New Community Secondary School Redland
BRISTOL SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEE
11 DECEMBER 2003
STATUTORY PROPOSAL: NEW COMMUNITY SECONDARY SCHOOL REDLAND
Summary
1. The LEA proposes to establish a new co-educational 945 place, 11-16, Community secondary school in Redland from 1 September 2006. The appropriate statutory notice was published on 22 September 2003 and the Prescribed Information received by the Committee. Formal consultation on the proposal was undertaken by the LEA in accordance with the Secretary of State’s published guidance. The LEA is seeking approval of their proposal, conditional on the granting of planning permission for the development by 1 January 2005
What are the proposals intended to achieve?
2. The proposal to establish a new Secondary School in September 2006 is part of the City Council's "Transforming Secondary Education" programme, which commenced in 2001. The objective of this programme is to establish a pattern of secondary schools which:
• Is a secure basis for staff and governors to bring about rising attainment at the age of 14, 16, 17 and 18. • Maximises inclusion and the social mix of children. • Will be secure for ten years and preferably more. • Ensures a balance between the demand for, and supply of, school places. • Maximises parental confidence and meets the aspirations of all stakeholders for the city’s children. • Ensures a greater proportion of parents choose to send their children to Bristol state schools. • Provides robust schools which are sufficiently large to meet the challenges and needs of an urban education service and which are cost effective. • Provides a sufficiently wide range of curricula opportunities 11-19. • Is the basis for increasing participation post-16. • Allows schools to be diverse and make recognised and distinct contributions to the community of schools in Bristol. • Encourages the effective primary-secondary liaison and facilitates improved transition for pupils from primary to secondary school.
The proposal is for a new 945 place 11-16 school in North Bristol. It is proposed to establish inclusive education provision on the site for 50 pupils with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties from Kingsweston
The proposal will provide additional places in an area of recent shortage of appropriate secondary places. Cotham and Monks Park Schools are regularly oversubscribed. Independent data from Andersens, MORI and Ernst & Young confirms that the new school will be fully subscribed and opinion sampling demonstrates that the opening of a new high achieving secondary school in north Bristol will be a major factor in retaining Bristol children in Bristol LEA schools from an area where there is very substantial loss to the independent sector and surrounding LEAs. These proposals also present an opportunity to change the social mix of Bristol schools to more accurately reflect the real overall social profile of the city.
An extract from the unsuccessful Basic Need Bid is attached (Appendix 1).
The Redland site is closer to the schools with highest demand and further from Henbury and Portway. This, together with strategies for raising attainment being undertaken by schools and the LEA, for example the Key Stage 3 Strategy and Excellence in Cities plus the PFI rebuilding of Henbury, Monks Park and Portway to offer up to date facilities should minimise the effect on these schools.
The school is being planned for 945 11-16 mainstream pupils, this is 189 places per year. The school will open with Year 7 (and post-16 and SLD/PMLD pupils) and will have five-year groups in September 2010.
The capital work required and how the costs are to be met.
5. The building will provide accommodation for 945 11-16 mainstream pupils, together with 50 places for pupils with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties (from Kingsweston Special School) and 450 Post-16 places.
The new school will be a multi-storey building, the design of which will address the opportunities afforded by the site. The scheme will include landscape, recreation areas and pedestrian and vehicular access in line with DfES guidelines.
Playing fields will be located off-site at Kellaway Avenue and Bishop Road. Extensive works will be carried out to improve the quality of these areas.
The proposals have been designed in line with Area Guidelines and the cost parameters established by the DfES.
The cost of establishing the school is £15.5m. This does not include the cost of any Post-16 or inclusive provision, which is not subject to this statutory proposal. The proposal will be funded jointly by the DfES (£7m) and partly by the City Council from its own resources (£8.5).
A Targeted Capital Fund bid has been submitted to the DfES to fund the inclusive provision in the new school building and post-16 provision will be funded by the Learning and Skills Council.
The recurrent costs and savings
6. It is estimated that the recurrent cost arising of the new school will be £2.890m per annum, based on the provisions for resourcing schools contained in the Financing of Maintained schools document. As this is additional provision, no recurrent savings are anticipated.
A summary of the objections and comments that have been made and the LEA response
7. An Analysis of the Responses to the Consultation Document and Public Meetings on The New North Bristol Secondary School – July 2003 is attached at Appendix 2. A schedule of representations received in response to the published notice is attached as Appendix 3, together with the LEA’s observations on them. Twenty-six representations were received and not withdrawn in writing by the end of the six-week representation period. Twenty-five of the representations objected to the proposal and one expressed concern about the continued public access to the playing field.
How the proposal fits in with the School Organisation Plan
8. This proposal is in line with the following Key Policy Objectives in the School Organisation Plan (SOP):
1. Standards 1a To maintain and raise education standards in the city, with the city’s schools becoming the first choice for all Bristol parents and pupils.
3. Size of Schools and Educational Effectiveness 3a Ensure that schools are of sufficient size to meet the key policy objectives relating to standards and effectiveness and the planning principles...... In order to meet these objectives the minimum size of a secondary school should be at least six forms of entry, as set out in the planning principles.
4. Admissions and Transition 4a The planning principle is that levels of over and under subscription should be minimised and effective transition realised. Therefore, the objective is to ensure a better match between parents’ stated preferences and the places they are offered.
5. Age Range and Framework 5a To maintain the current arrangements for Primary, Secondary transfer and the framework for 11-15, 16+ provision, reflecting the planning principles and the offers and options which will be available at 16+ through Post 16 Centres.
6. Buildings and Sites 6a The planning principle concerned is providing schools with quality buildings. The objective therefore is to ensure school buildings meet the current statutory standards and any agreed national guidance / local policies, bringing the building stock up to a defined standard of fitness for purpose and physical adequacy. Schools should be barrier- free to disabled pupils.
6b Schools should be at the heart of their communities. Ensure joined up use of all local funding and the much greater community use of school facilities. 8. Location Planning principles relate to local access and quality provision. The objective is therefore to provide schools close to the neighbourhoods they serve, whilst recognizing that this objective should not override the need to raise standards and ensure educational effectiveness. Seek the best relationship between school provision and centres of population, avoiding, where possible, the need to transport pupils.
11. Inclusion 11a Primary and secondary schools should be planned to be inclusive so that where possible the opportunities for all children to be educated in or alongside the mainstream are maximised.
Paragraph 192 of he approved SOP provides that “the proposed new 945 place (11-16) secondary school in north Bristol shall be established on the Redland Court Road playing field site.”
In addition, the SOP sets out the planned Post-16 provision across the city, including:
“The development of a new FE corporation (working title, the New North Bristol Institute) which will be co-located on the site of Cotham School and the new 11-16 school in North Bristol. This will provide school based level 3 progression routes for learners from Cotham (11-16), the new 11-16 school, Monks Park, Fairfield, Portway and Henbury.”
A summary of the travel implications for school pupils, including an assessment of the safety of walking and cycling routes, and the availability of public transport.
9. One of the reasons for proposing to locate the New School at Redland Court was to serve an immediate area of major housing density where, almost by definition there is considerable potential to promote sustainable routes to and from school.
A School Travel study has been undertaken by Faber Maunsell. This has included a Journey to School Survey, Safer Routes to School Audit and a traffic flow analysis. A Desire Line Audit has looked at the most likely routes to be used by pupils and highlighted issues raised and suggested remedial measures, such as additional pedestrian crossings and provision of cycle lanes. This work will result in a scheme to be agreed with Highways and Planning officers which will ensure safe access to the site by walking or cycling.
There are various bus routes running close to the site with stops located an acceptable distance from the school and Redland and Montpelier railway stations are in close proximity.
A summary School Travel report is attached as Appendix 4.
The educational merits of the proposal
10. At present a large proportion of higher-attaining pupils leave the maintained sector in Bristol at age 11. The school will play a vital part in changing perceptions, aspirations, and re-capturing the confidence of learners and their parents.
The school will play a major role in the City’s strategy for raising attainment by equipping every young person as fully as possible to face the demands of the 21st Century, to contribute to the economic, social and cultural life of their communities.
The school will provide new ways of delivering the 14-19 curriculum (in conjunction with the post-16 federation) and will therefore make a major difference to low aspirations and low progression rates.
Work-related and work-based learning will be as fully integrated as possible with all elements of the curriculum.
The school will seek specialist science status and work in partnership with other schools in the city. Links will be sought with the universities in Bristol in order to ensure a high standard of continuing professional development for teachers, lecturers and support staff.
It is anticipated that this proposal will have a positive effect on standards at Key Stages 3 and 4 and be an important factor in retaining Bristol children in Bristol LEA schools. The proposal is part of wider proposals to transform secondary education in Bristol, which includes the expansion and relocation of Fairfield School, the rebuilding of Monks Park, Henbury, Portway and Bedminster Down Schools under the Private Finance Initiative. It is anticipated that these changes, together with Excellence in Cities and Key Stage 3 strategies should minimize the effect on surrounding schools of these proposals.
The new north Bristol secondary school will be part of the Excellence In Cities programme. It is anticipated that the new school will gain Science Specialist School status to complement the citywide pattern of specialist schools and the nearby Performing Arts status at Cotham School.
In addition to the 11-16 school in North Bristol the building will house provision for 50 pupils with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties from Kingsweston Special School. This does not form part of the statutory proposal will offer opportunities for the schools to work collaboratively together and allow inclusion of pupils with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties to benefit of all pupils.
There will also be collaborative opportunities with the Post-16 provision, including the use of some shared facilities and spaces.
Other key issues
Whether the proposals will enable pupils’ special educational needs to be met.
11. It will be the responsibility of the governing body and headteacher to generate a special educational needs policy. The LEA will work closely with the governing body and headteacher in order to produce a policy that reflects the procedures outlined in the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. The policy will also reflect Bristol City’s Inclusive Education and Special Educational Needs Policies.
The governing body and headteacher will ensure that pupils with special educational needs engage in all the regular activities of the school and that in doing so they follow the procedures outlined in the special educational needs Code of Practice.
The LEA intends to negotiate with the governing body that a special educational needs policy is written outlining how the Code of Practice procedures are to be followed in their school. Their policy will need to outline what special arrangements are to be made in order to meet the needs of pupils who may be identified as having additional or special educational needs.
In meeting these responsibilities the school will establish:
school-based assessments and interventions for pupils with special educational needs. These would include pupils with learning difficulties and/or who present with social, emotional and behavioural problems procedures for identifying, generating and monitoring special educational needs arrangements within the school procedures for dealing with bullying procedures for engaging and working with external agents procedures for working closely with parents/carers procedures for differentiating or adapting the national curriculum arrangements as and when appropriate, to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs
The school will also have regard to policies adopted by the LEA in relation to pupils with special educational needs.
The school will publish information about their Special Educational Needs Policy in the governing body’s annual report. The report will describe principles on allocating resources among SEN pupils and should be accessible to the whole school community.
The school will appoint a designated teacher, the special educational needs coordinator (SENCO), who will be responsible for day to day operation of the school’s SEN Policy. He or she will coordinate provision for pupils with SEN and liaise with parents, staff and external agencies. The headteacher will take practical steps to ensure that the SENCO will have the time and the resources they need for this role.
How the proposals will support increased inclusion
12. Bristol LEA is firmly committed to equal opportunities for all. The intention is to make the school system appropriate and attractive to children of all backgrounds and abilities. The City Council’s Inclusive Education Policy states a commitment to ensuring that all disabled and disaffected young people will be educated in or alongside mainstream education establishments by 2013. One of the objectives of the reorganisation of secondary education in Bristol was to maximise inclusion.
Under this proposal, 50 pupils with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties from Kingsweston Special School will be educated on site. The design for the new school will incorporate the appropriate specialist facilities for the pupils with special educational needs.
Initially pupils will be taught separately by specialist staff but there will be opportunities for them to gradually be included in classes in the main school with support, where appropriate. At lunchtimes and breaks pupils could use their own area but they will also have the opportunity to mix with other students in order to be part of social occasions in the main school. Students from the main school will spend time with the pupils from the specialist centre as an important joint learning process. The specialist teachers will work in close partnership with their mainstream colleagues to plan and support particular activities in other areas of the curriculum.
In addition to the above, it is planned that there will be representatives from the mainstream school’s governing body sitting on the governing body of the co-located special school, and vice versa. Appropriate professional development opportunities will be made available to the staff and governors of both the mainstream and special school. An understanding of and a commitment to the inclusive provision planned for the site will be a key criterion in the recruitment process for the Headteacher of the new school.
Any sex, race or disability discrimination issues or other human rights issues
13. Bristol LEA is firmly committed to equal opportunities for all. The intention is to make the school system appropriate and attractive to children of all backgrounds and abilities. The admissions criteria of the New School will be in accordance with the published criteria, which are broadly the same for all Community Schools in the LEA. To a degree, the final race impact will depend on the agreed Designated Geographical Area (DGA). The DGA agreed by the Cabinet, which will form part of the statutory consultation on admission arrangements for 2006/7, is based on the established DGAs of Westbury Park and Bishop Road Primary Schools, Elmlea Infant and Junior and part of Henleaze Infant and Junior Schools.
The further development of the proposals and options discussed in this report will be undertake in accordance with the Race Relations Amendment Act. The projects resulting from the decisions taken as a result of this report will be taken forward in accordance with the Corporate Integrated Equalities Policy. The LEA in developing these proposals is committed to doing all in its power to eliminate racism and racial discrimination, either direct or indirect. It recognizes that Black and other minority ethnic communities are not homogenous. Different communities have differing needs. The new provision and the design of the New School will not be defined by stereotyping or presumptions.
The school will be mixed sex and it is anticipated that there will be an approximately equal gender balance.
The ability to meet the statutory requirement for provision of school playing fields
14. The statutory requirement for playing fields for a school of this size is 45,000m2 This will be met using a combination of areas on the site, together with off-site facilities at Kellaway Avenue and Bishop Road. Significant improvements will be made to drainage at these sites, together with a new pavilion, ensuring maximum availability.
Accessibility and the effect on School Journeys. The existence of safe walking, cycling and bus routes to the school
15. One of the reasons for proposing to locate the New School at Redland Court was to serve an immediate area of major housing density where, almost by definition there is considerable potential to promote sustainable routes to and from school.
A School Travel study has been undertaken. This has included a Journey to School Survey, Safe Routes to School Audit and a traffic flow analysis. This work will result in a scheme to be agreed with Highways and Planning officers which will ensure safe access to the site by walking or cycling through improved lighting, surfacing and CCTV. There will be provision of sufficient secure cycle parking spaces and lockers and increased pedestrian and cycle crossings.
There are various bus routes running close to the site with stops located an acceptable distance from the school.
A summary School Travel report is attached as Appendix 4.
Community cohesion, inclusiveness and partnerships
16. The City Council’s Inclusive Education Policy states a commitment to ensuring that all disabled and disaffected young people will be educated in or alongside mainstream education establishments by 2013. One of the objectives of the reorganisation of secondary education in Bristol was to maximise inclusion.
In the case of the new north Bristol secondary school, 50 pupils with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties from Kingsweston Special School will be educated on site. The design for the new school will incorporate the appropriate specialist facilities for the pupils with special educational needs.
The post-16 provision, provided by the Learning and Skills Council, which forms part of the north Bristol Post-16 Centre, will also be an integral part of the building.
The school and associated Post-16 provision will develop as a community resource by providing distinct courses which meet specific adult and community ends in the area, and by opening its 14-19 provision to adult learners in order to enrich the learning context for adults and young people. The school will be open in the evenings and at weekends to allow people of all ages to learn.
The playing fields will be available for use by the community and Bishop Road Primary School will also continue their use of the fields.
Copy of guidance issued by the Secretary of State to which the SOC must have regard.
17. Decision Maker’s Guidance Sections 1 and 2.1 are attached as Appendix 5
Types of Decisions
18. The Committee may:
Reject the proposal;
Approve the proposal without modification;
Approve the proposal with modifications, following consultation with the LEA and others: or
Give a conditional approval, giving a specified date by which the condition must be met.
Each group on the SOC has a single vote for any decision of the SOC. The vote of the SOC on any decision must be unanimous – an abstention does not count against unanimity. Where a vote is not unanimous, the proposals must be referred to the Schools Adjudicator.
Appendices
1. Appendix 1 - Extract from unsuccessful Basic Need bid. 2. Appendix 2 - Analysis of Responses to Consultations on new North Bristol Secondary School 3. Appendix 3 - Schedule of Responses to Statutory Notices and LEA’s observations 4. Appendix 4 - Summary of School Travel Report 5. Appendix 5 - Decision maker’s Guidance Sections 1 and 2.1 Appendix 1
Extract from: Bristol City Council:Basic Need Application September 2002
SECTION 4 - DEMAND INDICATORS FOR A NEW SCHOOL
4.1 Andersen/ MORI Analysis: Scope of Work
Andersen were engaged by the City Council to undertake an objective analysis of the demand for future secondary places across the city for the following main reasons:
• To provide a firm base for the secondary review • To respond to critical OfSTED reports on the LEA (and specifically its planning of school places) • Relatively poor ‘league table’ results in the LEA Secondary sector • The high proportion of independent secondary schools, especially in the north of the city • To review the pupil projection methodology
The November 2001 Andersen Report commissioned by the City Council provides recent rigorous research data for the potential demand for a new school in the area of North Bristol generally.
Crucial to the Andersen approach was the use of ‘sensitivity testing’. The sensitivities provide alternative pupil projections based on a number of factors relating to parental preferences. Andersens propose that these projections be used by the City Council when planning future policy and the organisation of places. They allow the LEA to test various scenarios and analyse how pupil projections will change under certain circumstances.
The Andersen approach distinguishes between four sets of sensitivities that are vital in assessing the indicative and potential demand for pupil places at a new school in North Bristol.
1. Those parents intending to educate their children in the Bristol LEA system; 2. Those intending to remove them from the LEA system; 3. Those who have left the LEA system in the last year; 4. Those who have never entered the LEA system.
Andersen commissioned MORI on the City Council’s behalf to assess by opinion sampling parental intentions and preferences in these sensitivities and also between the areas of Bristol (as defined by Admission Consortium Areas).
