Contact:

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

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

1 Summary

1.1 This report advises Cabinet of the outcome of a consultation approved by the Executive Member for Policy and Resources on 9 December 2004 about the future of primary school provision in the Whiteley area. It includes the following appendices:

· Appendix 1: notes of meetings held with governors, parents and the Whiteley community, together with written submissions from other consultees;

· Appendix 2: chronology of the Whiteley development and primary school;

· Appendix 3: LEA commentary on the performance of each school;

· Appendix 4: list of all correspondence and documentation received, the key points of which are referred to in the report;

· Appendix 5: report to Executive Member for Policy and Resources on 9 December 2004 recommending consultation;

· Appendix 6: a map of Whiteley and surrounding areas;

· Appendix 7: a map showing potential sites for a new primary school in Whiteley.

1.2 The report focuses in particular on the key issue of whether primary school places for additional Whiteley pupils should be provided within the development itself or alternatively at schools with spare capacity in the Western Wards of Fareham.

1.3 The report was considered by the Children's Services Policy Review Committee (CSPRC) on 12 July. The Committee decided to advise Cabinet to take an in principle decision to provide a new one form entry primary school in Whiteley with potential for expansion, subject to further reports on the availability of a suitable site and development of a capital funding strategy.

1.4 The CSPRC also asked officers to investigate surplus places in primary schools in the Western Wards; this action is referred to in section 17 of this report.

1.5 All correspondence and a copy of the consultation document are on deposit in the Members' Room during the week prior to the Cabinet meeting on 25 July 2005.

1.6 The issues raised in this report reflect the following County Council corporate aims:

· Aim 1 - maximising life opportunities, by developing strategies for the most appropriate educational provision;

· Aim 4 - building strong and safe communities, by taking full account of community and neighbourhood issues when deciding upon how best to meet the demand for additional school places;

· Aim 5 - improving services, by considering solutions which will contribute to the raising of educational standards.

Children Act outcomes

1.7 The five outcomes specified in the Children Act are set out below, with a summary of how the proposals in this report contribute to their achievement:

· being healthy: (enjoying good physical and mental health and living a healthy lifestyle) - by considering options which will maximise opportunities for children to walk to school, thus increasing opportunities for exercise and reducing car dependence;

· staying safe: (being protected from harm and neglect) - by having access to a secure learning environment;

· enjoying and achieving: (getting the most out of life and developing the skills for adulthood) - by providing a high standard of education for children in suitable buildings, where possible within their own community;

· making a positive contribution: (being involved with the community and society and not engaging in anti-social or offending behaviour) - by safeguarding friendship and neighbourhood groups by allowing for primary education to be provided as close to pupils' homes as reasonably practicable;

· economic well-being: (not being prevented by economic disadvantage from achieving their full potential in life) - by ensuring that proposals will not disadvantage children and will protect equality of opportunity.

1.8 Members are asked to advise the Cabinet on the options set out in the report for the strategy for future provision of primary school places in the Whiteley area.

2 Introduction

2.1 The County Council has a statutory duty to plan the provision of school places and to secure an appropriate balance locally between supply and demand. Needs change in response to population movements and fertility trends. In many areas of the county, child numbers are falling as populations stabilise. Where child populations do rise, additional school accommodation may be needed, but this becomes difficult if resources are locked up in areas of declining population.

2.2 By making effective arrangements for the supply and management of school places the County Council ensures that there is a sustainable pattern of long-term provision of schools which are viable and attract pupils. While the overall trend within the county, and nationally, is a decline in primary school numbers, there are areas of Hampshire where there is significant growth because of new housing developments. Whiteley is one of these areas.

2.3 This report should be considered in the light of the County Council's equalities policies, particularly in relation to:

· admission policies which are `clear, fair and objective' as required by the DfES (2003) Code of Practice on admissions;

· ensuring that good quality provision for children with special educational needs (SEN) is maintained and if possible enhanced; and

· providing appropriate facilities for disabled pupils in any new building or adaptations.

2.4 The methods and purpose of the review are consistent with the County Council's Constitution which describes its role as delivering services "in an open, transparent and cost-effective way, acting in the best interests of Hampshire and its citizens as a whole".

3 Background and consultation options

3.1 On 9 December 2004, the Executive Member for Policy and Resources authorised local consultations with primary schools in Whiteley and the Western Wards of Fareham about the future pattern of primary school provision in the area. The decision was taken against the background of:

· rising numbers of primary age pupils in the Whiteley area, which are exceeding the capacity of Whiteley Primary School;

· current and forecast surplus capacity in primary schools in the Western Wards of Fareham.

3.2 The history of housing development and school provision in Whiteley is complex and key events are set out in Appendix 2. In summary, planning of the development dates back to the 1980s when a more extensive community was envisaged, with some 4,500 dwellings in two phases. Only the first phase has been developed, with no current plans for the second phase of some 1,900 dwellings, known as North Whiteley. Local plan approvals are in place for future housing in Whiteley to complete the first phase and envisage 2,738 dwellings, slightly more than the original planned number of 2,600. Development of Whiteley has taken place over a long period, during which the mix of dwellings has also changed.

3.3 Although under current arrangements developers are required to provide school sites and financial contributions to construction costs, this was not the case when Whiteley was planned. As a result, the County Council needed to buy a primary school site, which is heavily wooded.

3.4 Because of this background it has not been possible to secure a free site for a second school to meet excess demand. In other similar cases, it has been relatively easy for pupils to attend schools outside a new development. In the case of Whiteley, however, the development is isolated north of the M27, with only one main access route to schools south of the motorway. Access difficulties are exacerbated by serious traffic congestion at peak times.

3.5 Whiteley Primary School was established in temporary buildings in 1997. A two form entry school in permanent buildings was opened in 1998 and a subsequent extension to three forms of entry in 2000.

3.6 Following approval to consult, a consultation document (which has been placed in the Members' Room) was prepared, which updated to a January 2005 base school capacities, numbers on roll and pupil number forecasts compared to those included in the December report to the Executive Member for Policy and Resources. These are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

School	Net capacity Jan 2005	PAN 2005	No. on roll Jan 2005	No. of surplus places Jan 2005	Forecast no. on roll Jan 2010	Forecast surplus/ deficit Jan 2010
Hook-with-Warsash CE Primary	420	60	419	1	343	77
Locks Heath Infant	360	120	355	5	298	62
Locks Heath Junior	480	128	479	1	467	13
Park Gate Primary	420	60	406	14	420	0
Sarisbury CE Junior	360	90	315	45	352	8
Sarisbury Infant	270	90	250	20	250	20
St John the Baptist CE Primary	420	60	255	165	123	297
Titchfield Primary	* 170	30	169	1	193	-23
Whiteley Primary	630	90	543	87	700	-70
Totals	3,530	728	3,191	339	3,146	384

* The capacity of Titchfield Primary School will change to 200 from January 2006.

3.7 Table 1 shows the additional demand for places at Whiteley Primary School. Analysis in Table 2 (overleaf) of forecast numbers of Yr R pupils shows an average annual requirement for 113 places, 23 above the capacity of Whiteley Primary School.

