DETERMINATION

Case reference: STP/000361

Proposal: To reorganise all schools in Lowestoft (except one),

by changing age-ranges, increasing intakes,
enlarging premises, discontinuing schools, and
establishing a new school

Proposer: Suffolk County Council and the Governing Bodies of

Blundeston, Corton and Kessingland Church of
England primary schools

Date of decision: 3 February 2009

Determination

Under the powers conferred on me by Section 21 and paragraphs 9, 10

and 17 of Schedule 2 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006, I
hereby approve the proposals as published by Suffolk County Council
and the governing bodies of Blundeston, Corton and Kessingland
Church of England primary schools on 12th September 2008, as modified
by a further notice dated 18th September.

This approval is conditional upon:

a. local authority planning approval for building developments

being given for work at the schools listed in the Annex to this
determination by the accompanying dates;

b. a new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian entrance to the

Pakefield schools site from London Road with an accompanying
pedestrian crossing being provided before the proposal for the
new secondary school is implemented, with local authority
planning approval being given for this by 30th June 2009; and

c. the signing of an agreement by 30th June 2009 with the

Kirkley and Pakefield Football Club for the use of pitches by the
new secondary school.

Annex: The schools in relation to which planning approval is to be

achieved by the specified dates are: by 30th April 2009, Blundeston; by
31st May 2009, Northfield/Poplars; by 30th June 2009, Corton,
Kessingland, Fen Park/Kirkley Middle, Grove, Gunton, Meadow, Oulton
Broad, Dell, Whitton Green, Woods Loke, Pakefield, and the new
secondary school; by 30th November 2009, St Margaret’s; by 31st
December 2009, Kirkley High; by 20th December 2010, Gisleham/Carlton
Colville, Elm Tree Primary/Middle, Roman Hill; and by 31st March 2011,
1
Benjamin Britten/Foxborough.

The referral

1. On 3rd November 2008 Suffolk County Council (‘the Council’) wrote to

the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, referring its proposals, and those of the
governing bodies of Blundeston, Corton and Kessingland Church of England
primary schools relating to their own schools respectively, made under
sections 7 and 15 of The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (“the Act”) for
consideration under Schedule 2 of the Act, together with proposals made
under section 19 of the Act, because they are related proposals, which the
Adjudicator must consider with the former proposals, as provided by
paragraph 35 of Schedule 5 to The School Organisation (Prescribed
Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007. The
proposals are:

a. to make prescribed alterations by changing the age range in the

case of 22 schools in Lowestoft, with the effect of creating a ‘two-tier’
system of primary schools for 3 or 4 to 11 year old children (in place of
schools for 3 or 4 to 9 year old children) and secondary schools for 11-
18 year old children (instead of schools for 13-18 year old children), the
primary school changes to take place from 1st September 2010 and the
secondary school changes from 1st September 2011;

b. to make prescribed alterations by increasing the intake of one

school (which is also one of the schools in a., above) by 27 or more
pupils from 1st September 2010;

c. to make prescribed alterations by enlarging the premises of 12

schools (which are also some of the schools in a., above), the primary
school changes to take place from 1st September 2010 and the
secondary school changes from 1st September 2011;

d. to discontinue eight schools, all of which are middle schools

providing for 9 to 13 year old children, on 31st August 2011; and

e. to establish a new secondary school for 11 to 16 year old

children, which would be a foundation school with a foundation, from
1st September 2011.

2. The proposals include changes to the capacities and admissions

numbers for certain schools. They also include the transitional arrangements
for pupils at schools affected by the proposed closures and changes of age
ranges. The public notices are summarised in the Appendix to this
adjudication.

3. The Council and the three Church of England schools’ governing

bodies published their proposals in a notice dated 12th September 2008, and
the Council subsequently published a further notice on 18th September 2008
to correct the proposed admissions numbers for two schools that were
2
incorrect in the earlier notice. A previous notice dated 11th April 2008 had
invited competition entries from any who wished to make proposals to
establish the new secondary school. The salient features of these three
notices are summarised in the Appendix to this adjudication.

Jurisdiction

4. I have examined the basis of the referral of the various proposals to

me. Proposal e., above, has been referred because the Council’s proposal to
establish a new secondary school followed a competition for which there were
no entries, and because the proposal is to establish a foundation school. The
remaining proposals have been referred because they are related to that
proposal.

5. It came to my notice that the governing bodies of the three voluntary

controlled primary schools that were, in relation to their own schools, co-
proposers with the Council of changes of age range and, in two cases,
enlargements of their schools, might not formally have agreed to make the
proposals that were attributed to them. I therefore wrote to all three schools to
enquire their positions. Replies from the chairs of governors of all three
schools indicate that, although I have not seen any minutes of governors’
meetings that explicitly record formal agreements to make the proposals, their
governors do support the proposals attributed to them.

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

date specified in the competition notice. The Council had understood that, in
order to submit its own proposal to establish the proposed new secondary
school, it needed to postpone the closing date of the competition. In fact it
need not have done so, since section 7 of the Act provides that a local
authority may publish proposals of its own after the date specified in the
competition notice. The Council, therefore, I understand on advice from the
Department for Children, Schools and Families (“DCSF”), postponed the
closing date for the competition to establish the proposed new secondary
school from 11th to 22nd August 2008. The Council submitted its own
proposals on 22 August 2008. Paragraph 7 of the School Organisation
(Establishment and Discontinuance of Schools)(England) Regulations 2007
requires the second notice relating to a competition to be published ‘within 3
weeks of the date by which the proposals must be submitted as specified in
the competition notice’. The effect of the postponement of the closing date of
the competition was therefore, in the Council’s view, also to delay the date by
which the Council needed to publish the second public notice under the
Regulations. This meant that the public notice (published on 12 September
2008) would coincide with the public notice relating to the proposal to
establish a new sixth form college. The Council believed this would assist the
public in understanding the whole pattern of educational changes that were
being proposed.