These regions are;
Region 1 East Region 2 North East Region 3 South Region 4 North Central Region 5 North West
4.2 The Numbers Case
The City Council has considered thirteen sites for the proposed new school. The Basic Need case is based on the City Council’s preferred site at Redland Court Road. Where appropriate comparative data for the alternative site at Stoke Lodge is also shown.
The Authority’s bid is based on the report commissioned by the LEA from Andersen. This report provides independent, robust and recent data on the case for a new school in North Bristol. The report is evidence-based drawing on opinion sampling carried out on a sub contract by MORI.
Andersen’s remit was to review strategically the projected numbers on roll and also to provide an independent assessment of the case for a new school in North Bristol.
Andersen’s sensitivities Group 2 can be potentially considered as the main customer base for the new school.
The More Open Enrolment capacities (September 2005) of the schools within a three-mile radius of the Redland Court Road and Stoke Lodge sites are as follows;
Redland Court Road Stoke Lodge MOE MOE Capacity Capacity
Ashton Pk 1080 Cotham 1080 Cotham 1080 Fairfield 1080 Fairfield 1080 Henbury 945 Henbury 945 Monks Park 1080 Lockleaze 0 Portway 945 Monks Park 1080 St Bede’s 900 St George 975 St Thomas More 0 St Mary Redcliffe 1080 St Thomas More 0 Whitefield 1080
TOTALS 8400 TOTALS 6030
The capacity of Lockleaze is shown as zero as our School Organisation Committee agreed on 4 July 2002 to its phased closure with a final closure in August 2004.
The Capacity of St Thomas More Catholic Aided School is shown as zero because, as the DfES is aware, the Clifton Catholic Diocese is proposing to move the school to South Gloucestershire, but notwithstanding this, the City Council’s Cabinet decided on 7 December 2001 ‘that, if the relocation of St. Thomas Moore School is not formally agreed by April 2003, further consultations be held, in conjunction with the Diocese of Clifton, on ceasing to maintain the school’.
In assessing the likely potential demand for places from Andersen’s sensitivities Group 2 , the Authority has sought the advice of Ernst Young on a consultancy basis. Their advised methodology is given in Appendix 2. Applying this methodology to all the three-mile radius school around Redland Court Rd produces the data shown in the table below.
Region 2005 Sensitivity 2 Sensitivity 2 – Regional % Regional % Regional % (Regional % (Regional % (Regional % Base Base Movers due Movers due Movers due Movers due to Movers due to Movers due to Projection Projection to new to quality to new new school new school new school school school / / / / Movers due to Movers due to Movers due to Movers due quality) quality) quality) to quality X X X (Sensitivity 2 – (Sensitivity 2 – (Sensitivity 2 – Base Base Base Projection) Projection) Projection) x 72% x 72% + Base Projection Ashton Pk 3 1058 1191 133 46 56 0.82 109.25 78.66 1136.66 Cotham 4 936 1057 121 46 59 0.78 94.34 67.92 1003.92 Fairfield 4 612 690 78 46 59 0.78 60.81 43.79 655.79 Henbury 5 721 788 67 46 48 0.96 64.21 46.23 767.23 Lockleaze 2 498 556 58 46 55 0.84 48.51 34.93 532.93 Monks Park 2 930 1036 106 46 55 0.84 88.65 68.83 993.83 St George 1 1078 1160 82 46 44 1.05 85.75 61.72 1139.72 St Mary 3 1038 1164 126 46 56 0.82 103.50 74.52 1112.52 Redcliffe St Thomas 2 520 581 61 46 55 0.84 51.02 36.73 556.73 More Whitefield 1 969 1045 76 46 44 1.05 79.45 57.21 1026.21 8360 9268 908 785.47 565.54 8925.54
Sensitivities Group 3 parents, those who have left the LEA system in the last year. Of these, 54% go to non Bristol LEA schools and 46% to the independent sector. Of the sample surveyed, in Sensitivities Group 4, the north-central area, 69% would return ‘given the correct circumstances’. As Andersen say in their section 13.1, when commenting on Sensitivities Group 3, “schools within consortium area 4 Cotham and Fairfield High experience the highest growth in pupil numbers. In this scenario, Fairfield, Monks Park which experience decline in sensitivity 1 actually experience growth due to the slight increase in pupil numbers. Over Fairfield, Monks Park and Cotham, comparing the five-year 2006 projection in sensitivity one with that of sensitivity three, the projections would be;
Sensitivity 1 Sensitivity 3 Additionality Cotham 876 1073 197 Fairfield 567 694 127 Monks Park 860 989 129 Total 2304 2759 453
Assuming then that the single factor which would attract these parents back ie ‘the correct circumstances’ is the new school (and there is very strong evidence that it is) then the 453 children which Andersen added to the above schools’ projections in Sensitivity 3 would in practice go to the new school. Group three adds to the Basic Need submission a further 453 places.
Sensitivities Group 4 parents, those who have never entered the LEA system.
100% of this group send their children to the independent sector. Andersen’s data indicates, (in section 18.3.4 of their report) that of this group, 40% would change their intentions if the new school was built and of those 40%, 48% would transfer their child to the new school. This equates to a potential indicative demand over a 5-year period of 107 (source Table 18-A of the Andersen’s report).
‘Don’t Knows’ The Authority is advised (by Ernst Young who were engaged to undertake a validity check of this submission) that it should also include 50% of those who responded ‘don’t know’ from survey groups 2 and 4. The number of pupils added by this work is;
Gp. ‘Don’t Of those Actual % Assume Total Total knows’ who said uptake 50% From Number of ‘yes’ to (columns the ‘don’t altering b x c) Group* knows’ intentions, those likely to send child to the new school
2 15% 72% 10.8% 5.4% 525 20 4 8% 48% 3.84% 1.02% 107 2 TOTAL 22
*As quoted elsewhere in the preceding section.
In summary, therefore the LEA submits that there is a demand for the school of 525 from base projections plus group 2, 453 from those attracted back who are in group 3, 107 from group 4 and also 22 ‘don’t knows’.
This gives a total basic need of 1107. The LEA’s bid however is for a 945 place school which will allow 7 forms of entry.
APPENDIX 2
AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESPONSES TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT AND PUBLIC MEETINGS ON:
THE NEW NORTH BRISTOL SECONDARY SCHOOL,
THE EXPANSION OF FAIRFIELD SCHOOL and
REVISED DESIGNATED GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS FOR NORTH BRISTOL
JULY 2003
CONTENTS Page
Introduction 2
Key Findings 2
The Response 3
Findings 4
The New North Bristol Secondary School 4
Establishment 4
Size 5
Inclusive Provision 6
Fairfield School 6
School Expansion 6
Inclusive Provision 6
Designated Geographical Areas (D.G.A’s) 6
New School 7
Fairfield School 7
Cotham School/Ashton Park Secondary 7
Other Schools 7
Public Consultation Meetings 8
Responses from Bristol LEA Schools 8
INTRODUCTION
This report presents an analysis of the consultation on the NEW NORTH BRISTOL SECONDARY SCHOOL, THE EXPANSION OF FAIRFIELD SCHOOL and the REVISED DESIGNATED GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS FOR NORTH BRISTOL, carried out in May and June 2003.
In the above period 20,000 consultation documents were widely distributed to interested parties affected by the proposed changes and a number of public meetings held in the north Bristol area.
Responses to the consultation document were invited by email or letter and notes taken at the public meetings. The responses were in an entirely free form format, the closing date for responses being June 27th 2003 (extended from the original closing date of 20th June 2003). These responses have been collated and coded using key words/areas to produce the quantitative analysis contained in this report.
KEY FINDINGS
Of those stating support or opposition, 88% state that they are in support of the establishment of the new school on the Redland Court Road site.
11% of those supporting the establishment of the school on the Redland Court Road site urge the City Council to avoid delay in the process
The most positive aspects of the new school are seen as the ability to walk/cycle to school, ‘community’ and the location being in the area of highest population density/greatest need.
Some negative aspects need to be considered in planning with regard to access/congestion (though 35% saw the benefits brought about by reducing/minimising congestion in other areas) and the off site playing fields.
74% feel that the size of the school is appropriate.
4 distinct areas can be identified where respondents seek modifications (inclusion) to the proposed DGA for the new school: the area which has become known as the ‘Henleaze notch’ the wider Henleaze area as it relates to splitting the catchment area for Henleaze Junior School the Ridgehill, Sates Way, Walliscote Road and Walliscote Avenue cul de sac area in Henleaze where residents must access Henleaze Road via Henleaze Park Drive the wider (Stoke Bishop, Westbury on Trym) area
88% support the proposals for inclusive provision as contained in the consultation document
61% support the expansion of Fairfield School to 1080 pupils, with 39% opposing
There is an appeal from a number of respondents from the area immediately East of Gloucester Road around Brynland Avenue, currently within the Fairfield DGA proposal, for inclusion in the new school DGA.
60% support the changes to the Ashton Park/Cotham DGA boundary
Most other comments with regard to the DGAs for other schools relate to their boundary interface with the new school DGA, highlighting a perceived detrimental effect.
THE RESPONSE
In total 1438 free form responses were received, 729 of which were in letter (hand written or typed) format and 709 of which were via e-mail. In addition, 14 public meetings were held and 4 meetings with staff and governors.
As responses were in free form format no categorisation has been attempted by respondent type.
Mainly due to the email responses, less than 50% of respondents are identifiable by post code/area with the vast majority coming from those areas directly affected by the proposals, however as an indicator the following tables show letter/email response percentages by;
Postcode
Postcode % responses received BS8 7% BS6 22% BS7 25% BS9 44% Other 2%
Area
Area % responses received Clifton 5% Westbury Park 11% Bishopston 22% Stoke Bishop 9% Horfield 4% Westbury on Trym 11% Redland 12% Henleaze 20% Other 6%
FINDINGS
The New North Bristol Secondary School
The purpose of the consultation in this area was to gather views on the proposal to establish a new school, the size of the school and the inclusive provision incorporated in the school.
It should be noted that the vast majority of responses received overall relate to the new school, and that many of these incorporate views on the proposed designated geographical area for the new school which is dealt with later in this report.
The establishment of the new school
Overall, 75% of the respondents state directly that they either support or oppose the new school, with the remaining 25% giving viewpoints confined to Designated Geographical Areas (DGAs), size, making general comments or are concerned with other areas such as other school DGAs, inclusion etc. (i.e. not directly indicating support or otherwise).
Of those stating support or opposition, 88% state that they are in support of the establishment of the new school on the Redland Court Road site.
A deeper analysis of responses highlights areas that respondents have taken into consideration, or feel are important contributors to their overall viewpoint.
The size and DGAs are clearly of importance and these are dealt with below as specific consultation areas.
44% (420) of those who responded in support of the establishment of the new school do not qualify (or give little qualification) to their support, which would indicate their endorsement of the overall proposals for the new school as put forward in the consultation process.
By the same token 26% (32) of those who responded in opposition to the establishment of the new school do not qualify (or give little qualification) to their opposition which would indicate their opposition to the overall proposals for the new school as put forward in the consultation process.
Specifically, 11% of those supporting the establishment of the school on the Redland Court Road site urge the City Council to avoid delay in the process, with 3% drawing attention to the fact that delay may cause funding loss.
Other factors are of relevance to respondents on a personal basis in terms of e.g. their own circumstances, where they live in relation to the proposed site, the time available to them to construct their response, whether or not they support the Redland Court Road site etc.
Some of these factors have therefore attracted a limited response in quantitative terms, but nevertheless deserve consideration (the major factors are listed):
125 respondents draw attention to walking/cycling of which 95% feel this to be a positive aspect of the Redland Court Road site 111 respondents draw attention to the access to the Redland Court Road site and congestion, with 65% seeing this as a problem. The remaining 35%, however see this as no problem or alleviating a problem which may be associated with a site not close to its population centre 61 respondents draw attention to the remote playing fields, with 80% seeing this as a drawback of the Redland Court Road site and 20% seeing it as no problem. 55 respondents draw attention to the ‘community’/’allowing friends to stay together’ aspects of the Redland Court Road site with 71% seeing this as a positive contributor. 51 respondents draw attention to the fact that the site is situated in its population centre with all seeing this as an advantage
The size of the school
With regard to the size of the school, 193 respondents (13%) made direct reference as part of their response. Of these (133) 68% feel that the school needs to be bigger, either physically or in terms of pupil numbers, however respondents did not put forward specific proposals. The remaining 60 (32%) feel the size is appropriate.
Given that less than 133 (124) people directly oppose the site, this does not mean that all of the respondents who feel that the school should be bigger also feel that the size of the site is a reason for overall opposition.
Further, in order to reach a balanced conclusion on views on size, consideration should be given to both the 44% (420) of those who responded in support of the establishment of the new school who do not qualify (or give little qualification) to their support (which would indicate their endorsement of the overall proposals for the new school, including size); and the 26% (32) of those who responded in opposition to the establishment of the new school who do not qualify (or give little qualification) to their opposition (which would indicate their opposition to the overall proposals for the new school, including size).
When these two groups are taken into consideration 74% feel that the size of the school is appropriate.
On an associated point 34 (4%) of those supporting the establishment of the school on the Redland Court Road site, feel that consideration should be given in increasing the number of intake years in the first year of the school.
Inclusive Provision
Again consideration should be given to those (above) supporting or objecting to the establishment of the new school with no further qualification, however in specific terms 101 respondents made direct reference to the proposals for inclusive provision as contained in the consultation document, with 88% in favour.
There were relatively few (8) responses to the specific questionnaire issued about SLD provision. However, over 62% were in favour of the proposal to set up a specialist provision for secondary aged children with SLD which is co-located on the campus of the new school, and nearly 88% felt that the provision should be managed by a special school specialising in the secondary age group (Kingsweston School). However, from those who responded, there was no clear consensus about how, and at what stage the transfer of children from Kingsweston to the new school should be managed.
Summary
There is very strong support for the establishment of the new school as contained in the consultation document with comments on specific aspects for consideration. Further, there is general endorsement for the inclusive provision arrangements, with the views of specialist interest groups to be taken into further consideration.
Fairfield School
The purpose for consultation in this area was to gather views on the expansion of Fairfield School to 1080 pupils and the proposed inclusive provision to be incorporated in the school.
School Expansion
There were 31 responses specific to the expansion of Fairfield School to 1080 pupils with 19 (61%) in favour of expansion and 12 (39%) opposing.
Inclusive Provision
Again specific response in this area was limited and must be seen in the light of the general acceptance for the arrangement for inclusive provision within the consultation document. Whilst support for a ‘school within a school’ for deaf and hearing impaired pupils seems to be general, in specific terms, of 18 the responses, 10 (56%) feeling that the ‘school within a school’ should be located on the new school site with the remaining 44% feeling it should be located at Fairfield. However, during the consultation meetings about inclusive deaf and hearing impaired provision there was general support for this provision to be located at Fairfield School.
Designated Geographical Areas (DGAs)
The purpose for consultation in this area was to gather views on the proposed DGA for the new school, the revised DGA for Fairfield School and the resulting changes to the DGAs for other schools.
General
There were 833 specific comments with regard to DGAs across the proposals. Assuming those who were in general support/opposition to the new school without qualification agreed/disagreed with the overall proposals (including DGAs), 46% of respondents were in agreement with the DGAs and 54% wanted modifications.
The vast majority of comments with regard to DGAs are concerned with the new school. Further, most of the comments with regard to the DGAs for the other schools are concerned with the boundary interface with the new school.
The figures for the new school contain a 138 person petition requesting modifications to the DGA from the residents of Ridgehill, Sates Way, Walliscote Road and Walliscote Avenue in Henleaze, each signatory being treated individually
New School
Including those who did not qualify their support/opposition to the overall proposals, 48% of respondents want modifications to the DGAs as proposed.
4 distinct areas can be identified where respondents seek modifications to the proposed DGA:
the area which has become known as the ‘Henleaze notch’: 52 respondents appeal for this area to be included in the DGA for the new school. the wider Henleaze area as it relates to splitting the catchment area for Henleaze Junior School: 101 respondents appeal for the whole catchment to be included the Ridgehill, Sates Way, Walliscote Road and Walliscote Avenue cul de sac area in Henleaze where residents must access Henleaze Road via Henleaze Park Drive: 156 (including the 138 signatory petition) appeal to be included in the DGA for the new school the wider (Stoke Bishop, Westbury on Trym) area: 78 respondents appeal to be included in the DGA for the new school
Fairfield School
There are 11 responses in support of the revised DGA for Fairfield School, with 34 responses appealing for modifications; the majority of these from the area immediately East of Gloucester Road around Brynland Avenue appealing for inclusion in the new school DGA.
Cotham School/ Ashton Park
There are 47 responses relating to the DGA change with regard to the Cotham School/Ashton Park boundary with the majority (60%) favouring the changes.
Other Schools
Most other comments with regard to the DGAs for other schools relate to their boundary interface with the new school DGA highlighting a perceived detrimental effect (numbers in brackets): Cotham (10), Monks Park (11), Portway (8), Henbury (5).
Public consultation meetings
Comments made at the public consultation meetings have been encoded and included in the analysis. In general the issues mirrored those points bulleted under the establishment of the school section above.
Responses from Bristol LEA Schools
Responses were received from 3 secondary schools, 6 primary schools, 2 special schools and a combined response from the Catholic Community.
The responses from the special schools concerned themselves mainly with their specialisms.
In general, the 3 secondary schools focus on the DGAs, highlighting considerations which should be borne in mind with regard to potential detrimental effects associated with the revised boundaries.
The responses from the primary schools concern themselves mainly with the direct affect the proposals have with regard to their own catchments/intake.
3 of the primaries are most affected by the changes to the Ashton Park/Cotham DGAs and all of these are supportive of the revised boundaries.
The remaining 3 primaries are primarily affected by the proposals for the new school, the one primary which falls within the new school catchment area being supportive of the proposals, with one of the other 2 stating opposition and both highlighting considerations with regard to the proposed DGAs and size of the new school.