Table 2

		Actuals		Forecasts
		2003/04	2004/05	2005/ 06	2006/07	2007/08	2008/09	2009/10
1	No. of 4 yr olds living in the Whiteley area	103	98	125	114	134	119	117
2	No. of Whiteley 4 yr olds seeking school place	98	92	116	106	124	110	109
3	% of Whiteley 4 yr olds seeking school place (i.e. row 2 as a percentage of row 1)	95%	94%	93%	93%	93%	93%	93%

3.8 The figure of 93% of four year olds seeking a primary school place has been used in the forecasts as it reflects recent trends in the area. Places for the remaining four year olds will be obtained outside the area or at private and special schools.

3.9 Four separate options were proposed in the consultation to deal with the rising demand for primary school places in Whiteley, in the context of a predicted fall in numbers in the Western Wards. These are summarised below.

Option 1 - to build a new one form entry (210 places) Church of England voluntary aided primary school within Whiteley

3.10 Investigations have already taken place into the possible use of the privately owned site next to the district centre, earmarked for a new church, as a joint development of a Church of England school using shared facilities such as a hall and offices.

3.11 This proposal relied heavily on significant funding from central government as part of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme for providing new church schools but this source of funding has now been withdrawn. Any new school would, therefore, have to be either a community school funded by the County Council, or a voluntary aided school funded, at least in part, through a competitive bidding process to the DfES. There is not sufficient space for a church and community school to share the church site and the acquisition of adjoining land would be necessary for a new school on this site to be viable.

Option 2 - to build a new one form entry infant school (90 places)

3.12 Whilst it might be possible to build a small infant school with 90 places (30 per year group) and a church on the site at the district centre, this would be expensive in terms of capital and running costs and would still require some additional land. Such a small school would be vulnerable to changes in numbers, because the loss of a small number of pupils would be a large proportion of the total. This would be particularly critical in the longer term when there are projected to be fewer pupils in each age group than the total of places available.

3.13 A major disadvantage of this option is that it would still be necessary for pupils of junior school age to find places elsewhere at the age of 7+, at the point of transfer from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2. In order to avoid this, it is likely that most parents would still prefer a place at Whiteley Primary School at age 4, further risking the viability of a separate infant school.

Option 3 - to extend the existing Whiteley Primary School

3.14 This would increase the size of the school to 840 places (120 children in each year group), which is much larger than the maximum size of 630 considered desirable for a 4-11 primary school in the County Council's School Organisation Plan. The existing school has already been extended to accommodate one additional form of entry but any further extensions to the existing buildings would be problematic, at the west end due to the proximity to the existing site boundary, a culvert and trees and at the east end due to the location of the existing fire path and a significant underground water main running across the site. The proposed increase in capacity would require additional stand-alone accommodation and facilities. There would be no space on site for these additional facilities, particularly outdoor play and playing fields, without the removal of large areas of trees and woodland. There would be issues relating to highways, car parking and infrastructure on the school site.

Option 4 - to use existing capacity in schools in the Western Wards of Fareham

3.15 In January 2005, there were 339 surplus places at primary schools in Whiteley and the Western Wards. This level is expected to remain constant over the next five years, after allowing for housing development. There is, therefore, enough capacity to provide for any pupils who cannot be educated within Whiteley, without the need for additional classroom accommodation.

3.16 As mentioned earlier, some Whiteley children already attend schools in the Western Wards. This could continue as at present within existing admission procedures. However, if it were felt appropriate to give Whiteley parents greater security when applying for a primary school place:

· admission arrangements could be adjusted for individual schools to secure priority for Whiteley children over other out of area pupils; or

· catchment areas could be enlarged so that parts of Whiteley also fell within the catchment area of other schools, thus giving parents at least two schools where their application could be considered as in-catchment.

3.17 Detailed arrangements for individual schools would be discussed with the governing bodies of the schools concerned

Consultation arrangements

3.18 Following initial discussion with chairmen of governors and headteachers of primary schools in the area, it was agreed that meetings should be arranged with the governors and/or parents of schools most closely affected by the consultation and that copies of the consultation document should be sent to the remaining schools. Meetings were held as follows:

· with the governing bodies of:

· Sarisbury Infant, Sarisbury CE Junior and Park Gate Primary Schools (jointly);

· St. John the Baptist CE Primary School;

· Titchfield Primary;

· Whiteley Primary,

· Brookfield Community School and Language College.

· The Henry Cort Community College.

· with parents of:

· Sarisbury Infant, Sarisbury CE Junior and Park Gate Primary Schools (jointly);

· Whiteley Primary.

· with the Whiteley community.

3.19 Copies of the consultation document, and an offer to attend a meeting if they wished, were sent to:

· Hook-with-Warsash CE Primary School;

· Locks Heath Infant School;

· Locks Heath Junior School;

· Fareham Borough Council;

· Winchester City Council;

· Fareham Local Strategic Partnership;

· Winchester Local Strategic Partnership;

· Whiteley Parish Council (with whose members a meeting was subsequently held);

· Diocese of Portsmouth.

3.20 The consultation document was also delivered to the 2,365 households in Whiteley.

4 General issues raised during consultation

Forecast pupil numbers

4.1 Much discussion and correspondence centred upon future numbers of children in the Whiteley area. Forecast pupil numbers take into account all planned new housing, including type and tenure, and are based upon small area population forecasts which detail the number of 0 - 4 year-olds in an area.

4.2 All new housing proposed in Whiteley and the Western Wards and included in the Fareham Borough and Winchester City Local Plans has been included in the forecasts. The plans cover the period up to 2011 and also identify sites that may be required for development after that date. Within the area covered by this review, the plan takes account of all proposed housing identified in Fareham Borough Council's Urban Housing Capacity Study 2001-2011. Other smaller sites have also been taken into account.

Community issues and friendship groups

4.3 A significant number of comments related to the importance of retaining a sense of community for Whiteley residents, which was damaged by children going to school outside the development. This also made it more difficult for friendship groups to be established and maintained

Transport

4.4 Pupils are entitled to transport where they qualify under the LEA's normal criteria. If a new school is provided within Whiteley, it is not likely that any pupils will be entitled, as all the catchment will be within two miles from home to school, wherever the school is built. If Option 4 is adopted, it is likely that there will be some pupils living within Whiteley who are more than two miles from the school they are offered. For example, the distance from the furthest north-west part of Whiteley to Sarisbury Infant School is 3.9 miles. The cost would depend on the numbers and ages of pupils concerned, but as a maximum, the cost of transporting 200 children from Whiteley to schools in the Western Wards would be about £132,000 per annum.

Catchment areas and admissions

4.5 In relation to Option 4, the consultation paper suggested ways in which admission arrangements might be amended to give some advantage to Whiteley children unable to gain a place at Whiteley Primary School when seeking places in other schools. It was suggested that policies in individual schools might be amended to include a specific reference to Whiteley children and/or that catchment boundaries might be changed.

4.6 Although these options were considered at consultation meetings, particularly those for parents and the local community, the general response was that such strategies would not improve the situation for Whiteley children and that the focus should be upon providing additional places within Whiteley itself.

5 Review of responses to consultation

5.1 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.

