Get documents about "CABINET
Document Sample
CABINET
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18TH AUGUST 2003
Present:
Mr. D.A.W. Turnbull (in the Chair) Human Resources, Finance, Property and
Corporate Affairs
Mr. R. Banham Waste Management and the Environment
Mr. J.R. Baskerville Commercial Services
Mr. A.J. Gunson Planning and Transportation
Mr. H.A.S. Humphrey Fire and Community Protection
Mr. C.M. Mowle Social Services
Mr. S.P. Murphy Libraries, Museums, Records and the Arts
Mr. A.D. Tomkinson Economic Development
Apologies for Absence:
Mr. A.J. Byrne and Mrs. A.L. King
Cabinet Support Members Present:
Mr. L.E. Austin Human Resources
Mr. S. Dorrington Planning and Transportation
Mr. J.R. Gretton Libraries, Museums, Records and the Arts
Mr. L.G. Randall Fire and Community Protection
Mrs. B.M. Ravencroft Social Services
Also Present:
Mr. D.A. Baxter Mr. G.B. Hemming
Mr. A.A. Blyth Mr. E.S. Littler
Ms. C.M. Cameron Ms. G.P. Loveday
Mrs. C. Cant Mrs. J. Middleton
Mr. M.V. Castle Mr. I.A.C. Monson
Mr. N.G. Chapman Mr. W.J. Northam
Mr. W. Davison Mr. J.H. Perry-Warnes
Mr. T. East Mr. R.C. Rockcliffe
Mr. D.B. Forgan Mr. M. Taylor
Mrs. B.M. Hacker Mr. T.J. Wainwright
Mr. P.J. Harwood Ms. S.J. Whitaker
Officers Present:
Mr. P. Adams Director of Corporate Resources
Mr. M. Britch Managing Director, NPS Property Consultants Ltd
Mr. H. Bullen Department of Finance
Miss P. Cary Legal Services
Mrs. L. Christensen Director of Social Services
Mrs. R. Claridge Social Services Department
Miss C. Clarke Democratic Services
Mr. D. Cumming Planning and Transportation Department
Mrs. J. Dane Department of Finance
Mr. R. Elliott Chief Fire Officer
Mr. K. Hounsome Head of Law
Mr. G. Insull Democratic Services
Mr. J. Joyce Planning and Transportation Department
Mr. B. Marfleet Planning and Transportation Department
Mr. D. Pearson Planning and Transportation Department
Mr. S. Ralph Deputy Director of Planning and Transportation
Dr. B. Slater Director of Education
Mr. R. Summers Director of Finance
Mr. A. Tidmarsh e-Service Director
Mrs. V. Trevelyan Head of Museums and Archaeology Service
Mrs. R. Vahey Education Department
Mr. P. Weavers NPS Property Consultants Ltd
The Chairman welcomed Mrs. J. Middleton, the independent Chairman of the
County Council’s Standards Committee, to the meeting.
1. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 14th July 2003 were confirmed as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
3. MATTERS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman agreed to accept the following matters of urgent business:
Cinema City Capital Programme
The final application for funding had to be made to the Arts Council by 5th
September 2003.
Norfolk Constabulary Premises Improvement Fund Bid Joint Venture with the
Fire Service
The Police Authority needed a commitment to the project from the Fire Authority
in order for it to proceed.
4. MOTION REFERRED TO CABINET BY FULL COUNCIL – AREA COMMITTEES
The annexed report (4) by the Head of Democratic Services was received.
The agenda for the meeting of the County Council on 7th July 2003 included notice
of a motion relating to Area Committees which was given by Mr. M.V. Castle. The
motion is set out in full in the report of the Head of Democratic Services.
Mr. Castle attended the meeting of the Cabinet to speak to his motion. Mr. Castle
said that he felt that Area Committees helped the decision making of the Authority
and gave local councillors an opportunity to discuss cross cutting issues at a local
level.
He spoke of the benefits of the Great Yarmouth Area Committee and concluded
that Area Committees enhanced both local democracy and the role of local county
councillors.
