Final

Our School Estate The present and the future

A strategy for 2008-2011

1 Final

Introduction

This strategy document seeks to initiate and build a discussion with key stakeholders about the future of our school estate in Buckinghamshire. It is a core document to support our approach to Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and the Primary Capital Programme(PCP). It links to our recently consulted upon Framework for Early Years and School Place planning.

The Vision of the Children and Young People’s Trust

In Buckinghamshire we want all our children and young people to have the best start in life and to be able to lead safe, healthy and fulfilling lives, and to be able to make a positive contribution to their communities and to society. We will ensure access to a range of universal services as well as developing more targeted services to meet their specialist needs

Vision for the School Estate

In supporting the implementation of our overall vision for children and young people we are proposing a vision for our school estate

“It is our vision to establish a School Estate across Buckinghamshire which:

enables children and young people to:

• participate in and benefit from a 21 st Century curriculum; • achieve their potential; • have an environment that promotes improved outcomes (healthy, safe, educational and economic); and • enables those who are under-achieving in comparison with their peers to achieve better outcomes.

enables schools to:

• deliver an innovative and excellent curriculum which meets the needs of their pupils and, where appropriate, close the gap between those achieving and those who are not; • meet the statutory health and safety and other regulatory requirements including appropriate Building Bulletin requirements; and • use their facilities flexibly to meet pupil and community needs more effectively through extended services.

enables the local authority to:

2 Final

• close the gap between those children and young people achieving well and those who are not; • have a fit for purpose schools estate; • support the effective implementation of Building Schools for the future and Primary Capital Programme; • use resources to tackle under-achievement; and • use resources on an “invest to save principle”.

Action Plan Action 1 Communicating the Vision

This document and vision will be communicated with all relevant stakeholders.

Context

1. Demographic change

Buckinghamshire is changing as a County with significant areas of growth in Vale and reducing child populations in the south of the County. This demographic shift requires the County Council to take a strategic view over the school estate as a whole. The County’s Principles for School Place Planning set out the approach to ensure sufficiency of school places. Demographic change does give opportunities to consider developer contributions and mergers, amalgamations and federations

The LA position

The LA is building a sound basis for school place planning and a greater understanding of demographic change within the County. We need to move further on implementing the school place planning approach to ensure that it has appropriate synergies with this core document.

Action Plan Action 2: Planning for Demographic Change

To consider how we strategically use demographic changes to support the development of our school estate?

2. Asset Management planning

The County Council established an Asset Management Plan for Education in 2000. It was updated in 2003/4. The plan states that:

3 Final

“Buckinghamshire Local Education Authority supports the principle of Asset Management Planning for school premises, and is committed to establishing a process which is open, transparent, objective and fair.

In line with national guidelines Buckinghamshire's AMP categorises the investment needs of school premises in terms of their Sufficiency, Suitability, and Condition.

Sufficiency: This focuses on the quantity and organisation of pupil places within and across schools in relation to demand

Suitability: This focuses on the quality of premises to meet curriculum, management, and other issues, which may impact on raising educational standards

Condition: This focuses on 'fitness and purpose' and the physical state of premises to ensure safe and continuous operation ””

The LA Position

AMP is not sufficiently robust in terms of our school estate and needs to be updated as part of the process for this strategy

Action Plan Action 3; Asset Management Planning

The present system is not seen by some as open, transparent, objective and fair. How can the system be improved?

How can asset management planning be improved for the school estate to enable us to achieve our vision?

How should we implement asset management planning for BSF and PCP?

3. Building Schools for the Future (BSF)

Buckinghamshire is in wave E of BSF which seeks “to transform the estate. It aims to change the educational experience for pupils and teachers and to increase opportunities for life-long learning for the wider community ”. The County Council has been involved in the development of a “one school pathfinder” at Cressex School and has learnt a number of lessons from that programme. The County Council with its schools needs to begin to prepare and strategically plan for BSF. The DCSF has issued guidance to support LA’s where the programme is still relatively distant. This

4 Final guidance includes 10 principles for sound investment and is attached at Appendix 1.

The LA position

The LA is keen to establish the Vision for Change required for BSF at the earliest opportunity. This will enable strategic choices to be made more effectively in the short term for our secondary school estate.

