Content

RESOLVED:
 
Cabinet agree to:
3.1 
close
(discontinue) De Beauvoir Primary School from September
2024

 
3.2 
close
(discontinue) Randal Cremer Primary School from September
2024.
 
3.3 
close
(discontinue) Colvestone Primary School from September 2024,
guaranteeing all children a place at Princess May Primary School if
they want it.
 
3.4 
close
(discontinue) Baden Powell Primary School from September 2024,
guaranteeing all children a place at Nightingale Primary School if
they want it.
 
3.5 
increase
the published admission number of Nightingale Primary School by
adding an additional form of entry to all year groups.  This proposal is related to the recommendation at
3.4. 
 
 
REASONS FOR DECISION
 
Background
 
Following seven years of unprecedented growth, the number
of primary aged children joining reception classes in Hackney
primary schools peaked in 2014/15 and has been in steady decline
since, a trend observed across London and most prevalent in
inner-London boroughs. Applying the information available to us,
pupil numbers joining reception classes are not forecast to rise
significantly in the medium to long-term, for the time we have
forecasts for (up to 2031/2032 see Appendix C). School funding is
primarily determined by the number of children on roll, and falling
rolls equate to reduced funding to deliver education across the
borough.
 
The School Organisation Plan (SOP) and Education
Sufficiency and Estates Strategy (ESES) form the policy basis for
the proposals which relate to priority 2 of the ESES:  to address falling primary school rolls, by
working with schools with budget pressures and falling pupil rolls
to seek viable long-term solutions. (see section 10 for further
detail)
 
If the proposals in this report are taken forward, the
Council will consider whether any vacated site could reasonably be
utilised in addressing priority 1, the significant increase in
demand for SEND education provision.
 
At the time of writing schools in Hackney are 98% good or
outstanding and the proposals in this paper are no reflection of
the quality of the leadership or teaching, only the falling rolls
issue which is faced across London. The schools in these proposals
have gone above and beyond to ensure that the falling rolls have
impacted as little as possible. However it is not sustainable to
continue running half empty schools. 
The council acknowledges the outstanding support these schools have
provided to children with SEND, across Hackney.
 
The Council acknowledges the outstanding support offered to
Colvestone Primary School by the Blossom Federation, who have
expertly stabilised the school’s financial position, having
inherited an historical deficit from the previous leadership of the
school. This temporary soft partnership (recently extended until
July 2024) allows Colvestone to receive leadership and business
support to improve standards and children’s outcomes, all of
which has been achieved with the support of The Blossom Federation,
who led the school to being assessed as ‘Good’ by
OFSTED in October 2023.
 
The Council has a statutory duty to ensure there are a
sufficient number of school places for pupils and that places are
planned effectively. The Council monitors surplus reception places,
a key measure of demand, and aims to maintain a 5-10% surplus
across all Hackney primary schools.
 
Despite removing 375 reception places through formal
reductions in published admission numbers (PANs) (as distinct from
unofficially ‘capping’ admission numbers) across
Hackney schools between 2019 and 2023, the projections still
indicate a steady increase in surplus reception places from 19% in
2023/24 up to 23% in 2025/26. This surplus is then projected to
slowly decrease and stagnate at 20% until the end of the projection
period in 2031/32. Analysis of past, current and projected demand
and summary of reception places removed to date is provided in
Appendix C. There will still be unutilised capacity in schools and
over 200 additional places that could be reinstated should they be
required in future years (table 7, appendix C).
 
Financial reserves are reducing at an alarming and
unsustainable rate across Hackney’s maintained primary
schools, or the federations they form part of, and are projected to
fall by £6.48m or 70% in the two years to March 2024. The
combined surplus totalled £9.08m in 2021/22, fell
significantly to £5.8m in 2022/23, and is forecast to drop
further to £2.6m at the close of 2023/24 financial
year.
 
Over two thirds of Hackney’s maintained schools, or
the federations they form part of, are predicting they will
over-spend during the 2023/24 financial year.
 
For schools to remain financially viable, school governors
and leaders are forced to make difficult decisions about whether to
reduce the number of teachers or teaching assistants and support
staff. School leaders tend to delay investment or maintenance of
school buildings and equipment or find other savings, all of which
impacts negatively on the quality of education and school
experience for Hackney children and staff.
 
The recently undertaken Strategic Housing Market Assessment
2023 indicates that household growth in Hackney between 2022 and
2039 will be predominantly single people (+45.1%) and cohabiting,
i.e. shared living, households (+44.2%). In comparison, there is
little change in the projection for families with children over the
same period. With the exception of Stamford Hill, the majority of
Borough-wide housing need is for smaller homes. This is important
in considering the likely effect of such housing on pupil
numbers.
 
While there are variances across the different housing
tenures, across the Council’s programme as a whole, just over
70% of the homes delivered have been 1 and 2 bed homes; with just
under 30% comprising a mix of 3 and 4 bed family sized homes. This
is broadly consistent with policy LP14 as outlined in LP33, which,
depending on the tenure of housing, requires all new developments
to comprise a mix of family sized homes, ranging from 15 to 36%.
Despite Hackney building new homes the numbers will be insufficient
to have any significant impact on the proposals in this report for
schools in scope for closure and/or merger.
 
Hackney Education’s senior leadership team took the
decision to propose closure and amalgamation/merger of the student
body of six schools in September 2022 following analysis of a range
of objective measures evidencing the impact of falling rolls on
school’s viability. Following early engagement with head
teachers and chairs of governors from January 2023 the proposals
were publicly launched on 28 March 2023 and school community
engagement activity was undertaken with staff and parents in April
2023.  Community queries and feedback
from March to May period can be seen in Appendix D by theme (as it
was detailed in May 2023 Cabinet report - Appendix E).
 
Throughout the process, officers followed the process set
out in the Department for Education (DfE) publication, Opening and
closing maintained schools Statutory guidance for proposers and
decision makers,  January 2023, (the
Guidance).  The Council must have regard
to this Guidance which sets out the considerations that should be
made by the decision maker when deciding proposals to discontinue
(close) a school.  It requires that
those making the decisions on the proposals should be satisfied
that the proposer has carried out the requirements of the statutory
process satisfactorily and should have due regard to all responses
received during the representation period.  Cabinet members should review all responses before
the meeting. These are substantial.
 
Cabinet decisions in May 2023 and September 2023
 
On 22 May 2023 Cabinet decided to proceed to consultation
on all five proposals (The May cabinet paper is included as
Appendix E). As part of this decision, the Cabinet considered
comment and feedback received during a period of early engagement
and this is provided with this report in Appendix D for the
consideration of decision makers. Following the May Cabinet
decision a consultation ran for 6 weeks, from 5 June to 16 July
2023, gathering feedback on the proposals from parents and staff of
the schools in scope and other stakeholders that may be impacted by
the decisions.  The key themes raised in
the early engagement period were raised again during the
consultation and are addressed in the response and commentary in
the September 2023 report.
 
