Appendix 1: Proposal to expand Ravenor Primary ... - Ealing Council

places in light of the cancellation of the BSF programme and the forthcomingoutcome of the James Review on future School Capital Spending.The expansion proposals would support the LA’s strategy for making schoolsand settings more accessible to disabled children and young people and theirscheme for promoting equality of opportunity for disabled people. In particularany new facilities will be fully accessible for those with disabilities and workswill be undertaken to bring existing school buildings up to standard in terms ofaccessibility.All schools will continue to take full account of educational considerations, inparticular the need to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum, including theNational Curriculum, within a learning environment in which children can behealthy and stay safe.OTHER ISSUESViews of Interested PartiesMembers should consider the views of all those affected by the proposals orhave an interest in them including pupils, families of pupils, staff, otherschools and colleges etc including representations made during the statutoryconsultation period. Members should not simply take account of the numbersof people expressing a particular view when considering representationsmade on proposals. Instead Members should give the greatest weight torepresentations from those stakeholders likely to be most directly affected bythe proposals.Details of previous consultations are included in the full proposals andappendices.During the statutory consultation the LA received 25 responses. Table 1below shows the breakdown of responses:Table 1: Breakdown of responses (Ravenor consultation)For Against Not sureParents 14(70%)5 (25%)(1 also selected ‘resident’)1 (5%)Pupils 0 1 (100%) (also selected‘resident’ and ‘parent/carer’)Residents 0 2 (40%) 3 (60%)Member of staff 1(100%)Total individualresponses0 015(60%) 6(24%) 4(16%)05

The majority were in favour 15 (60%). The minority 6 (24%) who were againstexpressed concerns about traffic congestions, the size of the site and how theschool ethos and culture could be maintained with more pupils. Theremaining 4 respondents (16%) were not sure whether they were in favour oragainst the proposal. The Headteacher and governing body support theproposal and believe that:“The strength of the school is that it includes all members of thecommunity in its vision and the school's ethos extends to everyindividual and their family. The Governors and Senior Team supportthe proposal and view the extension to the facilities as an excitingopportunity for all connected with the school.”The full representations are shown in Appendix 6. Letters received areattached as Appendix 7.Local Authority response to issues raised by interested partiesTravel:The school census in January 2010 indicated that 287 (80%) of pupils walkedto school, 60 (17%) came by car and 11 (3%) came by bus. As part of thestatutory planning process, we will work the school to update its School TravelPlan and seek to further reduce travel by car.Traffic, congestion, safe drop-off and parking:Where traffic issues are identified we will work closely with Highways toimplement enforcement where appropriate.The numbers of car parking spaces for staff and visitors are limited byplanning guidance. In consultation with the Planners, a daytime parking beatsurvey may be undertaken of the surrounding streets.Access for All:A shortfall of school places generally impacts most on families who do not, orare unable, to participate in the normal admissions process. Late applicantstend to be disadvantaged or vulnerable families, leaving them at a greater riskof not receiving a school place at a preferred school.Pressure on external space:The feasibility studies undertaken on the schools indicate that they can all beexpanded and would still meet the DfE site area guidance (BB99). This isbased on the guidance for schools on a confined site, but most schools inEaling, and indeed in London, would similarly be deemed to be on a confinedsite.It should be noted that the regulations recognize that team game playingfields need not be located within the school site on the proviso that any offsiteprovision is capable of sustaining the playing of team games by pupils.SummaryIn summary, on considering the balance of the factors and issues expressedby all parties, the recommendation is that Members approve the proposal,6

subject to the council being able to respond adequately to the issues raisedduring the statutory planning process.7

Appendix 2: Proposal to expand St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School(by increasing the school’s Published Admission Number by 30 pupils, toadmit 90 pupils into each reception year from September 2012 (proposal b. ofthe recommendations)EFFECT ON STANDARDS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTA System Shaped by ParentsThe EIA 2006 amends the Education Act 1996 to place duties on LAs tosecure diversity in the provision of schools and to increase opportunities forparental choice when planning the provision of schools in their areas. Inaddition, LAs are under a specific duty to respond to representations fromparents about the provision of schools, including requests to establish newschools or make changes to existing schools. Cabinet should take intoaccount the extent to which the proposal is consistent with these duties.The proposal to expand St Gregory’s Catholic primary school is one whichcontributes to meeting demand for places in the local area. The proposal alsocontributes to meeting demand for Catholic school places, in response toevidence obtained from Diocesan Baptismal records, indicating a significantgrowth in the number of Baptised Catholics in the Ealing Deanery. In 2004there were 585 baptisms rising to 790 in 2009. This is a 35% increase.Expanding the school increases choice for the growing Catholic population inEaling.StandardsCabinet should be satisfied that proposals for school expansion will contributeto raising local standards of provision and will lead to improved attainment forchildren. They should pay particular attention to the effects on groups thattend to under perform.Satisfactory OfSTED (October 2007); attainment above average; progressalso above average.The school support the proposals and does not feel that expansion wouldhave a detrimental effect on standards.By expanding the school through significant investment in buildings, theschool will be able to extend their school in ways that are tailored to the needsof the pupils, parents, and local communities and improve facilities for all.DiversityCabinet should consider how proposals will contribute to local diversity. Theyshould consider the range of schools in the relevant area of the LA andwhether the expansion of the school will meet the aspirations of parents, helpraise standards and narrow attainment gaps.The proposals will contribute to local diversity. Since 2008, the Council haveagreed to expand various types of primary schools, adding the followingprovision:8

• 7½FE to community schools• 1½FE to foundation schools (including Brentside primary school whichhas expanded by ½ FE and at the time of agreement was a communityschool, but is now foundation)• 1FE to the West London Academy. The DfE have agreed thisexpansion and it is subject to planning permission being granted.These latest proposals are to expand two VA schools (St Saviour’s and ChristChurch and St Gregory’s) and a community school (Ravenor).The Council have expanded schools in response to where demand is as wellas where schools have felt that expansion of provision would meet theaspirations of parents, help raise local standards and narrow attainment gapsEvery Child MattersCabinet should consider how the proposals will help every child and youngperson meet their potential in accordance with the following principles, behealthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a a positive contribution andachieve economic well-being. This should include considering how the theschool will provide a wide range of extended services, opportunities forpersonal development, measures to address to support in participation andsupport for children with particular needs (e.g. looked after children or childrenwith SEN and disabilities).The school will build on current good practice to enable children to be healthy,stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution to community andsociety and achieve economic well being. Please refer to page 8 of the reportfor more information on the provision of extended services.SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICSEqual Opportunity IssuesCabinet should consider whether there are any sex, race or disabilitydiscrimination issues that arise from the changes being proposed and thedegree to which the proposals provide access to a range of opportunitieswhich reflect the ethnic and cultural mix of the area, while ensuring that suchopportunities are open for all.All Ealing primary schools have a mixed gender intake. The school is a mixedgender voluntary aided Catholic school without a designated catchment area,but uses Parish boundaries to prioritise applicants from within the parish. Byexpanding a range of provision (community, foundation, voluntary aided andacademy) the Council is looking to ensure that a wide range of provision isavailable to reflect the ethnic and cultural mix of the area, while ensuring thatsuch opportunities are open to all.In addition to the proposals to expand Ravenor, St Gregory’s and St Saviour’sand Christ Church, the council supported the creation of a new Sikh primaryschool in the borough which opened in September 2009, this was in responseto the aspirations of local Sikh families.9

NEED FOR PLACESCreating Additional PlacesCabinet should consider whether there is a need for expansion and take intoaccount not only the existence of spare capacity in neighbouring schools butalso the quality and popularity with parents of the schools in which sparecapacity exists. Where the school has a religious character of follows aparticular philosophy should be satisfied that there is satisfactory evidence ofsufficient demand for places at the expanded school to be sustainable.Births data from the ONS show that there were 5,548 births in Ealing in theschool year 2008/9. As this figure was similar to the 2007/8 school year(5,578) there was some indication that births increases might have begun tolevel off.This does not however now seem to be the case, as early indications fromONS are that for the school year 2009/10 there were at least 5,741 births inthe borough, a further significant increase. Births in the borough are now1,350 higher than they were at the start of the decade (4,391 in 2001/02).The need for additional school places has been frequently documented inreports to both Cabinet and the Education and Childen's Services StandingScrutiny Panel in the last couple of years, the most recent report to Cabinetwas on 21 December 2010 and it details the need for additional primaryschool, high school, 6 th form and SEN places in the borough.St Gregory’s falls within the Ealing quadrant, where births rose 24.1% from1350 in 2003/04 to 1,675 in 2009/10. For the North and South Ealing areascombined the projected increase in reception classes required is in a rangebetween 12FE and 14FE by 2014.In terms of demand for Catholic places, there has been a 35% increase inbaptisms in Ealing between 2004 and 2009 (from 585 in 2004 to 790 in 2009).This supports the expansion of St Gregory’s Catholic Primary and also theplans that the Diocese of Westminster are developing for a new 2FE CatholicPrimary School in West Acton.The proposal to expand St Gregory’s Primary School would help meet theprojected demand for places in the Ealing Quadrant.Expansion of Successful and Popular SchoolsThe presumption is in favour of the expansion of successful and popularschools. It is for the Decision Maker to decide whether a school is successfuland popular taking into all the following indicators:Schools performanceSt Gregory’s Primary School was awarded a grade of “satisfactory” for its lastOfsted inspection in October 2007. Its 2009 contextual value added (CVA)score was 101.6, which put it in the top 5% of schools nationally for contextualvalue added. In the 2010 Key Stage 2 tests 90% of pupils10

attained both English and Maths at Level 4+.Number of applications for placesThe school has historically been very popular but demand for places hasincreased significantly in the past few years. In the admissions round for2009 for St Gregory’s there were 104 on time applications for 60 places. 101of these applicants were from Catholic families. For September 2010 therewere 138 on time Catholic applicants.For admissions to reception in September 2010, 84 out of the 90 new pupilsat St Gregory’s live within statutory walking distance (2 miles) of the schoolbeyond which the council is required to provide free transport.Compliance with the School Admissions CodeThe Council confirms that the admission arrangements of St Gregory’s fullymeet the provisions of the School Admissions Code.Travel and Accessibility for AllIn considering statutory proposals, Members should satisfy themselves thataccessibility planning has been properly taken into account. Facilities are tobe accessible to all those concerned by being located close to all those whouse them and the proposed changes should not adversely impact ondisadvantaged groups.Members should bear in mind that proposals should not have the effect ofunreasonably extending journey times or increasing transport costs, or resultin too many children being prevented from travelling sustainably dueto unsuitable routes. Proposals should also be considered on the basis of howthey will support and contribute to the LA’s duty to promote the use ofsustainable travel and transport to school.By expanding schools in areas of increased demand for school places (aspreviously explained) the Council aims to locate primary school places closeto those that will use them and the proposals should not adversely impact ondisadvantaged groups and should continue to encourage the use ofsustainable travel and transport to school. (See also the ‘views of interestedparties’ section)FUNDING AND LANDCapitalMembers should be satisfied that any land, premises, or capital required toimplement the proposals will be available. The proposal is to be implementedon existing sites. Capital is being provided through the Council’s approvedPrimary Capital Programme.The Council will continue to bid for capital funding from the Department forEducation for future years of the capital programme.11

Capital ReceiptsThe proposal is not dependent on receiving capital receipts from the disposalof land.New Site or Playing FieldsThe proposal is not dependent on the acquisition of new sites or playing fieldsas the site is of sufficient size to meet the DfE guidance for confined sites.Land Tenure ArrangementsNot applicable as there are no proposed site acquisition.School Playing FieldsThe minimum team game playing field requirements of the Education (SchoolPremises) Regulations 1999 can be met through a combination of on and offsite provision.SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS (SEN) PROVISIONThere are no proposals for specific SEN provision to be included in theseexpansion plans. The Council is reviewing its expansion plans for SENschool places in light of the cancellation of the BSF programme and theforthcoming outcome of the James Review on future School CapitalSpending.The expansion proposals would support the LA’s strategy for making schoolsand settings more accessible to disabled children and young people and theirscheme for promoting equality of opportunity for disabled people. In particularany new facilities will be fully accessible for those with disabilities and workswill be undertaken to bring existing school buildings up to standard in terms ofaccessibility.All schools will continue to take full account of educational considerations, inparticular the need to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum, including theNational Curriculum, within a learning environment in which children can behealthy and stay safe.OTHER ISSUESViews of Interested PartiesMembers should consider the views of all those affected by the proposals orhave an interest in them including pupils, families of pupils, staff, otherschools and colleges etc including representations made during the statutoryconsultation period. Members should not simply take account of the numbersof people expressing a particular view when considering representationsmade on proposals. Instead Members should give the greatest weight torepresentations from those stakeholders likely to be most directly affected bythe proposals.Details of previous consultations are included in the full proposals andappendices.12

During the statutory consultation, there were a total of 174 responses andalso 15 written representations (attached as Appendix 7). Table 1 belowshows a breakdown of responses:Table 1: Breakdown of responses (St Gregory’s consultation)For Against Not sureParents 28 (33%) 47 (56%) 9 (11%)Pupils 0 1 (50%) 1 (50%)Residents 4 (5%)76 (90%) 4 (5%)(including 2 who alsoselected ‘parent/carer’)Staff 17 (100%) 0 0Total individualresponses47 (27%) 115 (66%) 12 (7%)(including 2 who alsoselected ‘parent/carer’)Questionnaire responses show that a clear majority of residents are againstthe proposal, with a smaller majority of parents opposed to the proposal. Allstaff respondents (17 individual responses) support the proposal. Two pupilsresponded to the questionnaire, with 1 not sure and 1 opposed.The main reasons expressed by residents against expansion were; increasedtraffic including the distance children travel to reach the school, congestion,safe drop-off and parking; pressure on external space; disruption duringconstruction, and environmental issues including trees, the conservation area,noise, light pollution, flooding and drainage. These are valid concerns and itwill be important for these to be addressed during the planning process, forthis reason, should members wish to approve the expansion of the school, itshould be conditional on obtaining planning permission (as stated in therecommendations).Some had concerns about whether the school would have adequate revenuefunding to support the expansion. Ealing has a number of 3FE schools andfunding is adequate to support this number of pupils. It is not envisaged thata lack of revenue funding will be an issue.A frequently mentioned reason against expansion as ‘any other comments’was that expansion would not meet a local demand and that the current‘bulge’ class in reception are ‘out of catchment’. Please refer to the ‘need forplaces’ and ‘expansion of successful and popular schools’ sections above.The main reasons expressed by parents against expansion were; trafficcongestion, that the school has enough pupils already, that expansion wouldhave a negative effect on the schools culture/ ethos and disruption duringbuilding works.The proposals have the support of the Head teacher and governing body whostate:13

“The strength of the school is that it includes all members of thecommunity in its vision and the school's catholic ethos extends to everyindividual and their family. We realise this by working together andthrough living our faith. The Governors and Senior Team support theproposal and view the extension to the facilities as an excitingopportunity for all connected with the school.”The supportive responses from the consultation cited the need for places,more pupils in the local area being able to benefit from a Catholic education,the need for investment in the facilities of the school and the potentialimprovement of education facilities for all pupils.The full representations received in response to the proposal are attached asappendix 6, with all letters and emails received included as appendix 7.Local Authority response to issues raised by interested partiesTravel:The school census in January 2010 indicated that 308 pupils (66%) walked toschool, 126 (27%) came by car, 16 (4%) came by bus and 13 (3%) cycled.As part of the statutory planning process, we will work the school to updatetheir School Travel Plan and seek to further reduce travel by car.In addition, St Gregory’s carried out a ‘hands-up’ winter travel survey onTuesday 7 December 2010 of pupils and staff, asking how they travelled toschool that day. This indicated that 45% of pupils had walked to school, 32%had come by car and the remaining 23% came by other means. The majorityof staff drove to school, with 43% coming by car. The full details are shown inappendix 8.Traffic, congestion, safe drop-off and parking:As part of the planning process a detailed traffic assessment will beundertaken (including a daytime parking beat of surrounding streets). Wheretraffic issues are identified we will work closely with Highways to implementenforcement where appropriate.The numbers of car parking spaces for staff and visitors are limited byplanning guidance.Access for All:A shortfall of school places generally impacts most on families who do not, orare unable, to participate in the normal admissions process. Late applicantstend to be disadvantaged or vulnerable families, leaving them at a greater riskof not receiving a school place at a preferred school.Pressure on external space:The feasibility studies undertaken on the schools indicate that they can all beexpanded and would still meet the DfE site area guidance (BB99). This isbased on the guidance for schools on a confined site, but most schools inEaling, and indeed in London, would similarly be deemed to be on a confinedsite.14

It should be noted that the regulations recognize that team game playingfields need not be located within the school site on the proviso that any offsiteprovision is capable of sustaining the playing of team games by pupils.Disruption during construction:The LA and its partners have become very experienced in building and remodellingwork in our primary schools over the past few years. The healthand safety of pupils, local residents and others during any construction periodis the priority. Construction compounds are carefully designed to ensurebuilding work is kept safely separated. Periods when the school is not in fulluse are used as much as possible for the undertaking of more noisy work,including any demolition work. We would expect contractors to haveexperience of working closely and effectively with school management. Allcontractors are required to work in full accordance with the Council’s “Code ofPractice and Guidance Notes on health and safety for Contractors Working inSchool Sites”. Construction traffic will be strictly controlled in terms of size ofdelivery vehicles and deliveries to and collections from site will be limited toagreed time slots.In order to allay residents' concerns regarding contractor traffic and parkingmanagement, it is proposed that the Contractor will be required to provide apermanently manned control point at Westmoreland Place to control allconstruction traffic during site working hours.Environmental concernsThe council acknowledges that major development proposals raise complexplanning issues. Environmental concerns will be dealt through the statutoryplanning process. To facilitate this, the council operates a structured preapplicationservice. This service enables the council to become more activelyinvolved in planning applications at an early stage. The planning officer canliase with the following departments:• policy• highways• housing• urban design/conservation• trees• environmental health• crime preventionThe following steps have been taken in order to take on residents' views whenconsidering the design and construction proposals: -Flooding - some residents were concerned that the development wouldincrease the risk of water run off flooding from the school field. DHP propertyconsultants have designed a water attenuation system, which wouldsignificantly reduce the amount of water draining across the field. Rainwatercollected from 2174m2 of site, which currently drains directly onto the fieldwould, after development, be fed into the water authorities surface waterdrainage system via a new attenuation system.15

Trees - Residents have expressed concerns that trees would be lost as aresult of the development. DHP has designed a scheme that would ensurethat all significant trees are retained untouched (three small saplings would beremoved near the current school kitchen) and that 24 new trees would beplanted, together with an extensive soft landscaping enhancement scheme.When the statutory planning application is made the Planning officer willconsider planning-related responses in the following areas:• design and layout• external appearance and materials• access for disabled people• loss of daylight, sunlight and privacy of neighbours• noise nuisance• traffic and parking issues• loss of, or an increase in, a particular type of use of landSchool standards – A few comments were received which commented on theschool standards and that the school has recently come out of a ‘specialmeasures’ Ofsted category. The school was deemed inadequate in 2005,and since then a new Headteacher has been appointed (in 2006) and theschool’s last Ofsted report, in October 2007, judged the school to besatisfactory overall. The school are confident that they are in a good positionto expand, both in terms of demand for school places and having a strongleadership team in place, as well as the opportunity for improvements to theschool to be made for all pupils.SummaryStatement from St Gregory’s Governing Body:“St. Gregory's governing body has been concerned for some time thatthey would be unable to continue to meet the demand for places in theschool from local Catholic children. This concern arose from anawareness of the likely increase in the local population. This wasbacked up by evidence provided by the Local Authority.We believe that we are in a position to work towards meeting thedemand for places, in partnership with the LA, by agreeing to anexpansion of the school from 2 forms of entry to 3.We are fully aware that the local residents have concerns about theeffect on them of both the building work and the increased pressure forparking around the school. It is our intention to work closely with theLA on schemes which could alleviate those difficulties. We are alsoaware that increased traffic is an issue throughout the Ealing area andthat the area around the school is not unique in this respect.St. Gregory's is a school with high standards of achievement andbehaviour. In addition, it offers its pupils excellent recreation space, awide range of sports activities, as well as a supportive parishcommunity. We believe that what is being provided for the pupils nowwill continue to be provided, and, we hope, enhanced by the16

improvements to the school buildings and by being able to provideplaces for all those Catholic children in our area.”Agreeing the proposal to expand St Gregory’s is conditional upon the grant ofplanning permission under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990by May 2012. Many of the concerns expressed in this consultation byresidents (and to a lesser extent, parents) relate the issues which will need tobe satisfactorily addressed during the planning process.In summary, on considering the balance of the factors and issues expressedby all parties, it is recommended to approve the proposal subject to theproposer being able to respond adequately to the issues raised during thestatutory planning process.17

Appendix 3: The proposals to close St Saviour’s CE Infant and Christ ChurchCE Junior schools and open a new Voluntary Aided Church of Englandprimary school on the same sites.Proposal to close the schoolsEFFECT ON STANDARDS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTA System Shaped by ParentsThe EIA 2006 amends the Education Act 1996 to place duties on LAs tosecure diversity in the provision of schools and to increase opportunities forparental choice when planning the provision of schools in their areas. Cabinetshould take into account the extent to which the proposal is consistent withthese dutiesIn addition, LAs are under a specific duty to respond to representations fromparents about the provision of schools, including requests to establish newschools or make changes to existing schools.StandardsCabinet should be satisfied that proposals for school closure will contribute toraising local standards of provision and will lead to improved attainment forchildren. They should pay particular attention to the effects on groups thattend to under perform.St Saviours - good OfSTED (June 2010) and Christ Church – satisfactoryOfSTED (October 2010). The proposal to ‘amalgamate’ St Saviour’s andChrist Church primary schools is one which aims are:a. to promote high standards by developing continuity andconsistency in teaching and learningb. to ensure seamless transition for pupils through the school fromEarly Years to Key Stage 2c. to offer enhanced career opportunities for staffd. to share best practice, resources and expertise for the benefit ofall pupils, current and prospective, of the new school within astrong Christian ethos.DiversityCabinet should consider how proposals will contribute to local diversity. Theyshould consider the range of schools in the relevant area of the LA andwhether the expansion of the school will meet the aspirations of parents, helpraise standards and narrow attainment gapsThe closure of the school will not change the current diversity of education inthe area since a new primary school, with the same admission number, willimmediately open on the same site and all pupils at Christ Church will beoffered places at the new school. Christ Church is one of three schoolsproviding Church of England primary education in the London Borough ofEaling. This proposal will reduce the number of voluntary aided Church of18

England schools in the borough by one but will not reduce the overall numberof places in voluntary aided Church of England primary schools.Balance of Denominational ProvisionIn deciding to close a school with a religious character Members shouldconsider the effect this will have on the balance of denominational provision inthe area.The proposal to ‘amalgamate’ the schools does not alter the number of placesavailable for Church of England schools in Ealing. However, the decisionmaker should note Appendix 4 which refers to the proposal to expand theschool a year after the proposed amalgamation, in September 2012. Thedecision to expand is a separate decision to the decision on the closure of theschools and the opening of a new school.Every Child MattersCabinet should consider how the proposals will help every child and youngperson meet their potential in accordance with the following principles, behealthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution andachieve economic well-being. This should include considering how the schoolwill provide a wide range of extended services, opportunities for personaldevelopment, measures to address to support in participation and support forchildren with particular needs (e.g. looked after children or children with SENand disabilities)The new school will continue to provide primary education based on Christianvalues and incorporate all that is best in the educational practice of the twoclosing schools, to promote high standards and enable pupils to becomeconfident and motivated learners. The school will build on current goodpractice to enable children to be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, makea positive contribution to community and society and achieve economic wellbeing. More information on the provision of extended services is providedlater in this appendix.Impact on the Community and travel of the proposal to close theschools and open a new school on the same siteThere should be no adverse impact on the community. The same number ofjunior aged school places will be offered at the new primary school as arecurrently offered at Christ Church. Junior aged provision will continue to beoffered on the Christ Church site. These issues are dealt with in more detailin Appendix 4.SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICSEqual Opportunity IssuesCabinet should consider whether there are any sex, race or disabilitydiscrimination issues that arise from the changes being proposed and the19

degree to which the proposals provide access to a range of opportunitieswhich reflect the ethnic and cultural mix of the area, while ensuring that suchopportunities are open for all.All Ealing primary schools have a mixed gender intake. The Council iscurrently expanding a range of provision (community, foundation, voluntaryaided and academy) the Council is looking to ensure that a wide range ofprovision is available to reflect the ethnic and cultural mix of the area, whileensuring that such opportunities are open to all.The proposed ‘amalgamation’ of St Saviour’s and Christ Church schools ischanging the organisation of these Church of England schools, but notremoving provision. Members should note Appendix 4 which refers to theproposal to expand the school a year after the proposed opening of the newschool.OTHER ISSUESViews of interested partiesMembers should consider the views of all those affected by the proposals orhave an interest in them including pupils, families of pupils, staff, otherschools and colleges etc including representations made during the statutoryconsultation period. Members should consider the views of all those affectedby the proposals or who have an interest in them including: pupils; families ofpupils; staff; other schools and colleges; local residents; diocesan bodies andother providers; LAs. This includes statutory objections and commentssubmitted during the representation period. Members should not simply takeaccount of the numbers of people expressing a particular view whenconsidering representations made on proposals. Instead the Decision Makershould give the greatest weight to representations from those stakeholderslikely to be most directly affected by the proposals.The Council received two letters in response to the proposal to ‘amalgamate’the school and these are attached as Appendix 7. One of the responses wasopposed to the proposal, with one in support.Local Authority response to issues raised by interested partiesEach school will lose its individualityThe governing bodies of both St. Saviour's and Christ Church believe that:“It would be in the interests of both schools to build on closer cooperationachieved by federation by creating an amalgamated primaryschool.This would allow the school to take a holistic view of children'seducational, social, emotional and spiritual needs from the ages of 3 to11 years and plan and deliver high quality education which helps eachchild thrive and achieve to theirs fullest potential.20

Founded on the close bond and common ethos. They are within oneparish and almost all children leave St Saviour's to go to Christ Church.Many families have children at both schools.Amalgamation would ensure natural transition from Key Stage One toKey Stage Two supported by an integrated leadership andmanagement team and one governing body. It would also offeropportunities for good teachers to develop their skills and experience ina rewarding teaching environment which would help attract and retainthe best staff.”Logistics/ difficulties of managing a school across two sitesBy sharing leadership and management teams amalgamation of the schoolspresents the opportunity for greater use of sharing facilities as well as staffexpertise. Managing a school across two sites does have challenges but thegovernors believe that these can be overcome with a strong leadership teamand robust planning processes.21

Opening a new CE Primary School to replace the closed Infant and JuniorschoolsEFFECT ON STANDARDS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTA System Shaped by ParentsAs above in the ‘Proposal to close the schools’ section.School CompetitionsThe Governing Body and the London Diocesan Board for Schools weregranted exemption to the competition process in September 2010 for thepurposes of amalgamating the schools.StandardsAs above in the ‘Proposal to close the schools’ section.DiversityAs above in the ‘Proposal to close the schools’ section.In addition, Decision Makers should take account of the track record ofproviders, the London Diocesan Board for schools have a good reputation inrunning schools in Ealing, both at St Saviour’s and Christ Church, EdwardBetham CE primary and Twyford CE High School.Every Child MattersAs above in the ‘Proposal to close the schools’ section.TYPES OF SCHOOLSThe Importance of PartnershipsThe Government wants schools to become self-governing and to formrelationships with external partners. VA schools, which St Saviour’s andChrist Church are now and the new CE school will continue to be, are selfgoverningschools.SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICSProposed Admission ArrangementsThe admissions criteria for St Saviour’s and Christ Church comply with theSchool Admissions Code. Any future changes. Other than those arising froman approved expansion proposal will be consulted upon in line with theguidance and reported via the Admissions Forum or referred to the SchoolsAdjudicator, if required by the relevant regulations.National CurriculumThe new school will provide:• a balanced and broadly based curriculum as required in section 78 ofthe Education Act 2002• the National Curriculum and Religious Education22

Extended SchoolsThe new school would build on and further improve the current provisionwhich is as follows:St Saviour'sThere is 1 breakfast club and 4 after-school clubs that drop off in/pick up fromthe playground (there is no on-site provision). Activity clubs: drama, football,modern dance, ballet, Spanish (and girls' football planned). The SENCOmakes pupil referrals to external specialist support agencies (e.g. speech andlanguage therapist, educational psychologist) as necessary. The school hall isavailable to the community for commercial lettings out of schoolhours/holidays.Christ ChurchThere are 3 after-school clubs that pick children up from the playground (thereis no on-site provision). Activity clubs: Ealing Music Service Orchestra(available to schools pupils in local area), dance, Lego, street hockey, cricket,netball, gardening club, newspaper club. Looking at drama club and football innear future. The SENCO makes pupil referrals to external specialist supportagencies (e.g. speech and language therapist, educational psychologist) asnecessary. The LA Playscheme uses the site during most school holidays.FederationsThe Government encourages schools to work together and collaborate orfederate in a number of ways where this will improve school standards.Where the proposed new school is to be federated with another school(s) theDecision Maker should consider whether the proposed federation will help toraise standards (please refer to the ‘Proposal to close the schools’ section –Standards section).N.B. St. Saviour’s and Christ Church are not proposing to federate butamalgamate so although they will be collaborating more fully as an all throughprimary school, they are not federating.Equal Opportunity IssuesAs above in the ‘Proposal to close the schools’ sectionNEED FOR PLACESCreating Additional PlacesThe ‘amalgamation’ of the schools in itself will not create additional places.There is a need for additional places in the area and the decision makershould refer to Appendix 4 which outlines the proposal to expand the newschool in 2012.IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY & TRAVELCommunity Cohesion and Race EqualityMembers should be satisfied that the proposals will meet the statutory duty onschools to promote community cohesion and consider the potential impact onother schools in the area including how the school will increase inclusion andequality of access for al social groups and establish and maintain partnershipswith and collaborations with other schools.23

The school will work closely with pupils, parents, staff, governors and thewider community, in shaping and developing the future of the school.The proposals will meet the statutory duty on schools to promote communitycohesion and the school would build on and further develop the schools’current approach to community cohesion including building on the strongpartnership with parents. The schools raise money for national andinternational charities throughout the year. The schools have had visits frommembers of the local community to share with the children their variousinterests and talents, such as when the St Saviour’s children perform for aSenior Citizens' Tea Party. St Saviour’s has a DCSF International Award inthe light of the school’s strong global perspective. The schools have hostedvisits from representatives from different community groups from abroad.As outlined in the proposed admissions criteria, the school would not have a“catchment area” and would thus be open to any child living in the LondonBorough of Ealing or any adjacent local authority area whose parents/carerwas seeking a Church of England primary education for them.The school would continue to work with other schools. St Saviour’s forexample has lead teachers in the ‘Assessing Pupil Progress’ assessmentapproach for numeracy, who are working with another infant school in Ealing.The school is also sharing expertise with schools in Wandsworth, Brent andTower Hamlets, and through the Church Heads group for Hounslow andEaling. Christ Church has developed a partnership with Twyford Church ofEngland High School in support of the musical activities in their school.Travel and Accessibility for AllIn considering statutory proposals, Members should satisfy themselves thataccessibility planning has been properly taken into account. Facilities are tobe accessible to all those concerned by being located close to all those whouse them and the proposed changes should not adversely impact ondisadvantaged groups.Members should bear in mind that proposals should not have the effect ofunreasonably extending journey times or increasing transport costs, or resultin too many children being prevented from travelling sustainably dueto unsuitable routes e.g. for walking, cycling etc. Proposals should also beconsidered on the basis of how they will support and contribute to the LA’sduty to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport to school.The proposal to amalgamate the schools should have no impact on travel andaccessibility as the schools are remaining the same size and on their currentsites. Members should refer to Appendix 4, which outlines the proposal toexpand the schools a year after the proposed ‘amalgamation’, in September2012.FUNDING & LAND24

CapitalThe amalgamation of the schools will not involve additional land as theschools will remain on their current sites under the existing land tenurearrangementsNew Voluntary Aided School FundingFor proposals for a new voluntary aided school Members should have astatement signed by the promoters (‘Form 18’) that provides evidence that thenew school’s Governing Body would be able to meet their financialresponsibilities for any future building work. This has been provided to theCouncilSchool Playing FieldsThe minimum team game playing field requirements of the Education (SchoolPremises) Regulations 1999 can be met through a combination of on and offsite provision.Special Educational Needs (SEN) ProvisionThe SEN policy of the new school would build on the schools’ currentapproach. The St Saviour’s SEN policy commits to the following:“The school is committed to providing an appropriate and high qualityeducation to all the children attending our school. We believe that allchildren, including those identified as having special educational needshave a common entitlement to a broad and balanced academic andsocial curriculum, which is accessible to them, and to be fully includedin all aspects of school life. We believe that all children should beequally valued in school. We will strive to eliminate prejudice anddiscrimination, and to develop an environment where all children canflourish and feel safe. We are committed to inclusion. Part of theschools’ strategic planning for improvement is to develop cultures,policies and practices that include all learners. We aim to engender asense of community and belonging, and to offer new opportunities tolearners who may have experienced previous difficulties.“OTHER ISSUESViews of Interested PartiesMembers should consider the views of all those affected by the proposals orhave an interest in them including pupils, families of pupils, staff, otherschools and colleges etc including representations made during the statutoryconsultation period. Members should not simply take account of the numbersof people expressing a particular view when considering representationsmade on proposals. Instead Members should give the greatest weight torepresentations from those stakeholders likely to be most directly affected bythe proposals.Please refer to the ‘Proposal to close the schools’ section above for details ofresponses to the proposal to amalgamate. Also, for information in theproposed expansion, please refer to Appendix 4.Summary25

In summary, on considering the balance of the factors and issues expressedby all parties, it is recommended to approve the proposal to close the schoolsand open a new school on the same sites on 1 September 2011.26

