anaerobic Digestion plant and green waste through open windrow composting. WCAs are considering changing their waste collection services to offer a charged for garden waste collection service and introduce a separate weekly food collection along with providing an improved kerbside recycling service. Teignbridge and Mid Devon District Councils have already made these service changes as well as introduce an improved recycling service collecting cardboard and mixed plastics. This has the benefit of reducing overall waste arisings but also increases the amount of waste recycled and reduces residual waste. Initial results from Mid Devon show an increase of dry recycling tonnage of 37% and a reduction in residual waste of 17%. East Devon have just let their new waste collection contract which will include the introduction of improved recycling along with a 3 weekly residual waste collection scheme as part of their new service. All of these changes can generate significant savings for the WDA through both lower treatment costs and less waste to manage.

In order to make changes to a waste collection service, significant investment is required by the WCA with potentially an increase in overall collection costs to collect waste separately, whilst the WDA will potentially derive significant savings through reduced treatment and disposal costs. The WDA recognises this and hence proposes a sharing of savings with the WCA such that both benefit from the changes made and the overall cost to the public purse is reduced. It is hoped that such a mechanism will encourage all WCAs to consider significant waste collection service changes which will deliver savings.

A shared savings formula will need to be developed such that net savings generated by the change in waste collection service delivered by the WCA can be evaluated. It is proposed that savings will only be shared where they are as a direct result of actions taken by the WCA and will need to allow for any additional costs that may have arisen for the WDA as a result of the WCA change of service. Both parties will require certainty - the WCA to invest in a new service and the WDA to let new contracts to manage the waste in a more cost effective manner. Hence, it is proposed that a sharing of savings mechanism be underpinned by a legally binding Agreement which will set out the obligations of both the WCA and WDA.

4. Consultations/Representations/Technical Data

Discussions have been undertaken with representatives from each of the WCAs to establish the principles behind the scheme and a WDA/WCA Officer Working Party has been set up to take this work forward. It is envisaged that this proposal will form part of the work programme for the new Devon Authorities Strategic Waste Committee to review the proposals. Development of a sharing savings mechanism to improve collaborative working and service efficiency fully accords with the principles underpinning the Heart of the South West programme.

Page 40 5. Financial Considerations

The fundamental principle behind the proposed scheme is that only net savings will be shared and hence there should be no increase in costs to the County Council as a result. Average gate fees for more expensive treatment and disposal options range from around £76/ tonne for in-vessel composting to around £116 / tonne for landfill (including Landfill Tax). Cheaper waste treatment options currently range from around £37/ tonne to £57 / tonne. Consequently it can be seen that significant savings can be generated by treating waste through cheaper processes or moving from disposal to recycling. Preliminary work suggests that savings in the region of between £200,000 to £400,000 per year could be generated per WCA as a result of a WCA introducing significant service change. This could yield a share of the savings for the County Council of around £1 million across Devon should all WCAs sign up to the proposed scheme.

6. Environmental Impact Considerations

Encouraging separate collections of food waste, introducing further recycling and reducing overall waste arisings all help to ensure that waste is managed in a sustainable way and put to good use to recover value where possible.

7. Equality Considerations

Where relevant to the decision, the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty requires decision makers to give due regard to the need to:

• eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other prohibited conduct; • advance equality by encouraging participation, removing disadvantage, taking account of disabilities and meeting people’s needs; and • foster good relations between people by tackling prejudice and promoting understanding. taking account of age, disability, race/ethnicity (includes Gypsies and Travellers), gender and gender identity, religion and belief, sexual orientation, pregnant women/ new and breastfeeding mothers, marriage/civil partnership status in coming to a decision, a decision maker may also consider other relevant factors such as caring responsibilities, rural isolation or socio-economic disadvantage.

This may be achieved, for example, through completing a full Equality Impact Needs Assessment/Impact Assessment or other form of options/project management appraisal that achieves the same objective.

In progressing this particular proposal, an Impact Assessment has been prepared which has been circulated separately to Cabinet Members and also is available alongside this Report on the Council’s website at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/cma.htm, which Members will need to consider for the purposes of this item/meeting.

Following the carrying out of the Impact Assessment, it is considered that this proposal would not discriminate against or disadvantage any group.

8. Legal Considerations

It is proposed that an Agreement be drafted setting out the obligations of both the WCA and the WDA which is legally binding on the parties. This will give the WDA certainty with regard to the contracts that need to be let to manage the waste and confidence to the WCAs to

Page 41 invest in the required changes in collection infrastructure. A 10 year term is being proposed with a review after 3 years to ensure the scheme is working as the parties intended.

9. Risk Management Considerations

Only net savings generated by service changes made by a WCA will be shared with the WCA and hence there should be no overall increase in costs to the County Council as a result of this scheme. The Agreement will set out the obligations of both parties and should ensure collaborative working delivers net savings for both parties.

Flexibility across the overall waste budget may be reduced as a result of this proposal as essentially the budget for each WCA will need to be identified such that savings for each WCA can be measured.

10. Public Health Impact

There will be no impact on public health.

11. Discussion

In order for the County Council to make further savings on its waste management service, it needs to work in a more collaborative manner with its WCAs. Initial discussions with the WCAs suggest that this proposal will encourage them to consider introducing more cost effective waste collection services, which will deliver savings for the County Council, if they could benefit from the net savings generated.

This proposal will enable waste treatment and disposal savings to be measured on a WCA area and for those savings resulting from action by a WCA to be shared with them as an incentive to make those service changes.

12. Options/Alternatives

The ability to deliver further savings by working more collaboratively between the WDA and WCAs has been highlighted on both a national and local level, and was evidenced in Devon by the consultancy work to develop a single waste authority.

Whilst it has not been possible to develop a single waste authority, it is anticipated that the introduction of this proposal may deliver some of the potential savings identified through the earlier work undertaken.

13. Reason for Recommendation/Conclusion

This proposal could yield significant savings for the WDA on treatment and disposal costs by encouraging WCAs to make significant changes to their waste collection services. These changes are likely to reduce the volumes of waste produced, increase the volumes of waste recycled and/or enable the waste collected to be treated through cheaper processing facilities. David Whitton Head of Highways, Capital Development and Waste

Electoral Divisions: All

Cabinet Member for Community and Environmental Services: Councillor Roger Croad

Strategic Director, Place: Heather Barnes

Page 42 Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Wendy Barratt

Room No. County Hall, Exeter. EX2 4QD

Tel No: 01392) 383000

Background Paper Date File Reference

Nil

wb150316cab Waste Management - Sharing of Financial Savings through Collaborative Working with District Councils to reduce Treatment and Disposal Costs hk 02 310316

Page 43

Agenda Item 12

PTE/16/21

Cabinet 13 April 2016 Flood Risk Management Action Plan 2016/17

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment

Please note that the following recommendations are subject to consideration and determination by the Cabinet (and confirmation under the provisions of the Council's Constitution) before taking effect.

Recommendation: It is recommended that Cabinet: (a) approves the implementation of the County Council’s 2016/17 Flood Risk Management Action Plan; (b) delegates to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for flooding, any changes to the programme and related expenditure of less than £50k.

1. Summary and Purpose of Report

The Flood & Coastal Risk Management Team has continued to develop a number of high priority flood improvement schemes, as well as the delivery of minor works and local resilience measures. These have been progressed in accordance with the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy and in line with the indicative funding allocations of the Defra 6 year programme. The aim of this report is to provide Cabinet with an update on delivery of the 2015/16 Flood Risk Management Action Plan and gain approval for the implementation of the proposed Action Plan for 2016/17. A process, by which actions can be amended or reprioritised, subject to delivery opportunities, is also proposed.

2. Update on Achievements for 2015/16

Devon County Council’s Flood & Coastal Risk Management Team has developed a significant programme of flood improvements and is working closely with all of the other Risk Management Authorities in Devon to deliver these in a timely manner. Where practical, a number of minor flood improvements and resilience measures have been delivered through local funding opportunities; however, the larger capital schemes have been included in Defra’s 6 year programme to take advantage of national funding.

The draw-down of Defra funding is a lengthy process requiring a robust business case to justify the economics, environmental impacts/benefits and viability of the schemes. This involves significant studies, site investigations and impact assessments to support the detailed design and cost estimation. Some of Devon’s highest priorities, including Axminster, Braunton and Modbury, are well advanced in this process and practical works are due to start in 2016/17; earlier commencement has been frustrated by a range of technical and legal issues. This emphasises the challenges of delivering within a financial year period and highlights the benefits of working within Defra’s defined 6 year programme.

As a result of the works delivered by this Authority during this current financial year, over 50 properties have been provided with improved flood protection. In addition, works are nearing completion on the Defra-funded Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Project which, over the last two and half years, has helped over 24 communities and benefitted over 4000 properties by providing local resilience and self-help measures. The continued development of the major schemes will reduce the risk of flooding to a further 250 properties during

Page 45 2016/17. The ongoing programme of works in future years, including both minor local improvements and those within Defra’s current 6 year programme, aims to reduce the risk of flooding to more than 500 additional properties. Other areas under investigation will continue to increase the number of properties being afforded flood improvements or resilience measures.

Detail on the work undertaken by the Flood & Coastal Risk Management Team during 2015/16 is set out in Appendix I. The current projection is for approximately £1 million to have been spent on the provision of flood management measures by DCC in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority.

3. Proposed Action Plan for 2016/17

As detailed above, a number of major schemes are well advanced and looking to move into the construction phase during 2016/17. The proposed Action Plan for 2016/17 will, therefore, take into account the progression of these works and will also highlight new localities for investigation that have been prioritised through the criteria set out in the Devon Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

A number of other practical initiatives will be progressed in support of the Strategy. This will include an ongoing focus on community resilience, as a legacy of the Defra Pathfinder Project, with Devon Communities Together and the new Devon Resilience Forum being important partners in the delivery of this approach. There will also be an increased emphasis on natural flood management; pilot studies and experience from elsewhere will be used to develop best practice in land management and to convey this to landowners across the County.

The proposed Action Plan for 2016/17 is attached as Appendix II. This currently profiles an over spend of 10% against 2016/17 budgetary allocations in order to provide flexibility in the programme for any efficiencies made or delays encountered. This will be closely monitored throughout the year to ensure delivery is kept within the available budget. Additional funding from Defra’s “Flood Defence Grant in Aid” and Local Levy will be accessed as required, subject to scheme justification.

4. Consultations/Representations/Technical Data

The delivery of local flood improvements will require regular consultations with residents, community groups, Parish/Town Councils, local Members and other relevant Risk Management Authorities to ensure good engagement and to appropriately manage expectations. It will, also, assist in joined-up planning and prioritisation and the identification of opportunities for partnership working and shared funding arrangements.

5. Financial Considerations

The funding allocations for the works identified in the 2016/17 Action Plan will be from dedicated flood risk management revenue budgets. Where projects can be undertaken collaboratively, this will be linked to additional contributions through other Risk Management Authorities. For larger schemes requiring capital funding, this will be achieved through Defra’s Flood Defence Grant in Aid and supported by Local Levy and/or additional partnership funds from local sources such as developers, businesses and other scheme beneficiaries (including local residents). Where appropriate, DCC revenue allocations are capitalised.

Whilst the Action Plan currently shows expenditure against 2016/17 budgetary allocations, a further sum of approximately £400k is expected to be carried forward from past

Page 46 underspends. If confirmed, this will provide flexibility for expansion of the programme, and to provide a contingency for any increase in costs or emergencies.

In order to limit future or ongoing financial liabilities to DCC flood risk management budgets, every effort is made to avoid any enduring maintenance responsibilities when supporting the implementation of new flood protection works.

6. Sustainability, Equality and Public Health Considerations

All flood improvement schemes will be developed in accordance with the Equality and Environmental Assessments produced in support of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. Each individual scheme will be assessed at the appropriate stage using the corporate, integrated assessment tool, with relevant equality and environmental impacts identified and acted on as necessary.

The works outlined by the Local Strategy and the 2016/17 Action Plan are all designed to improve the protection afforded to communities and individual properties currently at particular risk of flooding and, thereby, support health and wellbeing. More than just protecting the properties alone, it should be noted that flood water has the potential for transporting contaminants, such as sewage; so, reducing flood risk has clear health benefits.

7. Legal Considerations

All works will be carried out in accordance with the powers and duties assigned to DCC under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the Land Drainage Act 1991 and any other relevant legislation. The lawful implications and consequences of the proposals and relevant actions will be taken into account through their development.

8. Risk Management Considerations

It should be noted that flooding is already identified as a high risk in the corporate risk register and that this programme is intended to address that. As each scheme is progressed, it will be assessed to ensure that all necessary actions are carried out to safeguard the Council's position.

It has been previously reported that there is a lack of resources available to many of the District Councils, with the resulting risk of their being unable to address local flood issues, with an increased reliance on DCC. There is a need for close ongoing engagement, both politically and at officer level, to maintain partnership working and deliver against key priorities, whilst managing public expectations.

9. Discussion

The delivery of an annual programme of flood improvements is essential to continually reduce the risk to many properties within Devon that have suffered, or are at a high risk of, flooding. The proposed Action Plan for 2016/17 includes a number of physical schemes that will benefit in excess of 250 properties, together with a number of proactive studies for future schemes to be developed in line with Defra’s 6 year programme. All of the Risk Management Authorities have regular contact either through specific project meetings or forums, such as the Devon Operational Drainage Group, to share the priorities of their organisations and look for partnership working opportunities.

Page 47 10. Options/Alternatives

In view of the large number of communities having suffered flooding in recent years and the growing expectation for assistance, the option to do nothing has been discounted.

The proposed projects identified in the 2016/17 Action Plan (Appendix II) have been prioritised based on the specific criteria set out in the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Devon. It is likely that the detail of this programme will change over the course of the year, due to funding opportunities or uncertainties over delivery etc. Any changes up to a £50k limit will be undertaken in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member and the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment. Each scheme will undergo an options appraisal process to identify the preferred option that will give maximum benefit for the community within the available budget.

11. Reason for Recommendation/Conclusion

The extent of flooding to properties over recent years has created a large list of communities requiring assistance to reduce this problem. There are many other communities who are at significant risk of future flooding, particularly from surface water sources, as identified through our programme of Surface Water Management Plans and Drainage Assessments. The effect of flooding on people’s properties and businesses is devastating and there is an essential need to reduce this future risk in order to benefit Devon’s economy and the health and wellbeing of affected communities and individuals. The adoption and implementation of this Action Plan by DCC will demonstrate the proactive approach being taken by DCC in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority.

Dave Black Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment

Electoral Divisions: All

Cabinet Member for Highway Management and Flood Prevention: Councillor Stuart Hughes

Strategic Director, Place: Heather Barnes

Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Martin Hutchings

Room No. Lucombe House, County Hall, Exeter. EX2 4QD

Tel No: (01392) 383000

Background Paper Date File Reference

Nil

mh300116cab Flood Risk Management Action Plan 2016 17 hk 03 010416

Page 48 Appendix I To PTE/16/21

Update on Achievements for 2015/16

1. Devon wide

Highway related flood improvements – The Flood & Coastal Risk Management Team has continued to support Highways with the provision of funding for minor improvements to reduce the risk of flooding to properties caused by surface runoff from the highway or blocked/damaged highway assets. Successful improvements and investigations, to the value of over £50k, have been completed in Braunton, Ilfracombe, Stokeinteignhead, East Budleigh, Ottery St Mary and Uplyme.

Surface Water Management Plans / Drainage Assessments – The programme of Surface Water Management Plans and Drainage Assessments, as recommended in the initial strategic review of Devon, has continued, with new investigation progressed within Ottery St Mary, East Budleigh, Newton Abbot, Shaldon and Teignmouth.

Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Project – The 2 year Defra funded Pathfinder Project is now complete and has achieved successful outcomes for the 24 communities included within the programme as well as additional communities that have requested similar assistance. Many of the communities now have well prepared emergency action plans and self-help resilience measures. One of the main legacies of the project was to develop the community led Devon Community Resilience Forum, which is now being hosted by Devon Communities Together.

It is estimated that over 4,000 properties will have benefited either directly or indirectly from the resilience measures implemented through this project and the continued focus on helping communities become more resilient will continue to increase this figure.

A grant based scheme has recently been set up by DCC to enable communities at risk to draw down funding and purchase essential resilient equipment from sandbags to signs to torches for wardens. This has been well received and it is expected that the initial £30k provided will be fully committed. Future initiatives will also be considered over the next 12 months, such as partnering with other Risk Management Authorities to coordinate an event with the Flood Advisory Service, along with continued support for the Community Resilience Forum.

North Devon Nature Improvement Area – Ongoing support for this project has enabled the delivery of a number of natural flood related improvements that not only reduce flood risk but also improve water quality and land management. Such improvements include the management of farmed, semi-natural habitats (particularly Culm grassland) to store water and reduce runoff. This project will also support the development of best practice for land management techniques and processes.

Property Level Protection – Up to 35 individual properties will have been provided with local resilience measures this current financial year, subject to final completion. This has been well received by residents who face the prospect of no viable scheme being available for their community in the near future and provides them with a line of defence to assist during flood conditions.

Statutory Consultee for Sustainable Drainage (SuDS) – As a result of the Government’s decision not to implement Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act, which would have established a SuDS Approving Body, DCC (as Lead Local Flood Authority) has,

Page 49 instead, become a statutory consultee to other Local Planning Authorities for all major developments with surface water implications. Since this came into force on 6th April 2015 over 520 applications have been reviewed and consultation responses provided. This is greater than the estimated number of applications that were expected, but the dedicated officers have developed an excellent working relationship with all of the planning authorities, providing training and continued support, to deal with these applications within the required timescale.

2. East Devon area

Axminster Millbrook – Phase 1, which consisted of a flood wall barrier, has been completed and provides limited protection until completion of Phase 2.

The Project Appraisal Report (PAR) for flood improvements on the Millbrook Stream has been submitted and is currently under review by the EA’s National Project Assurance Service for Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA). Commencement of construction has been delayed until May 2016 due to an issue with legal title of the culvert, which was originally under ownership of British Rail and held under a residuary. The Government has recently abolished BRB (Residuary) Ltd and transferred some assets including this culvert to the Highways England Historical Railways Estate. Unfortunately Highways England has not yet finalised legal title and, therefore, is not in a position, nor willing, to allow early access. We have been pursuing this as a high priority to gain access and for the asset to be transferred to DCC.

The scheme will aim to reduce the risk of further flooding to over 40 properties that suffered internal flooding in 2012 and provide benefit to approximately 120 other properties in the area.

Feniton – This project continues to be led by East Devon District Council (EDDC), with funding support from DCC in previous years. Construction work has commenced on site.

Sidmouth Surface Water Management Plan – The recommendations of the completed surface water management plan are now under review.

Uplyme Flood Study – A number of improvements have been implemented including a silt trap and check weirs on the Cooksmead watercourse and further works are underway to increase the capacity of the watercourse with improved footbridge to the rear of the Village Hall and a reinforced overflow channel adjacent to the tennis courts. Major improvements are also being considered to improve the culverted watercourse sections through the village, which will be subject to available funding.

Whimple – This scheme is being led by the Environment Agency and has faced difficulties in achieving a cost viable solution. DCC’s contribution has not been required this financial year, but will be reviewed if the EA is able to progress with the preferred culvert improvements. An alternative option for Property Level Protection may be progressed if the current efforts to progress the capital works are not achieved.

Lympstone – Possible improvements are under consideration, subject to funding, to protect 11 properties at risk of flooding from a tributary of the Wotton Brook.

Exmouth – DCC is working in partnership with South West Water to carry out hydraulic modelling and scheme options to be considered for any immediate minor improvements or future investment.

Page 50 Old Feniton – DCC is also working in partnership with South West Water at Old Feniton to carry out a flow monitoring exercise to gain an understanding of the volume of surface water entering and overloading the combined foul drainage system. Results of the study will be available shortly and options will then be considered for improving any areas identified as having a significant issue.

3. Exeter area

Exeter Flood Defence Scheme – The Environment Agency led scheme is progressing well with Phase 1 complete. The tender process for Phase 2 is complete and the contract soon to be awarded. It is expected that this second phase will commence on site in June 2016 and will be completed by Spring 2018.

Exeter Surface Water Management Plan – The recommendations of the study are now being considered for implementation. An initial programme of ‘quick win’ works is to be developed and then a list of medium term improvements that will be considered in line with the Defra funding that is available, subject to justification, in 2017/18.

4. Mid Devon area

Cullompton Study – The recommendations of the study are being progressed and a preferred scheme developed. A partnership approach with the Environment Agency is being pursued for the practical delivery of a scheme. Consideration is currently being given to ways in which to avoid any potential displacement of the flood risk downstream.

5. North Devon area

Braunton Surface Water Management Plan – The detailed design of the preferred option is well underway and proving to be a challenge in achieving a cost viable scheme and one that can be handed over to the Parish Council for maintaining in the future. It is anticipated that a workable solution will be determined and scheme construction to commence this calendar year. The scheme will aim to reduce the risk of flooding to the majority of the 65 properties that flooded in 2012 and provide wider benefits to other properties at risk in the area.

Umberleigh Flood Investigations – As a result of the study carried out for Umberleigh, it was concluded that a cost viable scheme was not achievable to protect from the main river and that nuisance flooding from surface water could be reduced with the use of property level protection. A scheme to provide assistance to 12 properties is underway and due to be completed in early April 2016.

Barnstaple Flood Study – Further enhancements to this study were undertaken in partnership with North Devon Council to provide a strategic approach for managing flood risk for future regeneration of the study area.

6. South Hams area

Ivybridge Flood Improvements – The project has been allocated on the Defra 6 year programme for funding in 2016/17, subject to a robust business case, and a scheme design is underway. The previous scheme proposal, handed over from South Hams, was unachievable and a viable option is now being sought. This will benefit more than 20 properties with a high risk of flooding and four which have suffered regular, internal flooding.

