N O T I C E O F M E E T I

N o t i c e o f M e e t i n g

Council

22 July 2020 at 6.30pm Remote meeting: Link https://youtu.be/aBK2qLt5Is0

Contact: Mr M Carver E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 07890 397100 Website: www.rbkc.gov.uk Issue Date: 14 July 2020

Chief Executive – Barry Quirk

PLEASE NOTE that any member of the press and public may listen-in to proceedings at this ‘virtual’ meeting via a weblink which will be publicised on the Council website at least 24hrs before the meeting. Members of the press and public may tweet, blog etc. during the live broadcast as they would be able to during a regular Council meeting at the Town Hall. It is important, however, that Councillors can discuss and take decisions without disruption so any activity of a manifestly disruptive nature will not be permitted.

Agenda

72 SECONDS SILENCE

At the start of the meeting there will be 72 seconds silence to remember those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy.

1. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

The minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 24 June 2020 are submitted for confirmation.

2. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S COMMUNICATIONS

(i) Apologies for absence

(ii) Declarations of interest

Any Member of the Council who has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting is reminded to disclose the interest to the meeting and to leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place. Members are also reminded that if they have any other significant interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting, which they feel should be declared in the public interest, such interests should be declared to the meeting. In such circumstances Members should consider whether their continued participation, in the matter relating to the interest, would be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly if the interest may give rise to a perception of a conflict of

interests, or whether they should leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

5. PETITIONS

Presentation of petitions (if any).

6. STATEMENT BY THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL AND RESPONSE BY LEADER OF THE MINORITY PARTY (STANDING ITEM)

7. ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Mayor to announce the order of business for the remainder of the meeting.

8. REPORTS FROM THE LEADERSHIP TEAM

Urgent Key Decisions

9. REPORTS OF COUNCIL-SIDE COMMITTEES

Report of the Administration Committee (6 July 2020)

10. MATTERS REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL BY SCRUTINY COMMITTEES

Matters referred by the Family Servies Select Committee:

(i) Childcare needs of the communities affected by the Grenfell tragedy (ii) School Exclusions

11. QUESTIONS ASKED OF LEAD MEMBERS

(i) By Cllr Blakeman of Cllr Addenbrooke

“Will the Council assist all care homes (including the Royal Hospital), sheltered housing schemes and hostels in the Borough to protect their residents from a second wave of Covid-19 more effectively than it did in the first wave?"

12. MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN RAISED UNDER S.O. 11

Members may draw to the Council’s attention Ward or other ‘live’ issues of general / broad principle. Each member raising such an issue under this Standing Order should speak for not more than two minutes in addressing the Council. No more than three Majority Group members and one Minority Party member may raise issues in this way per meeting. Members wishing to raise such matters should register their intent with the Chief Executive prior to the meeting. The relevant Lead Member or Executive Director will be expected to respond to the Councillor raising this issue within six weeks.

13. MOTIONS FOR DEBATE

(i) Modern Slavery

“Modern slavery is an insidious crime which devastates lives and tears families apart. The Global Slavery Index estimates there are 136,000 victims in the UK. Right here, in our borough, women are being treated as commodities for sexual exploitation and domestic servitude, men are trapped in debt bondage, working for no pay in forced labour, and children are trafficked up and down the country to carry drugs. Modern Slavery is a human rights abuse and every one of us comes into contact with it on a daily basis, often without even realising it.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea recognises the need to ensure our communities are resilient to modern slavery and our supply chains free from exploitation. This is why we will publish a Modern Slavery Statement outlining our approach.

Large private sector organisations are required to publish a Modern Slavery Statement detailing what actions they are taking to tackle slavery in their supply chains. Although as a Council we are not required to do this by law, we feel strongly that these issues should be brought to the fore and outline the actions we are taking to challenge them.”

Proposed by: Cllr. Walaa Idris Seconded by: Cllr. Dori Schmetterling

(ii) Short-term and holiday letting

“This Council:

• Welcomes the Greater London Authority’s Housing Research Note 2020/04, Short-term and holiday letting in London, and notes the benefits and disbenefits of short-term letting set out in the report; • Welcomes the engagement of the Lead Member for the Environment with AirBnB, and that company’s positive response to calls for a registration scheme and to establishing a mechanism to prevent bookings of more than 90 days per year, but notes that there are workarounds and other lettings portals; • Notes the difficulties of enforcing the 90-day limit for short-term letting; • Notes the Local Government Association’s recent call for councils to have the ability to set a local tourism levy; • Expresses concern at the potentially permanent loss of more than 5% of the borough’s housing stock to short-term letting; • Welcomes the work of the Lead Member for the Environment to develop a toolkit to assist residents concerned by the negative effects of short-term letting in their buildings and neighbourhoods; and • Directs the Lead Member for the Environment to write to the borough’s MPs to draw attention to the GLA’s research note, outline the borough’s response to the problem and the challenges faced, and request them to lobby for a registration scheme for short-term letting.”

Proposed by: Cllr. Malcolm Spalding Seconded by: Cllr. Gregory Hammond

(iii) Black Lives Matter

“For a very long time the BAME community and windrush generation have suffered injustice, racism and prejudice.

This Council condemns the injustice and brutality against the BAME community and discrimination at any level.

We call on the Chief Executive and Lead Member for Communities to report back to this Council on whether racist attitudes exist within the Council, and to put in place steps that ensure that racism and discrimination where it exists are stamped out.

In addition, we call for an independent investigation to be given wide powers to look into any discriminatory practices within RBKC including in the areas of recruitment, inclusion and social injustice.”

Proposed by: Cllr Portia Thaxter Seconded by: Cllr Emma Dent Coad

Amendment

To amend the Motion as follows:

“For a very long time the BAME community and windrush generation have suffered injustice, racism and prejudice.

This Council condemns the injustice and brutality against the BAME community and discrimination at any level.

We call on the Chief Executive and Lead Member for Communities to report back to this Council on whether racist attitudes exist within the Council, and to put in place what steps are being put in place to that ensure that systematic racism and discrimination in our services is where it exists are stamped out.

In addition, we call for a Council-wide report into staffing arrangements and practices within the Council to examine whether there are instances or patterns of discrimination on grounds of race and ethnicity; and whether improved workforce processes of recruitment, inclusivity and social justice at work can be implemented swiftly. an independent investigation to be given wide powers to look into any discriminatory practices within RBKC including in the areas of recruitment, inclusion and social injustice.”

Proposed by: Cllr. Anne Cyron Seconded by: Cllr. Cem Kemahli

14. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES AND OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS

15. ANY OTHER ORAL OR WRITTEN ITEMS WHICH THE MAYOR CONSIDERS URGENT

[Each written report on the public part of the Agenda as detailed above: (i) was made available for public inspection from the date of the Agenda; (ii) incorporates a list of the background papers which (i) disclose any facts or matters on which that report, or any important part of it, is based; and (ii) have been relied upon to a material extent in preparing it. (Relevant documents which contain confidential or exempt information are not listed.); and (iii) may, with the consent of the Mayor and subject to specified reasons, be supported at the meeting by way of oral statement or further written report in the event of special circumstances arising after the despatch of the Agenda.] Exclusion of the Press and Public There are no matters scheduled to be discussed at this meeting that would appear to disclose confidential or exempt information under the provisions Schedule 12A of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. Should any such matters arise during the course of discussion of the above items or should the Mayor agree to discuss any other such matters on the grounds of urgency, the Council will wish to resolve to exclude the press and public by virtue of the private nature of the business to be transacted.

The next meeting of the Council is scheduled to be held on 21 October 2020 at 6.30pm

Minutes of a virtual meeting of the Council held at 6.30pm on 24 June 2020

Please note: This was a fully remote meeting held using Microsoft Teams software and ‘livestreamed’ via a weblink publicised on the Council website in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

PRESENT Members of the Council

THE MAYOR: CLLR. GERARD HARGREAVES THE DEPUTY MAYOR: CLLR. SOF McVEIGH

ADDENBROOKE, Sarah LINDSAY, David ADOURIAN, Hamish MARSHALL, Quentin ARETI, Aarien MASON, Pat ATKINSON, Robert MILLS, Julie BENNETT, Tom NAIL, Nadia BERRILL-COX, Adrian O’CONNOR, Charles BLAKEMAN, Judith PASCALL, Will CAMPBELL, Elizabeth PRESS, Monica CHAUHAN, Dr Max RENDALL, Josh CYRON, Anne ROSSI, Mari-Therese DENT COAD, Emma ROUND, Laura ELNAGHI, Marwan SCHMETTERLING, Dori EVANS, Janet SPALDING, Malcolm FAULKS, Catherine TAYLOR-SMITH, Kim FREEMAN, Robert THALASSITES, Johnny HAMMOND, Gregory THAXTER, Portia HEALY, Pat WADE, Linda HENDERSON, Ian WASON, Ian HUSBAND, James WEALE, Mary IDRIS, Walaa WILL, Emma JACKSON, Alison WILLIAMS, Charles KEMAHLI, Cem WOODGER, Maxwell LARI, Sina

The Mayor said that it would be appropriate for the meeting to start by marking silence for 72 seconds to remember all those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy.

Councillors observed the 72 second silence.

1. MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING HELD ON 20 MAY 2020

The minutes of the annual meeting held on 20 May 2020 were confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Mayor.

2. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

The Mayor then spoke for the whole Council in expressing sincerest condolences to each and every member of the Kensington and Chelsea community who had lost family members, neighbours, friends or colleagues to the Coronavirus pandemic. He added that at this moment the pandemic continued, but the spirit and heart of the community would shine through and overcome the crisis.

3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S COMMUNICATIONS

Apologies of absence

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Cllrs. Ali and Bakhtiar.

Apologies of lateness

No apologies for lateness were submitted.

Declarations of interest

No declarations of interest were made.

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

The Mayor advised the meeting that questions from members of the public had been sought via the Council’s website. Six questions had been received. The Mayor then read the questions and invited the relevant Lead Member and a member of the Minority Group to respond.

(i) By Thomas Mawson

Firstly, thank you to the Council for the opportunity to submit a question. I’m a resident of the Borough who, working from home in the current circumstances, has been able to enjoy so much more of the Borough in daylight hours. I’ve noticed in particular that the part pedestrianisation of Pavilion Road appears to be bringing real advantages and much needed support to the local businesses there, especially in dealing with new COVID-19 related rules and circumstances. Please would you update the community on this project, on any other pedestrianisation proposals and also on how the Council is continuing to engage with and support businesses and high streets across the Borough?

Cllr. Thalassites, Lead Member for Planning and Transport, said that this all started from Government guidance which wanted us to promote walking and cycling – we are seeing so much more of it on our streets – and at the same time to protect lives, and protect livelihoods here in Kensington and Chelsea.

He said that he was actually on Pavilion Road last night and could see the enormous difference it was making; he was fighting for room at the seats by those new planters at either end of the road. And speaking to some of the businesses and traders along the street, he thought they were really excited about what the Council was doing. It was going really well and we were seeing many more people using that amenity space and making the most of it. And just the same, the Council had done similarly on Portobello Road, it was looking at Bute Street on 4th July to kick start our economy as some of our new freedoms from lockdown begin to emerge. It’s something that we think can be really positive as we come out of lockdown – it’s setting out new plans for businesses to thrive in the post-lockdown era.

The Council was just speaking to the Kensington Business Forum, in fact this week, and asking them whether there were other opportunities in their area – potentially around the High Street – to go and widen pavements as we’ve done on Kings Road, Notting Hill Gate, Kensington High Street, north, south, middle, all over the borough to see how we can build on that, and make sure everybody can move safely around the borough during this extremely worrying time.

Cllr. Mason added that he supported pedestrianisation. He considered it had taken the Council a long time to get to the current position. The Labour Group had long campaigned for pedestrianisation and cycle lanes. He welcomed that the historic precedence given to vehicles now seemed to be on the wane. It was important to re- imagine the post-Covid streetscape to encourage shoppers and keep businesses trading.

(ii) By Vesna Vukovic

I have been living in the Sutton Estate as a temporary tenant for 12 years with my 2 kids and a dog. I came when my son was not even a year old and pregnant with my daughter, who is now 16, as a victim of domestic violence. I was told they were demolishing the estate and was forced to move out. I ended up in a B&B with my two kids in a basement tiny room for 10 months where I had to share a small double bed with my 13yr old son.

I then found a place on a houseboat and after a while I had to move on and lived there for just over 3years. I then rented another flat in Chelsea, since Nov 2019, and after six months I am being evicted again through no fault of my own.

If I had not been illegally moved out from the Sutton Estate, my life would not have been such a misery for all these years. I am working as a key worker at the Brompton Hospital and am now working as a front line worker.

Can I ask that the council take my case seriously and offer me and my children somewhere to call home and relieve my nightmares please? Every time we move, I am poorer and poorer, always in huge difficulties to find a guarantor etc.

Is it possible for me to move back to the sutton estate or another council property as after 12 years as their temporary tenant on the sutton estate myself and my family should not have been treated so badly? Don’t you think we have paid such a huge price for refusing one and only direct offer, never being shortlisted.

Can I also thank Councillor Henderson for his continued support even though he is not my Councillor.

Cllr. Taylor-Smith, Deputy Leader and Lead Member for Grenfell, Housing and Property, wanted to assure Vesna that he was taking her case seriously. He understood that officers had been in touch to try and support her retain her tenancy. Officers had assured him that if this could not be done, they would work with her to make a homeless application again.

The Council would be publicising a keyworker housing policy pilot soon, and it sounded like that might be appropriate and more affordable than where Vesna was at the moment. Unfortunately we only had 14 homes available for the pilot so he could not make any guarantees, however he would send her details when they were published which he hoped would be in the next couple of weeks. He had asked to be kept updated on her case.

Cllr. Henderson said that he had known of this case since 2015. He referred to the 200 empty properties on the Sutton Estate at present and asked whether Clarion had informed the Council how many would be made available for Council use. He also spoke of the cost implications for the Council in such cases and added that the simplest option may be the cheapest.

(iii) By Marianne Macdonald

Please can the Council take note of the extremely small public consultation period of less than three weeks given for the highly significant six storey planning application of unit 10 Latimer Road London W10 6RQ, which will set a precedent for the remainder of the road with devastating effect for its residents and community, which has taken place during a period of lockdown when residents are required to stay in their homes, and confirm that it will take the matter to a full and extended public consultation including an independent impact assessment, given the enormous degree of anger and distress that this application has caused?

Cllr. Thalassites said that he was very sensitive to the perception that sometimes people in and around Latimer Road did not feel as though the Council responded to some of their questions quite as they would like. And so what he had done was to follow up on this, this afternoon, and he had clarified with the Director of Planning, Amanda Reid, that the the Council can go away and extend the full public consultation for at least an extra two weeks, to try and make sure that, at a time when everybody was very busy, and clearly there was significant anger and distress around this application – with at least 15 objections already – we could make provision for all of those people who cared so strongly about this to get their views on record and we could determine this application in the fairest possible way.

Cllr. Dent Coad welcomed the question as people may not have seen application notices which had been posted during the lockdown period.

(iv) By Ellie Lines

Our high streets were in need of love before Covid and now the need is desperate. Especially small, independent stores, cafes and businesses. I wondered if there is some sort of incentive to encourage people not to go online but to get them out in their local neighbourhoods. A discount or some kind of rewards scheme? Shopping local for fresh food can be more expensive than the supermarket, but it is often much better quality. I also would love to see more streets pedestrianised to enable more cafes and restaurants to put seating outside to meet the measures and be able to make enough revenue to survive.

Cllr. Catherine Faulks, Lead Member for Skills and Enterprise replied that before the Covid pandemic, the Borough’s high streets were already struggling - as they were across the UK – due to business rates, competition from online retail, and high rents. The Covid pandemic had worsened the situation and the Council needed to use the levers it had to support its local businesses.

During the lockdown, the Council focused on supporting businesses themselves, with business rate reliefs, one-off business rate grants, a business Interruption Fund, rent flexibility for commercial tenants and the Portobello Road market traders, flexibility on some of the fees and charges, and it launched a new discretionary grant scheme.

As businesses reopen, the Council was looking at new measures to ensure customers returned to our high streets and shop locally. To encourage local shopping, the Council was working on a borough-wide campaign in conjunction with stakeholders and businesses, and exploring schemes that already existed. The Council was also looking at a range of measures to help increase footfall and the use of outdoor spaces such as adapting its current approach to licensing and planning, implementing temporary highways interventions, and making use of vacant units with pop-up shops and meanwhile uses. The Council was also helping businesses access the latest advice to ensure shops were Covid-secure and customers could return by creating a one-stop- shop for business support.

Cllr. Mason considered that all residents had a duty to use local shops or face losing them. The ‘shop local’ campaign was important and online shopping should be reduced.

(v) By Lisa Collins

Proposed Communal fire doors installation review concerns unsafe for certain building blocks.

Cllr. Taylor-Smith replied that in regard to the Council’s fire door programme, Gerda fire doors had been commissioned as they were recognised as a leading provider in the industry. We had installed 700 doors, 1,300 were awaiting delivery, 1,100 under consultation with residents leaving a further 2,000 doors planned for next year. We had continued with the fire door replacement programme whilst pausing capital works and non-emergency repairs because the programme was vital to our residents’ health and safety. We had worked off of a model of consent and if residents were unhappy with someone entering their property to do the work, we had honoured that and deferred until the risk was negligible.

Cllr. Mason said he was not sure if the question related to unsafe measures during the Covid pandemic.

(vi) By Suzanne Press

I want Enforcement Officers able to visit building sites. They are wearing masks in their own lives when shopping. They can wear masks to building sites too.

Cllr. Thalassites said that he thought that was an important statement, and he had confirmed what he already understood in a conversation with the Director of Planning, again today, that all of the Council’s planning enforcement officers had and would continue to have the appropriate equipment – gloves and other things – to go out and perform site visits. So, he was happy to provide reassurance on that.

Cllr. Mason commented that there seemed to be no social distancing on building sites.

5. PETITIONS

No petitions were presented.

6. ADDRESSES BY THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL AND THE LEADER OF THE MINORITY GROUP

It was moved by Cllr. Kemahli, seconded by Cllr. Lari, and

RESOLVED - that, in accordance with Standing Order 42, Standing Order 30 be suspended to allow the Leader and Cllr. Mason up to 10 minutes each for their speeches.

Cllr. Campbell spoke of the poignant silence for Grenfell earlier in the meeting, three years after the tragedy. She referred to the recent Government announcement on relaxing some of the restrictions around the Covid pandemic and hoped that this would bring some relief to the important hospitality sector in the Borough. The Council was focused on protecting lives and livelihoods and while the Borough was open for business, the Council was ready to respond should there be a second wave of infections. The crisis had brought logistical and financial challenges for the Council. All residents had a part to play in helping businesses recover by shopping locally. The pandemic had revealed that members of the BAME community had been disproportionately affected and the Council remained opposed to racism in all its forms. She called on everyone to work together to overcome the crisis.

Cllr. Mason said he would see if the Leader’s words about anti-racism were true after the publication of the Tutu Foundation report into the Westway Trust. Social media had brought into focus what had been happening for many years. He referred to the Kelso Cochrane case in 1959, the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and the more recent work of David Lammy, MP. Implementation of change was needed. Justice was still being sought for Grenfell; he hoped that the construction industry would not lobby away real change.

7. ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Mayor announced that the order of business for the remainder of the meeting would be as printed in the agenda. However, the order of debate of Motions would be amended when the Motions were reached.

8. REPORTS FROM THE LEADERSHIP TEAM

There were no reports to this meeting.

9. REPORTS OF COUNCIL-SIDE COMMITTEES

There were no reports to this meeting.

10. MATTERS REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL BY SCRUTINY COMMITTEES

There were no reports to this meeting.

11. QUESTIONS ASKED OF LEAD MEMBERS

(i) By Cllr. Robert Atkinson of Cllr. Sarah Addenbrooke:

Since the Council unanimously agreed on the importance of retaining permanent, full time beds at the St. Charles Hospice what actions have been taken and progress made by the Council in retaining and improving all the vital services at our local hospice? (A response of ‘ongoing discussions’ will not suffice.)

In reply, Cllr Addenbrooke said that the Council remained concerned about the proposed closure of the Pembridge End of Life Care Unit and these concerns had been communicated to West London CCG and also to North West London CCG, as commissioners, at various meetings. On the 20 January, Cllr Freeman chaired a public event including commissioners and providers, to enable borough residents to publicly air their views, ask questions and seek a response from the WLCCG. This event had been very well attended and it was made clear to the commissioners and providers that the Council was against the closure. Cllr. Addenbrooke added that she and Cllr. Atkinson attended a review of palliative care services in the borough, held by the CCG on 9 March. In March, the Council responded to the NWL consultation asking them to reopen the palliative care beds, and to reinstate and invest in bereavement and carer support services, giving residents choice for their end of life care, and support to their family and friends.

Since that meeting and letter, the NHS had been focused on responding to a level 4 health emergency and so for the last 12 weeks the beds at Pembridge had been recommissioned by the NWLCCG as step down beds to support hospital discharges for covid positive patients. During this period the community Palliative Care Service had continued to support residents in their homes or other settings. WLCCG has confirmed the review into palliative care had now been paused and that no decisions had been made. However, the recent development of the NWL out of hospital care plan, in preparation for any second wave of the pandemic, and for longer term care, recognised

the need to ensure services were able to respond quickly, and also consistently in meeting population health needs. As such, the Council had requested clarification on the consultation process, and also to rethink provision, to ensure local end of life care needs were understood, and met.

Cllr. Addenbrooke concluded by saying that she had personal experience of palliative care and was keen to continue to work with councillors and officers to ensure that residents’ needs were robustly put to the CCG commissioners and their providers.

Cllr. Atkinson commented that 24-hour hospice beds were needed more than ever and hoped that the Council would galvanise support and lead on this issue.

12. MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN RAISED UNDER S.O. 11

Cllr. Thaxter spoke of the huge contributions made by the Windrush generation to life in the UK and more specifically to life in the Borough. She spoke of their efforts which had brought about the establishment of the Notting Hill Housing Trust, the North Kensington Law Centre, the Westway Housing Trust, the Pepperpot, Unity Restaurant and the Notting Hill Carnival. The Westway Development Trust had also been established, with its ethos of apprenticeships. She spoke of initiatives which had been taken away from the community and considered that resources meant for British Caribbean community should not be diverted elsewhere.

Pursuant to Standing Order 11, the matter was referred to Cllr. Cyron to respond.

13. MOTIONS FOR DEBATE

The Mayor advised that the Council would be asked to agree to the withdrawal of Motion (i). Motions would then be debated in the following order: Motion (iv), (vi), (v), (ii), (iii) and (vii). Any Motions not debated before the close of the meeting would be put on the agenda for the Council meeting on 22 July.

(i) Schools

Cllr. Woodger advised the Council that he wished to withdraw this Motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 14.06 the Mayor put the request for withdrawal to the Council and it was

RESOLVED - that Motion (i) be withdrawn.

(iv) Business Support

It was moved by Cllr. Bennett and seconded by Cllr. Wason that:

“This Council notes that the last five months have been exceptionally difficult for businesses across the country, and that the situation has been no different in RBKC.

great, most palpably to the people who have lost their jobs and businesses, but also to the borough as a whole, which is poorer for their loss.

This Council believes that, as we slowly emerge from the COVID-19 lockdown, it must look at all possible means of helping our local businesses get back on their feet. This Council encourages all residents to shop locally whenever they can, because if we don’t use our local shops, cafes, and restaurants we will lose them.

To reinvigorate our great high streets this Council will redouble efforts to make them even more attractive, safe, and desirable places in which to be. This could include more greening, improvements to the streetscape and creating more space for pedestrians, and making it easier for people to get there by foot or bicycle.

This Council will work with all stakeholders, including HM Government, hospitality, retail, and landlords to encourage residents and those who work in RBKC to shop, dine and spend in our local businesses.”

Amendment

It was then moved by Cllr. Press and seconded by Cllr. Elnaghi to amend the Motion as follows:

“This Council notes that the last five months have been exceptionally difficult for businesses across the country, and that the situation has been no different in RBKC.

Despite an enormous package of support, including business rate relief, grants, furlough schemes, bounce back loans, and other forms of funding, many RBKC businesses have had to scale back, with some closing their doors for the last time. The cost of this is great, most palpably to the people who have lost their jobs and businesses, but also to the borough as a whole, which is poorer for their loss.

This Council will work with all stakeholders, including HM Government, the GLA and Mayor of London, hospitality, retail, and landlords to encourage residents and those who work in RBKC to shop, dine and spend in our local businesses.

And to this end the Council commits itself to having in place by end of July 2020:

• A borough wide plan for road closures in place where these closures will enable more businesses to thrive and more residents to be able to shop locally and in person.

• A borough wide plan for cycling-lanes and wider pavements for pedestrians published for consultation. • Temporary Road closure measures in place for all key local shopping and dining streets where the majority of premises are independently owned such as Beauchamp Place in the south and All Saints Road in the North. • Revised licensing conditions for Tables & Chairs in these streets allowing open-air dining in the street and parking areas and at no extra cost to the licensee. • The reintroduction of an Enforcement Review Committee to work cross-department (licensing, planning, markets, highways, environmental-health, community-safety) to ensure rapid, informed and effective enforcement decisions are taken to enable businesses to safely re-open and thrive. • A commitment to increase officers with enforcement powers and empowering these officers to enforce more than one issue to enable our local shopping and business centres where pubs, markets, shops and parking co-exist - so that local people can shop, dine, drink and spend in a safe environment. • The continuation of free parking for NHS and other key workers who work in the borough, and the provision of clearly marked free parking spaces for workers in businesses that are supporting and giving discounts to NHS staff and frontline keyworkers. • An effective direct communications protocol with local businesses with prompt monitored action to address their needs.”

Councillors then debated the Motion and the Amendment. Among the main points raised during debate were:

• It should be easier to change planning use classes so that businesses can adapt; • Licensing measures should be taken to encourage the ‘al fresco’ revolution; • Efforts to make it easier to walk or cycle around the Borough should be encouraged; • The Amendment was too prescriptive; • Businesses needed to innovate to survive and the Council should assist at a local level; • The main Motion was like a press release, lacking in commitments and details; • Engagement with the GLA was needed; • Business forums, such as that set up in Earl’s Court, should be established more widely; • The Council already had schemes in place, such as the Active Travel Plan, and would be exploring more cycle lanes; • Communication with small businesses needed to be improved; • The business section of the website gave details of what the Council was doing to assist businesses.

The Amendment was then put to the vote by the Mayor and was declared lost.

The Motion was then put to the vote by the Mayor and declared to be carried unanimously.

(vi) Covid-19 costs

It was moved by Cllr. Lari and seconded by Cllr. Mason, that:

“The Council has spent £11.1 million to date funding direct Covid-19 costs to support shielded and vulnerable Borough residents and lost £33.4 million of income due to the closure of premises that generated hire funds or because leased premises and Council housing tenants have fallen into arrears. The total loss to the Council is £44.5 million to date.

The Local Government Association, representing Councils in England and Wales and London Councils, representing Councils in London, have reminded the government that they promised that Councils, who were central to planning and providing the Covid-19 response and are now planning the recovery phase, were promised they would get “Whatever it Takes” to cope with the pandemic. They have told the government this commitment must now be honoured and include the full cost to Councils of meeting Covid-19 pressures, keeping services running at current budgeted levels, and compensation for all lost income. This is vital after ten years of crippling austerity funding reductions that has left many Councils in a precarious financial position.

London Councils say that London had the worst poverty in the UK ahead of the Covid- 19 outbreak and that Boroughs across the Capital, including Kensington and Chelsea, are now seeing increasing numbers of residents, families and young people needing help – households who already suffer debt, low household incomes, overcrowding, homelessness and serious health inequalities that Covid-19 has shone a light on, particularly statistics showing that BAME communities are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.

This Council urges the Council Leadership to demand that the Government honours their commitment to do “Whatever it Takes” to support local authorities, and to compensate RBKC for the full Covid-19 and loss of income costs that should not be borne by Borough residents in higher service charges and future Council Tax or loss of services when many have suffered a catastrophic collapse of household income and in too many cases have lost family members to Covid-19 and are bereaved.”

Amendment

It was moved by Cllr. Weale and seconded by Cllr. Areti to amend the Motion as follows:

“To date the Council has spent over £11.1 million to date funding direct Covid-19 costs. This spending has focused on two principal areas: caring for our to support shielded and vulnerable Borough residents and supporting our local businesses. In addition, it is estimated that lost £33.4 million of income will be lost principally from a combination of commercial rents and parking where the future of businesses and assistance to key workers has rightly taken precedence. due to the closure of premises that generated hire funds or because leased premises and Council housing tenants have fallen into arrears. The total loss to the Council is therefore £44.5 million to date. The Local Government Association, representing Councils in England and Wales and London Councils, representing Councils in London, have reminded the government that they promised that Councils, who were central to planning and providing the Covid-19 response and are now planning the recovery phase, were promised they would get “Whatever it Takes” to cope with the pandemic. They have told the government this commitment must now be honoured and include the full cost to Councils of meeting

Covid-19 pressures, keeping services running at current budgeted levels, and compensation for all lost income. This is vital after ten years of crippling austerity funding reductions that has left many Councils in a precarious financial position.

This Council is grateful for the £10.183m already received in grant from the Government and for the other positive measures they have taken in addressing this pandemic, such as the furlough scheme, but asks urges the Council Leadership to press demand that the Government to honours their its commitment to do “Whatever it Takes” to support local authorities, and to compensate RBKC for the remaining full Covid-19 and loss of income costs that should not be borne by the Council, including loss of income, to ensure that the pandemic does not have longer term impact on residents. Borough residents in higher service charges and future Council Tax or loss of services when many have suffered a catastrophic collapse of household income and in too many cases have lost family members to Covid-19 and are bereaved.”

Councillors debated the Motion and Amendment. Among the main points raised during debate were:

• The Council’s response fell short of that provided by Hammersmith and Fulham, which had transformed Olympia into a food distribution hub; • Voluntary organisations in RBKC felt unsupported; • RBKC had not received the Government funding it should have. The Council should not be ‘grateful’ for this; • The Government had acted swiftly on business rates and the furlough scheme; • The Government was best placed to fund recovery; • Councillors and officers had lobbied Government for funding and would continue to press for this; • Change to Council Tax was not the way to deal with such a crisis; • Food supply was monitored daily and voluntary organisations had been supported; • The Government’s promise about funding should be fulfilled.

The Amendment was then put to the vote by the Mayor and declared to be carried.

The Motion as amended was then put to the vote by the Mayor and declared to be carried unanimously.

(v) Schools

It was moved by Cllr. Adourian and seconded by Cllr. Evans, that:

“The Council first of all acknowledges and thanks all the teachers, teaching assistants, headteachers, support staff and governors in schools across the Borough, along with

our Council officers, for their effort and dedication at these recent unprecedented times. They have worked hard and creatively to make sure our pupils can continue their education as much as possible and to care for our most vulnerable pupils and for the children of key workers.

The Council acknowledges it will have been, and continues to be, a challenging time for many of them both professionally and personally, and recognises the concerns they will have had, shared with most of our residents and, indeed, the nation.

As moves are made towards welcoming more students back to school in phases, and in line with Government guidance, the Council calls on the Lead Member for Family and Children’s Services to give the maximum possible support to our schools as they proceed with their plans. Officers have already been working on risk assessments, ensuring supplies of PPE are available, helping provide IT and internet access where needed, and keeping regular contact with the most vulnerable families. This will be no ordinary summer term, and inevitably many lessons will be learned. This Council is determined to ensure we can rise to the challenge of fulfilling our responsibilities to the schoolchildren of our Borough.”

Amendment

It was then moved by Cllr. Atkinson and seconded by Cllr.Nail to amend the Motion as follows:

“The Council first of all acknowledges and thanks all the teachers, teaching assistants, headteachers, support staff and governors in schools across the Borough, along with our Council officers, for their effort and dedication at these recent unprecedented times. They have worked hard and creatively to make sure our pupils can continue their education as much as possible and to care for our most vulnerable pupils and for the children of key workers.

As belated moves are made towards welcoming more students back to school in phases, and in line with Government guidance, the Council calls on the Lead Member for Family and Children’s Services to give the maximum possible practical support to our schools as they proceed with their plans. Officers have already been working on risk assessments, ensuring supplies of PPE are available, helping provide IT and internet access where needed, and keeping regular contact with the most vulnerable families. This will be no ordinary summer term, and inevitably many lessons will be learned. This Council is determined to ensure we can rise to the challenge of fulfilling our responsibilities to the schoolchildren of our Borough.

Providing practical and organisational support for our schools and children in the current crisis would have been simpler, more timely and more efficient had not Central Governments of the last 20 years acted to remove Local Government from any significant coordinating or supervisory role in education and schools.