Appendix 4: Proposal to expand St Saviour’s CE Infant and ChristChurch CE Junior Schools by increasing the school’s Published AdmissionNumber by 30 pupils, to admit 120 pupils into each reception year fromSeptember 2012 (proposal f. of the recommendations)EFFECT ON STANDARDS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTA System Shaped by ParentsThe EIA 2006 amends the Education Act 1996 to place duties on LAs tosecure diversity in the provision of schools and to increase opportunities forparental choice when planning the provision of schools in their areas. Inaddition, LAs are under a specific duty to respond to representations fromparents about the provision of schools, including requests to establish newschools or make changes to existing schools. Cabinet should take intoaccount the extent to which the proposal is consistent with these duties.St Saviour’s and Christ Church - the proposal to expand the proposed newschool is one which contributes to meeting demand for places in the localarea. The proposal also increases choice for those with a Church of Englandfaith in Ealing.StandardsCabinet should be satisfied that proposals for school expansion will contributeto raising local standards of provision and will lead to improved attainment forchildren. They should pay particular attention to the effects on groups thattend to under perform.The school support the proposals and do not feel it would have a detrimentaleffect on standards.By expanding schools through significant investment in school buildings,schools are able to extend their schools in ways that are tailored to the needsof the pupils, parents, and local communities and improve facilities for all.St Saviours - good OfSTED (June 2010) and Christ Church – satisfactoryOfSTED (October 2010). An increase of 30 pupils to 4FE would allow theschool(s) to continue to teach its pupils in year group classes.DiversityCabinet should consider how proposals will contribute to local diversity. Theyshould consider the range of schools in the relevant area of the LA andwhether the expansion of the school will meet the aspirations of parents, helpraise standards and narrow attainment gaps.The proposals will contribute to local diversity. Since 2008, the Council haveagreed to expand various types of primary schools, adding the followingprovision:• 7½FE to community schools27

• 1½FE to foundation schools (including Brentside primary school whichhas expanded by ½ FE and at the time of agreement was a communityschool, but is now foundation)• 1FE to the West London Academy. The DfE have agreed thisexpansion and it is subject to planning permission being granted.These latest proposals are to expand two VA schools (St Saviour’s and ChristChurch and St Gregory’s) and a community school (Ravenor).The Council have expanded schools in response to where demand is as wellas where schools have felt that expansion of provision would meet theaspirations of parents; help raise local standards and narrow attainment gapsEvery Child MattersCabinet should consider how the proposals will help every child and youngperson meet their potential in accordance with the following principles, behealthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution andachieve economic well-being. This should include considering how the schoolwill provide a wide range of extended services, opportunities for personaldevelopment, measures to address to support in participation and support forchildren with particular needs (e.g. looked after children or children with SENand disabilitiesThe school will build on current good practice to enable children to be healthy,stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution to community andsociety and achieve economic well being. Please refer to the information inAppendix 3.SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICSEqual Opportunity IssuesCabinet should consider whether there are any sex, race or disabilitydiscrimination issues that arise from the changes being proposed and thedegree to which the proposals provide access to a range of opportunitieswhich reflect the ethnic and cultural mix of the area, while ensuring that suchopportunities are open for all.All Ealing primary schools have a mixed gender intake. By expanding a rangeof provision (community, foundation, voluntary aided and academy) theCouncil is looking to ensure that a wide range of provision is available toreflect the ethnic and cultural mix of the area, while ensuring that suchopportunities are open to all.In addition to the proposals to expand Ravenor, St Gregory’s and St Saviour’sand Christ Church, the council supported the creation of a new Sikh primaryschool in the borough which opened in September 2009, this was in responseto the aspirations of local Sikh families.28

NEED FOR PLACESCreating Additional PlacesCabinet should consider whether there is a need for expansion and take intoaccount not only the existence of spare capacity in neighbouring schools butalso the quality and popularity with parents of the schools in which sparecapacity exists. Where the school has a religious character of follows aparticular philosophy should be satisfied that there is satisfactory evidence ofsufficient demand for places at the expanded school to be sustainable.Births data from the ONS show that there were 5,548 births in Ealing in theschool year 2008/9. As this figure was similar to the 2007/8 school year(5,578) there was some indication that births increases might have begun tolevel off.This does not however now seem to be the case, as early indications fromONS are that for the school year 2009/10 there were at least 5,741 births inthe borough, a further significant increase. Births in the borough are now1,350 higher than they were at the start of the decade (4,391 in 2001/02).St Saviour’s and Christ Church fall within the Ealing quadrant, where birthsrose 24.1% from 1350 in 2003/04 to 1,675 in 2009/10. For the North andSouth Ealing areas combined the projected increase in reception classesrequired is in a range between 12FE and 14FE by 2014.The proposal to expand places would help meet the projected demand forplaces in the Ealing Quadrant. Although as a Voluntary Aided school there isno designated catchment area it is clear that these expansions will help meetthe projected demand for places in Ealing and Hanwell.In terms of places for those with a Church of England faith, the proposal toexpand St Saviour’s and Christ Church increases denominational provision forparents seeking a Church of England primary education for their children.The proposed new primary school (if the proposal to amalgamate the twoschools is agreed) would be one of only two Church of England primaryschools in the London Borough of Ealing.The need for additional school places has been frequently documented inreports to both Cabinet and the Education and Childen's Services StandingScrutiny Panel in the last couple of years, the most recent report to Cabinetwas on 21 December 2010 and it details the need for additional primaryschool, high school, 6 th form and SEN places in the borough.Expansion of Successful and Popular SchoolsThe presumption is in favour of the expansion of successful and popularschools. It is for the Decision Maker to decide whether a school is successfuland popular taking into all the following indicators:29

Schools performanceSt Saviour’s Infant and Nursery School was awarded a grade of “good” for itslast Ofsted inspection in June 2010. Christ Church Junior School wasawarded a grade of “satisfactory” for its last Ofsted inspection in October2010.Christ Church Junior’s 2009 Key Stage 2 contextual value added (CVA) scorewas 101.1, which was significantly above the national average for contextualvalue added. In the 2010, Key Stage 2 tests 73% of pupils also attained bothEnglish and Maths at Level 4+.Number of applications for placesSt Saviour’s received 150 applications for 90 reception places for September2010.Compliance with the School Admissions CodeThe Council confirms that the admission arrangements of schools proposedfor expansion fully meet the provisions of the School Admissions Code.Travel and Accessibility for AllIn considering statutory proposals, Members should satisfy themselves thataccessibility planning has been properly taken into account. Facilities are tobe accessible to all those concerned by being located close to all those whouse them and the proposed changes should not adversely impact ondisadvantaged groups.Members should bear in mind that proposals should not have the effect ofunreasonably extending journey times or increasing transport costs, or resultin too many children being prevented from travelling sustainably dueto unsuitable routes e.g. for walking, cycling etc. Proposals should also beconsidered on the basis of how they will support and contribute to the LA’sduty to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport to school.By expanding schools in areas of increased demand for school places (aspreviously explained) the Council aims to locate primary school places closeto those that will use them and the proposals should not adversely impact ondisadvantaged groups and should continue to encourage the use ofsustainable travel and transport to school.FUNDING AND LANDCapitalAll proposals are to be implemented on existing sites. Capital is beingprovided through the Council’s approved Primary Capital Programme.The Council will continue to bid for capital funding from the Department forEducation for future years of the capital programme.30

Capital ReceiptsThe proposal is not dependent on receiving capital receipts from the disposalof land.New Site or Playing FieldsThe proposal is not dependent on the acquisition of new sites or playingfields.Land Tenure ArrangementsNot applicable as there are no proposed site acquisitions.School Playing FieldsThe minimum team game playing field requirements of the Education (SchoolPremises) Regulations 1999 can be met through a combination of on and offsite provision.SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS (SEN) PROVISIONThere are no proposals for specific SEN provision to be included in theseexpansion plans. The Council is reviewing its expansion plans for SENschool places in light of the cancellation of the BSF programme and theforthcoming outcome of the James Review on future School CapitalSpending.The expansion proposals would support the LA’s strategy for making schoolsand settings more accessible to disabled children and young people and theirscheme for promoting equality of opportunity for disabled people. In particularany new facilities will be fully accessible for those with disabilities and workswill be undertaken to bring existing school buildings up to standard in terms ofaccessibility.All schools will continue to take full account of educational considerations, inparticular the need to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum, including theNational Curriculum, within a learning environment in which children can behealthy and stay safe.OTHER ISSUESViews of Interested PartiesMembers should consider the views of all those affected by the proposals orhave an interest in them including pupils, families of pupils, staff, otherschools and colleges etc including representations made during the statutoryconsultation period. Members should not simply take account of the numbersof people expressing a particular view when considering representationsmade on proposals. Instead Members should give the greatest weight torepresentations from those stakeholders likely to be most directly affected bythe proposals.Details of previous consultations are included in the full proposals andappendices.31

The Council received 124 responses to the proposal to expand St Saviour’sand 120 responses to the proposal to expand Christ Church. In addition threeletters were also received.Some respondents elected to answer the consultation on one school only,although the proposal to expand the schools is linked, the views expressedand issues raised in relation to each school were different in some cases.Table 1 below details the breakdown of responses:Table 1: Breakdown of responses (St. Saviour’s and Christ Churchconsultation)For Against Not sureSt Saviour’sParents 22 (22%) 65 (66%)(6 also selected‘resident’)12 (12%)Residents 6 (32%) 11 (58%) 2 (10%)(1 also selected‘parent’)Pupils 1 (20%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%)Staff 7 (100%)Governors 1 (100%)Total individualresponses29 (24%) 81 (65%) 14 (11%)Christ ChurchParents 18 (19%) 58 (60%)(6 also selected‘resident’)20 (21%)Residents 5 (28%) 12 (67%) 1 (5%)Pupils 1 (20%) 4 (80%)(1 also selected‘resident’)Staff 5 (71%) 2 (29%)Governors 1 (100%)Total individualresponses24 (20%) 73 (61%) 23 (19%)St Saviour’sThose who were in favour of the proposals at St Saviour’s mentioned that theproposals expansion would enable more children in central Ealing would32

enefit from a Christian education, that it would help meet demand for places,that the transport links are relatively good and that it would improveeducational facilities for all pupils. Comments included that support for theproject would be dependent on the building works being carried out properlyand funding being available to ‘do the job right’ so that the educationalenvironment for all pupils was improved. Another respondent wanted theschool to retain its independence from the Council and maintain its Christianstatus.Most of those who stated that they were opposed to the expansion proposalsaid that this was because the site is too small, that the school is big enoughalready at 3FE, that there would be increased traffic congestion, there wouldbe disruption during building works and that the it would have a negativeeffect on the school ethos. Comments included that it seemed ill thought outto expand an under subscribed school, that new schools on new sites shouldbe built instead, that the schools need investment but not through expansion,that play space would be compromised and there were concerns aboutinadequate funding being available from the LA/ government.Written responses to the consultation are included as Appendix 6, lettersreceived are attached as Appendix 7.Local Authority response to issues raised by interested partiesTravel:The school census in January 2010 indicated that at St Saviour’s 82 (28%)pupils walked to school, 90 (31%) came by car, 59 (20%) came by bus and 60(21%) cycled. At Christ Church 98 (31%) of pupils walked to school, 132(41%) traveled by car, 69 (21%) traveled by bus and 22 (7%) cycled.As part of the statutory planning process, we will work with the school toupdate their School Travel Plans and seek to further reduce travel by car.62 out of the 90 pupils admitted to Reception at St Saviour’s in September2010 live within statutory walking distance (2 miles) of the school.Traffic, congestion, safe drop-off and parking:Where traffic issues are identified we will work closely with Highways toimplement enforcement where appropriate.The numbers of car parking spaces for staff and visitors are limited byplanning guidance. In consultation with the Planners, a daytime parking beatsurvey may be undertaken of the surrounding streets.Access for All:A shortfall of school places generally impacts most on families who do not, orare unable, to participate in the normal admissions process. Late applicantstend to be disadvantaged or vulnerable families, leaving them at a greater riskof not receiving a school place at a preferred school.33

Pressure on external space:The feasibility studies undertaken on the schools indicate that they can all beexpanded and would still meet the DfE site area guidance (BB99). This isbased on the guidance for schools on a confined site, but most schools inEaling, and indeed in London, would similarly be deemed to be on a confinedsite.It should be noted that the regulations recognize that team game playingfields need not be located within the school site on the proviso that any offsiteprovision is capable of sustaining the playing of team games by pupils.Disruption during construction:The LA and its partner contractors have become very experienced in buildingand re-modelling work in our primary schools over the past few years. Thehealth and safety of pupils, local residents and others during any constructionperiod is the priority. Construction compounds are carefully designed toensure building work is kept safely separated. Periods when the school is notin full use are used as much as possible for the undertaking of more noisywork, including any demolition work. Contractors have a proven track recordof working closely and effectively with school management. All contractorsare required to work in full accordance with the Council’s “Code of Practiceand Guidance Notes on health and safety for Contractors Working in SchoolSites”. Construction traffic will be strictly controlled in terms of size of deliveryvehicles and deliveries to and collections from site will be limited to agreedtime slots. Contractor staff will not be allowed to park on site and will beexpected to park legally in the surrounding areas.Environmental concernsThe council acknowledges that major development proposals raise complexplanning issues. Environmental concerns will be dealt through the statutoryplanning process. To facilitate this, the council operates a structured preapplicationservice. This service enables the council to become more activelyinvolved in planning applications at an early stage. The planning officer canliase with the following departments:• policy• highways• housing• urban design/conservation• trees• environmental health• crime preventionWhen the statutory planning application is made the Planning officer willconsider planning-related responses in the following areas:• design and layout• external appearance and materials• access for disabled people• loss of daylight, sunlight and privacy of neighbours• noise nuisance34

• traffic and parking issues• loss of, or an increase in, a particular type of use of landThe sites are too small to accommodate additional pupilsBased on a feasibility study undertaken for the two schools on possibleexpansion, after the school is expanded, the (proposed) primary school willhave external play area of 5,984 m2, 6.92 m2 per pupil. This compares to theguidance for schools on confirmed sites of 5.558m2 per pupil.Need more community school places in Central EalingLetter 2 (in Appendix 7) details the difficulties of families with a non-Catholicor Church of England faith in gaining local school places in Central Ealing.The Council has already agreed an additional 10FE of primary school placesacross the borough with 5½FE of these in the Ealing North and South areas.The Council is also investigating possible sites for new schools and thesewere detailed in the December 2010 cabinet report on school places. A keyproblem is finding sites which are suitable for school use but the Council isinvestigating all options as, to meet longer term population demand, new sitesmay be required.School expansions should be available for all, not faith basedLetter 2 also mentions the need for expansions to be available to all. TheCouncil has a duty to promote choice and diversity across schools in theborough and has expanded community schools, foundation schools, anacademy, and is now proposing to expand Voluntary Aided (‘faith’) schools inorder to meet the increased demands of the whole community.The school is big enough and 4FE for a primary school is too largeWhile still relatively uncommon, there are a growing number of 4FE schools inthe country, most of which are in London (including Fielding in Ealing). Thosein London have a representative mix in terms of ethnicity and socialdeprivation.Nationally in 2009/10 13% of primary schools were judged ‘outstanding’, of4FE schools we have identified in London, 22% were judged ‘outstanding’.72% were deemed ‘good’ or ‘satisfactory’ and 6% were ‘unsatisfactory’(compared to 8% nationally).Research for the NCSL (National College for School Leadership) found thatthe advantage of large primary schools (over 2FE) were that there was morestaff expertise, more facilities for peer support, greater financial flexibility andenhanced curriculum provision. Larger schools do require clear leadership,delegation to other managers and good communication systems.SummaryIn summary, on considering the balance of the factors and issues expressedby all parties, it is recommended to approve this proposal subject to theproposer being able to respond adequately to the issues raised during thestatutory planning process.35

Appendix 5: List of people/ bodies consulted• Governing bodies of the schools named in the questionnaire• All primary schools in the Ealing borough were sent information on theconsultation and copies of the questionnaire to respond to asappropriate and circulate as appropriate to their areas• Schools informed parents/carers of the consultation through variousmeans, e.g. newsletters, parent meetings.• Schools consulted staff at staff meetings or other appropriate means• Neighbouring authorities• Trade Union representatives• The Diocese of Westminster and the London Diocesan Board forSchools• Ealing borough MPs as well as MPs of neighboring boroughs• A link to the consultation was put on the ‘Ealing Community Network’website• Children’s centres• Private nursery providers in the Ealing & Hanwell, and Greenford areas• Schools consulted with pupils as they saw fit at this stage. Examples ofconsultation at other schools included discussion at assemblies andthrough school council meetings• Residents associations were all sent information on the consultation aswell as copies of the questionnaire• Letters were sent to residents within the planning areas for all schoolsnamed in the questionnaire.• Local parent and toddler groups• Community groups and cultural associations• The local police• Also available on Council’s website – current consultations section36

Appendix 6: Document collating the representations received to the StatutoryProposalsSummary of issues raisedRavenorAgree with proposal• Enable more children to attend school locallyDisagree• Traffic congestion• Negative impact on schools ethos• School site is too small• How additional pupils will be accommodated• Additional noiseSt Gregory’sAgree with proposal• It’s an opportunity to invest in improving the school• Duty to provide Catholic school places for the community• Benefit of additional staffDisagree• Traffic congestion• Access issues (for parents and residents)• Impact on local environment – flooding, pollution• Expansion would have a negative impact on the school’s ethos• 3FE schools are too large• Safety for pupils getting to school• Unconvinced of local demand for places or surety of demand longer termSt Saviour’s and Christ Church amalgamationTwo letters received, one in support due to potential for improved ways of working,one opposed due to reasons of difficulty managing schools on a split site and thediluting of the individual school ethos’.St Saviour’s and Christ Church expansionAgree with proposal• Opportunity to invest in the schools, particularly Christ Church• Ability to offer more places for those with a Church of England faith• Provide an excellent education for more pupilsDisagree• Sites are too small at present and would be unable to accommodateadditional pupils• Disruption during building works, particularly at Christ Church which is next tothe current Dicken’s Yard development• Traffic congestion/ difficult access in the centre of town• Concerns about adequate funding• 4FE schools are too largeCopy of responses madeRavenorAgreeThe areas that’s at the back (Rosedene Ave) seems to be unused37

Yes the school has to expand its intake to meet demand but have concerns abouttraffic congestion, the site is too small, transport links are not good enough and thebuilding works will be disruptiveI sure work will be done in the school holidays. Hope the school gets the grant tosolve the matterThe morning and afternoon "parents traffic" should be seriously taken into account.Building the new nursery created congestions during pick up/ drop off times as itnarrowed the walk waysI am agree with the proposal because the children will get more knowledge. I amdisagree because there is not enough space for parking. They should expandRavenor Primary School because the school will expand the more children getadmission to the school instead they go far away.DisagreeDo not allow to go ahead. They have erected a temporary class at the entrance ofthe school to accommodate the first intake of children. This blocks the entrancewhich is already congested, looks awful, as well as health and safety issues. This iscompletely unacceptable! Also school cannot cope with the kids they have now.I cannot see how the site is appropriate for the expansion and there seems to be littlespace when dropping of children already, both in and outside of the school, thisincludes traffic and pedestrians and has caused some near miss accidents ofchildren.Would it not be better to build a new school on a separate site? I'm afraid that thiscan recur again and we would end up with a massive primary school with fallingstandards. Smaller schools are betterIt may have a negative effect on educational standards if the school is too bigNot sureI am very concerned about the traffic situation if the school was to be increased 50%.I am particularly concerned about residents drives being blocked and what thecouncil is intending to do to prevent this. It is not good enough to adopt the attitudethat it is only for a set time twice a day as although I aim to avoid such times, I alsohave important meetings I need to attend and simply cannot always adjust my life forschool drop off and pick ups. Any plans need to ensure that adequate provision ismade for those who need to deliver and pick up their children, and for that don'tproper education and enforcement to prevent them causing danger to other childrenand causing inconvenience to local residents.I am concerned about the increased traffic, which is already bad around the school -often grid locked with illegal parking. I would want to know what travel strategy thecouncil intends to implement and enforce to cope with a 50% increase on an alreadysaturated traffic/parking situation.Will extra teachers be employed, or will the pupils be assimilated into existing classesand aswell class sizes are already too large? Is anything going to be done to stemthe flow of immigrants into the borough and therefore address the root cause of theproblem?38

I would also like to know about the plans for new buildings and the impact this mayhave on neighbouring property.How will the school deal with the increased traffic on Greenway Gardens. Assomeone who lives on that road I have to plan my journeys around school start andfinish times. I once returned from work early as I was unwell and was unable to parkon my drive due to school traffic.I would want to know how noise generally will be managed to minimise impact onresidents.39

St Gregory’sAgreeIf we do not avail ourselves of the opportunity to invest in the school buildings whilethe money is on offer, it will go to non-Catholic schools. St Gregory's will be left withpoorer facilities than other schools and there will be a shortage of catholic places inthe boroughAs Christians/ Catholics we should be aware that not all Catholic children are able tobenefit from a Catholic education. A bigger St Gregory's will benefit many. It is ourduty to provide if we can.I agree with the right for every Catholic child to have a Catholic educationThere are not enough good catholic primary schools in EalingGreat news, the sooner they can do it with more Catholic schools within the boroughthe better! Our child couldn't get in to our parish catholic school due to oversubscriptionSchool needs to be proactive about managing the school run, I.e. the abuse ofFairlea place and the road patrol officer figures of authority are needed to enforceappropriate behaviour on roads outside of school. An alternative to the above is tohave greater 'window' of time for dropping off, e.g. 8-9am rather than the current 15minutes. This will go some way to alleviate the problem of car congestion./ poorbehaviours of car drivers i.e. they will not feel so pressurisedI have concerns about the traffic/ parking and congestion at pick up/ drop off times.How will the pupils be impacted on a day-to-day basis during the expansion?Our school desperately needs improvements made to buildingsThere will need to be more than one entrance to ease congestion on Woodfield RoadMy support for the expansion is based on the premise that there are increasingnumbers of catholic children in the parish and they need somewhere to be educated.If the evidence is that the children are not coming from the parish I would beopposed.This is a wonderful, multi cultural, faith school, it is oversubscribed and it would begreat to expand the school so that larger numbers of children will benefit fromattending this good schoolThe work should be carried over a short a timespan as possible to minimisedistuptionBenefit will be influx of new enthusiastic teachers to the school, improving educationfor children and improving education for children and improving ethos of staffIt is essential to maintain the schools wholesome catholic ethos. As long as theschool doesn’t then become saturated with children who are not well behaved andwell mannered or with families who shun a Catholic identity it will benefit everyoneThe traffic already needs to be sorted40

Redevelopment of the school facilities should happen as quickly as possible tominimise disruption to childern. I believe that building work is anticipated to occurover a number of years - get it done asap. Council will need to carefully consider atraffic management scheme as the roads are very congested aroung the school atthe beginning and end of the school day. 50% expansion will add to that.DisagreeNot convinced that there are that many children within the catchment area, who havebeen unable to get into the school (present catchment area)More non-catchment children will be given places. Also more non-Catholic childrenReduced playground space, more childrenThe school has always been a friendly, local school but even now (with only 1 year of3 form entry) there is extreme pressure on parking as parents come from furtherafield (outside catchment?) to drop/pick up childrenThere is just enough space during lunchtime for safe food consuming for currentpupils. Our children now happy and safe, building works will bring mess anddisruption to studying process30 pupils in a class is too many, you should divide 60 by 3 classesIt appears that the school expansion will widen the catchment area for the school.This will in turn create more traffic on a very narrow road with already a lot ofcongestion. It would be more useful if Ealing Council funded another "new" school inthe area. It also appears that the consultation with the parents and residents hasbeen ignoredThe school has changed so much since my children have been there. It seems tohave so many foreign speaking families now that by increasing the classes this willbecome worse. The school will lose the good culture it has, the foreign families don'twant to help in school or be part of the communityWill have a massive impact on the school culture and ethos. I don’t believe that allthe children/ families will be in the 'catchment' parish area and therefore will not be alocal school to manySt Gregorys have already admittied one bulge reception class and already the impacton the surrounding area is evident. Traffic congestion, jostling around the entrancegate and difficulty parking anywhere near the school drop offI believe that primary schools should not be the size of a secondary school. A smallenvironment will be accessible for small children. Our great school could lose itscommunity feel.Safety of children: Woodfield Road is already dangerous outside the school and is abus lane. Adding 1/3 extra children will increase the risk of serious injury to childrenor death. It is already an accident waiting to happen and parents frequently tell ofnear misses.Primary schools should be as small as possible. Primary schools should be forlocals41

The bigger the place the more disorganised it becomesThe development proposals may not result in the outdated common parts of theschool being improved. The proposed building is a blot of the landscape/ adjoining aconservation area. Increased accident risk for pedestrians/ children near the schoolat opening/ closing times. Increased pollution reduced quality of life in the vicinity ofthe school.Traffic problems, inconsiderate parents now, this will only get worse. Sometimesdangerous. Not convinced that there is a demand for more Catholic places withinthis catchment area.Since the slight expansion in September the parking situation has becomeunbearable - people parking on zebra crossings zig zags. Drivers actually shoutingand swearing at each other as they compete for spaces to parkThe site is not suitable for further expansion and if allowed to go ahead will make lifequite unpleasant for many local residents. It will have a detrimental effect on theBrentham Garden Estate high level conservation area.As a resident of Woodfield Crescent for the past 19 years, I am writing to object tothe request for planning permission to develop St Gregory’s School, on the followinggrounds: • Increased traffic congestion • Pupil safety issues and residents safetyissues • Flooding risk • Damage to the local environment (conservation area) •Pollution The application does not meet a number of the key requirements of thelatest Ealing Unitary Development Plan (EUDP). Putting the expansion into its localcontext EUDP 1.4 To promote good urban design through planning, so that buildingsand spaces are attractive, accessible, safe, and consistent with the principles ofsustainable development, and that there is proper protection of the borough,particularly areas and buildings that are of historic and architectural value. • StGregory’s school is situated at the heart of a quiet residential c ommunity, boundedon two sides by the historic garden suburb – Brentham Conservation area, which hasstatutory Article 4 Direction. The terraced houses along Woodfield Crescent havelong suffered from the water runoff from the St Gregory’s playing fields. The lack ofdetail concerning this issue in the planning application shows that the developershave not taken this statutory obligation into consideration and this has rightly angeredresidents as we are proud of this National Heritage asset. • The catchment area forpupils at St Gregory’s is much larger than other local primary schools and car trafficis proportionately heavier in roads around the school. Mount Ave( also withMontpelier school cars), Mount Road, Montpelier Road ( with Aston House andMontpelier school cars), Woodfield Crescent, Woodfield Avenue, Eaton rise(also withSt Benedicts school cars) However Woodfield Road on the main bus route, MountPleasant and Lanark Close have overwhelming problems with gridlock, accidents(latest 3/11/2010!) and road rage (church school parents!) • The school is positionedin the centre of a small, densely populated residential block: o Fairlea Place - 63privately owned flats on 4 levels, car parking and garages o The Chestnuts - Oldpeople’s home on 4 stories with 70 residents, 24 hour nursing services/dentist/hairdresser/catering/social services/doctors/laundry with 10 parking spaces o StanleyCourt - 32 privately owned 2/3 bed flats on 3 levels, car parking and garages oJuniper House - 15 privately owned 2/3 bed flats on 3 levels, car parking andgarages o The housing block on the opposite side of the road to St Gregory’sconsists of 6 multi-occupancy residential properties several owned by the EalingAbbey and three large private properties. Increased traffic congestion EUDP policy4.1 A development layout w ill provide ease of movement for all transport modes,whilst affording priority to pedestrians, and then to cyclists and public transport.42

EUDP 9.1 (Development, Access and Parking) states that planning permission willnormally only be granted for development which ensures traffic safety. • St Gregory’smain entrance is on a bend in Woodfield Road, a busy through road, that takes trafficbetween Greenford and North Ealing to Ealing Broadway underground and main linestations. • The road outside the entrance is already badly congested during morningrush hour/school drop off and pick up times as stated above. Buses, vans and lorrieshave to mount pavements or reverse into residents driveways and even up WoodfieldRoad to alleviate the blockages.** The severity of the current congestion, before theproposed expansion, is illustrated by: o Local Councillors regularly receivingcomplaints from residents about speeding and inconsiderate parking, as reported inlocal Hanger Ward bulletin. o Parents being reluctant to let their children walk aloneor cycle to school due to heavy congestion, as noted in the St Gregory’s GreenReport. o Local residents play no part in causing traffic congestion as suggested bythe school** • The school stated that 74% of this years’ bulge class came fromoutside catchment ..... this should now make a Transport Assessment compulsory(see application: LB of Ealing – XXXXXXXXX pre planning advise to the developers) .If the proposed increase of 50% expansion is approved and the catchment areaincreased, the local infrastructure would not be able to cope. • The addition of newentrances to the school, with the current main entrance, will extend the area of trafficcongestion. One of these new entrances is in Westmoreland Place, alreadycongested by school traffic from Montpelier School. The alleyway a t the back ofWoodfield Crescent is totally impractical (see pupil safety issues below)** • Trafficflow will be horrendous - works vehicles during the 4 plus years of the constructionprogramme together with the possibility of construction work on proposed residentialdevelopment on the junction of Eaton Rise and Woodfield Road. Pupil safety issuesEUDP policy 4.1 A development layout will provide ease of movement for alltransport modes, whilst affording priority to pedestrians, and then to cyclists andpublic transport. EUDP 9.1 (Development, Access and Parking) states that planningpermission will normally only be granted for development which ensures trafficsafety. EUDP 4.4 Any development can affect the quality and feel of an area andtherefore safety and people’s perception of safety. It is important therefore that alldevelopments, building modifications and public spaces should be designed to createa safe and secure environment. 2 Current traffic levels already represent a safetyhazard to children and other pedestrians. The pavements outside the school arenarrow (2 metres) meaning that children often spill out on to the road, oblivious to thedangers of the passing traffic. • The safety issue is compounded by the school’sinability to recruit a regular ‘lollipop’ person. • These safety issues for children will besignificantly increased by the additional road traffic with the expanded number ofpupils, their carers vehicles and construction vehicles. • Is the council planningdepartment accepting that these large numbers of pupils .....500 to 600 - plusparents, siblings, buggies bicycles, scooters, dogs etc can fit through this narrow 150yards long alleyway in both directions? The funnel effect at drop off and pick up timeswill be a safety hazard. • A safety barrier cannot be placed at the entrance of the proposed pedestrian entrance to protect the children as the emerge onto WoodfieldRoad • Section 6.0 of the planning statement states: “all pedestrian footpaths will beto a minimum of 1800mm wide to satisfy BS 8300.” Yet the proposed new tarmacpath along the alley will be only 1500 mm wide, thus surely contravening BS 8300.The path will be totally impractical for so many people passing in both directions. •What will the scenario be if an emergency fire or ambulance is required at theschool?....apart from actually getting to the site avoiding the gridlock. Pedestriansand emergency vehicles using the same narrow alleyway into the school..... is anaccident waiting to happen The safety of individuals especially the young areparamount .....the application cannot be approved if issues like this have not beenfully addressed. As a Governor of a local Primary school with responsibility forHealth and Safety I would like to question t he use of such a narrow alley as ‘safe43

and fit for purpose’ for pedestrians and emergency vehicles. This issue must beclarified and the officer of the council approving the plans must also realise the legalimplications if there was to be a fatality. Residents safety issues EUDP 4.4 Anydevelopment can affect the quality and feel of an area and therefore safety andpeople’s perception of safety. It is important therefore that all developments, buildingmodifications and public spaces should be designed to create a safe and secureenvironment. EUDP 4.4 The Council and the Police Service will expect that anydevelopment proposals have satisfactorily sought to design out crime and have givenregard to the principles of the Police ‘Secured by Design’ initiative. Successfully‘designing out crime’ depends on a wide range of measures, including the actualbuilding design, layout of buildings, car parking, public spaces, pedestrian ways,lighting and landscape details. The informal surveillance of public spaces is animportant safety concept, and is best achieved when buildings front onto thesespaces, and where these fronts contain the main entrances and overlookingopportunities. EUDP 4.12 Light Pollution The Council will consider applications forfloodlighting and illumination in the context of their effect on the quality of life ofresidents in the locality, and the minimisation of possible disturbance of naturalhabitats for wild life, especially defined sites, areas and protected species. • Thetransformation of the narrow access alley into a new school entrance will present asafety risk for residents of Woodfield Crescent, whose houses abut the proposednew entrance and for residents of Fairlea Place. The alleyway abuts the Heritageasset of The Brentham Conservation Estate. The applicant has a statutory obligation.The proposed development will cause harm to the significance of the heritage asset.As the fencing along the alleyway is not fit for purpose and the applicant has notaddressed this situation in any satisfactory detail. Residents feel troubled and angrythat there has been no consultation • The privacy of residents will also be adverselyimpacted by the flow of pupils and their carers etc 3 or 4 times daily from 7 till 6 orlater at night. Also please note .....the school playing fields are used most w/e andevery school holiday for the council run play schemes. • UDP Safer Ealing suggeststhat all alleyways must be gated.Safety: The five year construction programme with associated works vehicles willnegatively impact on local traffic flow and add to the existing hazard to children andother pedestrians, particularly where traffic, including buses, frequently mount thepavement in an effort to escape gridlock. The pavements outside the present mainentrance to St. Gregorys are now too narrow, for the amount of pupils and associatedparents at dropping off and picking up times each school day, resulting in childrenand parents frequently spilling out onto the surface of Woodfield Road. The proposedhuge increase in pupils can only worsen this situation. Disruption and damage to thelocal environment: Increased traffic noise, also increased noise from additionalschool children, parents, and extra school activities will result in an adverse effect onsurrounding resident's enjoyment of their local area. The creeping enlargement of St.Gregorys school over the past 30-40 years has already forced an adverse impact onwhat had been a pleasant residential area. The proposed narrow access alley offWoodfield Road, and between Fairlea Place and Woodfield Crescent is to be fully litwhich will cause significant and unwelcome light pollution, while the intended use forschool access will add an unwelcome level of noise pollution from the extra pupilsand parents who will, no doubt, use that proposed access way. Fairlea Placepresently suffers from the effects of anti-social parents who insist on parking onprivate garage areas, and in private parking bays, some of whom also drop litter fromtheir vehicles, and some parents when politely reminded that they are trespassingoffer abuse and/or threats of violence. The proposed increase in pupils will result in aproportionate increase in the type of parents who choose to act in such an antisocial,unwelcome, and sometimes threatening manner. Pollution: Such a hugeincrease in pupil numbers, and therefore parent and vehicle numbers will result in an44

extra level of pollution to the present high level of pollution due to the proximity ofHeathrow, the North Circular, Hanger Lane Gyratory system, and the very busy A40.School catchment: It is understood that at present there are pupils, attending St.Gregorys School, who are not local residents but are driven in from as far away asSudbury Hill and Harrow. The proposed very significant increase in pupil numbers,and such a widespread catchment area will surely result in more pupils from thefringe catchment areas with associated unwelcome traffic increase, and the antisocialand unwelcome things that will surely come with that increase.Loss of valuable asset of school playing field: currently large enough toaccommodate football tournaments, sports days etc. Increased risk of flooding tohouses in Woodfield Crescent because of water run-off. Suggested increase inschool population is outside immediate area: extra places should be provided wherepupils live - St. Gregory's is known to be excellent school: to spoil it would bemadness. A building site (estimated at three years) is not the best place to teach orlearn: implications for health, safety etc. Brentham Garden Estate would be affected:The Article 4 Direction under the Town and Country Planning Act coversinappropriate development around the periphery of a conservation area as well aswithin it's borders. The Brentham Garden Estate is a credit to the Borough and hasadmirers in many parts of the world - not least the Prince of Wales. If the proposalincludes the destruction of trees, including three mature and beautiful oaks - allcovered by Tree Protection Orders - this would be a loss of visual amenity.There is no need for expansion based on children within catchment requiring places -inevitably therefore the children are being taken from the catchment of other schoolswhich will suffer as a consequence. The area around the school is landlocked. Thefunding is not guaranteed and it is therefore possible that the school will embark onexpansion but not get the improvements in facilities that are being promised.Pick up and drop off, are totally hazardous. The traffic surrounding the school isgridlocked most mornings, local children do tend to walk, but many children aretravelling in from Hanwell, West Ealing, Acton, Wembley and Yeading.I live in Fairlea Place, a small private estate in a cul-de-sac backing on to the existingSt.Gregory school. For years we have had to put up with the worsening noise, lightand traffic pollution caused by the existing school. Parents delivering and collectingtheir children use our estate as a public car park. Despite our obvious notice boardsthe parents use our property to turn and park their vehicles. This means twice-dailytraffic congestion together with that in Woodfield Road. Our motoring residents areoften unable to get in or out of the estate and frequently find they cannot even getinto their garages. Whilst in Fairlea Place the children, their parents and theirvehicles pay scant regard for our grassed areas and gardens. They pick our flowersand fruit from our trees. When politely spoken to, parents are either rude or ignoreus. Enlarging the school would make things even worse. There is no room for theextra traffic, especially in Woodfield road where two bus routes already experiencegreat difficulty in getting through at school times. Proposed use of the access lane atthe northern end of our estate would then mean we are completely boxed in by theschool, its access and its increased traffic in Woodfield Road. This would havefurther detrimental effect on the value of our property. For many years I served onour Residents Committee and I am consequently all too aware of the problemscaused by the school. This is, or was, a quiet residential area, I know I speak forFairlea Place residents when I say enough is enough, no expansion of St.Gregoryschool.45