Appendix 3
New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 1 Mr D H Daniels & Mrs Site too small The site meets the requirements of the Education (School C E Daniels No room for expansion Premises) Regulations 1999. The footprint of building will 89 Cranbrook Road Off-site playing field occupy 19% of the site. The decision to locate playing Redland Inadequate access for vehicles fields off-site means that there is room on the site for Bristol Unsafe access for pupils through allotments expansion of the school in future should this be necessary. BS6 7DA Unsafe and constricted access for pupils by road. Many schools in Bristol use off-site playing fields and planning and management will minimise any disruption. A Multi Use Games Area will be provided on site. A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. Only school staff and disabled access drivers will be permitted to access the site. A straight path, fenced and lit, through the allotments will be installed. The path will be closed after 5pm. A summary School Travel report is attached. 2 Mr Jeremy Brown Concerns over future community access to site. Many of the facilities of the site will be accessible to the 5 Greendale Road public out of normal school hours. The car park will be Redland open for use in the evenings when necessary. Bristol BS6 7LH New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 3 Mrs Aurelie Wright Loss of playing field Although the playing field at Redland will be lost 1 Kersteman Road Transport arrangements to off-site fields, substantial improvements are being made to Kellaway Redland associated loss of teaching time and pollution. Avenue and Bishop Road playing fields which will enable Bristol Inaccessibility, traffic congestion, noise pollution. them to be used for much more of the year than is BS6 7BX Behaviour problems, increase in graffiti. currently possible. Road safety for pupils. Many schools in Bristol use off-site playing fields and Inappropriately timed traffic surveys. whilst these can be an issue proper planning and management will minimise any disruption. Behaviour on and around the school site will be an issue for the governing body. The LEA has met with the police who will work with the governing body to community relations and behaviour around the school.. A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. A scheme will be agreed with both Highways and Planning involving crossings etc. Revised traffic surveys have been undertaken in response to concerns raised about the timing of the initial traffic surveys. A summary School Travel report is attached. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 4 Renee Willgress Site too small The site meets the requirements of the Education (School 34a Clarendon Road No room for growth Premises) Regulations 1999. The footprint of building will Redland Playing fields inadequate occupy 19% of the site. The decision to locate playing Bristol Transport to off-site fields will waste time, fields off-site means that there is room on the site for BS6 7EU increase costs and disrupt costs. expansion should this be necessary. Inadequate access for emergency vehicles. The proposed playing fields also meet the requirements of Access for students inadequate and unsafe. the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. A Access for walking students through allotments is Multi Use Games Area will be provided on the site. unsafe. Many schools in Bristol use off-site playing fields and planning and management will minimise any disruption. Ensuring safe and adequate access to the site is a major part of the scheme and the costs of this have been taken into account. A ‘normal’ traffic entrance will be provided which will be used by emergency vehicles. As usual sirens and flashing lights on the vehicles will allow them through the traffic. A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. A straight path, fenced and lit, through the allotments will be installed. A summary School Travel report is attached.
New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 5 Roy S Amor Site unsuitable, should be Stoke Lodge The site meets the requirements of the Education (School 13 Dugar Walk Difficulties presented by site not taken into Premises) Regulations 1999. The footprint of building will Redland account by architects. occupy 19% of the site. The LEA has made clear the Bristol Council putting adverts in press saying school will advantages of the Redland site, other sites did not give the BS6 7DH be built although no planning permission granted. same opportunities for minimising impact on surrounding schools, minimising additional car use and establishing a post-16 federation in conjunction with Cotham to serve north Bristol schools. In addition, the funding contribution from the LSC for the establishment of a post-16 federation with cotham to serve north Bristol schools is specifically linked to the Redland site due to the opportunities this creates for close linking with the provision at Cotham. The DfES contribution was based on the innovative proposals put forward by the LEA and the LSC. The architects have designed a building which works with the contours of the site and minimises the effects of a large new building in a conservation area. The Council has followed the statutory process for establishing a new school. This process requires the publication of statutory notices. Planning is a separate process which relates to the actual building. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 6 Ralph & Madeline Lack of consultation by Council The Council has followed the statutory process for Reed Response to communications by Council. establishing a new school. Consultation has been 15 Drugar Walk Council acting in great secrecy. extensive in relation to the transformation of secondary Redland Site is too small. schools across Bristol and specifically relating to the new Bristol No on-site playing fields school. This has included the distribution of consultation BS6 7DH Problems of increased traffic documents and public meetings. An Analysis of the No provision for pupils at break time. Responses to the Consultation Document and Public Sharon Reed Cost implications for additional accessways, Meetings on The New North Bristol Secondary School – 8 Millar House street lighting, purchase of residential properties. July 2003 is attached. Merchants Road Proposed accessways based on outdated maps. All decision have been in line with the Council’s policies Clifton Unsuitable alternative entrance points. with publically available reports and decisions. Bristol Catchment area determined by political The site meets the requirements of the Education (School BS8 4HA expediency. Premises) Regulations 1999. The footprint of building will No room for expansion. occupy 19% of the site. Stoke Loge is better. The site offers adequate space for pupils during break and lunch times and will have both hard and soft recreational space including multi use games areas on site. Ensuring safe and adequate access to the site is a major part of the scheme and the costs of this have been taken into account. One of the advantages of the Redland site is that the vast majority of pupils will live very close to the school and will be a able to walk or cycle. A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. A summary report is attached. The Designated Geographical Area was the subject of widespread consultation and agreed by Cabinet following
New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent input from both the Education Partnership Board and the Scrutiny Commission. The decision to locate playing fields off-site means that there is room on the site for future expansion of the school should this be necessary. The LEA has made clear the advantages of the Redland site, other sites did not give the same opportunities for minimising impact on surrounding schools, minimising additional car use and the developing a post-16 federation for north Bristol in conjunction with Cotham . In addition, the funding contribution from the LSC is specifically linked to the Redland site due to the opportunities this creates and the DfES contribution was based on the innovative proposals put forward by the LEA and the LLSC.
7 Diana Wetz Loss of green site detrimental to amenities of city. The Council has recognised the need for an additional 7 Redland Green Alternative suggestion put forward to provide school in the north of the city. This is a densely populated Road additional school places, by relocating Redland area and sites large enough to accommodate a secondary Bristol High School to Stoke Lodge. school are limited. It is inevitable that there will some loss BS6 7HE of green space wherever the school is located. The LEA has no powers over the location of independent schools. Stoke Lodge would also offer challenges in terms of planning and traffic. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 8 Mr D Lambert & Mrs D Loss of green site in conservation area. This is a densely populated area and sites large enough to M B Lambert Proposal would mean three schools in close accommodate a secondary school are limited. It is 132 Cotham Brow proximity. inevitable that there will some loss of green space Bristol Extra traffic would be generated. More pollution. wherever the school is located. The Council has BS6 6AE Loss of playing field. Noise and pollution caused recognised the need for an additional school in the north of by bussing children to off-site playing field. the city. The site is near to Cotham School but it also an Council intend to sell Stoke Lodge site to area of high population density and Cotham School is developers. heavily oversubscribed with many pupils unable to get a place in a preferred school. The location offers opportunities to complement the performing arts specialism at Cotham with science at the new school. +post-16 There are no plans to sell the Stoke Lodge site. 9 Eamonn McAndrew Site access unsuitable. Access to the site is a major part of the scheme and the 46 Redland Court Surrounding road infrastructure unsuitable. costs of this have been taken into account. A study of Road Site too small. Travel to School including traffic surveys has been Redland Off-site playing field inadequate. undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe Bristol Loss of curriculum time transporting pupils off- access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. A via e-mail site. summary report is attached. The footprint of building will occupy 19% of the site. The site meets the requirements of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. The proposed playing fields also meet the requirements of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. Many schools in Bristol use off-site playing fields and planning and management will minimise any disruption.
New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 10 Mr R K & Mrs K Site is too small The site meets the requirements of the Education (School Gibson Site inadequate for playing field and recreation. Premises) Regulations 1999. The footprint of building will 25 Woodstock Road Loss of curriculum time transporting pupils off- occupy 19% of the site. Redland site. Increase in pollution. The proposed playing fields also meet the requirements of Bristol Off-site playing field too small and unsuitable. the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. BS6 7EL Access is limited and inadequate. Many schools in Bristol use off-site playing fields and Loss of allotment land. careful planning and management will minimise any Increased traffic congestion. disruption. Site within a Conservation Area. The school will have both hard and soft recreational space including multi use games areas on site. Ensuring safe and adequate access to the site is a major part of the scheme and the costs of this have been taken into account. A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. A summary report is attached. Any loss of allotment land through the creation of access routes will be minimal and will be replaced by additional space provided elsewhere. One of the advantages of the Redland site is that the vast majority of pupils will live very close to the school and will walk or cycle. The Council has engaged architects who have designed a building which works with the contours of the site and minimises the effects of a large building in a conservation area. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 11 Mrs Linda Spencer- Site unsuitable, small, sloping and poor access. The site meets the requirements of the Education (School Small Erosion of open space used by local community. Premises) Regulations 1999 and the Council has engaged 9 Cranleigh Gardens Insufficient room on site for children to spend architects who have designed a building which works with Stoke Bishop their lunch-breaks - roam local area. the contours of the site and minimises the effects of a Bristol Possible dangers caused by extra traffic on large building in a conservation area. Safe and adequate BS9 1HD already congested roads. access to the site is a major part of the scheme. A study of Too close to Cotham School Travel to School including traffic surveys has been Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym being undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe treated unfairly? access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. One of the Stoke Lodge site more suitable. advantages of the Redland site is that it offers an Does Council intend to sell Stoke Loge site? opportunity for the majority of pupils to walk. A summary report is attached. The school will have both hard and soft recreational space including multi use games areas and offers adequate space for pupils during break and lunch times. Cotham is located in a densely populated area and is heavily oversubscribed. Many pupils do not get a school of their choice. The LEA has made clear the advantages of the Redland site, other sites did not give the same opportunities for minimising impact on surrounding schools, minimising additional car use and establishing a post-16 federation in conjunction with Cotham to serve pupils in north Bristol. In addition, the funding contribution from the LLSC is specifically linked to the Redland site due to the opportunities this creates for close linking with the provision at Cotham. The DfES contribution was based on the innovative proposals put forward by the LEA and the LSC. There are no plans to sell Stoke Lodge. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 12 Dr E A Sephton Site too small and will have inadequate playing The site meets the requirements of the Education (School 6 Redland Green fields. Premises) Regulations 1999. The footprint of building will Road No space for 945 pupils to break-times on site. occupy 19% of the site. Redland Steeply sloping site will increase construction The proposed playing fields also meet the requirements of Bristol costs. the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. BS6 7HE Cotham School is only one mile away. The school will have both hard and soft recreational space Increased traffic congestion and associated including multi use games areas and offers adequate dangers for pupils. space for pupils during break and lunch times. Stoke Lodge site is more suitable. The architects have designed a building which works with the contours of the site and have worked within the allocated budget. Cotham is located in a densely populated area and is heavily oversubscribed. Many pupils do not get a school of their choice. A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. One of the advantages of the Redland site is that it offers an opportunity for the majority of pupils to walk. A summary report is attached. The LEA has made clear the advantages of the Redland site, other sites did not give the same opportunities for minimising impact on surrounding schools, minimising additional car use and ability to complement performing arts provision at Cotham. In addition, the funding contribution from the LLSC is specifically linked to the Redland site due to the opportunities this creates for close linking with the provision at Cotham. The DfES New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent contribution was based on the innovative proposals put forward by the LEA and the LSC. 13 Graham Parker Site unsuitable, too small and land-locked. The site meets the requirements of the Education (School 6 Redland Court Road Design will be compromised and add to costs. Premises) Regulations 1999. Redland Time wasted bussing pupils to off-site playing The architects have designed a building which works with Bristol fields. the contours of the site and have within the allocated BS6 7EQ Problems with access for emergency vehicles budget. and pupils will special needs. Many schools in Bristol use off-site playing fields and Existing roads already congested and will careful planning and management will minimise any become unsafe for children. disruption. The school will also have both hard and soft May become another BCC ‘White Elephant’. recreational space including multi use games areas on site. A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. One of the advantages of the Redland site is that it offers an opportunity for the majority of pupils to walk. A summary report is attached. The consultation during summer 2003 showed there was widespread support for the new school. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 14 George J Hart TD Amenities will be affected by traffic noise, A new secondary school on an inner-city site is bound to 8 Redland Court Road congestion and loss of green space in a have some impact. A study of Travel to School including Bristol conservation area. traffic surveys has been undertaken. This details BS6 7EQ Increased community use will exacerbate recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils and to problem. minimise traffic impact. One of the advantages of the Lack of response by BCC to comments made at Redland site is that it offers an opportunity for the majority earlier consultation. of pupils to be able to walk or cycle. A School Travel General lack of consultation, particularly at an summary report is attached. early stage. All comments received at the design consultation meetings Proposal will breach BCC own planning policy. will be answered. Some of the answers are dependent BCC refusal to consider alternative sites. upon the design of the building which has been on-going. People whom school is intended to serve will The LEA has carried out all statutory consultation. In leave area due to impact of development. addition there has been additional consultations on the Contrary to BCC policy to reduce use of vehicles design for the building. in city. Planning is a separate process and planners will need to Lack of public transport to the site. be satisfied before approving the scheme. BCC should have acquired more suitable, former An extensive search of possible sites was carried out. UWE site at Redland. These are limited in the area and studies were carried out Stoke Lodge site is more suitable. on Redland and Stoke Lodge. Consultation has shown widespread support for the establishment of the school.
Within 0.5 mile radius of the site are Redland and Montpelier railway stations and bus routes along Cranbrook , Whiteladies, Gloucester, Redland and Coldharbour Roads. The LEA has made clear the advantages of the Redland site. Other sites did not give the same opportunities whilst minimising the impact on surrounding schools. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 15 Dorieke van den Brom Site not large enough and no capacity for growth. The site meets the requirements of the Education (School and Limited space for playing fields both on and off- Premises) Regulations 1999. The decision to locate main David Griffiths site. Also inadequate in terms of quality playing fields off-site means that there is room on the site 30 Kerstemen Road Curriculum time lost due to travel. for future expansion of the school this be necessary. Redland Traffic survey undertaken in early summer, not These playing fields will also meet the requirements of the Bristol representative. Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. BS6 7BX Already high levels of congestion. Many schools in Bristol use off-site playing fields and Design meeting consultation advised that there careful planning and management will minimise any were no concrete plans/ideas for traffic calming. disruption. Parents not consulted about possible traffic A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has safety measures. been undertaken. This included the distribution of Numbers of pupils arriving/leaving by car grossly questionnaires to parents. A further traffic survey was under-estimated. undertaken following concerns raised about the timing of Staggered start times impractical for the initial traffic surveys. The recommendations of the staff/parents. report aim to ensure safe access for pupils and to Problems with emergency access. minimise traffic impact. One of the advantages of the Cycle/pedestrian access proposals fraught with Redland site is that it offers an opportunity for the majority safety risks. of pupils to walk or cycle with the majority of the DGA All access after 5.30 pm only via Redland Court being within 1 mile of the site. A summary report is Road. attached. Possibility of pupils using allotments as short-cut, The school’s governing body will ultimately be responsible affecting allotments long-term viability. for ensuring the behaviour of pupils but careful planning of Stoke Lodge site more suitable. access routes in line with recommendations from the Travel to School report will minimise any disruption to the allotments. The LEA has made clear the advantages of the Redland site, other sites did not give the same opportunities whilst minimising the impact on surrounding schools..
New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 16 Mr A J Musgrave Vehicular and pedestrian access routes totally A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has Mrs L Musgrave inadequate. been undertaken. The recommendations aim to ensure Miss T Musgrave How does the LEA plan to ensure road safety of safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. One 91 Cranbrook Road all users of the area? of the advantages of the Redland site is that it offers an Redland Area already overwhelmed by schools and traffic opportunity for the majority of pupils to be able to walk or Bristol problems with four primary schools and three cycle with the majority of the DGA being within 1 mile of BS6 7DA secondary schools. the site. The independent school draws from a much wider area and car usage is therefore higher. A summary report is attached.
New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 17 Patrick Keane No single document which projects total number The consultation document ‘Consultation on: The New Chair Redland Green of students on site. North Bristol Secondary School, The Expansion of Fairfield Action Group No serious study of impact on neighbourhood. School and Revised Designated Geographical Areas for 42 Redland Court Site just large enough to fulfill recommended North Bristol’ set out the proposed numbers for the site Road area for 1345 pupils. these were 945 11-16, 50 pupils with profound and severe Bristol Site is unsuitable for a school. learning difficulties and 450 post-16. The Cabinet Report BS6 7EH Access for vehicles is poor. of 1 August 2003 (and subsequent decisions) were Access for pupils is poor. publically available documents. The decisions of the 30 October 2003 Sloping site subject to subsidence, within Cabinet included approval to publish statutory notices for conservation area. establishment of the new school for 945 11-16 and 50 PMLD/SLD pupils. The LSC has consulted on post-16 provision. The statutory notice and prescribed information also detailed the numbers of pupils to be accommodated on the site. The site meets the requirements of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has been undertaken. The recommendations aim to ensure safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. The Council has engaged architects who have designed a building which works with the contours of the site and reduces the impact of a large new building in a conservation area. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 18 Wendy Woodhouse Notice has not been widely publicised. The statutory notices have been published in accordance 42 Redland Court Pupils will continue to leave City for Secondary with guidance. Road education. The new secondary school will not in itself stop all pupils Redland Site inadequacy, too small, impact on local leaving the city on transfer to secondary education Bristol environment, bussing to off-site playing field. The site meets the requirements of the Education (School BS6 7EH Lack of on-site recreation facilities will mean Premises) Regulations 1999 and offers adequate space pupils leave site during break-times. for pupils during break and lunch times and will have both 31 October 2003 Increase in traffic problems hard and soft recreational space including multi use games Destruction of local community. areas on site. Squandering money on difficult site development. Consultation has indicated a great deal of support for the Bristol Local Plan 1997 Inspectors report states establishment of the school. site is inappropriate for the development of a The development is line with cost parameters established school. by the DfES. One of the advantages of the Redland site is that it offers an opportunity for the majority of pupils to be able to walk or cycle with the majority of the DGA being within 1 mile of the site. A summary report is attached. An application has been made for an amendment to the Local Plan to reflect the establishment of a school on the site. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 19 GJP Browne No point in responding, Council consistently The Council has a duty to consult. Response to 44 Redland Court ignores comments. Response reserved for consulation is taken into account when decisions are Road planning application. made. Planning is a separate process and will need to Redland take account of responses submitted. The planning Bristol application is scheduled to be submitted in mid-December.