In response, the Chairman said that Area Committees had a valuable role in the
urban areas of Great Yarmouth and Norwich, but that rural areas would be better
served through the development of a system in which the three tiers of local
government met together with other stakeholders. This was the reason for the
establishment of Local Strategic Partnerships. The Cabinet agreed with the
Chairman’s comments.
RESOLVED –
That the County Council be informed of the views of the Cabinet:
(i) That the motion should not be accepted.
(ii) That the current system of Area Committees in Great Yarmouth and Norwich
and Local Strategic Partnerships elsewhere should continue.
5. MOTION REFERRED TO CABINET BY FULL COUNCIL – PUBLIC QUESTIONS
The annexed report (5) by the Head of Democratic Services was received.
The agenda for the meeting of the County Council on 7th July 2003 included notice
of a motion relating to public questions which was given by Mrs. B.M. Hacker. The
motion is set out in full in the report of the Head of Democratic Services.
Mrs. Hacker attended the meeting of the Cabinet to speak to her motion and said
that she hoped the Cabinet would support the motion.
In response, the Chairman said that the public already had adequate opportunity to
ask questions at the meetings of the Cabinet, Cabinet Scrutiny Committee and
Review Panels and that there would be nothing to be gained from allowing public
questions at meetings of the Council. The Cabinet agreed with the Chairman’s
comments.
RESOLVED –
That the County Council be informed of the views of the Cabinet:
(i) That the motion should not be accepted.
(ii) That the current system of public questions should continue and should not
be extended to meetings of the County Council.
6. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
The Cabinet had received notice of two public questions from Mr. A. Forder of
Horsham St. Faith. Mr. Forder was not present at the meeting and, in his absence,
the Chairman read the following two questions:
1. Is there another route the road could take away from Blind Lane?
2. How do you envisage to compensate for the property depreciation?
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation gave the following response:
1. Route options are constrained by the airport boundary. The only alternative
to the route passing Blind Lane, without involving property demolition, would
be to follow a route to the north of Horsham St Faiths.
2. In Mr. Forder’s case, he could be indirectly affected by the route as it passes
to the north of the Airport. In this situation, compensation is covered by Part
1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and claims for compensation for
depreciation of property value are entitled to be made 12 months after the
opening of the road.
The Cabinet Member added that Mr. Forder had also asked a number of other
questions in a letter to the County Council and a response was being prepared
which would be sent to him in the next few days.
7. QUESTION RECEIVED FROM MS. C.M. CAMERON
Ms. C.M. Cameron asked the Cabinet the following question:
I was concerned to hear that Norfolk County Council agreed to pay £115,000 to a
Mr. Thomas Ward as an out of court settlement following allegations that Mr. Ward
received no education from the age of 14 other than ‘inappropriate home tuition’.
Could you please explain the implications of the settlement in terms of any potential
future liabilities?
Could you also detail the number of under 16’s who have not received full-time
education for a period of more than one term because they have either been
excluded from or expelled from school and indicate how many hours of education
they receive?
The Chairman gave the following response:
The claim related to incidents in the early 1990s when the standards and
procedures in place were very different from current standards. Furthermore the
claim itself, although heard in the High Court, sets no precedent for the Authority.
However, as with all claims, whether successful or not, the implications will be
considered and any lessons to be learnt from the case will be implemented. Full
details of the case and the background to the settlement are set out in the
confidential report on today's agenda.
It would be a lengthy process for the Education Department to review all the
records relating to under 16 year olds who have been excluded from school since
the early 1990s. It has been possible, however, to review the education provided to
those pupils permanently excluded since September 2002. Full details have been
set out in the report referred to earlier. For confidentiality reasons, it is not
appropriate to provide details of each case in public. However, the figures can be
summarised as follows: There have been 58 permanent exclusions since
September 2002. Of these 10 children did not receive full time education (i.e. 5
hours supervised education per school day). Each of them has been receiving an
individual package of provision related to the need to return them to full time
education in a sustainable way. Again the report sets out the reasoning.
