Item No B2 By: Director - Operations

To: School Organisation Advisory Board – 18 September 2006

Subject KINGSWOOD (COMMUNITY) PRIMARY SCHOOL AND PLATTS HEATH (COMMUNITY) PRIMARY SCHOOL, : PROPOSED AMALGAMATION – OUTCOME OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION.

Classification: Unrestricted

File Ref: ______Summary: This report sets out the results of the public consultation. It seeks the views of the School Organisation Advisory Board on the proposed amalgamation of Kingswood Primary School and Platts Heath Primary School by the issuing of a public notice for the closure of both schools and the establishment of a new combined school on the Kingswood Site, using existing Kingswood facilities. ______

Introduction 1. (1) The School Organisation Advisory Board at its meeting on 8 June 2006 supported the undertaking of a public consultation on the proposal to amalgamate Kingswood Primary School and Platts Heath Primary School into a new Community Primary School on the Kingswood site.

(2) Platts Heath and Kingswood Primary schools are located approximately two miles apart. Platts Heath Primary School is situated in Platts Heath village and about half of the school's pupils are drawn from within a one mile radius of the school. Kingswood Primary School is located within the village of Kingswood and approximately 60% of its pupils live within one mile of the school.

(3) Platts Heath School is hampered by poor quality accommodation and a site which has little scope for development. Kingswood School has recently benefited from the replacement of mobile classrooms and now enjoys good quality accommodation, together with good on-site facilities, including playing fields

(4) In January 2006 Platts Heath Primary School had 74 pupils on roll, with the capacity to accommodate 91 pupils (surplus of 18.68%). Kingswood Primary School had 69 pupils on roll and a capacity to accommodate 140 pupils (50.71% surplus). Thus, the combined rolls of the two schools was 143, but their total surplus capacity was 88 places (38.09%).

(5) County average funding cost per pupil is £2,819 (£2,453 without SEN funding). The funding cost per pupil at Platts Heath School is £3,067 (£2,941 without SEN) and the funding cost per pupil at Kingswood is £3,421 (£3,147 without SEN funding). ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:1

(6) For September 2006 admissions, 5 parents placed Platts Heath as their first preference while 4 placed Kingswood as first preference.

(7) A map is attached in Appendix 1 which shows the location of the two schools and the current pupil distribution.

Background Information 2. (1) In Maidstone Borough there are 53 primary schools with a combined net capacity of 13,337. There are currently 11,662 pupils attending these schools giving a surplus capacity of 12.6%.

(2) As part of the Strategy, Recommendation 27 states that "wherever surplus primary capacity is projected to rise above 7% in any cluster area, proposals should be brought forward to reduce it to 5%”. The retention of a 5% surplus in any area (rather than zero) is considered to be 'good practice' to assist parental preferences being met, and to build in a contingency to deal with any unforeseen short-tem increase in pupil numbers. The DfES require all authorities to report annually on all schools with an excess of 25% surplus capacity, giving justifications why such schools are not being closed or having their net capacity reduced.

The Proposal 3. (1) It is proposed that Platts Heath and Kingswood Primary Schools should amalgamate to form a new community primary school based in the Kingswood school buildings.

(2) The school would have capacity to admit 150 pupils, aged 5 to 11 years, which is considered sufficient to meet the needs of both Platts Heath and Kingswood communities.

(3) The amalgamation would be achieved by both schools closing and the new primary school opening at the earliest by 1 September 2007.

(4) All children in Platts Heath Primary and Kingswood Primary Schools would be guaranteed places in the new school. The surplus capacity at Kingswood School (71 places) is sufficient to absorb almost the entire pupil population of Platts Heath School (74). For parents who do not wish to take up places at a combined Platts Heath/Kingswood school, places are available at CEP School.

(5) Amalgamation would create a school of sufficient size to guarantee a more secure future for primary education within this rural area. The strengths of staff from both schools would be combined to provide a more comprehensive range of skills and expertise with which to raise standards, to the benefit of children from both communities. The larger team of staff would be able to share responsibilities, and would have access to a more flexible range of teaching resources. Opportunities for staff’s professional development would also be greater.

(6) In amalgamating Platts Heath and Kingswood schools, both would close and a ‘new’ school would open on the Kingswood site. By adopting this strategy, rather than simply closing Platts Heath School, it is intended to establish that the new school at ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:2

Kingswood would be recognised as the appropriate provision for both villages, with a sense of `joint ownership’ and support for it.

Public Consultation Process 4. (1) A consultation document, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 2, was circulated according to the County Procedures for Review. This included Local Members, District Council, Parish Councils, local libraries, schools within the two Maidstone Clusters, Member of Parliament and other interested parties.

(2) Approximately 1,000 copies of the document were circulated.

(3) The document included a separate form on which respondents could express their views.

(4) A public meeting was held at Kingswood Primary School on 13 July 2006. The meeting was chaired by Mrs P Stockell, KCC Member for Maidstone Rural West. Mr L Ridings, KCC Member for Sandwich (and Vice Chairman of the Council), Lord Bruce- Lockhart (KCC Member for Maidstone Rural East), Mr Hugh Robertson (MP for and Mid ), Dr. Ian Craig (Director of Operations), Mr Chris Jones (Area Education Officer), Mrs Hilary Macdonald (Local Education Officer) and Mr Tony Smith (School Organisation Officer) were in attendance.

(5) There were 160 members of the public in attendance.

Responses to the Public Consultation Written Responses

5. (1) In total, 358 written responses (letters, emails and consultation forms) had been received, of which 18 were in favour of the proposal and 340 were against. A Petition was also received in three parts, which was signed in total by 573 people – parents, staff, governors and members of the community - stating ‘signatories oppose the proposal for the amalgamation of Platts Heath and Kingswood Primary Schools’.

(2) A summary of written responses is attached as Appendix 3. Responses to the main points are included in the Area Education Officer’s Comments in Section 14.

Public Meeting Responses

(3) A summary of comments, views and responses is attached as Annex 3.

Views of the Local Member 6. (1) Lord Bruce-Lockhart, Local Member for Maidstone Rural East made the following comments on the proposal (from letter dated 26 July 2006):

(2) I am totally opposed to the closure of Platts Heath School on the grounds that the County Council has recently confirmed it has a higher than average standard of education; it is financially viable; it has 74 pupils out of a capacity of 91, 45% of whom live within one mile of the school; and it is an essential part of the village community. ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:3

(3) This consultation is stated to be about the reduction of surplus capacity in primary schools in Maidstone. This is right. It is, however, clear that there is absolutely no need to close Platts Heath School as the County Council has already achieved the reduction in surplus capacity in the Maidstone area that is required by the DfES and by the KCC’s own policy.

(4) The Audit Commission’s submission to DfES states “Authorities should aim to have no more than 10% surplus overall and should address the situation as a matter of urgency at individual schools with more than 25%.” I understand the KCC Cabinet of 6 February this year agreed to adopt a new policy to reduce this to 5% or 7% surplus capacity in any area.