With the expansion of primary school places in general, there has been no mentionof any plans to provide secondary school places in Ealing to cater for the extrademand. This is of particular concern for the Catholic schools where supply ofsecondary school places is already inadequate.No facilities in the short term to support more students - hall is too small, kitchen isinadequate and old. Not enough outside space for play because they field can onlybe used in fair weather, danger to children due to increase traffic and poor entry tothe school. decrease the community feel and catholic ethos.St.Gregory's school has for many years caused inconvenience to the residents ofFairlea Place, a small private estate. In my case, its existing kitchen is only about15metres away. At night the school's security lights brightly illuminate my bedroomand lounge, as they must do for my neighbours. School parents ignore our noticesand use our property to turn and park their vehicles whilst dropping off or waiting tocollect their children. Especially in the afternoons our cul-de-sac is crowded withparent's vehicles and our own resident's cars have difficulty getting in and out of theestate. We fought long and hard for the protection of double yellow lines, but thesetoo are ignored. The parents and their children treat our grounds as public property.They think they have the free run of our grassed areas and bushes, even to theextent of using the latter as a toilet. They pick our flowers and the fruit from ourtrees. When we politely remind them to restrict their movement to the public road weare almost always ignored, sometimes with rudeness and on a couple of occasionswith the threat of violence. This seems strange coming from the sort of parents withchildren at such a school. With the parents crowding our estate they are alsocausing congestion in Woodfield Road. This causes great difficulty to othermotorists, particularly for the drivers on the two bus routes, the E2 and the E9. Thisis, or was, a quiet residential area, chosen as such by many who live here. Thepresent difficulties caused by St.Gregorys already affect our peace and quiet. Theproposed expansion would make things much worse, including the inevitable drop inthe value of our properties. THE IMMEDIATE AREA JUST CANNOT ABSORB THEPROPOSED EXPANSION OF ST.GREGORY's SCHOOL.The proposed extension to St Gregory's school will have a significant negative impacton the local community. During school drop off and collection times, WoodfieldRoad, on the E2 and E9 routes is already gridlocked. The proposed expansion islikely to lead to more than 50% additional cars. This increased traffic will lead tosignificant safety issues to children and local residents alike, in what has alreadybeen recognised as a dangerous area. The proposed development will increase theflooding risk to houses on the southern side of Woodfield Crescent. The proposeduse of the narrow alleyway behind Woodfield Crescent as a main pedestrian accessto the school is completely impractical, as the alleyway is so narrow. Opening this upto public access will be a security risk to the Woodfield Crescent houses that abut thealleyway, which will also suffer from light pollution from a fully-lit alleyway. There arealso increased pollution issues relating to the development. In addition to the aboveobjections, there has to be a fundamental question as to whether there really is theneed to increase the school to the proposed extent. The need for additional placeshas not been explained adequately. The planning application refers to generaliseddocumentation that takes no account of the specific circumstances relating to any ofthe schools. There is no compelling evidence suggesting that this is the only optionavailable. Therefore given the specific site constraints at this particular site, if indeeda need exists, other options must be explored in the first instance. Growth by stealthto justify the objective of expansion is not appropriate or in the public interest.Montpelier and North Ealing Primary schools, located within half a mile of StGregory’s, are expanding. It is therefore likely that a high proportion of the children46

taking up the places made available by the proposed expansion at St Gregory’s willnot be local. The Archdiocese has referred to extending the catchment area,indicating that this expansion is not being done to meet local needs. Myunderstanding is that a significant reason for the increase in the birth-rate in Ealing isrelated to the Somali population, who will not be attending this catholic school.The environmental impacts of this proposed expansion are purely negative. Thenoise and light pollution from the enlarged school will be greatly increased. Theimpact upon those of us unfortunate to live next to this school has not been takeninto consideration at all. At the moment our home area is a no go area at certaintimes of day due to the thoughtless parking by parents either dropping off orcollecting their children, this will only get worse with the expansion of the school andbe made even worse given the wider catchment area that children will be travellingfrom. We have also had to tolerate damage to both garages and parked vehicles asa result of the thoughtlessness of the current parents as well as large amounts oflitter dropped locally the enlargement will only exacerbate this problem. Given thethoughtless actions of the contractors already involved in the limited works that havebeen undertaken such as trespass on private property and noise early in the morningthe impact of the proposed building works will be disproportionate and over aconsiderable length of time. We should not be expected to have to tolerate this!!!! Iam also deeply concerned about the destruction of local habitat by the proposedbuilding works. We have had a thriving local population of bats but given theproposed destruction of trees to make way for the new building there will be adetrimental effect upon what after all are a protected species.This will mean expansion of buildings giving more children less area for play andexercise. Our garden borders the school which will alter, noise, eco harmony,pollution by increasing the traffic and will not be favourably aesthetic, noted from theplans.This proposal will dramatically increase traffic congestion in the surrounding roadsduring the morning and afternoon school run. It is proposed that future pupil accesswill be through entrances in Westmoreland Place and a narrow alley access fromWoodfield Road adjacent to Fairlea Place. Considering Westmoreland Place first:there is no dedicated footways in front of residents' driveways. I estimated that upto120 extra car journeys will be made in both daily school runs. Many of these willattempt to drive into Westmoreland Place, which is a narrow cul-de-sac, in order todrop their children as close to the school entrance as possible. (This is the currentpractice of parents whose children attend Montpelier School.) This will result inchildren walking down the middle of the road being put in danger from other parentswho are dropping their children by car. Narrow Access adjacent to Fairlea Place: thefootways in Woodfield Raod are very narrow (about 2 metres wide) which will meanchildren often "spilling out" into the road, putting them in direct danger of collisionwith the increased number of cars in Woodfield Road.We already have very serious school run problems that the school has neverseriously addressed. All letters to the school regarding this are simply ignored. Byfar the biggest problem in the area are the school runs which this school contributesto but never addresses.Flooding risk to local homes, increased pollution, ruining of the brentham gardensuburb, no need for extra places in the borough of Ealing, the expansion should notbe looked upon differently just because it is a faith school - the concept is outdated.47

The expansion is unsuitable for a residential area that has two large primary schoolsvery close to each other. Also St. Gregory have stated majority of new students willbe from outside the catchment area. Finally I am very concerned about theenvironmental impact of the expansion with limitation that it will cause to access foremergency vehicles during the expansion.Compromise health and safety Increase noise and disruption to the surroundingresidentspollution increased.. we live backing onto playing fields and proposal is for allweather playing pitch..floodlightThere is no need for extra places at St Gregory's: (1)the school keeps expanding itscatchment to fill the places it already has, and at the public meeting on 19/07/10 saidit had already invited parishes as far away as Sudbury Hill to apply for places; (2) themajority of children in the 2010 bulge class live outside the current catchmentarea,XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; (3) HathawayPrimary, also in North Ealing, has a PAL surplus of at least 15% according to LBEfigures. Enlarging Hathaway -- not a faith school and therefore open to all -- wouldbetter serve the interests of local children seeking a local primary school place. Thelocal infrastructure cannot cope with hundreds of more cars each day and all thecongestion and pollution they will bring. Imposing a multi-year construction plan onthe local community will place it under an intolerable strain -- over three years ofheavy construction work six days a week, every week, will wreck our quality of lifeand render our gardens unusable and unprivate. The vast increase in noise pollutionand air pollution, combined with the resulting significant disruption to private andfamily life, which would result if the proposed expansion goes ahead, will destroylocal residents' quality of life and will severly compromise the health and safety of ourchildren. Resiting the entrances will have a huge, negative impact on residents'privacy and family life, and will make homes more vulnerable to burglary, vandalismand other crimes. It will also increase the dangers to children entering and exiting thepremises. Pupils' health and welfare will also be severely compromised by theconstruction work. So far funding has been secured for Phase 1 (expansion) only.What happens if Phases 2 and 3 (refurbishment) are never implemented? How willthe school function with the same outdated facilities but with 200+ extra pupils andless outside space? Is the school happy to see children educated on a building siteindefinitely? What about the loss of playing fields and playground space if only Phase1 is built?The expansion will negatively affect local residents in many ways, includingincreased traffic, noise, light from the school, drainage problems. Also disagree withthe statement that more primary school places are required for local children asapplicants will be sent out as far as SudburyIs next to conservation area, already too much traffic congestion and parking issues.Furthermore this school only takes Catholic students regardless of catchment. Itseems people outside the borough getting places at this school. There is no need toexpand this school, as local residents will get any benefits. We will only have furtherchaos in the area, with cars, buses and people blocking pavements and walk ways.PLEASE STOP THIS EXPANSION.The area is already very dangerous for children and parents moving around the areaby car or by foot during school opening and closing times. We have witnessed manyfrightening experiences of road rage incidents. The idea to use the entrance in48

Westmoreland place as a building site entrance and then school entrance is recklessand irresponsible. We have already experienced ill health, damage to our propertiesand gas leaks due to previous use as a site entrance. As a school entrance we havealready witnessed how dangerous that was for the children. You will be puttingchildrens lives at risk. The residents in Westmoreland place need to have access inand out of the small close, which is already compromised by parents from Montpelierand Aston House school and now St Benedicts school.Children learn better and are happier in smaller schools. The teachers know all thechildren and the children know all the teachers. A three form entry school is too largefor young children.Flood risk and lack of need within catchmentSt Greg is great because keeps the small feel of a primary school. The extensionwould challenge the things that make the school have a solid foundation, e.g. localcommunity feel, A place where everyone belong, its culture and ethos. The schoolsite would be overused and built upon. The children would lose the open space andfeel which they enjoy. The traffic and movement outside the school would be anightmare for all especially the direct community and local roads.I am not sure if the demand is there in the local area. I know of children coming fromActon - why not expand the schools in this area?The congestion in Woodfield Road is already substantial at school drop off and pickup times. The planned expansion will exacerbate this: and make the bus drivers jobsand access to the street worse for all users than it already is. As a local resident, myfamily has to plan its time to use the buses to avoid the peak times of pick up anddrop off. If an emergency vehicle had to access Woodfield Road at those times theysimply would not be able to do so. Congestion is sometimes so bad that traffic is gridlocked and at a standstill, so how a fire engine or ambulance would fare in such asituation is a sobering thought for all who may need them - local residents, the schooland the elderly in the care home in the road. The planned expansion will alsoincrease pollution on this already busy street and make use of the public transportpassing through this road for all commuters more difficult than it is already. I am alsoconcerned that the site and its access are not sufficient for the increased volume ofproposed users.I have seen the proposed plans and do not think that they deal appropriately with thelarger numbers and amount of extra curricular activities the school provides.The school is entirely surrounded by residential accommodation, including on 2 sidesThe Brentham Conservation Area (article 4). This therefore would mean that anyschool enlargement on this site would have a major impact on local residents, notonly with congestion and disruption but also significantly increased noise levels. Theschool works well at present, in harmony with most neighbours. Please do notdestroy this. Surely the Council has a responsibility to local residents in addition tolooking for school places for children from outside the local area.Both local schools have expanded in recent years this has had impact on the areawith the number of people commuting in to and out of the area each day. Do notbelieve that all the additional children attending the school will be living in thecatchment area and that they may be coming from as far as Greenford, Perivale,Harrow, Ruislip, leaving spaces in Catholic schools in the area in which they reside.Schools are provided for local children in the catchment area, this is good for the49

adults and children of the community for a number of reasons, for example theCatholic parish community and for the social, emotional and development of children.It is wrong that the school will only receive funds to invest in facilities, siteimprovements (due to old buildings) and equipment if the school is expanded andthat this is being used as a reason for expansion. Expansion may improve resourcesand environment but not necessarily the education and well-being of the children.The expansion may well meet the demand for school places in the entire borough butnot the local parish or cathment area. Not convinced funding will be sufficient toresource extra years groups, with no support, guidance and time for staff to carry outthe administration and tasks that will be required with the expansion.School needs funding for building improvements and sadly expansion appears theonly way to receive the financial support from the Diocese of Westminster. However Idon't think the expansion will be for the good of the school or the children. Theadditional pupil places will be in part filled with children outside the catchment area.St Gregory's school is well run currently and although in the centre of a completelyresidential area fits in well with the surrounding community. Any increase in numberswill prejudice this. Two sides of the school are surrounded by the BrenthamConservation area. Any increased noise pollution which would result from this hugeschool enlargement would have a significant impact on all the residents.A new build school makes more sense. I am very concerned that building works willoccur when pupils are at school - this is dangerous and decreases play area. Itappears the purpose of Ealing Council is merely to increase places rather than focuson education quality for childrenIt will greatly affect the local community because of school drop offs in carsIf the school expands it will definitely need another entrance/ exit to the school. Thefront gate is far too small at peak timesFeel the expansion is unnecessary. My daughter was moved from a yr2 new builtclassroom to a portacabin at the end of the field in order to admit the bulge class.The school facilities are inadequate I.e. school hall/ dining area, reception area,indoor PE facilities and it to name but a few!It is clear that the school and governors have no interest in promoting cycling orwalking to school. The WOW scheme is never truly enforced and so offers noencouragement to pupils. The disgraceful attitude of the school to cyclists isshameful, still no bike sheds or useable racks after years of request. Bar one, onewonders how many of the governors ever walk or ride to the school1. The case fo expansion has not been properly made in the first place. The data Ihave seen is poor and dubious. 2. The safety concerns have been completelyignored. 3. The local nature of the Catholic school will be destroyed as it becomes aschool for multiple faiths. 4. The local area is far too densely populated already sotraffic congestion will get even worse and environmental damage will grow. 5. Thetimescale to complete is far too long - North Ealing was complete in 18 months, StGregory's is 5 years. 6. It is not clear to me who has the authority to proceed with theexpansion and I consider thete is a risk of the school and the authority actingillegally. 7. So far consultation responses are ignored, The authorities seemdetermind to expand St Gregs regardless of any concerns.50

Too many pupils from ourtside catchment/ in other parishes will be given vacantplaces. This will cause chaos in future (as st gregs admissions well knows) withregard to sibling policy in future. There is no good reason to expand a school -where is the demand for places in our parish, when we already have pupils attendingthe school from afarThe plan has been done already. I do not think my say really counts. Expanding StGregory's will not benefit children's minds. New schools should be built in the area tomeet present demand.St Gregory’s is a local school serving the local catholic community. It will no longerbe a 'local' school and will therefore change in its nature. It is nearly impossible tobring children safely into the school at the moment due to the severe congestionoutside the school with a local of suitable parking facilities and an increase inpollution which affects my child's asthmaThe construction of the new school in Acton Vale should take priority as this is thearea of greatest population growth this will also reduce people in St Gregory's. Lossof sporting facilities is a worry. A decline in educational standards due to disruptionis a worry if not a given. Are the staff in favour? If not the earlier comment is a morelikely worry which could result in less local children going to St Gregory's.If the catchment area is expanded, it will only encourage people to drive thereforecausing even more congestion and anguish for the locals to the school.I fail to see the increased number of Catholics attending the abbey who the diocesetell us are creating the demand for more catholic places in the area. The increase innumbers will lead to a breakdown of the community feel of the school, something Ithink is vital in a catholic schoolIf the proposed expansion goes ahead it will probably mean Woodfield Road willhave double yellow lines. We already know that the St Gregory's parents ignoredouble yellow lines completely and are exceptionally rude if you happen to bring it totheir attention. Also it would mean my family and I would not be able to parkoutside/near our home. I had an operation on the left side of my body in very recentyears and I am not supposed to carry anything heavy in my left hand, because of thisI now have carpal tunnel in my right hand. I do need to have car parking facilitieswithin easy reach (3/4 houses) at the most.The site is not suitable for further expansion and if allowed to go ahead will make lifequite unpleasant for many local residents. It will have a detrimental effect on theBrentham Garden Estate high-level conservation area.I disapprove of faith schools.The road is too narrow already to accommodate the number of parents driving to theschool. Far too many cars trawling the streets, blocking entrances, causing chaos forbuses etc.This is recognised as an excellent school in the area- much sought after - to expandit may adversely affect this. It seems clear that many of the proposed extra childrento be accommodated live outside the immediate area. It would be far better forchildren of First and Middle school age to attend school where they live:Parent/teacher contact is enhanced in such situations.51

I think the proposal is based on a helicopter view of the school which would appear toindicate it has the space to expand (but has taken no account of the surroundingarea or access to the school). I believe the Governors have supported it on the basisthat they think they will get a nicely spriced up school as a result - but this is in noway guaranteed. The way in which parents have been provided with information onwhich to form an informed view has been manipulated to the extreme with misinformationprovided.Having seen the impact of taking one extra bulge class, and knowing now that theschool is committed to taking another next year, it is obvious that the school will notcope with many more children. - It is already impossible to do a whole schoolassembly, and school dinners are staggered as the hall isn’t big enough. - Childrenfrom year 2 to year 6 are being mixed together to play on one playground as there isnot enough outdoor play space. Getting children to their relevant playgrounds withparents and carers having to walk round the school with buggies and young childrenis chaos. -Funds were not available for facilities such as the outdoor covered areafor reception children (required for the school to pass its OFSTED inspection), andthe Parents Association had to cover the cost of this. A recent financial request to thePA has been for reading books as the school can’t afford them. The PA has also hadto provide the children with all the laptops that they have. St Gregory’s can’t affordthe children it’s got, let alone extra children. The PA funds are very low at themoment, and many of the PA are unhappy about the expansion and have resignedas a result of this. - PA fundraising events such as the Christmas Bonanza, SummerFete, and football tournament will not be able to be held during the 7 year expansionperiod as many parts of the school will be cordoned off for building work, or be toounsafe for the children. I suspect the after school football club also run by the PA,and other sport events will be suspended during this time. -The school has beenunable to recruit a SENCO co coordinator. The school was deemed unsatisfactory atits last OFSTED inspections and has only recently come out of special measures -600 plus children in a primary school is just too many for a small suburb such asPitshanger. -There are only 24 places in the after school club and 22 in the breakfastclub working parents are having to employ a real array of unqualified au pairs asschool does not make a provision for pre and after school care despite the fact that itadvertises that it does. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Pick up and drop off, are totally hazardous. The traffic surrounding theschool is gridlocked most mornings, local children do tend to walk, but many childrenare travelling in from Hanwell, West Ealing, Acton, Wembley and Yeading. There isno regular crossing patrol person, and I am very worried for the safety of the childrenoutside the school. 200 extra children coming from these areas will make thisdangerous situation worse. Buses regularly have to mount the pavement to squeezethrough at this time. -I understand that the expansion is quite complicated and willtake 5 years to complete. It is totally unsafe to educate children at school whilst thiskind of building work takes place. I am very worried about heavy machinery andcranes being on site at the same time as the children. The disruption and dangercaused by the building work at Chestnut Lodge Nursing home next door to schoolwas awful, dust, cranes, heavy machinery, loud noise, big lorries reversing onto theschool crossing. It is not healthy or safe for the children, to have to endure another 5years of this work. -There are already 5 primary school within a mile of each other, StGregory’s North Ealing, Montpelier, St Benedict’s and St Augustine’s. Would it notmake more sense to expand a school in another area where there are fewerschools?The school will lose its close local feel having children coming from far and widePrimary schools should cater for local (walking distance) children There is alreadymassive congestion at school times which will get worse if you expand52

I am a strong believer in primary schools being LOCAL where children can WALK toschool and make local friends that they can easily meet with after school. I alsobelieve that primary schools should be SMALL so that the children feel safe andsecure and know all those around them.We already have major disruption during school start and finish times. Inconsiderateparking and lack of control means traffic comes to a halt. Traffic pollution is anothermajor problem. Buses struggle to get through the narrow road.Allowing this Application could lead to even more proposals for expansion, devaluingthe neighbourhood even further.I SAY AGAIN, THERE IS NO ROOM HERE FOR SUCH AN EXPANSION. WHATABOUT THE DIMINISHED VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY? WOULD WE EVER GETA REDUCTION IN OUR COUNCIL TAX?Congestion in Woodfield Road, Eaton Rise and Mount Pleasant Road is alreadyridiculous and that is with, perhaps, 40 to 50% of children getting to school on foot.Expansion will bring in children from families beyond walking distance so we canexpect the congestion problem to DOUBLE with an extra form in each year group.The school is unable to cope with the current situation despite a number of trafficincidents, including children being hurt. To push ahead with expansion withoutaddressing this concern is asking for trouble. Secondly. At no point in theconsultation have I heard the quality of education provided by St Gregory's beingaddressed. The school is coming out of special measure put in place by OFSTED. Itis by no means stable. The expansion will be disruptive and destabilise the schoolfor the next 3-4 years.I believe the funding is not secured for the entire project - my fear is there will be anincrease in students in the first and second phase but no funding for the final phases.Having 2 children in the school - their education will be significantly impacted by thedisruption of building works for 3 plus years - and receive no benefit. The building isplanned to take way too long - it should be radically reduced to be done in schoolholidays only. I am very concerned at having work going on while pupils are in theschool. Additionally, I live in close proximity to the school and do not want theadditional buses, cars and people that this expansion will bring.I believe that there are a number of serious issues related to the development, whichmean that it should not go ahead. Fundamental issues, such as dealing with trafficproblems, have not been adequately addressed in the planning application.Furthermore, the actual perceived need has not been explained in an open ortransparent way. The current argument for the expansion of this school is notcompelling and it is unclear to me why expansion of this particular faith school is theonly option available to the Council.This proposal really completely ignores the rights of local residents. The impact uponus will be by far greater that has been acknowledged and out of proportion to anybenefit that could be gained from the expansion going ahead.No long established trees to be removed. Note Tree Preservation Order nothonoured for these trees.53

I am especially worried about the hinderance to emergency services to the area forthe periods 8.30 to 9.30am and 3.00 to 4.00pm when parents are delivering childrenand picking them up. It will get even worse with the increased size of the school.There has to be a fundamental question as to whether there is the need to increasethe size of St Gregory's to the proposed extent, to meet the educational requirementsof the local community. The current catchment area is very large compared withother local schools, such as Norther Ealing, and this years "bulge" class has provedthat 73% of the extra places have had to be given to children outside of the schoolcatchment area. This means that these children are being transported at least 1.5miles from home to school and return. This will have an inevitable knock-on effect onother less popular schools. At the 2nd public consultation meeting, on 19/7/2010, therepresentative from the Archdiocese of Westminster said that invitations to sendchildren to the school have already gone out to parishes as far away as Sudbury Hill.The extra school spaces are not being created where they are needed which, asEaling Council's own data shows, is primarily Acton and North Greenford. This is at atime when there are schools in the Borough that have empty spaces. These schoolsshould be filled before considering expanding St Gregory's, e.g. Hathaway School inCleveland Ward, which in the current year does not have a full role of pupils.I am a local parent living in Woodfield Avenue, and we already experience parkingand congestion problems on our street from St Gregory’s, to bring more traffic intothe area would be ludicrous. Also my children attend Montpelier Primary school andI understand there is to be another entrance proposed to open around our school -which is already dangerously over crowded with very limited parking. To add to thiscould be disastrous.When is the school going to acknowledge how big an impact its school run has??Are they simply going to ignore it with this exapnsion and hope for the best. Whereexactly will these extra cars park?? The traffic issues are NEVER taken seriously ina hope they might go away. Residents are appalled by this ongoing apathy towardsthe school runs. The school has never contacted local residents to apologise for theschool run problems. It is as if local people have to work around the school and theschool is no part of the area. It acts as it pleases and as far as the school run isconcerned it is a case of tough cookey. The has to explain exactly what will happenas regards the school runs.Traffic congestion in the area is very high with the current number of pupils and isdangerous to both the pupils and residents in the area. Any expansion of the schoolwill only increase an existing problem, particularly as more pupils will live furtheraway and be driven to school by their parents. Primary schools should be for localchildren to maintain a sense of identity for the pupils but also for local people in thearea. It is also detrimental to primary aged children to be in large schools which aremore impersonal.Expansion of St. Gregory's is not needed as there are currently unfilled spaces inother schools in the Borough. Filling these first will cut down on future car journeys,avoid increased levels of pollution from the construction of buildings and from theschool runs and not further increase congestion in the vicinity of St Gregory's.The expansion will have no benefit for the locals because of statement by St.Gregory that new students will not be from local area. Also the damage toenvironment and hazard to local residents because of extra traffic during theconstruction and post constrution for new students which will not live localy.54

As a resident of Westmoreland Place, I do NOT want this expansion.I am concerned about the path behind my house becoming a permanent and floodlightpoint of access to the school. I think the impact on the traffic and parkingsituation will became unbearable and I am concerned we will soon be forced to haveparking-permits to park outside our own home.• Wider safety issues • Flooding risk • Damage to the local environment(conservation area) • Pollution • Minimal need within current school catchmentWe are concerned about parents parking on Fairlea Place and increasing congestionon our road. We would also like to know when during the day and on which days theconstruction work will be taking place.The area around St Gregory’s is already highly congested due to the use of mountave as a rat run and parents dropping their children at nearby Montpelier schoolI have already submitted a detailed objection to the planning permission.This is not necessary for the people who live locally and only catholic and peopleoutside the borough benefit. I have to put my kids in a private school becausealthough we live next St Greg, we can't get in because we are not Catholic, wecouldn't get into North Ealing even we are in the catchment because we are deemedtoo far, so we ended up going to Montpiler and as it was too crowded as well asstandard is dropping so we decided to move to a private school which is costing me alot of money. Is this fair? No, so who you are doing this expansion for? Not localresidents. It is locals that pay taxes and elect councillors. If this goes ahead, I believethey won't be re-elected. PLEASE STOP THIS EXPANSION.Has a detailed traffic plan been prepared to consider the impact of additionalconstruction vehicles, construction worker's vehicles and additional parent's vehiclesin the area been prepared for the 5 year period over which construction is likely totake place and the additional safety features required to handle a 50% increase inthe number of young children spilling out onto relatively narrow pavements?It seems wrong to expand a school at great expense when a number of other nearbyEaling primary schools are undercapacity.Very few families who live within a mile of the site send their children there. Theschool's own pupil 'survey' was blantantly rigged to disguise this. The schoolexpansion needs to be nearer the real homes of the pupils of that age group, who willnot be coming from within a mile and a half (even) of the site.Most of the extra pupils for an expanded St Gregs will inevitably be driven in, as theywill come from the outer reaches and even outside the catchment area. Congestion,pollution and increased danger for pedestrians will inevitably increase in an alreadystressed location.Woodfield Road already suffers from severe traffic congestion. The proposal willmake the situation much worse and pose a safety hazard. A large proportion of bulgeintake for this year is from outside catchment. How can expansion possibly bejustified on this basis (as we are led to believe its due to higher birth rates withincatchment). The current site was obviosuly meant to accomodate current studentnumbers and this large expansion will have a detrimental impact on localenvironment and residents lives and is not justified.55

