Archived decisions
Response by Hampshire County Council as
Local Education Authority to objections raised to the proposal to close Ampfield CE Primary School
Section 1
Introduction and background to the proposal
(This section includes the statement made by the Executive Member for Education on 14 October 2004)
Section 2
Response to the objections raised by the governing body
Section 3
Analysis of key points made by 30 other objectors and comments where appropriate
Section 4
Appendices
Papers considered by the Education Policy Review Committee and Executive Member for Education in October 2004:
Appendix A -- Ampfield CE School
Appendix B - Strategic overview
Appendix C - Background information
Appendix D - Primary provision in the Romsey area
Appendix E - Map showing eastern part of Ampfield catchment area (new document)
Reference should also be made to the LEA's statement of case
(NB - Hampshire County Council is the local education authority (LEA) for the administrative area of Hampshire. For ease of reference, the term LEA has been used throughout this document except where the context requires otherwise.)
Section 1
Introduction and background to the proposal to close Ampfield CE Primary School
1. The local authority acts on behalf of the whole community to ensure that the life chances of its citizens are maximised. This means applying the community's resources to maximum effect. The County Council's constitution requires it to deliver services in a cost-effective way, acting in the best interests of Hampshire and its citizens as a whole. In providing education for more than 170,000 children it seeks to relate resources to needs.
2. All local education authorities (LEAs) have a statutory responsibility to keep the provision of school places under review. Hampshire County Council carries out a programme of regular reviews, concentrating on those areas where number on roll projections indicate a significant mismatch between pupil numbers and places available. The School Organisation Plan (SOP), which is revised annually, gives detailed information about all areas of the county, indicating those areas where supply and demand are out of balance. The Audit Commission advises that a surplus of up to 10% gives reasonable working flexibility.
Falling pupils in the Romsey and Ampfield areas
3. In the autumn of 2003 it became clear that primary numbers within the Romsey area were falling well short of available capacity. The LEA had earlier become aware that numbers at Ampfield CE Primary School, four miles to the NE of Romsey, had dropped particularly heavily. A review of Ampfield School was therefore included within the wider Romsey review.
4. Informal discussions with chairs of governors and headteachers of local primary schools were held in February 2004. In March 2004, the Executive Member for Education (EME) agreed that consultations should take place on the future of primary provision in the Romsey area, including Ampfield.
5. Consultations were held with all schools and other interested parties during the summer term 2004 and the results reported to the Education Policy Review Committee (EPRC) in October. This is a scrutiny committee which also advises the Executive Member for Education. It does not have decision-making powers. Its membership includes: elected county councillors from the three political parties, representatives of the churches, teachers, parent governors, representatives of the Governors' Forum and others knowledgeable about education. The membership is 43, with 12 members acting solely in an advisory capacity.
6. The County Education Officer presented four separate papers to the EPRC on the review of primary school provision in Romsey, all given as appendices to this document:
7. Appendix A (item 11d) - a paper dealing specifically with Ampfield CE School. In particular the paper addresses the `presumptions against closure' (section 10) in relation to small rural schools. For ease of access, this paper has been presented first so that it now follows directly after the LEA comments on other objections. Originally this paper was the fourth to be considered by the EPRC. For convenience, the table summarising the LEA analysis of the `presumptions against closure' is given in this present document at paragraph 36 on page 12.
8. Appendix B (item11a) - an overview of the LEA's strategic responsibilities, showing how pupil numbers are falling, the relative costs of educating pupils in small schools and indicating ways in which the Council is tackling these issues to ensure resources are allocated effectively and fairly in the interests of all Hampshire pupils.
9. Appendix C (item11b) - background information about the Romsey and Ampfield area, with detailed information about projected future numbers on roll, showing (table 2) that, if no action were taken, there would be 516 surplus places (32%) in the area by 2009. The paper first considered by the EME in March 2004 was included as an appendix to this paper and is attached to it.
10. Appendix D (item 11c) - a paper dealing with the schools in Romsey town. The EPRC supported the proposal to establish a new 4-11 primary school in Romsey and this was approved by the EME. Public notices were published to which there have been no objections. The scheme will now go ahead, with the new school being established for September 2006 and moving into new buildings on the current junior school site in September 2007.
11. At the same October meeting, the EPRC also considered the proposal that Ampfield CE School should be closed. After lengthy debate, the committee advised against closure, voting 8-5. This advice was considered by the EME at his decision making meeting two days later. In accordance with the powers delegated to him under the County Council's constitution, he decided that the closure should proceed, taking into account the constitutional responsibilities of the County Council. The statement read by the EME on 14 October is given immediately after this introductory section (pages 5-7).
12. Following the publication of public notices, 31 objections have been received. The most detailed objection is the one written on behalf of the governors. The second section of this paper responds to the governors' paper; the third section highlights key points made by other objectors.
13. As background to the following comments on the objections these key facts need to be borne in mind:
· There is little local demand for the school. There are currently 22 pupils on roll, only 7 of whom live within the school's catchment area.
· Hampshire County Council supports small village schools and manages resources carefully so that it can continue to do so where such schools are essential.
· Unit costs are higher in small schools, therefore taking money away from children in other schools
· Unit costs at Ampfield exceed £9,000 per pupil. Provision is available at other good schools throughout the area where unit costs are substantially less.