Action Plan Action 4; Building Schools for the Future

Ensure the consideration of the 10 principles for sound investment as a basis for planning in Buckinghamshire

4. Primary Capital Programme (PCP)

The DCSF set out the detail of the Primary Capital Programme. It will support the delivery of the Children’s plan by:

• creating primary schools equipped for 21 st century learning, at the heart of the community, with a range of children’s services in reach of every family;

• delivering a strategic approach to capital investment - supporting national policy aims, delivering world class standards, access to joined-up services for children and families; and addressing local needs and priorities;

• rebuilding, remodelling or refurbishing at least half of all primary schools, including rebuilding or taking out of use at least 5 per cent of school buildings in the worst physical condition (higher for the most deprived communities);

• focusing resources on deprivation nationally and in every authority; and

• reconfiguring the primary capital stock to account for demographic change.

Capital Investment in primary schools needs to be considered in the light of the Primary Capital Programme. Information for the programme needs to be submitted by mid 2008. The guidance on investment set out in Appendix 2 may be relevant

5 Final

The LA position

The LA is working to complete the required work on the PCP in 2008 and is keen to work with partners to determine priorities

Action Plan Action 5: Primary Capital Programme

We will ensure appropriate plans are in place for the primary capital programme

5. Sustainable Schools

The County Council is very supportive of encouraging the sustainable schools agenda. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) Sustainable Schools strategy comprises eight sustainability ‘doorways’; each plays a role in the major areas of school life – the curriculum, campus and community. Schools can come into sustainability via any of the doorways and every one provides further opportunities for organisations to get involved. For this strategy two doorways are seen as key

• Energy and water • Buildings and grounds

Energy and water

The rising demand for energy and water across the planet is storing up problems for future generations. Eco-efficiency measures can help schools to reduce their environmental impact. By reducing the amount of energy and water they use schools can benefit from real cost savings. Money saved on energy and water can be channeled back into the school to improve the quality of the children’s surroundings. Sustainable Schools can showcase energy efficiency, renewable energy use and water conservation to pupils and the whole community

Buildings and grounds

The design and management of the school estate affect its environmental performance and its ability to help pupils learn sustainable living. A well designed and cared for school provides an excellent teaching and learning resource for staff and pupils. Sustainable design principles, sustainable technologies, sustainable interior furnishings and sustainable environmental management provide working examples of sustainable living, benefiting pupils’ well- being and behaviour.

6 Final

The LA position

The LA is keen to support the development of sustainable schools. New schools will be required to be built in a sustainable manner and meet the agreed national standards. Extensions and partial redevelopments will also be built in a sustainable manner.

Approaches to develop energy efficiency e.g. Changing oil boilers to wood burners will be encouraged

6. External Placement costs

Buckinghamshire County Council funds external placements for children with a range of needs to the value of £14 million per annum. The principle of invest to spend less later could underpin the development of our school estate. By freeing up resource spent on external placements and re-providing locally pressures on DSG could be minimised.

The LA position

The LA in line with its SEN strategy is keen to reduce the number of external placements where local placements could meet individual children’s needs more appropriately and effectively

7. Financial Challenges

The only way to achieve our vision for the school estate is to ensure the most efficient use of our limited joint resources. The funding of work on the school estate is delivered through a number of mechanisms. These mechanisms need to link together effectively to ensure that the school estate is maintained and developed appropriately across the County.

Delegated funds for maintenance

Devolved formula capital

Capital Minor Works

7 Final

Grants/BSF/PCP and Developer contributions

The County will also seek to work with neighbouring authorities to ensure best use of capital resources.

The LA position

The financial picture is challenging and requires prioritisation across the County. The LA is keen to work together with partners to achieve best value from all of the resources available to the school estate in Buckinghamshire.