The school is within a conservation area and the proposed development contravenesplanning regulations. Adjoining properties have Article 4 restrictions and theproposed development is therefore unrealistic. The lengthy re-development will beextremely disruptive for the existing pupils who have absolutely nothing to gain fromthe expansion. The large increase in pupil numbers will have a detrimental effect onthe ambience of the school environment. It would no longer be the St. Gregory's weknow.Health and Safety issues - increased pollution from parents using private transport togo to and from the school; and lack of access to the street at pick up and drop offtimes when emergency vehicles may be unable to pass down the road causing avery real safety risk for Woodfield Road's many stakeholders - the school, the carehome, those using public transport and the local residents. Increased congestionmaking life difficult for commuters trying to go to work in the morning on the buses,for the bus drivers themselves who have to negotiate a very overcrowed road, for theparents and the school children crossing a very busy road, and for local residentswho have to time their comings and goings and use of the buses to avoid schoolpeak times.(1)It abuts the Brentham Estate, which has Article 4 status and is therefore protectedfrom developments that will be detrimental to the nature of the estate and lives of itsresidents. (2)The St Gregory's proposals will wreck the quality of life of localresidents and ruin the special nature of the Brentham Estate. (3)LBE figures showthat of the 90 reception class places offered at St Gregory's for September 2010entry there were only 64 1st-choice place applications. This shows that there is lackof demand for increased forms of entry at the school. (4)Another North Ealing school,Hathaway, has large numbers of vacancies, which further calls into question the ideathat there is a shortage of places in North Ealing. (5)The archdiocese has alreadysaid it will enlarge the already huge catchment atrea for St Gregory's: if it is enlargednow, where will it stop? (6)LBE figures project a bulge in demand for reception placesin 2012, and that demand will fal l thereafter, thus again calling into question theneed for extra places. (6) The site cannot be safely accessed by pupils and parentsduring and after construction. (7)What happens if funding for phases 2 and 3 is notsecured?I might reconsider if the plans were drastically altered.The traffic, congestion and noise in the area is already at an unacceptable level forlocal residents. It virtually makes the area inaccessible twice a day, and there hasbeen no attempt by the school or council to address the problems encountered bylocal tax payers every single day. Any expansion would considerably worsen theproblem regardless of any promises at this stage as the location is just notappropriate for a school at the current size let alone any bigger.It is a fact that car travel to school is a significant contributor to traffic congestion andunhealthy lifestyles in children. With this in mind the Transport for London Policyclearly states that ‘Boroughs should reduce transport congestion at schools’ The2010 temporary bulge class in St Gregory's school contains 75% of pupils fromoutside the schools catchment area (which being a RC school is large)...trafficcongestion has become intolerable. The proposed 50% increase in pupil number willresult in dire road traffic congestion - the road infrastructure will not be able to cope.There is grid lock at St Gregory's school gates at drop off and pick up times. Therehave been 2 child fatalities in Ealing in the recent past, where the children havewalked out into the road between parked cars. In its Travel Plan St G's school states56

that that 'Woodfield Road is dangerous and parents are therefore reluctant to let theirchildren cycle or walk to school unaccompanied'. The school travel plan offers fewviable suggestions to mitigate the congestion problem. There is anaccident waiting to happen. The St G Planning Application states that the proposal isa major development. Why did the London Borough of Ealing Planning Departmentsay that a Transport Assessment was not needed? As most of the children will betravelling from outside he catchment area, one would think that a TA was vital? Theplanning application does not include a SUDS report either...an important ommissionat this time of climate change. Is the planning department following the correctproceedures with this planning application or giving the application an easy ride asthe local authority are trying to increase the number of primary school places? In thiseconomic climate how can spending thousands of pounds of tax payers money on StGregory’s major redevelopment plan and then the cost of putting the plans throughthe LB E Planning Department for approval be justified before any properconsultation with parents and local residents?? Another London Borough of Ealingsurvey shows that there will be increased primary school requirement till 2012 then itwill fall. The development is due for completion Sept 2012 Why is this white elephantbeen built with taxpayers money? In this financial climate ....how can the coucil justifythe cost of this development? The area of Acton and North Greenford are regardedas being the most in need of primary school places. Many primary schools in the W5area are expanding (including Montpelier and North Ealing adjacent to St Gregory's ).Many primary schools are now finding a reduced application for places (eg Hathaway15% reduction) due to the unpresidented expansion of schools in this area. How canthe LB of Ealing justify this expansion when other local schools have spaces? In theSt G Planning Application it is proposed that the main pedestrian entrance is situatedjust north of the main school entrance on Woodfield Road (thus increasing thecongestion area). There are no proposals to safeguard the children from the busybus and car traffic along Woodfield Road as they enter or emerge from the alleyway.....barriers or bollards cannot be used as there are private driveways either side ofthis narrow alley and the entrance will be used for emergency access. As a governorresponsible for Health and Safety for another primary school ....I am extremlyconcerned with this proposal. Properties in Woodfield Crescent experience waterrunoff from the school field. The application does not propose to address any of theflooding issues, so that....... the removal of trees, the lack of any pathways forchildren, no turning spaces for emergency vehicles...soil compacting, the increasedbuilding footprint, reduced green field area (20% less in phase 1 ) and an increasednumber of children using the site...... WI LL cause more flooding. The developers andthe school suggest that there is a low flood risk. If the council approves thedevelopment and there is another flood who will accountable for the water damage toproperties from the water runoff from the school playing field? I also include a lettersent to the London Borough of Ealing Planning Department Dear Sir Planningapplication no…P/2010/4044 (Major Development)P/2010/4044 (Censervation Area) As a resident of Woodfield Crescent for the past19 years, I am writing to object to the request for planning permission to develop StGregory’s School, on the following grounds: • Increased traffic congestion • Pupilsafety issues and residents safety issues • Flooding risk • Damage to the localenvironment (conservation area) • Pollution The application does not meet a numberof the key requirements of the latest Ealing Unitary Development Plan (EUDP).Putting the expansion into its local context EUDP 1.4 To promote good urban designthrough planning, so that buildings and spaces are attractive, accessible, safe, andconsistent with the principles of sustainable development, and that there is properprotection of the borough, particularly areas and buildings that are of historic andarchitectural value. • St Gregory’s school is situated at the heart of a quiet residentialcommunity, bounded on two sides by the historic garden suburb – BrenthamConservation area, which has statutory Article 4 Direction. The terraced houses57

along Woodfield Crescent have long suffered from the water runoff from the StGregory’s playing fields. The lack of detail concerning this issue in the planningapplication shows that the developers have not taken this statutory obligation intoconsideration and this has rightly angered residents as we a re proud of this NationalHeritage asset. • The catchment area for pupils at St Gregory’s is much larger thanother local primary schools and car traffic is proportionately heavier in roads aroundthe school. Mount Ave( also with Montpelier school cars), Mount Road, MontpelierRoad ( with Aston House and Montpelier school cars), Woodfield Crescent,Woodfield Avenue, Eaton rise(also with St Benedicts school cars) HoweverWoodfield Road on the main bus route, Mount Pleasant and Lanark Close haveoverwhelming problems with gridlock, accidents (latest 3/11/2010!) and road rage(church school parents!) • The school is positioned in the centre of a small, denselypopulated residential block: o Fairlea Place - 63 privately owned flats on 4 levels, carparking and garages o The Chestnuts - Old people’s home on 4 stories with 70residents, 24 hour nursing services/dentist/hair dresser/catering/social services/doctors/laundry with 10 parking spaces o Stanley Court - 32 privately owned2/3 bed flats on 3 levels, car parking and garages o Juniper House - 15 privatelyowned 2/3 bed flats on 3 levels, car parking and garages o The housing block on theopposite side of the road to St Gregory’s consists of 6 multi-occupancy residentialproperties several owned by the Ealing Abbey and three large private properties.Increased traffic congestion EUDP policy 4.1 A development layout will provide easeof movement for all transport modes, whilst affording priority to pedestrians, and thento cyclists and public transport. EUDP 9.1 (Development, Access and Parking)states that planning permission will normally only be granted for development whichensures traffic safety. • St Gregory’s main entrance is on a bend in Woodfield Road,a busy through road, that takes traffic between Greenford and North Ealing to EalingBroadway u nderground and main line stations. • The road outside the entrance isalready badly congested during morning rush hour/school drop off and pick up timesas stated above. Buses, vans and lorries have to mount pavements or reverse intoresidents driveways and even up Woodfield Road to alleviate the blockages.** Theseverity of the current congestion, before the proposed expansion, is illustrated by: oLocal Councillors regularly receiving complaints from residents about speeding andinconsiderate parking, as reported in local Hanger Ward bulletin. o Parents beingreluctant to let their children walk alone or cycle to school due to heavy congestion,as noted in the St Gregory’s Green Report. o Local residents play no part in causingtraffic congestion as suggested by the school** • The school stated that 74% of thisyears’ bulge class came from outside catchment ..... this should now make aTransport Assessment com pulsory( see application: LB of Ealing - Rachel Banfieldpre planning advise to the developers) . If the proposed increase of 50% expansion isapproved and the catchment area increased, the local infrastructure would not beable to cope. • The addition of new entrances to the school, with the current mainentrance, will extend the area of traffic congestion. One of these new entrances is inWestmoreland Place, already congested by school traffic from Montpelier School.The alleyway at the back of Woodfield Crescent is totally impractical (see pupil safetyissues below)** • Traffic flow will be horrendous - works vehicles during the 4 plusyears of the construction programme together with the possibility of construction workon proposed residential development on the junction of Eaton Rise and WoodfieldRoad. Pupil safety issues EUDP policy 4.1 A development layout will provide ease ofmovement for all transport modes, whilst affording pri ority to pedestrians, and thento cyclists and public transport. EUDP 9.1 (Development, Access and Parking)states that planning permission will normally only be granted for development whichensures traffic safety. EUDP 4.4 Any development can affect the quality and feel ofan area and therefore safety and people’s perception of safety. It is importanttherefore that all developments, building modifications and public spaces should bedesigned to create a safe and secure environment.58

As a local resident I don't think it is good or fair in many respects for the localresidents/community.What changes are planned for the other parts of Ealing to cope with the growth intraffic and people especially if children from outside the local area are being givenplaces?This will really effect the ethos, culture and local feel of the school. The school willbe too bigNot sureThe school building needs to be updatedPopulation bulge is temporary. Who will fill places in 10/15 years time if not enoughcatholic children apply?Agree pupils should have access to catholic education - very unsure aboutcongestion issues and whether the welfare of pupils is at the heart of the decision.Traffic this year is already much worse around Montpelier and St Gregory's school.There have been several instances already of unplesant aggression from drivers,many of whom seem parents at both schools. Very unclear on what the expansionwould mean in terms of improved facilities. Currently the school seems very short ofbooks etc. Several huts are completely dilapidated. It is clear the school needsinvestment, not clear why this is tied to expansion.Unless the school design changes our children will lose out with the playground fieldand hall.59

St Saviour’s and Christ Church amalgamationThree letters received – see appendix 8.St Saviour’s and Christ Church expansionSt Saviour’sAgreeAlso it will be less on the waiting listIf the borough is providing finance need to make sure there are not any stringsattached which would compromise the Christian nature of the school and itsindependence from Borough councilThe school will benefit and more children get opportunitiesI don't disagree with expansion but I have concerns about -traffic congestion, the siteis too small and there will be disruption during the building worksI would like to see the proposed plans for the expansionIn principle I agree with the proposal to expand St Saviours - it is a good schooloffering excellent education. My primary concern is whether the school infrastructureis large enough to accommodate an extra class in each year (I suspect not); mysecondary concern is that, if additional infrastructure was built (extension/newbuildings), what the disruption would be to existing pupils.Christ ChurchAgreeMore space in the classrooms make them bigger. There will also be more space tomake a big kitchen and cooked meals for the children. More space outside to play.A bigger school hall also at times it feels a little squashed when all children are in thehall.Again, I don't disagree with expansion but I have concerns about -traffic congestion,the site is too small and there will be disruption during the building works. ChristChurch suffered considerable problems in 2009/10. Althought these have beenaddresses, there are new staff and a new head, I don't think the school can considerexpansion until the new stability has been better established and all concernsaddressed.In principle I agree with the proposal to expand Christ Church - it is a good schooloffering excellent education. My primary concern is whether the school infrastructureis large enough to accommodate an extra class in each year (I suspect not); mysecondary concern is that, if additional infrastructure was built (extension/newbuildings), what the disruption would be to existing pupils. I have a third concern thatsome aspects of the existing infrastructure appear at end-of-life; the existinginfrastructure would need to be reviewed in light of anticipated additionalpupils/classes and revamped as appropriate.St Saviour’sDisagreeI feel that 3 form entry is too big for a primary school. 4 form is too big andimpersonal.It's unbelievable in lieu of these expansions there will be no additional benefit to theschool!60

Faith schools have admissions policies which do not meet the needs of secularparents.Whither the funding?Ealing should pursue other sites/ options. There is demand but please don'toverdevelop!In a time of straightened economic circumstances it seems ludicrous to expand anundersubscribed schoolWith additional emphasis being on the site not being big enough to accommodatemore pupilsThe school is currently undersubscribed implying that there is insifficient demand fora christian educationHigh probability of inadequate funding either from LEA/WestminsterThere are so many children that do not live in the catchment area and still they havebeen admittedSt Saviour's already has one of the largest intakes at Reception (ie a 3 class).It is discriminatory, in that there is no provision for local children of no (or other) faith.It is also NOT an oversubscribed schoolPlay space etc will be compromised. hall etc is already too small.I think if more nursery and school places are needed for children in Ealing, then thelocal borough council should seriously look at building new schools to accommodatethese children instead of trying to expand existing schools. Of course, more childrenare being born year on year and the need for new schools is imperative.....not patchand fix existing ones. St. Saviours would lose its unique identity and it would be thechildren and local residents who will suffer the consequences.Further information should be provided, i.e, designs detailing how the school wouldbe expanded etc.St Saviours is a small, nurturing Church of England school. It has a sense ofhomliness for the children and this is one of its key benefits. Expanding this smallschool and the constant building interference over 8 years, will remove this.It is already considered a LARGER THAN AVERAGE sized infant school, as statedin a recent Ofsted report.I feel the space is too small. I wonder how this will be funded adequately.Expansion of St Saviours has an ongoing impact on Christ Church.My children are currently at St Saviours - i cannot see how they have the room forextra classrooms, let alone how difficult you have made it to pick up or drop offchildren. Whether you like it or not we live in the age of the car and you do not61

provide any incentive (such as free oyster travel for parents taking their children toand from school by bus or free parking in the EB multi storey car park for an hourmorning and evening) not even a secure cycle parking zone! Furthermore, moreclassrooms will take away from the very limited space our children have both insideand outside the classroom. My children will soon graduate to Christchurch and haveto suffer 4/5 years trying to be educated next door to the biggest building site in WestLondon and on top of all the extra noise, disruption and dust, part of their playgroundwill be stolen away without any commensurate compensation! Happy? I think not. Ifthese issues were addressed with some adequate responses my attitude couldchange - but ONLY if there were a quite sizeable change to your current position.St Saviours is a great school with a friendly, homely atmosphere. I'm worried 90extra children will have a negative impact. It is already overwhelming for smallchildren, coming to collect older siblings at the end of the day, with the crowds ofparents and the bottleneck experienced at the school gates.I feel 3 class entry is actually bigger than would be desired for any one school.Keeping track of all the pupils stretches resources as it is anyway - I feel to stretchthis any further would make things even harder for the leadership team. We wouldbe in further danger of losing the personal touch. The proposed plans we have seento accommodate such an expansion looked quite impressive, but that's because theywere including lots of extras which frankly are unlikely to be covered by funds madeavailable. Plans to use a second entrance are unlikely to be allowed by the shoppingcentre and just how the flow of children would be managed seemed ill thought outand impractical. The site is just too small for extra pupils - the school currentlystruggles for space and is in desperate need of at least one extra room if not two.The prospect of needing facilities to accommodate a further 90 children arebewildering and I'm afraid I have no faith that enough funds would b e madeavailable to make this feasible.The expansion is championed but XXXXXXXXXXXX governors but opposed by mostteachers who are best placed to judge the adverse effects of the proposedexpansion. There is not much demand, It isn't oversubscribed - also Christ Churchis not fit to expand. It has had a disasterous 2 years. It just scraped an OfSTEDinspection under new management with a 'satisfactory'. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXX It makes no sense on the current site - expansion will mean spending moneythat can ill be afforded on expansion that can not be reasonale accommodated onthe current site in response to a demand that does not exist. If the expansion wentahead demand might well decrease as the lack of space would result in staggeredplay times and meal times - the close knit culture of the school would be lost. Stsaviour% 3Bs is already one of the largest faith schools in the borough. MountCarmel would be far better placed to accommodate expansionSt Saviour's School and its playground space is a perfect working environment for its320 pupils. I am the site manager of St Saviour's and, with 22 years experience atthe school, cannot emphasize strongly enough that any additional input of pupils willseriously impede the educational standards and the quality of life the pupils currentlyenjoy. Given the parameters of the school grounds, we cannot spread outwards andso, even with the fine architectural plans to build a new block, this cannot in any wayhope to improve on the existing situation. A cruise liner may carry more passengersthan the numbers for which it was constructed - but that doesn't mean that thevoyage will be a particularly pleasant one. There appears to be considerableopposition to expanding St Saviour's. While the Governing Body are in broadagreement, the same cannot be said for the rest of the community. All of the local62

esidents, virtually all of the teaching and support staff and, as far as I am aware, themajority of the parents are against the proposal. In a report to the council, thegovernors express a need for new buildings on both sites. St Saviour’s had amassive refurbishment 15 years ago with a modern block, the best facilities and wehave just had a brand new computer suite installed. What new buildings aresupposed to be so essential? In the FAQs statement we given, one of the reasonsfor the borough's difficulties with finding school places is the increased birth rateamongst the Afghan and Somali communities as well as others. In the same paper, itremarks that "This offers to build a vision of a distinctive Christian education forchildren from the Christian community and, potentially, from the local community." IfSt Saviour's accepts increasing numbers of children from a predominantly non-Christian / ethnic background in line with the growing immigrant population, then theidea of extending to them the Christian ethos is completely inappropriate and fraughtwith dissension. While ethnic groups may like the high standards generally offered bychurch schools, the erosion of the criteria set for admittance as well as get-outclauses for any religious education (such as attending mass) will not result in non-Christian families falling over themselves to be blessed by Christ. The Christianethos of St Saviour's school will be diluted and the community fractured if familieswith a profoundly different faith are admitted en masse. To suggest otherwise issomewhat naive.The school would be brought down, at present the standards are high the school istoo small for extra reception class. I would worry for the education of my child, as itwould be to overcrowdedThe school is on a small site and it relatively large already with a 3 form intake. Theschool will become too large for staff to remember all pupils names and this will havean adverse effect on the ethos of the schoolBoth schools have barely adequately sized playgrounds. More children + morebuildings will reduce this. They need areas for ball games as well as quieter areasand this is already a problemAlthough transport links are relatively good to the broadway the vast majority ofpupils arrive by car and there are already major parking problems in the area of theschool. I believe the expansion of St. Saviour’s would be a significant error. Theschool is already on a cramped site and it would become even more crowded. Ibelieve this would worden the educational experience for everyone involvedThe play areas at St Saviour's are already congested. An absolute reduction in playspace to make room for more classrooms or a relative reduction by increasing thenumber of pupils is not appropriate and potentially dangerousThe strong attraction of St saviour's is the separate reception playground, allowingnew children to play undaunted by older children, and the caring, family-styleatmosphere. Although it is 3 form entry it is a small school and the children feelsecure and safe. This could never be replicated in a school the size of an average 2form entry primary school. The children would be crammed in to a small site andwould lose the excellent, intimate relationship with peers and staff. St Saviour'schildren in year 2 are already VERY anxious about the move to Christchurch, as theyhave older siblings who LOVED St Saviour's but really have NOT enjoyed transitionto Christchurch. Our daughter said "I liked St Saviour's but at Christchurch there areno clubs and all we do at lunchtime is stand in queues. It is no fun." This was withNO prompting. I think that is is SHAMEFUL that the Governing Body can seriouslycontemplate expansion when St S and CC have so much work to do to improve CC,63

it is just starting to get better, and the current students and new intake from Stsaviour's must be the priority.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX My daugter went there and loved going there. I feel any kind of expansionwill be devastating for the school.Humans do not thrive in overcrowded conditions. Very young children need morepersonal care - not being out into a giant tin of sardinesYes, build another school in Ealing, surely cheaper than expanding 6-7 other schoolsSt Saviour's doesn't have the playground space to fit 90 more children in a safe andpositive environment.I do not believe sufficient funds will be forthcoming to do justice to this small site forthe benefit of the children and staff.Children will be rushing to eat lunch. Not big of sizedOther schools that have expanded are on a bigger site than St Saviour's. They aregoing from 2 clsses intake to 3 class. St Saviour's is going to 3 to 4 on a muchsmaller site. I will remove my children if this goes ahead. On a recent visit toanother school my wife and I were told by the head that despite parent, resident'spupils being against expansion 2 to 1, expansion still went ahead. Is this procudurea waster of time? Are the school governors going to completelly ignore the views ofparents and go ahead with expansion because they want it, or are these views goingto count?The school works well, just, on the current site. I have seen the architect's plans andwhile impressive I still don't believe there is enough room. I also think that 120 for aschool year is far too large.St Saviour's is already pushed for space in particular the putisde area does not needany diminishing at this time. As a church school, located in a central position inEaling Broadway, I do not think it should be the first choice of school for expansionbecause a small proportion of the local population would be looking for such an ethoswithin a school and it's centrality and subsequently poor access/ parking do not makeit an obvious choice, It would, inmy opinion, be better to expand a local communityschoolThe expansion will affext the current students, not just by the building works but inmany ways. Despite all that, I am not sure if the targeted age groups population willincrease for many years. If it is a temporary thing (say 3 years), then the council maybe able to deal with it by cooperating with other boroughsThe school is currently undersubscribed implying that there is insifficient demand fora christian education, therefore expansion will dilute the schools ethosThere is low demand for Christian education as the school is undersubscribed.Therefore it would dilute the schools moral stanceI understand the need for more places, however, I can't see that there is room at StSaviour's64

There is simply not enough room to expand. It's already really difficult to get apushchair and children from the front gates to the classroom due to the sheernumber of people. And it's getting dangerous around school due to traffic. Peopledo tend to be patient and polite but if there were another 25% more, I imagine itwould be a different story. Tempers would be frayed and this would definitely havean impact on the friendly, cosy feel of St Saviour's. In addition the play areas are notlarge compared to say Fielding, and I question whether they could accommodatemore pupils easily, particularly receptionIt is already classed as a larger than average school, as stated in a recent OfSTEDinspection. The disruption will be very very stressful on many of the young children!Please leave it as it is!!St Saviour's is not that oversubscribed as it is, so what happens after the 'nump'years we would be just filling the school for filling sake. I think this will have anegative effect on schools culture and ethos. Although the plans for expansion arelooking nice that is accounting for the maximum amount of funds. What happens ifwe are only allowed 50-60% of funds, what sacrifices would need to be made. Thereis just not enought space, i think there is more need for another high school in Ealingrather than expansing our already full schoolsSt Saviour's is currently congested and a large school in the communityI do not believe that the level of funding avilable from the Council will allow the schoolto benefit from expansion. Unless the level of funding is increased, expansion willworsen the educational experience at school. The architects plans for St Saviour'soffer a way of developing the school site without damaging the educationalexperience. But the proposed budget will not support these plans. Many of thebebefits from rebuilding identified in the plans could be achieved relativelyinexpensively without expansion, as the schools does not need a lot done to it.Unless funding is available to do the job properly, it would be better for the school tofocus on improving these areas without expandingTraffic congestion is already DANGEROUS in The Grove at school drop off/ pick uptimes. There have been several 'near misses'. The site is too small to accommodateanother 90+ pupils - playgrounds are already congested. The current site allowsmost teachers to know personally most children. I believe the culture and ethos willbe detrimentally effected.The site is far too small for all these extra children. There would not be enough roomfor them to play safely. The playground in congested enough at pick up and drop offtimes at the moment. An expansion would spoil the whole feel of the school. Thetraffic congestion is very bad as it is now with a few near serious accidents. Withapprox more parents an absolute dangerous nightmare. Wiht such a small sitebuilding work would be very disruptive. the children's learning would be hinderedand their whole experience of learning in a nice, safe (free from noise and dust)environment would be spoilt. The school is very nice the way it is now, don't spoil it!St Saviour's is already a large school in the context of the size of the other schools inthe area. The school site is small and whilst I understand that it could beimaginatively extended to accommodate an extra class, this will be very much to thedetriment of the pupils in terms of the space available, ethos and the detriment of theschool's neighbours who are already groaning under the weight of thetraffic/congestion.65

Currently there is not enough external play area for the number of children whoattend the school, increasing the number of children and staff will only make thisworse (even with the current design proposals).The key need in Ealing Town Centre is for primary school places for all childrenregardless of faith or lack of it. The problem will get much worse with the largenumber of new homes planned for the area. This proposal is discriminatory in thataddresses the problem for Church of England followers but not for others. Theplanned admission arrangements are also clearly designed to add to the coffers ofthe Church of England, by giving preference to regular attenders who will contributeto the collections. It is inappropriate to use public money to expand the school to aidthis commercial process.I am sure the school will be able to maintain the christian culture it has with anincrease of pupils however the site is small, traffic congestion is an ever increasingproblem and the school is going through change with amalgamation. I am concernedabout the disruption the building work will have and the amount of time it will takefrom the day-to-day running of schools. Financial concerns. I am aware the schoolscurrently do not have enough money to cover the proposed project. The designslook great but am concerned they will get scaled down to such an extent they will endup losing any of the 'benefits'We chose St Saviour's because it was smallChrist ChurchDisagreeThe building disruption along with building worls from Dickens Yard is not healthy forthe children and also poses a security issue on the school.The school has has an extremely disruptive few years which has had a seriousimpact on children's education. The school must prioritise the education of its currentintake and stabalise their learning environment NOT expand it.My children are currently at St Saviours - i cannot see how they have the room forextra classrooms, let alone how difficult you have made it to pick up or drop offchildren. Whether you like it or not we live in the age of the car and you do notprovide any incentive (such as free oyster travel for parents taking their children toand from school by bus or free parking in the EB multi storey car park for an hourmorning and evening) not even a secure cycle parking zone! Furthermore, moreclassrooms will take away from the very limited space our children have both insideand outside the classroom. My children will soon graduate to Christchurch and haveto suffer 4/5 years trying to be educated next door to the biggest building site in WestLondon and on top of all the extra noise, disruption and dust, part of their playgroundwill be stolen away without any commensurate compensation! Happy? I think not. Ifthese issues were addressed with some adequate respon ses my attitude couldchange - but ONLY if there were a quite sizeable change to your current position.Faith schools admission policies are not appropriate for secular parents and childrenI find it extraordinary that, whilst having to put up with one of the largest, noisiest,polluting building sites in West London next door for the next 4/5 years, Christchurchis being asked to expand but not being offered any extra space to do so. The currentsite is cramped already. It is very unfair to add more disruption to the children when66

they are already going to experience considerable noise, dust and disruption from theDickens Yard development. I am totally against the expansion proposals.Simply not a big enough siteI think overcrowding this school would bring down the standards, as it would bring inall sorts of children and backgrounds the school is great left aloneAccess for people travelling by car is difficult and this will be made worseAlso all the negative effects from Dicken's Yard. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. I feel any kind of expansion will be devastating forthe school. Especially since all the recent upheaval in summer with the headship ofthe school. Also with trying to get the school back to where it was in the leaguetables.Already disruption due to Dicken's Yard, Arcadia. Council passes these schemes tothe detriment of Christ Church. REFUSE expansion.It is even more undersubscribed than St Saviour's - huge waste of moneyNot enough room to accommodate so many pupils, already crampedHigh probability of inadequate funding from LEA/WestminsterChrist Church school is already one of the largest schools in the boroughI am concerned that the level of funding proposed will not allow for the necessaryimprovements to the schools outdoor facilities for pupilsCurrently Christ Church is 27% short of the required external play area according tothe current BB99 requirements. This situation will only get worse with additionalclasses.Again, it is not an oversubscribed school. As with St Saviour's - extra places wouldbe filled with children whose parents do not necessarily thoroughly support the ethosof the schoolMy comments are the same as I mentioned for expansion of St. Saviours....the LocalBorough should invest in building and providing new schools for the increasing infantpopulation in Ealing.Appalling idea! Site too small already. Disruption for 4/5 years from Dickens Yard aswell. Hardly an ideal learning environment and what about the extra pollution!I want to go to Christchurch school with all my friends from St Saviours but I amworried about all the bulldozers and the noise there now and do not want any moredust and noise.I think that it is extremely inconsiderate of Ealing Council not to at least offer someextra space to the school if it is to expand. How about some of the land used forDickens Yard or will the pupils be taught in some of the vacant shops there?67

The children will have enough disruption to deal with regarding the Dickens Yarddevelopments!!!!!! I will have to reconsider if I want my children to attend this school,in forthcoming years if expansion goes ahead!I realise that, due to the government and local authority's lack of foresight, there is alack of primary school places in Ealing but I fail to see why Christchurch schoolshould be expected to expand when there is insufficient space for the current pupilsand no extra space is being offered. I feel that a case for civil negligence could bebrought against the council if it were to force the school to expand in this way. Noneof the other schools expanded have had the chronic space issues that Christchurchhas and have been able to house children in prefabs whilst building has occurred.Nor have these other schools had the largest building site in West London dumpednext to them for the next 4/5 years to provide them with additional noise, dust anddisruption!The school is under subscribed at the moment so why expand. The site is too smallat the moment for the number of children so how will extra children help this. I feelthat the two schools would be better as two separate 2 form entry schools ifexpansion is really necessary. Then each school would be able to retain it's ethosand not become impersonalThe quality of the school is reliant on the support of the parents and the religiousethos the current children are rought up with . By expanding the school further it maydegrade this very important factor if there are not enough children with the samebeliefs as those currently attending.Two two form entry primary schools offering the opportunity to track pupils learningand build upon it. Two primary schools which promote a Christian ethos with thechildren at the centre of all they do. Two primary schools that aim to achieveexcellent learning opportunities and healthy competition for their children.The school's light will be affected by the ridiculous phallous that has been designedby Forster for the site next door and it means the playground will be overlooked. Ireally don't think you care one iota about a school that has been in the heart of Ealingfor years. Shame on you all.Christ Church is currently next to a building site due to the Dickens Yarddevelopment. To disrupt the school with additional noise, pollution and traffic chaosdue to building works would have a negative impact on children currently attendingChrist Church.Christ Church's site leaves a lot to be desired as it is. It is cramped and access isextremely difficult. All the negative reasons I have mentioned in opposition toexpanding St Saviour's apply to Christ Church. Christ Church already struggles to fillits places - would it really be able to cope with a further 90 places and keep everychild's needs met? I fear not.My daughter is due to go there next year. She wants to be with all her friends but Iam extremely concerned about her having to experience the noise, dust anddisruption from both Dickens Yard and potential expansion building works.The school is coming through a crisis. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The school was fortunate that her interventionresulted in a 'satisfactory' OfSTED report. The school needs to consolidate notexpand. Any expansion at this time would be too much for it and it would probably68

end up failing. Demand will also drop while the Dicken's Yard development gives theschool a building site feelObviously being the school next door from St Saviour’s for most children, ChristChurch would have to expand to accommodate extra St Saviour's pupils alone, the 2proposals are intertwined. Caring, pastorally focussed Christian schools would losemuch of that if an extra 120 children were to be addedI am VERY concerned about the outdoor space that will be available to pupils duringand after the expansion. I feel strongly that they are already on a small site and toincrease pupil numbers by about 120 with drastically reduce the space available forpupils to play/exercise during the school day. This will impact on their ability to getthe most out of the learning processAs before re. playgorund space: pupil numbers ratio. Also christchurch pupils + staffalready having to tolerate the Dicken's Yard developmentEven the briefest visit to Christ Church tells you that it is a school that is already toobig for its site. It is surely obvious that expansion on the same site would make asevere overcrowding problem worse. Playtime at the school is already a pretty grimexperience with restriction on activities due to lack of space. I urge those involved toavoid worsening these problems and the temptation to expandAll my previous comments about St Saviour's also apply to christ church. The recentofsted report describes Christ Church as above average in size for a middle school.Given this it seems totally inappropriate to consider expansionChildren already spending time in long queues for lunches due to lack of space. theschool's extended schools policy is virtually non existent. Current students feelunder-valued and under-motivated. They joined the school enthusiastic and excitedlearners! The school is just starting to win-over the pupils/ parents it already has.PLEASE do not fail them, by thinking about the new intake in X number of yearstime. New year 3 children find the small playground unsuitable and unsettling due tolack of space and lack of organisation. They complain that they are constantly hit byballs and running older children. I firmly support the leadership of Christ Churchschool and have every faith that they will improve the school (with its currentnumbers). BUT, the school is too unstable to make huge changes. There is nopermanent head to oversee changes or carry projects through. Pupil's self-esteem istoo volatile. Standards are too low educationally. How can you support many morepupils, for example, when SEN and EAL are coordinated by the same teacher. Newnon English speaking pupils must be catered for at the expense of SEN and viceversa. This is ridiculous. There are not enough TAs. Where is gifted and talentedprovision. Where are the breakfast/ after school clubs and societies. activities. GETTHESE IN PLACE FOR THE PUPILS WHO REALLY NEED THEM FIRST. WillChristchurch's new ofsted report support the case for expansion? Is it outstanding?OFSTED has said the site is too small for the children that are there. Playground hasoverbearing buildings on 3 sides already and BEHAVIOUR DETERIORATES inyears 5 and 6 alreadt, it is CRUEL to wedge 120 more children into that space. It willmake it DANGEROUS. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Tallersurrounding buildings = bad site Bad site = bad/ dangerous behaviour "improved siteat Twyford meant less exclusions" Alice Hudson, Head at Twyford We have Dicken'sYard development taking the wooded area of the playfground away and buildingwithin 15 feet of the year 6 class rooms, we have an arcadia development in future.The place gives people claustrophobia ALREADY. How Council can even think ofexpanding CC is beyond me, shows a deep lack of humanity. Four forms of entry for69

younger children is too much; too much NOISE, TOO MUCH SHOUTING TOOMUCH OF EVERYTHING AND HEALTH AND WELL BEING WILL BE BADLYAFFECTED. ESPECIALLY FOR SPECIAL NEEDS AND VULNERABLECHILDREN. Poor planning and acquisition of new sites should have been made,surely the council has a responsibility for its existing pupils and residents as well asthe new ones. Making primary schools so large seems to me to be a shirking of thatresponsibility. Ofsted have already said that Christ Church is larger than average.They all share an already cramped playground area. How can increasing thosenumbers possible be or do any good? Will be completely intimidating andoverwhelming for children. The works of Dicken's Yard already disturb the children.they find it increasingly hard to concentrate already with these works going on letalone works on their site.Christ Church is already losing space for the Dicken's Yard development which thediocese supported. I cannot see how another 120 children could be accommodatedsafely. They would be no space for games and more quiet areas with a third morechildren. The school would become stressful for teachers and children alike. Itwould be very good for Christ Church to be able to add children that would benefitfrom schooling there. Howeverm the site is confined and the experience gained by somany would be lost to all.This site is very small. I do not believe sufficient funds will be made available tomake the best of this very small site. The playground is so busy before school I can'timagine what it would be like with an extra 120 pupils - already enough minoraccidents in the playground. I did like the design ideas the architects had developedfor both schools, but I do not believe there will be enough money to make theexpansion the success it should be for pupils and staffNot enough money for school. Children rush already for school lunchChildren already have to compete for play space and are bussed to playing fields.the site is far too small to fit more children. I would not send my children there ifmore are squashed in. If expansion happens, I believe that Christchurch will nolonger be a school of choice, as a school without a catchment area, it must bealready offer something special and different if it is to avoid becoming a school towhich children only go if they've failed to get in to another school. The play space isalready a major challenge for the school. A 30% expansion will make the school amost unattractive education environment1) what a missed opportunity to expand the school with more land/ space giventhe development adjacent!?2) Christian culture catchment would be compromised/ diluted/ changedThe site is far too small. There is not enough outside space as it is, let alone with120 more pupils.The site is already small for current number of children, and hemmed in bysurrounding buildings - which will get worse with proposed Dickens yarddevelopments.There should be a crosswalk in front of school gates or a zig zag line to prohibitparents from pulling up and dropping their child at the gates. It is dangerous andoften I see children run in front of the cars. At the very least we need to think ofchildren's safety!70

Christ Church is already stretched for space in terms of space it has for pupils toplay/ work within. The thought that more children are being potentially introducedinto an already small site is ludicrous - in terms of safety and just the plain pleasureof being in the school environment. In addition, proposed work in Dicken's Yard andthe Arcadia centre will already cause disruption to the working school day, withoutany more from those caused by expansion. I do feel that Christ Church particularlycould do with being invested in in terms of the fabric of the building but I do NOT feelexpansion is the means through which to achieve it - and neither should the schoolbe forced/ bullied into expanding in order to force some investment in the school andits buildingsWhere will parents park to bring children to school? Springbridge Road is alreadynearly full in afternoons!The building work at Dicken's Yard is already going to provide more noise anddisruption to the pupils without adding even closer disruption which will hinderlearning and development. Please don't do it!!!!Totally against this proposal. Best to concentrate on improving current services.Christ Church is already a large school in a confined space.The site is far too small to accommodate another 120 pupils. Playground is alreadycongested. More pupils would probably mean staggered play times with manydistractions for those studying. I believe there must be a certain area for playgroundspace per pupil. I do not believe expanding the number of pupils would allow for this.Expanding this already overcrowded school would have a detrimental effect on thehealth and welfare of its pupils and probably the staff as well! Already one of thelargest schools in the boroughAgain, there is NOT enough space for an extra 120 children and the thought of ourchildren being educated in a noisy, dudty environment will put many parents offsending their children there. The school I am sure will then be undersubscribed.Christ Church has been through a lot of changes and upheaval in the last few years.The teaching has suffered as a result. There is still not a permanent head teacher atthe school. Due to the senior management team changes very recently things seemto be on the mend, but a consistent period of stability is what the school desperatelyneeds. At a time of stability the teachers can concentrate on children and improvingteaching. A large scale expansion programme will have a negative effect on thechildren, teachers and school and detract from the most important task of improvingteaching for all. All efforts need to be focused on improving the teaching at theschool and stability, not the distraction of expansion. The recent Ofstead reportstated that the school is already larger than the average sized junior school. Asstated previously there is currently not enough space for the children who attend andincreasing the number of children and staff would make this situation worse.The key need in Ealing Town Centre is for primary school places for all childrenregardless of faith or lack of it. The problem will get much worse with the largenumber of new homes planned for the area. This proposal is discriminatory in thataddresses the problem for Church of England followers but not for others. Theplanned admission arrangements are also clearly designed to add to the coffers ofthe Church of England, by giving preference to regular attenders who will contributeto the collections. It is inappropriate to use public money to expand the school to aidthis commercial process.71

