Issue - items at meetings - Options for providing additional school places in 2013 and 2014

Report of the Interim Director of Children’s Services (to follow)

Please Note: This item will be circulated following the consultation period which expires on 4 January 2013.

            RESOLVED – (1) That the Children and Young People Committee endorses the preferred option of expanding Aldrington Church of England Primary School by one form of entry from September 2013;

            (2) That the Children and Young People Committee agree to the publication of the required statutory notice to progress this proposal;

            (3) That the Children and Young People Committee recognises the concerns of the board of governors of Stabford Community Infant School as expressed in their response to the consultation and the council commits to working with them to address these concerns;

            (4) That he Children and Young People Committee does not agree the expansion of Stanford Infant School unless/until the Ministry of Defence agrees to release/sell an appropriate amount of adjacent land to allow adequste outdoor space for children attending that school and the satisfactory resolution  of the other concerns referred to in (3) above.

            Note: The special circumstances for non-compliance with Council Procedure Rule 3, Access to Information Procedural Rule 5 and Section 100b (4) of the Local Government Act 972 (items not considered unless the agenda is open to inspection at least five days in advance of the meeting) are that the timeframe for the statutory consultation process did not expire until 4 January 2013 which was after the report deadline.

50.1         The Committee considered a report of the Interim Director of Children’s Services setting out the options for providing additional school places in September 2013.

50.2    The Strategic Commissioner, Planning and Contracts stated that current and projected pupil numbers indicated that there was an immediate and ongoing need for additional school places in the city as a whole and that the need was most acute in the west of the city. To meet the projected future growth in primary pupil numbers the authority should be looking to provide a minimum of 120 places in Hove, and a further 30 places in the south of Brighton by 2014.

50.3    The Committee had agreed at its meeting on 15 October 2012 on the preferred option for providing an additional two forms of entry that were needed by September 2013. The purpose of this report was to advise of the outcome of the initial consultation undertaken in November and December 2012 and to seek the Committees’ endorsement to proceeding with the publication of the necessary statutory notices. Representations received up to and including 7 January 2013 had been taken into account in preparing the report. Additionally, detailed background documents detailing the consultation process and detailed responses received had been lodged in the Members Rooms.

50.4    The Legal Adviser to the Committee explained that the Committee were not being asked to make a decision on the expansion of the schools in question, they were only being asked to agree to the process proceeding with to the next stage of formal consultation via the publication of statutory notices. This was a statutory requirement and statutory notices had to be published on set timescales before any final decision could be taken on whether the expansion could go ahead. In this case the decision to expand could not be taken by this Committee, as this issue was reserved to full Council. If the committee agreed to proceed with the recommendation the matter would be referred to full Council for a decision on the proposed  extension, after the publication of the notices on the date set out in the report.

50.5    The Chair, Councillor Shanks referred to the notification (immediately prior to the meeting) of a proposed Joint Labour and Co-operative Group and Conservative Group amendment, late advice of the amendment was very disappointing in view of the fact that cross party briefing sessions had taken place in order address any queries and concerns. Copies of the amendment were made available to all members of the Committee and the Chair confirmed that it would be considered during debate.

            The Joint Labour and Cooperative Group and Conservative amendment (to recommendations in the circulated report) read as follows:

Proposer – Councillor Pissaridou

Seconder – Councillor Wealls

(1) Paragraph 2.1 That the Children and Young People Committee endorses the preferred option of expanding Aldrington Church of England Primary School by one form of entry from September 2013;

(2) Paragraph 2.2 That the Children and Young People Committee agree to the publication of the required statutory notice to progress this proposal;

(3) Paragraph 2.3 That the Children and Young People Committee recognizes the concerns of the Board of Governors of Stanford Community Infant School as expressed in their response to the consultation and the Council commits to working with them to address these concerns; and

(4) Paragraph 2.4 The Children and Young People Committee does not agree the expansion of Stanford Infant School unless/ until the Ministry of Defence agrees to release/ sell an appropriate amount of adjacent land to allow adequate outdoor space for children attending that school and the satisfactory resolution of the other concerns referred to in 2.3.

