Archived decisions

Contact:

Chris Holt; Education Officer (Primary); 01962 845673; [email protected]

Peter Colenutt; Assistant Education Officer (School Review); 01962 846157; [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1. This report provides details of the outcome of consultations following the review of primary school provision in the north west Farnborough area and sets out the background and issues affecting the schools identified in the report.

1.2. The report considers options for future primary school provision in north west Farnborough and includes the following appendices:

· Appendix 1: notes of meetings held with parents, staff and governors of Pinewood Infant School, and governors of Guillemont Junior, Manor Infant and Southwood Infant schools;

· Appendix 2: LEA commentary on school performance for each of the schools;

· Appendix 3: a map showing walking routes and distances to Manor Infant School;

· Appendix 4: a map of the area under consideration.

1.3. Members have visited all of the schools, as detailed in section 8.

1.4. In addition to the consultation with governors, staff and parents, the views of the District Council have been sought as well as the Local Strategic Partnership (sections 6 and 7 refer).

1.5. Members are asked to advise the Executive Member for Education of their conclusions on the outcome of consultations in order that decisions may be made about the future organisation of primary education in the north west Farnborough area.

1.6. The proposal supports the County Council's corporate aim one; Maximising life opportunities and aim five; Improving services.

1.7. Correspondence, made up of 24 individual and 348 identical letters together with copies of presentations made by consultees, is on deposit in the Members' Room during the week prior to the Education Policy Review Committee meeting on 11 May 2004, and will be available for perusal in the council chamber from 12.30pm on the day of the meeting.

2 Strategic implications

2.1 The County Council has a statutory duty to plan the provision of school places and to secure an appropriate balance locally between supply and demand. Needs change in response to population movements and fertility trends. In many areas of the county, child populations are falling as populations stabilise. Although additional dwellings are being built, many of these are to house an increased number of households, many of which do not include children. Where child populations do rise additional school accommodation may be needed, but this becomes difficult if resources are locked up in areas of declining population.

2.2 The population changes mean that schools may go through periods when there is pressure on places and others where there is a surplus. Where numbers are falling sharply, and the trend is more than short-term, the extent of surplus places raises questions about the use of resources. Premises have to be maintained whether they are full or not. Where schools become small, they have to be subsidised at the expense of the rest of the education service in order to sustain the curriculum. Large numbers of small schools would, however, significantly reduce the resources available to other schools. Examples of the costs of educating pupils in schools of different sizes, based on the agreed funding formula for schools in Hampshire are given in Table 1. As a school's budget depends on the number of pupils, significant drops in pupil numbers affect staff numbers and stability and can only be "cushioned" to a limited extent. It is important to plan for the future. A school which is functioning well with current numbers of pupils and staff may find it difficult to sustain the quality and range of provision as numbers and resources fall. Numbers on roll may also be indicators of parental confidence in a school.

Table 1 - Per pupil costs in Hampshire primary schools

No. of pupils on roll	Cost per pupil £ p.a. 2003/04
50	3,710
100	2,769
150	2,441
200	2,286
250	2,210
300	2,162
350	2,129
400	2,105
450	2,084
500	2,070

2.3 The 2003/04 - 2007/08 School Organisation Plan, approved by the School Organisation Committee on 16 December 2003, draws attention to the rising number of primary surplus places in Hampshire and the need to ensure that the increase is effectively managed. The overall level of surplus, which was 8% in January 2003, is forecast to rise to 13% by 2008, this is above the 10% level considered a reasonable upper level by the Audit Commission. The forecast surplus is equivalent to 69 x 210 place primary schools.

2.4 The effective management of surplus places creates valuable opportunities to improve the learning environment through the provision of specialist teaching spaces and also to enhance community provision, particularly through the development of early years facilities. It is important to maximise the opportunities by releasing the resources which would otherwise be locked up in surplus places.

3 Background and consultation options

3.1. On 4 December 2003 the Executive Member for Education authorised local consultations with schools in the north west Farnborough area. The review has come about following the fire at Pinewood Infant School on 27 March 2003 which destroyed the school buildings. The school is presently housed in temporary accommodation with capacity for up to 90 children on the original school site.

3.2. Based on the September 2003 pupil count, Table 2, below, formed part of the consultation document. The overall picture is one of increasing surplus places (Table 2 refers).

Table 2 - Accommodation and rolls

* NOR and forecast figures exclude specialist resourced provision pupils.

⁺ reflects the capacity of the school buildings destroyed by fire.

3.3. Following the January 2004 pupil count Table 2 has been amended. Table 3 now shows the updated figures and includes all known housing developments. In response to questions from staff and governors at those schools with resourced provision for children with special educational needs, a further column has been added to show the specialist resourced provision agreed place numbers for hearing impaired (HI) and language impaired (LI) children.