With Christ Church the disruption will be especially significant due to the Dicken'sYard current works next doorLast few years at Christ Church have been unstable. The last thing we need isexpansion/ building on top of Dicken's Yard and all other issues we face at CCalready - we need to walk before we can run!St Saviour’sNot sureGood that more kids will hear the Christian message; but the sites ARE TOO SMALLand detrimental to health.Worried about more pupils in an already crowded environmentLess people home schooled.Because I think that St Saviour's could accommodate expansion but CC could notWould like to know how you intend to tackle more parents using cars to drop offoutside school?Worried about the sites being too small for current children let alone moreI worry about these schools getting so big - my daughter goes to St Saviour's but Ialready feel 3 classes per year is a lotChrist ChurchNot sureChrist church has a different atmosphere and managed well, could probablyaccommodate extra children. It is in need of updating and upgrading and ifexpansion is the only way to get the funding, then I would have to agree.Space already limiting for school - needs to ensure that adequate funding andbuilding work so space increased/ child ratio. Also concerns re. Location as verybusy traffic wise.My children are still in St Saviour’s and I do not know christ church school that wellWorried about small size. Christ Church year 6s are already eating lunch outside incold weather. How will they cope with more children?We've ticked 'not sure' because from what we understand Christ Church is badly inneed of investment, however, there are many reasons why we oppose expansion(e.g. Christ Church is already suffering from the development at Ealing Broadway).in order to assess whether the disadvantages are outweighed by the benefits thatinvestment would bring, we would need to understand in more details the expansionplansI've ticked not sure in response to question 2 because from what I know of ChristChurch, it is badly in need of investment, however there are many reasons why Ioppose expansion (traffic congestion, site too small, would have a negative impacton the ethos and disruption during building works - in addition to the development atEaling Broadway). In order to assess whether the disadvantages would be72

outweighed by the benefits of investment, i would ned to understand much moredetail of the expansion plansI know parking is a big issue with Christ ChurchI would like to see how facilities would be increased after the expansionSame as St. Saviour's. My daughter will go to Christ Church but when schools get sobig I don’t like it so much. I would prefer all one form per year schools.I would like to see an investment in Christ Church site but I am sure that if, withsupport from the LDBS, parents, governors etc. we could do this through privateinitiative rather than expansion73

Appendix 7: Copies of letters and emails received during the period ofrepresentationSt Gregory’s Catholic primary schoolLetter 1)Dear SirsRe Proposed Expansion of St. Gregory’s Primary SchoolAs local residents we oppose the proposed expansion of this school.The school is situated in the centre of a residential area, bordering residentsgardens. At present the school seems to work well with the local community.However, at peak times there already is considerable traffic congestion on the roadsadjacent to the school. These roads cannot be modified because of the residentialnature of the area through which they pass. Many of the new children will come fromoutwith the local area and this would add considerably to the problem of congestion.A concern relating to this would be the safety of the children.An enlarged school would add considerably to the noise levels experienced byadjoining houses and would impact significantly on the quality of life of theseresidents.The significant enlargement of the school buildings, which would be necessary toaccommodate this large increase in pupil numbers, would also have a detrimentaleffect on surrounding residents. On two sides the School is bordered by theBrentham Conservation Area (Article 4) and it is clearly stated in the Planningregulations that any development bordering a Conservation area must take accountof it’s effect on the setting of the Conservation area and the views into and out of it.It would be a shame to spoil such a well run school and disrupt the lives of so manyresidents, a large number of whom have lived in the area (and supported the school)for many years.Letter 2)SummaryWe would ask the Governing Body not to proceed with this proposed expansion on thefollowing grounds:a) The infrastructure in the area just cannot cope with an expanded school;b) Access of parents, pupils and residents through Westmoreland Place cannotbe secured safely;c) Access for construction plant and deliveries cannot be secured safely; andd) Risk of flooding in Woodfield Crescent will be raised to an unacceptable level.The infrastructure in the area just cannot cope with an expanded school1. The area surrounding the school just cannot cope with an expanded school,either during the construction phase or subsequently. The area around the school74

is already gridlocked from 8:45 to 9:15 and 3 to 3:30pm. During these timesaccess in and out of the roads surrounding the school is very difficult and would,god forbid, prevent emergency vehicles getting through either to the houses inthe area or the school itself. It is naive to think that by merely creating threeentrance points to the expanded school, the traffic problems in the area willmagically disappear.2. The current entrance on Woodfield Road is already saturated at the times of theday when children are dropped off, either in the morning or afternoon. With theproposed expansion, creating an additional entrance on Woodfield Road willmerely spread the saturation and affect more of the local residents.3. Parking for construction workers in and around the area of the school will alsoadd to the current congestion levels with their cars being parked all day thusreducing the number of parking places for use by parents when the school runtakes place.4. And the assertion that the whole expansion will result in only 44 more journeys(does anyone really believe this figure) completely misses the point. You cannotjust look at this school in isolation. You must also consider the general traffic inthe area and the impact of other adjacent schools such as Montpelier.5. And whilst we are dealing with heroic assumptions (why is the figure for additionalcar journeys of 44 not 43 or 45?), entreaties in newsletters reminding parents topark sensibly completely ignores what happens on a daily basis in the areasurrounding the school. We are sure you must have ventured out of the schoolduring the run times to see the gridlock which occurs.6. Nor can the school or the council rely on introducing more parking restrictions inand around the adjoining area to the school. This just spreads the parking andcongestion problems into a wider area and penalises the residents at theexpense of the selfish and at times unlawful behaviour of the parents on theschool run. It should be said that the area around the school is a residential andin places, conservation areas. The school is already over impacting on thesurrounding area – is it really necessary for basketball lessons to started at 7:30in the morning, three times a week – and an expanded school will furtherincrease this impact on those who live in the area.7. To sum up, the area surrounding the school just cannot cope with more peopleand traffic. There is just no more room in this conservation area.Access of parents, pupils and residents through Westmoreland Place cannot be secured safely75

8. The proposal to allow parent and pupil access through Westmoreland Placecompletely ignores the fact that the area around Mount Avenue, Park Gate andWestmoreland Place is already terribly congested with the traffic – pedestrian andvehicular - associated with Montpelier School.9. To make matters even worse, the current proposal for phase 2 is to close theexisting Woodfield Road entrance and allow access for parents and pupilsthrough Westmoreland Place. It will put at significant risk the parents, childrenand residents using the Westmoreland Place entrance whilst at the same timecars are attempting to get in and out of what is after all a cul-de-sac with dropdownkerbs rather than pavements predominant throughout. Nothing in thedocumentation has any suggestions to deal with this extremely dangeroussituation.Access for construction plant and deliveries cannot be secured safely10. Access to and from the school site through Westmoreland Place for the variousheavy plant etc. during construction and deliveries subsequent to constructioncannot be secured safely - either for the local residents or the parents andchildren using the area for access to Montpelier School.11. Previous assurances about timing of deliveries etc. to minimise the possibledisruption proved useless - past experience is of deliveries etc. at 7 in themorning, queues of lorries trying to gain access, and parking up for periods of upto one hour during which residents can neither get back to their homes in theircars nor leave in them. And even if delivery times through Westmoreland Placecan be controlled all that will happen is that the Lorries will park up and wait onMount Avenue making the area even more dangerous for the parents andchildren trying to get to Montpelier School and the residents in the area.12. The access into and out of Westmoreland Place is completely different since thelast construction work at St Gregory’s School following the recent changes toMontpelier School and the consequential congestion around Mount Avenue etc..13. Nor can the proposals hide behind the work "being governed by health and safetyregulations" – if there were an incident on one of the roads around the school itwould be treated as a road traffic incident not a health and safety issue.14. Finally, the residents of Westmoreland Place are entitled to continue to park andhave free and safe access in to and out of this cul-de-sac. Again the residents76

continuing use of their parking facilities and their custom and practice parkingmust not be sacrificed just so the school can expand.Risk of flooding in Woodfield Crescent will be raised to an unacceptable level15. The flooding problems in Woodfield Crescent will be made worse (the planningapplication skates over this problem trying to suggest that the problem has notoccurred for 10 years rather than dealing with the real issue which is theincreased risk of flooding, not the current level of risk). The surface area of theschool is being significantly increased - there will be more buildings, both newand extensions, and a large playing area - so there will be less ground to absorbwater and, consequently more water heading down the hill increasing the risk offlooding to the houses of Woodfield Crescent to an unacceptable level. Andpresumably the School and the Diocese will be open to compensation claimsshould flooding occur as a result of the proposed expansion?Letter 3)Thank you for your open letter to local residents.I am a resident of Westmoreland Place and the proposed 50% increase in intake by StGregory's School will not only be extremely disruptive to those of us who live next to theschool whilst the construction takes place but also, the additional traffic that descends on tothe area morning and afternoon, will cause near gridlock from Helena Road (MontpelierSchool) to Pitshanger Lane at St Barnabas. Woodfield Road will be near impassable simplybecause pupils from a much wider area than ours will be driven by car by parents whoconsider their offspring the most important thing, to the detriment of everybody else. Iunderstand that the traffic nuisance should be addressed by the Ealing Unitary DevelopmentPlan, in particular:EUDP 8.7 The council will work with educational institutions to provide facilities throughgood design, to enhance functionality as well as to improve the aesthetic value of thesurrounding environment. The Council will only approve development that respects currentstandards of safety, natural light, health, privacy and freedom from traffic nuisance,disturbance or visual intrusion in relation to neighbouring land uses.The proposed opening of the emergency school gate in Westmoreland Place will onlyadd to the existing gridlock in Mount Avenue. The ground on which WestmorelandPlace is built was sold by the owners of St Gregory's about 40 years ago and a groupof 30 houses was built, forming a quiet and pleasant community. Nobody wouldwant to prevent St Gregory's from maintaining Emergency Services access throughWestmoreland place but I do not think that St Gregory's should now have the right toopen a general access gate into our street and destroy the peace, enjoyment andnature of the cul de sac. Indeed, opening the gate in Westmoreland Place will runthe risk of hampering emergency access to the school and our houses. It was"our" money that purchased the land from St Gregory's and it is not now acceptablethat they should claim it back for their own use, temporarily or permanently.77

Letter 4)We are living in Fairlea Place and have a direct impact on the school expansion. Wedon’t want St. Gregory to expand, because the traffic will be double than whatalready have now. When we want to go out in the morning, it is difficult for us as thePARENTS PARKED INCONSIDERATELY, they don’t think about the safety and therisk of dropping off unsafely. PARENTS ARE VERY RUDE too, as if they have theright to park inconsiderately, parking in double yellow or by our estate entranceblocking the entrance to go out.The pollution and noise is also will double, for these reasons, we do not want St.Gregory to expand.Please make notice of our local residents.Letter 5)I live at XX Park Gate, Mount Avenue, Ealing W5 XXX and back on to the southboundary of St Gregory's School.I wish to make an official complaint against the proposed expansion of the school.The extra traffic, building works and increased numbers of children will behorrendous for the surrounding residential area.Letter 6)Planning applications no.: P/2010/4044 (Major Development); P2010/4044(Conservation Area)As a local resident, I am writing to object to the request for planning permission to develop StGregory’s School, on the following grounds:• Increased traffic congestion• Wider safety issues• Flooding risk• Damage to the local environment (conservation area)• Pollution• Minimal need within current school catchmentThis letter highlights both general concerns together with my own specific concerns relatingto my particular situation and geographic locationIncreased traffic congestion• St Gregory’s main entrance is on a bend in Woodfield Road, a busy through road.• The road outside the entrance is already congested, sometimes gridlocked, duringmorning rush hour and at school drop off and collection times.• The proposed 50 per cent increase in the number of children attending the school hasthe potential to increase the amount of traffic by far more than 50 per cent. With theproposed expansion of the catchment area, an even higher proportion of parents willbring their children to school by car.• The addition of two new entrances to the school will extend the area of congestion.One of these new entrances is in Westmoreland Place, already congested by trafficfrom Montpelier School.• Traffic flow will be further negatively impacted by works vehicles during the fiveyears of the construction programme.Wider safety issues78

• Current traffic levels already represent a safety hazard to children and otherpedestrians, with traffic, including buses, frequently mounting the pavement to cleargridlock.• The pavements outside the school are narrow, meaning that children often spill out onto the road.• These safety issues for children will be significantly increased by the additional roadtraffic, increased number of pupils and construction vehicles.• The transformation of the narrow access alley into a new school entrance will presenta safety risk for residents of Woodfield Crescent and Fairlea Place, whose privacywill also be• impacted.Flooding risk• On a number of occasions, properties on the southern side of Woodfield Crescenthave experienced flooding from the playing fields, which are situated onimpermeable London Clay.• The risk is compounded by the fact that these homes on the Brentham ConservationEstate were built at the turn of the century, with little or no foundations.• The plans for the school expansion and temporary classrooms give little or noattention to the affects of large-scale building work on land prone to flooding andwith water run-off problems.• Soil compacting, removal of trees and the digging of foundations will impact houseson Woodfield Crescent.Damage to the local environment (conservation area)• Three years plus of building work will significantly disrupt the peaceful nature of thisquiet residential area, much of which is a garden suburb conservation area.• This noise and disruption will continue beyond the building programme, given theincreased number of adults and children in and around the school, together withincreased levels of traffic affecting a wider geographic area.• It is proposed that the narrow access alley behind Woodfield Crescent be fully lit,causing significant light pollution for the residents of Woodfield Crescent and FairleaPlace.Pollution• This area is already acknowledged as being highly polluted, due to the proximity ofthe A40, Hanger Lane Gyratory, North Circular and Heathrow.• This existing pollution will be exacerbated by increased traffic levels at the school.• There will inevitably be additional pollution issues related to the building works,which will impact on current pupils, particularly those with asthma, and localresidents alike.Minimal need within current school catchment• In addition to the above objections, there has to be a fundamental question as towhether there really is the need to increase the size of the school to the proposedextent, to meet the educational requirements of the local community.• The current catchment area is already very large compared with other local schoolsand this year’s bulge class has proven that 73% of the extra places have had to begiven to children outside the school catchment. This will have an inevitable knockoneffect on other, less popular schools. In fact, at the second public consultationmeeting, the representative from the Archdiocese of Westminster said that invitationsto send children to the school have already gone out to parishes as far away asSudbury Hill.79

MY SPECIFIC CONCERNS as Resident who has a Garden backing on to the Schoolplaying fieldsI have a number of specific concerns with regard to this. Due to the increased pollution thatthese works will bring about I am concerned that they could exacerbate my sjogren'ssyndrome; this is an autoimmune condition which in my case causes breathing difficulties.I am also concerned at the increased level of noise which I am already experiencing from thesports area moving closer to the end of our back garden. Specifically I now understand thereare also proposals for an all weather floodlit sports pitch which would be located close to theend of our garden. This would leave us also with light pollution having the whole of ourhouse flooded with light for a number of evenings or early mornings..Already sports dayactivities go on at weekends for hours extended longer than we are informed by the school.ConclusionI trust that the points given above will persuade the Planning Committee that the proposedexpansion will have a severe adverse impact on the local community. I hope they will becognisant of the fact that it does not meet the criteria of the Ealing Unitary Development Plan,in particular that:EUDP 8.7 The council will work with educational institutions to provide facilities throughgood design, to enhance functionality as well as to improve the aesthetic value of thesurrounding environment. The Council will only approve development that respects currentstandards of safety, natural light, health, privacy and freedom from traffic nuisance,disturbance or visual intrusion in relation to neighbouring land uses.Letter 7)We are writing with regards to the proposed expansion of St Gregory's Catholic primaryschool.While we understand that there is an increased need for school places, we are howeverconcerned that the expansion may lead to even more traffic and congestion on Fairlea Place.We would appreciate some sort of reassurance that this will not be the case and that theadditional traffic in the area will be dealt with sufficiently.In addition, we would like to know whether the construction work will only take place duringworking hours, or whether there is a possibility that it may disrupt residents during eveningsand weekends.Letter 8)I live at XX Woodfield Road and have first hand experience of the current unsatisfactorytraffic conditions along that road.I have objected to the Planning Application because I believe that the expansion of St.Gregory's primary school will exacerbate the problems that we are experiencing:* Gridlocks of cars and buses at various places along Woodfield Road at school opening andclosing times* Buses mounting pavements to allow traffic to flow again* Paving stones are broken at various places80

The above present safety hazards to both children and adults. I simply cannot understand howthe Governing Body can contemplate expansion of the school when access to the school isalready hazardous and problematic.Surely they have seen the current situation.Ealing Council may well have a pressing need to provide more places at primary schools inthe borough but that must not lead to expanding schools like St. Gregory's to create furtherproblems and hazards.All I can think is that the Governing Body is not caring about the certain effects of theproposed expansion. Otherwise they would have rejected any plans to expand the school.Letter 9)a)Planning applications no.: P/2010/4044 (Major Development); P2010/4044(Conservation Area)I am writing to object to the proposed development and expansion of St Gregory’sRC Primary School. I live in The Brentham Estate. The proposed development wouldtotally blight the lives of local residents and would result in decreased amenities.Residents would lose significant amounts of privacy and would be subject to vastlyincreased, unbearable, levels of noise, light and air pollution.I am also concerned that correct procedures have not been followed. Has the applicantexplained, for example, why local ward councillors, residents’ groups and conservationgroups were not invited to take part in the consultation process?My objections to the details included in the Planning Application are as follows:Planning Statement1.0 Proposal Overview“The proposal is being funded by DfE and LB Ealing through the Primary CapitalProgramme.” Is this funding still in place? At the public meetings at the school – which tookplace before the new government unveiled its education cuts -- we were told that funding forPhase 1 only had been secured, and that Phases 2 and 3 may never be completed due tolack of funding.3.0 Existing AccommodationThe site is surrounded by residential properties on all sides, including The BrenthamEstate and the Montpelier and Mount Avenue Conservation Areas. The Brentham Estateis an area of outstanding architectural and town-planning interest. The planning statementsays the surrounding houses in Woodfield Crescent are “semi-detached.” They are, in fact,terraced. Have the developers and their advisers even visited the site?4.0 New Building Design/Urban Design Statement“Community Safety”: there is no evidence that the crime prevention study considered thesafety of the neighbouring residential properties. Residents will be significantly affected byintroducing new pedestrian entrances and removing the barrier at the end of the alley betweenWoodfield Crescent and Fairlea Place.5.0 Transport and ParkingWhy did LB Ealing advise that “a full Transport Assessment is not required”? It is anarea of high pollution and congestion, with traffic gridlock during school drop-off and pickuptimes. Buses and cars routinely mount the pavements to pass, and parents park on81

pavements and across driveways, thus making Woodfield Road and surrounding roadsextremely hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists.There are three other primary schools in the immediate vicinity – St Benedict’s, Montpelierand North Ealing – as well as St Benedict’s Senior School and numerous playgroups andprivate nurseries. All of these schools contribute to extremely heavy congestion and pollutionin the area at drop-off and pick-up times.“The expansion at the school is solely to accommodate local pupils who will be without alocal school place and as a result will have to travel further to school if the development doesnot proceed.” This is not true.At the meeting on 19/07/10 we were told that there is a bulge in the local Catholic primaryschool-age population and this will start to decline in 2012. Then, on the admission of theschool, pupils will be invited in from outside the current catchment/parish area to fill theempty places. The representative of the archdiocese said that invitations to send pupils tothe school have already gone out to parishes as far away as Sudbury Hill. This will addsubstantial growth to road traffic and the area will become extremely dangerous. This schemecould turn a medium-sized local school into a large hub for the entire Archdiocese ofWestminster.• If the catchment area is enlarged to include Sudbury Hill, where will it stop?• The catchment area is already much larger than other primary schools inNorth Ealing, thus making it more likely that pupils will be driven to school.• The majority of pupils admitted to the 2010 bulge class live outside thecurrent catchment area. Where are all the “local” children who wouldotherwise have been denied a local school place?What has the school actually done to ensure that fewer parents and staff will drive? The chairof the school’s governors said at the first public meeting that “nobody is asking people togive up their cars”, especially the headmaster, who himself drives to and from the schooleach day. (Will he set an example by taking public transport in the future?) So far, the councilhas simply based their assessment of travel plans solely on the word of the school. This isunacceptable.It was noted at the meeting on 19/07/10 that some children and parents had lied aboutdriving to school in order to gain awards as part of the “WOW” scheme. I have recentlynoticed many St Gregory’s parents parking around the junction of Eaton Rise and MontpelierAve, thus reducing numbers of cars around St Gregory’s and alleviating congestion inWoodfield Road, only to exacerbate already heavy congestion and pollution around the dropoffareas for St Benedict’s and Montpelier schools.The junction of Mount Ave and Eaton Rise/Woodfield Road is already extremelyhazardous for pedestrians at drop-off and pick-up times. If traffic is increased, there is a veryreal likelihood that a pedestrian will be killed attempting to cross the road.Site accessThe hazardous conditions for pedestrians on Woodfield Road are extreme. The lack of afulltime crossing guard at the zebra crossing means that pedestrians have frequent near-misseswith both buses and cars that refuse to give way. Twice since September 2010 my youngchildren and I have had to stop halfway across the zebra crossing because a carcontaining a child wearing St Gregory’s uniform has driven straight across in front ofus as the driver looks for a place to park. This is totally unacceptable.The broken pavements and damaged fences and walls, and adults cycling on the pavementsalong Woodfield Road bear testimony to the flagrant flouting of parking and trafficregulations on a daily basis. Yet traffic wardens are few and far between. I frequently see82

traffic wardens around Eaton Rise and Blakesley Ave at school drop-off and pick-up times,but almost never on Woodfield Road.Secondary access from Woodfield Road to the northwest of the siteThis is a narrow, unpaved, unlit alley between terraced houses in Woodfield CrescentWoodfield Road, and residential flats on Fairlea Place, currently used as emergency accessand access for occasional maintenance work for the school, and as a right of way andemergency access point for residents. (NB: the Woodfield Crescent houses are downhillfrom the alley.)The entrance to the alley from Woodfield Road is narrow, and is situated between two houses.The application proposes to make this the sole pedestrian entrance during Phase 1, and toleave it as one of two permanent pedestrian entrances. What happens if only Phase 1 isbuilt? Will it remain the sole pedestrian entrance?The application proposes to add a strip of tarmac 1.5 wide (seemingly in contravention of BS8300, which, according to the school’s own figures, mandates a width of least 1.8 m; seebullet point list below) to accommodate pedestrian traffic. There is no consensus in theapplication as to whether lights would be added to the alley. One section says it would notbe lit, another section says it would be lit during hours of operation.• How will the two-way foot traffic of 500 to 600 pupils plus parents,siblings, prams, buggies, wheelchairs, bicycles, scooters, dogs, and soon all fit through this narrow alley each morning and evening?• The resulting congestion in the alley at drop-off and pick-up times wouldmake it extremely dangerous for the people using it.• Staggering start and finish times would add considerably to the hours ofcongestion and significant disturbance and loss of privacy for residents.• How will the school/council/developers ensure that residents’ fences, wallsand gates are not damaged by adding tarmac?• What is the added risk of flooding and/or water damage to WoodfieldCrescent houses and gardens caused by adding an impermeable surface tothe alley?• Section 6.0 of the planning statement states: “all pedestrian footpaths willbe to a minimum of 1800mm wide to satisfy BS 8300.” Yet the proposed newtarmac path along the alley will be only 1500 mm wide, thus surelycontravening BS 8300.• Have the police been consulted about implication for residents’ personal andproperty safety? If so, what was the response?• Has London Fire Brigade been consulted about the implications of using thisemergency access route as the sole pedestrian entrance for hundreds ofyoung children each day? If so, what was the response?• Has the Ambulance Service been consulted about the implications of usingthis emergency access route as the sole pedestrian entrance for hundreds ofyoung children each day? If so, what was the response?83

Turning the alley into a pedestrian access point for the school means it would be in use fromat least 8AM to 6PM Mon—Fri, plus evenings and weekends for clubs and sporting events,and during the school vacations for holiday clubs etc. The applicant notes elsewhere in theapplication that the school intends to provide childcare facilities year-round. This representsa huge and significant disturbance to personal and family life for local residents. Addinglights (consistent details are not provided in the application) will represent a significantinvasion of privacy for residents of Woodfield Road, Woodfield Crescent and FairleaPlace, especially for the many children whose bedrooms are at the back of the houses.Gardens will be rendered un-private and un-usable for large parts of the day. Removing thebarrier at the Woodfield Road end increases the chances of burglary, vandalism and othercrime.Front and back gardens in surrounding roads are generally small, and the pavements arenarrow, so the houses are closer to the roads than in many other areas where residents haveoff-street parking. Local residents and St Gregory's have co-existed peacefully for many years-- and many residents are St Gregory's alumni or parents of almuni -- but this schemethreatens to wreck residents’ quality of life and endanger the health and welfare of ourchildren.Hundreds of cars per day will drive through Woodfield Crescent and the surrounding narrowroads, looking for parking spaces. Parents will gather outside the entrance, in the alley, and insurrounding roads at drop and pick-up times – often sitting in their cars with the enginerunning -- thus adding significantly to the already high levels of noise and air pollution.Site access in Phase 1 will be via Westmoreland Place (the alley behind Woodfield Crescenthaving already been shown to be totally unviable during construction work on the school’stemporary portacabins in summer 2010). Access to Westmoreland Place is via Mount Ave,which is already heavily congested with traffic going to and from Montpelier Primary Schooland St Augustine’s School. It is also a bus route. In subsequent phases, site access will be viathe existing main entrance in Woodfield Road.In August 2010 large numbers of construction vehicles used the Woodfield Crescent/FairleaPlace alley. It took each loaded vehicle several minutes to squeeze through the narrow space,accompanied by lots of shouting and whistling from guides walking in front of and behindeach vehicle.Fences and walls were damaged, residents’ parking was suspended, houses vibratednoticeably, and residents were disturbed by large amounts of shouted profanities, beeping,revving of engines, and gear-changing. How can this community be expected to enduresuch dangerous conditions for over three years?There will also be a huge number of construction workers driving to and from the schoolover a period of years. Where will they park? What time will they arrive and depart? Willthey all be encouraged or mandated to use public transport? Can the developers be prevailedupon to bus them in rather than allow each worker to drive (and park) each day? Or will theysimply just be allowed to add to the congestion and pollution?Green Travel PlanI was unable to access this from the current application. The plan submitted with the previousplanning application was factually inaccurate by stating that local residents had beenconsulted when they had not. I objected in writing about this but my objection was notdiscussed. I have since written to Eileen Jones asking for clarification about this and otherirregularities with the previous planning permission, and am awaiting her reply.7.0 Arboricultural Implication Study84

Making the Woodfield Crescent/Fairlea Place alley a main pedestrian entrance means that theschool should apply for a change of use. As stated elsewhere, it is currently used foremergency access and occasional maintenance only.The statement says the school will lose 8% of its soft landscaping area in total. How muchwill be lost if only Phase 1 is implemented? The drawings suggest the figure will be higherthan 8%.• Has Sport England been consulted about the loss of soft landscaping andlack of access to playgrounds during much of the construction process? If so,what was the response?“[The site] is poorly accessible for wheelchair users as well as for parents with buggies”: howwill this access be improved if only Phase 1 is implemented? How will wheelchair users orpeople with buggies navigate the site when entering from the alley behind WoodfieldCrescent?8.0 Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Infrastructure• How does the school propose to “divert surface water away from the schoolinto the main sewers on Woodfield Road”?• Has Thames Water been consulted? If so, what was the response?• What will be the increased run-off from adding tarmac to the previouslyunpaved back alley between Woodfield Crescent and Fairlea Place?• The statement says that the site is not within 20m of a watercourse. Is thistrue? Several longterm residents have said there is a known undergroundstream below the school playing field, which has contributed to flooding in thepast9.0 Relationship with Adjacent Properties and Adjacent Conservation Area“We do not believe the development once complete would have any detrimental effect on theresidents of Woodfield Crescent/Winscombe Crescent.” The letter from LB Ealing to DHP(14/12/09; see below) clearly states that the 50% increase in pupil numbers is “likely tohave a significant impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring propertiesand parking in the local streets.” Other elements that contradict the idea that residents willnot suffer:• Increased noise and air pollution from larger number of cars and constructiontraffic• Increased noise and air pollution from 3+ years of construction work• Loss of soft landscaping (losing at least 8% of the current site)• Loss of habitat for local wildlife, including bats, and damage to biodiversity• Erection of floodlights for all-weather sports pitch• Use of the back alley as a pedestrian entrance will create huge and significantdisturbance to residents: loss of privacy and disruption to family life, potentialfor increased crime, noise and air pollution, possibility of increased flood andwater damage risk, property damage85

• Possibility of parking restrictions being introduced, and loss of parking spaceson Woodfield Road, means pushing more cars onto the side roads likeWoodfield Crescent and Winscombe Crescent, where residents have nofacility for off-street parking• Presumably the zebra crossing and bus stops on Woodfield Road will have tobe re-sited (this has not been addressed in the planning statement). Wherewill they go?• Have The Brentham Society, Pitshanger Community Association, Mount Parkand Montpelier Conservation groups been consulted about the proposedexpansion? If so, what was the response?Relationship with Adjacent Properties in Fairlea PlaceProposed new buildings will be at least 1m closer to Fairlea Place, with the new kitchen beinga mere 4m away. This suggests a large increase in noise and air pollution and significant lossof privacy in addition to that caused by using the alley as a pedestrian entrance.10.0 Community Use of Facilities“The school will provide wrap-around services from e.g., 8:00AM—6:00PM all year round”:this will have a significant impact on disturbance to local residents, especially those livingclose to proposed new entrances.No new benefit to local residents is proposed.12.0 Pre-Application Consultation with Local Residents and School Parents• None of the local ward councillors was invited to attend the two publicmeetings at the school• None of the local MPs was invited to attend the two public meetings at theschool• None of the local conservation or residents’ associations – e.g., TheBrentham Society, PCA -- was invited to attend the two public meetings at theschool• Minutes have not been made available for either meeting, yet hearsay fromthe meeting on 19/07/10 is included as supporting evidence in the PlanningStatement• The meeting on 19/07/10 had no chairperson• Questions from the floor were often met with derision and sarcasm fromrepresentatives of DHP and the school. Many questions were deflected orsimply ignored.• The headmaster refused to answer questions• DHP admitted that the feasibility studies conducted had not considered suchvital issues as drainage, pollution, congestion, access and the general impacton the community86

“The vast majority of new pupils being admitted would live within 1 mile of the school andshould walk to school.” This is not true. The figures available for 2010 admissions show thatmost pupils in the new bulge class live further than 1 mile from the school. The archdiocesehas already laid the groundwork for enlarging the catchment area (viz. invitations havealready gone out to parishes as far away as Sudbury Hill).BREEAM Pre-Assessment EstimatorT06: the applicant here agrees that the development has not been designed to minimiserisks to pedestrians or cyclists.Sustainability Checklist5.0 Community DevelopmentSafety: the applicant says that the development complies with “Safer Ealing” advice. Whereis the report from Crime Prevention officers?Support: the applicant has decided that the development is “favourably viewed by majority”.This seems patently untrue. What criteria have been used to determine this? The guidelinesstate that 0 points should be awarded where there has been significant opposition to the plans.There have been at least two residents’ protest groups and two parental protest groups. Schoolgovernors and PA members have resigned in protest at the plans.I did not hear one voice in support of the development at the two public meetings I attended.8.0 PollutionAir pollution (including traffic fumes): the applicant states that air pollution will be reducedand awards itself the maximum 2 points. This is untrue. Air pollution will be significantlyincreased both by construction work and the increased number of cars bringing extra staff andpupils to the school.Light pollution: the applicant classifies this as n/a. However, the introduction of floodlightson the site, and lights in the alley between Woodfield Crescent and Fairlea Place, will resultin significant light pollution and loss of privacy for residents.10.0 SignificanceThe applicant awards itself the maximum 10 points and writes that “the development willaddress a severe lack of primary school places available locally.” LB Ealing’s own figuresshow that Hathaway Primary School, also in North Ealing, has a 15% PAL surplus.The applicant writes that “it will reduce the distances being travelled by local children toschool.” Again, this is patently untrue. The current large catchment area already extends intoparts of Acton, and the archdiocese has admitted its intentions to expand the catchmentarea further. By what criteria could Sudbury Hill possibly be classified as “local” toWoodfield Road?The applicant claims that traffic congestion in North Ealing is caused solely by local peoplerather than parents on the school run. If that is the case then why isn’t Woodfield Road andsurrounding roads congested 365 days a year instead of only during term time?Letter to DHP from Maggie Perry, LB Ealing, Regarding Proposed Development of StGregory’s School, 14 December 2009Does the reduced area of playing fields meet the government’s minimum requirements forplaygrounds and playing fields?LB Ealing notes that with the planned new buildings, “the height of 8—10 metres will beappreciable when viewed from the rear of Fairlea Place properties.”LB Ealing notes that “access on to Woodfield Road is dangerous” – re-siting the pedestrianentrances will not alleviate this.Building Control Issues: access to some parts of the site is impossible for fire engines. Has theapplicant made provision for this? Has this issue been discussed with Building Control?87

