Archived decisions

                      ITEM 2

AT A MEETING of the EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE of the HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at The Castle, Winchester on 28 May 2004.

PRESENT:

M.J. Kendal (Chairman); Mrs V. Assinder; Mrs A.E. Bailey; D.J. Belfield; F.J. Bright; P.R. Brown; Mrs E.M. Byrom; K.G. Chapman; Ms R. Clarke; C.Connnor; T. Coupland; B.D. Dash; Mrs P.M. Devereux; L.T. Dunsdon; R.J. Ellis; J. Gawthorpe; S.W. Juniper; Jo Kelly; R. Kimber; Mrs. A.M. McNair Scott; D. Mayer; Mrs E.M.F. Randall; J.W. Stocks; Revd. D.M. Turner; J.G.L. Wall; D.I. White; D.F. Wright.

Also present:

Councillor D.G. Allen, Executive Member for Education

Councillors R. Baulk and A.P. Collett Local County Councillors

203 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should, normally at the time of the debate, declare their interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed. Councillor J. Stocks declared a personal interest as his wife was Chairman of Governors for Pinewood Infant School, and was also leading the deputation from that school. This did not amount to a personal prejudicial interest and he therefore remained in the meeting whilst this item was discussed.

204 CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

The Chairman had none to make on this occasion

205 DEPUTATIONS

The Committee exceptionally received deputations from the governing bodies of Pinewood Infant School and Guillemont Junior School, both relating to Item 4 (Minute 206 below). They accepted that it was reasonable to do so even though both deputations had previously appeared at the Committee's meeting on 11 May. The deputations reiterated the important educational, social and community roles of Pinewood Infant School and expressed their disappointment at the Executive Member for Education's decision to publish notices relating to its closure. They urged Councillor Allen to reconsider his decision and make an exception to normal policy in the case of Pinewood, and drew particular attention to the effective integration of special needs - and the resourced provision for language - impaired children, which they felt could not easily be transferred elsewhere without undue disruption. They also expressed doubts at the costs quoted for rebuilding Pinewood Infant School on its present site, and concerns at the safety and logistical implications for families if the only infant provision was located at Manor Infant or other schools south of the motorway.

206 REVIEW OF PRIMARY SCHOOL PROVISION IN THE NORTH WEST FARNBOROUGH AREA

The Committee considered reports comprising the decision reached by the Executive Member for Education on 13 May 2004; the statement by the Executive Member for Education giving his reasons for reaching that decision; the draft minute of the Education Policy Review Committee held on 11 May 2004, relating to this item; the original report by the County Education Officer; and the statement of views received from Rushmoor Borough Council. Copies of all these documents are set out as Item 4 in the Minute Book. The Chairman explained the call-in procedure as set out in Part 3: D, paragraph 1.15 of the Constitution. It was reported that the decision had been called in for review by Councillors Mrs Bailey, Brown, Dash, Dunsdon, Kelly, Kimber, Mrs Peskett and Wall. The meeting had accordingly been arranged within the timescales specified in the Constitution. The reason given for the call-in was that Councillor Allen's decision was contrary to the advice of the Education Policy Review Committee. The Chairman went on to explain that if, following review, the decision was found to be in accord with the County Council's policy framework, it could still be acted upon but that a Part 2 report would be made to the next County Council meeting for debate. If, however, it was not in accord with the policy framework, then the issue was referred to full County Council for decision.

The County Education Officer then responded to further detailed questions raised by Councillor Stocks and several other members. They then considered views expressed by Councillors Baulk and Collett as local members for adjoining areas.

The Committee first considered the arguments put forward by those members supporting the call-in and urging the retention of Pinewood Infant School, as follows:-

      · In their view it represented a vital educational, social and community focus for a community isolated from the rest of Farnborough by the M3.

      · Concerns at the inadequacies of potential walking routes to the alternative, Manor Infant School, with special regard to alleged safety concerns arising from those routes using the footbridge or the underpass to cross the M3.

      · The very effective integration of special needs, language impaired children at Pinewood which could not easily be replicated elsewhere without undue disruption.

      · Doubts at the quoted costs for rebuilding Pinewood on its present site.

      · The feeling that the review had been precipitated by the fire at Pinewood.

      · Potential traffic, environmental and health issues if families have to walk or travel further to get their children to school, and particular logistical difficulties if parents have to get children to both Manor Infant and Guillemont Junior Schools, located on opposite sides of the motorway.

      · The claimed need for a more wide-ranging review of infant provision in the area which might identify a better way forward.

      They, therefore, requested Councillor Allen to reconsider his decision in the light of the views expressed by the Education Policy Review Committee both at their last meeting and this.

      Other members spoke in support of Councillor Allen's decision and stressed the need for the County Council to take a strategic view. They agreed with him that the County Council could not justify investing a sum in the region of £2M - £3M to rebuild a school on the reduced scale of 90 places, when those places would be surplus to requirements. They considered that small schools did not represent an efficient use of resources and that no case had been proved for an exception to be made to that policy. They did not feel that the choice of walking routes to alternative schools was unreasonable.

      In reply to the debate, Councillor Allen explained that he had listened very carefully to all the views expressed during the consultation, to the points made by the deputations and to the views expressed by the Education Policy Review Committee both on 11 and 28 May. However, he saw no evidence of any exceptional case which would persuade him to change his decision. He stressed the strategic reasons which had led him to the conclusion that the County Council should not devote scarce resources to a small infant school when acceptable alternative provision was available at other schools within reasonable distance. He remained confident that proposals for the language-impaired provision to transfer to Southwood Infant School could be effectively and sensitively managed, given the extended timetable before implementation in September 2006. He recognised the distress felt by the Pinewood Community at the prospect of a good school closing, but regrettably he considered that he had not heard any reasons strong enough to persuade him to change his mind.

      The Committee then looked in detail at the future of the unit for language-impaired children at Pinewood. They agreed to request the Executive Member for Education that, in the event of Pinewood Infant School closing and the unit for language-impaired children being transferred to Southwood, then the language-impaired staff at Pinewood should be given the opportunity to transfer to Southwood Infant School in order to provide a seamless transfer of services for the children, subject only to those staff being willing to transfer. Councillor Allen responded that the County Council did not have powers to direct either the schools or their staff to transfer in this way, but he would be very happy to encourage the governors and staff of the schools concerned to make the transition from Pinewood to Southwood if they wish to do so.

      On conclusion of the debate, the Committee expressed the view that it believed closure of Pinewood Infant School would

    · Threaten the medium term viability of primary education north of the M3.

      · Threaten the loss of excellent inclusive education of language impaired children.

      and that accordingly it invites the Executive Member for Education to reconsider his decision and investigate the feasibility of a primary school on the Guillemont site alongside a wider review of surplus place removal in north west Farnborough. Councillor Allen responded that he was unable to accept this advice, as it once again proposed the construction of infant school places which were surplus to requirements in the area. He remained convinced that his proposals were the right strategic way forward and represented the most efficient use of resources, in the interests of maintaining high standards for children throughout Hampshire.

      Committee Members finally considered whether the decision might be in any way contrary to the County Council's policy framework, for example, in the area of environmental or community policies, but were unable to establish that the decision contradicted overall County Council policy. The decision could, therefore, be acted upon but the circumstances and the diverging views expressed would be reported to the next meeting of the County Council.


8aM270604