Hampshire County Council Education Policy Review Committee 12 October 2004 Review of primary school provision in the Romsey area: Paper 3 - Cupernham Infant, Cupernham Junior, Halterworth Primary, Romsey Abbey CE Primary (Aided), Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools (Area 1) Report of the County Education Officer

Item 11c

Contact:

Ann Begley, Assistant County Education Officer (School Branch); 01962 846518; [email protected]

Alex Munro, Education Officer (Admissions and Special Projects; 01962 846462; [email protected]

Bob Eardley, Strategic Planning Manager; 01962 846275; [email protected]

1 Summary

1.1 This report provides details of the outcomes of consultations held at the schools listed below following the review of primary school provision in the Romsey town area:

· Cupernham Infant

· Cupernham Junior

· Halterworth Primary

· Romsey Abbey CE Primary (Aided)

· Romsey Infant

· Romsey Junior

1.2 The report sets out the background and issues affecting these schools and considers options for future primary school provision in the area. It includes the following appendices:

· Appendix 1: notes of meetings held with parents, staff and governors of the schools, including executive summaries of submissions from:

_ the headteachers of Cupernham Infant and Junior Schools

_ the governing bodies of Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools;

_ the governing body of Romsey Junior School;

_ "Together One Primary School" (TOPS), including an analysis of traffic and environmental impacts;

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

· Appendix 3: list of all correspondence and documentation received, the key points of which are referred to in the report;

· Appendix 4: maps of the area under consideration (A) and of Romsey town showing catchment areas (B).

1.3 All correspondence is on deposit in the Members' Room during the week prior to the Education Policy Review Committee meeting on 12 October 2004, and will be available for perusal in the Council Chamber on the day of the meeting.

1 Background

1.1 Consultations with primary schools in the Romsey town area were carried out in the context of falling rolls, summarised in Table 1.

Table 1

	Net capacity	NOR Sep 04	NOR Jan 09	Surplus 09	Surplus 09 (percentage)
Cupernham Infant	180	154	137	43	23.9%
Cupernham Junior	300	290	198	102	34.0%
Halterworth Primary	413	417	364	49	11.9%
Romsey Abbey CE (A) Primary	210	215	205	5	2.4%
Romsey Infant	180	72	85	95	52.8%
Romsey Junior	248	170	106	142	57.3%
Totals	1,531	1,318	1,095	436	28.5%

1.2 The decline in pupil numbers in Romsey primary schools is particularly marked in Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools, where forecast numbers in 2009 bring into question the viability of both schools. The County Council's stated optimum size for infant schools is between two forms of entry (180 places) and five forms of entry (450 places)and for junior schools is between two forms of entry (240 places) and five forms of entry (600 places) as set out in the County Council's School Organisation Plan. It would be difficult for schools of the forecast size of Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools to sustain the range of opportunities available in other schools. Attracting high quality staff can be an issue and it is more difficult to provide for subject leadership across the curriculum.

2 Consultation options

2.1 Consultations were held on the basis of the possible closure of Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools and transfer of children to Cupernham Infant and Junior Schools and, if necessary at a later date, Halterworth Primary School.

2.2 Other options, but not recommended for implementation, included in the report of 25 March 2004 seeking authority to consult were:

(a) amalgamation of Romsey Infant and Junior Schools on the Romsey Junior School site to form a 210 place, 1 form entry primary school;

(b) amalgamation of Cupernham Infant and Junior Schools to form a 360-place primary school;

(c) retention of Romsey Infant, Romsey Junior, Cupernham Infant and Cupernham Junior Schools.

3 Review of responses to consultation

3.1 The following paragraphs summarise responses to the consultations. Schools are listed in alphabetical order. Full notes of the consultation meetings and supporting documents are attached at Appendix 1.

Cupernham Infant and Cupernham Junior Schools

3.2 Parents expressed concerns about the effects on the Cupernham schools if the Romsey schools were to close and in particular that they would become too large. There were also concerns about the ease with which large numbers of children from other schools could be satisfactorily integrated. Increased size was also felt to threaten reputation and standards. There were also concerns about increased traffic congestion, which would result from additional numbers of children travelling to the Cupernham schools when previously many had been able to walk.

3.3 The ability of Halterworth Primary School to absorb additional children from Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools was questioned. Parents believed that the school was already taking large numbers of children from outside its catchment area, to the detriment of children in Romsey. The status and size of the proposed Abbottswood housing development caused further concerns over whether all local children could be accommodated if Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools closed. Staff and governors feared that class sizes in the Cupernham schools would be adversely affected by pressure to admit more children and that closure of Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools would effectively remove parental preference in Romsey.

3.4 Governors were not in support of the proposed closure of Romsey Infant and Junior Schools, but stated that they could make the necessary changes to accommodate additional pupils if the schools were to close. When Members of the EPRC visited the two schools, the headteachers took the opportunity to stress that, if a school were to be retained in the centre of Romsey, this would have a negative effect upon their schools' financial stability. The future of the nursery at Romsey Infant School was also raised and particularly how this provision could be continued if the school closed.

Halterworth Primary School

3.5 Governors and staff were opposed to an increase in the size of the school which they felt would damage standards, put an intolerable strain on the infrastructure and lead to additional traffic congestion, which was already a serious problem. Two forms of entry was seen as the right size for the school. It was emphasised that the governors had spent many years securing investment to achieve a two form entry school with the appropriate spaces and felt strongly that the balance between accommodation and numbers would be lost if the school expanded. There were general concerns about future increases in pupil numbers from housing developments which were not currently confirmed, but which were quite likely to happen. The sale of the Romsey Infant and Junior sites, for example, could generate significant numbers of children and potential development at Abbottswood was an added concern. Governors believed that the character of the school would change adversely if the school expanded and that standards would be similarly affected.

3.6 Governors expressed their support for amalgamation of Romsey Infant and Junior Schools to form a primary school, as this was seen as the best approach to meeting the continuing need for school places in the centre of Romsey; this view was reiterated by parents. Parents were also concerned about the accuracy of pupil number forecasts and in particular the likelihood of further housing developments increasing demand for places. There was concern about future pressure on Halterworth if the Romsey schools were to close and the effect this might have on the admission of out of catchment siblings.

Romsey Abbey CE (Aided) Primary School

3.7 Parents expressed concerns about possible enlargement of the Romsey Abbey Primary catchment area if Romsey Infant and Junior Schools closed, with a consequent increase in traffic congestion. They recognised that the school could not expand because of its restricted site. Questions were also raised about whether children from the same family would be split up if the Romsey schools closed. An amalgamated primary school was seen as being potentially more popular than the current separate infant and junior schools and was viewed as a sensible way forward. The impact on children of having to move schools was also considered a problem and there was unease about how the County Council would implement changes, particularly in terms of timing. There was also concern that an enlargement of Romsey Abbey Primary School catchment area would mean that parents seeking a place in a church aided school could be disappointed.

Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools

3.8 Separate consultation meetings were held with the staff and governors of Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools, with a combined meeting for parents.

3.9 Governors and staff of the Romsey Infant School were concerned about whether pupil number forecasts took adequate account of the national increase in birth rate recorded in 2003 and whether the amount of primary provision available if the Romsey Infant and Junior Schools were to close would be sufficient for known housing growth within the area. The loss of primary school provision in central Romsey was felt to have serious implications for the town and its community, which should be very carefully considered. The school would be setting up a Foundation Stage unit from September 2004 and believed that, with nursery pupils who would previously have been accommodated in a separate building now becoming more integrated in the school, this would be more attractive for parents and help to increase numbers on roll.

3.10 The view of governors and staff was that ideally the infant school should be retained, but they recognised the practical difficulty of achieving this. There would be some continued flexibility in choice of school if a primary school were established in central Romsey. It was felt that, if this option were pursued, careful consideration should be given to locating the school on the current Infant School site.

3.11 Governors and staff of Romsey Junior School drew attention to the strength of local feeling for the retention of primary school provision in central Romsey and voiced concern that closure appeared to be the LEA's only option. Again, the adequacy of remaining provision in the context of future housing developments was questioned. The walking distance for children from the centre of Romsey to the Cupernham and Halterworth schools was felt to be excessive, particularly bearing in mind the gradients, and would, therefore, contribute to increased traffic congestion. There was also concern about the reduction in capacity and admission numbers at the Cupernham schools. The favoured option from the meeting was amalgamation of the two schools on the Romsey Junior School site. There was recognition that supporters of this option would need to demonstrate that the school would be fully subscribed.

3.12 The combined meeting for parents of Romsey Infant and Junior Schools was well attended. A major theme of the meeting was the "Together One Primary School" (TOPS) campaign, which was advocating strongly a one form entry primary school to be established on the Romsey Junior School site. Several speakers spoke in detail about the aims of the campaign and the advantages which would flow from a primary school being established. The action group's proposal included a 52-week a year nursery and enhanced community facilities, which would increase its attractiveness. This approach received general support from the meeting, including a speaker from the local Chamber of Commerce. It was thought to promote pupil inclusion, parental preference, health, road safety and protection of the environment. As the primary school would be new, it would overcome some historic negative perceptions of the two schools it would replace.

3.13 Parents and others attending the meeting were all opposed to closure of the current schools without a replacement primary school. The principal grounds were disruption to children's education, adverse effects on the local community and increased traffic congestion pollution and risk of accidents. The effects of new housing developments, including those in north Baddesley, were thought not to have been taken adequately into account. Closure would mean more time spent getting to and from school. Concerns were also expressed about the amount of information needed for the County Council to be convinced that a primary school would be fully subscribed. The TOPS group had collected signatures indicating pupil numbers beyond one form of entry; LEA officers stressed the importance of ensuring that the figures were as accurate as possible.