Kingsbridge Study – The initial study identified the main sources of flood risk were from main river and the tide which falls under the responsibility of the Environment Agency to progress. They are now taking the lead through a partnered approach with DCC and South West

Page 51 Water. Hydraulic modelling is now underway to investigate the improvement options that could be considered.

Modbury Flood Management Scheme – Site investigations and detailed design of the preferred scheme options are progressing well and the development of the project appraisal for funding justification is underway. It is anticipated that construction works will commence early in 2017.

Yealmpton – Flood improvement works at Boldventure, Forde Road and Creamery Close have been completed in partnership with South Hams District Council. Flood defence improvements on the main river are being led by the Environment Agency. Up to 6 properties will benefit from the minor works being delivered by DCC, with more than 20 likely to be helped by the Environment Agency led project. Major capital investment to improve the flood defences along the main river were proving to be not cost beneficial and therefore a programme of property level protection works is being promoted by the EA and supported by DCC through the procurement process.

Frogmore – Landowner agreements and scheme design have delayed a scheme being progressed by the Parish Council. DCC’s Flood & Coastal Risk Management Team is continuing to liaise with the Parish Council to assist delivery.

Dartmouth – The proposed scheme, handed over from the Environment Agency for DCC to deliver, proved to be unviable due to downstream connections into the public sewerage system and the effect this would have on South West Water’s (SWW) pumping station. Further discussions are being held with SWW to consider options to progress these improvement works.

7. Teignbridge area

Stokeinteignhead – Phase 1 of the improvement works to improve drainage of the lower part of the village have been completed. This included a new culvert and additional drainage connections in the identified low area and improved drainage in Forches Hill and Church Lane. This will provide benefit for up to 5 properties. The design of Phase 2 improvements, which involves upstream flood attenuation, is now being progressed and, subject to a robust business case for Defra funded being delivered, it is anticipated that works will commence in 2017.

Page 52 Appendix II To PTE/16/21

Devon County Council Action Plan for 2016/17 to Support the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy or 2016/17 Other Lead Works DCC Funding Design Projects/Works/Schemes Details of Proposal Authority Contribution Sources £ £ Study,

Devon Flood Risk Management Team DCC - 250,000 Resources required to deliver the Flood Risk Management functions as the Lead Local Flood Authority and Statutory Consultee for SuDS. Strategic Catchment Flood Risk DCC S 50,000 Further detailed assessment of those areas identified in the Strategic Database and Prioritisation Surface Water Management Plan for Devon, including Dartmouth, Newton

Page 53 Page Abbot or Teignmouth. Local Drainage DCC S 50,000 To continue with the proactive assessment of flood risk in identified Assessments/Minor Surface locations through the Surface Water Management process. Water Management Plans Minor Works and Improvements DCC/Others W 50,000 Delivery of minor flood improvement works, subject to resources and in accordance with the DCC priority list and opportunities with other Risk Management Authorities. Minor Flood DCC/Others S 30,000 Delivery of flood investigations, surveys and studies, subject to resources Investigations/Studies and in accordance with the DCC priority list and opportunities with other RMAs. Property Level Protection DCC/Others W 25,000 25,000 Allocation of funds to support Individual Property Protection and supported with additional Flood Defence Grant in Aid funding through the Medium Team Plan. DCC Highway related flood DCCH W 30,000 Contributions from the FRM budget to support various minor highway improvements improvement works where the risk of flooding to property can be reduced. Community Resilience and DCC W 30,000 To provide assistance to communities for the delivery and provision of support Flood Resilience Measures. North Devon Nature NIA W/S 20,000 DCC contribution to support the project and encourage the use of Improvement Area sustainable drainage methodology. Natural Land Management DCC/Others W/S 50,000 To develop best practice and progress opportunities for delivering natural flood risk management techniques in partnership with other RMAs and key stakeholders. East Devon Axminster Millbrook Phase 2 DCC W 50,000 290,000 Contribution towards construction of phase 2 of the flood improvement works in conjunction with Flood Defence Grant in Aid. Old Feniton SWW S 15,000 10,000 Flood investigations and drainage assessment in partnership with South West Water. Sidmouth Surface Water DCC D 30,000 Consideration of the preferred options leading to detailed design and Improvements - Design preparation of Project Appraisal Report for FDGiA. Uplyme Flood Study DCC S 20,000 Development of Project Appraisal Report to support FDGiA funding bid and delivery of viable option. East Budleigh EA W 10,000 Review of drainage assessment and delivery of minor improvements.

Lympstone DCC W 25,000 Develop options and deliver minor flood improvements.

Exmouth SWW/DCC S 25,000 Continue to work in partnership with SWW and consider options for flood improvements and any funding requirements. Ottery St Mary DCC W 20,000 To review drainage assessment and develop options for delivery, subject to funding. Page 54 Page

Exeter Exeter Flood Defence Scheme EA W 32,550,000 Upgrade existing defences from the River Exe to provide a higher level of (2013 - 2017) protection. Although this is not a DCC led scheme in 2014/15 it should be noted that DCC are contributing £3million over the next 3 years to support the improvement works. Exeter Surface Water DCC D 40,000 Development of scheme options and production of PAR to support funding Improvements - Design bid for surface water flood improvements and delivery of any minor works. Topsham Flood Improvements ECC W 20,000 Contribution to Exeter City Council towards surface water element of proposed flood improvement works.

Mid Devon Cullompton Flood DCC D/W 25,000 Progression of recommendations from catchment study in partnership with Improvements the EA, subject to scale of works and funding requirements/opportunities.

North Devon Braunton Surface Water DCC D/W 150,000 400,000 Completion of Project Appraisal Report to support funding bid and Improvements contribution towards construction of phase 2 of the flood improvement works in conjunction with Defra funding. Umberleigh Flood Investigations DCC W 10,000 Completion of resilience project commenced Feb/March 2016. Bishops Tawton EA W 20,000 Contribution from DCC to EA to incorporate surface water improvement works into main scheme.

South Hams Modbury Flood Management DCC D/W 100,000 300,000 Delivery of detailed design and PAR to achieve FDGiA and progression of Scheme recommended flood improvements. Ivybridge Flood Improvements SHDC D/W 50,000 80,000 Delivery of detailed design and PAR to achieve FDGiA and progression of recommended flood improvements. Kingsbridge Study SWW S 20,000 To continue working in partnership with other RMAs to assess potential flood improvements and develop options. Dartmouth DCC S/W 15,000 To consider options in partnership with SWW and the EA to reduce flood risk in Victoria Road area, subject to appropriate cost benefit and funding.

Teignbridge Stokeinteignhead DCC D/W 80,000 150,000 To develop the detailed design and PAR to support funding request for FDGiA and to progress scheme delivery of preferred option. Broadhempston DCC S 10,000 To review surface water flood risk and consider improvement options. Page 55 Page

Torridge There are currently no ordinary watercourse, surface or ground water schemes identified, in the Torridge area, on the DCC priority list. Other schemes relating to Main River or tidal flooding may be considered by the EA or minor drainage issues by the District Council.

West Devon There are currently no ordinary watercourse, surface or ground water schemes identified, in the West Devon area, on the DCC priority list. Other schemes relating to Main River or tidal flooding may be considered by the EA or minor drainage issues by the District Council.

Total Budget Allocation 1,320,000

The above budget allocations are estimates that are subject to change or maybe deferred as other priorities and opportunities arise. The total expenditure currently shows a 10% over-budget spend on the projects element of the budget. This will be monitored throughout the year to ensure the budget is not exceeded and will automatically defer incomplete projects. This means that some projects will not be completed during this financial year and will be considered for the following programme. Incoming Budgets Grant to fulfil requirements as the Lead Local Flood Authority as defined Defra funding for LLFA 548,000 under the Flood and Water Management Act. DCC contribution towards Flood DCC budget allocation to support the implementation of Flood Risk Risk Management 312,000 Management. Provision for Statutory Consultee role for SuDS 85,000 Statutory Consultee role to the LPA for major developments. Corporate budget to support delivery of major schemes and drawdown of Corporate Flood Risk Budget 250,000 national funding.

Total Budget 1,195,000 Page 56 Page Agenda Item 13

EE/16/7

Cabinet 13 April 2016

District Heating Networks: Approval to procurement process for selection, with other stakeholders of an Energy Services Company

Report of the Head of Economy and Enterprise

Please note that the following recommendations are subject to consideration and determination by the Cabinet (and confirmation under the provisions of the Council's Constitution) before taking effect.

Recommendation: That (a) DCC becomes a shareholder of a public sector Energy Services Company (ESCo); (b) DCC, subject to a successful procurement of a private sector energy partner, commits to invest £147,000-£177,000 Capital into the joint venture company as a share of the required public sector equity stake, to achieve a return; (c) DCC leads on the procurement of an energy sector partner, on behalf of the ESCo, providing an income stream on a full cost recovery basis.

1. Summary

This report considers the formation of an Energy Service Company (ESCo), in partnership with 5 other public bodies to procure a private sector partner to deliver District Heating Networks in Exeter.

2. Background/Introduction

Following Cabinet approval in November 2012 to investigate the formation of an ESCo to deliver district heating in the Exeter area, DCC and 5 public sector partners (Exeter City Council, East Devon District Council, Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust, Teignbridge District Council and University of Exeter) have been working to establish the feasibility and viability of supplying competitively priced low carbon heat. This has been supported by £285k funding from Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) through their Heat Networks Delivery Unit.

Heat networks, also called district heating (DH) and combined heat and power (CHP) enable heat generated at a central point to be distributed to a number of buildings through insulated pipes (See Appendix I for local schematic). This generally uses the heat produced as a by- product of electricity generation, using heat that would be wasted in large power stations, making this a low carbon option. The Exeter area is at the forefront of district heating in the UK, with the rollout of Cranbrook and a similar scheme at Monkerton and Science Park recently announced.

DCC’s investment in the ESCo will enable the Council to achieve a return on investment and influence the development of the network and potential future energy projects across Devon. It will also contribute towards delivery of economic outputs, energy security and strategic carbon reduction as guided by district local plans.

Page 57 3. Proposal

3.1 Overview

Two separate Exeter schemes have now been identified as being technically feasible and economically viable:  A city-wide retrofit scheme connecting primarily public sector heat loads, the RD&E hospital to the city centre;  A scheme taking heat from the Marsh Barton EfW plant to SW Exeter.

The city centre retrofit scheme envisages a large new gas CHP at the RD&E which provides electricity and heat for the hospital and exports low carbon heat to Exeter City Council buildings (Civic Centre and new pool complex), and other private sector DH ready buildings along the route. See Appendix I. Currently this does not include County Hall as the economic case is weak and we already have a low carbon heating solution. DCC could join the scheme at a later date.

A public sector ESCo could lead on a SW Exeter scheme, using heat from the Marsh Barton Energy from Waste plant, working with EON and Viridor. However, timescales and procurement may mean it is more suitable to support the private sector in delivering this scheme without public sector direct investment. DCC already has a stake in heat from the EfW.

The immediate aim of the ESCo is to procure a private sector partner with whom to form a Joint Venture Company (JVCo) to deliver the scheme. Following procurement the ESCo provides a vehicle for public sector partners to influence JVCo’s development. Next stages would be: a.Partner approvals b.Set up an ESCo c. ESCo procures a Private Sector Partner d.Succesful procurement set up JVCo – capital investment required e.JVCo sets up Special Purpose Vehicle for Exeter City Scheme and raises finance f. JVCo sets up Special Purpose Vehicle for SW Exeter Scheme, should this apply

3.2 Corporate / Legal Structure

The proposed legal structure envisages a public sector joint ESCo being established. This entity will then procure a private sector partner (PSP) which will fund up to 50% of the equity of a JV company (JVCo). Each public sector stakeholder therefore has a 1/12th (8.3%) net interest in the JVCo.

Each of the two schemes being considered for investment, with shareholders able to take an interest in either or both, would be set up as separate Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV’s). See schematic below.

It is envisaged that the estimated £16m investment for the city wide SPV would be largely project financed by financial institutions (typically 10% equity and 90% debt).

Page 58 3.3 Benefits

Participation in the ESCo provides a number of potential benefits to the Council:  It is anticipated the project will make a healthy return of 9.7% IRR (internal rate of return) on investment with a relatively small capital outlay.  Potential to link in the EfW plant and use the heat generated.  Economic benefits - such as job creation and retention and energy security.  Ability to connect County Hall to the scheme at a future boiler replacement date.  Public sector investment giving confidence to the private sector to participate in procurement and maximising bid offers.  It reinforces Devon’s local relationships with other public sector bodies for the maximum collective benefit.  Enables future schemes to be developed, for example Newton Abbot and Barnstaple.  Investment in low carbon heat supports Devon’s commitment to low carbon development in the Exeter growth point area and provides a vehicle for future expansion into other technologies and ventures, supporting Innovation Exeter and Exeter Futures agendas. Potential to raise investment through linkage with the Exeter Futures model.  Government remains committed to renewable heat and Heat Networks and grant funding (from a £300m capital pot aimed at projects currently supported by HNDU) may likely be available for the project.  Networks proposed are an initial phase and can be extended on commercial terms to third party consumers, some of which are already “district heat” ready through Exeter City Council’s planning policy.

3.4 Resources and Timescales

The RD&E hospital, as host of the energy centre, is critical to the city wide scheme and has therefore been the first partner to seek internal approvals. The RD&E Board approved investment on 27th January 2016, with the Exeter City Council approval on 23rd February. East Devon District Council has approved participation in the ESCo but no investment in the JVCo, as these schemes are not in their district. Subject to other Partner approvals in

Page 59 March, the next stage is to agree ESCo shareholder structure and procure a private sector partner, likely through a negotiated tender process. DCC would need to provide resources to enable the procurement to be completed as follows:

Requirements Proposed DCC resource Capital funding Economy & Enterprise may be able to allocate up to £147,000- £177,000 in 17/18 to cover capital expenditure. A funding proposal has gone in to Corporate Capital Group – a verbal update will be provided. Revenue funding Should the approval be given, the other partners would like DCC to lead on procurement and would be prepared to fund DCC procurement staff. Economy and Enterprise would need to provide a minimal revenue resource along with partners towards ESCo annual corporate requirements e.g. report and accounts. Procurement team are happy to consider this on a full cost recovery basis. Staff resource To date time has been up to 0.5 FTE. A full time procurement project manager would be required for up to 12 months to lead on the JV partner procurement, funded by the partners. Support of around 0.1 – 0.2 FTE would potentially be needed between Economy, Procurement, Legal, Finance and Waste teams during the process. Ongoing limited staff time would be required for participation in the ESCo and JVCo.

Planned Timescales: Date Partner decisions Jan - Apr 2016 Public sector ESCo formed April/May 2016 Private Sector Partner (PSP) procurement process Spring 2016 onwards Private Sector Partner appointment (subject to successful Mid 2017 procurement) JV Co and SPV’s set up, debt funding identified 2017/18 Scheme delivery 2018/19 Investigate and apply for grant funding Spring/Summer 2016

4. Consultations/Representations/Technical Data

The 2012 City Centre and SW Exeter technical studies are available on Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council website. Technical studies for the RD&E hospital and the business case documents are considered commercially sensitive.

5. Financial Considerations

Business case information has been reviewed by Capital Finance personnel with respect to the methodology employed and basis of returns anticipated. However the procurement process will further refine these financial models.

Looking at the business case produced by Deloitte, under the base case assumptions, the JV is forecast to make a project IRR of 9.7%, equity IRR of 21.5% and EBIT over 25 years of £42.6 million (in nominal terms). The base case assumes the company is financed by 10% equity 90% debt gearing at a 6% interest rate. It is expected that each public sector stakeholder will invest in the JV equally, with a total equity injection of £1.75million (nominal) shared between investors in the geared company.

Page 60 A sensitivity analysis has been performed which demonstrates the JV is expected to perform satisfactorily under various scenarios, including a 10% increase in operating costs, or discounts to heat or electricity sales.

Including the SW EfW link reduces the project IRR from 9.7% to 9.4%, slightly reducing returns to shareholders.

The project group will need to come to an agreement on how much capital each stakeholder is willing to invest, and the preferred commercial way forward for setting up the JV.

The forecast result assumes a 90% geared 50:50 JV with the private sector, with each of the public sector partners sharing the public sector investment equally. This would result in nominal dividends of £1.6 million received over the 25 year project period. If the number of partners was reduced to 5, the investment would be £177k per partner to achieve the same returns.

There is a potential to apply for additional grant funding to increase the returns from the scheme from DECC later in 16/17 and an Expression of Interest has been submitted to HotSW LEP for Growth Deal 3 funding.

6. Environmental Impact Considerations

The scheme has been estimated by University of Exeter, as part of the technical feasibility work, to reduce carbon emissions by 3,600 tonnes per year when built out. The use of district heating is an integral part of the Exeter and East Devon Growth Point Board’s aim to promote sustainable growth in the area and links with Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council planning policies including on the use of district heating and carbon reduction in new developments.

7. Equality Considerations

Following the carrying out of the Impact Assessment it is considered that this investment would not discriminate against or disadvantage any group.

8. Legal Considerations

The implications/consequences of the recommendations and proposed course of action have been considered and taken into account in the preparation of this report.

Internal legal support will be required at the setting up of the ESCo, for example, to approve shareholder agreements and support provision of a Director. Legal support has historically been provided mainly through external funding and procured advice and it is expected that through the procurement process this will continue. However, some DCC legal resource will be required at key stages and at the setting up of the Joint Venture Company, should there be a successful procurement. DCC will likely need to allocate a Member or Officer to be a Director of the Joint Venture set up. The number of Directors has not yet been agreed but it is expected there will be one or two required across the six public sector partners.

9. Risk Management Considerations

The risk sharing partnership and financing structure of the Joint Venture is designed to minimise risk to the public sector. However, the apportionment of risks will be a critical element of the process to procure a private sector partner. The table below summarises some key risks and mitigation measures.

Page 61 Risk Mitigation Other partner(s) do not approve Partners have senior management ESCo. commitment. If needed, other 5 partners cover the additional 1/6 of investment and procurement costs between them. DCC schedule means we will be aware of the majority of other partners’ decisions by Cabinet date. Lack of competitiveness in Ensure competitive tension through procurement. robust procurement strategy including good marketing material, PIN soft market testing. Failure to procure a suitable Financial evaluation shows that there is Private Sector Partner. value in the project for the Private Sector Partner. Suppliers are interested in principle. A Suppliers Day will be used to estimate suppliers’ appetite and address any key issues. The apportionment of risks will be agreed as part of the procurement process. Poor design, commissioning or Transfer risk to contractors through installation. procurement by JV. Effective monitoring and quality control. Rigorous commissioning and testing to be specified in contracts. Appropriate insurance etc. Future energy prices fluctuate. JVCo in a better position to manage energy price risk than partners individually. DECC forecasts factored into business case. New partner wishes to get The involvement of any new partner involved, causing project delays. would have to be considered very carefully, to ensure this does not have a negative impact on the procurement exercise and time taken to carry this out. Partner drops out during Shareholder agreements will be set up procurement process. so that as long as a “successful” procurement is achieved partners cannot drop out during the process. Definition of “successful” to be agreed by all partners upfront. Regulation of the heat market. Likely to have a positive impact on market penetration.

10. Public Health Impact

Not applicable, other than a potential for reduced energy costs for the RD&E hospital.

11. Discussion

Becoming a shareholder in the ESCo and investing in the JVCo would produce a return on investment and enable the ability to work with partners to deliver this and future energy projects. This may enable cost reductions through energy efficiency as well as income generation. We are already working with Teignbridge and North Devon on district heating

Page 62 opportunities in Newton Abbot and Barnstaple. This would also enable economic benefits for the area, including more resilient energy supply, sustainable growth, jobs created/safeguarded and an income stream for the wider public sector. This also gives potential to investigate opportunities to work with the private sector more widely, such as with Exeter City Futures, to enable improved investment models and investigate other opportunities.

We are currently in a position where a number of partners are in their approval process. If insufficient partners approve the next stages then this project will not go ahead, although not all six partners are required to provide a viable level of investment to move forward.

12. Options/Alternatives

The main alternative is to continue “business as usual” with DCC not participating in the scheme, meaning we would not have the opportunity to influence development, use of heat from the EfW or make a financial return.

Option Pros Cons Continue “business as No cost or risk to DCC. No return on investment; less usual”. control over potential to utilise heat from EfW plant; no opportunity to work with partners on future schemes; reputational risk with public sector partners. Increase size of DCC capital Potential for increased Potential for increased risk; investment to increase income; more control over potential need for increased shareholding and return on JVCo. Member/staff involvement. investment. Contribute revenue funding Equal sharing of Likely revenue costs for DCC to procurement process. procurement costs across all in 16/17 of approximately partners. Increased overall £80k; less incentive for procurement budget. partners to utilise most cost effective procurement route. Become a shareholder of the No financial risk. No return on investment; less ESCo but not invest in the control over potential to Exeter scheme. utilise heat from EfW plant; partners may not accept a non-investing partner in the ESCo.

13. Reason for Recommendation/Conclusion

Investment in the ESCo has the potential to enable the Council to achieve a return, deliver economic benefits to the area and work in partnership with public and private sector bodies to influence the development of the Exeter schemes and potential future energy projects across Devon. As the Council is taking a relatively small stake in the scheme and is not required to contribute revenues for procurement, the financial risk is relatively low. Shareholder agreements will be set up to ensure the risks are shared appropriately, with ongoing operational risks taken on by the private sector partner delivering the scheme.