LB Ealing recommends that the applicant consult with the following. Where is proof that thishas been done?• Service infrastructure providers (electricity, gas, sewer, water)• Building Control (LB Ealing)• London Fire Brigade• Local residents’ associations (NB: The Brentham Society has not beenconsulted)• Local ward councillors (NB: several ward councillors have told me theyhave not been consulted)Appendix 1: Primary School Pupil Numbers and Surplus Places at January 2008• Hathaway Primary School, in North Ealing, is shown to have a PAL surplus of15%• Grange Primary School, in South Ealing, is shown to have a PAL surplus of28.7%• St John’s Primary School, in South Ealing, is shown to have a PAL surplus of23.5%• Several schools in GNP were shown to have a PAL surplus above 10%:Wood End Junior, Downe Manor, West London Primary Academy, GiffordPrimarySeveral school in Southall were shown to have a PAL surplus of above 10%: Dormers Wells,Lady Margaret, Tudor Primary, Three Bridges Primary, Wolf FieldsAppendix F: Pre-Application Residents’ ConsultationThe attendance sheet for the meeting on 19/07/10 clearly shows the absence of all localcouncillors and representatives of local residents’ and conservation groups.Attendees were not told that their names and addresses would be put into the public domainby being published in this way.“No access to be granted to deliveries between the hours of 8:30am – 9:15AM and3:00PM – 3:45 PM in order to minimize congestion”: when will deliveries be grantedaccess? At what time will contractors be allowed to start arriving at the site? At whattime will they be allowed to operate until?Letter 9) b) received from the same person as 9)a)I am writing to you to express my opposition to the proposed expansion of St Gregory's RCPrimary School to three forms of entry. I am also attaching a copy of the objection letter I sentto Miguel Martinez at Ealing Council.If the proposal goes ahead it will involve years of heavy construction work and willafterwards significantly alter the nature of our neighbourhood and blight the lives of localresidents. My husband and I live in Woodfield Crescent, one of the many small roads in theBrentham Estate, which borders the school on two sides and is protected by Article 4Directions.The Brentham Estate is a protected, quiet conservation area of outstanding architectural andurban planning interest, and residents live in a shared social contract to preserve the nature of88

our community. We do not have double glazing and cannot erect high fences to protect ourprivacy. Our front and back gardens are generally small, and the pavements are narrow, soour houses are closer to the roads than in many other areas where residents have off-streetparking and so on. Local residents and St Gregory's have co-existed peacefully for manyyears -- and many residents are St Gregory's alumni or parents of alumni -- but this schemewill wreck our quality of life and endanger the health and safety of us and our children.If the proposals are implemented, the school will subject our community to a programme ofheavy construction, six days a week, 52 weeks a year, for several years. There will be acatastrophic effect on our health and safety, our quality of life, our family life and our homes.Is the governing body happy to take responsibility for that?At the two public meetings held at the school representatives of the developers, school,archdiocese and council admitted that the feasibility studies conducted so far did not considersuch vital issues as drainage, pollution, congestion, access and the general impact on thecommunity. Since this expansion was first mooted I have been concerned that the legitimateconcerns of residents are being ignored. From what we were told it seems as though DHP andthe governing body looked at aerial plans of the site and decided that buildings can be built inthe green space, without considering access, flood risk, environmental damage, localamenities or community.At both meetings we were told that the school intends to expand from 400+ pupils to 600+ inorder to provide extra Catholic primary school places for the St Gregory's catchment area. Wewere also told that the archdiocese and school intend to further extend the already hugecatchment area to fill the places that will be created by this expansion.LBE figures show that St Gregory's offered 90 reception places in September 2010, butreceived only 64 first-choice applications for these places. Thus, at least 87% of the places inthe "essential" new bulge class will have gone to children whose parents placed St Gregory'sas second or third choice. The figures available for 2010 admissions show that most pupils inthe new bulge class live further than 1 mile from the school. This does not demonstrate a needfor permanent extra places, and does not suggest that St Gregory's is a popular first-choiceschool for parents, local or otherwise.I have heard that the latest SATs figures due to published soon will show that St Gregory'shas fallen to 9th place, its lowest showing in recent memory. Add low SATs scores tochildren being educated in portacabins, massive heavy construction work taking place on-sitefor years, no safe pedestrian access to the school, increased pollution, increased traffic, and asteep decline in the health and safety of pupils, staff and visitors to the school. What is theresult? An overlarge, unsuccessful, unsafe, unpopular school that will no longer be servingthe needs of the local population, Catholic or otherwise. We already have one primary schoolin North Ealing -- Hathaway -- with many empty spaces year after year.We were also told that there is a bulge in the local Catholic primary school-age populationand this will start to decline in 2012. Then, on the admission of the school, pupils will beinvited in from outside the current catchment/parish area to fill the empty places. Invites havealready gone out to parishes as far away as Sudbury Hill. By what definition is Sudbury Hillconsidered local to Woodfield Road? This will add substantial growth to road traffic and thearea will become extremely dangerous. This scheme seems designed to turn a medium-sizedlocal school into a large hub for the entire Westminster archdiocese. If the boundary isincreased where will it end?If the proposed scheme is implemented, Brentham Estate residents on the south side ofWoodfield Crescent, for example, will be subjected to up to 1,000 people a day walking upand down the narrow alley behind their houses and the narrow pavements in front of their89

houses. Permanently. They will also be subjected to hundreds of extra cars driving throughand trying to park in this quiet side road each day. Parents will gather around the entrancebefore and after drop-off and pick-up times, thus adding to the noise and disturbance. Plus,parents often sit in their parked cars with the engine running while they wait to collect theirchildren. Thus, residents will lose their privacy and will be subject to a huge and significantincrease in air and noise pollution.Any introduction of streetlights in the back alley will produce a significant increase in lightpollution and disturbance for residents of the Brentham Estate and Fairlea Place, and lead tofurther significant loss of privacy, especially for the many children whose bedrooms are at therear of the houses. Our health and safety and the safety of our properties will be severelycompromised.Turning the alley into a school entrance will significantly blight family and private life forresidents on Woodfield Road/Crescent and Fairlea Place as it will render back gardens unprivateand unusable for a large part of each day due to the vast number of people using thealley. Staggering start and finish times at the school will only add to the significant noise anddisturbance caused as it will extend the hours in which the alley is used by hundreds of peopleat a time.At a time when Ealing Council has been paying for back alleys to have lockable gates toprevent burglaries and other crimes it seems ironic that this back alley should be opened upand possibly given street lights. Local crime prevention officers advised residents that shouldthese proposals be implemented, there would be an exponential rise in the likelihood of ourhomes being burgled and our property being damaged.Furthermore, how can hundreds of young children and their carers, together with buggies,scooters, bikes, wheelchairs, dogs, and so on possibly be safely funnelled along the alley, ontothe school site at one end and congested Woodfield Road at the other? It sounds like a disasterwaiting to happen.Presumably there will also be a large number of construction workers driving to and from theschool over a period of years. Will they all be encouraged or mandated to use publictransport? Can the developers be prevailed upon to bus them in rather than allow each workerto drive (and park) each day? Or will they simply just be allowed to add to the congestion andpollution?Will the headmaster, governors and staff be setting an example by taking public transport?What happens if only funding for Phase 1 (expansion) is secured, but not for Phases 2 and 3(refurbishment)? How much outdoor space will have been lost? How will un-refurbishedfacilities cope with hundreds of extra pupils and staff?Letter 10)Planning applications no.: P/2010/4044 (Major Development); P2010/4044(Conservation Area)As a resident of Woodfield Crescent for the past 19 years, I am writing to object in thestrongest terms regarding the impact on the local community of the request for planningpermission to develop St Gregory’s School. My objections are based around the followingissues:• Increased traffic congestion• Wider safety issues• Flooding risk• Damage to the local environment (conservation area)90

• PollutionI am also writing from a personal perspective, as I believe the proposed major developmentwill have a significant impact on my safety and quality of life.To support my argument, I outline below the ways in which the application does not meet anumber of the key requirements of the latest Ealing Unitary Development Plan (EUDP). Inote that the EUDP is due to be replaced by the Local Development Framework (LDF),which is in its final stages of consultation and will be subject to an Examination in Public dueto commence in March 2011. I am aware that St Gregory’s primary school is included forexpansion in the LDF. However, I am also aware that, although emerging, this is not, as yet,the statutory document for the purposes of determining the planning application.Before coming to the key objections, it is helpful to put the proposed expansion into its localcontext.Putting the expansion into its local contextEUDP 1.4 To promote good urban design through planning, so that buildings and spaces areattractive, accessible, safe, and consistent with the principles of sustainable development, andthat there is proper protection of the borough, particularly areas and buildings that are ofhistoric and architectural value.• St Gregory’s school is situated at the heart of a quiet residential community, boundedon two sides by the historic garden suburb – Brentham Conservation area, which hasArticle 4 Direction. It is not clear that the application has taken this into consideration.There is no evidence of formal consultation with The Brentham Society, despite the factthat the development will impact the Conservation area.• The planning application describes the houses in Woodfield Crescent as “semidetached”.In fact, they are primarily terraced houses. This error leads one to wonderwhether the applicants have even visited the local area, let alone given any considerationat all to the impact this development will have on a Conservation area.Increased traffic congestionEUDP policy 4.1 A development layout will provide ease of movement for alltransport modes, whilst affording priority to pedestrians, and then to cyclists andpublic transport.EUDP 9.1 (Development, Access and Parking) states that planning permission will normallyonly be granted for development which ensures traffic safety.EUDP 9.1 paragraph vi states development will only be permitted if the Council can ensurethe surrounding streets are not subject to parking stress or danger or nuisance frominappropriate on-street parking or waiting as a result of proposed development.• St Gregory’s main entrance is on a bend in Woodfield Road, a busy through road, thattakes traffic between Greenford and North Ealing to Ealing Broadway underground andmain line stations. Documents attached to the planning application outline that this isalready recognised as a dangerous area for pedestrians.• The road outside the entrance is already congested at school drop off and collectiontimes. This frequently leads to total gridlock, as cars and double decker E2 buses and E9buses try to pass each other, resulting in vehicles, including buses, mounting thepavement and entering Woodfield Crescent. The Council’s own records show that thepavement between 35 and 41 Woodfield Road has had to be replaced three times in a ninemonth period, due to damage from buses and heavy construction vehicles. It has beenassessed that around 60 buses pass the school each weekday, between 08.15 and 09.1591

and 14.45 and 15.45. It is my hope that the Council is not waiting for a serious accidentto occur before addressing these issues.• The applicants’ planning statement states that, in pre-application discussions, thePlanners advised that a full transport assessment is not required. There is no justificationfor this advice, which, given the current traffic chaos, is quite absurd. Surely it falls onthe applicant to demonstrate that the application will adhere to current EUDP policies.Thus, a major consideration of the application has not been properly addressed. Iunderstand that the Local Planning Authority has already stated that the existing siteaccess and zebra crossing is a safety hazard (as would be completely obvious to anyonewho took the time to visit the site during school drop off and collection time). Surely thismeans that a full Highway Safety Report should also be presented.• The planning application implies that this congestion is not related to the school but iscaused by local residents. This is facile. It completely ignores the evidence of congestionin mid-afternoon, at school collection time, which is clearly not a time when most localresidents, many of whom will be at work, would be in the area. It also ignores that factthat the current congestion is not an issue at weekends and during school holidays. Theschool’s own travel plan indicates the problems caused by the additional traffic relating tothe school.• The severity of the current congestion, before the proposed expansion, isillustrated by:o Local Councillors regularly receiving complaints from residents aboutspeeding and inconsiderate parking, as reported in local Hanger Wardbulletin.o Parents being reluctant to let their children walk alone or cycle toschool due to heavy congestion, as noted in the St Gregory’s GreenReport.There is no indication that the application has addressed aggressive behaviourtowards local residents by parents, which is regularly reported to the headmasterand which is a risk to local residents and, thereby, community safety.• The proposed 50 per cent increase in the number of children attending the schoolhas the potential to increase the amount of traffic by far more than 50 per cent.o At the consultation meeting held on 19/07/10, we were told that there is abulge in the local Catholic primary school-age population and this will startto decline in 2012. Then, on the admission of the school, pupils will beinvited in from outside the current catchment/parish area to fill the emptyplaces. The representative of the archdiocese said that invitations to sendpupils to the school have already gone out to parishes as far away as SudburyHill. This will add substantial growth to road traffic and the area will becomeeven more dangerous.o Contrary to what was said at the consultation meeting, the planningapplication states that most additional pupils will come from within a mile ofthe school. However, the ‘Summary of Consultation on further expansion ofprimary school places in the Ealing and Hanwell area June/July 2009’ statesthat “it is recognised that denomination/faith schools draw from a far widergeographical area than other schools.”o The majority of pupils admitted to the 2010 bulge class live outside thecurrent catchment area.• The addition of two new entrances to the school, in addition to the current mainentrance, will extend the area of traffic congestion. One of these new entrances is inWestmoreland Place, a tight cul-de-sac, which is already congested by school trafficfrom Montpelier School. The other is close to Woodfield Crescent, a road in theconservation area where very few houses have off-street parking and wheredevelopment of further off-street parking is, rightly, not allowed.• Traffic flow will be further negatively impacted during the three to five years of theconstruction programme by works vehicles and construction workers’ vehicles.92

There is no evidence in the application that the applicant has attempted to quantifythis impact or suggested ways of alleviating that impact.• There was no evidence at the consultation meeting that the school had been ablesuccessfully to deal with the current problems caused by parents driving their children toschool. This is in line with national findings that the majority of people choose to drivetheir children to and from school. I recognise that the school has a Green Travel Plan but,by its own admission, this is not successful and it does not place any legal obligations onthe school. The application does not refer to any other plan that is likely to succeed.Furthermore, the planning application contains no evidence that there is a properlythought-through plan for dealing with this extra traffic, rather there is a naïve (andinsulting to local residents) attempt to pretend that the expansion of the school will haveno impact on congestion.• In the Sustainability report accompanying the application, the plan scores a low 4 outof 10 in relation to Transport. It is hard to see how it scores even 4. It is even harderto understand how, when the Archdiocese has spoken about extending invitations outof catchment area, the Sustainability report can state ‘[the development] will reducethe distances being travelled by local children to school, thereby reducing trafficcongestion and pollution significantly’. It is on this unsupportable basis that it scores+10 for Significance.Wider safety issuesEUDP 9.1 (Development, Access and Parking) states that planning permission will normallyonly be granted for development which ensures traffic safety.EUDP 4.4 Any development can affect the quality and feel of an area and therefore safetyand people’s perception of safety. It is important therefore that all developments, buildingmodifications and public spaces should be designed to create a safe and secure environment.EUDP 4.4 The Council and the Police Service will expect that any developmentproposals have satisfactorily sought to design out crime and have given regard to theprinciples of the Police ‘Secured by Design’ initiative. Successfully ‘designing outcrime’ depends on a wide range of measures, including the actual building design,layout of buildings, car parking, public spaces, pedestrian ways, lighting andlandscape details.• Current traffic levels already represent a safety hazard to children and otherpedestrians, with traffic frequently mounting the pavement to clear gridlock duringschool drop off and collection times.• The safety issue is compounded by the school’s inability to recruit a regular ‘lollipop’person.• The pavements outside the school are narrow (2 metres) meaning that children oftenspill out on to the road, oblivious to the dangers of the passing traffic.• These safety issues for children will be significantly increased by the additional roadtraffic, increased number of pupils and construction vehicles.Further, there is the issue of the transformation of the narrow access alley behind WoodfieldCrescent into a new pedestrian entrance to the school.• Firstly, the developers do not seem to know what they are doing with regard toentrances nor to understand the current status relating to the entrances. The planningapplication states that there are three entrances to the site and that the use of theseentrances is not changing as a result of the planned development. This is clearly nottrue and contradicts what is said elsewhere in the document about the development oftwo new entrances. This is an important issue. Being charitable, one could concludethat these inconsistencies in the report relate to carelessness in its compilation. A93

more cynical view would be that there is an attempt to detract attention from this veryimportant and contentious issue,• It is proposed that the narrow, unpaved access alley behind Woodfield Crescent bedeveloped into a main pedestrian entrance, by adding a strip of tarmac 1.5m wide.During Phase 1 this will be the only pedestrian entrance into the school. Do thedevelopers really believe that 450-600 children, with their parents, siblings, buggiesetc can really pass safely, both ways, through an entrance of that width?Interestingly, Section 6.0 of the planning statement states that “all pedestrianfootpaths will be to a minimum of 1800mm wide to satisfy BS 8300”, so clearly theStandards authorities do not consider a pathway of that width to be safe. I sincerelyhope that the Planning Officer will take the time to walk all the way down thisentrance, to see just how narrow it is.• Furthermore, the transformation of the narrow access alley into a new school entrancewill present a safety risk for residents of Woodfield Crescent, whose houses abut theproposed new entrance and for residents of Fairlea Place. At present, the alley is usedonly for emergency vehicles and occasional maintenance, with few people havinglegitimate reason for being there. Once it is opened as a pedestrian access, anyonecould be thought to have legitimate access to the alleyway, from where they caneasily get into local residents’ back gardens. There is no indication in the planningapplication that his factor has been considered. In addition, the change of use of theaccess alley will decrease the amenity value of the Woodfield Crescent gardens thatabut the alleyway, in a way that I hope you will consider unacceptable.Flooding riskEUDP 4.5 Measures to conserve and recycle water will be encouraged. Sustainable UrbanDrainage Systems (SUDS) will also be sought as part of development to control surface waterrunoff.The Council recognises the contribution that trees make to the amenity andcharacter of the environment. Trees bring many other benefits to a landscape. Ifexisting trees are given adequate space to grow, they reduce pollution, dust, andtemperatures in hot weather by providing shade.• Properties on the southern side of Woodfield Crescent, adjacent to St Gregory’s, haveexperienced flooding from the playing fields which are situated on impermeableLondon Clay. This has led to residents having problems in getting insurance cover.• There have been a number of incidents. The first documented one happened in 1977.• The risk is compounded by the fact that these homes on the Brentham ConservationEstate were built at the turn of the century, with little or no foundations.• The plans for the school expansion and temporary classrooms give little or noattention to the affects of large-scale building work on land prone to flooding andwith water runoff problems and this matter is only addressed in a cursory anddismissive fashion in the planning application. I believe the applicants must showthat they have given this matter proper investigation.Damage to the local environment (conservation area)In its most recent Best Value Performance Plan, the Council has set out sixmain pledges:• ensure Council services provide value for money• raise standards in education• protect our environment• provide high quality housing• promote better health and social services• promote a better quality of life for the people of Ealing94

EUDP 4.12 Light Pollution The Council will consider applications for floodlighting andillumination in the context of their effect on the quality of life of residents in thelocality, and the minimisation of possible disturbance of natural habitats for wild life,especially defined sites, areas and protected species. tiThtrjnjce site, which• Five years of building work will significantly disrupt the peaceful nature of this quietresidential area, much of which is a garden suburb conservation area.• Recent building work at the school was carried out considerably outside the permittedhours of 08.00 to 18.00, with lorries arriving at the school at 06.00. Complaints aboutthis contravention of the regulations were ignored. The construction company usedrecently by the school is not a member of the Considerate Construction Scheme:www.ccscheme.org.uk.• This noise and disruption will continue beyond the building programme, given theincreased number of adults and children in and around the school for extended hours,together with increased levels of traffic affecting a wider geographic area.• Notes from the consultation meeting dated 19 July 2010 state that it was not intendedto light the entrance behind Woodfield Crescent ‘as it ‘may cause disturbance to thesurrounding residential properties’. The planning application indicates that thisentrance will be lit – presumably the concerns about the disturbance to local residentsare no longer considered to be relevant. This will cause significant light pollution andloss of privacy/amenity for the residents of Woodfield Crescent and Fairlea Place. Itwill also impact local wildlife.• The increased traffic and number of pupils will also add to the noise pollutionsuffered by local residents.• The application states that trees will absorb sounds from the school and partiallyscreen the buildings from neighbours. This is, if anything, a superficial way ofdealing with serious noise pollution and loss of amenity issues.PollutionThe Government’s National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS) has identified the area ofHanger Lane, adjacent to St Gregory’s, as an area where the annual mean nitrogendioxide and daily mean PM concentrations are predicted to exceed government10objectives.EUDP 2.6 ‘Air Pollution and Quality’ Ealing Council states that it will take into accountair quality objectives and the acceptability of increased risks of air pollution. Thecumulative effect of individual developments will be taken into account, both in termsof impact and remedial measures. Air Quality Assessment will be required whenproposals may result in a significant increase in congestion, and lower vehiclespeeds than currently experienced on the existing local road network. Also onproposals which significantly alter the composition of traffic, such that adverse airquality impacts may arise.Proposal 45.Proposal 46.The Council will require an Air Quality Assessment forall new developments where there is potential for asignificant increase in air pollution.The Council will refuse planning permission where adevelopment hinders the achievement of air qualityobjectives or results in significantly increased airpollution.95

• This area is already acknowledged as being highly polluted, due to the proximity ofthe A40, Hanger Lane Gyratory, North Circular and Heathrow. Indeed, plans for asecondary school in the area were turned down by the Council recently because of thepollution issue.• This residential area will be further polluted by increased traffic levels at the schoolbut there is no indication in the planning application that an Air Quality Assessmenthas been or will be carried out.• There will inevitably be further additional pollution issues related to the buildingworks.All of these pollution issues will impact the health of current pupils, particularly those withasthma, and the children of local residents alike.In addition, I can find no mention of impact on local wildlife, particularly bats which arefrequently seen in the area, in the application and would like clarification on this point.Questioning the needIn addition to the above objections, there has to be a fundamental question as towhether there really is the need to increase the school to the proposed extent. Theneed for additional places has not been explained adequately. The application refersto generalised documentation that takes no account of the specific circumstancesrelating to any of the schools. There is no compelling evidence suggesting that thisis the only option available. Therefore given the specific site constraints at thisparticular site, if indeed a need exists, other options must be explored in the firstinstance. Growth by stealth to justify the objective of expansion is not appropriate orin the public interest.Montpelier and North Ealing Primary schools, located within half a mile of St Gregory’s, areexpanding. It is therefore likely that a high proportion of the children taking up the placesmade available by the proposed expansion at St Gregory’s will not be local. Please also seecomments about the need for further places in the section on Increased Traffic Congestionabove. The very fact that the Archdiocese has referred to extending the catchment areaindicates that this expansion is not being done to meet local needs.ConclusionI believe that my letter clearly indicates that there are a number of serious issues related to thedevelopment, which mean that planning permission should be refused. Fundamental issues,such as dealing with traffic problems, have not been adequately addressed. Furthermore, theactual perceived need has not been explained in an open or transparent way. It is unclear tome why expansion of this particular faith school is the only option available to the Council.I trust that the points given above will persuade the Planning Committee that the proposedexpansion does not meet the criteria of the Ealing Unitary Development Plan in particularthat:EUDP 8.7 The council will work with educational institutions to provide facilities throughgood design, to enhance functionality as well as to improve the aesthetic value of thesurrounding environment. The Council will only approve development that respects currentstandards of safety, natural light, health, privacy and freedom from traffic nuisance,disturbance or visual intrusion in relation to neighbouring land uses.Letter 11)I am responding to the letter from M Lyons, dated 10 November 2010, asking local residentsfor their views on the proposed expansion of St Gregory's.96

As a resident of Woodfield Crescent for the past 19 years, I object strongly to this expansion,given the impact that it will have on the local community. Having attended one of theconsultation meetings and having read the planning application made to the council, it is quiteclear to me that the school is treating the local community with disdain and has no concernsabout the impact on the local community. Quite the reverse, it is, in an extraordinaryfashion, trying to imply that the traffic congestion that occurs in Woodfield Road only at dropoff and collection times during school term, is caused by local residents. The application istotally misleading regarding the alleyway that runs behind Woodfield Crescent, which isclearly unsuitable for a main school entrance. The application also stated that, at the secondconsultation meeting, local residents were unable to agree on what they wanted. How onearth were a random group of 100+ people supposed to come to agreement, at such a meeting,regarding something about which they had only just heard. The arrogant attitude takentowards local residents by the headmaster, governors and their employed consultants at thatmeeting was appalling and has caused significant damage to the previously reasonablerelationship between the school and the local community.I have taken some time to read the planning application and given it a great deal of consideredthought. My objections are based around the following issues:Increased traffic congestionWider safety issuesFlooding riskDamage to the local environment (conservation area)Pollutionand the fact that an expansion of this size is not required to meet the educational needs ofstrictly local children.These issues are covered in detail in the attached letter that I have sent to Ealing Council.Having already spent an inordinate amount of time on this matter, I am not prepared to takethe time to tailor this letter to this further consultation document. I believe the governors willfind that my letter makes my views more than clear. I just hope that they will takeseriously these views, which are widely held by the local community, and will not proceedwith such a large project, which. at the Archdiocese's own admission, will bring in childrenway out of the loca catchment area.Letter 12)We have lived on Mount Ave near the school for 30 years and as such witnessed first handthe problems caused by the school runs connected to it. I fully understand the need for extraschool places but not before St Gregory's seriously addresses the problems the school runsbring to the area. Even before considering this exapnsion, which will bring even more schoolrun cars the school needs to have been acting already to tackle the problems that ALREADYexist. St Gregory's like Montpelier has done absolutely nothing as regards their school runproblems other than the silly 'walk to school schemes' claiming these are a great success-UTTER UTTER NONSENSE!!! It has improved nothing.Residents are very angry that the school year after year ignores the problems connected totheir school runs. Even now the school is trying to brush over this like no problems exist.There is no mention in the leaflet about the massive school run problems. For years it hasbeen the biggest problem in the area. Each year residents complain about the nightmareschool runs.I have written to the head master about 6 times regarding this and never once got a reply.97

Before the school even considers this it needs to explain to residents what exactly are its planson tackling this continuous school run traffic problem. Why is it being ignored each andevery year.Letter 13)I am in receipt of the letter from Ealing Council regarding the proposed extension to StGregory's School.As a local resident with a property facing directly on to the school grounds I strongly object toany plans to increase the size of the school for the following reasons:1. The noise, and disruption to my once quiet environment would be intolerable2. Traffic congestion is bad enough already without increasing it3. Increased pollution4. Danger and disruption to existing children whilst building work is ongoing5. Don't think it is justified to bring in children from outside the borough6. Strongly against cutting down any of the trees7. Emergency services would have difficulty getting round the area during school times dueto the increased congestion as the roads would be gridlocked8. To turn the grass playing fields into an all weather floodlit football pitch would seriouslydamage the current view from my house yet alone the flood risk and additional noiseIn addition, I was not consulted about replacing the wooden hut with some eyesore of aportacabin Absolutely no thought whatsoever was given, one, to the people in Fairlea Place,or to replace it with something that blended into area like the previous one. I was furiouswhen I came back from holiday and saw this monstrosity as it is directly opposite myproperty.St. Gregory's is a good school. It should stay the size that it is and retain its reputation. IfEaling needs more school places, build a school somewhere else. Thought Ealing Councilbought the GSK building in Greenford and turned that into a school. Why not expand thatthere is loads of room.Letter 14)I am writing to protest against the planned expansion of the school. I have lodgedtwo letters of objection with Ealing Council TPlanning on the matter and would likeyou to know this. My garden backs onto your playing field as I live on WinscombeCrescent.Letter 15)With regards to the proposed expansion of the school, I have the following comments.I am opposed to the expansion of the school as the surrounding infrastructure is inadequate tocope with the inevitable increased traffic. In addition, I am of the view that larger schoolsdisadvantage children with learning difficulties as many such children find it difficult tofunction effectively in such schools.98

Letter 16)99

100

Letter 17)Letter 18)101

102

St Saviour’s CE Infant and Christ Church CE Junior schoolsLetter 1)St Saviours and Christ Church Schools are in the middle of consultation via the LBE withrespect to a proposals to a) amalgamate and b) to expand and enable St. Saviours to offermore places to people who would like to have their children experience a Christian educationin a Voluntary Aided Church of England School.I am just writing to express my support for these proposals. The two school will be strongerand more effectively run as one entry.I believe the leaning outcomes for the children will also be improved with this amalgamation.Letter 2)I write to object to parts 2 and 3 of the proposals (dated 29 October 2010) for St. Saviour'sand Christ Church Schools, Ealing.103

The proposals need to be considered in the context of increasing primaryschool numbers in Ealing generally, and particularly in the context of thehousing strategy in the draft Local Development Framework (LDF). This proposesanother 14,000 homes in Ealing in the next 16 years, with 2,600 of these withinEaling Town Centre. Building work on the first 698 of the homes has already startedat Dickens Yard.Most parents would like primary schools to be close to where they live as many children,especially the younger ones, will have to be escorted both to and from school. This shortensthe double journey for parents/carers and means that it is likely to be undertaken in anenvironmentally friendly way, e.g. by walking.There is already a problem for many living in the centre of Ealing, as the nearest communityprimary schools are over 1km away. St Saviour's and ChristChurch schools are much nearer to home, but for many there is little realistic prospect of theirchildren getting into the schools. Children of parents of "another Christian Church" at bestonly come 6th in the priority order by the 2010/11 admissions policy. Those of parents of noreligion (the 2nd largest "religious" group according to the 2001 census) come 9th in thepriority list. Even then, they are required to be "sympathetic to the aims and ethos of Churchof England Schools". It is unlikely that many will be sympathetic to religious prioritisation forentry.There is also an aspect of social division here. Many children of all faiths, and none, will havebeen mixed together in the private nurseries around central Ealing. At the age of 4 they willfind that those of Church of England faith can go to the local St. Saviour's school, whilstothers will have to go further afield.There is another problem with how the catchment areas work for the community schools. If aschool is over-subscribed, most places will be determined by how close to it the children live.As people in central Ealing will be on the very edge of either the Montpelier or the Grangecatchment areas, their children won't get into these schools if they are over-subscribed. Thiswill mean that they will have to go even further away to whatever school in the borough hasplaces.The problems are clearly going to get much worse as more homes are built inEaling Town Centre. Whilst there is recognition that there might need to be anothercommunity primary school in central Ealing, there are no concrete plans for one and nosuitable site has been chosen. Instead all available space in central Ealing has been earmarkedfor retail, offices or homes.It is therefore inappropriate that the currently available space for school expansion at St.Saviour's and Christ Church is all to be allocated to just one part of the community. This canonly be described as religious discrimination.A compromise solution to the problem may be to consolidate all Church ofEngland schooling on one of the 2 sites and then use the other for a new community school.The alternative would be to require all extra spaces from the expansion to be available to allregardless of faith, or lack of it. To do anything else would be a socially divisive anddiscriminatory use of public money. It would also be contrary to the sustainability objectiveof shortening travel distances.104

Letter 3)105

106

107

108

Appendix 8: St Gregory’s Catholic School travel surveyHANDS UP SURVEYCurrent mode of travel surveyDate of survey 07/12/10Total number of pupils at the school 494Total number of staff at the school 52*How did you travel to school today?PupilsStaffCar (straight from home to school) 137 (32%) 16 (43%)Carshare (travelling with someone who lives atanother house)14 (3%) 4 (11%)Bus 19 (4%) 7 (19%)Rail (Train, Tube, DLR) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Bicycle 12 (3%) 0 (0%)Walk (all the way) 195 (45%) 9 (24%)Park & Walk (Drive part and walk part) 55 (13%) 0 (0%)School Bus 0 (0%) 0 (0%)Other (Child:Scooter/Adult: Train and walk) 1(0%) 1 (3%)Total: 433Total:37*Missing staff either sick or part time in and not in that day.109

Appendix 9: Statutory Notice and full proposal for Ravenor Primary SchoolLondon Borough of Ealing Statutory Notice for aproposed enlargement to Ravenor Primary School.Notice is given in accordance with section 19(1) of the Education and Inspections Act2006 that the London Borough of Ealing intends to make a prescribed alteration toRavenor (Community) Primary School, Greenway Gardens, Greenford UB6 9TT, from 1 stSeptember 2012.The London Borough of Ealing proposes to enlarge the premises of Ravenor PrimarySchool by incrementally admitting an additional 30 pupils into the reception year fromSeptember 2012. This will be accommodated through phased building works.The current net capacity, which assesses the physical space of the school (excluding thenursery), is 420 and the proposed capacity will be 630. The current number of pupilsregistered at the school (excluding the nursery) is 449. The current admission number forthe school is 60 and the proposed admission number will be 90.This Notice is an extract from the complete proposal. Copies of the complete proposal canbe obtained from: Holly Morgan-Smith, Perceval House 2NE/3, 14/16 Uxbridge Road,Ealing W5 2HL, or may be downloaded fromwww.ealing.gov.uk/services/education/investment/psc/currentconsult.htmlWithin four weeks (by 3 rd December 2010) from the date of publication of these proposals,any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sending them to HollyMorgan-Smith, Perceval House 2NE/3, 14/16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2HL, or emailinghmorgansmith@ealing.gov.uk.Signed:David Archibald, Executive Director, Children and AdultsPublication Date: 5 th November 2010Explanatory NotesA questionnaire covering the proposed expansion of a number of primary schools,including Ravenor primary school, will be available to be completed on line atwww.ealing.gov.uk/consultationsAlternatively you can contact Holly Morgan-Smith on 0208 825 8315 or e-mail her athmorgansmith@ealing.gov.uk, to request a paper copy.110

London Borough of Ealing Statutory Notice for aproposed enlargement to Ravenor Primary School.PROPOSALS FOR PRESCRIBED ALTERATIONS OTHERTHAN FOUNDATION PROPOSALS: Information to beincluded in a complete proposalExtract of Part 1 of Schedule 3 and Part 1 of Schedule 5 to The SchoolOrganisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools)(England)Regulations 2007 (as amended):In respect of a Governing Body Proposal: School and governing body’s details1. The name, address and category of the school for which the governing body arepublishing the proposals.Not applicable. The Local Authority is publishing the proposals.In respect of an LEA Proposal: School and local education authority details1. The name, address and category of the school.Ravenor Primary School, Greenway Gardens, Greenford UB6 9TTThis is a community primary school.Contact details for the proposers are:Holly Morgan-Smith,Perceval House 2/NE/3,14-16 Uxbridge Road,EalingW5 2HLEmail: hmorgansmith@ealing.gov.ukWebsite: www.ealing.gov.uk/consultations andhttp://www.ealing.gov.uk/services/education/investment/psc/currentconsult.htmlImplementation and any proposed stages for implementation2. The date on which the proposals are planned to be implemented, and if they are tobe implemented in stages, a description of what is planned for each stage, and thenumber of stages intended and the dates of each stage.It is proposed to permanently increase the Published Admission Number (PAN) fromisSeptember 2012, when an increase of 30 additional pupils will be admitted into the receptionyear. Up to 90-reception age pupils will be admitted in each subsequent year. Building workwill be undertaken to ensure that age-appropriate accommodation is available at the relevanttimes.111

