County Hall
Martineau Lane
Norwich
NR1 2DL
Minicom: (01603) 223833
Matthew Rathbone
15 October
2003 (01603)
222483
matthew.rathbone@norfolk.gov.uk
Headteacher and
Chair of Governors of all schools
potentially
within the Norfolk Schools PFI project
You will recall that there
is a special meeting of the NCC Cabinet next week (Wednesday 22 October) at
which the issue of schools to be included in the final project will be
discussed. I am writing to let you know
how this is being approached.
We still anticipate DfES’
confirmation of the original £92m PFI credits.
This would leave an estimated gap of some £43m (out of a total project
cost of almost £400m over the 25 years of the project) between the cost of
including all schools that wish to be included in the project and the total
funding available.
You may recall that in
September, the Cabinet agreed principles for prioritisation. I am pleased to say that ALL schools being
reorganised to take extra year groups, together with the enlarged Special
school and the four new Primary schools being formed through amalgamations of
First and Middle schools can be included in the project. The attached sheets set out how it is
proposed to prioritise the 29 other schools and, in particular, how individual
schools’ building needs will be compared.
If you have any queries on
this information prior to Cabinet, please contact the PFI Team. As the names of schools are not being
released to councillors at this stage, please be aware that the Team will not
be able to identify your school if it is in the anonymised list. We will contact you with this information as
soon as possible after the Cabinet decision.
I hope you will appreciate
having this information in advance of its appearance in the press or at the
Cabinet discussion. If you have any
comments on the suggested approach to prioritisation do let me know. A copy of the full Cabinet report has been
emailed to each school and we will include an electronic link to it in this
week’s e-courier. You will also shortly
be able to access the report directly on the NCC website at http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/council/committees/papers/schedules/cabinet.htm
We will be in touch again on
Thursday or Friday next week.
Yours sincerely
Sue Rossiter
Deputy Director of Education
EXTRACT FROM REPORT TO CABINET 22 OCTOBER 2003
SCHOOLS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT
Cabinet agreed on 15 September the criteria to be used in determining which schools should be included in the project. These were as follows:
(i) That all schools that require capacity increases as a result of the review of school organisation should be treated as the first priority.
(ii) That remaining schools should be ranked according to their assessed building needs using the Asset Management Plan criteria.
(iii) That account be taken of value for money issues, e.g. the availability of additional grant funding from the DfES for the inclusion of particular schools in the project.
Schools fall into the following categories:
|
Status pre and post review of school organisation |
Number of schools |
|
First schools changing to Primary |
13 |
|
First and Middle schools amalgamating to form Primary |
4 new schools (reflecting the amalgamation of 4 pairs of First and Middle schools) |
|
Middle school changing to Primary |
1 |
|
High schools taking Year 7 |
8 |
|
Special school (capacity being increased) |
1 |
|
(Group 1) Sub-total of schools increasing in size
following review of school organisation |
27 |
|
Middle changing to Junior |
7 |
|
First changing to Infant |
8 |
|
First remaining as First |
2 |
|
Primary remaining Primary |
12 |
|
(Group 2) Sub-total of schools which are not increasing
in size following review of school organisation |
29 |
|
Total – all post reorganisation schools who wish to be
in the PFI |
56 |
Annex 4 illustrates how building needs could be assessed in order to give a prioritised list of schools within Group 2 – those schools not increasing in size as a result of reorganisation. The prioritisation in Annex 4 reflects data in relation to each school’s suitability and condition. This data is held as part of the Council’s Asset Management Plan, and is based upon detailed surveys at each school, generally undertaken within the last 12 months. It is recommended that schools’ suitability problems are given greater priority in the ranking of overall building needs than condition for the following reasons:
v From an educational point of view, resolution of suitability problems will have the greater impact on teaching and learning – provided building elements such as roofs and windows are not allowed to reach the point of failure.
v Schools are encouraged by government to use their own devolved formula capital to deal with their worst condition problems (and from 2004/05, authorities will no longer receive separate allocations of capital funding for condition aspects); some of the condition problems could also be resolved through use of schools’ delegated maintenance allocations.
v Resolution of significant suitability problems (e.g. changing the size and shape of a number of rooms) can be far more expensive than remedying typical condition problems.
On current estimates and ranked data, all of the 5 schools with both High suitability needs and High condition needs (Band 1 in the table) could be included in the project within the funding identified. In addition, a further school could be included from Band 2.
The data have generally been collected in the past 12 months. While we do not anticipate major changes, it may in some cases be necessary to update the data after discussion with individual schools. At this stage the list is anonymous and illustrative and data changes may still alter the ranking.
Cabinet are asked to confirm that the ranking approach used in Annex 4 should be used to establish which schools are to be confirmed as definitely in the project. Suggested schools for inclusion are indicated on the list in Annex 4 (by “Y”).
