AGENDA NO: Consultation

Gloucestershire Area School Reviews: Issues for Public AGENDA NO: Consultation

Cabinet Date 1st February 2006

Lead Cabinet Member Children’s Cllr Jackie Hall Services

Cabinet Member Cllr Joan Nash Schools Key Decision To decide how to progress the recommendations of the area review panel on future primary school provision

Background Cabinet Report Oct 2003 – Proposed Strategic Review of Gloucestershire Primary Documents and Secondary Schools

Cabinet Report Dec 2004 – Area Reviews of Primary and Secondary Provision

Reports of Area Review Panels – December 2005

DfES Guidance on Falling School Rolls – March 2005 Main Consultees The Area Review panels were set up to offer advice to the County Council and comprised representatives of headteachers, governors (including parent governors), church authorities and political groups under an independent chair. The panels in turn undertook a major engagement exercise in each review area during November 2005, involving schools, parents, young people, local communities and elected representatives at all levels Public consultation in each area – February/April 2006 Planned Dates Cabinet decision, following consultation - 7 June 2006

Divisional Councillor All Councillors Geoff Black – Head of Planning & Development Officer 01452 425317 [email protected]

Purpose of Report For Cabinet to consider the recommendations of the Area Review Panels and decide the proposals/options on which they wish to consult publicly.

Key See main body of paper Recommendations Falling pupil numbers are a crucial strategic resource issue for the county. Resource

Implications Fewer pupils means less government funding. The Dedicated Schools Grant, which funds schools and the services supporting them, is due to fall by £2m per year on a like for like basis over the next five years. Without change, this reduced funding will also be used less and less efficiently because so much is tied up in the fixed costs of:

• 304 schools (their buildings, management, core curriculum) • support services which are scaled on a school by school, not pupil by pupil basis.

So, falling rolls mean:

• less funding for each school • falling average school sizes and rising unit costs • proportionately more spent on fixed costs rather than pupils’ education • insufficient funding for the support services to improve children’s outcomes.

Falling rolls can also make inequalities worse. Every primary child in Gloucestershire receives broadly £1800 in the schools formula. Pupils in larger schools receive an additional £270 - £350 for fixed cost school-specific items. Pupils in the smallest schools receive an additional £3,100 or nearly 12 times as much. It costs an average of £2,300 to educate a primary school child in Gloucestershire. In the most costly school it is nearly £5,000. These differentials are hard to justify when resources are scarce and declining.

Surplus places in our current schools formula are costing the Council £459,000 a year. Significant savings to offset lower resources can only be achieved, however, by reducing the major fixed costs of the existing system – the number of schools and the high fixed cost schools in particular.

Resource information in the paper is of three types:

• unit costs (ie school costs per pupil against a county primary average of £2,302) • one off costs (ie revenue costs, such as transitional costs for an amalgamation or capital costs for building work) • recurrent savings (savings which will continue year on year, after additional costs such as extra transport have been taken into account – shown as a five year net savings figure).

Overall net savings from the 10 sets of proposals are estimated at £1.4m - £1.97m over 5 years, with one off costs c£150,000.

Potential redundancy and early retirement costs have not been included, since they vary depending on the length of service and seniority of each member of staff and their prospects for redeployment elsewhere in the system. Typically:

One off costs: Severance £35 - £50k per teacher Lump sum pension £30 - £45k per teacher

Recurrent costs: £6 - £10k per teacher per annum

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The Challenge

The United Kingdom has an ageing population due to lower birth rates and longer lifespans. The proportion of the population below 16 is less now than thirty years ago. In consequence, there are now around half a million surplus primary school places in England (11% of capacity) with more than 1 in 8 of all maintained primary schools having 25% or more surplus capacity. By 2008, predicted surpluses will be the equivalent of 2400 average size primary schools.

Gloucestershire reflects this picture. Births in 2001 were the lowest in decades after a sustained period of decline. The largest pupil year group is Y11 (15/16 year olds), which is just about to move out of the system. Since September 2000, Gloucestershire primary schools have lost nearly 3000 pupils and now (September 2005) have 6118 surplus places, equivalent to 37 average size Gloucestershire primary schools.