1 November 2003 New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 20 Dr George Ware & Dr Why another school so close to Cotham? Cotham is located in a densely populated area and is P Ann Light Site is too small. heavily oversubscribed. Many pupils do not get a school of 85 Cranbrook Road Loss of playing fields. their choice. The consultation carried out during the Redland Site within conservation area. summer of 2003 showed that there was a great deal of Bristol Widening of roads would mean felling of trees. support for a new school and for that school to be BS6 7BZ Pedestrian access paths are steep, narrow and established at Redland. covert - safety risk. The site meets the requirements of the Education (School 31 October 2003 Child numbers are decreasing, school not Premises) Regulations 1999. The footprint of the building necessary. occupies 19% of the site. Stoke Lodge site more appropriate. Work will be carried out to improve the off-site playing fields which will improve their quality and allow use throughout the year. The design of the building takes account of the location in the conservation area. A study of Travel to School has been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils. All access points will meet guidelines. Numbers of pupils in primary schools are projected to remain fairly constant across the city and to grow in some parts of north Bristol. The new school will also contribute to the retention of pupils who currently leave the maintained sector at the end of their primary education to go to independent schools or schools in surrounding authorities. The LEA has made clear the advantages of the Redland site, other sites did not give the same opportunities for minimising impact on surrounding schools, minimising additional car use and establishing a post-16 federation in conjunction with Cotham to serve schools in north Bristol. In addition, the funding contribution from the LSC is specifically linked to the New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent Redland site due to the opportunities this creates for close linking with the provision at Cotham. The DfES contribution was based on the innovative proposals put forward by the LEA and the LSC. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 21 Justin & Gillian Pitcher Site is too small The site meets the requirements of the Education (School 26 Kersteman Road Primary school proposal previously rejected. Premises) Regulations 1999. Bristol School will have no on-site playing field or The primary school was not rejected on the grounds that BS6 7BX sizeable playgrounds. the site was too small. Traffic survey has been inappropriate. The school will have both hard and soft recreational space 2 November 2003 There is already a school for 700 girls less than including multi use games areas and offers adequate 800 yards away. space for pupils during break and lunch times. The pedestrian access ways are a long walk up Additional traffic surveys were carried out. steep hills. Redland High School is an independent school which The proposed pedestrian access encroaches on draws pupils from all over the city and beyond. land already occupied by allotments. All access routes will be suitable to ensure safe access to The school has no room for playing fields, the site. One of these routes will be through the allotments necessitating regular transport to a suitable site. but any loss will be compensated for with additional The construction of the school and heavy coach allotments. traffic will cause subsidence. Many schools in Bristol operate off-site playing fields and There is a strong risk of media backlash. careful management will reduce the impact. Feasibility studies do not indicate that subsidence will be an issue. There has been widespread support for the proposals as there has been a recognised need for an additional secondary school in north Bristol for some time. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 22 Karel Herman Catchment area changed after feasibility study A proposed DGA was only drawn up for Redland. The Site Manager - Pear selected Redland site. starting point for any DGA is the location of the school. Allotments Cost of feasibility study has increased from The costs of feasibility studies are built into the project Flat 3 £350,000 to £440,000. costs and are usual on a major project. 230 Wells Road Regarded by Council as medium to high risk All aspects of the establishment of the school have been Bristol project. the subject of risk assessment. This has given the BS4 2PJ Site in green belt area of outstanding beauty opportunity to take action to mitigate these risks. surrounded by allotments. The architects who have designed a building which will 31 October 2003 Main access insufficient. work with the contours of the site to reduce the impact of a Site exit facility in emergency insufficient. large new building in a conservation area. Increase in vandalism on the allotments. The number of allotments will not change. Any loss will be Need for off-site playing field compensated for by the provision of another allotment. Traffic increase. Pupil projections show primary numbers, overall for the Has account been taken of knock-on effect of city, remaining fairly constant. However, there is predicted falling primary school numbers. growth and the centre of the city and declining rolls on the outskirts. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 23 Sarah Watson Loss of green open space and natural habitat. Any new secondary school on an inner-city site is bound to 2 Salisbury Road Traffic implications. have some impact. Appropriate assessments have been Redland Site too small. carried out on the visual and ecological impacts. Bristol Access inadequate. A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has BS6 7AW been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. One 1 November 2003 of the advantages of the Redland site is that it offers an opportunity for the majority of pupils to walk or cycle. A School Travel summary report is attached. The site meets the requirements of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999. Access will be provided by a combination of vehicular access and pedestrian access from Kellaway Avenue, Kersteman Road and Redland Court Road. This will reduce numbers at any one point. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 24 Steve Knott MLI Site feasibility study was not comparative with The LEA has made clear the advantages of the Redland 5 Downs Cote Drive Stoke Lodge site, other sites did not give the same opportunities for Westbury-on-Trym No consultation on choice of site. minimising impact on surrounding schools, minimising Bristol Consultation on Redland site limited in scope and additional car use and establishing, in conjunction with BS9 3TP meaningless. Cotham, a post-16 federation for north Bristol. In addition, Stoke Lodge site acknowledged by Director of the funding contribution from the LLSC is specifically Education as having greatest expression of linked to the Redland site due to the opportunities this public support. creates for establishing a post-16 federation for pupils in LEA have not demonstrated how they have taken the north of the city. The DfES contribution was based on account of the views expressed during the the innovative proposals put forward by the LEA and the consultation in reaching any subsequent decision LLSC. There was considerable public support for the as to the publication of proposals. Redland site in the detailed consultation in May 2003. Prescribed Information seriously misrepresents The prescribed information is line with statutory provisions. the case for Redland site. The new secondary school meets the Key Policy New school will not adequately address the Objectives as stated in the School Organisation Plan. This demand for secondary school places in north addressed in the main report. west Bristol. The school cannot, alone, satisfy all unmet parental Proposal does not fulfill LEA’s own stated demand. It will, however, be a major factor in increasing objectives set out in the consultation document, the number of first preferences which can be met. page 10, para 4. There will also be closer links at post-16 as the new school Proposed DGA unlikely to be large enough to and Cotham will jointly host the north Bristol post-16 satisfy demand. centre. Large numbers of pupils transfer to secondary The location of the school balances the meeting of schools outside of Bristol from school not within demand from parents with a site in a high population the proposed DGA. density area which offers opportunities to minimise Inclusion of whole of Bishop Road catchment additional car use, minimises the inevitable impact on area defies logic. surrounding schools and provide quality post-16 provision Stoke Lodge site is better choice. in conjunction with Cotham. New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent There will be more pupils in the DGA than there are places at the school. This is true for almost all secondary schools in the city. It has to be assumed however that not all pupils within the area will require places at the school. Some pupils will still transfer to denominational or independent schools. The DGA was the subject of public consultation and there was a great deal of support for the proposed area. Cabinet considered comments received and made some amendments.
25 Redland High School Safety of Pupils will be compromised A study of Travel to School including traffic surveys has for Girls Traffic report does not use data from the been undertaken. This details recommendations to ensure Redland Court immediate vicinity. safe access for pupils and to minimise traffic impact. One Bristol Data inconsistent and out of date of the advantages of the Redland site is that it offers an BS6 7EF Pupil movement from Redland High not taken opportunity for the majority of pupils to walk or cycle. into account. Revised traffic surveys have been undertaken in response 6th form centre will mean pupils moving between to concerns raised about the timings of the initial surveys. Redland and Cotham throughout the day. This is an on-going process which will feed into the Provision of community resource will increase schools travel plan. A School Travel summary report is traffic flow during evenings and weekends attached.
New School - Redland Court Road Schedule of Written Representations Received Ref Name & Address of Summary of Representation LEA’s Observations Respondent 26 Jan Elliott Will fail to provide the best solution to achieve the The LEA believes the school does meet the KPOs. The Chair of PASE LEA's KPO's new school will play a part in raising standards by offering 37 Downs Cote Drive It is based on incomplete and fundamentally high quality and innovative provision. Westbury on Trym flawed research. The size of the school will allow it to operate effectively. Bristol It is a direct result of a political, not sound logical, The school will offer inclusive provision. BS9 3TS decision. The school cannot, alone, satisfy all unmet parental It will fail to meet the needs of the maximum demand. It will, however, be a major factor in increasing number of Bristol pupils. the number of first preferences which can be met. The site is totally inadequate and will be The location of the school balances the meeting of dysfunctional. demand from parents with a site in a high population A better alternative exists which has been density area which offers opportunities to minimise deliberately ignored. additional car use, minimises the inevitable impact on The costs involved in the LEA's choice of site are surrounding schools and establishing a post-16 federation prohibitive and cannot be justified. in conjunction with Cotham to serve schools in north To proceed with this project would be to be doing Bristol. something for the sake of doing it, not because it The site meets the requirements of the Education (School is the right solution. Premises) Regulations 1999. The LEA has made clear the What the SOC are being asked to approve does advantages of the Redland site, other sites did not give the not tally with the justification they were provided same opportunities. In addition, the funding contribution with at their last meeting on 4 July 2002, which from the LLSC is specifically linked to the Redland site and overwhelmingly pointed to the need for a new the DfES contribution was based on the innovative school in North West Bristol. proposals put forward by the LEA and the LLSC. The Prescribed Information is grossly misleading The project is line with DfES cost parameters. and in no way reflects the true views of The consultation carried out during the summer of 2003 stakeholders. showed that there was a great deal of support for a new school and for that school to be established at Redland. The prescribed information is line with statutory provisions.
Appendix 4
Project: New North Bristol School Job No: 35349TTW Subject: Summary Document – Travel to School Prepared by: Date: 19/11/2003 Katie Rich Checked by: DCB Date: 19/11/2003
Journey to School Travel Survey During June 2003 a number of Journey to School Travel Surveys were issued to the pupils of primary schools likely to feed into the New North Bristol School. The aim was to identify how children (or their parents) anticipate they will travel to school and offered them the opportunity to highlight any problems they can see with the predicted route and make suggestions as to how the route could be improved.
The surveys indicated that a large number of children (58%) are expected to walk to the new school and a further 14% hope to either walk or cycle. The predicted routes identified from the results have been analysed and incorporated into a Safe Routes to School Audit, which is discussed separately. The problem areas indicated by parents and children have also been taken into consideration when carrying out the Safe Routes to School Audit and remedies for these problems have been suggested. Parents have also provided a good indication of the factors that may encourage their child to walk / cycle to school, these have been taken into consideration and it is likely that lockers and sufficient bicycle parking will be included on site. Safer crossings, separate entrances for pedestrians and vehicles and slower traffic were also highly rated and have been carefully considered and incorporated into the design of the school and alterations to the surrounding area.
Modal Splits & Traffic Generation An average modal split has been calculated by combining the modal splits determined from the Journey to School Travel Surveys and the National Average. This has then been applied to estimated pupils numbers to determine the number of vehicle trips that are likely to be generated by the site. Staff trips have also been calculated using Bristol Travel to Work Data. Adequate parking has been provided for staff and it is recommended that school, start and finish times are staggered in relation to Redland High School which is also situated on Redland Court Road. This will discourage staff from parking on-street and should prevent excess of traffic on the roads at any one time.
FaberMaunsell are currently in the process of analysing traffic flows at key local junctions following additional traffic counts that were carried out in October 2003. These will show any problems that may occur with the junctions surrounding the site when the school is opened and at full capacity and from this, measures to counteract these can be suggested.
A preliminary Traffic Management Strategy has also been prepared for the Transport Assessment and is currently being considered by Bristol City Council Highway Team. The Traffic Management Strategy examines ways of accommodating the additional traffic on local streets.
Safe Routes to School Audit The results from the Journey to School Travel Survey have been used to determine the routes to be included as part of the Safe Route to School Audit. From the survey responses, the number of walking trips along each section of the routes to school has been calculated and a map produced that illustrates the density of pedestrian flow along these sections. The map can be found in Appendix A. The routes were grouped into ‘desire lines’ and analysed in the Safe Routes to School Audit. An audit was undertaken on each desire line in an attempt to identify issues perceived as a barrier or hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. Remedial measures were then put forward in line with the Department for Transport advice provided in ‘Travelling to School: A Good Practice Guide’ to attempt to overcome these issues. Those desire lines that encounter significant barriers, especially main roads such as Redland Road and Cranbrook Road, have been carefully analysed and remedial measures suggested such as, new or improved crossings, cycle lanes, traffic calming. All of the remedial measures suggested are aimed at improving conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. A summary of the Safe Routes to School Audit, which will form a part of the final Transport Assessment, can be found in Appendix B.
Public Transport Although there are not any services that run directly past the site, there are a number of services that are within an acceptable walking distance of the proposed school. Bus stops are located on Cranbrook Road, Redland Road and Coldharbour Road. The frequency of services are shown in the table below:
Table: Local Bus Services Service Number Route Stops Frequency Westbury – Rookery 20, 21, 22 Cranbrook Rd Every 10-20 minutes Farm Temple Meads – Redland – Clifton- 9 Redland Rd Every 20 minutes Redland-Temple Meads City Centre – Clifton Every 30 minutes 99 (Term Time Only) Downs – Filton - Redland Rd (first service at 09:06) UWE Broadmead – Zetland 586 Coldharbour Rd Every hour Road 587 Hotwells - Kingwood Coldharbour Rd Every hour
Travel Plan An integral part of the transport strategy for the proposed school will be the ‘School Travel Plan’. It is recommended that a School Travel Plan is developed from the outset of the development. School travel plans are not only concerned with transport, but also involve issues of health, safety, the environment, education and social equity.
The School Travel Plan would provide practical steps for improving children’s safety on the school journey.
The travel plan would seek to address the following:
Reduce accidents and danger on the journey to school;
Enable parents and children to choose walking, cycling and public transport with confidence.
Cut congestion at the school gate;
Improve children’s health and fitness through walking and cycling;
Equip children with better road awareness and give them familiarity with public transport;
Give the children opportunity to have a say in decisions that affect them;
Provide an interesting focus for class work within the National Curriculum;
Build links within the whole school community;
Make the area around the school safer and more enjoyable for everyone.
The results obtained from the Journey to School Travel Survey will assist in developing a School Travel Plan for the New North Bristol School. In conducting these surveys it has been possible to obtain the views of parents and children on the journey to school.
A logical element of the School Travel Plan is to coordinate the school start and finish times with Redland High School. Staggering these times will assist in managing the impact of traffic and pedestrian safety associated with Redland Court Road.
Adequate spaces should be provided for staff to discourage on-street parking;
Monitoring vehicular and pedestrian activity outside the new school and Redland High School;
Monitoring the interaction of transport issues between the two schools on Redland Court Road.
Bristol City Council have highlighted in their Local Transport Plan a desire to increase the number of children travelling to school by sustainable modes and a decrease in the use of private car for school travel. A number of measures have been highlighted which will enable the New North Bristol School to achieve this as part of the full development School Travel Plan.
The provision of lockers in the school will enable pupils to store their belongings associated with their walk or cycle to school. Many pupils may be discouraged from cycling to school as they do not want to carry their helmet and reflective clothing around them and equally do not want to leave it lying around.
Safe Routes to School should be incorporated into lessons and the importance of it stressed to the pupils. Visits from Police Officers and demonstrations should also improve safety for those children who walk and cycle to school. Cycle training should be encouraged and provided by the school for those who require or request it.
A designated separate entrance to the school for pupils and cars would prevent conflict between the two and reduce the likelihood of accidents at the school entrance and on site.
The provision of an adequate number of secure cycle parking spaces is essential in encouraging more pupils and (staff) to cycle to school.
A designated area for pupils to congregate before and after school to prevent them standing at the school gates, thus reducing the possibility of accidents.
Redland Green does not currently provide adequate conditions for pedestrians – ideal alterations would include the provision of, lighting, CCTV and better surfacing to improve safety for pedestrians.
Several parents have indicated that they feel an example should be set by the staff, in that if more members of staff walked / cycled to school, more pupils may be encouraged to do so too. Some pupils may be of the opinion that if their teacher drives to school, why shouldn’t they.
Introduction of more pedestrian and cycle crossings to discouraged “chance-crossings” by children.
Repeat of the Journey to School Travel Surveys on a yearly basis will enable the school to monitor the situation and determine whether the numbers of pupils walking / cycling to school is increasing. Also by conducting these surveys staff would be keeping in touch with what the pupils and parents want, thus gaining another (and a very important) viewpoint.
Appendix 5 Decision Makers Guidance Section 1
Statutory Guidance - Issues to be considered in deciding proposals
Standards
1. The Secretary of State wishes to encourage changes to local school provision which will boost standards and opportunities for young people, while matching school place supply as closely as possible to pupils and parents’ needs and wishes. Decision Makers should assess proposals in the light of these overall criteria, and the specific further considerations set out in this guidance. In particular, although the Decision Maker should have regard to the School Organisation Plan for the area where such a plan continues to be required, it is not a sufficient argument against a proposal that it is not consistent with a pre-existing plan. It is also important that Decision Makers should not make blanket assumptions that schools need to be of a certain size before they can be good schools (although the cost-effectiveness of proposals should continue to be one of the factors taken into account). All proposals should be considered on their individual merits. 2. The Government aims to transform the opportunities open to pupils in secondary education, and greater diversity and innovation have a key role to play in this, with each school developing its own ethos and sense of mission and being encouraged to develop a centre of excellence or specialism. Every school should have an incentive to improve, have effective leadership and management, and collaborate with other schools. Successful and popular schools that wish to expand should be able to do so. 3. The Government wishes to break down the culture of isolation that has held back the comprehensive system. It wants to use the best schools to lever up standards across the system. This may be by enabling successful and popular schools to expand, or by encouraging a range of collaborative arrangements by which successful schools can share their management and other expertise with less successful schools. Such arrangements might involve a variety of school clusters or "federations" in which the best school leaders will drive school improvements across a group of schools. Alongside collaboration and partnership, decisive action will be needed to deal with failing schools. 4. In assessing the likely impact of proposals on standards, both in the primary and secondary sectors, the Decision Maker should consider them in the context of this approach, as reflected in the local Education Development Plan. 5. In considering standards issues, the Decision Maker should also take account of recent reports from Ofsted or other inspectorates, the autumn package of performance data, and any other performance data. The LEAs and others bringing forward proposals should justify them specifically in terms of their impact on standards. 6. The Decision Maker must also be satisfied that the proposals are consistent with delivery of a broad and balanced curriculum to the pupils involved. The requirements of a broad and balanced curriculum are set out in sections 78 to 96 of the Education Act 2002. In considering proposals for the reorganisation of schools, Decision Makers should also satisfy themselves that the dimension of accessibility planning has been properly taken into account, so that facilities are accessible by those concerned, and especially that disadvantaged groups are not further disadvantaged.