Keri Denton Head of Economy and Enterprise

Page 63 Electoral Divisions: All in Exeter

Cabinet Member for Community and Environmental Services: Councillor Roger Croad

Strategic Director, Place: Heather Barnes

Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Melanie Sealy

Room No. Lucombe House, County Hall, Exeter. EX2 4QD

Tel No: 01392) 383000

Background Paper Date File Reference

Nil

ms210316cab District Heating Networks Approval to procurement process of an Energy Services Company hk 03 310316

Page 64 Appendix I To EE/16/7 Exeter Heat Loads Schematic

Page 65

Agenda Item 14

PTE/16/13

Place Scrutiny Committee 7 March 2016

Pollinators and Neonicotinoids

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment

1. Background

The County Council at its meeting held on 10 December 2015 considered a Notice of Motion on the protection of the bee population, from Councillor Hook, as follows:

“Bees play an essential role in food production. The bee population has been in alarming decline in recent years, due to various external influences. One such harmful influence is the use of neonicotinoids, an aggressive pesticide. Devon is heavily reliant on agriculture and this council will therefore prohibit the use of this pesticide on all land that it owns or manages in a proactive effort to reverse the destruction of the bee community here in Devon. The Council will also explore other ways which, in addition to banning this particular pesticide, will help the survival of the bee population. A report on other potential actions will be brought to Place Scrutiny.”

In accordance with Standing Order 6(6) the Notice of Motion was referred, without discussion, to the Cabinet for consideration on 13 January 2016. A briefing paper was provided for Cabinet which set out background information on pollinators and neonicotinoid insecticides (see Appendix 1).

It was MOVED by Councillor Croad and SECONDED by Councillor Hart, and RESOLVED:

(a) that, notwithstanding the provisions within the Council’s Rules of Procedure enabling Members directly to ask a Scrutiny Committee to review any area of Council activity, the Place Scrutiny Committee be invited to consider undertaking a piece of work on the issues raised by the Notice of Motion, and, if it be so inclined, to report any findings and recommendations to the Cabinet prior to any further consideration by the Council;

(b) that while the Notice of Motion may not fully reflect the current and complex position relating to this class of agricultural pesticides, Cabinet acknowledge that they do represent a threat to bees and other wild insects all of which are vital to the pollination of crops and the Place Scrutiny Committee be therefore be also asked to comment upon the desirability of and review a proposed ‘Pollinators Action Plan’, to be produced by the Head of Planning, Transportation & Environment and the Head of Business Strategy and Support; through which more detailed consideration might be given to any relevant restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids on County Council property and any opportunities to support the conservation of bees and other pollinators’.

2. Proposed Pollinators Action Plan

In line with this resolution, set out below are some initial proposals on potential actions which might be taken by DCC through a proposed Pollinators Action Plan.

• County Farms Estate – Establish a policy relating to the use of neonicotinoids on the County Farm Estate. Further discussion is required but either a voluntary or mandatory approach could be taken (noting that DCC could not make this mandatory for existing tenants). County Farms Estate tenants could be encouraged to implement other actions

Page 67 for pollinators e.g. entering into Countryside Stewardship, especially the Wild Pollinator package. Any policy or approach would need to be considered by the Farms Estate Committee. • Verges - DCC could encourage communities to manage road verges for the benefit of pollinators, where health and safety considerations allow. • Other parts of the DCC Estate - Encourage the planting of pollinator friendly plants on the DCC estate e.g. bee borders at County Hall, subject to budget availability and relative priority. • Planning - Ensure that, where reasonable, new development results in a net gain for pollinators. • Devon Local Nature Partnership - Work with partners to organise the Devon Pollinator Month in July 2016. Consider including a Devon Pollinator Challenge for schools, local authorities and others based on actions in the Government’s Bees’ Needs Campaign.

3. Conclusion

Rather than focussing, solely, on concerns relating to the protection of the bee population from the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, it may be more effective for DCC to adopt and implement a Pollinators Action Plan, working together with the Devon Local Nature Partnership.

Dave Black Head of Planning Transportation and Environment

Electoral Divisions: All

Cabinet Member for Community & Environmental Services: Councillor Roger Croad

Strategic Director, Place: Heather Barnes

Glossary

DCC Devon County Council EC European Community EU European Union NERC Natural Environment Research Council

Local Government Act 1972: List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Sarah Jennings

Room No. Lucombe House, County Hall, Exeter. EX2 4QD

Tel No: (01392) 383871

Background Paper Date File Reference

None

pc230216psc Pollinators and Neonicotinoids hk 02 240216

Page 68 Appendix 1 To PTE/16/13 Briefing Paper to Cabinet PTE/16/3

Cabinet 13 January 2016

Notice of Motion: Protection of the Bee Population

Briefing Paper by the Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment

1. Summary

The County Council at its meeting held on 10 December 2015 considered a Notice of Motion on the protection of the Bee population, from Councillor Hook, as follows:

“Bees play an essential role in food production. The Bee population has been in alarming decline in recent years, due to various external influences. One such harmful influence is the use of neonicotinoids, an aggressive pesticide. Devon is heavily reliant on agriculture and this council will therefore prohibit the use of this pesticide on all land that it owns or manages in a proactive effort to reverse the destruction of the Bee community here in Devon. The Council will also explore other ways which, in addition to banning this particular pesticide, will help the survival of the Bee population. A report on other potential actions will be brought to Place Scrutiny.”

In accordance with Standing Order 6(6) the Notice of Motion was referred, without discussion, to the Cabinet for consideration (County Council Minute 160 (d) refers).

This paper provides information to assist Members in responding to the Notice of Motion.

2. Background

The pollination services of bees and other insects are critical to food production and estimated to be worth between £430 million and £603 million a year to UK agriculture. However bee numbers are declining, not just in the UK, but worldwide. A number of complex causes are being investigated including disease, climate change, loss of habitat and the use of insecticides such as neonicotinoids (‘neonics’).

Neonics have been widely used worldwide for the last 20 years. They are all neurotoxins, attacking the central nervous system of insects, and are used to control pests in a wide range of situations e.g. seed treatments for cereals, sugar beet and oil seed rape (the largest use); soil treatment for pot plants; treatment for turf, and foliar sprays for orchards and glass house crops. Five neonics are authorised for use in the UK. Research now shows that exposure to neonics at sub-lethal doses can have significant negative effects on bee health and bee colonies. Build up of the pesticide over time impairs the bee’s immune and nervous systems (interfering with navigation). Research has also linked the decline of some aquatic insects, insectivorous birds and butterflies to neonics.

In 2012 the European Food Safety Authority published an assessment of the risks associated with the use of the three most common neonic pesticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam). As a result of this the EC introduced a precautionary ban on these three neonics, in certain circumstances, from December 2013. The ban is not time limited, however the EC stated that it would review the science within two years (there is no news on a date for this review to be published). The ban relates to use on

Page 69 flowering crops such as oilseed rape and sowing of treated seed during the spring and summer when bees are foraging. It allows the continued use of all neonics on crops such as winter wheat, on horticultural crops and for domestic use. The ban only applies to ‘crops attractive to bees’ and does not take into account the impacts on aquatic invertebrate species, birds or other insects which are also major areas of concern. It doesn’t currently cover a new neonic insecticide, Sulfoxaflor, which has been authorised for use by the EC but is not yet approved for use in the UK.

The UK Government did not support the restrictions but has implemented them as required. The government’s resistance was based on its view that field trial evidence did not support the restrictions and that there had not been sufficient analysis of the impacts of the alternative insecticides that would be used.

EU legislation allows Member States to seek an emergency authorisation for a restricted pesticide. In July 2015 the UK Government granted time-limited authorisation for use of two neonics for oilseed rape in Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. This was a controversial decision. Buglife has stated that recent harvest figures show that the need for emergency authorisation is a ‘total nonsense’. However the High Court cut short a legal challenge by Friends of the Earth.

A UK parliamentary debate on neonics took place on 7th December 2015. This was secured via a Parliamentary petition with 92,707 signatures asking the Government to ‘Please ban the use of neonics on crops’. The Government response included a commitment to protect bees and other pollinators using expert scientific evidence, a commitment to provide funding for farmers via Countryside Stewardship and its new Wild Pollinator and Farm Wildlife Package, and a commitment to address pollinator needs through implementation of the National Pollinator Strategy which was published in 2014.

All local authorities and other public bodies have a legal duty, under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in exercising their functions.

Buglife has identified specific ways in which Local Authorities can help pollinators:

1. Protecting pollinator habitats via the planning process. 2. Encouraging all new developments to provide for pollinators. 3. Stopping the use of insecticides on local authority land. 4. Establishing wildflower meadows on un-used areas of parks and public greenspace 5. Planting pollinator-friendly plants as part of amenity planting in parks, gardens and green spaces. 6. Planting trees for bees – blossom producing spring flowering trees such as apple, cherry, hawthorn, blackthorn, sallow. 7. Managing road verges for spring and late summer flowers.

Members of the Devon Local Nature Partnership (including Buglife) have been promoting the Government’s Bees’ Needs Campaign and July 2016 will be Devon Pollinator Month with a series of events and promotional activities. The Local Nature Partnership is coordinated by Devon County Council.

Dave Black Head of Planning, Transportation and Environment

sj141215cab Protection of the Bee Population Briefing Paper hk 02 121215

Page 70 Agenda Item 15

CS/16/16 21 March 2016 People’s Scrutiny Committee

People’s Scrutiny Committee

School Exclusions Review: Educational Outcomes Task Group

Final Report

1 Page 71 21 March 2016 Contents

Preface ...... 3

Glossary of Terms...... 4

Introduction ...... 5

Recommendations ...... 8

Overview ...... 9

The Views of Participants: Key Findings ...... 18

County Council: Interviews with Officers…………………………………….………….17

School Visits: Case Studies...... 21

Case Study: School A ...... 21

Case Study: School B ...... 24

Case Study: School C ...... 27

Case Study: School D ...... 30

Alternative Provider Visits: Interviews with Pupils / Staff...... 33

Conclusions...... 36

This report can be downloaded from: http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/democracycommunities/decision_making/cma/index_scs.htm

2 Page 72 Preface

The Task Group — Councillors Andy Hannan (Chair), Frank Biederman, Alistair Dewhirst, John Hone, Sara Randall Johnson and Margaret Squires — would like to place on record its gratitude to the witnesses who contributed to the review. In particular thanks to those schools that the Task Group visited, who provided such interesting sessions for the members.

In submitting its recommendations, the Group has sought to ensure that its findings are supported with evidence and information to substantiate its proposals.

On 22 June 2015 People’s Scrutiny resolved that the Educational Outcomes Task Group be reconvened for a discrete, time-limited piece of work reviewing school exclusions. The terms of reference for the review were:

1. To understand how the school exclusion process operates and the work undertaken to prevent exclusions. 2. To explore the reasons for exclusions, along with trends and incidence. 3. To assess the school based provision in place to reduce exclusion. 4. To consider alternative and offsite provision. 5. To examine the County Council’s commissioning of and education offer from the Schools Company. 6. To evaluate how funding is used to support students at risk of exclusion, including therapeutic and specialist support. 7. To review multi-agency engagement with children and young people at risk of exclusion. 8. To report back to the People’s Scrutiny Committee on the findings of the Task Group.

Limited time has necessitated that this report provides no more than a snapshot highlighting significant issues relating to educational outcomes.

3 Page 73 Glossary of Terms

EHCP - Education, Health and Care Plan: a statutory multi agency assessment with supporting actions and services. Similar to a Statement of Special Educational Needs, which it replaces.

EHE – Elective Home Education is the term used by the Department for Education to describe the parents’ (or carers’) decision to provide education for their children at home instead of sending them to school. This is different from home tuition or alternative provision by the local authority. Some parents may choose to engage private tutors, but there is no requirement for them to do so. Learning may take place in a variety of locations, not just in the family home.

FTE – Fixed-Term Exclusion (a child is temporarily suspended but returns to the same school). A fixed-term exclusion is always for a set number of days. During the first five days of a fixed-term exclusion it is the parents’ (or carers’) responsibility to make sure their child remains at home and is not present in a public place during school hours. For a fixed-period exclusion of more than five school days, the governing body (or local authority in relation to a pupil excluded from a pupil referral unit) must arrange suitable full-time education for any pupil of compulsory school age. This provision must begin no later than the sixth day of the exclusion, although in Devon every effort is made to start such provision from day one. The maximum amount of time that any child can be excluded from school for a fixed term is 45 school days in an academic year. This may be either a single exclusion of 45 days or a number of exclusions, which together total 45 school days.

Managed Move – A system designed to allocate a child who is at risk of permanent exclusion to another school, usually on a trial basis in the first instance.

PEX - Permanent Exclusion (a child is expelled from his/her school). For permanent exclusions, the local authority must arrange suitable full-time education for the pupil to begin no later than the sixth day of the exclusion – in Devon every effort is made to arrange such provision from day one. Alternative destinations for those excluded include another school, a Pupil Referral Unit and (exceptionally) Elective Home Education.

SEN - Means Special Educational Needs whereas SEND, the new term, means Special Educational Needs & Disability. Either term describes the needs of children who have a difficulty or disability which makes learning harder for them than for other children their age. Around one in five children has SEN at some point during their school years. SEN covers a broad spectrum of difficulty or disability, including behaviour problems in some cases. It is unlawful to exclude children simply because a school cannot meet their special needs.

Statement of Special Educational Needs - A statement is a document which sets out a child's SEN and any additional help that the child should receive. The aim of the statement is to make sure that the child gets the right support to enable him/her to make progress in school. A statement is only necessary if the school is unable to meet a child's needs on its own. Only around two per cent of children need a statement. In Devon headteachers are urged not to permanently exclude children with such statements.

Virtual School - The Virtual School supports all children in care who are living in Devon or who are looked after by Devon but living in another part of the country.

4 Page 74 Introduction

Many children don’t like school, particularly secondary school. For 5-16 year-olds going to school is compulsory and those aged 16 to 18 must now be in some form of education or training, with or without employment, until the age of 18. As with any form of compulsion resistance is inevitable, and we keep extending the experience. My parents left school at 13. I did my PhD research in a Leicestershire upper school which had been established to take only students who wanted to stay on to 16 with a view to going on to 18, with the others staying in their high schools until they were 15. When I arrived the school leaving age was raised from 15 to 16, which meant that the upper school had to take all the high school leavers, a significant proportion of whom resented this. Several 15 year-olds had to be dragged out of jobs and brought back to school. Not surprisingly it was a difficult year for that school, with an upsurge of troublesome behaviour from what were seen as ‘unmotivated’ students (Hannan, 1975).

Schools institutionalise children - they are socialised into acceptable forms of individual and group behaviour. In this country, although not in most others, they are made to wear school uniforms. Although no longer subject to corporal punishment they are disciplined in various ways, sometimes through a system of rewards designed to reinforce good behaviour, but more often through sanctions intended to punish them in other more subtle but sometimes more insidious ways, or through some combination of both. Some students resist this process and get in a good deal of trouble as a consequence. They are often those who do not respond well to an overly academic curriculum. If they don’t succeed at their school work they often seek status in other ways, by being rebellious.

Education is, we are told, about enrichment, personal fulfilment, becoming cultured – about learning how to be a responsible and participative citizen. But it’s also about social control, where the social order is reproduced, and where social inequality is legitimised. Schools are places which reflect the inequalities of the larger society. In terms of school exclusions, the same is true, as statistics to be given later will show.

What, then, are the ‘causes’ of school exclusion? Ofsted (2005, 2006, 2008, 2011) has identified these as inadequate policy and strategic management responses, the connection between poor learning and bad behaviour, and the lack of safe and encouraging environments to support vulnerable young people. The Children’s Commissioner for England (2012) has claimed that schools use exclusion inappropriately and fail to listen to the voices of those in danger of being expelled. Cowie, Jennifer & Sharp (2002) have argued that conflict between teachers and pupils is to some extent generated by the way schools are organised and run, and by the dominance of particular pedagogical approaches. Research (including our own) shows that some schools are more inclusive than others; even those with similar intakes can have very different rates of both permanent and fixed-term exclusions. It is also true that some teachers experience more pupil misbehaviour in their classes than others, even when the pupils are the same. Tucker (2013) found (like we did) that, for pupils who were asked about their teachers, ‘Understanding, tolerance and respect were perceived to be important qualities. Emphasis was also placed on the willingness of adults to listen and believe, and not to jump to premature judgments, hasty actions or rapid decisions’ (p 285). It seems that pupils have rules for teachers, like taking them seriously, not having favourites, marking their homework on time, and helping them to learn (Furlong, 1976). If these rules are broken then pupils are more likely to misbehave. However, according to Tucker (2013), the intensification of teaching and learning through an increased emphasis on meeting performance targets has led to the marginalisation of the provision of pastoral care for students. Those who need help may not get it and may behave badly as a consequence, some badly enough to lead to their expulsion.

5 Page 75 On the other hand, of course, some pupils need help more than others and some bring with them to school problems that have their roots outside it. Tucker (2013, p 286) quotes a behaviour co-ordinator in a Birmingham school who gave an example of this, ‘you can’t deal with education alone with her [a pupil] when she’s anorexic with serious mental health problems’. Another of Tucker’s interviewees commented, ‘disruptive behaviour has its roots in much wider pastoral issues situated inside and outside the school’. In our own study school staff told us how children’s misbehaviour was to a significant extent a product of their personal circumstances and mental health problems.

But what about the incidence of school exclusion – does it affect all pupils equally or do some experience it much more than others? In what follows we examine data that demonstrate significant differences according to pupil characteristics such as gender, special educational needs (both with and without a ‘statement’), parental income, and care status. We also note how much the situation in Devon resembles that pertaining nationally.

In the report that follows we revisit some of these findings to consider their implications and explore further some of the themes I have already introduced. We shall attempt to understand how the schooling system operates in Devon with respect to exclusions, with particular reference to the role of the local authority, the different approaches taken by schools, the alternatives to exclusion and the perspectives of pupils. Also, of course, we shall be making some recommendations.

Given the limited time we had available we chose to undertake our research in the secondary rather than the primary sector as exclusions are more prevalent there, although there is now evidence of an increasing number of fixed-term exclusions in primary schools. We had three Task Group meetings in which we received evidence and gained insights from experts, predominantly those from the County Council who were involved in this field, and made half-day visits to four secondary schools, one Pupil Referral Unit and one alternative provider.

In writing this report we have tried to place you, the reader, in a similar position to ourselves. We present you with the statistical data, the evidence from the County officers, and the information we gathered from staff and students at schools and alternative providers. From all this we want you to come to your own conclusions and compare them to ours. This makes for a longer report than usual! If you want to save time you can, of course, just read the recommendations and the introduction along with the commentaries in the overview and the conclusions. If you do, you’ll miss a lot but you’ll get a reasonable impression of what it’s all about.

We are, of course, very grateful to all who helped us without whom this report could not have been written, particularly to Dan Looker who contributed more than anyone except, perhaps, me.

Councillor Andy Hannan, Chair, School Exclusions Review: Education Outcomes Task Group, People’s Scrutiny Committee

6 Page 76 Postscript from Councillor Andy Hannan, Chair of Task Group

This report was in the most part finalised before Budget Day 2016, which is why the recommendations that follow give so much emphasis to the role of the County Council in bringing about improvements, working in partnership with Babcock LDP and in collaboration with schools. Clearly with the decision to force all schools to become academies by 2020 the future role of the local authority is now uncertain. We do not know how much part it can play in school improvement and encouraging best practice in terms of teaching, curriculum development and pastoral provision generally. Nor, more specifically, do we know how schools will be held to account in terms of how well they educate and include the most vulnerable and disadvantaged students. Local authorities are now acting as the champions of such children, attempting to ensure that their rights to full access to education are respected and that these are put into practice in terms of their admission to and full inclusion in their state-funded local schools. It seems to us that both maintained schools and academies have a moral obligation that comes with their full state funding, to provide a high quality of education to all their pupils, to meet their needs and be as inclusive as possible. However, the example referred to in this report of some academies being unwilling to sign up to the Funding Following Excluded Pupils Protocol, and thus being able to retain the money meant to support pupils who are taken on by another school so having a perverse incentive to increase the number of permanent exclusions they make, does not bode well for the future. It is difficult now to convince some schools that they should work with the local authority to reduce exclusions; the risk is that when they are all academies and all the funding goes directly to them they will have even less inclination to cater for students who are more challenging in their behaviour or whose educational needs are more complex or simply different from the norm.

Please bear these points in mind in reading what follows.

7 Page 77 Recommendations

Recommendation 1

That the County Council in monitoring educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils and those with special educational needs and disabilities pays particular attention to the extent to which these children are represented amongst those subject to permanent and fixed-term exclusions; any tendency for them to be more likely than others to be excluded should be investigated and measures proposed to address the issue. In addition, that the situation of black and minority ethnic children with particular regard to school exclusions be similarly monitored. Recommendation 2

That the County Council and its Inclusion Officers, in partnership with Babcock LDP and in collaboration with schools who have outstanding practice in the field, further support schools in finding ways to become more inclusive by providing evidence-based knowledge and training about 'what works best'. From this review we conclude that there is a strong case for: fostering quieter classroom environments more conducive to work; teachers having a greater social awareness of their pupils and the problems they face; providing a wider curriculum to include vocational education. Recommendation 3

That the County Council, in partnership with Babcock LDP and in collaboration with schools who have outstanding practice in the field, provides guidance and training to all schools with regard to emotional and social education. Recommendation 4

That the County Council, in partnership with Babcock LDP and in collaboration with schools who have outstanding practice in the field, offers guidance and training to all schools on how effective pastoral support systems can be developed and provided for all pupils.

Recommendation 5

That the County Council asks its Inclusion Officers to investigate both the legality and effectiveness of the practice of providing ‘late’ and ‘early’ schools, and ‘part-time timetables’ in Devon schools, and issues guidance to all schools as a result. Recommendation 6

That the County Council consults with other agencies and its various partners about how improvements could be made in the way schools provide for the needs of pupils who have mental health problems, with particular reference to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) and its relationship to schools. Recommendation 7

That the County Council establish a Task Group to investigate the impact of Elective Home Education on the education of children in Devon, to take up the points made in this report and in the briefing paper provided by Babcock LDP.