The duty is on the local education authority to provide suitable education for
children not necessarily full time education at each stage in each individual case.
The position has been reached where full time education will be provided in each
case from September 2003.
Ms. Cameron then asked the following supplementary question:
Referring to the comments of the Ombudsman on page 213 of the agenda relating
to special educational needs, the 2002/03 Best Value Performance Indicators
relating to school exclusions and the implications of the report at item 30 on the
agenda, Ms. Cameron asked whether the Administration would agree that these
presented cause for concern and asked that a full report be made on the measures
taken to address these problems together with the outcomes likely to be achieved
in the next six months.
The Chairman replied that steps were being taken to address the issues raised by
the Ombudsman. In the absence of the Cabinet Member for Education, the
Chairman said that he was unable to answer the rest of the question but that Ms.
Cameron would receive a full written reply.
8. REPORT OF THE SERVICE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON
6TH AUGUST 2003
The annexed report (10) of the Service Development Committee meeting held on
6th August 2003 was received.
RESOLVED –
That approval be given to the termination of the Best Value Reviews of School Staff
Development and Management of School Buildings and Sites.
9. SECOND REPORT OF THE CABINET SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORKING
GROUP ON PASSENGER TRANSPORT
The annexed report (11) by the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee was received.
This report was presented by Mr. E.S. Littler who was Chairman of the Cabinet
Scrutiny Committee Working Group on Passenger Transport.
Decision
RESOLVED –
That the recommendations and action plans contained in the report be approved.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed the recommendations of the working group as sensible and
constructive results from a very productive scrutiny exercise.
Alternative Options Considered
There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.
10. 2003-2004 REVENUE BUDGET AND CAPITAL PROGRAMME MONITORING
The annexed report (12) by the Director of Finance was received.
11. NORFOLK AUDIT SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED 30TH JUNE 2003
The annexed report (13) by the Director of Finance was received and the overall
opinion on internal control for the quarter was noted.
12. NORWICH AREA TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY PROPOSAL FOR
CONSULTATION
The annexed report (14) by the Director of Planning and Transportation was
received.
The Chairman said that the Norwich Area Transportation Strategy (NATS) did not
just affect households in the immediate Norwich area as all residents in Norfolk
were likely to be affected by it. At the suggestion of the Cabinet Member for
Planning and Transportation, the Cabinet agreed that all Parish and Town Councils
in Norfolk should be consulted on the proposed strategy.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation drew attention to bullet point
5 in Appendix 1 on page 71 of the report which referred to a new park and ride site
at Drayton/Taverham. He said that inclusion in the Strategy of comments from the
work done as part of the NATS review was premature as the Cabinet was still
awaiting a report from the Director of Planning and Transportation on park and ride
facilities in Norwich. The Cabinet agreed that reference to these comments should
be deleted from the consultation.
Decision
RESOLVED –
(i) That the proposals for consultation be agreed as set out in Appendix 1 to the
report, subject to the deletion of the comments in bullet point 5 on page 71 of
the report which are referred to above.
(ii) That all Parish and Town Councils in Norfolk be included in the consultation.
(iii) That, subject to further discussions with the Joint Highways Agency
Committee, the work on the ring roads outlined in Appendix 2 to the report
be added to the Local Transport Plan capital programme for future years,
subject to funding.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed that the proposals for consultation (as amended) were
acceptable and that people throughout Norfolk should be asked whether they
supported the various components in the strategy, asked for their views on whether
they supported a northern distributor road and, if so, which route option(s) they
preferred.
Alternative Options Considered
There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.
13. NORWICH NORTHERN DISTRIBUTOR ROAD
The annexed report (15) by the Director of Planning and Transportation was
received.
The Deputy Director of Planning and Transportation drew members’ attention to the
following amendments to the report:
Paragraph 5.3, fourth line – amend ‘to the north east of Norwich Airport’ to read
‘to the north west of Norwich Airport’.
