STP361 Lowestoft Schools-1

8/14/2019 STP361 Lowestoft Schools-1

1/23

DETERMINATION

Case reference: STP/000361

Proposal: To reorganise all schools in Lowestoft (except one),by changing age-ranges, increasing intakes,enlarging premises, discontinuing schools, andestablishing a new school

Proposer: Suffolk County Council and the Governing Bodies ofBlundeston, Corton and Kessingland Church ofEngland primary schools

Date of decision: 3 February 2009

Determination

Under the powers conferred on me by Section 21 and paragraphs 9, 10and 17 of Schedule 2 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006, Ihereby approvethe proposals as published by Suffolk County Counciland the governing bodies of Blundeston, Corton and KessinglandChurch of England primary schools on 12th September 2008, as modified

by a further notice dated 18th 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 the

new secondary school is implemented, with local authorityplanning approval being given for this by 30th June 2009; and

c. the signing of an agreement by 30th 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 30th April 2009, Blundeston; by31st May 2009, Northfield/Poplars; by 30th June 2009, Corton,Kessingland, Fen Park/Kirkley Middle, Grove, Gunton, Meadow, Oulton

Broad, Dell, Whitton Green, Woods Loke, Pakefield, and the newsecondary school; by 30th November 2009, St Margarets; by 31st

December 2009, Kirkley High; by 20th December 2010, Gisleham/CarltonColville, Elm Tree Primary/Middle, Roman Hill; and by 31st March 2011,

1


2/23

Benjamin Britten/Foxborough.

The referral

1. On 3rd 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 undersections 7 and 15 of The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (the Act) forconsideration 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 (Prescribed

Alterations 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-tiersystem of primary schools for 3 or 4 to 11 year old children (in place ofschools 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 1st September 2010 and thesecondary school changes from 1st 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 1st 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 1st September 2010 and thesecondary school changes from 1st September 2011;

d. to discontinue eight schools, all of which are middle schoolsproviding for 9 to 13 year old children, on 31st August 2011; and

e. 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 12th September 2008, andthe Council subsequently published a further notice on 18th September 2008to correct the proposed admissions numbers for two schools that were

2


3/23

incorrect in the earlier notice. A previous notice dated 11th 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 Councils 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 governorsmeetings that explicitly record formal agreements to make the proposals, theirgovernors do support the proposals attributed to them.

6. No proposals were submitted to the local education authority by the

date specified in the competition notice. The Councilhad 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 11th to 22nd August 2008. The Council submitted its ownproposals on 22 August 2008. Paragraph 7 of the School Organisation(Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools)(England) Regulations 2007

requires 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 ofthe competition was therefore, in the Councils 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 September2008) 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 Councils proposals were submitted in time,

3


4/23

the second notice should have been published by 1 September 2008(whereas in fact it was published on 12 September 2008). I have consideredwhich parties, if any, might have been disadvantaged by the error. I haveconcluded that the only consequence of postponing the closing date of the

competition was postponement of the date of publication of the second notice.The functions of the second notice were, firstly, to make an announcementabout the proposals entered for the competition, together with any proposalmade subsequently by the local authority (as is allowed under the Act), and,secondly, to give the customary notice of statutory proposals. I have come tothe conclusion that no parties were therefore disadvantaged or could havebeen disadvantaged, by the delay in publishing the second notice. Theconsequences of declaring the proposals invalid on a technicality would besevere for the Council in terms of the work and cost of repeating all the legaland practical processes leading to the publishing of similar proposals to thosethat it and the three Church of England schools have made. I believe it would

not be in the interests of any of the parents, children, staff or governors whatever their views of the proposals that a decision should be delayed andlengthy uncertainty created.

8. I am satisfied that these proposals, though technically flawed, havebeen properly referred to me. I believe that it would be perverse to reject theproposals on the grounds of a technicality that, as far as I have been able toascertain, has not caused prejudice to any party, and so I am satisfied that Ihave jurisdiction to determine the proposals in accordance with Schedule 2 tothe Act.

Procedures

9. I have considered the proposals as required by Schedule 2 of theEducation and Inspections Act 2006 and by The School Organisation(Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007(the Regulations). I have had full regard to the guidance given by theSecretary of State. I have also had regard to the Human Rights Act 1998,and, as required by Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act, to the relevant provision ofThe Sex Discrimination Act 1975, The Race Relations Act 1976 and TheDisability Discrimination Act 1995.

10. I have considered all the papers put before me including:

prescribed information from the Council, as set out in the Regulations;

papers describing the Councils processes of consultation and decisionmaking with regard to the eventual proposal;

further documentation provided for me by the Council;

other documentation drawn from the Councils website;

representations made to me by schools, schools-related organisations,a residents organisation and various individual people; and

4


5/23

replies from the Council to questions I posed,

11. I visited Lowestoft on9th and 10th December 2008, to view at first handthe accommodation of some of the schools, the proposed site and alternative

sites for the proposed new secondary school, and the locality. I met withrepresentatives of the Council in order to clarify details of some aspects of itsproposals. I held two public meetings on 9th and 10th December, one attendedby representatives of the Council and by governors, staff and parents fromsome of the schools involved, and one attended by representatives of theCouncil and residents local to the proposed site for the new secondary school.I have considered the information and representations put to me at thosemeetings, and the representations sent to me after the meeting. I visitedLowestoft again on 15thJanuary 2009, in order to seek further clarification onsome aspects of the proposals, and to revisit the sites that had beenconsidered for the proposed new secondary school.

The Proposals

12. Within Lowestoft and its immediate area, the Council currentlymaintains 3 high schools1 (3 to18 years), 8 middle schools (9 to13 years), 19primary schools (3 or 4 to 9 years) and 1 primary school (4 to11 years). (Thelast mentioned school, a Catholic primary school, would not be directlyaffected by the proposals). As part of a review of school provision acrossSuffolk, the Council wishes to change its provision of schools in Lowestoftfrom a three-tier system to a two-tier system, with primary schools for pupilsof 3 or 4 to11 years and secondary schools for pupils of 11 to 18. The Council

wishes, at the same time, to reduce the proportion of surplus places in thetown from 20% to around 5%. The Council believes that a two-tier systemwould:

reduce the number of school transfers within the statutory school age;and

ensure clear accountability for pupil development within each KeyStage.

