Archived decisions

Contacts: George Heller, Deputy County Education Officer, 01962 846518
Chris Holt, Education Officer, Primary, 01962 845673
Bob Eardley, Strategic Planning Manager, 01962 846275

1 Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

That the Executive Member, Education:

1. Notes the increasing numbers of surplus places in primary schools and endorse a programme of locally based reviews to tailor provision to future needs and, as far as possible, enhance mainstream, early years and community provision.

2. Notes the areas for review set out in paragraph 10.1.

3. Seeks the endorsement of Cabinet to the approach set out in this report.

2 Reason

2.1 To consider the implications of increasing numbers of surplus places in primary schools and agree a strategy for reducing them.

3 Other options considered and rejected - not applicable.

4 Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or a member or officer consulted - none.

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

Contact: Bob Eardley, Strategic Planning Manager, 01962 846275

1. Summary

1.1 This report considers the issues involved in managing the growing number of surplus places in primary schools and the opportunities offered by local reviews to rationalise and improve provision, including facilities for early years education and childcare. It identifies the scale of the problem against the demographic background, highlights geographical areas where surplus places are a particular issue and identifies resourcing issues. The report covers primary provision only, as there are no significant surpluses in the secondary sector. In the case of special schools, the main driver for reorganisation is a better educational match between need and provision, rather than reducing surpluses.

1.2 While surplus place management is inevitably concerned with achieving a good balance between the supply and demand for school places, paying attention to the views of those involved and particularly carrying out comprehensive consultations and reporting their outcome fully, is a major component of reviews. Community considerations are also important. The County Council's statutory duty to review the provision of school places and take appropriate steps to manage surpluses, is the principal concern. Surplus places represent an opportunity cost and their removal is an important step in maximising the resources available to the whole community.

1.3 An earlier version of this report was considered by the Education Policy Review Committee on 15 October; the Committee's views are included in this report.

2. The County Council's role in managing the supply of school places

2.1 Keeping the supply of school places under review and taking action to remove surplus places is one of the main strategic functions of the LEA. There are several reasons for this, which are summarised below:

· surplus places are costly to maintain and absorb resources which could be used for the benefit of children's education;

· the County Council has to monitor the level of surplus places and make an annual return to the DfES highlighting steps being taken in areas of surplus to maintain a reasonable level;

· the Secretary of State may direct an LEA to remove surplus places if local action is not taken;

· surplus provision within two miles is taken into account by the DfES when considering bids for new primary school places.

2.2 The number of surplus places schools is one of the key factors on which the success of the LEA is judged. The County Council has a good record of surplus place management, and planning school places was recognised by OfSTED as a strength of the LEA.

2.3 Managing surplus places efficiently offers valuable opportunities to improve educational provision and community facilities, especially those for early years education. Past and current area reviews of primary school provision have focused on an analysis of the amount of space required for future pupil numbers and the work needed to provide up-to-date specialist facilities. Wherever possible, the opportunity has been taken to enhance early years and community facilities, and all sources of available capital are explored and taken fully into account when making these decisions. School closures and amalgamations raise strong feelings locally and a balance has to be struck when addressing these concerns and discharging the County Council's statutory duty to maintain a reasonable level of surplus provision. The approach to reorganisations needs to take full account of these sensitivities and the place of the primary school in its community.

2.4 Facilitating high quality education is a major factor in reorganisations. The overall aim is to provide facilities which will help teachers and raise standards and the opportunity is taken when amalgamating schools to ensure that the facilities which would be expected in a modern primary school are made available. In some instances, schools under review may be subject to special measures following an OfSTED inspection, which requires consideration of the school's future.

2.5 The distance pupils have to travel to school will always be a factor taken fully into account in reorganisations. Where amalgamations of schools are proposed, the preferred approach would be to consider the closure of both schools and the creation of a new school.

3. The pattern of surplus provision in Hampshire primary schools

3.1 In 1997, there were 6.4% surplus places in Hampshire primary schools; the figure now is 9.5% and is forecast to increase to 12.4% in 2007.The main reason for this decline in numbers is a reduction in the number of four year olds (Year R) in the county's schools, as shown below.

3.2 This represents a forecast reduction of 9.1% over the ten year period from 1997 and is equivalent to 45 forms of entry.

3.3 These figures show the overall county position. They conceal major variations. While many areas of the county have general stability, or a gradual fall, in primary numbers, some are experiencing significant decline. In the main, these are urban areas where there was rapid population growth during the 1960s and 1970s; as the population has aged, the number of children has fallen and this factor, combined with an underlying reduction in birth rate, is producing significant reductions in numbers at many primary schools.

