This is an opportunity for Members of Council to ask the Mayor, Members of the Executive or the Chairman of any Committee or Sub-Committee a question on notice under Procedure Rule 10.2.

The Mayor reported that 6 questions had been received under Procedure Rule 10.2.

 

(a)        Councillor Bennett asked the following question for which she had given notice:

 

“Can the Executive Member please explain the extremely poor performance of the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) section within the Children, Families and Wellbeing Directorate. This is evidenced by the fact that, by the Statutory deadline of 15 February 2016, only 30% of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) for children transitioning from primary to secondary school had been completed (this equates to 32 out of 107 children).

 

For teenagers transitioning to Adult Services and further education from Children’s Services in September 2016 and who require an EHCP, none had been completed by the Statutory deadline of 31 March (0 out of 144). Can the Executive Member explain why this has happened, particularly when the Council prides itself on being a Champion Pathfinder Council for the Children and Families Act 2014?”

 

Councillor Hyman, Executive Member for Children’s Services acknowledged that the question raised an important matter and provided a full response covering all the significant points.

 

Although it was disappointing that not all year 6 pupils had their plans completed by the statutory deadline it was by no means just a Trafford issue.  The Department for Education (DfE) was made aware of the delays in issuing final ECH Plans and as a result of their guidance a letter was sent to parents and guardians of Year 6 pupils stating the special school or mainstream secondary school that Trafford was proposing to name in the EHC Plan to help parents plan for their child’s transfer to secondary school.

 

In addition to the Year 6 and Year 11 transfers the Team also had to undertake, for the first time, Year 2 EHC assessments and plans for pupils leaving an infant school at key stage 1 to go to a junior school.  Also for the first time Year 9 pupils were transferred from statements to ECH Plans. The volume of new work, however, was not the only reason for delays.

 

The EHC assessment and transfer process was still in the implementation stage and as such processes were continually being refined as a result of feedback from parents and DfE guidance.  As a result of the changes and the imperative to involve children and their families in the co-production of Plans the EHC Co-ordinator role had changed significantly. The EHC Team experienced a shortage of experienced staff and carried several vacancies during the spring term which was a critical time for meeting the statutory deadlines.

 

The issues and potential impact were identified and a series of measures were implemented to improve performance through the appointment of a new EHC Manager who started on 1st April.  All the vacant posts had now been filled and there would be a full staff team from September 2016.

 

The Local Area SEND Board, accountable to Trafford’s Health and Wellbeing Board, had been established to provide strategic direction and leadership for monitoring and quality assuring the local area’s effectiveness in identifying and meeting the needs of children and young people who have special educational needs and/or disabilities.

 

In respect of teenagers transitioning, there was a national issue for all Local Authorities in completing Year 11 – Year 14 Plans as colleges and other sixth form providers often depend upon a student’s GCSE results, their own or other external assessments before offering a place, which was more often than not after the 31 March deadline.  As a result the college or 6th form provider could only give a conditional offer but conditional offers could not be named in the Final Plan in line with the statutory guidance. The Council is considering the options, in consultation with providers.

 

There was also the additional complication of not knowing whether Trafford College was going to be offering Supported Learning provision from September 2016 and as a result, more work was needed with families and young people to look at alternative provision in other further education colleges. The Team also needed to work with Trafford College in identifying which of their existing learners would need to move to other provision as the College were not offering a second year for some students. It is expected that this would not be an issue next year.

 

Finally, there would also be a small number of young people who were applying for apprenticeships or work based learning provision. Applications to work based were always later than to colleges and so it was unlikely that a provider could be named by the end of March and the EHC Plan finalised.

 

In asking a supplementary question, Councillor Bennett commented upon the Council’s performance in comparison to other authorities and queried, since management was aware of the issues and, as there was a Council budget underspend for 2015/16, why remedial action was not taken earlier and wondered what the Executive Member felt was more important, the welfare of vulnerable families or the budget?

 

Councillor Hyman indicated that he had attempted to provide a full and detailed response to the initial question and that as he had mentioned, measures had been taken so that hopefully this would not happen again in the future.

 

(b)        Councillor Duffield asked the following question for which she had given notice:

 

“How many prosecutions have there been for fly-tipping in Trafford in the last 12 months. Why has the post of Community Engagement Officer been vacant at Amey since the start of the One Trafford Contract?”