13. One of the proposals is to establish a new secondary school for 900

pupils aged 11-16, to serve the southern part of Lowestoft. The Councilintends in due course to publish proposals to remove the sixth forms from thethree existing secondary schools, now that the sixth form college has beenapproved, but could not do so along with its current proposals since approvalfor the establishment of a sixth form college had not yet then been given.

Views on the Proposals

14. The Council said in its consultation document that it wished, inLowestoft, to:

create a structure of primary and high schools;

retain all village primary schools and expand all primary schools toaccommodate two extra year groups;

5


6/23

provide a new high school for pupils aged 11 to 16 south of the river;

provide a dedicated facility for young people aged 11 to 16, perhapsoffering vocational courses for young people aged 14 to 16 in

collaboration with the high schools and Lowestoft College; and

encourage close working relationships between all schools.

15. I am satisfied that the Council carried out a very through process ofreview and consultation over a period of around two years prior to itsCabinets decision to publish the proposals, and has attempted to involvesome stakeholder groups in developing its plans. The proposals have drawn aconsiderable response from parents, staff (together with staff organisations),governors and, with reference to the proposed new secondary school, localresidents. Around 30 representations were made to me, before and after the

public meetings that I held. Most of the responses and representationsdisfavoured the proposals or certain parts or aspects of them, and includedexpressions of concern about:

a reduction in the quality of the primary curriculum, particularly forYears 5 and 6 pupils;

a loss of the specific values and attributes of middle schools, in termsof ethos and the curriculum, coupled with a potential loss of middleschool teachers with their specific expertise;

a less effective way of delivering the 14-19 curriculum with the eventualloss of school sixth forms;

an equivalent number of school changes (when the Council had saidthat the proposals would result in one fewer that at present); and

the environmental impact from the proposed site for the proposed newsecondary school, particularly in terms of road access.

Consideration of Factors

16. I have considered the proposal, taking account of the arguments put tome by the Council and other interested parties.

Standards of Attainment

17. The Council has undertaken comparative study of the outcomes ofeducational provision within the County in different areas, where the socio-economic and pupil numbers are similar, that are served by three-tier schoolsand two-tier schools. The study identified a significant gap in performance . .. across all core subjects by the age of 11, with the 2 tier systemoutperform[ing] the three tier system. The gap in performance was less insecondary education, but with a significant gap for English by age 14, which,

the Council believes, adversely affects age-16 attainment. At age 16, the two-tier system outperforms the three-tier system in all GCSE subjects, with asimilar picture emerging in post-16 qualifications.

6


7/23

18. The Council has summarised analyses by Ofsted and the FischerFamily Trust, which, it says, support its own findings, particularly in terms ofprogress made by children aged 7-11. Although progress in middle schools atage 14 is good overall under the three-tier system, when measured from age

7 to age 14, progress is better under the two-tier system, with children in thethree-tier system never completely making up the ground that has been lost.The Council believes there is evidence that progress dips when childrentransfer from one school to another, and that reducing the number of changeswould therefore benefit progress.

19. In the Councils Policy Development Panel report of December 2006,there is compelling statistical evidence to support its preference for moving toa two-tier system, particularly in terms of National Benchmarking comparison.

20. In the same report of December 2006, the Policy Development Panel

described local research that identified the difficulties that schools had inbuilding on pupils prior attainment in previous schools, and the steps thatwere taken to mitigate this, particularly by supporting schools and teachers inminimising the effects of school transfer. Despite these efforts, the Panelreported, the gap in progress between two-tier and three-tier systems hasremained, with dips in progress being confirmed by independent research.After considering all these factors, the Panel concluded that there was a cleardifference in performance between the 2 and 3 tier systems, and thatstructural change [was] required and, in particular, [that] the number of pointsof transfer should be reduced.

21. Many parents have complained to me that the number of points oftransfer would not in fact be reduced under the current proposals, since pupilswould then be obliged to transfer at age 16 to the new sixth form college(approval for the establishment of which was announced by the Learning andSkills Council on 3rd December 2008 with a planned opening in September2011). However, only around 50% of pupils remain in the Lowestoft schoolsixth forms, and a shift of location for post-16 education is usually bothdesired by and desirable for many pupils. So I do not believe that a change ofeducational environment at age 16 should count as a school transfer event,and therefore do not accept the argument that the number of points of transferwould not be reduced by the proposals.

22. Some respondents, and most notably the local branch of the NationalUnion of Teachers, have argued strongly for retention of the present systemwith the present ages of transfer as better supporting the new 14-19curriculum with its programme of diploma courses. However, levels of post-16participation in schools remain low both in Lowestoft and across Suffolk,according to information provided to the Policy Development Panel, with somestudents travelling outside Suffolk in order to attend sixth form colleges. Ibelieve that the creation of the sixth form college, which is now a given factorin the situation (that proposal having been already approved), is likely toenhance the Lowestoft staying-on rate. I believe that membership of aproposed Trust by the existing secondary schools, the proposed newsecondary school, Lowestoft College and the new sixth form college has thepotential to enable all the participating establishments to make a good

7


8/23

contribution to developing and sustaining the 14-19 curriculum. I do nottherefore agree that the present system is necessarily best placed to supportthe 14-19 curriculum.

23. Some objectors to the proposals have drawn attention to the enrichedcurriculum available for pupils in Years (Ys) 5 and 6 within a middle schoolsetting as a result of the presence of specialist staff and facilities. Iacknowledge that such pupils may indeed benefit from such expertise andfacilities, in the way that pupils, particularly the more able, can often benefitfrom the availability of extra facilities. However, as representatives of theCouncil have said, the specialist facilities often to be found in middle andsecondary schools are not essential to the provision of an excellent Key Stage(KS) 2 curriculum, and most primary schools producing the highest levels ofattainment in the country do so without such facilities. The specialist facilitiesmay in fact survive in some middle school buildings where the particular

accommodation is not needed for other purposes by primary schools beingrelocated into those premises. But, in any case, I do not believe that the lossof such facilities for Ys 5 and 6 pupils will constitute a major detriment toprimary teaching and learning in Lowestoft, given the advantages of a two-tiersystem that have been described earlier.