(5) In the Maidstone area the current and forecast surplus capacity is 10.9%, close to the Audit Commission guidance. There are excellent proposals in the SOAB paper to put children’s centres into some town centre schools with large surplus capacities, and for a “desk top” exercise to reduce the “theoretical total capacity number” in seven schools totalling a reduction of 706 school places. This would very sensibly reduce the surplus capacity for Maidstone to 6% and achieve this with no closures. This therefore achieves both the DfES and the County Council’s objectives in reducing surplus capacity.

(6) Platts Heath School is an outstanding small rural primary school serving its own distinct village. It has 74 children on roll out of a total theoretical capacity of 91. It has a high standard of education with six out of ten children this year achieving entry to grammar school. It has good PANDA and value added schools. The SATs results this summer again showed further improvement. The County Council’s Assistant Director of Education has confirmed that Platts Heath's standard of education is well above average. Most importantly of all, in a small school, its dedicated staff are able to deliver a high standard of personalised and individual learning.

(7) Platts Heath School has a strongly supportive Governing Board. It has effective resource management and no financial deficit. It is correct that Platts Heath School costs some £240 per pupil more than the average primary school, a total of some £17,000 a year. But however many schools the County Council closes, the smaller ones will always cost more than the larger ones. It has, however, been confirmed by the County Council that the cost of bus transport for Platts Heath pupils to Kingswood School would be some £60,000 a year – significantly more than the £17,000 higher than average revenue cost.

(8) With regard to the school buildings it is indeed true that the County Council has failed to invest in new buildings at Platts Heath. But there is no evidence that this has affected the standard of education or the popularity of the school. The village has recently raised £48,000 to restore its old village hall just 50 yards from the School which will be fully utilised by the School during the school day.

(9) Rural primary schools play a unique role in their village communities. At Platts Heath, where the shop and pub have gone, only the school is left. Much of the village life and activity generates around the school. It is the heart of the village, an integral and essential part of the local community. As one parent wrote to me “We moved to Platts Heath simply because it was a small rural community with a small village ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:4 school. We like small, that’s why we live here!” These are views that I believe the County Council should continue to support.

(10) I have been to many public meetings in my years as a Kent County Councillor, but I have never been to one which was so united and with such a strong case advocated, with both passion and responsibility, by so many of the parents and community. I urge the County Council to reject any suggestion of closure of Platts Heath School.

Views of the Local Member of Parliament 7. Mr Hugh Robertson, MP for Faversham and Mid Kent, made the following comment on the proposal (extract taken from letter dated 20 July 2006):

“… I would like, formally, to register an objection, as the local MP, to the proposed closure of Platts Heath School. I have three schools earmarked for closure in my constituency but I have only formally objected to this one. It is, therefore, not something that I do lightly but, having been through the consultation process, I am convinced that KCC has got this wrong.

… I have never before attended a public meeting like the one in Kingswood last week. Apart from the fact that it lasted for four hours, not one single person in the audience spoke up in favour of the proposal. If this was a genuine consultation, the message from that public meeting ought to be very clear. My reasons for opposing the closure are as follows:

(i) The case for closure is not strong when the numbers required to bring the school up to full capacity are so small. (ii) It was clear from the public meeting that education standards are rising. It is nonsense to shut any primary school on educational grounds when six out of seven pupils who took the Kent Test passed the exam. (iii) KCC always used to have a presumption in favour of rural schools – and the DfES guidelines certainly do. (iv) Closure will decimate the local community as the school is the only remaining piece of public infrastructure left in the village. (v) Transport to Kingswood School is along one of the worst pieces of road in the County – windy, icy in winter and down to single lane traffic along certain sections. (vi) The concept of an amalgamation with Kingswood is a fiction. Platt’s Heath links are with , and Ulcombe meaning that few pupils will transfer to Kingswood. (vii) As the public meeting showed, Platts Heath enjoys huge parental support. Parental choice including, if necessary, the opportunity to send their offspring to small rural primary schools is something that ought to be nurtured and encouraged. (viii) KCC’s ‘Case for Fair Funding’ points to a population increase of 96,000, or 7.2% over ten years. Given that some these, at least, will be of school age, it makes a nonsense to argue on this basis to government whilst closing primary schools due to lack of numbers at the same time.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:5

Incidentally, the ONS figures of a 250,000 increase over 25 years are even more dramatic but still make no allowance for labour movement from the EU or illegal immigration.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:6

(ix) I have serious concerns about a consultation process that failed to consult the local MP in advance and saw the Cabinet Member responsible for the decision fail to appear at the public meeting. In these circumstances, it is hard to argue that the school has had every opportunity fairly to put its case.

… Please throw out this proposal at the SOAB meeting on 18 September.”

Views of the Governing Bodies Kingswood Primary School

8. (1) Statement from Kingswood Primary School.

“With regards to the proposed amalgamation between Kingswood Primary School and Platts Heath Primary School, whilst Kingswood are sympathetic to the views of the parents of Platts Heath, having weighed up both sides of the argument, overall the majority of parents and Governors at Kingswood are in favour of the proposal.

We have the space at Kingswood to accommodate those children from Platts Heath that wished to attend the proposed new school. The children at the new school would be working in classes made up of no more than two age groups. The staff from both schools would be able to share their skills and experience for the benefit of all the children, and the new school would benefit from an increase in funding which has to be beneficial for the children.

We appreciate that the proposal has received a hostile reaction from Platts Heath, and realise that a lot of work would need to be done to ensure that both schools integrate as one. However, in the long term the new school has great potential.”

Platts Heath Governing Body

(2) Governing Body of Platts Heath Primary School has submitted the following response to the proposed amalgamation:

“The Governing Body is unanimously opposed to the closure of the school at Platts Heath.

The Governors fully endorse the attached document (a much more detailed response drawn up jointly by a few governors and parents is contained in Appendix 5). This document provides more than an adequate response to the original proposal to the SOAB Committee and to the Consultation Document.

The Governors, also, fully endorse the responses made by Lord Bruce-Lockhart of the Weald and The Right Honourable Hugh Robertson, MP who both know the area well. They will also have responded individually to the consultation.”

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:7

Views of Maidstone 2 Cluster Board 9. The Maidstone 2 Cluster Board acknowledges the need to remove places in its cluster in order to achieve a surplus of between 5% and 7%. The Board fully supports proposed reductions in surplus capacity where this involves removal of temporary accommodation or the re-designation of space for community use. It accepts that under the Primary Strategy, some small schools may have to be closed or amalgamated.