3.14 A primary school was seen as offering one focal point for parents and the central Romsey community. It would support a larger staff team, which would be more likely to provide a greater shared expertise and more opportunities for the career progression of staff than presently existed within the separate infant and junior schools. These factors were seen as important in meeting the challenges of staff recruitment and retention

4 Correspondence received

4.1 In total, 118 letters have been received covering issues arising from the review of Romsey town schools. Of these, 91 support the one-form entry primary option, while 18 favour retention of the status quo. Other major concerns covered in correspondence are:

· adverse traffic implications (37 correspondents);

· walking distances to alternative schools (35 correspondents);

· accuracy of pupil number forecasts (29 correspondents);

· reduction of parental choice (29 correspondents);

· early years provision (24 correspondents).

4.2 Other issues covered (in each case fewer than 10% of correspondents) include SEN, admission issues and concerns over the effects of expansion of Halterworth Primary School, pre-schools at Cupernham and Halterworth and transitional arrangements if the schools were to close.

4.3 The governing bodies of Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools have submitted a joint proposal supporting the establishment of a one form entry primary school on the Junior School site. They believe that this would provide a safe and happy learning environment which would continue to offer high quality teaching and learning and would ensure retention of existing teaching and support staff. The primary school would have positive benefits on traffic movements and be fully inclusive and offer easy access for children and parents with disability or mobility problems. It would offer extensive playing fields and effective links with Mountbatten and Romsey secondary schools.

4.4 The proposal envisages expansion of breakfast and after school clubs and consolidation of the Foundation stage unit recently established at the Infant School. Community use of school facilities would also be expanded, with the intention of working towards extended school provision. Preferences expressed by prospective parents for the four years from 2006 onwards gathered through a survey by the TOPS action group (see paragraph 5.5) are included and indicate numbers on roll of at least 250, some 40 higher than the one form entry capacity. Recognising that such preferences are not binding, the governing bodies have reviewed the LEA forecasts and point out that achieving a 50% participation rate would provide sufficient pupils to fill the school nearly to its capacity.

4.5 A petition in support of the proposal for a primary school was submitted by the action group and contains 3,847 signatures. Of these signatories, 3,406 lived in Romsey and 700 stated that they were parents, though it was sometimes not clear whether they had school-age children. As indicated in paragraph 5.4, parents with children below school age were asked to indicate whether they would send their child to a Romsey town primary school. 214 parents who indicated that they had school-age children stated that they would send their child to an amalgamated school. The survey identified 214 pupils in the age groups from 0 - 4 which, when extrapolated to cover the whole age range, would be sufficient for a one form entry primary school.

5.6 An assessment has been carried out as part of the information provided by TOPS of the traffic and environmental impact of the LEA's proposal to close both Romsey Infant and Junior Schools. The executive summary and conclusions are enclosed as part of appendix 1.

5 Parish, Town and City Councils: review of responses to consultation

5.1 The following parish, town and city councils were consulted:

(a) Braishfield Parish Council;

(b) Romsey Town Council;

(c) Romsey Extra Parish Council;

(d) Southampton City Council.

5.2 Comments have been received from Braishfield Parish Council, which supports the creation of a one form entry primary school on the Romsey Junior School site, which would be an excellent opportunity to improve the pupil/teacher ratio. The Parish Council believes that long-term housing plans for the area, particularly at Abbottswood, have not been given sufficient weight in forecasting pupil numbers and is particularly concerned about the possible closure of the nursery class at Romsey Infant School.

6.3 Southampton City Council is confident that places would be available for any Southampton children who, as a result of changes in the current provision, might find it more difficult to attend a Hampshire school.

6 Test Valley Borough Council: review of response to consultation

6.1 Test Valley Borough Council has objected to the closure of Romsey Infant and Junior Schools on the grounds that it would:

· diminish the level of choice of primary school provision in Romsey;

· discourage children from walking to school and encourage more parents to use their cars, which is contrary to government and County Council policy on sustainable transport;

· lead to unacceptably larger class sizes, as additional children resulting from committed and future potential housing development seek school places.

6.2 The Borough Council considers it important to retain primary school provision in the heart of Romsey, in an area of predominantly family housing and therefore supports the establishment of a primary school, preferably on the Junior School site.

7 Test Valley Community Learning Partnership: review of response to consultation

7.1 The Test Valley Learning Partnership was consulted and their response :

· supports the setting up of a new primary school to replace the existing Romsey Infant and Junior Schools;

· emphasises the need to incorporate a nursery and opportunities for family and adult learning; and

· points out that Romsey Community School (secondary) already delivers family learning at the junior school and adult learning and after-school provision for working parents at the infant school.

7.2 The Partnership stresses that these views are based not only on their analysis of the existing pattern of need and provision but also on the potential growth of Romsey in the longer term.

8 Members' visits

8.1 On 6 September 2004, Members visited Ampfield Primary, Halterworth Primary, Romsey Abbey CE (Aided) Primary Schools. The following issues were raised:

Halterworth

· proportion of catchment area and out of catchment children;

· added value;

· community links;

· SEN.

Romsey Abbey CE (Aided)

· community role

· catchment area and out of catchment pupils;

· early years provision;

· replacement of temporary buildings;

· funding.

Issues raised at Ampfield CE School are recorded in Paper 4.

8.2 On 14 September 2004, Members visited Romsey Infant, Romsey Junior, Cupernham Infant and Cupernham Junior Schools. The following issues were raised:

Romsey Infant

· Foundation stage;

· Number on roll;

· Size of site.

Romsey Junior

· SEN;

· profile of the catchment area;

· pre- and post-school provision;

· local support for a joint school;

· how the proposal for a joint school developed;

· playing field provision.

Cupernham Infant and Junior

· extensive site;

· possible future amalgamation;

· Abbottswood development.

9 Area specific issues raised during the consultation

Catchment areas

9.1 The issue of school catchment areas, in relation to parental preference, was raised on a number of occasions. It is important to remember that catchment areas only come into play when a school is over-subscribed. The re-drawing of a line will not, of itself, alter parents' expression of preference. Given the relatively close proximity of schools in the Romsey area, there is considerable movement across catchment areas as demonstrated in Table 2, which shows the number of Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior catchment area children attending neighbouring schools and the number of children attending Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools from other catchment areas. Nursery pupils are excluded.

Table 2 (January 2004)

School	Romsey I/J catchment children attending neighbouring schools		Children from other catchment areas attending Romsey schools
	Romsey Infant	Romsey Junior	Romsey Infant	Romsey Junior
Cupernham Infant	27	-	14	-
Cupernham Junior	-	40	-	25
Halterworth Primary	33	36	3	1
Romsey Abbey CE (A) Primary	33	40	5	17
Other	3	10	10	10
Totals	96	126	32	53
Romsey Inf & Jun	64	125	64	125
Grand totals	160	251	96	178

Traffic/walking routes

9.2 Walking routes from a central point in Romsey to the Cupernham schools, Halterworth Primary School and Romsey Abbey CE (Aided) Primary School are well within two miles and are, therefore, deemed reasonable by the Department for Education and Skills for children of infant age. However, many parents have pointed out that it is an uphill walk to the Cupernham schools and Halterworth School. Paragraph 5.6 refers to the survey carried out by the parents' action group in relation to traffic issues. Further details are given in Appendix 1.

Admissions to Halterworth Primary School

9.3 Issues were raised during the consultation about the potential for Halterworth Primary School to take additional pupils from central Romsey. Further analysis has revealed that some 50% of Halterworth's pupils come from outside its catchment area. Although there are no changes currently proposed at Halterworth Primary School, if they are necessary in the future there would be space at the school for more pupils living in central Romsey, but that would be at the expense of out of catchment admissions, initially for Year R children.

10 Early years provision

10.1 In agreeing that consultations should take place on the options set out in section 2, the Executive Member for Education was keen to explore opportunities which might arise as a result of potential changes to the current pattern of primary school provision, to consolidate and enhance early years provision as appropriate.

10.2 Table 3 sets out the number of pre-school age children and the provision known to be available to them in the three wards covering Romsey town and Romsey Extra which surrounds the town. The figures are based on information gathered for an early years audit carried out in June 2003. In terms of predicting likely requirements for future early years places, the figures can only give an indication of demand since many 4-year-olds will start school as rising fives during and some parents may not wish to take advantage of pre-school provision.

Table 3

Ward (Schools)	No. of early years places	No. of 3 and 4 year olds
		2004	2005	2006
Abbey	152	73	80	85
Cupernham	54	102	99	105
Tadburn	19	88	83	85
Romsey Extra	104	60	57	55
Total	329	323	319	330

10.3 In order to calculate the likely demand for places, taking into account previous trends, it is assumed that about 85% of three-year olds and 42% of younger four-year olds will need an early years place, with older four-year olds having taken up places in reception classes as rising fives. Applying the above percentages, it is clear that there are sufficient places available in early years provision in the area. An early years education place offers 2.5 hours free education per day for 11 weeks per term.

10.4 The figures relating to the Abbey ward include the Romsey Infant Nursery provision of 60 places. There are currently 22 children attending this nursery who, because of currently very low numbers can attend full-time if their parents wish them to do so. If a new school were to be set up on the Romsey Junior School site, it is proposed that the nursery unit at Romsey Infant, now integrated into the Foundation Stage unit, be re-located but that provision should in future be made for 30 rather than 60 places. This would still leave a sufficient margin of places available in the Romsey area and protect the Foundation Stage provision established this term.