The Covid crisis has demonstrated once again that Central Government does not always know best and that had more reliance and funds been vested in Local Government (at both London wide and borough levels), the response could have been quicker and tailored to the local situation and requirements . Specifically, the Borough agrees that: i)Those schools and organisations that wish to provide on-site and significant online teaching provision over the summer period for those families that want it will be assisted and financed to do so. ii) Appropriate and extended Child Care for 3 to 14-year olds will be organised by the borough over the summer to permit those parents that need to return to work to do so. iii) The borough will work with all our schools over the summer months to provide additional classrooms, staff and space so that from September all children can safely return to full time face to face teaching and not have to rely on part time or online virtual education which, while of some use, is inferior to school based, full-time teaching , especially for families in small homes and with parents with heavy workloads.”

Councillors debated the Motion and Amendment. Among the main points raised during debate were:

• Schools had risen to the challenges in difficult times; • The Motion was evasive about commitments; • The Amendment asked for three specific practical commitments; • The Amendment harked back to a time of central diktat.

The time being 9.20pm, the Mayor drew the Council’s attention to Standing Order 24.01. It was then moved by Cllr. Kemahli, seconded by Cllr. Lari and

RESOLVED - that the meeting terminate no later than 9.40pm.

Debate on Motion (v) continued.

The Amendment was then put to the vote by the Mayor and was declared lost.

The Motion was then put to the vote by the Mayor and declared to be carried unanimously.

The time-being 9.30pm, the Mayor advised that the remaining Motions would be deferred to the Council meeting on 22 July.

14. APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES AND OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS

The nominations standing in the name of Cllr Kemahli were before the Council.

RESOLVED -

That the appointments be agreed.

OTHER URGENT MATTERS

None.

The meeting ended at 9.33pm.

Mayor

15 8 THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA MEETING OF THE COUNCIL – 22 JULY 2020 URGENT KEY DECISIONS TAKEN SINCE 22 JANUARY 2020 REPORT BY THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL

Part 4, Article 1.34 of the Constitution allows for key decisions to be taken when publication of the intention to make a key decision is impracticable (General Exception) provided the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is given notification and Part 4, Article 1.36 of the Constitution allows for key decisions to be taken without giving the prescribed notice (Special Urgency) provided that the prior agreement of the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is obtained. The Leader of the Council is required to report quarterly to the Council on how often the urgency procedure is used and to give details in each case. The urgent decisions taken since 22 January 2020, are set out in the tables below. Members of the Council are asked to note these decisions; further details can be made available on request.

Urgent Key Decisions

Subject - Decision Decision taken Reason for decision Type of urgency and Forward Plan taken by and Reason reference date

Several decisions proposed as part of the Council’s response to the Covid-19 crisis, were taken under Constitutional urgency procedures because it was not possible to give the usual 28 calendar days’ notice. These are set out below.

Emergency Cllr Elizabeth Agreed that: These measures are Urgency measures on Campbell, (i) the continued collection of fees necessary to respond to the the COVID 19 7 April 2020 and charges will be determined on a Covid-19 outbreak. The The Council needed to response (1) - case by case basis, aligned with the financial position is changing establish approaches to Disretionary principles set out in Section 1.3; for many individuals and fees and charges for Fees and (ii) the collection of charges relating businesses and the Council those individuals and Charges to Adult Social Care services for those has a requirement to provide businesses affected by 05624/20/L/AB who have been assessed as able to support alongside other Covid-19 to ensure contribute towards the cost of their care Government support. The financial support is be continued as planned from April review of fees and charges to provided to those who 2020; identify those which should be need it. paused will ensure that Council

(iii) the collection of rent from tenants support is focussed where it is in the Council’s social housing be most needed whilst also continued as planned from April 2020; protecting a key income source and for the Council. (iv) the collection of rent from tenants in the Council’s commercial properties be paused for the three-month period

April 2020 to June 2020.

Emergency Cllr Elizabeth Agreed: These measures are Urgency measures on Campbell, (i) the immediate payment of grants necessary to respond to the the COVID 19 7 April 2020 to businesses eligible for the small Covid-19 outbreak. The The Council needed to response (2) - business rate relief grant when Government has announced respond without delay to Additional information has been received back additional funding to support support businesses Funding for rather than waiting for funds to be businesses impacted by Covid- impacted by Covid-19 Businesses in received from Government; 19 through business rates. through business rates. the Borough (ii) the immediate payment of grants Business Rates are 05625/20/L/AB to businesses eligible for the retail, administered through local leisure and hospitality grant when authorities and therefore the information has been received back Council has a role in applying rather than waiting for funds to be these new measures and received from Government; and distributing the one-off funds to (iii) collection of business rates in eligible businesses. April (through direct debit and other alternative methods) to be stopped. The first collection will be in May 2020 and be based on updated bills.

Emergency Cllr Elizabeth Agreed that: The current Coronavirus Covid- Urgency measures on Campbell, (i) The in-borough 28 en-suite room 19 situation requires the COVID 19 9 April 2020 Holland Court Hotel be procured on a households to self-isolate. The Council needed to response (3) - six-month block booking at a cost of Rough sleepers are unable to procure accommdation accommodation £357,504 to protect rough sleepers. adhere these requirements as urgently to ensure rough for rough they have no space in which to sleepers are supported isolate. Many rough sleepers sleepers (ii) The 70 en-suite room Easy Hotel have health conditions that and enabled to self- 05626/20/L/AB in Hillingdon be procured through West make them vulnerable to isolate. London Housing Partnership for low complications should they support rough sleepers on a three contract Covid-19. As such, months block booking at a cost of Government have required £245,784 including food and support but local authorities to support excluding security. rough sleepers into (iii) The above recommendations are accommodation in which they under waiver as per the Council’s can self-isolate. Contract Regulations (paragraph 2.11) Existing accommodation and under the Council’s Urgency options for rough sleepers Provisions as set out in the Constitution. include supported accommodation hostels and shelters. Neither of these enables rough sleepers to isolate as residents predominantly share bathrooms and kitchens. Winter shelters across London have now closed as a result. A significant proportion of rough sleepers do not have recourse to public funds meaning that traditional accommodation options are not available to them. Therefore, a new supply of accommodation, where rough sleepers are able to self- isolate needs to be provided for the duration of the Covid-19 lockdown.

Emergency Cllr Elizabeth Agreed for the current criteria for the These measures are Urgency measures on Campbell, Local Support Payment Scheme to be necessary to respond to the the COVID 19 14 April 2020 amended to allow households who are Covid-19 outbreak. The

Response (4) - awaiting the outcome of their Universal financial position is changing An urgent decision was Local Support Credit application to access emergency for many individuals and needed on support for Payment support for essential goods through the although Government has put households facing Scheme Local Support Payment Scheme in place a number measures hardship as a result of 05627/20/L/AB that provide financial support, Covid-19. the Council can also support. Emergency Cllr Elizabeth Agreed: Despite the variety of business Urgency measures on Campbell, (i) The establishment of the support measures recently the Covid-19 9 April 2020 Business Interruption Grant Fund with announced by the Government An urgent decision was response (5) - an initial budget of £500,000. over recent weeks in response needed on establishing a Business (ii) The proposed eligibility criteria set to the disruption caused by the grant fund to support Interruption out in this report and to delegate further Covid-19 pandemic, some RBKC based businesses Grant Fund refinement and development of the businesses will be excluded (including self-employed) 05631/20/L/AB criteria application and evaluation from these measures, hence during the Covid-19 process, taking into consideration the need to establish a fund pandemic. additional support measures announced that can support some of the by the Government, to the Director of businesses during this Audit, Fraud, Risk and Insurance emergency. An initial budget following consultation with the Economy for the Fund of £500,000, would and Suppliers Delivery Group and Gold match the Council’s Group. commitment to the Resident (iii) To delegate the decision to award Hardship Fund. grants in response to applications to the Head of Economic Development, on the recommendation of the Economy and Suppliers Delivery Group and following consultation with the Lead Member for Skills and Enterprise. (iv) To delegate the consideration of appeals to the Director of Audit, Fraud, Risk and Insurance. Emergency Cllr Elizabeth The proposed procedure for handling In light of the ongoing Urgency measures on Campbell, complaints set out in paragraph 5.1 of restrictions imposed by central the Covid-19 22 April 2020 the report is agreed and reviewed again government and the focus on Changes were required response (6) - in three months. delivery of critical and Covid-19 to the Council’s approach

Corporate related services by local to handling complaints to Complaints authorities, there is a need to focus on critical services Service review all services which during the ongoing Covid- 05632/20/L/AB support the Council’s policies, 19 pandemic including the handling of complaints from residents.

Emergency Cllr Elizabeth Agreed that the Business Rate Retail The Government has asked Urgency measures on Campbell, Discount Schemes introduced by the local authorities to deliver a the Covid-19 23 April 2020 Government in its Budget on 29 October new business rate retail The Local Business Rate response (7) - 2018, increased for 2020/21 in its discount using their existing Retail Discount Scheme Local Business Budget on 11 March 2020 and further discretionary powers under needed to be put in place Rate Retail increased and expanded for 2020/21 to s.47 of the Local Government to provide maximum Discount more business types in response to the Finance Act 1988. The support to eligible Schemes coronavirus pandemic later in March Government has also said in its businesses as quickly as 05633/20/L/AB 2020 be adopted. Details of the guidance documents attached possible. Schemes for 2019/20 and 2020/21 are at Appendices A and B, that ‘it included in Appendices A and B of the will be for billing authorities to report. adopt a local scheme and decide in each individual case when to grant relief under s.47’. The reason for this decision is therefore to adopt local schemes to deliver the Business Rate Retail Discount for the financial years 2019/20 and 2020/21 and the additional business rate relief measures announced in light of the Covid- 19 pandemic.

Emergency Cllr Elizabeth Agreed that: These measures are Urgency Measures on Campbell, (i) The timetable for the re-tendering necessary to respond to the the Covid-19 6 May 2020 process is delayed and commences on Covid-19 outbreak. Previously There is an urgent need Response (8) - unforeseen risks to the to secure the extensions

Extension of a date after the Covid-19 situation successful completion of the to the current contracts contracts for completes. procurement exercise now for agency managed agency (ii) The director for Human Resources exist as detailed in paragraph services to ensure that managed and OD should determine the date that 3.5 of the report. As a result the placements for key services the re-tendering process should recommendation to delay the workers in critical front 05639/20/L/AB commence, within the extension period procurement exercise needs line services, as well as set out below. the extant agency managed those providing vital (iii) The extant contract with Comensura service contracts to be project management, is extended from its end date in June extended in order to provide logistics and other 2020 for a maximum period of 12 continuity of service until a time specialist expertise are months. A three months notice period when the identified risks are able to be retained while will apply and the contract will guarantee minimised and the the crisis continues. to run for a minimum period of six procurement can be conducted months through the provisions detailed effectively in Section 5 of this report. (iv)The extant contract with Retinue is extended from its end date in June 2020 for a maximum period of 12 months. A three months notice period will apply and the contract will guarantee to run for a minimum period of six months through the provisions detailed in Section 5 of this report. (v) A notification regarding the extensions is published in accordance with paragraph 5.11 of this report. Portobello Cllr Catherine Agreed that: The Council is committed to Urgency Business Faulks, (i) following a competitive grant supporting residents, Centre - 12 May 2020 process, the Portobello Business Centre entrepreneurs and micro- The funding Funding (PBC) is appointed to deliver Start-up businesses wishing to both arrangements for Agreement for and Enterprise support over the next start and maintain their Portobello Business 2020 to 2023 three years and officers are instructed to enterprises in the borough. Centre need to be put in 05637/20/P/A complete the negotiations and formal Through its Economy Strategy place without delay so the agreement for the period 2020-21 to it has mapped out a clear plan Council can ensure that 2022-23; to target worklessness and the Centre’s essential

(ii) the agreement includes funding of disadvantage wherever it is support services for local up to £50,000 per annum for each year, found, supporting those in need entrepreneurs and small subject to satisfactory monitoring and to access economic businesses are performance (a total of £150,000). opportunities. The Covid19 maintained during the emergency, reinforces the Covid19 crisis and the need to provide critical support recovery period. both now and during the recovery period.

Parking for key Cllr Elizabeth Agreed that, up to 1 July 2020, The Council would like to Special Urgency workers during Campbell, authorised vehicles belonging to high provide parking for key workers the COVID-19 26 May 2020 priority essential workers, as determined returning to work as using Temporary parking pandemic by the Director for Transport and public transport may currently measures are required 05658/20/E/A Highways, including for example, NHS pose a health risk due to the urgently for key workers staff and teachers, may park either in COVID-19 pandemic. Although returning to work as using pay-by-phone visitor parking bays, the Council wishes to public transport may residents' parking bays or residents’ encourage as many people as currently pose a health permit motorcycle bays free of charge; possible to walk or cycle, it risk due to the COVID-19 and, accepts that some key workers pandemic. Although the will exceptionally need to drive. Council wishes to Agreed that, up to 1 July 2020, vehicles As the temporary parking encourage as many belonging to other authorised essential measures are required people as possible to workers, as determined by the Director urgently, this decision has been walk or cycle, it accepts for Transport and Highways, may park in taken as an urgent key that some key workers pay-by-phone visitor parking bays by decision. will exceptionally need to establishing a £15-a-day payment cap drive. and abolishing the maximum stay requirements on all pay-by-phone visitor parking bays for vehicles authorised by the Council to park in the Borough; and,

Agreed that, up to 1 July 2020, authorised essential workers, as determined by the Director for Transport and Highways, may park in residents' parking bays and residents’ permit motorcycle bays on payment of a flat fee of £15 per day. This concession will only be implemented if the Director for Transport and Highways, after consultation with the Lead Member for the Environment, assesses that it is required and would be continually kept under review if brought in; and,

Authorised the Director for Transport and Highways to review the concessions outlined in para 2.1.1, para 2.1.2 and para 2.1.3 the week before 1 July 2020 and if, after consultation with the Lead Member for the Environment, it is agreed that the concessions should be extended, to extend the concessions outlined above beyond 1 July 2020; and,

Agreed that should the concessions outlined in para 2.1.1, para 2.1.2 and para 2.13 be extended beyond 1 July 2020, that after consultation with the Lead Member for the Environment, the Director for Transport and Highways be given delegated authority to revise the payment cap and flat-fee to whatever he considers reasonable up to the maximum which would be payable under the current pay-by-phone parking tariff; and,

Authorised the Director for Transport and Highways to make an Experimental

Traffic Order to reflect the proposals outlined above.

Emergency Cllr Elizabeth Agreed: The Government has made Special Urgency Measures to Campbell, 1. the proposed principles, as set further funding available to Deal with the 12 June 2020 out in paragraphs 5.11 to 5.13, and the local authorities to provide An urgent decision is Covid-19 eligible groups, as set out in the table in support to local businesses in required to establish Response - paragraph 5.31, and to delegate further response to the disruption principles for allocating Discretionary refinement and development of the caused by the Covid-19 the discretionary grant Grant Fund - principles, application and evaluation pandemic and to enable fund to support RBKC Business process as required, in line with businesses to re-open as based businesses during Support government guidance, to the Director of restrictions are eased. This the Covid-19 pandemic. 05668/20/L/AB Corporate Strategy; further funding is aimed at 2. to delegate the decision to award small and micro-businesses grants in response to applications to the who have not benefited from Director of Financial Management. the previous grants and business rate reliefs announced since March 2020.

The scheme gives discretion to local authorities to determine their detailed eligibility criteria to be able to respond to need in their local economy. A decision is necessary on the principles for allocating grants locally. FOR INFORMATION Cllr Elizabeth Campbell Leader of the Council

Officer contact: Anna Geenty, Governance Services, 020 7361 3945 / 07866 009300 or [email protected] 9

THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA

COUNCIL MEETING – 22 JULY 2020

REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 6 JULY 2020

This report proposes changes to the Constitution and its re-adoption. FOR DECISION

1. ANNUAL REVIEW OF AND RE-ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION

1.1 The report considered by the Administration Committee is attached as Appendix A. Please note that the Contract Regulations report referred to was not ready for this meeting.

1.2 The Council is asked to approve the specific recommendations set out in paragraph 2.1 and to approve the re-adoption of the whole Constitution as set out in paragraph 3.1.

FOR DECISION

Elizabeth Campbell Chair, Administration Committee

Background papers: Reports submitted to the Administration Committee on 20 November.

Contact officer: Martyn Carver, Governance Manager (T) 020 7361 2477 (E) [email protected]

Appendix A

THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE – 6 JULY 2020 COUNCIL MEETING – 22 JULY 2020

REPORT BY THE CHIEF SOLICITOR AND MONITORING OFFICER

PROPOSED CHANGES TO AND RE-ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION

This report recommends some revisions to the Constitution and its re- adoption at Council on 22 July. FOR DECISION

1. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMMITTEE’S TERMS OF REFERENCE AND FUNCTIONS DELEGATED TO OFFICERS 1.1 At its meeting in September 2019 the Committee considered a report on changes to its terms of reference, specifically in relation to elections. These changes were approved by Council in October 2019. This report recommends further changes to the Committee’s terms of reference and also to Part 7 Section 2 relating to functions delegated to officers.

1.2 REASONS FOR CHANGES 1.2.1 As well as responsibility for matters in connection with elections the Administration Committee’s terms of reference include;

• Governance arrangements • Acting as trustee for the Pocklington and the Thomas Huggett Apprenticeship Aid Fund Trust • Staffing matters

1.2.2 Officers have now carried out a review to update and streamline the remaining terms of reference of the Administration Committee and to ensure that they align with, for example, the functions delegated to officers in respect of staffing matters and the responsibility of the Lead Member for Finance and Customer Deilvery for decision making for human resources matters.

1.2.3 Many of the functions relating to human resources are the responsibility of the Chief Executive as Head of the Paid Service (or his nominee) but the Committee retains some staffing matters within its terms of reference such as the recommendation of the Pay Policy Statement to the Council each year and the consideration of any reports by the Chief Executive as required by section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

1 1.3 RECOMMENDATION 1.3.1 The Administration Committee is asked to recommend the Council to approve the changes to its terms of reference and functions delegated to officers as set out in Appendices 1 and 2. FOR DECISION 2. CHANGES TO CONTRACT REGULATIONS 2.1 Report A6 on the agenda recommends changes to the Contract Regulations and if approved, these will be incorporated into the revised Constitution. FOR INFORMATION 3. RE-ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION 3.1 The Council adopted a revised Constitution at its meeting on 24 July 2019 following a comprehensive review. The Constitution is a living document and has been amended since July 2019 by, for example, the incorporation of a new Councillor Code of Conduct, a new Officer Code of Conduct and a new Code of Corporate Governance. Subject to the approval of the recommendations in paragraphs 1.3.1 above and Report A6, the Committee is recommended to propose that the Council re-adopts the Constitution in full at its meeting on 22 July. A full copy of the current Constitution is available on the Council’s website via the link below: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/council-councillors-and-democracy/how-council- works/constitution FOR DECISION LeVerne Parker Chief Solicitor & Monitoring Officer

Background papers used in the preparation of this report: None other than previously published documents

Contact officer: Robert Sheppard, Head of Governance Services, on (T) 020 7361 2265 or at (E) [email protected]

2 APPENDIX 1 2. ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Membership 2.1 The Committee will comprise seven Councillors. Terms of Reference 2.2 The Committee is appointed to exercise the following functions in so far as this is not provided for elsewhere in the Constitution: In relation to elections: (i) to receive reports from the Returning Officer and the Electoral Registration Officer on the discharge of their duties;

(ii) to approve proposals for polling districts and polling places;

(iii) to exercise any other powers in relation to the arrangements for and the holding of elections which are not the responsibility of the Returning Officer or the Electoral Registration Officer;

(iv) to make recommendations to full Council on formal submissions to the Boundary Commission, Electoral Commission or Cabinet Office as required.

In relation to changes to executive arrangements: (v) to consider and make recommendations to full Council in connection with draw up proposals for changes to governance arrangements; (vi) to consult on drawing up proposals; (vii) to implement new governance arrangements; (viii) to consider the holding of referendums; (ix) to comply with Secretary of State directions; (x) to publish notice if proposals are not approved by referendum; (xi) to obtain written consent of elected mayor. In relation to the name and status of areas: (xii)(vi) to consider and make recommendations to the Council on proposals and exercise the power to change the name of the Borough; and (xiii)(vii) to consider and make recommendations to the Council on proposals for the admission of persons as Honorary Freemen/women of the Borough, Honorary Aldermen/women and the conferment of civic honours. In relation to Trusts: (xiv)(viii) to act as Trustees for Council managed Trusts. In relation to other matters: (xv)(ix)to consider and make recommendations to the Council on proposals, to make, amend, revoke or re-enact or adopt byelaws, and on proposals to promote or oppose the making of local legislation, or hybrid or personal billslegislation and to make recommendations to the Council; (xvi)(x)to approvemake payments or provision of other benefits in maladministration cases; (xvii) to approve human resources, employment and training policies and strategies; (xviii) to approve measures to manage productivity and reduce sickness absence; (xix) to determine the policies and procedures on which staff hold office; (xx)(xi) to carry out functions relating to the dismissal, retirement and other human resources matters affecting the Chief Executive, Chief Officers and Deputy Chief Officers; (xxi) to consider proposals for the award of compensation for early termination of employment where it is proposed to apply an age/service multiplier in excess of the normal council policy; (xii) to consider and make recommendations to the Council on the annual adoption of a Pay Policy Statement and to take decisions referred to the Committee in accordance with that Statement agree all proposed remuneration packages for new appointments, including performance related pay and fees, in excess of £100,000; (xxii)(xiii) to receive and consider reports from the Chief Executive, in his role as head of paid service, on the appointment, management and organisation of staff and to make recommendations to Council. (xxiii)(xiv) to recommend to Council the dates and times of the annual meeting and ordinary meetings; (xxiv)(xv) to provide staff, accommodation and other resources to the Monitoring Officer in the performance of heris duties; (xxv)(xvi) to advise and make recommendations to the Council on the adoption and revision of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct; and (xxvi)(xvii) to consider changes to the Constitution, except for the allocation of responsibilities by the Leader, and refer any proposals to full Council for approval.

All Exec Directors and Directors Formatted: Font: Gill Sans MT Human Resources

22. To appoint, suspend and dismiss staff.

23. To take action under the Council’s employment policies and procedures, including in the case of Executive Directors and Directors, appeals in relation to redundancy or redeployment.

24. To authorise overtime and leave.

25. To delete vacant posts and create new posts.

26. To reimburse staff for the cost of professional fees.

27. To approve officer attendance at conferences or training courses that cost less than £1,000 (and any attendance costing more than this shall only be agreed following consultation with the relevant Lead Member).

28. To authorise ex-gratia payments, in conjunction with the relevant Executive Member and the Chief Executive.

29. To authorise interest-free season ticket loans and any other staff car loans.

30. To pay removal expenses, in conjunction with the Chief Executive.

31. To negotiate with trade unions.

32. To authorise extensions of sickness allowances and extensions of service, in conjunction with the Chief Executive. CHIEF EXECUTIVE 1. Generally to take action in relation to the overall corporate management Executive and operational responsibilities of the Council.

2. As Head of Paid Service it is the Chief Executive’s responsibility Tto carry Council out or delegate to other officers functions relating to the appointment and, promotion, dismissal of staff ,and disciplinary action retirement or to nominate other officers to carry out these functions and other human resources matters.

3. To consider and determine salary settlement and PRP for staff on personal Council contracts.

DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

1. To implement the local decisions and the decisions of the National Joint Council Council regarding conditions of service, wage and salary awards. 2. To calculate and pay salaries, wages and benefits, including performance Council related pay.

3. To make arrangements for the administration of the Local Government Council Pension Scheme.

4. To pay honoraria, acting allowances and bonuses, in accordance with the Council relevant national and local schemes, and with the relevant director.

5. To carry out functions relating to the appointment and dismissal, Council promotion, dismissal, retirement of staff and disciplinary action on behalf of the Chief Executive and other human resources matters affecting staff graded below a Deputy Chief Officer.

6. To approve the early payment of termination/pension benefits in Council conjunction with the Chief Executive, and to exercise discretion to reinstate a children's pension where a break between two courses of education or training has occurred.

7. To approve gradings and designation of posts. Council

8. To approve salary progression on the recommendations of Executive Council Directors and Directors.grant merit increments to officers on recommendation from the relevant director.

9. To operate the Staff Travelcard Allowance Scheme and any other travel Council allowance scheme.

10. To approve additions to the approved list of car allowances. Council

11. To approve the list of telephone rental allowances. Council

THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA COUNCIL MEETING - 22 JULY 2020 REPORT OF THE FAMILY SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE SUMMARY

The Family Services Select Committee carried out reviews and proposed recommendations on “Childcare needs of the communities affected by the Grenfell tragedy” and “School exclusions” that were agreed by the Select Committee at its meeting on 22 June 2020. These reports are being submitted to Council as the mechanism to formally refer the reports and their recommendations to Cllr Josh Rendall, Lead Member for Family and Children’s Services for a response.

FOR DISCUSSION

1 Background

1.1 As part of the Scrutiny Annual Work Programme, it was agreed that the Family Services Select Committee would set up a working group to review the “Childcare needs of the communities affected by the Grenfell tragedy” and a second to review “School exclusions”.

1.2 The Family Services Select Committee, in its meeting on 22 June 2020, agreed the reports and recommendations.

2 Recommendation

2.1 The Council is recommended to refer the reports to Cllr Josh Rendall, Lead Member for Family and Children’s Services, and ask that he provides a written response to all of the recommendations to the Family and Services Select Committee.

FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Jacqui Hird, Scrutiny Manager LeVerne Parker, Chief Solicitor & Monitoring Officer

Background papers used in the preparation of this report: None other than previously published papers

Contact officer: Paula Portas, Scrutiny and Policy Officer, at [email protected] and on (M) 07970 958435.

THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA FAMILY SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE – 22 JUNE 2020

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP REVIEWING THE CHILDCARE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY THE GRENFELL TRAGEDY

FOR AGREEMENT

1 Executive Summary and Recommendations

1.1 This report includes the following information: • the Family Services Select Committee’s Working Group report on the childcare needs of the communities affected by the Grenfell tragedy and its appendices.

1.2 The Select Committee is recommended to agree: • the report and its recommendations to be presented to the Lead Member for Children and Families for action.

2 Background

2.1 At the 17 October meeting, the Select Committee set up a working group to review the childcare needs of the communities affected by the Grenfell Tower Tragedy. Cllr Adourian led the working group which also included Ms Gomez and Ms Williams.

2.2 It is the Council’s main priority to look after the communities affected by the Grenfell Tower Tragedy. The topic of childcare provision for young families in the communities affected by the Grenfell Tragedy was suggested by residents.

2.3 Local Authorities must secure the provision of sufficient affordable, flexible and high-quality childcare places to meet the requirements of parents in their area who require childcare in order to enable them to take up or remain in work or to undertake education or training to assist them to obtain work. This duty does not require the Council to deliver childcare directly, but rather to ensure that there is sufficient and flexible provision being delivered by third party providers. The Local Authority does not have a statutory duty to directly deliver childcare1.

2.4 The working group researched and reviewed the childcare needs of (and support that can be offered to) young families in the communities affected by the Grenfell Tower Tragedy – specifically, those residing at the Lancaster West Estate and its surrounding area but also including other communities affected based nearby in North Kensington. The review considered the childcare needs of families with children under five years of age, children who might have been

1 For more detail on the Local Authority responsibilities see appendix 1. affected directly by the Tragedy or who might have been born subsequently to parents affected.

3 Methodology

3.1 In undertaking this review, working group members analysed the following evidence:

Background reports and data:

o Childcare sufficiency assessment 2017-18 o Affordable childcare report 2019 o Benchmarking nursery fees per hour map 2018 o Ward profiles - Spring 2019 dataset o Briefing: Early Years Childcare Provision in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

Primary evidence:

• Testimonies from visit to Grenfell nursery • Testimonies from visit to Ilys Booker Stay and Play Centre • Testimonies from drop-in event for parents and carers • Written testimonies in response to a call for evidence

3.2 Working group members issued a call for evidence that was publicised and promoted via the Council’s web page, social media (Nextdoor, Twitter and Facebook). In addition, the call for evidence was also shared with Resident Associations via the Council’s fortnightly newsletter.

3.3 Working group members arranged a drop-in event to hear the views of parents and carers first-hand. Similar to the call for evidence, this event was publicised and promoted via the Council’s web page, social media (Nextdoor, Twitter and Facebook) and shared with resident associations via the Council’s fortnightly newsletter. In addition, it was promoted via digital screens located in all Council libraries and the Customer Centre in Kensington Town Hall throughout February and early March 2020.

3.4 In addition to the above mentioned dissemination of the call for evidence and the drop-in event, posters to inform the local community were distributed and located in noticeboards at the Lancaster West Estate by the Lancaster West Neighbourhood Team and in local community spaces including:

• The Curve • The Space • Latymer Christian Centre • Leisure Centre • St Clements and James Resource Centre • Kensington Methodist Church • Harrow Club

3.5 The drop-in event took place on 3 March 2020 at St Francis of Assisi Primary School between 4-6pm.

4. Recommendations

1. KEY THEME: SUPPORTING CHILDCARE PROVISION IN THE AFFECTED AREAS a) The Council should investigate whether children’s centres in North Kensington can offer or be expanded to offer childcare places that would be accessible to local communities. b) The Council should work with the Grenfell Nursery to support its renovation and expansion plans. c) The Council should seek to identify further potential sites in the immediate or surrounding area to the Lancaster West estate along with partner organisations that could help deliver childcare places for under-fives that would be accessible to local communities. d) The Council should explore the possibility of offering standardised contracts or a package to maintained schools in North Kensington to fundraise sustainably to be able to offer childcare places to under-fives on their premises, either through the school itself or by a partner organisation. e) The Council should work with the Grenfell Nursery, mainstream schools and other community providers to assist them to offer childcare services to parents beyond school core hours and terms, in line with private providers.

2. KEY THEME: SUPPORTING PARENTS WITH CHILDCARE COSTS IN THE AFFECTED AREAS a) The Council should help fund the provision of childcare places for three to five-year olds whose parents are unable to meet the threshold requirements for the Department of Education extended entitlement for three- and four-year olds. The funding should be targeted at the communities affected by the Grenfell tragedy with the aim of avoiding intergenerational trauma and to aide recovery. The Council should ensure that any such new or existing funding is equitable and sustainable. b) In a similar vein to (a), the Council should find equitable ways of assisting working parents in affected communities who are unable to meet the threshold requirements for the Department of Education entitlement for two-year-olds. c) The Council should ensure that its supplementary funding to support provision for deprived families is used to assist affected families that have received funding for disadvantaged two year-olds and the universal entitlement

for all three and four year-olds but who are unable to meet the threshold requirements for the extended entitlement for three and four year-olds with eligible working parents. 3 KEY THEME: SUPPORTING CHILD-MINDER PROVISION IN THE AFFECTED AREAS a) The Council should carry out engagement with childminders in the affected communities to find out their views on how to best support them and improve Council communications with them. This includes looking at how the Council could provide support for childminders in carrying out the administration tasks required for them to be able to offer the government’s extended entitlement for 3- and four-year-olds with eligible working parents. b) The Council should help the Ilys Booker Stay and Play Centre in finding a suitable long-term location in the local area to the Lancaster West Estate for their activities. c) The Council should engage with local landowners to identify other suitable locations in North Kensington for stay and play provision, in particular recognising the importance of an outdoor play space.

4. KEY THEME: AFTER-SCHOOL PROVISION IN THE AFFECTED AREAS - A WRAP-AROUND SERVICE a) The Council should explore the possibility of offering standardised contracts or a package to schools to fundraise sustainably to be able to offer after-school places to under-fives, which will help working parents with their childcare needs.

5. KEY THEME: FOSTERING COMMUNICATION AND RELATIONSHIPS a) The Council should foster, encourage, and facilitate contacts between childcare providers in North Kensington (nurseries, schools, children centres), looking for ways to overcome the challenges and incentives that may sometimes hinder such cooperation. b) The Council should provide regular communication with schools in the areas affected about funding opportunities and schemes available in relation to childcare provision.

6. KEY THEME: EARLY YEARS OUTREACH a) The Council should link in the work done by early years outreach teams with primary schools. b) Noting the reported cases of children in North Kensington who enter Reception classes without being school ready, the Council should ensure that

early years outreach teams can identify families that might need access to childcare or other parental services and assist them in accessing the range of options that may be available to them.

FOR AGREEMENT

Cllr Hamish Adourian Lead of the Working Group

Background papers used in the preparation of this report: None other than previously published papers

Contact officer: Paula Portas, Scrutiny and Policy Officer, at [email protected] and on (M) 07970 958435.

Appendix 1

Children and Families Select Committee Briefing Early Years Childcare Provision in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea February 2020

1. THE LOCAL AUTHORITY’S CHILDCARE SUFFICIENCY DUTY

1.1. Ensuring sufficiency of childcare is a statutory provision for the Local Authority within the Childcare Act 2006. Appendix 1 details the statutory duties placed on local authorities in relation to the provision of childcare.

1.2. Local Authorities must secure that the provision of sufficient affordable, flexible and high-quality childcare places to meet the requirements of parents in their area who require childcare in order to enable them to take up or remain in work or to undertake education or training to assist them to obtain work.