Views of Maidstone Borough Council 10. (1) Maidstone Borough Council has been fully consulted on the proposal. A formal response has not yet been received. However, some Maidstone Borough Councillor’s have responded individually to the proposal as follows:

(2) Councillor for Leeds Ward and Kingswood School, Mr Peter Parvin, made the following comment on the proposal (taken from letter dated 17 June 2006);

“…I wish to support the school governors and the staff in their desire to see the two schools amalgamated. The Governors and teachers of Kingswood are in favour of the amalgamation and the closure of Platts Heath school. However, the parents are overwhelmingly against the amalgamation and closure…”

(3) Maidstone Borough Councillors representing Harrietsham and Lenham Wards are united in their opposition to the proposal.

(4) Councillor Mrs Janetta Sams, is not in favour of the proposal and made the following comments;

“…I write on behalf of the school children, the parents and the community of Platts Heath. The news that the school may be considered for closure or as part of a merger has come as a huge shock to those in the village. The school has a good reputation within the village. It boasts good results in all areas and provides a happy and caring environment where all children look out for each other. The disappearance of the school will mean there will be no walking bus for these children, no sound of children in the playground for this community without the school.

The human cost of the closure or merger will be a heavy price to pay, more traffic, more pollution, another lost community destined to become a resting place for commuters, another unsustainable village. All the above goes against what KCC is aspiring to do within education in Kent and the vision that Sir Sandy Bruce- Lockhart has long had for the rural Community of Platts Heath

I urge you to consider the huge impact that the closure of Platts Heath School would incur. Please vote to keep the heart of this community open…”

(5) Councillor Mr David Marshall, made the following comment on the proposal (taken from letter dated 14 July 2006);

“… I understand that KCC has a written policy of keeping small rural primary school open as being vital to the community… ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:8

… Although the paper implies that a surplus capacity of 11% by 2010 is unacceptable, I disagree … (with regard to housing provision for the area)

… Unfortunately from my questioning of parents they will not consider Kingswood as an alternative to Platts Heath. Many parents have said that they would choose schools to the east of the village since they have more in common with Lenham and Harrietsham villages.

… Above average results in English and Mathematics achieved by pupils at the (Platts Heath) school clearly demonstrate that the school fabric is not compromising educational results or the children’s welfare…

… I am sure that (although the cost of providing education in rural areas is relatively more than in urban areas) rural communities are less of a burden on the taxpayer in relation to policing, transport and housing…

… The ramifications on the local environment of increased traffic flows between Platts Heath and Kingswood twice a day would be extensive … The road conditions, particularly in the winter months, can be treacherous…

… I have been opposed to this proposed amalgamation from the time I was first made aware of it in May, my position has not altered…”

Views of Harrietsham Parish Council 11. At its last meeting (no date given), Harrietsham Parish Council resolved to comment on the amalgamation proposals as follows:

“Harrietsham Parish Council does not consider the amalgamation of Platts Heath School with Kingswood School to be in the interest of children of Platts Heath or the village.

The school’s education results have been excellent. The ethos of the school is recognised as giving great support for the children.

The proposal goes against KCC visions of sustainable communities. We strongly condemn the proposal and ask SOAB committee to reject it.”

Views from Kingswood Parish Council 12. Kingswood Parish Council has declined to comment on the proposed amalgamation between the two schools.

Views of Lenham Parish Council 13. (1) Nick Osborne, Chair of the Parish Council has made the following comments on behalf of the Parish Council:

“Lenham Parish Council strongly objects to the closure of Platt’s Heath Primary School. The closure of this school will have a detrimental effect not only on the parents of children at Platt’s Heath, but also families who live in Lenham and who send their children to the school now, and also, those who wish to in the future. ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:9

“This school is needed to accommodate the children from our Parish, if it closes our youngest children will not be able attend school in Lenham, at what is probably the most vulnerable time of their education. Children from the same families will be split up with one going to Lenham and another going to Kingswood, or Harrietsham.

“When making the decision we would ask that the following points be considered:

(a) The number of first year places available in Lenham (b) The number of children requiring primary school places (c) The distant children from the Parish who will have to travel to Kingswood (d) The state of the road from Lenham to Kingswood, being one of the most dangerous roads in the County for people to drive along, let alone walk along

We would also ask you to consider the population issues. In Harrietsham, there are new houses being constructed throughout the Parish. Today in Lenham there are 28 new houses under construction. There is a planning application for a further 16 family homes in (these houses will be complete before Platt’s Heath closes). The Brakes Bros site at has still to be resolved and it is almost certain that some housing will be included. The new Maidstone Borough Development Framework has still to announce where in the rural area of the Borough some moderate development will be required on top of any that is being constructed at the present time.

In a year's time Lenham will have 30 extra families living in the Parish. In 5 years time the village will almost certainly have another 30 to 40 houses and in 10 years time if the government’s figures are to be believed, Lenham will expand by a further 100 to 200 houses. This will result in an increase in children requiring primary school education and the Parish Council’s view is that all these children should be educated in the Parish. The only way this will be achieved is by securing the future of Platt’s Heath Village School in the Parish of Lenham.

This school has support not only from the residents of the Parish, our County and Borough Councillors, but people from the neighbouring villages and parents who are past pupils of the School.”

Views of the Area Education Officer 14. (1) There is a surplus of places totalling 40% among schools in Platts Heath, Ulcombe and Kingswood. This should be addressed and in doing so, we must take account of the sites and buildings of the existing schools. Those of Platts Heath are clearly the most inadequate and have no capacity for expansion.

(2) Many respondents express a preference for small schools. The amalgamation of Platts Heath and Kingswood would not create a school that is large. The option of Ulcombe would remain available to those who sought a smaller school.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:10

(3) Much has been made of standards at Platts Heath, including some references and inferences concerning Kingswood School. Although Kingswood was the subject of some concern following its last full Inspection (2003), it was recently judged by OfSTED to have made good progress in the areas of concern and to now have standards of English, mathematics and science at the end of Key Sage 2 which are above the national average. Furthermore, amalgamation would entail the closure of both schools and the opening of a new one so that comparisons with the existing Kingswood School are not relevant.

(4) Some respondents have alluded to potential housing growth in the local area. That which is currently underway or is confirmed has already been factored into the Local Authority's projections. There is no suggestion that there will be major development in Platts Heath itself and if, as some have suggested, there was large scale development at some future date in adjacent areas of Kent, it would be most appropriate to increase school capacity in those localities.

(5) The issue of transport is raised in a number of responses. Many pupils already travel greater distances to reach Platts Heath than that which separates these two communities. Many, if not all children living in Platts Heath, would quality for free transport, which would be provided to Kingswood. Thus, there need not necessarily be a significant increase in traffic between the two villages. Some of the transport costs which have been suggested assume that all Platts Heath pupils would qualify for free transport and would elect to attend Kingswood. This may not necessarily be the case.

(6) It is understandable that a local community will seek to retain its school and the facilities that it provides. Nevertheless, the proposed amalgamation of Platts Heath and Kingswood Schools on the Kingswood site would provide a much superior physical learning environment to Platts Heath; a school of a more efficient and sustainable size than the two existing schools; and a better use of existing resources.