· It is more difficult to ensure full curriculum coverage in small schools because of reduced numbers of staff. Recent events show how vulnerable small schools can be.
· Places are available in other schools, including Church of England schools, for pupils attending Ampfield School within reasonable travelling distance of their homes
· Within Aim 1 of the County Council's Corporate Strategy - Maximising Life Opportunities - there is a specific commitment to "managing falling primary school rolls to achieve a pattern of provision appropriate to future needs".
· Ampfield CE School is the smallest primary school in Hampshire.
· The LEA has carried a very detailed strategic review of primary school places in the area, taking into account long-term trends. Ampfield CE School is not required.
Statement by Executive Member for Education
14 October 2004
Review of Primary School Provision in the Romsey area
(NB - this is the full text of the Executive Member's statement. The first five paragraphs are a general introduction; the section specifically dealing with Ampfield CE School starts mid-way down the following page.)
This review is one of a series of such reviews necessitated by the declining birth rate and the statutory duty of the County Council to plan the provision of school places and secure an appropriate balance locally between supply and demand.
I recognise that such reviews create considerable stress and emotional reaction for those whose schools are under review and I would like to start by expressing my thanks to everyone involved in this consultation process for the responsible manner in which it has been conducted. I am particularly pleased that the children have not been involved as they are in some cases.
The paper which was presented to me in March this year and as a result of which I approved the consultation included five options and focused on two of them in particular
- closure of the Romsey Infant and Junior Schools and transfer of
the pupils to the Cupernham Infant and Junior and the Halterworth Primary Schools
- closure of Ampfield CE Primary School
A significant complicating factor in this review has been the possibility of a major housing development at Abbottswood on what has been identified in the Local Plan as a Reserve Site. 500 houses on this site would generate an estimated 125 primary aged children and twice that number if 1,000 houses were built. This level of uncertainty has to be a factor in deciding how to proceed.
Following the consultation and having taken account of the input from that consultation, the officers' recommendation to the Education Policy Review Committee (PRC) and to me is that the Romsey Infant and Junior Schools should be closed and a new Romsey Primary School with a 30 place early years facility should be created on the site of the Junior School. Their recommendation with regard to Ampfield CE Primary School is unchanged, that is for closure.
At the Education PRC on Tuesday, having heard deputations from the Romsey Infant and Junior, Cupernham and Ampfield Schools the Committee, by a very large majority, supported the recommendation of the officers in respect of the Romsey schools.
I recognise that whilst this removes a significant number of surplus places it still leaves a 16.6% surplus which I would normally consider unacceptable. However, closure of the two schools and transfer of the pupils to the Cupernham and Halterworth Schools would reduce the surplus to just 0.7% which given the uncertainties surrounding the possible development at Abbottswood in my represents too great a risk and one which we do not need to take at this stage.
I recognise that adopting the recommendation leaves the Cupernham schools with an on-going decline in pupil numbers unless and until children from the Abbottswood development begin to arrive. This will mean that we will need to keep the situation under review.
Balancing risk and surplus place reduction I have concluded that we should publish public notices for the closure of Romsey Infant and Junior Schools and the creation of a new Romsey Primary School.
The Education PRC supported the officers' recommendation that the new school should be located on the site of the current Junior School.
It is clear that the current Infant School site is favoured by some parents, governors and elected members. It is the more central of the two sites, the building is a traditional brick building and retention on this site would provide maximum stability to the Foundation Group are among the reasons put forward in support of this view.
Access to the site is however very restricted and the area available is less than that required for a one form primary school. This latter point would be addressed if the open area beyond the railway bridge could be incorporated within the school site. Supervision of this more remote area would be more problematic than supervision of the playing fields at the Junior School site. The Junior School site also has the advantage of better access and my decision is therefore that the County Council should publish public notices 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.
In considering the Ampfield CE Primary School I have taken account of a number of factors :
- whether the school is needed to meet local pupils demand
- are there alternative Church of England school places available
- is the school an essential part of the local community
- can the costs associated with maintaining this very small school
be justified
- the overall level of surplus places in the area.
Of the 23 pupils currently at the school only 7 live within the school's catchment area while 24 pupils from the catchment area attend other schools in the area. The number of children living in the catchment area who will reach school age in the next four years are 5, 2, 6 and 3. Taken together with the fact that Ampfield is not an isolated, remote community these facts suggest that the school is not needed to meet the educational requirements of the village.
Many of those responding to the consultation placed great emphasis on the status of the school as a Church of England school. The evidence collected by the officers indicates that there are sufficient places available in other church schools in the area from which pupils of this school are drawn to meet the demand in the event that Ampfield School is closed.
Another concern raised during the consultation was the importance of the school as a focal point for the community and the damage that would result from its closure. In fact there are no community activities based on the school and indeed the school has to use the parish recreation ground and the village hall for physical recreation.
The costs of maintaining 23 pupils at Ampfield School exceed the costs which would be incurred if they transferred to other schools. The current additional cost is well in excess of £100,000 and even if the school were able to grow to 60 pupils the extra cost would still be well in excess of £60,000 per year. Given that there is no overall need for the school it is difficult to see how such additional expenditure can be justified since it is only available at the expense of other pupils in the County.
The level of surplus places in the area is at an unacceptable and growing level and the school contributes to this surplus.