24 On the basis that it would not be right lightly to approve an enlargementof any school that was failing to deliver a good standard of education, I haveenquired as to which schools were in special measures or were causingconcern in Lowestoft. Two schools are in special measures, and two arecausing concern. However, three of the schools are middle schools, which

would close under the proposals. The remaining school which is one ofthose causing concern is a primary school, which would be enlarged from250 to 420 places and be relocated in redundant middle school premisesunder the proposals. Given the steps that the Council is taking to remedy thisschools performance and the progress being made by an acting headteacherwho is leading the school during the substantive headteachers extendedillness, and given the fact that this school constitutes just one piece in theelaborate jigsaw of Lowestoft school re-organisation, I believe that this oneschools failings temporary as they may prove to be should not be animpediment in approving the proposals, if it should otherwise seem right toapprove them.

25. Concerns have been expressed to me by teachers, parents andgovernors about the possible loss of the expertise of the present middleschool teachers, some of whom were trained explicitly for work in middleschools (as opposed to being trained for primary teaching or secondaryteaching) and other staff. The Council has ascertained that, if the proposalsare approved, about one third of the teaching force in middle schools wouldlike to move to secondary school teaching and about one third to primaryschool teaching, with about one third unsure at the time of the Councilsenquiries. The Council has agreed with stakeholder groups that governingbodies of continuing schools should be encouraged to give priority todisplaced middle schools staff in making appointments. The practice has alsobeen encouraged by which a continuing school might appoint staff jointly witha middle school, so that a newly appointed staff member would start his or her

8


9/23

appointment in the middle school and then progress to the continuing primaryor secondary school. The Council has also initiated a substantial programmeof retraining for middle school staff, for which the Council intends to pay, aspart of a package of revenue expenditure associated with the School

Organisation Review that will be borrowed from schools balances and repaidas savings begin to result from the implemented results of the Review(although supply cover costs would remain with the middle schools).

26. Taken overall, I accept the Councils view that the proposals are likelyto have a major impact in improving the low standards of achievement andprogress that presently figure in Lowestoft.

Need for places

27. The Council has reported that, as a result of implementing the

proposals, it would be able to reduce the surplus capacity of 20% of schoolplaces to a more acceptable 5%.

28. Discounting the Catholic primary school, which would remainunchanged under the proposals, data supplied by the Council give actual orforecast Reception Year (YR) numbers for the whole of Lowestoft as follows.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

858 895 870 816 847 847

The proposals would provide 906 YR places, which are adequate, andsufficient to allow a margin for natural variations and the exercise of someparental choice.

29. Similar data predict total numbers of entrants to the secondary schools(including the proposed new one) at Y7 as follows.

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

836 844 823 795 858 895 870 816 847 847

The proposals would provide 900 Y7 places, which are adequate, andsufficient to allow a margin for natural variations and the exercise of someparental choice.

30. I conclude that the Council has justified the proposals so far as theneed for places is concerned, and that it has planned for margins in provisionthat will retain sufficient flexibility without perpetuating unnecessary over-provision.

Every Child Matters and Community and Environmental Considerations

31. In that the proposals are in general terms designed to enhance the

educational achievement of Lowestofts children and young people, I believethat they have the potential to fulfil the aims of the Every Child Mattersprinciples. I am aware of concern on the part of some parents and others

9


10/23

about certain aspects of the proposal for a new secondary school, in terms ofchildrens health and safety, however, and I will return to these issues whenconsidering that particular proposal. In terms of the proposed primary schools,on the other hand, the proposals would tend to encourage children to attend

local schools for two years longer, so that travel would generally be reducedas a result of implementation. On the other hand, the Lowestoft & BecclesSchools Sport Partnership has drawn attention to the relatively high levels ofcurrent child obesity, and has expressed concern that attention should begiven to the size of school halls in those primary schools that will continue tofunction in their existing premises, particularly for Y5 and Y6 children. TheCouncil earlier responded to the Partnership so say that the adequacy ofexisting indoor and playing field facilities would be taken into account infurther planning, and that it hoped that primary schools occupying formermiddle school premises would enable other schools to share their facilities.

32. There is no reason to think that contributions to community coherenceon the part of Lowestofts schools or their extended schools provision wouldnot at least continue as at present. The Council commissioned a reportentitled School Organisation Review Sustainability Appraisal (Lowestoft futureoptions) October 2007. This appraisal concluded that taken overall, theproposals had a positive sustainability impact, with some outstandingsustainability issues remaining that could at least to some extent be mitigated.I will, however, return to this Appraisal in considering the detail of the proposalfor a new secondary school.

Admissions arrangements

33. Apart from ages for admission to secondary schools and admissionsnumbers at many schools, the Council is proposing no changes to admissionarrangements. The arrangements for the proposed new secondary schoolwould follow those already in existence for the present three secondaryschools, with its catchment area defined as being equivalent to the catchmentareas for Pakefield, Kessingland, Whitton Green and Carlton Colville PrimarySchools. The present and proposed arrangements comply, in my view, withthe requirements of the Schools Admissions Code.

Issues at particular primary schools

34. I am considering here particular issues that have been raised about thecapacity or admissions numbers of specific schools.

35. The Council forwarded to me a letter from the governors ofKessingland Church of England Primary School (a voluntary controlledschool) requesting an increase in their proposed admissions number from 45to 60. The data with which I have been provided indicate that admissions toYR have numbered 42 in each September of 2007 and 2008, and thatadmissions numbers of 54, 21, 49 and 50 are forecast for 2009 to 2012,respectively. However, the school declined my offer to visit, and explained that

they had reached an agreement with the Council about their admissionsnumber. They have since described the agreement they have reached withthe Council about the provision of additional accommodation.