Conservative assumptions have been made about the level of funding required for the project. This means that there may be more funding finally available than the amount considered in deciding which schools can definitely be included.
The Education PFI Project Board recommends that a reserve list of schools should be created that could be included in the project if funding is eventually available. As the same preparation would need to be done for these schools as for those definitely in the project, there would be a potential wasted cost related to any schools not finally in the project. Therefore all schools on the reserve list should have a realistic chance of inclusion and have the option to decline to be on the list.
Current estimates and ranked data suggest that the other four Band 2 schools (High suitability and Medium condition needs) can be included on the reserve list, together with the first two schools in Band 3 (High suitability and low condition needs). In addition, it is suggested that schools 14 and 25 are included for the reasons stated. The suggested schools for inclusion are indicated on the list in Annex 4 (by “R”).
While members will no doubt share schools’ disappointment that in the event not all schools that wish to can be included in the project, the proposals illustrated above and in Annex 4 would allow a total of between 33 and 41 schools to benefit from the additional funding for capital building work that this major project brings to Norfolk.
The effort which all schools have put into the project to date is significant and members will no doubt wish to recognise this, particularly in those schools which are unlikely to be able to participate in the final project.
Communication with schools over their place in the final project will be handled in the following way:
v A copy of the anonymised information in Annex 4, together with an explanation, will be sent to schools prior to the Cabinet meeting so that they are aware of the approach to assessing building needs and other factors being considered.
v In the days following Cabinet, each school will be contacted individually and taken through their data so they understand where they fall on the list. Any data updating will be reflected at this stage.
v Once all schools have been contacted, the list of school names will be published – probably in the week beginning 3 November i.e. immediately after half term.
Members may recall that the buildings data held for Asset Management Plan purposes reflects three different aspects of need:
Sufficiency – are there enough places?
Suitability – are the rooms and spaces suitable for their purpose?
Condition – are the building elements (roof, heating system etc) sound?
The table (attached) lists schools (anonymously) with their sufficiency related issues, suitability scores and a measure of their condition problems. The following text explains the terms in the table (reading from the left hand side) and how the data has been calculated.
If a school is Voluntary Aided (VA), we expect to receive VA grant to cover most if not all of the capital costs of the PFI project; this element would no longer be a call on the PFI credits, although the ongoing costs for delivering services at the school would still count towards total PFI costs.
Note 1 highlights a particular interdependency between schemes at two schools.
Mobile places as a percentage of the school’s total capacity, at September 2003
A comparison of the school’s capacity as set out in the PFI tender document and the maximum net capacity calculated as part of the AMP data. Schools with a “Y” cannot theoretically accommodate the post reorganisation capacity, although some schools do accept more pupils than their sufficiency limit would indicate.
The latest pupil forecasts show catchment area populations (based on the current pattern of school organisation) for 2003 forwards. Where there is forecast growth between 2003 and 2006 (after allowing for changes in school organisation), this is generally less than the current difference between numbers on roll and maximum capacity of the buildings. Where this is not the case a “Y” is shown.
Suitability Score
Each school in the county has been surveyed in the last 12 months and judgements made about the suitability of every room. These gradings have been moderated and then scored and weighted following principles agreed by the Education Capital Priorities Group.
There is now a countywide list of these scores. Higher scores reflect greater unsuitability – either in terms of a deficiency of a hall or issues of size, shape, heating, ventilation etc with individual rooms. Teaching rooms or spaces are given significantly higher weightings than non-teaching spaces.
H shows that the school’s score is in the worst 25% of schools countywide; these schools have scores of 5.95 and above
L shows that the school’s score is in the best 25% of schools countywide; these schools have scores of up to about 2.5
M shows that the score is within the 50% of scores in the middle of the countywide distribution
Annual surveys of building elements by the NPS building surveyors provide a list for each school of items requiring attention in the next few years. These items are costed to reflect the cost of the necessary work.
Some work is deemed to be more important than other aspects (A to D ratings where D is most important); and some work is more urgent (rated 1 to 4 to reflect how many years it might wait before failing). The total cost of work in categories C1 to C3 and D1 to D3 (ie work that is both important and needs attention in the next 3 years) has been calculated for each school and then divided by the school’s current capacity (number of places). This gives a measure of the expenditure deemed to be required in the near future scaled for size of school.
Unlike the suitability score, this approach has not been used before nor has it been debated by the Education Capital Priorities Group (although it will be considered by that group on 14 October). However, this provides an objective way of comparing condition problems between schools as required for this exercise.
As for Suitability band i.e. H shows that the school’s condition measure is in the worst 25% of schools countywide etc. The cut off points are around £300 (worst 25%) and £100 (best 25%).
Overall band
See box at the foot of the table. It is implied that the banding is in priority order.
A best estimate of the saving in PFI charges if this school is removed from the project. These figures cannot be finally confirmed until a revised financial model is received from Jarvis reflecting the agreed reduction in numbers of schools.