8 Page 78 Overview

Members of the Task Group have been provided with a wealth of statistics, which Dawn Stabb, Head of the Virtual School, has done her best to help us understand. Table 1 on the following page gives a comprehensive picture of the overall situation, from which the commentary below draws.

In 2013-14 in England as a whole, pupils classified as being in receipt of free school meals (FSM) on the grounds of low ‘parental’ income were 4.5 times as likely to receive a permanent exclusion (PEX) as those who were not FSM, and 3.6 times as likely to receive a fixed-term period of exclusion (FTE). In Devon in 2014-15 pupils classified as FSM were 10.1 times as likely to receive a PEX as those who were not FSM, and 4.5 times as likely to receive a FTE.

The situation for pupils with special educational needs (SEN), with and without statements, is also of interest.

 In 2013-14 in England as a whole, pupils with SEN with a statement were 5 times as likely to receive a permanent exclusion as those with no SEN, and 8.8 times as likely to receive a fixed-term period of exclusion.

 In that year nationally, pupils with SEN but without a statement were 8.3 times as likely to receive a PEX as those with no SEN, and 6.2 times as likely to receive a FTE.

 In Devon in 2014-15 SEN pupils with a statement were 8.4 times as likely to receive a PEX as those with no SEN, and 13.8 times as likely to receive a FTE. SEN pupils without a statement were 7.4 times as likely to receive a PEX as those with no SEN, and 7.5 times as likely to receive a FTE.

In 2014-15 in Devon no Children in Care (CiC) were subject to a PEX, but they were 7.7 times as likely as other children to receive a FTE. Unfortunately it is not possible to make a comparison nationally.

In terms of gender, nationally in 2013-14 boys were 3.3 times as likely to receive a PEX and 2.8 times as likely to receive a FTE as girls. In Devon in 2014-15 this tendency was only slightly less evident, with boys 3 times as likely to receive a PEX and 2.7 times as likely to receive a FTE as girls.

To summarise what these statistics have told us:

1. Those who receive free school meals on the grounds of low ‘parental’ income are significantly more likely to be excluded, either permanently or temporarily, than those who do not. This is true nationally but is even more evident in Devon particularly with regard to permanent exclusions.

2. Those who have special educational needs, both with and without statements, are also significantly more likely to be excluded both nationally and in Devon, although in Devon those with statements of SEN are particularly prone to both permanent and fixed-term exclusion.

3. Children in Care in Devon are nearly eight times as likely as other children to receive a temporary exclusion, although they are not subject to permanent exclusion.

4. Boys are around three times as likely as girls to be permanently or temporarily excluded, both nationally and in Devon.

9 Page 79 TABLE 1: Permanent and Temporary Exclusions in Devon and Nationally This section supports National PEX (1) Benchmarking Number on Group is Times more likely PEX (1) % of group population subject to a PEX Times as likely as non-cohort Number of Roll for over or than non-cohort Group as a Group as a Children in each group under % of PEX % of Devon Devon PEX (Spring represented England 2014/15 the cohort Cohort Devon 2014/15 Devon England Devon England Cohort 2015 by a factor 2013/14 Census) of All 70 100.0 95503 100.0 0.07 0.06 SEN with statement 9 12.9 3204 3.4 3.8 0.28 0.15 7.44 4.00 8.44 5.00 SEN without statement 35 50.0 14145 14.8 3.4 0.25 0.25 6.44 7.33 7.44 8.33 No SEN 26 37.1 78154 81.8 0.5 0.03 0.03 Eligible for FSM 41 58.6 11776 12.3 4.8 0.35 0.18 9.05 3.50 10.05 4.50 Not eligible for FSM 29 41.4 83727 87.7 0.5 0.03 0.04 CiC 0 0.0 474 0.5 0.0 0 Male 53 75.7 49005 51.3 1.5 0.11 0.10 1.96 2.33 2.96 3.33 Female 17 24.3 46498 48.7 0.5 0.04 0.03 Minority Ethnic Pupils 6 8.6 5493 5.8 1.5 0.11 0.07 0.34 0.00 1.34 1.00 White British Ethnicity Pupils 64 91.4 78584 82.3 1.1 0.08 0.07 This section support National FTE (2)Benchmarking Number on Group is % group population with at least one Times more likely FTE (2) Times as likely as non-cohort Number of Roll for Group as a over or FTE than non-cohort

Page 80 Page Group as a Children in each group % of under % of FTE Devon FTE (Spring Devon represented England 2014/15 Cohort Devon 2014/15 Devon England Devon England Cohort 2015 cohort by a factor 2013/14 Census) of All 3225 100.0 95503 100.0 3.38 3.50 SEN with statement 627 19.4 3204 3.4 5.8 19.57 15.19 12.83 7.78 13.83 8.78 SEN without statement 1492 46.3 14145 14.8 3.1 10.55 10.79 6.45 5.24 7.45 6.24 No SEN 1106 34.3 78154 81.8 0.4 1.42 1.73 Eligible for FSM 1243 38.5 11776 12.3 3.1 10.56 8.82 3.46 2.59 4.46 3.59 Not eligible for FSM 1982 61.5 83727 87.7 0.7 2.37 2.46 CiC 120 3.7 474 0.5 7.5 25.32 7.75 not CiC 3105 96.3 95029 99.5 1.0 3.27 Male 2374 73.6 49005 51.3 1.4 4.84 5.10 1.65 1.79 2.65 2.79 Female 851 26.4 46498 48.7 0.5 1.83 1.83 Minority Ethnic Pupils 174 5.4 5493 5.8 0.9 3.17 0.92 -0.17 -0.32 0.83 0.68 White British Ethnicity Pupils 3002 93.1 78584 82.3 1.1 3.82 1.36 (1) The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils (including sole or dual main registrations and boarding pupils) of each age in January 2014. (2) The number of fixed period exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils (including sole or dual main registrations and boarding pupils) of each age in January 2014. With regards to the FTE figures, these are number of FTEs and not the number of children (one child may have multiple FTEs).The National benchmarking data is based on the number of FTEs (not the number of children) Note: SEN with statement are pupils with statements or EHCPs. CiC - Children who were looked after child at the time of exclusion (from ONE). The cohort is taken from the number of CiC on the Virtual School Roll (474) on 16/01/15 (based on children on roll in Devon LA Schools). This date is in line with the date used in the DfE statistics. It should however be noted that the total number of children may exceed the denominator used as the cohort fluctuates greatly. If a child was in care and excluded in May but was no longer on roll on Jan 16th, the exclusion would count but the child would not be included in the cohort size. National 2015 data will be available in July 2016. The times more likely column takes the difference between the two values and compares how many times greater the difference is than the comparative value. The times as column simply compares how many times greater one value is than the other. Both comparisons have been included as other publications use either of these figures indiscriminately.

10 Of course, the Task Group was interested in why these exclusions take place and whether there are any differences in such terms between different categories of student with regard to SEN status, FSM entitlement and gender. Tables 2, 3 and 4 below give such information as returned by schools in Devon since 2011-12.

Here ‘Persistent disruptive behaviour’ is currently the most popular reason given overall for both PEX and FTE, to some extent taking over from the ‘Other’ category in recent years, particularly for FTE. ‘Physical assault’ and ‘Verbal abuse/threatening behaviour’ against both pupils and adults are significant contributors. The patterns for pupils with SEN statements and for those receiving FSM and even for boys and girls are not dissimilar to the general trends. As noted elsewhere, ‘bullying’, ‘racist abuse’ and ‘sexual misconduct’ as reasons for exclusion are perhaps under-recorded as they are seen by schools as possible sources of bad publicity.

TABLE 2: Reasons for Permanent Exclusions in Devon

Permanent Exclusion 2014/ 2013/ 2012/ 2011/ 2014/1 2013/1 2012/1 2011/1 Reason 15 14 13 12 5 4 3 2 Bullying 1 2 1.35% 1.41% Damage to school or 2 2.04% personal property Drug and alcohol related 8 2 8 9 10.96% 2.70% 8.16% 6.34% Not Provided 1 1.02% Other 6 14 21 9 8.22% 18.92% 21.43% 6.34% Persistent disruptive 30 37 29 71 41.10% 50.00% 29.59% 50.00% behaviour Physical assault against a 9 7 13 21 12.33% 9.46% 13.27% 14.79% pupil Physical assault against an 9 4 10 12 12.33% 5.41% 10.20% 8.45% adult Sexual misconduct 3 1 1 1 4.11% 1.35% 1.02% 0.70% Theft 1 3 1.37% 2.11% Verbal abuse / threatening 7 7 11 11 9.59% 9.46% 11.22% 7.75% behaviour against an adult Verbal abuse / threatening 1 2 3 1.35% 2.04% 2.11% behaviour against a pupil Grand Total 73 74 98 142 100% 100% 100% 100%

11 Page 81 TABLE 3: Reasons for fixed term exclusions in Devon

Fixed-term Exclusion 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 2014/15 2013/14 2012/13 2011/12 Reason Bullying 51 25 50 57 1.61% 0.84% 1.63% 1.5% Damage 67 67 78 53 2.12% 2.26% 2.54% 1.4% Drug and alcohol related 146 119 128 145 4.62% 4.02% 4.17% 3.8% Other 412 549 608 989 13.03 18.53 19.79 25.6% Persistent disruptive 741 689 719 696 23.43% 23.25% 23.40% 18.0% Physicalbehaviour assault against a 521 423 563 656 16.47% 14.28% 18.32% 17.0% Physicalpupil assault against an 380 308 215 287 12.01% 10.39% 7.00%% 7.4% Racistadult abuse 37 49 15 45 1.17%% 1.65%% 0.49% 1.2% Sexual misconduct 18 15 16 25 0.57% 0.51% 0.52% 0.6% Theft 31 36 39 46 0.98% 1.21% 1.27% 1.2% Verbal abuse / threatening 105 83 81 114 3.32% 2.80% 2.64% 3.0% behaviour against a pupil Verbal abuse / threatening 20.68 20.25 18.26 654 600 561 744 19.3% behaviour against an adult % % % Not known 2 0.1% Grand Total 3163 2963 3073 3859 3163 2963 3073 3859

12 Page 82 TABLE 4: SEN Statemented / Free School Meals Permanent Exclusions in Devon

Permanent Exclusions - Permanent Exclusions - Statemented FSM 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 Exclusion Reason -12 -13 -14 -15* -12 -13 -14 -15* Bullying 1 Damage 1 1 Drug and alcohol related 1 1 1 3 Other 4 5 1 11 7 Persistent disruptive behaviour 18 6 5 1 10 12 12 Physical assault against a pupil 5 2 1 1 4 4 2 Physical assault against an adult 9 6 1 7 1 5 Racist abuse Sexual misconduct Theft 1 Verbal abuse / threatening 2 1 2 behaviour against a pupil Verbal abuse / threatening 2 4 2 1 8 4 3 behaviour against an adult Grand Total 40 26 9 5 n/k 43 30 26

TABLE 5: Male / Female Permanent Exclusions in Devon

Permanent Exclusions - Permanent Exclusions - Male Female 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 Exclusion Reason -12 -13 -14 -15 -12 -13 -14 -15* Bullying 2 1 Damage 2 1 Drug and alcohol related 9 7 2 4 1 2 Other 6 12 10 1 3 9 4 Persistent disruptive behaviour 50 22 25 14 21 8 12 4 Physical assault against a pupil 14 11 5 5 7 2 2 1 Physical assault against an adult 12 10 4 2 3 Racist abuse Sexual misconduct 1 1 1 Theft 3 1 Verbal abuse / threatening 3 2 1 behaviour against a pupil Verbal abuse / threatening 9 9 5 5 2 2 2 1 behaviour against an adult Grand Total 109 76 54 33 33 22 20 11

Data sources: 2011/12 Permanent Exclusions from Report on Exclusions from Devon Schools & Academies Academic Year 2011-12 February 2013, David Archer & Marc Kastner 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 Permanent Exclusions from ONE system, based on Exclusions Information received direct from Schools (completion of Annex G forms)

13 Page 83 We were also interested in how exclusions varied between areas. This is well illustrated by Tables 6 and 7, which follow. From Table 6 we know that Barnstaple Learning Community is on average the Local Learning Community with the highest percentage of permanent exclusions over the last four years, followed by Exeter Beacon, Newton Abbot, Exmouth and Exeter West Exe. Table 7 shows us that the situation regarding fixed-term exclusions is not very different as Barnstaple Learning Community is again on average the Local Learning Community with the highest percentage over the last four years, followed by Exeter Beacon, Exeter West Exe, Exmouth and Exeter Central & Chestnut.

Table 6: Permanent Exclusions by Learning Community

2014/15 to Ranking Average 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 date (where 1 is highest % of exclusions) Ranking % % % % 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 (over 4yrs) Axe Valley 1% 21 30 Barnstaple 13% 9% 9% 11% 1 2 1 1 1 Beacon 8% 16% 7% 11% 2 1 4 1 2 Bideford 5% 2% 7% 9% 7 16 4 3 9 Braunton 1% 2% 5% 2% 25 16 5 11 22 Central & Chestnut 4% 4% 3% 7% 8 7 6 6 7 Chulmleigh 2% 1% 3% 2% 13 21 6 11 20 Clyst Vale 1% 5% 22 8 23 Crediton 3% 3% 2% 11 10 11 16 Culm Valley 1% 3% 4% 22 10 5 19 Dartmouth 4% 1% 1% 21 13 26 Dawlish 1% 3% 1% 25 10 13 24 Exmouth 6% 5% 8% 4 5 1 4 Holsworthy 4% 2% 3% 10 16 4 13 Honiton 2% 2% 3% 2% 13 16 4 11 17 Ilfracombe 4% 4% 8% 2% 8 7 1 11 7 Ivybridge 2% 4% 1% 2% 13 7 9 11 13 Kingsbridge 1% 1% 3% 25 21 3 25 Newton Abbot 7% 8% 3% 9% 3 3 3 3 3 Okehampton 2% 2% 7% 2% 13 16 2 11 15 Ottery St Mary 2% 1% 13 21 26 Sidmouth 3% 1% 2% 11 6 11 12 South Dartmoor 6% 7% 1% 9% 4 4 6 3 6 South Molton 1% 1% 3% 2% 22 21 2 11 21 Tavistock 2% 1% 13 21 26 Teign Valley 0% 3% 2 Teignmouth 2% 1% 13 21 26 Tiverton 1% 3% 8% 5% 25 10 1 8 17 Torrington 2% 3% 3% 5% 13 10 1 8 10 Totnes 2% 3% 1% 2% 13 10 2 11 11 West Exe 7% 5% 3% 7% 4 5 1 6 5 Free School (no LC) 1%

Page 84 13 Table 7: Fixed-term Exclusions by Learning Community

2014/15 Ranking 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Average to date (where 1 is highest % of exclusions) Ranking % % % % 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 (over 4yrs) Axe Valley 3% 4% 2% 3% 9 10 17 13 13 Barnstaple 16% 11% 10% 10% 1 1 1 1 1 Beacon 7% 10% 6% 8% 2 2 7 2 2 Bideford 6% 4% 3% 4% 5 12 14 10 9 Braunton 2% 0% 2% 1% 21 31 15 27 25 Central & Chestnut 4% 4% 6% 6% 8 7 3 5 5 Chulmleigh 1% 1% 2% 1% 27 24 23 25 26 Clyst Vale 2% 1% 1% 2% 20 23 27 19 23 Crediton 3% 2% 3% 5% 12 16 12 7 11 Culm Valley 3% 3% 2% 2% 11 15 17 17 15 Dartmouth 1% 0% 0.2% 23 30 31 28 Dawlish 1% 2% 2% 2% 26 20 21 16 21 Exmouth 7% 7% 6% 5% 4 4 4 8 4 Holsworthy 1% 1% 2% 1% 25 25 23 26 26 Honiton 2% 3% 2% 1% 16 14 25 24 18 Ilfracombe 5% 5% 5% 3% 6 6 8 12 8 Ivybridge 2% 2% 2% 3% 18 17 16 13 16 Kingsbridge 1% 1% 1% 0.2% 28 28 29 32 30 Newton Abbot 2% 3% 4% 5% 15 13 9 6 10 Okehampton 1% 1% 3% 2% 31 26 13 22 24 Ottery St Mary 1% 1% 0.2% 0.5% 29 29 31 29 31 Sidmouth 2% 2% 2% 2% 13 21 26 19 18 South Dartmoor 2% 4% 4% 2% 18 11 10 15 14 South Molton 1% 1% 1% 1% 30 27 28 28 29 Tavistock 2% 4% 4% 4% 17 9 11 10 11 Teign Valley 0.1% 0.2% 1% 0.5% 32 32 30 29 32 Teignmouth 3% 2% 2% 2% 9 18 20 23 17 Tiverton 4% 4% 6% 5% 7 7 5 9 7 Torrington 2% 2% 2% 2% 22 22 19 18 20 Totnes 1% 2% 2% 2% 24 19 22 19 22 West Exe 7% 9% 6% 8% 2 3 6 3 3 DPLS (no LC) 2% 5% 6% 7% 13 5 2 4 6 Free School (no LC) 0.2% 32 33

Of course, exclusions, both permanent and fixed-term, vary by type of school, as the tables below show:

Page 85 15 Table 8: Permanent Exclusions by School Type

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 to date No's % No's % No's % No's % Primary Schools 27 19% 24 24% 14 19% 5 11% LA Maintained 24 17% 18 18% 10 14% 3 7% Academies 3 2% 6 6% 4 5% 2 5% Secondary Schools 109 77% 71 72% 57 77% 37 84% LA Maintained 58 41% 37 38% 25 34% 15 34% Academies 51 36% 34 35% 32 43% 22 50% All Through School 5 4% 1 1% 1 1% Special Schools 1 1% 2 2% 2 3% 2 5%

Total 142 98 74 44

The percentage of permanent exclusions in primary schools is on the decline but on the rise in secondary schools, with a greater percentage of these occurring in academy secondary schools (not surprisingly as these are increasing in number).

Table 9: Fixed-term Exclusions by School Type

2014/15 to DfE 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 date 2012/13 % of fixed- No's % No's % No's % No's % term exclusions (5)

Primary Schools 557 14.4% 508 16.5% 610 20.6% 434 20.7% 14%

LA Maintained 469 12.2% 453 14.7% 511 17.2% 337 16.1% Academies 88 2.3% 55 1.8% 99 3.3% 97 4.6% Secondary Schools 2954 76.5% 2185 71.1% 1968 66.4% 1375 65.6% 81% LA Maintained 1774 46.0% 1267 41.2% 824 27.8% 700 33.4% Academies (inc Free Schools) 1180 30.6% 918 29.9% 1144 38.6% 675 32.2% not All Through School 48 1.2% 15 0.5% 5 0.2% available not DPLS 156 4.0% 221 7.2% 236 8.0% 193 9.2% available Special Schools 144 3.7% 144 4.7% 149 5.0% 89 4.2% 5% Total 3859 3073 2963 2096

Page 86 16 Thus, two thirds of Devon's fixed-term exclusions occur in secondary schools, which is lower than the national figure. The percentage of fixed-term exclusions in primary schools has gradually been increasing over the years and is higher than the national rate (conversely the percentage of exclusions in secondary schools has been declining).

As noted previously, a decision was taken by us to focus on the secondary sector as this was where exclusions were mostly based.

The Task Group was also provided with data concerning individual schools which showed significant differences between them, even when their intakes were broadly similar. These statistics were used to help us select secondary schools for the case studies we undertook, which involved us in visits to interview both staff and pupils in different parts of the county (viz North Devon, Mid Devon, Teignbridge and Exeter).

Page 87 17 The Views of Participants: Key Findings County Council: Interviews with Officers

The following information is largely derived from meetings with Inclusion Officers David Archer (Exeter & East Devon), Keith Crawford (South & West Devon) and Marc Kastner (North & Mid Devon), and with Dawn Stabb (Head of the Virtual School) and Sue Clarke (Head of Education & Learning). It is intended to represent their understanding of the situation based on their professional knowledge and experience and is reported in terms close to those they used in our meetings.

Thresholds for Exclusions

Schools do not generally exclude lightly. Many schools will go to great lengths to work with the most complex of children and young people to avoid an exclusion. Inclusion officers work with schools to build pastoral capacity to help prevent them for making exclusions. Additional resources and temporary support are put in place to make this possible. A lot may come down to a school’s ethos as to whether they problematize the children who are misbehaving or see them as vulnerable. There will quite often be a spike in exclusion rates when a new headteacher comes into a school, as he/she attempts to establish a new approach making the limits of behaviour and the range of associated sanctions clear.

Individual schools have different thresholds. Much depends on the quality of the teaching staff, with troublesome pupils offering less challenge to good teachers. It is important that teachers feel empowered, with the skill sets and confidence to deal with difficult behaviour. It is not clear that all teachers have been upskilled sufficiently to face the complexity of behavioural need and mental health issues that they are now encountering in the classroom. There is a common pattern where more exclusions take place when a class begins its GCSE studies, removing those young people who may not succeed at Year 11 or those who are disrupting the work of their classmates.

Unofficial Exclusions

It is the decision of the headteacher to exclude a pupil and not that of the local authority. However, the County Council in effect makes it difficult for schools to permanently exclude, ensuring through the interventions of the team of Inclusion Officers that other strategies have been fully explored. Unofficial exclusions by schools are, however, a major concern and have significant safeguarding implications, as schools can be less accountable for children out of education.

Historically there have been issues where a school is more inclined to take a pupil off role rather than permanently excluding them. The County Council’s Missing Monday Panel, a weekly multi-agency meeting to review those young people missing from education and social care or at risk of being missing, is helpful in this regard and in terms of looking at schools’ use of FTEs, Elective Home Education (EHE), part-time timetables and any backdoor exclusions.