 

 

Councillor John Reilly, Executive Member for Economic Growth, Environment and Infrastructure responded advising that the Council had not taken any prosecutions for fly-tipping in the last 12 months. There were a range of actions that could be taken, ranging from advice and education through to prosecution in the Magistrates Court. Generally prosecution was reserved for more serious, large scale or commercially linked cases and successful prosecution relied on there being sufficient evidence to identify the perpetrator.

 

In the last 12 months, 13 £75 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) had been issued, however, recent changes in the law meant that the Council could now issue £200 FPNs. The new £200 FPNs had only been available in the last few weeks and so far 3 had been issued.

 

In total, 16 FPNs had been issued and many more minor matters had been dealt with by way of warning or advice in line with the Council’s effective ‘Be Responsible’ campaign that was positively promoting environmental awareness and behaviour change across the Borough. Councillor John Reilly reported a 41% reduction in fly-tipping in Clifford Ward for which the Council had received a national award, with another similar award expected.

 

Councillor Duffield, asked if the Executive Member had a response on the matter of the Community Engagement Officer and he reported that the One Trafford Partnership had attempted to recruit to this position on 3 separate occasions since 2015 with all 3 candidates turning down the offer of the job. A number of alternative ways of delivering this function were being considered with an aim of being in place by September 2016.

 

(c)        Councillor Andrew Western asked the following question for which he had given notice:

 

“Could the Executive Member please set out the reasons why this Council was placed on the Freedom of Information (FOI) monitoring list in May 2016; what percentage of FOI's were not responded to on time in the three months prior to May and what the causes of these unacceptable delays were?”

 

Councillor Williams, Deputy Leader of the Council reported that the Information Commission’s Office (ICO) had identified a number of cases not being responded to within the statutory time limit of 20 working days and as a consequence were reviewing the timeliness of responses between 1 May and 31 July 2016. Performance in the period was February 71% within 20 working days, March 71% and April 73%.

 

The Council received a large number of requests and these had increased year on year, with a large number of requests from businesses for commercial opportunities and others from research companies which were time consuming. The Council had been working to meet the requirements for some time but had fallen short for a number of reasons such as competing workload, staff absences and the need for better overall corporate capacity and co-ordination.  

 

To address the issue an Information Governance team was established and new systems had been put in place. Submitting statistics for May 2016 the Council was able to report a response rate of 89% a significant improvement compared to previous months and above the ICO target figure of 85%. The figures for June were set to be submitted and show a similar level of performance. 

 

Recognising it was a legal requirement to respond, as a supplementary question Councillor Andrew Western asked what message the Executive Member thought it gave to those not receiving a response?

 

Councillor Williams assured Members that the Council did care and he was personally committed to openness and transparency. The level of performance had been recognised and actions had been put in place.

 

(d)        Councillor Lally asked the following question for which he had given notice:

 

“I am sure all Councillors from across the chamber will agree with me that at this time of year our inboxes are swelled by parents raising issues around school admissions. Having experienced the admission to the primary school process twice in the last few years I can appreciate the anxiety of those parents looking and wanting the best for their children.

 

Our School Admissions team work extremely hard to ensure all parents or guardians are satisfied with their allocation. However with greater demands from parents and over subscription of numerous schools the task is a difficult one; if not impossible.

 

I would like to ask the Executive Member for Children's Services how he feels the process has gone this year? How many parents challenged the original placement given to them in the first round of allocation? And at this time how many children across Trafford remain on the waiting list looking for an alternative?” 

 

In response, Councillor Hyman, Executive Member for Children’s Services believed that the School Admissions process for the primary reception intake had gone well the last year. All 3,001 applications from Trafford residents received by the statutory deadline of the 15 January 2016 resulted in the allocation of a place on the 16 April 2016, the statutory national offer date for primary school places. 85% of children were offered a place at their first preference school. In addition, 63 late applications from Trafford residents received by the 15 April 2016 were also allocated a school place.

 

The allocation letter advised parents of their right of appeal to an Independent Appeals Panel and also on how to apply for any vacancies.  There had been a total of 187 appeals lodged, 127 appeals for Community Schools, 44 appeals for Voluntary-Aided Schools and 16 appeals for Academies. This represented 0.06% of the total number of places offered in April. In addition 272 applications were received from non-Trafford residents of which 114 were allocated a place in accordance with the statutory guidance. 

