Archived decisions

Contact: George Heller ext 6518

1 Summary

1.1 The following is sought:

1.2 To note responses from consultations

1.3 To recommend to the Executive Member for Education that:

· The reorganisation of Whitedown and Meadow Schools be agreed in principle

· The new school be formed either from the closure of both schools or from the closure of Whitedown School and the statutory enlargement of the Meadow School

· The new school should have two full-time equivalent places for pre-school children

· The new school should have an average of six places for students aged between 16 and 19

· Subject to the agreement of the school's governors, 10 resourced places be established at Mill Chase Secondary School, Bordon

· Alternative funding strategies to Targeted Capital Fund should be pursued in the event that the Targeted Capital Fund bid should fail

2 Reason

2.1 To establish a 2 to 19 school for pupils with complex learning difficulties to serve the area of east Hampshire.

3 Other options considered and rejected

3.1 The status quo

4 Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or a member or officer consulted - not applicable.

5 Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - not applicable.

6 Reasons for the matter being dealt with if urgent - not applicable.

Approved by Date of decision

Councillor D Allen 23 November 2001

Contact: George Heller, Deputy County Education Officer 01962 846518

Sheila Arney, ACEO: Inclusion 01962 846386

1 Summary

1.1 This report informs Members of the outcome of consultations on proposals about possible changes to the organisation of Whitedown School in Alton and Meadow School in Bordon and the possible setting up of resourced provision in mainstream schools in the area.

1.2 Full details of the consultation are in the Appendix which also includes a summary of all correspondence and documentation received. Members visited Whitedown and Meadow Schools on 24 September 2001. Issues raised during those visits are covered in section 8.

1.3 This report highlights the main issues raised during the consultations and Members are asked to advise the Executive Member: Education of their conclusions on matters outlined at the end of this report, in order that a decision may be made about the future organisation of special education in East Hampshire.

2 A Special School for Pupils with Complex Learning Difficulties

2.1 The consultations have shown very strong support from the communities of both schools for the concept of setting up one combined special school to serve the general area of East Hampshire. This school would cater for pupils with complex learning difficulties encompassing autism, learning difficulties with language impairment and physical/sensory disability, profound and multiple disabilities as well as emotional problems arising from learning difficulties. The school would also serve as a resource to provide outreach support to local mainstream schools. There is total acceptance that such a school would need to be established on the Meadow School site in Bordon. There is no suitable alternative county-owned site in the area.

2.2 It is a tribute to both schools that the acceptance of such a concept, centring on the bringing together of pupils with a very wide spectrum of learning difficulties, has received such wide recognition. Governors and staff have worked closely with families to discuss the implications of change and to demonstrate the potential improvements for the education of all children with special educational needs (SEN) in the area.

2.3 There is also unanimous support for post-16 provision to be part of the school and for there to be some early years provision. Both these aspects are discussed later in sections 4 and 5.

3 Size of Proposed School

3.1 Members of the Education Committee, at their meeting on 29 June 2001, were advised that accommodation schedules had been drawn up for a special school with 120 pupils on roll and for one with 150 on roll. The eventual number would be dependent upon the success or otherwise of establishing resourced specialist provision for primary-aged pupils at two local primary schools and for 10 secondary-aged pupils at a local secondary school.

3.2 The governors of Mill Chase Community School in Bordon are meeting on 20 November to consider the establishment at their school of 10 places to be resourced for pupils with special educational needs (SEN). Primary schools in East Hampshire were invited to express an interest in their schools being resourced similarly for pupils with SEN but it has not proved possible to secure agreement.

3.3 In the light of the above developments, a special school catering for 140 pupils with complex learning difficulties is proposed as the possible way forward, dependent on the outcome of the Mill Chase governors' meeting.

3 Early Years

3.1 Currently pre-school children in the area who are identified as having significant special educational needs may be offered a place at either Bushy Leaze Early Years Centre in Alton or in the nursery at Whitedown School whichever is more appropriate to their needs. Bushy Leaze has two inclusive early years classes and is funded to provide for 30 full time equivalent (FTE) children, 15 of whom are placed by the SEN Service due to their special educational needs, the other 15 being mainstream nursery children from the local area. A small number of children with significant special educational needs from the Petersfield area attend Acorns Opportunity Group in Petersfield.

