Meeting documents

1 THE ISSUE

1.1 A consultation exercise has been undertaken examining the future of Southdown Infant School and Southdown Junior School and raising the possibility of creating a new one form entry primary school. A decision is sought on further action in relation to this exercise.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 Note the responses received during the consultation exercise.

2.2 Acknowledge that there is limited local support for pursuing this proposal.

2.3 Acknowledge that much of the opposition appears to focus on the use of any part of the site that may no longer be required, the location of any new building and the costs of building a new school.

2.4 Note that schools in Southdown are identified in the School Organisation Plan as "strategic schools in areas of educational deprivation" .

2.5 Agree, in principle, that the establishment of a new all-through primary school at Southdown is desirable

2.6 Instruct Officers to give further consideration to the size of any new school in light of comments received during consultation and consider whether further statutory consultation is required.

2.7 Instruct Officers to seek support from external funding sources, at an appropriate time, in order to take this project forward.

3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 The cost of building a new 210 place primary school is estimated at £3.5 million. A larger primary school offering 280 or 315 places would cost in the order of £4.25 million.

3.2 DfES state that there will be another opportunity to obtain support from the Targeted Capital Fund (TCF) in the spring of 2007. TCF is a Government funding stream which, as its name implies, is targeted at projects which are driven by the need to raise educational standards and provide enhanced opportunities for `extended school' activities. Should a bid be made to TCF in future years it can be expected that DfES will expect a 20% contribution to the costs of any project to made by the Council.

3.3 The maintenance of high levels of unfilled places cannot be quantified. The additional costs of maintaining the two schools unchanged are approximately £156,000 (at 2005 values) in each full financial year.

4 THE REPORT

4.1 A review of primary schools in South & Central Bath took place during the Summer term 2003/04.

4.2 At its meeting on 30 June 2004 the Executive agreed to "..consider the priority to be given to the possibility of amalgamating Southdown Infant School and Southdown Junior School and authorise the Education Director to initiate a consultation exercise during or after September 2004 regarding this possibility"

4.3 A consultation exercise was initiated in November 2004. Copies of a consultation document were circulated to staff, Governors and parents of children at both schools. Responses to this document have been made available to Executive Members.

4.4 Meetings were held with staff and Governors at both schools during January 2005. A public meeting was held on 13 January 2005. Notes of these meetings are attached.

4.5 At the time of writing 97 responses have been received.

4.6 The key issues emerging from consultation are a) the planned size of any new school, b) the need, or otherwise, for new buildings to be provided, and c) the potential loss of part of the existing combined sites and the use to which this land might be put. It must also be noted that the community surrounding the schools have expressed some concern over the degree or extent of consultation.

4.7 The consultation paper stated that the Council were planning a 210 place primary school. The rationale for this was that the declining birth rate in the area would allow for the combined capacity of the existing schools (420 places) to be reduced significantly and any children in the wider area who were unable to go to the new Southdown school would be able to join other local schools which have unfilled/ surplus places.

4.8 During the consultation process some stakeholders expressed the view that a 210 place school would not be of sufficient size and that a 280 or 315 place school was required. Members are asked to note that Officers believe there is merit in these suggestions.

4.9 Legal advice suggests that if the Council were to bring forward a proposal for a school in excess of 210 places then further consultation would be required. The School Organisation Unit at DfES has suggested this could be limited to other schools in the immediate area.

4.10 At September 2004, the combined number on roll at these schools was 290. This comprised 125 pupils at the Infant school and 165 at the Junior school. In addition, there were 41 children using part-time places at the nursery at the Infant school. The most recent count in January 2005 shows minor changes with there being a combined roll of 298 (128 and 170 pupils respectively) and 40 nursery pupils.

4.11 The information set out at 4.9 shows that a school offering 315 full-time places would be above the current level of demand. However, Members will wish to note that a housing development of over 120 homes is planned at a site approximately 0.5 miles from the Southdown schools. Calculations, using the locally applied pupil yield formula, indicate that a development of this size is likely to bring a further 30 children to the area.

4.12 Members will wish to know that whilst the majority of children currently on roll at the schools come from the immediate area a number of children come from slightly further afield, especially to the Infant school. This is no doubt a reflection of the quality of the school and also an effect of the nursery provision at Southdown Infant which will a) draw children from a wider area and b) lead to a number of parents / carers continuing to send their children to the Infant school when their children enter Reception despite the fact that the school may not be the closest to their home address.