Proposals involving schools in special measures and those causing concern
Powers of Intervention
7. The categories of schools causing concern are defined in sections 14-19 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, as amended by sections 54-59 of and Schedule 5 to the Education Act 2002. Further information on these categories and the relevant follow-up procedures can be found in the DfES guidance on schools causing concern. 8. All schools causing concern should receive intensive support from their LEA. 9. The Education Act 2002 has provided both LEAs and the Secretary of State with new intervention powers to support schools with serious weaknesses, matching their existing powers in respect of schools placed in special measures.
Closure/Fresh Start proposals
10. When considering the closure of any school causing concern and the expansion of other schools in the area, LEAs should take into account the popularity with parents of alternative schools. 11. “Fresh start” proposals are designed to replace a school that is subject to special measures, has serious weaknesses or is subject to a warning under section 15 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The proposals for both the closure of the school and the opening of the new school on the same site should be submitted in parallel and should be considered together. In such cases there should be a presumption to approve both proposals. 12. When considering the approval of a Fresh Start proposal, the Decision Maker should check that the places the new school will provide are needed. 13. DfES has put in place a programme to support Fresh Start schools. In order to qualify for support under this programme, the Fresh Start proposal will need to be endorsed by Ministers. Such endorsement will of course depend on approval of the statutory proposals relating to the Fresh Start. However, in exceptional circumstances Ministers may decide not to endorse a Fresh Start proposal after the associated statutory proposals have been approved. In such circumstances, the new school will neither qualify for support from the Fresh Start support programme, nor be recognised nationally as a “Fresh Start” school. 14. For all closure and Fresh Start proposals involving schools causing concern, copies of the OFSTED monitoring letters for the relevant schools should be made available. The Decision Maker should have regard to the length of time the school has been on special measures, has had serious weaknesses or otherwise caused concern, the progress it has made, the prognosis for improvement, and the provision of places at neighbouring schools. Where the Decision Maker is presented with proposals to close schools in special measures or otherwise causing concern, they should start from the presumption that these should be approved, subject only to checking that there will be sufficient accessible places of an acceptable standard available in the area to meet foreseeable demand and accommodate the displaced pupils. 15. Where a school is to be closed so that it may be amalgamated with a more successful and popular school, the Decision Maker should again normally approve these proposals, subject to evidence being provided by the LEA and other interests that the development will have a positive impact on standards.
Secretary of State’s power to direct closure
16. Section 19 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, as amended by section 56(2) of the Education Act 2002, gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an LEA to close a school requiring special measures or with serious weaknesses. It is likely that this power will be used only in exceptional circumstances. Such a direction would not be subject to the agreement of the School Organisation Committee or Schools Adjudicator. However, they may be required to consider proposals for the opening of a new school or for alterations as a consequence of the directed closure. There should be a presumption to approve the consequential proposals.
Proposals other than closure or Fresh Start
17. These should be dealt with as quickly as possible, and the Decision Maker should have regard to the impact the proposals may have on the school’s ability to take forward its action plan for recovering from special measures or removing serious weaknesses.
Creating Additional Places (in existing schools or by new schools)
18. Where proposals will provide additional places, the Decision Maker should consider whether they are needed. In considering need, the Decision Maker should take into account not only the existence of spare capacity in neighbouring schools, but also the quality and popularity with parents of the schools in which spare capacity exists and evidence of parents’ aspirations for a new school or their support for expansion of an existing school. The existence of surplus capacity in neighbouring less popular or successful schools should not in itself prevent the addition of new places. In considering proposals for additional places, the Decision Maker must take account of the impact which proposals will have on the standards of provision. Where proposals add to surplus capacity (either by adding places at existing schools or creating new schools) but there is a strong case for approval on parental preference and standards grounds, the presumption should be for approval. The LEA in these cases will need to consider parallel action to remove the surplus capacity thereby created.
New schools
19. It has always been possible for any organisation, association or individual willing to meet the conditions associated with being in the maintained sector, to publish proposals to set up a new maintained school. The Government wishes to encourage the widest possible range of promoters with a contribution to make to educational standards and diversity to come forward – including parent and community groups, private and charitable companies, voluntary groups including church and faith communities, those offering distinctive educational philosophies, existing schools or consortia of schools. All proposals, from whatever source, should be considered on the basis of their educational merits and what they have to offer the local community.
Additional secondary schools
20. However from June 2003, a different procedure applies where an LEA decides that an additional, wholly new, secondary school is needed (see para 2-4 of Section 3 for guidance on what constitutes an "additional" secondary school). The LEA must publish a notice inviting other interested parties to bring forward proposals for the new school, before publishing any proposals of its own. The proposals will be decided by the Secretary of State, in the light of any comments by the School Organisation Committee following local consultation. Though LEAs are encouraged to use this procedure as widely as possible – see paragraph 21-23 – the legal requirement to do so applies only to secondary schools, and does not affect amalgamations or re-organisations of existing schools, fresh-start proposals, closures and re-openings in order to gain, lose or change religious character, independent schools seeking maintained status or any situation where a promoter other than the LEA wishes to propose a new school. When the School Organisation Committee is commenting on additional secondary school proposals before a decision by the Secretary of State as above, it should consider the same list of factors as for new schools (Section 2.1). And Decision Makers receiving proposals involving new secondary school provision should always check that they are not in fact covered by the legislative requirements for new school competitions to be held (see Section 3). 21. As mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Introduction, the Secretary of State considers that in the interest of increased diversity LEAs should invite other potential providers to bring forward proposals when a new school is proposed in the area, including replacement schools, mergers and amalgamations (this approach is required by legislation for additional secondary schools). The statutory guidance in Section 3 (paragraphs 1-4) requires LEAs to consult the local dioceses and anyone else who has previously expressed an interest in setting up a secondary school. 22. The Secretary of State particularly expects LEAs to invite other providers to consider whether they would wish to be involved in the provision of a new secondary school where: a. a failing school is being replaced; or b. the LEA’s percentage of pupils getting 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C is below the national LEA floor target of 38%; or c. pupils in that area do not have access to a school where at least 25% of pupils get 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C; or d. any supplementary guidance which the Secretary of State has issued applying to the area concerned says so. (The Secretary of State may decide that particular guidance is needed for areas of low performance.) If any of the above conditions apply, there should be a presumption to approve proposals where either the promoters have a good track record of involvement in education, or their proposals seem likely to improve standards in the area. 23. In considering any proposals for new schools, the Decision Maker must consider proposals on their merits and not assume an optimum size for a school. In particular, the Decision Maker should not work on the basis that a school needs to be of a certain size to be effective.
Academies
24. Academies (including the former City Academies) are publicly-funded independent schools established in partnership with business and voluntary sector sponsors. They normally replace one or more schools facing challenging circumstances or will be set up to meet a need for new school places. Academies (unlike City Academies) may be established in rural as well as urban areas. All Academies should contribute to a strategic approach to diversity in their area. The involvement of business and other non-Government partners will enable Academies to develop and implement new approaches to teaching and learning in order to raise standards and promote innovation. All Academies will be required to share their facilities and expertise with other local schools and the wider community. 25. Statutory proposals are not required for the establishment of an Academy. The legal basis for Academies is section 482 of the Education Act 1996, which provides for the Secretary of State to enter into funding agreements with persons undertaking to establish and maintain specific types of independent school. Where an Academy is to replace an existing school or schools, however, the proposals for the closure of those schools should indicate whether pupils currently attending the schools will transfer to the Academy and, if appropriate, what arrangements will be made for pupils who are not expected to transfer. 26. All statutory proposals for changes to maintained schools relating to the establishment of an Academy should be considered together. If provision for pupils at a school proposed for closure is dependent on the establishment of an Academy, any approval of the closure proposals should be conditional upon the making of an agreement for an Academy, but there should be a general presumption in favour of approval. It should be noted that LEAs cannot give conditional approvals, only a SOC or Adjudicator may do that. However, from June 2003 LEAs may refer statutory proposals requiring conditional approval to the Committee for decision even if there are no objections, without the need to wait for the four-month decision period to elapse. This facility applies only to proposals requiring a conditional approval. All other proposals by the LEA must be decided by them if there are no objections, or the objections are withdrawn in writing within the representation period (unless the proposals are related to proposals which must be decided by the SOC, or to proposals published by the LSC, in which case the LEA may not decide the proposals – see Section 3 of this guidance).
Expansion of successful and popular schools
27. The documents Education and Skills: Investment for Reform and A New Specialist System: Transforming Secondary Education set out the Government’s vision of radical reform of the structure of secondary education, including, as a priority, making better use of our best schools. This is particularly important in areas of multiple deprivation where children’s life-chances may crucially depend on good education breaking the cycle of dependency. Underperforming schools cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. 28. When LEAs are considering expanding school provision, they should take account of the wishes of parents in deciding which schools should expand. The Secretary of State also wishes to encourage LEAs to reorganise provision in order to ensure that places are located where parents want them. For the purposes of this guidance, the Secretary of State is not proposing any single definition of a popular and successful school. The following indicators should all be taken into account by schools which are putting forward proposals and by the Decision Maker:
the school's performance:
in terms of absolute results in key stage assessments and public examinations
by comparison with other schools in similar circumstances (both in the same LEA and other LEAs)
in terms of value added
in terms of improvement over time in key stage results and public examinations;
the numbers of applications for places. The Decision Maker should also take account of any other relevant evidence put forward by schools. 29. Key issues that Decision Makers should take into account when considering expansion proposals for successful and popular schools include the following. The Decision Maker should take into account the views, wishes and preferences of all parents and the relative popularity and standards of all schools in the area. The Decision Maker should start from the strong presumption that proposals to expand successful and popular schools should normally be approved (this presumption does not apply to grammar schools, in line with the Government’s long-standing policy that there should be no increase in selection by ability). The existence of surplus capacity in neighbouring less popular schools should not in itself prevent this expansion, but the Decision Maker should consider the impact of expansion on other local schools and, if necessary, ask the LEA how they plan to tackle the consequences to other schools of the expansion. The admission arrangements of schools proposed for expansion would also be expected to meet fully the provisions of the Admissions Code of Practice. However, the Decision Maker may not modify proposed admission arrangements, which should be dealt with under the normal admissions consultation arrangements. The Decision Maker should only turn down proposals for successful and popular schools to expand in areas of underachievement if there is compelling objective evidence that expansion would have a damaging effect on standards overall in an area, which cannot be avoided by LEA action.
Balance of denominational provision
30. In deciding proposals to close or reduce the capacity of denominational schools, the effect that this will have on the balance of denominational and non-denominational provision should be considered. The Adjudicator should not approve proposals for the closure of a denominational school where the relevant church SOC group had voted against its closure and it is clear that the closure, in conjunction with any related changes, will reduce the proportion of such denominational places within the LEA, unless the school is failing or severely undersubscribed.
Surplus Places
31. It continues to be important that education is provided as cost-effectively as possible. Empty places represent a poor use of resources. LEAs have been encouraged to take action to remove surplus places, especially where schools have a quarter or more of their places unfilled and at least 30 surplus places. However, standards at the schools also need to be taken into account, as does the effect on any community use of the premises (see paragraphs 56 and 57). As noted in paragraphs 18 and 27 to 29 above, the Secretary of State wishes to encourage LEAs to organise provision in order to ensure that places are located where parents want them. In the case of any unfilled places at any schools in the area, especially where these are increasing, the LEA should take positive action to remove those at schools where parents do not choose to send their children, and which are least successful in raising standards. The removal of surplus places must always support the core agenda of raising standards and respect parents' wishes by seeking to match school places with parental choices.
Finance
32. The Decision Maker will need to be satisfied that the proposals represent a cost-effective use of public funds. 33. The Decision Maker must be satisfied that any capital required to implement the proposals will be available. Normally, this will be some form of written confirmation from the source of funding on which the promoters rely. In the case of a Local Education Authority, this may be from an authorised officer within the Authority. 34. There can be no assumption that the approval of proposals will trigger the release of capital funds from the Department unless the Department has confirmed in writing that such resources will be available; nor that any allocation “in principle” can be increased. In such circumstances the proposals should be rejected, or consideration of them deferred until it is clear that the capital necessary to implement the proposals will be provided. Proposals may NOT be approved conditional upon availability of capital, from sales or otherwise (although they may be approved conditional upon the entering into of a Private Finance Initiative transaction). 35. Implementation of proposals may depend on the disposal of land previously used for the purposes of a county or community school, perhaps because of capital receipts. Those bringing forward proposals and the Decision Maker should therefore assure themselves that any necessary consent for disposal of the land under paragraph 2 of Schedule 35A to the Education Act 1996 has been received from the Secretary of State. Consent is also necessary for the disposal by foundation or voluntary schools of any publicly funded land and buildings under Schedule 22 of the SSFA 1998. 36. The prior agreement of the Secretary of State will also be needed where it is proposed that capital should be raised from the disposal of school playing fields (details are given in DfES Guidance 0580/2001 The Protection of School Playing Fields and Land for City Academies published in July 2001). Proposals dependent on disposal of land for their implementation may not receive full approval until consent for their disposal has been received. Proposals may, however, be approved conditionally under Regulation 9 of the Education (School Organisation Proposals) (England) Regulations 1999 conditional upon the acquisition of a site or playing fields. 37. For proposals for a new voluntary aided school the Decision Maker must have a statement (preferably Form 18), signed by the promoters, that provides evidence that the Governing Body will be able to meet their financial responsibilities for all future building work.
Views of Interested parties
38. The Decision Maker must consider the views of all affected by the proposals or who have an interest in them including parents, residents, pupils, staff, other schools and colleges, diocesan bodies and other providers, LEAs, the LSC (where proposals affect post 16 provision) and the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (where proposals affect early years provision). This includes statutory objections and comments submitted during the representation period (and before proposals are accepted as valid the Committee will need to be satisfied that the legal requirements to consult have been met).
Community cohesion
39. The Government is concerned to promote ethnic, religious and cultural tolerance and respect between different groups of people living and working together. Tensions can grow where ethnic groups have segregated themselves from each other - whether by choice or circumstance - in housing, work, leisure and education. The Government is therefore committed to improving community cohesion: the uniting of people of different races, cultures and faiths in a common sense of belonging and pride in a shared civic identity. The areas which appear to be most successful in uniting different communities are those which combine an emphasis on shared values and common citizenship with a positive approach to celebrating diversity. 40. To realise the benefits of our multi-cultural society there is a need for positive action to promote community cohesion. Schools have a key part to play in this by providing opportunities for young people from different backgrounds to learn from each other; by encouraging through their teaching understanding of and respect for other cultures and faiths; and by activities in the community which help to build bridges between different ethnic groups. 41. When considering proposals for new schools the Decision Maker must consider whether the proposals will help to promote community cohesion. This will need to be considered on a case by case basis, taking account of the community that the new school will serve and the views of different sections within the community. There is no single model of school inclusiveness which can be applied to all circumstances. Factors that may need to be considered, and some specific examples of approaches to partnership working, are given in Section 5, but the prime consideration should be the needs of their local community. 42. Promoters of new schools should include in their proposals information about how the school will tackle religious, racial and cultural division, and contribute to well-being across the community. Where proposed new maintained schools already exist as independent schools, information about what they are already doing and contributing will also be relevant. 43. The Decision Maker will need to consider the views of the local community, the commitment of the new school promoters and their own assessment of the robustness of the proposed means for achieving inclusiveness. Proposals for new faith schools should be judged on the same basis as proposals for other schools. The Local Government Association's Guidance on Community Cohesion should also be referred to by those drawing up proposals for changes in school organisation. Proposals should be prepared against the background of the initiatives and documents referred to in that guidance, including the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP).
14-19 provision and collaboration
44. The Government has published proposals to develop 14-19 as a coherent phase of education in which young people remain committed to continuing learning after the age of 16. To that end, it wants young people to be able to choose from a broad range of general and vocational options from the age of 14 and to be able to progress through learning at a pace that is right for them. Where necessary, it expects that this should be achieved through increased collaborative working between local providers, including schools, colleges, training providers and employers. 45. Where a proposal relates to provision for 14-16 year-olds, the Decision Maker should consider the extent to which it will extend the range of options available to students in this age group and enhance the opportunities for collaboration between relevant local providers.
16-19 schools
46. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 allowed the establishment of maintained schools which provide full-time education suitable for the requirements of pupils over compulsory school age but do not provide education suitable for the requirements of pupils of compulsory school age. Arrangements for the publication of proposals for the establishment of 16-19 schools are broadly as for other maintained schools.
LSC proposals to close inadequate 16-19 provision
47. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 gives the Learning and Skill Council (LSC) powers to propose the closure of inadequate sixth forms at all categories of school (by proposing to change the school’s age range to stop at 16); and to propose the closure of an inadequate 16-19 school of whatever category, including special schools. A sixth form is deemed inadequate if OFSTED reports it is failing to give students an acceptable standard of education, or has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of its activities. A 16-19 school is deemed inadequate if it requires special measures or has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of its activities. These LSC powers are triggered only where, having had two consecutive adverse reports from OFSTED, a school has failed to turn its 16- 19 provision round. Where the sixth form is proposed for closure there should be a presumption to approve these proposals, subject to evidence being provided by the LEA and other interests that the development will have a positive impact on standards.
New LSC powers to propose the reorganisation of 16-19 provision
48. The Education Act 2002 also gives the LSC power to make proposals for the reorganisation of post-16 provision in an area, including changes to school sixth forms. The proposals may be made in response to the findings of an area inspection, or in order to meet at least one of three relevant objectives:
to increase participation amongst 16-19 year olds
to increase the achievement of 16-19 year olds
to expand the range of learning opportunities available to 16-19 year olds. 49. Decisions on LSC reorganisation proposals made under the 2002 Act will be made by the Secretary of State. School Organisation Committees will be consulted and their comments on the proposals, and any objections or comments by interested parties, must be passed by the LSC to the Secretary of State within one month of the end of the objection period when the proposals are submitted for decision.