The number of Key Stage 4 (KS4) EHE referrals is a particular concern. There appears to be a link with exclusions and students moving to EHE. Last year 116 Year 10/11 pupils left school to be electively home educated. Well over half of these young people have accessed colleges or FE providers. This would suggest that such late EHE in a young person’s education is not necessarily due to it being down to a lifestyle choice. In 2014-15 there were 73 new KS4 EHE students. It appears that the majority of students that come off school roll at this stage are choosing home education for reasons other than the philosophical. These include: to avoid permanent exclusion; to avoid fines and prosecution for non-attendance; to attend FE college on a part-time basis. In some cases schools may be encouraging this to avoid certain students having a negative impact on a school’s league table performance. The increasing number of vulnerable students coming off school roll presents a considerable challenge to the County Council as current legislation around EHE provides local authorities with limited powers and leaves children at risk of harm and possibly not receiving a suitable education.

Page 88 18 Pupil Referral Units (now run by the Schools Academy)

Young people are in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) for far longer than they should be. While the County Council has a number of very good PRUs, they do have a detrimental effect on a child’s education. There is unfortunately a lot of challenge and resistance in the system to reintegrating young people back into mainstream education.

Recording Exclusions

There are discrepancies in the way in which schools record exclusions. Officers encourage schools to drill down to specifics and use the DfE headings. Persistent disruptive behaviour is the biggest catch- all category. The term ‘other’ being used more for fixed-term exclusions than permanent exclusions, and deals with a lot of pupils who might be with another young person who is caught smoking or with drugs. Schools will on occasion also put sexual misconduct under another category as they do not want it on their records. Similarly bullying and racism are big issues for schools and Ofsted but are rarely recorded in the exclusions data as schools do not want these kinds of behaviour on their records and so place it under ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’ instead. Schools are unlikely to record racist verbal abuse unless a victim is attacked.

Special Educational Needs (SEN)

It is important to separate behaviour issues from SEN.

External Support to Schools

External support is available from the County Council to schools. Packages of expertise are put in around children at an individual child level. The Education Inclusion Service provides a statutory but impartial service for parents and carers, school governors, headteachers, school staff and other agencies about inclusion, reintegration and exclusion. Early support from the team can help children to stay in school, or return to school after an exclusion and offer opportunities to help them achieve their full potential. The Educational Psychology Team does a lot of training and support around THRIVE (a specific way of working with children that helps to develop their social and emotional well- being) and behaviour management. The Behaviour Support Team is funded through the Dedicated Schools Grant to support primary schools working with young people. There are also intervention partnerships, which work flexibly with schools to keep young people in education.

Given pressure on schools’ budgets, there may be an issue with some schools waiting until crisis point before engaging with alternative education providers rather than working more proactively earlier. It is essential that support to young people is timely, and the County Council has a system whereby managed move funds can be allocated quickly to support those in need. Where a school does seek to make a permanent exclusion it can be due to a misplaced assumption that there is somewhere better to send a child when in actual fact there is not. More permanent exclusions are now going to independent review.

The Emotional Wellbeing Service provides intervention at Level 2 / 3 before higher end support from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) is required. Children’s centres are working with families with regard to the behaviour management of young children.

Inclusion Officers

There are three Inclusion Officers in the County, as part of the Education Inclusion Service, whose role it is to:

 be proactive with early intervention in respect of persistent and disruptive behaviour;  assist schools in accessing support services and resources;  promote good practice such as restorative approaches and the use of outreach advisers from special school settings;  assist parents including providing guidance about the legal process/procedures;

Page 89 19  work with the Improvement Teams and Learning Advocates in respect of Children in Care;  prevent unofficial exclusions through such devices as part-time timetables.

The Education Inclusion Service is not chargeable to schools, either maintained or academy. The Inclusion Officers chair the Behaviour and Attendance Panels and usually are aware of the children at risk particularly from the secondary sector. In determining exclusion and integration into another school they take account of practical issues such as transport, vacancies in the relevant year group and mix of children, and undertake negotiation with the head teacher accordingly.

Inclusion Officers endeavour to inform the County about fixed-term and permanent exclusions in a timely way and any referral about unofficial exclusions is investigated by the officers and taken up with the school concerned. PEX are always challenged by the Inclusion Officers. Drug possession as a first offence will not necessarily mean a PEX depending on the school’s policies. It is rare that a child has been permanently excluded from more than one school.

Managed Moves

A managed move entails a pupil being placed in an alternative school for six weeks. If the placement worked well, the pupil would remain at that school. Alternatively the child would return to his/her original school and other arrangements would then be considered. Options would include staying within the mainstream, moving to a special school or to a Schools Company / Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) setting, all in accordance with the SEN Code of Practice. Managed moves are discussed at a local Headteacher Panel, with PRU representation, where advice and support are provided.

Sometimes a new school can benefit pupils as they can have a fresh start. A child will undertake a trial at the new school and only where it works successfully will the child go onto roll and be permanently taken on.

Managed move data have been collected and monitored across the County since September 2014. Up until May 2015 there were 57 managed moves. The majority of these have occurred at secondary level with just six being in the primary phase. Overall 33% of managed moves in this time have been successful and the pupil has been admitted to the new school roll. In an attempt to improve this ratio since March 2015 the County has been trialling a system of providing additional support and funding for the receiving school. This has had a significant impact on the success rate. Up until June 2015 14 managed moves had funding allocated to support them and of these 13 were successful. . Funding Following Excluded Pupils Protocol

There were initially a small number of academies in Devon who refused to sign the Funding Following Excluded Pupils Protocol (in accordance with School Finance Regulations, England, 2012) relating to the financial arrangements when a pupil is excluded. Officers explained that there had been an omission in the contractual agreement with academies covering exclusions, which was subsequently rectified. There have been a number of objections from schools in terms of their lag funding, but the County Council has not taken away funding from pupils in Year 11. Some schools are still refusing to follow the Protocol and are thus not transferring funds to schools to which their students are transferred, but the situation has improved and it is hoped the problem will be solved in the near future.

Page 90 20 School Visits: Case Studies

These accounts are based on half-day visits to schools by the Task Group, which involved meetings with senior staff, teachers and pupils, and largely reflect the views of our informants often in terms close to their own words. The names of the schools have not been given in order to allow us to present potentially sensitive information.

Case Study: School A

Use of Exclusions

School A is within one of the most deprived areas in the County, and overall academically pupils at the school are amongst the lowest in terms of average attainment level, although there are, of course, significant exceptions. The Headteacher tries to avoid permanent exclusions, and the school had a five year period without a permanent exclusion. School A works desperately hard to avoid any permanent exclusions, although it is difficult if there has been a very public incident. The Headteacher had to permanently exclude two pupils in 2013/14 and two pupils in 2014/15, the latter for persistent disruption. In the year before a Year 7 student was permanently excluded for violence and an assault on a member of staff. It is likely that the Headteacher will have to permanently exclude again this year. The school governors are, however, astounded by the extent of the interventions made by the school to prevent permanent exclusions. Fixed-term exclusions are normally just for a day, and tend to be for incidents involving physical violence.

Complex Needs

Some young people are entering the school at Year 7 with such complex needs they should not actually be in mainstream education. There are currently three of these children in Year 7. There is an increasing number of very challenging and vulnerable young people. There are lots of issues the school has to deal with in terms of both parents and young people with mental health issues. There are a number of children coming into the school who should be in special schools, as well as children who should in fact be in care. The school tries to be careful in terms of its handling of the most vulnerable young people. Many of these have esteem issues, and often feel that they have failed at school as well as at home. Permanently excluding young people is to further reject them. The Headteacher is mindful of the level of vulnerability and the way in which the school’s use of exclusions can impact on a specific child. Every day the school tries to offer pupils the opportunity for a fresh start. There is no tariff system at the school in terms of grading incidents, but there are clear limits in terms of acceptable behaviour.

Late School

Late school provision from 2pm-6pm is effective for a particular cohort of young people, where the family is supportive. Late school is an option that is preferred to FTEs. There is also an ‘internal exclusion’ provision as part of a hierarchy of interventions. This is often an effective means of segregation, of taking a pupil away from their friends who may be a bad influence. This approach works well for many children, but for repeat offenders late school is a useful tool. The late school provision is staffed by a Higher Level Teaching Assistant. The great majority of young people are just in late school for a day or two, much the same as an internal exclusion. Late school operates more easily in summer than in winter in terms of pupils being able to walk home, and does rely on parental support. Pupils tend to prefer an FTE to late school.

Managed Moves

The Headteacher rarely sends children out on managed moves. It is largely the case that if school A cannot accommodate the young person given the inclusive nature of its approach, most other schools are unlikely to be able to.

Page 91 21 Local Intervention Partnership

The school has a close relationship with the Local Intervention Partnership, and works flexibly to keep young people in education.

Elective Home Education (EHE)

There was a sudden rise in EHE last year. This was not because the school is trying to remove children from the school’s roll, nor is it probably part of a particular trend. The Education Welfare Service is quite aggressive in terms of pupil attendance which can be counterproductive at times and may on occasion push families towards EHE, where some of the children will be educated and others unfortunately will not be.

Admissions / 0-25 Team

It is not clear that the Admissions Team is communicating as effectively as it might with the 0-25 Team as to when a child has been taken out of school. It would appear these teams based at County Hall are working very much in isolation.

Special Schools

There are significant delays in terms of getting a child into a special school.

Parents

There are parents who had negative experiences at the school in their own childhood. The school works hard to try to have as positive as relationship with parents as possible.

Inclusion Officers

The school has a positive relationship with the Inclusion Officer, discussing young people at risk of exclusion.

Alternative Provision at School A (APATH) Internal Provision

The school spends a huge amount of money on interventions and alternative provision with about 17% of the school’s budget spent on welfare and inclusion work, where for most schools the figure is closer to 10%. The school recognises the vulnerability of a young person who is permanently excluded. While the school employs a raft of intervention strategies, it is not able to fund as many of these as it was previously. The school maintains a connection with a number of young people after they have left Year 11.

Vocational Routes

There are very limited vocational routes for some of these students. College courses of this kind do not count in terms of exam grades when it comes to an Ofsted inspection, and we have stopped funding these as a result. Some students still go to a local college on a vocational course, but this represents only a fraction of the need and it is therefore a struggle to support some of these young people. There are 17 students currently in college placements.

Curriculum Flexibility for Vulnerable Young People

Young people will be lost where a school is not prepared to sufficiently adapt the curriculum for certain vulnerable pupils. A range of outdoor activities are offered by School A to help boost confidence, including use of the Forest School.

Transitions

The school invests heavily in the transition of children from the primary sector, although this has been scaled back due to some funding issues

Page 92 22 Additional Support

The County Council system for getting additional support is hugely laborious. The intention was that schools could buy into the Schools Company for additional support through Devon’s PRUs for those pupils at risk of exclusion, but the school found it incredibly expensive, while the quality of the provision was far from clear.

Alternative Education Company

School A uses the Alternative Education Company as part of its portfolio of support, but it is still £150 a day and for some headteachers permanently excluding a pupil is a much cheaper option.

Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub

The Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) is much better than it used to be.

Children in Care

Legally a school can permanently exclude a child in care but the County Council will remove the child from the school before this can happen and place them in a PRU to ensure they are not categorized as a PEX.

Area Learning Advocates It is a little unclear to schools as to what the new County Council Area Learning Advocates actually are.

Views from Young People at School A

These views were expressed by members of a group of six pupils who had a history of disaffection who were supported by an Assistant SEN Co-ordinator.

 Some children easily get annoyed and are then disruptive in class.

 Classrooms are too noisy.

 The support centre is highly valued particularly because it’s possible to work in a smaller, quieter group.

 The curriculum is not targeted towards those pupils who are not going to get 5 A*-Cs. Few young people get the option to do a practical college course.

 The school should offer more design technology and PE options.

 Some lessons are boring, where it is just copying things off the board and the teacher is not giving enough support in a lesson.

 Teachers are not always interested in asking why a child is not getting on so well with a certain subject.

 One boy commented that he had been at other schools, and it was now at this school that he was getting the help he needs.

 All the young people reported feeling safe in the school environment.

 The Headteacher will swiftly deal with any issues of bullying. Page 93 23 Case Study: School B

Ofsted The school received a ‘Requires Improvement’ rating at its last Ofsted inspection, in part due to its exclusion rates being too high. Since then the school has been able to significantly reduce the overall number of pupil days lost to exclusions. However, the school’s approach to behaviour was classed as ‘Good’ by Ofsted; it missed out on an ‘Outstanding’ rating for this aspect due to the high number of fixed-term exclusions. Compared to neighbouring schools it has a low number of permanent exclusions.

Use of Exclusions

Processes have been put in place before there is a FTE or PEX to ensure that the school is more systematic in its approach to behavioural management. This is a fundamental strategy to reduce exclusions. Emotions are not involved with discipline sanctions. An FTE is a useful sanction for some young people, but for others they see it as a holiday. It is important to deal with each issue on a case- by-case basis to establish which sanction will be the most appropriate. ‘Supported schooling’ is an alternative the school provides to FTEs. It runs from 9.30am – 12.30pm. Key to the school’s approach is the need to be systematic and consistent based on rational processes that the whole school understands.

Complex Needs

The school has a number of complex young people, who at times exhibit some extreme behaviour. There has been a significant change in the last 10 years in terms of the number of young people in mainstream schooling with mental health issues. There are a lot of pupils with emotional anxiety type issues, where children appear to have been damaged by marital splits and domestic issues within the home. There are not, however, so many young people who are close to the child protection level of need.

Managed Moves

The school has been involved in a number of successful managed moves. The school is prepared to take on managed moves and is currently working well with a girl who had been permanently excluded.

Parents

Generally parents tend to be supportive of the school’s approach to behaviour management and support the sanctions deployed. The school pays for a Parent Support Officer to liaise with parents and facilitate work with the child and the school.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS)

The lack of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) support is a huge issue, and it currently represents a grave misunderstanding that CAMHS are offering schools support.

Multi-Agency Support Hub (MASH) The school has a good relationship with children’s social care and also buys into Babcock services on safeguarding. The school works closely with the police. The MASH is working better now after a severe dip. The developments to ‘early help’ are positive, but the level of outside support available to the school is somewhat limited.

Pastoral Work

The pastoral support that the school offers is not separate, but very much at the heart of its work, allowing students to continue with their academic studies. Key to pastoral work is having positive relationships and communication with parents. The school deploys a counsellor as well as a learning mentor. The school tracks pupils academically but also monitors their emotional intelligence. Work is

Page 94 24 undertaken through the Emotional and Social Skills Centre to look at the issues at play causing misbehaviour. It is important there is both understanding and a rational approach.

Vocational Routes

There is a group of six Year 11 students who do part of their timetable at a nearby college.

Emotional and Social Skills Centre

The Emotional and Social Skills Centre promotes inclusion through early intervention and increasing pupil attendance. There are currently 42 young people in the Centre as part of a raft of pastoral support measures deployed to help young people achieve at the school. The Centre runs 6-week courses on self-esteem and behaviour to help young people overcome their barriers to learning. Pupils are at the Centre for an hour a week typically. Through the support of the Centre young people’s attendance and performance is improving. The school holds a fortnightly meeting to discuss this cohort of pupils.

Social Media

Social media have had a significant impact on pupils at the school in terms of issues such as cyber bullying. The school regularly has to deal with issues on social media that have occurred over the weekend. The school works hard to address any issues of bullying.

Transition to Secondary School

There is an issue with young people being secondary-school ready. The primary sector is not always dealing with children’s issues before they start at secondary school. It would be hugely helpful to identify and support children much earlier in the school system.

Page 95 25 Views from Young People at School B

The Task Group met one-by-one with three unaccompanied young people who had a history of disaffection

Pupil A (Yr 11)  There had been some issues amongst her friend group, and she was now going to the Emotional and Social Skills Centre for support in dealing with these issues.  Felt much more confident now as a result of her time in the Centre both in terms of her friends and in her class work. Felt able to now really achieve.

Pupil B (Yr 10)  Transferred to the school through a managed move. Since arriving at the school, she had completely changed and had been in no trouble whatsoever.  The smaller, quieter classes helped. The previous school was much bigger and pupils were much more poorly behaved.  The Emotional and Social Skills Centre had helped a lot in being somewhere where she could talk through issues with staff.  The school and its teachers take time to focus on the pupils, and a result it was much easier to learn. Previously it had been difficult, but now she was learning lots and wakes up every day looking forward to the day ahead.

Pupil C (Yr 10)  Previously had behavioural and anger issues, and found it difficult to concentrate. Had FTEs in the past but had settled down now and felt so much happier at school.  Using the Emotional and Social Skills Centre since Year 7. Earlier work in the Centre greatly helped in terms of behaviour, and further support on anger issues. Occasional sessions at the centre are really helpful. There is a real sense of trust with the staff.  Previously had a few internal exclusions/isolations/FTEs but had settled down now and felt so much happier at school compared to times in the past when he dreaded school.

Page 96 26 Case Study: School C

Use of Exclusions

School exclusions are falling because of the volume of work and early interventions at the school. There should be a drastic reduction in exclusions this year, partly also because of the difficulties with last year’s Year 11. The children not only accept the school’s policy on behaviour but welcome it. Pupils recognised that it is part of an approach to driving up educational standards and can see the benefit of this in terms of their exam results. Exclusions have been reduced partly also through the way exclusions have been used; pupils know the rules and tend to stick to them. Children want a clear fair policy and that is what they have. The headteacher will PEX where there is a physical assault on a member of staff, and give an FTE for a verbal assault on a teacher.

Sanctions Ladder

The school operates a sanctions ladder leading up to FTEs and PEX. However, it undertakes a huge amount of proactive work to prevent sanctions having to be taken with only three FTEs this year. The school has an individual and flexible approach to addressing pupil needs.

Alternatives to Exclusions

The inclusion centre is at the heart of the school so pupils do not feel that they have been in any way excluded. Last year the school had a very difficult Year 11 cohort; 10 of whom had to be placed in alternative provision. This year there is currently not a single pupil being educated off site. The decision was taken to run a GCSE Studio School – effectively an inclusion centre where some of the more challenging pupils are based and supported.

Late School

The school had to close its late school provision as the practice was deemed to be illegal. The lack of flexibility in not being able to offer this option is restricting, as late school worked well for some young people. Late school would run from 2.30pm – 5.30pm, with pupils not behaving kept behind until 6.00pm. The DfE insists on schools providing two sessions of schooling per day attendance wise, and the late school contravened this.

Pupil Funding Issue with County Council

There has been a disagreement with the County Council about when money follows a student with the issues being around the timing and the lagged funding.

Culture and Ethos

The culture and ethos of the school is very important. Children like clear rules, so the Head works with this in mind. The school is clear and organized about its approach to the school uniform. There is no ambiguity for the pupils here. A large body of over 100 prefects ensure the uniform is strictly adhered to.

Pupil Rewards

Pupil rewards are given a great detail of attention and are personalised, while sanctions are given little prominence. The school has incredibly high expectations of its pupils and there is much more of an ethos akin to a grammar or private school.

Pupil Ownership

Pupils buy into the school ethos, where it is cool to succeed and cool to care about each other. There is an ethos of ownership amongst the pupils, making the college somewhere you want to be. The school offers a safe and fun place for children to learn. The prefect cohort has now increased to over 100. A quarter of the prefects have an anti-bullying focus.

Page 97 27 Bullying

The anti-bullying scheme is effective, and the use of prefects is one tool the school has at its disposal. There are a number of other approaches deployed as part of its zero tolerance approach to bullying including a function on any computer for pupils and staff to report issues in confidence.

Parents

The school works hard to have positive relationships with parents to try to make them feel as included as possible in their children’s schooling. All staff should also have an open door policy to the young people and their parents. Part of the school’s approach to building that relationship with parents is to not just phone home when there are problems but instead to call to tell them about positive work their child has been involved with to build trust. This is an amazingly effective approach.

Youth Workers

The college uses youth workers as pupil advocates.

Elective Home Education

There was one child last year at the college whose parents chose for them to receive EHE. The school tried repeatedly to keep this child at the school but the parents had disengaged. Concerns about the welfare of this child were flagged up to the County Council.

Proactive Approach to Interventions

There is a big focus on proactive work with Year 8 and 9 pupils, working hard to build capacity in order to cope in class. The school provides further interventions on anger management, as well as THRIVE and anxiety issues. Staff will continue to work to challenge behaviours and provide pupils with strategies to cope. It is important to try to identify issues early at a low level from Year 7 working alongside parents, before the issues escalate, and the school is able to provide a huge range of options to intervene. Staff and pupil mentoring is one approach that works well.

Vocational Routes

There are vocational options for some students. There are pupils in Year 11 doing vocational courses along with English and Maths. The school tries to ensure any of these students are well integrated and are kept to a mainstream timetable as much as possible. As a rule the school does not use part- time timetables, but will re-arrange timetables to try to meet a young person’s needs. There is for instance a girl doing an equine course and the college is trying its very best to keep hold of her.

Student Intervention Meetings

At these meetings child protection issues are discussed so that staff know exactly what is going on. The college also makes sure that it has a representative at every Looked After Child and Team Around a Child meeting to show its commitment to that child.

Chances (off-site alternative provider)

Chances works well when there is a strong link with the school. The school will however only make a referral to Chances where there is a particular task they can be used for.

Page 98 28 Views from Young People at School C

The Task Group met with a group of five young people from Years 11 and 12 with a history of disaffection who were accompanied by the headteacher.

 Found it hard to deal with mainstream classes. Responded to being placed last year in the inclusion centre for the GCSE Studio School and having two teachers between six pupils. It was this additional support that really helped. Also the centre allows pupils to work at a pace they can cope with rather than being rushed along.

 Teachers treat the young people like adults, as a result pupils are willing to put in more effort and get more out of their school experience. It is much easier to respect someone who is respectful, than someone who is condescending.