Falling rolls present a challenge:

• LAs receive less education funding from government as pupil numbers fall, but fixed costs for schools and school support (quality control, transport and access, building maintenance, health and safety etc) remain the same. • Schools with falling rolls cannot create smaller classes, they just receive less income – forcing cuts in staff, equipment, resources and curriculum. • Without change, fixed costs remain (for the LEA, the same size school system: for schools the same size building, heating, lighting maintenance costs) while income reduces. • Falling pupil numbers in an area have a disproportionate impact on less popular schools, sometimes forcing them into a rapid spiral of decline. • There are unpredictable impacts on smaller, more isolated schools. • Unpredictable and unplanned decline produces instability and uncertainty, damages staff morale, diverts management time and reduces the curriculum opportunities for pupils.

In short, falling rolls have a very direct impact on standards and educational opportunities if they are not addressed.

Falling rolls also present an opportunity however. The major change agenda signalled by Every Child Matters will be facilitated in part by the freeing up of school space, allowing the development of Children’s Centres, out of hours learning, community and extended school initiatives, local health provision etc.

The review aims for a stable and affordable structure of provision for the future which will raise standards and increase opportunities for young people, families and communities.

The importance attached to this strategic review by the Council has since been reinforced by guidance from DfES and OFSTED. The DfES analysis of falling rolls and their impact, available at www.teachernet.gov.uk/fallingrolls, accords very closely with our own. The OFSTED framework for LEA inspections makes it clear that a good authority would be expected to:

• offer strong leadership in tackling school place issues • have a clear aim to reduce surplus places and realistic plans for achieving it • make explicit links to school improvement, community regeneration and wider policy objectives • have good systems for forecasting and capacity measurement • develop good stakeholder engagement in the proposed strategy.

3 1.2 The Process

The County Council agreed the principle of a rolling programme of area school reviews in October 2003. A Partnership Working Group was set up in Summer 2004 to develop the review process, with membership drawn from a wide range of stakeholders. Following two large and successful county conferences in September, the Group proposed in November 2004 a review structure with six panels, independently chaired and working to common procedures and timescales. The structure was agreed by the then Cabinet on 1st December 2004 and confirmed by the new administration in May 2005. The area panels formed in March 2005 (May for Gloucester). Their members were nominated not by the County Council but by a range of external bodies – headteachers, governors (including parent governors), church authorities and political groups. The Council was delighted to secure some distinguished independent chairs for the panels, including the current Chief Executive of UCAS, senior staff from the further and higher education sector and a former county education officer.

The process has been a good one. Despite the daunting task faced by the panels, they have all kept to the programme and succeeded in producing considered, coherent recommendations. Between them they have:

• met 41 times • examined 323 sets of evidence • heard directly from 859 school staff, parents or local people • received 656 items of correspondence.

The terms of reference for the panels are attached at Annex A and their recommendations for each area at Annex B.

2. OPTIONS

2.1 Reviewing panel recommendations

In considering the recommendations of the six independent panels, the County Council has three options: • accept • reject • accept with amendments.

Although the panels have all produced considered and coherent recommendations, the Council must nevertheless review them carefully to ensure they meet current policy objectives, are cost effective and can be delivered. There must be full confidence and ownership before the Council holds itself accountable to the public through further formal consultation.

Cabinet are asked to endorse the following criteria against which panel recommendations have been considered:

• match area supply with predicted demand, allowing flexibility for parental preference and future uncertainty • where possible achieve all-through primary schools with straightforward intakes • improve collaboration between schools, perhaps through federation, to enhance educational and financial viability • build on local strengths by retaining or consolidating schools with a proven record of popularity and success • retain local diversity, including a balance of denominational schools • help deliver wider Change for Children and community inclusion agendas • be cost effective and help achieve long term savings to offset future reductions in LA income.

Key Recommendation 1 – THAT Cabinet adopts these planning criteria to help identify proposals for public consultation.

