Agenda item

Report by Director of Children, Young People and Learning.

The Committee is asked to consider the proposals for the relocation of Jessie Younghusband School, the expansion of St Anthony’s School and the amendments to the catchments areas following public consultation.

46.1     The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, Learning and Skills, Cllr Russell, introduced the report highlighting the proposals to relocate Jessie Young Husband School (JYHS) to a new school site allowing the County Council to increase and maintain special provision at St Anthony’s Special School (SASS) to give children with special educational needs and disabilities more choice and an opportunity to attend a school in their locality which could meet their needs, whilst reducing the need to travel long distances to schools in other parts of the county, or out of county. 

46.2     The proposal also linked closely to the need to consider all children by protecting the viability of all maintained primary schools across the county where numbers on roll continued to fall due to the decrease in birth rates.  The development of the new primary school in Chichester, which was already under way, would be subject to the academy presumption process in the absence of any relocation of any existing school, which if followed though could threaten the viability of all existing schools in the Chichester area including JYHS. 

46.3     Discussions on the potential relocation of JYHS had been underway for quite some time and had involved all parties, including the Chairs of Governors at JYHS and SASS, both headteachers, County Council education officers, the Secretary of State for Education, who is also the local MP, previous Cabinet Members and Cllr Russell, who is the current Cabinet Member in post.  Following a meeting in October 2023 it was agreed to proceed to informal consultation on the potential to relocate JYHS and consider views on a revised catchment area.  This consultation was extended at the request of the JYHS governing body and ran from mid-December 2023 until the end of January 2024.  The output of the informal consultation is before the Committee and the Cabinet Member welcomed any views and recommendations to assist the team in making decisions on the next steps.

46.4     Cllr Joy, local member for Chichester West, and Cllr Hunt, local member for Chichester North, gave statements on the reactions to the proposals in their constituencies.

46.5     Cllr Joy told the Committee that his constituency covered the Minerva Heights development and not the JYHS area but that he had received many letters in opposition to the relocation.  The concerns raised included the adequacy of the consultation, the adverse impact on the community, the reduction in school places, an increase in school commute time, exacerbation of traffic issues and the need for infrastructure investment.

46.6     Cllr Joy felt there needed to be wider and more meaningful input from parents and residents, safe access to the school, an understanding of broader community impacts of infrastructure, reassurance on the sustainability of long-term provision, parental reassurance and understanding of the importance of each child’s pathway so that both schools could benefit. 

46.7     Cllr Hunt told the Committee that the proposals seemed to make sense on paper, to allow two exceptional schools to expand, however he felt it did not consider the impact on parents, both current and future.  Cllr Hunt had initially said he would support the proposals if the headteacher and governing body of JYHS were behind the plans.  Originally the JYHS governing body had been behind the scheme but had written to parents to say they were no longer supportive of the plan and this was not reflected in the main report. 

46.8     Cllr Hunt had requested that a plan be prepared for a safer route to school and a safer crossing point on the busy main road, the B2178, at the St Paul’s Road/Sherborne Road junction, as had been requested by residents for many years.  Cllr Hunt reported that around 86% of children currently walked to JYHS school, but most would be likely to have to go by car if the school was relocated, which did not appear to support the County Council’s walking and cycling initiatives. 

46.9     Cllr Hunt expressed concern that if the numbers of children in the Minerva Heights development needing a school place reached those projected in the report, they would fill the allocated spaces in the new school and asked where the children in the current JYHS catchment area would go?  Cllr Hunt also highlighted the on-line petition referred to under paragraph 2.7, which showed extensive support from the community for JYHS to remain on their present site.

46.10  Members of the Committee asked both councillors whether they felt sufficiently effective consultation had been made with parents and both felt it could have been better. Cllr Hunt mentioned that parents had requested a public meeting which had been turned down and Cllr Joy felt parents should have been involved at an earlier stage and that their concerns should be taken on board.

46.11  Cllr Russell responded to the comments reminding all that the decision was not determined and that the informal consultation with parents, carers and residents had been the first step in the consultation process, to gauge views from the local community on catchment areas and the relocation in principle to a new site.  Comments made during the discussion today and recommendations made by the Committee would be taken away by officers to consider the next steps.  If it was decided to continue with the proposal, statutory documents would be issued, and a formal consultation period of 4-6 weeks would take place. If at that point it would be prudent to include meetings with parents/carers of pupils at the school, they could be held.  Cllr Russell highlighted that Department for Education guidance stated that a move of any school of under two miles did not need statutory proposals.  This showed the County Council was going above and beyond to consult with the local community when it legally did not have to.  Members asked that if the proposal moved to the statutory stage the Scrutiny Committee could be kept updated on the formal consultation and the next steps.