1.3. This duty does not require the Council to deliver childcare directly but rather to ensure that there is sufficient and flexible provision being delivered by third party providers. The Local Authority does not have a statutory duty to directly deliver childcare.

2. MEASURING SUFFICIENCY AND ENSURING ACCESSIBILITY

2.1 The Early Education and Childcare Statutory Guidance for local authorities (June 2018, DfE) lists the following requirements of local authorities: Part B1: Securing Sufficient Childcare - Secure sufficient childcare, so far as is reasonably practicable, for working parents, or parents who are studying or training for employment, for children aged 0-14 (or up to 18 for disabled children).

2.2 To secure sufficient childcare places, local authorities should take into account: • what is ‘reasonably practicable’ when assessing what sufficient childcare means in their area; and • the state of the local childcare market, including the demand for specific types of providers in a particular locality and the amount and type of supply that currently exists; • the state of the local labour market including the sufficiency of the local childcare workforce; • the quality and capacity of childcare providers and childminders registered with a childminder agency, including their funding, staff, premises, experience and expertise; • should encourage schools in their area to offer childcare from 8.00am until 6.00pm and in school holidays; • should encourage existing providers to expand their provision and new providers to enter the local childcare market if needed. • should encourage providers to take a sustainable business approach to planning and signpost providers to resources to support them, for example, the business sustainability tool kit published by the Department, and the National Day Nurseries Association Early Years Business Zone tools.

2.3 To ensure that there is sufficient provision in specific areas in the borough, we match the population for under 5s by ward against the number of places in local early years settings. In doing this, we monitor the sufficiency of early years provision at ward level which informs the borough-wide overview.

2.4 In terms of affordability as part of the sufficiency assessment we regularly review fee levels both within the borough and comparable neighbours. In addition, our Early Years team work hard to provide support to low income families on how they can make child care more affordable.

2.5 In the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) our recent CSA (2018) and ward profiling evidence that there is enough childcare across the borough for parents who require it, however, the provision may not necessarily be in the place parents would like to access it.

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF 30 HOURS FREE CHILDCARE FROM SEPTEMBER 2017 3.1 Currently all 3- & 4-year olds and eligible 2-year-olds are entitled to up to 15 hours of free childcare and early education a week for up to 38 weeks a year. From September 2017, working parents of 3- and 4-year olds may be entitled to an additional 15 hours of free childcare per week. 3.2 Funding rates for these places are around £5.95 per hour for 3- and 4-year olds and £6.50 per hour for funded 2-year-old places within RBKC with up to £0.33p per hour increase on this for children living in an area of deprivation (rate determined by child’s postcode).

3.3 For parents eligible for the scheme, this could mean a reduction of up to £5000 per year on childcare fees. Appendix 2 provides an overview of the funding available to parents through Government funding.

4. SUPPLY OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION AND CHILDCARE PLACES (SUMMER 2018) 4.1 There are 122 early years and childcare providers operating in RBKC offering a total of 3293 places. These include:

• 21 nursery provision in local authority schools • 34 childminders • 67 private, independent and voluntary sector providers • 11 Independent schools in the borough who do not offer funded childcare provision but admit children aged 3-5 years old. (They are part of the ISI is the Independent School Inspectorate process.)

4.2 2-year-old Provision: Take up of 2-year-old entitlement places was 199 in Autumn 2019 which equates to 79% of those identified on the DWP list. 4.3 RBKC has enough places available across the borough for children wishing to take up the 2-year-old funding entitlement, this is provided by 24 Private, Voluntary and Independent settings, one primary school and one maintained nursery setting. 4.4 Universal 15 hours for 3- & 4-year olds: In Autumn 2019, 1097 children were taking up their provision in the PVI sector with parents using 69 PVIs and childminders, whilst 446 children accessed a school or community nursery setting.

4.5 Extended offer for 3- and 4-year olds (30 hours): In 2018, the DfE estimated that in RBKC 713 families may be eligible. By spring 2018, 205 families were accessing this entitlement, which is 29 % of eligible families; this is significantly lower than the DfE estimated take up of 80%. 4.6 Working closely with the DfE and ‘Childcare Works’ a significant analysis of demand was undertaken, and the following reasons were identified for the low take up: • Residents in RBKC along with Westminster have one of the highest mean averages income in the country recorded. The mean salary levels were £158,000 and £102,000 respectively (tax year 2014-2015.) • Both parents need to be in work to qualify • One or both parents are on benefits • Culturally unacceptable for both parents to work • Alternative childcare being used e.g. grandparents, nannies and au-pairs • Population changes

4.7 Officers have subsequently undertaken a comprehensive marketing campaign to promote the extended 30 hours offer through a variety of means including the Family Information Service, promotional leaflets in childcare and nursery settings, children’s centres, libraries and GP’s surgeries as well as Facebook and Twitter campaigns which has resulted in an increase in the uptake of places. 4.8 The table below shows the increase in uptake of the extended 30 hour offer since Autumn 2017:

Take up of the Extended 15 hour childcare offer (30 Hours) 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Autumn Term 133 241 245 Spring Term 211 307 - Summer Term 231 340 -

4.9 The Borough has sufficient places available for eligible children wishing to take up both the universal and extended 15 hours of funding entitlement.

5. SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES IMPACTED BY GRENFELL TOWER TRAGEDY 5.1 Since the tragedy the Childcare & Early Education Service have supported 28 families totalling 37 children via the Early Years Targeted panel and the Grenfell Educational Support Fund. 5.2 These children have been supported by accessing the social care targeted nursery places available at the 4 Spring Action for Children settings, or by being funded in private nurseries closer to home predominately in the vicinity to Kensington Row where many of the bereaved and survivors were re-housed. 5.3 Grenfell Nursery who are currently receiving additional support from the Council whilst in temporary facilities continue to be flexible and support the local community in accessing childcare provision at the nursery where they are not accessing a targeted place or funded childcare. 5.4 Grenfell Nursery are currently based at the Ilys Booker site. 5.4 In addition, in recognition of the additional childcare costs for children aged 14 years and under who were relocated to W8 and W14 postcodes, additional financial support has been offered through the Grenfell Education Fund. Since January 2018, £500 for children under 5 years and £2,000 for children aged 5 to 14 years (19 years for those with SEND) has been offered each academic year.

6. EARLY YEARS PROVISION NEAR LANCASTER WEST

6.1 There are 12 Early Years settings in Norland, Notting Dale and St Helen’s wards that offer affordable childcare, with the majority of these also offering funded places (see Appendix 5). These settings are all near to the primary schools in the respective wards.

6.2 The Tabernacle and La Scuola Italiana A Londra are not included as the fee structures for both are not deemed to be affordable.

6.3 The early years settings and schools in St. Helen’s and Notting Dale wards are within 10 minutes’ walk from Maxilla and Lancaster West; those in Dalgarno ward are within 15 minutes’ walk from Maxilla and Lancaster West.

Appendix 1: The table below details the Local Authority Statutory Duties for Early Years

Table of Local Authority Statutory Duties for Early Years Category Duty Description Legislation Childcare Duty to secure To ensure that all children under Childcare Act prescribed early school age, as described in 2006 Section 7, years provision regulations or in guidance from the as amended by free of charge Secretary of State, can access free Education Act nursery education. 2011 Section 1. Childcare Duty to secure To require local authorities to ensure Childcare Act sufficient childcare there is childcare available to enable 2006 Section 6. for working parents parents to take up or remain in work (or parents in or to undertake education or training education/training) to assist them in obtaining work. Childcare Duty to assess To ensure local authorities Childcare Act childcare provision undertake an assessment to 2006 Section 11. childcare provision in their area to enable them to meet their duty to secure sufficient childcare for working parents (s6 Childcare Act 2006) guidance was repealed with Think2 guidance. Guidance is now that analysis should be reasonably practicable. Childcare Duty to provide To ensure that local authorities give Childcare Act information, advice local childcare providers and would- 2006 Section 13. and training to be providers in their area the childcare providers, necessary support to help deliver and prospective sustainable providers. affordable and high quality childcare that meets the needs of the community.

Appendix 2: RBKC Factsheet for Parents on Funding Options to Support Childcare Costs.

Financial Support to Help Pay for Childcare Information Sheet

2 YEAR OLD ENTITLEMENT AVAILABLE TO SOME 2 YEAR OLDS Did you know that your 2 year old child could get up to 15 hours of free childcare each week? • Do you earn less than £16,190 per year and receive Working Tax Credit? • Do you receive certain benefits?

If YES, you may qualify for 15 hours’ free childcare or early education for 38 weeks This is a total of 570 hours per year that you can use flexibly with one or more childcare provider. Some providers will allow you to ‘stretch’ the hours over 52 weeks, using fewer hours per week

15 HOURS FREE UNIVERSAL ENTITLEMENT FOR ALL 3 & 4 YEAR OLDS Did you know that 15 hours free early education/childcare is available to all 3 & 4 year olds in England.

• You can access this the term after your child turns 3yrs old. • 15 hours’ free childcare or early education for 38 weeks • This is a total of 570 hours per year that you can use flexibly with one or more childcare provider. • Some providers will allow you to ‘stretch’ the hours over 52 weeks, using fewer hours per week

30 HOURS ENTITLEMENT (ADDITIONAL 15 HOURS FOR WORKING PARENTS OF 3 & 4 YEAR OLDS) If you are a working parent/carers of a 3 & 4-year-old and match the eligibility criteria you could be entitled to an additional 15 hours’ free childcare per week.

• You can access this the term after your child turns 3yrs old. • 30 hours’ free childcare or early education for 38 weeks • This is a total of 1,140 hours per year that you can use flexibly with one or more childcare provider. • Some providers will allow you to ‘stretch’ the hours over 52 weeks, using fewer hours per week

TAX FREE CHILDCARE For every £8 you pay in, the government will add an extra £2, up to £2,000 per child per year

• For working families, including the self-employed, in the UK • With children under 12 (or under 17 for children with a disability)

TAX CREDITS FOR CHILDCARE This is applicable for 0-15 year olds • For working families, in the UK • With children under 16 (or under 17 for children with a disability) • 70% of childcare costs, up to a cap

UNIVERSAL CREDIT FOR CHILDCARE • For working families claiming Universal Credit, in England, Scotland and Wales • With children under 16 years • 85% of eligible childcare costs, up to a cap

CHILDCARE VOUCHERS • For working families, in the UK • With children under 16 (or under 17 for children with a disability) • Up to £933 a year in tax and National Insurance savings

SUPPORT WHILE YOU STUDY • Weekly payments from Care to Learn if you’re at school or sixth-form college • Help through your college if you’re in further education • A weekly grant if you’re in full-time higher education

HOW TO CHECK ELIGIBILITY You can check whether you could be eligible through a range of government childcare offers, including 30 hours, via Childcare Choices at https://childcarechoices.gov.uk or the Childcare Calculator at https://www.gov.uk/childcare-calculator . Those who could be eligible for 30 hours and/or Tax Free childcare will be directed to the digital childcare service to apply.

HOW TO CHECK WHICH PROVIDERS ARE OFFERING THE FREE ENTITLEMENTS To find out which providers are offering in your area then look on the RBKC Family Information Service Directory https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/kb5/rbkc/fis/family.page?familychannel=1

Appendix 3: The Tables Below Includes Nurseries and Schools That Offer Affordable Childcare in North Kensington. The Settings Listed Below Are Also in Receipt of Funding. Norland

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Kerens Nursery Outstanding 10 hours 40 £11 per hour 48 37 Holland Park Monday to Thursday. Friday 8 - 12 Monkey Puzzle Good 7.30am- 51 £10 per hour 24 22 6.30pm St Clement and Good 8.55am- 38 Maintained 45 full St James C of 3.20pm school E Primary School Thomas Jones Outstanding 9am-3.15pm 38 Maintained 40 12 Primary School school

Notting Dale

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Grenfell Early Years Service Outstanding 8am-5pm 49 £8 per hour 24 24 St Anne's Nursery School with Avondale Park Primary School Maintained (federated) Outstanding 9am-3pm 38 school 75 60 St Francis of Assisi Catholic Maintained Primary School Good 9am-3pm 38 school 30 21

St. Helen’s

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Spring St. Good 8am - 51 Provider states 48 37 Quintin 5.45pm £7.40 per hour, dropping to £6.80 for 3 year olds New Studio Good 9am-3pm 38 £9 per hour 24 22 Pre-school La Petite Ecole Outstanding 9am-3.30pm 38 £7 per hour 45 full Francais Oxford Good 9am-3.30pm 38 Maintained 40 12 Gardens School Primary School

St Charles Good 9am-3.30pm 36 Maintained 26 20 Catholic School Primary School

Appendix 4: Occupancy levels in Nursery and Childcare Settings in RBKC

Little Rosie's Nursery School 72% Lloyd Williamson Schools - Telford Road 94.7% Portobello Day Care Nursery 80% Venture 68.8% Barlby Primary School 50% Dalgarno Pre-School 52.2% Clare Gardens Children's Centre 64.4% Dalgarno Colville Nursery Centre 91.3% Golborne Colville Primary School 50% La Petite Ecole Francaise 100% Denbigh Under 5s Group 40% New Studio Pre-School 91.7% Oxford Gardens Primary School Bright Horizons Ladbroke Grove 75.9% 30% Ladbroke Square Montessori School 98.3% St Charles Catholic Primary Minors Nursery School 76% St. Helen's School 76.9% St Peter's Nursery 80.8% St Quintin 77.1% Colville The Square School 100% Wetherby School 55% Grenfell Creche Under 3s Centre 100% Notting Dale Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Primary Little Cherubs Nursery School - Pitt Street School 70% 56.3% St Anne's Nursery School with Lloyd Williamson Schools - Palace Gardens Avondale Park 80% Pembridge Terrace 94% London Nursery Schools 90.5% Pippa Pop-Ins 98.5% Kerens Nursery Holland Park 56.7% Pooh Corner Kindergarten W8 64.3% La Scuola Italiana A Londra 47.2% Norland Campden Monkey Puzzle Day Nursery 78% Kensington Kindergarten 62.9% St Clement and St James CofE Primary School 63.3% Pooh Corner Kindergarten SW7 97.5% The Tabernacle 12.5% The Kensington Nursery School 100% Thomas Jones Primary School 100% Thomas's Preparatory School 100% Victoria Road Montessori 100%

Holland Park Pre-Prep 98.5% Holland Holland Park Pre-School 100% Queensberry Queen's Gate Kensington Primary Academy 86.7% Nursery 92.2% Little Darlings London 83.3%

Brompton & Hans Abingdon Town Eden Montessori Nursery 75% Marlborough Iverna Gardens Montessori 27.5% Courtfield Kensington House Nursery School 70.8% Primary School 53.3% Lexham Gardens Playhouse 62.5% Earl's Court Little Cherubs Nursery School - Abingdon Road 25% Warwick Pre-School Group 100% St Joseph's Catholic Earls Court Nursery Centre 66.7% Primary School 100% Royal Falkner House Boys School 65.3% Violet Melchett 97.6% Hospital Redcliffe

Home From Home 100% Stanley Chelsea Riverside

Park Walk Primary School 69.2% Ashburnham Community School 80.8% World's End Under Fives Centre 41.7%

Abingdon

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Maggie & Rose Good Not stated Not Not 12 Not stated Pre-Nursery stated stated Warwick Pre School Good 9-3pm 38 £10 per 24 24 hour Eden Montessori 48 Nursery Good 9-3.30 34 - 36 Iverna Gardens 40 Montessori Outstanding 9-3.45 33 - 11 Kensington House 48 Nursery School Outstanding 9-3pm 34 - 34 Abingdon Nursery Outstanding 9-3.30 35 - 60 15 Lexham Gardens Playhouse Good 9-3pm 33 - 24 15

Brompton and Hans Town

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019)

Marlborough Good 9-3.15 38 £1600 a 30 16 Primary School term

Campden

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) London Nursery Good 8am to 50 £12 per 42 38 School 6pm hour Lloyd Williamson New 7.30am – 50 £76.00 a 50 47 Provider 6pm day Outstanding 8-6pm 42 £14.28 67 66 Pippa Pop-Ins per hour Little Cherubs Outstanding - 31.5 - 48 27 Nursery School - Pitt Street Pooh Corner Outstanding - 35 - 14 9 Kindergarten W8

Chelsea Riverside

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Spring - Cheyne Good 8-5.45pm 51 £72 per 57/63 Not stated (AFC) day Worlds End Under Good 9-3pm 39 £8 per 24 10 Fives Centre hour Ashburnham Outstanding 8.45-3.30 38 £100 per 26 21 Primary School week

Colville

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Spring at Clare Good 8am to 6pm 51 £66 Per 45 29 Gardens day Colville nursery Outstanding 8-6pm 51 £75.52 a 46 42 LEYF day Denbigh under Good 8-6pm 38 £9.50 per 20 8 fives hour Colville Primary Outstanding 8.50-3.10 38 - 60 30 School

Courtfield

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Queensberry Good 8-6pm 46.4 £111.39 64 59 Nursery Per day

Dalgarno

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Dalgarno Pre- Good 9-3.15 39 £7.00 per 24 23 school hour Barlby Primary Outstanding 9.3.30 39 - 30 15 School

Earl’s Court

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Earls Court Day Outstanding 8-6pm 51 £1618.50 48 32 Nursery per month £84 per day. Falkner House ISA met 7.45-17.20 34 - 72 47 Boys School St Cuthbert’s with Good 38 St Matthias

Golborne

Name of early years Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Portobello Day Care Good 8am to 5pm 50 £7 per 10 8 nursery hour Pop Up Nursery at Good 9.00-3.pm 39 £7.50 per 16 11 Venture Centre hour Little Rosie's Nursery Good 8-6pm 47 £11 per 25 18 School hour Good 7.30-6pm 50 £76 a 76 72 Lloyd Williamson day

Holland

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Holland Park Pre- Good 7-18.30 50 £06 to 65 64 Prep School and £118 per Day Nursery day Holland Park Pre- Outstanding 9.00- 40 £7.50 per 19 19 School 3.30.pm hour Little Darlings Good 8-6pm 50 18 15 London Kensington Primary Outstanding 9-3pm 38 30 26 Academy

Norland

Name of early years Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Kerens Nursery Outstanding 10 hours 40 £11 per 48 37 Holland Park Monday hour to Thursday. Friday 8 - 12 Monkey Puzzle Good 7.30am- 51 £10 per 24 22 6.30pm hour St Clement and St Good 8.55am- 38 Maintained 45 full James C of E 3.20pm school Primary School Thomas Jones Outstanding 9am- 38 Maintained 40 12 Primary School 3.15pm school La Scuola Italiana A Good - 34 - 36 17 Londra Good 8.30am- 32 - 8 1 The Tabernacle 3.15pm

Notting Dale

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Grenfell Early Years Service Outstanding 8am-5pm 49 £8 per hour 24 24 St Anne's Nursery School with Avondale Park Primary School Maintained (federated) Outstanding 9am-3pm 38 school 75 60 St Francis of Assisi Catholic Primary Maintained School Good 9am-3pm 38 school 30 21

Pembridge

Name of early years Ofsted Openin Weeks Costs Capaci Occupan provider Grade g Hours Open ty cy (Oct 2019)

Bright Horizons Holland Good 7.30- 51 £106.50 per 79 60 Park Day Nursery and 6.30pm day Pre-school St Peter's Nursery Good 9-4pm 38 Up to £2750 26 21 for 5 mornings Ladbroke Square Good 8.55am- 33 - 59 58 Montessori School 3.0pm The Minors Nursery Good - 33 - 50 38 The Square School Understa 9-4pm- 33 - 18 18 nding Wetherby School Good 34 - 20 11

Queen’s Gate

Name of early Ofsted Grade Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Hours Open (Oct 2019)

Victoria Road - Montessori Outstanding 33 16 16

Thomas's - Preparatory 8.30- School Outstanding 3.25 36 60 60

Pooh Corner 8.45- Kindergarten Sw7 Outstanding 16.00 33 - 40 39

The Kensington Nursery School Outstanding 9-4pm 33 - 25 25

Kensington Not yet Kindergarten inspected 9-3.30 36 - 35 22

Redcliffe

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019)

Home from Home Good 8-6pm 46 £15 per 17 17 hour

Servite RC Outstanding 38 Primary School

Royal Hospital

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019)

Spring Violet Good 8-5.45pm 51 £8.30 per 41/42 41 Melchett hour St Joseph’s £1200 Catholic Primary term School Outstanding 9-3.15 38 26 26

St. Helen’s

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019) Spring St. Quintin Good 8am to 51 Provider 48 37 5.45pm states £7.40 per hour, dropping to £6.80 for 3 year olds New Studio Pre- Good 9am-3pm 38 £9 per 24 22 school hour La Petite Ecole Outstanding 9am- 38 £7 per 45 full Francais 3.30pm hour Oxford Gardens Good 9am- 38 Maintained 40 12 Primary School 3.30pm School St Charles Catholic Good 9am- 36 Maintained 26 20 Primary School 3.30pm School

Stanley

Name of early Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs Capacity Occupancy years provider Grade Hours Open (Oct 2019)

Park Walk Primary Good 9-3pm 38 £1130.50 26 18 School term

Date: 20 January 2020

Appendix 2

Kensington and Chelsea fee comparison

A Spring 2019 survey of Private Voluntary and Independent nursery providers in Kensington and Chelsea asked for their average price per hour for each age group below. The prices quoted are for provision in excess of any free entitlement or from providers who do not offer the free entitlement to families. The responses received cover a very wide range of prices as shown below. Pro-rata costs for 25 hours of provision are shown below to facilitate comparison with other boroughs.

Age group Range of prices per Median Notional weekly cost for 25hours* hour price per Lowest Median hour

Under two £5.64 to £30.00 £10.00 £141.00 £250.00

Two year olds £5.64 to £40.00 £11.20 £141.00 £280.00

Three and four £2.05 to £28.00 £12.00 £20.50 £120.00 (With 15h free year olds entitlement)

£300.00 (Without 15h entitlement)

* Actual prices paid will not simply be 25x hourly cost due to different pricing structures available.

Comparisons with other boroughs Figures for other boroughs below are taken from their latest available Childcare Sufficiency Assessments and the figures for “Inner London” averages are from the Coram Family and Childcare, Childcare Survey 2019, based on similar information. These costs are not perfectly comparable due to differing methods of collection and provision levels quoted (e.g. per hour, per week, full-time vs part-time).

Ages Borough Provision surveyed Price Under two Hammersmith & Average cost for 50hours per week £262 to £550 per week Fulham (8am to 6pm)

Islington Average price per hour £6.50 to £10 per hour

Wandsworth Average hourly cost of PVI nurseries £9.25 per hour

Inner London 25h for children at nurseries £174.54 per week

Two year Islington Average price per hour £6.50 to £9 per hour olds Barnet Average hourly price reported by PVI £10 per hour nurseries

Wandsworth Average hourly cost of PVI nurseries £9.25 per hour Inner London Average cost for 25hours in nurseries £163.01 per week

Three and Islington Average price per hour (including 15h £4.90 to £7.80 per hour four years free entitlement)

Barnet Average hourly price reported by PVI £10 per hour nurseries

Wandsworth Average hourly cost of PVI nurseries £9.60 per hour

Inner London Weekly cost of 25hours in day £66.10 per week nursery including 15h free entitlement

Under five Camden Weekly cost of 25hours in day £80.30 per week nursery with 15h free entitlement

Westminster Average hourly cost (pre-schools, day £5.30 to £45 per hour nurseries and independent schools)

Two to five Hammersmith & Average cost for 50hours per week £240 to £500 per week years old Fulham (8am to 6pm)

Conclusion for Early Years Early Years childcare is available within the private sector in RBKC around the average prices seen in other boroughs. However, many providers within the borough offer childcare at prices well above these average costs. Costs of childcare provisions for school-age children

Area After-school clubs Holiday schemes

Kensington and Chelsea £5.20 per day £360 per week average* (from range of £15.40 to £563)

Camden £7 per hour £136 per week

Hammersmith & Fulham up to £100 per week up to £200 per week

Islington £37.50 per week £110 per week

Wandsworth £4.10 per day

Westminster £5.10 per day £188 per week average*

Inner London £57.75 per week

* Average among providers, not average cost per child in provision

2 | Page

RBKC Fee Comparison Overall, childcare places are more affordable in the north of the borough and in line with the neighbouring local authorities. Please note that some providers were not willing to share information regarding their fees. However, we will be conducting a survey in the autumn term and will update the information to ensure that all providers will be included. North RBKC St. Helen’s

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early Grade Hours Open years provider Spring Good 8am to 51 Provider St. 5.45pm states Quintin £7.40 per hour, dropping to £6.80 for 3 year olds New Good 9am- 38 £9 per Studio 3pm hour Pre- school La Petite Outstanding 9am- 38 £7 per Ecole 3.30pm hour Francais Oxford Good 9am- 38 Maintained Gardens 3.30pm School Primary School St Good 9am- 36 Maintained Charles 3.30pm School Catholic Primary School

Notting Dale

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early Grade Hours Open years provider Grenfell Early Years 8am- £8 per Service Outstanding 5pm 49 hour St Anne's Nursery School with 9am- Maintained Avondale Outstanding 3pm 38 school

3 | Page

Park Primary School (federated) St Francis of Assisi Catholic Primary 9am- Maintained School Good 3pm 38 school

Norland

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early Grade Hours Open years provider Kerens Outstanding 10 hours 40 £11 per Nursery Monday hour Holland to Park Thursday. Friday 8 - 12 Monkey Good 7.30am- 51 £10 per Puzzle 6.30pm hour St Clement Good 8.55am- 38 Maintained and St 3.20pm school James C of E Primary School Thomas Outstanding 9am- 38 Maintained Jones 3.15pm school Primary School La Scuola Good - 34 - Italiana A Londra The Good 8.30am- 32 - Tabernacle 3.15pm

Colville

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Spring at Good 8am to 51 £66 Per Clare 6pm day Gardens Colville Outstanding 8-6pm 51 £75.52 a nursery day LEYF Denbigh Good 8-6pm 38 £9.50 per under fives hour

4 | Page

Colville Outstanding 8.50- 38 - Primary 3.10 School

Campden

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider London Good 8am to 50 £12 per Nursery 6pm hour School Lloyd New 7.30am 50 £76.00 a Williamson Provider – 6pm day Pippa Pop- Outstanding 8-6pm 42 £14.28 Ins per hour Little Outstanding - 31.5 - Cherubs Nursery School - Pitt Street Pooh Corner Outstanding - 35 - Kindergarten W8

Dalgarno

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Dalgarno Good 9-3.15 39 £7.00 per Pre-school hour Barlby Outstanding 9.3.30 39 - Primary School

Golborne

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Portobello Good 8am to 50 £7 per Day Care 5pm hour nursery Pop Up Good 9.00- 39 £7.50 per Nursery at 3.pm hour Venture Centre Little Good 8-6pm 47 £11 per Rosie's hour Nursery School Lloyd Good 7.30- 50 £76 a day Williamson 6pm

5 | Page

Holland

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Holland Good 7-18.30 50 £60 to Park Pre- £118 per Prep day School and Day Nursery Holland Outstanding 9.00- 40 £7.50 per Park Pre- 3.30.pm hour School Little Good 8-6pm 50 - Darlings London Kensington Outstanding 9-3pm 38 - Primary Academy

Pembridge

Name of Ofsted Grade Opening Weeks Costs early Hours Open years provider Bright Good 7.30- 51 £106.50 Horizons 6.30pm per day Holland Park Day Nursery and Pre- school Good 9-4pm 38 Up to £2750 for St Peter's 5 Nursery mornings Ladbroke Good 8.55am- 33 - Square 3.0pm Montessori School The Minors Good - 33 - Nursery The Understanding 9-4pm- 33 - Square School Wetherby Good 34 - School

6 | Page

South RBKC

Abingdon

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early Grade Hours Open years provider Maggie & Good Not Not Not stated Rose Pre- stated stated Nursery Warwick Good 9-3pm 38 £10 per Pre School hour Eden Montessori Nursery Good 9-3.30 34 - Iverna Gardens Montessori Outstanding 9-3.45 33 - Kensington House Nursery School Outstanding 9-3pm 34 - Abingdon Nursery Outstanding 9-3.30 35 - Lexham Gardens Playhouse Good 9-3pm 33 -

Brompton and Hans Town

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Marlborough Good 9-3.15 38 £1600 a Primary term School

Chelsea Riverside

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Spring - Good 8- 51 £72 per Cheyne 5.45pm day (AFC) Worlds End Good 9-3pm 39 £8 per Under Fives hour Centre Ashburnham 8.45- 38 £100 per Primary 3.30 week School Outstanding

7 | Page

Courtfield

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Queensberry Good 8-6pm 46.4 £111.39 Nursery Per day

Earl’s Court

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Earls Court Outstanding 8-6pm 51 £1618.50 Day Nursery per month/£84 per day.

Falkner - House Boys 7.45- School ISA met 17.20 34 St Good 38 Cuthbert’s with St Matthias

Queen’s Gate

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Victoria - Road Montessori Outstanding 33 Thomas's - Preparatory 8.30- School Outstanding 3.25 36 Pooh Corner Kindergarten 8.45- Sw7 Outstanding 16.00 33 - The Kensington Nursery School Outstanding 9-4pm 33 - Kensington Not yet Kindergarten inspected 9-3.30 36 -

Redcliffe

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Home from Good 46 £15 per Home 8-6pm hour Servite RC Primary School Outstanding 38

8 | Page

Royal Hospital

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early years Grade Hours Open provider Spring Violet Good 8- Melchett 5.45pm 51 £8.30 per hour St Joseph’s £1200 Catholic term Primary School Outstanding 9-3.15 38

Stanley

Name of Ofsted Opening Weeks Costs early Grade Hours Open years provider Park Walk Good 9-3pm 38 £1130.50 Primary term School

9 | Page

Benchmarking Nursery Provision across RBKC

The proposed nursery fees for the four Action for Children nurseries have been benchmarked against 80 nursery settings across the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The ward based analysis overleaf captures all the of the nursery provision across the Royal Borough. This expands on and provides a more comprehensive overview on the initial benchmarking of direct cost comparison in bot the north and south of the borough.

Due to the significant variations in each providers opening hours and offer across the borough and the challenge this poses in drawing comparisons between provision Ward level headline costs have been calculated as the average per hour according to the day / month / term fee structures of providers in each ward. Action for Children costs are per hour according to the proposed day rates (8am-5:30pm at Violet Melchett and 8am-6pm for all others).

Summaries of the data by Ward are presented as follows:

Name of Ward (number of settings in ward for which we have data)

Total nursery places: The total number of nursery places across the settings for which we have data

Avg. nursery places: The average number of places across the settings for which we have data

Accepting under 3s: The percentage of the settings for which we have data who offer places to children under the age of 3 years

Under 3s Over 3s The approximate average cost per hour of nursery The approximate average cost per hour of nursery place for a child under 3 years place for a child over 3 years St Helen’s (8) Dalgarno (5) Golborne (8) Ward level headline costs Total nursery places: 113 Total nursery places: 298 Total nursery places: 340 have been calculated as the Avg. nursery places: 23 Avg. nursery places: 37 Avg. nursery places: 43 Pembridge (5) average per hour according Accepting under 3s: 60% to the day / month / term fee : 63% Accepting under 3s: 63% Accepting under 3s Total nursery places: 340 structures of providers in Under 3s Over 3s Under 3’s Over 3’s Avg. nursery places: 68 each ward. Under 3s Over 3s £8.48 £8.48 £7.85 £7.73 Colville (6) £7.08 £8.48 Accepting under 3s: 100% Total nursery places: 161 Action for Children costs are Under 3s Over 3s Avg. nursery places: 27 £12.56 £11.56 per hour according to the St Quintin Day Nursery Accepting under 3s: 83% proposed day rates (8am- Notting Dale (2) Under 3s Over 3s 5:30pm at Violet Melchett Under 3s Over 3s Norland (6) Total nursery places: 105 £7.40 £6.80 and 8am-6pm for all others) £8.22 £7.89 Total nursery places: 269 Avg. nursery places: 53 Avg. nursery places: 45 Accepting under 3s: 0% Queen’s Gate (2) Clare Gardens Total nursery places: 63 Courtfield (5) Accepting under 3s: 33% Over 3s Awaiting fee details Under 3s Over 3s Avg. nursery places: 32 Total nursery places: 230 £6.60 £6.10 Under 3s Over 3s Accepting under 3s: 50% Avg. nursery places: 46 £10.48 £8.96 Accepting under 3s: 40% Under 3s Over 3s £31.50 £22.71 Campden (3) Under 3s Over 3s Holland (5) £8.19 £11.58 Total nursery places: 74 Total nursery places: 192 Avg. nursery places: 25 Avg. nursery places: 38 Abingdon (6) Accepting under 3s: 100% Accepting under 3s: 80% Brompton and Total nursery places: 217 Under 3s Over 3s Hans Town (2) Under 3s Over 3s £14.41 £17.42 Avg. nursery places: 36 £16.41 £10.48 Total nursery places: 93 Accepting under 3s: 100% Avg. nursery places: 47 Stanley (5) Accepting under 3s: 0% Under 3s Over 3s Total nursery places: 220 £12.30 £13.04 Over 3s Avg. nursery places: 44 £12.50 Accepting under 3s: 60% Earl’s Court (4) Under 3s Over 3s Total nursery places: 160 £13.81 £14.01 Avg. nursery places: 40 Redcliffe (3) Accepting under 3s: 50% Total nursery places: 74 Under 3s Over 3s Chelsea Riverside (3) Violet Melchett £11.66 £9.13 Royal Hospital (4) Avg. nursery places: 25 Total nursery places: 54 Under 3s Over 3s Total nursery places: 100 Accepting under 3s: 67% Avg. nursery places: 18 £8.74 £8.21 Avg. nursery places: 25 Accepting under 3s: 50% Under 3s Over 3s Accepting under 3s: 25% £12.24 £9.00 Under 3s Over 3s Cheyne Day Nursery £8.00 £7.00 Under 3s Over 3s Under 3s Over 3s Awaiting fee £9.86 £5.50 £5.05 details In the North of the Borough: Direct Cost Comparisons by Daily or Monthly Charge Rate

Nursery Name Location Daily Charge Hours Included Weekly Rate Monthly Rate Comment

Monkey Puzzle Notting Hill £85 7.30am -6.30pm £433 £1,842 Lunch included. This is the cheapest option.