Table 3 - Accommodation and rolls

* NOR and forecast figures exclude specialist resourced provision pupils.

⁺ reflects the capacity of the school buildings destroyed by fire.

3.4 The extent of the surplus places at schools in the north west Farnborough area resulted in the consideration of a number of possible actions to reduce them. This led to consultation taking place on the option to close Pinewood Infant School to re-designate the school's catchment area to Manor Infant School and to re-locate the specialist resourced provision for children with language impairment needs to Southwood Infant School.

4 Early Years Provision

4.1. Table 4 sets out the number of pre-school age children and the provision known to be available to them in the following Rushmoor Wards.

Table 4 - current analysis of pre-school provision within the wards encompassing schools within the review area

Ward (Schools)	Number of early years education places	No. of 3 and 4 year olds
		2004	2005	2006
Fernhill (Pinewood Infant School)	173	154	142	140
St John's (Parsonage Farm Infant School)	162	159	149	153
Westheath (Manor Infant School)	114	123	108	109
Cove and Southwood (Southwood Infant School)	72	168	177	175
Totals	521	604	576	577

4.2. An analysis of the data available from the County Council's Early Education and Childcare Unit shows that, whilst three of the four wards have more than sufficient pre-school places to cater for the 3 and 4 year olds living within them, the Cove and Southwood ward has a significant shortfall in pre-school provision.

5 Special Educational Needs

5.1. Pinewood Infant School currently provides 15 places for language impaired (LI) children. Current provision within the county for LI is located at:

· Five infant schools (including Pinewood)

· Five linked junior schools (including Guillemont)

· Two primary schools

· One secondary school.

5.2. Pinewood children within the LI provision have a statement of special educational need and are placed by the LEA. The majority of children live within the wider local area. All children in the specialist provision receive additional intensive language programmes and are included in mainstream classes for the majority of their education. The Blackwater Valley and Hart Primary Care Trust provide speech and language therapy time. The Trust have been consulted on their ability to support the proposed relocation of the LI resourced provision to Southwood Infant School should the decision be taken to close Pinewood Infant School. A response is awaited, however, there is no reason to suppose that this will not be achievable.

5.3. The governing body, headteacher and staff at Southwood Infant School have confirmed their willingness and commitment to the relocation of the LI provision should Pinewood Infant School close. The relocation of this provision to Southwood Infant School would remove 30 surplus places at the school.

6 Rushmoor Borough Council

6.1. To date no written response has been received. The Leader of Rushmoor Borough Council has stated at consultation meetings that capital monies could potentially be available to provide community facilities on the Pinewood Infant School site.

7 Rushmoor Local Strategic Partnership: response to consultation

To date no response has been received.

8 Members' visits

8.1. Members visited Pinewood Infant, Guillemont Junior, Manor Infant and Southwood Infant schools on 21 April 2004. Issues raised are addressed below:

8.2. Members queried the number of children who walked to school. They were informed that this was approximately 80% of the Pinewood Infant School population. At Guillemont Junior they were informed by the headteacher that a high number of children walk as it is now safe to cross Sandy Lane following traffic calming measures which have been put in place.

8.3. At Guillemont Junior School members asked whether the headteacher had a view, in the event of Pinewood Infant School's closure, as to the number of children that may be lost by children moving on to Manor Junior from Manor Infant School.

8.4. Members commented on the good teaching and learning environment provided by the Guillemont Junior School building and grounds. The headteacher advised the site was good and generous in size.

8.5. Questions were asked about the type of community activities that take place at Guillemont Junior School. It was noted that the school hall is booked for three evenings per week.

8.6. The question was asked whether Manor Infant School had a music/drama room. The headteacher advised they did not but had made a Seed Challenge bid to provide a multifunction room. Drama activities currently take place in the school hall.

8.7. Members queried the make-up of the school population at Manor Infant School. The headteacher pointed out that two thirds of the present children on roll reside outside of the school's catchment area.

8.8. Members asked what the impact would be on traffic movements to and from Manor Infant School should Pinewood's catchment area be redesignated to the school. The headteacher stated that the school has an agreement with the adjacent public house to use its car park at the beginning and end of the school day. It was pointed out that both Manor Infant and Junior Schools are engaged in activities designed to promote and encourage safe walking to school.

8.9. In response to a query regarding pre-school provision the headteacher at Manor Infant School pointed out that the school has links with a number of providers. She also stated that the school is actively pursuing lottery funding to provide a pre-school facility on the site.