Paragraph 5.4, fourth line – amend ‘just north west of Fir Covert Road’ to read
‘just north east of Fir Covert Road’.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation said that he believed that the
whole of the northern distributor road was needed to dual carriageway standard.
Endorsing the comments made by the Cabinet Member for Planning and
Transportation, Mr. T. East (Costessey), spoke strongly in favour of the western
(orange) route adding that one of the benefits of this route was that developer
funding would be available for the construction of part of the route.
Decision
RESOLVED –
(i) That the outline programme be agreed.
(ii) That approval be given to the routes shown in Appendix 1 to the report for
consultation as part of the Norwich Area Transportation Strategy review.
(iii) That the outcomes of the consultation be reported to a future meeting with a
view to selecting a preferred route option and standard for further
development to planning application stage.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to start public consultation on the route options for a northern
distributor road as need for the road could be justified objectively on traffic grounds
which was essential to moving forward the planning and Compulsory Purchase
Order process.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 9 of the
report.
14. 20 MPH SPEED LIMITS AND ZONES
The annexed report (16) by the Director of Planning and Transportation was
received.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation referred to the
recommendations of the member task and finish group appointed by the Planning,
Transportation and the Environment, Waste and Economic Development Review
Panel and proposed that recommendation 5, paragraph 2, third line should be
amended from ‘when they are provided’ to ‘if they are provided’. Cabinet members
agreed to this amendment. Mr. Gunson added that the County Council had no
intention of insisting that 20 mph speed limits should be automatically applied to all
new residential estates.
Decision
RESOLVED –
(i) That future use of 20 mph limits in Norfolk be limited to particular locations
where this would be appropriate to the road environment/conditions and
where reasonable compliance could be expected due to the nature/character
of the road layout.
(ii) That 20 mph zones, that is with physical measures, be used where there is a
need to get speeds down to 20 mph because of the number/nature of
vulnerable road users using the road. This needs to be on the basis of
individual circumstances and combined with, for example, the need to
produce a school travel plan for zones around schools and that the following
criteria be agreed:
It has to be appropriate for a particular location, need and circumstance,
for example, on frontages to school/elderly persons home.
It should be confined to (vulnerable road user/traffic) conflict points where
practicable.
In assessing need, there has to be a careful balance between the
vulnerable road users and the importance/purpose of the route.
The school travel plan approach should be extended to develop solutions
with local communities where appropriate.
(iii) That the current five area-wide 20 mph trial limits be retained and that there
be a measured revisit of the pilot schemes to see if some minor
improvements would improve compliance with 20 mph limits.
(iv) That the pilots/monitoring continue on campaigns to improve compliance
with existing 30 mph speed limits in appropriate locations.
(v) That the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation write to the
appropriate government department asking that it be made possible to use:
20 mph part-time advisory signs (this could be on the basis of a pilot in
Norfolk)
The Traffic Regulation Order process be amended to automatically apply
20 mph zone status to new residential estate roads on their adoption as
public highway if they are provided as an integral part of a new
development designed to restrict traffic speeds to 20 mph or less.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to limit future use of 20 mph speed limits in Norfolk as they
achieved poor compliance with the limit and improve compliance with existing 30
mph limits as speed at around 30 mph seemed to be viewed by some drivers as
acceptable and safe. Current 20 mph trail limits would be retained as constraining
traffic at this speed reduced the severity of personal injury.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 2 of the
report.
15. DELIVERING BEST VALUE IN HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE – CODE OF
PRACTICE FOR MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT – PROGRESS ON REVIEW
The annexed report (17) by the Director of Planning and Transportation was
received.
Decision
RESOLVED –
(i) That the contents of the report be endorsed.
(ii) That the contents of the report be adopted as County Council policy.
(iii) That the recommendations in the report be incorporated in the 2003/04
maintenance plan.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to adopt the principles of the code as best practice within the
authority.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 3 of the
report.