2.2 Cheltenham

Swindon Road Planning Area

Context The area comprises five primary schools serving communities with contrasting levels of disadvantage to the north and west of Cheltenham. It is a net importer of pupils, drawing in particular from the neighbouring Hesters Way Planning Area, yet is projected to have 262 (18%) surplus places by 2007. Christ Church C of E and Swindon Village schools are popular and oversubscribed, the former with good facilities, the latter needing further investment to replace temporary classrooms. Gardners Lane plays a more local role, with extensive community links and a recently designated Children’s Centre serving an area of deprivation. Dunalley is an attractive new school but located in an area where demand has shrunk in recent years. It has requested a reduction in its admission limit to reflect recent demand and allow development of pre-school and community provision. Gloucester Road is the smallest school in the area (148 pupils) and has a significant surplus (30%).

Panel Recommendations The Panel considers there is a need to retain some flexibility in the area to accommodate the impact of medium term housing developments, recommended reductions in capacity in the Hesters Way Planning Area (see below) and expressed local preference. A reduction in intake at Dunalley will formalise its current organisational structure and provide stability for the school to plan and manage its classes more effectively. Gloucester Road remains vulnerable but the panel believes closure or amalgamation would severely restrict choice in the area and that proposed changes in the neighbouring area could have a positive impact on the school.

Local Authority Advice The LA agrees with this analysis and with the Panel’s recommendations, but believes it will be necessary to keep the future of Gloucester Road under review and discuss the future size of Swindon Village with its governors, particularly in view of its accommodation investment needs and future strategic housing developments in the vicinity.

Key Recommendation 2 – Swindon Road Planning Area, Cheltenham

(i) THAT the intake of Dunalley Primary School be reduced from 1.5 forms of entry (45 pupils) to 1 form of entry (30 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings £39,375];

(ii) THAT progress at Gloucester Road Primary School be monitored closely over the next two years.

(iii) THAT remaining schools continue for the time being in their present forms and at their current intakes.

Hesters Way Planning Area

Context The area has the highest level of projected surplus places in the county with 715 forecast for 2007 or 32% of available area capacity. This area to the west of Cheltenham has high levels of disadvantage. Children travel to planning areas to the North, East and South, particularly the Swindon Road Planning Area (see above). There are 7 schools in the area, including 2 Catholic schools and a pair of infant and junior schools in adjacent buildings. There has been significant housing renewal in the area which has disrupted intake patterns and further housing development is anticipated. Capacity has to be planned against this uncertain background and in conjunction with spare capacity in the adjoining planning areas.

Panel Recommendations The Panel believes that St Gregory’s Catholic Primary should not be considered as part of local provision since it plays a wider role across the whole area. The reduction to 1 form entry proposed by Hesters Way should be accepted since it matches current and likely future demand and enables further consolidation of family and community provision in a needy area. Arthur Dye should be retained at its current 2 FE capacity to match preferred county organisational models and to provide some flexibility to meet demand from new housing in the vicinity.

The Panel considers that the two Rowanfield schools should reduce their intake from 3FE to 2FE, consolidating existing organisations and providing a sustainable capacity for likely future local demand. After listening carefully to the views of the schools, the Panel is persuaded that the new leadership teams in both schools are committed to collaboration, built on complementary strengths, and that amalgamation would provide no added value. They advise the LA to look at this again if the current position changes significantly.

The Panel recognises the recent good progress by St Thomas More, but believes that local Catholic demand is limited (12 pupils in Key Stage 1, less than 50 pupils overall). Projected demand generally in this part of the planning area is only just over 1FE and the Panel believes a single 1FE school is the answer – preferably a distinctive but inclusive one. The Panel therefore proposes an aided, joint faith primary school to match the proposed new St Benedict’s joint faith secondary.

Local Authority Advice The LA agrees with much of this analysis but cannot endorse all the recommendations. The review provides an important opportunity to develop all-through 0 – 11 provision for the Rowanfield area, with the advent of a Children’s Centre on the site, available spare capacity, and the growing need for continuity and integration of services for younger children. Existing collaboration between the two schools may be effective but is dependent on individuals rather than the leadership team of a single institution. In addition, it cannot endorse the recommended closure of St Thomas More and the opening of a new joint faith primary school because the Catholic authorities have already made clear they cannot support it. The recommendation would also jeopardise a successful local school in a good strategic location with plans for increased community provision. Alternative solutions are not easy. The closure of Monkscroft, even though demand is low, would leave a large geographic gap in community school provision and take out some much improved local facilities. The Catholic authorities have indicated they are keen to continue and even expand the community role of St Thomas More within a catholic context. The only options appear therefore to be some form of federation between the two schools at a reduced capacity or the closure of Monkscroft and an enhanced community role for St Thomas More.