10.5 This proposal does not preclude third party provision of additional day care or early years facilities on the site.

11 Implications of consultation outcomes

Development of options

11.1 A characteristic of this review has been the openness of lines of communication with schools and representatives of the parents' action group. From the outset, contact has been maintained, with regular sharing of information.

11.2 Consultation on two specific proposals was authorised by the Executive Member in March 2004 with the aim of seeking views as widely as possible. At an early stage, the option of a one-form entry primary school became an increasing focus of the consultation. Parents' views were sought to ensure that this emerging option was aired. Although considered in the March consultation paper, this option was not one of the preferred options.

11.3 A common theme running through the consultation responses has been the desire to retain primary school provision in the centre of Romsey. The consultation proposal for closure of Romsey Infant School and Romsey Junior School was questioned on a number of grounds, principally:

· loss of educational and community facilities in central Romsey;

· adverse effects on children;

· potential loss of valued SEN expertise;

· distance to alternative primary schools;

· restriction of parental choice;

· increased road traffic;

· doubts about the robustness of LEA pupil number forecasts.

11.4 There is strong local support for establishing a one-form entry primary school on the Romsey Junior School site. Establishing a primary school would also offer opportunities to retain a Foundation Stage Unit and to strengthen community provision. The primary school would serve a community with significant deprivation and incidence of special educational needs. It would avoid the need for children to travel to other schools and to change schools during their years of primary education. If the number of children indicated in the TOPS survey as potential pupils at the school were realised, the new school would be over-subscribed, but places would be available at the Cupernham schools and, if necessary, at Halterworth. The governors of Romsey Abbey CE School have indicated that they would consider carefully any proposal from the LEA about possible changes to the catchment area.

Implications for surplus places

11.5 Pupil number forecasts for Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools indicate that there will be a combined number on roll of 191 in January 2009. If this number of pupils attended an amalgamated primary school, there would be 9% surplus places, a reasonable working margin. At the same time, however, there would be 194 surplus places jointly at the Cupernham schools and Halterworth Primary, representing 22% of their combined capacity.

11.6 Replacing Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior Schools with a 1 form entry primary school would have the following effect on surplus places in the area:

Table 4

	Net capacity	PAN 2003	NOR Jan 09	Surplus 09	Surplus 09 (percentage)
Cupernham Infant	180	60	137	43	23.9%
Cupernham Junior	300	75	198	102	34.0%
Halterworth Primary	413	60	364	49	11.9%
Romsey Abbey CE (A) Primary	210	60	205	5	2.4%
Romsey Primary	210	30	191	19	9.0%
Totals	1,313	285	1,095	218	16.6%

11.7 The level of surplus indicated in Table 4 (16.6%) is still quite high, although considerably lower than the 28.5% forecast in Table 1 if no action were taken (which is not a viable option). Without the possibility of significant additional housing at Abbottswood, it would be difficult to argue in support of a Romsey Primary School. The addition of 500 dwellings within the forecast period would, however, produce some 125 additional primary age pupils, which would take up much of the forecast surplus at the Cupernham schools. That would leave an overall area surplus of 7.1%. If the Abbottswood development was not implemented, consideration could initially be given to a further reduction in capacity at Cupernham Junior School to 240 places (two forms of entry) in line with the capacity of the infant school, producing an overall surplus of 12.6%, as indicated in table 5. The overall provision on site would need to be kept under continuing review.

11.8 Table 5 compares the effects on surplus provision in relation to the Romsey Town schools of five approaches:

Table 5

Option	No. of surplus places in 2009	% surplus places in 2009
No action	436	28.5%
Close Romsey Infant and Junior Schools and establish Romsey Primary School	218	16.6%
Close Romsey Infant and Junior Schools and establish Romsey Primary School. 500 dwellings built at Abbottswood	93	7.1%
Close Romsey Infant and Junior Schools and establish Romsey Primary School. No dwellings built at Abbottswood, but Cupernham Junior capacity reduced to 240 places	158	12.6%
Close Romsey Infant and Junior Schools	8	0.7%

11.9 The table indicates the wide range of surpluses resulting from each course of action. The closure of both Romsey schools without creation of a primary school is a feasible option, particularly if expansion of Halterworth Primary were to be pursued, or the school catchment area were to include a greater area of Romsey town. Development of the Romsey Infant and Junior School sites would produce a number of new homes, with a resultant increase in primary age children. Over time, together with the possible Abbottswood development, this could lead to an overall need to expand Halterworth Primary School or the two Cupernham schools. The issue to be decided, therefore, is whether the risks of closure without providing a new primary school are outweighed by the more immediate reduction in surplus provision and financial savings which would flow from closure.

Strategic considerations

11.10 The County Council's responsibility is to take a strategic view of the most sustainable way to provide school places for the area. Primary schools in this area are close together and families exercise preferences among them.

11.11 In planning new schools in urban or suburban areas, the County Council would not normally consider establishing a school of the size of Romsey Infant and Junior. In small rural communities where effective alternatives are not available, small village schools are supported; the extra costs (which fall on the education budget and therefore affect what is available for schools generally) may be offset to some extent by the cost of transport in rural areas (the statutory distances beyond which home to school transport to a designated school is provided free of charge to parents are two miles for children under eight and three miles for older children).

11.12 The original proposal remains a strategically viable option. It is based on a robust projection of pupil numbers and is consistent with the County Council's policies on size and location of schools. Romsey would be served by a range of schools: an infant/junior pair (Cupernham); a church primary school (Romsey Abbey); and a community primary school (Halterworth). Resources released from the closure of two schools would be available for further investment. The option of establishing a primary school on the Romsey Junior School site would reduce the scope for such development.

11.13 The special consideration in Romsey is the development of new housing at Abbottswood. The community appears to be confident that this will take place in the near future. The Cupernham schools have the capacity to cater for additional numbers, reducing the potential need for further development of the school buildings. The option of establishing a one form entry primary school on the Romsey Junior site is, therefore, strategically viable although it carries with it the need to undertake regular monitoring of numbers and the likelihood of a further review in the future. It also reduces the scope for more immediate investment, offset by the reduction in probability of future costs. It would be necessary to identify sufficient resources to fund the required adaptations on the junior school site.

11.14 As stated earlier, the governing bodies of both schools are supportive of the primary school option. There is no reason to suppose that a primary school could not build on the significant strengths of the existing schools. It would also be possible to make additional provision, subject to the availability of resources, to meet the extended schools agenda and implications of the Children Bill.

11.15 Although the size of the Romsey Infant School site is just adequate for the buildings for a one form entry primary school with purpose built early years provision, a sports pitch could not be accommodated. The site is therefore below the DfES guidelines. Any primary school would need to be located on the present junior school site in extended and adapted buildings, designed to create a better learning environment for junior age children, and to emulate present infant and early years provision at Romsey Infant School, in line with the primary building brief.

11.16 If the Abbottswood development did not proceed as expected, it would be important to keep the overall position under review and in particular to monitor demand on the Cupernham site to decide whether further surplus provision would need to be removed.

12 Capital strategy

12.1 Initial feasibility studies have been carried out on the adaptation of Romsey Junior School to form a one-form entry primary school. This study takes account of the accommodation which would be required to meet current requirements for primary school provision and to include where appropriate the necessary early years facilities. Should one of these proposals be pursued, then the opportunity will be taken during future design development to ascertain the detailed scope of any additional repair and maintenance works which could be afforded and included in the works.

12.2 Subject to detailed planning consent for the primary school proposals and the Secretary of State for Education's approval to dispose of surplus land, and the granting of planning consents for residential development on it, the costs of adapting the Romsey Junior building as a one form entry primary school could be met from the capital receipts from land disposals, without the need to use capital programme resources. The existing Junior School has a greater site area than required for the primary school proposal or any possible future expansion and therefore part of the site could be declared surplus and, together with the Romsey Infant School site, be sold for residential development, subject to the consents referred to above.

12.3 A desktop analysis has been carried out on the expansion of Halterworth Primary School to two and a half forms of entry. This would be feasible and affordable from capital receipts, but detailed work would only be undertaken if, as a result of decisions affecting other Romsey schools, the number of projected pupils required it. Feasibility studies of adaptations to the Cupernham schools are not included, because no expansion of the schools is required at this stage.

Adaptation of Romsey Junior School to a one form entry primary school

12.4 An adapted Romsey Junior building would include two additional class spaces, a music/drama room, tutorial room and SEN room to bring it up to the County Council's model brief and current thinking. Provision is also proposed for a 30 places sessional early years facility. The building would also benefit from some internal remodelling, as some of the existing classrooms are under-sized. Table 6 summarises the estimated costs.

Table 6 - Estimated capital costs of a one form entry primary school in the Romsey Junior building

Project elements	£ million
Additional general teaching and specialist provision	1.15
Early years, incorporating remodelling	0.35
Total	1.50

12.5 The total estimated cost of the project, including the new early years provision, is £1.500million. This is likely to be covered by the sale of land as explained in 13.2.

13 Revenue implications

13.1 The creation of a primary school from separate infant and junior schools would result in revenue savings from the reduction in fixed allocations per school, chiefly the posts of headteacher, administrative officer and caretaking staff as well as lower premises costs, real term protection and small school support. This funding would remain within the Schools Block, supporting the County Council's scheme of local management for all schools.

