Agenda item

To consider any requests received in accordance with Standing Orders.

The Cabinet agreed to consider two deputations in relation to Item 4, the expansion of Belmont Infant and Junior school’s from two to three form entry. The first deputation was from Julie Mukherjee representing parents, governors and staff from Belmont Junior School and the second would be from Tom Anderson representing the parents, governors and staff at Belmont Infant School. 

The Chair invited Julie Mukherjee to address the Cabinet and put forward   representations in relation to the proposed expansion of the Junior school.

 Ms Mukherjee addressed the committee in her capacity as a parent of children at both Belmont Infant and Junior schools but was speaking on behalf of other parents, governors and teaching staff to oppose the proposal to expand the Junior school.  The arguments put forward against the expansion were:

• That there was not enough space in the school to support the expansion – reference was made to the small playground and the already limited space in the school dinning area.

•  The funding envelope for the expansion of both schools was considered to be less than spent on other schools in the past and not enough to complete a suitable expansion.

• The attendance of children from the Vale Special  School had not been adequately considered in the plans for expansion as any changes to the buildings would need to accommodate the mobility and safety of children and they could not  envisage how this would be achieved in an already limited space.

• The council calculation of future places needed at the school was disputed as there was already a shortfall of places at the Junior school in years 4 and 5. Therefore it was contended that a future shortfall of places would lead to a future shortfall in funding. This would have a detrimental impact on the schools income and lead to staffing reductions. The deputation was keen to protect the established good teacher leadership in the school.

• It was felt that the petitions consisting of a combination of 700 signatures opposing the expansion had not been given appropriate consideration.

The parents were keen to protect the ethos of “good local schools for all” and asked that Cabinet vote against the proposals for expansion of both Belmont Junior and Infant schools.

As part of the deputation procedure, Cabinet Members put forward questions to the deputation party and gained the following understanding of their position. 

·        The increased funding envelope of £3.5m was still felt not to adequately cover the expansion of two schools.

• They did not agree with the figures arrived at in the school place planning strategy.
• The higher overheads associated with a bigger school would lead to a reduced income if places were not filled at the school.
•  They questioned the council’s application to the argument that more school places were needed in Tottenham and gave an example of where they perceived this need not to be applied.  The Leader questioned the accuracy of this assertion and clarified that there had not been a 4000 home development project in Tottenham Hale and the area referred to covered student residential units as well as homes.

The Cabinet Member for Children responded to the issues raised in the deputation and those arising from subsequent Member questions. It was important to note that there was an experienced and requisitely skilled Pupil Place Steering group which   examined the cases put forward for school expansion. It was accepted that there was not a vast amount of space at the two schools however the group had assessed that there was enough space to allow the good design of and a fit for purpose school that would cater for all students.  The detailed physical design of the school would commence shortly and there was an opportunity for parents, governors and staff to influence the designs and ensure that issues such as the small play ground and school dining area were looked at and solutions found. 

It was not appropriate to compare the past allocations of council funding for school expansions as these were in different economical times. However there had been due consideration given to the previous issues highlighted by the governing body about the cost of the expansion and the funding envelope had been increased from £2.2m to £3.5m.

In response to the concerns raised about the accessibility and use of the expanded school by children from the Vale Special School, the council was committed to the integration of pupils and there was a genuine belief that the expanded school would have better access for disabled children. For example part of the plans would involve making corridors wider to assist children with mobility problems. This was a key priority for the council and the team that would be working on the expansion had experience of working with special schools.

 In relation to the filling of school places, the Cabinet Member for Children was confident that there would not be under filled school places as there had been a higher number of reception places sought this year than in previous years.  Therefore the concern about the future loss in income to the school would not be realised.   There were lower numbers of pupils at key stage 2 age in schools across the borough which would account for the under filled places at the junior school in years 4 and 5.

 The school place planning policy was clear that extra school places were needed in West Green/Tottenham area. Consideration had been given to the very good leadership of the school and the school’s outstanding results when proposing the expansion. Also   there was a demand for places as children living ½ a mile away from the school still could not get into the school, after the admission criteria had been applied.

It was further clarified that there had been an application for a Free school in   Tottenham   but the take up of places at this school would not impact on the need for places in the West Green / Tottenham area. In relation to suggestion that Noel Park School should remain 3 form entry, this was a different school which had much smaller classrooms and could not accommodate a high number of pupils in each class.

The Chair invited Tom Anderson, the spokesperson of the second deputation representing Belmont Infant school parents, governors and staff to address the meeting.

 Mr Anderson began his presentation by insisting that the fundamental issues relating to the expansion of the two schools had not been addressed. He explained that parents had approached the initial proposal of the expansion with an open mind but had been failed to be convinced of its overall benefit to the school when considering the funding envelope, the current space at the school and initial planning documents. Reference was made to neighbouring schools Noel Park and Downhill’s which had recently been converted to sponsored academy status and it was felt that the uncertainty around these two schools had been part of the reason to focus the expansion and provision of extra school places on Belmont schools.

Mr Anderson contended that the outstanding Ofsted rating of the school would be put at risk by the expansion and gave further reasons about the cost and impact on staff leadership of the school.

He contended that the issues raised in the consultation meetings by parents had not been listened to and claimed that should the Cabinet agree to expand the two schools, there would be an appeal to the Schools Adjudicator and the process for the schools to become Academies commence.

Following no further Cabinet Member questions, the Cabinet Member for Children accepted that there had been a lot of arguments put forward from different viewpoints opposing the two school’s expansions.  However there was an undeniable need for more school places as illustrated in the school place planning report. This need was further demonstrated by the number of bulge classes in other schools. To provide a quality education it was necessary to expand schools rather than continue with bulge classes.  When considering the areas of most need for school places, they were in the vicinity of Belmont Infant and Junior School.

The funding for the expansion should be considered in the current economic climate and within the context of £84m cuts made by the council. However the Council had a responsibility to provide children in the borough with a school place and provide a reception class in 2013 at Belmont Infant School   to meet demands. The deputation was assured that the council would endeavour to provide a school expansion according to purpose and landscape together with ensuring the school was better suited to disabled children attending from the Vale School.

The planning arrangements for the expansion were not mismanaged and were focused on providing a space for the expansion.

The Cabinet Member for Children and the Leader  opposed the view that parents had not been listened to and pointed to the additional public meetings held as well as meetings at councillor surgeries and additional meetings with the school governing body.   However there was an equal need to give consideration to the families that wanted their children to attend Belmont Infant and Junior school.