10


11/23

36. The governors of Meadow Primary School (a community school) wroteto me to register an objection to the proposed reduction of their admissionsnumber from 60 to 30, and, at the headteachers invitation, I included theschool in my round of visits to schools on 9th December 2008. The current

(though unsigned) Net Capacity for the school results in a net capacity for 300children, which is the same as the maximum number of workplaces available(excluding the nursery class provision). The maximum capacity is thusexactly right for the present provision for five year groups (excluding thenursery classes) of 60 children in each. However, it would be insufficient forseven year groups of 60 children, and additional accommodation would beneeded if this size of year groups were to be maintained. The actual andforecast numbers of admitted children are 42, 50,46, 41, 44 and 44 from 2007to 2012, respectively, which would seem to indicate a need for admissionsnumbers of around 45, which would take the total potential numbers on roll toa little over 300. However, as the Council has pointed out, Meadow Primary

School is only a short distance from Fen Park Primary School (a communityschool), which has a present capacity and admissions number of 250 and 50,respectively, and a proposed capacity and admissions number of 420 and 60,respectively. The Councils proposals include relocating Fen Park School tothe premises of Kirkley Middle School, which would provide the extra capacitythat would be required for an enlargement of Fen Park Schools roll. Thegovernors of Fen Park School have written to register their objection toMeadows objection to the proposed reduction in admissions number atMeadow School, arguing that an enlargement of Meadow School would eithercreate unnecessary surplus places or else cause a reduction of provision atFen Park School, which would not constitute a good use of the resources ofthe Kirkley Middle School premises. As to why it is Fen Park School thatshould move into the middle school premises, the Council has argued interms of the poor condition and unsuitability of its present Victorian buildingswith limited space and scope for development, and the boost that wouldaccrue to a school that is causing concern (as noted above) but will shortlyhave a fresh start with a new headteacher. My observation is that theMeadow School buildings are in far better condition than those described atFen Park School. I therefore accept the argument for the proposals in relationto these two schools.

37. The governors of Corton Church of England Primary School, althoughthey have proposed the significant changes to their school, have raisedconcerns about the adequacy of the present accommodation. With threepresent classrooms, they argue that they will need a further classroom, andhave suggested that the adjoining, and largely disused, village hall might beacquired as a new school hall, leaving the present hall to become aclassroom. They would also like the Council to acquire the bowling green tothe rear of the village hall (and even closer to the school) as a play area, withthe bowling green being resited elsewhere. I have myself seen the crampedconditions that exist at the school, and recognise the advantages that the twosites suggested by the governors for acquisition might offer (although

attention would need to be given to the public footpath between them and theschool, which would also be needed by the school for access to them). I havenoted the semi-derelict former swimming pool structure on the school site,which might lend itself to more useful development. The Council has in fact

11


12/23

committed a provisional sum of 319,980 to the estimated costs of extendingthe school, and I am satisfied that the Council will therefore ensure thatsufficient accommodation is, by one means or another, provided.

38. Several primary schools, as well as the Lowestoft and Beccles SchoolsSports Partnership, have raised the particular matter of the size of schoolhalls and playing fields (as mentioned above) to meet the needs of primaryschools after the proposed reorganisation, and I have made enquiries of theCouncil. The Council has described to me the range of solutions that itproposes, and which it says it is discussing with schools in the context ofother alterations that may be necessary for them to accommodate additionalpupils. Where halls are likely to be inadequate for school needs, particularlyfor PE, the Council proposes to extend existing halls or provide dance studiosto provide additional activity areas. It is the Councils intention that threeprimary schools should in due course be rebuilt to the required specifications.

I have not been made aware of any deficiencies that should stand in the wayof the proposals being approved and implemented, provided the Councilhonours its commitment to address these concerns (without necessarily in allcases agreeing to the requests of local schools) in its detailed planning ofbuilding works.

The proposed new secondary school

39. All the foregoing paragraphs apply, where relevant, to all the schoolsthat are the subject of the proposals I am considering, including the proposednew secondary school. Here, I am considering issues that are specific to the

proposal to establish a new secondary school. The concept of a newsecondary school for the south of Lowestoft commanded a high level ofsupport during the Councils consultation process.

40. No entries having been received by the date announced in theCouncils invitation to enter its competition, the Council itself submitted aproposal for a new secondary school, the school to provide 900 places forboys and girls aged 11 to 16, with 180 places in each year group.

41. The Council has considered the range of present and likely specialismsamong the existing Lowestoft secondary schools, and intends that the

proposed new school should apply to be a specialist school specialising ineither science or humanities, to complement other specialist provision. I agreewith the Council that the proposed new school, as part of the shift from athree-tier system to a two-tier system, has the potential to contribute to raisingeducational standards in the town. I agree too that the proposed school couldcontribute to the aims of Every Child Matters in the ways set out in theCouncils proposal.

42. The proposal is that the new school should be a foundation school, andjoin the proposed Lowestoft Learning Trust. The Council at first explained thatthe proposal was for the new school to have a foundation body, within the

terms of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, but subsequentlyamended their explanation to say that the it would have a foundationestablished otherwise than under that Act. The Lowestoft Learning Trustwould be that foundation, and would hold the site of the school. The other

12


13/23

members of the Trust would be the three existing Lowestoft secondaryschools and two special schools, Lowestoft College, the Sixth Form CollegesForum, the Council, YMCA Training, Adnams (the local brewery and hotelcompany), Lifeskills Solutions, Suffolk Association of Voluntary Organisations,

University Campus Suffolk Lowestoft and Young Suffolk. The intention is thatthe new sixth form college should be established by the Trust and become amember of it. The Trust would, according to the Councils proposal, promote:learning within all the participating schools and colleges; community cohesion;collaboration for the benefit or all young people; and support for economic andphysical regeneration and social inclusion. The Trust would also, in theCouncils proposal, develop an exciting and high quality 14-19 curriculum thatmeets the needs of all learners in Lowestoft.

43. The proposed Trust is intended to have charitable status, but, undersection 23 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, will not be

required to be a registered charity.

44. I am advised by the DCSFs Guidance for Decision Makers to considera variety of factors in connections with proposed trusts, including thesuitability of trustees for their role. The Guidance advises that I should besatisfied that trustees are not involved in activities relating, among otherthings, to alcohol. I have therefore enquired as to the advisability of includingAdnams, as a brewing business, as a Trust member. In response, the Councilhas described Adnamss record as a well-regarded local employer with along record or successful work with local schools, including staff mentoring . .and work experience and environmental projects. The Council has pointed

out that Adnams has diversified into retail, hotels and catering, which I havebeen able to verify on the Internet. The Council has told me that Adnams areaware of the potential sensitivity of their involvement with schools, havealways ensured that this involvement is above reproach, and contribute toprojects relating to alcohol awareness. The Council has pointed out that theproposed constitution of the Trust would enable other members to remove anynon-school member whose involvement was proving harmful to the aims ofthe Trust. I believe from discussion that the Council is alert to the theoreticalrisks of the inclusion of a brewing company, but that the benefits that wouldaccrue from the involvement of a prominent and respected local businessoutweigh any risks that may be perceived. Adnams would appoint twotrustees under the Councils proposal for the new school, and, having carefullyconsidered whether Adnams should be a member of the trust, I am satisfiedthat their inclusion is appropriate.

