The Chair welcomed everybody to the meeting and asked if there were any apologies for absence. The Committee Services Officer advised the Committee that apologies had been received from Councillors Leech, Brightmore, Muspratt, W. Smith, J. Williams, Blakeley and Hornby. Each had nominated a deputy, who would be shown in the attendance record.

The Chair referred to the recent and sudden death of Mark Delap, Principal Committee Officer, for this Committee and the Committee stood in silent tribute to Mark’s memory.

Members were asked to consider whether they had any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or any other relevant interest in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state the nature of the interest.

Members were reminded that they should also declare whether they were subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

At the request of the Chair, and in response to a question from a Member, the Head of Legal and Member Services gave advice on the matter of signatories to the call-in notice sitting on the Committee. He commented that although being a signatory to a call-in notice did not preclude a Member from sitting on the Committee hearing the call-in they would need to be mindful of pre-determination and bias. Supporting a call-in did not amount to a member accepting the reasons had been made out and proven or that one Member had reached a settled view.

Councillors Clements, Berry, Gilchrist and Anderson declared their interest in the call-in of Cabinet minute 44 by virtue of them being signatories to the call-in notice.

Councillors S. Williams declared a personal interest by virtue of him being a Governor at Foxfield School and a signatory to the call in.

Councillor Crabtree declared a personal interest by virtue of his granddaughter who previously attended Stanley School and by virtue of his employment in an educational setting.

In accordance with the procedure previously agreed by the Committee, the Chair referred to the decision of the Cabinet relating to Outcome of The Lyndale School Consultation (Cabinet Minute 44 (4/9/14) refers.)

The decision had been called-in by Councillors P. Hayes, J. Green, P. Gilchrist, L. Fraser, P. Williams, S. Williams, C. Blakeley, E. Boult, G. Ellis, J. Hale, A. Hodson, K. Hodson, L. Rowlands, A. Sykes, B. Berry, C. Carubia, W. Clements, S. Kelly, D. Mitchell, G. Watt, D. Elderton, T. Anderson, M. Hornby, C. Povall, L. Rennie, T. Smith, P. Cleary and A. Brighouse on the following grounds: 

1.  The Independent Consultant appointed to comment upon the options for Lyndale School was appointed unilaterally by the Local Authority, with no consultation with the Governors or Parent’s of Lyndale School.

2.  The Independent Consultant’s report was not commissioned prior to the  consultation and was published once the consultation had closed, therefore not allowing any proper or adequate scrutiny of the aforementioned report.

3.   Cabinet had prepared, prior to the meeting, a typed and printed recommendation which was moved by Cllr Tony Smith and agreed unanimously by attending members of the Cabinet. It would therefore seem that Cabinet’s decision had insufficient regard to the presentations made at the Cabinet meeting, including the articulate and highly persuasive contributions from parent representative Zoe Anderson.

4.   Education, Health and Care Plans are currently being drafted in respect of all pupils who attend the Lyndale School. In order for Cabinet, the Independent Consultant, or indeed the wider public, to have sufficient information to decide whether or not these pupils could continue their education at alternative schools the aforementioned plans should have been published prior to the opening of the consultation.

5.  A series of questions raised by Governors and Parents of the Lyndale School to the Local Authority where not answered adequately or at all, so as to hinder the Governor’s and parent’s ability to fully respond to the consultation process.

6.   The consultation meetings, although described as ‘generous’ by the Independent Consultant, where flawed, insofar as the Chair was an council officer and could not reasonably have been seen as independent given officers previous recommendations to Cabinet. Additionally no minutes of these meetings where published but rather ’high level notes’ which were not conducive to the principle of a full and open consultation.

 7.   Owing to the above the Cabinet could not have made a properly informed decision as to whether the proposals met the SEN Improvement Test.

The Chair explained the call-in procedure and indicated that the Committee was invited to consider the decision that had been made and determine, in the light of evidence to be presented, the most appropriate course of action. The Committee had no power to overturn a Cabinet decision, or to substitute its own decision in place of the original. The options open to the Committee were

·  to refer the decision back to the Cabinet Member, setting out in writing the nature of the Committee’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.