Action Plan Action 6; Financial Planning

We will ensure the best use of the overall resource for the schools estate in Buckinghamshire by seeking to join resources together to achieve the best outcomes

We will ensure transparency in funding arrangements

Needs

There are a number of needs for development in the school estate to meet our proposed vision. These include the following:

• Some Schools not reaching floor targets and without appropriate facilities to deliver the curriculum • Large numbers of old temporary classrooms • Demographic change and large areas of growth • Some Pupil Referral Units unable to deliver on a preventative agenda because of accommodation limitations • Some of the Special School estate is not fit for purpose

Needs Temporary Buildings

Schools not achieving the floor targets without key resources to deliver the 21 st century curriculum

Delivery of Diplomas (14-19 strategy)

8 Final

PRUs

Special School provision

High levels of external specialist placement

Demographic change

Accessibility

School capacity

School kitchens

Minor Capital Works

Temporary Classrooms

Buckinghamshire County Council has a planning policy which requires temporary classrooms to be replaced with more permanent buildings. It is usually a planning stipulation of any new application for planning consent. Evidence suggests that this has not been fully implemented.

With demographic change there is a need to maintain the continued use of temporary buildings. There is no evidence that properly equipped temporary buildings impact adversely on pupil outcomes however they can have higher energy costs, give rise to additional maintenance issues and are difficult to integrate satisfactorily into the surrounding area

In considering the approach to prioritising the replacement of temporary classrooms the following factors will need to be considered:

• Clear evidence of on-going curriculum need for the temporary classroom. • Clear evidence from pupil projections of on-going need • Poor condition or age of existing temporary classroom (maintenance category 1 and 2) • Proximity of planning consent renewal (2008, 2009, 2010)

The spreadsheet at Appendix 3 shows the existing temporary classroom estate.

9 Final

Analysis would suggest that the following temporary classrooms would be needed to be replaced in the next 3 years based on maintenance category and proximity of planning consent renewal.

2008/09 2010 Burnham Upper School (2) The Furzedown School (3) The Grange School Great Kimble School Henry Allen Stony Dean School John Colet Sir Henry Floyd (3)

Clarification is required that there is clear evidence of • on-going curriculum need for the classrooms • pupil projections

Schools without key resources

To ensure the delivery of the strategy it is important to first clarify which schools would need to be prioritised in relation to narrowing the gap.

The following schools are not meeting the floor targets:

Key Stage 2 Key Stage 3/4 Halton Community Combined School Buckingham Bell Lane Combined School Burnham Upper Ash Hill Primary School Cressex Elmhurst Junior School Highcrest Castlefield School Mandeville Cadmore End CofE School Quarrendon Millbrook Combined School The Beaconsfield Haydon Abbey Combined School The Meadows School Booker Hill School Loudwater Combined School Tilehouse Combined School Oakridge School Lane End Primary Broughton Junior School Oak Green School Little Spring School Thomas Hickman School Beechview School Bearbrook Combined School The Disraeli School Stoke Mandeville Combined School Curzon Church of Combined School Woodside Junior School

10 Final

To establish priorities from these priority schools an Asset Management Plan for these specific schools needs to be developed.

Diplomas and the 14-19 strategy

There is a need to consider the development of diplomas and the 14- 19 strategy. Specific capital resource has been targeted at this area by central government. The impact on the asset base needs to be factored in to future asset planning in a coherent manner There is a need, through the 14-19 strategy board, to establish priorities for action in relation to capital requirements for 14-19.