Primary schools

Park Gate Primary School, Sarisbury Infant and Sarisbury Junior Schools

5.2 The following points were made at the joint meetings of the governing bodies and parents of these three schools:

· there was concern that all the planned future housing in the Western Wards might not have been take into account in compiling pupil number forecasts;

· a view that the consultation paper implied that a decision had already been taken to implement Option 4, to make use of surplus capacity in the Western Wards;

· a request that consideration should be given to splitting Whiteley Primary School into separate infant and junior schools;

· a request for information about ways in which investment from the capital programme might be made in Western Wards primary schools if Option 4 were implemented;

· the need for further consultation if catchment area changes were proposed and for consideration of the implications for secondary education;

· a view that expansion of provision in Whiteley would not be cost effective given the availability of places in the Western Wards.

St. John the Baptist Primary School

5.3 The following points arose from the meeting with the governing body:

· there was support for Option 4, which would help to reduce the number of surplus places at the school, although further thought would need to be given to the implications at secondary transfer, e.g. the break-up of friendship groups when children attended different secondary schools;

· providing a new primary school in Whiteley was difficult to justify when there were spaces in Western Wards schools.

Titchfield Primary School

5.4 The following points were raised during the meeting with the governing body and in a subsequent letter:

· there was strong support for Option 4 as the only logical course to take, because it would make use of currently unfilled school places, and other options would disadvantage children outside Whiteley;

· adoption of a proposal other than Option 4 would imply that children outside Whiteley were less important than those in Whiteley;

· a new primary school in Whiteley would be detrimental to the interests of Titchfield Primary School;

· if catchment areas were changed, Whiteley parents could be given joint first preferences; governors could give priority to Whiteley families within their admission arrangements.

Whiteley Primary School governing body

5.5 A note of the meeting held with the Whiteley Primary School governing body is included in Appendix 1. A subsequent discussion was held with one of the County Council's senior architects to explore in more detail the feasibility of an extension to the school. A written response from the chairman of governors included the following main points:

· full support for the principle of Whiteley children being educated close to their homes;

· after detailed consideration of the possibility of expanding the school to four forms of entry, the governing body was unanimous in rejecting the further extension of the school as a feasible option;

· site constraints required that the existing order of the accommodation according to age range could not be continued in a new building. This would mean that Key Stages and year groups could not work together as they do currently. New buildings would also need to be separate from the present building, which would be unsatisfactory;

· creation of a four form entry school would place additional pressure on the already extended school infrastructure, requiring in addition to seven classrooms further extension of most of the remainder of the school's accommodation;

· additional playing field space would be required, which would use up a large amount of the remaining outdoor resource;

· traffic management and parking issues, which already adversely affect the movement and safety of children, would be exacerbated;

· expansion would generate increased management issues, including timetabling, workforce remodelling and maintaining the strong links existing between year groups and across key stages;

· expansion to four forms of entry is contrary to the established policy for the size of primary schools set out in the County Council's School Organisation Plan;

· opposition to a solution through temporary classrooms;

· a wish to see further exploration of the option to construct an additional primary school within Whiteley.

Whiteley Primary School parents

5.6 The main points raised at the consultation meeting were:

· parents questioned the accuracy of the forecasts and sought assurance that all future housing has been taken into account;

· provision for children within Whiteley should not be fragmented. Children living in the same neighbourhood should be able to attend the same school;

· journeys to the Western Wards are difficult. Parents, particularly of the youngest children, would be reluctant to put their children on buses, so this would add to the number of children taken to school in parents' cars;

· it is difficult for parents to take children to different schools several miles apart;.

· places for children living in Whiteley should be provided within the community, with no strong preference between a new school or the extension of the existing school.

Secondary schools

Brookfield Community School and Language College

5.7 The governing body of Brookfield Community School and Language College made the following points at the consultation meeting and in a subsequent letter:

· concern about pupils educated at primary schools outside Whiteley not being able to move to secondary school with their peers;

· a wish to see the interests of pupils as the main driver behind the decision, rather than numbers and financial considerations;

· concern that Whiteley pupils currently attending primary schools linked to Brookfield had no guarantee of a place at Brookfield. This was seen as unreasonable if Whiteley children were being required to attend primary schools outside their community.

The Henry Cort Community College

5.8 The main points raised at the consultation meeting with governors and in a subsequent letter were:

· there was concern that Henry Cort College had not been included in the initial informal consultations with schools, although two of its linked schools were involved;

· support for the creation of a new primary school in Whiteley;

· strong opposition to Option 4,

· possible use of Titchfield Primary School as an interim solution for over-subscription to Whiteley Primary School while a new school was being built;

· careful thought should be given to the catchment area implications of all the options being considered;

· when considering the options, the implications for secondary schooling should be fully considered;

· the transport implications of using capacity in Western Wards primary schools were seen as very negative because of increased congestion and pollution;

· there was concern about the expansion of Brookfield Community School and Swanmore College of Technology in recent years and about the lack of extensive consultation. These expansions had had a detrimental effect on Henry Cort.

Whiteley community

5.9 The main points raised at the community consultation meeting were:

· are all options really open?

· how accurate are the forecasts? In particular, has the number of new houses in the Western Wards been underestimated?

· why has the site at Leafy Lane not been considered for the new school?

· difficulties of parents getting children to Western Wards schools on opposite sides of the motorway;

· what would Whiteley Primary School lose by expanding to 4 form entry?

· if the school were expanded in the short term, could the additional accommodation be designed for other uses if numbers fell in the future?

· an interim solution was needed, possibly in temporary buildings, while permanent provision was put in place;

· there was unanimous support for the provision of additional school places within Whiteley, but no strong preference between options 1 or 3.

6 Correspondence received

6.1 In total, 106 responses have been received on response forms, letters and by email, excluding those from governing bodies and the specific consultees mentioned in sections 7 to 12 of this report. Of the responses received, 22 were made through the County Council's website for the consultation, which received 52 hits.

6.2 Of the responses received, 89 supported a solution within Whiteley and 17 in the Western Wards. Of the respondents supporting a solution within Whiteley, 57 ticked two or more boxes on the response form.

6.3 Other major concerns covered in correspondence are:

· local schooling should support the community (73 replies);

· reduction in traffic congestion through children walking to school (45);

· temporary classrooms should be placed at Whiteley Primary School (21 replies)

· use of Leafy Lane site for a primary school (12 replies).

6.4 Other issues covered (in each case fewer than 10% of correspondents) include

· extending Whiteley Primary School would make it too large (9 replies);

· concerns about catchment areas (4 replies);

· class sizes (3 replies);

7 Fareham Borough Council: review of responses to consultation

7.1 A written response to the consultation was received from Fareham Borough Council. The main points are as follows:

· strong dissatisfaction with current arrangements;

· concern over some 80 primary age pupils being educated outside Whiteley, with a consequent increase in car journeys and traffic congestion;

· community and social issues arising from children being educated outside the local community, including weak links to local community groups and attendance at after school activities;

· exploration of options to accommodate children in the September 2005 Year R in temporary classrooms or in classrooms assigned for higher year groups at Whiteley Primary School;

· a wish to see permanent arrangements for additional primary school places within Whiteley in place by September 2006;

· exploration of providing a new school on County Council owned land within Whiteley;

· concern about length of journey required by Whiteley children to reach the nearest secondary schools and a request for the County Council to explore opportunities to provide a secondary school within Whiteley.

