Agenda item

1. Mrs Fordham summarised that the report set out the outcomes of consultation on admission arrangements for primary and secondary schools for 2027–28 and the proposed determinations, including oversubscription criteria and published admission numbers (PANs) for community and voluntary controlled schools.

2. Mr Chapman explained that Kent County Council was responsible for co?ordinating admissions and acting as the admission authority for community and voluntary controlled schools under the School Admissions Code, which had remained largely unchanged since 2014. He advised that the Code required an admissions scheme setting out processes and timelines and determined admission arrangements for each school for which the Council was the admission authority, including oversubscription criteria and PANs. He confirmed that the Kent schemes for secondary, primary, infant and junior admissions remained broadly unchanged apart from updates to dates and that oversubscription criteria continued to prioritise looked after and previously looked after children, siblings, children with particular needs and then distance. He highlighted proposed PAN reductions at four primary schools and one junior school, driven by forecast lower demand to prevent excess capacity and financial instability. He explained that PANs could be increased at allocation if demand rose, but could not be reduced once places had been advertised.

3. In response to comments and questions it was said:
   1. Mr Adams explained that the Commissioning Plan showed reduced demand in certain planning areas, including some South Kent and coastal locations. He cited Hythe Bay as an example where the PAN had already been reduced from 60 to 45 and was proposed to reduce further to 30, yet the school had received only 19 applications. Reducing PANs helped avoid situations where many schools in an area had to restructure due to low numbers.
   2. A Member asked for information on the number of places reserved in grammar schools for pupils from poorer backgrounds. Mr Chapman confirmed that all grammar schools now offered places for such pupils and the detailed figures would be circulated outside the meeting.
   3. A Member queried whether there were any significant changes in the admissions process beyond changes to numbers. Mr Chapman confirmed that the overall process remained stable locally and nationally, with no major changes proposed.
   4. A question was asked about planning for substantial population growth and housing development in areas such as Dartford, and how places were allocated between long-standing residents and families moving into new developments. Mr Adams outlined the annual Commissioning Plan for Education Provision, which drew on pupil forecasting at district and planning?area level, considering migration trends and consented housing developments within a five?year period. He explained that the Plan identified gaps between forecast demand and existing capacity across primary, secondary, post?16 and SEND provision. The Council worked with district councils on local plans and Section 106 agreements to secure sites and developer contributions, and that the Plan provided transparency for Members, the public and prospective school providers. Mr Chapman clarified that the Admissions Code did not permit priority based on length of residence, and that oversubscription criteria had to be fair and consistent, though they could prioritise defined local areas or siblings. He added that Kent also scrutinised the admission arrangements of own admission authority schools to ensure compliance.
   5. A Member asked about the adequacy of local school places in Thanet and whether families were generally able to secure their preferred schools. Mr Chapman advised that there were no particular concerns about Thanet, preference data suggested that most families were obtaining suitable places.

RESOLVED that the Committee considered and endorsed the proposed decision.