16. REVIEW OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY FUNCTION
The annexed report (18) by the Director of Corporate Resources and Heads of
Audit and Scrutiny and Democratic Services was received.
Decision
RESOLVED –
(i) That approval be given to the action plan at Appendix 1 to the report.
(ii) That the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee be asked to review progress against
the plan in April 2004 and report to Cabinet on progress.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to the recommendations and actions arising from the review as
the best way of progressing the overview and scrutiny function within Norfolk
County Council.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative option outlined in paragraph 5 of the report.
17. MEMBERS ALLOWANCES – REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT PANEL
The annexed report (19) by the Head of Democratic Services was received.
The Chairman referred to paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the Panel’s report which
included recommendations that provision be made to withhold allowances or to
require repayment of allowances paid in cases where a member was suspended or
partially suspended. He believed that where a member had been partially
suspended, it would be sensible to allow flexibility as to the extent to which an
allowance should be withheld or repayment required. He proposed that Cabinet
recommend to Council that the new scheme of allowances should include provision
for the Standards Committee to decide the level of deduction or repayment in such
circumstances. The Cabinet agreed accordingly.
The Chairman drew Cabinet’s attention to paragraph 4.5 of the report and the
recommendation of the Independent Panel that members of the County Council
should not be given access to the Local Government Pension Scheme but that it
was willing to reconsider the issue in two or three years time particularly if it
became apparent that the arrangements in Norfolk were significantly out of line with
those in other local authorities.
Decision
RESOLVED –
That the report of the Independent Panel be referred to the County Council for
determination and approval, subject to the amendment agreed above.
Reasons for Decision
The County Council was required to make a new scheme of allowances in
accordance with new regulations on or before 30th September 2003.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 5 of the
report.
18. PROPOSED OBJECTIVE 2/EEDA BID ON BEHALF OF NORFOLK MUSEUMS
AND ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE AND NORFOLK HERITAGE ORGANISATIONS
The annexed report (20) by the Head of Museums and Archaeology was received.
Decision
RESOLVED –
That the Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service continue to co-ordinate this
bid.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to continue this bid as objective 2 provided the opportunity to
invest in Norfolk’s significant cultural heritage and improve the services and
facilities for residents and visitors.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 8 of the
report.
19. CONTRACT STANDING ORDERS
The annexed report (21) by the Head of Law was received.
Decision
RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNTY COUNCIL –
That the revised draft Contract Standing Orders be adopted.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to recommend adoption of the revised contract standing orders
as a result of a review undertaken by the Head of Law.
Alternative Options Considered
There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.
20. CODE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The annexed report (22) by the Head of Law and Head of Audit and Scrutiny was
received.
Decision
RESOLVED –
That approval be given to the updated draft Code of Corporate Governance as set
out in Appendix A to the report.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed that the introduction of the aspects of the model code not yet in
place was appropriate.
Alternative Options Considered
There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.
21. EDUCATION ACT 2002 SCHOOL INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT
The annexed report (23) by the Director of Education was received.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation asked that members be
given further details of the composition of the different categories of governing
bodies.
Decision
RESOLVED –
That the Director of Education be authorised to approve the making of Instruments
of Government by the governing bodies of maintained schools in Norfolk and their
sealing by the Head of Law.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to delegate authority for the making of Instruments of
Government as the most efficient way of dealing with this.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative option outlined in the report.
22. A STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
LOOKED AFTER
The annexed report (24) by the Director of Social Services was received.
Decision
RESOLVED –
(i) That Ferry Road, West Lynn be declared surplus to requirements subject to
replacement beds being available.
(ii) That the proposal to develop two small units either by identifying and
refurbishing existing buildings, leasing from a housing association or
providing through new build be supported, subject to satisfactory funding
arrangements being put in place.
(iii) That the purpose and function of the two medium term units to a more
specialist function be reviewed.
(iv) That the proposal to explore the reprovision of Repton House and an
additional unit for young people with challenging behaviour jointly with health
on the Blithemeadow Court site be supported, subject to satisfactory funding
arrangements being put in place.