8.10. At Southwood Infant School members expressed some concern about the establishment of LI provision and how this would be managed in both staffing and physical resource terms. They were advised that an initial study had been undertaken to demonstrate the feasibility of the relocation. Subject to future decisions more detailed work will be undertaken to ensure that children continue to receive the high quality educational provision to which they are entitled.

8.11. Members pointed out at Southwood Infant School that, as and if necessary, the County Council must give the school expert professional support with the setting up of the LI resourced provision.

9 Views of the local County Councillors

9.1. Both local County Councillors have been consulted and one has indicated his intention to express views at the Education Policy Review Committee meeting on 11 May 2004.

10 Guillemont Junior School: Review of responses to consultation

10.1. The headteacher and governors expressed the view that the report of 4 December 2003 excluded forecast figures for children in the specialist resourced provision, giving a false picture of the number of children in school. Governors pointed out that the figures vary from those previously presented and the headteacher commented that the numbers at Pinewood Infant School had never reached 180 since Guillemont Junior's move to its present buildings in 1976. In general parents are happy with Pinewood Infant School - this is borne out by the school's consistent number on roll.

10.2. Governors felt that the review was too narrow in scope and should have included the Cove schools as they are closer than the Manor schools for some parents.

10.3. Governors expressed the view that the Pinewood community were being held to ransom as a result of the arson attack at Pinewood Infant School and the falling rolls at Manor Infant School. The closure of Pinewood Infant School would make the community feel isolated. The governors expressed concern that Guillemont Junior numbers would be likely to fall if children attend Manor Infant School.

10.4. Issues were raised in respect of Early Years provision. Will the LEA come back with further proposals regarding this provision? The figures used in the consultation document should show the actual number of children being catered for, not the full-time equivalent figure. Also Early Years numbers should be broken down by school catchment areas and not wards. The view was also expressed that there is a shortfall of provision in the area.

10.5. Pinewood Infant School is recognised as a centre of excellence for children with language and communication difficulties. It will take years to train the Southwood staff. The specialist provision was relocated once before in 1997, another relocation will prove to be disruptive.

10.6. The question was asked as to when the area review of primary school provision would have taken place had it not been for the fire and what criteria would have been used. It was pointed out that the report fails to address the possible impact on the community. The proximity of the Pinewood and Guillemont schools make the local estates attractive to young families. Many children currently walk to school - closure of Pinewood Infant School would result in more cars on the road. If parents do not have a car there would not be enough time to walk from Manor Infant to Guillemont Junior School. The M3 is a clear physical barrier. The distance of just under 1 mile as stated in the report masks the physical difficulties of getting there and back.

10.7. Governors stated that some members of the local community were sceptical about the process. Why is closure the only recommendation? How much money has been spent on the Manor Infant School, is this a driving factor? The proposal takes away parental choice should they not wish their children to go to Manor Infant School.

10.8. The governors wish to see a positive outcome from the fire such as a new 90 place infant school with provision for community facilities with a dentist and a place for young children to gather. Could the funding earmarked to create the LI provision at Southwood Infant School not be put towards building this facility?

11 Southwood Infant School: Review of responses to consultation in respect of the proposed relocation of the Language Impaired (LI) provision

11.1. The main questions from the governors and headteacher related to the proposed establishment of the LI provision. Governors asked if LI children have, for example, visual and behavioural problems as well. Would a child placed in Year R LI provision remain there throughout his or her Key Stage 1 education? What percentage of time do LI children spend in the mainstream class?

11.2. A governor asked who decides on the school placement for an LI child and will it be an informed preference? Do Year 2 LI children sit SATs tests? Is it possible that there could be an imbalance from year to year with the intake of LI children? Can children be placed partly through the infant phase?

11.3. A question was asked whether the specialist resourced provision would be created within the existing building and whether a separate area for administration was required. If via internal adaptation then acoustic and glazing issues will need to be considered. Will the staff room and car park be large enough to cope with the additional staff and have costings been produced for this work?

11.4. Governors sought advice about the general perception of parents planning to send their children to a school with specialist provision.

11.5. A governor queried why the County Council was consulting now on the potential relocation of the specialist provision, in advance of the decision on the future of Pinewood Infant School. Will all of the necessary set-up costs be paid for by the County Council? What would happen if schools in the area refused to take the LI provision?

12 Manor Infant School: Review of responses to consultation

12.1. The governors and headteacher stated that children attending Manor Infant School would have a choice of Key Stage 2 education at either Guillemont Junior or Manor Junior schools. Governors also pointed out that they felt the review of schools in the area had had an adverse impact on pupil numbers. Clarification was sought as to whether Pinewood Infant School would have a September intake for 2004 and 2005 if a proposal to close the school was made in May 2004.