Key Recommendation 3 – Hesters Way Planning Area Cheltenham

(i) The intake of Hesters Way Primary School be reduced from 1.5FE (45 pupils) to 1FE (30 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings £39,375].

(ii) Rowanfield Infant and Junior Schools be closed and a new all through primary school opened on the same site with an intake of 2FE (60 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [one off costs £36k: net 5 year savings £211,255].

(iii) Either

(a) Monkscroft Community Primary School be closed and children accommodated in St Thomas More Catholic Primary School and other local community schools; [net 5 year savings up to £240,000].

6 (b) St Thomas More Catholic Primary and Monkscroft Community Primary schools develop a hard federation with an intake of 1FE (30 pupils) [net 5 year savings up to £80k].

(iv) Remaining schools continue in their present forms and at their current intakes.

2.3 Cotswold

Stow on the Wold Planning Area (with Longborough)

Context This is a sparsely populated rural area with the small town of Stow as its focal point. The projected surplus for 2007 is 88 places or 26% of available capacity. Bledington serves a distinct community to the east of Stow, is popular, attracts mainly local children and has a good site and buildings. Stow is a relatively new school on a generous site, with potential to provide key area Children’s Services facilities, e.g. a Children’s Centre. Longborough (unit cost £4984pp) has shrunk significantly within the past ten years and now has a 46% surplus. The Headteacher has reported that it has been a struggle to manage the school educationally and financially over this period. Swell (unit cost £3289pp), a listed building on two floors, with a very limited site, a remote playing field and no hall, is situated close to Stow but draws pupils from a wide area across the mid-Cotswolds.

Panel Recommendations The Panel considers that both Longborough and Swell should close. For various reasons, a number of children close to Longborough bypass the school to go elsewhere. Swell is more popular, but has very few local children and comprises accommodation which will never be able to reach current standards and deliver the wider opportunities expected of a modern school. The Panel feels there are adequate C of E places in the area to meet denominational preference. The Panel proposes accommodating children displaced by these closures in their local schools or in nearby Stow, which could be expanded to cope. This would also have the advantage of bringing Stow closer to an educationally desirable 7 class, 1 FE pattern of organisation. The Panel suggests no change at Bledington.

Local Authority Advice The LA shares the Panel’s concern about the low demand for Longborough and the inflexible accommodation at Swell, but it is not convinced by the case for closing a successful rural school with proven support like the latter. It does, however, want to reduce area capacity, strengthen local provision and improve collaboration, while not increasing pupil travel unduly. The closure of Longborough might meet some of these criteria, but so might some form of federation or amalgamation between Swell and Longborough, at reduced capacity but maintaining a presence in both communities.

Key Recommendation 4 – Stow on the Wold Planning Area

(i) Either

(a) Longborough C of E Primary School be closed [net 5 year savings c£150,000];

(b) Longborough C of E and Swell C of E primary schools develop proposals for a hard federation or amalgamation on two sites, but at reduced size – both with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings on federation up to £11k].

(ii) Remaining schools continue in their present forms and at their current intakes.

2.4 Forest of Dean

Brooksdean Planning Area

Context The area comprises five schools serving a series of small rural communities between Cinderford and the Herefordshire border. The projected surplus for 2007 is 114 places or 20% of available capacity. Drybrook, the largest school, has accommodation suitability problems including temporary buildings. The five class school at Lydbrook is sustaining a high level of demand, as is the four class Ruardean Church of England, although the latter has significant site and suitability problems. Woodside numbers have remained steady at just above 100 pupils. Joys Green (unit cost £4857) has only 22 children currently and 61% surplus places. Its immediate community is relatively isolated.