7. In my view, the Council did not in fact have power to postpone the
closing date of the competition notice under paragraph 7 of the Regulations.
That being the case, although the Council’s proposals were submitted in time,

3
the second notice should have been published by 1 September 2008
(whereas in fact it was published on 12 September 2008). I have considered
which parties, if any, might have been disadvantaged by the error. I have
concluded that the only consequence of postponing the closing date of the
competition was postponement of the date of publication of the second notice.
The functions of the second notice were, firstly, to make an announcement
about the proposals entered for the competition, together with any proposal
made subsequently by the local authority (as is allowed under the Act), and,
secondly, to give the customary notice of statutory proposals. I have come to
the conclusion that no parties were therefore disadvantaged or could have
been disadvantaged, by the delay in publishing the second notice. The
consequences of declaring the proposals invalid on a technicality would be
severe for the Council in terms of the work and cost of repeating all the legal
and practical processes leading to the publishing of similar proposals to those
that it and the three Church of England schools have made. I believe it would
not be in the interests of any of the parents, children, staff or governors –
whatever their views of the proposals – that a decision should be delayed and
lengthy uncertainty created.

8. I am satisfied that these proposals, though technically flawed, have

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

Procedures

9. I have considered the proposals as required by Schedule 2 of the

Education and Inspections Act 2006 and by The School Organisation
(Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007
(“the Regulations”). I have had full regard to the guidance given by the
Secretary of State. I have also had regard to the Human Rights Act 1998,
and, as required by Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act, to the relevant provision of
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, The Race Relations Act 1976 and The
Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

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

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

papers describing the Council’s processes of consultation and decision

making with regard to the eventual proposal;

further documentation provided for me by the Council;

other documentation drawn from the Council’s website;

representations made to me by schools, schools-related organisations,

a residents’ organisation and various individual people; and

4
 replies from the Council to questions I posed,

11. I visited Lowestoft on 9th and 10th December 2008, to view at first hand
the accommodation of some of the schools, the proposed site and alternative
sites for the proposed new secondary school, and the locality. I met with
representatives of the Council in order to clarify details of some aspects of its
proposals. I held two public meetings on 9th and 10th December, one attended
by representatives of the Council and by governors, staff and parents from
some of the schools involved, and one attended by representatives of the
Council and residents local to the proposed site for the new secondary school.
I have considered the information and representations put to me at those
meetings, and the representations sent to me after the meeting. I visited
Lowestoft again on 15th January 2009, in order to seek further clarification on
some aspects of the proposals, and to revisit the sites that had been
considered for the proposed new secondary school.

The Proposals

12. Within Lowestoft and its immediate area, the Council currently
maintains 3 high schools1 (3 to18 years), 8 middle schools (9 to13 years), 19
primary schools (3 or 4 to 9 years) and 1 primary school (4 to11 years). (The
last mentioned school, a Catholic primary school, would not be directly
affected by the proposals). As part of a review of school provision across
Suffolk, the Council wishes to change its provision of schools in Lowestoft
from a ‘three-tier’ system to a ‘two-tier’ system, with primary schools for pupils
of 3 or 4 to11 years and secondary schools for pupils of 11 to 18. The Council
wishes, at the same time, to reduce the proportion of surplus places in the
town from 20% to around 5%. The Council believes that a two-tier system
would:

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

ensure clear accountability for pupil development within each Key

Stage.

13. One of the proposals is to establish a new secondary school for 900
pupils aged 11-16, to serve the southern part of Lowestoft. The Council
intends in due course to publish proposals to remove the sixth forms from the
three existing secondary schools, now that the sixth form college has been
approved, but could not do so along with its current proposals since approval
for the establishment of a sixth form college had not yet then been given.

Views on the Proposals

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

Lowestoft, to:

create a structure of primary and high schools;

retain all village primary schools and expand all primary schools to
accommodate two extra year groups;
5
 provide a new high school for pupils aged 11 to 16 south of the river;

provide a ‘dedicated facility’ for young people aged 11 to 16, perhaps

offering vocational courses for young people aged 14 to 16 in
collaboration with the high schools and Lowestoft College; and

encourage close working relationships between all schools.

15. I am satisfied that the Council carried out a very through process of
review and consultation over a period of around two years prior to its
Cabinet’s decision to publish the proposals, and has attempted to involve
some stakeholder groups in developing its plans. The proposals have drawn a
considerable response from parents, staff (together with staff organisations),
governors and, with reference to the proposed new secondary school, local
residents. Around 30 representations were made to me, before and after the
public meetings that I held. Most of the responses and representations
disfavoured the proposals or certain parts or aspects of them, and included
expressions of concern about:

a reduction in the quality of the primary curriculum, particularly for

Years 5 and 6 pupils;

a loss of the specific values and attributes of middle schools, in terms

of ethos and the curriculum, coupled with a potential loss of middle
school teachers with their specific expertise;

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

an equivalent number of school changes (when the Council had said

that the proposals would result in one fewer that at present); and

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

Consideration of Factors

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

Standards of Attainment

17. The Council has undertaken comparative study of the outcomes of

educational provision within the County in different areas, where the socio-
economic and pupil numbers are similar, that are served by three-tier schools
and two-tier schools. The study identified ‘a significant gap in performance . .
. across all core subjects by the age of 11’, with ‘the 2 tier system
outperform[ing]’ the three tier system. The gap in performance was less in
secondary education, but with a ‘significant gap for English’ by age 14, which,
the Council believes, adversely affects age-16 attainment. At age 16, the two-
tier system outperforms the three-tier system in all GCSE subjects, with a
similar picture emerging in post-16 qualifications.

6
18. The Council has summarised analyses by Ofsted and the Fischer
Family Trust, which, it says, support its own findings, particularly in terms of
progress made by children aged 7-11. Although progress in middle schools at
age 14 is good overall under the three-tier system, when measured from age
7 to age 14, progress is better under the two-tier system, with children in the
three-tier system never completely making up the ground that has been lost.
The Council believes there is evidence that progress ‘dips’ when children
transfer from one school to another, and that reducing the number of changes
would therefore benefit progress.

19. In the Council’s Policy Development Panel report of December 2006,

there is compelling statistical evidence to support its preference for moving to
a two-tier system, particularly in terms of National Benchmarking comparison.

20. In the same report of December 2006, the Policy Development Panel
described local research that identified the difficulties that schools had in
building on pupils’ prior attainment in previous schools, and the steps that
were taken to mitigate this, particularly by supporting schools and teachers in
minimising the effects of school transfer. Despite these efforts, the Panel
reported, the gap in progress between two-tier and three-tier systems has
remained, with ‘dips’ in progress being confirmed by independent research.
After considering all these factors, the Panel concluded that there was ‘a clear
difference in performance between the 2 and 3 tier systems’, and that
‘structural change [was] required and, in particular, [that] the number of points
of transfer should be reduced’.