50.6    The Legal Adviser to the Committee confirmed in the interests of clarity, that should the proposed amendment be agreed, the consequence of it would be, that only those proposals relating to the expansion of Aldrington Church of England Primary School by one form of entry would go forward for approval by Council and the number if additional school places being sought would not be achieved by September 2013. The powers of the local education authority were not such that it could address any demand for additional places by building a new school.

50.6    In answer to questions, the Head of Capital Strategy explained that there were insufficient school places in those areas of the city where there was greatest pressure, the main reason for putting forward the proposal in respect of Stanford Infant School was in response to the need for additional places in that locality. Although there was considerable opposition to the proposal, there had also been a comparable level of expressions of support. There was an acute need for local places in that part of the city and that needed to be balanced against any other considerations. Without the additional places this proposal would provide it was highly likely that parents would have to travel some considerable distance across the city in order to access school places for their very young children. A number of children were likely to need to journey to Coombe Road Primary School or West Blatchington Primary School as the closest schools where there would be spaces. If the recommendations in the officers report were agreed the proposed building works could proceed at the same time as the statutory process and would provide greater clarity for those who had expressed concerns. Discussions which had taken place with the Roman Catholic Diocese (its own admission authority) into the possibility of it creating additional places had not been successful to date, indeed, the diocese had indicated that it was unwilling to do so.

50.7    Councillor Lepper referred to difficulties which had arisen in the past at a time when the admission number at Balfour Infant School had been greater by one class intake than that for the then junior school. This had led to a number of pupils not being able to transfer from the infant school to the junior school, she had always understood that measures would be taken in order to avoid this happening in future and asked therefore whether/what arrangements had been put into place to expand Stanford Junior School should the proposal to expand the infant school be agreed. It was explained that discussions would be carried out formally once agreement had been obtained to proceed to the next stage, publication of the statutory notices. Councillor Lepper considered that such discussions should have reached a more advanced stage in tandem with the proposals for the infant school.

            Discussion, Debate and Decision Making Process

50.8    Councillor Pissaridou stated that she whilst she had sympathy for parents who might need to travel to access their nearest school having had the opportunity to visit Stanford Infant School the previous week, she considered that it was untenable to create additional places there at the present time taking into consideration the size and configuration of the existing site. She did not consider that expansion on this site was an option until/unless the Ministry of Defence who owned land next to the school could be persuaded to release that land. The existing outside space was inadequate in her view.

50.9    Councillor Pissaridou further stated that an overcrowded school with an overcrowded playground was not in the interests of any child. Parents of children already attending the school and the governors had significant and in her view valid concerns in this respect, supported by the large number of signatories to the one of the petitions; these concerns should be headed. Although she had been advised that signatories to the petition in support of expansion of the school also appeared to live locally, Councillor Pissaridou considered having visited the school that a compelling case not to expand at the present time had been made.

50.10  Rachel Travers, Amaze stated that her children who attended Goldstone Primary School had staggered lunchtimes, this could result in very young children having insufficient time to eat their lunch, lack of playground amenity space was also a problem. When she had referred to this issue at an earlier meeting of the Committee she had been advised that there was no requirement as to the minimum amount of outdoor space which should be made available. She considered it might be helpful if this could be confirmed. The Strategic Commissioner, Planning and Contracts confirmed that this was the case and that this was not specified by the DfE.

50.11  Andrew Jeffery, Parent Forum stated that all parents wanted what they perceived to be in the best interests of their children. Clearly parents of children already attending the school had major concerns regarding the pressures on space and potential safety issues which would result if additional pupils were admitted, the school governors had also expressed similar concerns.

50.12  Councillors Gilbey and Lepper concurred with Councillor Pissaridou stating that other options should have been investigated, for instance the setting up of free schools/academies. Negotiations and investigations into all options should continue. The Strategic Commissioner, Planning and Contracts confirmed that on-going negotiations would continue to take place with all interested parties in any event.

50.13  Councillor Gilbey stated that as lunchtimes/playtimes etc were already staggered to bring more children into an already cramped space was unacceptable. Even if you created more space by extending the existing buildings upwards you would not be able to extend the existing playground which would then need to accommodate 30 further children.

50.14  Councillor Buckley echoed the Chair’s expression of disappointment considering that children’s education was being used as a political football. The necessity for creating additional places and rationale for the proposals before the Committee that day had been clearly set out. Councillor Powell concurred in that view.