Panel Recommendations The Panel believes that Joys Green is not financially or educationally viable and should be closed, with children accommodated in neighbouring schools eg Lydbrook, Ruardean or English Bicknor. There is potential to retain the school as a community facility. Intakes should be adjusted at Woodside and Drybrook to reflect likely future levels of demand, reduce pressure on unsatisfactory accommodation and ensure consistency of organisational patterns in the area. Amalgamation of Woodside and Ruardean should be considered as an option when the LEA is ready to replace the latter school.

Local Authority Advice The LA broadly accepts this analysis, but would not consider an amalgamation of Woodside and Ruardean at this stage.

Key Recommendation 5 – Brooksdean Planning Area

(i) Joys Green School be closed with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings c£170,000].

(ii) Changes to Indicated Admission Numbers at Drybrook and Woodside be discussed with governors as part of consultation on the next round of admissions.

(iii) Remaining schools continue in their present forms and at their current intakes.

Cinderford Planning Area

Context The area contains three schools serving the urban centre of Cinderford and two serving smaller outlying villages. The projected surplus in 2007 is 183 places or 18% of available capacity. Steam Mills is a popular four class school to the north of Cinderford with facilities which are currently being improved further. Forest View is an important Children’s Services and community focus for the town but, since its consolidation to the west of the town centre on the former Latimer Junior School site, numbers have fallen. St White’s to the south remains in demand but is in need of urgent replacement on a new site. Soudley and Littledean serve discrete catchments but the latter has lost numbers in recent years and now has 43 spare places ( 41% of capacity).

Panel Recommendations The Panel recommends a reduction in intake at Forest View. The school has been planning strategically for this for some time and it will ease their restricted accommodation and allow further consolidation of area Children’s Service provision. Despite the temptation to reduce St White’s intake also and make its replacement more manageable, the panel feels the school has an important role in serving the central/southern area of the town and meeting demand from the only new housing developments in the area, which are close by. Littledean remains a concern, but with the quality of the

8 accommodation, the size of the Littledean community and signs of recent progress under a new headteacher, the Panel recommends only a small reduction in intake. Soudley and Steam Mills should remain the same.

Local Authority Advice The LA accepts this analysis and its consequent recommendations. The viability of Littledean will need to be kept under review and strong collaborative working between all schools in the area is essential. The recommended capital replacement of St White’s is accepted as a priority and the LEA is currently negotiating a replacement site, in association with the proposed housing development nearby.

Key Recommendation 6 – Cinderford Planning Area

(i) The intake of Forest View Primary School be reduced from 2FE (60 pupils) to 1.5FE (45 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings £39,375].

(ii) Changes to the intake of Littledean Primary School be discussed with governors as part of consultation on the next round of admissions.

(iii) Remaining schools continue at their current intakes.

2.5 Gloucester

Brockworth Planning Area

Context This is a mixed urban and rural area to the east of Gloucester, at the intersection of four districts: Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Stroud and Cotswold. The projected surplus is 110 places in 2007 or 26% of available capacity. At the Brockworth end, the community is urban and relatively disadvantaged. It is served by Brockworth Primary School, which is well located and has a number of community facilities but which has shrunk in recent years, and Castle Hill. Shurdington serves a discrete semi-rural community to the north and Birdlip draws widely from the east of Gloucester, but particularly from the rural communities to the east of the A46. A major housing development is planned on the former Gloucester Business Park site for 1900 dwellings which will have its own new primary school of up to 2FE (420 places).

Panel Recommendations The Panel considers that the future low demand for Brockworth warrants a further reduction in size and that Birdlip’s future role would be best considered in relation to its neighbouring rural schools. Any new school provision on the strategic housing development should be managed in full consultation with local schools to ensure it does not destabilise them. The Panel suggests no changes at Castle Hill or Shurdington.

Local Authority Advice The LA accepts this analysis fully.

Key Recommendation 7 – Brockworth Planning Area

(i) The intake of Brockworth Primary School be reduced from 1.5FE (45 pupils) to 1FE (30 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings £39,375].

(ii) Birdlip’s future role be considered alongside its neighbouring rural schools with a view to closer working and possible federation/consolidation. 9 (iii) Remaining schools continue in their present forms and at their current intakes.