Resource Implications Capital

Platts Heath

15. (1) The school site is unsuitable for development as a new school and if declared surplus to requirements could be sold. Any capital receipt would be prioritised for development of the new amalgamated site.

Kingswood

(2) There are outstanding, high priority (D1) maintenance items amounting to about £80,000 required at the school relating to mechanical services and roofs. A newly amalgamated school would require some capital expenditure, including the addition of a library.

Revenue

(3) The cost per pupil of educating children at the amalgamated school would be less than is currently the case at the two separate schools.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:11

Human

(4) Staff employed at both schools would be made redundant within the arrangements for amalgamating schools. There would, however, be posts available at the new school and it would be expected that a significant proportion of existing staff would be re-employed.

(5) If both existing headteachers were still in post at the time of the amalgamation, the headship of the new school would have to be advertised nationally, in fact the Local Authority would advise the interim governing body to do this as a matter of good practice, whatever the situation. For staff who were re-employed, their employment would be regarded as continuous.

Accommodation Issues Platts Heath

16. (1) The school has 4 classes but teaching accommodation is poor and there are no disabled facilities. One classroom is in a temporary building, while another is in a timber demountable linked to the main building. A third classroom, in the main building, has a maximum capacity of 13 pupils (school’s own estimate).

(2) The staff room and a small group room are located in a converted air raid shelter, while the Headteacher and Secretary share a small Portakabin as an office.

(3) There is no hall and only a small playground. These buildings are on a very small site with a detached playing field which is 163m distant from the school (distance measured between boundaries). The school has use of the village hall.

Kingswood

(4) There has recently been significant investment (£261,000) in replacing mobile classrooms at Kingswood and the accommodation for teaching is now good.

(5) There are 5 teaching spaces of which 3 are currently in full use as classrooms, the others being used for group work and as a library. The site includes playing fields.

Equality Issues Platts Heath

17. (1) The School has a slightly higher than average number of pupils with non- statemented special educational needs (23.3%) but a low proportion of children entitled to free school meals (4.7%). The 2005 PANDA showed 100% of pupils to be ‘White British’.

Kingswood

(2) The School has a higher than average percentage of pupils with special educational needs (4.4% statemented and 38.2% non-statemented). The number of pupils entitled to free school meals is in line with the national average figure of 16.6% ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:12

(2005). Of the total school population, 88.6% are ‘White British’ while 8.3% are ‘Gypsy Roma’ (2005 PANDA).

Transport and Environmental Impact including Community Implications Transport Implications

18. (1) Pupils currently at Platts Heath would be entitled to free transport to Kingswood, if that was their nearest appropriate school, under the usual conditions.

Community Impact

(2) Platts Heath School provides a number of after school clubs for its pupils. Kingswood currently works with Kent Adult Education to provide adult learning evening classes. It also provides family learning courses and its premises are used by an After School Club.

School Improvement Implications Platts Heath

19. (1) The School was last inspected by OfSTED in February 2002. It was found to be an effective school which gave good value for money. Standards at Key Stage 1 are below Kent and National averages in writing and mathematics at the higher levels, although reading is above these levels. Value added scores at the end of Key Stage 2 suggest gradual improvement during the past 3 years and in 2005, they were broadly in line with national expectations (100.3).

Kingswood

(2) The School was last inspected in November 2005 when the previous category of Serious Weaknesses was commuted to Notice to Improve. Progress since that date has been satisfactory. Standards are below Kent and national averages at Key Stage 1 but above at Key Stage 2 (2005 PANDA).

Links to Primary Strategy 20. This proposal is consistent with recommendations 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29 of the Primary Strategy 2006.

Proposed Timetable 23. If it is decided that a public notice should be issued in respect of the proposal, the following timetable could apply:

Cabinet Member decision October 2006 Public Notice issued 19 October 2006 End of Public Notice period 30 November 2006 Report to Kent School 20 December 2006 Organisation Committee (if required) Implementation September 2007 or ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:13

September 2008

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:14

24. The views of the School Organisation Advisory Board are sought on:

(a) the amalgamation of Kingswood Primary School and Platts Heath Primary School by the issuing a public notice for the closure of both schools and the establishment of a new Community Primary School with 150 places on the Kingswood site.

(b) whether a September 2007 or September 2008 implementation date should be adopted if the proposal proceeds

(c) subject to approval of the proposal following the end of the objection period, the resources necessary to implement the scheme being provided on the basis identified in this report.

Chris Jones Area Education Officer Maidstone and & Malling Tel: 01233 898560

The local Member is Lord Bruce-Lockhart

______

Background Documents: None

Previous Committee Reports: Report to School Organisation Advisory Board - 8 June 2006

Other Sources of Information LEA School Organisation Plan Kent Primary Strategy 2006

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:15

Appendix 3

Proposed Amalgamation of Kingwood and Platts Heath (Community) Village Primary Schools

Summary of Written Responses

Consultation documents distributed 1,000 Responses received 358

Numbers in favour of the proposal 18 Numbers against the proposal 340

Support Against Undecided Total • Parents of children at the Schools: Platts Heath Primary School 1 91 0 92 Kingswood Primary School 9 5 0 14 • Members of staff at the Schools: Platts Heath Primary School 0 8 0 8 Kingswood Primary School 2 2 0 4 • Governors of the Schools: Platts Heath Primary School 0 5 0 5 Kingswood Primary School 3 0 0 3 • Parent of a pupil at another school 0 23 0 23 • Member of staff at another school 0 1 0 1 • Governors from other schools 1 3 0 4 • Other interested parties 2 202 0 204 TOTALS 18 340 0 358

A Petition was also received in three parts, which was signed in total by 573 people – parents, staff, governors and members of the community, stating ‘signatories oppose the proposal for the amalgamation of Platts Heath and Kingswood Primary Schools’.

Views against amalgamation

Site and buildings

• The state of Platts Heath's buildings/lack of space are not relevant to the quality of education (13) • The village hall already provides an additional facility (6) • St. Edmund’s Centre (the village hall) has received a grant for improvements in order to accommodate the school’s activities (7) • Potential impact on the village hall’s viability if the school were to close (7) • Belief that KCC's motive is to capitalise on the Platts Heath site (profit by sale of land) (4) • Platts Heath sports field is a facility which is used by local children out of school hours (6)

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:25

Community

• Concern that there would be a negative impact on the community if the school were to close. The school is heavily involved in current village activities (59) • School is well supported by/has close links with/is an integral part of the local community (32) • Without a school there will be no incentive for young families to settle in the village (6) • There is no synergy between the two villages (no history of a relationship between them) (8) • Amalgamation of Ulcombe and Kingswood would be more appropriate (9) • Could federation be considered? (1) • Platts Heath is too far away from Kingswood for successful amalgamation (1) • Need to support rural schools / communities (10) • The school is the last amenity left in Platts Heath (26) • Negative impact on house prices in Platts Heath (1) • Importance of children being educated within their own community (7)