Bright Horizons Ladbroke Grove £101 7.30am -6.30pm Lunch included. This is the cheapest price if a child attends full time.

Grenfell Early Years Lancaster West £72 8.00am -5.00pm Parents need to bring a packed lunch.

Colville LEYF Colville Square 8.00am – 6.00pm £1,586 per month No breakdown provided but based on a child that attends 8am – 6pm five days a week.

Holland Park Holland Park £114 8.30am -6.30pm Lunch included. Preparatory In the South of the Borough: Direct Cost Comparisons by Daily or Monthly Charge Rate

Nursery Name Location Daily Charge Hours Included Weekly Rate Monthly Rate Comment

Earls Court LEYF Earls Court £79 8.00am -6.00pm Lunch included.

Queensbury South Kensington £80 8.00am -6.00pm Lunch is an additional cost.

Le Chatons Nursery £4,900 per term for a 12-week term school for children under 3 so £82 per day for a 9-4 day and parents have to bring a packed lunch Appendix 4

Affordable Childcare in Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Report Date: April 2019

Contents

1. Introduction ………………………………………………………… pg 1 2. Sufficiency of childcare ……………………………………………… pg 2 3. Cost of childcare ……………………………………………………… pg 3.1 Cost of childcare for under 3’s ……………………………………... pg 3.2 Eligibility 2 yr old Early Education Entitlement …………………. pg 3.3 Sufficiency of places …………………………………………………. pg 3.4 Cost of childcare for children aged 3 & 4 years ………………… pg 3.5 Examples of how the funding can help towards childcare costs pg 4. 30 hours free childcare (additional 15 hours for 3- & 4-year olds of working parents) ………………………………………………………….. pg 4.1 Demand for 30 hours in RBKC ………………………………………. pg 5. Grenfell ………………………………………………………………………… pg 6. Information & Guidance and promoting the offer ……………………… pg

1. Introduction Childcare is a major concern for families, ensuring they can find good quality provision which is affordable and flexible and meets their needs is somewhat difficult across the country and is no different for families living in RBKC. Parents can find it difficult to arrange the right sort of care at the right price.

In Kensington we want to support families who want to go out to work to have a choice of childcare available that they can afford and feel confident that they have made the right choice for their child and it is working for them financially.

Most families will need help with paying for their childcare and there are a variety of ways they can be supported in England which brings down the cost of childcare significantly (appendix 1). It is acknowledged that the systems to apply for these funding streams can be somewhat complex particularly for families where English is a second language. This paper will look at affordability across the Borough and also explore how childcare is promoted in the Borough to ensure parents are provided with the right information and also supported by staff where appropriate.

2. Sufficiency of Childcare The Family and Childcare report on Childcare 2019* reported that only half of all local authorities in England (57%) and Wales (43%) have enough childcare for parents working full time. In Kensington our recent CSA and ward profiling evidence that we have enough childcare across the borough for parents who require it, however it is clear, that the provision may not necessarily be in the place parents would like to access it.

*https://www.familyandchildcaretrust.org/childcare-survey-2019

Table 1 Sufficiency Summary Spring 2018 – source GLA data store 2018; census 2018 data sets

Wards No 2 yr olds 2018 No 3yr olds No 4 yr total 3 & 4 yr no of house- % Estimates Take up GLA data store Nov 17 2018 GLA data olds 2018 olds GLA data store parents holds with children Summer April 2018 projections store Nov 17 GLA data store Nov 17 projections working dependent in Poverty 2018 13 hours projections Nov 17 AFTER additional projections 0-4 HOUSING 15 hrs COSTS (DfE) ** Abingdon 137 128 134 262 1077 199 25.94% 58 6 Brompton 89 113 104 217 853 133 16.56% 50 9 Campden 107 132 114 246 977 160 8.90% 57 0

Chelsea Riverside (new ward) 89 87 70 157 39.80% 28 21 Colville 103 76 75 151 775 159 35.11% 26 29 Courtfield 104 75 76 151 894 162 8.23% 34 0

Dalgarno (new ward) 95 104 99 203 29.64% 37 15 Earls Court 89 83 79 162 731 159 25.09% 34 12 881 Golborne & Hans Town 82 90 85 175 179 43.48% 27 26 Holland 122 122 116 1170 198 26.88% 55 11 238 Norland 99 109 105 214 1052 150 30.93% 49 9 Notting Dale 108 111 112 223 1112 156 38.81% 36 16 Pembridge 84 83 82 165 769 139 16.58% 39 6 Queens Gate 97 101 100 201 1078 199 7.75% 47 0 Redcliffe 96 94 99 193 1060 188 21.52% 36 19 Royal Hospital 53 50 52 102 711 105 14.38% 20 31

St Helens (new ward) 101 105 118 223 40.29% 48 27 Stanley 79 81 80 161 856 146 20.98% 31 6 av RBKC 1734 1,744 1,700 3,444 13996 2432 28.18% 713 243

3. Cost of Childcare The average price of 25 hours of childcare a week for a child under 2 in nursery is £127:00 across the country, or £6,600 per year. The average cost for a child under 2 by a child minder is £113 across the country, or £5,900 per year. However, there are substantial variations between regions outlined below and RBKC would be comparable with the average for Inner London.

In Kensington the average cost for children under 2 is £289:20 which is higher than the Inner London average of £174:54

Table 2 Price of 25 hours per week childcare for children under 3 at nurseries or childminders Source – Coram Family & Childcare Survey 2019

Residents in Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster (along with City of London) had the highest income in the country (£158,000 and £102,000 respectively in the tax year 2014-2015, mean averages).

The following table shows mean average income by borough 2014-2015 Table 3 - Mean average income 2014-2015

LA Mean Self-employed income Mean employed income

Kensington and Chelsea £174,000 £123,000 Westminster £122,000 £85,400 London £37,000 £39,400 Source: Income and tax by borough and district or unitary authority, 2014-15

3.1 Cost of childcare for under 3’s Average childcare prices for children under 3 years old in RBKC is above the national average. Childcare for the purpose of this report is deemed as care suitable for working parents or parents attending training. The care is registered and families may access government funding through the provider

Table 4 Price of childcare (25 hours a week) RBKC Inner London Great Britain 25 hours a week nursery for child under 2 £289.20 £174.54 £127

25 hours a week nursery for child age 2 £225.50 £163.01 £124

A benchmarking exercise (appendix 2) was undertaken in the summer of 2018 across the borough and the cost of 25 hours childcare for 3-year olds ranged from £177 to £360.25 for 25 hours of childcare for children under 3. Prices reflected the areas of deprivation in each ward and the earnings and affordability of parents who would be accessing the provision in the area.

Low and middle income families can receive support with childcare costs through Universal Credit or Tax Credits. However, for some families the cost of childcare will exceed the support that is available. The maximum limit per child under Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit is £175 per week which is almost two thirds less than the average full-time cost of childcare for a child under two in Kensington and Chelsea. Therefore, many of our families will not be eligible for any additional financial support. So, if they choose to use registered childcare it is likely they are paying more in childcare costs than they are earning, and so are worse off financially for working more hours.

Table 5 Cost of 25 hours childcare for under 3-year olds by ward Locality Ward IDACI Cost 25 hours average ranking North Dalgarno £212:00 North Golborne £196:25 North St Helens £177:00 North Notting Dale No data available North Coleville £205:50 North Norland £262:00 North Pembridge £314:00 North Holland £410:25 North Campden £360:25 South Abingdon £307:50 South Queens Gate £787:50 South Earls Court £291:50 South Redcliffe £306:00 South Courtfield £204:75 South Brompton & Hans Town 0 under 3 provision South Stanley £345:25 South Chelsea Riverside £200:00 South Royal Hospital 0 under 3 provision

Source: benchmarking exercise summer 2018 RBKC (appendix 2)

3.2 Eligibility 2 yr old Early Education Entitlement In RBKC it is estimated that 15% of 2-year may be eligible for the early education entitlement this equates to 254 children. 78% of eligible children are taking up their place which is higher than the 72% nationally and 71% in inner London

Table 6 2-year-old take up in RBKC Data Source DWP lists & census 2018

Take DWP % No of providers Up List participating in 2 yr. old offer Summer 17 193 294 66% 25 Autumn 17 212 265 80% 28 Spring 18 197 254 78% 26

NB: The number of eligible families is due to increase in coming terms due to benefit changes, it will take into consideration those families on Universal Credits.

Extensive work is undertaken to target potential eligible families on the DWP list to support them in taking up the entitlement should they wish to do so. Outreach workers door knock and engage with parents who are attending existing services offered by the Children’s Centre service. Parents are then supported to access training to enable them to return to work such as CV writing and interview skills. This support should help parents become future families eligible for 30 hours funding therefore driving our own future demand across the borough.

3.3 Sufficiency of places RBKC has enough places available across the borough for children wishing to take up the 2-year-old funding entitlement, this is provided by 24 Private, Voluntary and Independent settings, one primary school and one maintained nursery setting.

During 2017/18 additional childcare places were created for under 5’s some of which were for the 2-year-old offer. 102 in total were created but 60 places closed during the same reporting period leaving a net of 42 new places. We continue to develop further places subject to need across the borough and will be working particularly with childminders over the coming year to enable more flexibility and choice for parents particularly in the south of the Borough.

3.4 Cost of childcare for children aged 3 & 4 years From the term after their 3rd birthday children are entitled to the Minimum Funding Entitlement (MFE) which is 15 hours of free childcare. Many childcare providers to support their sustainability make these free hours available within paid hours. For example, a provider of MFE will offer the 3-hour session per day within a 5-hour session. This means a parent will need to pay an additional 2 hours each day at the providers normal rate. There is only 1 provider in RBKC that offers just 15 hours with no additional cost and their sustainability is now becoming questionable. The additional hours costs range from £2:05 to £38:25 per hour with the average additional hour cost being £8:15. Parents are encouraged to use Tax Free Childcare to supplement these additional hours.

The table shows how much a parent would pay for childcare if their 3 & 4-year-old accesses MFE 15 hours free childcare if using 25 hours per week. If, however they were working full time they would need to access an additional 35 hours which would

cost an average of £285 per week. If the parent used the tax-free childcare scheme this would reduce the cost to the parent by 20%

Table 7 Cost of childcare for 3 & 4 year olds Cost of childcare for 3& 4-year-old Cost of childcare for 3 & 4-year-old Plus 15 hours Plus 35 hours £122:25 285:25 Annual cost of childcare Annual cost of childcare £6,673:50 £10,839:50

Parents must access the 15-hour entitlement either over 38 weeks (term time) which means if they are working full time then the discounted rate is only available during school terms making their annual cost of childcare to be offered at a further 10 weeks at cost.

3.5 Examples of how the funding can help towards childcare costs

Case Study 1 Mr & Mrs Shah both working and earn £36:000 per annum each Total income £72:000. Both pay into workplace pension and have no other household income. 1 child aged 3 years old who attends a local nursery full time (50 hours per week) Weekly childcare cost: £518:00 Annual ChildCare cost: £24,864 Current payment per month: £2,072 The family qualify for the following funding entitlements: Tax free child care: £2000 30 hours free childcare Total of £11,360 off of their annual childcare bill. New monthly payment: £1,125

Case Study 2 Roger is a single working parent and earns £38,000 per annum. 1 child age 1 years old who attends full time nursery and this costs £1,408 Roger qualifies for the following funding entitlements: Tax free childcare: £2000 Tax credits: £1,721 Total of £3,721 off the annual childcare bill. New monthly childcare bill: £1097

Case Study 3 Mr & Mrs Ambrose both working full time earn £38k each Total income: £76,000 no other household income 2 Children aged 2 and 3 years old. Both children attend local nursery. Combined Weekly fees (including sibling discount 10%) £3,730 They qualify for the following funding entitlements: 30 hours free childcare for 3-year-old £9,360 2 x £2000 tax free childcare = £4,000 Total of £13,3360 off their annual childcare bill. New monthly bill £2,616.66

4. 30 hours free childcare (additional 15 hours for 3- & 4-year olds of working parents) In September 2017 the 30-hour entitlement was introduced for working parents of 3- & 4-year olds. It offered 38 weeks of free childcare or early education to 3 & 4 year olds of working parents. A total of 1,1140 hours per year. The offer can be used flexibly

with more than one provider and there is the ability to ‘stretch’ the hours over 52 weeks using fewer hours per week.

This new initiative can provide parents with up to £6000 savings in childcare costs per year thereby giving parents an incentive to return to work. The Government state that parents accessing the 15 universal hours and the additional 15 hours must access the childcare/early education for free. This means that the total cost of 30 hours childcare is met by the Government.

Providers are permitted to charge for additional services but must make their offer clear to parents when they take up their place. Childcare providers do not have to provide the initiative and in RBKC a large majority of providers did not take part. Demand for the offer in RBKC has proved significantly lower than elsewhere in the country with only 43% take up against the estimated figure of 713 families.

Table 8 30 hours take up in RBKC source census 2019

DfE estimated Spring % Spring % Difference Difference take up 2018 2019 % summer 2018 take up take up

713 205 28.55 307 43% +102 +14.5%

4.1 Demand for 30 hours in RBKC The DfE initial funding on Spring-term 2018 demand estimates were based on the following data sets: data from the Family Resources Survey (FRS), Annual Population Survey (APS), Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI), the schools census, the early years census, and Office for National Statistics (ONS) population projections.

The DfE estimates were at LA level; to support sufficiency assessment and market management and this was broken down by each LA into smaller geographical areas ie. Wards.

The DfE estimates for RBKC were significantly higher than actual demand in the borough for a variety of reasons, initially the LA had been funding full time places for vulnerable children in all of its school/maintained settings and the incentives for families to obtain 11-digit codes was minimal as they would have already secured a full-time place. During the second term of implementation extensive work was undertaken with schools to ensure that all children in a full-time nursery place who were eligible secured their 11-digit code and the conversions could be undertaken.

From September 2018 the LA ceased the funding of full-time places and workshops. This meant schools were having to look at their offer in a different way, they would need to consider the different delivery models whilst ensuring the future sustainability of their settings. RBKC received additional funding from the DfE to promote and encourage uptake of 30 hours and this funding was used to put in place a support package to help all providers look at alternative models of delivery and provide them with tools on how to business plan. Schools in particular received support on a 1:1 basis to look at their delivery models from September 2018 and information sessions were delivered to Chairs of Governors. All schools with nursery provision had a model of delivery in place from September 2018 but all based on the normal term time only 9am – 3pm day.

Whilst take up is on an upwards trajectory after having undertaken significant analysis with Childcare works and the DfE the demand in RBKC remains lower than DfE estimates for the following reasons:

i) Residents in Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster (along with City of London) had the highest income in the country (£158,000 and £102,000 respectively in the tax year 2014-2015, mean averages). It can be anticipated a higher proportion of families meeting the working status of the eligibility criteria would not be eligible based on high income in RBKC compared to the rest of the country

ii) The disparity between ‘well-off’ households and poorer households is marked across the capital and is likely to hold true in RBKC. According to London’s Poverty Profile 2017, London has a disproportionate amount of the UK’s poorest and richest households. 15% of Londoners are in households in the bottom 10% of the UK income distribution, and 14% of Londoners are in households in the top 10% of the UK income distribution and the richest 10% of households in London received 29% of total income

iii) The take-up of universal early learning entitlement for 3- & 4-year olds is lower in London than across the rest of the country and this is reflected in RBKC. The total take up of universal 15 hrs in the borough is 81% compared to 86% nationally, this does not include nannies and other private arrangements families may have and local intelligence suggests a significant number of children are taking up their entitlement in neighbouring boroughs.

It could be argued a lower take-up of the 3 and 4-year-old universal entitlement would predict a lower take-up (than national averages) of 30-hours childcare. It is equally possible the lower take-up of the universal entitlement is related to higher levels of worklessness in Kensington and Chelsea.

iv) Population changes across the country particularly in London, based on GLA population data, the number of 3- and 4-year olds in RBKC has decreased in recent years.

Table 9 Decrease in population of 3- & 4-year olds

Borough Mid 2016 estimate for Mid 2014 estimate Difference 2018 RBKC 3,300 3,710 -410 Westminster 5,207 5,570 -363 Source: 2016-based demographic projections. London Borough population projections, housing-led model. GLA 2017

It is not possible to reconcile different eligibility estimates based on available data. It is suggested DfE estimates provide the most robust assessment of eligible numbers at this time and the local assessments provide an overview of where demand should be the highest at ward level. We have undertaken a detailed ward analysis to understand the childcare market across the borough (see attached document)

5. Grenfell In June 2017 Kensington & Chelsea experienced the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. The impact of loss of life, displacement of survivors, and the effect on those living in the surrounding area has been profound. A nursery that was housed a on the ground floor of Grenfell Tower was displaced and it has been temporary relocated at another site within the same ward. Many childcare providers and schools were, and continue to be directly affected, particularly those in close proximity to the Tower. As a result of the take-up of temporary or permanent housing in different locations within the borough or out-borough, pupil mobility has increased. The Council will continue to monitor the impact on all schools. In addition, the Council continues to focus on opportunities for new housing in many parts of the borough, which may result in the potential need for additional places in those areas over time.

Grenfell Tower is located within the Notting Dale Ward of RBKC which is one of the 0- 10% most deprived wards nationally (IDACI rankings 2015) with 584 under 5’s living in the ward. It is estimated that after housing costs have been taken into consideration approximately 38.81% of children are living in poverty. Of the 36 children who are estimated to be eligible for 30 hours 2

Flats account for 87.5 per cent of all household spaces in Notting Dale (3,290 households, ranked 4th) compared to 83.1 per cent in the borough and 52.2 per cent in London.

5.1 Table 10 SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs)

E01002877 003B 127 23 26 27 18 33 1 0-10% most deprived E01002870 005A 84 16 14 16 20 18 1 0-10% most deprived E01002872 005B 85 13 19 22 16 15 3 20-30% E01002879 005C 75 13 13 8 18 23 1 0-10% most deprived E01002880 005D 127 25 20 24 30 28 1 0-10% most deprived E01002881 005E 86 14 18 18 14 22 1 0-10% most deprived Totals: 584 104 110 115 116 139

5.2 Table 11 Early Years provision in Notting Dale Ward (census 2019 data)

The Notting Dale ward provides a variety of childcare alternatives to parents both in PVI sector and also in the school-maintained nursery settings this spans the 2 year old offer through to the 30 hour childcare offer for working parents. 20 of the eligible 2 year olds in this ward are placed in the Grenfell Under 3’s Centre Creche. An additional 6 children who have been affected by Grenfell r have been in a targeted place since June/July 2017 the remaining 2 have been allocated funded places this year. There are currently 6 children accessing targeted places who have been effected by Grenfell, of this 4 have been in place since June/July 2017 the remaining 2 have been allocated funded places this year after ‘survivors or bereaved as a result of Grenfell Tower Tragedy’ was added to the Targeted places criteria.

100% of the provision in this ward is rated by Ofsted as Good or Outstanding.

7. Information & Guidance and promoting the offers RBK’s Family Information Service provides free, impartial information and guidance to families regarding childcare, schools, early help services, leisure activities and services delivered across the borough by the private and voluntary sector. This information is for families with children and young people aged 0-19 (25 with SEND) in Kensington.

The service delivers the statutory responsibilities placed upon the local authority under section 12 of the Childcare Act (2006). As required by legislation, the directory has a particular focus on providing information and support to families with disabled children an being proactive in reaching vulnerable/disadvantaged families who may find it difficult to access themselves. This is fulfilled by the publication of the Local Offer. The service is delivered via an online Family Information Service Directory, email, website, Facebook and Twitter, phoneline and brokerage service where applicable.

The promotion of the offers are also undertaking in a variety of other ways, we ensure that all childcare offers are advertised and promoted via leaflets, outreach and support. Service Champions and will also be developing a Parent Champion outreach service to support and promote the FIS directory, Local Offer and Childcare funding options over the coming year.

All literature and advertising signposts families to the www.childcarechoices.gov.uk website where families can complete calculators to see what they are entitled to and link them to where they need to apply. The Borough has developed its own leaflets but also uses the national advertising literature/campaigns including those for Tax Free Childcare and promotes through the borough’s free e-newsletters and through children’s centres and schools.

8 Summary Affordable childcare will mean something different to every family dependent on their income capacity and individual situations. Whilst the borough has some of the most affluent families in the country there are equally pockets of deprivation where some of the poorest and vulnerable families in the country are living.

The variety of childcare on offer across the borough meets the needs of families at either end of the spectrum however, the offer may not be as flexible for those families receiving the totally free entitlement as this is usually offered on a Term time only basis.

This may change after the first year of delivery if schools feel they need to be more flexible and adaptable to encourage more families into their settings. The LA will support schools in exploring and developing different delivery models should they require additional support.

There are sufficient places available across the borough for those families who require childcare. More needs to be done to understand the school age childcare market and this is a priority of the newly formed Bi-Borough Childcare & Early Education Service over the coming year (18/19).

The Borough understands it market and although demand may be lower than anticipated for the new 30-hour offer is endeavouring to drive its future demand by undertaking targeted work with parents of children taking up the 2-year-old entitlement. The outcomes of this work will however not be realised until 19/20.

The LA is consistently reviewing the market and will develop further childcare places if the need increases or the market changes.

Appendix 1

Funds available to support the cost of childcare in England Childcare Support Age of Child Applicability Funded childcare for 2-year olds 2 years 15 hours a week for 38 weeks a year for parents in receipt of benefits (including in-work benefits) or children who are disabled or looked after Universal funded childcare for 3- 3 to 4 years old 15 hours a week for 38 weeks a year & 4-year olds for all 3- & 4-year olds Funded childcare for 3- & 4-year 3 to 4 years old 3- & 4-year olds with working parents olds of working parents * are entitled to an additional 15 hours per week of funded childcare for 38 weeks of the year, meaning they get a total of 30 hours a week Tax Free Childcare Up to 12 years Covers 20% of childcare costs up to a old or 17 if a maximum of £2,000 per child per year child has a or £4,000 for disabled children. Tax disability Free Childcare replaces the childcare voucher scheme which is now closed to new applications.

Parents and their partner (if they are a two-parent family) must earn at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage or national living wage.

Can be received alongside the 30 hours extended entitlement but not Working Tax Credit or Universal Credit.

This operates like a savings account for each child: for every 80p a parent saves the Government match it with 20p

Providers must be registered to be able to be paid via a parent tax free childcare account. Universal Credit Any age with Pays up to 85% of childcare costs up to Ofsted £175 per week for one child and £300 registered for 2 or more children. This is set to providers replace Tax Credits and other benefits as it is rolled out across the country.

Universal Credit can be claimed alongside funded childcare, but not with Working Tax Credit or Tax Free ChildCare. Parents must have an income below a certain level – this varies depending on a family’s individual circumstances. *Parents and their partner (if a 2 parent family) must both earn at least equivalent of 16 hours a week at national minimum wage or national living wage, claimant must not earn more than £100,000 per year (per parent)

Appendix 2

RBKC childcare Benchmarking Exercise – Summer 2018

Appendix 5

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

CHILDCARE SUFFICENCY ASSESSMENT

2017-2018

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

Map of The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea by electoral ward

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

CONTENTS Pages

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………. 4

2. About the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea …………. 5

3. Overall Assessment of Quality, Summary & Future Priorities 6

4. Demand for Early Education & Childcare ………………………….. 15

5. Supply of Childcare ……………………………………………………. 17

6. Funded Early Education Entitlement………………………………… 18

7. Cost of childcare ……………………………………………………….. 18

8. Quality of childcare in our area ……………………………………… 20

9. Information and Advice ……………………………………………….. 21

10. Methodology …………………………………………………………….. 21

11. Glossary of Terms ………………………………………………………. 23

12. Appendices……………………………………………………………….. 26

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

1. Introduction Childcare is defined in Section 18 of the Childcare Act 2006, as any form of childcare for a child aged under 18. There are some exclusions to this broad definition, for example, childcare does not include care provided by a child’s parent, but it does include education for children aged under the age of five and supervised activities for all children outside of school hours.

Local authorities have a duty to secure sufficient childcare that meets the requirements of parents. They play a key role in shaping the childcare market and in particular to support parents to: • Take up, or remain in, work • Undertake education or training

Under the Department for Education’s ‘Early Education and Childcare Statutory Guidance’ local authorities should report annually to elected council members on how the duty to secure enough childcare is being met and make this report available and accessible to parents.

The 2017 - 2018 Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (CSA) was completed in 2018 and it records how the recent demographic of changes may affect the childcare market. The CSA can be used to anticipate the supply and demand of places for the forthcoming years The CSA assesses different groups, rather than all children in the local authority. This report will also aid our work in supporting the local childcare economy. This is so families can find childcare that meets their child’s learning needs and enables and for parents to make a real choice about work and training. This applies to all children from birth to age 14, and to children with disabilities aged up to 18 years old.

The data for this CSA has been gathered during the summer 2017, autumn 2017 and spring 2018 terms and brings together a variety of qualitative and quantitative sources, both at local and national levels.

This report will include information from several sources: • Information from Ofsted • Department of Education • The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (Office for National Statistics) 2015 • Surveys of parents and childcare providers using the Family Information Service Feedback option • Free entitlement headcount of children age 2, 3 and 4 years’ old • Children with Special Education • GLA population Data sets 2017

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

2. Contextual information about Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) Kensington and Chelsea is one of London's wealthiest boroughs and the country's most populous local authority with more than 13,000 people per square kilometre. It covers some of the most valuable real estate in the world. Whilst the borough has some of the most affluent families in the country, there are equally pockets of deprivation where some of the poorest and vulnerable families in the country

More than one-fifth of all households (16,389) have English as a second language. 53% of residents have a level four qualification. However, 10% of residents have no qualifications 68.2% of proportion of residents are working and is slightly lower than London as a whole 72.9%. Using Department of Work and Pension data, it is judged that 17.8% of children are deemed to be living in poverty in Kensington and Chelsea. This percentage increases to 28.2% once housing costs are also considered.

2.1 Population in Kensington & Chelsea In Kensington and Chelsea according to the data from the 2011 census 71% of the population associated their ethnic group as belonging as ‘Combined White’. This is an 8% decrease since the previous census in 2001. Since 2011, the largest increase was in the Asian British group, which had risen from 4.9% to 10% and has been driven partly by the inclusion of the Chinese group into this ethnic category.

Ethnic breakdown summary RBKC - source: Census 2011

According to recent GLA profile data, RBKC has a slightly higher proportion of its population aged 0-15 (16.4%) than London as a whole (13.9%). In RBKC, for children aged 0-14 years old there are approximately 1650 children per cohort with an estimation of 8170 children aged Under 5. The population has seen changes across the country particularly in London. Based on GLA population data the number of 3 and 4 year olds in has decreased in recent years.

Decrease in population of 3 & 4 year olds

Borough Mid 2016 estimate Mid 2014 estimate Difference for 2018 RBKC 3,300 3,710 -410 Source: 2016-based demographic projections. London Borough population projections, housing-led model. GLA 2017

In January 2017 6794 primary aged pupils were on roll in state-maintained school and of these 4695 were RBKC residents. There were 2099 pupils who were residents in other boroughs. However, only 387 RBKC children were enrolled to other local authority schools. 5

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

The borough has the highest density of private and independent early years provision in London, with 65 providers operating within the borough resulting in more than 50% of children living in RBKC being schooled in the private and independent sector.

2.2 Deprivation • Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) contains some of the most deprived communities in the country with 11 of the 103 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) in the Borough experiencing multiple deprivations in the bottom ten per cent of any community in England and Wales.

• The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and Income Deprivation affecting Children (IDACI) poverty scales from 2015 identify Golborne and Dalgarno wards as having the highest level of deprivation in the Borough.

• The wards with the highest rates of child poverty after housing costs are within Golborne 43%, Dalgarno 40%, Chelsea Riverside 40%, Notting Dale 39% and Colville 35% wards. Apart from Chelsea Riverside, these wards are all located in the North of the Borough.

3. Overall Assessment of Quality

By August 2017, the number of childcare providers graded by Ofsted as good or outstanding was 89% compared with 94% nationally. For PVI settings that have been inspected, 100% were good or better along with four community nurseries. Childminders being rated as good or outstanding is 66% compared with 95% nationally.

By August 2017 21 schools of the 26 primary schools have a nursery provision and Ofsted records that in all but one school was judged by Ofsted as Good or Better.

3.1 Supply of Early Years Education and Childcare Places (Spring 2018) There are 122 early years and childcare providers operating in RBKC offering a total of 3293 places. These include: • 21 nursery provision in local authority schools • 34 childminders • 67 private, independent and voluntary sector providers • 11 Independent schools in the borough who do not offer funded childcare provision but admit children aged 3-5 years old. (They are part of the ISI is the Independent School Inspectorate process.)

During the reporting period 2017 – 2018, 102 childcare places were created of which some could support the 2, 3 and 4 year-old offer. 60 places have closed leaving a balance of 42 new places. RBKC continues to develop further places subject to need across the borough, particularly with childminders to enable more flexibility and choice for parents in the south of the Borough.

3.2 Funded early education for 2 year olds In the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, it is estimated that 15 % of 2-year-olds may be eligible for the early education entitlement. This equates to 254 children in Spring

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

2018. 78% of these eligible children are taking up their place which is higher than both nationally (72%) and other inner London boroughs (71%).

2 -year-old take up in RBKC – Data Source DWP lists & census 2018 Take DWP List % No of providers Up participating in 2 yr. old offer Summer 17 193 294 66% 25 Autumn 17 212 265 80% 28 Spring 18 197 254 78% 26 NB: The number of eligible families is due to increase in coming terms due to benefit changes; it will take into consideration those families on Universal Credits.

The Borough has enough places available for eligible children wishing to take up the 2-year- old funding entitlement, which is offered across 24 private, voluntary and independent (PVI) providers and 1 primary school and 1 community nursery.

3.3 Universal 15 hours for 3- & 4-year olds

All 3 – 4 year olds are entitled to access 15 hours of free nursery provision in the term after their 3rd birthday. The total take up of universal 15 hours in the borough is 81% and is slightly lower compared to national (86%)

3-4-year-old take up in RBKC – Data Source DWP lists & census 2018 Summer Autumn Spring 21271 1758 1805 (81%)

Of the total local population of 2127 children, 1365 are taking up their provision in the PVI sector with parents using 69 PVIs and childminders whilst 762 access from a school or community nursery setting.

Whilst the take up rate of 81% is below the London average of 86%, having undertaken significant analysis with ‘Childcare Works’ and the DfE, the following reasons were identified:

• Alternative childcare being used e.g. grandparents, • Parents using nannies • Parents using independent providers such as Private Schools • Families taking up their entitlement in neighbouring boroughs • Population changes

The Borough has sufficient places available for children wishing to take up the 3-4 -year-old funding entitlement, which is offered across both the maintained and non-maintained sectors.

3.4 Extended 15 hours free entitlement (for working parents) 30 hours free childcare

From September 2017, some working parents are entitled to an additional 15 hours of free childcare per week and the DfE estimates that 713 families may be eligible in RBKC. By 7

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

spring 2018, 205 families were accessing this entitlement, which is 29 % and is significantly lower than the DfE estimated take up of 80%. Working closely with the DoE and ‘Childcare Works’ a significant analysis of demand was undertaken and the following reasons were identified:

• Residents in RBKC (£158,000) along with Westminster (£102,000) have one of the highest mean averages income in the country recorded (tax year 2014-2015.) • Both parents need to be in work to qualify • One or both parents are on benefits • Culturally unacceptable for both parents to work • Alternative childcare being used e.g. grandparents, nannies and au-pair • Population changes

The Borough therefore has sufficient places available for eligible children wishing to take up the extended 15 hours of funding entitlement, which is offered across These include:

• 21 nursery provision in local authority schools, • 34 childminders • 67 private, independent and voluntary sector providers • 11 Independent schools in the borough who do not offer funded childcare provision but admit children aged 3-5 years old. (They are part of the ISI is the Independent School Inspectorate process.)