My conclusion is that the case for closure of the school is very strong and my decision is therefore that we should publish public notices to:
a) close Ampfield CE Primary School with effect from 31st August
2006
b) establish a task group to work proactively with governors and
staff to prepare for closure
c) work with individual families to identify alternative schools for
pupils attending the school at the time of closure
d) consult the governing bodies of neighbouring schools about
catchment area changes.
Section 2
Response by the LEA to the objections submitted on behalf of the governing body of Ampfield CE Primary School
14. These comments by the LEA follow the same order as the governors' paper, namely:
· Meeting local demand
· Alternative Church of England places
· Part of the local community
· Can the costs be justified?
· Overall surplus places
· Concluding remarks by the LEA
Points raised in the covering letter from the chairman of governors of 3 November and in the executive summary are also dealt with in this section. Some additional headings have been inserted for clarity.
15. Section 3 summarises the main points of objections made by 30 other respondents. Unless stated otherwise in the text, all issues raised by these objectors are dealt with in this section.
Meeting local demand
16. The governors rightly say that the school "is chosen by parents from a much wider area than the immediate parish of Ampfield ...". Appendix A (the paper considered by both the EPRC and the EME) indicates that the school is not viable as a school serving its immediate area and that it relies very much upon parents who are willing, and have the ability, to drive their children to Ampfield. Reference is made by the governors to a "natural catchment" but this has no formal status in relation to admission policies and the information presented to the EPRC shows that children come from a much wider area.
17. The governors refer to church records showing that, over the past three years, 35 children have been baptised (the governors do not indicate whether all these children come from the Ampfield area). The published admission number (PAN) of the school is 12, not 9 as quoted by the governors. The PAN relates to accommodation available and represents the minimum number to be admitted to any school if there are sufficient applications. The 35 baptisms might be taken to indicate that in future the PAN might be reached but current data show, however, that a majority of Ampfield parents choose not to send their children to their local school. The paper presented to the EPRC in October (Appendix A) indicated that there were fewer than 20 children due to reach school age in the four years between 2005 and 2008.
18. There is no evidence that "LEA officers incorrectly advise parents in the SE area of our Parish that their catchment school is Hiltingbury". The County Council record (see map at appendix E) has been checked and found to be accurate, showing that that traditional catchment of the Hiltingbury schools includes some of Ampfield parish. When parents contact the county admissions team, their postcode is checked against the County Council's Geographical Information System (GIS) to verify the exact address location. Parents are then given impartial catchment information on the basis of the LEA's official record. The bulk of the houses in this area are closer to Hiltingbury than Ampfield.
Future developments within the area
19. The LEA has taken the Abbottswood development to the north of Romsey fully into account in its planning. The possibility that this development might go ahead was a key factor in the Council's decision to replace Romsey Infant and Romsey Junior schools with a one form entry primary school rather than closing both schools.
20. Appendix D, table 5, shows that, when the two Romsey schools are established in one building on the current junior school site by September 2007, and assuming 500 dwellings are built on the Abbottswood site to the north of Romsey by January 2009, there will still be 93 surplus places in the area. If the site of Romsey Infant School were to be redeveloped for housing, this might generate 10 - 15 pupils to take up some of this surplus, well within accepted norms. These figures indicate clearly that Ampfield CE School would not be required to cater for Abbottswood. If numbers were to rise above current expectations, places would be available at the nearby catchment schools at Cupernham.
21. There is no evidence that the Romsey brewery site will provide "even more children than envisaged". For consistency and transparency the figures presented to the EPRC have been based on the Council's standard forecasting model. The brewery site figures have been included in the projections for the area.
22. The reason why the schools at North Baddesley are currently full is because they take out of area children from neighbouring Southampton. The City Council has confirmed that it would be able to accommodate any Southampton children unable to gain places at North Baddesley because of the development of the Bordens/AEP site.
23. No details have been supplied by the governors about the "large pool of children whose parents will be seeking places in C of E schools from Southern Test Valley". These children will have been included within LEA projections of numbers on roll but specific information about parental intentions can only be gained through the normal admission application procedures.
24. The governors refer to "discussions with the LEA admissions officer" who, according to the governors, indicated that the LEA "were prepared to see the School's PAN reduced to its historic norm of 9 giving a NOR of 63". The only way in which the PAN could be reduced would be if a significant amount of teaching accommodation were taken out of use. It is difficult to see how this would make the school more viable.
25. Appendix A draws particular attention (paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2) to the fact that the two village schools nearest Ampfield, namely at Hursley and Braishfield, both take more than half their intake from outside their catchment area. If the Ampfield area were to be zoned to either of these schools, or shared between them, Ampfield families would be given catchment status if applying to these schools as their first preference and would of course take precedence over non-catchment pupils.
LEA advice to parents
26. As far as admissions to Year R for September 2005 are concerned, LEA officers have indeed advised parents who have asked for guidance to name another school as their first preference so that if Ampfield School were to close in 2006 they would not have to move their child from Ampfield after a single year in Year R. If Ampfield does not close, these parents have been advised that they can then seek places at the school. Parents have been given balanced advice by the LEA, which has been welcomed. Ultimately, it is the parents' decision to decide what they think is best for their child.
27. The governors suggest that giving such advice is a deliberate ploy by the LEA to "destabilise our numbers by seeking to entice our parents and prospective parents, under the guise of preparation for closure, to send their children elsewhere". The LEA refutes this suggestion.