4.2 Whitedown School, which is registered with the DfES as a 2 to 19 school for pupils with severe learning difficulties, admits a very small number of very young children aged between 2 and 4. During the consultations at Whitedown, clear support was expressed for provision to be made at the proposed school to encompass a number of early years places, reflecting current provision there. There is similar support from Meadow that there should be such provision at the proposed school.

4.3 The headteacher of Bushy Leaze Early Years Centre wrote to the County Education Officer in September questioning the development of early years provision at the proposed school, citing the County Council's Early Years SEN Strategic Plan which "commits to the inclusion of children into mainstream settings". The letter points out that any suggestion of opening an inclusive nursery or of establishing a special nursery class at the proposed school would have very serious implications for Bushy Leaze. A request for consultation with the governors was put forward and a meeting took place on 15 October 2001 at which support was expressed for the establishment of a small number of pre-school places subject to a number of conditions (see pages 14 and 15 of the Appendix).

4.4 The headteacher and governors of Bushy Leaze Early Years Centre are right to highlight the principles underlying the County Council's Early Years SEN Strategic Plan; there is continued support within Hampshire County Council for the concept of an inclusive early years centre such as the one at Bushy Leaze. Indeed, that format is being replicated for the proposed Winchester Early Years Centre (to be formed from the amalgamation of Medecroft Opportunity Centre and the St Bede Primary School nursery unit) as well as for the proposed Eastleigh Early Years Centre on the Nightingale Primary School site.

4.5 Bearing in mind, however, the concerns of parents of very young children at Whitedown School who have valued the benefit to their children of being educated in an all-age SLD school with all the advantages of nursing and associated therapies, it would seem sensible to establish at the proposed school on the Meadow site a small number of places for children aged between 2 and 4 (up to 4 attending part-time). This small provision, which in buildings, curricular and organisational terms can be linked with provision for pupils aged 4 to 5, would provide options for different children, and would not disadvantage Bushy Leaze or undermine the County Council's policies.

5 Post-16

5.1 As has been mentioned, there is unanimous support for post-16 provision to be included in the proposed school. This would replicate current provision at Whitedown School (Meadow has no pupils beyond the age of 16). The average number of students aged between 16 and 19 at Whitedown over the years has been six.

5.2 There is a range of post-16 provision for pupils who leave Meadow School at age 16; these range from colleges across Hampshire to employment, either part-time or full-time. It will be important to brief local colleges, for example Alton College, on the county council's inclusion policies in order that colleges may be in a position further to develop courses appropriate to the needs of students with special educational needs including those with severe learning difficulties. There will continue to be a need to provide, as part of the proposed school, appropriate facilities and educational opportunities for post-16 students who would not find it easy to access college courses at age 16 plus.

5 Meadow School: Consultations

6.1 In supporting the proposed reorganisation, staff, governors and parents have argued that the process should involve the closure of Whitedown School and Meadow's own enlargement through due statutory process. The Whitedown community is equally clear that the proposed school should be formed from the closure of both the schools. Issues relating to either process are discussed in sections 9, 10 and 11.

6.2 As Members will see from the consultation meetings' summary in the appendix, Meadow School's view centres upon its track record on management and management of change. The school has been preparing for reorganisation through discussion with Whitedown School and officers for the past two years and sees itself as prepared for the changes which would involve the education of pupils with SLD, PMLD and challenging behaviour. There is a clear commitment to the vision statement (see pages 21-23 in the appendix) on the part of all staff, governors and parents. Governors have been pro-active in formulating a vision for the future of special education in this part of Hampshire; governors have taken the initiative in working to reassure parents about their children's future education.

6.3 Staff, governors and parents rightly point to the very good Ofsted report which points to the high quality of the school's management and leadership. The school highlights its development in recent years in terms of admitting children with more complex learning difficulties, for example autism.

6.4 There are concerns that, during the long timescale to the establishment of the proposed school, staff expertise and knowledge should not be lost so every effort should be made to enable staff to be retained within a new structure. It would also be important to reassure parents in the meantime that there will be no adverse effects on their children's education. It will be important, therefore, to minimise the impact of change upon the daily workings of the school.

6.5 In the school's view, keeping the Meadow School open and enlarging it in order to absorb the Whitedown pupil community would facilitate the retention of its already high standards.