12.2. The headteacher and governors sought advice as to whether the school's admission number should be changed to include the hearing impaired children and what would happen if numbers rose to over 30 per class.

12.3. The governors pointed out that a number of parents already walk from the Pinewood estate to Manor Infant School and that the school had worked hard with the local community and the safe routes to school team to ensure safe walk to school routes. It was also noted that a new pedestrian crossing had recently been built outside the school.

12.4. Governors asked why arrangements would be made for members of the Education Policy Review Committee to visit the school. Assurance was sought that the consultation was not in any way proposing a change from infant school status for Manor Infant School.

12.5. The headteacher and governors asked why Southwood Infant had been identified as the local school to accommodate the LI provision should Pinewood Infant School close.

12.6. The governors stated that they would welcome becoming the designated school for the present Pinewood catchment area should the decision be taken to close Pinewood Infant School. It was also pointed out that the school would be happy to accommodate the LI provision.

13 Pinewood Infant School: Review of responses to consultation

13.1. The governors provided officers with a brief history of the school from its opening in 1974 to the establishment of the parent and toddler group in 2000. Reference was made to comments from the DfES and Ofsted since the school fire in March 2003. The parents sought clarification as to what had changed since the Ofsted inspection of 1999 when the school was identified as requiring special measures to ensure an appropriate quality of education for children. This necessitated the County Council's consideration of the scope for closure of the school, which at that time resulted in the conclusion that the school should be retained.

13.2. The governors sought clarification as to what the criteria were for closing the school and queried which were of most importance.

13.3. The staff and governors were of the view that the forecast pupil numbers in the consultation report should include the specialist resourced provision pupils. It was stated by parents and governors that the number of places being shown for early years was inaccurate. A further point was made that the pre-school is full for morning sessions and running at between 50% and 75% capacity in the afternoon sessions.

13.4. Governors emphasised the point that there was considerable experience and expertise amongst the school staff in working with LI children which could not simply be replaced by sending staff on training programmes.

13.5. The staff, parents and governors asked questions about other small schools in the county seeking clarification as to why Pinewood should not be rebuilt as a 90 place infant school. The staff felt that the report was simply about pupil numbers and that it ignored the needs of 80+ infant age children from the Pinewood estate. The governors asked questions about the County Council's pupil number forecasting model.

13.6. Staff and governors referred to the fact that the Pinewood Infant School site had a number of limiting factors that would affect any potential redevelopment e.g. the presence of bats, and trees with preservation orders. The governors also pointed out that Rushmoor Borough Council had suggested they would not allow redevelopment of the site from the existing school access. Parents and governors also made the point that, should the site be sold for housing, this would generate additional children.

13.7. The staff, parents and governors referred to the 2001 census figures from Rushmoor Borough Council stating they showed an above average increase in population amongst the 0-4 age range, 5-9 age range and 20-40 age range. It was pointed out that the Pinewood estate is an area that young people are moving into.

13.8. The governors made the point that the forecast numbers for Pinewood Infant School show stability and that it is in the older urban areas that the surplus place numbers are rising. It was the view of the local community that smaller schools with small classes were desirable. Staff acknowledged the need to reduce surplus places in the area but felt that this did not have to be as a result of closing Pinewood Infant School. Staff were of the view that the mother and toddler group had helped to keep numbers constant.

13.9. The staff, parents and governors referred to other potential options for reducing surplus places such as the amalgamation of the Cove and Manor Infant schools, the creation of an all through primary school at Guillemont Junior and the amalgamation of both Manor Infant and Junior schools. These options should be considered alongside the provision of enhanced community facilities and additional pre-school places. The Leader of Rushmoor Borough Council stated that the Borough Council would look favourably at trying to secure a capital contribution towards the new school for community facilities.

13.10. The staff, parents and governors all expressed the opinion that Pinewood Infant School is at the heart of the community and serves a discrete area. A parent governor pointed out that his family had moved to the Pinewood estate as it offered a pre-school, infant school and junior school all in close proximity. Parents stressed the point that the school is the only community facility on the estate for 400+ houses. Therefore, a smaller school should be built offering enhanced community facilities such as a doctor's surgery and health centre.

13.11. The governors stated that they are keen to look at ways of accommodating a youth club at the new school. A member of staff referred to the excellent foundation children receive to their education at Pinewood Infant School. It was pointed out by the staff that on three days of the week there can be up to 145 children on site including the playgroup and mother and toddler group. The local school community advises that there are over 400 residents that replied to a letter drop about the school closure.

13.12. The staff, parents and governors all expressed real concerns about walking to Manor Infant School. Questions were asked about the footbridge across the M3 - would it be enclosed? The footbridge is considered to be dangerous when it is wet and icy and an unacceptable route to school. It was also stated that the footpaths surrounding the school are always very busy and some hazardous. One parent advised that she suffered from vertigo and would therefore find it impossible to walk over the footbridge.

