Minutes of the Presentation / Information Session on the Proposed - - PDF document

Minutes of the Presentation / Information Session on the Proposed Extension to St. Helen’s Church of England Primary School Wednesday, 28 November 2012 17:00 – 18:00 Presenting the information: Mrs Zoe Batten – Headteacher

• Mrs. Lucy Meardon – Chair of Governors
• Mrs. Gill Marlow – Vice Chair of Governors
• Mr. Paul Jarrett – School Governor

Mrs Mary Pearson – School Governor

• Mrs. Batten welcomed parents and members of the community to the meeting invited the panel to

introduce themselves to the audience.

• Mrs. Batten informed the audience that the Clerk to Governors will be taking minutes of aspects of

the presentation and the entire question and answer sessions, and the minutes of this meeting will be made available to the public.

• Mrs. Batten presented the following information.

 The vision of the school and the GB is to become a ‘one-form entry’ school. This will increase the size of the school and provide greater opportunities for children.  It is hoped that expansion will facilitate better transition for children from class to class within the primary school environment and a more seamless transition to secondary school for Year 6 children.  It is hoped that expansion will allow school to further develop the Christian identity of the school and embed the school’s ethos and culture more deeply.  The proposed expansion is also aimed at meeting the needs of the local community which will be subject to increased pressure for school places within the next year due to proposed local housing development. It is hoped that expansion will meet future needs and improving current provision.  The Current government agenda suggests that it makes more sense to expand existing schools rather than build new schools.  Two new classrooms at St. Helen’s would also provide opportunity to attract additional teaching staff to the school to complement the existing skilled practitioners.  The expansion will also provide the school with additional resource space in terms of work spaces for group work, meetings and multi-agency consultations.  It is hoped that expansion will also facilitate greater development of the school grounds to turn the area into an outdoor learning environment.

 Expansion of the school will also provide greater opportunity for teachers’ professional development.  Small schools are increasingly vulnerable due to year-on-year budget cuts and the current government proposals are to cut between 1 and 1.5% from school budgets each year.  Schools are not in a position to stand still, and it is essential to build sustainability for the future.  In July 2013 St. Helen’s will lose a large cohort of Year 6 children, and this will leave the school financially vulnerable if a similar number of children are not admitted in September 2013 into lower year groups.  It is not a fait accompli that the building work will go ahead. However, Devon County Council (DCC) has identified the school as having capacity to grow. The Diocese of Exeter are supporting the planned growth of the school and have drawn up the plans for the building extension which is to build two new classrooms, additional resources space, additional car parking and further playground space.  School is currently engaged in the process of applying to the council for funding for the build.  It is planned that the Planned Admission Number for the Reception cohort will increase from 20 to 30 as a result of expansion. School is facing challenges: Funding / Planning – School is working with DCC and the Diocese of Exeter on these matters. Travel Plan – school and the GB has deliberated at length to try and ensure safe, sociable solutions to parental parking at the beginning and end of the school day. Creating a sustainable future – school is using the current government agenda as an opportunity to provide long-term, sustainable solutions to continue to develop the educational opportunities

• ffered to the children at St. Helen’s.
• Mrs. Batten invited questions from the floor.

Further information on the travel plan ideas was requested.

• Mrs. Marlow responded that as a local resident she is acutely aware of the problems with parking at

the beginning and end of the school day. Some improvements are being discussed:  The existing mound in front of the school and some of the verge will be removed which will increase staff parking area to 23 spaces (an additional 17). This would move all staff parking to the top car park. The bottom car park will be offered to the pre-school staff. It is felt that this would begin to impact on the parking on the road.  Further investigate the possibility of a walking bus, but this would need to be run by volunteers.  Promote ‘car-sharing’ to families – this is a possibility that will be investigated further.  The development will include passing places on the school drive and a barrier between the pavement and the drive would hopefully enable parents to drop children at the gate by car.

 Approach DCC Highways with a view to building a pavement along the main road towards Arther’s Lea (same side of the road as the school building). This would enable safer parking.  Possibility of a lollipop crossing; this would need to be staffed by volunteers; this would allow parents to safely drop children on the road outside the school.  Breakfast club is already operational at the school.  Ideas of the school having a staggered start and finish time are being debated; it is acknowledged that this has pros and cons.  It was suggested that the pre-school has a staggered start; at the moment the village pre- school are not in agreement with this idea.  Approach DCC Highways for a pavement from the Londonderry area – this may come to fruition if the proposed building on the Grenville College site goes ahead.  Investigate a possible bus service from the Londonderry development – this was felt to be unlikely.  GM invited parental suggestions on this subject. A question was asked as to where the walking bus could run from.

• Mrs. Marlow responded that the local publican has given consent for the pub car-park to be used,
• therwise the lay-by at the top of the village.

A question was asked regarding the funding ratio between the LEA and the Diocese was requested.

• Mr. Jarrett responded that it hoped that the LEA would fully fund the new build and that the Diocese

would fund some softer aspects of the proposed development. The rough ratio is expected to be 90% LEA and 10% Diocese. A question was asked if there would be a maximum number of additional pupil places.

• Mrs. Batten responded that Key Stage 1 class size legislation states that these classes must be

capped at 30, but that Key Stage 2 classes do not have an upper limit. It is anticipated that the number of additional children would be 60 across the two classes. A question was asked as to whether the LEA is happy to fund this on the basis that the children would come from areas which could detract from admissions at other local schools.

• Mrs. Batten responded that there are children living in the catchment area who cannot be admitted

into the school.

• Mrs. Meardon stated that the LEA have advised that the increased local housing development will

put pressure onto the total number of school places which are available in the local area.

A question was asked as to which local schools the children who would come from the new developments would normally attend. The panel agreed that these are likely to be from other Bideford schools, but it was reiterated that DCC have suggested that there is insufficient capacity in the area to accommodate all potential additional children in the area in existing school places. A question was asked as to how many children living in the catchment area attend the school. The panel agreed that this figure could be investigated, but was not available at this meeting. A question was asked as to why there are children living in the catchment area that are not able to be admitted to the school, and why they do not take precedence over children from outside of the area.

• Mrs. Batten responded that the reason for this is that these children did not apply for admission at

the time of the Reception intake, and the appropriate year groups are now full. A question was asked as to whether the catchment area would change as a result of expansion.

• Mrs. Marlow responded that this will not be a feature of expansion.

A question was asked regarding the current storage facilities for coats at school, and whether the proposed extension would include cloakroom areas.

• Mr. Jarrett responded that the plans are considering issues of storage.

A current parent requested that school provide justification as to how it can argue that it is currently ‘under threat’ at the same time as proposing expansion, and in the event that it is also proposed that there will be joint working with Instow Community Primary School that will require

• Mrs. Batten to spend some time off-site. The parent felt that this was of concern.
• Mrs. Batten responded that St. Helen’s has large cohorts of pupils leaving in the next two years

which will not be replaced with the current planned admissions number for Reception children.

• Mrs. Batten stated that with regard to a possible federation between St. Helen’s and Instow

Community Primary School this will be subject to a full parental consultation, and issues will be considered in full detail at future information sessions. A question was asked regarding the staffing levels for classes if the proposed expansion is agreed.

• Mrs. Batten responded that additional staff would be recruited to staff new classrooms and would

not take staff away from other classes. It is envisaged that the additional staff will be recruited in

• rder to meet school need for capacity on certain areas.

A question was asked regarding the criteria used for admission to St Helen’s.

• Mrs. Marlow detailed the over-subscription criteria which are published within the school’s

Admission Policy.