Agenda item

SH asked Forum members to note the two papers relating to this item. The Cabinet report on the DSG is for information and is a public document after having been to Cabinet and the Council.  In previous years, the DSG budget was a paragraph or an appendix to the Council’s main budget paper; this year, following best practices across other local authorities, a standalone DSG report was created for Cabinet approval. 

JR commented that there was a lot of detail and transparency in the report around the Central School  Services block and the early year's block, but this was not so for the high needs block. SH confirmed that the primary purpose of report was to get political ratification for schools block allocation, which is required for submission of the APT, and hence that was why there was greater detail on this.  JC suggested that JR’s concern was whether the issues with High Needs are being highlighted to Councillors.  NH confirmed he was happy to share the same level of detail on High Needs as with other budgets when it went to the Finance Board and then to Cabinet.  NH also noted the DSG paper had been covered quickly at Cabinet, with relatively little direct questioning and an acceptance that this had been provided by Schools Forum. . But they weren't challenging the decision. JC thanked NH and SH, noting that Forum members would welcome the greater level of transparency.

SH explained the changes to the APT that had happened since the previous Forum meeting in January. Following the January Forum meeting, the APT was completed with the assumption that the NNDR would be included in the APT in normal way with an allocation to the schools. DfE subsequently requested two adjustments.  The first involved an adjustment of £112k to reflect the changes to the NNDR arrangements; the second change of £27k was connected to a change in the inflation allowance within payments on PFI. 

Therefore, we made those 2 changes as advised by the DfE. We also managed to sign up for the direct payments. So going forward there will not be a difference that has to be allocated to mainstream schools to make up for any changes in the NDDR rates. So we are protected going forward. I think at the moment that saved us something like £60,000 for this year.

The reported headroom in January was £623k. Following allocations to the NNDR and to the PFI payments, and the consequent adjustments to the minimum funding guarantee, the final headroom figure was £484k which was allocated through basic funding (AWPU).

In January the 0.5% transfer to the High Needs Block was approved, with the caveat that if required, part of this 0.5%  could be directed to the CSSB as had happened for the previous 2 years.  SH confirmed that this transfer was proved necessary, so that £100k of the 0.5% block transfer was directed to the CSSB, with the remainder to the High Needs block.

The Chair thanked SH and again noted that the greater degree of transparency and detail was welcome.

MW asked whether the LA had raised the question of the split site criteria with DfE. NH advised that the LA had gone back to the DfE and asked for clarification about what constitutes the educational use of a second site. DfE had confirmed that they have received an application from a local school for an additional site, and approved the application.  The LA had also approached the school as well, and had received presumably the same information that had been provided to the DfE. The Chair thanked MW for raising the issues, noting that there were concerns expressed over whether the additional sites for which funding was received met the criteria.