13.13. Major concerns were expressed by parents with children at the infant and junior schools as to how they would be able to be in two places at once to drop off and pick up their children. Reference was also made to the Hampshire County Council website regarding walking routes to schools and reference to how changes in walking routes can have positive and negative impact on the numbers of pupils that walk to school. Currently a high proportion of Pinewood Infant School children walk to the school, this would reduce significantly if pupils had to attend Manor Infant School. One parent pointed out that they moved house to ensure a safe walk to school for their child. It was also pointed out that it is difficult to get a double buggy across the motorway bridge. It was pointed out by the parents, staff and governors that the School Organisation Plan states "a reasonable walking distance to school would be a journey of no longer than 20 minutes each way".

13.14. Governors pointed out the parental support for the school, highlighting that 207 people attended the parents consultation meeting on 1 March 2004. The staff referred to the poor Ofsted report in 1999, stating it takes time to re-establish a school's reputation but this had now been done as a result of much hard work. Parents spoke at the consultation meeting of their support for the school and excellent standard of education their children received. Another parent pointed out that the most important consideration must be the children in any future decision.

13.15. The governors referred to a recent Ofsted report that identified the teaching of pupils with SEN as good and for those accessing specialist, resourced provision very good. One governor was of the view that the County Council did not have enough resources to set up the LI provision at Southwood School. If the provision is moved this will affect children's progress and no guarantees can be given regarding the quality of educational provision. Staff sought clarification as to why Southwood Infant School had been chosen to accommodate the LI provision.

13.16. Staff, parents and governors raised issues surrounding the early years provision stating that other local facilities were full. It was reported that the existing provision for pre-school children is very good with strong links to Pinewood Infant School. Parents felt the pre-school should remain open with the school being rebuilt and pointed out that DfES guidance suggests that early years provision should be a key consideration in school reorganisations.

13.17. Parents asked whether any member of the School Organisation Committee had special educational needs experience. Parents wished to know whether the headteacher would be given a note of the meeting. A governor sought clarification as to why governors only get to see the final report on the outcome of consultations to the Education Policy Review Committee one week prior to the actual meeting. Governors were of the view that decisions are being made by the elected members without significant depth of information to do so. Staff asked whether the final decision will be based on pupil numbers or community issues.

13.18. Parents raised issues surrounding the Hampshire County Council system of insurance for school buildings stating that the school should be rebuilt and the fact that it had burnt down should not be held against the local community. Parents asked if costings had been produced for rebuilding the school.

13.19. Support for the rebuilding of Pinewood Infant School was expressed by a local County Councillor. Similar support was offered by the Leader of Rushmoor Borough Council, who indicated that the borough council would be willing to consider the offer of funding to secure community facilities in the Pinewood area. Clarification was sought as to what would happen to the school's resources should the school close.

14 Issues raised during consultation

14.1. The following general comments are given on the main issues arising from the consultations:

Forecast pupil numbers

14.2. Much discussion and correspondence centred upon future numbers of children in the area and schools they might attend. Forecast pupil numbers shown in Table 3 take into account all planned new housing, including type and tenure, and are based upon small area population forecasts which detail the number of 0 - 4 year-olds in an area. Discussions have taken place with Rushmoor Borough Council to ensure all new housing is accounted for in the forecast figures.

14.3. Reference was made to Rushmoor Borough Council's 2001 census figures and the fact that these showed to be an above average increase in population among the 0-4 age range, 5-9 age range and 20-40 age range. It should be noted that the census covered a far wider area than that considered under this review. Census data feeds into the County Council forecasting methodology which then focuses on small area population forecasts thereby giving a more accurate local picture.

Traffic/walking routes

14.4. The anxieties of the Pinewood parents and governors about increased traffic and the safety of walking routes as a result of the possible closure are acknowledged. Nevertheless, this review must address educational and surplus place issues first and foremost, whilst recognising that traffic management is an issue affecting the whole county in the broader context. The reorganisation and closure of schools inevitably involves disturbance to families and there are individual difficulties, particularly when they relate to the need to take children to more than one site, although for some families a different location may have advantages. Appendix 3 shows walking routes and distances to Manor Infant School. There are four indicated routes all on paved paths or footways. Two of the routes cross the motorway via a paved road bridge one via a footbridge and one via a subway underneath the motorway. All of these walking routes are deemed by the Department for Education and Skills to be a reasonable walking distance (less than two miles) for children of infant age. The actual route chosen will depend on home address and on preference. If there is a prospect of traffic difficulties affecting children's safety in any way, then there will be discussion between appropriate County Council and Rushmoor Borough Council officers to resolve the issues.