21. Many parents have complained to me that the number of points of

transfer would not in fact be reduced under the current proposals, since pupils
would then be obliged to transfer at age 16 to the new sixth form college
(approval for the establishment of which was announced by the Learning and
Skills Council on 3rd December 2008 with a planned opening in September
2011). However, only around 50% of pupils remain in the Lowestoft school
sixth forms, and a shift of location for post-16 education is usually both
desired by and desirable for many pupils. So I do not believe that a change of
educational environment at age 16 should ‘count’ as a school transfer event,
and therefore do not accept the argument that the number of points of transfer
would not be reduced by the proposals.

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

7
contribution to developing and sustaining the 14-19 curriculum. I do not
therefore agree that the present system is necessarily best placed to support
the 14-19 curriculum.

23. Some objectors to the proposals have drawn attention to the enriched
curriculum available for pupils in Years (“Ys”) 5 and 6 within a middle school
setting as a result of the presence of specialist staff and facilities. I
acknowledge that such pupils may indeed benefit from such expertise and
facilities, in the way that pupils, particularly the more able, can often benefit
from the availability of extra facilities. However, as representatives of the
Council have said, the specialist facilities often to be found in middle and
secondary schools are not essential to the provision of an excellent Key Stage
(“KS”) 2 curriculum, and most primary schools producing the highest levels of
attainment in the country do so without such facilities. The specialist facilities
may in fact survive in some middle school buildings where the particular
accommodation is not needed for other purposes by primary schools being
relocated into those premises. But, in any case, I do not believe that the loss
of such facilities for Ys 5 and 6 pupils will constitute a major detriment to
primary teaching and learning in Lowestoft, given the advantages of a two-tier
system that have been described earlier.

24 On the basis that it would not be right lightly to approve an enlargement

of any school that was failing to deliver a good standard of education, I have
enquired as to which schools were in ‘special measures’ or were causing
concern in Lowestoft. Two schools are in special measures, and two are
causing concern. However, three of the schools are middle schools, which
would close under the proposals. The remaining school – which is one of
those causing concern – is a primary school, which would be enlarged from
250 to 420 places and be relocated in redundant middle school premises
under the proposals. Given the steps that the Council is taking to remedy this
school’s performance and the progress being made by an acting headteacher
who is leading the school during the substantive headteacher’s extended
illness, and given the fact that this school constitutes just one ‘piece’ in the
elaborate ‘jigsaw’ of Lowestoft school re-organisation, I believe that this one
school’s failings – temporary as they may prove to be – should not be an
impediment in approving the proposals, if it should otherwise seem right to
approve them.

25. Concerns have been expressed to me by teachers, parents and

governors about the possible loss of the expertise of the present middle
school teachers, some of whom were trained explicitly for work in middle
schools (as opposed to being trained for primary teaching or secondary
teaching) and other staff. The Council has ascertained that, if the proposals
are approved, about one third of the teaching force in middle schools would
like to move to secondary school teaching and about one third to primary
school teaching, with about one third unsure at the time of the Council’s
enquiries. The Council has agreed with stakeholder groups that governing
bodies of continuing schools should be encouraged to give priority to
displaced middle schools staff in making appointments. The practice has also
been encouraged by which a continuing school might appoint staff jointly with
a middle school, so that a newly appointed staff member would start his or her
8
appointment in the middle school and then progress to the continuing primary
or secondary school. The Council has also initiated a substantial programme
of retraining for middle school staff, for which the Council intends to pay, as
part of a package of revenue expenditure associated with the School
Organisation Review that will be borrowed from schools’ balances and repaid
as savings begin to result from the implemented results of the Review
(although supply cover costs would remain with the middle schools).

26. Taken overall, I accept the Council’s view that the proposals are likely
to have a major impact in improving the low standards of achievement and
progress that presently figure in Lowestoft.

Need for places

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

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

28. Discounting the Catholic primary school, which would remain

unchanged under the proposals, data supplied by the Council give actual or
forecast Reception Year (“YR”) numbers for the whole of Lowestoft as follows.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

858 895 870 816 847 847

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

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

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

836 844 823 795 858 895 870 816 847 847

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

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

Every Child Matters and Community and Environmental Considerations

31. In that the proposals are in general terms designed to enhance the
educational achievement of Lowestoft’s children and young people, I believe
that they have the potential to fulfil the aims of the Every Child Matters
principles. I am aware of concern on the part of some parents and others

9
about certain aspects of the proposal for a new secondary school, in terms of
children’s health and safety, however, and I will return to these issues when
considering that particular proposal. In terms of the proposed primary schools,
on the other hand, the proposals would tend to encourage children to attend
local schools for two years longer, so that travel would generally be reduced
as a result of implementation. On the other hand, the Lowestoft & Beccles
Schools’ Sport Partnership has drawn attention to the relatively high levels of
current child obesity, and has expressed concern that attention should be
given to the size of school halls in those primary schools that will continue to
function in their existing premises, particularly for Y5 and Y6 children. The
Council earlier responded to the Partnership so say that the adequacy of
existing indoor and playing field facilities would be taken into account in
further planning, and that it hoped that primary schools occupying former
middle school premises would enable other schools to share their facilities.

32. There is no reason to think that contributions to community coherence

on the part of Lowestoft’s schools or their extended schools provision would
not at least continue as at present. The Council commissioned a report
entitled ‘School Organisation Review Sustainability Appraisal (Lowestoft future
options) October 2007’. This appraisal concluded that taken overall, the
proposals ‘had a positive sustainability impact’, with some outstanding
sustainability issues remaining that could at least to some extent be mitigated.
I will, however, return to this Appraisal in considering the detail of the proposal
for a new secondary school.

Admissions arrangements

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

Issues at particular primary schools

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

35. The Council forwarded to me a letter from the governors of

Kessingland Church of England Primary School (a voluntary controlled
school) requesting an increase in their proposed admissions number from 45
to 60. The data with which I have been provided indicate that admissions to
YR have numbered 42 in each September of 2007 and 2008, and that
admissions numbers of 54, 21, 49 and 50 are forecast for 2009 to 2012,
respectively. However, the school declined my offer to visit, and explained that
they had reached an agreement with the Council about their admissions
number. They have since described the agreement they have reached with
the Council about the provision of additional accommodation.