28. A senior LEA officer met parents, at the governors' request, at the school on 17 November and answered a range of questions about how parents might best plan for the future.
Alternative Church of England places
29. The governors' paper says that "a more blatant piece of obfuscation by the aggregation of data would be harder to find than that set out in the LEA's presentation of evidence regarding C of E places". The paper presented to the EPRC stated clearly the number of places available in C of E schools at the time the paper was prepared and was supported by maps showing the position of schools and the location of parental addresses. The paper indicated the home addresses of the 23 pupils attending Ampfield School in September 2004. The map showed the wide area from which pupils came. It was on the basis that some pupils are clearly travelling some distance to attend the school of their preference that the schools on map B were identified. The paper listed by year group (7.4) the places available in these C of E schools at the time of the survey.
30. The governors seek to argue that the only C of E schools with significant vacancies are large urban schools on the periphery of Southampton and Eastleigh, adding that these are "not areas that make up our traditional greater catchment and by definition not schools of a type sought by our parents". Evidence given by the LEA in Appendix A indicates that only two of the 15 schools referred to (St Francis CE School (420 places) on the edge of Chandlers Ford and Rownhams CE School (280 places) on the edge of Southampton) could reasonably be included within this definition. They account for only 14 of the 119 places available at the time of the survey. The fact that parents have chosen Ampfield CE School does not necessarily mean that "by definition" they would not seek schools of another type.
Increasing local concern about the school's management
31. Section 2 of Appendix A explains very clearly some of the events leading up to the rapid decline in numbers on which the governing body's paper is silent. The former governing body was well aware of growing parental dissatisfaction, particularly related to the management of the school, but, even after these concerns were expressed by parents in a governors' survey, the governing body still chose not to seek LEA help. Paragraph 2.5 of appendix A makes it very clear why, because of government restrictions, the LEA was unable to intervene earlier.
32. When the governors finally drew these problems to the attention of the LEA, action was immediate. The present governors refer to "a continuous threat of closure". At the governing body's own request, the LEA agreed to consider the position at Ampfield in parallel to the situation in Romsey where there was increasing concern about the number of surplus places. This necessarily meant that the review would take much longer to complete. Had the LEA indeed been "predatory and opportunist", as suggested by the governors, they would have rejected the governors' request and proceeded immediately to a review of the future of the school which would have been completed within a much shorter timescale.
Part of the local community
33. The governors have set out clearly their view of the school's role within the community, drawing attention to support from the Parish Council, the use made of local facilities by the school and their intention to open the school's facilities to the wider community, referring to the use they have made of their spare classroom as a computer suite. The EPRC report (Appendix A) gave details of the situation as it was during the early part of the autumn term 2004.
34. Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix A show clearly that Ampfield parents make limited use of their local school. In September 2004, only seven Ampfield children attended the school, three of whom will leave at the end of the current school year; at the start of the current term, the number of catchment pupils remains unchanged. Based on available evidence, the LEA does not believe that the school plays a significant part in the life of the village.
Presumptions against closure
35. The LEA report to the EPRC and EME (Appendix 1) did not dispute Ampfield's rural status. The paper included a detailed analysis of DfES guidance and concluded (10.11) that none of the criteria supporting a presumption against closure was fulfilled. This section of Appendix 1 is commended to the School Organisation Committee for particular consideration. The following table summarises the LEA's analysis.
Factors to be taken into account by decision makers in relation to rural schools |
LEA comment based on detailed analysis of the situation at Ampfield. |
Is the DfES criterion for retention of school fulfilled? |
Transport implications |
A large majority of pupils are driven to the school from outside the catchment area. This is not the premise on which the DfES criterion is based. |
No |
Effect on the community |
There are insufficient children in the local community to make the school viable. Community use of the school premises is under-developed. |
No |
Alternative provision |
Places for displaced pupils are available in other schools. There are insufficient pupils to justify federation with another school. |
No |
Church of England status |
The school is `severely undersubscribed'. The DfES guidance specifically permits closure in these circumstances. |
No |
Can the costs be justified?
36. Table 1 in Appendix B sets out comparative costs for pupils in different sizes of school. The table shows clearly the substantial rise in per capita costs once school rolls drop below 100. For example, the cost per pupil in 2004/05 in a school of 50 pupils is £3,855; in a school of 400 pupils the cost is £2,188.
37. The situation at Ampfield, set out clearly in Table 3 of Appendix A, amply demonstrates the additional costs involved when a school suffers a significant rapid drop in numbers. The budget allocation for Ampfield for 2004/05, including substantial real term protection, is equivalent to £9,823 per pupil; at nearby John Keble CE School (107 pupils) the per pupil allocation is £2,796 and at Halterworth School (417 pupils), some 3 miles away, it is £2,070. This in itself demonstrates the County Council's commitment to children in small schools who, if funded at rates applied in other schools, would be seriously disadvantaged.
Investment in the school
38. The governors refer to the substantial investment in the school carried out by the County Council in 1997 to replace temporary buildings and improve facilities for the younger children. Appendix A states clearly that "the Council's policy is to ensure that the capital programme is used to enhance the learning environment for existing children and not to plan on the basis that the school might close and therefore not be improved". If the school does close, the LEA would be expected to hand back the buildings to the trustees in a good state of repair. Pupils in small schools, indeed in any school, should not be penalised by `planning blight' simply because their school might one day close.