45. The same Guidance advises the decision maker to check the suitabilityof individual trustees against a number of criteria and in a number of registersthat would reveal past or present activity that would be inimical to involvementin a school trust. However, since the Trust will not come into being for sometime yet, and since the new school, if approved, would not join the Trust untilthe proposal is implemented, it is not possible for me to follow this advice.The Council has assured me that it will follow the guidance in due course withregard to checking the suitability of individual trustees.

46. The site proposed for the new secondary school is that presently

13


14/23

occupied by Pakefield Middle School. This site abuts that of PakefieldPrimary School, with no fixed, physical boundary between the two. Concernshave been expressed to me, largely but not exclusively by local residents,about the proposed site, and I have examined plans and explored the sites

and environs of the two schools on foot on three occasions, accompanied onthe first occasion by representatives of the local residents action group,ERASE, and representatives of the Council.

47. The Sustainability Appraisal carried out in 2007 (referred to above)concluded that, of the Elm Tree, Gisleham and Pakefield middle school sites,the Elm Tree middle site is the most sustainable option for a new upperschool in the south of Lowestoft, largely due to its more central location andrelated transport, air quality and health impacts. The report then graded thethree alternative sites as (from very positive to very negative) ++, +, 0, - or --for twenty features with environmental impact. Although these features were

all important, those with the most direct impact for consideration ofeducational provision included those emanating from travel and traffic issues.Judged across all twenty features, Elm Tree had a cumulative score of +4,Gisleham of - 4 and Pakefield of +2. The narrative interpretation of thesescores drew attention to the fact that preventing Gisleham being available forhousing development would preserve the local landscape, but that its out-of-town position would reduce the contribution to childrens health that can resultfrom walking and cycling and increase air pollution and traffic from motortransport. The report then recorded that, although Elm Tree scored negativelyin terms of potential archaeological damage, this could be mitigated by carefuldevelopment, and that Pakefield scored less well in terms of traffic.

48. The Councils School Organisation Review Strategy Group commentedon the three sites in January 2008. The Group felt that the proximity of ElmTree to Kirkley High could encourage both positive collaboration and negativecompetition in parental preference terms between the two schools; it would,be difficult to enlarge sports facilities and playing field on the site, and wasleast favoured by the Group. The Group noted the increased travelimplications of Gisleham, the scope to relocate Carlton Colville PrimarySchool there, but also the probable availability of additional land for enlargingthe site. In terms of Pakefield, the Group noted the possibility of federationbetween the new secondary school and the primary school sharing thecampus, the limitation in playing fields area (but also that negotiations wereunderway with a local football club to share its facilities), and poor access(which might be mitigated by a new access from London Road and a busturnaround there). The Group also considered an alternative site atBloodmoor Hill, but recognised the difficulty of opening a school there in totallynew buildings in advance of the availability of capital funds from theGovernments Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, and theneed for negotiations with the landowner and for planning permission. TheGroup agreed to recommend to the Councils Cabinet that Pakefield should beidentified as the site for the new school. The Group also recommended that

Carlton Colville Primary School should move to the Gisleham site, and thatfurther investigation be undertaken about the possibility of moving Elm TreePrimary School into the Elm Tree Middle School premises.

14


15/23

49. The document issued in the course of the Councils public consultationfrom 29th October 2007 to 18th January 2008 noted all three middle schoolsites as possible locations for the new school, and invited consultees to statetheir first, second and third preferences between the three sites and say why

they favoured their first choices. Some of those objecting to the choice ofPakefield Middle School as the site for the new school have drawn myattention to the results of this questionnaire, which are to be found on theCouncils web site, and which revealed preferences as: 353 in favour of theGisleham site, 244 in favour of the Elm Tree site and 208 in favour of thePakefield site, with 78 expressing no preference.

50. The report to the Councils Cabinet for its meeting on 4th March 2008,when it approved the publication of its proposals, does not seem to haveincluded written information about this part of the outcome of the publicconsultation (apart from a brief note in a table that there was greater

numerical support for Gisleham in consultation), or about the conclusionsfrom the Sustainability Appraisal.

51. Among other things, the report to the Cabinet noted that it would not bepossible to meet the regulatory requirements for playing fields at any of thethree possible middle school sites. However, while Elm Tree was well locatedin relation to where pupils live there was no scope for extending the playingfields there. Whilst there might be a possibility of extension into farmland atGisleham, its rural location would increase home to school journeys.Pakefield is closer to the centre of its potential catchment area and there isthe possibility of meeting the playing field requirements in partnership with a

local football club. The report noted in an appendix that interimaccommodation would be needed, pending the arrival of BSF capital funding,that agreement was being sought from a local football club to use its playingfield, and that there was potential to seek a new site through the LocalDevelopment Framework process for longer term use. Pakefield wasrecommended to the Cabinet, with the two other sites being used to relocatenearby primary schools.

52. It does not appear from the report that the Cabinet was given writteninformation about the deep concerns raised by local residents about accessdifficulties that they envisaged for the Pakefield site, once it contained the

(enlarged) primary school and the new secondary school instead of theexisting middle school. A local residents association has been formed tocombat what it perceived as a threat to their neighbourhood, called ERASE .ERASE has been vigorous in opposing the proposal, and has sent me apetition that was addressed to the Council and letters to support itscontentions. ERASE arranged for representatives to show me the environs ofthe present middle school, made a presentation at the meeting I held for localresidents, and afterwards sent me copious papers to support their views.ERASE has drawn attention to the network of narrow, residential roads in theKilbourn Road area, that serve a normally quiet community of bungalows andsmall houses, many of them, particularly the bungalows in the closest vicinityto the present entrance to Pakefield Middle School, occupied by retiredpeople. The residents are concerned about traffic congestion, over-parking atthe beginning and end of school days, possible devaluation to their properties

15


16/23

and the potential behaviour of older children. I have visited the middle schoolsite several times, and have been able to verify their concerns concerning thepresent middle school.