10
36. The governors of Meadow Primary School (a community school) wrote
to me to register an objection to the proposed reduction of their admissions
number from 60 to 30, and, at the headteacher’s invitation, I included the
school in my round of visits to schools on 9th December 2008. The current
(though unsigned) Net Capacity for the school results in a net capacity for 300
children, which is the same as the maximum number of workplaces available
(excluding the nursery class provision). The maximum capacity is thus
exactly right for the present provision for five year groups (excluding the
nursery classes) of 60 children in each. However, it would be insufficient for
seven year groups of 60 children, and additional accommodation would be
needed if this size of year groups were to be maintained. The actual and
forecast numbers of admitted children are 42, 50,46, 41, 44 and 44 from 2007
to 2012, respectively, which would seem to indicate a need for admissions
numbers of around 45, which would take the total potential numbers on roll to
a little over 300. However, as the Council has pointed out, Meadow Primary
School is only a short distance from Fen Park Primary School (a community
school), which has a present capacity and admissions number of 250 and 50,
respectively, and a proposed capacity and admissions number of 420 and 60,
respectively. The Council’s proposals include relocating Fen Park School to
the premises of Kirkley Middle School, which would provide the extra capacity
that would be required for an enlargement of Fen Park School’s roll. The
governors of Fen Park School have written to register their objection to
Meadow’s objection to the proposed reduction in admissions number at
Meadow School, arguing that an enlargement of Meadow School would either
create unnecessary surplus places or else cause a reduction of provision at
Fen Park School, which would not constitute a good use of the resources of
the Kirkley Middle School premises. As to why it is Fen Park School that
should move into the middle school premises, the Council has argued in
terms of the poor condition and unsuitability of its present Victorian buildings
with limited space and scope for development, and the boost that would
accrue to a school that is causing concern (as noted above) but will shortly
have a fresh start with a new headteacher. My observation is that the
Meadow School buildings are in far better condition than those described at
Fen Park School. I therefore accept the argument for the proposals in relation
to these two schools.

37. The governors of Corton Church of England Primary School, although

they have proposed the significant changes to their school, have raised
concerns about the adequacy of the present accommodation. With three
present classrooms, they argue that they will need a further classroom, and
have suggested that the adjoining, and largely disused, village hall might be
acquired as a new school hall, leaving the present hall to become a
classroom. They would also like the Council to acquire the bowling green to
the rear of the village hall (and even closer to the school) as a play area, with
the bowling green being resited elsewhere. I have myself seen the cramped
conditions that exist at the school, and recognise the advantages that the two
sites suggested by the governors for acquisition might offer (although
attention would need to be given to the public footpath between them and the
school, which would also be needed by the school for access to them). I have
noted the semi-derelict former swimming pool structure on the school site,
which might lend itself to more useful development. The Council has in fact
11
committed a provisional sum of £319,980 to the estimated costs of extending
the school, and I am satisfied that the Council will therefore ensure that
sufficient accommodation is, by one means or another, provided.

38. Several primary schools, as well as the Lowestoft and Beccles Schools’
Sports Partnership, have raised the particular matter of the size of school
halls and playing fields (as mentioned above) to meet the needs of primary
schools after the proposed reorganisation, and I have made enquiries of the
Council. The Council has described to me the range of solutions that it
proposes, and which it says it is discussing with schools in the context of
other alterations that may be necessary for them to accommodate additional
pupils. Where halls are likely to be inadequate for school needs, particularly
for PE, the Council proposes to extend existing halls or provide dance studios
to provide additional activity areas. It is the Council’s intention that three
primary schools should in due course be rebuilt to the required specifications.
I have not been made aware of any deficiencies that should stand in the way
of the proposals being approved and implemented, provided the Council
honours its commitment to address these concerns (without necessarily in all
cases agreeing to the requests of local schools) in its detailed planning of
building works.

The proposed new secondary school

39. All the foregoing paragraphs apply, where relevant, to all the schools
that are the subject of the proposals I am considering, including the proposed
new secondary school. Here, I am considering issues that are specific to the
proposal to establish a new secondary school. The concept of a new
secondary school for the south of Lowestoft commanded a high level of
support during the Council’s consultation process.

40. No entries having been received by the date announced in the

Council’s invitation to enter its competition, the Council itself submitted a
proposal for a new secondary school, the school to provide 900 places for
boys and girls aged 11 to 16, with 180 places in each year group.

41. The Council has considered the range of present and likely specialisms
among the existing Lowestoft secondary schools, and intends that the
proposed new school should apply to be a specialist school specialising in
either science or humanities, to complement other specialist provision. I agree
with the Council that the proposed new school, as part of the shift from a
three-tier system to a two-tier system, has the potential to contribute to raising
educational standards in the town. I agree too that the proposed school could
contribute to the aims of Every Child Matters in the ways set out in the
Council’s proposal.

42. The proposal is that the new school should be a foundation school, and
join the proposed Lowestoft Learning Trust. The Council at first explained that
the proposal was for the new school to have a foundation body, within the
terms of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, but subsequently
amended their explanation to say that the it would have a foundation
established otherwise than under that Act. The Lowestoft Learning Trust
would be that foundation, and would hold the site of the school. The other
12
members of the Trust would be the three existing Lowestoft secondary
schools and two special schools, Lowestoft College, the Sixth Form Colleges’
Forum, the Council, YMCA Training, Adnams (the local brewery and hotel
company), Lifeskills Solutions, Suffolk Association of Voluntary Organisations,
University Campus Suffolk Lowestoft and Young Suffolk. The intention is that
the new sixth form college should be established by the Trust and become a
member of it. The Trust would, according to the Council’s proposal, promote:
learning within all the participating schools and colleges; community cohesion;
collaboration for the benefit or all young people; and support for economic and
physical regeneration and social inclusion. The Trust would also, in the
Council’s proposal, develop ‘an exciting and high quality 14-19 curriculum that
meets the needs of all learners in Lowestoft’.

43. The proposed Trust is intended to have charitable status, but, under
section 23 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, will not be
required to be a registered charity.