Objections and comments3. A statement explaining the procedure for making representations, including —(a) the date prescribed in accordance with paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 (GBproposals)/Schedule 5 (LA proposals) of The School Organisation (PrescribedAlterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), bywhich objections or comments should be sent to the local education authority; and(b) the address of the authority to which objections or comments should be sent.Within four weeks (by 3 rd December 2010) from the date of publication of the Statutory Notice,any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sending representations tothe London Borough of Ealing.The Notice was published in the Ealing Gazette series on Friday 5 th November 2010, and theclosing date for representations will be by close of business on Friday 3 rd December 2010.Any representations should be sent to:Holly Morgan-Smith, Perceval House 2/NE/3, 14 - 16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2HL.Email: hmorgansmith@ealing.gov.ukAn online questionnaire on the proposal will also be available to be completed online atwww.ealing.gov.uk/consultationsAlteration description4. A description of the proposed alteration and in the case of special schoolproposals, a description of the current special needs provision.The London Borough of Ealing proposes to permanently increase the PublishedAdmission Number (PAN) for Ravenor Primary School, to admit 90 pupils (anadditional 30 pupils per year group) from September 2012.This will be achieved through the addition of new accommodation, meeting theneeds of the increased numbers of pupils in all seven-year groups, and ensuringthat age-appropriate accommodation is available at the relevant times.School capacity5.—(1) Where the alteration is an alteration falling within any of paragraphs 1 to 4, 8 ,9 and 12-14 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/paragraphs 1-4, 7, 8, 18, 19 and 21 ofSchedule 4 (LA proposals) to The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations toMaintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), the proposals mustalso include —(a) details of the current capacity of the school and, where the proposals will alterthe capacity of the school, the proposed capacity of the school after the alteration;The current net capacity, which assesses the physical space of the school (excluding thenursery), is 420. Once the proposals have been implemented and necessary building workshave been completed the proposed capacity will be 630.(b) details of the current number of pupils admitted to the school in each relevantage group, and where this number is to change, the proposed number of pupils to beadmitted in each relevant age group in the first school year in which the proposalswill have been implemented;112

The current number of pupils admitted at the school (as at September 2010) is up to 450* fromreception to year 6, plus 25 full-time equivalent (50 part-time equivalent) nursery places. Thecurrent admission number for the school for pupils in year 1 to year 6 is 60. To help meet theneed for additional reception places for September 2010, a temporary admission number of 90was agreed and temporary accommodation was constructed to accommodate the increase innumbers. It is proposed that a further temporary admission number of 90 be offered foradmission to reception in 2011 in advance of permanent expansion.The proposed permanent admission number will be 90 from September 2012.Current number as at September 2010Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) *90 60 60 60 60 60 60 *450Proposed number at September 2012Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 *90 *90 60 60 60 60 *480* Temporary 1 FE increase in September 2010 and 2011(c) where it is intended that proposals should be implemented in stages, thenumber of pupils to be admitted to the school in the first school year in which eachstage will have been implemented;The school’s published planned admission number (PAN) will temporarily increase to 90 forreception aged pupils in September 2010 and 2011, and is proposed to permanently increaseto 90 starting from September 2012 and each subsequent year thereafter.Proposed September 2011Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) *90 *90 60 60 60 60 60 *480Proposed September 2012Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 *90 *90 60 60 60 60 *510Proposed September 2013Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 90 *90 *90 60 60 60 *540Proposed September 2014Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 90 90 *90 *90 60 60 *570Proposed September 2015Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 90 90 90 *90 *90 60 *600Proposed September 2016Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 90 90 90 90 *90 *90 *630* Temporary 1 FE increase in September 2010 and 2011113

(d) where the number of pupils in any relevant age group is lower than theindicated admission number for that relevant age group a statement to this effect anddetails of the indicated admission number in question.Not applicable.(2) Where the alteration is an alteration falling within any ofparagraphs 1, 2, 9, 12 and 13 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 18 ands 19 of Schedule 4 (LA proposals) toThe School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to MaintainedSchools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), a statementof the number of pupils at the school at the time of the publicationof the proposals.The number of pupils registered at the school (as at 18 October 2010) was 449 full-time pupilsaged 4 to 10, and 49 part-time pupils aged 3. As follows:Part-time pupils Full-time pupilsNursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 652 (PTE) *90 60 58 60 61 60 60 449* Temporary 1 FE increase in September 2010Implementation6. Where the proposals relate to a foundation or voluntary controlled school astatement as to whether the proposals are to be implemented by the local educationauthority or by the governing body, and, if the proposals are to be implemented byboth, a statement as to the extent to which they are to be implemented by each body.Not applicable.Additional Site7.—(1) A statement as to whether any new or additional site will be required ifproposals are implemented and if so the location of the site if the school is to occupya split site.No new or additional site will be required.(2) Where proposals relate to a foundation or voluntary school a statement as to whowill provide any additional site required, together with details of the tenure (freeholdor leasehold) on which the site of the school will be held, and if the site is to be heldon a lease, details of the proposed lease.Not applicable.Changes in boarding arrangements8.—(1) Where the proposals are for the introduction or removal of boarding provision,or the alteration of existing boarding provision such as is mentioned in paragraph 8 or21 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/7 or 14 of Schedule 4 to The School Organisation(Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (asamended) —114

(a) the number of pupils for whom it is intended that boarding provision will bemade if the proposals are approved;Not applicable.(b)the arrangements for safeguarding the welfare of children at the school;Not applicable.(c) the current number of pupils for whom boarding provision can be made and adescription of the boarding provision; andNot applicable.(d) except where the proposals are to introduce boarding provision, a descriptionof the existing boarding provision.Not applicable.(2) Where the proposals are for the removal of boarding provisionsor an alteration to reduce boarding provision such as is mentionedin paragraph 8 or 21 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/7 or 14 ofSchedule 4 (LA proposals) to The School Organisation (PrescribedAlterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (asamended) —(a) the number of pupils for whom boarding provision will be removed if theproposals are approved; andNot applicable.(b) a statement as to the use to which the former boarding accommodation willbe put if the proposals are approved.Not applicable.Transfer to new site9. Where the proposals are to transfer a school to a new site the followinginformation—(a) the location of the proposed site (including details of whether the school is tooccupy a single or split site), and including where appropriate the postal address;Not applicable.(b)the distance between the proposed and current site;Not applicable.(c)the reason for the choice of proposed site;Not applicable.(d)the accessibility of the proposed site or sites;Not applicable.115

(e) the proposed arrangements for transport of pupils to the school on its newsite; andNot applicable.(f) a statement about other sustainable transport alternatives where pupils arenot using transport provided, and how car use in the school area will be discouraged.Not applicable.Objectives10. The objectives of the proposals.The objectives of the proposal are to:• Meet the need for additional school places by increasing the PAN from 60 to 90 foradmissions to reception from September 2010 temporarily, and permanently fromSeptember 2012 onwards.• Remodel and expand existing facilities and provide additional accommodation toprovide suitable accommodation for 90 pupils per year group throughout the school.• To support the school in progressing towards the objectives contained within thePrimary Strategy for Change (PSfC), via the provision of suitable accommodation.Consultation11. Evidence of the consultation before the proposals were published including—(a) a list of persons who were consulted;(b) minutes of all public consultation meetings;(c) the views of the persons consulted;(d) a statement to the effect that all applicable statutory requirements in relationto the proposals to consult were complied with; and(e) copies of all consultation documents and a statement on how thesedocuments were made available.(a) The following groups (list attached as Appendix 1) were sent copies of theGreenford, Northolt and Perivale (GNP) area consultation document and surveyquestionnaire (attached as Appendix 2):• The governing body of the school• Pupils and their families, teachers and other staff at the school• All neighbouring authorities whose schools may be affected by theproposals, due to significant cross-border movement of pupils• The governing body, teaching and non-teaching staff and families of pupilsat all Greenford, Northolt and Perivale primary schools and primary agespecial schools via the school• The governing body and headteacher of all Ealing primary schools• Trade unions representing staff at the school and staff at other schoolsaffected by the proposals116

• The diocesan authorities• Local MPs, including those MPs whose constituents may be affected by theproposals• Local residents associations• Local community groups and cultural associations• Private nursery providers in the GNP area• Local parent and toddler groups• The local Primary Care Trust• Ealing Borough, Metropolitan Police• All residents within the official planning area(b) The governing body voted unanimously in favour of the proposal for expansionof the school at their full governing body meeting held on 26 November 2009.(Appendix 3)On 22 October 2009, Council officers attended a parents evening (from 3-7pm)to hold a drop-in session for parents with questions about the proposedexpansion. This was advertised by the school.There were LA meetings with the chair of governors and head teacher thatwere not minuted. Staff meetings and school assemblies that discussed theissues were also not minuted.(c) Ravenor was one of eight schools in the GNP area that were consulted on. Apaper charting the results of the survey was published on the council’s websitefor the 12 th January 2010 Cabinet meeting (Appendix 4) and a decision toprogress towards statutory proposals for Ravenor Primary School was agreed.The LA received 101 completed questionnaires as well as 1 letter and a phonemessage received from interested parties.• Respondents were asked two questions:oTo prioritise the factors that should be considered when deciding onwhich schools to enlargeo To list four of eleven schools they were most in favour of expanding• The two most commonly cited criteria for expansion were to favour schools:oin an area where there were high numbers of birthsowith the best academic standards• Ravenor with 28 votes came second in popularity for expansion to the WestLondon Academy with 34 votes.(d) All applicable statutory requirements in relation to the proposals have beencomplied with:• On 2 April 2009, the Cabinet agreed to undertake a wide-ranging publicconsultation and survey on the need for additional primary school places.• An extensive public consultation was run from early October to midNovember 2009, which sought views on how to meet further demand forplaces in the GNP (Greenford, Northolt and Perivale) area.• The accompanying questionnaire asked respondents their views on avariety of factors that should be taken into account when deciding whichschools should be expanded, and also which of the primary schools in the117

area should be increased in size. The document also reviewed some widerprinciples around primary provision across the Borough, and the need formore places.• On 12 January 2010, Cabinet agreed to the phased publication of statutoryproposals for several schools in Ealing, including Ravenor Primary School.• On 20 January 2010 the admissions forum presented an outline of the needfor additional places in Ealing, and highlighted the proposed increase atRavenor Primary School on page 42 of the report, which was then circulatedto neighbouring LAs, the Diocesan Boards and Ealing head teachers(Appendix 5).(e) Consultation documents relating to the Ravenor proposal are attached inAppendix 2 and 12, and were made available in the following ways:• All schools in Ealing were sent copies of the public consultation paper andquestionnaire, concerning the possible enlargement of several primaryschools in the GNP area of the borough:oooooThe eleven primary schools covered in the GNP consultation were sentsufficient copies for dissemination.All other schools were sent enough copies for staff, governors etc. andto have some in the school reception. Schools were asked to requestmore copies if needed, a few schools requested extra copies and thesewere send out the same daySchools were also encouraged to notify parents to fill in thequestionnaire online.The issues covered by the consultation paper were also raised at schoolgovernor and staff meetings, assemblies and addressed in schoolnewsletters throughout 2009 and 2010Representatives of the LA have held ongoing discussions withRavenor’s chair of governors and head teacher.• Consultation letters were sent directly to the other stakeholder groups listedin section 11 (a) (attached as Appendix 11)• Copies were made available on the councils website, which can be found atwww.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/consultations/• The GNP consultation was publicised in the November 2009 issue ofAround Ealing magazine (Appendix 6)• It was also widely publicised that telephone support was also available froma member of staff for any who had any queries.• To encourage as wide participation as possible, all of the previousconsultations on the need for additional school places, and subsequentresults, were and still are available in the consultations section of theCouncil’s website.• In order to encourage the public to respond to the statutory proposal stage,the LA intends to circulate a final questionnaire, which will highlight theissues specific to several schools, including Ravenor Primary School, whichhave published statutory proposals. Copies will again be sent to allinterested parties listed above, and will run for the four-week representationperiod. An online questionnaire will also be available on the Ealing Councilwebsite for the duration of the representation period at118

www.ealing.gov.uk/consultations• To further encourage the public to respond to the statutory proposal stage,local authority officers will be available to attend governing body meetingsand public evening meetings where required. The results/minutes of suchmeetings will be collated, and will be covered in the final report to Cabinet inJanuary 2011.Project costs12. A statement of the estimated total capital cost of the proposals and thebreakdown of the costs that are to be met by the governing body, the local educationauthority, and any other party.Local Authority early indicative estimates are for up to £4.5m capital costs for the proposedexpansion, which will be borne by the Local Authority.13. A copy of confirmation from the Secretary of State, local education authority andthe Learning and Skills Council for England (as the case may be) that funds will bemade available (including costs to cover any necessary site purchase).The Local Authority confirms that funding will be made available for this project.Age range14. Where the proposals relate to a change in age range, the current age range forthe school.Not applicable.Early years provision15. Where the proposals are to alter the lower age limit of a mainstream school sothat it provides for pupils aged between 2 and 5—(a) details of the early years provision, including the number of full-time and parttimepupils, the number and length of sessions in each week, and the services fordisabled children that will be offered;Not applicable.(b) how the school will integrate the early years provision with childcare servicesand how the proposals are consistent with the integration of early years provision forchildcare;Not applicable.(c)evidence of parental demand for additional provision of early years provision;Not applicable.(d) assessment of capacity, quality and sustainability of provision in schools andin establishments other than schools who deliver the Early Years Foundation Stagewithin 3 miles of the school; and119

Not applicable.(e) reasons why such schools and establishments who have spare capacitycannot make provision for any forecast increase in the number of such provision.Not applicable.Changes to sixth form provision16. (a) Where the proposals are to alter the upper age limit of the school so that theschool provides sixth form education or additional sixth form education, a statementof how the proposals will—(i) improve the educational or training achievements;(ii) increase participation in education or training; and(iii) expand the range of educational or training opportunitiesfor 16-19 year olds in the area;Not applicable.(b) A statement as to how the new places will fit within the 16-19 organisation in anarea;Not applicable.(c) Evidence —(i) of the local collaboration in drawing up the proposals; and(ii) that the proposals are likely to lead to higher standards and betterprogression at the school;Not applicable.(d) The proposed number of sixth form places to be provided.Not applicable.17. Where the proposals are to alter the upper age limit of the school so that theschool ceases to provide sixth form education, a statement of the effect on the supplyof 16-19 places in the area.Not applicable.Special educational needs18. Where the proposals are to establish or change provision for special educationalneeds—(a) a description of the proposed types of learning difficulties in respect of whicheducation will be provided and, where provision for special educational needsalready exists, the current type of provision;Not applicable.(b)any additional specialist features will be provided;120

Not applicable.(c)the proposed numbers of pupils for which the provision is to be made;Not applicable.(d)details of how the provision will be funded;Not applicable.(e) a statement as to whether the education will be provided for children withspecial educational needs who are not registered pupils at the school to which theproposals relate;Not applicable.(f) a statement as to whether the expenses of the provision will be met from theschool’s delegated budget;Not applicable.(g) the location of the provision if it is not to be established on the existing site ofthe school;Not applicable.(h) where the provision will replace existing educational provision for childrenwith special educational needs, a statement as to how the local education authoritybelieves that the new provision is likely to lead to improvement in the standard,quality and range of the educational provision for such children; andNot applicable.(i) the number of places reserved for children with special educational needs,and where this number is to change, the proposed number of such places.Not applicable.19. Where the proposals are to discontinue provision for special educational needs—(a) details of alternative provision for pupils for whom the provision is currentlymade;Not applicable.(b) details of the number of pupils for whom provision is made that is recognisedby the local education authority as reserved for children with special educationalneeds during each of the 4 school years preceding the current school year;Not applicable.(c) details of provision made outside the area of the local education authority forpupils whose needs will not be able to be met in the area of the authority as a resultof the discontinuance of the provision; andNot applicable.121

(d) a statement as to how the proposer believes that the proposals are likely tolead to improvement in the standard, quality and range of the educational provisionfor such children.Not applicable.20. Where the proposals will lead to alternative provision for children with specialeducational needs, as a result of the establishment, alteration or discontinuance ofexisting provision, the specific educational benefits that will flow from the proposals interms of—(a) improved access to education and associated services including thecurriculum, wider school activities, facilities and equipment with reference to the localeducation authority’s Accessibility Strategy;(b) improved access to specialist staff, both educational and other professionals,including any external support and outreach services;(c) improved access to suitable accommodation; and(d) improved supply of suitable places.Not applicable.Sex of pupils21. Where the proposals are to make an alteration to provide that a school which wasan establishment which admitted pupils of one sex only becomes an establishmentwhich admits pupils of both sexes—(a) details of the likely effect which the alteration will have on the balance of theprovision of single sex-education in the area;Not applicable.(b)evidence of local demand for single-sex education; andNot applicable.(c) details of any transitional period, which the body making the proposalswishes specified in a transitional exemption order (within the meaning of section 27of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975).Not applicable.22. Where the proposals are to make an alteration to a school to provide that aschool which was an establishment which admitted pupils of both sexes becomes anestablishment which admits pupils of one sex only—(a) details of the likely effect which the alteration will have on the balance of theprovision of single-sex education in the area; andNot applicable.(b)evidence of local demand for single-sex education.Not applicable.122

Extended services23. If the proposed alterations affect the provision of the school’s extended services,details of the current extended services the school is offering and details of anyproposed change as a result of the alterations.It is intended that the school will continue to provide extended services and these will bedeveloped during the feasibility and design stage of the programme in consultation with theschool.Need or demand for additional places24. If the proposals involve adding places—(a) a statement and supporting evidence of the need or demand for the particularplaces in the area;Rise in birth rate (Appendix 7)Ealing, in line with a number of other London boroughs, is experiencing a substantial rise inbirth rates. In the 1990’s and the early 2000’s the average number of births in each year wasin the region of 4,500. However, since the academic year 2002/03, where there were 4,469,live births have risen by more than 1,100 to 5,573 in 2007/08 academic year. A rise of nearly25% over the six-year period. For the calendar year 2009 ONS recorded live births for Ealinghave risen even further, to 5,638, a rise of over 26% since 2002/03.Birth rates are not rising equally across all areas of the borough. Increases have beenprimarily concentrated in the GNP (Greenford, Northolt & Perivale), Ealing and Hanwell andActon areas. Ravenor Primary school is part of the GNP Central planning area, which fallswithin the collective GNP area, where births rose from 1,243 in 2002/03 to 1,670 in 2007/08(latest available data), a rise of 34% over the period. ONS actual ward and postcode levelbirths for the 2008/09 academic year will not be available until November 2009.Retention rate rises (Appendix 8)Coupled with this birth rate rise, there has also been an increase in the retention rate betweenbirth and children later appearing on reception class rolls. The retention rate for the 2009/10academic year was 82.5%, the highest since 1995/96, and 3.5% higher than the previous year.The three-year rolling average has now risen to 80.5%, and the five-year trend has risen to83%.As with live births, retention ratios vary around the borough. Applying the 5-year trend model,the birth to reception ratio for the GNP area is 92% and 85% for the GNP Central catchmentarea.Roll projection modelsProjected primary rolls in the London Borough of Ealing are calculated using either a LA 3-yearretention ratio model, or a combined LA 5-year retention ratio model and the Greater LondonAuthority’s (GLA) catchment replacement ratio model, which factors in its high populationprojections. All models used January 2010 and earlier use the January School Census data asa base.None of these models have anticipated the dramatic increases seen in reception classes inrecent years. Added to this, the models cannot not fully take in to account further increase inlive births in 2008/09. The 2008/09 GLA ward level data will not be available until January2011, at the earliest. As a result, January 2010 projections were based on a 5-year trendmodel, which was modified for the first two years, with a retention ratio of 86% for 2010/11 and85% for 2011/12. These are believed to be far more accurate in the short term than using the123

unmodified 5-year trend retention rate of 83%, which is used for birth to reception from 2012/13onwards.School roll projections (Appendix 9)Using the modified 5-year trend ratio, overall primary rolls are projected to increase by 13.5%between January 2010 (24,802) and 2012/13 (28,154).For the GNP area, the projected increase is 11% over the same period, from 8,375 in January2010, to 9,301 for 2012/13.Reception year projections (Appendix 10)At reception age the rise in school admissions between January 2009 (3,633) and January2010 was 10% (3,994), which is equivalent to an additional 12FE. The overall unmodified(83%) five-year trend shows reception rolls rising by a further 16% (21 FE), to 4,629 bySeptember 2012.In the GNP area, the predicted rise is also 16% at reception age, climbing from 1,318 inJanuary 2010, to 1,527 by September 2012. The GNP area had 1,350 planned receptionplaces (including 30 temporary places at Horsenden) in September 2009. To meet a potentialneed of 1,527 by September 2012, an additional 210 places (7 FE) would be required on top ofthe currently agreed 1,320, which would provide a total of 1,530 places for the GNP area.Previous measuresThe baseline number of reception places available around the borough in the academic year2007/08 (prior to expansion) was 3,679 (122.6 FE). Over the last three years it has risen by 17FE to 4,189 (139.6 FE) as at September 2010. This has been achieved through permanentand temporary (bulge classes) expansions. The need for additional places in the GNP areahas also been met by permanent and temporary expansions in the following schools:• Oldfield Primary - 15 places (0.5 FE) from September 2008 onwards• Stanhope Primary - 30 places from (1 FE) September 2008 onwards• Selborne Primary - 30 places from (1 FE) September 2009 onwards• Wood End Infant - 30 places from (1 FE) September 2009 onwards• Horsenden Primary - 30 temporary places (1 FE) for September 2009 only• Willow Tree Primary - 30 temporary places (1 FE) for September 2010 only• West London Academy - 30 places (1 FE) from September 2010 onwards• Ravenor Primary - 30 temporary places (1 FE) for September 2010 and 2011, and 30permanent places from September 2012 onwards, subject to statutory approval.The number of permanent GNP reception places has risen by 135 (4.5 FE), from 1,215 (40.5FE) in 2007/08 to 1,350 (45 FE) 2010/11. A further 60 temporary places in September 2010has raised the number of available reception places to 1,410 (47 FE). By September 2011the projected number of reception places needed in expected to be in the region of 1,410 (5year trend model) to 1,473 (combined GLA & LA model). To meet this demand the GNP arearequires between 60 and 123 additional places, an additional 2 to 4 FE. It is hoped that adding30 permanent places at Ravenor from September 2012 will help meet this need.(b) where the school has a religious character, a statement and supportingevidence of the demand in the area for education in accordance with the tenets of thereligion or religious denomination;Not applicable.124

(c) where the school adheres to a particular philosophy, evidence of the demandfor education in accordance with the philosophy in question and any associatedchange to the admission arrangements for the school.Not applicable.25. If the proposals involve removing places—(a) a statement and supporting evidence of the reasons for the removal,including an assessment of the impact on parental choice; andNot applicable.(b)a statement on the local capacity to accommodate displaced pupils.Not applicable.Expansion of successful and popular schools25A. (1) Proposals must include a statement of whether the proposer considers thatthe presumption for the expansion of successful and popular schools should apply,and where the governing body consider the presumption applies, evidence to supportthis.(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to expansion proposals in respect of primary andsecondary schools, (except for grammar schools), i.e. falling within:(a) (for proposals published by the governing body) paragraph 1 of Part 1 toSchedule 2 or paragraph 12 of Part 2 to Schedule 2;(b) (for proposals published by the LA) paragraph 1 of Part 1 to Schedule 4 or 18 ofPart 4 to Schedule 4of the School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England)Regulations 2007 (as amended).Ravenor Primary School was awarded a grade of “satisfactory” for its last Ofsted inspection inJanuary 2008. Its 2009 contextual value added (CVA) score was 101.3, which wassignificantly above expectations of schools nationally for contextual value added. In the 2009Key Stage 2 tests 65% of pupils attained both English and Maths at Level 4+.For September 2010 the school received 61 first preference applications, and 179 totalpreferences, three times the number of usual places available, and twice that of the temporaryincrease to the published admission number of 90.The presumption for the expansion of successful and popular schools does apply to thisproposal.AppendicesAppendix 1 Complete list of stakeholders that were consultedAppendix 2 GNP area consultation document (including questionnaire) October2009Appendix 3 Governing Body response to consultationAppendix 4 Cabinet report of 12 January 2010 detailing responses to the GNParea consultationAppendix 5 Extract from January 2010 admissions forum report125

Appendix 6 Extract from November 2009 issue of Around EalingAppendix 7 Ealing Borough reception and primary school rolls 2006/07 to 2019/20Appendix 8 Retention rate between birth and receptionAppendix 9 GNP school roll projections 2006/07 to 2019/20Appendix 10 GNP area reception pupils 2006/07 to 2019/20Appendix 11 GNP area October 2010 covering letter to stakeholdersAppendix 12 Full consultation paper (available online and in local schools forinterested parties)(Ravenor) Appendix 1: List of stakeholders consulted• The governing body of the school• Pupils and their families, teachers and other staff at the school• All neighbouring authorities whose schools may be affected by theproposals, due to significant cross-border movement of pupils• The governing body, teaching and non-teaching staff and families of pupilsat all Greenford, Northolt and Perivale primary schools and primary agespecial schools via the school• The governing body and headteacher of all Ealing primary schools• Trade unions representing staff at the school and staff at other schoolsaffected by the proposals• The diocesan authorities• Local MPs, including those MPs whose constituents may be affected by theproposals• Local residents associations• Local community groups and cultural associations• Private nursery providers in the GNP area• Local parent and toddler groups• The local Primary Care Trust• Ealing Borough, Metropolitan Police• All residents within the official planning area(Ravenor) Appendix 2: GNP area consultation document (includingquestionnaire)This appendix can be viewed by clicking on the link below:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/education/investment/psc/_rep_docs/Ravenor-StGreg/appendices/Ravenor/2_GNP_consultationdocument.pdf(Ravenor) Appendix 3: Governing Body response to consultationAppendix 3: Confirmation of governing body support of proposal to expandFrom: Rosalind HancellSent: 27 November 2009 15:17To: hmorgansmith@ealing.gov.uk126

Cc: stephen@icuglobal.co.ukSubject: possible expansion of priamry placesHolly, just to confirm that at the full governing body meeting last eveningvoted unanimously in favour of the proposal for expansion to the school site.Many ThanksRos. HancellHead TeacherExtract from governing body minutes(Ravenor) Appendix 4: Cabinet report of 12 January 2010 detailing detailing responsesto the GNP area consultationThis appendix can be viewed by clicking on the link below:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/education/investment/psc/_rep_docs/Ravenor-StGreg/appendices/Ravenor/4_cabinet-report_12Jan10.pdf(Ravenor) Appendix 5: Extract from School Admissions Forum Report, 20 January2010Changes to the Published Admission Numbers (PANs) forschools September 2011BackgroundEach year the Admission Forum is asked to consider proposals for any changes tothe Published Admission Number (PAN) for schools in the Borough. As theconsultation process is quite lengthy this usually takes place at least eighteenmonths before any changes are proposed to take effect. Changes are consulted onfor admissions in the primary phase to Reception for primary schools or Year 3 if aJunior school. The last update, on proposals for changes to schools PANs for127

September 2010 and 2011, was presented to the Admissions Forum at its meeting inFebruary 2009. This confirms and updates the proposals outlined in that report.Admissions Forum members will be aware that Ealing is experiencing a significant rise inbirth rates, and corresponding increase in demand for school places. A report was made toJuly 2009 Cabinet, updating pupil projections. (The full report can be viewed on theCouncil’s website in the Committee’s section). The report outlined that recently releasedbirth data indicated that numbers have risen even further than had previously been forecast.Cabinet agreed the need for an additional 750 Reception places (25.0 Forms of Entry) inprimary schools by September 2012 of which 16FE will be permanent. Two more areaconsultations were requested, which were undertaken over autumn 2009, one for the Actonarea and one for the Greenford, Northolt and Perivale (GNP) area. The results of theseconsultations are being considered, further proposals will be made in Spring 2010 for changesto primary schools PANs for both 2010 and 2011. The Admissions Forum will be keptupdated.Expansion proposals progressed and agreed by Cabinet to date are shown in Table 1below.Table 1: Schools Cabinet agreed or Pending to expand 2010 since 2009SchoolCurrent size(FE)Expanded size(FE)Additionalplaces (FE)Ealing and Hanwell areaFielding (Agreed 2009) 90 (3FE) 120 (4FE) 30 (1)Little Ealing (Agreed 2009) 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1)North Ealing (Agreed 2009) 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1)St John’s (Agreed 2009) 45 (1.5) 60 (2) 15 (0.5)Brentside (Agreed 2010) 45 (1.5) 60 (2) 15 (0.5)Hobbayne (Agreed 2010) 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1)St Mark’s (Agreed 2010) 45 (1.5) 60 (2) 15 (0.5)St Saviours (Pending SP) 90 (3) 120 (4) 30 (1)St Gregory’s RC (Pending 60 (2) 90(3) 30 (1)SP)Greenford, Northolt & Perivale areaOldfield (Agreed 2009) 45 (1.5) 60 (2) 15 (0.5)Selborne (Agreed 2009) 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1)Stanhope (Agreed 2009) 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1)Wood End Infant (Agreed90 (3) 120 (4) 30 (1)2009)Wood End Junior (Agreed 90 (3) 120 (4) 30 (1)2010)WLA (Pending SP) 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1)Ravenor (Pending SP) 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1)Acton areaEast Acton (Pending SP) 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1)RC West Acton (Pending SP) 0 60 (2) 60 (2)Total480 (16FE)Pending items are shown in brackets in Table 2.Confirmation of changes to the number of Reception age pupilsadmitted in September 2011128

• Brentside –To increase the school’s PAN from 45 to 60.• Hobbayne – To increase the school’s PAN from 60 to 90.• St Mark’s – To increase the school’s PAN from 45 to 60.Other proposals• Faith schools - Following discussions with both Diocesan Authorities, it isintended that proposals will be made by the Dioceses to expand both Catholicand Church of England primary age provision for future years. As the admissionsauthority for their schools, the governing bodies and the Dioceses will undertakeany consultation around proposed expansions and subsequent publication ofStatutory Proposals.The London Diocesan Board for Schools has gained agreement from thegoverning bodies of Christ Church Junior and St Saviour’s Infant’s schools tostart consultation with parents on possible expansion. A decision will be requiredas to whether any expansion should be as two separate 2FE primary schools orby expanding the schools to become a 4FE infant and a 4FE junior school. Thiswill expand provision in the Church of England sector by 1FE. The earliest datethat these places could be provided now is 2012.The Diocese of Westminster is seeking to firm up its expansion proposals for up to anadditional 3FE in the Catholic sector. The governors of St Gregory’s school are keen toexpand by 1FE to 3FE and the Diocese supports this expansion. Apart from StGregory’s, which has indicated that it may take an early expansion class in September2010, the indicative programmes for the other proposed schools show the accommodationbeing made available from 2012, a year later than originally envisaged.• Woodend Junior school – The governing body of the school published StatutoryProposals in the autumn term 2009 to expand their school by 1FE to become a 4FE Juniorschool. This will be proposed to take effect for admissions to year 3 from September2012. This will bring the Junior school in line with the recently agreed expansion ofWood End Infant school.DCSFNo.Table 2: Changes to Planned Admissions Numbers (PANs)School NamePAN for Sept2010ReceptionProposed PAN forSept 2011(if different)Proposed PANfor Sept 2012(if different)2161 Allenby Nursery & Primary 302083 Beaconsfield Primary 302006 Berrymede Infant 902005 Berrymede Junior Year 3 – 902162 Blair Peach Primary 60 (90)?2185 Brentside Primary (60) (60)3301 Christchurch Junior * Year 3 - 902163 Clifton Primary 452088 Coston Primary 60 (90) ? (90)?2164 Dairy Meadow Primary 60129

DCSFNo.School NamePAN for Sept2010ReceptionProposed PAN forSept 2011(if different)Proposed PANfor Sept 2012(if different)2165 Derwentwater Primary 90 (120) (120) ?5203 Dormers Wells Infant * 1095202 Dormers Wells Junior * Year 3 -1032092 Downe Manor Primary 602094 Drayton Green Primary 302166 Durdan's Park Primary (90) (90) (90)2022 East Acton Primary (60) 603510 Edward Betham Primary * 602180 Featherstone Primary 902167 Fielding Primary 120 1202168 Gifford Primary 90 (120)? (120)?2187 Grange Primary (120) (120)? (120)2169 Greenwood Primary 60 (90)?2150 Hambrough Primary 602184 Hathaway Primary 602170 Havelock Primary 602151 Hobbayne Primary (90) (90)2171 Horsenden Primary 120 (120) (120)2153 John Perryn Primary 602173 Lady Margaret Primary 902174 Little Ealing Primary 902076 Mayfield Primary 452182 Montpelier Primary 90 (120)3500 Mount Carmel Primary * 602046 North Ealing Primary 902115 North Primary 60 (90) (90)2175 Oaklands Primary (90) 60 (90)2033 Oldfield Primary 603503 Our Lady of the Visitation* 602176 Perivale Primary 60 (90) (90)3511 Petts Hill Primary 302121 Ravenor Primary 60 (90)2125 Selborne Primary 902154 Southfield Primary 90 (90) (90)3505 St Anselm's Primary * 303506 St Gregory's Primary * (90) (90)3504 St John Fisher Primary * 602058 St John's Primary 60130