8 Winchester City Council: review of responses to consultation

8.1 The response from Winchester City Council included the following points:

· support for the principle of Whiteley children being able to attend a local primary school. This is seen as essential to the development of a cohesive community;

· requiring children to attend schools some distance from their homes adds to traffic congestion, which is contrary to the County Council's polices and creates considerable practical difficulties for some parents;

· within the overall principle of a solution within Whiteley, it is for the County Council to decide on the most appropriate method of delivery;

· although a new one form entry primary school would be expensive, it would not be beyond the County Council's means if sufficient priority were given to it;

· County Council land at Leafy Lane/Lady Betty's Drive should be considered as a possible site for a new school;

· a new one form entry infant school would not solve the problem and could not be justified as a solution;

· the option of using spare capacity in Western Wards schools is not supported. The planning horizon is seen as too short to take proper account of the likelihood that regional strategy will require additional housing in this area.

9 Whiteley Parish Council

9.1 Notes of the meeting held with Whiteley Parish Council are included in Appendix 1. A letter was also received which set out the Parish Council's consultation response as follows:

· a new two form entry (420 place) primary school should be provided with its own grounds preferably towards the north of Whiteley;

· Option 1 is discounted as there is insufficient land available and public open space could be lost to provide the necessary playing fields and Option 2 for the reasons set out in the consultation paper;

· if a site for a new school cannot be found, extension of Whiteley Primary School is supported, subject to governing body support.

10 Fareham and Winchester Local Strategic Partnerships

10.1 Fareham and Winchester Local Strategic Partnerships were invited to comment on the consultation.

10.2 The Fareham LSP supported in the strongest terms the provision of additional primary school places within Whiteley, rather than using spare capacity in Western Wards schools. It also asked for a temporary solution to cater for currently unmet needs. The LSP also asked for a new secondary school to be provided in the Whiteley area.

10.3 No response was received from the Winchester Local Strategic Partnership.

11 Diocese of Portsmouth

11.1 Officers met the Portsmouth Diocesan Board and a formal response to the consultation was subsequently received. The Board supported the option of providing additional primary school places within Whiteley, with a separate review of capacity within the wider area. The Board also saw community benefits from co-locating a new school and ecumenical church and supported the proposal for a new one form entry Church of England voluntary aided school, subject to funding issues being resolved.

12 Mark Hoban MP

12.1 Mark Hoban, MP for Fareham, wrote in response to the consultation and made the following points:

· parents should have a place at a local school for their children;

· Whiteley should be seen as a separate community from the Western Wards and future admission arrangements should encourage its cohesion;

· Option 1 - to provide a new primary school - should be pursued as a top priority for the County Council;

· Options 2 and 4 are seen as unsatisfactory.

13 Members' visits

13.1 A visit to the area by members of the Policy Review Committee took place, on 6 July 2005; members of the Cabinet visited on 4 July 2005.

14 Views of the local county councillors

14.1 Local county councillors (Frederick Allgood and Seán Woodward) have been fully informed of the consultation process and have attended meetings.

14.2 A response from Councillor Allgood included the following points:

· Option 4 is not acceptable because it would disrupt friendship groups and require additional car journeys;

· additional provision should be made within Whiteley, either at a new school or by expanding Whiteley Primary School;

· an interim solution is needed until a new school is built;

· a new school should be expandable to take account of possible additional future housing in the Whiteley area.

14.3 Councillor Seán Woodward stated his full support for a new primary school (preferably a church school) within Whiteley.

15 Implications of consultation outcomes

15.1 A clear majority of responses to the consultation favour additional primary age provision within Whiteley and this is consistent with the County Council's policy of providing additional primary places where possible within new communities. Most of the responses received from Whiteley residents favoured a solution within Whiteley without expressing a preference for a specific solution, e.g. a new primary school. Under current planning arrangements, the County Council is able to acquire sites for new schools and contributions towards construction costs when major new developments are proposed, but such an opportunity does not exist in Whiteley.

15.2 Three of the four consultation options offered provision of additional primary places within Whiteley:

· provision of a new one form entry voluntary aided primary school, jointly with development of a church;

· provision of a one form entry infant school (though there was little specific support for this option during the consultation);

· expansion of Whitley Primary School from three to four forms of entry (630 to 840 places)

15.3 As indicated earlier, these three options produced the greatest support from the consultation process, although consultees did not express a clear preference for a specific approach. Paragraphs 3.10 to 3.16 above, set out the implications of each of these options.

15.4 In the light of the strong and consistent messages from the consultation and the County Council's policy to provide primary schools as close as possible to pupils' homes, the most appropriate proposal is one which meets the need by providing additional places within Whiteley. Given the strong disadvantages already stated of a new infant school and of the extension of Whiteley Primary School, together with the strong opposition to expansion stated by the Whiteley Primary School governing body, provision of a new one form entry primary school within Whiteley is seen as the most appropriate way forward.

15.5 During the consultation period and since, additional work has been carried out on the feasibility of delivering a new primary school, given the practical difficulties already set out, which are principally the lack of sufficient funding and a suitable site. This work is continuing.

Site availability

15.6 Appendix 7 shows sites considered so far for a new primary school in Whiteley.

Land at Whiteley District Centre

15.7 The church site adjoining the Whiteley district centre (Site A on the map) could, with the acquisition of additional land to the east and use of adjoining public playing fields owned by Winchester City Council, provide sufficient space for a one form entry primary school, although this could not be expanded further to provide for any future growth because of the limited site area. The school would also need to be established jointly with the church, with some shared use of facilities for the same reason.

15.8 A variation of this option would be to seek to acquire land to the west of the district centre site (Site B on the map), currently identified in the Local Plan for housing development. This could provide a larger site area, with the potential to build a one form entry primary school which could be expanded to two forms of entry if housing was subsequently developed to the north.

15.9 Both sites are owned by the Universities Superannuation Service Ltd. (USS). A meeting has been held recently with USS who say that they do not now wish to dispose of any of their land holdings in this area. These options cannot, therefore, be pursued further.

Land at Leafy Lane

15.10 The County Council owns a site in Leafy Lane, Whiteley which is identified in the Local Plan for future development for housing and open space (Site C on the map). This site has been carefully considered for a primary school, but has several features which make it unsuitable for this use. These are:

· location in the south-east corner of Whiteley with relatively long travel distances from most of the housing, particularly that furthest from Whiteley Primary School;

· close proximity to the M27, with resulting noise and air pollution issues;

· poor access from most of the Whiteley development, involving travel through the commercial area and through Leafy Lane, a residential road with a steep gradient.

15.11 At present, therefore, it has not been possible to identify a suitable site for a new primary school within Whiteley. Officers are, however, pursuing a number of other options for acquiring suitable land in the area. If the decision is taken to pursue the option of a new Whiteley Primary School, these investigations will continue with a view to reporting back in autumn 2005.

16 Capital strategy

16.1 The opportunity to fund a church school using the Private Finance Initiative was removed through a change of government policy in 2004. A further opportunity to bid for some of the cost has become available through the Targeted Capital Fund (TCF), which is used by the DfES to allocate funding for new voluntary aided schools. Given the cost limits for such developments which the DfES operates, it is unlikely that the full cost of a new primary school in Whiteley would be covered by a TCF allocation. It is, however, open to the County Council to meet the difference between the amount of DfES grant and the full cost of providing a voluntary aided (VA) school. A bid has been submitted to the DfES and the outcome will be known in the autumn. The DfES is unlikely to give grant for land acquisition, so this cost would have to be met by the County Council.