 

The School Admissions Team had met all statutory deadlines. The application submission deadline of 15 January 2017 and national offer day of 16 April 2017 are statutory dates set by the Department for Education and cannot be changed. The popularity of Trafford Schools places an additional pressure on the School Admissions Team as the most popular schools are oversubscribed and also attract applications from non-Trafford residents. Trafford’s strong transport links, job opportunities and excellent education continued to place demands on school places across the Borough.

 

Following a review of vacancies 97 places were offered to parents on 22 July.  There were only 4 pupils who had not yet been offered a school place and the Admissions team was confident that all four pupils would be offered a place at the beginning of September, once responses to the latest offers had been received.

 

As a supplementary question, Councillor Lally asked Councillor Hyman for an explanation of the procedure following on from the allocation process should a pupil not take up the place offered.

 

The Executive Member advised that the Admissions Team work hard to ensure that parents have all the information they need to support them and encourage parents to apply for a place in their catchment area. Parents are helped to secure a school place whilst at the same time stating their preferred school, however, it can mean that some accept a school place whilst also being placed on their preferred school’s waiting list, with some on several waiting lists. In addition to the published advice and guidance the Admissions Team was available to answer telephone, postal and email queries to help and support parents.

 

(e)        Councillor Mrs. Brophy asked the following question, the first of two for which she had given notice:

 

“Please would the Executive Member give details on why our Trafford targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to combat climate change are much lower than all other Boroughs in Greater Manchester?”

 

Councillor John Reilly, Executive Member for Economic Growth, Environment and Infrastructure advised that the Carbon Budget in the Sustainable Trafford Strategy 2013-2020 identified a carbon emissions reduction target for Trafford for 2020 of 29% over the 1990 baseline. The target was lower than the Greater Manchester target of 48% because it was set according to a local evidence base for Trafford. Trafford was signed up as a Greater Manchester authority to support the delivery of the overall carbon emissions reduction target of 48% by 2020, however, it was recognised that some districts would be able to do more than others depending on their individual circumstances. The target would not be achieved in Trafford due to the industrial influence of Trafford Park.

 

Councillor Mrs. Brophy, asked as a supplementary question if more could be done in Trafford by imaginative methods to make people aware of climate change and the effect of carbon dioxide emissions which could lead to a higher target?

 

The Executive Member informed the Council that Councillor Mrs. Brophy had received information from officers on this matter previously and that initiatives had been organised and would continue to be, across Greater Manchester. Although attempts were being made, a briefing session for Members at Trafford Town Hall last November and a similar consultation event held in central Manchester in March 2016, were poorly attended.

 

(f)         Councillor Mrs. Brophy asked the following question, the second of two for which she had given notice:

 

“Please would the Executive Member offer an explanation as to why Amey services (ground maintenance providers) have been struggling to keep up with requests to cut hedges, trim grass and maintain the visual appearance of the green areas in our borough?”

 

The Executive Member for Economic Growth, Environment and Infrastructure, Councillor John Reilly reported that the One Trafford Partnership had acknowledged that in some cases, the standard of ground maintenance care had not been to the high standard that the partnership strived for and that this was being addressed by the partnership management team. The partnership had experienced challenges with both the equipment used and ensuring consistency in the quality of work which led to some grass verges not receiving the appropriate frequency of cut and in some situations a poor quality of cut. The partnership had been further hampered by a wet start to the summer season with some areas too wet for mowers to access and if they had attempted to cut would have caused long term damage. A review of the equipment in use had been carried out and all new plant will be ‘fit for purpose’.

 

The partnership also acknowledged that it should have communicated the timescale for hedge cutting so that Members and residents were aware that the operation could not commence until the bird nesting period was over. The season was now complete and the partnership had commenced its hedge cutting programme.

 

Referring to the other services Amey was responsible for, Councillor Mrs. Brophy asked as a supplementary question if there were plans to review these areas and how the partnership was working for the residents of Trafford?

 

Councillor John Reilly confirmed that a contract operational review had been undertaken for the first year and that if Councillor Mrs. Brophy had a ward specific issue the management team would be happy to meet with her to discuss.