39. The governors list a number of other possible costs if the school were to close. The LEA has no power to redeploy staff since schools are self-managing and decisions on staffing issues are taken by individual governing bodies. When a school closes, the LEA works with individual staff and governing bodies to seek alternative employment. If a staff member is made redundant, help with any additional travel costs is available for two years. All information provided by the LEA has indicated clearly that no school would need to expand to accommodate the very small number of Ampfield children.
School Organisation Plan
40. Hampshire has a very clear policy on small schools, set out in the School Organisation Plan (SOP). The governors throughout their objections state that, if Ampfield CE School were to close, this would have implications for all other small schools. The School Organisation Plan states that "primary schools should not normally have fewer than 60 pupils". Appendix B deals with this issue in more detail (4.1 - 4.3) pointing out that "a primary school should, wherever possible, fall within the range of one form of entry (210 places) to three forms of entry (330 places)".
41. The paper recognises that there will inevitably be schools outside the optimum ranges quoted in the SOP. The extent to which a school caters for the area it serves and the number of unfilled places are more significant factors than size taken in isolation. The County Council currently supports 40 schools with fewer than 100 on roll, and has no general plan for closure of all small schools.
42. The LEA constantly monitors pupil movement and school rolls and, as in the Romsey/Ampfield area, carries out strategic reviews where there are unfilled school places. Because of higher costs and concerns about a staff's ability to deliver full curriculum coverage, smaller schools must inevitably be looked at particularly carefully but each situation considered within the wider local context. This is exactly what has happened in relation to Ampfield CE School.
Overall surplus places
43. This section refers to a "NOR of 63". This is misleading since, within the context, it should refer to the capacity of the school which is 84, giving a published admission number (PAN) of 12 (i.e. 7 age groups of 12 pupils). The data provided by the LEA puts the situation at Ampfield within the wider Romsey context, as agreed with the governors before the review took place.
44. The governors' document contains a table headed Forecast Vacancies Romsey Area. Although the document is based on information specifically requested by the chair of governors and provided by the LEA on an individual basis to enable him to prepare the governors' case, there are a number of concerns about the way the data have been used which make it difficult to make valid comparisons and therefore draw valid conclusions:
a. Five schools have been included which have not previously been included in LEA tables (Awbridge, Hiltingbury Infant and Junior, John Keble, Otterbourne).
b. Halterworth School in Romsey, included in all LEA papers, has been excluded.
c. Reductions in accommodation in Romsey town have been assumed from 2005/06 rather than 2007/08 which is when the new primary school is scheduled to move to new premises.
d. All 125 pupils projected from 500 houses from the proposed Abbottswood development have been included in the figures from 2005/06. The latest information from Test Valley Borough Council indicates that the earliest any development could start would be 2007/08. Houses would be built in phases and there would therefore be a gradual build up of children.
e. The governors' figures, therefore, contain a number of incorrect assumptions which have led to misleading conclusions.
f. The LEA continues to have confidence in the figures set out in the various committee documents, particularly table 5 in Appendix C which shows that, with a new school established in Romsey and allowing for 125 pupils from the Abbottswood development, there would still be 93 spare places in 2009.
Concluding remarks
Review timescale
45. The LEA has made clear that it was at the governors' request that the school was included in a wider review of the Romsey area. This has inevitably lengthened the procedure and, because objections have been made to the proposal to close Ampfield, this will prolong the uncertainty further. The LEA could have decided to treat Ampfield in isolation, against the wishes of the governors, in which case consultations would have been much less extensive with a shortened decision timescale.
Delay in responding to falling numbers
46. The governing body cannot in all reasonableness continue to lay all the blame for falling numbers on the LEA when, as stated earlier in this response, the local community chose not to alert the LEA to the problems experienced at the school and, secondly, when the LEA agreed that Ampfield should form part of a review of Romsey primary schools.
47. The LEA accepts that the governors' offer not to resist any future closure decision if numbers did not increase or children's education was at risk was made in good faith but the legal framework within which decisions must be taken does not allow this scenario to be considered. The LEA considers that there is, therefore, little to be gained by further discussion of this proposal.
48. The governors refer to the LEA "having already explicitly sought the closure of the school with the Executive Member for Education in the autumn of 2003 and failed". The Executive Member was asked to approve consultations in March 2004 and these were carried out during the summer term. The paper presented to the Executive Member was based upon discussions with Ampfield governors and staff and also with the chairs of governors and headteachers of other local schools. No proposals were put forward or considered in 2003.
Detailed consultation programme
49. The County Council has followed all statutory procedures very openly and carried out a substantial programme of consultations, reported in the papers presented to the EPRC and Executive Member in October 2004. The LEA has always acknowledged that the circumstances at Ampfield are unusual but has rightly carried out consultations on the school's future because of its wider responsibilities for all Hampshire children and the need to ensure that LEA resources are equitably and efficiently used.
Limited local demand
50. Key factors in the LEA's consideration of the situation at Ampfield have been that :
· there are insufficient children living in Ampfield to sustain a primary school;
· many of the children attending the school do not live within the Ampfield area;
· places are available in other schools within a reasonable distance;
· the LEA would not propose establishing a school to serve so few children.