46.12  The on-line petition had been received two hours before the consultation closed and was on an external petition site which the County Council could not access.  Work with the petition organiser now meant that they had all the information to follow up in the correct manner to enable the County Council to verify names and addresses.

46.13  Members of the Committee asked questions and a summary of those questions and answers follows.

46.14  A member asked if there would be sufficient funding to enable the expansion of SASS.  Cllr Russell assured the Committee that £20m had been allocated for spending on SEND and some of that would be available for this project.

46.15  Members raised concern about the safety of children and their parents walking to the new school, and how more parents might therefore choose to drive.  Cllr Russell reported that the schools’ streets team were working with Active Travel England to bid for crossing improvements for all members of the community and encouraged the local members to pursue a Community Highways Scheme for the works independently of any changes arising from the Chichester Schools proposal.  Officers confirmed the route had been walked on 2 January 2024 (wet day), 16 January (dry day) and 21 February (wet day) and it was believed the proposals would allow families to walk to a site in the Minerva Heights development from the area around the current JYHS site.  It was also reported that a feasibility study was being undertaken by an external company to consider further options.  Members asked to be updated on progress at a suitable time. 

46.16  Members asked, considering an additional 300 SEND places were predicted to be needed in the county over the coming years, whether 50 places was a piecemeal solution and what proposals there were for the additional SEND places needed.  Officers acknowledged the wider need for places, but this proposal was to try and help children with SEND needs in the local community.  Currently 52 local children travel out of the Chichester area to other special schools because placement allocation is done by need not catchment, and this could have significant costly transport implications.  Other projects were ongoing to increase SEND provision, including adding Special Support Units in mainstream schools, a Department for Education bid for a full special school, and locality-based SEND provision to ensure children do not have to travel too far.

46.17  A member asked about the responses that had raised concerns about the loss of school community.  Officers reported that in previous school relocations similar concerns had been expressed but relocation to another site had not changed this as the ethos of the school is created by the headteacher, the governing body and school staff and many were thriving in newer buildings with lower running costs and less maintenance.

46.18  A member asked why the JYHS governing body had changed its stance on supporting the relocation of the school.  Officers reported that JYHS was a popular school, with applications exceeding the number of places available from children all over Chichester.  The governing body were keen to relocate until it was realised that although the school would be built for 2FE it would open as 1FE at the start in case the second phase of the housing development did not happen.  The existing JYHS school could move across to the new school as all pupils could be accommodated.  It had been explained how opening as a 2FE could destabilise many other schools across the Chichester area if parents wished to move their children out of their current schools to the new one.  Normally a school would introduce a second Form Entry at reception year and then it would progress through the school in following years.  However, remaining at the current JYHS site would never allow the school to be able to expand.

46.19  Members asked whether the option of moving SASS to the new school site had been considered.  Officers confirmed that it had been discussed with the headteacher of SASS but the specification of the new school being built would be different to what was needed by those pupils.  Transitioning special school pupils would be significantly more challenging due to the nature of some special needs, which in some cases could take a very long time.  Members requested the opportunity to see an impact assessment of the proposals for the children at JYHS and SASS should the proposals proceed.

46.20  Resolved – That the Committee:

1.   Recognises the need to increase SEND places in West Sussex and that the expansion of SASS would provide some of the much needed special school places in the local area. 

2.   Acknowledges that the consultation process is still underway and the next step will be to go out to statutory proposals where further views can be considered prior to any decision being made.  The Committee asks to be kept updated on this. 

3.   Hears and thanks residents for their comments and feedback provided through the consultation so far, and the views from the local members and notes the concerns raised, including the additional distance to travel to the new site, the need for a suitable walking/cycling route to school, traffic implications, and the concern on sufficiency of local primary school places.

4.   Recognises the importance of a safer route to school for the proposed new location and heard of the work ongoing with the Safer Routes For Schools team.  The Committee asks that this is progressed as a priority to ensure that there is a sufficient and robust walking and cycling route in place should proposals go ahead.

5.   Agrees that upgrades to crossing facilities on St Pauls Road/ Sherborne Road junction should be progressed regardless of whether these proposals go forward. 

6.   Sought assurance and highlighted the importance of ensuring that capital funding will be available to ensure the additional SEND places can be delivered if the proposals proceed. 

7.   Would like to see the impact assessment on transitions for children as part of the decision-making process. 

8.   Sought clarity on whether the outcomes of the proposal would balance against the impact the proposals could have on local parents and families.