Pupil Referral Units

Pupil Referral Units are key resources in the preventative agenda established by the Children and Young People’s Trust. They have a key role in outreach to schools and in preventing children being placed in external specialist placements. Recent guidance has been issued by DCSF in relation to the PRU estate. Initial analysis suggests that two PRUs in Buckinghamshire do not meet those requirements and need to be prioritised for replacement

Aylesbury Vale Secondary PRU (predominately the Key Stage 4 provisions) Chess Valley PRU (in Chesham) (Key Stage 3 provision)

Special School Provision

There is an urgent need to transform special school provision and its estate in Buckinghamshire. The present estate is not fit for purpose. There are large numbers of temporary buildings and some inappropriate buildings which are difficult to maintain. There is, therefore, a need to establish a specific business case which seeks to transform the estate. Specific capital allocation has been announced for SEN. It may be appropriate to allocate that resource to the special school estate.

High levels of external placements

There is a need for external placements for children with low incidence needs requiring specialist provision. The balance that needs to be established is when the level of incidence is sufficiently high to enable a local solution to be created which meets needs. Work to date has identified sufficient incidence of Autistic Spectrum Disorder/Severe Learning Difficulties to establish a local resource.

11 Final

The development of a Placement Commissioning Strategy for Buckinghamshire will enable a further analysis of external placements and their incidence levels. These findings need to link to the development of the special school estate (and its residential capacity) and the PRUs.

Demographic Change

The issue of demographic change is key in relation to school place planning. Our school place planning needs to drive our estate needs. The Framework for Early Years and School Place Planning establishes the mechanism for developing local area plans which meet the challenges of demographic change.

Funding for demographic changes specifically where there is a new development will be predominately from S106 resources

Accessibility

The County has invested resource to ensure that an increasing number of schools in the County are accessible. The maps set out the schools which have access.

12 Final

13 Final

14 Final

15 Final

In addition to these accessible schools the authority does undertake capital works to meet the needs of individual pupils and enable them to access the curriculum.

16 Final

School Capacity

The OFSTED criteria of a good Local Education Authority state:

1. “The LEA has set a realistic surplus place target based on thorough assessment of its particular circumstances. There are a low number of surplus places (<10% surplus and no school with >25% surplus) or there are realistic plans to achieve this level and the LEA is on course to do so

2. No school has a roll greater than 10% above net capacity (ie is overcrowded)”

In Buckinghamshire the following schools are 10% over net capacity:

• Brookmead School (10% deficit) - net capacity = 250, total pupils = 275

• Ley Hill School (12% deficit) - net capacity = 210, total pupils = 236

• Bledlow Ridge School (24% deficit) - net capacity = 116, total pupils = 144

• The (10% deficit) - net capacity = 1180, total pupils = 1294

• Sir William Borlase's (12% deficit) - net capacity = 908, total pupils = 1019

• The Chalfont's Community College (22% deficit) - net capacity = 1474, total pupils = 1795

The three secondary schools have had long term issues with capacity. Pupil projections need to be reviewed to ascertain whether this trend is likely to continue and what the reasons are for the over capacity and whether those reasons support more investment. The following factors will be considered Pupil Growth/decline, import/export, marginal impact factors, flexibility of facilities, opportunities for sharing, school success and popularity Trend data should also be used to consider the issues in relation to primary provision.

School Kitchens

Following a County Council decision to cease a centrally provided school meals service in the 1980s, the majority of primary school kitchen spaces have been converted into alternative provision such as IT rooms and nursery classes. All but four secondary schools have full working

17 Final kitchens providing school lunches either as in-house or contracted out provision. Special schools have continued to be funded to provide meals (both day and boarding provision) and have working kitchens.

The number of schools with no fully working kitchens is 161

The Government through the allocation of grants since 2005 has been encouraging the provision of healthy school lunches. The County Council has welcomed the opportunity to support projects in schools although the level of the available grants has led to the development of a range of alternative means of providing lunches without the cost of re-establishing full working kitchens on site. To date one hub kitchen to supply a number of schools has been planned. Subject to the outcome of a bid to the DCSF for a share of a national capital fund it is possible that we will be able to develop a number of additional hub kitchens over the next three years.

For all new schools it is a requirement to include the provision of kitchens and dining areas in building plans.

Minor Capital Works

The primary strategy for change identifies £25million of works required from conditions surveys. The secondary requirements are £24 million.