Section 3
LEA analysis and comments on objection letters received from 30 other objectors
The issues raised by the objections have been dealt with in section 2, except in a few instances. Additional comments are made on those specific points.
Summary of key issues raised by objectors:
16 objectors express concerns about the decision-making process
15 objectors refer to the C of E status of the school; some say that there are no other suitable places in the area
14 objectors specifically ask for the decision to be reversed or closure delayed though this is implied in all other letters
11 objectors refer to the quality of education at the school
11 objectors refer to the community value of the school
8 objectors say numbers will rise again; 5 say numbers have only dropped because of the threat of closure
7 objectors blame the LEA for not taking earlier action
6 objectors say that the Abbottswood development has not been fully taken into account
A maximum of 3 objectors comment on any of 9 other issues.
Objection 2 - Claire Ludwell
This letter -
· Says the governors should be allowed to implement their recovery plan
· Asks how one councillor can overturn the vote of the Education Policy Review Committee
· Draws attention to the LEA's investment in the school
· Says that all similar small C of E schools in the area are full
Objection 3 - Richard D Ludwell
This letter -
· Supports the governors' proposals for the future of the school
· Refers to the vote in the Education Policy Review Committee
· Draws attention to the County Council's investment in the school which would be lost if the school closed.
Objection 4 - Mrs J M Richards and L G Richards
This letter -
· Refers to the Education Policy Review Committee vote
· Asks for the decision to be reversed
· States that there are no available places in local C of E schools
Objection 5 - Mrs Janet D McFarlane
This letter, written by a former pupil, -
· Refers to the excellent education received by her brothers and to the fact that two aunts were mid-day supervisors and caretakers
· Asks for the decision to be reconsidered
Objection 6 - Mrs K W Griffin
This letter, written by a former pupil, -
· Refers to the special relationship between the school and local community
· States that economics and cost-benefit analysis must be matched against the quality of pupil success
· Urges that the decision be reconsidered
Objection 7 - County Councillor Alan Dowden
This letter, written by the County Councillor for the Baddesley area, -
· Objects to the proposed closure of Ampfield CE Primary School
· Emphasises the unique position of Ampfield School in relation to other schools within the wider Romsey area
· States that no mention was made of the leadership problem in the report considered by the EPRC and the Executive Member (LEA comment - This is not the case. This issue is covered in Appendix A, section 2, considered by the EPRC and EME.)
· States that the threat of closure has clearly affected pupil numbers
· Refers to the governors' offer not to object to any future closure proposals if numbers do not rise
· Refers to the County Council's substantial investment in the school
· Queries the LEA's data in relation to the availability of alternative C of E places
· Refers to the vote by members of the Education Policy Review Committee
· States that the school should be kept open to prove that data provided by the County Education Officer is incorrect
Objection 8 - Pauline Richards
This letter -
· Refers to the Executive Member's "undemocratic decision" to support closure
· States that all local C of E schools are heavily over-subscribed and refers to possible transport costs
· Blames the LEA for doubts about the school's future
· Gives details of the application process on behalf of her son
· Says that the County Council's main aim is to save money
Objection 9 - Mr and Mrs I Golledge
This letter -
· Refers to the "good grounding given by the school"
· Says that numbers have fallen in the past but have always recovered
· Refers to the recent upgrading of the school
· Highlights possible additional transport costs
Objection 10 - Mr and Mrs S R White
This letter -
· Refers to the EPRC vote in favour of keeping the school open
· Draws attention to the loss of confidence in the school, blaming the LEA and previous governing body for not taking earlier action
· States that the threat of closure has encouraged other parents to withdraw their children
· Mentions the excellent reputation of the school and its Church of England status
· Emphasises the school's importance to the village
· Acknowledges that costs are high but that this is a short term issue
· Expresses concern at the cost to the tax payers of the consultation and decision making process
Objection 11 - Lynne and Mike Franklin
This letter, written by parents of a child at the school, -
· States that the reason why so few local children attend the school is because of recent events
· Says that closing the school will restrict parental choice in relation to village Church of England schools
· Emphasises that the school plays a vital part in the community
· Says that, if the threat of closure were removed, numbers would rise and costs would be similar to comparable schools
· Asks whether it is the County Council's policy to close all small schools because of higher running costs
· Suggests that the effect on pupil numbers of the proposed Abbottswood development has not been properly considered by the County Council
Objection 12 - J E Franklin and M D Franklin
This letter, written by grandparents with a grandson attending Ampfield, -
· Draws attention to the EPRC vote in favour of retention
· Suggests that the closure notice makes the task of increasing numbers very difficult
· Supports the governors' proposal to review the situation in three years
· Queries the costs incurred by the LEA when redeveloping the school
· States that, if Ampfield were to close, this would reduce the number of C of E places available for parents
Objection 13 - Mr D and Mrs C Allen
This letter -
· Suggests that, had the numbers at Ampfield not fallen so dramatically, the school would not have been included in the Romsey review
· Says that the LEA's actions have exacerbated the situation at the school and the reduction in numbers
· Queries projections used by the LEA in relation to Ampfield numbers on roll
· Supports the governors' wish to be able to make the school viable once again
· Refers to the forthcoming Abbottswood development, asserting that no account has been taken by the LEA of the number of parents from this development who might wish their child to be educated in a C of E school
· Queries the costs involved in the review process
· Draws attention to potential future transport costs
· Refers to the investment made by the LEA in the school buildings
· Asks that the vote by the Education Policy Review Committee be upheld so that the school can remain open
Objection 14 - D M Shobbrook
This letter, written by "a friend of the school", -
