Agenda item

To receive and consider a report from the Legal Advisor to the School Organisation Advisory Board (SOAB) outlining the role of the Board in considering the objections to the statutory proposals and making recommendations to the Executive Board in relation to the proposals.

(Copy of representations to follow)

The Board considered a report by the Legal Adviser to the School Organisation Advisory Board explaining the role of the Board in considering the objections to the following proposals and to make recommendations to the Executive Board to assist the Executive Board in reaching a decision in relation to the following proposals:

Statutory proposals to change the age range of the school from 11-18 to 4-18, and expand the capacity from 1503 to 1923 to accommodate primary provision with an administration number of 60. Additional accommodation would be provided using land adjacent of Elmete Land and Wetherby Road.

It was reported that there had been thirty-eight responses to the statutory notice: nineteen in support and nineteen objections which opposed the change.

The Board considered the following background information:

• Report of the School Organisation Team – 11^th August 2011 – Outcome of Statutory Notices for prescribed alterations to Roundhay School Technology and Language College
• Documents submitted by Children’s Services in support of the proposals and copies of responses received

In addition to the above, the Board received representations from the following representatives who were objecting to the proposals:

• Julie Davis, Grange Farm Primary School
• Brian Selby,  Local Councillor and Grange Farm Governor
• Colin Cheeseman, Roundhay, St John’s CE Primary

Board Members discussed the proposals, concentrating on the following specific issues:

• The accuracy of the demographic projections
• The consultation process and data supplied
• The polygon issues identified within the area
• The golden ticket issue i.e. guaranteed place for Y6 in high school phase of same school
• Clarification of the primary provision with an administration number of 60.

Following a summing up process from the representatives in attendance, the Chair adjourned the meeting in order for the groups to discuss the proposals.

The groups entitled to vote, and in attendance i.e. Diocesan Board of Education for the Diocese of the Church of England; Further/Higher Education Group and the Schools Group voted as follows:

• The Schools Group abstained from voting on a recommendation on the proposals. The Group was satisfied that there was the need for additional places in the Roundhay/Wigton area designated, but there was not enough information regarding the impact of the proposals on areas alongside the planning area for the Group to reach a decision on the proposal. The Group considered that the Executive Board required further and better information on the impact on existing local schools, particularly to the east/south of the planning area cited.
• The Further/Higher Education Group abstained from making a recommendation on the proposals. The Group accepted that there is a need for 60 additional primary places within the Roundhay area, but the exact location was not clarified and it was not clear whether all of those are in the South and East of the area. The Group also commented that there had been limited consideration of the planning area which included Seacroft Grange, Beechwood Primary and Grange Farm , and the impact on the numbers of the aforementioned schools. There has been no comment made in the consultation document on this planning area.
• The Diocesan Board of Education for the Diocese of the Church of England reluctantly voted against recommending the proposals to the Executive Board. The Diocesan Board stated that they were unsure that the statistical data fully supported the need for 60 additional primary places within the community. Further, the Board were not clear that the potential impact on existing local schools had been fully explored and planned for on this occasion.

RESOLVED - It was the view of the School Organisation Advisory Board that the Executive Board be recommended to refuse the proposals.