53. The local Member of Parliament has written to express concern overthe choice of site, referring to the wholly unsuitable access currently affordedto the site via Kilbourn Road [in] a residential area which is currently veryrestricted by the congestion caused by the existing school, and would notcope with any increased traffic brought about by an increase in pupil numbers. . . . I have taken his concern into account in weighing the proposals.

54. The local residents have also drawn my attention to the accessarrangements at Pakefield Primary School, which is proposed for enlargementunder the Councils proposals, and again I have been able to verify thesituation they have described by my own observations. The primary school

fronts on to London Road, which is, in the vicinity of the school, a no-parkingzone. Traffic has now been reduced through the opening of a relief road, andthe congestion that I observed during my first visit was probably the result ofroad works on another route. It is not possible for parents or visitors to stoptheir cars in the main road. Staff parking is provided at the end of a shortaccess drive at the side of the school, which I also understand is the identifiedentry route for emergency vehicles. There is a pedestrian route to LondonRoad at the other side of the primary school site, which, from myobservations, seems to be used mostly by middle school children and someparents, who cross the campus to leave it on this side.

55. The DCSFs Building Bulletin 98 recommends that between 6.08 and6. 91 hectares (ha) should be provided as the total area for a secondaryschool of 900 pupils, but with a confined site requirement for between 1.04ha and 0.85 ha. So far as playing fields are concerned, the relevantregulations require 4.15 ha for pitches, and Building Bulletin 98 recommendsa 5.53 ha for all playing fields. None of the three potential middle school sitesfor the new school could provide the total playing fields area required, withPakefield offering 4.9 ha, Gisleham 3.44 ha, and Elm Tree 4.53 ha (or around5.00 ha in practice, due to an inconsistency over usage). So far as Pakefield,as the Councils preferred site, is concerned, the Council has openeddiscussions with a local football club with a view to joint use of their pitches

about 1 kilometre away.

56. The report to the Cabinet of March 2008 stated that a significantnumber of children from south Lowestoft are currently travelling to Beccles fortheir secondary education and there is potential for growth in the areaassociated with new housing development in the area. It went on to statethat, having reviewed the number of children living in the area, the proposedsize of the new secondary school would need to be . . . 900 children in total . .. . This is within the County Councils preferred range and allows scope forlater expansion if needed. My observation is that future enlargement to meeteither of the implied contingencies is unlikely to be possible on the Pakefieldsite, particularly bearing in mind the Councils belief that the optimum size forsecondary schools in Lowestoft is 1200 pupils.

16


17/23

57. The governors of Pakefield Primary School have written to me toexpress their view that the interests of childrens education when their schoolis enlarged would be best served by moving the school into the PakefieldMiddle School premises. The governors have concerns about the capacity of

their present site to accommodate the building extensions that would beneeded without compromising existing facilities, including play and parkingareas. My observation is that the primary school buildings are not ideal forcurrent educational use, and that a significant improvement could indeed beachieved by moving to the Pakefield Middle School premises.

58. I have been concerned about the overall position with regard to accessto the Pakefield campus, as proposed for the site for an enlarged primaryschool and the proposed secondary school. The present combined capacityof the two Pakefield schools is for 802 (320 in the primary school and 482 inthe middle school). The proposed combined capacity is 1320 (420 in the

primary school and 900 in the secondary school). This represents anincrease of 64.6%, a proportional increase that would also apply roughly tostaff. The concern of local residents, which my observations have confirmed,is that this increase could magnify the present difficulties about access to thecombined site, as has already been described. There could, in my view, berisks to childrens and adults safety, and a serious risk to the amenities of thelocal population, unless steps were to be taken to reduce these risks. TheCouncil has described the mitigating measures it envisages to alleviate theaccess problems that would arise. It would, it says, provide additional parkingareas for staff and visitors between the two schools. It would also provide anew road access for the proposed two schools from London Road near to the

water tower and the roundabout with the A12 road, with a pelican crossing forchildren approaching on foot or by cycle from the Kessingland direction. Anew footpath would be required alongside London Road to link the pelicancrossing to the new school entrance. The Council has suggested that analternative existing footpath route could be used instead, but my view is that,being more circuitous, this could lead to children risking their safety bywalking without a footpath to the new entrance, so this option is to be avoided.It is also to be avoided on the grounds that it would not divert children fromKilbourn Road, where residents are nervous of the impact of larger numbersof older children approaching and leaving the new secondary school. I havebeen concerned about the practicability of these proposals, their possibledependency upon the acquisition of a small portion of land from the watercompany for the short stretch of footpath that would be required, and theiracceptability to the highways and planning authorities. However, the CountyPlanning Officer has been able to give me oral reassurance on these points,and my approval of the secondary school proposal will therefore beconditional upon the provision of a safe, new access from London Road forvehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, with planning consent being granted for theaccess arrangements by 30th June 2009. The County Planning Officer hasalso told me that the planning department will require the submission of amaster plan of the whole site relating to the eventual full development of the

two schools on the Pakefield site before approval is given even for interimworks that require planning approval.

59. My approval will also be conditional upon formal agreement being

17


18/23

reached with the Kirkley and Pakefield Football Club for sufficient use of theirpitches by the new secondary school. The Councils intention is that, with theprovision of all-weather pitches on the proposed schools own site, the use ofthe Football Clubs pitches would be limited to some matches of different

kinds. Indeed, it was clear to me from walking the route that, with anestimated walking time of 20 minutes each way and some narrow road-sidefootpaths, it would not be practicable to use the Football Club pitches fornormal curriculum purposes. Nevertheless, the new schools facilities shouldcomply with the relevant regulations and guidance, and so my approval will beconditional upon agreement with the Football Club being signed by 30th June2009.

60. I have been concerned about the environmental impact of a largernumber of pupils and staff approaching the proposed secondary school alongKilbourn Road and other narrow, residential roads that link to it, and the

impact of older children than attend the present middle school. I have beenreassured, however, by the intention that the proposed new London Roadaccess to the combined campus should include safe bicycle and pedestrianaccess routes. I have been encouraged, too, by the Councils readiness,already demonstrated, to develop detailed plans for the campus inconsultation with local residents. I urge the Council, and the eventualgoverning body for the new secondary school, to do their utmost to ensurethat as much pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic as possible is routedthrough the proposed new London Road entrance to the campus.