3.5 School Age Childcare aged 5-14 years old

In a survey conducted in spring 2018, which was sent out to 26 schools, 17 responded and provided the following information relating to the breakfast and after school provision.

• 17 had breakfast clubs • 16 had after school clubs • 6 schools providing the Tax-Free Childcare Offer

From the survey, 16 schools stated they have enough demand for their childcare offer to remain sustainable. Although one school had transferred from direct delivery to working with a childcare provider as demand had not initially been high. The other schools confirmed that they have enough demand for their breakfast club but not for their after school club, which was running at a loss and will be unsustainable if demand does not increase.

Schools reported that there is high demand for after school clubs delivering music, dance, arts and sports activities, which, although not technically childcare, can be utilised by working parents to cover an extended school day. Some schools, either directly or in partnership with their childcare provider, can offer working families a choice whereby children stay in the after school childcare club until 6pm (or earlier if required) or they can attend an after-school activity club and then move into the childcare club from 4.30pm.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

Providing such a flexible offer is often more feasible where a childcare organisation is delivering the offer, as they are more likely to have a flexible staffing structure that can accommodate parental demand along with a pricing structure dependent on the number of hours required.

Only six of the schools stated that parents are accessing the Tax-Free Childcare Offer.

In addition: • 34 childminders were offering school age childcare • 6 holiday clubs are offering school age childcare

To understand the school age childcare market more effectively, a priority for the coming year will be to develop a consistent approach to the monitoring and collection of data to understand the school age childcare market in more detail and ensure the needs of parents and children across the borough are being met. Schools offering paid wrap around provision need to be supported in how parents can use their Tax-Free Childcare Offer to pay for this provision.

3.6 Cost of Childcare The cost of childcare for children under the age of 5 year old remains high in the borough for working parents. For some parents the hourly rates can be as low a £5.56 per hour but as high as £39.79 per hour but the average hourly range is between from £7.05 to £18.24

With additional costs now permitted for registration, deposit and sundries in accordance statutory guidance this could add a significant cost for parents making it less affordable.

Over the coming year the borough will promote the take up of Tax-Free Childcare for those parents eligible, to assist with payment as well as ensuring parents in receipt of specific such as working tax credit and universal credits are utilising them to assist with their payments.

3.7 External Influences Demand for private and independent provision is high and while a minority of these providers offer childcare provision that wraps around the core school day, the offer is focused on education as opposed to meeting the needs of working parents who may also use other childcare options, such as nannies and au pairs, if required.

The change in rules concerning Income Support is likely to result in more parents requiring childcare. Where previously parents could continue to claim Income Support until their youngest child was 16, this has now decreased to the youngest child being 3 years old. This is likely to be result in more parents of school-aged children requiring childcare in order to enable them to work.

Changes are currently underway relating to the way in which benefits are organised with the introduction of the Universal Credit and the emphasis on encouraging people back to work by making work pay. This may lead to a rise in the number of parents wishing to work and needing childcare.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

3.8 Internal Influences In response to moving to a unified funding rate, from September 2018 the local authority will no longer fund full time places in schools. This may cause some financial and sustainability issues across the sector.

Going forward RBKC is improving the IT systems with an introduction of both a new finance and IT system, making headcount processes and payments easier for providers. This will also support closer communication between finance, early years team and providers.

With the creation of the Bi-borough Children’s Services a review of both RBKC and Westminster Early Years Services has been undertaken in summer 2018 with a view of developing a Bi Borough Childcare and Early Education Service that will ensure the statutory obligation of both local authorities are met.

3.9 Grenfell Tower In June 2017, Kensington & Chelsea experienced the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. The impact of loss of life, displacement of survivors, and the effect on those living in the surrounding area has been profound.

A nursery that was located on the ground floor of Grenfell Tower was displaced and it has been temporarily relocated to another site within the same ward. Many childcare providers and schools were, and continue to be directly affected, particularly those near the Tower. Because of the take-up of temporary or permanent housing in different locations within the borough or out-borough, pupil mobility has increased. The Council will continue to monitor the impact on all schools and settings. In addition, the Council continues to focus on opportunities for new housing in many parts of the borough, which may result in the potential need for additional childcare places over time.

3.10 Summary and future priorities 2018- 20 19 CSA Action Plan The Borough has enough places for children accessing the Early Years Free Entitlement and offers a range of childcare and other early education opportunities that meets the needs of its diverse population.

With the introduction of the additional 15 hours of funded education, this judgement may change after its first year of delivery. The Local Authority will continue to support schools in exploring and developing new delivery models.

Providers are both adaptable and flexible in the offer that they provide and there are enough places available across the borough for those families who require childcare for children aged 2-.3 and 4 years old and for children aged 5 -14 this is more variable.

Affordable childcare will mean something different to every family dependent on their income capacity and individual situations. The cost of non-funded childcare continues to be an issue for parents along with their understanding of what ‘affordable childcare provision’ is and this needs to be investigated in more detail as a priority including understanding the childcare market with the newly formed Bi-Borough Childcare & Early Education Service over the coming year .

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

During last year, the service via the Family Information Service (FIS), did not receive any feedback from parents to say that they have been unable to find childcare.

3.11 Future Priorities for the service are: • To consistently review the market and develop further childcare places if and where required • Improve as far as possible parental choice for all childcare across the borough, but particularly focus on 2-year-olds in the North of the Borough • Address the lack of affordable childcare opportunities available to parents to support those who are ‘out of hours’ workers and endeavour to engage more flexible childminders to support the offer • Stimulate demand for 30 hours free childcare across the borough by continuing to work more collaborative with Children’s Centres • Supporting schools to encourage parents to use their Tax-Free Childcare • Increase uptake of EYPP, DAF and SEN Inclusion funding across the sector • Undertake a Training Needs Assessment across the sector to ensure appropriate training and support is put in place to promote inclusion and enhance quality of provision • Improve quality of childcare by working particularly with childminders across the borough

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

Action Plan 2018-2019

Action Issues for Activities Success Criteria consideration 1 To continue to support Local knowledge with • Wide range of training courses will be made available. 100% Ofsted childcare providers to regard to settings • Helpline providing Information, advice and guidance. Judgements ‘Good’ or above deliver high quality which may require • Termly sector meetings. Provision. support • Support visits when requested. • Termly newsletter. • Information sharing by emails, mail shots and telephone contacts.

2 Aim to improve the quality Provide a named Early • Focus Setting Improvement Meetings (FSIM) to Number of Childminders being of Childminders who Years and Inclusion identify training needs and specialist support required. re- inspected by are Satisfactory/Requires Advisor for every • Action plan developed with setting to address issues Ofsted as Good or Improvement or childminder identified. Better. Inadequate. Develop a differentiated • Regular support/monitoring visits undertaken level of support

3 To increase the quality Funding and training • Marketing the profession across a wider field. Increased the percentage of number of resources made available • Raise awareness with existing childminders. childminders childminders to provide • Outreach to speak with parents on childminding as a more choice and flexibility career option and Information pack provided. • Business start-up advice provided. • Link Childminders up with schools and settings to offer partnership provision

4 To market and promote Targeted marketing • Implement the Busy 2s Programme Existing childminders offering General Marketing • Adverts in a wide range of publications and facilities. funded provision to deliver a

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

the 2-year-old offer in the DfE data • Outreach events. more flexible offer in highlighted wards Work with Children’s • Door knocking. partnership to meet parents’ centre, Health • Direct mail to families who are not engaging in the needs. Visitors and the offer. • One to one support to families who may experience issues accessing a provision.

5 To monitor the take up of Data intelligence • Regular contact with providers that have been More providers delivering the places termly, against the Power BI identified as not offering 30hrs to offer. demand for places to discuss/issues/concerns that providers may have ensure that there are around delivering the offer. enough places to meet • Maintain a database of providers who are offering and the needs of parents who how many places they are providing. may be entitled to 30 hours free childcare 6 Encourage new and Partnership working • Continue to provide Family Information Officers who Document that children with existing providers to offer will prioritise the parents of children with disability to SEND experience fewer more childcare places to It is documented that support them in finding suitable childcare difficulties in accessing SEND children and will children with SEND • Work in partnership with the SEN Team and other childcare. deliver a comprehensive experiences far greater agencies to help secure the childcare needs of parents training package to difficulties in accessing with children with disabilities enable providers to offer childcare. more appropriate care and support 7 Encourage settings to • Training and information sessions provided Increase uptake of DAF, access additional funding Inclusion and EYPP for children with SEND 8 Support the identification Partnership working • Working with Lancaster West Childcare of a permanent nursery Community Network to achieve this task accommodation for the

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

displaced Grenfell Tower Nursery 9 Increase the use of Tax- • Work with schools to encourage more parents to Increase by 50% number of Free Childcare use this to fund their childcare needs schools reporting that parents are using Tax Free Childcare

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

4. Demand for early education and childcare

4.1 Population of early years children The total population for 2017 - 2018 for children under the age of five living in RBKC is 8170

Numbers by age 0- 4 years 0 1 2 3 4 Total Under 5 1680 1628 1589 1628 1645 8170 Some four-year-olds will have started reception: GLA housing led population projections 2017 , 4.2 Population of school age children In total, there are 16,613 children aged 5-14 years, living in RBKC and these children may require childcare before and after school, and/or during the school holidays.

Population 5 - 14 years (Source: GLA data set 2017 update)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1682 1874 1805 1803 1768 1653 1646 1554 1445 1383

4.3 The SEND Local Offer The Local Offer provides information about services that children, young people and their families can expect from a range of local agencies

Early years providers are legally required to support children with SEND. This is specified in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Framework, which sets standards in a child’s care up to compulsory school age.

The EYFS requires that all children have the same opportunities in childcare - regardless of needs or disability. Providers must review each child’s learning and development and have procedures for identifying and supporting SEND. Summaries of these reviews must then be shared with the child’s parents/carers.

Ofsted is the regulator or early years childcare and carries out regular inspections to ensure providers meet the requirements for supporting children with SEN.

4.4 Special Educational Need and/or Disability Coordinator (SENDCO)

All nurseries and pre-schools must appoint a Special Educational Need Coordinator (SENCO). This is someone who holds responsibility for supporting children with SEND. The SENCO will advise colleagues about the best strategies to promote positive outcomes and will work to actively involve parents in this decision-making.

Childminders are also strongly encouraged to identify someone who can act as a SENCO – this may be one SENCO shared by several childminders.

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 4.5 SEN Funding to support early years providers

Early years childcare providers can request additional funding to help support children with SEND in their care. These funding streams include:

Disability Access Fund - available for 3 & 4 year olds who receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and free universal or extended early education

Early Years Inclusion Fund - available for 3 & 4 year olds with a low level or emerging SEN who access free universal or extended early education.

4.6 Number of children with special educational needs and disabilities

There is not a definitive number on how many children and young people in RBKC have a disability. Contact a Family has carried out research nationally that suggests 5% of children aged 0-16 has a disability. http://www.cafamily.org.uk/professionals/research/

The number of children with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan:

Number of EHCs or Statements (SEN2) Percentage Change RBKC 2019 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Last Year 3 years 5 years

Under Aged 5 26 20 36 14 24 35 45.8% 150.0% 75.0%

Aged 5 to 10 170 182 223 178 176 211 19.9% 18.5% 15.9%

Aged 11 to 15 183 182 205 171 172 195 13.4% 14.0% 7.1%

Aged 16 to 19 61 112 104 121 127 124 -2.4% 2.5% 10.7%

Aged 20 to 25 0 0 0 20 30 52 73.3% 160.0% -

Total 440 496 568 504 529 617 16.6% 22.4% 24.4% Based on annual January 2018 SEN2 return. Source: Bi-Borough SEND Service

Children’s needs change over time and are identified at different ages. Among the youngest children, SEND may only be identified when they start in childcare or school, and it can take some time to recognise challenges being identified to an EHC plan being issued. It is therefore possible that the number of children with SEND aged 0-4 is an underestimate. Some children have SEND but do not have an EHC plan.

The Local Authority recognises the need to do more to support providers of childcare so that we can increase the number of children with SEN and disabilities accessing childcare and education funded places.

4.4 Other characteristics that may have an impact on the demand

The changes resulting from the National Funding Formula for Early Education and the move to a unified funding rate will result in the local authority no longer funding full time places in schools. Parents will therefore need to obtain an eligibility code for 30-hour entitlement to secure a place in a 30-hour funded school nursery place.

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 5. Supply of childcare In assessing the supply of childcare in RBKC, the following benchmarks of sufficiency are used as good practice, based on the DfE statutory guidance (September 2014 and 2017). • There should be sufficient range of provision • There should be sufficient places overall • The provision should be of a high quality • Funded places should be free of charge • Places should be accessible to where families live • Places should be affordable • There should be flexibility in the provision • Settings should be inclusive and meet needs • Settings should be sustainable • There should be sufficient knowledge and information about the supply and quality of places and how to access them

For the purposes of this assessment the supply of formal childcare includes private nurseries, pre-schools, schools with nursery provision, childminders (funded childminders are accredited to deliver the free entitlement on behalf of the local authority), out of school clubs and holiday clubs.

Schools offering out of school provision are exempt from separate registration on the Ofsted Childcare Register but are included within the data. However, crèches are not included, as any care of less than four hours is not required to register with Ofsted.

5.1 Number of early years providers and places The table below shows the number of places available for children aged 0-4 by the different types of early years provision across the borough. There are 126 registered childcare providers in RBKC offering a maximum of 3293 early years childcare places.

Type of Provision Number of Providers Number of registered places Childminders 34 143 Maintained nursery schools 4 222 Nursery Classes in schools 21 542 PVI Sector 67 2386 TOTAL: 216 3293

There are a further 11 Independent schools within RBKC that are not included as there are no data sets to support how many places this translates into as they are not inspected under the Early Years Ofsted Framework.

For private, voluntary and independent nurseries and childminders, the number of registered places represents the maximum number of children who can be on the premises at any given time.

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 Children may attend childcare full time or part time. In some cases, two or more children attending part time may use one full time equivalent place. For example, one child may attend in the morning and one child may attend in the afternoon.

5.2 Number of school age providers and places There are 17 schools advertising the delivery of breakfast clubs and 16 after school provision either directly or through an alternative organisation. In addition, there are 6 holiday schemes advertised being delivered by external organisations. There are 34 childminders who may provide care for school age children. There is currently insufficient data available in the borough to ascertain the number of places available and this will be a priority for the coming year.

6. Early Years Entitlement Some children are entitled to free childcare, funded by the government. These entitlements can either be provided across 38 weeks or can be stretched for 51 weeks of the year.

6.1 Universal 3- & 4-year-old entitlement All children aged 3 and 4 years are entitled to 15 hours childcare per week until they start reception class in school.

6.2 Extended entitlement (30 hrs) for 3- & 4-year olds of working parents Children aged 3 and 4 years where both parents are working, or from lone parent families where that parent is working, are entitled to 30 hours per week until they start reception class in school if they meet the eligibility criteria.

6.3 2-year-old entitlement Children aged 2 years whose families receive certain benefits (including low income families in receipt of in-work benefits) are entitled to 15 hours per week.

6.4 Disability Access Fund - available for 3 & 4 year olds who receive Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and free universal or extended early education. During this period, 40 children were eligible for this funding.

6.5 Early Years Inclusion Fund - available for 3 & 4 year olds with a low level or emerging SEN who access free universal or extended early education.

6.6 Early Years Pupil Premium EYPP- available to early years providers for eligible funded three and four year olds. This funding is only applicable to the universal 15 hours and only if the family meet the DfE’s criteria. During this period, 245 children were eligible for this funding.

7. Cost of childcare Residents in Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and City of London have the highest income in the country (£158,000 and £102,000 respectively in the tax year 2014-2015, mean averages).

The following table shows mean average income by borough 2014-2015

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 LA Mean Self-employed income Mean employed income

Kensington and Chelsea £174,000 £123,000

Westminster £122,000 £85,400 London £37,000 £39,400 Source: Income and tax by borough and district or unitary authority, 2014-15

7.1 The cost of non-funded childcare remains high within the borough for working parents. The reason for this is due to a high cost base of delivering provision within an inner London borough, often leading to providers charging a premium for non-funded hours. RBKC remains vigilant to ensure compliance ensuring free funded childcare and audits are conducted on a regular basis or if non-compliance is reported.

Parents can access several schemes designed to help with childcare costs. These include: • Childcare vouchers through employers • Tax free childcare delivered by HMRC • Universities and training provider schemes • Working tax credit - help with childcare • Universal credit - help with childcare • Providers offering concessionary rates

7.2 Prices of early years and school age childcare A sample of current charges in RBKC were collected and there remains a huge variety in the costs of childcare in RBKC. The cost also varies depending on age, as each age group require set ratios as set out by Ofsted, making it more expensive for younger children and babies. Although, some providers charge a flat fee across the ages such as childminders.

For early years and school age childcare outside the funded entitlements, fee data is collected on average prices per hour, reported by settings. There may be variations to prices based on the number of hours used, with reductions for longer hours, or discounts for sibling groups. There may be additional payments for additional services, e.g. lunch and other meals, which are not included in these prices.

7.3 Additional charges- Deposit- Registration fee and Consumable charges A significant number of settings ask for a deposit varying between one month to one term in independent settings. Funded settings return the deposit shortly after the child has started and may offer a waiver for those parents unable to pay.

Independent settings and a significant number of private day nurseries require the parent to pay a registration fee when booking a place to ensure uptake. Settings offering funded places are not allowed to charge a registration fee as the place should be free at the point of access. In 2017/2018, audits were conducted, and no settings were found to breach the regulations set out in the Early Education and Childcare framework.

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 Most settings ask for a voluntary or set contribution for snacks and consumables. This adheres to the Early Education and Childcare Framework regulations, 2018. However, a significant number of parents reports difficulty in paying for this charge.

8. Quality of childcare All childcare providers must register with and be inspected by Ofsted or Independent School Inspectorate (ISI), who will rate them an overall grade for the quality of their provision. Childminders and private and voluntary providers are on the Early Years Register and schools and standalone maintained nursery schools are on the Schools register. The grades for all registers are equal in assessment. Schools with nurseries have an overall inspection grade for the whole school and most also have a separate early years grade.

8.1 Ofsted Inspection grades Both schools and early years providers have four possible Ofsted grades: • Outstanding • Good • Requires improvement • Inadequate • Registered (new settings awaiting their first inspection) • Met or unmet

8.2 Newly registered providers and met/not met grade Newly registered providers will be added as a ‘registered’ setting with Ofsted. Settings may wait up to 30 months before they complete their first inspection. They can offer childcare and early education with some limitations such as: • Not offering funded universal and extended without parents written consent • Not able to provide the 2-year-old offer unless there is a significant lack of sufficiency

When providers do not have any children on site at the time of their first inspection, they are given an Ofsted grade of ‘met’ or ‘not met’. This shows whether they are meeting the requirements for Ofsted registration, and usually happens when new providers are being set up.

Percentage of providers with good or outstanding Ofsted judgments August 2017 Type of Provision Total number of % achieving good % achieving providers or outstanding good or outstanding nationally Childminders* 27 66 93 Community Nursery 4 * 100 98 Maintained schools 21 96 87 with nursery provision PVI 78 100 95

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 In RBKC, Ofsted data for August 2017 records that 100% of both PVIs and Community nurseries were good or outstanding and for Schools this was 96%; for Childminders it was 66%.

Furthermore, Ofsted data, 2017, shows 100% of settings delivering the 2-year-old funding are rated good or outstanding in RBKC.

9. Information, Advice & Guidance RBKC’s Family Information Service provides free, impartial information and guidance to families regarding childcare, schools, early help services, leisure activities and services delivered across the borough by the private and voluntary sector. This information is for families with children and young people aged 0-19 (25 with SEND) in Kensington.

9.1 The service delivers the statutory responsibilities placed upon the local authority under section 12 of the Childcare Act (2006). As required by legislation, the directory has a focus on providing information and support to families with disabled children being proactive in reaching vulnerable/disadvantaged families who may find it difficult to access themselves. This is fulfilled by the publication of the Local Offer.

9.2 The service is delivered via an online Family Information Service Directory, email, website, Facebook and Twitter, phone line and brokerage service where applicable. The promotion of the offers is also undertaken in a variety of ways. All literature and advertising signposts families to the www.childcarechoices.gov.uk website where families can complete calculators to see what they are entitled to and link them to where they need to apply. The Borough has developed its own leaflets but also uses the national advertising literature/campaigns including those for Tax Free Childcare and promotes through the borough’s free e-newsletters and through children’s centres and schools.

9.3 The local authority is also developing a Service Champion and Parent Champion outreach service to support and promote the FIS directory, Local Offer and Childcare funding options over the coming year.

10. Methodology We have used the following data sources to complete this Childcare Sufficiency Assessment:

• Number of children: based on GLA population projections from the London Data Store ONS 2017 • Children with EHC plans: based on data held by our local authority • Supply of childcare: based on data provided to us by Ofsted, who regulate early years provision in schools and childcare provision. In some cases, we have supplemented this with local intelligence where providers are registered with ISI (Independent Schools Inspectorate) • Funded early education: data on take up of funded early education entitlements is based on the Early Years and Schools Censuses, which are taken every January and published by the Department for Education in the statistical collection Education provision: children under five years of age. Projected data on entitlement to a funded early education place for 2-year olds is provided by the Department for Work and Pensions

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 • Price of childcare through online survey • Quality of childcare: data on childcare quality is provided by Ofsted • Local Authority Interactive Tool, 2017 • National Statistics, Department of Education, 2017 • Internal Data, IT and financial systems

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

Glossary of Childcare Types

Childminder Ofsted registered professional carers, looking after children in their own home.

Day Nursery Normally run by private organisations Ofsted registered day-care provision, open for most of the year and able to look after children from birth to five years

Pre-School Playgroup Can be Ofsted registered and normally offer sessional care for children aged two to five years during term time.

Nursery Unit of Independent School Nurseries within an independent school i.e. not maintained by the local authority.

Out of School Care Providers of play and learning opportunities for school age children when schools are not open. They can operate before and after school and/or during school holidays.

Holiday Playscheme Providers of play opportunities outside of term time.

Home Child carer Carers who look after children in the child’s home. This includes nannies.

Childcare on Domestic Premises Like childminding, but with four or more carers/assistants looking after children in their own home.

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

Childcare Support Age of Child Applicability Funded childcare for 2-year olds 2 years 15 hours a week for 38 weeks a year for parents in receipt of benefits (including in-work benefits) or children who are disabled or looked after. Universal funded childcare for 3- & 3 to 4 years old 15 hours a week for 38 weeks a year for 4-year olds all 3- & 4-year olds. Funded childcare for 3- & 4-year 3 to 4 years old 3- & 4-year olds with working parents are olds of working parents * entitled to an additional 15 hours per week of funded childcare for 38 weeks of the year, meaning they get a total of 30 hours a week. Tax Free Childcare Up to 12 years Covers 20% of childcare costs up to a old or 17 if a maximum of £2,000 per child per year or child has a £4,000 for disabled children. Tax Free disability Childcare replaces the childcare voucher scheme, which is now closed to new applications.

Parents and their partner (if they are a two-parent family) must earn at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage or national living wage.

Can be received alongside the 30 hours extended entitlement but not Working Tax Credit or Universal Credit.

This operates like a savings account for each child: for every 80p a parent saves the Government match it with 20p

Providers must be registered to be able to be paid via a parent tax free childcare account. Universal Credit Any age with Pays up to 85% of childcare costs up to Ofsted £175 per week for one child and £300 for registered 2 or more children. This is set to replace providers Tax Credits and other benefits as it is rolled out across the country.

Draft the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 Universal Credit can be claimed alongside funded childcare, but not with Working Tax Credit or Tax-Free Childcare. Parents must have an income below a certain level – this varies depending on a family’s individual circumstances. *Parents and their partner (if a 2-parent family) must both earn at least equivalent of 16 hours a week at national minimum wage or national living wage, claimant must not earn more than £100,000 per year (per parent)

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18

Appendices

Appendix 1 Sufficiency Summary Spring 2018

Appendix 2 Population of under 5’s by age and ward

Appendix 3 Population 5 - 14 by Ward

Appendix 4 Early Years Pupil Premium and Disability Access Fund (DAF)

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 Appendix 1 Sufficiency Summary Spring 2018 – source GLA data store 2018; census 2018 data sets

Wards No 2 yr. olds No 3yr olds No 4 yr. total 3 & 4 no of house- % Estimates Take 2018 GLA 2018 GLA olds 2018 yr. olds parents holds with children Summer up April data store data store GLA data GLA data working dependent i n 2018 2018 Nov 17 Nov 17 store Nov store Nov 0-4 Poverty additional 15 projections projections 17 17 after 15 hrs hours projections projections housing (DfE) ** costs Abingdon 137 128 134 262 1077 199 25.94% 58 6 Brompton & Hans 853 Town 89 113 104 217 133 16.56% 50 9 Campden 107 132 114 246 977 160 8.90% 57 0 Chelsea Riverside (new ward) 89 87 70 157 39.80% 28 21 Colville 103 76 75 151 775 159 35.11% 26 29 Court field 104 75 76 151 894 162 8.23% 34 0

Dalgarno (new ward) 95 104 99 203 29.64% 37 15 Earls Court 89 83 79 162 731 159 25.09% 34 12 Golborne 82 90 85 175 881 179 43.48% 27 26 Holland 122 122 116 238 1170 198 26.88% 55 11 Norland 99 109 105 214 1052 150 30.93% 49 9 Notting Dale 108 111 112 223 1112 156 38.81% 36 16 Pembridge 84 83 82 165 769 139 16.58% 39 6 Queens Gate 97 101 100 201 1078 199 7.75% 47 0 Redcliffe 96 94 99 193 1060 188 21.52% 36 19 Royal Hospital 53 50 52 102 711 105 14.38% 20 31

St Helens (new ward) 101 105 118 223 40.29% 48 27 Stanley 79 81 80 161 856 146 20.98% 31 6

Draft Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 av RBKC 1734 1,744 1,700 3,444 13996 2432 28.18% 713 243

Draft Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 Appendix 2 Population of under 5’s by age and ward - (Source: GLA data set 2017 update)

Ward 0 1 2 3 4 Total Under 5 Abingdon 130 139 138 129 135 671 Brompton 87 90 88 112 103 480 Campden 92 83 87 90 111 463 Colville 79 76 74 65 70 364 Courtfield 94 81 70 77 57 379 Cremorne 73 74 70 75 70 362 Earl's Court 98 92 82 77 75 424 Golborne 116 95 85 92 88 476 Hans Town 77 71 70 81 84 383 Holland 115 116 123 122 116 592 Norland 96 91 98 108 105 498 Notting Barns 107 110 108 111 112 548 Pembridge 84 83 83 82 81 413 Queen's Gate 110 106 96 100 100 512 Redcliffe 102 98 96 93 99 488 Royal Hospital 48 51 53 50 52 254 St Charles 95 97 89 84 108 473 Stanley 77 75 79 80 79 390 Grand Total 1680 1628 1589 1628 1645 8170

Draft Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 Appendix 3

Population 5 - 14 by Ward (Source: GLA data set 2017 update)

Ward 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Abingdon 135 142 138 136 127 111 115 106 89 83 Brompton 103 132 111 126 98 115 107 92 85 88 Campden 117 119 123 111 125 106 106 77 73 74 Colville 75 81 76 86 77 70 75 72 80 76 Courtfield 57 59 70 74 65 72 71 66 65 55 Cremorne 74 82 81 77 78 59 68 69 69 66 Earl's Court 77 90 81 71 70 73 58 65 53 58 Golborne 95 108 113 121 111 111 113 126 115 116 Hans Town 76 97 91 90 97 80 69 56 52 49 Holland 125 143 126 128 125 123 118 126 113 101 Norland 116 118 107 112 119 105 97 86 79 69 Notting Barns 111 122 116 118 120 108 118 123 119 121 Pembridge 88 96 89 79 81 69 71 57 51 43 Queen's Gate 107 117 120 112 100 85 94 91 73 65 Redcliffe 100 109 109 109 111 111 102 110 104 88 Royal Hospital 63 74 78 70 80 66 64 66 50 53 St Charles 89 104 93 101 109 115 125 107 121 126 Stanley 74 81 83 82 75 74 75 59 54 52 Grand Total 1682 1874 1805 1803 1768 1653 1646 1554 1445 1383

Draft Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Childcare Sufficiency Assessment 2017/18 Appendix 4

Early Years Pupil Premium and Disability Access Fund (DAF) – source spring 18 census

Wards EYPP DAF Incl. fund

Abingdon 0 0 0 Brompton & Hans Town 0 28 0 Campden 0 1 0 Chelsea Riverside 27 1 0 Colville 18 2 0 Courtfield 1 0 0 Dalgarno 15 0 0 Earls Court 7 0 0 Golborne 74 0 0 Holland 8 0 0 Norland 13 7 0 Notting Dale 24 0 0 Pembridge 1 1 0 Queens Gate 0 0 0 Redcliffe 6 0 0 Royal Hospital 16 0 0 St Helens 23 0 0 Stanley 12 0 0 RBKC 245 40 0

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea Ward Profiling 0 - 19 (25 including SEND) Data to support Family Hubs and Childcare (final 25/7/19)

Judy Matthews Independent Consultant Spring 2019 Background to RBKC More than one-fifth of all households (16,389) have a first language that is not English, this is the fourth highest proportion in the country 53 per cent of our residents have a level four qualification (equivalent to a university degree), the fourth highest proportion nationally and Kensington and Chelsea is ranked second to bottom for those with no qualifications (10 per cent) 61 per cent of our residents have a UK passport, the lowest proportion of any local authority in England and Wales.

Excluding the UK and Ireland, the borough is ranked first for the proportion of residents with EU passports (20 per cent) Less than half of all residents (48 per cent) were born in the United Kingdom, the fourth lowest proportion of all local authorities in England and Wales 28 Ethnicity

71 per cent of the population of Kensington and Chelsea fall within the combined White groups*, an eight per cent decrease since 2001. The major increase in the intercensal period is in the Asian/Asian British group which has increased from 4.9 per cent to 10.0 per cent. However it is important to remember that this increase is driven in part by the inclusion of the Chinese group in this category.

Ethnic breakdown summary RBKC - source: Census 2011 Poverty and Deprivation in RBKC • Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) contains some of the most deprived communities in the country with 11 of the 103 Lower Super Output Areas in the Borough experiencing multiple deprivations in the bottom ten per cent of any community in England and Wales. • The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) and Income Deprivation affecting Children (IDACI) poverty scales from 2015 identify Golborne and Dalgarno as having the highest level of deprivation in the Borough • The highest rates of child poverty after housing costs are within Golborne 43%, Dalgarno 40%, Chelsea Riverside 40%, Notting Dale 39% and Colville 35%. Apart from Chelsea Riverside these wards are all located in the North of the Borough • The New Policy Institute report on London Poverty in 2017 puts RKBC scoring in the 4 worst performing London Boroughs for: Inequality, housing, homelessness and worklessness. Rehousing Families • It is anticipated that we expect there to be a redistribution of more deprived families from the Notting Dale ward to the rest of the Borough following the rehousing of bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell Tower Fire. Whilst we don’t yet have the data to analyse the impact of this on youth services in other parts of the Borough, anecdotal evidence already suggests that youth service in the South of the Borough are seeing increasing demand.