16.2 A VA school is different from a community or voluntary controlled school in several important respects. The governing body rather than the County Council owns the building and employs the staff in a VA school and the governors are also responsible for meeting 10% of the cost of most capital expenditure on the buildings, with 90% being met through DfES grant. VA schools have a more pronounced religious character and ethos and different rules for governing body membership which reflect their religious character. The governing body is also responsible for determining the school's admission arrangements.

16.3 There is a sum of £1.438m in the Education capital programme for additional school places in Whiteley or the adjacent area. Excluding the cost of land acquisition, for which some provision has been made in the "sites to be acquired" part of the Education capital programme, Table 3 sets out the financial implications of the alternatives of voluntary aided and community status. For the former, it is assumed that the diocese will expect the LEA to meet that part of the cost that is not grant funded by the DfES. The final position will depend on the actual cost of land acquisition, but the table indicates that the voluntary aided option could be financed within existing resources. Any shortfall on the community option would have to be met from the Education or Policy and Resources capital programme. This could include a receipt from the sale of land at Heath Road, Locks Heath (held by Education) and the disposal of the Leafy Lane site (held by Policy and Resources) if that site is not used for the school. Table 3 summarises estimated costs and resources.

Table 3

	Voluntary aided £'m	Community £'m
Gross cost	£4.537	£4.537
TCF bid to DfES	£4.043	-
Net cost to LEA	£0.494	£4,537
Capital programme	£1.438	£1.438
(Shortfall)/surplus funding	£0.944	(£3,099)
Land acquisition *	Unknown	Unknown

* there is provision of £1.000m in the Education capital programme.

17 Implications for surplus places

17.1 If the decision is taken to provide a new primary school in Whiteley, further consideration will need to be given to reducing the number of surplus primary school places within the Western Wards. Officers will consider options for achieving this in the light of pupil number forecasts and in consultation with the schools concerned and further proposals will be brought forward as appropriate.

18 Process and timescales

18.1 If a new primary school is provided in Whiteley, statutory notices would need to be published and, if objections were received, the proposal would need to be decided by the School Organisation Committee (SOC). Notices would be published by the County Council for a community school and by the Diocese of Portsmouth for a voluntary aided school. The period from publication of notices to a decision by the SOC is usually three to four months. Given the need to await the outcome of the TCF bid, it would not be possible to publish notices until October 2005, subject to resolution of the site and funding issues already referred to.

19 Implications for secondary school provision

19.1 Although the consultation exercise described in this report related to primary education, secondary issues were raised in a number of responses, including several Whiteley residents and Fareham Borough Council. The main area of concern is the lack of a secondary school within the Whiteley development.

19.2 While it is the County Council's policy to provide primary schools wherever possible in major new housing developments, the number of houses required to generate sufficient pupils for a new secondary school (about 6,000) is considerably greater. A very large site (typically 6.9ha) is required. Whiteley, even as originally planned, would not generate enough secondary age pupils to justify a new secondary school. Consequently, the decision was taken to provide additional places at the nearest secondary school, The Henry Cort Community College in Fareham, and to provide free transport for pupils from Whiteley because the travelling distance is greater than three miles. Taking into account both current and future demand, there are sufficient places to meet all catchment demand at Henry Cort, including pupils attending Whiteley Primary School.

19.3 The Henry Cort Community College has capacity for 1,200 pupils and had a roll of 994 in January 2005. Forecast numbers, including pupils from Whiteley, are not expected to increase above the current level in the foreseeable future, as numbers from the older housing areas served by the school decline. If more Whiteley pupils were to attend primary schools in the Western Wards, they might have a higher priority for admission to Brookfield School, which has room to accommodate some additional pupils (with a current capacity of 1,755 and a roll of 1,671 in January 2005).

20 Concluding comments

20.1 If Members agree that the strategy should be to provide a new primary school within Whiteley, the funding situation will be clearer once the DfES has announced the outcome of the TCF bid for a voluntary aided school. This is expected in September 2005. If the school has to be provided as a community school, funding will need to be considered in the formulation of the 2006/07 capital programme; any contribution to the costs of a voluntary aided school would need to be similarly considered.

20.2 The earliest date on which a new school could open is September 2007. The number of 4 year old pupils seeking admission in 2006 and 2007 is forecast to continue to be greater than the 90 paces available at Whiteley Primary School. The admissions round for 2006 commences in September 2005 and parents will need an early indication of any possible alternative provision of school places.

20.3 To reduce uncertainty as far as possible, it is proposed that at this stage an in principle decision should be taken about future primary school provision in Whiteley. Work will continue to secure an appropriate site and to develop a capital funding strategy, prior to the anticipated announcement of the outcome of the TCF bid in September 2005.

21. County Council Policy Requirements

21.1 Legal implications - The proposals support the County Council's statutory duty to provide school places and comply with central government accommodation requirements and guidance.

21.2 Financial implications - These are set out in the report.

21.3. Personnel implications - None directly arising from this report.

21.4. Community cohesion, inclusiveness and partnership working - These issues are discussed in detail in the report and have been taken into account in framing the recommendation.

21.5 Crime prevention issues - None directly arising from this report.

Recommendation

1 That an in principle decision should be taken to provide a new one form entry primary school in Whiteley, with potential for future expansion, subject to further reports on the availability of a suitable site and an appropriate funding strategy.

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 the Act.

None.

Appendix 1

Notes of meetings held with governors, parents and the Whiteley Community and written submissions from other consultees

A

Primary School Provision in Whiteley and the Western Wards

Notes of consultation meeting of the governors of Brookfield Community School and Language College

2 March 2005 - 7.00pm

The meeting was attended by 10 governors and the acting headteacher

Officers outlined the key elements of the consultation programme, drawing particular attention to the data set out in the consultation paper and the four suggested options. They highlighted the details of the decision making process, emphasising that no decisions had been taken and that no option had been formally rejected.

Questions asked/issues raised by governors:

_ Governors asked about how sites were allocated for new schools and whether developers were required or expected to provide sites free of charge.

_ Although a second major phase of the Whiteley development was envisaged at the original planning stage, there were currently no plans for this to proceed before 2011 at the earliest.

_ A governor asked whether it was possible to close a school, sell the site and then rebuild elsewhere using the capital receipt.

_ Governors asked whether, although there was as yet no primary school in Hampshire with 840 places, this option was ruled out for Whiteley.

_ Governors asked how Option 4, essentially the status quo with pupils unable to obtain a place at Whiteley Primary School attending schools in the Western Wards, could be reconciled with the County Council's "green policy".

_ Governors noted that currently pupils attending Brookfield feeder schools only had priority to get into Brookfield if they lived in the catchment area. Therefore, Whiteley children attending feeder schools would have to move into the Brookfield catchment area if they wished to have priority to attend Brookfield. This seemed unreasonable if they had already been forced to attend primary schools outside Whiteley.

_ Governors were keen to emphasise their concerns that, at the age of 11, pupils might well not be able to move on with their peers. They were particularly sympathetic to those pupils who were attending Brookfield's linked primary schools only because there had been insufficient space within Whiteley Primary School. Governors stated that the interests of pupils should be treated as paramount, as there was a danger that decisions would be made on the basis of numbers and financial issues only.