 Staff are very good at treating pupils as individuals, which is so important.

 The Inclusion Centre helps to support achievement. One young man did not ever believe he would progress as he has been able to. He never thought he’d be able to succeed in the way that he has and the centre has really helped in allowing that to happen.

 It is not helpful at all where a young person is labelled or compared to a sibling.

 Some young people at Chances take poor behaviour to extreme levels. One young person commented that they had not learnt anything while at Chances, and claimed to have behaved worse as a consequence.

 Teachers need to have a greater understanding of what is going on in children and young people’s home lives.

 Teachers need to show passion for their subjects as pupils respond to that.

 It is very difficult for children where teachers have clear favourites.

 The Inclusion Centre feels like a safe place to be.

 Any violent incidents are much more likely to happen outside the school grounds than on them.

 One young man had now become a prefect – he had never imagined that having previously been to Chances he could become a prefect and help set good standards of behaviour in the school

Page 99 29 Case Study: School D

Student Behaviour

There has been an issue with challenging pupil behaviour at the school. A clear sanctions and rewards system has been created, e.g. swearing at a teacher is a one day FTE, swearing at the Headteacher is a two day FTE. The system is under constant review to maximise its effectiveness. There is a small cohort of current Year 9 students, whose behaviour is challenging and disruptive, with 26 students identified as being at risk of a FTE before sitting their final examinations at the end of Year 11. The school collates strategies and pointers for each individual young person in their teaching profile to help in supporting them. The school deploys 5 keyworkers on social, emotional and mental health issues. There are 2 dedicated rooms to enable intervention in terms of behavioural issues; one to teach students excluded from lessons and the other to work with them on the issues affecting their behaviour, such as self-confidence. Issues with behaviour tend to be driven by over/under challenge or factors in a young person’s home life.

Use of Exclusions

The school does have a high current rate of PEX and will permanently exclude for drugs, weapons or assaulting a member of staff. When making an FTE, the school will take into account students’ home situations. Once a student has had a FTE they receive a pastoral support plan. The school works hard to find alternatives to making exclusions. ‘Phoenix’ isolation is one of the alternatives. Another is working with other secondary schools to allow students to be ‘hosted’ with them instead of on a FTE. This is better than a FTE and tends to work well, if the parents support it. ‘Hosting’ by another school is not for the most vulnerable children, but it is effective for some young people. Where the student does not attend the school and has an unauthorised absence, the placement will have failed and an FTE will be issued. It is a challenge to support some of the struggling young people quickly enough to help them access their education. There has to be a balance in terms of the level of support the inclusion centre provides, to avoid over-supporting. The inclusion team is now bigger than the science department.

Complex Needs

There has been an increase in the mental health needs of the students over the last 10 years. Some children are coming into the school from the primary sector with a range of very complex needs. These students would previously have been educated in special schools. The school has received some grant funding for CAMHS support, but has yet to realise the expected impact from this work.

SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities)

SEND is a priority for the school to address and meet those students’ needs from their arrival at the school in Year 7.

Additional Support

The type of support that schools need is actually not easily available or the cost prohibits the school from buying this in. There are probably few schools able to adequately provide for all the children and young people with the complexity of SEND and medical/mental health issues. Due to financial pressures, there is a lack of options available to meet the needs of all young people in terms of alternative education and interventions. The school currently has two students for whom they are struggling to know how to support their particular needs when they return from Chances. The school uses support from Babcock on working with young people to address the type of behaviour that leads to PEX.

Inclusion Officers

The Inclusion Officer is very supportive. The Local Area Partnership meets fortnightly to discuss students’ managed moves with other schools.

Page 100 30 Inclusion Unit

The Inclusion Unit supports those young people at risk of exclusion through early identification and helping to put a number of interventions in place. The Inclusion Centre is there to support the students in their mainstream class, although some are there for longer than others. There are students with mental health issues, issues with attending and one student on a part-time timetable. There can be friction at times between the Inclusion Unit and some teaching staff who are less progressive and do not understand the value of emotionally supporting these quite often very vulnerable young people. For the young people who spend time in the unit, there is typically a decrease in their behavioural issues and increase in their attainment. Staff in the Inclusion unit also may in some cases provide the only positive relationship in a young person’s life. They are able to connect emotionally with the child and provide them with invaluable support.

Early Help Teaching Assistant

The Early Help TA is very useful, but it would be good to have more of these working with identified students.

Managed Moves

Managed moves get discussed fortnightly ay the Local Area Partnership meetings. It is not always clear whether it is the school or the new start that makes the difference in terms of a successful managed move, or the child choosing also to do better. Certainly managed moves allow a change in dynamics by taking a young person out of a potentially stressful environment that the school may well now represent.

Vocational Routes

There are limited vocational options available for up to two days a week on hair & beauty, construction, outdoor education, etc. at a local college. There is a huge cost involved to the school and, therefore, it is currently not an option to expand this programme. The Government has put the focus in terms of school performance almost entirely with academic subjects, not with vocational courses. The vocational courses the school offers have to also be balanced with the demands of their core subjects so that students do not get further behind with these.

Chances

Chances works well with the school. The focus is on reintegration, but this is expensive.

Teachers

Teachers have not been upskilled sufficiently to face the complexity of behavioural needs and mental health issues that they are now encountering in the classroom. Teachers are no longer just able to teach their subject as would have been the case before.

Education Psychologists

The school is spending money on additional Education Psychologists as they are not allocated enough support.

Children’s Social Care

Most social workers are doing a good job, but continuity and communication (some cases have been de-escalated without consulting with the school) is an issue, with some looked-after children (LAC) having a number of different ones. The MASH has improved a lot in the last 18 months and is delivering more than it used to.

Page 101 31 Views from Young People at School D

The Task Group met with a group of nine young people who were accompanied by various support staff from the Inclusion Unit.

 The school is getting better.

 In the Inclusion Unit teachers treat you like adults. Staff give both emotional and educational support without which students would be permanently excluded.

 The 1-to-1 support from the Inclusion Unit means you can cope with the behaviour and then concentrate on school work.

 Every day in the Inclusion Unit is a new day, rather than being labelled for previous incidents. Some teachers in the school are very good and are willing to give students a fresh start, others less so.

 There is not much other support outside of the unit as the counsellor at the school is always so busy.

 It is hard to concentrate in normal classrooms as it is just too noisy.

 You don’t always get a chance to explain yourself as part of the sanctions system which is frustrating. The rewards element is a great idea but is not yet as well organised as it should be. Students often aren’t aware if they have received an e- praise point, although it is made much clearer where you get a de-merit.

 Chances had some good teachers, but others were not. (Reference was made to difficulties with a particular member of staff.)

 One young person came to the school after three managed moves and was much happier now. There is very little bullying at the school and where there is it is dealt with swiftly. There are though issues with social media and online bullying.

 The school feels a safe place, with much less violence than there used to be.

 Some of the young people like the school uniform, while others are less happy and particularly the use of FTEs if you don’t have all the right items. There is also now a strict approach to earrings, nose piercings etc.

Page 102 32 Alternative Provider Visits: Interviews with Pupils / Staff

These alternative providers are each close to being unique and thus too easily identifiable to attempt to anonymise them. The Task Group met with senior staff and teachers in both institutions, but only had a brief chat with two students at the PRU. At Chances members met with a group of students.

Again, the statements below are those made by our informants, sometimes given nearly verbatim.

Schools Company North Devon Academy, Barnstaple

Schools Company North Devon Academy is legally a PRU, set up for any child out of school either for medical reasons or a permanent exclusion. There are 70 children currently at the academy; 35 of whom have a medical need. Four of these are looked-after children (LAC). More children tend to be excluded from mainstream schools as the school year continues so the numbers may rise. There are 110 children at the Central PRU and 67 at the South & West Devon unit, with typically 10-20% of these LAC. Places cost £18,000 a year for a medical-need young person and £20,000 if permanently excluded. Previously the County Council did not have a top number in terms of putting children in its PRUs but now Schools Company North Devon Academy is commissioned up to 70 and additional places would need to be purchased. Children attend from reception age onwards, with around 80% in Key Stage 4. KS1 – 3 are in a separate block to those in KS4 as they will be going back to school – the majority to special schools. For KS4 there is an emphasis on getting ready for Petroc College. PRUs seek to establish a baseline in terms of young people’s learning as they have often regressed in their schooling. Progress once at the PRU is often rapidly made.

There is no uniform at Schools Company North Devon Academy as many of the children that attend have been in battles with their school about uniform compliance so that it would seem counterproductive to continue with this; rather the focus is firmly on learning. The aim here is to remove the barriers to learning, getting children to be more reflective and helping them to achieve as best as they possibly can. There is also an emphasis on young people learning to do things for themselves.

PRUs do not have to teach the same as a mainstream school and do not report to the DfE in the same way. They do not offer modern languages for instance, but do English, maths, ICT etc as well as a lot of vocational options with BTECs in hospitality & catering, construction, hair & beauty and mechanics. Class sizes are four to six. There is a raft of additional support offered to the children including counselling, and family intervention work with the parents.

The Schools Company North Devon Academy has three sites and is therefore able to separate to a large extent those with medical needs with those with behavioural issues. An increasing number of the medical-needs young people are girls with mental health issues, and problems around depression and anxiety. Schools do not know whether to go down the ill health route or permanently exclude. All schools have a nurture type provision but schools are not keen to hold onto pupils who are at risk of self-harming through the day and the level of vigilance required supervising them – these young people need specialist support. Most of the physically unwell medical-needs children can be cared for at home.

Devon has a high number of permanent exclusions. There are less permanent exclusions in the South and West of the County, where it is a different demographic that has a higher number of children with medical needs. North Devon has fewer children with medical needs, but has about three times the national average in terms of permanent exclusions

There are some small rural schools that claim not have the infrastructure to deal with more extreme behavioural issues and are not equipped to meet the needs of the most complex young people. While permanent exclusions from primary schools tend to represent the most challenging pupils. These children often having had abusive early years, child protection issues at home and lower level SEN.

Page 103 33 Children in PRUs tend to come from difficult backgrounds. Where a family presents well then the problem is likely to either be a bereavement or domestic violence – these two issues transcend class.

Devon PRUs are not set up as part of an intervention strategy, but as the last resort. The Inclusion Officers have undertaken some work to encourage partnerships between PRUs and schools, but the County Council has yet to see the results it wanted in terms of outcomes. The idea was for schools to work in partnership holding pupils from KS1-3 employing their own specialist staff with the PRU just for KS4.

The County Council use managed transfers into the PRU for young people on the verge of a permanent exclusion. The issue with this is that many of these children feel as though they have been permanently excluded. It is unclear how well managed transfers serve the young person or whether it is more about the data not showing up as a permanent exclusion against the County Council.

Chances, Newton Abbot

Devon Youth Service operates Chances an alternative education provision for secondary age children at risk of permanent exclusion from mainstream school. Young people who attend Chances remain on school roll and staff work to try to resolve their problems and overcome barriers to learning, so that that they are stable enough to return to their school. A large amount of work at Chances is supporting young people in building their self-esteem, confidence and resilience and plays a pivotal role in getting the young people to re-engage in education and their schools. The majority of young people that attend Chances have low self-esteem and confidence as well as poor social skills. Young people are often angry with their school and considerable work is undertaken to look at these issues. Chances seeks to address the barriers to learning and build resilience. Young people have a key worker who helps to support them in overcoming social and emotional issues. It is vital to find coping strategies to deal with problems as they arise.

It is the responsibility of schools to send work across for pupils. It is invaluable in terms of their reintegration back into school that the young person remains up to date, or catches up with their work. Positive relationships are being built with the schools to ensure pupils sent to Chances are still on their radar. Where a placement at Chances is longer than six weeks, a review is undertaken. Communication about and evidencing of work at Chances has now improved. Chances provides a weekly report to each school on pupil progress, as well as a more detailed half-termly report. Chances provides a timetable that includes math, science, English and PE for all students, with history and geography for Key Stage 3, as well as a range of vocational courses.

The Junction, where Chances is based, does not have to be registered with Ofsted and currently is not, but an agreement has been made that it will be shortly. The Junction was however inspected as part of Coombeshead school’s Ofsted. Chances looks at best practice from other schools to try to be outstanding.

Transport is the main barrier in terms of young people’s attendance. Attendance though at Chances rarely dips below 90%. Intensive outreach work is undertaken with those not attending. Chances links in with the Head of Education & Learning’s Missing Monday meetings. Staff are well aware of the vulnerability of young people missing from schools and the risk of child sexual exploitation (CSE).

The young people enjoy the BTEC course in food that Chances offers. There is something very positive for the children cooking, and bringing home food for their parents.

Chances has a proactive approach to working with parents, and will often call home to report on good progress. This is an important part of trying to stop the perpetual cycle of negativity both at home and at school.

A significant change in the last 10 years is the move from behavioral to mental health issues affecting the young people.

Given pressure on school’s budgets, there is an issue with schools waiting until crisis point before engaging Chances rather than working more proactively earlier in the piece.

Page 104 34 Chances provide some open access youth work, which is useful in terms of given young people the opportunity to reconnect with staff and also in terms engaging in positive activities, including in the school holidays.

Following a Babcock inspection, it was determined that Chances could not provide full-time education with the resources at its disposal. Chances recognises that if a young person is at the facility for too long it may be at the detriment of their schooling. The average length of stay is 6-8 weeks. The focus is on the young people being still part of their existing school and a reintegration back to that school once the appropriate support has been provided so that they are able to engage again with their studies. There are eight members of staff at Chances; six youth workers and two teachers. Chances takes pupils from secondary schools from a wide area including Exeter, Teignbridge and the South Hams. Chances currently has a 70/30 split of boys to girls. It is currently expanding to offer provision in Dawlish, which will make access easier for the Exeter schools.

Views from Young People at Chances

The Task Group met with a group of nine young people accompanied by a member of staff, who made frequent interjections.

 One pupil had two managed moves. The first of these was very sudden. The transport had not been arranged properly and he felt it was set up to fail. He was now at another school, and feels much better. He can now concentrate in class and is as a result getting much better grades. The extra support that Chances provides to him, for two hours a day, is really helpful. He now felt he had learnt how to control his anger.

 Smaller classes so less distractions. Staff connect much better and offer individual support, which does not happen in the same way in mainstream schools.

 Learning loads at Chances, so hope to be able to impress teachers with progress when returning to main school again.

 Get on better with teachers at Chances.

 Feel happier at Chances as it is a better atmosphere, and more fun.

 Bullying is an in issue in mainstream schools which does not happen in the same way at Chances. Social media is also a big problem at school.

 Chances helps to make you less likely to misbehave.

 Teachers respect pupils at Chances more than in mainstream schools. Staff at Chances try to understand things from a young person’s perspective, where in school you might often get labelled and blamed.

 NB Some of the students who were present refused to contribute to the discussion and others took a stance that contradicted the largely positive view that dominated.

Page 105 35 Conclusions

The evidence we have presented above tells some very different stories, partly, of course, because it comes from a range of sources. The statistical data certainly show that exclusions are not evenly distributed amongst the school population. The summary given earlier includes some worrying findings:

1. Those who receive free school meals on the grounds of low ‘parental’ income are significantly more likely to be excluded, either permanently or temporarily, than those who do not. This is true nationally but is even more evident in Devon particularly with regard to permanent exclusions.

2. Those who have special educational needs, both with and without statements, are also significantly more likely to be excluded both nationally and in Devon, although in Devon those with statements of SEN are particularly prone to both permanent and fixed-term exclusion.

3. Children in Care in Devon are nearly eight times as likely as other children to receive a temporary exclusion, although they are not subject to permanent exclusion.

4. Boys are around three times as likely as girls to be permanently or temporarily excluded, both nationally and in Devon.

From these results it would seem that those children who might be considered as being most in need of high quality, stable and continuous education (those from low-income families, those with special educational needs particularly those with statements, and, with regard to FTEs, those in care) are those most likely to be excluded from it. There are clearly big problems and challenges here and the more general policies currently in place such as pupil premium and SEN funding, do not seem to have had a significant impact with regard to school exclusions. This situation needs to be addressed urgently as a high priority.

From the County Council officers we know that there are systems in place to support schools in their efforts to become more inclusive, and to prevent exclusions taking place by devising various schemes to cope with disaffected and troublesome pupils. The Inclusion Officers offer a valuable service much appreciated by schools. The support provided by Babcock LDP and the County generally is referred to by schools in most instances in positive terms - the MASH is acknowledged to be improving, the ‘early help’ approach is welcomed.

Our case studies show that schools are trying various methods to address the problems they face. Their efforts to be more inclusive include specific units intended to provide for the needs of disaffected and troublesome pupils, highly developed pastoral systems designed to meet the needs of all students and thus prevent the problems from developing, the provision of special curriculum options for those more vocationally and less academically inclined along with more personalised and practical pedagogies. The strategies adopted vary between schools – with a somewhat bureaucratic method adopted by some built on clear guidelines with defined rewards and sanctions for various kinds of behaviour, whilst others prefer a more individualised therapeutic approach. We know from statistics that compare Devon schools that there are significant differences between them in terms of numbers of both permanent and temporary exclusions, not all of which are explained by differences in catchment area or pupil intake. However, there seems to be little systematic knowledge on what works best in terms of evidence-based inclusive practice.

Staff at both the schools and alternative providers made strong statements about what they saw as a worsening situation with regard to the mental health of a significant and growing minority of their students. They felt that CAMHS was not helpful enough and that they were under-resourced and under-trained to be able to cope. Members of the Task Group were told several times about children from ‘problem families’ who had little chance to do well at school. There is, though, a need to better understand disruptive pupil behaviour. There is a tendency to see this solely in terms of the characteristics of the pupils involved, often as an aspect of their special educational needs or with

Page 106 36 reference to mental health issues. However, it should not be forgotten that misbehaviour may also be the product of poor teaching or an inadequate curriculum or a pastoral care system that does not meet the needs of pupils. Of course, both individual and contextual aspects often interact.

The wider education system plays an important part in all this. Inclusion officers struggle to combat various forms of unofficial exclusion when schools are under so much pressure to improve both their scores in terms of pupils’ academic progress and achievement, and their PEX and FTE statistics. Elective Home Education is seen by parents on behalf of their children and even, so we are told, by some schools, as a way of squaring this particular circle. For pupils who are not succeeding at and not enjoying school why not stay at home, especially as this has the added bonus of saving their schools from the impact of their poor performance and disaffection? Internal exclusion is a half-way house, cheaper than paying for alternative providers but still very expensive in terms of staff time and resources, and of doubtful effectiveness. Other options include late or early school, part-time timetables and FE college courses.

Senior school staff tell us that they have limited scope for action given restrictions on their budgets and the downgrading by the DfE of the qualifications provided by the vocational courses many of their students wish to take.

However, the success of ‘managed moves’, particularly those supported with extra funding, shows that disaffected and troublesome pupils can re-start their school careers in other schools, especially, it seems, in those that have a more inclusive curriculum and a more well-developed pastoral support system.

Also, of course, the pupils who spoke to us had stories of redemption, of finding their way to acceptance and success because of some important intervention, sometimes provided internally and at other times involving a move to a new institution. Failure is not, it seems, inevitable providing those opportunities are available. Other pupils told us of the causes of their disaffection – the poor teaching they experienced, the lack of help they got in lessons, the noisy classrooms, the disrespectful teachers who, they felt, were all too ready to see them in terms of their label, the unavailability of the sort of vocational courses they wanted to take. Put these things right then perhaps the number of misbehaving pupils on the verge of exclusion of one kind or the other would reduce significantly?

Alternative providers are in the privileged position of being able to change the environment they offer to better accommodate the pupils who have been excluded from their schools. The Schools Company North Devon Academy simply removed what it saw as one of the barriers to learning – the rule that students should wear a school uniform. This was seen as an unnecessary obstacle to good relations between staff and students and the cause of endless friction where applied. Certainly in one of the schools we visited, the tightening up of rules on uniform had become a big issue with strong resistance from both pupils and parents, as evidenced by a large petition.

PRUs and places like Chances also have a better staff:student ratio and are able to give students smaller classes and more individual attention. They are also very expensive for the County or the schools that pay for their services – money that schools say they need to make their provision more inclusive. Our Task Group was given differing accounts of how successful such units were in turning things round for the pupils who were sent to them, and of their ability to prepare students for reintegration into the mainstream. The staff we talked to at North Devon Academy and Chances were very positive, the DCC officers less so. There was a similar contrast between the positive views expressed by most of the students we spoke to at Chances and the more negative feedback from most of those we spoke to at their schools who had been there.

Overall, then, a highly complex and problematic situation. Of course, the recommendations we offer are meant to address this.

In the meantime the problem of pupil misbehaviour that sometimes gets so bad that it leads to exclusion continues to plague the education system. Those who suffer most from this may well be those pupils who are not the perpetrators themselves, but their victims. This may be directly, through bullying, verbal abuse or physical attack, or indirectly as the disruption they cause disturbs them, their teachers and their schools so taking time and resources away from their learning. Solving the problem would thus be of great benefit to the whole school population.

Page 107 37 Councillors Andy Hannan (Chair) Frank Biederman Alistair Dewhirst John Hone Sara Randall Johnson Margaret Squires

Copies of this report may be obtained from the Democratic Services & Scrutiny Secretariat at County Hall, Topsham Road, Exeter, Devon, EX2 4QD or by ringing 01392 382232. It will be available also on the County Council’s website at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/decision_making/scrutiny/taskgroups.htm If you have any questions or wish to talk to anyone about this report then please contact: Dan Looker 01392 382232/ [email protected]

Page 108 38 Appendix 1 - Task Group Activities

A1.1 The first meeting of the Task Group took place on 16 July 2015 to discuss the scoping of the review and receive an overview from the Head of Education & Learning; Senior Accountant (Schools) and the Virtual School Headteacher & School Improvement Strategy Manager.