Appendix 1: Population by SOA (source: 2015 IDACI data sets) Bi-Borough IDACI Map 2015 RBKC Ward Boundaries RBKC top 3 most deprived bands -The Indices of Deprivation Affecting Children (IDACI) mapped by Lower-Super Output Area Children’s Centre provision by locality Children’s Centres, Youth Provision & Schools April 2019

GP Surgeries 2 year old check analysis by ward Population Under 5’s by Ward (Source: GLA data set 2017 update)

Ward 0 1 2 3 4 Total Under 5 Abingdon 130 139 138 129 135 671 Brompton 87 90 88 112 103 480 Campden 92 83 87 90 111 463 Colville 79 76 74 65 70 364 Courtfield 94 81 70 77 57 379 Cremone 73 74 70 75 70 362 Earl's Court 98 92 82 77 75 424 Golborne 116 95 85 92 88 476 Hans Town 77 71 70 81 84 383 Holland 115 116 123 122 116 592 Norland 96 91 98 108 105 498 Notting Barns 107 110 108 111 112 548 Pembridge 84 83 83 82 81 413 Queen's Gate 110 106 96 100 100 512 Redcliffe 102 98 96 93 99 488 Royal Hospital 48 51 53 50 52 254 St Charles 95 97 89 84 108 473 Stanley 77 75 79 80 79 390 Grand Total 1680 1628 1589 1628 1645 8170

* ward boundaries as of 2013 changed in 2015 changes not reflected in GLA population – total pop correct Population 5 - 19 by Ward (Source: GLA data set 2017 update)

Ward 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Total 5 - 19 Abingdon 135 142 138 136 127 111 115 106 89 83 79 70 73 74 92 1570 Brompton 103 132 111 126 98 115 107 92 85 88 79 70 64 48 72 1390 Campden (old ward) 117 119 123 111 125 106 106 77 73 74 65 72 70 58 59 1355 Colville 75 81 76 86 77 70 75 72 80 76 65 64 73 70 73 1113 Courtfield 57 59 70 74 65 72 71 66 65 55 56 51 51 251 445 1508 Cremone 74 82 81 77 78 59 68 69 69 66 61 68 67 57 56 1032 Earl's Court 77 90 81 71 70 73 58 65 53 58 50 58 57 67 80 1008 Golborne 95 108 113 121 111 111 113 126 115 116 116 124 124 107 78 1678 Hans Town (old ward) 76 97 91 90 97 80 69 56 52 49 43 34 40 40 41 955 Holland 125 143 126 128 125 123 118 126 113 101 104 92 90 76 59 1649 Norland 116 118 107 112 119 105 97 86 79 69 82 67 77 58 47 1339 Notting Barns 111 122 116 118 120 108 118 123 119 121 120 136 131 105 102 1770 Pembridge 88 96 89 79 81 69 71 57 51 43 44 46 53 92 87 1046 Queen's Gate 107 117 120 112 100 85 94 91 73 65 61 65 60 80 161 1391 Redcliffe 100 109 109 109 111 111 102 110 104 88 89 81 90 52 58 1423 Royal Hospital 63 74 78 70 80 66 64 66 50 53 39 34 36 30 26 829 St Charles (old ward) 89 104 93 101 109 115 125 107 121 126 114 119 117 106 83 1629 Stanley 74 81 83 82 75 74 75 59 54 52 48 47 40 37 33 914 Grand Total 1682 1874 1805 1803 1768 1653 1646 1554 1445 1383 1315 1298 1313 1408 1652 23599

* ward boundaries as of 2013 changed in 2015 changes not reflected in GLA population – total pop correct

2017/18 GLD results Inner London comparison

Average Median Average % attainment gap (lowest 20% LA code LA/region name (50th (all between all children attaining percentile) children) and lowest 20% children)

ENGLAND 34 34.6 23.2 31.8

LONDON 34 34.9 23.3 31.4

INNER LONDON 34 34.7 23.2 31.7

202 Camden 34 34.8 23.2 31.7 201 City of London 34 34.6 24.0 29.4 204 Hackney 34 34.7 23.1 32.0 205 Hammersmith and Fulham 34 35.1 24.1 29.2 309 Haringey 35 35.8 24.2 30.7 206 Islington 34 34.6 22.2 34.6 207 Kensington and Chelsea 35 34.7 22.8 33.8 208 Lambeth 34 33.7 23.1 32.0 209 Lewisham 34 33.4 25.4 25.2 316 Newham 34 35.1 22.8 32.9 210 Southwark 34 34.8 23.0 32.2 211 Tower Hamlets 34 34.2 21.3 37.5 212 Wandsworth 35 36.1 24.5 30.1 213 Westminster 34 34.4 21.9 35.5 Source: EYFSP attainment data

Notes: 1) Average total point score across all the early learning goals. This is a supporting measure taking into account performance across all 17 ELGs, 1 point for emerging, 2 for expected and 3 for exceeding. The sum is then taken for all pupils with that characteristic and the mean given. 2) Figures based on final data. 3) Only includes children with a valid result for every early learning goal. 4) All providers of state-funded early years education (including academies and free schools), private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sectors in England are within the scope of the EYFSP data collection.

5) Percentages are rounded to 1 decimal point. Attainment gaps are calculated from unrounded percentages.

GLD by ward of Residence 2017/18 source DfE published data sets 17/18

Ward 2018% GLD S017 % GLD Difference Abingdon 71% 76% -5% Brompton & Hans Town 77% 52% 24% Campden 71% 77% -5% Chelsea Riverside 70% 71% -1% Colville 81% 67% 14% Courtfield 70% 62% 8% Dalgarno 67% 64% 3% Earls Court 86% 74 12% Golbone 54% 70 -16% Holland 67% 74 -7% Norland 79% 40 39% Nottingdale 69% 59 10% Pembridge 73% 63 10% Queens Gate 91% 72 18% Redcliffe 74% 88 -14% Royal Hospital 62% 56 6% St. Helens 50% 60 -10% Stanley 81% 74 7% Total: 70% 69 1%

2017/18 Averages % Inner London 74% National 72% Primary School Headlines Spring 2019 RBKC source Nexus (pupil census) Abingdon South Locality Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Eden Montessori Nursery Good 15 Private 0 0 0 17 0 Iverna Gardens Montessori Outstanding 40 Private 0 0 0 38 4

Little Cherubs Nursery School - Abingdon Road Outstanding 42 Private 0 0 0 0 0 Kensington House Nursery School Outstanding 48 Private 0 0 4 13 0

The Kensington Kindergarten Outstanding 60 Private 0 0 0 27 1 Lexham Gardens Playhouse Good 24 Private 0 0 2 4 0 Warwick Pre-School Group Good 24 Voluntary 0 1 7 20 4 TOTALS 0 1 13 119 9

• GLD 71% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 25.94% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 58

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code (2011) No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Decile Rankings (where 1 is age most deprived 0 to 4 10% of LSOAs) inc

E01002813 011A 93 10 22 18 26 17 10 90-100% least deprived

E01002815 011B 75 23 11 15 13 13 5 40-50%

E01002816 011C 79 11 20 13 19 16 10 90-100% least deprived

E01002817 011D 99 23 19 14 17 26 6 50-60%

E01002812 013A 108 24 19 23 22 20 8 70-80%

E01002814 015A 100 24 19 18 22 17 3 20-30% Totals: 554 115 110 101 119 109 Abingdon Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Scarsdale Medical Centre & The Abingdon Health Centre

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Scarsdale Medical Centre 68/94 72% 74/97 76.3% 51/97 53.6% The Abingdon Health Centre 62/78 79% 87/88 98% 66/88 75%

2 year checks Number eligible: 21 Take up: 8 Not seen: 7 DNA: 6

% of babies born low birth rate = 2%

A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 589 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 8 Brompton & Hans Town South Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Knightsbridge School Good 139 Independent 0 0 0 52 0 South Kensington Primary Good 26 Independent 0 1 0 21 4 Marlborough Primary Good 20 School 6 0 0 24 7 TOTALS: 6 1 0 97 11

• GLD 77% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 16.56% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 55

SOA (2015) under 5 population LSOA code No Pop 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Decile Rankings (where 1 is most (2011) by age deprived 10% of 0 to 4 LSOAs) inc

E01002818 012A 71 8 19 15 14 15 10 90-100% least deprived E01002819 012B 64 10 13 11 20 10 10 90-100% least deprived E01002860 012D 64 14 9 7 19 15 10 90-100% least deprived E01002863 012E 56 7 13 7 11 18 10 90-100% least deprived E01002821 014A 104 29 18 20 17 20 10 90-100% least deprived E01002858 014C 59 22 10 9 10 8 1 0-10% most deprived Totals: 418 90 82 69 91 81 Brompton & Hans Town Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Knightsbridge Medical Centre

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Knightsbridge Medical Centre 93/122 76% 47/48 97.9% 93/143 65.7%

2 year checks Number eligible: 18 Take up: 9 Not seen: 4 DNA: 5

% of babies born low birth rate = 2% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 509

Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 28 Campden North Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Little Cherubs Nursery School - Pitt Street Outstanding 48 Private 0 0 0 13 0 Lloyd Williamson Schools - Palace Gardens Good 12 Private 0 0 0 26 0 Terrace Pippa Pop-Ins Good 57 Private 0 0 0 56 0 Pooh Corner Kindergarten W8 Outstanding 35 Private 0 0 0 4 0 Totals: 0 0 0 99 0

• GLD 71% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 8.9% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 57

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code (2011) No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Decile Rankings (where 1 is age most deprived 0 to 4 10% of LSOAs) inc

E01002824 008A 104 16 23 24 15 26 10 90-100% least deprived E01002825 008B 187 34 33 39 50 31 10 90-100% least deprived E01002826 008C 91 12 18 17 24 20 8 70-80% E01002827 008D 166 29 26 37 39 35 10 90-100% least deprived E01002828 008E 95 9 19 25 18 24 9 80-90% E01002865 011E 126 22 18 23 37 26 10 90-100% least deprived Totals: 769 122 137 165 183 162 769 Campden Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Holland Park Surgery

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Holland Park Surgery 65/85 76% 82/97 84.5% 65/97 68.0%

2 year checks Number eligible: 38 Take up: 23 Not seen: 4 DNA: 11

% of babies born low birth rate = 1% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 440 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 16 Chelsea Riverside (new ward) South Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Action for Children - Cheyne Day Nursery Good 57 Voluntary 0 1 10 9 6 World's End Under Fives Centre Good 18 Voluntary 0 1 19 6 0 Chelsea Open Air Outstanding 16 School 0 9 0 64 16 Ashburnham Outstanding 20 School 0 8 0 22 8 Totals: 0 19 29 101 30

• GLD 70% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses Not available% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 28

SOA (2015) under 5 population LSOA code (2011) No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Decile Rankings (where 1 is most age deprived 10% of 0 to 4 LSOAs) inc E01002844 019A 44 5 6 11 15 7 9 80-90% E01002845 019B 80 17 19 13 22 9 6 50-60% E01002840 021A 63 12 13 13 12 13 2 10-20% E01002841 021B 76 18 12 15 16 15 4 30-40% E01002842 021C 86 20 10 15 25 16 1 0-10% most deprived E01002843 021D 97 17 21 22 15 22 2 10-20% Totals 446 89 81 89 105 82 Chelsea Riverside Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Kings Road Medical Centre; The Good Practice

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Kings Road Medical Centre 103/132 78% 98/199 82% 73/119 61.3% The Good Practice 16/29 55% 8/10 80% 3/30 30.0%

2 year checks Number eligible: 49 Take up: 32 Not seen: 8 DNA: 9

% of babies born low birth rate = 2% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 921 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 23 Colville North Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up

Spring - Clare Gardens day nursery Good 41 Voluntary 0 0 15 8 0 Colville Nursery Centre Outstanding 46 Private 0 0 3 13 7 Maria Montessori School - Notting Hill Good ?? Independent 0 0 0 6 0 Strawberry Fields Nursery School Limited Outstanding 32 Private 0 0 0 82 8 Denbigh Under 5s Group Good 16 Voluntary 0 0 13 10 1 Colville Good 61 School 0 6 1 55 26 Totals: 0 6 32 174 42

• GLD 81% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 35.11% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 26

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code (2011) No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Decile Rankings (where 1 is most age deprived 10% of 0 to 4 LSOAs) inc E01002829 004A 82 20 19 16 17 10 2 10-20% E01002830 004B 80 21 15 18 12 14 2 10-20% E01002831 004C 109 17 29 22 21 20 3 20-30% E01002832 004D 88 21 17 14 24 12 2 10-20% E01002882 006A 73 22 10 6 14 21 6 50-60% E01002833 007A 64 17 8 15 15 9 7 60-70% Totals 496 118 98 91 103 86 Colville Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Colville Health Centre; Portobello Medical Centre; The Notting Hill Medical Centre, Westbourne Grove Medical Centre

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Coleville Health Centre 66/79 83% 85/96 88.5% 84/96 87.5% Portobello Medical Centre 29/38 76% 21/25 84.0% 10/25 72.0% The Notting Hill Medical Centre 22/27 81% 24/28 85.7% 18/28 64.3% Westbourne Grove Medical 79/93 85% 86/99 85.9% 68/99 68.7% Centre

2 year checks Number eligible: 28 Take up: 14 Not seen: 10 DNA: 4

% of babies born low birth rate = 2 % A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 872 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 26 Courtfield South Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up

Queensberry Nursery Good Private 0 0 0 9 0 Falkner House Good 92 Independent 0 0 0 53 0 Hampshire School Pre Prep Good 55 Independent 0 0 0 22 0 Maggie & Rose Kensington Good 12 Private 0 0 0 4 0 The Ladybird Nursery School Good 37 Private 0 0 0 1 0 Wetherby School ISI 27 Private 0 0 0 0 0 Our Lady of Victories Outstanding 25 School 0 2 0 30 0 Totals: 0 2 0 119 0

• GLD 70% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 8.23% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 34

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (2011) age (where 1 is 0 to 4 inc most deprived 10% of LSOAs) E01002839 013C 68 16 18 15 12 7 9 80-90% E01002820 016A 86 15 26 7 21 17 10 90-100% least deprived E01002822 016B 63 13 8 15 15 12 10 90-100% least deprived E01002835 016C 106 23 20 20 23 20 10 90-100% least deprived E01002837 016E 89 20 20 9 18 22 10 90-100% least deprived E01002838 020A 67 12 11 17 15 12 10 90-100% least deprived Totals 479 99 103 83 104 90 Courtfield Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Rosary Gardens Surgery; Stanhope Mews Surgery

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Rosary Gardens Surgery 23/29 79% 29/34 88.2% 23/34 67.6% Stanhope Mews Surgery 92/106 86% 98/102 96.1% 92/102 90.2%

2 year checks Number eligible: 27 Take up: 17 Not seen: 10 DNA: 0

% of babies born low birth rate = 2% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 569 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 21 Dalgarno (new ward) North Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Pangbourne House Montessori School Outstanding 60 Private 0 0 0 28 0 Dalgarno Pre-School Good 24 Voluntary 0 0 11 8 0 Barlby Outstanding 25 School 0 9 0 31 12 Totals: 0 9 11 67 12

• GLD 67% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses not available% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 37

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs) E01002852 001A 101 22 20 27 15 17 1 0-10% most deprived E01002904 002A 94 14 18 16 26 20 1 0-10% most deprived E01002905 002B 98 13 23 20 21 21 2 10-20% E01002906 002C 93 22 27 15 18 11 2 10-20% E01002907 002D 107 9 21 29 27 21 1 0-10% E01002908 003D 94 9 24 17 30 14 5 40-50% Totals: 587 89 133 124 104 587 Dalgarno Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Barlby Surgery; The Exmoor Surgery

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Barlby Surgery 117/146 80% 112/121 92.6% 87/121 71.9% The Exmoor Surgery 29/32 90% 31/32 96.9% 27/32 84.4%

2 year checks Number eligible: 104 Take up: 71 Not seen: 13 DNA: 19 Refused: 1 A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 1000 % of babies born low birth rate = 3% Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 31 Earls Court South Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Earls Court Nursery Centre (LEYF) Good 42 Voluntary 0 0 11 15 3 Falkner House Boys School ISA met 48 Independent 0 0 0 57 0 Chelsea Pre-Prep School and Nursery Outstanding 44 Private 0 0 0 43 0 St Cuthbert with St Matthias Good 25 School 0 1 0 25 7 Totals: 0 1 11 140 10

• GLD 86% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 25.09% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 34 SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs)

E01002834 013B 101 25 16 15 22 23 10 90-100% least deprived E01002850 013D 97 25 13 16 26 17 5 40-50% E01002847 015B 66 15 15 11 14 11 6 50-60% E01002848 015C 85 24 19 17 13 12 4 30-40% E01002851 015D 38 9 6 12 6 5 3 20-30% E01002846 017A 60 13 16 8 11 12 3 20-30% E01002849 017B 87 13 20 20 17 17 7 60-70% Totals: 534 124 105 99 97 38 Earls Court Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Earls Court Medical Centre; Health & Well-being Centre Earls Court

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Earls Court Medical Centre 26/30 86% 27/31 87.1% 24/31 77.4% Health & Well-being Centre Earls 45/53 84% 29/34 85.3% 24/34 70.6% Court

2 year checks Number eligible: 34 Take up: 22 Not seen: 5 DNA: 7

% of babies born low birth rate = 2% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 852 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 20 Golborne North Locality

Early Years Provision Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up

Golborne Children's Centre Education and Daycare Outstanding 93 LADN 0 0 22 0 0

Little Rosie's Nursery School Outstanding ?? Private 0 1 10 6 5 Portobello Day Care Nursery Good 40 Private 0 0 3 6 2 Rolfe's Nursery School Outstanding 33 Private 0 0 0 48 0 Lloyd Williamson Schools - Telford Road Good 25 Private 0 0 3 0 0 Venture Pop Up Nursery Good 16 Voluntary 0 0 11 5 3 Golborne Outstanding 30 School 2 17 0 31 11 Maxilla Outstanding 30 School 5 15 0 32 11 Ark Brunel Outstanding 30 School 0 9 0 25 0 Bevington Outstanding 31 School 0 7 0 26 6 St Marys Good 25 School 0 5 0 17 0 TOTALS 7 54 49 196 38 • GLD 54% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 43.48% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 27 SOA (2015) under 5 population LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs) E01002853 001B 47 13 8 14 6 6 1 0-10% most deprived E01002854 001C 67 17 10 7 14 19 1 0-10% most deprived E01002855 001D 80 19 14 14 17 16 1 0-10% most deprived E01002856 001E 76 19 19 13 13 12 1 0-10% most deprived E01002857 004E 65 4 15 15 15 16 1 0-10% most deprived Totals: 335 72 66 63 65 69 Golborne Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Meanwhile Gardens Medical Centre; The Golborne Medical Centre

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Meanwhile Gardens Medical 18/23 78% 26/35 74.3% 22/35 62.9% Centre The Golborne Medical Centre 15/23 65% 61/64 95.3% 54/64 84.4%

2 year checks Number eligible: Take up: Not seen: DNA:

% of babies born low birth rate = 2% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 1000 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 26 Holland North Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up

Little Darlings London Good 18 Private 0 0 0 2 1 Holland Park Pre-Prep and Day Nursery Good 100 Independent 0 1 6 22 5 Pooh Corner Kindergarten W14 Outstanding 35 Private 0 0 0 0 0 Outstanding Voluntary Holland Park Pre-School 19 0 1 5 18 4 Kensington Primary Academy Outstanding 30 School Totals:

• GLD 67% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 26.88% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 55

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs) E01002864009A 110 20 19 20 27 24 10 90-100% least deprived E01002866009B 82 21 16 16 10 19 4 30-40% E01002867009C 126 24 32 23 24 23 4 30-40% E01002868009D 84 16 15 13 21 19 10 90-100% least deprived E01002869009E 79 15 10 18 21 15 5 40-50% Totals: 481 96 92 90 103 100 Holland Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Kensington Park Medical Centre

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%) Kensington Park Medical Centre 61/71 85% 49/53 92.5% 44/53 83.0%

2 year checks Number eligible: 39 Take up: 24 Not seen: 4 DNA: 9 Refused: 2

% of babies born low birth rate = 2% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 720 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 31 Norland North Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Keren's Nursery, Holland park Outstanding 25 Private 0 0 0 8 1 Monkey Puzzle Day Nursery Good 48 Private 0 0 0 8 1 La Scuola Italiana A Londra Good 86 Independent 0 0 0 11 0 The Tabernacle Good 9 Private 0 0 0 0 0 Thomas Jones Outstanding 25 School 0 7 0 25 10 St Clement & St James Good 20 School 0 3 0 13 5 Totals: 0 10 0 65 17

• GLD 79% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 30.93% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 49

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs)

E01002871007B 113 22 19 29 26 17 10 90-100% least deprived E01002873007C 48 10 8 12 12 6 5 40-50% E01002874007D 72 17 15 9 12 19 6 50-60% E01002875007E 95 13 21 16 22 23 9 80-90% Totals: 328 62 63 66 72 65 Norland Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Portland Road Practice

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%) Portland Road Practice 102/127 80% 98/111 88.3% 65/111 58.6%

2 year checks Number eligible: 23 Take up: 12 Not seen: 7 DNA: 4

% of babies born low birth rate = 1%

A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 670 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 30 Notting Dale North Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Grenfell Creche Under 3s' Centre Good 33 Voluntary 0 0 20 8 0 Maria Montessori School - Holland Park Good 30 Independent 0 0 0 0 0 St Annes & Avondale Outstanding 75 School 0 15 0 76 21 St Francis of Assisi Good 30 School 0 8 0 15 8 Totals: 0 23 20 99 29

• GLD 69% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 38.81% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 36

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs) E01002870 005A 84 16 14 16 20 18 1 0-10% most deprived E01002872 005B 85 13 19 22 16 15 3 20-30% E01002879 005C 75 13 13 8 18 23 1 0-10% most deprived E01002880 005D 127 25 20 24 30 28 1 0-10% most deprived E01002881 005E 86 14 18 18 14 22 1 0-10% most deprived Totals: 457 81 84 88 98 106 Notting Dale Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: The Foreland Medical Centre; The Practice Beacon

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

The Foreland Medical Centre 52/55 94% 55/63 87.3% 46/63 73.0% The Practice Beacon 18/22 81% 11/15 73.3% 11/15 73.3%

2 year checks Number eligible: 30 Take up: 19 Not seen: 8 DNA: 3

% of babies born low birth rate = 3% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 1000 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 22 Pembridge North Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up

Bright Horizons Ladbroke Grove Good 40 Private 0 0 0 27 0 St Peter's Nursery Good 26 Private 0 1 9 16 3 Ladbroke Square Montessori School Good 77 Private 0 0 0 19 0 The Minors Nursery Good 70 Private 0 0 0 51 0

The Square School Outstanding 58 Private 0 0 0 11 2 Totals: 0 1 9 124 5

• GLD 73% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 16.58% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 39

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs)

E01002883006B 88 21 13 15 18 21 10 90-100% least deprived

E01002884006C 66 16 12 15 17 6 7 60-70% E01002885006D 82 22 27 11 13 9 5 40-50% E01002886006E 72 14 18 14 10 16 10 90-100% least deprived Totals: 308 73 70 55 58 52 308 Pembridge Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: The Pembridge Villas Surgery

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

The Pembridge Villas Surgery 135/162 83% 148/154 96.1% 111/154 72.1%

2 year checks Number eligible: Take up: Not seen: DNA:

% of babies born low birth rate = 3% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 628 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 18 Queens Gate South Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Victoria Road Montessori Outstanding 16 Private 0 0 0 10 1 Thomas's Preparatory School Outstanding ?? Independent 0 0 0 41 0 Pooh Corner Kindergarten Sw7 Outstanding 100 Private 0 0 0 20 0 The Kensington Nursery School Outstanding 48 Private 0 0 1 6 0 Totals: 0 0 1 77 1

• GLD 91% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 7.75% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours:

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs)

E01002887 010A 69 17 15 18 8 11 9 80-90% E01002889 010B 76 17 9 13 21 16 10 90-100% least deprived E01002890 010C 96 11 18 21 21 25 10 90-100% least deprived E01002891 010D 91 19 12 22 14 24 10 90-100% least deprived E01002892 010E 86 23 13 15 19 16 10 90-100% least deprived E01002888 013E 76 16 21 17 12 10 10 90-100% least deprived Totals: 494 103 88 106 95 102 Queens Gate Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Emperor’s Gate Centre for Health; The Surgery

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Emperor’s Gate Centre for 49/57 85% 66/72 91.7% 52/72 72.2% Health The Surgery 21/30 70% 5/12 41.7% 2/12 16.7% 2 year checks Number eligible: 43 Take up: 24 Not seen: 10 DNA: 8 Refused: 1

% of babies born low birth rate = 2% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 542 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 21 Redcliffe South Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Paint Pots Montessori - The Boltons Good 47 Private 0 0 0 16 0 Home From Home Good 12 Private 0 0 0 0 0 Bousfield Outstanding 30 School 0 2 0 30 2 Servite Outstanding 20 School 0 4 0 29 18 Totals: 0 6 0 75 20

• GLD 74% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 21.52% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 36

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code (2011) No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile age (where 1 is 0 to 4 inc most deprived 10% of LSOAs) E01002836 016D 80 10 15 17 20 18 10 90-100% least deprived E01002893 017C 99 25 19 16 21 18 5 40-50% E01002894 017D 100 16 18 25 25 16 8 70-80% E01002898 017E 133 21 29 21 32 30 10 90-100% least deprived E01002895 020B 76 14 15 13 14 20 10 90-100% least deprived E01002896 020C 125 16 29 31 19 30 8 70-80% E01002897 020D 121 26 26 20 25 24 5 40-50% Totals: 734 128 151 143 156 156 Redcliffe Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Brompton Medical Centre; Earls Court Surgery; The Redcliffe Surgery

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Brompton Medical Centre 19/21 90% 21/29 72.4% 10/29 34.5% Earls Court Surgery 26/30 86% 27/31 87.1% 7/25 28.0% The Redcliffe Surgery 110/126 87% 98/107 91.6% 94/107 87.9%

2 year checks Number eligible: 50 Take up: 35 Not seen: 5 DNA: 9 Refused: 1

% of babies born low birth rate = 2% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 717 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 14 Royal Hospital South Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up

Spring - Violet Melchett day nursery Good 30 Voluntary 0 1 8 17 7 Christ Church Street French Nursery Good 20 Private 0 0 0 35 0

Garden House School Good 132 Independent 0 12 0 31 5

Holy Trinity Good 15 School 0 12 0 26 11

St Thomas (RBKC) Outstanding 30 School 0 5 0 26 10

St Joseph Outstanding 30 School 0 0 1 1 0 Totals: 0 30 9 136 33

• GLD 62% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 14.38% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 20 LSOA code (2011) No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile age (where 1 is SOA (2015) under0 to 4 inc 5 population most deprived 10% of LSOAs) E01002859 012C 94 31 11 8 22 22 10 90-100% least deprived E01002861 014D 49 9 10 7 10 13 7 60-70% E01002899 018A 61 12 11 12 17 9 4 30-40% E01002900 018B 90 21 8 17 22 22 10 90-100% least deprived E01002901 018C 34 5 7 2 10 10 10 90-100% least deprived E01002902 018D 55 12 9 13 13 8 6 50-60% E01002903 018E 89 16 13 16 26 18 10 90-100% least deprived Totals: 472 106 69 75 120 102 Royal Hospital Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: Royal Hospital Chelsea; The Chelsea Practice

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

Royal Hospital Chelsea No data No data No data The Chelsea Practice 50/56 89% 49/49 100.0% 37/49 75.5%

2 year checks Number eligible: 17 Take up: 13 Not seen: 3 DNA: 1

% of babies born low birth rate = 2% Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 28 A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 492 St. Helens (New ward) North Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Spring - St Quintin Day Nursery Good 82 Voluntary 0 1 18 17 7 La Petite École Bilingue Good 26 Private 0 0 0 1 0 Bassett House School Outstanding 55 Independent 0 0 0 35 0 New Studio Pre-School Good 24 Voluntary 0 12 9 31 5 Oxford Gardens Good 25 School 0 12 0 26 11 St Charles Good 25 School 0 5 0 26 10 Totals: 0 30 27 136 33

• GLD 50% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses not available% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 48

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile (where (2011) age 1 is most 0 to 4 inc deprived 10% of LSOAs) E01002877003B 127 23 26 27 18 33 1 0-10% most deprived E01002876003A 111 26 23 26 17 19 6 50-60% E01002878003C 59 8 13 13 9 16 4 30-40% E01002909003E 135 31 22 20 44 18 4 30-40% Totals: 432 88 84 86 88 86 St. Helens Health information (JSNA 2019) GP Surgeries: North Kensington Medical Centre; St Quintin Health Centre

Immunisation Data by GP Surgery 2017/18 (source NHS England) GP Surgery Hib 12 months % take up of MMR 1st dose 5yrs % MMR 2nd dose 5 years % those eligible (target 95%)

North Kensington Medical Centre 46/51 90% 53/54 98.1% 51/54 94.4% St Quintin Health Centre 23/27 85% 22/26 84.6% 21/26 80.8%

2 year checks Number eligible: Take up: Not seen: DNA:

% of babies born low birth rate = 3% A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 1000 Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 22 Stanley South Locality

Early Years Provision

Setting Name Ofsted Places 0-5 Early Years DAF EYPP eligible Uni 3&4yr Add 15 hrs Provider claim 2yrplaces places taken 3&4 yr Category taken up up places taken up Ringrose Kindergarten Good 48 Private 0 0 0 26 0 Tadpoles Nursery School Good 52 Private 0 0 0 66 1 Hampshire School Pre Prep Good 35 Independent 0 0 0 34 0 Park Walk Good 30 School 0 7 0 16 3 Totals: 0 7 0 142 4

• GLD 81% 2017/18 published DfE data • No of children living in child poverty after housing expenses 20.98% • Estimated no of eligible 3 & 4 year olds for 30 hours: 31

SOA (2015) under 5 population

LSOA code (2011) No Pop by 0 1 2 3 4 (IDACI) Rankings Decile age (where 1 is 0 to 4 inc most deprived 10% of LSOAs) E01002823 014B 93 14 19 21 22 17 2 10-20% E01002862 014E 63 10 11 11 14 17 2 10-20% E01002910 019C 77 21 17 21 9 9 6 50-60% E01002911 019D 117 17 29 22 32 17 10 90-100% least deprived E01002914 019E 62 14 5 8 24 11 10 90-100% least deprived E01002912 020E 87 26 12 21 13 15 7 60-70% E01002913 021E 119 16 28 31 19 25 5 40-50% Totals: 618 118 121 135 133 111 Stanley Health information (JSNA 2019)

GP Surgeries: none

2 year checks Number eligible: 9 Take up: 7 Not seen: 2 DNA: 0

% of babies born low birth rate = 2%

A & E attendances under 5’s 3 year average = 750

Obese children reception year (3 year average) = 24 Children living in Poverty after housing costs have been paid (source End child Poverty Campaign Nov 2016)

BEFORE HOUSING AFTER HOUSING Percentage of children in poverty, Oct-Dec 2015 COSTS COSTS Abingdon 16.66% 25.94% Brompton & Hans Town 10.06% 16.56% Campden 5.36% 8.90% Chelsea Riverside (new ward) Colville 22.13% 35.11% Courtfield 5.00% 8.23% Cremone (old ward) 25.92% 39.80% Dalgarno (new ward) Earls Court 15.70% 25.09% Golbourne 27.85% 43.48% Hans Town (old ward joined with Brompton) 18.85% 29.64% Holland 17.16% 26.88% Norland 19.49% 30.93% Notting Dale 24.49% 38.81% Pembridge 10.11% 16.58% Queens Gate 4.69% 7.75% Redcliffe 13.61% 21.52% Royal Hospital 8.80% 14.38% St Charles (old ward) 25.75% 40.29% St. Helens (new ward) Stanley 13.01% 20.98%

* ward boundaries as of 2013 Borough average: av 17.79% av 28.18% External influences affecting market • Implementation of 30 hours’ free childcare from September 2017 with low demand for places across the borough • New demands and challenges placed upon the sector • Parents returning to work – the change in rules concerning Income Support is likely to result in more parents requiring childcare. Where previously parents could continue to claim Income Support until their youngest child was 16, this has now decreased to the youngest child being 3 years old. This is likely to be result in more parents of school aged children requiring childcare in order to enable them to work. • Changes to the welfare system – Changes are currently underway relating to the way in which benefits are organised with the introduction of the Universal Credit and the emphasis on encouraging people back to work by making work pay. This may lead to a rise in the number of parents wishing to work and needing childcare. • Changes to qualification framework impacting on recruitment of quality staff across the sector Internal Influences • From September 2018 the LA no longer funded full time places in schools • Improved IT systems: a new finance and IT system making headcount processes and payments easier for providers. This also has created better communication between finance, early years’ team and providers • Early Years Review undertaken Summer 2018 – redesign of service • Grenfell: In June 2017 Kensington & Chelsea experienced the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy. The impact of loss of life, displacement of survivors, and the effect on those living in the surrounding area was profound. Many childcare providers and schools were, and continue to be directly affected, particularly those in close proximity to the Tower. As a result of the take-up of temporary or permanent housing in different locations within the borough or out-borough, pupil mobility has increased. The Council will continue to monitor the impact on all schools. • The Council continues to focus on opportunities for new housing in many parts of the borough, which may result in the potential need for additional places in those areas over time. Sources of data

• JSNA 2019 - https://www.jsna.info/ward-health-profiles • GLA Data Store 2017 update with projections based on housing • IDACI LSOA’s indices affecting children 2015 • Public Health Immunisation data sets 2017/18 • Spring 2019 Headcount data (RBKC returns) • End Child Poverty Campaign national data sets 2016 • GLD results 2017/18 Department of Education • School headline data – Nexus – school census spring 2019

School Exclusions in Kensington and Chelsea Report of the Family Services Select Committee Working Group

1. Background Exclusion from school is increasingly recognised as an issue pertinent to child health and wellbeing. National educational data reveal that boys, children who are looked- after, living in poverty, have special educational needs (SEN) or from certain ethnic minorities, are disproportionately excluded from school1. In addition, exclusion rates have been steadily increasing nationally over the last decade. Furthermore, the number of fixed and permanent exclusions in secondary schools in Kensington and Chelsea has been in recent years above national and regional (London) rates.

In these local and national contexts, we set out to examine the local exclusion rate and the factors and reasons affecting primary and secondary school exclusions in the borough. We wished to understand the state of early intervention, Alternative Provision (AP), the provision and initiatives in place to reduce exclusion in the borough and the impact of exclusion on pupils and their families. In this report we set out the findings from our discussions on school exclusions in RBKC and put forward a number of recommendations for further work to help ensure that all young people get the high-quality education and support they need to achieve their full potential.

2. Key Findings Need for more research • The three months allocated for this working group (January to March 2020) was not long enough to examine such a big subject as Exclusions in sufficient depth to present substantive recommendations for immediate action. However, the working group was able to gather a sufficiently rich evidence base upon which to base initial findings and recommend further, more narrowly focussed, work to continue the project.