44. I am advised by the DCSF’s Guidance for Decision Makers to consider

a variety of factors in connections with proposed trusts, including the
suitability of trustees for their role. The Guidance advises that I should be
satisfied that trustees are not involved in activities relating, among other
things, to alcohol. I have therefore enquired as to the advisability of including
Adnams, as a brewing business, as a Trust member. In response, the Council
has described Adnams’s record as a ‘well-regarded local employer’ with ‘a
long record or successful work with local schools, including staff mentoring . .
and work experience and environmental projects’. The Council has pointed
out that Adnams has diversified into retail, hotels and catering, which I have
been able to verify on the Internet. The Council has told me that Adnams are
aware of the potential sensitivity of their involvement with schools, have
always ensured that this involvement is above reproach, and contribute to
projects relating to alcohol awareness. The Council has pointed out that the
proposed constitution of the Trust would enable other members to remove any
non-school member whose involvement was proving harmful to the aims of
the Trust. I believe from discussion that the Council is alert to the theoretical
risks of the inclusion of a brewing company, but that the benefits that would
accrue from the involvement of a prominent and respected local business
outweigh any risks that may be perceived. Adnams would appoint two
trustees under the Council’s proposal for the new school, and, having carefully
considered whether Adnams should be a member of the trust, I am satisfied
that their inclusion is appropriate.

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

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

13
occupied by Pakefield Middle School. This site abuts that of Pakefield
Primary School, with no fixed, physical boundary between the two. Concerns
have been expressed to me, largely but not exclusively by local residents,
about the proposed site, and I have examined plans and explored the sites
and environs of the two schools on foot on three occasions, accompanied on
the first occasion by representatives of the local residents’ action group,
“ERASE”, and representatives of the Council.

47. The Sustainability Appraisal carried out in 2007 (referred to above)

concluded that, of the Elm Tree, Gisleham and Pakefield middle school sites,
‘the Elm Tree middle site is the most sustainable option for a new upper
school in the south of Lowestoft, largely due to its more central location and
related transport, air quality and health impacts’. The report then graded the
three alternative sites as (from very positive to very negative) ++, +, 0, - or --
for twenty features with environmental impact. Although these features were
all important, those with the most direct impact for consideration of
educational provision included those emanating from travel and traffic issues.
Judged across all twenty features, Elm Tree had a cumulative score of +4,
Gisleham of - 4 and Pakefield of +2. The narrative interpretation of these
scores drew attention to the fact that preventing Gisleham being available for
housing development would preserve the local landscape, but that its out-of-
town position would reduce the contribution to children’s health that can result
from walking and cycling and increase air pollution and traffic from motor
transport. The report then recorded that, although Elm Tree scored negatively
in terms of potential archaeological damage, this could be mitigated by careful
development, and that Pakefield scored less well in terms of traffic.

48. The Council’s School Organisation Review Strategy Group commented

on the three sites in January 2008. The Group felt that the proximity of Elm
Tree to Kirkley High could encourage both positive collaboration and negative
competition in parental preference terms between the two schools; it would,
be difficult to enlarge sports facilities and playing field on the site, and was
least favoured by the Group. The Group noted the increased travel
implications of Gisleham, the scope to relocate Carlton Colville Primary
School there, but also the probable availability of additional land for enlarging
the site. In terms of Pakefield, the Group noted the possibility of federation
between the new secondary school and the primary school sharing the
campus, the limitation in playing fields area (but also that negotiations were
underway with a local football club to share its facilities), and poor access
(which might be mitigated by a new access from London Road and a bus
turnaround there). The Group also considered an alternative site at
Bloodmoor Hill, but recognised the difficulty of opening a school there in totally
new buildings in advance of the availability of capital funds from the
Government’s Building Schools for the Future (“BSF”) programme, and the
need for negotiations with the landowner and for planning permission. The
Group agreed to recommend to the Council’s Cabinet that Pakefield should be
identified as the site for the new school. The Group also recommended that
Carlton Colville Primary School should move to the Gisleham site, and that
further investigation be undertaken about the possibility of moving Elm Tree
Primary School into the Elm Tree Middle School premises.

14
49. The document issued in the course of the Council’s public consultation
from 29th October 2007 to 18th January 2008 noted all three middle school
sites as possible locations for the new school, and invited consultees to state
their first, second and third preferences between the three sites and say why
they favoured their first choices. Some of those objecting to the choice of
Pakefield Middle School as the site for the new school have drawn my
attention to the results of this questionnaire, which are to be found on the
Council’s web site, and which revealed preferences as: 353 in favour of the
Gisleham site, 244 in favour of the Elm Tree site and 208 in favour of the
Pakefield site, with 78 expressing no preference.

50. The report to the Council’s Cabinet for its meeting on 4th March 2008,
when it approved the publication of its proposals, does not seem to have
included written information about this part of the outcome of the public
consultation (apart from a brief note in a table that there was ‘greater
numerical support for Gisleham in consultation’), or about the conclusions
from the Sustainability Appraisal.

51. Among other things, the report to the Cabinet noted that it would not be
possible to meet the regulatory requirements for playing fields at any of the
three possible middle school sites. However, while Elm Tree was ‘well located
in relation to where pupils live’ there was no scope for extending the playing
fields there. Whilst there might be a possibility of extension into farmland at
Gisleham, its rural location would increase home to school journeys.
‘Pakefield is closer to the centre of its potential catchment area and there is
the possibility of meeting the playing field requirements in partnership with a
local football club.’ The report noted in an appendix that interim
accommodation would be needed, pending the arrival of BSF capital funding,
that agreement was being sought from a local football club to use its playing
field, and that there was ‘potential to seek a new site through the Local
Development Framework process for longer term use’. Pakefield was
recommended to the Cabinet, with the two other sites being used to relocate
nearby primary schools.

52. It does not appear from the report that the Cabinet was given written
information about the deep concerns raised by local residents about access
difficulties that they envisaged for the Pakefield site, once it contained the
(enlarged) primary school and the new secondary school instead of the
existing middle school. A local residents’ association has been formed to
combat what it perceived as a threat to their neighbourhood, called “ERASE” .
ERASE has been vigorous in opposing the proposal, and has sent me a
petition that was addressed to the Council and letters to support its
contentions. ERASE arranged for representatives to show me the environs of
the present middle school, made a presentation at the meeting I held for local
residents, and afterwards sent me copious papers to support their views.
ERASE has drawn attention to the network of narrow, residential roads in the
Kilbourn Road area, that serve a normally quiet community of bungalows and
small houses, many of them, particularly the bungalows in the closest vicinity
to the present entrance to Pakefield Middle School, occupied by retired
people. The residents are concerned about traffic congestion, over-parking at
the beginning and end of school days, possible devaluation to their properties
15
and the potential behaviour of older children. I have visited the middle school
site several times, and have been able to verify their concerns concerning the
present middle school.