_ The governors emphasised that Brookfield School took its community responsibilities very seriously and would always wish to admit pupils attending its linked schools. Thus far, there had been few "them and us" problems amongst pupils but they feared that uncertainty at 11+ might increase tensions between local secondary schools.

E

Primary School Provision in Whiteley and the Western Wards

Note of meeting with governors of The Henry Cort Community College

23 March 2005

The meeting was attended by 14 governors, the headteacher and the clerk, with Bob Eardley (Strategic Planning Manager) and Alex Munro (Education Officer - Admissions and Special Projects),

Officers made a brief presentation covering the options for meeting the demand for additional primary school places for the Whiteley area and summarised progress with the consultation exercise.

Questions asked/issues raised:

_ The Governors welcomed the opportunity to have their views represented but expressed surprise that Henry Cort had not been in the initial consultation although two of its feeder schools were involved.

_ Governors enquired about the possibility of expanding Titchfield Primary School as a solution to the shortfall of primary places for Whiteley children and asked whether this had been raised by Titchfield governors at their consultation meeting. They asked that careful thought be given to the catchment area implications of all of the options under consideration.

_ As an extension of this point, there was discussion about the possibility of changing catchment areas around the Leafy Lane area of Whiteley which could designate Titchfield Primary School as the catchment primary school for that area of Whiteley. This would reduce the pressure on Whiteley Primary School and provide additional numbers for Titchfield Primary.

_ Governors asked whether setting up separate 4 form entry infant and junior schools was an option. They also wondered whether parents would be attracted to a Church of England school.

_ They sought an assurance that having to deal with two local councils (Winchester and Fareham) was not a potential problem for the future.

_ Concerns were expressed about the transport implications of implementing Option 4. It was inevitable that this option would increase the amount of road traffic and contribute to congestion entering and leaving Whiteley.

_ Governors expressed their concern over the expansion of Brookfield Community School and Swanmore College of Technology in recent years, which they believed had had a detrimental effect on Henry Cort. The respective expansions were carried out without extensive consultation and failed to take into account falling rolls in Fareham and medium term trends i.e., Swanmore's and Brookfield's pupil numbers did not warrant an increase in their rolls. They sought reassurance that Henry Cort's interests would be a factor in the forthcoming decision-making process.

_ The governors stressed that it was important that the implications for secondary education of each of the options were fully taken into account and were reported to county councillors. If a new school were to be built in Whiteley, a linked secondary school would need to be identified; governors believed that this should be Henry Cort, as it had been expanded specifically to cater for Whiteley growth and offered a high standard of education and facilities.

The meeting ended at 7.30pm

H

Primary School Provision in Whiteley and the Western Wards

Note of joint consultation meeting of the governors of Sarisbury Infant School, Sarisbury Junior School and Park Gate Primary School

1 March 2005 - 5.00 pm

The meeting was attended by 14 governors and three headteachers.

Questions asked/issues raised by governors:

_ Clarification was sought on how the LEA forecasts the number of four year olds in 2009/10 when some of them may not have yet been born?

_ Several governors asked for reassurance that all future housing developments in the Western Wards had been taken into account when projecting future pupil numbers.

_ The view was expressed that the consultation paper suggested that a decision had already been made in favour of option four. It was explained that this was certainly not the case and the final outcome might not reflect any of the options in the consultation document. Officers emphasised that new ideas may emerge during the consultation process and these will be welcomed .

_ Governors asked about how the high level of surplus at St John the Baptist would be managed in the future. It was suggested that one option would be to close St John the Baptist and build a new faith school in Whiteley. This would resolve the Whiteley issue and remove much of the surplus capacity within the Western Wards.

_ Governors enquired if thought had been given to expanding Whiteley Primary with temporary accommodation just to deal with the forecast bulge. It was felt that this was one possible solution that should be considered/looked at in more detail.

_ It was asked if it would be possible to split Whiteley into separate infant and junior schools on the existing site to cope with the increased numbers. It was explained that whilst this might be technically possible it would be very complicated to achieve and it would require extensive consultation. However, the issue of the need for additional accommodation would still remain.

_ There was discussion about how the £1.4M identified in the full committee paper might be used to support schools in the Western Wards if no additional places were provided in Whiteley. It was envisaged that it would be used to address accommodation issues within these schools.

_ Issues relating to transport were discussed especially with regard to option four. Clarification of the County Council's transport policy was requested.

_ Comment was made about the large number of pupils who do not attend their catchment school in the Western Wards. It was felt that this was linked to the shape of the catchment areas as well as parents' jobs and the provision of childcare amongst other things.

_ Possible catchment area changes were discussed and what effects they might have on future Whiteley parents. Any proposed catchment changes would have to be consulted upon with all schools potentially affected. It was important to bear in mind that primary catchment changes does not mean a change to secondary school catchment areas. Governors pointed out that catchment changes could lead to morale issues arising at age of transfer to secondary school.

_ Governors made the point that given the surplus capacity in the Western Wards any expansion of Whiteley Primary would surely not be a cost effective solution to the problem;

_ There was discussion on the issue of secondary transfer and in particular the pressure option four might put on Brookfield Community School and Language College in terms of increased demand for places.

_ It was explained that whilst the data showed that there were 28 children attending Whiteley Primary School from out of catchment this was historical and there were no longer places available for out of area pupils.

I

Primary School Provision in Whiteley and the Western Wards

Note of meeting for parents of Sarisbury Infant School, Sarisbury Junior School and Park Gate Primary School

1 March 2005 - 7.00 pm

The meeting was attended by 14 parents and two staff from Sarisbury Infant School.

Questions asked/issues raised by parents:

_ It was asked if the LEA were jumping the gun with this consultation as the potential impact of the Whiteley phase two development is not known.

_ Confirmation was sought on the timescales for implementing the outcome of the consultation.

_ A parent asked how the LEA would make future parents in Whiteley and the Western Wards aware of this problem. It was explained that all households in Whiteley would be receiving a mail-shot prior to the public meeting on 22 March. Parents in the Western Wards would not be contacted in this way but it was felt they could be kept aware of the situation through the various representatives on school governing bodies.

_ Concern was raised that Whiteley would be treated beneficially just because it was perceived they faced the greatest issues by not getting a place in a school local to them.

_ A view was expressed that part of the problem was, that people buying houses in Whiteley wanted to know that they could get in to the local school and would not be faced with uncertainty over the issue.

_ It was asked if there was any likelihood of a new bus route being opened up from Whiteley in to the Western Wards. It was explained that this was a matter for the local authority and not the County Council.

_ Parents acknowledged the length of journey that small children from Whiteley would experience if they cannot get a place in their local school. They were sympathetic to the issue. However, it was also noted that children attend out of catchment schools all over this area so travelling to school is not a new issue.

K

Primary School Provision in Whiteley and the Western Wards

Note of consultation meeting with the governors of St John The Baptist Church of England Primary School

24 February 2005 - 4.30 pm

The meeting was attended by 10 governors, the headteacher and a representative form the Portsmouth Church of England Diocese.

Questions asked/issues raised by governors:

_ Clarification was sought about why St Anthony's Catholic Primary School was not included in the data supplied. It was explained that this was because the school is its own admission authority and is not restricted by catchment areas.

_ Discussion was had about transport issues linked to the four options. Governors suggested that option four would potentially cause some problems. Clarification was given about the County Council's Home to School Transport Policy.