Churchdown / Innsworth Planning Area

Context The area comprises a mixture of urban and rural communities to the immediate north and north east of Gloucester but within the Tewkesbury District. The projected overall surplus in 2007 is 313 places or 19% of available capacity, but the forecast surplus at intake level would be over 2FE (c25%). There are three pairs of infant and junior schools: Churchdown Village are schools with high demand serving the whole area; Parton Manor and Larkfield / Innsworth serve more defined areas and are beginning to see declining demand. The latter have a high proportion of service children (44 %) from nearby RAF Innsworth which is scheduled for closure in 2008. Short term demand in the area is therefore likely to decline further, although if the site becomes a base for an army unit and/or is developed for housing, there is potential for higher pupil numbers in the long term. St Mary’s is a Catholic school serving the whole of the north area of the city and is nearly full. Norton and Twigworth are Church of England controlled schools serving a more rural area along the A38 corridor. Twigworth (unit cost £3349pp) is only half full with space for over 100 pupils and only 54 on roll (Sept 2005). Its numbers have declined by a third in the last five years and it is the nearest school for only about a quarter of its pupils.

Panel Recommendations The Panel recommends reducing capacity at both Parton Manor and Larkfield / Innsworth to help provide stability for the schools to plan and manage their classes more effectively. The former should amalgamate and re-open as a 1 form entry primary school; the latter should remain separate, but at 1.5 forms of entry to provide some flexibility for future developments associated with the RAF base. The Panel believes Twigworth has only a limited local constituency and is no longer a school of choice for children living further afield, now that places are opening up in other more popular area schools. If it were closed, future demand could be met by schools closer to where children live, or by Norton, which would continue to offer a rural, denominational option nearby. No changes are recommended for other area schools.

Local Authority Advice The LA broadly accepts this analysis including the need to reduce area capacity significantly. It accepts the creation of an all-through primary at Parton Manor, while retaining Larkfield and Innsworth (which are located some distance from each other) as separate infant and junior schools. Both sets of schools have the accommodation and site capacity to provide flexibility for future expansion if circumstances change. Twigworth’s vulnerability is a concern and closure must remain an option, although alternative provision will be required for immediate local demand and for traveller children from the Sandhurst site.

Key Recommendation 8 – Churchdown / Innsworth Planning Area

(i) An all-through primary school be created by the amalgamation of Parton Manor Infant and Junior Schools at a reduced intake of 1FE (30 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [one off costs £36k: net 5 year savings £211,255].

(ii) The intake of Larkfield Infant School and Innsworth Junior School be reduced from 2FE (60 pupils) to 1.5 FE (45 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings £39,375].

(iii) Either

(a) Twigworth C of E Primary School be closed [net 5 year savings £284,725];

10 (b) Twigworth C of E and Norton C of E primary schools explore proposals for a hard federation on two sites, but at reduced size – both with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings on federation up to £11k].

(iv) Remaining schools continue in their present forms and at their current intake.

Longlevens Planning Area

Context This area comprises the urban communities of Gloucester to the north and east of the city centre but within the ring road. Kingsholm serves the more central, disadvantaged area and has important pre- school and community provision. Longlevens Infant and Junior are large and popular schools serving a relatively advantaged suburb, while Elmbridge Infant and Junior have traditionally met demand from across a wide area to the east of the centre. All of the schools have received significant investment in recent years and are strategically well located. Even though popular and a net importer of pupils, the area has begun to feel the impact of falling rolls and is projected in 2007 to have 301 surplus places or 16% of available capacity, but the forecast surplus at intake level could be over 2FE ( 75 places). Housing development is anticipated on the former cattle market site, which could increase demand by up to 84 pupils.

Panel Recommendations Local schools suggested reductions across the board to reduce area capacity by 1.5FE (45 intake places) but the Panel judged that reductions of 2FE were warranted by projected local demand. Such a figure would minimise the impact of pupil migration from surrounding planning areas and provide space for further extended school provision, but the sites would still have flexibility for future growth if required. This reduction was to be achieved by lower intakes at both Longlevens and Elmbridge, leaving viable schools with straightforward structures, but with no change at Kingsholm, retaining some flexibility for growth from the cattle market housing and from the imminent Children’s Centre development.