53. The local Member of Parliament has written to express concern over
the choice of site, referring to ‘the wholly unsuitable access currently afforded
to the site via Kilbourn Road [in] a residential area which is currently very
restricted by the congestion caused by the existing school, and would not
cope with any increased traffic brought about by an increase in pupil numbers
. . . ‘. I have taken his concern into account in weighing the proposals.

54. The local residents have also drawn my attention to the access
arrangements at Pakefield Primary School, which is proposed for enlargement
under the Council’s proposals, and again I have been able to verify the
situation they have described by my own observations. The primary school
fronts on to London Road, which is, in the vicinity of the school, a no-parking
zone. Traffic has now been reduced through the opening of a relief road, and
the congestion that I observed during my first visit was probably the result of
road works on another route. It is not possible for parents or visitors to stop
their cars in the main road. Staff parking is provided at the end of a short
access drive at the side of the school, which I also understand is the identified
entry route for emergency vehicles. There is a pedestrian route to London
Road at the other side of the primary school site, which, from my
observations, seems to be used mostly by middle school children and some
parents, who cross the campus to leave it on this side.

55. The DCSF’s ‘Building Bulletin 98 recommends that between 6.08 and
6. 91 hectares (“ha”) should be provided as the total area for a secondary
school of 900 pupils, but with a ‘confined site’ requirement for between 1.04
ha and 0.85 ha. So far as playing fields are concerned, the relevant
regulations require 4.15 ha for pitches, and Building Bulletin 98 recommends
a 5.53 ha for all playing fields. None of the three potential middle school sites
for the new school could provide the total playing fields area required, with
Pakefield offering 4.9 ha, Gisleham 3.44 ha, and Elm Tree 4.53 ha (or around
5.00 ha in practice, due to an inconsistency over usage). So far as Pakefield,
as the Council’s preferred site, is concerned, the Council has opened
discussions with a local football club with a view to joint use of their pitches
about 1 kilometre away.

56. The report to the Cabinet of March 2008 stated that ‘a significant
number of children from south Lowestoft are currently travelling to Beccles for
their secondary education and there is potential for growth in the area
associated with new housing development in the area.’ It went on to state
that, ‘having reviewed the number of children living in the area, the proposed
size of the new secondary school would need to be . . . 900 children in total . .
. . This is within the County Council’s preferred range and allows scope for
later expansion if needed.’ My observation is that future enlargement to meet
either of the implied contingencies is unlikely to be possible on the Pakefield
site, particularly bearing in mind the Council’s belief that the optimum size for
secondary schools in Lowestoft is 1200 pupils.

16
57. The governors of Pakefield Primary School have written to me to
express their view that the interests of children’s education when their school
is enlarged would be best served by moving the school into the Pakefield
Middle School premises. The governors have concerns about the capacity of
their present site to accommodate the building extensions that would be
needed without compromising existing facilities, including play and parking
areas. My observation is that the primary school buildings are not ideal for
current educational use, and that a significant improvement could indeed be
achieved by moving to the Pakefield Middle School premises.

58. I have been concerned about the overall position with regard to access
to the Pakefield campus, as proposed for the site for an enlarged primary
school and the proposed secondary school. The present combined capacity
of the two Pakefield schools is for 802 (320 in the primary school and 482 in
the middle school). The proposed combined capacity is 1320 (420 in the
primary school and 900 in the secondary school). This represents an
increase of 64.6%, a proportional increase that would also apply roughly to
staff. The concern of local residents, which my observations have confirmed,
is that this increase could magnify the present difficulties about access to the
combined site, as has already been described. There could, in my view, be
risks to children’s and adults’ safety, and a serious risk to the amenities of the
local population, unless steps were to be taken to reduce these risks. The
Council has described the mitigating measures it envisages to alleviate the
access problems that would arise. It would, it says, provide additional parking
areas for staff and visitors between the two schools. It would also provide a
new road access for the proposed two schools from London Road near to the
water tower and the roundabout with the A12 road, with a pelican crossing for
children approaching on foot or by cycle from the Kessingland direction. A
new footpath would be required alongside London Road to link the pelican
crossing to the new school entrance. The Council has suggested that an
alternative existing footpath route could be used instead, but my view is that,
being more circuitous, this could lead to children risking their safety by
walking without a footpath to the new entrance, so this option is to be avoided.
It is also to be avoided on the grounds that it would not divert children from
Kilbourn Road, where residents are nervous of the impact of larger numbers
of older children approaching and leaving the new secondary school. I have
been concerned about the practicability of these proposals, their possible
dependency upon the acquisition of a small portion of land from the water
company for the short stretch of footpath that would be required, and their
acceptability to the highways and planning authorities. However, the County
Planning Officer has been able to give me oral reassurance on these points,
and my approval of the secondary school proposal will therefore be
conditional upon the provision of a safe, new access from London Road for
vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, with planning consent being granted for the
access arrangements by 30th June 2009. The County Planning Officer has
also told me that the planning department will require the submission of a
master plan of the whole site relating to the eventual full development of the
two schools on the Pakefield site before approval is given even for interim
works that require planning approval.

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

17
reached with the Kirkley and Pakefield Football Club for sufficient use of their
pitches by the new secondary school. The Council’s intention is that, with the
provision of all-weather pitches on the proposed school’s own site, the use of
the Football Club’s pitches would be limited to some matches of different
kinds. Indeed, it was clear to me from walking the route that, with an
estimated walking time of 20 minutes each way and some narrow road-side
footpaths, it would not be practicable to use the Football Club pitches for
normal curriculum purposes. Nevertheless, the new school’s facilities should
comply with the relevant regulations and guidance, and so my approval will be
conditional upon agreement with the Football Club being signed by 30th June
2009.