Catchment Areas

14.5. The issues of school catchment areas, in relation to parental preference, was raised on a number of occasions. Catchment areas are largely irrelevant until a school is oversubscribed. The redrawing of a line will not, of itself, alter parents' expression of preference. Given the relatively close proximity of schools in the north west Farnborough area there is already considerable movement across catchment areas as demonstrated in Table 5. This shows a number of Pinewood catchment area children attending neighbouring schools and a number of children attending Pinewood Infant School from adjacent catchment areas.

Table 5:

	Pinewood Infant School catchment children attending neighbouring schools	Children from neighbouring catchment areas attending Pinewood Infant School
Manor Infant	15	1
Parsonage Farm Infant	19	2
Southwood Infant	0	1

Alternative suggestions for removing surplus places

14.6. The option to amalgamate Pinewood Infant School and Guillemont Junior School, to form a primary school was considered prior to consultation with the schools' communities. Given that there would be insufficient capacity within the present Guillemont school buildings to house Pinewood's children, this would necessitate the provision of 90 places at the school. Whilst this scenario would partially tackle the over-supply of infant places in the area (given Pinewood's substantive capacity of 180 places) the end result would be 148 forecast surplus places in 2009 in the area's infant schools (23.7%) and 58 places in the junior schools (8.1%).

14.7. The amalgamation of paired infant and junior or neighbouring infant schools was suggested as a way of reducing surplus places in the area. Neither strategy would be a practicable way forward given the number on roll and capacities of the schools, coupled with the capital implications of such scenarios.

Size of schools

14.8. The issue of small schools was raised. Officers' attention was drawn to the point that in Hampshire there are other, smaller schools than Pinewood Infant School which manage to operate effectively.

14.9. Hampshire County Council's School Organisation Plan, sets out the county's policy with regard to optimum school size as follows:

· Infant schools should, wherever possible, fall within the range two forms of entry (180 children) to five forms of entry (540).

· Junior schools should, wherever possible, fall within the range two forms of entry (240) to five forms of entry (600).

· Primary schools should, wherever possible, fall within the range one form of entry (210) to three forms of entry (630).

14.10. Whilst recognising that there will inevitably be schools outside the optimum ranges quoted in the School Organisation Plan for a variety of reasons, for example geography and fluctuating rolls, the factors generating the County's policy of optimum school size, such as achieving a pupil population of a size which facilitates cost effective education, remain. It is acknowledged that schools outside these ranges can achieve excellent results. It is also recognised that schools which fall below the minimum optimum size are more vulnerable in their ability to sustain high quality education.

14.11. As previously stated Guillemont Junior houses LI provision for key stage 2 pupils. Southwood Infant like Pinewood Infant is a feeder school to Guillemont Junior. As such there are already established professional links between Southwood Infant and Guillemont Junior schools. These will serve to support, as necessary, the successful relocation of the LI resourced provision for key stage 1 pupils.

SEN resourced provision

14.12. There is an identified need for the continuation of LI provision for infant age children in north west Farnborough and in keeping with current practice, for infant and junior school provision to be linked. Should the provision need to be relocated the LEA will provide full support for the recipient school in setting this up. Full training will be available, as necessary, for all specialist and school staff, and any accommodation issues will be addressed to ensure an appropriate learning environment for children accessing the LI provision.

14.13. Children will continue to access LI provision through placement by the LEA in line with agreed county admission criteria.

Early Years

14.14. Strategically, Fernhill Ward is not a priority location for the development of early years education places. For 3 and 4 year olds there is a small surplus of early years education places, as set out in Table 4. The early years education places in this area include the pre-school provision presently operating within Pinewood Infant School buildings which currently has 55 children on the register.

15 Capital strategy

15.1. Capital works arising from changes in school provision are primarily funded from the sale of land, with additional funding when required provided from resources in the education capital programme.

15.2. As stated earlier in this report, the North West Farnborough review has come about following the fire at Pinewood Infant School. The cost of replacement provision, as determined by the Executive Member for Education on 13 May 2004, will be met from the County Council's fire reinstatement budget.

15.3. Initial feasibility studies have been carried out for rebuilding Pinewood Infant School as a 90 place infant school (as proposed by the governors and local community) and for the adaptation works required to Southwood Infant School to accommodate the LI provision, should the decision be taken to close Pinewood Infant school.