50.15  Councillor Wealls stated that he had wrestled with this issue following his visit to Stanford Infant School the previous week, the amendments had been put forward immediately prior to Committee following discussions in order to try to seek a way forward. Notwithstanding that he entirely understood the need to provide additional school places and the potential implications if they were not, he did not consider that extending Stanford Infant School at the present time represented a viable option. He considered that the consultation process had been rushed and had in consequence been confused and confusing.

50.16  Councillor Wealls further stated, that, if the adjacent Ministry of Defence land could be made available then, expansion of Stanford Infant School could be considered for 2014. On balance Members of the Committee putting forward the amendment had considered it necessary to reject the expansion proposals as they stood, rather than to agree them in principle because to do so, would in their view result in uncertainty; discussions needed to continue to resolve the outstanding issues.

50.17  Councillor Simson referred to the proposed expansion of Aldrington Church of England Primary School by one form of entry (30 pupils per year), about which the Committee appeared to be in agreement. She enquired whether it would be possible to ensure that the majority of places would be made available to local children. The Strategic Commissioner, Planning and Contracts explained that the school could not be compelled to do this as the diocese acted as its own admission authority and applied its own admission criteria. However, the parish boundary and local catchment area were broadly aligned and increased numbers of local children who met those admission criteria and took up places at Aldrington would ease the pressure on places at other schools in that locality.

50.18  Councillor Simson also referred to Cottesmore St Mary’s Roman Catholic School which was located in relatively close proximity to Stanford Infant School. Notwithstanding the stance currently being taken by the Catholic Diocese she enquired whether negotiations were continuing to see whether it could be persuaded to create some additional places at that school. It was confirmed that discussions would be ongoing.

50.19  The Chair, Councillor Shanks re-iterated her concerns in respect of the proposed amendment, which if approved would result in insufficient additional school places being created where they were needed in the city by September 2013. This would result in a lot of parents having to make convoluted cross city travel arrangements (perhaps two bus journeys in each direction) to take and collect very young children to/from school, it was also probable there would be a consequential increase in the number of infant school (4+) appeals. If the proposals had been permitted to proceed to the second stage of the statutory process as recommended in the report, there would have been the opportunity for all current concerns to be fully addressed and resolved.

50.20  The Committee voted on the recommendations set out in the circulated report, which were lost on a vote of 6 to 4.

50.21  The Committee then proceeded to vote on the joint Labour and Cooperative Group and Conservative amendment proposed by Councillor Pissaridou and seconded by Councillor Wealls. On a vote of 10-0 resolutions 1and 2 set out below were agreed. Resolutions 3 and were agreed on a vote of 6 to 4. The wording of the amendment which was agreed in its totality is set in Paragraphs 50.22 and 50.23 below. It was noted that the consequence of agreeing these recommendations was that only resolutions (1) and (2) relating to Aldrington Church of England Primary School could be referred to Council for approval to the next stage which would enable the required statutory notice to be published in order to progress that proposal.

50.22  RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL – (1) That the Children and Young People Committee endorses the preferred option of expanding Aldrington Church of England Primary School by one form of entry from September 2013;

            (2) That the Children and Young People Committee agree to the publication of the required statutory notice to progress this proposal;

50.23  THE COMMITTEE FURTHER RESOLVED THAT - (3) That the Children and Young People Committee recognizes the concerns of the Board of governors of Stanford Community Infant School as expressed in their response to the consultation and the Council commits to working with them to address these concerns; and

            (4) The Children and Young People Committee does not agree the expansion of Stanford Infant School unless/until the Ministry of Defence agrees to release/sell an appropriate amount of adjacent land to allow adequate outdoor space for children attending that school, and the satisfactory resolution of the other concerns referred to in (3) above.

            Note 1: Councillors Shanks (Chair), Buckley, A Kitcat and Powell voted against Resolutions 3 and 4 as set out above. These resolutions were  however agreed on a vote of 6 to 4.

            Note 2: Councillor Buckley referred to the fact that she had been challenged as to whether as a potential future parent of a child at Stanford Infant school it was appropriate to speak and vote on this issue. She was given unequivocal legal advice that this did not constitute a prejudical interest and she therefore remained present at the meeting during consideration and determination of this item.