4.13 Other consultation responses have expressed a guarded or sometimes enthusiastic welcome for a substantial investment in Southdown but have expressed great concern about the location of any new building and the fact that there are traffic problems surrounding the schools at present. Members are invited to note these concerns and to note that, should this scheme go forward, any design professional would be asked to assess the ideal location on the site and to ensure that traffic management issues were dealt with effectively.

4.14 A further concern is that, given the combined site size is in excess of that needed for a primary school, there is a potential loss of part of the combined sites to other uses. Officers have stated publicly in response to direct questions that the Council always seeks to manage its property assets in the best way possible taking into account all corporate priorities.

4.15 Members will be aware that, if the Education Service no longer needs a building or land it is declared surplus to service requirements and responsibility passes to colleagues in Property & Legal Services. These officers are responsible for advising on the future use or disposal of any Council asset. Occasionally this may mean that a site formerly held for education purposes may be disposed of for residential development and this is of great concern to residents in the Southdown area.

4.16 Members are asked to note that, under section 77 of the School Standards & Framework Act 1998 school playing fields are protected from disposal leading to a change of use. However, this section does not apply where a school is being moved onto its own playing field.

4.17 Some responses have expressed a view that the existing buildings should be retained and remodelled / refurbished in order to provide high quality facilities for any new school should amalgamation take place. Design professionals would examine the potential for this, and make recommendations as to the feasibility and desirability of reusing part or all of the existing buildings. Members are asked to note that, amongst other requirements, those for acoustic performance and accessibility for disabled people often make re-use of existing buildings problematic.

4.18 Members will recall that in the School Organisation Plan 2002-2007 the Council stated the following "Recognising the key role that schools will play in reducing and eliminating educational deprivation over the coming years the LEA considers that the schools in the wards of Peasedown, Southdown and Radstock are of strategic importance in tackling such deprivation and promoting social inclusion. Therefore, should any of the above schools present itself as a candidate for potential review (using the criteria set by Education Committee) the educational outcomes and the value for money at those schools will be given particular consideration. In addition, consideration will be given to the place of the school in the community and an assessment made of whether the pattern of provision is actively helping in the tackling of educational deprivation and the promotion of social inclusion".

4.19 On the basis of the Council's commitment to tackling educational deprivation as set out in 4.18 Members are asked to agree that the establishment of a new school in Southdown is a desirable outcome but agree that further work needs to be undertaken regarding the planned size of the new school.

4.20 Members are also asked to note that, given that the Education Capital Programme is fully committed until the beginning of the financial year 2008/09, external funding will be required and to agree that the TCF represents the most likely source of such funding.

4.21 Members are asked to note that bids to the TCF can be submitted on a biennial basis and that the next opportunity to bid will arise (subject to policy change at DfES) in the spring of 2007.

4.22 Members are also asked to note that, under current rules, schemes supported through the TCF require a 20% contribution from the Council.

5 RISK MANAGEMENT

6 RATIONALE

6.1 The Council is committed to combating educational deprivation and the creation of a new school with modern facilities is likely to contribute to a raising of educational standards.

6.2 There is some local support for the creation of a new `all-through' school and most of the concerns raised in consultation can be addressed through rational use of the site and high quality design.

6.3 The Council has a duty to ensure there are sufficient, suitable school places and, taking into account the views expressed in consultation, there is insufficient certainty that a 210 place school would be sufficient.

6.4 In other circumstances, the closure of schools with such high levels of evident surplus capacity might have been considered in greater depth. However, since it is absolutely clear that Southdown needs a school and that only the size of the school is at issue, and that the circumstances in Southdown and the criteria for bids under TCF are so closely matched it is rational to maintain the schools unchanged at present pending further detailed work on the number of places to be offered and further consultation.

7 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

7.1 The alternative to the recommended action is to agree that both schools should remain unchanged and that no attempt should be made to effect change at the right time. This would conflict with the stated aims of the Area Review (particularly those relating to the improvement of standards, and the provision of high quality facilities) which is the principal causative factor behind this report.

8 CONSULTATION

8.1 Consultation has been undertaken and is referred to in the main body of the report.