Local Authority Advice The LA broadly accepts this analysis but would be concerned if reductions in area capacity were made too early and too deeply. It is also aware that Kingsholm has been operating a successful 1.5FE structure and is content to continue. The LA accepts, however, that the recommended reductions would match local demand more closely and make desirable improvements to school facilities more feasible.

Key Recommendation 9 – Longlevens Planning Area

(i) The intake of Elmbridge Infant and Junior schools should be reduced from 3FE (90 pupils) to 2FE (60 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings £78,750].

(ii) The intake of Longlevens Infant and Junior schools should be reduced from 4FE (120 pupils) to 3FE (90 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings £78,750].

(iii) Kingsholm C of E Primary School should continue in its present form and at its existing intake capacity of 2FE.

11 2.6 Stroud

Stonehouse Planning Area

Context The area contains six schools which serve the town of Stonehouse and the villages of Eastington, Kings Stanley and Leonard Stanley. The projected surplus in 2007 is 264 places or 23% of available capacity. For some time, there has been a drift of pupils away from the urban areas of Stroud and Stonehouse to surrounding village primary schools, including the ones in this area. Eastington is a popular and successful five class school with a very constrained site and some temporary buildings. Kings Stanley Infants and Juniors are located some way apart. The latter has some classes in temporary accommodation and is on a very constrained site. Local demand is running at less than 1FE (30 pupils). Leonard Stanley is a 1 FE C of E voluntary aided school, located close to the other Stanley schools as the crow files, in reasonable buildings. Park Infants and Juniors share the same site in Stonehouse, but are located each side of a right of way. Both schools have received significant investment in recent years to upgrade facilities and create important community provision, especially for pre-school and childcare in an area of some disadvantage.

Panel Recommendations The Panel considers there is a continuing need for provision in all three areas (Stonehouse, Eastington, the Stanleys), but at reduced capacity. It is reluctant to reduce the intake to Eastington but suggests the accommodation should retain some temporary capacity for short term flexibility, which could be removed in the future if demand dropped further. Forecasts suggest that there is sufficient demand for 1.5FE capacity at the Stanleys, but not 2FE, and the Panel would prefer provision at this capacity to be in one or two schools, not three as now. Amalgamation of the two Park schools has been considered, but the physical and managerial difficulties of consolidation at the proposed size (2.5FE ) are felt to preclude this.

Local Authority Advice The LA accepts the need to reduce area places but keep a presence in each local community. Rationalisation should provide the potential for better facilities and flexibility for future changes in demand. All through primary provision should be a further objective, but the LA shares the Panel’s doubts about the benefits at Park.

Key Recommendation 10 – Stonehouse Planning Area

(i) An all-through primary school be created by the amalgamation of King’s Stanley Infant and Junior schools at a reduced intake of 0.5FE (15 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [one off costs £36k: net 5 year savings £275,010].

(ii) The intake of Park Infant and Junior schools be reduced from 3 FE (90 pupils) to 2.5FE (75 pupils) with effect from September 2008 [net 5 year savings £39,375].

(iii) Remaining schools continue in their present forms and at their current intake.

2.7 Tewkesbury

Winchcombe Planning Area

Context The area has five schools serving the town of Winchcombe and surrounding villages. The area is rural and sparsely populated with a number of small and widely spread communities which have limited access to public transport. Although the area was reviewed in the late 1990s and capacity removed by creating a smaller, all-through primary school in Winchcombe, there are still projected to be 157 surplus places, 28% of available capacity. Winchcombe C of E (aided) has projected demand of around 1FE and would be happy to consolidate at that level. Oak Hill is a stable and popular 0.5FE 12 school, split between two communities some 3 miles apart, and future demand seems strong. Gretton serves the next largest cluster of villages and has made a strong plea to be allowed to function at 4 rather than 3 classes (0.5FE), as it has in recent times, notwithstanding some constraints of site and temporary accommodation. Didbrook (unit cost £3764pp) and Toddington (unit cost £4449pp) are very small and only about one mile apart. Both have significant surplus places, but serve a large geographic area with very limited public facilities. The proposed closure of Toddington was rejected by the Secretary of State in 1999.