61. Nevertheless, noting the difficulties to be overcome in relation to the

Pakefield site and the opportunity for the primary school to move into themiddle school premises that would be lost if the middle school weredeveloped as the proposed new secondary school, I have explored otheroptions thoroughly, and pressed the Council to justify its preference for thePakefield site. I have already noted that the March 2008 report to theCouncils Cabinet foresaw the possibility of a future need for expansion of theproposed secondary school beyond 900 pupils, which is unlikely to bepossible on the Pakefield site. I note, below, that the report to the Cabinetforesaw the possibility of capital funding being needed for a completely newsecondary school to be built.

62. I have visited twice the sites of Elm Tree and Gisleham Middle Schools,which were alternative sites considered by the Council, and which won somefavour in the Sustainability Appraisal and with those who completed theCouncils consultation survey. Neither site is of sufficient size (6.08 ha) for theproposed secondary school and playing fields. Elm Tree Middle Schoolshares a site with Elm Tree Primary School, and the whole campus wouldprobably be around the correct minimum size if the primary school wereremoved. In response to my enquiries on the subject, the Council hasdemonstrated by reference to a map that there would be no suitable,alternative site available for the primary school, and that none of the nearbyprimary schools could be enlarged to provide for the displaced pupils. TheCounty Planning Officer has explained that, with or without the additionalprimary school land, a new access would need to be created from Elm TreeRoad, with visual splays to counteract the effects of the curve in the road and

18


19/23

provision for the buses that would be needed to bring children from theKessingland direction, the new access thus taking an undue amount of landfrom the area of the site. Although Gisleham Middle School site is smaller,there might be scope for purchasing adjoining farmland, to provide for playing

fields and access. However, as I have seen, the surrounding lanes would beinadequate for the buses that would be necessary to bring children fromKessingland and also from the south of Lowestoft, and access by bicycle andon foot would be unsafe. A difficulty would also be constituted by the fact thatfresh provision would need to be made for Carlton Colville Primary School,located in buildings that would be inadequate for the proposed enlargedschool, and intended under the current proposals to move into the GislehamMiddle School premises.

63. In the course of my second visit, I was able to see the overall area ofBloodmoor Hill that had been considered by the Councils Strategy Group.

This location, being of indefinite current size, would be suitable for theprovision of a brand new school and for its future enlargement. However, theCouncil has explained that the landowner is not amenable to making landavailable without a wider agreement for housing development of part of theland, which, even if possible, could not be achieved within the timescales ofneed for the proposed secondary school, and that there would be difficultyover access of buses from Kessingland along lanes in the vicinity of GislehamMiddle School. The Council has also expressed concern about the seriousdepletion of the eventual BSF allocation (which will be pupil-numbers based)available for works at other secondary schools in Lowestoft if the cost of abrand new site and secondary school were first deducted. I am conscious that

the Pakefield site is unlikely to be large enough for a future enlargement of thesecondary school if a need became apparent. Indeed, even if physicallypossible, I believe that such an enlargement would be inadvisable, in view ofthe environmental issues that would arise for the schools, their children andparents and local residents. However, the need for additional places is at themoment conjectural, with, I am told, any housing development unlikely to beof a kind to generate many children, and likely to be in the centre of Lowestoftand not in the new schools catchment area. So I believe the Council is right towish to proceed as it has proposed.

64. My conclusion, as a result of my visits and enquiries, is that the Councilhas carefully considered the alternative options available for the site of theproposed new secondary school. Although it is disappointing that, so far as Ihave been able to see, the full results of preparatory surveys were not madeavailable to the Cabinet when it was making its decision to propose theprovision of a new secondary school on the Pakefield Middle School site,nevertheless I have reached a conclusion that the proposal should be allowedto stand without modification.

Buildings and Capital Funding

65. The Councils Cabinet in March 2008 was presented with the estimatedcapital implications of the whole of the School Organisation Review acrossSuffolk, and an estimate of capital receipts that would be produced (whichwould be ring-fenced for school developments) an capital allocations, subject

19


20/23

to DCSF agreement in relation to the BSF programme. The report describedhow the likely costs of enlarging primary and secondary schools had beenestimated. In relation to Lowestoft, the report indicated a likely cost inLowestoft of between 7.8 m and 21.1 m (depending upon the extent of

improvement work), with the cost of the proposed new secondary school ofeither 7-9 m if Pakefield Middle School were to be converted or 26.5 m if acompletely new school were to be built. The report went on to summarise thesources of funding, as being capital receipts, DCSF allocations for schoolbuilding developments, the Primary Capital Programme, the BSF Programmeand contributions from schools from their devolved capital funds. The reportrecognised that some initial capital funding would be needed for schools to beable to accommodate extra year groups by September 2011, particularly sincethe cost of a totally new secondary school could only be funded through BSF.If the present proposal for the new secondary school were followed, theninterim works would be needed at Pakefield Middle School so that it would be

possible for Ys 7, 8 and 9 to be accommodated in September 2011, togetherwith Y 10 in September 2012 and Y 11 in September 2013.

66. On 22nd February 2008, the County Council approved a ResourcesBudget for 2008-09, together with a Medium-Term Financial Plan. The CapitalProgramme for 2008-11 included, for the Lowestoft reorganisation, totalscheme costs of 30.300m, 11.500m of this to be funded from SupportedBorrowing and the remaining 18.800m from Other (funding TBC).

67. In response to my enquiries, the Council has explained that, althoughBSF funding is unlikely to be available before 2014-15, the proposals can in

fact be implemented without BSF funding, particularly since intake to the newsecondary school will be progressive, with only Ys 7, 8 and 9 needing to beaccommodated in 2011.