Parental choice and impact on current pupils

• Need for parents to have choice of different types of school (7) • Platts Heath parents will not necessarily send their children to Kingswood if the amalgamation takes places (10) • Need to maintain non-church alternatives (3) • Lack of places in some other schools of choice (2) • School closure will have a negative impact on current pupils (i.e. be disruptive to their education) (8)

Viability and issues surrounding the feasibility / integrity of the proposal

• The number of surplus places at Platts Heath is not excessive (2) • Platts Heath has no more than two year groups in any one class (1) • Platts Heath School is viable and sustainable (9) • New housing developments (in Lenham and Harrietsham) should ensure the school remains viable (11) • Platts Heath should not be closed to resolve the problems of other schools (Platts Heath is a good school in its own right) (5) • Amalgamation is not necessary to achieve 5% surplus places in Maidstone Borough (2) • Concern that the proposal has been brought forward purely on economic grounds (1) • Challenge to the way in which the consultation uses ‘falling birth rates’ (1) • Challenge to whether the representation on the Primary Strategy Group was balanced (e.g. for rural communities) (1) • Challenge to the accuracy of school places data (1) • Challenges to whether there will be cost savings in practice when transport costs are taken into account (2)

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:26

School and class size

• Some children’s needs are best met in small schools (20) • Benefits of small classes/some children need small classes (10) • Larger schools are not always better (3)

School standards and performance

• Platts Heath offers a good standard of education/is a good school/is an effective school (97) • Absence of bullying at Platts Heath/safe environment (6) • Platts Heath School develops good social and citizenship skills in its pupils (3) • Platts Heath has a record of success with Looked After Children (2) • Platts Heath has a friendly and caring staff/caring ethos (14)

Transport and environment

• General concern about children having to travel (2) • Concern about the route/safety of the route from Platts Heath to Kingswood (26) • Environmental concerns relating to increased traffic (7) • Currently a significant proportion of children can or do walk to Platts Heath school (9) • The desirability of children being able to walk to school (6) • Concern about the distance that Lenham children would have to travel to Kingswood (4)

Views in favour of amalgamation

Resources

• Amalgamation would provide a level of resource which would improve learning at both schools (2) • Amalgamation would increase the flexibility of teaching staff (1) • The best resources should be made available to all children (1) • Better facilities for Platts Heath children (1)

Viability

• Amalgamation would result in more viable and sustainable cohorts (2) • Economic advantages of an amalgamated school (1)

Personal and social issues

• Amalgamation would keep friends together (1)

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:27

Appendix 4

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

Proposed amalgamation of Platts Heath and Kingswood Primary Schools

Summary of the public meeting held at Kingswood Primary School on 13 July 2006

Issue or comment Response KCC Facts and Figures (integrity of the proposal)

Governors of Platts Heath raised the KCC has an obligation and duty to ask accuracy of the data concerning the questions and make most effective use of numbers of pupils in the area served by resources. There are surplus places, you Platts Heath. may debate the area, but Platts Heath only took 3 children into Year R last year, and has an intake of 9 into Year R for The changes that have already taken place 2006. Up to 2005, the intake was well into to address falling rolls in the area will the teens. There has been a similar reduce the number of school places reduction in the roll at Kingswood and available. Where does the figure of 5% come Ulcombe too. We simply don’t need as from? many schools in this area. The data for

live births for the last few years are lower A very professional and child centred than they have been across the Maidstone presentation has been made by Platts Heath District. Your comments have been well School. Under the Primary Strategy made and will be considered. All School was also recommended for closure, comments received during the supported by myself and Hugh Robertson, consultation period will be read by SOAB. who agreed that this should happen. However we are both totally opposed to the closure of Platts Heath School. This is not an amalgamation, but the closure of a village school.

The Audit Commission’s advice to the DfES The Audit Commission in ‘Trading Places’ is that vacancy rates should be brought suggests that any surplus capacity is a down to below 10%. The presentation by waste of resources. They will call an audit Platts Heath has demonstrated that other of anything above 10%. The county proposals for the area will have the effect of surplus is currently running at 12%, and reducing the capacity below 10%. There is getting it down below 10% is vital. KCC therefore no reason to close Platts Heath. along with most of the shire counties has The 5% figure is also disputed, for example aimed for a figure of between 5 and 7%. Lincs have set a figure of 4-8%, and With a large amount of spare capacity no Gloucester 5-8%. It is not accurate to school can be confident that they will have suggest that all are aiming for 5%. There is a similar intake from year to year. At a school in the middle of Maidstone with Platts Heath the figures have reflected this 175 surplus places. Closing an urban with 9 for 2006, 3 for 2005 and 15 for school will not have the same impact on the 2004. Financial and staff planning is community as closing a village school. made much more difficult in these

circumstances.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:28

Issue or comment Response

Platts Heath does an amazingly good job backed up by statistics and dedicated staff, who give individual and personalised learning. Congratulations to all staff.

The document placed on every chair tonight Balance of document – the proposal does does not have all the facts. I have spoken to not need to contain all the details. The Kings Hill School and remain concerned adjudicator will look at all the paperwork; that places for local children will not be transcripts etc and make a thorough available with only 5% spare capacity. I review. have emailed the ombudsman that this proposal is not balanced and does not Kings Hill School has plenty of school contain all the facts and figures. An places; however as it is a new school in independent review of the papers is needed. new buildings it attracts pupils from

neighbouring schools. Siblings of these The intake figure of 9 for September 2006 pupils then block places for local would have been higher if the proposals had residents. not been made.

We do not need to find surplus capacity in Maidstone. We have already done it! This meeting has totally defeated the proposal to close Platts Heath School.

School Site, Buildings and Alternative Use

Premises are KCC’s responsibility, and they The saying ‘You can have good schools in could have chosen to enhance Platts Heath poor buildings and poor schools in good School. buildings’ is quite true. However in situations where pupil places need to be reduced, we cannot ignore size and condition of the buildings as a factor.

I have a large constituency with a large An evaluation of the buildings at both number of schools. You can tell a good Kingswood and Platts Heath suggests that primary school within 5 minutes of walking it is appropriate to amalgamate both in. You can have good schools in poor schools. buildings and poor schools in good buildings. I would like to compliment Ian Priddle on a very child centred presentation. I cannot confirm that housing will not be KCC is the owner of the land on which the built on the school site, however the school sits; can they confirm that the land Primary Strategy states that any capital will not be sold for development? raised will be reinvested into schools locally.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:29

Issue or comment Response

If one reason for closure is the buildings, the National Association for Small Schools sates that there is no evidence that good buildings give better education. Please don’t do this act of vandalism.

Kingswood has benefited from the investment of £261k, it has 71 empty places and 2 unsatisfactory OfSTED’s. Platts Heath has 17 empty spaces and a good OfSTED. If we had £261k spent on our buildings it would be very different. The buildings issue is not of our making and should not be the reason the school should close.