On September 25 2023 cabinet members  considered the consultation feedback and agreed to
publish statutory notices for the proposals. The September cabinet
report (Appendix F) included a paper detailing the  analysis of comments and objections received
during the consultation. Comprehensive summaries of this
information have also been provided for this and the previous
engagement.
 
The local authority’s detailed responses to the
previous stages of engagement and consultation feedback are
provided as above. Details can be seen in the September 2023
Cabinet paper (Appendix F), which summarised the Kwest report from
the consultation phase (Appendix G) and reviewed by cabinet in
September. 
 
Statutory notice summary
 
Following the Cabinet decision on 25 September 2023,
statutory notices in respect of the five proposals as outlined in
section 3 above were issued for a period of 28 days. The evidence
for and rationale for the decision to move to statutory notice is
set out in the September cabinet report (Appendix F).
 
The statutory representation period ran from 6 October to 3
November 2023. Statutory notices which were posted for 28 days for
objection or comment:
· 
Proposal to
discontinue Randal Cremer Primary School under s15 of the Education
and Inspections Act 2006 (Appendix H)
· 
Proposal to
discontinue De Beauvoir Primary School under s15 of the Education
and Inspections Act 2006 (Appendix I)
· 
Proposal to
discontinue Baden Powell Primary School and amalgamate the student
body with Nightingale Primary School (Appendix J)
· 
Proposal to
discontinue Colvestone Primary School and amalgamate the student
body with Princess May Primary School (Appendix K)
· 
Proposal to increase
Nightingale Primary School from 1 form of entry (1FE) to 2 forms of
entry (2FE) (Appendix L)
 
The Guidance states that “The proposer must publish
the full proposal on a website along with a statement setting out:
• how copies of the proposal may be obtained; • that
anybody can object to, or comment on, the proposal; • the date
that the representation period ends (4 weeks from publication); and
• the address to which objections or comments should be
submitted. A brief notice containing the website address of the
full proposal must be published in a local newspaper.
 
In accordance with these requirements, notices (Appendix H
to L) were published in a local paper, Hackney Citizen newspaper on
6 October 2023. The Statutory notices were also published on
Citizen Space (the Council’s engagement platform) in English,
Bengali, Turkish, Portuguese, Slovak and Spanish, and on Hackney
Education’s website.  The notices
were posted publicly outside the school premises and all
parents/carers, staff and school governors received copies of the
notice pertaining to their school with signposting to the
council’s website for further information.
 
Other stakeholders, internal and external audiences, local
residents and partner organisations 
were informed about the statutory notices and invited to comment.
Copies of all statutory notices were also sent to neighbouring
Local Authorities, Hackney MPs and Councillors and Trade Unions
representing school staff in accordance with statutory guidance.
Copies were sent to all those required under the
Guidance. 
 
The Council utilised a variety of methods to publicise the
notices such as website updates, newsletters, social media posts, a
press release, an article in Love Hackney (distributed to 120,000
homes and businesses in Hackney), email and digital screens across
council sites. Publicity exceeded that required by the Guidance,
because of the significance of the proposals to residents and the
desire to engage as many residents as possible. 
 
Responses to the statutory notices
 
There were 164 responses during the representation period
received via Citizen Space (Hackney’s online platform), 10
emails and 1 letter. The responses included one from Save
Colvestone, consisting of 284 pages. 
Five responses were received past the deadline of 5pm on 3 November
2023. These late submissions have not been included for
analysis.
 
The representation period provided a further opportunity
for stakeholders to comment on the proposals, the first being
pre-engagement events in March through to April 2023, followed by
the consultation period which ran from 5 June to 16 July
2023.
 
Analysis of statutory notice submissions
 
The representation period response has been analysed and
reviewed by an independent third party, Kwest (Appendix M). Of the
175 responses received (164 citizen space, 10 emails and 1 letter),
each respondent could comment on one, several or all of the
statutory proposals and therefore the number of responses per
proposal is greater than 175.  Kwest
have analysed 172 of the responses together, excluding 3 emails
submitted with large PDF attachments, which have been analysed
separately in their report. These large PDF submissions are
included, in full, in appendix 3 of the Kwest report (Appendix
M).
 
Across all 5 proposals, there were 219 responses that were
clearly supportive or not supportive. 
Of these, 207 responses (95%) did not support the proposals and 12
responses (5%) were supportive. With the exception of the proposal
to close Colvestone and amalgamate the student body with Princess
May Primary School, only a small number of comments were received
in response to each of the other statutory proposals.
 
Over 60% of all responses that appeared relevant related to
the proposal to close Colvestone and amalgamate the student body
with Princess May Primary School (143 responses). The number of
responses to the other four proposals ranged from 20 to 30. Many of
these responses were short words or sentences comprising a broad
statement of the respondents’ views. For the proposals on the
closure of De Beauvoir and expansion of Nightingale, these short
comments made up half of the feedback that appeared
relevant.
 

Proposal

Number of responses

Appeared relevant**

Number in favour

Number against

Closure of De Beauvoir

24

22

2

17

Closure of Randal Cremer

26

24

1

20

 

Proposal

Number of responses

Appeared relevant**

Number in favour

Number against

Amalgamation of Colvestone & Princess
May

146

143

2

138

Amalgamation of Baden Powell &
Nightingale

30

28

3

24

Expansion of Nightingale

20

15

4

8

 
** 7 responses included no comments about any of the
proposals.
 
General themes arising from comments and
objections received during the representation period
 
Note for decision makers: Responses to the proposals, made
during the initial engagement, the consultation and representation
period are appended to this report (appendix D , G ,
M).  Cabinet members are asked to ensure
that they have reviewed all these documents before the
meeting.  A hard copy of the comments
and objections made during the statutory representation period will
be available at the meeting. Decision makers are also asked to note
that while the Kwest report refers to closure for two schools and
amalgamation for the other two pairs of schools, this is a
difference in nomenclature only.
 
Theme: Respondents do not want their
school to close/merge
eg. brief responses, containing only a small number of
words or a short statement, for example, “disagree” or
“please don’t close this school”.
 
Response: The Council understands children, parents, staff
and the wider community do not want to see their local schools
close for all the reasons outlined in the feedback received,
however the overriding need to reduce the number of primary schools
in Hackney is clear.
 
