Agenda item

1.         Mrs White and Mr Shovelton introduced the report and explained that the reason for the proposed expansion was the demand for school places.  Unfortunately there was insufficient room to expand at the current site and relocation was therefore required.  The response to the consultation had been largely positive, but strong objections had been raised.

2.         In discussion, Members made the following comments:-

a)         an objection on planning grounds was raised to the proposed relocation of the school;

b)         in response to a question about the need for expansion and the site chosen for it, Mrs White explained that, to address Sittingbourne’s growing population, a feasibility study into expanding several local schools was carried out. Sites at Eden Park and Stones Farm had previously been considered, but then pupil numbers had not justified the County Council purchasing either of these. As well as being too small to accommodate the necessary expansion, the current Tunstall School site was in the shared ownership of the Diocesan office and a local landowner. There was currently pressure on school places in South Sittingbourne, and although Westlands had recently expanded, it had not been possible to expand at Rodmersham, due to objections from the Governors of the school. A possible site for the expansion of Tunstall School had been the playing field at Fulston Manor School. A feasibility study had been undertaken but had not progressed as the site was compromised in terms of highway access (sharing the Ruins Barn Road with Kent Science Park) and the County Council would have had to purchase the land;

c)         a comment was made that it was good that south Sittingbourne schools were filling their own school places rather than drawing children from north Sittingbourne.  The fact that a village would be retaining its own school was supported by several speakers;

d)         in response to a question about the likely outcome, if the expansion were not to go ahead, Mrs White explained that the school was likely to have to reduce to ½FE. This would put pressure on other schools in the area which were already full, and a school operating at ½FE would be vulnerable.  Mr Leeson added that schools taking ½FE had historically had problems delivering a curriculum and had to federate themselves to remain viable;

e)         concern was expressed that the expansion of Tunstall school would attract children to it from other areas of Sittingbourne; and

f)          one Member, who had taken part in the consultation, reassured the Committee that the Strategy Group on which he had served had been involved in public meetings in 2013 at which the ideas and options had been examined. 

3.         The recommendations in the report were then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED that:-

a)         the Education Cabinet Committee endorse the decision proposed to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Education and Health Reform, to issue a public notice to relocate and expand Tunstall CE Primary School by 210 places, from 1FE (30) to 2FE (60);

carried by 7 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions

   b)         and, subject to no objections being received to the public notice:

                  (i)         relocate and expand the school;

(ii)        allocate £4,818,000 from the Education, Learning and Skills Capital Budget;

                  (iii)       authorise the Director of Property and Infrastructure Support, in consultation with the Director of Governance and Law, to enter into any necessary contracts/agreements on behalf of the County Council; and

                  (iv)       authorise the Director of Property and Infrastructure Support to be the nominated Authority Representative within the relevant agreements and to enter into variations as envisaged under the contracts.

carried by 7 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions