Meeting documents

Apologies:- Councillor Malcolm Hanney

99 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Councillor Crossley welcomed everyone to the meeting.

100 EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

The Chair(person) drew attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out on the Agenda

101 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made.

102 TO ANNOUNCE ANY URGENT BUSINESS AGREED BY THE CHAIR(PERSON)

There were no items of urgent business.

103 QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

A question was received from Nic Rattle, who was not present at the meeting, regarding right-to-buy sales. Councillor Vic Pritchard provided a written response which would be sent to Nic after the meeting.

104 STATEMENTS, DEPUTATIONS OR PETITIONS FROM PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS

All the statements made are referred to within the main agenda item below.

105 CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE MEMBER ITEMS NOW REQUISITIONED TO COUNCIL EXECUTIVE

There were no such items on this occasion.

106 REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN KEYNSHAM

Adrienne Hughes, Headteacher of Temple Primary School, made a statement in support of Temple Primary School, outlining the achievements of the school. This was followed by statements from two Parent Governors; Christine Jorgensen gave a summary of the extensive body of parental support that had been received; then Mark Hyde outlined the school's preferred option of 5.6, with certain conditions regarding location, staff transfer and involvement in development of a new site. (A full copy of these statements has been placed on the Council Executive Minute book).

John Mead, Chair of Governor's at Chandag Infant school, then sought confirmation that their written statement had been received. This confirmation was given.

Tony Crouch, Keynsham Town Council, spoke next and thanked the Executive for bringing the meeting to Keysham. He mentioned the new nursery and hoped that its future was assured. He raised a couple of other queries which were later clarified by the Education Director.

Sandra Woodman, Acting Headteacher of Keynsham Primary School, spoke next. She regretted the way the Review had been handled thus far with regard to the media coverage, and the impact this had had on staff morale. She explained that the Governing Body had examined the proposals and could only support option 5.4. This option would need to encompass the best practice from both Keynsham and Temple Primary schools, and an approach had already been made to the Governing Body at Temple Primary school to work together on any new build. Sandra also mentioned the positive advance of the new nursery, and the need to work closely with other community agencies.

Reverend Vaughan Rees, Chair of Governors at Keynsham Primary, echoed the Headteacher's comments in support of Keynsham Primary school's reputation and explained that, in terms of the problems caused by the media coverage, the school had sought support from the Local Education Authority in handling this, which had not been forthcoming. In response to this point, Councillor Crossley undertook to raise this point with the Director of Education outside the meeting.

Mr Neal, a Keynsham resident, asked whether consideration had been given to the approximately 500 new homes that were proposed for the area. The Director responded that this issue had been discussed at the Overview & Scrutiny Panel, but that it now seemed that these homes had been deleted from the Local Plan.

Councillor Inker highlighted the positive elements of this review in terms of addressing the wider community and social needs for Keynsham but requested that options 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 should not be considered. Councillor Inker gave his opinion that the Keynsham Primary site was the best site and further added a plea that any new school should be opened before old schools are closed.

Councillor Kirwan echoed Councillor Inker's comments and noted the good results of all the schools concerned. With regard to the land needs of any school, Councillor Kirwan expressed his view that Keynsham Primary site was the only suitable site that would meet this criteria.

Councillor Gerrish stressed the need to do the right thing for the community as a whole and welcomed the fact that the Governing bodies of Temple and Keynsham Primary schools had already been in contact with each other over this issue.

Anita Burford, Chair of Temple Primary School, commented that it would be a mistake to squash too many children into the same site. The Keynsham site would also not adequately serve children from the other side of Keynsham, leading to more children being transported by car, which would go against current moves to encourage walking to school.

Iris Lerpiniere, Keynsham resident, commented that child population was cyclical and she opposed any closure of Temple Primary school, which she felt should be kept as it is.

The Director of Eduation answered various queries that had been raised and apologised for any upset that had been caused to Keynsham Primary school by the handling of the media.

Councillor Jonathan Gay opened his speech by echoing the apologies of the Director regarding the media handling. He then gave some background as to why this review was now necessary and mentioned the approximate cost of £2 million a year which was currently being wasted on surplus places. Councillor Gay explained that if the Council did not undertake this review themselves, the Department for Education and Science would step in and the Council would lose any control in the outcome, so to do nothing was not a viable option. Councillor Gay explained that there were two primary outcomes he hoped to see from this review; to address the financial cost to the Authority already mentioned, but also to ensure that whatever changes that were made as a result of the review would result in an even better educational environment for all the children in Keynsham.

Councillor Gay then explained that this was the first stage of a debate, during which there would be plenty of opportunity for comment during the consultation period. He then ran through the options in the report and the reasons behind the ones he would be recommending. He asked that St John's Court, Keynsham could be included in the investigation into possible sites. Councillor Gay explained that his reason for not including option 5.3 was that he did not feel it would contribute to his key desired outcomes: his reason for not recommending options 5.5 and 5.6 were that they did not appear to treat all Keynsham children equitably. With regard to option 5.7, this would not form part of the consultation exercise but would remain `on the table'.

Councillor Crossley informed the meeting that this review model of looking at clusters, not individual schools, was the one that had been used in Radstock and urged people to look at the two wonderful new schools being built there. Councillor Crossley mentioned the need to look at addressing the wider community needs, if possible, and also urged that any new school should be opened before any existing ones closed. He also clarified that, although Councillor Gay had explained the reasons why `no change' was not an option, it would be required to be included as an option for statutory consultation. Councillor Crossley then concluded by outlining the course this review would take and that the ultimate recommendation to Government would be decided by the School Organisation Committee.

On a motion from Councillor Jonathan Gay, seconded by Councillor Haeberling, it was

RESOLVED

(1) To note the work of the Education, Youth, Culture & Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Panel and their views set out at paragraphs 4.9 to 4.16 of the report;

(2) To approve the second phase of the Review and agree that the aims of the Review remain;

(a) improving educational standards;

(b) ensuring that resources (land, buildings, funding and people) are used in the most effective way; and

(c) attempting to deliver improved access to high quality facilities to children, school staff and the wider community;

(3) to authorise the Education Director to initiate a consultation exercise during the Spring term incorporating the following proposals (from section 5 of the report);

(a) (was option 5.1) Closure of Keynsham Primary School and redistribution of pupils to other Keynsham schools with any necessary increases in capacity at the receiving schools being funded from the Capital Programme. Disposal of the Keynsham Primary School site and any receipts that may arise to be returned to the Capital Programme;

(b) (was option 5.2) Closure of Temple Primary School and redistribution of pupils to other Keynsham schools with any necessary increases in capacity at the receiving schools being funded from the Capital Programme. Disposal of the Temple Primary School sites and any receipts that may arise to be returned to the Capital Programme;

(c) (was option 5.4) Closure of both Temple and Keynsham Primary Schools and the creation of a new primary school on the Keynsham Primary site, or other suitable sites to be explored. Disposal of the Temple Primary School sites and any receipts that may arise be used to assist with the development of the new school;

The following option will not form part of the consultation exercise but will remain `open';

(d) (was option 5.7) Amalgamation of Chandag Infant School and Chandag Junior School, as a two form entry school, from 1^st September 2008. Examine the potential for creating this new school in new buildings on one of the existing sites, disposing of any surplus site area and returning the receipts to the Capital Programme. (NB Members are invited to note that the earliest possible date for amalgamation would be September 1^st 2008.)