In recent years school leaders and the Council have worked
to progress a number of approaches, with a focus on preventing the
escalation of risk to those in scope for potential closure or
amalgamation. The actions taken include restructuring school
staffing levels, reducing the amount of available support staff,
limiting extra curricular activity such as school trips,
‘vertical grouping’ by combining different year groups
in some schools, formally reducing and capping reception places.
Unfortunately, because the fall in pupil numbers is significant and
sustained, these actions have not sufficiently addressed the
challenge of falling rolls and the level of risk for some schools
in terms of sustainability remains unacceptably high. 
 
The Council wants every single child to have access to an
excellent education that allows them to fulfil their potential and
achieve their ambitions. This is why the very difficult options of
closures or mergers outlined in this report must now be
considered.
 
Theme: Existing school provides good
support for children with SEND
Eg. “We have a high number of SEND children on roll
and I know we provide an outstanding provision for them. I worry
for their future as many schools do not show the inclusion and love
and we do, families are heavily supported by us.”
 
Response: The Council acknowledges the excellent support
provided by Hackney schools for children with SEND and acknowledges
in particular that provided in those schools proposed to
close.
 
Unfortunately the support provided will become increasingly
difficult to sustain for schools with falling rolls. The financial
impact of low pupil numbers is cumulative and means that, in the
coming years, these schools are unlikely to be unable to continue
to provide the same level of support without exhausting contingency
funds or going into deficit.
 
The number and percentage of children (Reception to Yr 6)
with Education, Health and Care Plans and requiring SEND support in
schools impacted by the proposals is outlined below (May 2023
data).
 

School

Number of pupils with EHCPs

% of pupils with EHCPs

Number of pupils requiring SEND
support

% of pupils with SEND Support

Baden Powell

8

4.8%

22

13.1%

Colvestone

10

7.7%

21

16.2%

De Beauvoir

10

9.1%

28

25.5%

Nightingale

24

11.9%

30

14.9%

Princess May

10

5.1%

17

8.7%

Randal
Cremer

17

7.0%

42

17.4%

Hackney*

843

4.6%

2,656

15.2%

England*

116,661

2.5%

608,827

13.5%

* Hackney and England data, DfE SEND
National Statistics, June 2023
 
Representations made to the Council state that Colvestone
School has a higher proportion of children with SEND
(17%)  than the national average (13%),
and that the numbers are such that 25% of children in that school
have SEND. Cabinet will wish to be aware of this when taking into
account the extent of impact of the proposals and its duty under
s149 of the Equality Act 2010.  (See
legal comments, section 13)
 
Theme: Larger schools have more problems / less
support. Small class sizes / schools are better for
children. eg. “Small class sizes are good for
children.”
 
The National Education Union submitted a response at the
request of parents and NEU members of Colvestone expressing the
belief that “there are significant benefits in retaining
small one form entry primary schools wherever possible. Whilst we
understand the financial difficulties presented by years of
government underfunding we believe that smaller schools and smaller
class sizes are a desirable aim for our students.” As well as
improved academic progress they argue that smaller schools and
smaller class sizes have benefits including more tailored learning,
more social confidence and inclusion, staff know their children
better and that parents have a better relationship with
schools.
 
Response: Small and large schools each have strengths and
challenges relating to their size. A school’s ethos and
leadership are considered more significant factors than school size
in determining successful outcomes. The council does not accept
that larger schools generally have more problems and less
support.
 
While a review of evidence suggests there may be small
benefits for student attainment in significantly smaller class
sizes, unfortunately the Council cannot retain schools where small
classes are bringing significant financial burden and threatening
financial viability. Smaller schools e.g. one form entry schools,
that are not full in all year groups are disproportionately
affected by falling rolls, making them more financially
vulnerable.
 
Some schools have had their pupil numbers (PAN) reduced but
still have larger buildings and sites to maintain. These schools
will have higher premises costs while having a significantly
smaller budget. Underinvestment will create longer term issues and
increased need for future funding to deal with a lack of
maintenance.
 
Theme: The School has a good reputation
and excellent staff.
eg. “These schools, and the staff who work in them,
have been pillars of education in our community for decades. Their
closure would be a devastating loss for current and future
generations. This is an opportunity to reduce class sizes and
improve education in the borough, not make it
worse.”
 
Response: The Council acknowledges the incredible support
staff provide for children and families, despite many facing
personal stress and uncertainty as a result of these
proposals.
 
All six schools included in the current proposals are rated
‘Good’. This is recognised by the Council.
 
While schools’ performance and reputation is an
important factor that influences parents’ decision on where
to send their children, and can help protect those with the best
results, this isn’t the case for Hackney, where over 98% of
the primary schools are rated ‘Good’ or
‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted.
 
Theme: Move will negatively affect
children
eg. “Many pupils will be separated from their friends
at a key time in their lives, with SEND pupils who have built
relationships with staff particularly affected.”
 
Response: The council understands that changing schools or
the arrival of pupils from a closing school is likely to be a
challenging transition for the majority of children. We acknowledge
these concerns and are seeking to minimise disruption as much as
possible. We acknowledge that change, such as of staff, can be
particularly difficult for pupils with SEND. 
 
The decision to close or merge schools is not made lightly.
Schools with low numbers become less financially viable over time,
using surplus funds or going into deficit to ensure the quality of
education is maintained. The Council is liable for any maintained
school deficits, and must decide annually whether to continue to
fund a school in deficit. If the Council allows schools with
falling rolls to come under increasing financial pressure and go
into deficit by allowing them to stay open when they are not
financially viable, they are directly and knowingly taking on
increased financial burden and responsibility, which can further
negatively impact the quality of the education in the borough.
School deficits are borne by the Council in the event of
closure. 
 
While the council recognises that children will be
affected, primary schools are highly experienced in supporting
children who transition to secondary schools, as well as those who
are transferring from one school to another during the school
year.
 
Since the beginning of the year, the Council has been
working closely with the six schools, and will continue to do so,
offering them the information and assistance needed to help
families and children during the process. If the Cabinet decides to
proceed with the proposals, the Council will work together with
schools and families to make sure that transition plans are in
place to minimise the impact on the children’s
wellbeing.
 
Specialist SEND professionals including Educational
Psychology and Speech and Language therapists will continue to work
with settings and pupils to ensure that children with SEND receive
robust and appropriate transitional support.
 
The Council is also ready to help schools assist parents
and carers when making a decision on moving their children to a
different school.
 
Theme: Impact on staff & potential
loss of jobs
eg. “These are not amalgamations, they are closures.
Staff in these schools have worked throughout Covid, and are some
of the most under-paid and overworked in the whole borough. They
are being rewarded with forced redundancies and financial
insecurity.
 
Response: The council acknowledges the serious impact these
proposals have on staff wellbeing prior to any final decision and
the direct impact on the lives and livelihood of staff should the
decision to close or merge schools go ahead. In view of this staff
have access to an employee assistance programme, where they can
access confidential advice and counselling.
 