14 Views of the local County Councillor

14.1 The local county councillor is unable to attend the meeting but intends to submit views in writing.

15 Process and timescales

15.1 If the Executive Member for Education decided to publish notices proposing the closure of Romsey Junior and Romsey Infant schools and the opening of an amalgamated primary school on the junior school site, the notices would run for a period of six weeks. Any objections would be considered by the School Organisation Committee. The earliest date on which an amalgamated primary school could open would be September 2006. Building works would be completed by September 2007, until which time children would continue to be educated in the separate buildings on the two sites.

16 Concluding comments

16.1 In summary, the proposals in this report would:

· create a 210 place primary school;

· offer continued maintained early years provision, with opportunities for the further development of community use;

· attract capital investment of £1.5m.

· leave sufficient capacity to provide for projected demand;

· contribute to the removal of 380 surplus places in four schools, as summarised in Table 7:

Table 7

School	Capacity Jan 2002	Capacity Sep 2004	Capacity after implementation of measures proposed in this report	Reduction on January 2002 capacity
Cupernham Infant	270	180	180	90
Cupernham Junior	360	300	300	60
Romsey Infant	180	180	210	230
Romsey Junior	260	248
Totals	1,070	908	690	380

16.2 The Committee's views are, therefore, invited on a strategic proposal to publish statutory notices to:

a) close Romsey Infant School and nursery and Romsey Junior School;

b) establish a 210 place primary school, with early years provision, on the Romsey Junior School site.

Recommendation

1 To advise the Executive Member for Education on the following proposals to:

a) close Romsey Infant School and Romsey Junior School and establish a 210 place primary school with 30 maintained nursery places on the Romsey Junior School site from September 2006;

b) explore opportunities for the development of further community provision in the new primary school;

c) continue to keep primary school numbers and pre-school provision in the area under review.

Section 100D - 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.

NB The list excludes:

1 Published works

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

None

Meeting with Cupernham Infant and Junior School staff and governors

Thursday, May 27^th 2004 at 4pm.

Number in attendance : 51

Officers introduced themselves and outlined the background to the meeting with regard to the number of surplus primary school places in the Romsey area, the options under consideration by the County Council and the implications of the current review for Cupernham Infant and Junior schools.

Questions

Increased Pupil Numbers

Has the building that is planned for Abbotswood been taken into account in considering these options?

How would all the extra children who would be generated if the Romsey school sites were sold for housing be accommodated in the remaining schools? If the council offices in Romsey were closed, this could lead to even more housing and more children to accommodate.

What would be done to ensure that there is a maximum number of children per class so that large class sizes or mixed-age classes didn't have a detrimental effect on the quality of education at the Cupernham schools?

The question about where any potential children generated by the Abbotswood development would go if the Romsey and Cupernham schools both became primary schools was raised.

It was asked if , assuming the Romsey schools closed, parents would be able to choose which alternative school to send their children to.

However, another speaker noted that full schools led to far less parental choice.

Financial Issues

A governor and parent at the junior school pointed out that year-on-year variation in numbers means that in some years the school is three form entry and in some years two form entry, which causes budgetary difficulties. He felt that combining Romsey infant and junior schools would mean that the Cupernham schools were still not full and would still be subject to annual variation in numbers.

It was pointed out that the Ampfield School children receive very high funding which led to the question, is closure a foregone conclusion?

Nursery Provision

If the amalgamation of Romsey Infant and Junior Schools went ahead, would this result in the closure of the nursery provision?

Would the proposal for a private day nursery at Fishlake Meadows influence the future of Romsey nursery provision?

A speaker pointed out that the lack of popularity of Romsey nursery provision was difficult to understand as it is free. She asked if the closure of the infant school might make the nursery more attractive as it would no longer be linked and parents wouldn't feel pressure to send their children to the infants school because they were enrolled at the nursery.

Travel to school

A question was asked about the issue of walking distance and whether the problems of road crossings had been considered.

Another speaker agreed that road safety is an issue with the crossing of Cupernham Lane and Woodley Road cited as particularly dangerous for children. The LEA appeared to be rather behind in the "Safe routes to School" agenda.

Would there be transport available to assist parents in getting their children to Cupernham if the Romsey schools closed?

Would this lead to an increase in traffic and parking problems for the Cupernham schools?

The provision of pedestrian crossings would help safe pupil movement around the town. Could this be considered within the scope of the recommendations?

The Future of School Staff

The headteacher of the infants school asked what would happen to the staff of the Romsey schools if they were amalgamated.

If the schools were amalgamated, would staff have to re-apply for their jobs and, if there were surplus teachers who didn't find jobs, would they be made redundant?

If there was a long lead-in to the agreed course of action taking effect, there would be real problems for the schools involved and some people might make the move in advance of the actual closure.

What influences the decision?

A question was asked about the criteria for decision making and whether or not the character and function of a school would be taken into account.

A member of staff said that it was important that Romsey school staff and parents did not get the impression that Cupernham staff and parents were supportive of the closure of the Romsey schools.

It was asked if the schools would be inspected to assess their buildings and facilities before decisions were made.

Officers outlined the next steps in the consultation and decision making process and the meeting concluded.

Meeting with parents of Cupernham Infant and Junior Schools

Thursday, May 27^th 2004 at 7pm

Number in attendance : 46

Officers introduced themselves and outlined the background to the meeting in regard to the number of surplus primary places in the Romsey area, the options under consideration by the County Council and the implications of the current review for Cupernham Infant and Junior Schools.

Questions

Halterworth intake

A Governor of one of the Cupernham schools asked to see the figures showing the catchments of the children who currently attend Halterworth school.

Officers were asked to clarify how the expected surplus at Halterworth by 2009 had been calculated.

A parent questioned the right of Halterworth school to refuse to increase its intake.

Another parent said that spaces to take additional catchment children, including those which might be generated by development at Abbottswood, would exist at Halterworth if it wasn't already full of children from outside the area.

Halterworth was built as a Romsey school, said one parent, and should not be taking children from outside the area. The LEA should not be so reluctant to tackle this issue.

The Proposals

A parent asked whether the closure of Ampfield and the Romsey schools was the main objective of this review.

If Ampfield did close, would this make any difference to the proposals for the two Romsey schools?

A parent questioned whether there would ever be sufficient numbers to support an amalgamated primary school in Romsey and asked if it was thought that a new school might attract more parents and children.

Another parent asked for clarification on the timescale required to complete any re-organisation once it was decided upon.

Numbers at the Cupernham schools

A parent questioned the logic of focussing on the Cupernham site for taking any additional numbers resulting from the closure of the Romsey schools and asked if Cupernham infants would still be guaranteed a place at Cupernham junior school if it became over subscribed.

One parent said that she had telephoned an officer and been told that it was possible that Cupernham infants school might become a five form entry school, which would be totally unacceptable.

Another parent confirmed that she would not send her reception child to a school which took 120 pupils into a year, let alone 150.

A question about the difficulties of integrating a large group of children into an established school was asked. The parent felt that social integration would cause significant problems for both groups of children.

Pre-school provision

A speaker on behalf of Woodley pre-school asked if they could be guaranteed continued use of the vacant room the had recently taken over in Cupernum if the school increased in numbers.

Woodley pre-school provides care for 60 pre-school children. If Romsey nursery provision were to close, along with the infants school, that would result in 80 children losing their early years provision. What was the LEA planning to do to prevent this happening?

Reputation

A parent asked if the reputation of the schools had been considered in making these proposals. She went on to say that a significant increase in the size of the Cupernham schools could result in a decline in their reputation and in the quality of provision.

Other Issues

Having seen the effect of financial protection on school budgets, one parent asked if this would be reduced or lost if the two Romsey schools were amalgamated.

A parent asked about catchment areas and wondered if they would be completely re-drawn if the proposed closures or amalgamation took effect.

Another parent asked if the County Council had a traffic model which figures could be fed into to assess the effects of the proposed changes on the traffic in an area.

Officers outlined the next steps in the consultation and decision making process and the meeting concluded.

Romsey Review

Notes of consultation meeting with Halterworth Primary School staff and governors

17 May 2004 - 4.00 pm

The meeting was attended by 33 staff and governors and the headteacher.

Educational Standards

· It was pointed out by one of the governors that they had concerns about the school increasing to 3 FE and the impact this might have on the workings of the school.

· It was pointed out by a member of staff that the school infrastructure could not cope with an increase in children and that a 3 FE intake would be too much for Halterworth Primary.

Early Years

· A governor pointed out that the nursery provision is currently centrally placed in Romsey.

· One of the governors sought clarification as to whether the nursery provision referred to in the report was that at Woodley Scout Group.

· It was pointed out by the manager of the local pre-school which operates from the community hall that they have a waiting list of 20. If numbers increase from the Halterworth catchment area, how would the extra children be accommodated?

Proposed Housing Developments

· A governor asked where, if the decision to close Romsey Infant and Junior schools went ahead and the land was used for housing, children would go to school.

· The headteacher said if the Romsey Junior site was sold with no restrictions the site would be worth a considerable sum of money and generate a high number of children.

· A governor stated that a recent factory had been closed in the Romsey town centre and the whole site had now been built upon with new housing.

· It was a governor's view that the reference to the Abbottswood development was as if this was almost definite.

· A governor stated that the land next to Halterworth School could come up for development again as a planning application was submitted and turned down some years ago.

· A member of staff stated that when the Abbottswood development was proposed there was a plan to include a primary school as a "sweetener". What had happened to this proposal?

· Staff pointed out that the brewery site next to Romsey Junior School could be identified for housing and sought clarification as to what effect this might have on pupil numbers.