Conflicting Sixth Form Reorganisation proposals
50. Where the implementation of reorganisation proposals from the LSC conflict with other published proposals put to the School Organisation Committee for decision, the Committee will be prevented by the School Organisation Proposals by the LSC for England Regulations 2003 from making a decision on the related proposals until the Secretary of State has decided the LSC proposals (see paragraph 8-9 of Section 3). If proposals come before the Adjudicator he or she should similarly delay a decision until the Secretary of State has taken a decision on the LSC proposals.
Equal opportunity issues
51. The Decision Maker must consider whether there are any sex, race or disability discrimination issues that arise from the changes being proposed, for example, that where there is a proposed change to single sex provision in an area, there is equal access to single sex provision for the other sex to meet parental demand. In considering proposals for an existing independent school to become maintained the Decision Maker must be satisfied that if the school is co-educational it will provide equal opportunities for boys and girls.
Rural schools and sites
52. In considering statutory proposals, the Decision Maker should have regard to the need to preserve access to a local school for rural communities. There should therefore be a presumption against the closure of rural schools. This does not mean that no rural school should ever close, but the case for closure should be strong and the proposals clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area. The transport implications of rural school closures should also be carefully considered, including the welfare of the children, the recurrent cost to the LEA of transporting pupils to school further away, the effects on road traffic congestion, and the environmental costs of pupils travelling further to schools. The overall effect on the community of closure of the village school should also be taken into account. The new possibilities for federated and extended schools to increase the viability of rural schools should be considered before closure proposals are brought forward. The Decision Maker must decide whether a school is to be regarded as rural. The Department's register of schools - Edubase - includes a rural/urban indicator for each school in England based on an assessment by the Office of National Statistics. The Decision Maker should have regard to this indicator. Where a school is not recorded as rural on Edubase, the SOC may nonetheless wish to consider evidence provided by interested parties that a particular school should be regarded as rural. The Office of National Statistics is planning to have new rural/urban indicators available in autumn 2003, and may be prepared to advise in cases of doubt, as may the Countryside Agency. 53. Proposals are required to close one of the sites of a school on more than one site if any of the remaining sites are a mile or more away from the site that is proposed for closure. The Decision Maker should take into account the same sort of factors in deciding whether to approve the closure of one of the sites of a rural school, and there should be a presumption against their closure also, particularly where schools have recently been amalgamated and there has been an understanding that education would continue on the site.
Accessibility and effect on school journeys
54. In deciding statutory proposals, the Decision Maker should bear in mind that proposals should not have the effect of unreasonably extending journey times or increasing transport costs, or result in children having to negotiate significant barriers such as railway lines or major roads. Proposals should also be considered against Government objectives to reduce traffic congestion and promote alternatives to the car. 55. When considering proposals to close a school in a deprived area, Committees should have particular regard to the transport arrangements proposed by those bringing forward proposals, the quality of the transport links between the communities served by the school and the site of the alternative provision, and the possible effect of the proposed arrangements on pupil unauthorised absence and staying-on post-16.
Extended schools
56. As part of the wider strategy to raise pupils' standards of achievement, the Secretary of State wishes to encourage more schools to extend the services and facilities they offer, for the benefit of pupils and their families. The Education Act 2002 includes a new power to enable governors to provide, in partnership with others, family and community services. "Extended schools" aim to provide a range of services, built around the needs of children who attend the school, their families and the wider community. Services and facilities might embrace study support, breakfast clubs, homework clubs, other forms of childcare, family learning, adult education, healthcare and other community facilities. While enhanced facilities of this kind do not require statutory proposals, their inclusion would strengthen the case for approving any statutory proposals. 57. In some areas, a school may already be a focal point for family and community activity, and its closure may have wider social ramifications. It may also provide extended services for a range of users. In considering proposals for the closure of such schools, the effect on families and the community should be considered. The information presented by those bringing forward proposals to close such schools, particularly when they are in receipt of funding as part of regeneration activity, should therefore show evidence that options for maintaining community facilities in the area have been considered. The views of other relevant agencies and partnerships with responsibility for community and family services should be taken into account, alongside those of the local police and Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies having responsibility for the New Deal for Communities.
Early Years provision
58. In considering any proposals involving changes in early years provision, the Decision Maker should consider whether the proposals will integrate pre-school education with childcare services and/or with other services for young children and their families; and should have particular regard to the views of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership. 59. In deciding whether to approve any proposals to close a nursery school, the Decision Maker should be aware that nursery schools generally offer high quality provision, and have considerable potential as the basis for developing integrated services for young children and families. There should be a presumption against approval of such proposals unless the case for closure is strong, the proposals are clearly in the best interests of local children and families, and the LEA can show that it has duly considered:
the quantity, quality, value for money and convenience to parents (in hours offered) of provision at the individual nursery school, and proposed replacement provision;
the impact of the potential loss to the locality of the nursery school’s experience and knowledge in delivering early years education;
alternatives to closure, such as developing the nursery school to support the development of integrated services for young children and their families, including through Government programmes such as the Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative, Sure Start, Early Excellence Centres and Children’s Centres. 60. In deciding whether to approve any proposals to close a nursery class, the Decision Maker should consider whether the alternative provision will maintain or enhance the standard of education provision. Alternative provision could be with providers in the private or voluntary sectors. 61. Regulations have also tightened up on gradual changes to the lower end of a school’s age range. Previously, only changes of a year or more required statutory proposals. From June 2003 proposals will also be required even if the change is less than a year in any one year, if the cumulative effect of such changes over a period is to lower the age of entry by a year or more.
Maintained nursery schools
62. From June 2003, statutory proposals will be required to open a new maintained nursery school (prior to this proposals were only required for closures). Section 2.5 lists factors to be considered.
Infant class sizes
63. Local education authorities and schools have a legal duty under Section 1 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to ensure that no infant class of 5, 6 and 7 year olds with a single teacher contains more than 30 pupils (apart from a few very limited exceptions, which relate to children with special needs or those offered places outside the normal admissions round). Before approving any statutory proposal affecting infant classes, the Decision Maker should ensure that its implementation will not compromise the Authority’s ability to meet the class size limit.
Special educational needs provision
64. Almost every school in the country will have some children on roll who have special educational needs (SEN). So there are likely to be SEN implications in every school reorganisation. School reorganisation provides opportunities for LEAs to consider the most effective ways of ensuring that appropriate SEN support is delivered to pupils wherever it is needed. This may be in mainstream schools, in specialist provision attached to, or co-located with, mainstream schools, or in special schools. 65. When considering proposals for the reorganisation of special educational needs provision the Decision Maker should have regard to:
the statutory duty placed on Local Education Authorities under section 315 of the Education Act 1996 to keep under review their arrangements for special educational needs provision;
the elements of the Local Education Authority’s Education Development Plan relevant to special educational needs, and in particular the Authority’s plans for promoting inclusion (that is, for educating a higher proportion of pupils with special educational needs within a mainstream setting);
arrangements promoted by the Secretary of State for the regional co-ordination of SEN provision and services, including the work of the SEN Regional Partnerships;
the particular SEN factors mentioned at the end of Section 2: "Provision for children with disabilities". 66. Some children’s special educational needs will be because of disabilities, and some disabled children, though they may not have special educational needs, may have particular access requirements. From September 2002 schools and LEAs are under a statutory duty under the Disability Discrimination Act to increase the accessibility of schools for disabled pupils. LEAs are required to prepare accessibility strategies and schools are required to prepare accessibility plans. These strategies and plans must show how the LEA or school plan to:
increase the extent to which disabled pupils can participate in the school curriculum;
improve the physical school environment;
improve the delivery to disabled pupils of written information in different formats.
Foundation body
67. Foundation and Voluntary schools may establish foundation bodies to be responsible for the land and assets of a group of schools. Proposals may therefore include a reference to plans to establish a new foundation body or join an existing body. Where the proposals include a reference to the need to establish a new foundation body, an approval should be conditional upon the Secretary of State approving the establishment of that body by a certain date.
Federation of schools
68. Under the Education Act 2002 (sections 24-25), schools may become federated under a single governing body. Where proposals for a new school include plans for a new federation, or to join an existing federation, any approval should be conditional upon the school being accepted into the federation or the federation coming into being by a certain date.
Independent schools
69. If the proposal is from an existing independent school the Decision Maker would need to consider whether the school has, or would have, a range of suitable staff to meet the school’s needs, including teachers with qualified teacher status, and whether the premises would be suitable for the purpose of a maintained school.
Change of school category
70. All categories of school - community, foundation, voluntary aided or voluntary controlled - are of equal value. All proposals to change the category of a school should therefore be considered on their individual merits. There should be no presumption for or against any particular category. A school cannot gain, lose or change a religious character by changing category. To do this a school must close and open as a new school. 71. In deciding such proposals the Decision Maker must take into account the restrictions on changing category prescribed in the regulations:
if the school proposes to change to the voluntary aided category, evidence must be provided that the governing body are able and willing to meet their financial responsibilities for building work for at least 5 years after the proposed implementation date (Form 18 should be provided);
the change of category cannot authorise a school to establish, join or leave a foundation body; and
a foundation, voluntary aided and voluntary controlled school may not become a community school and a foundation special school may not become a community special school unless the required transfer agreement is entered into (i.e. regarding the land or buildings owned by the trustees and/or governing body). 72. Where the change of category will lead to a change in admission arrangements those bringing forward proposals should also ensure that all interested parties are consulted on the proposed arrangements at an early stage. These parties should include schools and parents of children already at, or likely to attend the school. In considering proposals for a change of school category the Decision Maker may not modify proposed admission arrangements. These fall to be dealt with under the normal admissions consultation arrangements.
Implementation
73. Where as a result of a voluntary aided (VA) school changing category the Local Education Authority becomes responsible for the implementation of previously approved statutory proposals in respect of the VA school which have not yet been fully implemented, the Department would continue its support of any agreed capital costs for those proposals, and would be prepared to consider applications from an LEA to meet its share of any capital costs which previously fell to the governing body. LEAs would also be able to publish statutory proposals to be relieved of the duty to implement approved proposals in respect of the school in its previous category. The Decision Maker would decide any such proposals under the provisions of paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
Conditional approvals
74. Some proposals to become a foundation school may involve becoming a member of a group foundation and may only be approved conditionally i.e. upon the Secretary of State approving the establishment of the new foundation body, or agreeing to the school joining an existing group foundation by a specified date. All such change of category proposals must be decided by the School Organisation Committee (or Adjudicator) and may not be determined by the LEA. 75. Where it is necessary for a trust to be established or for an existing trust deed to be varied for the school to change category, any approval must also be conditional upon this occurring by a specified date.
School playing field issues
76. The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 set out the standards for school premises, including minimum areas of team game playing fields to which schools must have access. Statutory proposals should ensure that these standards are met. However, section 543 of the Education Act 1996 (as amended by paragraph 159 of Schedule 30 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998) empowers the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to relax the prescribed standards. Detailed guidance on the circumstances in which a relaxation may be given and on how to apply are set out in the Department's circular, “Standards for School Premises”, published in February 2000.
Land tenure arrangements
77. For new voluntary aided schools it is desirable that a trust holds the freehold interest in the site. Sites of certain voluntary schools are held on diocesan general trusts, or by religious orders on their general trusts and these arrangements may apply to new schools. Other arrangements can provide for sites to be held on specific trust for the purposes of the school. Where there are no existing established arrangements, promoters of new schools should consider creating a specific trust. 78. Where the trustees of the proposed VA school hold or will hold a leasehold interest in the site, the Decision Maker will need to be assured that the arrangements provide sufficient security for the school. A leasehold interest under a specific trust would do so where the lease is for a substantial period - normally at least 99 years - and where it avoids clauses which would allow the leaseholder to evict the school before the termination of the lease. The lease should also avoid provisions which would obstruct the governing body or the headteacher in the exercise of their functions under the Education Acts, or place indirect pressures upon the funding bodies. 79. The Department will consider the land tenure arrangements in deciding whether grant-aid can be offered in principle for the establishment of a new VA school. The Department will offer advice as necessary to the promoters on how far the proposed arrangements are acceptable and this advice can be made available to the Decision Maker. For proposals to change a school’s category to VA the SOC will need to refer to details of proposed land tenure in the prescribed information to satisfy itself that proposed arrangements are satisfactory. 80. Promoters of new foundation or voluntary controlled schools, and any governors seeking a change of category to such, should discuss their land tenure arrangements with the LEA. The LEA should provide assurance to the SOC that land tenure arrangements will be satisfactory.
Linked proposals
81. Proposals that are interdependent must be considered together by the Decision Maker (see paras 6-7 of Section 3 for further guidance on whether proposals are linked). The decisions should be compatible: for example if one set of proposals is for the removal of provision, and another is for the establishment or enlargement of provision to which the pupils are proposed to transfer, the proposals to remove provision should not be approved separately from proposals for the accommodation of the displaced pupils. This would include proposals for the closure of sixth forms that were dependent on additional provision elsewhere. 82. If the School Organisation Committee is unable to reach a unanimous view on either of the proposals, they should both be passed to the Adjudicator to decide. 83. Where proposals are published that conflict with existing proposals (e.g. proposals to change the category of a school, for which there are already proposals to close the school or remove its sixth form) this need not delay consideration of the earlier proposals. Any decision on the later proposals would be informed by the decision on the earlier proposal
Publication Date: 30/5/2003 Version: 2
Decision Makers Guidance Section 2.1
Statutory Guidance - Factors to be considered - proposals for new schools
2.1. PROPOSALS FOR NEW SCHOOLS
(For new nursery schools see Section 2.5 and for new sixth form schools see Section 2.6) The following factors should not be taken to be exhaustive. Their importance will vary, depending on the type and circumstances of decisions. All proposals should be considered on their individual merits. The Decision Maker must also consult statutory guidance in Section 1, in particular any paragraph(s) referred to in brackets. There should be a presumption to approve proposals for a new school to replace a failing school closed by direction of the Secretary of State (paragraph 16 of Section 1).
Effect on standards and contribution to school improvement
Whether the proposals will improve the standards, quality, range and/or diversity of educational provision in the area (Paras 1-3, 5, 19-23);
Whether they advance the national and local transformation strategies set out in the documents Education and Skills: Investment for Reform and A New Specialist System: Transforming Secondary Education and the local Education Development Plan (Para 2-4);
Whether the proposals will deliver a broad and balanced curriculum (Para 6);
The effect of the proposals on other institutions’ standards, bearing in mind the effect on quantity and quality of other schools’ intakes and any suggestions put forward for collaboration, partnership or federation (Para 2-3).
Need for places
Whether there is a need for additional places in the area, or whether there are surplus places (Para 18, 31);
The extent of parental demand for the type of school in question, for example, provision for particular faiths or denominations or specialisms (Para 18, 19).
Finance
Whether the proposals represent a cost-effective use of public funds (para 32);
Whether the capital resources required are available (Para 33-34);
Whether the sale proceeds of redundant sites are to be made available and whether the Secretary of State's consent has been obtained where necessary (Para 35-36);
If the proposal is for a new voluntary aided school, whether the promoters have provided a statement that the governing body would be able to meet their financial responsibilities for building work (Para 37).
Views of interested parties (Para 38)
The views of parents and other local residents, including those who may be particularly affected by the proposals or have a particular interest in them;
The views of any Local Education Authority affected by the proposals or with an interest;
The views of the CE and RC dioceses in the area
The views of other schools and colleges in the area;
The views of the Learning and Skills Council (if the proposals affect the provision of post- 16 education);
The views of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (where proposals affect early education provision).
Community cohesion, inclusiveness and partnerships
The extent to which, and how satisfactorily in the circumstances of the community, the proposals address the need to promote community cohesion (Para 39-41);
Where a proposed new maintained school already exists as an independent school, its current approach and contribution to community cohesion will be relevant (Para 42);
The extent to which the proposals take account of the needs of families and the wider community (Para 43).
14-19 issues
Where 14-19 provision is involved, the extent to which appropriate collaborative arrangements have been considered (Para 44 – 45);
The criteria for considering new sixth forms should also be taken into account where the proposed school includes 16-19 provision (See Section 2.6).
Equal opportunities
Any sex, race or disability discrimination issues or other human rights issues including any sex discrimination issues in relation to proposals for a single sex school (Para 51).
Effect on school journeys
The existence of safe walking, cycling and bus routes to the proposed site (Para 54).
Other issues
Whether the school will provide strong links with the local community and provide family and community services (Para 56);
(Primary provision only) Whether the proposals comply with the infant class size limit (Para 63);
For voluntary and foundation schools where a trust is not to hold the freehold of the site, whether the land tenure arrangements are satisfactory (Para 77-80);
For voluntary and foundation schools, whether the proposal is to join an existing group foundation body or to jointly establish a new group foundation body (Para 67);
Whether the proposal is to join an existing federation or to jointly establish a new federation (Para 68);
Whether the new school will meet the minimum statutory requirement for provision of school playing fields (Para 76).
Proposal from an existing independent school:
if co-educational, whether it would provide equal opportunities for boys and girls (Para 51);
whether it would have suitably qualified staff and the premises would be suitable for the purpose of a maintained school (Para 69).