Exclusions: what the data says

• The working group explored the diversity of those students excluded. It found that boys were statistically more likely to be excluded than girls, but not overwhelmingly so, and that Afro-Caribbean students were over-represented as an ethnic group among the excluded cohort.

1 Paget, A., Parker, C., Heron, J., Logan, S., Henley, W., Emond, A., & Ford, T. (2018) ‘Which children and young people are excluded from school? Findings from a large British birth cohort study, the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC)’in Child: Care, Health and Development, 44(2), 285-296.

• Exclusion rates are reported on for children of statutory school age (5-16 year olds); the working group did not examine exclusion rates in the 16-18 age range. This is a gap that reflects national policy and practice. • Consistent with longstanding trends in England, children and young people in primary and secondary school with SEN (including those with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP)) in the borough are at higher risk of being excluded than their peers. The rate of exclusion of children with such characteristics is higher than the London and national rates at secondary level, but lower at primary level.

Grenfell Cohort

• We looked particularly into exclusion rates in the schools most impacted by the Grenfell Tragedy. Data from the Grenfell Support Fund, and responses from the schools we visited, do not highlight any major differences between those students who were significantly impacted by the tragedy and the overall student population in the borough. However, that is not to say that the tragedy has not been a factor at play for those students actually excluded who were affected by it, as we heard in the testimony from one parent who spoke to the working group.

Primary schools and transitions

• Although we only visited one primary school, this visit, the statistical evidence and the other evidence we heard suggests that exclusions are not a significant issue at primary level, with most problems handled successfully internally in the more intimate environment of these smaller schools. • A critical moment for young people is the transition from primary to secondary in Year 7. Another such time comes in Year 9, for young people aged 13 or 14.

Secondary schools

• Statistically RBKC is an outlier in terms of the numbers of excluded students, comparing London-wide and England-wide figures. However, we did hear external evidence that high reported numbers were sometimes an indicator of greater honesty in reporting, so it is impossible to conclude that RBKC is a ‘problem borough’ compared with our peers. • We noticed that there is a significant statistical difference between the numbers of students excluded from each of RBKC’s six secondary schools, and we noticed that the exclusions policies of each school had significant differences on paper. However, we only visited one of the secondary schools and are aware that one size does not necessarily fit all. • The emphasis on schools to attain high academic standards creates additional pressures on those children who may not be best suited to a purely academic pathway. Teachers may not be able to offer the necessary tailored interventions

those young people need. This may lead to disruptive behaviour that is then dealt with through the disciplinary process. The lack of a 14+ vocational pathway, which might better suit some students than academic courses, and thus build confidence in these students, limits options for schools and students. • However, we also recognised the evidence put forward at our secondary school visit that exclusion of disruptive students is sometimes necessary for the greater good of the learning of the other students and upholding the authority of class teachers. • From a school point of view, the response from the ‘statutory agencies’ is perceived to be of high standard during a crisis, yet on-going levels of support and engagement can be patchy.

When children are excluded

• We noted that all schools have ‘internal exclusion’ stages before reaching the bar for formal temporary or permanent exclusion. We also heard evidence that in Scotland a significantly beefed up version of internal exclusion is operated instead of an external AP system. • Recognising that a formal AP system is the current model in England, we applaud the efforts of the Latimer AP Academy to provide an education to some of our most challenging students; in particular we applaud the inspiring teachers whom we met on our short visit. We noted the tired physical condition of the building in Freston Road, but welcome RBKC’s investment of £2M in FY20/21 to upgrade it. • We welcome Ofsted’s new remit to examine exclusions as a theme on their future school inspections, but note that only one of RBKC’s schools has been inspected since the remit was introduced; this was a monitoring visit rather than a full inspection, and found that exclusions were used appropriately2

Children and Families

• Some children and young people develop disruptive behaviours in some educational environments (formal, secondary schools), but they do not refuse education in its entirety, joining positively in other, different environments. • We were struck by the evidence put forward by the mothers who came forward to our evidence session of the very significant negative effects of exclusion, even temporary exclusion, on their children and their families. Some of the parents highlighted the lack of transparency of school process and procedures which impedes their ability to navigate the reintegration of their child into school. • The relationship and communication between parents and schools can deteriorate once a young person reaches secondary schools, which are typically much larger than primaries. There is a need to support parents, particularly those who do not understand the English education system. Parents are the best advocates for their children, but often lack understanding of the

2 Ofsted inspection report

schools’ processes, behaviour policies and exclusion systems and are not able to properly advocate for their children.

Possible interventions

• Early intervention is key to supporting young people at risk of exclusion. This is hampered by the lack of necessary information. No one person at post Year 7 seems to have an overview of a particular vulnerable young person’s journey. • The value of mentors was mentioned by Chelsea Academy and also by Kids on the Green. Chelsea Academy was using mentors for those young people who were working in the Internal Exclusion Room. Mentors can be powerful catalysts for change and support for young children who may lack that level of engagement at home. • Further work needs to be undertaken to address the over-representation of boys of Afro/Caribbean heritage in the numbers of those who are excluded. The Council needs to set out why such over-representation exists and how it will begin to address this situation. The Council should consider facilitating training within secondary schools to support teachers to gain an understanding of how unconscious bias plays out in the classroom and to improve cultural competency and understanding of cultural behaviours.

3. Evidence gathered In undertaking the review of school exclusions, we analysed the following evidence: Secondary research:

• Timpson Review of School Exclusion • Forgotten Children: Alternative Provision and the scandal of ever increasing exclusions (House of Commons Education Select Committee) • Making The Difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion (IPPR) • Gov.UK Guidance • Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England: 2017 to 2018 (DfE) • DfE, (2017) Alternative Provision: Effective Practice and Post 16 Transition, Sue Tate and Professor David Greatbatch.

Council data and documents:

• RBKC Fair access protocols primary and secondary schools • Inclusion programme report • RBKC Family Services Select Committee School Exclusions Review Document Pack received in January 20203. • Exclusion good practice guidelines

3 The school exclusion data received in January 2020 was updated in a Power BI report received in May 2020.

• Case study

Primary data:

• Testimonies from experts and community organisations, Round Table discussion on 4 March 2020. • Testimonies from parents’ drop-in session on 4 March 2020. • Testimonies from visit to St Charles Primary School on 24 February 2020. • Testimonies from visit to the Latimer site of the Tri-Borough Alternative Provision (TBAP) Academy on 28 February 2020. • Testimonies from visit to Chelsea Academy on 2 March 2020. • School behaviour policies.

We issued a call for evidence that was publicised and promoted via the Council’s web page, social media (Next Door, Twitter and Facebook) and digital screens located in all Council libraries and the Customer Centre in Kensington Town Hall throughout February and early March 2020. In addition, the Call for Evidence was shared with schools in the borough via the internal communications bulletin that the Directorate of Children and Family Services maintains, and was also shared with Resident Associations via the Council’s fortnightly newsletter. The oral evidence event that resulted from the call for evidence consisted of a round- table meeting with key stakeholders and community organisations and a separate meeting with affected parents. Both took place on Wednesday 4 March. The first session aimed for professionals and stakeholders to offer us their insights and concerns, answer questions and have a fruitful conversation in a round-table format. It was designed to help us identify areas of improvement and as an opportunity for stakeholders to inform our views and recommendations. Key stakeholders were Police Safer School Officers, third sector and community organisations (Westway Trust, Inspire to Be, Kids on the Green, Clement James Centre, Grenfell Foundation and West London Zone among others), academics, and others working in a variety of ways to improve outcomes for vulnerable children4. The second session was with affected parents and was designed for members to hear first-hand about the experiences, concerns and issues of affected parents and carers. The session was informal and had a small round table format, where parents were joined by one or two members of the working group. Five mothers attended and narrated their experiences, supported in some cases by friends or community organisation support workers. We had wished to meet children and young people who have been through an exclusion or are at risk of being excluded. We recognise that excluded children and young people are social agents with a unique perspective and insight into their own

4 Details of the event and attendees can be found in the Work Programme Report to the Select Committee meeting that was scheduled to take place on 30 March 2020.

realities. They have a right to be involved in an enquiry about issues of direct concern to them. We recognise that these children are experts in their own lives. Unfortunately, the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in mid-March 2020 and the planned conclusion of the evidence-gathering stage of the working group at end-March 2020 meant that an event to meet children who had been excluded had to be deferred to a future working group.

4. Exclusions in Kensington and Chelsea: what the data shows us The report provides a snapshot of exclusions in RBKC, focusing mainly on the most recent available data, which is that for the academic years 2017/18 and 2018/195. It is important to bear in mind that there is no optimum rate or number of exclusions, and exclusion rates must be considered in the context in which the decisions to exclude are made. As noted in the Timpson review:

“A higher exclusion rate may be a sign of effective leadership in one school, and in others a lower exclusion rate may reflect strong early intervention strategies that have been put in place. In contrast, higher rates of exclusion could demonstrate schools not putting in place enough interventions before excluding too readily, while lower rates could be indicative of children being pushed out of school without the proper processes being followed.” (Timpson Review of School Exclusions, 2019)

4.1 Permanent and fixed-term exclusions Nineteen children and young people have been permanently excluded from school in RBKC during 2018/19. Of those, one child was excluded from a primary school and 18 from secondary schools. All secondary schools in the borough, except Holland Park, used permanent exclusions in this academic year. The secondary schools with most students permanently excluded were Chelsea Academy and Kensington Aldridge Academy (with 6 and 5 permanent exclusions respectively). The number and rate of permanent exclusions in RBKC has slightly decreased since 2017/18 when 22 such exclusions were issued but it is still above national and regional rates.

Fig 1: Permanent exclusion rate in all schools.

5 All 2018/19 data is provisional and will be updated when the DfE publish it (July 2020).

The total number of fixed-term exclusions issued in 2018/19 was 953. Most of these were issued in secondary schools (818 in secondary and 59 in primary schools, 1 in special school and 75 exclusion from AP). The number of fixed-term exclusions issued in secondary schools in the borough has increased from the 680 issued during 2017/18.

Fig 2: fixed-term exclusion rate in all schools. The actual number of children and teenagers receiving one or more fixed-term exclusions has increased from 494 in 2017/18 to 533 in 2018/19. During 2018/19, 470 students received a fixed- term exclusion from secondary school and 27 pupils received one from primary school (whilst 35 were issued by Alternative Provision and 1 in Special school). As shown in the figure below, the rate of fixed-term exclusions over time has been steadily rising since 2013/14 and it is now higher in RBKC than in London and at national level.

Figure 3: Fixed-term exclusion rate over time in London, England and RBKC.

4.2 Reasons for Exclusion

Schools are required to provide the reasons behind their decisions to exclude, and they do this by selecting one of 12 codes when reporting the main reason for each exclusion to DfE. The second most common reason given for permanent and fixed- period exclusion is ‘other’ (with persistent disruptive behaviour being the first). Since 2013/14, the number of exclusions reported in the ‘other’ category has been increasing and now constitutes 17.6% and 19.7% of the reasons given for permanent and fixed- term exclusions respectively6. Reasons for exclusion at RBKC secondary schools follow this trend. Secondary school during 2018/19 and 2017/18 the main reasons for fixed-term exclusion were ‘other’, physical assault against a pupil, closely followed by persistent disruptive behaviour. In turn, the majority of permanent exclusions issued were classified mostly as responding to ‘permanent disruptive behaviour’ followed by ‘other’ both years.

6 Timpson report on School Exclusions.

Figures 4 and 5: Number of exclusions by reasons during 2018-19

4.3 When are children most likely to be excluded from school?

Most fixed-term exclusions in primary schools are issued to pupils in Y6 (age 10 and 11), yet the numbers are fairly small: there were 19 pupils issued with a fixed-term exclusion in Y6 during 2017/18 and only 8 received one such exclusion during 2018/19. Most fixed-term exclusions in secondary schools are issued to children in Y9 and above.

Over half of all permanent exclusions (11) occur in national curriculum Year 9 (age 13 and 14) or above. The number of pupils excluded in primary school is too small for any trends to be detected.

4.4 Who is excluded?

There are in England longstanding trends which show that particular groups of children are more likely to be excluded from school, both for a fixed period and permanently7. This includes boys, children with SEN, those who have been supported by social care or come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and children from Roma, traveller, and black Caribbean backgrounds.

Fixed Term Exclusions by gender and type of school 2018/19

Girls Boys

600 523 400 295 200 68 7 6 53 1 0 0 AP/PRU schools Primary schools Secondary schools Special schools

Figure 6: Fixed-term exclusions by gender and type of school in Kensington and Chelsea.

Exclusions in RBKC tend to follow a similar pattern, yet with some differences. Approximately three quarters of all permanent exclusions and over 60% of fixed-term exclusions are for boys8. Hence, the majority of excluded children in both primary and secondary schools are boys. Black African and black Caribbean background (including Mixed Black Caribbean and Other Black background) students are also disproportionally represented among those excluded, with high numbers and percentages. Irish Traveller community pupils do have a high percentage, but the overall cohort size is very low: in secondary schools there were two pupils from this

7 Timpson Review of School Exclusions 8 Family and Children’s Service Select Committee Members Information Pack on School Exclusions.

ethnic group excluded, but as the total cohort was seven this number represented 29% of the ethnic group with an exclusion.

Fig 7: Fixed-term exclusions by ethnicity in secondary schools 2017/18

Fig 8: Fixed-term exclusions by ethnicity in secondary schools 2018/19

It is also well documented that there are longstanding national trends that children with SEN are more likely to be excluded, both for a fixed period and permanently, than those who do not have SEN. In the most recent national statistics, children with identified SEN accounted for 46.7% of all permanent exclusions and 44.9% of fixed period exclusions9. It is notable that permanent exclusion rates for children with Education, Health and Care plans (EHCP) are around half those of children with SEN support, but they are still more likely to receive a fixed-term exclusion compared with all children. This trend is borne out in RBKC both at primary and secondary school level. At primary schools, the most recent available data shows that the four pupils permanently excluded over the past two school years had SEN support. Of those pupils receiving a fixed-term exclusion in the borough primaries, 24 out of 27 had SEN support (17) or an EHCP (7) in 2018/19, and 24 out of 36 did so in 2017/18, 21 of them with SEN

9 Timpson review of School Exclusions.

support and 3 with an EHCP. This amounts to around 2% of the cohort with SEN needs being excluded at primary school level. The EHCP cohort in primary school exclusions is small, yet some of these students are being excluded in spite of the guidance asserting head teachers should avoid excluding children with an EHCP. Nevertheless, comparatively, the exclusion rates in primary schools for children with SEN during 2018/19 are below national and inner London 2017/18 rates. In addition, young people at secondary school in the borough with SEN support, including those with an EHCP, are at high risk of receiving fixed-term exclusions: in 2018/19, 16.2% of children with an ECHP and 18.5% of children with SEN support received a fixed-term exclusion against only 7% of their peers without SEN needs receiving one. The rate of exclusion of children with such characteristics is higher than the London and national rates at secondary level.

Figure 9 and 10: number and percentage of SEN and not SEN pupils excluded fixed-term in secondary schools and number on roll in 2018/19 and 2017/18. Pupils with one or more Fixed term Fixed term exclusion rate exclusion rate Inner Inner RBKC England RBKC England London London 2018/19 2017/18 2018/19 2017/18 SEN Support 4.04 4.16 7.07 1.91 2.01 2.91 Primary schools EHCP 6.69 6.50 13.44 2.76 2.95 5.32

SEN Support 37.97 22.39 28.47 18.57 11.59 11.41 Secondary schools EHCP 43.66 21.29 28.19 16.2 10.54 11.43 Figure 11: Comparison of fixed-term exclusions rates by school type for SEN and EHCP children.

In 2018-19, there were 93 RBKC residents who are Looked After Children (LAC), of whom eight were given fixed-term exclusions and none permanently excluded. There are currently only 13 RBKC LAC placed in RBKC schools10. The eight pupils who received fixed-term exclusions were all enrolled in out-of-borough schools. This 8.6% rate of fixed-term exclusion of LAC in RBKC is below the national rate in 2018, when 11.67% of LAC had at least one fixed-period exclusion. In terms of permanent exclusions, RBKC is in line with national trends, where only 0.05% of LAC were permanently excluded from school in England in 201811.

4.5 Where do excluded children live? Data on all exclusions from the years 2017/18 and 2018/19 show children and young people resident in the most northerly wards of the borough, with the exception of St Helen’s ward, are being disproportionally affected by exclusions. The majority of children who received fixed-term exclusions during 2018/19 are residents in RBKC. The wards with the highest numbers of fixed-term exclusions issued to pupils were Notting Dale, Golborne, Dalgarno and Colville, followed by Stanley and Chelsea Riverside from the south of the borough. The wards with the lowest numbers of pupils receiving fixed-term exclusions were Queen’s Gate, Courtfield and Pembridge. The data for the year 2017/18 reflects a very similar pattern.

Figure 12 and 13: Number of pupils receiving fixed-term exclusions and number of fixed-term exclusions during 2018/19 in secondary schools by ward.

10 The low numbers for LAC from RBKC in the borough’s schools is generally related to the scarcity of foster carers in the borough. Most LAC who are placed in RBKC schools are those living locally with connected persons (e.g. grandparents, other family members and friends), those who are in semi-independent provision or at Olive House residential home. 11 Outcomes for children looked after by local authorities in England, 31 March 2019

Most children permanently excluded from secondary schools were residents in neighbouring boroughs (13 children out of 19 in 2017/18 and 13 out of 18 in 2018/19). Of those permanently excluded who are residents in this borough, three out of five in 2018/19 and four out of six in 2017/18 also lived in wards in the north. Hence, the wards with the most excluded children are those with higher levels of deprivation in the borough as shown in the Indices of Deprivation 2019 for Kensington and Chelsea12. Conversely, the wards with the least number of children excluded are loosely correlated with the least deprived wards.

Figure 14: Local deprivation profile Kensington and Chelsea 2019, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

4.6 The Grenfell Cohort

In 2017 the Grenfell Tower tragedy struck in the north of the borough. The Council recognised the potential of long-term educational impact on the lives of young people who either directly experienced or were otherwise impacted by the tragedy, which involved the loss of 72 lives. In order to mitigate the negative impact that such trauma could have on the educational achievement of young people, the Council set up the Grenfell Education Fund in July 2017. The Fund supports this cohort of children and young people and families directly affected by the tragedy from nursery through to tertiary education level. The cohort supported is currently described as bereaved children, young survivors and the wider community of children and young people affected by the tragedy, who have been identified by their schools in north Kensington.

Data from the Fund shows that the tracked cohort overall has a similar special educational need and disabilities (SEN) profile to the national averages. There were

12 Indices of Deprivation 2019 is comprised of seven distinct domains of deprivation which, when combined and appropriately weighted, form the IMD2019. They are: - Income (22.5%) - Employment (22.5%) - Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%) - Education, Skills Training (13.5%) - Crime (9.3%) - Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%) - Living Environment (9.3%). https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of- deprivation-2019

no permanent exclusions in this group during the academic year 2018/19 and there were no fixed-term exclusions for the primary age pupils.

In the first academic year after the tragedy the number of fixed-term exclusions remained stable for all pupils in the Grenfell cohort. Although the number of fixed-term exclusions went up for the academic year 2018/19, the length of time for each exclusion reduced. Significantly, less school was missed by the pupils who received a fixed-term exclusion than it was in 2017/18. It is difficult to make a direct comparison as the group changes every year.

Academic Average Exclusions sessions lost Incidences Pupils Year sessions per pupil per pupil

2018/19 29 18 2.34 1.6 3.8

2017/18 15 9 4.07 1.7 6.8

2016/17 14 11 5.43 1.3 6.9

Within the bereaved and survivor cohort of young people there has been a downward trend over the last three years in fixed-term exclusions. In line with the methodology of the Department for Education, as there are five or fewer pupils in this cohort, we have not given the breakdown in this public report as it might be possible to identify individuals.

4.7 Comment The above data help build an image of the incidence of exclusions and of who is being affected by exclusions in the borough. It shows, just as do national trends, that some pupil characteristics are strongly associated with exclusions. This image also allows us to see which students may be at increased risk of being excluded. We should be careful not to infer simplistically that one thing causes or inevitably leads to the other. It is well known that many factors contribute to creating situations where children are ultimately excluded. We note that the rate of permanent and fixed-term exclusions in RBKC is above the national and inner London rates. This trend is an issue for concern, particularly the use of repeated fixed-term exclusions that can represent a missed opportunity to address pupil behaviour successfully, and that have been shown to be counterproductive and cause pupils to become anxious and disengaged from formal

education13. However, we have also heard that given the differences in reporting exclusion rates nationally, it is difficult to know if we are comparing like with like. As Professor Ian Thompson noted, the higher exclusion rates in the borough may also be the result of more transparent reporting14. Hence, it is impossible to conclude that RBKC is a ‘problem borough’ compared with our peers.

We also note that boys are more likely to be excluded than girls and that children of Afro-Caribbean backgrounds are over-represented as an ethnic group among the excluded. We are concerned that young people at secondary school with SEN (and with an EHCP) in the borough are at high risk of receiving fixed-term exclusions in RBKC as the rate of exclusion of children with such characteristics is higher than the London and national rates.

We have also found a correlation between deprivation and exclusion, mostly in the north of the borough, but also in pockets in southern wards. We acknowledge the complexity of the reality of exclusions as many of these characteristics do overlap. However, as noted by research, disproportionate exclusions for certain groups or characteristics suggest that either schools may be failing to adequately support certain learners, or that school behaviour systems inadvertently work against some pupils. Indeed, there is growing evidence that the system within which schools operate may be incentivising the exclusion of students with complex needs15. We looked particularly into exclusion rates in the schools most impacted by the Grenfell Tragedy. Data from the Grenfell Support Fund, and responses from the schools we visited, do not highlight any major differences between those students who were significantly impacted by the tragedy and the overall student population in the borough. However, that is not to say that the tragedy has not been a factor at play for those students actually excluded who were affected by it, as we heard in the testimony from one parent who spoke to the working group.

We recognise that children with SEN, those residents in the northern wards and, in particular, those with overlapping vulnerabilities, need targeted support in their schools, as there are clear indicators of disproportionate rates of exclusion in these groups of students.

5. Primary and Secondary schools experience different incidences of exclusions and issues As seen above, whilst primary schools are not entirely free from the use of exclusions, the rate of permanent and fixed-term exclusions is much lower than in secondary

13 Timpson Review of School Exclusions, 2019 pg. 53 14 Professor Ian Thompson evidence to working group members on 4 March 2020. 15 Making the difference. Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion IPPR 2019, pg 26.

schools. This is in line with a more general trend in England. Reasons for the different rates of exclusions between primary and secondary school have been explored in the literature to some extent, for instance to examine if the differences lay in primary and secondary schools’ approaches, or if children’s attendance or behaviour had changed over time as dramatically as the exclusion rates. Relatively few primary schools exclude children aged 4 to 7 and even fewer use it regularly16 (DfE, 2018a). In the borough, we heard from St Charles Primary School that the school does not believe in the efficacy of fixed-term exclusions, because children would not benefit from their use as they would be unsupervised, and has not imposed one during the last two academic years. Hence, we do not believe that the rate and use of exclusions in primary schools in the borough gives rise to concerns. We would nevertheless caution that, whilst there are few exclusions in primary schools, the data above still points to children with SEN being disproportionally affected by them. We received evidence from Professor Ian Thompson that there was an issue around economies of scale for primary schools trying to buy in SEN support for a very small number of pupils; on average the up-front additional cost for a school was around £5000 per pupil, which has to be funded from within the school’s existing budget.

5.1 Transition from primary to secondary A theme that came across clearly in the evidence, highlighted by representatives of schools and AP as well as by parents, Police Safer School Officers and community organisations, was that transfer from primary to secondary school is a key period of risk for vulnerable pupils as they leave the more intimate atmosphere of primary school. We heard that:

“primary and secondary schools offer very different environments and the transition between them is a very difficult time. More is needed to be done during the transition to support young people”17

“transition from primary to secondary school is a key challenge, with Year 8 being a peak time for exclusions. Often it is not the learners who have been flagged up by primary schools who prove to be the subject of exclusion from secondary schools; rather it is the next group down, who just about get by in the more intimate environment of primary school”18 This relevance is echoed in research papers on this topic, which show that how transition between schools is managed can affect subsequent issues and enjoyment

16 DfE cited in Graham et al. (2019) School exclusion: a literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children. pg. 34. 17 Testimony provided at the Round Table discussion on 4 March 2020. 18 Evidence provided to the working group during visit to Latimer AP Academy.

of school, including exclusion19. Trotman and colleagues interviewed 49 children aged 13-14, in Year 9, as well as eight behaviour coordinators in secondary schools and AP. Half of these pupils had been excluded. Unaddressed transitional difficulties were found to have led to some pupils falling behind academically, problematic behaviour and amplified difficulties in the first three years of secondary school (when exclusion rates peak)20. Levison’s young interviewees noted that for most of them the move to secondary school had triggered, or at least coincided with, the onset of problems (Levinson, 2016)21. We agree that there is a need for an effective transfer of information and data about each potentially vulnerable young person from their primary school to the new secondary school. This transfer of information would be particularly important if the child’s primary school is outside the borough.

5.2 Secondary Schools’ exclusions, behaviour policies or a ‘zero tolerance’ approach The data presented in section four above show that the bulk of fixed-term and permanent school exclusions in RBKC take place in secondary schools. The reasons that may lead to a student being excluded are complex. Schools are microcosms of society at large. Hence, the generalised rise in exclusions in England in the last decade has been explained by some commentators as the result of factors linked to the world “outside the school gate”. For instance, there is growing evidence of increasing numbers of children experiencing intersecting vulnerabilities, such as child poverty; family problems including parental mental ill health, abuse and neglect and young carer responsibilities; learning needs; mental ill health; and poor educational progress22. Other potential factors for exclusion are linked to school-specific cultures and systems. For instance, the pupils’ sense of belonging, the support for pupils with SEN, and the school’s policies and practices. School behaviour policies are one such school-specific factor that was a recurrent theme in the evidence received. From the perspective of secondary schools, the behaviour policy is an important tool to manage the school community. We heard from secondary schools that whilst they are not satisfied with their numbers of fixed-term and permanent exclusions, the wider school benefits from their use, being “a happier and more productive space”. It was acknowledged that a ‘hard edge’ policy could contribute to an increase in exclusions, but that was expected to be a temporary effect.

19 Farouk (2017) cited in Graham et al. (2019) School exclusion: a literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children., pg. 33. 20 Trotman et al (2015) cited in ibid. 21 Levison (2016) cited in ibid. 22 Gill et al (2017) and Making the difference. Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion (IPPR).

We were told by one school that students understand the behaviour policy and those excluded often admit that there is no option but to exclude them.

Case study The current leadership reported that they had turned around a school that had lost its way, having gained in the past a reputation for low level disruption and inconsistency. They had devised the ‘Academy Way for Behaviour’ (AWB), replacing the previous structure and behaviour policy. This AWB enables the school to address year group challenges systematically, while introducing a ‘hard edge’ to discipline policy that has redressed the balance in a school that was previously too soft and tolerant of disruptive behaviour. Class teachers now use de-escalation techniques operating a scale of ‘formal warning’, ‘last chance’ and isolation from the lesson, in which students have to work in the Isolation Room (with 15 places). The Internal Exclusion Room (IER) is the next step up on a formal scale of sanctions, before a temporary External Exclusion, a behaviour intervention placement at the Golborne Centre and either a Permanent Exclusion or Managed Move are considered. Students move up and down the scale of severity on a 6-weekly basis (i.e. 6 weeks of good behaviour will move them down the scale if they have previously registered on it). However, the crossing of a red line, e.g. sexual assault or carrying weapons, will result in instant exclusion. Conversely the Academy also operates a reward system with ‘Achievement Points’ to reward good behaviour. Students take pride in their bronze, silver, gold and platinum achievement badges.

However, ‘zero-tolerance’ behaviour policies were signalled as a cause for concern by the community organisations supporting excluded children that spoke to us. They said:

“the zero-tolerance approach to behaviour adopted by several academies in the Borough had a disproportionate impact on children with SEN and was responsible for many young people leaving mainstream schooling.”

“young people [excluded] who attended the homework club often said that behaviour policies were one of the biggest barriers to reintegration. Behaviour policies did not take account of trauma and lead to children being trapped in negative cycles of acting out and punishment.”

“all behaviour was a form of communication and the system needed to react to what was behind the behaviour rather than being purely reactive [punitive]. This was a big issue with Black/ Caribbean boys”23 The AP academy also told us that their main ‘feeder’ schools were those with the most stringent behaviour policies. We heard that excluded pupils were often able to excel in AP or at out-of-school clubs, which suggested that there was an issue with the way some young people were interacting and reacting with the school environment that needed to be addressed.

23 Testimonies provided at Round Table discussion 4 March 2020.

Furthermore, research shows that some behaviour policies and their application are often problematic. Levinson (2016) was told by young interviewees that their secondary school was excessively focused on rules, but unfair in their application. School behaviour policies also seem to play an important role in the exclusions of pupils with SEN. For instance, participants in focus groups for an Office of the Children’s Commissioner project with a total of 20 teachers, six local authority staff and representatives from two charities working with children, identified that inflexible systems and procedures (alongside a reported training and expertise deficit) were part of the reasons for disproportionate exclusions of pupils with additional needs, social, emotional and mental health needs (SEMH) and looked after children Ford and colleagues argued that the 2016 statutory guidance places too much emphasis on being authoritarian in response to behavioural issues and that this is probably counterproductive. They hold that a clear framework of rules and promoting positive behaviour would be more effective in dealing with pupils who display challenging behaviour24. The House of Commons Education Select Committee noted that the rise in so-called ‘zero-tolerance’ behaviour policies is creating school environments where pupils are punished and ultimately excluded for incidents that could, and should, be managed within the mainstream school environment25.

5.3 Relationship between parents and schools Another school-specific factor is the relationship built between parents and schools. This factor was highlighted by parents, community organisations and experts who spoke to us about the need to maintain good communication between school and parents. They noted specifically that, at secondary school, parents faced problems of a lack of communication and of support from the school. We heard that:

“Generally, things are far harder for parents at secondary school level.”

“It is important for warnings [to children] to be communicated to parents as exclusions often come as a surprise for parents.”

“Parents often do not have a good understanding of the school system. They may find that when their child is excluded, they are confronted with a file of (often minor) behavioural infractions which they have been completely unaware of. They do not always understand the questions asked at hearings with Headteachers or Governing Bodies and may get angry with the school or their child, making the situation worse.”26 The following case study from a parent is also typical of what we heard:

24 White et al. (2013) and Ford et al. (2018) as cited in Graham et al. (2019) School exclusion: a literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children. 25 House of Commons Education Select Committee (2018) Forgotten children: Alternative Provision and the scandal of ever increasing exclusions. 26 Testimonies provided at Round Table discussion on 4 March 2020.

Case Study: a parent testimony

When their child was given a fixed-term exclusion, the family was denied direct access to the evidence of the one incident in which this exclusion was based as ‘it had already been seen by the school’. At a later meeting with the school, once the child had re- joined, the school gave the parents a big list detailing many incidents in which the child had allegedly been involved in, a big folder. The parent said that there had been no notice beforehand of any of these incidents. It was ‘sprung’ upon them during a meeting.

From a school perspective, we heard that: “Parental engagement in any kind of exclusion is vital, to ensure that it is taken as a form of punishment and not something that the student will want to repeat”. Ofsted (2009) noted that building successful relationships with parents helped minimise exclusions among primary schools. Research also points to a tendency for schools to blame parents for children’s behaviour and points to social class being the major determinant of parent-school relationships, with middle class parents being more respected and thus having more impact than working-class parents, who may lack the necessary knowledge, articulacy and skills, or are simply not listened to27. The relevance of this relationship has already been recognised by the Council in its inclusion programme developed in 2019. The programme consists of a team that takes a family approach and aims to provide a collective plan structured by the family (with Early Help and the school) to develop and maintain a strong relationship that creates improved and sustained change. We agree that there is a need to support parents and carers. Parents and carers are the best advocates for their children, but may lack understanding of the school processes, behaviour policies and exclusion systems and are not always able to properly advocate for their children.