The number of teachers and support staff that would be
affected if the proposals are taken forward are summarised in the
table below (data as at 31/08/2024).
 

School

Teachers

Support staff

Total

Baden Powell

13

22

35

Colvestone

10

8

18

De Beauvoir

9

11

20

Randal Cremer

23

33

54

Total

53

74

127

 
In the event of closures, the Council will do everything it
can to help staff find alternative roles in schools across Hackney.
However, as a last resort, some staff will be offered redundancy
and/or retirements.
 
In the event of a merger, we will work with the leadership
teams of the affected schools to assess the full impact on staff.
Governors and school leaders in receiving schools will lead the
significant changes brought by these proposals.
 
Staff and all other relevant parties including trade unions
would be consulted about any potential changes.
 
Those affected will be supported through practical
outplacement support such as application and CV writing, interview
skills and potential job opportunities in other Hackney Schools. A
particular emphasis will be given to supporting support staff, many
of whom are Hackney residents.
 
Theme: Demographics of population can
change / concerns about what will happen should there be a future
shortage of places
Eg. Any decision to close a locally maintained school is
likely to be irreversible, as the 2011 Education Act requires
future demand to be met by the academy or free school
sector.
 
Response: The Council aims to hold between 5% and 10%
surplus reception places to allow for unforecast growth in pupil
numbers in the future. If the demand for places increases
significantly in future there are currently between 240 and 330
unused places in Hackney primary schools that could be brought back
into use, without capital investment, by increasing these
school’s PANs. (Appendix C, table 7)
 
Theme: Capacity to accommodate
potentially displaced pupils in other local schools
Eg. “I still remain concerned about the
‘promise’ that children will be placed in a primary
school near their home. Many parents are already unable to find
places in the school they want and are on waiting lists. There are
also a number of schools locally where PANs have been reduced so
year groups are over roll with additional waiting
lists.”
 
Response: Analysis of vacancies at the nearest schools to
those proposed to close shows there is capacity to accommodate all
displaced pupils within Hackney settings.
 
The reported number of pupils (at November 2023) in schools
proposed to close is shown below by year group. 
 

School

R

1

2

3

4

5

6

Total

Baden Powell

19

19

18

27

22

26

27

158

Colvestone

12

16

25

26

12

13

16

120

De Beauvoir

6

4

7

3

5

6

17

48

Randal Cremer

10

12

19

11

19

14

34

119

Grand Total

47

51

69

67

58

59

94

445

 
Analysis of vacancies at nearby schools (Appendix N -
Nearby schools and vacancies - SES - November 2023) demonstrates
that there are sufficient places to accommodate all potentially
displaced children.
 
Mapping of potentially displaced children (Appendix O to T)
demonstrates they reside across a wide area within and outside
Hackney and that families are very likely to have several options
of alternative schools within statutory walking distance of their
homes (ie. for children aged over 5 but under the age of 8 this is
2 miles from their home and for children aged over the age of 8
this is 3 miles from their home).
 
It should be noted that the analysis provided is based on
official school published admission numbers (PAN), which also form
the basis of local school place planning. Schools that may be
capping their intake in response to falling rolls would be expected
to accommodate children impacted by any future decision to close up
to their PAN, exceeding any capping that may be in
place.
 
If the decision is taken to proceed as proposed, parents
will be supported in the Spring term to help them understand their
options and find out their preferences for alternative schools for
their children.
 
There will be one-to-one support for families to ensure
their children have places at suitable schools, including increased
priority for places at nearby schools.
 
Theme: Use existing schools to address
borough-wide shortage of SEND places
Eg. “Hackney council spends vast amounts of money
sending SEND pupils to be educated outside the borough, due to a
lack of SEND resource bases. These schools should remain open and
form part of a wider investment in SEND pupils, by turning them
into specialist resources bases, and educating children within
their borough.”
 
Response: Strategic priority 1 of the the Education
Sufficiency and Estate Strategy (Appendix Y) seeks to create
sufficient in borough special school places through creation of
Additional Resource Provision (ARP) in mainstream schools,
extending existing special schools by size and or designation,
opening a new special school or the re-organisation of mainstream
primary places, where feasible, due to falling rolls.
 
Expressions of interest were sought in 2021 from existing
Hackney schools with capacity to open ARPs and a programme of work
has since been initiated that, upon completion, will increase
provision by 300 places.
 
School sites made vacant following any future decision to
close them will be reviewed to assess, amongst other options, the
feasibility of being repurposed as SEND provision. 
 
Theme: Future use of school
buildings/site
Eg. “The decision to close a school without any plan
for the future of the site is bizarre.”
 
Response: We know that our communities have tight
connections to their local schools, and we will seek to preserve
the buildings that have a rich history and heritage where
possible.
 
The Council has been reviewing options for alternative
uses. This is very challenging work in the current economic
climate, because it is very difficult to find financially
sustainable uses. This means we need to work through the potential
for each site in their local context and we will do our best to
steer these sites into locally relevant and valuable uses mindful
of the extreme financial pressure the Council is under and the need
to minimise the impact on our finances.
 
We will take into account the views of the community, the
needs of the local neighbourhood, and the need for financial
sustainability.
 
Theme: School is at the heart of local
community
Eg. “Colvestone primary school is the beating heart
of the area – it has engendered a unique sense of community
among the local families and serves as an important
counterpoint/softening influence to Ridley Road
market.”
 
Response: We know schools have very close, sometimes
multigenerational, ties to their local area and communities which
is why proposing closing and amalgamating schools is one of the
most difficult and challenging decisions the Council can make, and
not one we would ever choose to do unless we had no other choice.
But the quality of education for our children, and stability for
our school staff, must remain a 
priority, requiring that options for closure and/or merger must be
considered. 
 
Theme: Concern about the confusion for
parents and staff regarding the terminology used to describe the
proposals
Eg. “The respondent was critical of the proposal
objecting to the use of the word “amalgamate” because
they believe this is confusing as children and parents think
everyone, including the staff, will be going to
Nightingale.”
 
Response: The council acknowledges the potential for the
terminology associated with school organisation changes to cause
confusion amongst parents and staff. 
The council responded by making the impact of the proposals clear
in the September Cabinet report and statutory notices, adopting
plain language eg. “close Baden Powell Primary School from
September 2024, guarantee all children a place at Nightingale
Primary School if they want it.”
 
In addition the September Cabinet (Appendix F) report set
out clearly the meaning and impact of “merge” and
“amalgamate” specifically for staff ie. “This
process would mean that the staff who are currently working at the
closing school would be at risk of being made redundant, as
merging/amalgamating the children may not result in new jobs being
created in the host school. Firstly as stated earlier the parents
may not choose to move their children to the host school therefore
opportunities for additional roles in the host school will only be
known following completion of the schools admissions process.
However, as part of the drive to avoid redundancies as much as
possible, we are seeking to obtain agreement from the host school
and the Hackney family of schools to support job opportunities for
those staff at risk of redundancy.”  (quoted from September Cabinet report, 6.9, pg
21)
 
Arguments raised against the proposal to
close (discontinue) Colvestone Primary School
 
Note for decision makers: In addition to comments made by
individuals, the Council received  a
document entitled “Save Colvestone Final Consultation
Response” which can be seen in full in appendix 3 of the
Kwest statutory consultation report (Appendix M), written by
parents and carers (referred to in the section below as “the
save Colvestone submission”). Cabinet members are asked to
review the document before the meeting. Hard copies will be
available at the meeting.  The document,
in its introduction, chapters and conclusion, makes many arguments
against the proposal to close Colvestone Primary
School.  These include, but are not
limited to, the following which Cabinet members should take into
account when determining the proposal:
 
Comment: The save Colvestone submission includes an
“up-to-date analysis of place data that significantly
challenges the underlying rationale of the proposals” and
sets out the case that the proposals will not achieve the aim of
reducing the number of surplus reception places. The key points
from this analysis are:
 
· 
The May Cabinet report
sets out that the proposals to close two schools and amalgamate
four others into two will lead to a total reduction of 135
reception places. However, the save Colvestone submission observes
that the Council has no control over free schools, academies and
faith schools nor can it control the choices that parents might
decide to make about their children’s education. Therefore,
although the Council is trying to reduce vacancies across the
borough, “it does not have the power to control most of the
players within the system”.
 
· 
The save Colvestone
submission observes that many schools have requested a temporary
reduction in their PAN number. The latest school vacancy data,
provided by Hackney Education on 19th September, shows 391 surplus
places in reception classes (14.5% vacancy rate) and across all
year groups the overall vacancy rate is 12.7%. The vacancy rates
are higher in faith schools (30% for reception classes) and it is
argued that the Council target of 5-10% will not be achieved
without addressing this. Excluding faith schools, the overall
vacancy rate across all other school types is 11% and popular
schools have very few vacancies.
 
· 
The save Colvestone
submission claims the council fails to account for up to date pupil
numbers in the September Cabinet Report and that this invalidates
many of the suppositions in that report;
 
o 
The proposed outcomes
(to reduce PAN) will not be achieved
 
o 
The vacancy rates are
significantly higher in faith schools and the overall target of
5-10% will not be achieved without addressing vacancies in these
schools
 
o 
There are insufficient
places at the nearby schools to accommodate all the pupils being
forced out of closing schools.
 
· 
The save Colvestone
submission includes worked examples from each of the schools in
question to argue that the proposals will reduce the surplus
reception places by 60, rather than 135 places. It looks at whether
there are enough vacancies in other local schools as well as
whether parental choice is maintained. In addition, it discusses
the risk of further closures because the authors understand that
this is only the first consultation and others are planned,
potentially affecting up to 16 schools.
 
· 
Based on the analysis
provided, the Save Colvestone submission demands an urgent review
of the latest vacancy data for each proposed school rather than on
a borough wide basis. It also insists that each of the proposed
school closures should be considered and assessed on an individual
basis. Furthermore, it recommends not closing one of the Dalston
one-form community schools but rather exploring a potential merger
between them.
 
Response: The council acknowledges that “it does not
have the power to control most of the players within the
system”. The Council will continue to work within a
collaborative process and take a graduated approach to managing
surplus places in partnership with faith schools, free schools and
academies, which form an important part of the Hackney family of
schools.
 
The detailed analysis provided in the save Colvestone
submission does not correctly reflect the vacancy position of
schools, nor the surplus places across the borough. This is because
it is based on data that reflects the ‘capping’ of some
year groups in some schools, in place at the request of the leaders
of those schools, to assist in the management of their falling
rolls. 
 
Cappings are unofficial reductions to school intakes and do
not form the basis of school place planning nor the future
projections of demand used by local authorities.  A school’s published admission number (PAN)
forms part of its admission arrangements which are formally
determined by the admission authority for the school and published
in accordance with the Admissions Code. An assessment of capacity
in nearby schools to accommodate children potentially affected by
the proposals is provided at section 4.37 of this report and is
based on schools’ officially published PANs.
 
For each of the schools proposed to close the assessment
(at section 4.37) lists nearby schools within statutory walking
distance and provides up to date vacancies by year group based on
PANs.  This assessment identifies, for
each school under proposal to discontinue, that across nearby
schools there are 100s of alternative school places available in
every year group.
 
If the Cabinet decides to close Colvestone, the local
authority will comply fully with its obligations under Section 19
of the Education Act 1996 and ensure compulsory school aged
children can access full time, efficient education, suitable to
their age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational
needs that a child may have.
 
The offer of places at Princess May that will be made,
should Cabinet decide to progress the proposal, satisfies these
obligations, however parents have a right to express a preference
for any alternative school if they wish.
 
Parents have a right to express a preference for a
particular type of school, for example a non-faith school, a one
form entry school or an academy, and may seek a place at schools
outside their local area in preference to local schools, if that is
what they wish. The local authority is under no obligation to
ensure parents have all of these options within walking distance of
their home or their local area, but in Hackney many are.
 
The primary motivation when proposing a merger of the
student body of a school proposed to close into an existing school,
is the impact on families and children and the benefits it could
bring in terms of children being able to move together with some of
their friends to a new setting. The proposal to discontinue
Colvestone and offer a guaranteed place at Princess May for
Colvestone pupils is not dependent on the assumption that a
specific number of children will transition to Princess
May.
 
If the Cabinet decides to progress the proposal, the
council will work closely with both schools to understand the
number of and impact on children joining Princess May and to
support them welcoming the families that do choose to take the
offer of guaranteed places.
 
Comment: The save Colvestone submission outlines perceived
flaws in the consultation process. A summary of some of the issues
raised are:
 
· 
The save Colvestone
submission observes that “there are multiple instances where
the consultation process has failed to follow or deliberately
misrepresents” the Statutory Guidance for opening and closing
maintained schools and the Council’s Estates Strategy.
Several examples are detailed on pages 14-17 of the save Colvestone
submission. 
 
· 
The September report
to the Cabinet is considered to have been “ill informed and
lacking detail”, whilst the design of the consultation is
considered “ineffective” for the stated purpose of
determining whether to close the schools. The rationale behind this
viewpoint is set out in pages 18-21 of the save Colvestone
submission.
 
· 
The save Colvestone
submission asserts that the consultation was “inaccessible to
some of the groups that should have been included” and the
process “damaged the financial viability of the schools in
scope”. It states that the consultation documents were not
sent to local residents, despite the Cabinet report listing them as
a group to be included and criticises the lack of information
provided in alternate languages and the lack of engagement with
families or staff at local nurseries and other childcare
settings.
 
