The remit of the education estates strategy is to make entrepreneurial proposals to bring investment into the education estate. It builds and draws on work in 2011 on developing a needs analysis.
This involves a range of approaches from seeking alternative funding sources such as DSG on an invest to save basis from Schools’ Forum, to property development opportunities by rationalising accommodation.
The on-going challenge of meeting basic need, including for special education, requires new approaches as the availability of land and the extent of the Capital Programme will not meet the future demand.
This presentation covers:
- Proposed objectives, scope and timetable for the work
- Examples of data showing demands on the education estate
- Examples of the proposed alternative funding approaches for debate
Milestones
- Capital Programme Board November 2012 and July 2013
Schools’ Forum February 2013 and June 2013

The Education Estates Strategy will set out proposals as to what land and buildings are proposed to be used where and when to meet the emerging demands on the Education Estate. This may require investment in order to achieve.
It will set out proposals in respect of the following elements:
• Mainstream primary
• Mainstream secondary and post 16
• Special Education Needs
• CSS
• ACL
The Education Estates Strategy is supported by two further papers:
• Alternative Funding Strategy – ‘getting more’
• Procurement Strategy – ‘getting more for less’
In the Spring a series of specific business cases are proposed to be put forward for consideration which apply the Alternative Funding and
Procurement Reports to the demands identified.

• To create adequate capacity in the estate to meet Essex’s statutory responsibility to provide places for school age children.
• To provide learning settings that are in good condition and fit for purpose.
• To secure as much land as possible for use by ECC in order to meet future demands.
• To secure alternative funding sources from the government, third and private sectors to invest in the education estate.
• To create capacity of the right sort of SEN provision to reduce out-County placements and failure at defending tribunals and duty to provide to 25.
• To improve and rationalise the CSS estate.
• To extend diversity, eg offer world class performing arts provision
• To reduce the NEETs by providing adult community learning for those with disabilities

Strategic Business Case for EES programme by November 2012
• Procurement Report - How can you get more buildings for your money?
- A review of procurement and delivery opportunities e.g. off-site construction.
• Alternative Funding Report - What alternative funding streams might be available? What are the strings attached to each? E.g.
invest to save business case to schools’ forum
- development for alternative uses of existing sites
- Cornerstone model of development
- Free Schools
- Social investment bonds
- Schools Priority Building Programme
Outline Business Cases for specific projects to be completed between
March 13 and July 13
Full Business Cases for specific projects to be completed between
May 13 and September 13

2016 2011
Key Factors
Academisation & Free schools +
Historical provision imbalance +
Invest to save possibilities +
Relatively static pupil population +
Falling revenue funding
2021
Key Factors
Significant pupil growth
Mature National Policies on Academies and Free Schools
Key outcomes
Revenue savings +
Reduced maintenance liability +
Better outcomes for most vulnerable children
Key outcomes
Meeting statutory demand for places

Mid
Braintree
Chelmsford
Maldon North East
West
Mid
North East
Colchester
Tendring
South
Basildon
Brentwood
Castle Point
Rochford
South
Provision organisation is undertaken in three layers over different time horizons
Area District Planning Area (up to 15 per district)
Special Schools
+ Post 16 + CSS provision
Secondary Schools +
Special SRP
Primary Schools + Early Years
West
Epping Forest
Harlow
Uttlesford

Red means more places required
Green means less places required
Amber means no material change

CLD - None
SCLD
16) Harlow Fields,
17) Oak View
BESD – No secondary
18) Wells Park
CLD
6) Kingswode Hoe,
7) Market Field,
SCLD
8) Shorefields,
9) Lexden Springs
BESD – No primary
10) Ramsden Hall (secondary)
10
North East
9
2
5
West
Mid 8
16
CLD
11) Castledon,
12) Cedar Hall,
13) Endeavour
SCLD
14) Pioneer,
15) Glenwood
BESD – None
17
18
13
3
1
4
14
11
15 South
CLD
1)Thriftwood
SCLD
2) Edith Borthwick,
3) Colombus
BESD
– No Primary
4) Ramsden Hall (Secondary)
PD
5) Southview
SLCN – Speech Language and Communication Needs SpLD – Specific Learning Difficulties
HI – Hearing impaired ASD – Autistic Spectrum Disorder PD – Physically Disabled
CLD – Complex Learning Difficulties SCLD – Severe and Complex Learning Difficulties
BESD – Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties

There is no BESD provision in this area
West
7
5
Mid
North East
South
Primary
Secondary
Size of arrows are indicative of numbers

Primary
None
Secondary
9) CSS Centre Commonside
10) CSS Centre Tany’s Dell
Primary
2) CSS Centre Wivenhoe
Secondary
3) CSS Centre, Colchester, Mile End
4) CSS Centre Clacton
5) CSS Centre Copford
5
3
North East
2
West
Mid
4
9
10
1
Primary
None
Secondary
1) CSS Centre Heybridge
All age
6) CSS Centre Langdon Hills
Secondary
7) CSS Centre Hadleigh
8) CSS Centre Fairview Basildon
8
6 South
7

Invest to Save Business Case on DSG to Schools Forum
• Does Schools Forum support the production of business cases to build new SEN provision within Essex, rather than sending children out
County at higher cost to DSG?
• This is only suitable when there is evidence of a growing demand for special school places of a specific type and currently there are children with those needs in out County placements – such as Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD) and Behavioural, Emotional and Social Difficulties
(BESD).
• Would require ECC Capital Programme to loan the money to fund the construction in advance of DSG paying back the capital required.
• If new SEN provision is constructed within Essex, pupils may not have to travel so far to school and so RSG funded transport should be cheaper. The business case would also model the saving to RSG.
• If you do nothing the costs to DSG will continue to rise, this approach won’t reduce costs but will mitigate the increase in costs.