68. The Council has provided spreadsheets showing the expected costs ofworks at all the continuing and converted Lowestoft schools across thefinancial years from 2008-09 to 2011-12 (and in one case beyond), with a totalbudgeted cost of 37.256m (which will include the cost of providing two newprimary schools). This is intended to be forthcoming from Government grants(including the Primary Capital Programme, Modernisation grants and grantsfor Basic Need) of 10.43m, Supported Borrowing of 10.7m and Prudential

Borrowing of 16.1m, as set out on the spreadsheets. Formal approval isexpected to be given by the Council on 4th February. I am in any casepersuaded by the previously approved papers and figures that the funding forthe proposals is largely secure, and that, from a financial point of view, I canproceed to approve them.

Conclusion

69. I have carefully considered the various linked proposals relating to theschools of Lowestoft and a proposed new secondary school. I believe that theCouncil has consulted the stakeholder groups widely and thoroughly. I am

persuaded of the value of changing from a three-tier system to a two-tiersystem in terms of the likely quality of education. I have considered thevarious objections that have been made to the change, and, while I

20


21/23

understand natural anxiety in the face of change, I do not believe that any ofthose objections, or the sum of them, is sufficient for me to reject theproposals. The Council has, in my view, substantiated its case for the numberof school places in the two tiers that will be needed in the foreseeable future,

and will, in the course of the proposed changes, be able to reduce surpluscapacity to a realistic level.

70. I am confident that the needs for improved accommodation at thecontinuing primary schools and secondary schools will be met, albeit in stagescommensurate with the arrival of tranches of pupils and the availability ofGovernment grants. The site for the new secondary school has exercised megreatly. However, through my observations and careful questioning of theCouncil, as well as balancing the many representations that have been madeto me, not least by ERASE on behalf of local residents, I have satisfied myselfthat the selection of the Pakefield Middle School site was a right decision.

71. I am satisfied that the financial resources to implement the proposalsare in place.

72. My approval of the proposals is conditional upon;

a. local authority planning approval for building developmentsbeing given for work at the schools listed in my determinationby the dates setout there (which, in response to my enquiry, the Council believes areapposite);

b. a new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian entrance to the Pakefieldschools site from London Road with an accompanying pedestrian crossingbeing provided before the proposal for the new secondary school isimplemented, with local authority planning approval being given by 30th June2009; and

c. the signing of an agreement by 30th June 2009with the Kirkleyand Pakefield Football Club for the use of pitches by the new secondaryschool.

Determination

Under the powers conferred on me by Section 21 and paragraphs 9, 10 and17 of Schedule 2 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006, I hereby approvethe proposals as published by Suffolk County Council and the governingbodies of Blundeston, Corton and Kessingland Church of England primaryschools on 12th September 2008, as modified by a further notice dated 18th

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;

21


22/23

b. a new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian entrance to the Pakefieldschools site from London Road with an accompanying pedestriancrossing being provided before the proposal for the new secondaryschool is implemented, with local authority planning approval being

given by 30th

June 2009 for; and

c. the signing of an agreement by 30th June 2009 with the Kirkleyand Pakefield Football Club for the use of pitches by the newsecondary school.

Annex: The schools in relation to which planning approval is to be achievedby the specified dates are: by 30th April 2009, Blundeston; by 31st May 2009,Northfield/Poplars; by 30th June 2009, Corton, Kessingland, Fen Park/KirkleyMiddle, Grove, Gunton, Meadow, Oulton Broad, Dell, Whitton Green, WoodsLoke, Pakefield, and the new secondary school; by 30th November 2009, St

Margarets; by 31st

December 2009, Kirkley High; by 20th

December 2010,Gisleham/Carlton Colville, Elm Tree Primary/Middle, Roman Hill; and by 31st

March 2011, Benjamin Britten/Foxborough.

Signed:

Schools Adjudicator: Canon Richard Lindley

Dated: 3 February 2008

APPENDIX to summarise the salient features of the three public notices of11th April 2008, 12th September 2008 and 19th September 2008.

11th April 2008

Invitation for proposals to establish new secondary school on site of PakefieldMiddle School, for 900 boys and girls, with admissions number of 900 andphases implementation between 2011 and 2013. Estimated conversion costof 7 m, with later inclusion in BSF to update all accommodation. Proposals to

be received by 11th August 2008.

12th September 2008

1. Prescribed alteration by changing age ranges from 01.09.10 (primaryschools) and 01.09.11 (secondary schools).

Proposed details Agerange

Capacity Admissionsnumber

Blundeston CE Primary 4-11 210 30

Corton CE Primary 4-11 105 15

Gunton Primary 3-11 315 45

Northfield St Nicholas Primary 3-11 420 60

Oulton Broad Primary 3-11 210 30

22


23/23

Poplars Primary 3-11 420 60

Roman Hill Primary 3-11 420 60

Somerleyton Primary 4-11 58 8

St Margarets Primary 3-11 420 60

Woods Loke Primary 3-11 420 60Carlton Colville Primary 3-11 420 58*

Dell Primary 3-11 406 60*

Elm Tree Primary 4-11 420 60

Fen Park Primary 3-11 420 60

Grove Primary 3-11 315 45

Kessingland CE Primary 3-11 315 45

Meadow Primary 3-11 210 30

Pakefield Primary 3-11 420 60

Whitton Green Primary 3-11 210 30

The Benjamin Britten High 11-18 1200+161 6th

Form 240The Denes High 11-18 1200+136 6th Form 240

Kirkley High 11-18 1200+193 6th Form 240

* Corrected in 19th September 2008 notice, below.

2. Prescribed alteration by increasing a schools intake by 27 or more forthe following school from 01.09.10.

Proposed details Capacity Admissions number

St Margarets Primary 420 60

3. Prescribed alteration to enlarge premises from 01.09.10 (primaryschools) and 01.09.11 (secondary schools), with proposed details as above.

4. Discontinuance of the following middle schools, from 31.08.11:Foxborough, Lothingland, Roman Hill, Elm Tree, Gisleham, The Harris,Kirkley, Pakefield.

5. Establishment of a new 11-16 secondary school as a foundation schoolwith a foundation (The Lowestoft Learning Trust) on Pakefield Middle Schoolsite, with a science or humanities specialism, with admissions arrangementsfollowing those for other community schools

19th September 2008

Correcting the previous notice:

Proposed details Age range Capacity Admissions number

Carlton Colville Primary 3-11 420 60

Dell Primary 3-11 406 58

STP361 Lowestoft Schools-1

Documents

Transcript of STP361 Lowestoft Schools-1