15.4. The costs for the replacement infant school have been based on the standard primary brief and includes LI provision for 15 children. The initial desktop feasibility gives a budget cost for the new school in the region of £3.1 million based at fourth quarter 2005 costs. This figure includes professional fees and includes provision of a sprinkler system in line with Hampshire County Council's policy for new buildings on green field sites. Should the decision be taken to rebuild Pinewood Infant School and re-provide the community facilities that had been using spare accommodation, the cost will be higher.

15.5. The cost of relocating the LI provision to Southwood Infant School is in the region of £150,000. This is based on fourth quarter 2005 costs and includes professional fees.

16 Revenue implications

16.1. The closure of a school would result in revenue savings, chiefly through a reduction in staffing costs as well as premises costs. This funding would remain within the Schools Block, supporting the County Council's scheme of local management for all schools.

16.2. Revenue costs associated with the LI provision would remain constant and would continue to be met through existing resources.

17 Process and timescales

17.1. If the Executive Member for Education decides to publish notices proposing the closure of Pinewood Infant School, the notices would run for a period of six weeks. Any objections would be considered by the School Organisation Committee in the autumn term 2004. The effective closing date would be 31 August 2006.

18 The way forward

18.1. The County Council needs to take strategic decisions which are in the best long term interests of children aged 3 - 11 in the communities subject to this review.

18.2. There are 296 surplus primary school places in the review area forecast in 2009. Of these 238 are in infant schools and 58 in junior schools; this represents a clear imbalance between the number of places available for infant and junior age children in the area. The closure of Pinewood Infant School would result in forecast surplus places in 2009 of 58 (9.3%) in the area's infant schools and 58 (8.1%) in the junior schools; a combined overall reduction in forecast surplus places from 296 (19.5%) to 116 (8.7%).

18.3. Pinewood Infant School's community believe that the school provides a much needed resource for the Pinewood Park Estate's population. This belief was echoed by the governing body of Guillemont Junior School. The governors also expressed considerable concern that pupil numbers at Guillemont Junior would decline in the event of Pinewood's closure as parents with children at Manor Infant School would opt for their children to transfer to Manor Junior School rather than Guillemont, their designated school.

18.4. At the consultation meeting Manor Infant School's governing body indicated its willingness to become the designated school for Pinewood Infant School's catchment area, in the event of Pinewood's closure. It was noted that the school was coming to the end of extensive internal and external refurbishment, including provision of an accessible toilet and shower, representing a capital investment in the region of £0.5m, thereby enhancing learning and teaching environment.

18.5. The governing body of Southwood Infant School has indicated its willingness, and the whole school's commitment, to incorporating resourced provision for up to 15 LI children. Parents of children at the school have been consulted.

18.6. The combined number on roll at Pinewood Infant and Manor Infant schools in January 2004 was 310. In January 2009 the combined forecast number on roll is 287. At present over half of children at Manor Infant School live outside the school's catchment area. In the event of Pinewood's closure and the redesignation of the school's catchment area to Manor Infant, there will be a likely impact on the number of out of catchment area children admitted to Manor Infant School.

18.7. As well as statutory provision for infant aged children, Pinewood Infant School presently provides pre-school facilities for 55 children. This provision is located in a permanent building which survived the fire. The school also provides facilities to enable mother and toddler sessions to operate from one of the temporary buildings placed on site. Rushmoor Borough Council has stated its willingness to invest in community facilities in the Pinewood Park area. If Pinewood Infant School were to close the County Council may want to consider retaining and developing the early years provision, working in partnership with Rushmoor Borough Council and other agencies, investing in the provision of community facilities on part of the Pinewood Infant School site.

18.8. Fire reinstatement works are funded from revenue accounts and insurance premiums collected from schools over a period of time, with not all expenditure falling within one year. Premiums are varied each year to take account of the known future liabilities. There is no specific provision for the reinstatement works at the Pinewood School. There will be a clear link between the amount spent on reinstatement and the premiums charged to schools. The County Council has a duty to the school community as a whole to ensure that reinstatement is the best way forward. As set out in section 15.4, the budget cost of a replacement 90 place infant school at Pinewood would be in the region of £3.1 million.

19 Recommendations

19.1. To advise the Executive Member for Education on the future pattern of primary school provision in the north west Farnborough area, with specific regard to:

· the closure of Pinewood Infant School and the redesignation of the school's catchment area to Manor Infant School;

· the relocation of the resourced provision for language impaired children from Pinewood Infant School to Southwood Infant School;

· in the event of Pinewood Infant School's closure, the retention of present facilities for early years provision on the existing site;

· exploring the opportunities, in partnership with Rushmoor Borough Council and appropriate agencies, for further development of community provision on the existing Pinewood School site.

Section 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 extend in the preparation of this report.

None.

