Agenda item - Issues Raised by Members

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)           Written Questions:

To consider any written questions

(b)      Members Questions

110.1  A copy of the questions received was circulated ahead of the meeting. Responses provided are as follows:

1)       Councillor Meadows- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

As with our current published arrangements, there is no guarantee that children living in the catchment area will gain a catchment area school although the vast majority do. It is possible that under current and proposed arrangements that there are children who are applying for a place under the ‘living in the catchment area’ priority and do not gain a place. Where that child then goes to secondary school will depend on other preferences they have made, or the availability of the next nearest school with space should    they need to have a place directed.  The proposed PAN changes are in recognition of the falling pupil numbers in the city and the council’s expressed desire to ensure all secondary schools in the city remain viable and able to thrive.   

2)       Councillor Meadows - School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

It is proposed that the largest size of a community secondary school in the city will be 300 pupils each year so that means a change to the PAN of Dorothy Stringer and Blatchington Mill schools.  As with our current published arrangements, there is no guarantee that children living in the catchment area will gain a catchment area school although the vast majority do. It is possible that under current and proposed arrangements that there are children who are applying for a place under the ‘living in the catchment area’ priority and do not gain a place. Where that child then goes to secondary school will depend on other preferences they have made, or the availability of the next nearest school with space should they need to have a place directed.  The proposed PAN changes are in recognition of the falling pupil numbers in the city and the council’s expressed desire to ensure all secondary schools in the city remain viable and able to thrive. 

3)       Councillor Meadows- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

There are areas of deprivation within the catchment areas of the other schools with proposed PAN reductions too. However, in response to this point, Longhill High School has long seen an intake that doesn’t match its PAN. In order to allow the school the ability to accurate forecast staffing and curriculum needs it is the council’s view that it is appropriate to formally reduce the schools’ PAN. The proposed PAN reductions across all three schools are in recognition of the falling pupil numbers in the city and the council’s expressed desire to ensure all secondary schools in the city remain viable and able to thrive.

4)       Councillor Meadows- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

Catchment areas remain an important element of secondary school admission arrangements in the city, providing the majority of parents/carers with a level of certainty about which school their child will likely transition to for their secondary education. How many places are taken via other admissions criteria will depend on the preferences parents express.   

5)       Councillor Meadows- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

We are aware of calls to wait for the full impact of the FSM priority to be understood before advancing these proposals. It is worth noting that these proposals won't come into effect until children are starting in year 7 in September 2026, nearly two years away. The issue of falling pupil numbers and of children in some areas of the city not achieving their potential is an important priority. We have taken a decision to anticipate the rise in FSM eligibility in the city and provide families with a certainty about the percentage of places available under this category.  

6)       Councillor Meadows- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

Proposed PAN reductions are based on a forecast data approach which had been proved to be highly accurate over many years. We know that the impact of falling pupil numbers will be felt across the city as a whole and therefore feel it appropriate to take PAN reductions across different areas. We are proposing that community secondary schools will not be larger than 300 places as part of a coordinated approach to managing the drop in pupil numbers.   

7)       Councillor Meadows- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

We are absolutely and categorically not indicating a loss of confidence in any of our schools – quite the opposite. We are proposing to consult on a range of measures that aim to ensure viability of all schools, whilst increasing fairness and equality in admissions. 

8)       Councillor Meadows- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

You are right in highlighting that the council has a responsibility to ensure that the admission arrangements it is responsible for are clear and understandable. We are proposing a public consultation which will help us understand how well the communities in Brighton & Hove understand the proposed arrangements. We are confident that what we propose will be understood and with any change the Council will undertake to explain what is different and what it means to people in the materials published to support the school admission process.  

9)       Councillor McNair- City Parks Service Standards 2025/26

Response from Councillor Robins: 

The majority of verges across the City will be cur 6 times a year. I have asked the team to ensure those verges of high biodiversity value continue to be managed for biodiversity so they will not be cut 6 times a year, I have also asked them to look for suitable sites to expand this but these will not be narrow verges where the grass obstructs the footpath. The verges were not cut when they should have been this year in the Hove Park area however this was more that 2 cuts and in the Patcham and Hollingbury area they were cut 6 times.

10)     Councillor McNair- City Parks Service Standards 2025/26

 Response from Councillor Robins: 

The lawn graves, which to be clear are in Hove Cemetery North, Bear Road Cemetery and Lawn Memorial [Woodingdean] Cemetery will be cut 10 times next year.

11)     Councillor Hill- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

Thank you, Councillor Hill. A really important question and I largely agree with you. I’m always disappointed in the consultations that we do that we don’t get a perfect representation of the make-up of the city. We know as a council, and we know as public bodies, that there are always communities that aren't always perfectly represented in the way that we consult. 

What we are intending to do is do a broader range of meetings in the next stage of the consultation, including meetings in communities. I’m also in contact with a number of our third-sector partners who have agreed to try and help facilitate some of that engagement, including on their premises and with their service users. So we are trying to really meet exactly what you’re getting at and I think we will have to admit that the council is not perfect at engaging everyone in consultation. 

On the specific first point you raise about younger parents under 35 being underrepresented, it’s an interesting point. I do wonder whether that might partly represent the fact that we know people are having children older in life. If you think about the parents and children that are particularly interested in this conversation, it will often be around those that are in years three, four and five and so parents are, perhaps getting on average, older than 35 for that age of children. But it’s an interesting question and on all those groups that are mentioned, yes we want to try and do better at engaging those groups.     