Sites and Buildings

· A governor asked, if the proposals were to go ahead and the Halterworth numbers were to rise, how would the additional pupils be accommodated? It was also stressed that there is a real problem with the numbers of parents dropping children off by car and that the additional children would exacerbate this problem.

· A member of staff asked how would the school cope with the increase in numbers should plans go ahead and would this result in extending the school buildings, car parking and potentially lead to the school ending up with mixed age classes?

· A governor stated that it was the general view that they did not want Halterworth Primary School to get any larger. If the school did increase in size, how long would it take to get funding to permanently expand the school as opposed to leaving temporary classrooms on the site for many years?

Pupil Numbers

· The headteacher made the point that in September 2005 there will be an impact on Halterworth School in terms of pupil numbers. The view was expressed that should the Romsey schools close, then parents will move their children to Halterworth Primary School. When these children's siblings reached primary age there would be pressure put upon Halterworth to accommodate them. These cases are likely to succeed at appeal, he suggested.

· The headteacher also stated that the governors and staff had worked hard to achieve 2 FE and this was the right size for Halterworth Primary School. If the Romsey schools were to close and the Abbottswood development took place, the headteacher felt that numbers would rise at Halterworth Primary.

· A governor stated that it was quite extraordinary that the review had excluded the Romsey Abbey School. Clarification was then sought as to whether falling rolls are an issue across the whole of Hampshire.

· If the LEA was looking at pupil numbers in general, why weren't all the small rural schools being considered for review in the county?

· A governor pointed out that a basic need bid would not stack up for Romsey due to the surplus places in North Baddesley.

General

· The headteacher asked whether, if the School Organisation Committee was to turn down the proposal, it was correct that it would then be put to an independent adjudicator?

· A governor pointed out, having had experience of a school in Nottinghamshire that closed, that this caused real concern to the parents. This point was emphasized by reaffirming the backing for a primary school in Romsey.

· The headteacher stated to create a Romsey Primary School was a sensible option. It was known that the junior school had been through difficult times in terms of standards and that the establishment of a primary school would be something to build upon and continue the current raising of standards.

· A governor asked why Romsey Abbey was not included in the review in the first place. It would be easier for parents to get to Romsey Abbey from the centre of Romsey.

· A governor pointed out that a lot of money had been invested in safe routes to school and to make children move around the area would make a mockery of that strategy.

· A governor pointed out that the local doctors' surgery plans to move to expand. Was this because they had advanced news of additional housing?

· A governor who lives opposite the school stated that the roads immediately around the school become too busy at the start and end of the school day and are dangerous.

· It was pointed out by the governors that they had had a long battle trying to secure a pedestrian crossing close to the school. A consultation process had taken place, although it was felt that the decision had already been made. Had the decision about this review already been made?

· A member of staff made the comment that Halterworth Primary is currently a successful school helped by its strong links with the community. If children were forced to the school as opposed to attending by choice, would the school lose its community feel?

· The headteacher pointed out that a few years ago the school had a shortfall of 60 places and that the staff and governors went out and "sold" the school to increase their numbers.

· A member of staff asked about the recommended walking distance for primary aged children?

· A governor referred to the mention of SEN in the report and asked what was the thinking behind this?

· A member of staff asked when the Members' visits would take place.

· The headteacher pointed out that the school is a business. The clients are the children and it is the school's job to ensure the best for them. It must be remembered that children are the clients as it is easy to produce facts and figures and forget we're about children.

Romsey Review

Notes of consultation meeting with Halterworth Primary School parents

17 May 2004 - 7.00 pm

Numbers in attendance - 71, including some staff, governors and the headteacher

Educational Standards

· Parents stated that they chose not to send their child to Romsey Junior School due to the school going into special measures. Having considered other schools, it was the view that Halterworth was an excellent school.

Early Years

· A parent pointed out that she had been told that for her child to attend the nursery provision in the town centre her child would then have to commit to going on to the infant school.

· A parent pointed out that they attended the local pre-school that was free and did not attend the provision in the town centre as they would have to pay.

Sites and Buildings

· A parent asked why the LEA was considering to expand Halterworth Primary School when there were places in other schools? Clarification was sought by a parent as to why consideration had not been given to expanding Romsey Abbey School.

· The headteacher expressed the view that you couldn't expand Romsey Abbey but could expand Halterworth Primary School. At the first meeting between officers, heads and chairs of governors, it was stated that Halterworth could expand to 3 FE. The school infrastructure could not cope with 3 FE and the people of the Romsey community wished to see a primary school serving their local community.

· A parent pointed out that, if Halterworth was to be expanded, the school would require extra buildings and this could take 2-3 years. If a planning application was submitted then a travel plan would be required. To ensure we don't receive planning to extend the school we should not submit a travel plan.

· Parents expressed the view that there was a clear need for a school in the centre of Romsey and looking at placing temporary classrooms at Halterworth did not make any sense.

· A parent stated that they could not imagine how the Romsey schools' parents must feel.

· A parent of a child who had attended a school that had recently expanded said that parents should think very carefully about Halterworth School increasing in size.

Pupil Numbers

· The headteacher pointed out that, should the Romsey schools close, his view was that the impact would be for parents to send their children to Halterworth Primary as soon as the decision was made. Those parents would then want their siblings to follow, increasing numbers at Halterworth. The headteacher's view was that the impact of these additional pupils would be sooner than the report suggested.

· A parent pointed out that in 1992 it was proposed that 32% of the housing at Fishlake Meadows would be family housing; the actual figure turned out to be 76%. It was the parent's view that the forecast figures were too low and clarification was sought as to where the children would go if the Romsey school sites were sold for development.

· Parents wished to know what would happen to siblings if there were not enough places available at Halterworth Primary.

· The question was asked that, if there is doubt about the forecast figures, why was a decision being taken now?

· Parents wished to know where the Ampfield children were due to go if Ampfield School closed.

· A parent expressed concern about the future and the projections up to 2009. The decision being taken is only short term and what happens if numbers rise in the future?

· Questions were raised over the forecast figures and clarification was sought as to how the County Council could be confident about these figures when we were unsure about proposed housing developments.

· If the Romsey schools closed, what would happen to the Year 2 group as numbers are fairly high across all schools for this age range?

· A parent commented on the number of objections tonight. If the decision is taken to close Romsey schools and numbers then rise, how will these children be accommodated? It is a less risky strategy to maintain a school within the Romsey town centre and reduce class sizes at Halterworth.

Housing Developments

· A parent asked whether the forecast figures take into account planned housing developments in the area. Clarification was sought as to whether consideration had been given to the planned housing developments and the number of social houses that would be included within those developments.

· The general wish was expressed by parents to maintain a school in central Romsey offering much needed facilities to the local community. The Romsey schools should be kept open until a decision was known about the Abbottswood development.

General

· A parent asked whether the per pupil costs shown on the presentation slides were for year 03/04 or 04/05.

· A parent asked what were the per pupil costs for a 600 place school.

· The question was asked whether a cost benefit analysis exercise had been undertaken for this review. The emerging local options seemed sensible for a primary school. It is important that the review took on board the emotional implications for the children.

· The headteacher pointed out that the governors and staff supported the need for a primary school in the centre of Romsey.

· A parent asked whether Romsey Abbey School took children from outside its catchment area.

· Parents expressed the view that the school is currently full to capacity. Just because Braishfield numbers are below a surplus of 10%, they are not being considered. Why is Halterworth being penalised because it's a good sound school?

· A parent pointed out that the government is about choice. This review reduces choice.

· The changes proposed would have an impact on the safe walk to school routes. The current position outside Halterworth was quite dangerous and was an accident waiting to happen. One parent referred to the fact that she had three children under five and to walk the distance from the town centre to the other school proposed in the report would be unreasonable.

· A parent sought clarification as to who is the local county councillor for the school.

· If the decision is taken to close the Romsey school, how would the catchment area be redefined?

· A parent stated that thousands of children would be affected by this review, why bother?

· What will happen at secondary age, will the children be split up and made to attend different schools?

· Why not just look at amalgamating the Romsey schools and leave Halterworth alone?

· How do you measure the quality issues of any such proposals, as the end decision is a subjective view?

· What benefits will Halterworth receive from this proposal?

· The headteacher stated that should the school be expanded there would be challenges for the school. The school would have to review its processes due to the extra behavioural difficulties likely to be experienced. It would be of no benefit to the current Halterworth children.

· A parent pointed out that there was no mention of North Baddesley in the report.

· It was stated that there was a clear unhappiness about the proposed expansion of Halterworth. Why did Halterworth only receive a passing comment in the report?

· A parent pointed out that their child was due to attend the school in 2009. Was the catchment area likely to change?

· The figures showed ongoing costs and not the costs of change. What is the payback period and what would it be if the decision had to be reversed?

· The headteacher stated that Romsey Primary School is a viable school - hands off Halterworth.

· It was a parent's view that this decision would definitely be called-in by the adjudicator.

Romsey Review

Notes of consultation meeting with Romsey Infant School staff and governors

8 June 2004 - 4.00 p.m.

The meeting was attended by 15 staff and governors and the headteacher.

Pupil numbers

A governor asked whether, as pupil numbers are a key factor in the proposed reorganisation, the LEA had considered the effects of an increase in the birth rate in 2003, which was 4% above the average for recent years This could be seen as the start of a new trend leading to a need for more school places.

The school had been asked to pilot a Foundation Stage, and would be admitting children to the nursery earlier. Had this been taken into account in the forecasts?

