Agenda item

1. Mrs Fordham introduced the proposal, explaining that it formed part of forward planning to meet increased demand arising from housing growth in Paddock Wood. 

2. Mr Abrahams, Assistant Director of Education (West Kent), outlined demographic evidence, consultation feedback and the rationale for progressing to the next stage of planning. He explained that the decision sought approval to proceed with statutory processes and detailed design, with a further decision to be brought back to the Committee. 

3. In response to comments and questions it was said: 

a.    Mr Abrahams explained that pupil forecasts were based on actual preschool population data rather than hypothetical projections. He advised that the number of children living in Paddock Wood had increased steadily and that evidence showed continued growth linked to completed housing developments. 

b.    Members were advised that the Department for Education had approved a free school for Paddock Wood in 2013, based on increasing parental choice rather than identified basic need. Concerns raised by KCC regarding timing led to repeated delays, and the scheme subsequently fell out of the DfE programme. It was explained that, although KCC would forward fund the project, costs would be recovered over time through basic need grant funding and were reflected within the capital programme. 

c.    Mr Abrahams clarified that while birth rates across the wider borough had declined, Paddock Wood represented a distinct community with different demographic trends, driven by inward migration and new housing. 

d.    It was explained that timing was critical and that the proposal sought approval only to proceed to the next stage of planning. Members were advised that the anticipated governance process would involve a further decision being brought to the Committee at its September meeting, following which a final decision on the school opening will be taken by the Secretary of State, expected around Christmas 2026. The current programme anticipated the school being in September 2028 with an initial reception cohort.  

e.    Mr Abrahams outlined how the Council had engaged with local schools and the Diocese through informal consultation and meetings. He acknowledged concerns about potential impact on neighbouring schools and explained that forecasts accounted for existing travel patterns and parental preference. 

f.     Officers explained that the school would be designed to open in phases, initially admitting a single form of entry, with capacity to expand to take two forms of entry and up to 420 children in the future, subject to future decisions. This approach would allow flexibility and help mitigate risks associated with over?provision. 

g.    Mr Abrahams confirmed that infrastructure considerations, including transport, highways impact, walking routes and community use of facilities, would be addressed during the detailed design stage and through statutory consultation. 

h.    Mr Abrahams advised that all new schools were established as academy trusts, with the County Council not acting as the employer of staff. He explained that the specific trust had yet to be identified and would be selected through the presumption process, after which the appointed trust would assume responsibility for staffing. While acknowledging potential recruitment challenges in some areas, he reported that trusts had generally been successful in recruiting staff. 

i.      In response to a question regarding accountability is where academies failed, Mr Adams advised that academies were not the responsibility of KCC. Responsibility rested with the Secretary of State through the contractual agreement between the Academy and the Department for Education, with intervention undertaken by the regional commissioner where necessary. 

RESOLVED that the Committee considered and endorsed the proposed decision.