6 Whitedown School: Consultations

7.1 In supporting the concept of the proposed school, Whitedown parents, staff and governors are clear that both schools should close. Fundamental is their view that the proposed school is a new school which will be catering for a very wide range of pupils with complex learning difficulties including those with severe learning difficulties (SLD) and profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD), needs for which Meadow has relatively little or no experience.

7.2 In the view of Whitedown, the proposed school would not be able adequately to cater for children at the extreme end of learning difficulty without there being a unified start from the outset and fairness and equal opportunities for all staff to apply for appropriate posts within a new structure. Whitedown recommends that all staff in both schools should be considered for all posts. In the meantime, despite the long timescale, it would be important to make every effort to retain vital staff expertise, in particular for children at the severer end of the learning difficulty spectrum. Whatever process is to be adopted, the needs of pupils should be paramount and the right staff mix established to meet those needs. The Whitedown children, whether at Whitedown or in the proposed school, can only benefit from a team of staff encompassing teachers and support colleagues; this continuity would be essential to the success of the proposed school.

7.3 Also essential, as can be seen from the Whitedown consultation summary, would be the establishment of a new temporary governing body to oversee all matters to do with the reorganisation in preference to the current Meadow School governing body, possibly enlarged, undertaking this task.

7 Members' Visit

8.1 Some 20 Members visited Whitedown and Meadow Schools on 24 September. At both schools there was an opportunity for Members to be addressed by the schools' representatives, including staff, governors and parents.

8.2 Both visits were an opportunity for Members to receive details of the schools' vision for the future and an explanation of the issues to be taken on board.

8.3 There was appreciation of the need to re-provide the Whitedown hydrotherapy pool in the proposed school and of the desirability of the proposed school continuing the provision of outreach to local schools. Both schools emphasised the importance of retaining staff skills and expertise during the run-up to reorganisation in the context of national and local staff recruitment and retention difficulties.

8.4 There was also clear expression of views from both schools on how the reorganisation should be put into effect, i.e. Whitedown arguing for the closure of both schools, Meadow putting a case for its own enlargement. Crucial to the eventual success of reorganisation would be the establishment of a procedure which would generate successful change.

8 Reorganisation Process: Governing Body

9.1 If, in bringing the two schools together Meadow School remained open and were enlarged, and Whitedown were closed, the Meadow governing body would remain in operation and would undertake full responsibility for the range of work involved in seeing the reorganisation processes to their conclusion. This would include developing a staff structure for teaching and support staff within an indicative budget, making appointments to vacancies and overseeing all matters to do with the new school project plan.

9.2 Currently Meadow School has a governing body of 13 members with no vacancies; membership comprises four parents, three governors appointed by the LEA, one teacher governor, one staff governor, the headteacher and three co-opted members. Whatever the size of school, governors are able to choose between a constitution of 9, 10, 13 or 17 so Meadow would, in the above scenario, have the opportunity to appoint four more governors thereby providing an opportunity to appoint colleagues from the Whitedown governing body with experience of governing a school with SLD and PMLD pupils. In the view of Whitedown, however, that would not be sufficient or appropriate recognition of the need to establish a new governing body from the outset representing the total range of SEN in the proposed school.

9.3 Another factor to be borne in mind is that the current White Paper consultation on school governance refers to the possible deregulation of governors whereby the number of governors in the proposed school could rise to at least 20. The underlying purpose is to maximise the number of parent governors and to reduce some of the other governor categories. This could come into effect from September 2002. Deregulation, therefore, might provide an opportunity for the significant enlargement of the Meadow governing body if Whitedown closed.

9.4 If both schools were to close, a temporary governing body would be established from the outset with fair representation from both schools' communities. It would be this governing body's role to oversee all matters relating to the development of the proposed new school. Its first task would be the appointment of the headteacher following which the governors would, in consultation with the headteacher, draw up a staff structure based on an indicative school budget. There would then be consultations with Education Personnel Services about staffing procedures for the new school. The temporary governing body would be responsible for all arrangements to do with staff and support staff appointments.

9.5 Currently a temporary governing body comprises either 10 or 11 members. The first stage would be the establishment of a core group comprising 3 parents appointed by the LEA and a further 2 governors nominated by county councillors. The parents would be of children likely to attend the school or, failing that, parents of children of compulsory school age. This core group would then be supplemented by the headteacher (on appointment); a teacher; 2 co-opted governors; an additional co-opted minor authority governor and, finally, one member of staff (employed at the school but not a teacher).