A1.2 On 3 September 2015 members met with the 3 Inclusion Officers (Education) for Devon.

A1.3 On 7 October 2015 the Task Group received evidence from the Head of Education & Learning; Inclusion Officer (Exeter/East) and the Inclusion Officer (North and Mid Devon).

A1.4 On 13 November 2015 members visited School A and School B.

A1.5 On 16 November 2015 the Task Group visited Chances and School C.

A1.6 On 20 November 2015 members visited Schools Company North Devon Academy, Barnstaple and School D.

A1.7 On 12 February 2016 the Task Group met with a member of Westleigh Parish Council, following which the Group discussed its draft findings and recommendations.

Page 109 39 Appendix 2 – Bibliography & References

Bibliography

Championing All Our Children – A strategic vision for vulnerable children and young people in Devon http://www.devon.gov.uk/championing-all-our-children-2014.pdf

Ofsted on the Pupil premium http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/permanent-and-fixed-period-exclusions-in-england- 2013-to-2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/495651/SEN_Abse nce_Exclusions_ad_hoc_release_v4.pdf

References

Children’s Commissioner for England (2012) They never give up on you. London: Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England – school exclusions enquiry.

Cowie, H Jennifer, D & Sharp, S (2002) Violence in schools: the UK. In P K Smith (Ed) Violence in schools: the response of Europe, 45-56. London: Routledge Falmer.

Furlong, V J (1976) Interaction sets in the classroom, in Stubbs, M & Delamont, S (Eds) Explorations in Classroom Observation. Chichester: Wiley.

Hannan, A (1975) The problem of the ‘unmotivated’ in an open school: a participant observation study, in Chanan, G and Delamont, S (eds) Frontiers of Classroom Research, 146-162, NFER

Ofsted (2005) Managing challenging behaviour. London: Ofsted.

Ofsted (2006) Improving behaviour and attendance in secondary schools 2005. London: Ofsted.

Ofsted (2008) Reducing exclusions of black pupils from secondary schools : examples of good practice. London: Ofsted.

Ofsted (2011) Supporting children with challenging behaviour through a nurture group approach. London: Ofsted.

Tucker, S (2013) Pupil vulnerability and school exclusion: developing responsive pastoral policies and practices in secondary education in the UK. Pastoral Care in Education, 31, 4, 279-291.

Page 110 40 Agenda Item 16 Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee

Scrutiny in a Commissioning Council Task Group

March 2016 Page 111 CS/16/15 24 March 2016 Corporate Services Committee

1. Recommendations

1.1 The Task Group asks the Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet to endorse and action the recommendations below and to receive a progress update in 6 months’ time. These recommendations apply to the Scrutiny of County Council services only. Health Scrutiny’s relationship with health commissioners and providers is determined by separate legislation, and this is referred to later on in this report.

1.2 The Task Group recognises past examples of good practice in terms of Scrutiny and Commissioning, however the recommendations below set out to provide a new consistent approach for the scrutiny of commissioning processes and commissioned services, across the Council and its Scrutiny Committees, reflecting the changing face of the Council and how it delivers services.

Recommendation How? Who? By When?

1 Strengthen communication and Each Scrutiny Committee to Devon County July collaboration between Cabinet select one of its Members to be Council Scrutiny 2016 Members and Heads of Service ‘Commissioning Liaison’ for that Chairman and and Scrutiny Committees, in group of services (role description Committees relation to commissioned attached at appendix A), initially services. implemented on a trial basis, and if deemed successful by the Committee, continued, with a re- selection of the Commissioning Liaison Member on an annual basis.

2 For Scrutiny to engage with and Through the adoption and All Devon July contribute to the development of implementation of the Scrutiny County Council 2016 the re-commissioning of and Commissioning Protocol Heads of services, and the new (Appendix B). Service and commissioning of services, at Commissioners the earliest possible stage.

3 Ensure that the Council’s ‘joint The inclusion of a clause Devon County Sept venture partners’ and external (Appendix C) in new contracts Council Legal, 2016 providers of large contracts, with joint venture partners and Procurement, may be held to account and be large external providers. The relevant Heads subject to Scrutiny. contracts/services to which this of Service, clause will be applied will be Cabinet agreed by the relevant Cabinet Members, Member, Scrutiny Chairman and Scrutiny Commissioning Liaison Member, Chairman and taking into account the contract Commissioning value and the role of the provider Liaison in thePage strategic 112 planning of the Members 1 delivery of the service.

4 All Scrutiny Members to receive All Scrutiny Committees to Scrutiny Dec assurance and have the receive performance reports by Officers, Head 2016 opportunity to scrutinise the exception, and as requested by of Services for performance of joint venture the Committee, setting out the Communities partners and large providers. performance of services provided and other by joint venture partners and relevant Heads large providers, including relevant of Service written commentary on the performance data, with the relevant Head of Service in attendance at Committee to respond to Members’ questions.

2. Introduction

2.1 Local authorities across the country are making a shift from delivering services in-house, to commissioning a large number of their services out to external providers. While the reasons for this shift are multi-facetted, reduced government funding has played a part and has meant that local authorities are having to revaluate the way that they deliver services and support communities.

2.2 Scrutiny Committee Chairmen and Vice Chairmen have previously questioned the role of Scrutiny in a ‘Commissioning Council’ and the Leader of the Council has welcomed the involvement of Scrutiny Committees in monitoring those services which are commissioned by the Council and delivered by external providers.

2.3 At its meeting on 17 September 2015, the Corporate Services Scrutiny Committee resolved to establish a Task Group to review the role of Scrutiny in the Council’s commissioning arrangements, utilising available support from the Centre for Public Scrutiny.

2.4 Since the summer of 2014, the Centre for Public Scrutiny have been working with a number of local authorities across England and Wales to consider how robust governance can help deliver major change, and address the governance and accountability challenges that transformation, and the move towards commissioning in particular, can present for Scrutiny1.

Scope of the Review

2.5 The Task Group set out to explore the following questions during its investigation:

o How does the Council ensure that the Scrutiny function stays relevant and meaningful? o In a Council which no longer directly delivers most of its services, how can Scrutiny continue to hold those responsible for delivering services to account? o At what point in the Commissioning process can Scrutiny add the most value? o How can commissioners engage Scrutiny in a meaningful way?

1 The Change Game: How councils are using good governance as a way to navigate challenging times http://www.cfps.org.uk/domains/cfps.org.uk/local/media/downloads/CfPS_Change_Game_WEB.pdf Page 113 2 3. Background

Devon County Council’s Commissioning Approach

3.1 Devon County Council provides a large range of services using a number of different delivery models. This includes commissioning services, both at the level of the individual (e.g. a care package) and at population level (e.g. highways maintenance). Examples of the different types of services provided and the range of delivery models used, are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Service Delivery Models

3.2 The Devon Commissioning Model (Figure 2) is based on the traditional Commissioning Cycle of Analysing, Planning, Securing Services (‘doing’) and Reviewing. However the Council is currently exploring other approaches such as ‘outcome based commissioning’ which focuses on outcomes rather than process type performance measures, and ‘co-production’ where commissioners and providers work in partnership with service users, to design the services they receive. The Public Health team in Devon has led the way in using these alternative approaches to commission Drug and Alcohol Services and Domestic Abuse Services2.

3.3 The Council has also been working with partners (including the Cabinet Office, other local authorities, Devon CCGs and the Police) to develop the Far South West Commissioning Academy, which aims to develop commissioning skills in the workforce and improve commissioning practice and outcomes for communities3.

2 New Approaches to Commissioning http://www.devon.gov.uk/loadtrimdocument?url=&filename=CX/15/1.CMR&rn=15/WD218&dg=Public 3 Devon County Council Peer Challenge: Managing the Business https://new.devon.gov.uk/peerchallenge/managing- the-business/ Page 114 3 Figure 2

The Scrutiny Function in Devon

3.4 Devon County Council has four Scrutiny Committees, which independently monitor how the Council goes about its business and the decisions it makes. Three of these Committees are aligned to the Council’s organisational structure, namely ‘Corporate Services’, ‘People’ and ‘Place’. These Committees have powers to review the decisions and actions of Cabinet, review Council policy and practice, make recommendations to Cabinet, and to that end, require Cabinet Members and Officers to attend Committee and answer questions4. In 2012, the Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities, urging the Government to legislate for more organisations to become subject to Scrutiny. However, to date, there remains no provision in law which allows Scrutiny Committees to require external providers of Council services to attend Committee.

3.5 The fourth Scrutiny Committee, Health & Wellbeing, has additional powers5 which allow it to require NHS, private and voluntary sector providers, as well as NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, to attend before committee to answer questions. The Committee regularly receives reports and attendances from NHS providers, reporting on a number of issues including service updates, performance and consultations. However, despite having powers to request it, the attendance of smaller, non-NHS providers at Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee is quite unusual. Healthcare providers in Devon also have a legal duty to send their Quality Account to the

4 Local Government Act 2000, Section 21 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/22/section/21 5 The Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/218/contents/madePage 115 4 Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, allowing Members to review the information contained in the report and provide a statement on the Committee’s view of what is reported6.

4. Findings

4.1 One of the key questions the Task Group set out to address was ‘at what point in the commissioning process can Scrutiny add the most value?’ In doing so the Task Group considered the opportunities for Scrutiny at all stages of the commissioning process, and the role of Scrutiny after a service has been commissioned, in performance monitoring and quality assurance.

Scrutiny Engagement with the Process of Commissioning

4.2 Members of the Council’s Scrutiny Committees were invited to attend a workshop on Scrutiny and Commissioning on 3 December 2015. Twelve Members attended, representing the Council’s four Scrutiny Committees, and drew on their own experiences of Scrutiny’s involvement in the commissioning process.

4.3 At this session, Highways Maintenance was cited by Members as a positive example of the early engagement of Scrutiny in the recommissioning of a service. In this case, Scrutiny Members had the opportunity, early on in the recommissioning process, to contribute to the selection of a new delivery model by focussing on their priorities and desired outcomes for the service, through a Scrutiny Spotlight Review. However some Members felt less informed about the progress of their recommendations and the consequential decision making process by Cabinet, following the Spotlight Review. A timetable of Place Scrutiny’s involvement in the recommissioning process (as of February 2016) is shown below.

The Recommissioning of the Highways Maintenance Service Timetable of Scrutiny Engagement

Autumn 2014 Head of Highways, Capital Development & Waste contacts the Chairman of Place Scrutiny Committee to advise that the service is due to be recommissioned

November 2014 At the request of the Chairman, a Member Briefing session on the recommissioning process is held, to which all Members are invited

December 2014 A Spotlight Review is held, to inform decision making on the future delivery model, to which all Members are invited

January 2015 Spotlight Review Report and recommendations are considered at Place Scrutiny Committee, and recommended to Cabinet

February 2015 Spotlight Review Report and recommendations are considered at Cabinet

May 2015 Cabinet agree the future delivery model for Highways Maintenance

January 2016 Place Scrutiny Committee receive a Highways Maintenance Term Contract Update, at the request of the Chairman

4.4 Scrutiny Members also discussed the role of Scrutiny in the creation of a staff mutual to deliver the Council’s Library Service. In this case Members felt that the regular updates to Place Scrutiny Committee had kept them informed of progress in this area, although conversely in this

6 Department of Health, Quality Accounts: a guide for Overview and Scrutiny Committees https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/215688/dh_133408.pdfPage 116 5 case they had not been involved early enough to be able to influence the decision to commission the service out, or to inform the focus and set the outcomes for the service.

4.5 Some Members also expressed a feeling of being disengaged from the work of the Council, impacting on Scrutiny’s ability to act as a ‘critical friend’ in relation to commissioning processes.

4.6 On 3 December, the Task Group also met with a number of the Council’s Heads of Service and other key officers responsible for commissioning. Other examples of Scrutiny’s involvement in the commissioning and recommissioning of services were discussed, but few examples were offered where Scrutiny had been engaged with the commissioning of a service at the analysis or planning stage. Examples of contract extension reviews for Integrated Children’s Services and Property Services were described, where Cabinet Members had been heavily involved, but Scrutiny Members had had little chance to directly influence the process, except the option of ‘calling in’ the final Cabinet decision, which it was recognised was not generally a constructive approach or reflective of a co-operative style of working.

4.7 Officers and Members of the Task Group agreed that the early engagement of Scrutiny in new commissioning and recommissioning was fundamental, and could be improved in Devon, recognising the value that Scrutiny could bring to the process by representing the needs and views of communities and by influencing the setting of outcomes for the service being commissioned.

Scrutinising Commissioned Services and External Providers

4.8 The Task Group also undertook to review the impact of commissioning services to external providers on accountability, and on the role of Scrutiny. As described (Paragraph 3.4), Scrutiny Committees have no powers to call external providers of Council services to stand before them and answer questions. As part of their investigation, the Task Group sought the views of Heads of Service and Cabinet Members on this aspect, and also met with four of the Council’s largest providers and joint venture partners (South West Highways, Virgin Care, Babcock LDP and NPS), to gauge how they viewed their responsibility towards and relationship with Scrutiny.

4.9 The Task Group acknowledges that the County Council remains the responsible and accountable body for the services it commissions to external providers, and that the case could therefore be made, that the relevant Head of Service and Cabinet Member should continue to attend Scrutiny Committee and report on the delivery and performance of their service, irrelevant of whether this service is provided in house or by an external organisation. However, many Scrutiny Members found this argument to be unconvincing, considering that providers of Council services should have some direct accountability towards Scrutiny and the people of Devon, and that their performance should be scrutinised in the public domain.

4.10 The Task Group found that providers had varying experiences of Scrutiny in Devon. Virgin Care and Babcock LDP both cited examples of their attendance at Scrutiny Committee. South West Highways acknowledged that closer working with Members had increased over recent years, and that the organisation gave regular updates to the Council’s Highways and Traffic Order Committees. NPS advised that there had been little interface with Scrutiny in the past. Overall there are far more examples of provider/partner attendance at Committee and involvement in Task Group investigations at People’s Scrutiny Committee than at either Place or Corporate Services Scrutiny Committees. This could in part be due to the proportionally higher number of commissioned services in the People’s service area, and the high profile nature of social care and education services.

4.11 The Task Group discussed the use of a contract clause with the providers present, which would require providers to attend Scrutiny Committees and answer questions, in much the same way as Cabinet Members and officers of the local authority are required. An example of a clause used by Leeds City Council in one of their majorPage contracts 117 is provided below. 6 Leeds City Council

D7.1 It is a condition of the Contract that if required by the Council to do so the Contractor shall throughout the Term and for a period of six (6) years after expiry of the Contract give all reasonable assistance to the Council including attending the Council’s Scrutiny and/or Executive Board in order to answer questions pertaining to the Contract should the need arise.

D7.2 In the event that the Council requires the Contractor’s assistance after the expiry of the Contract as referred to in clause D7.1 the Terms and Conditions, the Council shall pay the reasonable expenses of the Contractor arising as a result of providing such assistance.

4.12 The Task Group felt that the use of a similar clause in Devon would ensure that the performance of providers was subject to Scrutiny and could be used to hold providers to account. However Members considered that the requirement for providers to attend Scrutiny (or Cabinet) to answer questions for a period of six years after the expiry of the contract was excessive, and although this may align with audit practices, they did not feel that that such a long period was necessary for Scrutiny.

4.13 All four providers said that they would be willing to attend Scrutiny and offer all reasonable assistance where requested by the Committee, and that they would be unlikely to object to the inclusion of such a clause in a contract with the Council. However, caution was raised around the work of Scrutiny duplicating the role of contract managers. One provider also raised the issue of commercial confidentiality of some provider information, but considered that this could be overcome by utilising private meetings with Members where necessary. Providers also suggested that the relationship between Scrutiny and themselves would need to be managed carefully, and that it would be beneficial if Cabinet Members were to facilitate this relationship.

4.14 Through discussions with Providers and Cabinet Members, the Task Group acknowledged that there was a distinction between joint venture partners such as Babcock LDP, and small providers such as an independent care home, and that the Council’s expectations around provider engagement with Scrutiny should reflect this. Joint venture partners, and providers of large contracts (such as South West Highways) will tend to have a prominent role in the strategic planning of service delivery, and therefore there should be more of an expectation upon these organisations to attend and/or report directly to Scrutiny Committees. Concerns were also raised about the potential impact on the market place if small providers were required to attend Scrutiny Committee on a regular basis.

Performance Reporting

4.15 Performance reporting also differs across Scrutiny Committees. Performance reporting at People’s Scrutiny Committee is being developed on an ongoing basis, partly in recognition of recommendations made by Ofsted in their review of Children’s Services in April 2013. Reports are prepared by the Strategic Director of People’s Services and contain extensive commentary on the performance information provided, covering both in house services and external provision. Usual practice is for the relevant Heads of Service and Cabinet Members to speak to the reports and respond to questions on their service’s performance. The People’s Scrutiny Committee has also established Children’s and Adults’ Standing Overview Groups, which meet bi-monthly to monitor the performance of these services.

4.16 Performance reports provided to Corporate Services and Place Scrutiny Committees are also currently being redeveloped, however current practice is that the report is prepared and presented by the Head of Services forPage Communities 118 (the responsible officer for corporate 7 performance). The performance reports tend to be much briefer in style, and presented by the Head of Service for Communities and Cabinet Member for Performance and Engagement, without attendance from the relevant services Cabinet Member or Head of Service. This often means that those presenting the report do not have to specialist service knowledge to answer questions raised by Members at Committee.

Learning from Health Scrutiny

4.17 Though the Health and Social Care Act 2001, principal local authorities have powers to review and scrutinise matters relating to the health service in their authority’s area, to make reports and recommendations to NHS bodies or other relevant authorities on these matters, and to require any officer of a local NHS body to attend before the committee to answer questions.

4.18 The Health and Social Care Act 2012 dramatically reorganised the NHS, abolishing Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities and creating Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). CCGs are now responsible for commissioning most hospital and community NHS services from a competitive market place, made up of NHS, private and voluntary sector providers. Specialist Services and Primary Care Services are commissioned by NHS England, and Public Health Services are commissioned by Public Health England and principle local authorities7.

4.19 The Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013 extended local authorities’ Health Scrutiny powers, to allow Health Scrutiny Committees to require private and voluntary sector providers to attend before committee to answer questions.

4.20 The ‘new’ NHS has a strong commissioning structure, with clear direction from central government on how this commissioning should be carried out. Although the Health Scrutiny’s powers to require information and attendance from providers may appear enviable to those engaging in Council Scrutiny of commissioned services, local government commissioning operates in a much more fluid and varied environment, where council’s decide locally how each service should be delivered. Consequently Council Scrutiny of commissioned services will need to reflect this, and take a flexible approach.

Learning from other Local Authorities

4.21 Across the country, a number of other local authorities have been reviewing how their Scrutiny function is contributing to overall governance, in light of local government transformation and commissioning. Both Worcestershire and Buckinghamshire County Councils have worked with the Centre for Public Scrutiny on this topic, and brief summaries of their reviews and relevant proposals are provided below.

4.22 Buckinghamshire’s review focussed mainly on Scrutiny’s role in the early stages of the commissioning process8, whereas Worcestershire considered the role of Scrutiny in the quality assurance of commissioned services9.

7 The Kings Fund: NHS at 65 http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-65 8 Buckinghamshire County Council, Developing the role of scrutiny within a commissioning authority, May 2015 9 Worcestershire County Council, Scrutiny DevelopmentPage Area in 119 Commissioning, Spring 2015 8 Buckinghamshire County Council

Buckinghamshire’s review considered how Scrutiny could contribute to the identification of service user need and add value at the ‘analysis’ stage of the commissioning cycle. The review identified missed opportunities for Scrutiny to influence the recommissioning of services due to the timing of Scrutiny involvement, the understanding of the role of Scrutiny by senior officers and gaps in knowledge and the strategic information provided to Scrutiny Members.

A number of practical ways to improve practice were proposed, including producing Member guidance and an e-learning package for Scrutiny Members on how and when to engage effectively with the commissioning process, improved use of strategic information to inform Scrutiny work programmes, the production of clear guidance for Member/officer interface in the commissioning cycle, and improving Scrutiny’s overview of performance monitoring against outcomes, for both in house and external providers.

In January 2016, Buckinghamshire County Council’s Cabinet approved the Council’s Commissioning Framework, which set out the role of Members in the commissioning process. https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=124&MId=6778&Ver=4

Worcestershire County Council

The review considered how Scrutiny Members could play a more active role in challenging the quality assurance of commissioned services. Facilitated workshops were held involving Scrutiny and Cabinet Members, group leaders, senior officers and the Scrutiny Manager to explore the concept and practice of quality assurance and consider where scrutiny could add the most value.

The proposed approach involved the introduction of Quality Assurance Scrutiny meetings, which would be held at the request of Scrutiny Members when they consider that further quality assurance work was required. These meetings would be held in private to overcome any issues around commercial confidentiality. Recommendations from this meeting would be dealt with immediately by officers, rather than going to Cabinet.

4.23 Many of the challenges identified by both of these authorities were comparable to those encountered by Scrutiny Members in Devon, and likewise Members of the Task Group considered the approaches taken by Buckinghamshire and Worcestershire to inform their own recommendations, particularly recognising the need for clearer guidance for Member involvement in commissioning processes, and how Members can best scrutinise the performance and quality of services delivered by external bodies.

5. Conclusion

5.1 During the course of this review, the Task Group has drawn on the experiences and views of County Council Commissioners, Cabinet Members, Scrutiny Members and Providers. Members have also considered the role of Health Scrutiny, and taken learning from the experiences of fellow County Councils on the role of Scrutiny in a Commissioning Council.