· Draws attention to the Church of England values which have had a big influence on the writer
· Asks that the school be allowed to remain in the heart of the community
· Says that the school is doing nothing but good for its children
Objection 15 - Marie Richards
This letter, written by a parent of a current pupil, -
· Expresses concern at the possible disruption to her daughter's education
· Expresses concerns about possible transport costs
· Emphasises the community value of the school
· Draws attention to the CE status of the school and voices concerns about the availability of places elsewhere
· Refers to the proposed developments at Abbottswood, saying that Ampfield should be retained so that Abbottswood parents could have more choice in the future
Objection 16 - Elizabeth Hallett
This letter, written by the author of a history of the school, -
· Emphasises the role of the school within the village community
· Blames the LEA for not taking earlier action with the resulting further loss of pupils
· Emphasises the Church of England status of the school
· Queries the availability of places in other schools
· Suggests that the proposed Abbottswood development would bring more children to the school
· Refers to the catchment area boundary on the eastern side of the Ampfield catchment area and expresses concern at longer travel distances
· Mentions the County Council investment in the school and the fact that the land and buildings would be lost to the County Council if the school closed
· Emphasises the rural nature of Ampfield
· Queries the process by which closure was decided
Objection 17 - R S Taylor
This letter -
· Queries the decision making process
· Suggests that the reason for the exodus of children from the school was the result of clashes of personalities between staff and governors
· States that numbers will rise when new developments take place
Objection 18 - Mrs D Beament
This letter, written by the parent of a child now in Year 6, -
· States that the school has never relied on local pupils
· Says that parents choose the school because of its Church of England status
· Emphasises that the school could play a greater part in the community
· Says that, with new leadership, money spent on the school would not be wasted
· Blames the LEA for failing to tackle the leadership problem promptly
Objection 19 - Ian Golledge
This letter, written by a former pupil, -
· Says that a small school environment will protect children from moral decay, saying that large schools are more likely to harbour bullies and gangs
· Emphasises the role of a small school in bonding the community, recognises the financial pressures but says that the school could be turned round
Objection 20 - Mrs Anne Taylor
This letter -
· Suggests that the proposed closure is an attempt to "dumb down" any present advantage given by the school
· Emphasises the importance of the school's Church of England status
· Highlights the school's role in the local community
· Suggests that current problems are "just a blip"
· Expresses dismay at the decision making process
Objection 21 - The Reverend Roger Edwards
This letter, written by the local vicar, -
· Emphasises the key link between school and the local church
· Similarly emphasises the importance of the school in the local community
· Expresses concern at the decision making process
· Recognises the recent failure of leadership but urges that the school should be kept open in response to the commitment shown by staff, parents and governors
Objection 22 - Sue Hopkins
This letter, written by the school's administrative officer who also serves on the governing body, -
· Asks the School Organisation Committee to give the school a chance, in the belief that the school offers "an excellent education within a caring Christian community"
· Emphasises that the school offers a well-balanced education to children who would "otherwise drown if thrown into a larger school"
Objection 23 - The Diocese of Winchester
This letter, written by the Director of Education on behalf of the Winchester Diocesan Board of Education, -
· Objects to the closure of the school
· Stresses that the closure of Ampfield would restrict parents' ability to express a preference for a small, rural C of E school
· States that, if the current uncertainty concerning closure were removed, numbers would recover to their former levels
· Emphasises the popularity of Church of England schools and, whilst acknowledging that some other C of E schools have places in some year groups, stresses that these are usually quickly filled
Objection 24 - Susan Meade
This letter, written by a parent whose son is due to start at Ampfield in September 2005, -
· Expresses concern at the size of classes at North Baddesley Infant School
· Emphasises that she made her application to Ampfield even though she is aware that the school might close
· Says that closure of Ampfield would remove any choice for parents to send their children to a small church school
· Expresses concern at the decision making process
· Says that Ampfield is the only alternative for Baddesley parents who do not want to send their children to a large school
Objection 25 - K R and C A Small
This detailed letter contains six main sections with three appendices -
Undemocratic decision making
This section -
· Expresses concern at the way in which the proposal to close the school was reached
· States that the government's criteria in relation to the presumption that small schools should not be closed has been ignored (LEA comment - see section 10 of Appendix A and the table on page 2 of this document)
· Stresses that Ampfield CE School is not an under-performing school
· Points out that information provided by the LEA indicates that surplus places are mainly to be found in separate infant and junior schools and not 4 - 11 primary schools
· Queries why Ampfield was included within the Romsey review
· Blames the LEA for failure to monitor the situation at Ampfield
· Expresses concern that decisions are being taken for purely financial reasons
Reasons for short-term falling roll numbers
This section -
· Summarises reasons for the drop in numbers
· Highlights concerns about the management of the school and the LEA's failure to remedy the situation
· Emphasises that numbers could recover
· Says that parents are still seeking places at Ampfield, despite the threat of closure
· Draws attention to a recent history of the school which shows that Ampfield has always welcomed children from other areas
Small schools - parental choice
This section -
· Refers to research concluding that small schools offer ideal conditions for young children's learning
· Emphasises the importance of links with pre-school providers
· Quotes the views of supporters of small schools
· Asserts that "across the County parents are clamouring for smaller schools on the basis that they are better for children and better for learning (LEA comment - The School Organisation Plan shows that 60% of schools with fewer than 100 places were not full in January 2004.)