9 Previous Reorganisations in Hampshire

10.1 During the consultations, officers have been asked if lessons can be learned from previous reorganisations and the processes adopted to implement them.

10.2 Decisions on the reorganisations in Fareham and Aldershot/Farnborough were based largely on schools' quality. In 1998 Foxbury Special School in Gosport was closed and Heathfield Special School in Fareham enlarged because Foxbury had been judged by Ofsted to be a failing school; Heathfield had been highlighted by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector as a Beacon School.

10.3 In 1998 in North East Hampshire, when deciding that Grange School (SLD) should remain open and Green Croft in Farnborough (MLD) should close, Members took into account Greencroft's Ofsted inspection which had placed the school in special measures.

10.4 In the reorganisation of special schools in Eastleigh and Winchester, currently being implemented, one element of the decision to keep open Lankhills and Shepherds Down MLD schools and to close Tankerville and Greenacres SLD Schools was because the County Council had no authority to propose the closure of Lankhills which at the time was a grant-maintained school, even if the County Council had taken the view that all four schools should close.

10.5 As far as the Eastleigh and Winchester special schools' reorganisation is concerned, the governors of Shepherds Down and Lankhills have, where there have been vacancies, brought in governors with SLD school experience. There has also been an opportunity to bring in other governor colleagues to act in an advisory capacity to the governing body but with no decision-making power. Experience with this reorganisation has already demonstrated a number of problems to do with generating confidence within the whole special educational needs community (especially parents of SLD/PMLD children) in securing an appropriate input into staff structures for the "new" Lankhills and Shepherds Down and the appointment of staff with the relevant SLD/PMLD expertise.

11 Reorganisation Process: Staffing

11.1 Members will note from the consultations that the two schools take opposite positions on the way in which reorganisation, if approved, should be taken forward. The principal arguments advanced by Meadow School in favour of their enlargement and the closure of Whitedown centre on Meadow's relative size; its very good Ofsted report and the tribute inspectors pay to the school's headteacher, senior management team and governors; the school's ability to manage change effectively; the danger that closure would exacerbate staff recruitment and retention difficulties and the school's Vision Statement for special education in the area reflecting the preparatory work done by the school in thinking through a range of issues to do with establishing a school for pupils with complex learning difficulties.

11.2 Whitedown's arguments centre upon equal opportunities for staff and, through them, for the children; being smaller in number on roll terms should not lead to marginalisation in an extended Meadow; since the County Council is proposing a new school, a temporary governing body should be established from the outset; closure of both was the only appropriate way to generate an appropriate skills mix amongst staff for the benefit of all children with SEN; children with severe learning difficulties and profound and multiple learning difficulties would be particularly disadvantaged if both schools were not closed.

11.3 Closure of both schools, in the view of Meadow, would produce greater destabilisation and a greater number of staff anxious about jobs. The senior management team and school structure, highlighted in the school's Vision Statement as committed to a successful implementation of reorganisation, would be put at risk.

11.4 At Meadow arguments in favour of closing Whitedown (and therefore enlarging Meadow) include the fact that a smaller educational community (staff, parents, governors and pupils) would be affected and anxious about the future. The senior management team at the Meadow would continue to operate and be at the core of the "new" school's future structure. There would also be less likelihood of Meadow staff drifting away.

11.5 Arguments at Whitedown against just the closure of Whitedown School centre upon the likely loss of staff skills relating to pupils with SLD and PMLD, loss of confidence on the part of staff and governors in what Whitedown pupils would receive in the proposed school and the difficulties of securing an appropriate mix of skills matched to pupil needs.

11.6 Whichever reorganisation process is agreed, i.e. whether both schools should close or whether Meadow School should remain open and be enlarged and Whitedown closed, the issues outlined above need to be linked with those relating to school governance; see section 9.

11.7 The ways in which previous special school reorganisations were implemented are, as requested by a number of people during the consultations, described in section 10. However, agreeing a process as a result of precedent is not recommended. There is no ideal standard response to a particular reorganisation; each one has its own unique context and circumstances.