· 
The save Colvestone
submission claims the council have not provided information as
requested and that some of this has been acquired by other means
and used to support the alternative analyses presented in the
submission.  It asserts that this
information should have been presented by the Council to enable a
more informed consultation.
 
· 
The save Colvestone
submission claims the Council should have consulted on each
proposal individually, with information made available as a context
for each including the circumstances and locality for each school.
Because this was not done, informed scrutiny and consultation was
not possible.
 
· 
The save Colvestone
submission objects to the fact that the Council has not consulted
on alternative proposals.
 
· 
The Save Colvestone
submission states that part of the consultation was undertaken
during school holidays. 
 
Response: The council considers it has consulted
lawfully.  Officers followed the
Guidance and took  legal advice . The
process is detailed in this report under Statutory Notice Summary,
points 4.20 to 4.23. Paragraph 4.21 deals with the translation into
other languages of the Statutory Notices. The Council held early
engagement sessions before meeting to decide whether or not to
consult.  The Guidance states (at page
7) that “Both the consultation period and the representation
period should be largely carried out in term time to allow the
maximum numbers of people to see and respond to what is
proposed.”
 
Comment: The save Colvestone submission presents data that
challenges the Council’s interpretation of child yield and
related time frames from the Dalston plan developments.  It submits that this information is specifically
relevant to Colvestone as the nearest primary school to all of
these developments.  Some points raised
are:
 
· 
The Dalston Plan forms
parts of commitments made and adopted in 2020 as part of the
Hackney Local Plan (LP33). These proposals would benefit Colvestone
by delivering new children to the 
immediate locality in need of primary school provision in the short
to mid-term, and long term place demand downstream from these
projects. These committed projects would be harmed by the closure
of Colvestone Primary School.
 
· 
Most of the
development would be concentrated at the Kingsland Shopping Centre
with around 30% of the proposed housing being 3 bedroom family
sized units and the aim of 50% of the development to be affordable
housing. This could bring 200+ new families into the immediate
area.
 
· 
If Colvestone and De
Beauvoir schools were closed, parents in that development would
have to travel almost half a mile to get to a non-denominational
school. And even the closest one, Princess May, sits next to the
A10
 
· 
The Dalston Plan makes
it clear that there is demand for Colvestone’s school places
in the medium to long term, because of the large number of new
housing which the SPD will encourage in the immediate vicinity, and
for which Colvestone will be the nearest primary school.
 
· 
An assessment of
likely child yield is provided and it is claimed the figures
demonstrate that the Dalston Plan developments (planned for
delivery in the short to medium term) will deliver 76 and 100
children to the immediate vicinity of Colvestone primary school -
between 2.5 and 3.5 entire year groups of school aged children
within very short (most sites, less than 100m), fully
pedestrianised access to primary school provision. This is anything
but negligible, and the proportion of 0-4 year olds suggests an
even healthier future demand for places downstream. This data draws
a compelling picture of future demand for places in the short to
medium term.
 
· 
Closing Colvestone
could impede the success of the development by making it hard for
developers to sell those apartments to families, given the limited
schooling options. The closure of so many local authority schools,
and particularly one close to a new development, threatens to lock
Hackney into a death spiral when it comes to families living in the
area - a reduction in families leads to the closure of schools and
reduction of choice, which makes the area unappealing to families,
which leads to more closed.
 
Response:  There are
proposed areas for regeneration and new housing across the borough
and in some of the areas close to the schools covered in this
report. However, despite the extensive Council and family housing
planned, the expected initial child yield is low and would not
impact medium to long term demand.  For
the projected figures we have there would remain enough school
places to accommodate need. Projections obtained annually from the
Greater London Authority take into account proposed new
developments that have attained planning permission.
 
The recently undertaken Strategic Housing Market Assessment
2023 indicates that household growth in Hackney between 2022 and
2039 will be predominantly single people (+45.1%) and cohabiting,
i.e. shared living, households (+44.2%). In comparison, there is
little change in the projection for families with children over the
same period. With the exception of Stamford Hill, the majority of
Borough-wide housing need is for smaller homes. This is important
in considering the likely effect of such housing on pupil
numbers.
 
Adopted in July 2020, the Hackney Local Plan 2033 (LP33),
requires that all new development in the borough have regard to
existing social infrastructure, which includes the provision of
education facilities. Within LP33, policy LP8 states that ‘where proposed development is expected to place pressure
on existing social infrastructure by increasing demand, these
developments will be expected to contribute towards the provision
of additional social infrastructure to meet needs, either through
on-site provision or through contributions towards providing
additional capacity off-site.’
 
The Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which informed the
policies within LP33, notes that while the borough’s
population is expected to increase to 321,000 by 2033 (42,000
higher than in 2018), that the age mix of the borough is
anticipated to shift towards the older community with the growth in
over 65s being four times greater than the growth in the school age
population, ages 0-15. Again, such long term forecasting suggests
that changes which forecast increases to the overall general
population, need to be balanced against demographic changes over
this time.
 
While there are variances across the different housing
tenures, across the Council’s programme as a whole, just over
70% of the homes delivered have been 1 and 2 bed homes; with just
under 30% comprising a mix of 3 and 4 bed family sized homes. This
is broadly consistent with policy LP14 as outlined in LP33, which,
depending on the tenure of housing, requires all new developments
to comprise a mix of family sized homes, ranging from 15 to
36%.
 
The council considers that there will remain sufficient
school places in the planning area, and within statutory walking
distance, for the entire length of time for which it has
information available to it. Places required to accommodate the
yield of school aged children from proposed developments is not
anticipated to exceed availability of places even with the
discontinuance of Colvestone and progression of the proposed
developments.
 
Despite Hackney building new homes the numbers will be
insufficient to have any significant impact on the proposals in
this report for schools in scope for closure and/or
merger.
 
Comment: The save Colvestone submission points out that the
Council has no recent experience of closing schools and should have
done so in an “informed, holistic and consultative
fashion”.
 
Response: For many years school closures were not necessary.
The Council’s consultation process included all steps
required by the Guidance, as well as an additional engagement at
the start and additional action to publicise the statutory
representation period. The Council’s powers are limited in
dealing with the challenges it faces over falling rolls; parental
choice for example, and its very limited powers in relation
to  opening a new school under current
legislation.  It consulted on the option
of closing some of its schools as a last resort having previously
taken steps outlined in this and previous reports in order to avoid
this.
 
Comment: The save Colvestone submission points out that the
consultation has had a “chilling” effect on transfers
and enrolments into schools that are the subject of the
proposals.
 
Response: The Council acknowledges that the proposals,
sadly, and perhaps inevitably, have resulted in changes to choices
parents have made, reducing numbers of children in affected schools
further.
 