_ Governors asked if the County Council would be prepared to change its transport policy in this instance. It was explained that the County policy on Home to School Transport has to be implemented county wide and cannot be varied for individual schools.

_ Governors made the point that one of the major problems for parents coming out of Whiteley to schools in the Western Wards was the travel distance by road and in particular the problems created by having to cross the motorway.

_ Governors asked if there was any likelihood of additional transport routes out of Whiteley being opened up. It was explained that this was an issue for the local council not the County Council.

_ Comment was made about the large number of pupils who do not attend their catchment school in the Western Wards. It was suggested that this was linked to parents' jobs and the provision of childcare, amongst other factors.

_ The headteacher said she was keen to support option four in the consultation paper. She would also like thought to be given to St John's becoming a 1FE school and for other uses to be found for the surplus capacity.

_ Governors felt that one issue arising from option four might be the break up of friendship groups when pupils came to secondary transfer age as this would be based on their postal address not their primary school.

_ There was discussion on the subject of catchment area changes and what effects they might have on future Whiteley parents. If catchments were changed for Whiteley parents the first preference option could be adjusted.

_ Governors made the point that given the surplus capacity in the Western Wards any expansion of Whiteley Primary School would surely not be a cost effective solution to the problem.

_ There was discussion about secondary transfer and in particular the pressure option four might put on Brookfield Community School and Language College.

_ It was explained that whilst the data provided showed that Whiteley Primary School took 28 children from out of catchment, this was historical and out of catchment children were no longer gaining entry to the school.

_ Governors felt that theirs was a welcoming school but they also felt that further work need to be done by them to market and promote it.

L

Primary School Provision in Whiteley and the Western Wards

Note of consultation meeting with the governors of Titchfield Primary School

3 March 2005 - 6.00pm

The meeting was attended by 7 governors and the headteacher.

Questions asked/issues raised by governors:

_ Clarification was sought as to why St Anthony's Catholic Primary School was not included in the data supplied. It was explained that this was because the school is its own admission authority and is not restricted by catchment areas.

_ Governors believed that building a new school in Whiteley would be detrimental to Titchfield Primary.

_ Clarification was sought about the transport implications for the four options. The County Council would not change the policy on Home to School Transport for a particular area. Any changes to the policy would have to be implemented county wide.

_ Comment was made about the large numbers of children who do not attend their catchment school in the Western Wards. It was felt this was linked to a variety of factors, many of which are personal, e.g. childcare arrangements or work patterns.

_ There was discussion on the subject of catchment area changes and what effects that might have on future Whiteley parents. If catchment areas were changed Whiteley parents could be given joint first preferences. Governors could give priority to Whiteley families within their admission arrangements.

_ Governors made the point that given the surplus capacity in the Western Wards, any expansion of Whiteley Primary would surely not be a cost effective solution to the problem. It would be better to use the available funding to improve facilities in the existing schools in the Western Wards.

_ There was discussion about secondary transfer and in particular the pressure option four might put on Brookfield Community School and Language College.

_ It was explained that whilst the data showed Whiteley Primary took 28 children from out of catchment, this was historical and out of catchment children were no longer gaining entry to the school.

_ The Chairman of Governors suggested that if catchment areas changes were made, they would be best made now to give Whiteley parents clarity about which school catchment area they were living in.

_ It was felt that people seek information about the school that serves the area when purchasing a house. With houses still to be built in Whiteley there is still time to influence new purchasers.

_ The headteacher expressed concern that parents accepting a place at a school which was not their first preference, were in her experience not always committed to supporting the school and its work in the longer-term.

_ Concerns were expressed by governors over option three and that a school of 840 pupils was not the best way forward. It was suggested that if the County Council funded the expansion of Whiteley Primary School it would send out a signal to parents that other local schools were not worth investing in.





_ Governors asked how the LEA would manage surplus places in the Western Wards if Whiteley Primary was expanded. It was explained that there were many ways in which this could be done, ranging from redesignation of spaces to wider area reviews. In all cases headteachers and governors would be fully involved.

N

Primary School Provision in Whiteley and the Western Wards

Notes of consultation meeting with Whiteley Parish Council

31 March 2005

The meeting was attended by 6 parish councillors and The Clerk to the Parish Council.

Officers outlined the key points of the consultation, drawing particular attention to views expressed at the meeting for parents at Whiteley School and the previous week's meeting at Whiteley Community Centre. They emphasised that all options remained open and that the parish council were invited to send formal comments to the County Council as part of the consultation process. Officers also outlined the overall timescale for decision making, adding that representations could be made on behalf of the parish council at the meeting of the Education Policy Review Committee in July.

Questions asked/issues raised by governors:

_ A member expressed reservations about the possible use of the site in Leafy Lane, saying that it was not well situated for the west of Whiteley and that access was difficult. Officers pointed out that, because of its position close to the motorway, any school building on the Leafy Lane site would have to be mechanically ventilated (i.e. air-conditioned).

_ Council members asked whether it would be possible for land to be made available elsewhere in Whiteley through a land swap. This would reduce costs. Various possibilities were suggested by council members.

_ There was detailed discussion about the way the church site could be used to accommodate a school and the way in which this might work in practice. Additional land would, however, still be required and much depended, therefore, on being able to obtain this at a reasonable cost.

_ Members asked about the differences between Church of England aided and voluntary controlled schools, with particular reference to how this might affect the funding of any school on the church site.

_ A brief comment was made about possible implications for secondary schools in the area.

_ Members were not in favour of option 4 (using surplus capacity in the Western Wards), saying that it was important that additional provision should be made in Whiteley itself.

_ There was a detailed discussion about how the existing primary school might be extended, bearing in mind the wooded nature of much of the site and construction problems caused by poor quality subsoil.

_ Concern was expressed at the inevitable increase in traffic if the existing school were to be extended.

_ The meeting concluded at 8.15 pm with parish council members re-emphasising their support for additional provision in Whiteley, whilst acknowledging the practical difficulties in achieving this.

P

Whiteley Primary School Provision

Note of consultation meeting with the Whiteley community, held at Whiteley Community Centre on 22 March 2005

Present were approximately 110 members of the public, 3 governors and the head teacher of Whiteley Primary School, 4 county or district councillors, the Diocesan Director of Education and representatives of the press. The main points raised are set out below:

_ Are there any primary schools in Hampshire larger than 630 pupils?

_ Is the use of surplus places outside the area more important than the education of pupils within the community?

_ Why should the community believe the forecasts now when they have been "spectacularly wrong" over many years?

_ Option 1 needs to be explained in greater detail. Why did the DfES withdraw their funding?

_ What was expected to be a blip in numbers has become a permanent feature. Almost one form entry of children are now travelling out of Whiteley.

_ Pleased that all options are open, as consultation document appears to shut down options 3 and 4.

_ The number of new houses in the Western Wards has been underestimated.

_ Option 4 does not provide community cohesion. There are already too many out of catchment pupils attending other schools.

_ Spare space at St John the Baptist Primary should be used for other purposes.

_ Expansion of Whiteley Primary to 4 form entry would be the natural expansion of what has been provided. In the future, the school might not be that large if numbers in the area fall off.

_ There is a lack of confidence in the LEA's forecasting. A lot can happen between data collection and actual admissions.