Capital Resources and Allocation

The strategy does not propose any central management of funds passed directly to schools, but does seek to ensure that where there are opportunities of a more strategic nature or where broader strategies may impact on local capital decisions, then there should be a meaningful partnership relationship between the LEA and the school to ensure that capital spending will:

• achieve best value , • will be in the long term interests of both pupils and taxpayers, • and also provide a good whole life cost solution and effective cash management solution to problems both in the short and long term.

18 Final

At the outset of the strategy the jigsaw set out the funding arrangements.

Delegated funds for maintenance

Devolved formula capital

Capital Minor Works

Grants/BSF/PCP and Developer contributions

Appendix 4 sets out the capital allocation to schools in Buckinghamshire for the next three years from DCSF. The table below summarises the position on capital allocations that are grant (rather than supported borrowing). This excludes any funding for the BSF One School pathfinder.

Area Source 3 year allocation Delegated funds for DSG Within schools maintenance budgets Devolved formula capital DSCF £30.7 million Capital Minor Works BCC Grants/PCP/Developer Modernisation grant DCSF £5 million Contribution 14-19, SEN and Disabilities £8 million grant DCSF

Extended Services grant £1.94 million DCSF Primary Capital Programme £10.4 million DSG £16.39 million Section 106 unknown

19 Final

Proposed Block Allocation (millions)

2009/10 & 2008/09 2010/11 Temp Classrooms 2 3 Floor Target Schools (inc capacity and curriculum needs (including PCP resource) 2.6 13.4 Extended Services 0.745 1.196 Schools SEN and 14-19 0 8 PRU 0.5 4 Special Schools (including external placements) 0.5 3 Kitchens (subject to matched funding) 0.4 2 Accessibility 0.4 0.8

42.54 TOTAL 7.145 35.396 1

Determining Priority Schemes

On the basis of our proposed vision and the context in which the County is operating what are the priority schemes for the School Estate?

These priorities need to considered in the light of both BSF and PCP

To ensure transparency it is proposed to establish a small working group of Headteachers, governors and LA staff and members to determine our priorities within this framework. This group will be accountable to the County Council and work closely with the Schools Forum and the Services to Schools Board.

20 Final

Appendix 1

10 principles for sound investment

Ensure that any building work taking place before investment under Building Schools for the Future complements the wider, long-term plans for the school.

Where there is no long-term buildings plan for a school, ensure that new facilities are sited in locations that would not impair future work.

Use the exemplar designs and building bulletins for guidance and inspiration when planning building projects before and during Building Schools for the Future.

Ensure that current pupils and those about to join the school are not disadvantaged by any delays to essential building work before Building Schools for the Future.

Continue to meet legal requirements (e.g. health and safety and disability access regulations) in the years before Building Schools for the Future.

Proceed with agreed projects where they can be financed from other sources rather than wait for Building Schools for the Future to start locally.

Make local judgements on whether smaller, short-term suitability improvements represent value-for-money.

Seek approval from the school organisation committee where there are any changes or delays to work requiring statutory proposals.

Consider whether a proposed sale of assets might impact on Building Schools for the Future aims.

Consider the effect that completed Building Schools for the Future projects may have on local pupil movements, including in neighbouring LEAs.

21 Final

Appendix 2

The Primary Capital Programme at a glance

Purpose: • Rebuild, remodel or refurbish about half of primary schools • Supports national policy agenda: Children’s Plan, world class standards, ECM, diversity and responsiveness, extended services, personalisation • Targeted to address deprivation nationally and in every local authority • Primary schools at the heart of the community, with ICT and children’s services in reach of every family • Improve links between schools and early years settings –e.g. through co-location with Sure Start Children’s Centres and other children’s services

Scope and timescale: • Funding starts in 2008 and expected to run for 14 years, subject to future government spending decisions • All primary schools eligible; including middle-deemed primary, VA foundation and Trust schools and primary-age specials schools • Year 1 funding for regional pilots; all local authorities involved from Year 2 • Schools not receiving extra investment continue to receive annual capital grant