 

12)      Councillor Pickett- City Parks Service Standards 2025/26

         

Response from Councillor Robins: 

 

This administration is committed to protecting the city’s biodiversity. Rather than making blanket decisions across the whole City which cause residents inconvenience, are hard to manage and in extreme weather could create a health and safety issue, we propose to expand and enhance the wilder verges project.  This will make more and better natural spaces for wildlife to thrive, that works better for residents and keeps the majority of highway verges cut many of which are narrow and adjoining pavements.

 

13)     Councillor Pickett- City Parks Service Standards 2025/26

 

Response from Councillor Robins: 

 

I’ll pick up on a couple of points there. Firstly, the ‘number of years ago’ you talk about was three years ago, and it was always agreed that we would review this after three years. So we’re at the point of reviewing that, we always said we would. We’re not doing this out of a sense of bloody mindedness or anything. 

Secondly we’re not really retuning to the former policy. What we’re doing is looking to enhance spaces where we can actually make a difference to wildlife, and we want to protect and enhance natural habitats whilst also ensuring that our streets and highways are safe, well managed and tended. 

Many Councils across the country are dealing with the same situation and we are in ongoing conversations with them to learn about ways of approaching this. I think one of the things that’s come out of this is that truly valuable wildlife habitats develop over a number of years and should be permanent, not just transient and there for a month then cut away again. I think that’s our approach this time, and again, thanks very much for your question and for raising the point with us.  

 

 14)    Councillor McLeay- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

 

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

 

It’s a really good question and, as you say, it was the suggestion of Dr Ellen Greaves that perhaps we just wait and see the impact of the Free School Meals Policy. I think it’s important to say that we should be able to, as Officers and Members, have sight of that data in advance of making any decisions. The tricky bit is that we may not be able to publish it publicly because there are rules around what can be published before national offer day that might imply communicating places. But yes, we should be able to have a pretty good grip of how that policy has worked in the current admissions year to inform what we want to do as a result of the consultation if agreed today, which as I say is a consultation and we may choose to do some of the things, all of the things, none of the things that are currently proposed.   

 

15)     Councillor McLeay- School Admission Arrangements 2026-27

 

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

 

Thank you for your question. It’s important to state that in the current model, and indeed every other previous model of catchments, the Council has always been clear that from the point we introduced catchments in 2007, there is no guarantee for any parent to get a place at a specific school, including within catchment. Indeed, we have seen in previous years families not securing a place within catchment based on the admissions and the preferences and the demographics of that particular year. 

However, clearly the concern being expressed by some parents is: do the proposals lead to a much higher, and possibly intolerable, amount of people not getting places within catchment? That’s what we’re going to have to consider, including the transport element. 

You’re absolutely right to say that there are many people who are on low incomes and, I would argue, living with a very low amount of disposable income, who are not on free school meals. So that’s an important consideration as we weigh it all up. 

It is also important to say that we are planning to, and were anyway, going to review our Home to School transport policy early in the new year which will be good timing, versus these school admissions proposals because we can layer on the learning from the school admissions to set our Home to School transport policy in the new year.   

 

16)     Councillor Sykes- TBM Month 7

         

Response from Councillor Taylor: 

 

Thanks, Councillor Sykes. It’s obviously an important question and neither of us wants to see a low council tax collection rate or a deficit. As you sort of intimated, we think a big driver of that is really the cost of living in the city: high rental markets, high mortgage costs because property prices are high post-pandemic etc in terms of cost of living. I think it’s also worth noting that, I understand from officers, that we have seen similar positions throughout the last 20 years. Post-financial crash we had an increased deficit, post-pandemic we had a bit of a spike in deficit and collection rates, and so to an extent it’s somewhat to be expected in line with the overall economic conditions. 

However, to your question on what we’re thinking about in terms of that, we did announce in October that we’re going to be reviewing our corporate debt policy which sets out our approach to collection and recovery of debt and arrears and we’ll bring back a report to Cabinet in February. 

We’ll be moving towards a pre-enforcement preventative approach and in some senses we’ll be leading the way nationally. Not this administration, but previous administrations have been leading the way nationally on that sort of pre-enforcement preventative approach for some years. We’ll explore how we can work to improve this further with partners and other advice agencies to strengthen that approach, particularly as we know that helping people spread and manage debt, access welfare benefits they may be due but not aware of, or provide financial coaching an advice, has a more sustained effect than allowing the debt to grow unchecked. So those are the kinds of things we will need to consider, and as I say we’ll bring it back in February for consideration.  

 

17)     Councillor Fowler- School Admission Arrangements 

 

Response from Councillor Robins: 

 

Thank you Councillor Fowler. I know you’ve been having extensive discussion with your residents and I know they bring it to your surgeries and contact you and, obviously, well done for bringing questions on their behalf to Cabinet. 

In short, yes it will be a genuine engagement. We will genuinely consider these issues and consider whether the proposals have struck the right balance. Clearly you’re going to continue to advocate for your residents in that discussion, and we will certainly consider it deeply and listen to the feedback that we get in the consultation, and factor that all in with anything that we decide to take forward.