Panel Recommendations The Panel accepts the reduction of intake at Winchcombe, believing that this would allow flexibility to expand provision for community use and provide a straightforward, cost effective structure which parents would welcome and might raise standards further. The Panel is very conscious of previous tensions over Didbrook and Toddington and of subsequent work to improve local collaboration and update facilities. It is also aware of the large area and sparse population which both schools serve. It feels, however, that the schools are not educationally and financially viable, either individually or together. The Panel therefore proposes the closure of both with a corresponding increase in capacity at Gretton, to accord with the latter’s wishes and provide a balanced overall area structure of one 1FE and two 0.5FE schools.

Local Authority Advice The LA accepts the Panel’s overall analysis and its recommendations for Winchcombe and Oak Hill. The closure of both Didbrook and Toddington would, however, leave too large a geographic gap and the LA believes that a federated school, as operated successfully by Oak Hill, could provide a locally acceptable solution with improvements to education viability, cost effectiveness and long-term stability. In these circumstances, there would be no need to expand Gretton and consolidate all its accommodation in permanent build, at additional cost.

Key Recommendation 11 – Winchcombe Planning Area

(i) Changes to the intake at Winchcombe C of E Primary School be discussed with governors as part of consultation on the next round of admissions.

(ii) Didbrook and Toddington primary schools become a single federated primary school on a split-site (as at Oak Hill) at a reduced intake of 12 pupils (84 places in total) with effect from September 2008 [one off costs £36k: net 5 year savings £36,285].

(iii) Remaining schools continue in their present forms and at their current intakes.

3. RISK ASSESSMENT

The following risks have been identified:

3.1 Risk Proposals are inadequate to achieve a stable and viable pattern of schools. Impact Continued decline, planning uncertainty, inefficient use of resources, threat to standards and loss of curriculum opportunities. Likelihood Moderate Mitigation Proposals seek to achieve reductions sufficient to stabilise local systems and reduce fixed costs at school and county level.

13 3.2 Risk Proposals attract limited support, are divisive and are either undeliverable or significantly delayed. Impact Continued decline, planning uncertainty, inefficient use of resources, threat to standards and loss of curriculum opportunities. Likelihood Moderate Mitigation Proposals have emerged from detailed review and public engagement over nearly a year and will be subject to further consultation over the next six months.

3.3 Risk The LA fails in its statutory duty to maximise parental preference and provide sufficient/suitable school places through inaccurate pupil forecasts/housing projections. Impact Children fail to gain admission to their local school and/or preference restricted Likelihood Low Mitigation Panels (and local schools) have scrutinised future pupil demand very closely. In most cases, proposals retain flexibility for future growth if required.

3.4 Risk Formal, public notice proposals fall because they conflict with statutory school organisation guidance (eg on closure of rural schools or denominational balance) Impact Prolonged uncertainty and a failure to deliver fully the aims of the review Likelihood Low Mitigation The guidance does not tell School Organisation Committees which schools they can or cannot close. Each case is considered on its merits against general policy principles and outcomes depend on public support and the strength of the justification.

4. CONSULTATION FEEDBACK

Section 1.2 outlines the lengthy partnership process which established the current area panel system and the specific engagement which took place last November with schools, parents, young people and communities in priority review areas.

Panels and the majority of stakeholders have accepted the need for a review. Responses to particular findings and suggestions are contained in each panel’s recommendations (sent to all stakeholders and on the review website at http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=10063 ).

5. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT/FOLLOW-UP

The County Council plans two further stages of consultation:

Public Consultation (February – April 2006) – Formal consultation on the specific proposals contained in this paper, probably on an area basis. Outcomes considered by Cabinet on 7 June 2006.

Statutory Consultation (July – September 2006) – Publication of statutory notices (if required) for a six week period around the summer break, inviting public comment. Outcomes considered by the Gloucestershire School Organisation Committee in Autumn 2006.

Relevant schools will be offered specialist support during this period of uncertainty.

Further second round reviews of new areas are likely to continue through a streamlined process for consideration by panels in May or June 2006.