(v) That the proposal to develop the existing Marshfields building to meet care
standards be supported and that the further expansion to provide two
additional beds for children with health or multiple needs continue to be
negotiated with health.
(vi) That the bids for capital funding, where required, to enable the
implementation of the above proposals be supported. The approvals for
funding and land transactions will be subject to the appropriate corporate
approvals procedures.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed these proposals for the provision of residential facilities for
children looked after in view of the need to improve performance, maintain best
professional practice and achieve best value.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 2 of the
report.
23. ANNUAL LETTER FROM THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
The annexed report (25) by the Head of Democratic Services was received.
The Cabinet was informed that the first line of paragraph 2.3 of the report should be
amended to read ‘The Education Department have confirmed that an officer has
already been nominated to address performance in this area.’
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation suggested that the number of
complaints made and the number upheld should also be made public together with
a comparison to the numbers over the last few years.
The Chairman asked that the annual letters be appended to future reports.
Decision
RESOLVED –
That the contents of the report be noted and that the public be informed of the
contents of the annual letter.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to make this information available to the public in order to
inform the public of the progress made with the management of complaints.
Alternative Options Considered
There were no alternative options for the Cabinet to consider.
24. TERMINATION OF THE CAPITA CONTRACT
The annexed report (26) by the e-Service Director was received.
RESOLVED –
That the urgent decision taken by the Leader of the Council and the actions taken
to put this into effect be noted.
25. CINEMA CITY CAPITAL PROGRAMME
The annexed urgent business report by the County Arts Officer was received.
Decision
RESOLVED –
That approval be given to a contribution of £10,000 as partnership funding towards
the refurbishment of Cinema City in the current financial year as the second
instalment of a contribution of £30,000 over three years.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to this contribution as Cinema City was an important cultural
organisation in Norfolk and its refurbishment would enhance and expand the
services offered.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative option outlined in paragraph 4 of the report.
26. NORFOLK CONSTABULARY PREMISES IMPROVEMENT FUND BID JOINT
VENTURE WITH THE FIRE SERVICE
The annexed urgent business report by the Chief Fire Officer and Managing
Director of NPS Property Consultants Ltd was received.
Decision
RESOLVED –
(i) That the proposal to develop joint facilities at Long Stratton and Harleston be
supported in principle, subject to formal approval of the detailed terms.
(ii) That the proposal to build a fire station on part of the police service site at
Downham Market be supported in principle, subject to formal approval of the
detailed terms.
(iii) That the use of part of the savings made in the development of the
Downham Market fire station to fund the balance of the capital cost for the
joint ventures at Long Stratton and Harleston be supported in principle on
the basis that the surplus capital allocation is returned to the general capital
pot for reallocation.
Reasons for Decision
The Cabinet agreed to support the development of these joint facilities in principle
as they offered an excellent opportunity for joint working with the police service.
Alternative Options Considered
The Cabinet considered the alternative options outlined in paragraph 5 of the
report.
27. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
RESOLVED –
That the public be excluded from the meeting under section 100A of the Local
Government Act 1972 for the following item of business on the grounds that it
involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 4 and
12 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.
28. SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
The Cabinet received a report, containing exempt information, by the Director of
Education and the Head of Law which provided details of recent legal proceedings
initiated against the County Council in relation to special educational needs and set
out the current position for excluded pupils.
The Cabinet was informed that the first and second lines of paragraph 4.2 should
be amended to read ‘all currently permanently excluded’.
Ms. S.J. Whitaker (Lakenham), queried the figures in paragraph 2.26 of the report
and raised concerns regarding the child of one of her constituents.
The Director of Education confirmed that the figures in the report were correct and
the Chairman advised Ms. Whitaker to raise in confidence the matter relating to her
constituent with the Director of Education.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
(The meeting closed at 1.00 pm)
CHAIRMAN
GH/CABINET/MINUTES/030818 MINS