11.8 In the case of East Hampshire, the establishment of a school for pupils with a range of complex difficulties means a school different in nature and pupil need from either Meadow or Whitedown. Meadow does not have post-16 experience or provision for pre-school children. Whitedown has provision for both. Meadow is a MLD school with provision for pupils with autism. Whitedown caters for pupils with severe learning difficulties (SLD) and profound and multiple learning difficulties (PMLD). In all these respects, therefore, the proposed school could be regarded as a "new" establishment.

11.9 Meadow is a significantly larger establishment with a pupil roll some four times that of Whitedown. However, the resource provided for each child at Whitedown, which has a higher proportion of children with high dependency and PMLD than any other SLD school in Hampshire, is per pupil significantly larger. Meadow School has in place a strong senior management team whose leadership, management and vision for the future are commended by Ofsted inspectors.

11.10 The Ofsted inspection of Whitedown School in 1998 described it as a good school in which the head and chair of governors had made good progress developing the overall quality of education during the past few years and improved the school's partnership with parents and the community. "Pupils make good progress in all areas especially in their behaviour and personal development".

11.11 Members are asked at the end of this report to advise the Executive Member-Education on which of the two processes should be adopted for this reorganisation.

12 Capital Funding

12.1 The sale of the Whitedown site would be likely to generate a capital receipt in the region of £350,000 to £600,000. The existing vehicular access to the school site is across land owned by the Hampshire Ambulance National Health Services Trust and access arrangements would need to be agreed with the landowner. This valuation takes into account the potential "ransom" that may exist in any discussions about access with the landowner.

12.2 Since the last report to Education Committee in June 2001, the Director of Property Business and Regulatory Services has now undertaken an outline feasibility study to assess the costs for this specific proposal. Previous costs reported were indicative only without any design work being undertaken on the nature of the site, the layout and suitability of the existing building and a detailed analysis of the brief. The estimated cost of the project has risen for the following reasons:

· The layout and construction of the existing Meadow School (a SCOLA type building) requires major alteration and refurbishment to make it suitable to accommodate pupils with complex learning difficulties of all age ranges. This has led to an increase in excess of 30% for this element of the works.

· It is not possible to fit the same amount of accommodation into the existing building if compared to a new build solution due to the restricted shape, structural configuration and circulation layout. This leads to a requirement for an additional 400m² of new building to compensate for this.

· A review of recent costs of other similar special school projects at Shepherds Down, Lankhills, Henry Tyndale and other DfES published schemes has led to increased allowances for the new build elements to ensure a suitable quality of provision, in particular on the hygiene areas and specialist facilities.

· Given recent experience at Henry Tyndale, it is more cost effective over the life of the building to provide a new hydrotherapy pool rather than relocate the existing "log cabin" type facility from Whitedown School.

12.3 The estimated cost of a 150 place complex learning difficulty school (dependent, of course, on the outcome of the Mill Chase governors' meeting on 20 November which could mean a special school size of 140 pupils) is now £6.85 million (including fees) at November 2001 prices. These costs are based upon refurbishing the existing building on the Meadow School site (1383m²) and building a further 2400m² of new construction. In property terms, the existing schools at both Whitedown and Bordon are substantially under area with reference to current DfES recommended standards. The new school for 150 pupils would be nearly three times the size of the existing school on the Bordon site.

12.4 The proposals also include major infrastructure improvements to the vehicular and pedestrian access, external play areas and car parking. The site is also low lying and a substantial allowance has been made for risks associated with drainage to the building and external works.

12.5 Because of the rising costs associated with the refurbishment, an exercise has also been undertaken into a complete new build solution. Initial indications are that this is estimated to cost £7.2m (including fees). As this is only a 5% premium on the refurbishment and extension option, it is considered appropriate to develop this in more detail to ascertain whether the cost gap will reduce further. A complete new build solution has significant advantages in terms of the overall quality of accommodation and reduced future financial risks associated with any alteration proposals. There is also potential that the overall construction period could be reduced as a result of building new. The Director of Property Business and Regulatory Services will undertake further work on the feasibility and costs of this option over the coming months.

12.6 It is unusual in a school reorganisation proposal not to have at least a donor site and building that provides an economical refurbishment option. In this case neither sets of buildings provides such a platform. It is also often the case that an option emerges based around an existing volume of accommodation which meets the brief and can be refurbished. Once again, this is not the case in this reorganisation.