Funding: • Additional ring-fenced £150 million in 2008–09 rising to £650 million in 2009-10, and £1.1 billion in 2010-11. • Funding for VA schools at the usual 90% rate. • Baselines to remain at £500 million a year for the duration of the programme, subject to future government spending decisions • Allocation by formula based on the number of primary pupils and deprivation, with a floor to protect smaller authorities • Added impact by joining up with existing DCSF funding streams • Greater added impact by joining up with eligible capital from other government departments and local resources

Targets and planning: • Targets and planning ensure investment hits need • Step-change from patch and mend and disjointed investment to strategic, service-wide planning and redesign • Joined-up planning alongside other national and local

22 Final

priorities and initiatives, particularly Sure Start Children’s Centres • National objectives translated into local strategic infrastructure plans, approved by DCSF to release funding

Design, procurement and skills • Promotes excellent design and sustainability • Long-term strategic programme offers potential for efficiencies • Develop best practice partnering with private sector, including local education partnerships where already set up through BSF • Develop skills necessary in schools, local authorities and private sector to deliver • Pilots develop regional capacity to showcase and develop best practice

Key actions and milestones

1. The key actions for local authorities and details of linked milestones are:

• December 2007: read this guidance; attend national briefing event to check understanding and ask questions; notify the Department of the lead contact;

• December 2007: publication of Children’s Plan;

• January 2008: drawing on nationally available performance information, Department alerts local authorities on specific concerns that we would expect to be addressed in the Primary Strategy for Change;

• February – May 2008: follow up discussions, where appropriate, with those local authorities that have been advised of specific issues/concerns;

• February 2008: Department issues template and advises local authorities about arrangements for electronic submission of information on initial priorities;

• no later than 16 June 2008: final deadline for submission of Primary Strategy for Change to the Department;

• from 16 June 2008: the Department assesses the strategies

• September 2008: Department notifies local authorities of the decision (i.e. approve, approve with conditions, not

23 Final

approved); provides feedback; confirms indicative allocations or, if needed, requests further iterations;

• September 2008: further work on strategy (if required by the Department); proceed with planning, procurement and design;

• September 2008: the Department publishes on-line suite of guidance on planning, finance, design, sustainability, procurement, ICT and capacity building

• from April 2009: capital investment funds available in all local authorities, subject to approval of Primary Strategy for Change.

24 Final

Appendix 3 The Existing Temporary Classroom Estate as at January 2008

Maintenance Date of Plan perm DCSF no: ESTABLISHMENT TYPE Area Governance Owners Category* Purchase expires 7003 S c Community 3 1994 Oct-10 4095 AMERSHAM SCHOOL - THE U c Community 2 1993 Sep-10 5402 (GIRLS) G s Foundation Leased NA 2340 BOURTON MEADOW SCHOOL C a Community 3 2000 Nov-09 3023 BRILL CE COMBINED SCHOOL C a CON Governors 4074 BURNHAM UPPER SCHOOL U s Community 2 1996 Oct-09 4074 BURNHAM UPPER SCHOOL U s Community 1 1969 Oct-09 3034 CHESHAM BOIS CE COMBINED SCHOOL C c CON Governors 1994 4096 CHESHAM PARK COMMUNITY COLLEGE U c Community 3 Aug-10 5407 - THE U a Foundation 3 2001 Aug-10 5407 COTTESLOE SCHOOL - THE U a Foundation 3 2001 Aug-10 5208 DANESFIELD SCHOOL C w Foundation Governors 1996 7023 S a Community 1 1968 Feb-09 7023 FURZE DOWN SCHOOL S a Community 1 1969 Aug-09 7023 FURZE DOWN SCHOOL S a Community 3 1998 Nov-08 7023 FURZE DOWN SCHOOL S a Community Governors 1995 5210 GERRARDS CROSS CE SCHOOL - THE C s VA Governors 4034 GRANGE SCHOOL - THE U a Community 2 1999 Jul-10 4034 GRANGE SCHOOL - THE U a Community 2 2001 Jul-10 3039 GREAT KIMBLE CE SCHOOL I w CON 2 1965 Aug-08 5409 GREAT MARLOW SCHOOL U w Foundation 2 2001 Jul-10 GREAT MISSENDEN CE COMBINED 3036 SCHOOL C c CON 4 2001 Jul-08 1000 HENRY ALLEN N c Community 2 1969 Jul-08 3347 HOLY TRINITY CE SCHOOL J w VA Governors 3335 IBSTONE CE INFANT SCHOOL I w VA Governors 4044 U a Community 2 1997 Aug-08 4044 JOHN COLET SCHOOL U a Community 3 2000 Aug-08 4044 JOHN COLET SCHOOL U a Community 3 2001 Sep-10 4044 JOHN COLET SCHOOL U a Community Governors 1994 JOHN HAMPDEN GRAMMAR SCHOOL - 4009 (BOYS) G w Community Governors 2001 3337 LITTLE MARLOW CE INFANT SCHOOL I w VA Governors 1969 4067 MANDEVILLE UPPER SCHOOL U a Community 3 2001 Sep-10