60. I have been concerned about the environmental impact of a larger

number of pupils and staff approaching the proposed secondary school along
Kilbourn Road and other narrow, residential roads that link to it, and the
impact of older children than attend the present middle school. I have been
reassured, however, by the intention that the proposed new London Road
access to the combined campus should include safe bicycle and pedestrian
access routes. I have been encouraged, too, by the Council’s readiness,
already demonstrated, to develop detailed plans for the campus in
consultation with local residents. I urge the Council, and the eventual
governing body for the new secondary school, to do their utmost to ensure
that as much pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic as possible is routed
through the proposed new London Road entrance to the campus.

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

Pakefield site and the opportunity for the primary school to move into the
middle school premises that would be lost if the middle school were
developed as the proposed new secondary school, I have explored other
options thoroughly, and pressed the Council to justify its preference for the
Pakefield site. I have already noted that the March 2008 report to the
Council’s Cabinet foresaw the possibility of a future need for expansion of the
proposed secondary school beyond 900 pupils, which is unlikely to be
possible on the Pakefield site. I note, below, that the report to the Cabinet
foresaw the possibility of capital funding being needed for a completely new
secondary school to be built.

62. I have visited twice the sites of Elm Tree and Gisleham Middle Schools,
which were alternative sites considered by the Council, and which won some
favour in the Sustainability Appraisal and with those who completed the
Council’s consultation survey. Neither site is of sufficient size (6.08 ha) for the
proposed secondary school and playing fields. Elm Tree Middle School
shares a site with Elm Tree Primary School, and the whole campus would
probably be around the correct minimum size if the primary school were
removed. In response to my enquiries on the subject, the Council has
demonstrated by reference to a map that there would be no suitable,
alternative site available for the primary school, and that none of the nearby
primary schools could be enlarged to provide for the displaced pupils. The
County Planning Officer has explained that, with or without the additional
primary school land, a new access would need to be created from Elm Tree
Road, with visual splays to counteract the effects of the curve in the road and
18
provision for the buses that would be needed to bring children from the
Kessingland direction, the new access thus taking an undue amount of land
from the area of the site. Although Gisleham Middle School site is smaller,
there might be scope for purchasing adjoining farmland, to provide for playing
fields and access. However, as I have seen, the surrounding lanes would be
inadequate for the buses that would be necessary to bring children from
Kessingland and also from the south of Lowestoft, and access by bicycle and
on foot would be unsafe. A difficulty would also be constituted by the fact that
fresh provision would need to be made for Carlton Colville Primary School,
located in buildings that would be inadequate for the proposed enlarged
school, and intended under the current proposals to move into the Gisleham
Middle School premises.

63. In the course of my second visit, I was able to see the overall area of
Bloodmoor Hill that had been considered by the Council’s Strategy Group.
This location, being of indefinite current size, would be suitable for the
provision of a brand new school and for its future enlargement. However, the
Council has explained that the landowner is not amenable to making land
available without a wider agreement for housing development of part of the
land, which, even if possible, could not be achieved within the timescales of
need for the proposed secondary school, and that there would be difficulty
over access of buses from Kessingland along lanes in the vicinity of Gisleham
Middle School. The Council has also expressed concern about the serious
depletion of the eventual BSF allocation (which will be pupil-numbers based)
available for works at other secondary schools in Lowestoft if the cost of a
brand new site and secondary school were first deducted. I am conscious that
the Pakefield site is unlikely to be large enough for a future enlargement of the
secondary school if a need became apparent. Indeed, even if physically
possible, I believe that such an enlargement would be inadvisable, in view of
the environmental issues that would arise for the schools, their children and
parents and local residents. However, the need for additional places is at the
moment conjectural, with, I am told, any housing development unlikely to be
of a kind to generate many children, and likely to be in the centre of Lowestoft
and not in the new school’s catchment area. So I believe the Council is right to
wish to proceed as it has proposed.

64. My conclusion, as a result of my visits and enquiries, is that the Council

has carefully considered the alternative options available for the site of the
proposed new secondary school. Although it is disappointing that, so far as I
have been able to see, the full results of preparatory surveys were not made
available to the Cabinet when it was making its decision to propose the
provision of a new secondary school on the Pakefield Middle School site,
nevertheless I have reached a conclusion that the proposal should be allowed
to stand without modification.

Buildings and Capital Funding

65. The Council’s Cabinet in March 2008 was presented with the estimated
capital implications of the whole of the School Organisation Review across
Suffolk, and an estimate of capital receipts that would be produced (which
would be ring-fenced for school developments) an capital allocations, subject

19
to DCSF agreement in relation to the BSF programme. The report described
how the likely costs of enlarging primary and secondary schools had been
estimated. In relation to Lowestoft, the report indicated a likely cost in
Lowestoft of between £7.8 m and £21.1 m (depending upon the extent of
improvement work), with the cost of the proposed new secondary school of
either £7-9 m if Pakefield Middle School were to be converted or £26.5 m if a
completely new school were to be built. The report went on to summarise the
sources of funding, as being capital receipts, DCSF allocations for school
building developments, the Primary Capital Programme, the BSF Programme
and contributions from schools from their devolved capital funds. The report
recognised that some initial capital funding would be needed for schools to be
able to accommodate extra year groups by September 2011, particularly since
the cost of a totally new secondary school could only be funded through BSF.
If the present proposal for the new secondary school were followed, then
interim works would be needed at Pakefield Middle School so that it would be
possible for Ys 7, 8 and 9 to be accommodated in September 2011, together
with Y 10 in September 2012 and Y 11 in September 2013.

66. On 22nd February 2008, the County Council approved a Resources

Budget for 2008-09, together with a Medium-Term Financial Plan. The Capital
Programme for 2008-11 included, for the Lowestoft reorganisation, total
scheme costs of £30.300m, £11.500m of this to be funded from ‘Supported
Borrowing’ and the remaining £18.800m from ‘Other (funding TBC)’.

67. In response to my enquiries, the Council has explained that, although

BSF funding is unlikely to be available before 2014-15, the proposals can in
fact be implemented without BSF funding, particularly since intake to the new
secondary school will be progressive, with only Ys 7, 8 and 9 needing to be
accommodated in 2011.