5.2 In conclusion, the Task Group considers that direct control over the output and therefore the accountability of Councils for the servicesPage 120they deliver may be being reduced, to varying 9 degrees, as a result of the multiplicity of joint ventures and contracts through which Councils commission services. However, through collaboration with Cabinet Members and senior officers, Devon County Council Scrutiny can improve democratic accountability in two ways. Firstly, by influencing the planning and design of a service and the setting of outcomes, and secondly by the proactive monitoring of the adequacy and standard of commissioned services, with a view to improving service provision and public satisfaction.

5.3 During this review, the Task Group found examples of Scrutiny being involved in the commissioning and recommissioning of services, but this was inconsistent, with there being no set process for when Scrutiny should be involved or a consensus on how Scrutiny can best add value during the process.

5.4 Inconsistencies were also found across Scrutiny Committees and service areas around performance reporting and provider attendance at Committee, however there was a willingness from the joint venture partners and large providers consulted, to have a closer working relationship with Scrutiny.

5.5 It is clear that the County Council remains the accountable body for the services it commissions, even when these services are delivered by external providers. However, joint venture partners and providers with a role in the strategic planning of services should also have some degree of accountability towards the people of Devon and towards Scrutiny.

5.6 The Task Group considers that the recommendations set out at the beginning of this report will ensure that Scrutiny is given the opportunity to influence and add value to the commissioning process, and to support the Council in holding its external providers to account.

6. Sources of evidence

Witnesses 6.1 The task group heard testimony and received contributions from a number of sources and would like to express sincere thanks to the following for their involvement and the information that they have shared, as well as to express a desire of continuation of joint work towards the fulfilment of the recommendations in this document.

Name Organisation

Kristian Tomblin Devon County Council, Public Health

Ian Hobbs Devon County Council, Social Care Commissioning

David Whitton Devon County Council, Highways, Capital Development & Waste Marian Martin Devon County Council, Children’s Social Work & Child Protection Fiona Fleming Devon County Council, Children’s Social Work & Child Protection Sue Clarke Devon County Council, Education & Learning John Smith Devon County Council, Services for Communities Rob Parkhouse Devon County Council, Business Strategy & Support Justin Bennetts Devon County Council, Business Strategy & Support Carl Hedger Devon County Council, Legal Services Frank O’Friel Virgin Care Page 121 10 Glen Robinson South West Highways Will Mumford NPS Shirley Swinbank Babcock LDP Councillor Stuart Barker Devon County Council, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health Services Councillor John Clatworthy Devon County Council, Cabinet Member for Resources and Asset Management Councillor Stuart Hughes Devon County Council, Cabinet Member for Highway Management & Flood Prevention Councillor James McInnes Devon County Council, Cabinet Member for Children, Schools & Skills Peter Marrington Leeds City Council Suzanne O’Leary Worcestershire County Council Sara Turnbull Buckinghamshire County Council

6.2 In addition, the Task Group would also like to express thanks to Ann Reader and Tim Young (Frontline Consulting), for their delivery of the ‘Scrutiny in a Commissioning Council’ workshop on 3 December 2015, and to the County Councillors who attended this session, whose shared experiences of Scrutiny and Commissioning contributed to the findings and outcome of this review.

6.3 The Task Group would also like to express special thanks to Ed Hammond (Centre for Public Scrutiny) for his guidance and support throughout this Task Group investigation.

Bibliography

Buckinghamshire County Council Cabinet Minutes, Monday 11th January 2016 https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=124&MId=6778&Ver=4

Buckinghamshire County Council, Developing the role of scrutiny within a commissioning authority, May 2015

Buckinghamshire County Council, A Commissioning Framework for Buckinghamshire County Council https://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/documents/s73443/Appendix%201%20for%20Commissioning %20Framework.pdf

Centre for Public Scrutiny, The Change Game: How councils are using good governance as a way to navigate challenging times http://www.cfps.org.uk/domains/cfps.org.uk/local/media/downloads/CfPS_Change_Game_WEB.p df

Department of Health, Quality Accounts: a guide for Overview and Scrutiny Committees https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/215688/dh_133408. pdf

Devon County Council Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee Agenda and Minutes http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/councildemocracy/decision_making/cma/index_she.htm

Devon County Council, New Approaches to Commissioning in Devon http://www.devon.gov.uk/loadtrimdocument?url=&filename=CX/15/1.CMR&rn=15/WD218&dg=Public Page 122 11 Devon County Council Peer Challenge: Managing the Business https://new.devon.gov.uk/peerchallenge/managing-the-business/

Health and Social Care Act 2001 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/15/contents

The Kings Fund: NHS at 65 http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-65

Local Authority Health Scrutiny: Guidance to support Local Authorities and their partners to deliver effective health scrutiny https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324965/Local_autho rity_health_scrutiny.pdf

The Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/218/contents/made

Local Government Act 2000 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/22/contents

NHS Clinical Commissioners http://www.nhscc.org/ccgs/

Worcestershire County Council, Scrutiny Development Area in Commissioning, Spring 2015

7. Task Group Membership Membership of the Task Group was as follows: Councillors Julian Brazil (Chair), Kevin Ball, Mike Edmunds, Richard Hosking and Jim Knight

8. Contact For all enquiries about this report or its contents please contact Vicky Church (Scrutiny Officer) [email protected] 01392 383691

Page 123 12 Page 124 Appendix A

Scrutiny Committee Member ‘Commissioning Liaison’ Role and Responsibilities

1. To develop a fuller understanding of the Council’s commissioning processes and priorities

2. To build good working relationships with relevant Officers and Cabinet Members responsible for Commissioning, within the Scrutiny Committee’s remit

3. To act as an intermediary / link between Cabinet and their Scrutiny Committee and bring to the attention of the Scrutiny Chairman and Committee, any issues which could benefit from Scrutiny

4. In conjunction with the Scrutiny Committee Chairman and relevant Cabinet Member, agree the contracts or services which will be subject to the Scrutiny / Cabinet Attendance clause.

Page 125 13 Page 126 Appendix B

Scrutiny and Commissioning Protocol

This document sets out the agreed protocol for the involvement of Scrutiny Committees in the Council’s Commissioning processes.

1. Commissioning of Council Services

In order to inform the Scrutiny Work Programme, each Head of Service will provide the relevant Scrutiny Committee, biannually (at the March/April and November meetings), with a list of all services which are due to begin the process of commissioning or recommissioning within the next year.

2. New Commissioning and Service Change

When the Council is considering changing the way it delivers a service, the relevant Cabinet Member and / or Head of Service will inform the Chairman and Commissioning Liaison Member of the relevant Scrutiny Committee at the earliest stage, who may then require the issue to be reported to a Scrutiny Committee.

3. Scrutiny’s Role

3.1 In line with the Council’s Scrutiny Procedure Rules, and being fully briefed on upcoming changes through paragraphs 1 and 2 of this protocol, Scrutiny Committees will prioritise and set their own work programme for commissioned services.

3.2 Recognising the value of pre-decision Scrutiny, Committees will primarily focus their work at the ‘analysis’ and ‘planning’ stages of the commissioning process, allowing Scrutiny Members to contribute to the shaping of services and the setting of outcomes, by making recommendations to Cabinet.

3.3 To facilitate paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2, Scrutiny Committee Members will be provided with all relevant information, reflecting that which is shared with Cabinet.

Page 127 14 Page 128 Appendix C

Scrutiny / Cabinet Attendance clauses:

During the Term and for a period of one (1) year after termination or expiry of the Contract, the Provider shall provide all reasonable assistance for the purposes of answering questions pertaining to the operation of the Contract (including but not limited to the Provider’s performance of the Contract) and, should the need arise, attend the Council’s Scrutiny Committee and/or Cabinet as and when required by the Council. Wherever possible, the Authority will aim to give the Provider reasonable notice where the Provider’s attendance is required.

If, pursuant to clause [xx.x] the Council requires the Provider to attend the Council’s Scrutiny Committee and/or Cabinet [following termination or expiry of the Contract,] the Council shall reimburse the Provider for reasonable travel costs incurred.

Page 129 15

Agenda Item 18

BSS/16/5

Cabinet 9 March 2016

Notice of Motion: Taxation

Briefing Paper by the Head of Business Strategy and Support

1. Summary

The County Council at its meeting held on 18th February 2016, considered a Notice of Motion on the matter of tax avoidance by big business, from Councillor Wright, as follows:

‘This Council notes that:

 Tax avoidance by big business is rife and the Public Accounts Committee last year criticised HMRC for not doing more to tackle the problem  Austerity measures mean that £174m funding has been cut from this council over the past five years, this year £34m will be lost - and many more millions are set to be lost in the coming years, prompting damaging service cuts  The Devon portion of avoided corporation tax could total around £380m  The practice of tax avoidance among corporate giants also has a negative effect on small and medium- sized companies who pay more tax proportionately  That tax evasion and avoidance by multinational companies is costing developing countries up to $300 billion a year, according to the IMF – more than these countries receive in aid

This Council further notes:

In early 2015 new regulations required public bodies, including councils, to ask procurement qualification questions of all companies for tenders over £173,000 for service contracts and £4m for works contracts.

However, there are stricter standards available. This Council believes that bidders for council contracts should be asked to account for their past tax record, using the most rigorous possible government guidance (as in Procurement Policy Note 03/14)

This Council therefore calls for procurement procedures to be amended to require all companies bidding for council contracts to self-certify that they are fully tax-compliant in line with central government practice, using the standards in PPN 03/14, applying to contracts of the size specified above.

This Council asks the Cabinet to publicise this policy and to report on its implementation annually for the next three years.

NB. For more information about paying fairer tax, see http://www.fairtaxmark.net/for-business/

In accordance with Standing Order 6(6) the Notice of Motion was referred, without discussion, to the Cabinet for consideration.

This paper provides information to assist Members in responding to the Notice of Motion.

Page 131 2. Background The Cabinet Office publish Procurement Policy Notes which provide directives to contracting authorities about commitments made by Government as to the conduct of procurement exercises. Procurement Policy Note PPN (available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278135/PP N_0314_Measures_to_Promote_Tax_Compliance_Feb.pdf) was published on 6th February 2014 and at that time provided guidance on ‘Measures to Promote Tax Compliance’. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/102/pdfs/uksi_20150102_en.pdf) were subsequently adopted into UK law, on 26th February 2015. The Regulations apply to contracts above the relevant financial spend threshold (thresholds at which Contracts Regulations apply: Goods & Services £164,176; Works £4,104,394). The Regulations set out specific criteria required for the procurement process. Regulation 57 (Mandatory Exclusions) and 58 (Selection criteria) set out relevant criteria to be considered. To support implementation, the UK Government then introduced a national standard Pre Qualification Questionnaire, which all contracting authorities are required to use. Any non conformity must be justified to the Cabinet Office via a ‘reportable deviation’. The intent is to make it easier for suppliers to do business with government departments, under a common approach.

3. DCC Practice The Council has integrated the Cabinet Office’s pre qualification questionnaire into its procedures. ‘Measures to promote tax compliance’ form part of the Council’s supplier selection criteria. The Cabinet Office incorporated the principles of PPN (Appendix A) when developing its national standard Pre Qualification Questionnaire, thus its requirements are included. Having implemented this, the Council’s approach is directly in line with the Cabinet Office directive for measures to avoid tax evasion (available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-contracts-regulations-2015- requirements-on-pre-qualification-questionnaires) The Council does require suppliers to self certify that they have not breached a range of offences which include, amongst others, their legal obligations to pay tax and social obligations. Remedies If a supplier is found to be in contravention, this entitles the Council to receive a summary of the circumstances, and if appropriate reject their bid, suspend the service supply or terminate the contract. In every case, the supplier must demonstrate it has taken remedial action to the satisfaction of the Council. Reporting Devon Procurement Services can report on instances of supplier non compliance, annually or as required. The policy adopted complies with the Cabinet Office directive, and will be published via the Council’s website.

Rob Parkhouse, Head of Business Strategy and Support

Page 132 DEVONAgenda EDUCATION ItemFORUM 20 16/3/16

DEVON EDUCATION FORUM (Devon’s Schools Forum)

16 March 2016

Present:-

Schools Members Primary School Head teachers Mr A Dobson Marwood Primary Mr J Stone Denbury PS Mr P Walker Sidmouth CE Primary

Primary School Governors

Mr M Dobbins Exmouth Marpool Primary Mrs P Furnival Ivybridge, Woodlands Park Primary Mrs Wallis Whimple Primary

Secondary School Headteachers Mr R Haring Ivybridge CC Mrs J Phelan Cullompton CC

Secondary School Governors Mr I Courtney The Dartmoor Federation Chairman Ms J Elson Exmouth CC (Academy member) Mr M Juby Braunton Academy

Nursery School Mr M Boxall Maintained Nurseries Mrs G Rolstone Non Maintained

Special School Headteacher Mrs F Butler Marland School

Non-Schools Members Mrs B Alderson Teachers Consultative Committee Councillor J McInnes Cabinet Member - Children, Schools & Skills

Apologies Mrs A Blewett Kings Nympton Primary Mrs De Bernhardt Dunkin (West England School and College) Mr D Chapman The Dartmoor Federation Ms C May Pathfield School Mr M Shanks Coombeshead CC (Academy member) Mr A Walmsley Exeter, St James

778 Minutes

DECISION:

that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2016 be signed as a correct record, subject to Mr Juby being shown under ‘Secondary School Governors’ in the attendance list.

779 Matters Arising from the Last Meeting and Report back on Issues Raised with Cabinet

_

780 Finance Update and Schools National Funding Formula and High Needs Funding Reform Page 133 DEVON EDUCATION FORUM 16/3/16

(a) Finance Update

DISCUSSION:

The Forum considered the report of the Head of Education & Learning and County Treasurer (DEF/16/03). The report (DEF/16/01) covered Month 10 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) 2015-16 budget monitoring relating to budgetary pressures within the High Needs Block and management actions being taken, the position for the Early Years settlement and planned carry forwards for 2016/17.

The report also covered:

 the Scheme for Financing Schools setting out the relationship between itself and the schools it maintained and on recent LA consultations about DfE revised guidance with all maintained schools on which no comments had been received;  Independent Travel Training Update, and  Music Education Grant/Local Learning communities.

The Forum also noted the minutes of the Schools Finance Group (SFG) of 2 March 2016

DECISION:

(i) that the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) monitoring position as set out in section 1 of the Report be noted;

(ii) that the revised Scheme for Funding Schools 2016/17 as set out in section 2 of the report be approved;

(iii) that the Independent Travel training Update as set out in section 3 of the report be noted; and

(iv) that the revised Music Education Grant/Local Learning communities as set out in section 4 of the report be noted.

(Vote: all phases maintained and academy, PVI on the above)

ACTION:

County Treasurer (John Holme, Adrian Fox)

(b) Schools National Funding Formula and High Needs Funding Reform

DISCUSSION:

The Forum received an update and presentation from the Head Accountant - Education & Learning covering:

 Government consultation on a new schools national funding formula and high needs funding reform from 7 March to 17 April 2016 (stage one)  overview relating to the case for change, principles and issues for consideration  fairer funding principles  the transition arrangements  high needs funding reform  review of the role, functions and memberships of School Education Forums  support for school efficiency  review of statutory obligations on Schools and LAs and implications for the Education Services Grant (ESG)  funding of statutory duties Page 134 DEVON EDUCATION FORUM 16/3/16

 removal of duties with LAs focussing on: (i) securing sufficient school places, fair access and transport policies, (ii) vulnerable pupils /SEND/promotion attendance/alternative provisions (iii) acting for parents and families  process for responding to the consultation at this initial stage.

The Forum members’ questions and discussion points with Officers included:

 this was a two stage consultation and there remained many uncertainties and outcomes would depend largely on weightings, noting the difficult national financial climate and expectation that overall allocations would be reduced with a continuing need to make efficiency savings by LAs and all schools  less discretion for the LA in future with the proposed ring-fencing of the Schools Block  impact relating to residential growth throughout Devon, particularly in and around Exeter  unreliability of using FSM or IDACI data only as a measure for deprivation  the role of the Forum under the proposed new arrangements and recognition that the Forum did not relate solely to financial matters but to all educational issues within Schools and the LA  the current position where the allocation per pupil in Devon was around £270 below the average (£23 m below overall on the DSG) and the LA expectation that the Government allocations would be based on what it considered to be affordable  the view (by the DfE and other local authorities) that lower funding for some was not necessarily ‘unfair’  the ‘cap’ on gain was not known and pace of transition would have to be managed carefully especially for Schools with diminished budgets  the need for careful examination by this LA of the High Needs Block and eligibility and impact of the number of children in for example Elective Home Education and medically absent  the valuable work of the F40 Group of LAs in this area  the tight time-scale for analysis and drafting of the Local Authority response (Stage 1) with prior consultation with the Forum’s Schools Finance Group members, the outcome of which would be shared with all Schools prior to the final LA submission to Government by 17 April, noting that schools were encouraged to make their own submissions directly.

The Forum thanked the Head Accountant - Education & Learning for her clear explanation of this complex area.

The Chairman also noted that this was Ms Powlesland’s last meeting with the Forum and thanked her for her valued work within education and Members wished her well in her new role with the Local Authority.

781 Head of Service: Update

The Head of Education & Learning reported on a summary of exclusions (permanent and fixed term) for 2015/16 academic year to date which covered the number of exclusions by school type, school status, exclusions by pupil characteristics (i.e. children in care, statemented or FSM) and comparisons with previous years. She also referred to the close working with social care colleagues in this area and concerns relating to the increased number of permanent exclusion of younger children and reasons for that trend. The County Council had commissioned research by the LDP in this area. A People’s Scrutiny Committee Task Group on exclusions had also recently produced a draft report which encouraged best practice by schools.

Discussion points with members’ included:

 the commitment of schools to reduce permanent exclusion and the wider costs for schools, the Local Authority and across the system

Page 135 DEVON EDUCATION FORUM 16/3/16

 the need for support and training for schools in relation to address persistent disruptive behaviour  the need for consistent social work support for individual children and for schools and learning communities  the impact of the loss of Public Health grants for the Emotional and Well-being Service.  Schools’ reported difficulties associated with lack of engagement by parents  the lack of Ofsted recognition of good practice relating to the work of schools to promote inclusion due to emphasis on performance.  the reasons behind why Devon was higher than the national average for the rate of permanent exclusions at KS4 and the commissioning of LDP research into this area  the need for all Governing Bodies to focus more on the needs of more vulnerable children who are at risk of exclusion.

The Head of Service also reported on a series of 3 open-discussion meetings with Head teachers from maintained schools across Devon relating to the role and relationship with the Local Authority and their expectations. Points which had been raised at those meetings related to:

 the unease of many in respect of forced ‘academisation’, loss of choice and autonomy  the role of the LA in school improvement, ensuring fair and equitable access for vulnerable children  communication by the LA was generally agreed to be good but more work was required in respect of multi-agency working, early intervention and help. A reduction in bureaucracy would be welcomed  concerns relating to testing within KS 2 and guidance on the transition to the secondary phase “Secondary Ready”.  the changing examination systems at KS4 and the need for better communication with parents and employers about these  concerns relating to recruitment and retention of teachers and school capacity issues particularly within the current budgetary climate.

782 Use of Egress Switch in Schools

The Head of Business Strategy and Support reported of the launch and operation of the email Egress System, which provided 3 levels of security for LA and external licenced users. It was recognised by the Egress team that there was a need to improve operational guidance for internal staff and external partners including schools. The Team was now working with colleagues within the County Council (Adult Social Care) and feedback would be used in further operational guidance. In the interim guidance notes would be circulated to the Forum members.

Forum members asked about future potential cost for Schools for all levels of security on which further information would be provided for the Forum.

ACTION:

Business Strategy and Support (Carolyn Jarvis)

783 Standing (and other) Groups

The Forum received the minutes of the Schools Organisation, Capital and Admissions (SOCA) meeting held on 5 January 2016. The Forum agreed (minute 6) that for the purposes of priority for capital maintenance funding, Special Schools would be assumed to be operating at full capacity.

Page 136 DEVON EDUCATION FORUM 16/3/16

ACTION:

Head of Education & Learning (Heidi Watson-Jones)

784 Dates of Future Meetings

Meetings to commence at 10am at County Hall, Exeter (unless otherwise indicated):-

Wed 22 June 2016 Wed 19 October 2016 Monday 16 January 2017 Wed 15 March 2017

The meeting started at 10am and finished at 11. 55 am.

The Schools Forum web is www.devon.gov.uk/schoolsforum

Page 137

Agenda Item 21

Cabinet 13 April 2016

SCHEDULE OF CABINET MEMBER DECISIONS TAKEN SINCE PREVIOUS MEETING Cabinet Remit/Officer Matter for Decision Effective Date Resources & Asset Approval to variations in the approved Capital 10 March Management Programme and other property matters 2016 Approval to variations in the approved Capital 29 March Programme and other property matters 2016 Children, Schools & Skills Approval to proposal to increase places at Pathfield 17 March School, Barnstaple 2016 Approval to change in provision at Oakland’s Park 29 March School, Dawlish 2016 Economy, Growth and Approval to contribution of £20,00 to establishment 29 March Cabinet Liaison for Exeter of Visit Devon Community Interest Company 2016 Community & Approval of Waste, Trading Standards & Library fees 23 March Environmental Services and charges for 2106/17 2016 Highway Management & Approval of Highways, Planning, Design and Public, 11 March Flood Prevention Community Transport and On-street Parking fees 2016 and charges for 2106/17 Approval to a grant of £25,000 to DSFRS from the 8 April 2016 2015/16 financial year road safety budget towards the provision of road safety services to young drivers as part of the multi-agency partnership working on road casualty reduction

The Registers of Decisions will be available for inspection at meetings of the Cabinet or, at any other time, in the Democratic Services & Scrutiny Secretariat, during normal office hours. Contact details shown above.

In line with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, details of Decisions taken by Officers under any express authorisation of the Cabinet or other Committee or under any general authorisation within the Council’s Scheme of Delegation set out in Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution may be viewed at https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/officer-decisions/

Page 139