Publication Date: 30/5/2003 Version: 3
Appendix Decision Makers Guidance Section 1
Statutory Guidance - Issues to be considered in deciding proposals
Standards
1. The Secretary of State wishes to encourage changes to local school provision which will boost standards and opportunities for young people, while matching school place supply as closely as possible to pupils and parents’ needs and wishes. Decision Makers should assess proposals in the light of these overall criteria, and the specific further considerations set out in this guidance. In particular, although the Decision Maker should have regard to the School Organisation Plan for the area where such a plan continues to be required, it is not a sufficient argument against a proposal that it is not consistent with a pre-existing plan. It is also important that Decision Makers should not make blanket assumptions that schools need to be of a certain size before they can be good schools (although the cost-effectiveness of proposals should continue to be one of the factors taken into account). All proposals should be considered on their individual merits. 2. The Government aims to transform the opportunities open to pupils in secondary education, and greater diversity and innovation have a key role to play in this, with each school developing its own ethos and sense of mission and being encouraged to develop a centre of excellence or specialism. Every school should have an incentive to improve, have effective leadership and management, and collaborate with other schools. Successful and popular schools that wish to expand should be able to do so. 3. The Government wishes to break down the culture of isolation that has held back the comprehensive system. It wants to use the best schools to lever up standards across the system. This may be by enabling successful and popular schools to expand, or by encouraging a range of collaborative arrangements by which successful schools can share their management and other expertise with less successful schools. Such arrangements might involve a variety of school clusters or "federations" in which the best school leaders will drive school improvements across a group of schools. Alongside collaboration and partnership, decisive action will be needed to deal with failing schools. 4. In assessing the likely impact of proposals on standards, both in the primary and secondary sectors, the Decision Maker should consider them in the context of this approach, as reflected in the local Education Development Plan. 5. In considering standards issues, the Decision Maker should also take account of recent reports from Ofsted or other inspectorates, the autumn package of performance data, and any other performance data. The LEAs and others bringing forward proposals should justify them specifically in terms of their impact on standards. 6. The Decision Maker must also be satisfied that the proposals are consistent with delivery of a broad and balanced curriculum to the pupils involved. The requirements of a broad and balanced curriculum are set out in sections 78 to 96 of the Education Act 2002. In considering proposals for the reorganisation of schools, Decision Makers should also satisfy themselves that the dimension of accessibility planning has been properly taken into account, so that facilities are accessible by those concerned, and especially that disadvantaged groups are not further disadvantaged.
Proposals involving schools in special measures and those causing concern
Powers of Intervention
7. The categories of schools causing concern are defined in sections 14-19 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, as amended by sections 54-59 of and Schedule 5 to the Education Act 2002. Further information on these categories and the relevant follow-up procedures can be found in the DfES guidance on schools causing concern. 8. All schools causing concern should receive intensive support from their LEA. 9. The Education Act 2002 has provided both LEAs and the Secretary of State with new intervention powers to support schools with serious weaknesses, matching their existing powers in respect of schools placed in special measures.
Closure/Fresh Start proposals
10. When considering the closure of any school causing concern and the expansion of other schools in the area, LEAs should take into account the popularity with parents of alternative schools. 11. “Fresh start” proposals are designed to replace a school that is subject to special measures, has serious weaknesses or is subject to a warning under section 15 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The proposals for both the closure of the school and the opening of the new school on the same site should be submitted in parallel and should be considered together. In such cases there should be a presumption to approve both proposals. 12. When considering the approval of a Fresh Start proposal, the Decision Maker should check that the places the new school will provide are needed. 13. DfES has put in place a programme to support Fresh Start schools. In order to qualify for support under this programme, the Fresh Start proposal will need to be endorsed by Ministers. Such endorsement will of course depend on approval of the statutory proposals relating to the Fresh Start. However, in exceptional circumstances Ministers may decide not to endorse a Fresh Start proposal after the associated statutory proposals have been approved. In such circumstances, the new school will neither qualify for support from the Fresh Start support programme, nor be recognised nationally as a “Fresh Start” school. 14. For all closure and Fresh Start proposals involving schools causing concern, copies of the OFSTED monitoring letters for the relevant schools should be made available. The Decision Maker should have regard to the length of time the school has been on special measures, has had serious weaknesses or otherwise caused concern, the progress it has made, the prognosis for improvement, and the provision of places at neighbouring schools. Where the Decision Maker is presented with proposals to close schools in special measures or otherwise causing concern, they should start from the presumption that these should be approved, subject only to checking that there will be sufficient accessible places of an acceptable standard available in the area to meet foreseeable demand and accommodate the displaced pupils. 15. Where a school is to be closed so that it may be amalgamated with a more successful and popular school, the Decision Maker should again normally approve these proposals, subject to evidence being provided by the LEA and other interests that the development will have a positive impact on standards.
Secretary of State’s power to direct closure
16. Section 19 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, as amended by section 56(2) of the Education Act 2002, gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an LEA to close a school requiring special measures or with serious weaknesses. It is likely that this power will be used only in exceptional circumstances. Such a direction would not be subject to the agreement of the School Organisation Committee or Schools Adjudicator. However, they may be required to consider proposals for the opening of a new school or for alterations as a consequence of the directed closure. There should be a presumption to approve the consequential proposals.
Proposals other than closure or Fresh Start
17. These should be dealt with as quickly as possible, and the Decision Maker should have regard to the impact the proposals may have on the school’s ability to take forward its action plan for recovering from special measures or removing serious weaknesses.
Creating Additional Places (in existing schools or by new schools)
18. Where proposals will provide additional places, the Decision Maker should consider whether they are needed. In considering need, the Decision Maker should take into account not only the existence of spare capacity in neighbouring schools, but also the quality and popularity with parents of the schools in which spare capacity exists and evidence of parents’ aspirations for a new school or their support for expansion of an existing school. The existence of surplus capacity in neighbouring less popular or successful schools should not in itself prevent the addition of new places. In considering proposals for additional places, the Decision Maker must take account of the impact which proposals will have on the standards of provision. Where proposals add to surplus capacity (either by adding places at existing schools or creating new schools) but there is a strong case for approval on parental preference and standards grounds, the presumption should be for approval. The LEA in these cases will need to consider parallel action to remove the surplus capacity thereby created.
New schools
19. It has always been possible for any organisation, association or individual willing to meet the conditions associated with being in the maintained sector, to publish proposals to set up a new maintained school. The Government wishes to encourage the widest possible range of promoters with a contribution to make to educational standards and diversity to come forward – including parent and community groups, private and charitable companies, voluntary groups including church and faith communities, those offering distinctive educational philosophies, existing schools or consortia of schools. All proposals, from whatever source, should be considered on the basis of their educational merits and what they have to offer the local community.
Additional secondary schools
20. However from June 2003, a different procedure applies where an LEA decides that an additional, wholly new, secondary school is needed (see para 2-4 of Section 3 for guidance on what constitutes an "additional" secondary school). The LEA must publish a notice inviting other interested parties to bring forward proposals for the new school, before publishing any proposals of its own. The proposals will be decided by the Secretary of State, in the light of any comments by the School Organisation Committee following local consultation. Though LEAs are encouraged to use this procedure as widely as possible – see paragraph 21-23 – the legal requirement to do so applies only to secondary schools, and does not affect amalgamations or re-organisations of existing schools, fresh-start proposals, closures and re-openings in order to gain, lose or change religious character, independent schools seeking maintained status or any situation where a promoter other than the LEA wishes to propose a new school. When the School Organisation Committee is commenting on additional secondary school proposals before a decision by the Secretary of State as above, it should consider the same list of factors as for new schools (Section 2.1). And Decision Makers receiving proposals involving new secondary school provision should always check that they are not in fact covered by the legislative requirements for new school competitions to be held (see Section 3). 21. As mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Introduction, the Secretary of State considers that in the interest of increased diversity LEAs should invite other potential providers to bring forward proposals when a new school is proposed in the area, including replacement schools, mergers and amalgamations (this approach is required by legislation for additional secondary schools). The statutory guidance in Section 3 (paragraphs 1-4) requires LEAs to consult the local dioceses and anyone else who has previously expressed an interest in setting up a secondary school. 22. The Secretary of State particularly expects LEAs to invite other providers to consider whether they would wish to be involved in the provision of a new secondary school where: a. a failing school is being replaced; or b. the LEA’s percentage of pupils getting 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C is below the national LEA floor target of 38%; or c. pupils in that area do not have access to a school where at least 25% of pupils get 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C; or d. any supplementary guidance which the Secretary of State has issued applying to the area concerned says so. (The Secretary of State may decide that particular guidance is needed for areas of low performance.) If any of the above conditions apply, there should be a presumption to approve proposals where either the promoters have a good track record of involvement in education, or their proposals seem likely to improve standards in the area. 23. In considering any proposals for new schools, the Decision Maker must consider proposals on their merits and not assume an optimum size for a school. In particular, the Decision Maker should not work on the basis that a school needs to be of a certain size to be effective.
Academies
24. Academies (including the former City Academies) are publicly-funded independent schools established in partnership with business and voluntary sector sponsors. They normally replace one or more schools facing challenging circumstances or will be set up to meet a need for new school places. Academies (unlike City Academies) may be established in rural as well as urban areas. All Academies should contribute to a strategic approach to diversity in their area. The involvement of business and other non-Government partners will enable Academies to develop and implement new approaches to teaching and learning in order to raise standards and promote innovation. All Academies will be required to share their facilities and expertise with other local schools and the wider community. 25. Statutory proposals are not required for the establishment of an Academy. The legal basis for Academies is section 482 of the Education Act 1996, which provides for the Secretary of State to enter into funding agreements with persons undertaking to establish and maintain specific types of independent school. Where an Academy is to replace an existing school or schools, however, the proposals for the closure of those schools should indicate whether pupils currently attending the schools will transfer to the Academy and, if appropriate, what arrangements will be made for pupils who are not expected to transfer. 26. All statutory proposals for changes to maintained schools relating to the establishment of an Academy should be considered together. If provision for pupils at a school proposed for closure is dependent on the establishment of an Academy, any approval of the closure proposals should be conditional upon the making of an agreement for an Academy, but there should be a general presumption in favour of approval. It should be noted that LEAs cannot give conditional approvals, only a SOC or Adjudicator may do that. However, from June 2003 LEAs may refer statutory proposals requiring conditional approval to the Committee for decision even if there are no objections, without the need to wait for the four-month decision period to elapse. This facility applies only to proposals requiring a conditional approval. All other proposals by the LEA must be decided by them if there are no objections, or the objections are withdrawn in writing within the representation period (unless the proposals are related to proposals which must be decided by the SOC, or to proposals published by the LSC, in which case the LEA may not decide the proposals – see Section 3 of this guidance).
Expansion of successful and popular schools
27. The documents Education and Skills: Investment for Reform and A New Specialist System: Transforming Secondary Education set out the Government’s vision of radical reform of the structure of secondary education, including, as a priority, making better use of our best schools. This is particularly important in areas of multiple deprivation where children’s life-chances may crucially depend on good education breaking the cycle of dependency. Underperforming schools cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. 28. When LEAs are considering expanding school provision, they should take account of the wishes of parents in deciding which schools should expand. The Secretary of State also wishes to encourage LEAs to reorganise provision in order to ensure that places are located where parents want them. For the purposes of this guidance, the Secretary of State is not proposing any single definition of a popular and successful school. The following indicators should all be taken into account by schools which are putting forward proposals and by the Decision Maker:
the school's performance:
in terms of absolute results in key stage assessments and public examinations
by comparison with other schools in similar circumstances (both in the same LEA and other LEAs)
in terms of value added
in terms of improvement over time in key stage results and public examinations;
the numbers of applications for places. The Decision Maker should also take account of any other relevant evidence put forward by schools. 29. Key issues that Decision Makers should take into account when considering expansion proposals for successful and popular schools include the following. The Decision Maker should take into account the views, wishes and preferences of all parents and the relative popularity and standards of all schools in the area. The Decision Maker should start from the strong presumption that proposals to expand successful and popular schools should normally be approved (this presumption does not apply to grammar schools, in line with the Government’s long-standing policy that there should be no increase in selection by ability). The existence of surplus capacity in neighbouring less popular schools should not in itself prevent this expansion, but the Decision Maker should consider the impact of expansion on other local schools and, if necessary, ask the LEA how they plan to tackle the consequences to other schools of the expansion. The admission arrangements of schools proposed for expansion would also be expected to meet fully the provisions of the Admissions Code of Practice. However, the Decision Maker may not modify proposed admission arrangements, which should be dealt with under the normal admissions consultation arrangements. The Decision Maker should only turn down proposals for successful and popular schools to expand in areas of underachievement if there is compelling objective evidence that expansion would have a damaging effect on standards overall in an area, which cannot be avoided by LEA action.
Balance of denominational provision
30. In deciding proposals to close or reduce the capacity of denominational schools, the effect that this will have on the balance of denominational and non-denominational provision should be considered. The Adjudicator should not approve proposals for the closure of a denominational school where the relevant church SOC group had voted against its closure and it is clear that the closure, in conjunction with any related changes, will reduce the proportion of such denominational places within the LEA, unless the school is failing or severely undersubscribed.
Surplus Places
31. It continues to be important that education is provided as cost-effectively as possible. Empty places represent a poor use of resources. LEAs have been encouraged to take action to remove surplus places, especially where schools have a quarter or more of their places unfilled and at least 30 surplus places. However, standards at the schools also need to be taken into account, as does the effect on any community use of the premises (see paragraphs 56 and 57). As noted in paragraphs 18 and 27 to 29 above, the Secretary of State wishes to encourage LEAs to organise provision in order to ensure that places are located where parents want them. In the case of any unfilled places at any schools in the area, especially where these are increasing, the LEA should take positive action to remove those at schools where parents do not choose to send their children, and which are least successful in raising standards. The removal of surplus places must always support the core agenda of raising standards and respect parents' wishes by seeking to match school places with parental choices.
Finance
32. The Decision Maker will need to be satisfied that the proposals represent a cost-effective use of public funds. 33. The Decision Maker must be satisfied that any capital required to implement the proposals will be available. Normally, this will be some form of written confirmation from the source of funding on which the promoters rely. In the case of a Local Education Authority, this may be from an authorised officer within the Authority. 34. There can be no assumption that the approval of proposals will trigger the release of capital funds from the Department unless the Department has confirmed in writing that such resources will be available; nor that any allocation “in principle” can be increased. In such circumstances the proposals should be rejected, or consideration of them deferred until it is clear that the capital necessary to implement the proposals will be provided. Proposals may NOT be approved conditional upon availability of capital, from sales or otherwise (although they may be approved conditional upon the entering into of a Private Finance Initiative transaction). 35. Implementation of proposals may depend on the disposal of land previously used for the purposes of a county or community school, perhaps because of capital receipts. Those bringing forward proposals and the Decision Maker should therefore assure themselves that any necessary consent for disposal of the land under paragraph 2 of Schedule 35A to the Education Act 1996 has been received from the Secretary of State. Consent is also necessary for the disposal by foundation or voluntary schools of any publicly funded land and buildings under Schedule 22 of the SSFA 1998. 36. The prior agreement of the Secretary of State will also be needed where it is proposed that capital should be raised from the disposal of school playing fields (details are given in DfES Guidance 0580/2001 The Protection of School Playing Fields and Land for City Academies published in July 2001). Proposals dependent on disposal of land for their implementation may not receive full approval until consent for their disposal has been received. Proposals may, however, be approved conditionally under Regulation 9 of the Education (School Organisation Proposals) (England) Regulations 1999 conditional upon the acquisition of a site or playing fields. 37. For proposals for a new voluntary aided school the Decision Maker must have a statement (preferably Form 18), signed by the promoters, that provides evidence that the Governing Body will be able to meet their financial responsibilities for all future building work.
Views of Interested parties
38. The Decision Maker must consider the views of all affected by the proposals or who have an interest in them including parents, residents, pupils, staff, other schools and colleges, diocesan bodies and other providers, LEAs, the LSC (where proposals affect post 16 provision) and the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (where proposals affect early years provision). This includes statutory objections and comments submitted during the representation period (and before proposals are accepted as valid the Committee will need to be satisfied that the legal requirements to consult have been met).
Community cohesion
39. The Government is concerned to promote ethnic, religious and cultural tolerance and respect between different groups of people living and working together. Tensions can grow where ethnic groups have segregated themselves from each other - whether by choice or circumstance - in housing, work, leisure and education. The Government is therefore committed to improving community cohesion: the uniting of people of different races, cultures and faiths in a common sense of belonging and pride in a shared civic identity. The areas which appear to be most successful in uniting different communities are those which combine an emphasis on shared values and common citizenship with a positive approach to celebrating diversity. 40. To realise the benefits of our multi-cultural society there is a need for positive action to promote community cohesion. Schools have a key part to play in this by providing opportunities for young people from different backgrounds to learn from each other; by encouraging through their teaching understanding of and respect for other cultures and faiths; and by activities in the community which help to build bridges between different ethnic groups. 41. When considering proposals for new schools the Decision Maker must consider whether the proposals will help to promote community cohesion. This will need to be considered on a case by case basis, taking account of the community that the new school will serve and the views of different sections within the community. There is no single model of school inclusiveness which can be applied to all circumstances. Factors that may need to be considered, and some specific examples of approaches to partnership working, are given in Section 5, but the prime consideration should be the needs of their local community. 42. Promoters of new schools should include in their proposals information about how the school will tackle religious, racial and cultural division, and contribute to well-being across the community. Where proposed new maintained schools already exist as independent schools, information about what they are already doing and contributing will also be relevant. 43. The Decision Maker will need to consider the views of the local community, the commitment of the new school promoters and their own assessment of the robustness of the proposed means for achieving inclusiveness. Proposals for new faith schools should be judged on the same basis as proposals for other schools. The Local Government Association's Guidance on Community Cohesion should also be referred to by those drawing up proposals for changes in school organisation. Proposals should be prepared against the background of the initiatives and documents referred to in that guidance, including the Local Strategic Partnership (LSP).
14-19 provision and collaboration
44. The Government has published proposals to develop 14-19 as a coherent phase of education in which young people remain committed to continuing learning after the age of 16. To that end, it wants young people to be able to choose from a broad range of general and vocational options from the age of 14 and to be able to progress through learning at a pace that is right for them. Where necessary, it expects that this should be achieved through increased collaborative working between local providers, including schools, colleges, training providers and employers. 45. Where a proposal relates to provision for 14-16 year-olds, the Decision Maker should consider the extent to which it will extend the range of options available to students in this age group and enhance the opportunities for collaboration between relevant local providers.
16-19 schools
46. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 allowed the establishment of maintained schools which provide full-time education suitable for the requirements of pupils over compulsory school age but do not provide education suitable for the requirements of pupils of compulsory school age. Arrangements for the publication of proposals for the establishment of 16-19 schools are broadly as for other maintained schools.