12.7 If it proves possible to provide 10 resourced places at Mill Chase Community School, Bordon, this would enable a 140 place school to be built. It was not possible for investigations to be made in time for this report to ascertain if building alterations at this school are required to accommodate this provision. Should additional accommodation be required this would need to be costed and funding identified.

12.8 As members will be aware, there have been recent examples where increases in tender costs over the budget provision have occurred because of significant tender price inflation in the building industry. It is expected that the costs associated with this project will increase over time, as it is not expected that the school will be available until 2005 at the earliest.

12.9 The DfES has invited LEAs to make submissions by 17 December 2001 for Targeted Capital Fund (TCF) projects which should incorporate bids for SEN schemes. The outcome of any bid would not be known until March 2002. The maximum an LEA could receive through this funding route is £5m and resources are limited, so the outcome cannot be guaranteed.

12.10 There are two potential bids for TCF resources, this project at £7.2 million and the new South East EBD school at £2.2 million. Should a decision be made to submit the East Hampshire project as the first priority Members will need to be aware there is a deficit of £2.2 million which would need to be found by the time the bid is submitted. Should the decision be to bid for the EBD school as first priority, this would allow a bid of £2.8 million to be made for the East Hampshire project, but this would increase the shortfall to be found from County Council resources to £4.4 million. There are significant pressures on the capital programme which means that there is no scope to provide funding from this source to meet the shortfall in funding if the TCF bid is successful. Officers are exploring other funding options.

12.11 The existing Meadow site is too small to house the new school. Discussions have therefore been held with Mill Chase school regarding the use of part of their playing fields adjacent to Meadow School for buildings, hard play areas, car parking and vehicular access. Agreement has been reached with Mill Chase school on this and as part of the development works will be undertaken to improve the drainage on the playing fields. These costs are included in the figures quoted above.

13 The Way Forward

13.1 This proposed reorganisation is commended to Members as a significant way forward for pupils with special educational needs in East Hampshire. Both schools' communities support reorganisation in principle. The provision of a small number of pre-school places and of post-16 provision providing for an average of 6 students is also recommended.

13.2 Members are, at the same time, asked to give their views on which process should be adopted to effect reorganisation. This would be a matter for decision by the Executive Member. Public Notices, when issued, would have to specify the reorganisation process, i.e. whether both schools should close or whether one school should remain open and be enlarged and the other one close. There would then follow a 2 months' period for objections. If any objections were received, the proposal would need to be submitted to the School Organisation Committee for approval. If there were no objections, the County Council would be free to determine to implement the reorganisation.

13.3 School Organisation Committees, established by statute in all LEAs, make decisions about school reorganisations which previously were made by the Secretary of State. School Organisation Committees comprise five groups (elected members; school governors; Learning and Skills Council; Church of England representation; Roman Catholic representation) all of which groups have to agree unanimously to a proposal presented to them. If unanimity is not achieved, an Adjudicator is appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the proposal and to make the decision.

14 School Staff

14.1 During the consultation meetings both schools have highlighted the vital importance of retaining staff skills (of both teaching and support staff) for the benefit of children with special educational needs. Very reasonable concerns were expressed during the consultations about the long lead-in time to eventual reorganisation. Members will be concerned to provide as much reassurance as possible to both schools' staff in order that staff do not seek posts elsewhere during a period of uncertainty.

14.2 These concerns should be seen in the context of a situation, particularly in this part of Hampshire, of difficult staff recruitment and retention. A decision by Easter 2002 on whether or not this reorganisation is able to proceed will be important to the maintenance of staff morale. It would then be important to consider with the school governors how best to accelerate a staffing strategy to retain within this area of Hampshire the vital staff skills and expertise in the interests of all the pupils.

Recommendation

To advise the Executive Member for Education:

1 Whether the reorganisation of Whitedown and Meadow Schools can be agreed.

2 Whether the proposed new school should be formed from the closure of both schools or from the closure of Whitedown and the enlargement of Meadow.

3 Whether the proposed new school should have pre-school provision amounting to two full-time equivalent (FTE) places.

4 Whether the proposed new school should have post-16 provision averaging six student places.

5 Whether the establishment of 10 resourced places, subject to the agreement of the school's governors, can be agreed at Mill Chase Secondary School, Bordon.

6 Whether alternative funding strategies to Targeted Capital Fund should be pursued, for example the Modernisation Fund, capital receipts.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

N.B. the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.