…. He can walk to school and buildings have not presented any barriers to his success. Why have KCC not maintained the buildings. We have contacted an architect to see what can be done with £261k on our site.

KCC have made promises in the past about improvements to the buildings at Platts Heath, staff have even seen plans that improve buildings.

The Consultation Process

I would like to ask ‘How long ago did the Before any proposals were put forward I proposal start?’ If 25% vacancy rate is the visited all schools in the area with less trigger for action, there is no direct reason than 100 pupils on roll. It was important for Platts Heath proposal. The 5-7% target to get the views of the headteachers and is far too strict and unfair. chairs of governors. At this stage there were no schools on the list. The visits alerted schools to the Primary Strategy and possible impact. I also spoke to local members. During the local elections a rumour went out that a decision had been made to close Platts Heath School. I met with the governing body of the school to reassure them that no decision had been made. However this has led to a lot of confusion.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:30

Issue or comment Response

I want to comment on the ‘leak’. As a local An early set of wide proposals were councillor the issue of schools with less discussed with cabinet members and than 100 pupils was raised at Lenham and during the following debate some other Parish Council meetings in April. schools were ‘put in the frame’. Platts Both Lenham and Headcorn schools are full; Heath may have been one of those Ulcombe and Platts Heath are not. I raised proposals that were put forward by my concerns and suggested that the members rather than officers. situation be monitored very carefully. As a result of this one candidate for the local ( election put out a statement that Platts

Heath was ‘in the frame’

By only providing 2 options either close or amalgamate, this demonstrates bias and omits other solutions. Results are good; lack of scope for development based on buildings has not put parents off sending their children to the school. They receive a summary of this meeting What papers do SOAB get to aid their and a summary of the consultation letter recommendation? plus every single bit of paper and recording of the public meeting. Members can and do make use of all the paperwork and tapes.

As a matter of public record I can assure Educational achievements at Platts Heath you that no decision has been made. well above average. Lack of investment has not been addressed. Has a decision been made to close Platts Heath? No member of this panel will make the decision. SOAB will make a recommendation, and a Member will make the decision. This could be:

1. drop the proposal 2. agree to slight derivation of proposal 3. another proposal could be made 4. issue public notice

Once a public notice has been issued it leaves KCC hands and passes to other decision makers.

1. How do we get answers to the questions We have done our best to answer most of not answered tonight, and when? the questions. You are putting responses 2. You say there are no plans for the school to our proposals. We can’t respond to site, but surely you do know? literally 1000’s of letters. Why was the planning application on Green Lane not renewed?

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:31

Community

Community – the village has lost its shop, and its pub. All that it has left is its school. If it loses the school the village will be destroyed. Many parents moved to the village because it was small.

I am passionate about education and against this closure. The school serves its community well especially the older population, with fairs, bazaars and productions. Parents have been involved in many ways to improve and enhance the school. Children don’t have the power to strike or make a case for themselves. Kingswood school please don’t support this proposal. Figures can be used to give the answers the speaker wants. The impact of this loss will fall on the children. Oast to Coast speaks about rural communities – where is the vision for this area?

I was responsible for the leaflet (as mentioned above) and have been proved right in every sense. I am opposed to closure; nothing I have heard has changed my mind. The school is heavily supported by the local community. This is a growth area, evidenced by buildings springing up everywhere. The point about lack of investment is well Closeness to home reduces the incidence of made, however KCC does invest in small bullying. Capitalise on the good and schools, the enhanced contribution is an concentrate on those less successful investment. schools. John Simmonds was invited to talk to the PTA about investment in Platts Heath community. If investment made what could we achieve? Give us the means to do even better. Don’t throw out what you think you don’t need anymore. It’s then gone forever!

We won’t just accept what we are told!

I question whether we don’t need as many schools, however we do need as many good schools as possible. If Platts Heath is closed, life in the village will alter. There are several teenagers in the village, no ASBOs, and no alcohol problems. The school keeps the village vibrant and well behaved. If we close the school we are paying for 4 street lights and the bin men! We are being punished for being small. ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:32

Small classes are better. What we are trying to do us cut waste out of the I oppose the destruction of my community system. It’s about not wasting money, as a young person. My experience has been and reinvesting in education as a result. that small class sizes achieve!

(Cathy Barry, Past Student)

Transport The road connecting Platts Heath and Transport between the two schools. Platts Kingswood schools is the worse piece of Heath pupils will be provided with road I travel, with every conceivable transport, there will therefore not be a hazard. This is a recipe for disaster. large increase in the amount of private car journeys. I am opposed to closure. The proposal document does not give the full facts as we have seen. The main issue is getting the children to school at Kingswood. I have spoken to the bus companies and the route would have to come past and Ulcombe School. This will surely make Ulcombe the nearest appropriate school?

Governing bodies of small schools should be encouraged. We are only 12 miles from Ashford. It seems that these proposals are all about money and not the educational needs of children. I will not put my 9 year old on a bus. Please keep the school open.

Management of School Places

The KCC case for fair funding is flawed. The growth areas are not in this area but KCC has a much larger slice of the pie. The in the Thames Gateway, Ashford and population is due to grow 7.2% or by 96,000 Hawkinge. In addition the age profile in and over a 25 year period increase by Kent is somewhat older than in other 250,000. It is folly to close schools, which authorities. This ‘gap’ in the profile is can’t be reopened. These proposals take no growing. I will make a supporting paper account of emigration from the EU or of the available following this meeting. asylum seeker population, both rising.

KCC policy not to close small rural schools KCC is in support of rural schools. There seems to have ‘gone out the window’. If is a presumption against the closure of small rural schools are removed parents will rural schools, and the authority has only have the choice of large efficient therefore to make a stronger case than schools, it is undemocratic to remove this that for urban schools. This is not a total choice. presumption and can be balanced against the use of resources.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:33

I moved to Platts Heath to send my children I dispute the suggestion that the school is to that school. I have picked apart the popular. It is only full in 2 year groups proposal and have come to the conclusion and took only 3 children into reception that a problem does not exist. The only last year. On the face of it this is not an error of judgement is that Platts Heath has oversubscribed school, neither is Ulcombe failed to promote its great achievement! or Kingswood.

Maidstone district is near enough to the growth area of Ashford to benefit. I make The argument for local community does the journey between Maidstone and Ashford not add up when taken with this issue of with my children each school day. Money travelling long distances to school. has been wasted on the amalgamation proposals. It is morally wrong to deny future parents the opportunity to have a Platts Heath education.

With the increasing housing planned for the South East is it sensible to close any Kent schools? Surely this is a cost saving measure not based on educational standards. Merging Ulcombe and Kingswood together would achieve larger savings.

When I moved to Ashford I found that the local school at Chart had been closed and that there were no spaces available at the amalgamated school at Great Chart!