6. When children are excluded 6.1 Early Intervention The House of Commons Education Select Committee noted that many challenges facing schools might contribute to a school’s inability or unwillingness to identify problems and then provide support. Challenges included a lack of expertise in schools that would allow them to identify problems, and financial pressures that affect schools’

27 Graham et al. (2019) School exclusion: a literature review on the continued disproportionate exclusion of certain children., pg. 39.

capacity and therefore ability to identify and resolve problems by providing early intervention28. We heard significant evidence from AP, community organisations and experts about the need for, and relevance of, providing early help to at-risk pupils. It was perceived that many of the problems with secondary school pupils are ones that had not been addressed earlier at primary school and that early intervention was critical to solving pupils’ problems: “once things started to go wrong with a child it was often late and difficult to intervene”. We heard that a possible reason for the high level of exclusions in the borough could be that schools are slow to deal with emerging issues. Early intervention relied on having the necessary information for each child:

“It is difficult to put in place early interventions when the quality of the information coming to the schools, particularly if there’s a lot of changes of schools, may be patchy. In an ideal world each young person would have a complete digital record of assessment data going back to Early Years.”29 The Council provides early support via the Inclusion Programme and its Early Help team. Officers from the Directorate of Families and Children’s Services noted that the Council’s Early Help team has been reorganised to provide a comprehensive system of support pre-exclusion. This support works alongside the school and the family. This programme is targeted at children on a trajectory for potential exclusion, where school-based interventions alone may not be sufficient to enable change. The Council works with schools to review behaviour policies and to understand how behaviour points were accumulated. Key is to identify those children most at risk in years 7 and 8 to enable most effective prevention. The programme aims to:

• create a collective plan structured by the family (with Early Help and the school) to develop and maintain a strong relationship that creates improved and sustained change. • provide training for teachers/schools to identify and manage trauma in children as it presents in the classroom and offer ideas for the effective prevention of escalation. • help to address the needs of children with social, emotional and mental health issues who have higher levels of exclusion. • help to address the higher levels of trauma in the children’s and parent population following the Grenfell tragedy.

The Council reported that all pupils who participated in the programme have had a reduction in poor behaviour points over the period of engagement on the programme. It has made a positive impact in reducing incidents of poor behaviour which has in turn reduced the overall risk of fixed-term or permanent exclusion for the pupils referred.

28 House of Commons Education Select Committee (2018) Forgotten children: Alternative Provision and the scandal of ever increasing exclusions. 29 Evidence provided to the working group during visit to Latimer AP Academy.

The Council notes that there are, nonetheless, still some gaps in support, especially around mentoring. We heard from schools that support from Early Help had been very good, but recent deficiencies have emerged with perceived lesser attendance from an Early Help team member to school meetings to discuss individual students of concern, and generally being less responsive to enquiries from the school than previously. New rules around parental consent were thought to be a contributing factor to this problem.

6.2 Internal systems: in-school alternatives to exclusion There are several in-school alternatives to exclusion in schools in England. In-school provision can be fully supported by teachers or purposefully designed as ‘isolation’ for pupils, or something in between. Their set-up may respond to an ethos of not giving up on any pupil or they may be used as part of a scale of punishment. The House of Commons Education Select Committee noted that in many cases high quality in- school alternatives can be used to prevent exclusion and provide support to pupils. In- school alternatives will not be the right provision for some pupils and, where they are poorly set up, they can cause damage to pupils and cause more harm than good30. The evidence we heard from a primary school in the use of internal exclusions is that these are sometimes needed “to send a message to parents and other pupils”, and support class teachers. At St Charles Primary school pupils are taken out of class and isolated, but they continue the same curriculum as their classmates under different supervision. And, for the most part, the lesser sanction of detention (over a 15-minute break or up to one hour) is seen as sufficient to deal with pupils’ transgressions. These sanctions are applied for poor behaviour or for not completing homework. We also heard from a secondary school that they had found that their Internal Exclusion Room was more feared by students than the supposedly more severe temporary external exclusion, where they might be left to their own devices. Representatives of community organisations told us that there are many schools using isolation rooms in the borough and that in their view the widespread use of this practice could exacerbate behaviour problems, as it isolated pupils who then found it challenging to reintegrate into the classroom. We also heard from a parent and a representative of a community organisation that, in their experience with both their own child and in supporting excluded children, the Kensington Aldridge Academy’s internal system of ‘School within a School’ was an example of good in-school provision for children.

30 House of Commons Education Select Committee (2018) Forgotten children: Alternative Provision and the scandal of ever increasing exclusions. pg. 27.

We believe that pupils going into internal exclusion need support for their social, emotional or educational needs to break the cycle of challenging behaviours that have led to exclusion.

6.3 Alternative Provision (AP)

Local authorities in England are responsible for arranging suitable education for permanently excluded pupils, and for pupils who for other reasons – such as attendance or medical issues – would not receive suitable education in a mainstream environment. Where a child has received a fixed-term exclusion, schools or their governing bodies are responsible for arranging suitable alternative full-time education from the sixth day of a fixed period exclusion.

Alternative Provision in the borough is provided by Latimer Academy and Golborne Centre. Latimer Academy provides for key stage 3 and 4 pupils who have been permanently excluded from school or who at risk of permanent exclusion and Golborne Centre is a small alternative education provision for children who are temporarily excluded. The Latimer Academy is attended, typically, by around 50 from the borough, but at the time of our visit there were 83 learners; of these, 46 were local and the balance from Hammersmith & Fulham. On a typical day, 15 learners attend the Golborne Centre. Golborne also accommodates the Primary Outreach Team. The Latimer facility is about to be refurbished, financed by the Council. The academy was rated Good by Ofsted in 2017. In its report Ofsted notes that external support provided to the school is highly effective. The school’s conversion to academy status, as part of the Tri-Borough Alternative Provision (TBAP) Trust, has provided a range of successful opportunities to support the continual drive to school improvement. Nevertheless, Ofsted also suggested that Latimer needed to improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment by ensuring that teachers set challenging targets for pupils based on their academic ability, as some pupils do not make strong progress considering their starting points across the curriculum31. The working group heard that when a learner is excluded, Latimer is able to access digital information from the mainstream schools about the pupil, but sometimes the academic and/or safeguarding files from the referring schools do not follow, and Latimer may need Council officers’ assistance to expedite them. When a new pupil is referred to the Academy, its first step is to meet the pupil’s parents. This meeting could be difficult as many parents have negative preconceptions about AP. Parents will often be upset and guarded. The academy follows a trauma-informed practice. Latimer’s aim is to reintegrate at least 30% of the Key Stage 3 excluded (Years 7-9) back into mainstream schools, though learners would always be sent on to a different school from the one from which they had originally been excluded. Reintegration was challenging in the borough’s secondary schools because of their small number. By

31 Ofsted report, Latimer AP Academy, 2017.

Year 11, Latimer Academy believed it was better to keep learners with them to complete GCSEs. We were also told that Latimer Academy currently offers vocational courses (such as painting and decorating, and hair and beauty) as well as academic ones. This kind of applied learning is very popular among their pupils. After-school activities take place on site and are largely academic, as this is the environment in which the learners will do their homework. We also received evidence from community and third sector organisations on AP. We heard that whilst AP was meant to be a temporary measure to prepare a pupil for reintegration into mainstream education, pupils increasingly find themselves in this provision from year 9 upwards and become trapped. Some young people who exhibited challenging behaviours would probably be better supported through well- resourced interventions in their own schools. Others, however, who had suffered adverse childhood experiences would need a specialist package of care involving multiple agencies. Police Safer Schools officers were positive about alternative education in the borough as providers demonstrated a good understanding of children suffering from trauma. However, we were also told that the less structured lessons in AP, and the lack of vocational lessons in mainstream schools, were increasing the difficulties of reintegration and limiting the chances of pupils gaining qualifications while moving between mainstream and AP education. There is general agreement that good alternative provision can be a very positive experience for students32. Yet there are also, at national level, concerns about the quality of some alternative provision. For instance, the Children’s Commissioner for England found that alternative provision can be beneficial to some, and good AP schools can allow children to thrive in ways they may not have done in a mainstream setting. However, some children may not receive an education and experience that meets their needs, for example the quality of teaching or the environment where they are being taught could be poor33. Recognising that a formal AP system is the current model in England, we think that Latimer Academy is an example of good practice in alternative provision. We applaud the efforts of the Latimer Academy to provide a good education to some of our most vulnerable students; and in particular we applaud the inspiring teachers whom we met on our short visit. We note the need for better bridges to be built between AP and secondary schools, so that the moves from one to the other are easier in both directions for children to receive the high quality specialist support they need without prejudice, and for them to be able to ease back into secondary education. We noted the tired physical condition of the building in Freston Road, but welcome RBKC’s investment of £2M in FY20/21 to upgrade it. It is imperative that the renovation

32 Children’s Commissioner in England, Briefing (2017), HoC Education SC (2018) Falling through the gaps, Graham et al.(2017) . 33 Children’s Commissioner in England, Briefing (2017) Falling through the gaps in education.

work at the Alternative Provision Academy proceeds on time and that this work creates an environment that staff and pupils can be proud of.

6.4 Council provision and initiatives in place to reduce exclusion Every local authority is required to have a Fair Access Protocol (FAP) in place, developed in partnership with local schools. The Council complies with the School Admissions Code (that requires local authorities to have a Fair Access Protocol in place) to ensure that access to education is secured quickly for children who have no school place and that all schools in an area admit their fair share of the most vulnerable children, including those whose behaviour has been challenging. All schools and academies must agree, and participate in, the Fair Access Protocol and will be expected to admit children above their published admissions numbers if the school is already full. In addition to its statutory duties, the Council has set up the Vulnerable Children’s Collaborative (VCC). This is a collaboration of services working in partnership to tackle some of the most complex attendance and exclusions cases of children and young people living in Westminster and RBKC. The focus of the VCC is on vulnerable children who are not in receipt of full-time education and require further support to improve their attendance and engagement in their school/education provision. When a child or young person of concern is referred to the VCC by service leads, an appropriate intervention takes place. Once the level of concern has been reduced, each service will continue to provide support to the child or young person beyond the scope of the VCC. To ensure there is enough detailed information readily available, but possessing the ability to respond quickly and efficiently, the process has been transformed into a live and evolving list. The list generates a ‘RAG’ rating (red, amber, green or blue) for each child to capture the level of the child’s engagement with education, to understand which services they have already interacted with, and the support that is available. By establishing a real-time way of recording case updates in the live list, the Operational Group members can share case outcomes and agreed actions in a structured and proactive manner.

6.5 Managed moves and off-rolling A managed move is where a pupil transfers to another school to support the pupil’s emotional, social and behavioural needs and/or reduce the risk of permanent exclusion. All of RBKC’s secondary schools are academies and so the Council does not have ready access to data on managed moves. The Council is not notified in real time of managed moves and, unlike formal exclusions, there is no legal requirement to record the reason a pupil has been removed from a school roll.

Managed moves have been a recent area of focus for the Council, where pupils are referred on a managed move into AP. The Council has been in contact with a number of other Local Authorities, across London and nationally, to learn from their approaches to overseeing managed moves. It has started to explore establishing a multi-agency panel/process that would oversee all entry into AP, including managed moves. The Children’s Commissioner for England notes that a managed move may be a positive outcome that prevents the need for formal exclusion, particularly if it provides a ‘fresh start’ for the child, or some remedial benefit, or if it enables the child to return to mainstream provision at a later date. However, transitions that might be framed as managed moves could also involve an element of coercion: the child leaves their current school under the threat of permanent exclusion if they do not. The distinction between this and a managed move is blurred. In principle, all managed moves should involve consultation and agreement with the parents of the child in question, but the extent to which that is achieved (or even sought) is not recorded in a systematic way34. ‘Off-rolling’ is the practice of removing a pupil from the school roll without using a permanent exclusion, when the removal is primarily in the best interests of the school, rather than the best interests of the pupil. This includes pressuring a parent to remove their child from the school roll. While there is confusion as to what off-rolling is, and it may not always be unlawful, we welcome Ofsted’s statement that off-rolling is never acceptable and that under its new framework inspectors will explore the reasons for pupils leaving the roll, and that any schools that are off-rolling are likely to be judged inadequate for leadership and management. Council officers have confirmed with the working party and with the DfE that there is no evidence of off-rolling in Kensington and Chelsea.

7. Impact of exclusions on children and families Parents whose children had been excluded, and community organisations supporting vulnerable children excluded, provided us with evidence of exclusions having a negative impact on families and children. Parents reported an impact on the mental and emotional wellbeing of their children, with exclusions having severe knock-on effects on children’s confidence, as well as damage being inflicted on children’s future opportunities. For instance, one parent reported that the experience had severely damaged her son’s confidence. Although his mood had somewhat improved when he was finally able to re-join school, we heard that this child was ‘walking with his head down, and still depressed’. Exclusions were described as a ‘devastating and exhausting experience’ for the whole family. The following statements were common of what parents told us:

34 Children’s Commissioner in England, Briefing (2017) Falling through the gaps in education.

“[my son] wouldn’t leave the house out of embarrassment and shame, despite the assurance of friends from school that they would support him. He does not take care of himself now.”35

“You become a non-child, it had such an effect on my daughter, she didn’t exist, and she couldn’t understand why, all her friends were at school….”36 Community organisations supporting children excluded and Council officers concurred that experiencing school exclusions could be a life-altering event, potentially contributing to limit children’s life chances. We heard that the consequences of exclusion for affected children ranged from confidence lost, feelings of shame, parents feeling unable to cope, family resilience severely tested and restricted opportunities for children. The negative impact of exclusions on children and parents who had suffered it is reported by Edward Timpson in his review of school exclusions:

“Parents also spoke about the impact of exclusion on the whole family, with one parent writing to say “the parent/carer ends up being the one ‘doing the time’”. Parents described emotional strain of representing their child, as one mother wrote: “I had to fight for the bare minimum […] I ran myself ragged”.37 The majority of the evidence received pointed to exclusions having negative consequences. Yet we are mindful that we did not have direct access to children’s voices and views of their lived experiences. We do not know therefore about the nuances and differences in their perspectives from that of their parents. We are aware that the review of qualitative evidence concerning the subjective views and experiences of children in England between 2007 to 201738, commissioned to Coram by the Children’s Commissioner in England, points to a range and diversity of reported children’s experiences of the different practices and institutions involved in the exclusion; often children spoke positively of their time at an AP institution.

8. Working Group Conclusions Early Help • Schools and responsible partners should have an opportunity to identify young people’s needs at an early stage. There should be an effective transfer of information/data about each potentially vulnerable young person from their primary school to the new secondary school, particularly if the primary school is outside the borough. Ideally each young person would have a complete and

35 Evidence provided by Parent 1, oral evidence drop-in session, 4 March 2020. 36 Evidence provided by Parent 2, oral evidence drop-in session, 4 March 2020. 37 Timpson Review of School Exclusions, 2019, pg. 24. 38 Children’s Commissioner in England, Briefing (2017) Children’s Voices. A review of evidence on the subjective wellbeing of children excluded from school and in alternative provision in England

consistently applied digital record of assessment data going back to Early Years (EY). • As a matter of best practice schools and responsible partners should have a toolset of effective interventions for young people at risk of exclusion. The working group noted that the Council’s inclusion programme offers a team that can assist the family, Early Help and the school create a collective plan to support a child at risk of exclusion.

Special Education Needs • There is a need for more effective early identification of special needs so that the necessary interventions and resources for a required support package can be put in place in a timely fashion to support children through their education journeys. • Early identification should be taking place in EY settings and Reception classes. Data and information should be accurately recorded, and evidence systematically gathered. There should be a smooth handover of information from class to class and school to school. A digital passport should be trialled. • To ensure that the above takes place across all the borough’s schools and EY provision, the working group considers that the Council might conduct an audit to assess what training and therapies in nursery and primary are available to staff to ensure they are able to identify special needs in a timely fashion. It would also be helpful for the Council to set out what its budget is for funding therapies (such as Speech and Language Therapy, Occupational Therapy psychotherapy etc) and what demand there has been of these services, as Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) could benefit from increased transparency of what support and funding the Council is able to provide on an on-going basis. An exchange of expertise from the TBAP Academy and therapeutic schools such as Anna Freud to a pilot group of primaries and secondaries to support staff would be useful to deepen their understanding and skill sets in working with children and young people with SEN; such an exchange is something the Council might be able to facilitate. • Some children responded well to the methods used by Kidz on the Green and perhaps some of their working methods could be used for some children with SEN.

Alternative Provision • It is imperative that the renovation work at the Alternative Provision Academy proceeds on time and that this work creates an environment that staff and pupils can be proud of.

Managed Moves • There is a need to track the practice of managed moves. Some parents felt that decisions had been made without consultation with them and that they had been coerced into accepting the moves.

Mental Health • Schools should have a better understanding of mental health and respond to children with mental health issues positively and creatively, perhaps offering spaces within the school environment for children to “take time out” if needed.

Children and Families • Children and their parents need to be empowered to advocate for themselves and, in some cases, trust needs to be built between them and their schools. • The working group was struck by the potential benefits of basing a family support worker (including emotional literacy support) at each secondary school to bridge the relationship between parents and the school.

9. Working Group Recommendations The working group’s Recommendations fall into two broad categories: those which seek to improve the exclusion system, by examining how much more can be done within mainstream schools before the bar is crossed to formal exclusion, or improving the experience of AP (R1 and R6); and those which seek to address the causes of exclusion by suggesting areas for potential improvements to the support for young people in specific aspects (R2, R3, R4, R5 and R7). All of these require further work. R1 is a potential framework for the Terms of Reference of the next Exclusions Working Group. The remaining recommendations are for the Lead Member, but some of these could also be the themes for future working groups. Future review R 1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee should plan for this theme to be examined again soon by a future Select Committee working group over a full Council year. This review should focus on secondary education only, and explore how much more, if anything, could be done within the mainstream schools to raise the bar before temporary or permanent exclusion is invoked; how the TBAP specialists could support this approach through outreach; what, if any, extra costs might be involved in this approach; why AP is the only option on exclusion; and how a dedicated post-14 vocational pathway for those students who would be better suited to that kind of career development could be created. Early Help R 2 The Lead Member for Children and Family Services should ensure that the recommendations from this report should be taken forward for discussion and agreement by the working group currently developing the borough’s new Inclusion Strategy, which will be published in the autumn. A future report to the Family Services Select Committee within six months of the adoption of the Inclusion Strategy on how the programme could be strengthened to increase the effectiveness of its work with young people, parents and secondary schools is also recommended. R 3 The Lead Member for Families and Children’s Services should examine the practicalities and resource implications of creating a complete digital record of a child’s assessment data from Early Years so that this can be transferred whenever a child moves schools to ensure that important information is not lost, and should report his findings to the Family and Children’s Services Select Committee within six months of this report’s adoption. Children and Families R 4 The Lead Member for Families and Children’s Services should examine the practicality and resource implications of basing a family support worker (including emotional literacy support) at each secondary school to bridge the relationship between parents and the school, and should report his findings to the Family and Children’s Services Select Committee within six months of this report’s adoption

Special Education Needs R 5 The Lead Member for Families and Children’s Services should examine the suggestions on SEN in the Conclusion of this report and to report back to the Family Services Select Committee within six months of this report’s adoption on what is possible. Alternative Provision R 6 The Lead Member for Families and Children’s Services should report progress with the refurbishment of the Latimer Alternative Provision Academy site to the Family Services Select Committee at its first meeting of 2021/22. BAME and boys of Afro/Caribbean background R 7 The Lead Member for Families and Children’s Services should set out within six months of this report’s adoption his assessment of why there is over-representation of boys with Afro-Caribbean heritage in the pool of those who are excluded; how he will begin to address this situation; and what training might be undertaken within secondary schools to improve teachers’ understanding of how unconscious bias plays out in the classroom and to improve cultural competency and understanding of cultural behaviours.

10. Acknowledgments The Working Group Members would like to thank the Council officers who supported our meetings and drafted our report, the staff of the three schools visited who gave up their time to host us, the expert witnesses who provided invaluable insights at our round table discussion, and the families who shared their personal experiences in response to our call for evidence.

Councillor Gregory Hammond (Working Group Lead) Richard Derecki (Co-opted Member) Councillor Linda Wade Karen Wyatt (Co-opted Member)

The Royal Borough of

Kensington and

Chelsea

Family and Children’s Service Select Committee

Members Information

Pack

January 2020

PERMANENT AND FIXED TERM EXCLUSIONS IN KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (2013-2019)

At the Family and Children’s Services Select Committee on 17 October 2019 Members requested the following datasets:

• The last five years of exclusions o both permanent and fixed term for primary and secondary schools broken down by school, gender, age and reasons for exclusions o background information on National and inner London performance o a direct comparison with Westminster City Council • Independent Exclusions Reviews • Information on managed moves

1. Headlines Permanent exclusions A permanent exclusion refers to a pupil who is excluded and who will not come back to that school (unless the exclusion is overturned).

The number and rate of permanent exclusions in Kensington and Chelsea has slightly decreased since last year but is expected to be above National and Regional rates, although there is no published data for 2019 at present. 1

1 The DfE are expected to published National and Regional exclusions data c. March 2020

• Over half of all permanent (11) exclusions occur in national curriculum Year 9 (age 13 and 14) or above. • Approximately three quarters of all permanent exclusions are for boys (14 boys and 5 girls). • The school with the highest number of permanent exclusions in 2018/19 is Chelsea Academy (with six exclusions). • The main reasons for exclusion were Other2 (7) and Persistent Disruptive Behaviour (6).

Permanent exclusions in RBKC schools by residency

2017/18 2018/19

80.0% 75.0% 70.0% 60.0% 55.6% 50.0% 44.4% 40.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% RBKC resident Other LA resident SEN Support pupils

2017/18 2018/19 SEN RBKC SEN RBKC Not SEN Not SEN Support Total Support Total RBKC RBKC resident 75.0% 14.3% 36.4% 55.6% 10.0% 31.6% schools Other LA resident 25.0% 85.7% 63.6% 44.4% 90.0% 68.4%

2017/18 2018/19 SEN RBKC SEN RBKC Not SEN Not SEN Support Total Support Total RBKC RBKC resident 6 2 8 5 1 6 schools Other LA resident 2 12 14 4 9 13

2 Other is a valid code and is used when reason does not fit the other categories.

Fixed term exclusions Fixed term exclusion refers to a pupil who is excluded from a school for a set period of time. A fixed term exclusion can involve a part of the school day and does not have to be for a continuous period. A pupil may be excluded for one or more fixed periods up to maximum of 45 school days in a single academic year. A pupil may receive more than one fixed term exclusion, so pupils with repeat exclusions can inflate fixed term exclusions rates.

The number of fixed term exclusions has increased from 862 in 2017/18 to 953 in 2018/19. Locally the rate of fixed-term exclusions is above the National and Inner London rates.

The increase in fixed term exclusions has been driven by more pupils having repeated exclusions.

Fixed term exclusions by age

The 13-year olds had the most exclusions (219, 23%) within that age group. The school with the highest number of fixed term exclusions in 2018/19 is Kensington Aldridge Academy with total of 272 exclusions (89 exclusions for 13-year olds) closely followed by Chelsea Academy with total of 204 (72 of which were for pupils age 13). 67 percent of all fixed term exclusions are for male pupils.

Fixed Term Exclusions for 13 year olds in RBKC by school 2018/19

100 89 90

80 72 70 60 50 40 28 30 20 12 11 10 4 3 0 Kensington Chelsea Academy Holland Park Sion-Manning RC Saint Thomas Cardinal Vaughan Latimer Ap Aldridge Academy School Girls' School More Language Memorial RC Academy College School

Fixed Term Exclusions by gender and type of school 2018/19

Girls Boys

600 523 500

400

295 300

200

100 68 53 7 6 1 0 0 AP/PRU schools Primary schools Secondary schools Special schools

• The main reasons for fixed term exclusions were ‘Other’ and ‘Physical assault against a pupil’ followed by ‘Persistent disruptive Behaviour’ and ‘Verbal abuse against an adult’.

Fixed term exclusions by SEN group

• The fixed term exclusion rate and the Pupils with 1+ Fixed term exclusion rate has decreased for SEN Support pupils in RBKC Primary schools in 2018/19 compared to 2017/18 • The EHCP cohort in Primary school exclusions is extremely small • RBKC 2018/19 rates in Primary schools are below National and Inner London 2017/18 rates however this is not the case in Secondary schools

SEN Fixed Term Exclusion rates in RBKC by type of school

2017/18 2018/19

7.00 6.19 6.30 6.00 5.00 3.81 4.00 3.00 2.42 2.00 1.00 0.00 SEN Support EHCP Primary schools

Kensington & Chelsea schools Pupils with 1+ Fixed term Fixed term exclusion rate exclusion rate 2017/18 2018/19 2017/18 2018/19 Primary SEN Support 6.19 3.81 2.29 1.79 schools EHCP 2.42 6.30 1.45 2.36

Secondary SEN Support 30.09 35.44 15.64 17.72 schools EHCP 32.81 43.66 16.41 16.2

Primary schools - SEN Fixed Term Exclusion rates in RBKC against Inner London and National

SEN Support EHCP

16.00 13.44 12.00

8.00 6.3 6.5 7.07 3.81 4.16 4.00

0.00 RBKC Inner London National 2018/19 2017/18

Pupils with one or more Fixed term Fixed term exclusion rate exclusion rate Inner Inner RBKC England RBKC England London London 2018/19 2017/18 2018/19 2017/18 SEN Support 3.81 4.16 7.07 1.79 2.01 2.91 Primary schools EHCP 6.3 6.50 13.44 2.36 2.95 5.32

SEN Support 35.44 22.39 28.47 17.72 11.59 11.41 Secondary schools EHCP 43.66 21.29 28.19 16.2 10.54 11.43

Independent Exclusions Reviews Parents (and pupils if aged over 18) are able to request a review of permanent exclusion. An independent review panel’s role is to review the decision of the governing body not to reinstate a permanently excluded pupil. The panel must consider the interests and circumstances of the excluded pupil, including the circumstances in which the pupil was excluded and have 2 regard to the interests of other pupils and people working at the school.

In 2017/18 five reviews took place in Kensington and Chelsea, of which none resulted in an offer of reinstatement. This position is in line with that in Westminster.

Total number of independent reviews against permanent exclusions in school year (2014-2018) 7

0 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

RBKC WCC

2. Accompanying tables

The following tables are available in Excel and are attached:

• Permanent exclusions by type of school, gender, age and reasons 2015- 2019 (incl. rates of permanent exclusion) link to Permanent Exclusions 2015-19 file • Fixed Term exclusions by type of school, gender, age and reasons 2015-2019 (incl. length and number of fixed period exclusions) link to Fixed Term Exclusions 2015-19 file • Total number of independent reviews against permanent exclusions lodged and determined in school year 2014-2018

Number of Independent reviews 2013-2018

3. Managed moves

A managed move is where a pupil transfers to another school to support the pupil’s emotional, social and behavioural needs and/or reduce the risk of the permanent exclusion. Currently we do not hold data on numbers of managed moves. The council is not notified in real time of managed moves and unlike formal exclusions, there is no requirement to record the reason a pupil has been removed from a school roll. In RBKC this has been a recent area of focus, where pupils are referred on a managed move into Alternative Provision (AP). We have been in contact with a number of other Local Authorities, across London and nationally, to learn from their approaches to managing/overseeing managed moves. We have started to explore establishing a multi- agency panel/process that would oversee all entry into AP, including managed moves.

4. Strategies to reduce exclusions Vulnerable Children’s Collaborative (VCC) The Bi-Borough Children’s Services VCC is a collaboration of services working in partnership to tackle some of the most complex attendance and exclusions cases of children and young people living in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. The focus of the VCC is on vulnerable children that are not in receipt of full-time education and require further support to improve their attendance and engagement in their school/ education provision. The VCC enhances the support that is provided by services and enables greater collaboration between them, it is a platform to unpick complex / pressing attendance and exclusions cases which are impacting the outcomes for vulnerable children. How the VCC works A child or young person of concern is referred to the VCC by service leads and the appropriate intervention takes place. Once the level of concern has been reduced, each service will continue to provide support to the child or young person beyond the scope of the VCC. To ensure there is enough detailed information readily available but possessing the ability to respond quickly and efficiently the process has been transformed into a live and evolving list. The list generates a ‘RAG’ rating (red, amber, green or blue) for each child to capture the level of the child’s engagement with education, to understand which services they have already interacted with and the support that is available. By establishing a real-time way of recording case updates in the live list, the Operational Group members can share case outcomes and agreed actions in a structured and proactive manner. Review The top 3 areas of strength were; 1. Facilitated a better shared understanding of other services allowing for valuable discussions and agreed actions to occur on how to move cases forward effectively 2. Improved outcomes for vulnerable children 3. Discussions have enabled professionals to identify key issues and emerging themes that impact vulnerable children and young people, such as mental health and wellbeing The top 3 areas for development that were identified are; 1. To have full engagement and attendance at the VCC Operational Group meetings to help further the effectiveness of joint working 2. To continue to improve the processes around updating information on the cohort of children and young people 3. To influence decisions around commissioning and wider Children’s Services planning- looking for bespoke measures where possible to meet individual children’s needs

VCC RAG rating • Red - The child or young person has additional concerns and vulnerabilities, and/or the family are not engaging and/or there is no named school place or education provision • Amber - Attendance is a concern being addressed by an allocated worker and progress is being made- it is no longer a stuck case • Green - Plans are in place to support attendance, where attendance is improving but still not satisfactory • Blue - Those who are transitioning from year 11 or above and not in education, employment or training (NEET)

RBKC Vulnerable Children - October 2018 to June 2019

Red Amber Green Blue

90 81 81 82 83 83 80 68 70 64 60 60 56 51 50 50 40 33 30 23 21 22 20 22 22

Number of of children Number 20

10 2 2 2 2 4 4 0 Oct 2018 Nov 2018 Dec 2018 Jan 2019 Feb 2019 Mar 2019 Apr 2019 May 2019 Jun 2019 Time period

The graph above shows a snapshot of the changes that were seen within the RAG rating of the cohort at various junctures within RBKC over the past year. In October 2018, the cohort of ‘RAG’ rated children in RBKC was 124. During the months of October 2018- February 2019, a change in the size of the cohort was due to the strengthening of the attendance threshold on which children and young people are referred to the VCC. • Of the 21 children and young people RAG rated ‘red’ in October 2018, 3 were moved to ‘amber’ and 3 were closed. • Of the 33 rated ‘amber’ in October 2018, 6 went to ‘green’ and 11 became ‘red’. • Out of the 68 rated ‘green’ in October 2018, 64 remained ‘green’, whilst 2 went to ‘red’.

Inclusion Programme The Inclusion programme was developed in 2019 following a considerable rise nationally and locally in permanent and fixed term exclusions over the previous two academic years. Data analysis has shown that some groups of children are more likely to be excluded (SEN, CIN, FSM and BAME boys). The exclusions data has also been used to help identify the needs of individual schools to support them in successfully targeting and reducing exclusions. Work is undertaken for at least 6 months, with a 3-6-month post closure review to ensure change in behaviour has been embedded. The programme offers

• A team around the family approach • access to evidence-based (Systemic Therapy, Non-Violence Resistance Therapy) and parenting programmes for the family • training for teachers/schools to help identify drivers of difficult/disengaged behaviours Aims

• a collective plan structured by the family (with Early Help and the school) to develop and maintain a strong relationship that creates improved and sustained change. • Provide training for teachers/schools to identify and manage trauma in children as it presents in the classroom and offer ideas for the effective prevention of escalation. • Helping to address the needs of children with social, emotional and mental health issues who have higher levels of exclusion • Helping to address the higher levels of trauma in the children’s and parent population following the Grenfell tragedy. The main parameters for eligibility to the programme are that the family should be RBKC residents and the child is on a trajectory for potential exclusion where school-based interventions alone may not be sufficient to enable change. Key is to identify those children most at risk in year 7 and 8 to enable most effective prevention. Outcomes In order to implement the programme, the Council worked with schools to review behaviour polices and to understand how behaviour points were accumulated. These points could then be used to create baselines for reporting.

Behaviour Points of Pupils on Programme over time

Pupil 1 Pupil 2 Pupil 3 Pupil 4 Pupil 5 Pupil 6

150 145 135

120 115 109 105 108 98 98 89 90 90 80 75 75 78

Behaviour Points Behaviour 72 75 60 65 60 60

45 42 40 30 At Referral After TAF 1 After TAF 2 Meeting

The graph above shows the pupils that were open at the end of the Summer term. All pupils have had a reduction in behaviour points over the period of engagement on the programme. Evaluation and next steps The council has made a positive impact in reducing incidents of poor behaviour which has in turn reduced the overall risk of fixed term or permanent exclusion for the pupils referred. Schools have commented that the easier access to Golborne Education Centre for pupils on this programme has helped in delivering timely support, which has allowed five cases to close from the period of January to July. Although the programme works with resident pupils, some schools have a larger proportion of out of borough residents. Clear referral pathways are in place for WCC residents and so the focus will be on ensuring that vulnerable pupils who reside outside of the Bi-Borough do not fall through the gap in terms of access to services. The programme will address this through

• a more joined up approach in the identification and referrals to the inclusion programme • brokering services for pupil’s resident outside the Bi-Borough to ensure that there is access to the support needed • Schools also have access to the Statutory School Attendance Manager for case consultations

The next steps for the Inclusion programme

• Developing systems to better capture data and measure progress/impact. • Schools will be offered a link practitioner to support with reintegration meetings • Roll out trauma informed training and ongoing support to schools. • Whole school approach to promote awareness and understanding of the Inclusion Programme • Develop clear feedback loop for schools to communicate with Early Help Practitioner, in the first instance, if there are changes to the circumstances or needs for a pupil referred onto the Inclusion Programme. • Evaluating the interventions that have been provided to the family and enabling schools to have an input into this • Work with schools to develop pathways to engage resistant parents. • Further development of a clear Provision Map for all identified groups of pupils.