68. The Council has provided spreadsheets showing the expected costs of
works at all the continuing and ‘converted’ Lowestoft schools across the
financial years from 2008-09 to 2011-12 (and in one case beyond), with a total
budgeted cost of £37.256m (which will include the cost of providing two new
primary schools). This is intended to be forthcoming from Government grants
(including the Primary Capital Programme, Modernisation grants and grants
for Basic Need) of £10.43m, Supported Borrowing of £10.7m and Prudential
Borrowing of £16.1m, as set out on the spreadsheets. Formal approval is
expected to be given by the Council on 4th February. I am in any case
persuaded by the previously approved papers and figures that the funding for
the proposals is largely secure, and that, from a financial point of view, I can
proceed to approve them.

Conclusion

69. I have carefully considered the various linked proposals relating to the
schools of Lowestoft and a proposed new secondary school. I believe that the
Council has consulted the stakeholder groups widely and thoroughly. I am
persuaded of the value of changing from a three-tier system to a two-tier
system in terms of the likely quality of education. I have considered the
various objections that have been made to the change, and, while I

20
understand natural anxiety in the face of change, I do not believe that any of
those objections, or the sum of them, is sufficient for me to reject the
proposals. The Council has, in my view, substantiated its case for the number
of school places in the two tiers that will be needed in the foreseeable future,
and will, in the course of the proposed changes, be able to reduce surplus
capacity to a realistic level.

70. I am confident that the needs for improved accommodation at the

continuing primary schools and secondary schools will be met, albeit in stages
commensurate with the arrival of tranches of pupils and the availability of
Government grants. The site for the new secondary school has exercised me
greatly. However, through my observations and careful questioning of the
Council, as well as balancing the many representations that have been made
to me, not least by ERASE on behalf of local residents, I have satisfied myself
that the selection of the Pakefield Middle School site was a right decision.

71. I am satisfied that the financial resources to implement the proposals

are in place.

72. My approval of the proposals is conditional upon;

a. local authority planning approval for building developments

being given for work at the schools listed in my determination by the dates set
out there (which, in response to my enquiry, the Council believes are
apposite);

b. a new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian entrance to the Pakefield

schools site from London Road with an accompanying pedestrian crossing
being provided before the proposal for the new secondary school is
implemented, with local authority planning approval being given by 30th June
2009; and

c. the signing of an agreement by 30th June 2009 with the Kirkley

and Pakefield Football Club for the use of pitches by the new secondary
school.

Determination

Under the powers conferred on me by Section 21 and paragraphs 9, 10 and

17 of Schedule 2 to the Education and Inspections Act 2006, I hereby approve
the proposals as published by Suffolk County Council and the governing
bodies of Blundeston, Corton and Kessingland Church of England primary
schools on 12th September 2008, as modified by a further notice dated 18th
September.

This approval is conditional upon:

a. local authority planning approval for building developments

being given for work at the schools listed in the Annex to this
determination by the accompanying dates;

21
 b. a new vehicle, cycle and pedestrian entrance to the Pakefield
schools site from London Road with an accompanying pedestrian
crossing being provided before the proposal for the new secondary
school is implemented, with local authority planning approval being
given by 30th June 2009 for; and

c. the signing of an agreement by 30th June 2009 with the Kirkley

and Pakefield Football Club for the use of pitches by the new
secondary school.

Annex: The schools in relation to which planning approval is to be achieved

by the specified dates are: by 30th April 2009, Blundeston; by 31st May 2009,
Northfield/Poplars; by 30th June 2009, Corton, Kessingland, Fen Park/Kirkley
Middle, Grove, Gunton, Meadow, Oulton Broad, Dell, Whitton Green, Woods
Loke, Pakefield, and the new secondary school; by 30th November 2009, St
Margaret’s; by 31st December 2009, Kirkley High; by 20th December 2010,
Gisleham/Carlton Colville, Elm Tree Primary/Middle, Roman Hill; and by 31st
March 2011, Benjamin Britten/Foxborough.

Signed:

Schools Adjudicator: Canon Richard Lindley

Dated: 3 February 2008

APPENDIX to summarise the salient features of the three public notices of

11th April 2008, 12th September 2008 and 19th September 2008.

11th April 2008

Invitation for proposals to establish new secondary school on site of Pakefield

Middle School, for 900 boys and girls, with admissions number of 900 and
phases implementation between 2011 and 2013. Estimated conversion cost
of £7 m, with later inclusion in BSF to update all accommodation. Proposals to
be received by 11th August 2008.

12th September 2008

1. Prescribed alteration by changing age ranges from 01.09.10 (primary

schools) and 01.09.11 (secondary schools).

Proposed details ► Age Capacity Admissions

range number
Blundeston CE Primary 4-11 210 30
Corton CE Primary 4-11 105 15
Gunton Primary 3-11 315 45
Northfield St Nicholas Primary 3-11 420 60
Oulton Broad Primary 3-11 210 30
22
Poplars Primary 3-11 420 60
Roman Hill Primary 3-11 420 60
Somerleyton Primary 4-11 58 8
St Margaret’s Primary 3-11 420 60
Woods Loke Primary 3-11 420 60
Carlton Colville Primary 3-11 420 58*
Dell Primary 3-11 406 60*
Elm Tree Primary 4-11 420 60
Fen Park Primary 3-11 420 60
Grove Primary 3-11 315 45
Kessingland CE Primary 3-11 315 45
Meadow Primary 3-11 210 30
Pakefield Primary 3-11 420 60
Whitton Green Primary 3-11 210 30
The Benjamin Britten High 11-18 1200+161 6th Form 240
The Denes High 11-18 1200+136 6th Form 240
Kirkley High 11-18 1200+193 6th Form 240
th
* Corrected in 19 September 2008 notice, below.

2. Prescribed alteration by increasing a school’s intake by 27 or more for

the following school from 01.09.10.

Proposed details ► Capacity Admissions number

St Margaret’s Primary 420 60

3. Prescribed alteration to enlarge premises from 01.09.10 (primary

schools) and 01.09.11 (secondary schools), with proposed details as above.

4. Discontinuance of the following middle schools, from 31.08.11:

Foxborough, Lothingland, Roman Hill, Elm Tree, Gisleham, The Harris,
Kirkley, Pakefield.

5. Establishment of a new 11-16 secondary school as a foundation school

with a foundation (The Lowestoft Learning Trust) on Pakefield Middle School
site, with a science or humanities specialism, with admissions arrangements
following those for other community schools

19th September 2008

Correcting the previous notice:

Proposed details ► Age range Capacity Admissions number
Carlton Colville Primary 3-11 420 60
Dell Primary 3-11 406 58

23