LSC proposals to close inadequate 16-19 provision
47. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 gives the Learning and Skill Council (LSC) powers to propose the closure of inadequate sixth forms at all categories of school (by proposing to change the school’s age range to stop at 16); and to propose the closure of an inadequate 16-19 school of whatever category, including special schools. A sixth form is deemed inadequate if OFSTED reports it is failing to give students an acceptable standard of education, or has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of its activities. A 16-19 school is deemed inadequate if it requires special measures or has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of its activities. These LSC powers are triggered only where, having had two consecutive adverse reports from OFSTED, a school has failed to turn its 16- 19 provision round. Where the sixth form is proposed for closure there should be a presumption to approve these proposals, subject to evidence being provided by the LEA and other interests that the development will have a positive impact on standards.
New LSC powers to propose the reorganisation of 16-19 provision
48. The Education Act 2002 also gives the LSC power to make proposals for the reorganisation of post-16 provision in an area, including changes to school sixth forms. The proposals may be made in response to the findings of an area inspection, or in order to meet at least one of three relevant objectives:
to increase participation amongst 16-19 year olds
to increase the achievement of 16-19 year olds
to expand the range of learning opportunities available to 16-19 year olds. 49. Decisions on LSC reorganisation proposals made under the 2002 Act will be made by the Secretary of State. School Organisation Committees will be consulted and their comments on the proposals, and any objections or comments by interested parties, must be passed by the LSC to the Secretary of State within one month of the end of the objection period when the proposals are submitted for decision.
Conflicting Sixth Form Reorganisation proposals
50. Where the implementation of reorganisation proposals from the LSC conflict with other published proposals put to the School Organisation Committee for decision, the Committee will be prevented by the School Organisation Proposals by the LSC for England Regulations 2003 from making a decision on the related proposals until the Secretary of State has decided the LSC proposals (see paragraph 8-9 of Section 3). If proposals come before the Adjudicator he or she should similarly delay a decision until the Secretary of State has taken a decision on the LSC proposals.
Equal opportunity issues
51. The Decision Maker must consider whether there are any sex, race or disability discrimination issues that arise from the changes being proposed, for example, that where there is a proposed change to single sex provision in an area, there is equal access to single sex provision for the other sex to meet parental demand. In considering proposals for an existing independent school to become maintained the Decision Maker must be satisfied that if the school is co-educational it will provide equal opportunities for boys and girls.
Rural schools and sites
52. In considering statutory proposals, the Decision Maker should have regard to the need to preserve access to a local school for rural communities. There should therefore be a presumption against the closure of rural schools. This does not mean that no rural school should ever close, but the case for closure should be strong and the proposals clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area. The transport implications of rural school closures should also be carefully considered, including the welfare of the children, the recurrent cost to the LEA of transporting pupils to school further away, the effects on road traffic congestion, and the environmental costs of pupils travelling further to schools. The overall effect on the community of closure of the village school should also be taken into account. The new possibilities for federated and extended schools to increase the viability of rural schools should be considered before closure proposals are brought forward. The Decision Maker must decide whether a school is to be regarded as rural. The Department's register of schools - Edubase - includes a rural/urban indicator for each school in England based on an assessment by the Office of National Statistics. The Decision Maker should have regard to this indicator. Where a school is not recorded as rural on Edubase, the SOC may nonetheless wish to consider evidence provided by interested parties that a particular school should be regarded as rural. The Office of National Statistics is planning to have new rural/urban indicators available in autumn 2003, and may be prepared to advise in cases of doubt, as may the Countryside Agency. 53. Proposals are required to close one of the sites of a school on more than one site if any of the remaining sites are a mile or more away from the site that is proposed for closure. The Decision Maker should take into account the same sort of factors in deciding whether to approve the closure of one of the sites of a rural school, and there should be a presumption against their closure also, particularly where schools have recently been amalgamated and there has been an understanding that education would continue on the site.
Accessibility and effect on school journeys
54. In deciding statutory proposals, the Decision Maker should bear in mind that proposals should not have the effect of unreasonably extending journey times or increasing transport costs, or result in children having to negotiate significant barriers such as railway lines or major roads. Proposals should also be considered against Government objectives to reduce traffic congestion and promote alternatives to the car. 55. When considering proposals to close a school in a deprived area, Committees should have particular regard to the transport arrangements proposed by those bringing forward proposals, the quality of the transport links between the communities served by the school and the site of the alternative provision, and the possible effect of the proposed arrangements on pupil unauthorised absence and staying-on post-16.
Extended schools
56. As part of the wider strategy to raise pupils' standards of achievement, the Secretary of State wishes to encourage more schools to extend the services and facilities they offer, for the benefit of pupils and their families. The Education Act 2002 includes a new power to enable governors to provide, in partnership with others, family and community services. "Extended schools" aim to provide a range of services, built around the needs of children who attend the school, their families and the wider community. Services and facilities might embrace study support, breakfast clubs, homework clubs, other forms of childcare, family learning, adult education, healthcare and other community facilities. While enhanced facilities of this kind do not require statutory proposals, their inclusion would strengthen the case for approving any statutory proposals. 57. In some areas, a school may already be a focal point for family and community activity, and its closure may have wider social ramifications. It may also provide extended services for a range of users. In considering proposals for the closure of such schools, the effect on families and the community should be considered. The information presented by those bringing forward proposals to close such schools, particularly when they are in receipt of funding as part of regeneration activity, should therefore show evidence that options for maintaining community facilities in the area have been considered. The views of other relevant agencies and partnerships with responsibility for community and family services should be taken into account, alongside those of the local police and Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies having responsibility for the New Deal for Communities.
Early Years provision
58. In considering any proposals involving changes in early years provision, the Decision Maker should consider whether the proposals will integrate pre-school education with childcare services and/or with other services for young children and their families; and should have particular regard to the views of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership. 59. In deciding whether to approve any proposals to close a nursery school, the Decision Maker should be aware that nursery schools generally offer high quality provision, and have considerable potential as the basis for developing integrated services for young children and families. There should be a presumption against approval of such proposals unless the case for closure is strong, the proposals are clearly in the best interests of local children and families, and the LEA can show that it has duly considered:
the quantity, quality, value for money and convenience to parents (in hours offered) of provision at the individual nursery school, and proposed replacement provision;
the impact of the potential loss to the locality of the nursery school’s experience and knowledge in delivering early years education;
alternatives to closure, such as developing the nursery school to support the development of integrated services for young children and their families, including through Government programmes such as the Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative, Sure Start, Early Excellence Centres and Children’s Centres. 60. In deciding whether to approve any proposals to close a nursery class, the Decision Maker should consider whether the alternative provision will maintain or enhance the standard of education provision. Alternative provision could be with providers in the private or voluntary sectors. 61. Regulations have also tightened up on gradual changes to the lower end of a school’s age range. Previously, only changes of a year or more required statutory proposals. From June 2003 proposals will also be required even if the change is less than a year in any one year, if the cumulative effect of such changes over a period is to lower the age of entry by a year or more.
Maintained nursery schools
62. From June 2003, statutory proposals will be required to open a new maintained nursery school (prior to this proposals were only required for closures). Section 2.5 lists factors to be considered.
Infant class sizes
63. Local education authorities and schools have a legal duty under Section 1 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to ensure that no infant class of 5, 6 and 7 year olds with a single teacher contains more than 30 pupils (apart from a few very limited exceptions, which relate to children with special needs or those offered places outside the normal admissions round). Before approving any statutory proposal affecting infant classes, the Decision Maker should ensure that its implementation will not compromise the Authority’s ability to meet the class size limit.
Special educational needs provision
64. Almost every school in the country will have some children on roll who have special educational needs (SEN). So there are likely to be SEN implications in every school reorganisation. School reorganisation provides opportunities for LEAs to consider the most effective ways of ensuring that appropriate SEN support is delivered to pupils wherever it is needed. This may be in mainstream schools, in specialist provision attached to, or co-located with, mainstream schools, or in special schools. 65. When considering proposals for the reorganisation of special educational needs provision the Decision Maker should have regard to:
the statutory duty placed on Local Education Authorities under section 315 of the Education Act 1996 to keep under review their arrangements for special educational needs provision;
the elements of the Local Education Authority’s Education Development Plan relevant to special educational needs, and in particular the Authority’s plans for promoting inclusion (that is, for educating a higher proportion of pupils with special educational needs within a mainstream setting);
arrangements promoted by the Secretary of State for the regional co-ordination of SEN provision and services, including the work of the SEN Regional Partnerships;
the particular SEN factors mentioned at the end of Section 2: "Provision for children with disabilities". 66. Some children’s special educational needs will be because of disabilities, and some disabled children, though they may not have special educational needs, may have particular access requirements. From September 2002 schools and LEAs are under a statutory duty under the Disability Discrimination Act to increase the accessibility of schools for disabled pupils. LEAs are required to prepare accessibility strategies and schools are required to prepare accessibility plans. These strategies and plans must show how the LEA or school plan to:
increase the extent to which disabled pupils can participate in the school curriculum;
improve the physical school environment;
improve the delivery to disabled pupils of written information in different formats.
Foundation body
67. Foundation and Voluntary schools may establish foundation bodies to be responsible for the land and assets of a group of schools. Proposals may therefore include a reference to plans to establish a new foundation body or join an existing body. Where the proposals include a reference to the need to establish a new foundation body, an approval should be conditional upon the Secretary of State approving the establishment of that body by a certain date.
Federation of schools
68. Under the Education Act 2002 (sections 24-25), schools may become federated under a single governing body. Where proposals for a new school include plans for a new federation, or to join an existing federation, any approval should be conditional upon the school being accepted into the federation or the federation coming into being by a certain date.
Independent schools
69. If the proposal is from an existing independent school the Decision Maker would need to consider whether the school has, or would have, a range of suitable staff to meet the school’s needs, including teachers with qualified teacher status, and whether the premises would be suitable for the purpose of a maintained school.
Change of school category
70. All categories of school - community, foundation, voluntary aided or voluntary controlled - are of equal value. All proposals to change the category of a school should therefore be considered on their individual merits. There should be no presumption for or against any particular category. A school cannot gain, lose or change a religious character by changing category. To do this a school must close and open as a new school. 71. In deciding such proposals the Decision Maker must take into account the restrictions on changing category prescribed in the regulations:
if the school proposes to change to the voluntary aided category, evidence must be provided that the governing body are able and willing to meet their financial responsibilities for building work for at least 5 years after the proposed implementation date (Form 18 should be provided);
the change of category cannot authorise a school to establish, join or leave a foundation body; and
a foundation, voluntary aided and voluntary controlled school may not become a community school and a foundation special school may not become a community special school unless the required transfer agreement is entered into (i.e. regarding the land or buildings owned by the trustees and/or governing body). 72. Where the change of category will lead to a change in admission arrangements those bringing forward proposals should also ensure that all interested parties are consulted on the proposed arrangements at an early stage. These parties should include schools and parents of children already at, or likely to attend the school. In considering proposals for a change of school category the Decision Maker may not modify proposed admission arrangements. These fall to be dealt with under the normal admissions consultation arrangements.
Implementation
73. Where as a result of a voluntary aided (VA) school changing category the Local Education Authority becomes responsible for the implementation of previously approved statutory proposals in respect of the VA school which have not yet been fully implemented, the Department would continue its support of any agreed capital costs for those proposals, and would be prepared to consider applications from an LEA to meet its share of any capital costs which previously fell to the governing body. LEAs would also be able to publish statutory proposals to be relieved of the duty to implement approved proposals in respect of the school in its previous category. The Decision Maker would decide any such proposals under the provisions of paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
Conditional approvals
74. Some proposals to become a foundation school may involve becoming a member of a group foundation and may only be approved conditionally i.e. upon the Secretary of State approving the establishment of the new foundation body, or agreeing to the school joining an existing group foundation by a specified date. All such change of category proposals must be decided by the School Organisation Committee (or Adjudicator) and may not be determined by the LEA. 75. Where it is necessary for a trust to be established or for an existing trust deed to be varied for the school to change category, any approval must also be conditional upon this occurring by a specified date.
School playing field issues
76. The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 set out the standards for school premises, including minimum areas of team game playing fields to which schools must have access. Statutory proposals should ensure that these standards are met. However, section 543 of the Education Act 1996 (as amended by paragraph 159 of Schedule 30 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998) empowers the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to relax the prescribed standards. Detailed guidance on the circumstances in which a relaxation may be given and on how to apply are set out in the Department's circular, “Standards for School Premises”, published in February 2000.
Land tenure arrangements
77. For new voluntary aided schools it is desirable that a trust holds the freehold interest in the site. Sites of certain voluntary schools are held on diocesan general trusts, or by religious orders on their general trusts and these arrangements may apply to new schools. Other arrangements can provide for sites to be held on specific trust for the purposes of the school. Where there are no existing established arrangements, promoters of new schools should consider creating a specific trust. 78. Where the trustees of the proposed VA school hold or will hold a leasehold interest in the site, the Decision Maker will need to be assured that the arrangements provide sufficient security for the school. A leasehold interest under a specific trust would do so where the lease is for a substantial period - normally at least 99 years - and where it avoids clauses which would allow the leaseholder to evict the school before the termination of the lease. The lease should also avoid provisions which would obstruct the governing body or the headteacher in the exercise of their functions under the Education Acts, or place indirect pressures upon the funding bodies. 79. The Department will consider the land tenure arrangements in deciding whether grant-aid can be offered in principle for the establishment of a new VA school. The Department will offer advice as necessary to the promoters on how far the proposed arrangements are acceptable and this advice can be made available to the Decision Maker. For proposals to change a school’s category to VA the SOC will need to refer to details of proposed land tenure in the prescribed information to satisfy itself that proposed arrangements are satisfactory. 80. Promoters of new foundation or voluntary controlled schools, and any governors seeking a change of category to such, should discuss their land tenure arrangements with the LEA. The LEA should provide assurance to the SOC that land tenure arrangements will be satisfactory.
Linked proposals
81. Proposals that are interdependent must be considered together by the Decision Maker (see paras 6-7 of Section 3 for further guidance on whether proposals are linked). The decisions should be compatible: for example if one set of proposals is for the removal of provision, and another is for the establishment or enlargement of provision to which the pupils are proposed to transfer, the proposals to remove provision should not be approved separately from proposals for the accommodation of the displaced pupils. This would include proposals for the closure of sixth forms that were dependent on additional provision elsewhere. 82. If the School Organisation Committee is unable to reach a unanimous view on either of the proposals, they should both be passed to the Adjudicator to decide. 83. Where proposals are published that conflict with existing proposals (e.g. proposals to change the category of a school, for which there are already proposals to close the school or remove its sixth form) this need not delay consideration of the earlier proposals. Any decision on the later proposals would be informed by the decision on the earlier proposal
Publication Date: 30/5/2003 Version: 2
Decision Makers Guidance Section 2.1
Statutory Guidance - Factors to be considered - proposals for new schools
2.1. PROPOSALS FOR NEW SCHOOLS
(For new nursery schools see Section 2.5 and for new sixth form schools see Section 2.6) The following factors should not be taken to be exhaustive. Their importance will vary, depending on the type and circumstances of decisions. All proposals should be considered on their individual merits. The Decision Maker must also consult statutory guidance in Section 1, in particular any paragraph(s) referred to in brackets. There should be a presumption to approve proposals for a new school to replace a failing school closed by direction of the Secretary of State (paragraph 16 of Section 1).
Effect on standards and contribution to school improvement
Whether the proposals will improve the standards, quality, range and/or diversity of educational provision in the area (Paras 1-3, 5, 19-23);
Whether they advance the national and local transformation strategies set out in the documents Education and Skills: Investment for Reform and A New Specialist System: Transforming Secondary Education and the local Education Development Plan (Para 2-4);
Whether the proposals will deliver a broad and balanced curriculum (Para 6);
The effect of the proposals on other institutions’ standards, bearing in mind the effect on quantity and quality of other schools’ intakes and any suggestions put forward for collaboration, partnership or federation (Para 2-3).
Need for places
Whether there is a need for additional places in the area, or whether there are surplus places (Para 18, 31);
The extent of parental demand for the type of school in question, for example, provision for particular faiths or denominations or specialisms (Para 18, 19).
Finance
Whether the proposals represent a cost-effective use of public funds (para 32);
Whether the capital resources required are available (Para 33-34);
Whether the sale proceeds of redundant sites are to be made available and whether the Secretary of State's consent has been obtained where necessary (Para 35-36);
If the proposal is for a new voluntary aided school, whether the promoters have provided a statement that the governing body would be able to meet their financial responsibilities for building work (Para 37).
Views of interested parties (Para 38)
The views of parents and other local residents, including those who may be particularly affected by the proposals or have a particular interest in them;
The views of any Local Education Authority affected by the proposals or with an interest;
The views of the CE and RC dioceses in the area
The views of other schools and colleges in the area;
The views of the Learning and Skills Council (if the proposals affect the provision of post- 16 education);
The views of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (where proposals affect early education provision).
Community cohesion, inclusiveness and partnerships
The extent to which, and how satisfactorily in the circumstances of the community, the proposals address the need to promote community cohesion (Para 39-41);
Where a proposed new maintained school already exists as an independent school, its current approach and contribution to community cohesion will be relevant (Para 42);
The extent to which the proposals take account of the needs of families and the wider community (Para 43).
14-19 issues
Where 14-19 provision is involved, the extent to which appropriate collaborative arrangements have been considered (Para 44 – 45);
The criteria for considering new sixth forms should also be taken into account where the proposed school includes 16-19 provision (See Section 2.6).
Equal opportunities
Any sex, race or disability discrimination issues or other human rights issues including any sex discrimination issues in relation to proposals for a single sex school (Para 51).
Effect on school journeys
The existence of safe walking, cycling and bus routes to the proposed site (Para 54).
Other issues
Whether the school will provide strong links with the local community and provide family and community services (Para 56);
(Primary provision only) Whether the proposals comply with the infant class size limit (Para 63);
For voluntary and foundation schools where a trust is not to hold the freehold of the site, whether the land tenure arrangements are satisfactory (Para 77-80);
For voluntary and foundation schools, whether the proposal is to join an existing group foundation body or to jointly establish a new group foundation body (Para 67);
Whether the proposal is to join an existing federation or to jointly establish a new federation (Para 68);
Whether the new school will meet the minimum statutory requirement for provision of school playing fields (Para 76).
Proposal from an existing independent school:
if co-educational, whether it would provide equal opportunities for boys and girls (Para 51);
whether it would have suitably qualified staff and the premises would be suitable for the purpose of a maintained school (Para 69).
Publication Date: 30/5/2003 Version: 3