25 Final

4067 MANDEVILLE UPPER SCHOOL U a Community 3 2002 31/11/2010 3012 MARSH GIBBON CE SCHOOL I a VA Governors 1992 4042 MISBOURNE SCHOOL - THE U c Community 4 2001 Aug-10 4042 MISBOURNE SCHOOL - THE U c Community 4 2001 Aug-10 4042 MISBOURNE SCHOOL - THE U c Community 4 2001 Aug-10 4042 MISBOURNE SCHOOL - THE U c Community Governors 4042 MISBOURNE SCHOOL - THE U c Community Governors 1969 7010 S a Community 3 1999 Nov-08 7010 PEBBLE BROOK SCHOOL S a Community 3 1999 Nov-08 7010 PEBBLE BROOK SCHOOL S a Community 3 1999 Nov-08 2204 PRESTWOOD JUNIOR SCHOOL J c Community 3 1998 May-10 2204 PRESTWOOD JUNIOR SCHOOL J c Community Governors 1969 7012 PRESTWOOD LODGE SCHOOL S c Community 3 1998 Oct-10 7012 PRESTWOOD LODGE SCHOOL S c Community 3 2004 Oct-10 4048 QUARRENDON UPPER SCHOOL U a Community 3 2002 Apr-08 4065 SIR HENRY FLOYD GRAMMAR SCHOOL G a Community 4 1979 Oct-08 4065 SIR HENRY FLOYD GRAMMAR SCHOOL G a Community 1 1985 Mar-09 4065 SIR HENRY FLOYD GRAMMAR SCHOOL G a Community 2 1992 Mar-09 4065 SIR HENRY FLOYD GRAMMAR SCHOOL G a Community 1 1980 Mar-09 4084 SIR WILLIAM RAMSAY SCHOOL U w Community 3 2001 Oct-10 4084 SIR WILLIAM RAMSAY SCHOOL U w Community 3 2001 Oct-10 4701 ST BERNARD'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL U w VA Governors 7014 STONY DEAN SCHOOL S c Community 3 1998 Oct-10 7014 STONY DEAN SCHOOL S c Community 2 1967 Oct-10 7014 STONY DEAN SCHOOL S c Community 3 1990 Oct-10 7014 STONY DEAN SCHOOL S c Community 4 2001 Oct-10 2289 TURNFURLONG INFANT SCHOOL I a Community Governors 2288 WILLIAM HARDING COMBINED SCHOOL C a Community 3 1994 Nov-09 4503 (GIRLS) G w CON 4 1993 Oct-10 4094 WYE VALLEY SCHOOL - THE U w Community 4 2001 Sep-10

• 1=poor condition 4=good condition •

26 Final

Appendix 4 DCSF Capital Allocations

27