School

Total on Roll (Provisional October 23 census)

Change since Jan '23 census

%
Change since Jan '23 census

Baden Powell Primary School

154

-8

-4.9%

De Beauvoir School

57

-58

-50.4%

Colvestone Primary School

116

-14

-10.8%

Randal Cremer

128

-114

-47.1%

 
The Council is monitoring pupil movement closely and
supporting schools as required. The Council acknowledges the impact
for staff and pupils to see their peers and friends leaving the
school prior to any final decision. 
 
The Council acknowledges the uncertainty parents have faced
and has supported parental preference as to whether they acted in
anticipation of a decision to close their school, or waited until
after the decision.
 
Comment: The save Colvestone submission claims that
“through the successful partnership with the Blossom
Federation, in only 6 months the new Senior Leadership Team have
demonstrated that they can return the school to financial health
despite the reduced pupil numbers.”
 
Response: Colvestone School submitted an agreed 2023-24
budget to the local authority in May 2023 inclusive of the savings
achieved in the previous 2022-23 financial year of
£28,320.
 
The school forecasted an increase in the deficit for the
following 3 years 2023-26 and were anticipating a significant
growth in pupil numbers in academic year 2027-28 which would
facilitate the process of recovering the deficit to a larger
extent.
 
However, following a review of the actual income and
expenditure for period 6 (September 2023) the forecast financial
position was revised as stated below:
 

Financial Year

2023-24

2024-25

2025-26

Projected Deficit May 2023

-589,261

-682,951

- 793,491

 

Financial Year

2023-24

2024-25

2025-26

Projected Deficit Nov 2023

-601,964

-819,693

-1,041,600

 
The revised forecasts show the deficit exceeding
£600,000 at the end of the current financial year and growing
over the coming years.
 
The Council acknowledges the outstanding support offered to
Colvestone by the Blossom Federation who have expertly stabilised
the school’s education provision and their financial position
having inherited an historical deficit from the previous leadership
of the school.
 
After the executive headteacher and head of school left
Colvestone in August 2022, the school’s governing body
supported by the Council looked at proposals from Blossom
Federation and Princess May. This temporary soft partnership
(recently extended until July 2024) allows Colvestone to receive
leadership and business support to improve standards and
children’s outcomes, and stabilise the budget, all of which
has been achieved with the support of The Blossom
Federation.
 
This expert support was reflected in a recent Ofsted
Inspection which found the school good overall.
 
Comment: The save Colvestone submission claims that,
despite persistent requests, there remains no cost-benefit analysis
of each of the individual proposals. Closing a school is hugely
costly, and the submission identifies multiple additional costs not
budgeted for in any of the consultation documents prepared by the
Council. It claims the likely costs declared by the Council for
realising the proposals to be a substantial
under-estimation.
 
Response: The council acknowledges the points raised. The
rationale for taking action is to ensure our primary schools can
continue to offer the very best education for residents and this is
directly linked to the financial viability of schools. 
 
Decision makers were presented with estimates of the costs
of closing schools in the May Cabinet report and are included with
this report in Appendix U. The council acknowledges the associated
costs are significant and largely fall to the local authority and,
most significantly, include any deficit a school is carrying at the
point of closure. Without reducing the number of surplus places in
our primary schools financial pressure will continue to grow and
push a growing number of schools into or toward deficit.
 
In the current climate where supply of school places has
exceeded demand for 8 years, reserve funds across maintained
schools are being exhausted at an alarming and unsustainable rate
(ie. forecast to reduce by 70% in just two years, see section 5.4
to 5.10), and two thirds of maintained primary schools (or the
federations they form part of) are forecasting they will be unable
to operate within budget this financial year, the local authority
will face even greater costs when closing schools in the future as
school deficits build. 
 
Comment: The save Colvestone submission includes the 11
September 2023 Judicial Review pre-action letter (Appendix V),
which states; the Council has wholly failed to factor air quality
impact into the PSED  analysis. Negative
air quality impacts are known to harm those who are
more  vulnerable, in particular,
children. Hackney’s own Air Quality Action Plan 2021- 2025
identifies school communities as amongst the most susceptible
groups to the serious health impacts of air pollution within its
strategy to improve air quality 
throughout the borough.
 
Air pollution levels are significantly higher at Princess
May than at Colvestone.  Princess May is
on a main road (the A10); Colvestone is on a quiet back street,
part of a fully-funded re-greening project which will further
improve air quality, meaning that closing Colvestone will
inevitably expose children to poorer air quality.
 
Response: The Council acknowledges concern that children may
be exposed to pollution when travelling to schools. The
Council’s Air Quality Action Plan seeks to improve air
quality in the community.
 
The Council has looked closely at the air quality at
Princess May, as we know this is a concern for some
parents.
 
Air quality as measured by average Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
at the six school sites in Hackney was reviewed. For 2022 all of
the diffusion tubes located near these schools were well below the
Hackney air quality objective of 40 (?g/m³), as seen in table
below, with some improving since 2021.
 

Site name

2021 NO? annual concentration (?g/m³)

2022 NO? annual concentration (?g/m³)

Pollutants monitored

Randal Cremer

20

19

NO2

Nightingale

19

17

NO2

Baden-Powell

18

19

NO2

De Beauvoir

39

36

NO2

Colvestone

23

21

NO2

Princess May 1

23

20

NO2

Princess May 2

32

32

NO2

Source (Air quality Action plan 2021-2025
and ASR Hackney 2022)
 
Air quality is measured near Princess May School in two
places. While the latest air quality monitoring shows that one of
them has higher nitrogen dioxide levels than Colvestone, both are
within air quality objectives. We will be doing further work to
bring this down, as part of the wider mission to improve air
quality and reduce traffic around all schools in
Hackney.
 
Princess May already has greenery and screening between its
playground and the A10, and has been shortlisted for further work
as part of our green screen programme involving the installation of
2-3m high ivy plant screens on the perimeter of schools between
playgrounds and busy roads.
The school has also benefited from the 3.9% reduction of
traffic on the A10 side as a result of the wider Stoke Newington
Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN), which covers three sides of the
school, and has a School Street on two sides, which has further
reduced traffic
 
We've rolled out School Streets to nearly all Hackney
primaries to tackle air pollution, and we want 75% of the borough
to be low traffic by 2026. To keep reducing pollution, we need
people to ditch the log burners, and walk, cycle or take public
transport, or, if they need to drive, switch to car clubs or
EVs.
 