Romsey Junior had admitted 22 new pupils since September 2003 in the light of a good OfSTED report, in spite of the possible closure. This should be taken into account in forecasting and decision-making. Special measures at the Junior School in the past had caused a large reduction in pupil numbers, but this trend had now been reversed. This too should be taken into account.

Planned housing developments

The LEA's position on the non-viability of a primary school was questioned in the context of a number of planned housing developments in Romsey, which would produce increased numbers of children. There had been a recent growth of retirement homes in Romsey at the expense of affordable housing, which should be increased. This would in turn increase the number of children in the town.

There were concerns that, if capacity for primary age children in Romsey were reduced in the short-term, school extensions would be required in the future and would take a long time to deliver; they would also be costly.

Catchment area issues

There was concern about what would happen to the out of catchment children currently in other Romsey schools if Romsey Infant and Junior schools were to close, as some local schools were taking significant numbers of pupils out of catchment. There would also be difficulties during the transitional period as numbers fell. There would be no centrally placed school for the Romsey community if these proposals were implemented. This was not desirable.

There was also a view that, if catchments were changed, Romsey Infant and Junior schools would get back pupils currently attending other schools.

LEA representatives were asked whether other schools, e.g. Halterworth Primary School, were being asked to increase their capacity? Concerns were expressed about children unable to get into Halterworth and in particular that parents who felt that their children might be unsuccessful were unwilling to apply.

Travel and road safety considerations

A governor commented that Cupernham Lane residents were concerned about parking problems and the risk of accidents, which would be increased if a joint school were to be established. If the site were sold, new housing on the site would also generate additional traffic.

Future use of the Romsey Infant School site

Questions were asked about whether the Infant School site had been considered as a site for a possible primary school, rather than the Junior School site, particularly as it has been a primary school in the past. Site access would not be a significant issue for a primary school on the Infant School site, as it had had 180 pupils in the past. There would probably be a reduction in the amount of traffic, as more children would be within easy walking distance.

Financial issues

A governor asked whether the County Council was aiming for an "ideal" average cost of educating children and if so what the figure was. Was information available about the average costs of educating children in schools of different sizes if on-costs were eliminated?

Proposals for a primary school

A governor commented that, if an amalgamated school were formed, this would allow choice in education. The Cupernham schools could then be amalgamated and surplus places reduced. This would provide a good balance of provision within the town. The risks of the Cupernham Schools growing too large could be contained by more pupils attending the Romsey schools. Current levels of choice should be retained.

Several comments supported the view that Romsey as a town had a "family feel" and wanted a central primary school, which would be well attended. The costs of education at Cupernham Infant were higher than those at Romsey Junior. OfSTED reports on the schools in the area were also a relevant consideration.

The consultation process

Questions were asked about why Romsey Abbey Primary was now being brought into the consultation process and why Braishfield Primary was not being included, in view of the Abbottswood development being relatively close to it. Would the North Baddesley schools be expanded in view of the housing developments near to them?

There was concern that officers would continue to be available for discussion during the consultation process and about anxiety among parents because of the hiatus caused by the summer holiday. There was a need to maintain momentum on proposals for a primary school.

Overall views

Governors and staff accepted the value of an amalgamated school, but ideally the infant school and its standards and ethos should be retained, although the difficulty of achieving this was recognised. It was also important to keep open the question of whether an amalgamated school would be on the infant or junior school site.

Romsey review

Notes of consultation meeting with Romsey Junior School Staff and governors

19 May 2004- 4:00pm

General

A governor asked which bodies made up the 5 groups that form the School Organisation Committee.

The chair of governors asked if the Education Policy and Review Committee meeting at which the Romsey Review will be debated was a single agenda item meeting.

The chair of governors advised officers that the 25 March (the date of receiving the consultation paper with its inclusion of the possible option to close both Romsey schools) came as a big surprise. He had received a big response from parents and there was a strong feeling that (at least) the junior school should remain, if necessary as an all-through primary school.

Another governor added that in their view it would be an opportunity lost if amalgamation to create an all-through primary school with nursery provision was not provided for the community.

A member of staff asked if travel to each of the schools was being considered as one of the factors to influence the review.

Another member of staff stated that both Halterworth Primary and the Cupernham schools are some distance from the centre of Romsey. They asked if it was fair to expect primary age pupils to walk that far.

One governor asked officers to expand on and explain the expression "opportunities for investment in enhanced provision" used in the consultation documentation.

A governor suggested to officers that they had presented a very telling case for the need to reduce primary places. He added that it appeared that the only proposed action with real effect was closure of both (Romsey) schools

A member of staff asked if the LEA were requesting that if staff and governors of Romsey Junior school opposed the closure of the two Romsey schools, they should suggest alternatives to ensure removal of surplus places was achieved.

A governor asked if, after Romsey Junior had co-operated with the consultation and presented their case for their school staying open or a 1 FE primary school on the site, would the LEA ultimately say - despite all the best efforts of Romsey Junior - that the LEA still felt the best course of action was to close both Romsey schools?

A governor commented that on reading the consultation document and the accompanying brochure she felt that only by putting a primary school on the junior school site would the review meet Hampshire County Council's corporate aims, and added that closing both Romsey Infant and Junior school would do the opposite.

A member of staff asked how often does the final decision by the EME go against the recommendation that is put forward by officers.

The chair of governors sought to sum up the discussions of the meeting by saying that the emerging option from Romsey Junior community is that they believe that a 1fe school on their site is an acceptable provision for the area.

He added that if this new school was to become part of the outcome then the community needed to demonstrate that the school would be full. He also said that there were a number of factors. First, the nursery at the Infant school was under subscribed but it was difficult to gauge numbers that indicated true demand. Secondly, it was thought that a single site school would help.

The chair of governors asked if the LEA were consulting Romsey Town Council.

A governor asked if there was a prescribed content for a document that Romsey Junior could use to present their case to EPRC for a 1FE primary on their site as the outcome of the review.

Finance

The headteacher asked for clarification of the finance figures presented in the consultation paper and presentation. Are they "budget share" figures?

A governor asked if the LEA had financial comparisons for (the cost of running) all-through primary schools versus separate infant and junior?

A governor commented that the overhead detailing school budgets as part of the presentation could be quite misleading due to all the factors being included. They thought that it was possible that if a school had, for example, a large element of SEN funding that could skew the data.

Early Years

A governor asked about LEA plans to review the nursery class at Romsey Infant school?

Was it useful to get evidence about why the spare places at the nursery are unused?

A governor commented that the nursery provision attached to the infant school was underused because of the organisation responsible for running it. They added that it was not marketed but previously the provision had been oversubscribed.

The headteacher commented that the expectations of parents were changing and that all day provision, as well as half day sessions, might well be an attraction.

A member of staff commented that the nursery provision at the nursery class attached to Romsey Infants was five days per week only, not allowing parents to choose sessions.

Proposed Housing Developments

A member of staff asked for the number of pupils likely to be yielded from new developments.

Site and Buildings

Would refinements to the Junior school be fundable from the sale of the infant school site?

A governor asked the cost of altering Romsey Infant and Junior compared to alterations to Halterworth and Cupernham Junior.

Pupil Numbers

The headteacher asked where the information used for catchment area analysis comes from.

A Governor followed this up by asking what the equivalent historical catchment analysis shows.

A governor asked for the equivalent catchment analysis for other local schools?

The Chair of Governors commented that the Cupernham capacity had been revised "at the twinkling of an eye". He also asked why the revisions had led to different admission limits.

The headteacher followed this by asking if the Cupernham admission limits would be further reviewed in 2009 when reduced numbers from Infant school moved through?

A governor asked for forecast surplus places in the area if there was a 210 primary school replacing Romsey Infant and Junior?

A governor asked if the predictions could be compiled is such a way as to allow a "new" primary on the Romsey Junior site to have a starting point of low pupil numbers, growing to 210 in the future?

The headteacher commented that the catchment area that Romsey Infant and Junior serve is a mixed bag and some pupils do travel to Halterworth but there is a core of catchment that choose Romsey Infant and Junior.

Staff

A member of staff asked at what stage do staff of schools affected become best advised on their situation.

Romsey Review

Notes of consultation meeting with Romsey Infant School and Romsey Junior School parents

8 June 2004 - 7.00 p.m.

The meeting was attended by 158 parents and the local County Councillor.

Proposal for a primary school

Several parents spoke in support of the proposal by Together One Primary School (TOPS) for a one form entry primary school on the junior school site. This would include a 52 week a year nursery, after-school care, lifelong learning and enhanced community facilities. It would provide a community focused school in the centre of Romsey.

The investment strategy set out in the consultation paper sought a solution which provided better educational facilities, while expanding early years and community facilities. The TOPS proposal was seen as fulfilling these aims much better than the options put forward by the County Council. Providing a full-time nursery, after-school care and special needs resources would enhance the attractiveness of the school and aid pupil retention.

A parent expressed the view that the County Council was avoiding the responsibility of arguing in favour of an amalgamation, which it should recognise as the best option. The responsibility for this was being passed to the community, which was seen as wrong.

The President of the local Chamber of Commerce referred to the value of good education in reducing crime and providing a high quality future labour force. The Chamber of Commerce was fully supportive of amalgamation of the two schools, as envisaged in the TOPS proposal, which would build on the good standards and values of the current schools. Once lost, the schools could not be reinstated. The financial implications of falling rolls were seen as an important factor, which the Chamber of Commerce believed would be addressed through the establishment of a primary school.

A parent expressed concern over the capacity of the infant school site to accommodate a primary school, which he believed was not a viable option.

