• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
DETERMINATIONCase reference:STP/000361Proposal: To reorganise all schools in Lowestoft (except one),by changing age-ranges, increasing intakes,enlarging premises, discontinuing schools, andestablishing a new schoolProposer:Suffolk County Council and the Governing Bodies of Blundeston, Corton and Kessingland Church of England primary schoolsDate of decision: 3 February 2009DeterminationUnder the powers conferred on me by Section 21 and paragraphs 9, 10and 17 of Schedule 2 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006, Ihereby approve
 
the proposals as published by Suffolk County Counciland the governing bodies of Blundeston, Corton and KessinglandChurch of England primary schools on 12
th
September 2008, as modifiedby a further notice dated 18
th
September.This approval is conditional upon:a.local authority planning approval for building developmentsbeing given for work at the schools listed in the Annex to thisdetermination by the accompanying dates;b.a new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian entrance to thePakefield schools site from London Road with an accompanyingpedestrian crossing being provided before the proposal for thenew secondary school is implemented, with local authorityplanning approval being given for this by 30
th
June 2009; andc.the signing of an agreement by 30
th
June 2009 with theKirkley and Pakefield Football Club for the use of pitches by thenew secondary school.Annex: The schools in relation to which planning approval is to beachieved by the specified dates are: by 30
th
April 2009, Blundeston; by31
st
May 2009, Northfield/Poplars; by 30
th
June 2009, Corton,Kessingland, Fen Park/Kirkley Middle, Grove, Gunton, Meadow, OultonBroad, Dell, Whitton Green, Woods Loke, Pakefield, and the newsecondary school; by 30
th
November 2009, St Margaret’s; by 31
st
December 2009, Kirkley High; by 20
th
December 2010, Gisleham/CarltonColville, Elm Tree Primary/Middle, Roman Hill; and by 31
st
March 2011,
1
 
Benjamin Britten/Foxborough.The referral
1.On 3
rd
November 2008 Suffolk County Council (‘the Council’) wrote tothe Office of the Schools Adjudicator, referring its proposals, and those of thegoverning bodies of Blundeston, Corton and Kessingland Church of Englandprimary schools relating to their own schools respectively, made under sections 7 and 15 of The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (“the Act”) for consideration under Schedule 2 of the Act, together with proposals madeunder section 19 of the Act, because they are related proposals, which theAdjudicator must consider with the former proposals, as provided byparagraph 35 of Schedule 5 to The School Organisation (PrescribedAlterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007. Theproposals are:a.to make prescribed alterations by changing the age range in thecase of 22 schools in Lowestoft, with the effect of creating a ‘two-tier’system of primary schools for 3 or 4 to 11 year old children (in place of schools for 3 or 4 to 9 year old children) and secondary schools for 11-18 year old children (instead of schools for 13-18 year old children), theprimary school changes to take place from 1
st
September 2010 and thesecondary school changes from 1
st
September 2011;b.to make prescribed alterations by increasing the intake of oneschool (which is also one of the schools in a., above) by 27 or morepupils from 1
st
September 2010;c.to make prescribed alterations by enlarging the premises of 12schools (which are also some of the schools in a., above), the primaryschool changes to take place from 1
st
September 2010 and thesecondary school changes from 1
st
September 2011;d.to discontinue eight schools, all of which are middle schoolsproviding for 9 to 13 year old children, on 31
st
August 2011; ande.to establish a new secondary school for 11 to 16 year oldchildren, which would be a foundation school with a foundation, from1st September 2011.2.The proposals include changes to the capacities and admissionsnumbers for certain schools. They also include the transitional arrangementsfor pupils at schools affected by the proposed closures and changes of ageranges. The public notices are summarised in the Appendix to thisadjudication.3.The Council and the three Church of England schools’ governingbodies published their proposals in a notice dated 12
th
September 2008, andthe Council subsequently published a further notice on 18
th
September 2008to correct the proposed admissions numbers for two schools that were2
 
incorrect in the earlier notice. A previous notice dated 11
th
April 2008 hadinvited competition entries from any who wished to make proposals toestablish the new secondary school. The salient features of these threenotices are summarised in the Appendix to this adjudication.
Jurisdiction
4.I have examined the basis of the referral of the various proposals tome. Proposal e., above, has been referred because the Council’s proposal toestablish a new secondary school followed a competition for which there wereno entries, and because the proposal is to establish a foundation school. Theremaining proposals have been referred because they are related to thatproposal.5.It came to my notice that the governing bodies of the three voluntarycontrolled primary schools that were, in relation to their own schools, co-proposers with the Council of changes of age range and, in two cases,enlargements of their schools, might not formally have agreed to make theproposals that were attributed to them. I therefore wrote to all three schools toenquire their positions. Replies from the chairs of governors of all threeschools indicate that, although I have not seen any minutes of governors’meetings that explicitly record formal agreements to make the proposals, their governors do support the proposals attributed to them.6.No proposals were submitted to the local education authority by thedate specified in the competition notice. The Council
 
had understood that, inorder to submit its own proposal to establish the proposed new secondaryschool, it needed to postpone the closing date of the competition. In fact itneed not have done so, since section 7 of the Act provides that a localauthority may publish proposals of its own after the date specified in thecompetition notice. The Council, therefore, I understand on advice from theDepartment for Children, Schools and Families (“DCSF”), postponed theclosing date for the competition to establish the proposed new secondaryschool from 11
th
to 22
nd
August 2008. The Council submitted its ownproposals on 22 August 2008. Paragraph 7 of the School Organisation(Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools)(England) Regulations 2007requires the second notice relating to a competition to be published ‘within 3weeks of the date by which the proposals must be submitted as specified inthe competition notice’. The effect of the postponement of the closing date of the competition was therefore, in the Council’s view, also to delay the date bywhich the Council needed to publish the second public notice under theRegulations. This meant that the public notice (published on 12 September 2008) would coincide with the public notice relating to the proposal toestablish a new sixth form college. The Council believed this would assist thepublic in understanding the whole pattern of educational changes that werebeing proposed.7.In my view, the Council did not in fact have power to postpone theclosing date of the competition notice under paragraph 7 of the Regulations.That being the case, although the Council’s proposals were submitted in time,3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...