3.4 On the other hand, there are several areas where there is significant population growth. Over the last five years four new primary schools have been developed, accommodating some seven forms of entry, in Whiteley, Chandler's Ford, Basingstoke and Fleet; there have been major extensions elsewhere. These increases in capacity have been in response to major new housing developments.

3.5 There are several small village schools with relatively high percentages of surplus places, although the numbers of pupils involved are not very great. It is often impossible to achieve any reduction in the surplus at these schools because of the nature of their accommodation and they frequently provide the focal point of village communities. There are no proposals to close such schools.

3.6 The School Organisation Plan, 2002-2006, approved by the School Organisation Committee on 10 September 2002, provides more detail for individual planning areas. It highlights the growing percentage of primary surplus places and identifies the need for action to be taken to reduce it.

3.7 As the management of surplus places is part of the County Council's statutory duty, high levels of surplus must be addressed to ensure that the effectiveness of the LEA is not damaged.

4. Current position

4.1 The table below shows the numbers and percentages of primary schools in surplus place bands now and as forecast for 2007.

4.2 There is currently a net surplus of 10,578 places in Hampshire primary schools, 9.5% of the total capacity. This is forecast to increase to 13,848, 12.4% of the total, by 2007. The 2007 figure is some 2,700 above the top end of the Audit Commission's guideline of 5% to 10% as a reasonable working margin for spare places. The number of schools with a surplus of more than 25% in an LEA's area is a Best Value indicator.

5. Action taken so far

5.1 Over the last three years, several major area reviews have been carried out, in the main to remove surplus places. These are:

· Waterlooville - capacity reduction at Waite End Primary by half a form of entry;

· Cowplain - closure of Woodlands Primary;

· North Farnborough - amalgamation of Mayfield schools;

· Leigh Park - closure of Park House Primary and amalgamation of Sharps Copse schools.

· South-west Basingstoke - closure of Beech Down Primary, additional form of entry at St. Mark's Primary, additional 30 places at Chalk Ridge Primary.

5.2 Other primary school organisation/provision issues, mainly as a result of population growth and requiring additional places, are currently being addressed in:

· North Basingstoke

· Hedge End/West End

· Fleet

· Whiteley

6. The process of area reviews and surplus place reduction

6.1 The process is complex and time-consuming. It can be broken down into the following main components:

· desktop analysis and preparation of initial options;

· financial and buildings appraisal;

· meetings with local heads and chairmen of governors;

· report to Executive Member, Education to approve public consultation;

· consultation with local members, governors, staff, parents, dioceses and Teachers' Liaison Panel;

· liaison with district councils;

· members' visits to schools;

· report to Policy Review Committee and Executive Member, Education;

· report to Executive Member, Policy and Resources to approve use of capital receipts, where appropriate;

· publication of Statutory Notices;

· objection period;

· decision by School Organisation Committee (SOC) (or adjudicator if decision not unanimous);

· implementation: personnel issues, design and building works, pupil movements.

6.2 This process is unlikely to take less than eighteen months from an initial option appraisal to a decision by the SOC. The consultation process and the emotive nature of closure and amalgamation proposals mean that the process is very labour intensive. Until now, primary school reviews have been managed consecutively, with special reviews running concurrently. The increasing number of surplus places, however, means that more concurrent reviews will need to take place. In addition to the preparation and consultation leading up to an SOC decision, there is a large amount of work on implementation, involving complex personnel issues, securing funding packages and designing and executing building work. This stage of the process also requires very significant amounts of officer time.

6.3 In many cases, reductions in surpluses can be achieved through the formal redesignation of rooms, i.e. where schools are informally using a space for a purpose which does not count against its capacity, e.g. ICT, music/drama, early years. Such changes are often not notified to the LEA, resulting in an over-statement of surplus provision, although this is being picked up as part of the current exercise to introduce the DfES' new net capacity method for measuring the size of schools. It is likely that some over-provision can be eliminated in this way, either by formalising existing arrangements, or by developing alternative uses with schools. Given adequate capital, measures of this sort will be a high priority. Taking this into account will, however, still make it necessary to undertake reviews and reorganisations.

6.4 District councils are now taking a greater interest in school reorganisations. They have concerns about the provision of community facilities and, where land disposals are involved, they are the authorities which would grant planning consent for development. Reviews may open up opportunities to progress Local Strategic Plans. It is important, therefore, that district councils are involved at an early stage in discussions about potential reorganisations and that the County Council's intentions and proposals are fully understood. It is equally important that the County Council fulfils its statutory duties in taking and retaining the initiative in reorganisations and that educational considerations remain at the top of the agenda.