Dr. Hudson spoke on behalf of the TOPS proposal. He said that the community was fully behind it, as were Romsey Infant and Junior School parents and parents at other local schools. Factors such as pupil inclusion, parental preference, health, road safety and the environment were all successfully addressed in the TOPS proposal. He asked what TOPS supporters needed to do to persuade Councillor Don Allen to support a one form entry primary school and in particular that there were sufficient numbers of pupils available to make it viable. Signatures from parents agreeing to send their children to a new primary school, well in excess of the 210 required to fill the school, had been obtained by TOPS. He was concerned that this did not appear to be accepted by LEA officers. He believed that although the County Council was allowed a margin of error in its calculations, it appeared that TOPS would not be allowed such a margin.

Dr Hudson believed that the TOPS proposal was the best option and said that supporters would put this in writing through individual letters. He said that the primary school would be new and would overcome some negative perceptions about the current schools, which contribute to the low participation rates, which were largely attributable to historic problems. Positive publicity about the schools was helping to increase the potential number of pupils at an amalgamated school. He believed that the LEA should take note of all the positive aspects of the TOPS proposal and in particular the number of pupils which the TOPS survey had identified as being available to attend an amalgamated school. The LEA should support the proposal.

County Council corporate aims

Concern was expressed over whether the proposals for reorganisation fulfilled the County Council's corporate aims of enhancing life opportunities through lifelong learning and community focus. The corporate aim of building strong and safe communities was not being met when children who currently walk to school, often without crossing major roads, would be unable to do so if a primary school was not created to replace Romsey Infant and Junior schools. The County Council's proposals would increase congestion and pollution and the risk of accidents. The loss of the schools would leave the community without a heart.

A parent pointed out that the DfES Decision Makers' Guide for School Organisation Committees encourages LEAs to bring forward proposals which will raise standards and match provision as closely as possible to parents' wishes. She believed that the reorganisation proposals did not meet this aim.

Planned housing developments

Questions were asked about whether the various house-building proposals in Romsey had been taken into account in forecasting pupil numbers. If they were, had enough attention been paid to the increased amount of affordable housing now envisaged as a result of recent planning decisions? In addition, planned development at North Baddesley would put pressure on the North Baddesley schools which were over-subscribed, partly because of their taking pupils from Southampton.

The point was made that if schools were closed, the new houses to be built on the vacant sites would produce additional children for whom there would be no school places. This was a short-sighted approach. The high value of the school sites would produce large receipts for reinvestment.

Catchment area issues

The was considerable discussion about catchment areas and in particular that, if schools close, whether catchment areas would change. A parent asked whether, as Romsey Abbey Primary and Halterworth Primary were likely to be full, all children would need to attend the Cupernham schools. Questions were asked about whether pupils in Romsey Abbey Primary who do not live in Romsey would be moved elsewhere and whether Halterworth Primary would be expanded and if so how many more pupils were expected to attend there.

A question was asked about whether pupils could be moved by the LEA from one school to another. If this was not the LEA's policy, why should they be moved from Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior schools?

A parent asked how the decision to be taken about the future of Ampfield Primary School would affect the decision to be taken about Romsey Infant and Junior schools?

A parent living outside of the schools' catchment area said that her children would need to attend Awbridge Primary in the event of closure and would lose friends as a result.

There was general agreement that the County Council's proposals would result in a reduction in parental choice.

Early years provision and community issues

A parent pointed out that the nursery at Romsey Infant was currently available only for a few hours. Numbers would increase when it offered full-time provision available in September. It was currently the only nursery provision in Romsey available for those parents unable to pay high fees.

Support was expressed for the nursery at Romsey Infant School, which should be kept open and if possible expanded. Making comprehensive nursery provision available was seen as meeting a need in Romsey and enhancing the attractiveness of the Romsey schools. It was felt that not enough weight was being given to the value of the nursery.

Tony Barron, a former chairman of the Hampshire Education Committee, spoke of his concern that the community was being led by the County Council down a particular path. He believed that this was wrong and that the TOPS proposal was the right way ahead. Without the schools there would be a hole in the community. He was concerned that other options had not been fully investigated and that in particular whether the capacity of Halterworth could be adjusted to allow Romsey pupils there to go back to the schools in the centre of Romsey.

Children's well-being

Several parents commented on the importance of safeguarding the interests of children when deciding on the reorganisation proposals. There was concern that parents would have no choice other than to send their children to the Cupernham schools or to Halterworth Primary and that these schools may not be suitable for some, who would suffer as a result. Children would suffer from broken friendships, might not be accepted at other schools and become isolated. Differences in teaching style could also be an issue which would disadvantage some children.

A parent believed that Cllr Allen had said on the radio that numbers and costs were the main issues in the reorganisation debate, rather than the effects on children's education and well-being, and was concerned at this balance. This led to discussion about the relative weightings in the decision-making process between financial and educational considerations.

A parent said that she had a daughter at each school; both were receiving a first class education and social skills. They would not benefit from attending schools which did not provide this level of performance. She believed that an amalgamation of the Romsey schools would offer a unique opportunity to provide high standards of education and enhanced community facilities.

A parent believed that the proposed closure of excellent schools was a matter of concern. He said that Romsey Abbey Primary, as a Church of England school, would not be an appropriate alternative for Muslim pupils.

Councillor Barron commented that powerful points had been about the needs of children. She reminded parents that it was important to write to the LEA with arguments about the high quality of education provided at the Romsey schools. She pointed out that visits to the schools by members of the Education Policy Review Committee would be an important opportunity to influence opinion.

Travel and walking routes

Concern was expressed by a number of parents about walking to other schools in the Romsey area. One asked whether footpaths would be provided to reach the schools children would need to attend if Romsey Infant and Junior schools closed.

The parent of a physically disabled child said that she would be unable to walk the long distances involved to reach an alternative school. If she was forced to go to other schools it would take twice as long to reach them, with journeys of an hour in all weathers.

Another parent said that she had four children, one of whom was aged 6 months. The other three attended Romsey Infant and Junior schools. One was able to walk home at present, but this would not be possible if they needed to attend Halterworth Primary. As a result, she would need to reduce her working day in order to take and collect the children from school.

A parent asked whether some of the capital available from the sale of a former school site could be used to fund improvements to footpaths and safe routes.

Meeting with Romsey Abbey CE (A) Primary School staff and governors

Monday, July 5^th 2004 at 5:00pm.

Number in attendance: 16

Officers introduced themselves and outlined the background to the meeting with regard to the number of surplus primary places in the Romsey area, the options under consideration by the County Council and the implications of the current review for Romsey Abbey CE (A) Primary School.

Questions

The Future of School Staff

A question was asked about the fall in the school rolls and how this would affect the staffing in the other schools and how this would be managed.

School Building and Nursery Provision

The Headteacher made the point that it would be a good idea to look at alternative premises within Romsey for a new school to be built but recognised that this was impracticable. However, there appeared to be a need for `wrap-around care' and the school would wish to consider the provision of a foundation stage unit. He explained that there had been an unsuccessful Targeted Capital Fund (TCF) bid to the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) last year but was aware that this was to be reconsidered by the DfES for the next round of TCF bids. He also made the point that the pre-school operating on the school site would like to offer afternoon provision but there is no room to allow this. A purpose built foundation unit would allow this to happen.

Meeting with Romsey Abbey CE (A) Primary School parents

Monday, July 5^th 2004 at 7:00pm.

Number in attendance: 19

Officers introduced themselves and outlined the background to the meeting with regard to the number of surplus primary places in the Romsey area, the options under consideration by the County Council and the implications of the current review for Romsey Abbey CE (A) Primary School.

Questions

Travel to school

A question was raised about possible help with school transport costs to other schools should the Romsey schools close.

Concerns were expressed about the possible additional traffic accessing Church Lane should the catchment area be enlarged to cover part of the area currently served by the Romsey schools.

School Provision

One parent stated that they had chosen to send their son to Romsey Abbey Primary School instead of Halterworth Primary for two reasons. One because they wanted an aided school and secondly they did not wish their son to attend a large 2FE primary school.

Another parent stated that she had sent her child to Romsey Infant School and she was proposing to send her younger child to that school. If Romsey Infant School were to close where would the LEA send the children? Was it possible that her two children would be in different schools as it looked as if there were insufficient places in the area for all the children?

It was suggested that should a 1FE primary school be built in the Romsey catchment area it would be full because many parents would elect to put their children into such a school rather than separate infant and junior schools as exist at present.

Have surveys been carried out to establish why parents are opting to send their children to specific schools, especially now that the Romsey schools have had better Ofsted inspections?

Has any research been undertaken that shows how pupils react and perform when moving to other schools as part of school closure programmes?

Each school has its own ethos. Would the schools that could take children from the Romsey schools take account of the ethos in the Romsey schools to help the transferred children to settle into their new school?

Catchment Area changes

A question was asked about catchment area changes should the Romsey schools close and what would happen to the catchment areas of the remaining schools.

A supplementary question raised the issue of parental preference and what would happen if the Romsey Abbey Primary School catchment were to be enlarged and parents seeking an aided school could not accepted owing to the large number of children in catchment but not looking for a faith school.

If a 1FE primary school were to built on the Romsey Junior site would the catchment areas in the town stay the same?

Increased Pupil Numbers

Are the other schools in the area being told that they must get bigger to accommodate the pupils from the Romsey schools and the Abbottswood development?

If a limit of 30 pupils per junior classroom were to be considered would this help to keep the other junior schools in Romsey full and, therefore, not require anything to happen to the other schools in the area.