_ Why does the LEA not aim for classes of 28 for younger pupils?

_ Are all options really open? Can decisions go against officer recommendations?

_ What would be the curriculum implications of expansion to 4 form entry? What would the school lose?

_ Why has the LEA not considered using the County Council owned land in Leafy Lane?

_ Has a temporary school, alongside the existing primary school, been considered?

_ If option 3 may result in surplus space in the future, can new accommodation be designed for multiple functions?

_ Children are caught between the alternatives. A creative solution is needed to meet the needs of Whiteley's population and take account of the social and working life of the area's residents. This also impacts on the social life of the children when neighbours attend different schools.

_ It is impossible to get two children to schools on opposite sides of the motorway.

_ How long would it take to build a new school or extension?

_ How soon could option 4 be put in place?

_ New residents should be advised of the situation before committing to purchase a house in Whiteley.

_ How can the waiting list policy be fair when families moving into the area to houses closer to the school get priority over those already on the list?

_ What is needed are more school places within Whiteley, and short term measures until the permanent solution is available. These should be in place for September 2005.

_ Why cannot developers pay for the new school places?

_ If the school is extended, will the governing body consider retaining empty classrooms until the full demand arises?

_ Will the LEA consider other options?

_ How much money is available to buy land?

_ Why is the Leafy Lane site not suitable?

_ Officers should visit the area at peak times to experience the traffic problems.

_ How will the results of the consultation be fed back to the community?

_ How much weight will be given to views expressed?

_ Can there be further discussions with the community before decisions are made?

_ Wold the Policy Review Committee meet in Whiteley?

_ Opening the bus-only link in Yew Tree Drive mat help reduce transport times, but parents may be reluctant to put 4 year olds on a bus.

_ The expansion of the business park will attract more families with children into the area. Has this been taken into account?

_ On a show of hands, there as unanimous support for the provision of additional places within Whiteley, although no strong preference for option 1 or 3.

Q

Whiteley Primary School Provision

Note of consultation meeting with governors of Whiteley Primary School, held at the school on 14 March 2005

Present were 9 governors and the head teacher. The main points raised are set out below:

_ Why is there so much movement between schools in the Western Wards?

_ How different would Option 4 be from the current arrangements for admission preferences?

_ If parents living in Whiteley can opt for schools in the Western Wards, would the reverse apply?

_ How robust are the data used for forecasting?

_ Secondary catchment areas should be looked at to protect friendship groups.

_ What is the LEA's definition of a "local" school in terms of the admissions policy?

_ Could other schools be extended instead of Whiteley Primary?

_ If a site next to Tesco is acceptable, could other sites outside Whiteley be considered?

_ How have places at other schools already been lost?

_ Are there plans to deal with the surplus capacity at St John the Baptist Primary?

_ If 10% is considered to be a reasonable maximum level of surplus, what is the critical level?

_ Would transport be withdrawn if parents later get a place at Whiteley Primary but turn it down?

_ What mode of transport to alternative schools would be provided?

_ Can there be more flexibility on waiting lists so that on-time in-catchment applications have preference over children moving into the area?

_ If additional places are provided elsewhere and Whiteley Primary later has some spare capacity, Whiteley Primary will have difficulty if it seeks to maintain its numbers of classes.

_ If Option 4 is adopted, would LEA change catchment areas?

_ If either new school option is chosen, what will happen in the meantime?

_ How many consultation leaflets were issued?

_ LEA letter to parents suggests that Option 4 is favoured.

_ Whiteley should be a special case for relaxing the waiting list policy.

R

Whiteley Primary School Provision

Note of consultation meeting with parents at Whiteley Primary School, held at the school on 16 March 2005

Present were 21 parents, 4 governors and the head teacher, 4 county or district councillors, the Archdeacon and representatives of the press. The main points raised are set out below:

_ Is the LEA sure about the number of future house completions?

_ Most of the children attending schools outside Whiteley do no do so out of choice, but because there are not enough places within Whiteley.

_ The journey to schools in the Western Wards is difficult. Parents may not be happy to put 4 year olds onto transport provided by others.

_ Option 1 is short sighted as numbers may increase in the future.

_ The current surplus in existing schools is not in Year R.

_ Forecasts are an underestimate. Because there is no secondary school in an adequate distance, parents may move away when their children reach the age of 11, leaving houses for parents with younger children.

_ Places in the Western Wards will be needed for continuing development there, such as Coldeast.

_ Primary and secondary issues cannot be separated as children may not be able to be with their friends who may not live in Whiteley.

_ Consideration should be given to a middle school organisation to provide places for some older children within Whiteley.

_ Several parents expressed concern about the accuracy of the LEA's forecasts and the allowance made for future house completions.

_ Is there any intention of changing admission arrangements to take out the sibling rule?

_ Is information available about the number of 1^st and 2^nd choice applications for schools other than Sarisbury?

_ LEA should be applauded for recognising that there is a problem. Statistics are about averages, but Whiteley is not average.

_ The County Council could buy a site for a new school if it is needed.

_ Whiteley is a community separated for others, but there is a case where four children living in the same road have to attend four different schools.

_ If a new school is built, would Whiteley be split into two catchments?

_ Whiteley residents are concerned because the existing school is a good school and whatever happens should not detract from that. Decisions should not be made on financial considerations alone.

_ Option 3 makes sense. Good schooling is more important than the loss of trees. Adverse effect of a large school can be dealt with by good management.

_ It is logistically impossible for two working parents to get children to two different schools on time.

_ School places should be provided within Whiteley. On a show of hands, options 1 and 3 taken together were supported unanimously.

Appendix 2

Chronology of the development of Whiteley

1. Whiteley was originally identified as a location for major housing and commercial development in the 1970s, as part of the South Hampshire Structure Plan. It was originally envisaged that development would start in the mid 1980s, continuing until at least the 1990s, by which time some 3,000 houses would have been built. The proposals also provided for further growth, to a total of 4,500 houses, if further development in South Hampshire was required.

2. Detailed proposals were contained in the Whiteley Local Plan, adopted by the County Council in 1986. This was based on revised strategic guidelines with 2,600 houses to be completed by 1996. The plan also indicated that Whiteley could accommodate a further 2,000 houses if required to meet further demand.

3. The Whiteley Local Plan allocated a site at Gull Coppice for 3 form entry infant and junior schools associated with local community facilities, and indicated that if development was to extend beyond 2,600 houses, a further primary school site would be needed.

4. Housing development at Whiteley was slow to start and first completions did not take place until the early 1990s. There are still about 500 houses yet to be completed.

5. Although development is contained within the area identified in the original local plan, increased densities have resulted in the total number of dwellings now being estimated as 2,738.

6. The Whiteley area is now covered by the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review (2000), the Winchester District Local Plan Review (2003) and the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review (2000). None of these plans envisage any development in North Whiteley, beyond the current allocated area, in the period up to 2011. Decisions about the release of any further land for development will be taken by the local planning authorities in response to the revised regional housing targets whish will be set out in the emerging South East Plan. However, with the current baseline and reserve housing allocations in the County Structure Plan (Review), current indications are that it is unlikely that further greenfield housing allocations will be required until well into the period 2011-2026.

Appendix 3

LEA commentary on school performance

Appendix 4

Review of primary school provision in the Whiteley area:

Correspondence received