ECC – Developer Activities
• What is your view of proposing business cases that test whether through the rationalisation of the use of sites, investment in new facilities might be funded? We acknowledge that from an ECC perspective no capital receipt can be ring-fenced for a specific purpose.
E.g. CSS accommodation North East. Currently they operate across Green Lodge, Clacton, Wivenhoe, Mile End and Copford
(leased). All accommodation is dilapidated and (except Copford) is not fit for purpose. Ideally all provision could be co-located on the Mile End site if there were capital to invest in new accommodation and refurbishment of existing accommodation.
• Co-locating primary provisions on secondary sites to create all-through schools.
• Co-locating schools with CSS, ACL and other Council services.
• Undertake business case to test the benefit of moving Special Schools to less valuable sites e.g. Wells Park, Kingswode Hoe?
• Local Asset Backed Vehicles – a range of developer partners who will partner with LA or academies to develop assets

Other areas considered
• Social Investment Bonds
• Free Schools
• Schools contributing to maintenance fund (£10k cap currently)
• When a school being replaced completely, schools contributing DFC to project
• Priority Schools Building Programme
• Supporting academies to seek funding directly from central government
• Lobbying for grant funding
• Cutting energy costs and borrowing against these savings to fund capital works

Cornerstone Model
• Cornerstone was set up by Tim Byles (formerly CE of Partnerships for
Schools and Norfolk CC) to offer a social dividend to Local Authorities through sharing development profits with them arising from developing
Council owned land.
• The deal is structured around a land deal only and so is exempt from public procurement rules. ECC’s usual supply chain arrangements would construct any new facilities required.
• E.g. Could offer Cornerstone the two CSS proposals for the North East and the South. There is a lot of community use at Wivenhoe, could this be retained in a new community facility there as part of the Cornerstone social dividend?
• Cornerstone have development expertise and capacity and a supply chain which are offered at no cost to the authority during the development of schemes. They take their payment from the development profit after development completed.

• Firstly evidence has to be provided to Schools Forum of the growing demand for special school places for children and young people where significant numbers are currently being placed in independent settings at higher cost e.g. ASD and BESD and could be PMLD (depending on analysis of data). This should be scrutinised by Schools Forum members.
• A financial model has been developed and used in three other authorities, which can be used to test out the options to meet this demand. This financial model has a number of inputs that will need to be agreed with schools forum, as follows:
- The numbers of children who will require a place over time
- The average cost of maintained (includes academies) and independent placements
- The average cost of transport to maintained and independent placements
- The cost of constructing any new provisions
- The cost of borrowing the capital needed (ECC so opportunity cost of interest rate on reserves only?)

• The average cost of maintained and independent settings will need to be established e.g. typically circa £20k pa for maintained day, £40k pa for independent day and £65k for independent residential (typically 35 weeks pa). The range can be from £25k cheapest day place to £250k most expensive 52 week placement.
• Transport costs in Essex may not provide a RSG saving due to the size of the County. Independent settings may be closer to pupil’s homes than maintained settings.
• The cost of constructing new facilities. This will involve the following:
- finding potential sites - a business case will be put to ECC if suitable land is in Council ownership, but if an existing school could provide land this could save land acquisition cost
- developing a design brief to show the accommodation required for each provision in m2
- seeking planning authority view of proposals
- working with an architect to develop initial outline proposals
- pricing these proposals, possibly with soft market test with contractors

• As with all business cases, the first option for consideration is “do nothing”. This will involve modelling the increased cost to DSG if the numbers of pupils grow and have to go into independent settings. This can be shown as a total cost to DSG and also as a per pupil reduction in delegation to schools. Last year £20M (up from £17M previous) and next year £23M on independent settings.
• Then the cost of other options can be compared to this baseline.
• The cost of creating new provision in Essex – when will children be able to access this? What will admissions criteria be?
• Is it possible to bring young people back into maintained provisions at point of transition – particularly back at post 16?
• What is best governance route to secure providers? Expand existing schools, free schools, academy chains, competitions?

Questions for Primary Head Teachers’ consideration too:
1.
Moral question of all schools’ obligations to plan to meet the needs of children with SEND i.e. less independent (out County) expensive placements.
2. What are your views of using DSG in principle to support borrowing on an invest to save basis to invest in SEND provision?
3. Should we develop more capacity in mainstream schools to support children/young people with challenging behaviour or should we build more BESD special schools using DSG?
4. What are your preferred options for meeting basic need in each geographical location? This question will be raised at each area meeting in due course.
5. What are your views about all-through schools (are you a secondary that would host one?) and the developer activities proposed? Are you engaged in any developer activities of your own?
6. What is your view of seeking Free Schools in areas to meet evidenced basic need?
7. What are your views of the draft proposal to rationalise and invest in
CSS centres?