7. Buildings issues

7.1 Building condition, particularly long-term major maintenance liabilities, is an important determinant in deciding how surplus places should be reduced. In some cases, reviews might be triggered by the need to replace a building, or carry out very expensive repairs. These issues were a factor in the north Farnborough review, where two of the schools under consideration were timber-framed and needed substantial capital investment.

8. Costs of surplus places

8.1 The County Council has a responsibility to ensure that available funding, both capital and revenue, is targeted in schools to best effect. This means that budgets should be directed towards productive expenditure, aimed at raising educational standards and investing in the maintenance and repair of buildings for the future and in capital improvements designed to support delivery of the curriculum.

8.2 Many schools with surplus places are in established urban areas where schools were built in the 1960s and 1970s using the SCOLA building system. Because of their age and type of construction, these buildings now need very substantial capital investment and programmes are in hand, using New Deal for Schools condition funding and the County Council's own resources to carry out major maintenance at these schools to give these building further years of useful life. Given the scale of the work required, it is important that resources are invested in those schools where future numbers justify their retention.

8.3 Schools with surplus places absorb a disproportionate amount of maintenance resources, as significant amounts of their accommodation are under-utilised. At the same time, global funding allocated to the County Council through the Standard Spending Assessment is partly dependent upon pupil numbers. The decline in primary numbers will affect this overall funding, making effective targeting of resources even more important.

9. Capital funding implications

9.1 Surplus place removal no longer carries the priority for DfES in allocating capital funding which it did a few years ago. LEAs are expected to use part of their block capital allocations under the New Deal for Schools to fund surplus place removal schemes in line with local priorities. Bids can be made through the annual Targeted Capital Fund process, but funding is limited and a significant LEA contribution to costs is likely to become a pre-requisite for future bids. Land sales are, therefore, the main source of capital funding for building alterations and extensions arising from reorganisations. Opportunities are also being explored to see whether the revenue savings from surplus place removal could be used to fund capital work.

10. Planning area analysis and priority areas

10.1 A review of priority areas for a future programme of surplus place removal exercises has been carried out and, as a result of this analysis, schools within the following areas were identified as priorities for reviews of primary provision, largely on the basis of the number of places and affected schools in each area. Not all primary schools in these areas would be involved in reviews; discrete areas with high levels of surplus places would be identified after analysis of pupil number trends and buildings issues. The list below is in alphabetical order and does not suggest an order in which reviews might take place.

· Aldershot

· Andover

· Fareham (Central/East)

· Fareham (West/North)

· Farnborough

· Romsey

· Tadley

· Waterside

· Yateley/Frogmore

10.2 This constitutes a very demanding programme and the speed with which it could be carried out is dependent upon the resources available. As the available human resources to carry out the reviews are limited, the list above is likely to constitute at least a three year programme. In deciding which areas to approach first, the opportunity would be taken to achieve the maximum impact in the short-term, and in particular by focusing on areas where the decline in rolls is most rapid and where an impact could be made on other issues, such as SEN provision.

11. Publicising the issue

11.1 So far, relatively few schools have been involved in surplus place removal exercises involving closures and amalgamations. Those which have, have found the process challenging and the stresses caused to the school communities and individuals involved should not be under-estimated. As the number of reviews increases, these pressures will become more widespread. Growth in the number of reviews, however, provides an opportunity to raise the profile of the issue, explain why it is necessary and stress the positive elements. Schools will be briefed through Primary Heads Executive and Hampshire Governors Representative Group (HGRG).

12. Secondary schools

12.1 There are very few secondary schools with significant numbers of surplus places. At present, therefore, no reviews of secondary provision are proposed.

13. Conclusions

13.1 The County Council has a good record of managing surplus school places and carrying out substantial investment through reorganisations and planning school places was recognised by OfSTED as a strength of the LEA. It will become more difficult to maintain this level of performance in the future, as surplus places rise because of underlying demographic trends. It is important that momentum is not lost, however, in managing what is a difficult and sensitive process.

Recommendations

That the Executive Member, Education:

1. Notes the increasing numbers of surplus places in primary schools and endorse a programme of locally based reviews to tailor provision to future needs and, as far as possible, enhance mainstream, early years and community provision.

3. Notes the areas for review set out in paragraph 10.1.

3. Seeks the endorsement of Cabinet to the approach set out in this report.

Section 100D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background papers

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.

NB: the list excludes:

1. Published works

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

Hampshire School Organisation Plan 2002/03-2006/07.