It was stated that Halterworth Primary takes approximately 50% of its pupils from out of catchment. As Abbotswood is built and the children start to come from this development there is a possibility that Halterworth would be able to admit from this pool of children. If this happened would the catchment schools be large enough to be able to take these pupils back?

A question was asked about the possibility of the Published Admission Numbers for Halterworth Primary School and the Cupernham schools being reduced to stop them being so large and, therefore, requiring parents to opt for the Romsey schools.

If a prime site was sold in the middle of Romsey it was likely to be used for residential redevelopment. This would be likely to produce more children in the area. How did the LEA predict the number of pupils from new housing development? Had the amount of children expected from this development been taken into account in the forecast figures?

Was the brewery site in the forecast figures?

Special Needs provision

It was stated that there is very little special needs resource in Romsey and the review would appear to be the best time to consider some form of additional resource as part of the review.

LEA commentary on the performance of each school.

Cupernham Infant School

The school was last inspected in 2003 and judged to be an effective school. The LEA believes that this continues to be the case. The curriculum is well planned, being broad, rich and interesting and provision for special educational needs is very good. Children have a below average base when they start at the school and achieve well to reach average standards by the time they are seven years old.

Cupernham Junior School

The school was last inspected in 2001 and judged to be a very good school with standards well above average in English, mathematics and science. The LEA believes that the school provides a highly effective education for its children. The curriculum is very stimulating and captures children's imagination. Teaching is very good and the leadership of the headteacher and governors is excellent. In 2004, provisional results indicate that standards are well above the county average and that the school's targets were met.

Halterworth Primary School

The school was last inspected in 2001 and judged to be a very successful school with significant strengths. The LEA believes that the school provides a highly effective education for its children. Children attain well above average standards as a result of good teaching and the excellent leadership of the senior management team. The school provides a well-regarded programme of extra-curricular activities. In 2004, provisional results indicate that standards are well above the county average and that the school's targets were met.

Romsey Infant School

The school was last inspected in 2002 and judged to be a very good school. The LEA believes that the school continues to provide an effective education for its children. Standards are generally in line with similar schools nationally and locally. Children generally make progress at least in line with and often better than the county averages. The headteacher has a good understanding of the strengths and areas for improvement in the school and has built a good team of staff.

Romsey Junior School

The school was last inspected in 2003 and judged to be a good and improving school where children attain good standards and achieve well. The LEA believes that the school continues to provide an effective education for its children and that the improvement referred to in the inspection report has been maintained. The quality of teaching is good and the school is led and managed very well, with the headteacher and deputy having a good understanding of the school's strengths and areas for future development. In 2004, provisional results indicate that standards are well above the county average and that the school's targets were met.

Romsey Abbey CE Primary (Aided)

The school was last inspected in 2000 and judged to be effective overall though some shortcomings were identified. The LEA believes that these have been addressed and that the school provides an effective education for its children. Standards in the core subjects for children in Year 6 are at least in line and mostly above those of similar schools. The 5 year trend in pupil progress based is broadly in line with that of similar schools. Standards in the infant years are good. These good standards are a consequence of good teaching and effective leadership of the school. In 2004, provisional results indicate that standards are above the county average but below the school's targets.

Review of primary school provision in the Romsey area:

Correspondence received

	From	Date
1	Mrs T Moody	20 April 2004
2	Mrs S Walker	27 April 2004
3	Mrs Emma Peel	11 May 2004
4	Mr and Mrs Sweet	30 April & 01 May 2004
5	Ms Vanessa Trentham	11 May & 07 July 2004
6	Mrs Margaret French	05 May 2004
7	Mrs C Kendal	05 May & 06 July 2004
8	Neil and Judith Kirkland	01, 03, 06 May
9	Mrs Julia Felton	11 May 2004
10	Caroline Nokes	10 May 2004
11	Colin and Maggie Grimmett	17 May 2004
12	Claire Hill	18 May 2004
13	Evelyn Richardson	18 May, 30 June & 06 July 2004
14	Mr Paul Light	10 May 2004
15	Mr John Evans	18 & 28 May 2004
16	Ms Patricia Rumbold	05 May 2004
17	Mrs C Bourne	14 May 2004
18	Mrs J Phippen	14 May 2004
19	Mr T Cryan	13 May 2004
20	Antony Cuddeford	24 May & 11 June 2004
21	Mrs Tracey Fielder	19 May 2004
22	Sally Gard	26 May 2004
23	Louise Byfield	18 May 2004
24	Mrs Emma Webb	21 May 2004
25	J Byrne	27 May 2004
26	Mrs Susan Lee	18 May 2004
27	Mrs J Downton	21 May 2004
28	Mrs Barbara Wyant	01 June 2004
29	Caroline and David Ophaus	30 May 2004
30	J Hand and N Sinclair	29 May 2004
31	Judith Kirkland	26 May 2004
32	Mrs Jenny Williams	27 May 2004
33	Mr Andrew Tolfts	02 June 2004
34	Mrs Candida Close	26 May 2004
35	Mrs Julia Robson	29 May 2004
36	Mrs and Mrs Hewett	02 June 2004
37	Mrs Susan Tripp	03 June 2004
38	Mrs Elizabeth Tilt	05 June 2004
39	Mrs Jo Martin	06 June 2004
40	Mrs Hazel Prince	06 June 2004
41	Mrs Angela Brentnall	03 June 2004
42	Mrs J Govan	07 June 2004
43	Mrs Judy Cutbill	13 June 2004
44	Mrs Helen Liddell	01 June 2004
45	Ms Lisa Liddell	03 June 2004
46	Mrs Tracey Bowles	25 May, 10 June & 16 June
47	Mrs Clea Atkinson	07 June 2004
48	Mrs M Grimmett	11 June 2004
49	Miss B Chandler	03 June 2004
50	Mrs S Watkins	17 May 2004
51	Ms Charlotte Cochrane	13 June 2004
52	Dr Malcolm Hudson	15 & 30 June, 02, 19 & 23 July 2004
53	Anthony Farrell	16 June 2004
54	Mrs G Gallagher	16 June 2004
55	Cathryn Cuddeford	18 June, 23 June, 05 July
56	Mrs J Hopgood	15 June 2004
57	Mrs J H Skinner	21 June 2004
58	Mrs Debbie Forder	21 June 2004
59	Mrs Helen Hounsome	07 June 2004
60	Mrs V Pryce	25 June 2004
61	Mrs Janessa Hartley	25 June 2004
62	Mrs D D'Orsey	29 June & 02 July 2004
63	Mrs Karen Chapman	06 July 2004
64	Mrs Christina Marshall	01 July 2004
65	Mrs Teresa Pretty	01 July 2004
66	Tony Barron	23 June 2004
67	Mr and Mrs S Taskiran	01 July 2004
68	Miss Antonia Pretty	07 July 2004
69	Mrs Jocelyn Head	02 July 2004
70	Stephen and Pauline Bartlett	02 July 2004
71	Mrs Rosea Hoyland	02 July 2004
72	Mrs P Worthington	29 June 2004
73	Mrs Phyllis Hurle	06 July 2004
74	Mrs B A Masters	06 July 2004
75	Mr Gavin Hopgood	05 July 2004
76	Mrs S Bunting & Mr G Wilburn	05 July 2004
77	Mrs Rachel Shimell	15 July 2004
78	Mr Paul L'Enfant	18 July 2004
79	Louise Chinnock	18 July 2004
80	Caroline Dainton	18 July 2004
81	Andrew McGhee	18 July 2004
82	Frances Haig	18 July 2004
83	Mr Nasmul Islam	09 July 2004
84	Mr and Mrs J Dalton	07 July 2004
85	Emma Hillman	15 July 2004
86	Mrs Sharon Hillman	05 July 2004
87	Mrs D Hendy	08 July 2004
88	Marcus Grace	18 July 2004
89	Mrs H Butler	12 July 2004
90	Mrs Dawn Clark	07 July 2004
91	Miss S Adams	14 July 2004
92	Rosalind Comer	21 July 2004
93	Mr Robinson	23 July 2004
94	Mrs S Devlin	12 July 2004
95	Mrs Sharon Bunney	07 July 2004
96	Mrs Karen Cubbon	09 July 2004
97	Mr David Gleave (Test Valley Borough Council)	16 July 2004
98	Mr and Mrs Hopper	19 July 2004
99	Mrs Lucy Saunders	08 July 2004
100	Mr Steve Saunders	25 July 2004
101	Mrs Trish Flack	16 July 2004
102	Kim Chapman	21 July 2004
103	Mrs Philippa Hudson	18 July 2004
104	Mrs C Mitchell	08 July 2004
105	Mrs Annmarie Willis	08 July 2004
106	Mrs P Bartlett	25 July 2004
107	Mrs Julia Gilbert	23 July 2004
108	Mrs Collins	14 July 2004
109	Mr Z La Gumina	29 July 2004
110	Mr John Rhodes (Braishfield Parish Council)	28 July 2004
111	Mrs Debbie Pearce (Romsey Junior Staff)	21 July 2004
112	Ms Emma Peel	27 July 2004
113	Cllr Ian Carr (Test Valley BC)	27 August 2004
114	Fred Gibbs (Chair of Governors Romsey Infant)	28 July 2004
115	Paul Marke (Chair of Governor Romsey Junior)	21 July 2004
116	Hilary Evans & David Musty (Cupernham Heads)	1 July 2004
117	Ian Sandbrook (Southampton City Council)	19 July 2004
118	Philippa K Hudson & Malcolm D Hudson	September 2004