NB The list excludes:

1 Published works

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

Appendix 2

LEA Commentary on School Performance

Manor Infant School

In January 2003 Ofsted judged the school as effective and giving good value for money. It reported that from a lower than average starting point, most pupils reach at least the standards seen in most schools by Year 2. In some subjects, standards were above average, although in writing the pupils did not reach standards that were as high as in other areas of their work. The Ofsted inspection report stated that the headteacher and other senior managers lead a dedicated team of staff and manage the school well. In the National Curriculum tests in 2003 the school achieved overall below average standards when compared with schools nationally and with similar schools. Progress of the more able children was at least satisfactory and often good. However, the progress made by the less able was overall unsatisfactory. Consequently, the LEA has currently categorised the school as in need of some improvement. The school has a small number of children who have hearing impairments and attend the specialist resource provision based in the neighbouring junior school. The school has in place appropriate systems for evaluating its own performance and has identified the priorities for improvement. It has the capacity to improve.

Manor Junior School

In 2000, Ofsted judged that Manor Junior School was an improving school with no serious weaknesses. It was making good provision for pupils with special educational needs and those in the hearing impaired unit. The level of special educational needs in the school has risen since that time. In the National Curriculum tests in 2003 the school achieved average standards in English and science when compared with all schools nationally and pupils made satisfactory progress in these subjects. In mathematics the school achieved below average results and progress was unsatisfactory. This led to the school being categorised as in need of some improvement. The headteacher is completing his first year in post and a new deputy headteacher will be appointed for September 2004. The headteacher, governors and staff work together well to improve the school and are striving for higher standards. The school has systems and structures for evaluating its work and has the capacity to improve.

Guillemont Junior School

Guillemont Junior School is an effective school with a number of highly effective features. The school has resourced provision for children with language impairment and just over a quarter of the school's population have special educational needs (SEN). The curriculum is a strength of the school. It has been carefully designed to be inclusive and challenging so it meets the needs of all children. In 1999, OFSTED judged Guillemont Junior School to be a good school, whose strengths considerably outweighed its weaknesses. Overall the school had made good progress since the previous inspection. Over recent years standards achieved in the end of key stage National Curriculum tests have generally been in line with similar schools and above average in relation to all schools nationally. In 2003 there was a dip in the results which is being thoroughly addressed by the school. The leadership of the headteacher, supported by the deputy, senior managers and governors is very good. There are robust performance management and self-evaluation procedures. It has a strong capacity to improve.

Parsonage Farm Nursery and Infant School

Parsonage Farm Nursery and Infants School is highly effective. In the National Curriculum tests in 2003 the school achieved well above average standards in nearly all areas. Children make good progress. The school consistently works to achieve high standards and has good systems for evaluating its work and using the information to inform future activities. The school is well led and teaching is good overall. The school has robust self-evaluation procedures and has the capacity for self-improvement. The school was last inspected in May 1998 and can expect a further inspection within a year. At that time OFSTED judged that the weaknesses of the school were strongly outweighed by the strengths. The school can anticipate a positive outcome when it is next inspected.

Pinewood Infant School

In September 2003 OFSTED judged that the school provided a sound education for its pupils. Teaching and learning were described as satisfactory and enabled most children to make sound progress. Pupils with special educational needs (SEN) made good progress but more able pupils did not achieve as well as they should. The report described a strong and caring ethos and a mutually supportive staff team. It noted that the school had suffered from difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff, and, more recently, from an arson attack which had destroyed most of its buildings, equipment and resources. It reported that the provision for children in Reception was good and helped them to make good progress. Also, that there was very good provision for pupils with SEN, especially those in the Resourced Provision for Language Impairment. OFSTED reported that there had been satisfactory improvement since the school was inspected in 2001. It considered that improvements in leadership, management and governance, which were clearly well underway, had suffered a major setback as a result of the fire. Although the school has arrested the downward trend in standards as indicated by the results of the national curriculum tests in 2003, the LEA has recently categorised Pinewood Infant School as `requiring some improvement', mainly due to the impact of recent events and the still below average standards when compared with all schools nationally. The school has established systems for self-evaluation and with appropriate support it has a capacity to improve.

Southwood Infant School

Southwood Infant School is an effective school where self evaluation systems have become embedded into the day to day work of the school and are used effectively to inform future planning. Children generally achieved standards that are above average or well above average in the National Curriculum tests in 2003. In December 2000 OFSTED judged Southwood Infant School to be a good school in many aspects of its work. It reported that very good relationships, the good management of pupils, the overall good teaching and the care and concern for every individual created an atmosphere in which all children could develop self confidence and independence and make progress in their learning. OFSTED noted that very good leadership from the headteacher, ably supported by a caring and conscientious staff, ensured that the school was capable of continuing to improve. These positive comments remain valid.