I am not a Christian and my choice would be limited should Platts Heath close. Of the 5 other schools in the area, 3 are faith schools!

Platts Heath is one of 5 small villages in Lenham. Closure will effect all the children across all the schools. Please consider:

• Number of children available • Distance

• State of road

• Population data

• Harrietsham new housing

• 28 new houses in Lenham

• 16 family homes in Sandway • Break Brother at Lenham Heath • Maidstone Borough Framework suggestions for moderate developments • Major new developments planned for Lenham – 30 in 12 months – 100-200 homes later

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:34

These developments suggest strong reasons for keeping Platts Heath open.

I am new to the UK. If 5% target achieved I would have found it difficult to keep my children together, this could lead to splitting up families.

The lack of children in Year R last year, at 3 We are listening. That is what tonight is was a ‘blip’ year. The argument that by all about. We are taking notes. The ‘blip’ amalgamating the two schools we will get a year indicates that there is no guarantee larger good school does not take account of with the amount of spare places in Kent, the different ethos and culture. Our choice that the school can predict its intake. of school is Platts Heath. We did not choose Vacancy rates are set to rise to 16,000. Kingswood. Children will suffer from the 2/3 of all primary schools will have vacant disruption amalgamation will cause, places/are not full. What you are saying especially those in Year 6. is don’t take this issue to Platts Heath.

We must look at 200,000 Kent children The triangle of Platts Heath, Kingswood and and their needs. Ulcombe is not a natural association. Most children from Platts Heath will not come to

Kingswood.

In 2007, when my son is due to start at It is about the children. It is about giving Platts Heath the school will be the staff best opportunities so that they oversubscribed and I will be lucky to get a can give the children their best. place. • Variable fluctuations should be taken into account We are removing surplus places from • Benefits for staff have been quoted, but other schools. For example 175 spare proposal states best educational places removed with an amalgamation of outcomes for children – which is it? an infants and juniors. It’s important that • Planning applications have been made we create viable schools that have a by the school, which would allow future, not create even smaller schools.

expansion

Why are you not considering other schools Officers must address immediate or with higher surpluses? current surplus capacity. All latest housing projects have been factored in when making proposals.

As the proposal will not achieve the It is not easy to reduce capacity as this is intended aim of reducing the surplus at governed by legal framework. Kingswood, why not reduce the PAN at Kingswood?

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:35

School Performance, Staff and Pastoral Care

Popularity of the school is based on strong reputations, with staff being a credit to their profession. It is a close caring environment with strong social skills development. A sustainable school is guided on principles of care. Care breeds respect. Platts Heath is a good example. How can people take a role in the community once the school is gone?

As a foster carer for KCC, I have to make I have a great respect for him and for his very careful decisions about the placement work with foster children. The best the child in my care. Platts Heath was the attributes from both schools will be best place to develop this child – right combined to provide a strong and culture complementary to good foster care excellent single school. and healing for a damaged child. Therapeutic foster care is funded by KCC. A top national psychologist has acknowledged that Platts Heath has contributed to a remarkable change in children well beyond expectations. You are ignoring this key skill. You are undermining Social Services and children in their care.

My son started at a different school, but was bullied. He moved to Platts Heath in Year 5 and is happier, more confident and feels safe. He was identified with behaviour and attention problems at his last school, but since joining Platts Heath has been shown to be gifted and talented and expected to achieve level 5’s and a grammar school place.

Children will learn when they are happy. I moved my child from another school to Platts Heath. The change is massive, from below average achievement to above average in 12 months. It’s not about money and buildings, it’s about children.

What will happen to the headteachers and their jobs? A temporary governing body would manage the appointment of a new headteacher for the amalgamated school after advertising nationally. Both headteachers could apply, if they wished to.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:36

Appendix 5

By: Platts Heath School.

To: Members of Kent County Council (KCC) and School Organisation Advisory Board (SOAB).

Subject: Proposal to amalgamate Platts Heath and Kingswood Schools.

Summary: This report outlines our response to Kent County Council’s proposal to amalgamate Platts Heath with Kingswood. Providing detailed information from parents, staff, governors and members of the community, the report presents our case for keeping Platts Heath School open. ______

Background

1. The DfES require KCC to report on schools with a surplus capacity exceeding 25%. Applying their criteria, Platts Heath at 18.68% should not be reviewed.

Platts Heath has a net capacity of 91 with 74 on the roll. KCC’s strategy to review schools exceeding 7% surplus capacity means our school is being considered for amalgamation on the basis of a 10 pupil deficit.

Capacity in Maidstone District

2. KCC aims to reduce surplus capacity to 5%. Based on current figures this would equate to a 12 pupil deficit. At Platts Heath we are “bucking the trend” and our rising roll shows 9 new entrants in September 2006 and 13 (our maximum allowable) for September 2007.

Sustaining and increasing numbers is crucial. We must be proactive and consider how to promote our school effectively. Establishing strong links with nurseries / pre-schools and raising our profile in the wider community are priorities.

Proposal for Amalgamation of Platts Heath and Kingswood Community Primary Schools

3. 46% of pupils are drawn from within 1 mile of Platts Heath. 34 children can walk to school compared to 2 under amalgamation.

The average cost per pupil at Platts Heath is £2,941. Whilst higher than the county average, it is in line with all primary schools which have less than 210 pupils. Average cost per pupil at the “new” school would still be above the county average as it would qualify for some element of Curriculum Protection funding.

The Audit Commission has calculated each surplus place costs £250 per pupil to maintain. Allowing for KCC’s recommended 5% surplus, this would equate to just £3000 per annum.

Platts Heath is financially viable. At the end of the financial year 2005/06, we had a rollover surplus of £8k carried forward to 2006/07. A compliant 3 year budget has been submitted to KCC which predicts a rollover surplus will be maintained for each of the three years to 2008/09. There are no outstanding high priority maintenance items at the school. Ofsted agree Platts Heath is “an effective school which offers good value for money”.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:37

As KCC own our school, they are responsible for maintaining and improving the buildings. Our premises are described as “poor,” and their condition is being used as a key issue in this proposal. This perception is not shared with parents who consider the school’s accommodation to be welcoming, versatile and proportionate. They choose Platts Heath above larger schools with more facilities, believing the environment and quality of education to be more important.

• Platts Heath is fronted by an attractive Victorian Schoolhouse. In line with Kent Primary Strategy, we operate a 4 class structure with a maximum of two year groups to each class. We do not bridge Key Stages One and Two. (YR/1, Y2, Y3/4 and Y5/6).

• The reference to a classroom with a maximum capacity of 13 is used only by Y2. It offers proportionate and flexible accommodation. The partition separating this classroom from YR/1 may be drawn back to create a large area which presents opportunities for joint learning and whole school assemblies.

• The report does not mention St Edmunds Hall (88m distance) which the school has the opportunity to use daily. Pupils will soon benefit from enhanced facilities as community efforts have funded improvements of £48,000. Platts Heath intends to use this for a Breakfast Club and extended After School activities.