Further information is added to EIA (Appendix B)
 
Comment: The save Colvestone submission states that there
will be “no going back” should the school be closed.
Some points made include:
 
· 
Under ‘free
school presumption’ a local authority cannot open a local
authority school – new schools will automatically be free
schools run by the for-profit sector, with Hackney Council forced
to give over the historic (or modern) school buildings to the
private company, along with all oversight on how the school is
managed and what they teach, on a long lease without generating any
rental income (and yet incurring costs) for the Council
 
· 
Claims the LA has
consistently refused to release information related to the deeds of
Colvestone school – denying both FOI requests and legal
representations.
 
· 
Due diligence has not
been conducted on the status of school buildings as demanded by the
Estate Strategy with regards to building deeds / titles,
particularly with regards to restrictive covenants, and
specifically with regards to restrictive covenants believed to be
included in the transfer deeds (1906) of the Colvestone school
buildings when they were acquired by the LCC in 1906 from an
educational charity (still extant).
 
Response: The Council acknowledges that the free school
presumption has limited its powers dramatically.  This is discussed within this report at paragraph
10.6 to 10.8.
 
The council’s legal team has confirmed that, having
reviewed the title, no such restriction exists. There is no implied
assumption that charities have a right of first refusal in respect
of education land/buildings disposals.
 
A
FOI was received and has been responded to.
 
Further information relating to Recommendations for
proposals can be found within
the report at paragraph 5.
 
DETAILS OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND
REJECTED
 
Option 1 - No action
 
The Council has a duty  to
manage school places effectively, and to ensure that schools
provide high quality education for children, and deliver Best
Value, and continuous improvement through the efficient, effective
and economic management of our school estate.
 
The Council is ambitious for Hackney children; our schools
achieve excellent results and we want to ensure they remain among
the very best in the country.
 
If no action is taken it is inevitable that quality of
education and outcomes for Hackney children are at risk and the
Council will be liable for the costs of schools worst affected by
falling rolls as they move into debt or increase their deficit and
eventually close for financial reasons.
 
As outlined in section 5.4 to 5.10, the operational and
financial challenges affecting schools with falling rolls will
continue to increase with a negative impact on pupils and the
Council’s financial position. Taking no action to the issues
affecting schools with falling rolls is not an acceptable option
available to the Council.
 
Option 2 - Phased implementation of the
current proposals over 2 or more years
 
This option was rejected as there is an urgent need to take
action and any delay is very likely to result in increased
financial liability for the council as schools at risk move toward
or increase their deficit position.
 
Additionally, further measures to address falling rolls are
likely to be required in the coming years to bring the primary
school estate in line with current and projected demand. If taken
forward, the proposals outlined in this report would begin to
address the issue of falling rolls by removing 105 reception
places; however, in isolation, this is unlikely to resolve the
problem and, based on current projections, further action to bring
surplus reception places under 10% is likely. 
 
Option 3: Close/merge more schools than
those currently proposed.
 
Further measures to address falling rolls, over and above
those proposed in this paper, are likely to be required in the
coming years to bring the primary school estate in line with
current and projected demand. 
 
Action to address falling rolls that involve more schools
than the six that would potentially be affected by the current
proposals was considered. This option might be considered by some
to be favourable because it could provide greater reassurance that
children,  forced to move school as a
result of their school closing, would be less likely to have to
move primary school again if further action is required in the
future.
 
This option was not preferred due to limited resourcing and
capacity to effectively manage and mitigate impact of a greater
number of closures/mergers. 
 
Option 4: Alternative options for De
Beauvior primary
 
Alternative pairings for the proposals were considered and
detailed in the May Cabinet report, additional suggestions have
been put forward in the consultation summarised below:
 
Merging De Beauvoir and Randal Cremer on either site was
suggested however it was not considered a feasible option for all
families as the schools are 1.1 miles apart, walking distance which
is a 25 minute walk, and the distance would be a barrier for those
living for example, north of De Beauvoir or south of Randal
Cremer.
 
Merging De Beauviour and Princess May on either site was
suggested however it was not considered a viable option as it was
considered unlikely to lead to sufficiently stabilising numbers of
pupils at either school. Although a merger with Princess May was
not proposed, at 16 minute walk (0.7 miles away) it is likely the
school will have capacity to accommodate any families from De
Beauvoir if that is what they want. Colvestone was considered a
better school to merge being 0.4 miles and 8 minute walk away from
Princess May.
 
Option 5: Alternative options for
Colvestone primary
 
Merging Colvestone and Princess May on the Colvestone site
was suggested however this option was considered infeasible as the
Colvestone site is unable to accommodate all the children from
Princess May. The decision to propose a merger onto the Princess
May site may positively impact that schools' falling roll and
unused capacity.
 
Merging Colvestone with other schools in the Blossom
Federation was suggested however these options were considered
unsuitable due to the distance between Colvestone and other schools
in the federation.
 
Merging De Beaviour and Colvestone on the Colvestone site
was suggested however, based on pupil numbers at the time,
Colvestone appeared unable to accommodate all the children from De
Beauvoir.  The subsequent drop in pupil
numbers at both schools makes this option feasible in terms of
pupil numbers, however this is not favoured due to
Colvestone’s financial position. Amalgamating into a one form
entry school is not financially preferable.
 
It has also been proposed by those in support of Colvestone
remaining open, that it could be a school for pupils with SEND.
However in the short term this option is unfeasible because the
school would need to be closed while building modifications and
arrangements were made requiring all children to move to other
schools.  However all options regarding
future use will be considered for medium to long term should the
school close as a result of these proposals.
 
Option 6: Alternative options for Randal
Cremer Primary
 
Options for merging the school were considered but there
was no single school located near enough with the sufficient places
to accommodate all of the pupils. However, there are sufficient
schools nearby with surplus places that could accommodate the
pupils from Randal Cremer. Hoxton Garden, Sebright, St
Monica’s and St John the Baptist are likely alternative
schools and all rated Good or Outstanding by Ofsted.
 
Option 7: Alternative options considered
for Baden Powell Primary School
 
Options to merge Nightingale and other schools with surplus
places rather than Baden Powell, were considered.  This option was not progressed primarily because
Nightingale did not have capacity to guarantee all children at
neighbouring schools with surplus capacity a place, based on pupil
roll data at the time, and because the distance between these other
schools was less optimal than between Baden Powell and
Nightingale.
 
The Councils powers in relation to
falling rolls
 
The limiting factors at play in our options; The Council
has to make arrangements for enabling parents to express a
preference for their child's school. 
The Council does all it can to accommodate parental preference for
a school. It is of course limited in this when a school is
oversubscribed.  It can no longer open a
new school, as mentioned elsewhere in this report.  It has the power to close a school it maintained,
but no such power in relation to an academy or free
school.  Options available to it in
taking action to reduce the issues it faces with falling rolls are
limited to closure and amalgamating maintained schools.  Continuing with current and projected levels of
deficit in the circumstances of significantly reduced pupil numbers
would be irresponsible.