Rural considerations
This section -
· Refers to a paper produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) given as Appendix C to the letter
· States that this paper details "the presumption against the closure of rural schools" but the appendix does not mention the criteria which must be satisfied in order to justify the retention of small rural schools.
· Refers to local pre-school facilities suggesting that these would be jeopardised if the school were to close
· Refers to the recently installed IT network, suggesting this could be used for external community use
New housing in the area
This section -
· Refers to the Hampshire County Structure Plan and the overall level of housing proposed for the Test Valley South Planning Authority.
· Refers to proposed developments at Abbottswood and in Romsey and North Baddesley and draws conclusions about possible future numbers
(LEA comment - The objectors make the assumption that future developments in Eastleigh and Winchester will require school places in Test Valley South. This assumption is false - places would be provided as close as possible to children's homes. Reference is made to proposals relating to South Hampshire up to 2021, implying that additional places will be needed. The School Organisation Plan (page 26) addresses in detail housing proposals up to 2011. Data prepared by the LEA in relation to projected future numbers in relation to Ampfield take account of all known developments up to 2011. The SOP emphasises that "a significant proportion of these (pupils) will be in families moving from smaller houses, which may then be occupied by smaller households which may not contain children of school age. In other words, migration within the county does not necessarily increase the net number of children but may move the demand".)
Other relevant considerations
This section -
· Draws attention to Ampfield's C of E status and to the fact that neither of the two North Baddesley schools is a Church of England school (LEA comment: John Keble CE School is three miles from Ampfield.)
· Says that Ampfield School would soon fill up again if the threat of closure were lifted
· Draws attention to improvements made to the school since the latest Ofsted inspection report
Appendix A
This table lists C of E primary schools, community primary schools and infant and junior schools, showing their relative sizes. It is not clear how the list has been drawn up and it is difficult to see how, for example, Itchen Abbas Primary School (14 miles) and Owslebury Primary School (9 miles), both well to the east of Winchester/Eastleigh, are relevant to the discussions on Ampfield. They would not figure within the governors' "traditional catchment area".
Appendix B
This appendix gives numbers on roll at Ampfield from 1993/94 - 2003/04. There are some discrepancies with the LEA's information (based on January figures), most notably in 2003/04 where the LEA figure is 27 compared to 30, and 1994/95 (64/61) and 1993/04 (63/48).
Appendix C
Rural White Paper: Our Countryside: The Future - A Fair Deal for Rural England - Summary
Issued by DEFRA and last modified on 9 June 2004.
In the section headed "We are investing in quality services..." reference is made to continuing to safeguard rural schools against closure, and investing to improve them.
Appendix D
A press cutting from the Southampton Advertiser of 18 November 2004 reporting on possible housing needs up to 2026. (See LEA comment on New Housing in the Area)
Objection 26 - Petra Gonsalves
This letter, written by a parent moving into the Ampfield area in the New Year (exact address unknown), -
· States that Ampfield was the only school with a Year 2 place available
· Adds that her children need the security of a small school because of serious allergies
Objection 27 - Mrs Mandy Manning
This letter -
· Refers to the high standard of education at Ampfield.
· Draws attention to the school's Church of England status
· Says that alternative Church of England school places are unavailable
· Expresses concerns about the decision making process
Objection 28 - Margaret A Philpott
This is a letter to Councillor Dowden, the County Councillor for the Baddesley area, which -
· Expresses shock at hearing of the proposed closure of Ampfield School
· States that the writer's two grandsons were given an excellent education at the school
· Expresses concern at the decision making process
· Asks for the school to be given the chance to recover its numbers
· Includes an article from the Daily Mail of 2 December 2004 with the heading "Why church primaries are the best in Britain".
Objection 29 - S Poynter
This letter, written by the mother of three Ampfield pupils, -
· States that her youngest daughter is very happy at the school and that her eldest daughter has been given extra help to improve her reading
· Suggests that more children would attend the school if it were to stay open
· Expresses concern at the effect on pre-school provision within the area
· Suggests that it would be better to keep Ampfield open rather than having to build another school
Objection 30 - Kathleen J Rice and Robin Middleton
This letter -
· Stresses that the school is an essential part of the community
· Says that there are not sufficient places available in other C of E schools
· States that the school is needed to cater for rising numbers
· Says that the EPRC acted unreasonably and without taking into account all the relevant facts in reaching its decision. (NB: In the context of the letter this comment is likely to be referring to the Executive Member's decision.)
Objection 31 - Debbie and Paul Nott
This letter -
· Says that closure will restrict parental choice in favour of C of E schools in the Romsey area
· States that closure constitutes a short term financial gain for the LEA and that a new school will be needed within the next ten years to take account of the Abbottswood development
· Draws attention to the LEA's investment in the school
· Says the LEA did not act quickly enough to deal with the problems of school management
· Acknowledges the professional way in which staff have acted since the threat of closure was first raised
· Emphasises the support given to the school by the governors, especially the chairman
· Says that their children have thrived at Ampfield because of the individual attention on offer
· Asks that the decision be reconsidered.