• There is provision for disabled children. All classrooms are wheelchair accessible as are the dimensions of corridors and doorways.

School Effectiveness – Performance

Platts Heath delivers high quality education. Our PANDA shows continuous improvement and our SAT’s results for 2006 are outstanding.

• Key Stage 1 Level 2 Science 100% Reading 92.29% Writing 92.29% Maths 92.29%

• Key Stage 2 Level 4 Level 5 Maths 100% 60% Science 100% 70% English 90% 20%

The performance of our 11 year olds is exceptional with many pupils achieving Level 5, a result usually expected of Secondary students. From a class of 10 children, 6 out of 7 passed the 11+ and are now going on to Grammar School.

Kent’s Towards 2010 vision is to “ensure that the results of our 7 and 11 year olds at Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 improve faster than the national rate.” Results at Platts Heath are already well above the national average.

School Effectiveness - Culture

We pride ourselves on promoting a strong moral culture and consider this as important as academic success. Children are encouraged to show respect, kindness and consideration for others. They are nurtured to be responsible, trustworthy citizens. In response they are happy, motivated, well behaved children who clearly feel confidant and secure in their environment.

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:38

Platts Heath is recommended by KCC Social Services, Fostering and Adoption as a school particularly suited to Looked After Children (LAC). The Therapeutic Re-Parenting Programme (TRP) funded by KCC credits Platts Heath as being 1 of 2 schools in Kent with a proven record of making significant contributions to the emotional and academic development of children who have experienced the most severe cases of neglect and abuse.

The Rationale for Amalgamation

There is no synergy between the communities of Platts Heath and Kingswood. The schools are 2.8 miles apart and separated by the hamlet of Fairbourne Heath. Platts Heath is within the Parish of Lenham and considered an extension of that community and is, also, part of the Len Valley Benefice of Lenham, Harrietsham, Ulcombe and . Kingswood forms part of the Kingswood and Broomfield parish.

Implementing this proposal in September 2008 would mean the 34 pupils currently in years 4, 5, and 6 will have moved to Secondary School. With the school under threat of closure, they are unlikely to be replaced. The remaining 42 pupils would combine with Kingswood’s roll of 69 creating a “new” school with 111 pupils against a maximum capacity of 150. This represents a surplus capacity of 26% which is higher than the DfES recommendation of 25% and higher than Platts Heath’s current surplus capacity of 18.68%

Amalgamating Platts Heath with Kingswood will not resolve Kingswood’s 50.71% surplus capacity. Similarly, selecting Ulcombe as an alternative will not impact on their 43.75% deficit. We note there are no proposals to address this. A more realistic scenario is that the remaining 42 pupils from Platts Heath will fragment and enrol at a number of other local schools. A successful school will have closed and the significant surplus capacity at Kingswood and Ulcombe would remain.

Capital

Platts Heath School requires no Capital Expenditure

The premises at Platts Heath can not be expanded but they are conducive to improvement and development. We strive to provide the best possible learning environment and have engaged the support of Artlab Architects Limited, a highly regarded local company with expertise in school projects. They are providing the following service free of charge:

• A full on-site assessment of current provision and facilities.

• Consideration of adaptations required to meet Government legislation and Educational initiatives (including implications of the DDA).

• Ideas for building enhancement and best use of space.

• Suggestions to further extend links with the community and enhance community facilities through better use of the school site.

Artlab have already visited our school and we are awaiting their report. We are confidant this will help us deliver our vision whereby we can continue to enhance community provision and drive Government initiatives.

In comparison, we note £261,000 has been spent on Kingswood School, despite having 71 empty places and two unoccupied classrooms. A further £80,000 is now required for outstanding high priority maintenance items.

Transport Implications ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:39

The transport implications brought about by amalgamation are immense. The substantial cost to families, KCC and the environment has not been considered.

• Kingswood School is located in a densely populated area. The impact of increased traffic to residents, parking and congestion has been ignored.

• 34 children come from within 1 mile of Platts Heath and can walk to school. Amalgamation will mean only 2 children will be able to do this.

• 40 pupils are attracted from 12 neighbouring villages and hamlets which are scattered and remote. Transport for 72 children will be logistically impractical.

• Platts Heath and Kingswood are separated by the Lenham Road. This narrow country lane has no pavement and is not on a bus route. It presents dangerous driving conditions and in winter is often impassable. Amalgamation means a further 72 children will use this road.

• Transporting 72 children from Platts Heath to Kingswood involves substantial costs. Given the nature of the Lenham Road a double decker bus would be impractical and 2 smaller coaches would be required. These quotations obtained from 2 leading bus companies are based on providing just one coach. Both quotations will double if 2 two coaches are required, regardless of the number of seats actually used.

Quotation 1: £500 per seat per academic year.

Quotation 2: £30,400 per coach per academic year.

Both companies have confirmed that there is no waiting area in Platts Heath suitable for 72 children. They also confirm Lenham Road to be unsuitable for buses in winter. An alternative route would be via Liverton Hill and Ulcombe Hill which present equally difficult conditions. Buses would pass Ulcombe School en route to Kingswood.

Community Impact

The School is an integral part of Platts Heath and the hub of village life. It is the last remaining piece of village infrastructure since the closure of its shop and Public House. Valued by the community, the impact of closing the school and ending 130 years of history should not be underestimated. A petition organised by residents has attracted 1200 signatures. It clearly demonstrates their opposition.

• The School makes a significant contribution to village life. The PTA is responsible for organising the majority of social gatherings which are always well supported. Closing Platts Heath School will mean the end of the Summer Fete, Harvest Festival, Quiz evening, Fun Day, Christmas Play and Christmas Fayre.

• The Community actively supports its school with 46% of children coming from within the village. It is the schools use of St Edmunds Hall which motivated the community to secure funding for improvements. Listening to children read or showing them around their farm are examples of their contribution to school life.

Primary Strategy Implications

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:40

Our proposal to keep Platts Heath School open is consistent with recommendations 14, 17, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 29 of The Kent Primary Strategy 2006.

Summary

The Primary Strategy (R28) insists that “In making any proposal for closure, the capacity of a school to provide an effective educational and social provision for each child should be the prime consideration.

Amalgamating Platts Heath with Kingswood is not in the best interests of our children. The perceived financial benefits of addressing our surplus capacity are far outweighed by the substantial costs of providing transport. The schools unique culture has not been considered and our outstanding academic achievement has been overlooked. The closure of a highly successful village school has been grossly underestimated.

We must put our children first. They deserve to be given the opportunity to flourish and to continue their education in the best possible environment. They need to be part of a school which is supported by its community, nurtured by its culture and which delivers excellent standards of education. They need to be part of Platts Heath School.

Recommendation

Platts Heath School must remain open

ed&libreports/2006/180906d B2:41