DCSFNo.School NamePAN for Sept2010ReceptionProposed PAN forSept 2011(if different)Proposed PANfor Sept 2012(if different)3507 St Joseph's Primary * 602059 St Mark's Primary (60) (60)3508 St Raphael's Primary * 603302 St Saviour's Infant * 90 (120)3509 St Vincent's Primary * 602177 Stanhope Primary 902181 Three Bridges Primary 602183 Tudor Primary 302186 Vicar's Green Primary 302178 Viking Primary 30 (60)2071 West Acton Primary 60 (90)6905 West London Academy (Primary)* (90) (90)2067 West Twyford Primary (60) 30 602172 Willow Tree Primary (120) 90 (120)2179 Wolf Fields Primary 305201 Wood End Infant * 1205200 Wood End Junior * 90 1203512 Khalsa VA Primary* 60Additional forms of entry*Please note schools shown with an asterix determine their own admissionarrangementsPlease note school’s shown shaded are proposed to admit an extra form ofentry - 30 pupils to Reception in that year.(Proposed changes to PANs that have not yet been agreed are shown inbrackets)? Indicates where temporary expansions would be recommended if the ‘high’pupil forecasts were realisedRepresentations received during the consultation periodOne representation was received during the consultation period (please see below).In the autumn term an extensive consultation exercise was carried out regardingexpanding primary places in the GNP (Greenford Northolt Perivale) and Acton areas.Full results of this consultation are available in the report to cabinet of 12 January2010, ‘Expansion of primary places in Acton, and Greenford, Northolt & Perivale(GNP) areas’. The report is available at the following address:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/committees/agendas_minutes_reports/cabinet/19may2009-24may2010.html131

(Ravenor) Appendix 6: Extract from November 2009 ‘Around Ealing’132

(Ravenor) Appendix 7: Ealing borough reception and primary school rolls2006/07 to 2019/20This appendix can be viewed by clicking on the link below:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/education/investment/psc/_rep_docs/Ravenor-StGreg/appendices/Ravenor/7_Ealing_receptionPSrollout_0607-to-1920.pdf(Ravenor) Appendix 8: Retention rate between birth and receptionCohort survival rates: Birth to Reception86.0%84.0%82.0%80.0%78.0%76.0%74.0%Annual Rate 3 yr rolling average 5 yr rolling average83.3%83.4%83.0% 83.2%82.9%82.3%82.4%82.6%82.0%82.9%82.7%82.3% 82.4% 81.5%81.6%81.2%80.5%80.8% 80.8% 79.4%80.2%80.4%79.5%78.7%78.2%78.0% 77.8%77.3%79.3%78.8%77.8%74.7%74.6%82.5%80.0%79.3%78.9%80.5%78.4%79.0% 79.4%77.2% 78.2%76.6% 76.5%76.4%77.3%76.2% 76.2%76.1%75.2% 75.8%76.7%75.8%72.0%70.0%1990/911991/921992/931993/941994/951995/961996/971997/981998/991999/002000/012001/022002/032003/042004/052005/062006/072007/082008/092009/10133

(Ravenor) Appendix 9: GNP primary school rollout projections 2006/07 to2019/20Feb 2010 projectionswith additional GLA 4Primary School Rolls: GNP area 2006/07 to 2019/20GLA CR standard modelNet CapacityAverage of Ealing 5yrRR model & GLA high model110001050010000950090008500800075002006/078502848878852007/088505846980472008/098495845481812009/108611845483792010/11876986868672866284542011/129341927090479240 9240 92409026934392539216 9255912490339117897889958904884184542012/139487937284542013/149720953984542014/1510004968684542015/1610265978184542016/1710443981284542017/1810606982684542018/19Planned CapacityEaling 3yrRR mod10591975984542019/20105019656924086878454134

Feb 2010 projectionswith additional GLA 4Reception Pupils: GNP area 2006/07 to 2019/20GLA CR standard modelEaling 3yrRR model1700 Average of Ealing 5yrRR model & GLA high modelPlanned admissioBirths by correspo160015001400130012001230 12151195 1207126012311350131915621496 15181448144614811416 148014571440137713291488 1494 1494 1487 1481 14751461145114401414 138314281421 1415135613391326 13201320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 131811002006/072007/082008/092009/102010/112011/122012/132013/142014/152015/162016/172017/182018/192019/20(Ravenor) Appendix 10: GNP reception pupils rollout projection 2006/07 to2019/20Feb 2010 projectionswith additional GLA 4Reception Pupils: GNP area 2006/07 to 2019/20GLA CR standard model1700Ealing 3yrRR modelAverage of Ealing 5yrRR model & GLA high modelPlanned admissionBirths by correspond160015001400130012001230 121511951207126012311350131915621496 15181488 1494 1494 148714481481 1475144614811416 1480146114511457144014401414 1383142813771421 14151356132913391326 13201320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 1320 131811002006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20135

(Ravenor) Appendix 11: GNP area October 2010 covering letter to stakeholders136

(Ravenor) Appendix 12: Full consultation paper - available online and in localschools for interested partiesThis appendix can be viewed by clicking on the link below:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/education/investment/psc/_rep_docs/Ravenor-StGreg/appendices/Ravenor/12_full-consultationpaper.pdf137

Appendix 10: Statutory Notice and full proposal for St Gregory’s CatholicPrimary SchoolTHE GOVERNING BODY OF ST GREGORY’S CATHOLIC PRIMAY SCHOOL,EALING STATUTORY NOTICE FOR A PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT TOST GREGORY’S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL, EALINGNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN in accordance with section 19(3) (a) of the Educationand Inspection Act 2006 that the Governing Body of St Gregory’s Catholic PrimarySchool (Voluntary Aided), Woodfield Road, W5 1SL, intend to make a prescribedalteration to the school by an enlargement of the premises from September 2012.The current number of pupils of statutory school age 4-11 at the school is 444 plus50 children in the nursery. The current Net Capacity, which assesses the physicalspace of the school excluding Nursery is 420 statutory school age children.The proposed Net Capacity of the school is for 630 places for pupils aged 4-11 plus anursery for 50 children. The number of pupils to be admitted to the school at age 4 inSeptember 2012 and subsequent years is proposed to increase from 60 to 90 pupils.This Notice is an extract from the complete proposal. Copies of the proposal can beobtained by: downloading fromwww.ealing.gov.uk/services/education/investment/psc/currentconsult.html or bycontacting Holly Morgan-Smith via email at hmorgansmith@ealing.gov.uk, or viatelephone on 020 8825 8315.Within four weeks (by 3 rd December 2010) from the date of publication of theseproposals, any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sendingthem to: The Governing Body, School Office, St. Gregory’s Catholic primary school,Woodfield Road, Ealing, W5 1SLSigned:Mrs Maura LyonsChair of the Governing BodySt Gregory’s Catholic Primary SchoolPublication Date: 5 th November 2010Explanatory Notes:A questionnaire covering the proposed expansion of a number of primary schools,including St Gregory’s Catholic primary school, will be available to be completed online at www.ealing.gov.uk/consultationsAlternatively you can contact Holly Morgan-Smith on 0208 825 8315 or e-mail her athmorgansmith@ealing.gov.uk, to request a paper copy.138

PROPOSALS FOR PRESCRIBED ALTERATIONS OTHERTHAN FOUNDATION PROPOSALS: Information to beincluded in a complete proposalExtract of Part 1 of Schedule 3 and Part 1 of Schedule 5 to The SchoolOrganisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools)(England)Regulations 2007 (as amended):In respect of a Governing Body Proposal: School and governing body’s details26. The name, address and category of the school for which the governing bodyare publishing the proposals.The Governing BodySt Gregory’s Catholic Primary SchoolWoodfield RoadW5 1SLThis is a voluntary aided primary school.In respect of an LEA Proposal: School and local education authority details1. The name, address and category of the school.Not applicable. The governing body is publishing the proposals.Implementation and any proposed stages for implementation27. The date on which the proposals are planned to be implemented, and if theyare to be implemented in stages, a description of what is planned for each stage, andthe number of stages intended and the dates of each stage.The Proposals are planned to be implemented from 1 st September 2012Objections and comments28. A statement explaining the procedure for making representations, including —(a) the date prescribed in accordance with paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 (GBproposals)/Schedule 5 (LA proposals) of The School Organisation(Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007(as amended), by which objections or comments should be sent to the localeducation authority; and(b) the address of the authority to which objections or comments should be sent.139

Within four weeks (by 3 rd December 2010) from the date of publication of theStatutory Notice, any person may object to or make comments on the proposalby sending representations to the Governing Body via the school office.The Notice was published in the Ealing Gazette series on Friday 5 th November2010, and the closing date for representations will be by close of business onFriday 3 rd December 2010.Any representations should be sent to:The Chair of GovernorsSt Gregory’s Catholic Primary SchoolWoodfield RoadW5 1SLA questionnaire on the proposal will also be available online atwww.ealing.gov.uk/consultations and copies of the statutory notice, fullproposals and appendices will be available athttp://www.ealing.gov.uk/services/education/investment/psc/currentconsult.htmlIf you have any questions or would like paper copies of any documentationplease contact Holly Morgan-Smith, Perceval House 2/NE/3, 14 - 16 UxbridgeRoad, Ealing W5 2HL.Email: hmorgansmith@ealing.gov.ukAlteration description29. A description of the proposed alteration and in the case of special schoolproposals, a description of the current special needs provision.It is proposed to increase the Admission Number for St Gregory’s Catholic PrimarySchool by 30 places from 60 to 90 with a corresponding enlargement of the school.90 pupils would be admitted in Reception each year from September 2012. The sizeof the Nursery will remain the same as the current 50.School capacity30.—(1) Where the alteration is an alteration falling within any of paragraphs 1 to 4,8 , 9 and 12-14 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/paragraphs 1-4, 7, 8, 18, 19 and 21 ofSchedule 4 (LA proposals) to The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations toMaintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), the proposals mustalso include —(a) details of the current capacity of the school and, where the proposals will alterthe capacity of the school, the proposed capacity of the school after thealteration;The current capacity of the school is 420 pupils in Reception to Year 6, with 50PTE on roll in the Nursery. The future capacity of the school will be 630 pupils from140

Reception to Year 6 and 50 PTE on roll in the Nursery.(b) details of the current number of pupils admitted to the school in each relevantage group, and where this number is to change, the proposed number ofpupils to be admitted in each relevant age group in the first school year inwhich the proposals will have been implemented;The current number of pupils admitted at the school (as at September 2010) is upto 450* from reception to year 6, plus 25 full-time equivalent (50 part-timeequivalent) nursery places. The current admission number for the school for pupilsin year 1 to year 6 is 60. To help meet the need for additional reception places forSeptember 2010, a temporary admission number of 90 was agreed and temporaryaccommodation was constructed to accommodate the increase in numbers. It isproposed that a further temporary admission number of 90 be offered foradmission to reception in 2011 in advance of the proposed permanent expansion.The proposed permanent admission number will be 90 from September 2012. It isproposed that 90 Reception age children are admitted each year from September2012.Current number as at September 2010Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) *90 60 60 60 60 60 60 *450Proposed number at September 2012Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 *90 *90 60 60 60 60*480* Temporary 1 FE increase in September 2010 and 2011(c) where it is intended that proposals should be implemented in stages, thenumber of pupils to be admitted to the school in the first school year in whicheach stage will have been implemented;The school’s published planned admission number (PAN) will temporarilyincrease to 90 for reception aged pupils in September 2010 and 2011, and isproposed to permanently increase to 90 starting from September 2012 and eachsubsequent year thereafter.Proposed September 2011Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) *90 *90 60 60 60 60 60 *480Proposed September 2012Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 *90 *90 60 60 60 60 *510Proposed September 2013Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 6141

50 (Part-time) 90 90 *90 *90 60 60 60 *540Proposed September 2014Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 90 90 *90 *90 60 60 *570Proposed September 2015Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 90 90 90 *90 *90 60 *600Proposed September 2016Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 90 90 90 90 90 *90 *90 *630* Temporary 1 FE increase in September 2010 and 2011(d) where the number of pupils in any relevant age group is lower than theindicated admission number for that relevant age group a statement to thiseffect and details of the indicated admission number in question.N/A(2) Where the alteration is an alteration falling within any of paragraphs 1, 2, 9, 12and 13 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals) /paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 18 ands 19 of Schedule 4(LA proposals) to The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to MaintainedSchools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), a statement of the number ofpupils at the school at the time of the publication of the proposals.Number of pupils in Reception to year 6 is 444 as at 18 October 2010. Thenumber of Nursery pupils is 50.Reception Year1Year2Year3Year4Year Year5 6 Total90 60 60 60 60 60 54 444Implementation31. Where the proposals relate to a foundation or voluntary controlled school astatement as to whether the proposals are to be implemented by the local educationauthority or by the governing body, and, if the proposals are to be implemented byboth, a statement as to the extent to which they are to be implemented by each body.The governing body, in full consultation with the local authority, will implement theproposals.142

Additional Site32.—(1) A statement as to whether any new or additional site will be required ifproposals are implemented and if so the location of the site if the school is to occupya split site.No additional site will be required. The alterations will be made on the school’scurrent site.(2) Where proposals relate to a foundation or voluntary school a statement as towho will provide any additional site required, together with details of the tenure(freehold or leasehold) on which the site of the school will be held, and if the site isto be held on a lease, details of the proposed lease.N/AChanges in boarding arrangements33.—(1) Where the proposals are for the introduction or removal of boardingprovision, or the alteration of existing boarding provision such as is mentioned inparagraph 8 or 21 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/7 or 14 of Schedule 4 to TheSchool Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England)Regulations 2007 (as amended) —(a) the number of pupils for whom it is intended that boarding provision will bemade if the proposals are approved;N/A(b) the arrangements for safeguarding the welfare of children at the school;N/A(c) the current number of pupils for whom boarding provision can be made and adescription of the boarding provision; andN/A(d) except where the proposals are to introduce boarding provision, a descriptionof the existing boarding provision.N/A(2) Where the proposals are for the removal of boarding provisions or an alterationto reduce boarding provision such as is mentioned in paragraph 8 or 21 of Schedule143

2 (GB proposals)/7 or 14 of Schedule 4 (LA proposals) to The School Organisation(Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (asamended) —(a) the number of pupils for whom boarding provision will be removed if theproposals are approved; andN/A(b) a statement as to the use to which the former boarding accommodation willbe put if the proposals are approved.N/ATransfer to new site34. Where the proposals are to transfer a school to a new site the followinginformation—(a) the location of the proposed site (including details of whether the school is tooccupy a single or split site), and including where appropriate the postaladdress;N/A(b) the distance between the proposed and current site;N/A(c) the reason for the choice of proposed site;N/A(d) the accessibility of the proposed site or sites;N/A(e) the proposed arrangements for transport of pupils to the school on its newsite; andN/A144

(f) a statement about other sustainable transport alternatives where pupils arenot using transport provided, and how car use in the school area will bediscouraged.N/AObjectives35. The objectives of the proposals.• To better reflect the demand for Catholic school places in the LocalAuthority by creating an additional form of entry to alter the school from2FE to 3FE• To provide Catholic parents with more chance of securing a Catholiceducation for their child if that is their expressed preference• To support the Local Authority’s strategic plan for additional permanentforms of entry to meet increasing demand and their statutoryresponsibilities• To support Westminster Diocese’s School Organization plan, which has forsome time indicated the need for between 3 and 5 additional forms of entryof Catholic provision in the London Borough of Ealing. This has coincidedwith the presenting need for additional school places generally in the LocalAuthority.Consultation36. Evidence of the consultation before the proposals were published including—(a) a list of persons who were consulted;(b) minutes of all public consultation meetings;(c) the views of the persons consulted;(d) a statement to the effect that all applicable statutory requirements in relationto the proposals to consult were complied with; and(e) copies of all consultation documents and a statement on how thesedocuments were made available.a) A list of those consulted is attached as Appendix 1.b) A public meeting was held at the school on March 4 th 2010. 80 people attended.Notes of this meeting are attached as Appendix 6.A further consultation meeting was held on 19 July 2010 with residents to follow-upconcerns expressed during the initial consultation period, the minutes are attachedas Appendix 7.c) Comments on the proposals were invited. They were to be sent to the Chair ofGovernors by 12 th March 2010. A summary report of responses received wasprepared by the Steering Committee for governor’s consideration; this is attachedas Appendix 5.d) All applicable statutory requirements in relation to the proposals have been145

complied with:• Cabinet met on 12 January 2010 and agreed the proposal to go forward toconsultation stage to expand St Gregory’s. An extract of the report isattached as Appendix 8.• An extensive public consultation was run in February and March 2010,which sought views on the proposed expansion of St Gregory’s.• The Chair of the governing body of St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School,Ealing, in accordance with the procedures established by The Educationand Inspection ACT 2006 (E1A2006) and the School Organisation(prescribed alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations2007 sent out a letter (Appendix 2) to stakeholders explaining theproposals from the governing body, a response form for comments wascirculated with the letter and is attached as Appendix 3.• A document detailing Frequently asked questions was also madeavailable for interested parties, this is attached as Appendix 4• On 28 September 2010 the admissions forum presented an outline of theneed for additional places in Ealing, an extract of this report is included asAppendix 9.• The governing body voted in favour of the proposal for expansion of theschool at their full governing body meeting held on 29 April 2010. A letterof confirmation of the decision sent to the Diocese of Westminster and theLocal Authority is attached as Appendix 11.e) Consultation documents relating to the proposal are attached in Appendices 2and 3, and were sent to all of those listed in Appendix 1.Copies were hand delivered to local residents, in addition to letters being sent toresidents associations. Copies were also available in Ealing Abbey and on theEaling Abbey website.The issues covered by the consultation paper were also raised at school governorand staff meetings, assemblies and addressed in school newsletters throughoutthe consultation period.Project costs37. A statement of the estimated total capital cost of the proposals and thebreakdown of the costs that are to be met by the governing body, the local educationauthority, and any other party.The estimated cost of expansion at St Gregory’s is £5,960,000. This will be met bythe Local Authority as part of a funding agreement between the Diocese ofWestminster and the Local Authority to expand St. Gregory’s by 1FE and todevelop plans for a new 2FE primary school in Acton.38. A copy of confirmation from the Secretary of State, local education authorityand the Learning and Skills Council for England (as the case may be) that funds willbe made available (including costs to cover any necessary site purchase).A letter to the Governing Body confirming available funds is attached as Appendix146

10Age range39. Where the proposals relate to a change in age range, the current age range forthe school.N/AEarly years provision40. Where the proposals are to alter the lower age limit of a mainstream school sothat it provides for pupils aged between 2 and 5—(a) details of the early years provision, including the number of full-time and parttimepupils, the number and length of sessions in each week, and theservices for disabled children that will be offered;N/A(b) how the school will integrate the early years provision with childcare servicesand how the proposals are consistent with the integration of early yearsprovision for childcare;N/A(c) evidence of parental demand for additional provision of early years provision;N/A(d) assessment of capacity, quality and sustainability of provision in schools andin establishments other than schools who deliver the Early Years FoundationStage within 3 miles of the school; andN/A(e) reasons why such schools and establishments who have spare capacitycannot make provision for any forecast increase in the number of suchprovision.N/A147

Changes to sixth form provision41. (a) Where the proposals are to alter the upper age limit of the school so thatthe school provides sixth form education or additional sixth form education, astatement of how the proposals will—(i) improve the educational or training achievements;(ii) increase participation in education or training; and(iii) expand the range of educational or training opportunitiesfor 16-19 year olds in the area;N/A(b) A statement as to how the new places will fit within the 16-19 organisation in anarea;N/A(c) Evidence —(i) of the local collaboration in drawing up the proposals; and(ii) that the proposals are likely to lead to higher standards and betterprogression at the school;N/A(d) The proposed number of sixth form places to be provided.N/A42. Where the proposals are to alter the upper age limit of the school so that theschool ceases to provide sixth form education, a statement of the effect on the supplyof 16-19 places in the area.N/ASpecial educational needs43. Where the proposals are to establish or change provision for specialeducational needs—(a) a description of the proposed types of learning difficulties in respect of whicheducation will be provided and, where provision for special educational needsalready exists, the current type of provision;148

N/A(b) any additional specialist features will be provided;N/A(c) the proposed numbers of pupils for which the provision is to be made;N/A(d) details of how the provision will be funded;N/A(e) a statement as to whether the education will be provided for children withspecial educational needs who are not registered pupils at the school towhich the proposals relate;N/A(f) a statement as to whether the expenses of the provision will be met from theschool’s delegated budget;N/A(g) the location of the provision if it is not to be established on the existing site ofthe school;N/A(h) where the provision will replace existing educational provision for childrenwith special educational needs, a statement as to how the local educationauthority believes that the new provision is likely to lead to improvement inthe standard, quality and range of the educational provision for such children;andN/A149

(i) the number of places reserved for children with special educational needs,and where this number is to change, the proposed number of such places.N/A44. Where the proposals are to discontinue provision for special educationalneeds—(a) details of alternative provision for pupils for whom the provision is currentlymade;N/A(b) details of the number of pupils for whom provision is made that is recognisedby the local education authority as reserved for children with specialeducational needs during each of the 4 school years preceding the currentschool year;N/A(c) details of provision made outside the area of the local education authority forpupils whose needs will not be able to be met in the area of the authority as aresult of the discontinuance of the provision; andN/A(d) a statement as to how the proposer believes that the proposals are likely tolead to improvement in the standard, quality and range of the educationalprovision for such children.N/A45. Where the proposals will lead to alternative provision for children with specialeducational needs, as a result of the establishment, alteration or discontinuance ofexisting provision, the specific educational benefits that will flow from the proposals interms of—(a) improved access to education and associated services including thecurriculum, wider school activities, facilities and equipment with reference tothe local education authority’s Accessibility Strategy;(b) improved access to specialist staff, both educational and other professionals,including any external support and outreach services;(c) improved access to suitable accommodation; and(d) improved supply of suitable places.150

N/ASex of pupils46. Where the proposals are to make an alteration to provide that a school whichwas an establishment which admitted pupils of one sex only becomes anestablishment which admits pupils of both sexes—(a) details of the likely effect which the alteration will have on the balance of theprovision of single sex-education in the area;N/A(b) evidence of local demand for single-sex education; andN/A(c) details of any transitional period which the body making the proposals wishesspecified in a transitional exemption order (within the meaning of section 27of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975).N/A47. Where the proposals are to make an alteration to a school to provide that aschool which was an establishment which admitted pupils of both sexes becomes anestablishment which admits pupils of one sex only—(a) details of the likely effect which the alteration will have on the balance of theprovision of single-sex education in the area; andN/A(b) evidence of local demand for single-sex education.N/AExtended services48. If the proposed alterations affect the provision of the school’s extendedservices, details of the current extended services the school is offering and details ofany proposed change as a result of the alterations.It is intended that the school will continue to provide extended services and thesewill be developed during the feasibility and design stage of the programme in151

consultation with the Diocese of Westminster and the Local Authority.Need or demand for additional places49. If the proposals involve adding places—(a) a statement and supporting evidence of the need or demand for the particularplaces in the area;Rise in birth rate (Appendices 12 to 15)Ealing, in line with a number of other London boroughs, is experiencing asubstantial rise in birth rates. In the 1990’s and the early 2000’s the averagenumber of births in each year was in the region of 4,500. However, since theacademic year 2002/03, where there were 4,469, live births have risen by morethan 1,100 to 5,573 in 2007/08 academic year. A rise of nearly 25% over thesix-year period. For the calendar year 2009 ONS recorded live births for Ealinghave risen even further, to 5,638, a rise of over 26% since 2002/03.Birth rates are not rising equally across all areas of the borough. Increases havebeen primarily concentrated in the GNP (Greenford, Northolt & Perivale), Ealingand Hanwell and Acton areas. St Gregory’s Primary School is part of the EalingSouth planning area, which falls within the collective Ealing and Hanwell area,where births rose from 1,403 in 2002/03 to 1,781 in 2007/08 (latest availabledata), a rise of 27% over the period. ONS actual ward and postcode level birthsfor the 2008/09 academic year will not be available until November 2010.Retention rate risesCoupled with this birth rate rise, there has also been an increase in the retentionrate between birth and children later appearing on reception class rolls. Theretention rate for the 2009/10 academic year was 82.5%, the highest since1995/96, and 3.5% higher than the previous year. The three-year rollingaverage has now risen to 80.5%, and the five-year trend has risen to 83%.As with live births, retention ratios vary around the borough. Applying the 5-yeartrend model, the birth to reception ratio for the Ealing and Hanwell area is 70%.Roll projection modelsProjected primary rolls in the London Borough of Ealing are usually calculatedusing either a LA 3-year retention ratio model, or a combined LA 5-year retentionratio model and the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) catchment replacementratio model, which factors in its high population projections. All models usedJanuary 2010 and earlier use of January School Census data as a base.None of these models have anticipated the dramatic increases seen in receptionclasses in recent years. Added to this, the models cannot not fully take in toaccount further increase in live births in 2008/09. The 2008/09 GLA ward leveldata will not be available until January 2011, at the earliest. As a result, January2010 projections were based on a 5-year trend model, which was modified forthe first two years, with a retention ratio of 86% for 2010/11 and 85% for2011/12. These are believed to be far more accurate in the short term thanusing the unmodified 5-year trend retention rate of 83%, which is used for birthto reception from 2012/13 onwards.School roll projectionsUsing the unmodified 5-year trend ratio, overall primary rolls are projected to152

increase by 13.5% between January 2010 (24,802) and 2012/13 (28,154).For the Ealing and Hanwell area, the projected increase is 11.5% over the sameperiod, from 7,088 in January 2010, to 7,905 for 2012/13.Reception year projectionsAt reception age the rise in school admissions between January 2009 (3,633)and January 2010 was 10% (3,994), which is equivalent to an additional 12FE.The overall unmodified (83%) five-year trend shows reception rolls rising by afurther 16% (21 FE), to 4,629 by September 2012.In the Ealing and Hanwell area, the predicted rise is 8% at reception age,climbing from 1,172 in January 2010, to 1,268 by September 2012. The Ealingand Hanwell area had 1,185 planned reception places (including 30 temporaryplaces at Drayton Green) in September 2009. To meet a potential need of 1,268by September 2012, a minimum of an additional 60 places (2 FE) would berequired on top of the currently agreed 1,215, which would provide a total of1,275 places for the Ealing and Hanwell area.Previous measuresThe baseline number of reception places available around the borough in theacademic year 2007/08 (prior to expansion) was 3,679 (122.6 FE). Over the lastthree years it has risen by 17 FE to 4,189 (139.6 FE) as at September 2010.This has been achieved through permanent and temporary (bulge classes)expansions. The need for additional places in the Ealing and Hanwell area hasalso been met by permanent and temporary expansions in the following schools:• St John’s Primary - 15 places (0.5 FE) from September 2008 onwards• Fielding Primary - 30 places from (1 FE) September 2009 onwards• Little Ealing Primary - 30 places from (1 FE) September 2009 onwards• North Ealing Primary - 30 places from (1 FE) September 2009 onwards• Drayton Green Primary - 30 temporary places (1 FE) for September 2009only• Brentside Primary - 15 places (0.5 FE) from September 2010 onwards• St Mark’s Primary - 15 places (0.5 FE) from September 2010 onwards• Hobbayane Primary - 30 places (1 FE) from September 2010 onwards• Grange Primary - 30 temporary places (1 FE) for September 2010 only• St Gregory’s Catholic Primary - 30 temporary places (1 FE) for September2010 onlyFuture demandThe number of permanent Ealing and Hanwell reception places has risen by 165(5.5 FE), from 1,050 (35 FE) in 2007/08 to 1,215 (40.5 FE) by 2011/12. Afurther 60 temporary places in September 2010 raised the number of availablereception places to 1,275 (42.5 FE).• By September 2012 the projected number of reception places needed isexpected to peak in the region of 1,268 (5 year trend model) to 1,320(combined GLA & LA model).• To meet this demand the Ealing and Hanwell area requires between 53 and105 (2 FE to 3.5 FE) reception places in addition to the 1,215 already agreedplaces for September 2012.• Over the subsequent five years, from September 2013 onwards, currentprojections show demand for reception places falling back to an average of153

etween 1,223 (5 year trend model) to 1,275 (combined GLA & LA model).Although this is dependent on a corresponding fall in births.• It is hoped that adding permanent reception places at the proposed new CEprimary school and in the Catholic sector from September 2012 will help meetthis future demand:o New CE Primary - 30 places (1 FE) from September 2012 onwards, subjectto statutory approval(s).o St Gregory’s Catholic Primary - 30 places (1 FE) from September 2012onwards, subject to statutory approval.(b) where the school has a religious character, a statement and supportingevidence of the demand in the area for education in accordance with thetenets of the religion or religious denomination;Updated figures in the Diocese of Westminster School Organization Plan hasshown for some time the need for between 3 and 5 additional forms of entry ofCatholic primary provision in the London Borough of Ealing. Officers of the Diocesehave been working with the Local Authority and school governing bodies ofCatholic schools in Ealing in an effort to identify an appropriate strategy. TheDiocese was invited to put forward options to the authority for the provision ofinitially three forms of entry into the Catholic sector and a feasibility studycommissioned through Diocesan Consultants was the first part of the process. StGregory’s is located in an area of increased demand for primary school places andthe expansion proposal has the endorsement of the Local Authority.The school has historically been very popular but demand for places has increasedsignificantly in the past few years. In the admissions round for 2009 for StGregory’s there were 104 on time applications for 60 places. 101 of theseapplicants were from Catholic families. For September 2010 there were 138 ontime Catholic applicants.(c) where the school adheres to a particular philosophy, evidence of the demandfor education in accordance with the philosophy in question and anyassociated change to the admission arrangements for the school.Evidence obtained from Diocesan Baptismal records indicates a significant growthin the number of Baptised Catholics in the Ealing Deanery. In 2004 there were 585baptisms rising to 790 in 2009.This is a 26% increase.The number of Primary Catholic places in the London Borough of Ealing iscurrently 330. Based on current provision the Diocese of Westminster would beable to offer access to approximately 42% of those baptised. This is significantlybelow the level of provision we aim to secure in order to supply sufficient places toCatholic families. Historical evidence suggests that if we manage to provide for72% of baptised Catholics in any Deanery it is likely that every child whose parentswish them to have a Catholic education would be able to access it. From thisevidence we can deduce that there is a shortfall of approximately 230 places.50. If the proposals involve removing places—154

(a) a statement and supporting evidence of the reasons for the removal,including an assessment of the impact on parental choice; andN/A(b) a statement on the local capacity to accommodate displaced pupils.N/AExpansion of successful and popular schools25A. (1) Proposals must include a statement of whether the proposer considers thatthe presumption for the expansion of successful and popular schools should apply,and where the governing body consider the presumption applies, evidence to supportthis.(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to expansion proposals in respect of primary andsecondary schools, (except for grammar schools), i.e. falling within:(a) (for proposals published by the governing body) paragraph 1 of Part 1 toSchedule 2 or paragraph 12 of Part 2 to Schedule 2;(b) (for proposals published by the LA) paragraph 1 of Part 1 to Schedule 4 or18 of Part 4 to Schedule 4of the School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools)(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended).St Gregory’s Primary School was awarded a grade of “satisfactory” for its lastOfsted inspection in October 2007. Its 2009 contextual value added (CVA)score was 101.6, which put it in the top 5% of schools nationally for contextualvalue added. In the 2009 Key Stage 2 tests 97% of pupils attained bothEnglish and Maths at Level 4+.For September 2010 the school received 64 first preference applications, and204 total preferences, more than three times the number of usual placesavailable, and more than twice that of the proposed increase to the publishedadmission number of 90.The presumption for the expansion of successful and popular schools wouldapply to this proposal, however expansion is not being sought on thesegrounds.155

Appendices1. List of those consulted2. Consultation letter3. Feedback form4. Frequently asked questions5. Report to Governing Body on responses to the consultation6. Notes of public meeting 4 th March 20107. Notes of residents consultation meeting, 19 July 20108. Extract from Cabinet paper, 12 January 20109. Extract from Admissions Forum Paper, 28 September 201010. Letter confirmation of funding from Local Authority11. Letter from Governing Body to Local Authority and Diocese of Westminsterindicating the wish to publish statutory proposals12. Ealing primary school rolls 2006/07 to 2019/2013. Reception class rolls 2006/07 to 2019/2014. Ealing and Hanwell primary school rolls 2006/07 to 2019/2015. Ealing and Hanwell area reception pupil projections 2006/07 to 2019/20(St Gregory’s) Appendix 1: List of those consultedThe school consulted with the following:• Parent Body• Local Residents• Parishioners of Ealing Abbey• Teacher and staff at the school1000 questionnaires were also distributed in and around the local area, directly toparents via pupil mail, questionnaires in Ealing Abbey. Additionally information wasplaced on the Ealing abbey website.The following bodies were also sent copies of a consultation letter:• All neighbouring authorities whose schools may be affected by theproposals, due to significant cross-border movement of pupils• The Governing Body and Headteacher of all Ealing and Hanwell primaryschools and primary age special schools• Trade unions representing staff at the school and staff at other schoolsaffected by the proposals• The diocesan authorities• Local MPs, including those MPs whose constituents may be affected by theproposals• Local residents associations• Local community groups and cultural associations• Private nursery providers in the Ealing and Hanwell area• Local parent and toddler groups• The local Primary Care Trust• Ealing Borough, Metropolitan Police156

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 2: Consultation letterThis consultation document is addressed to everyoneinvolved in St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School and itsenvironmentJanuary 2010Potential Expansion of St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School PupilPlacesWe want to hear your views!The Governing Body of St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School is currentlyconsidering a proposal initiated by the Diocese of Westminster to expand thenumber of pupil places at the school through an investment in a new buildingand restructured facilities. We want to canvas the views of local stakeholdersto inform our decision before we formally respond to the Diocese ofWestminster. The proposal is at a formative stage and no final agreement willbe made until consultation is completed. Even if the go ahead is givenfollowing consultation, “statutory notices” still have to be given and there isan opportunity at this stage for further comment.The ProposalThe proposal under consideration is the introduction of an additional form ofentry into Reception from 2011. This will mean three classes of 30 inReception in 2011 and then as these pupils move up through the school,there will be an extra class each year until 2017 by which time the school rolewill increase from 420 today to 630.The proposal may look this:• The existing reception block and nursery would be demolished and a onestorey building would be built on its existing site.• The existing Infant block would be extended beyond the Y2 classrooms.• The existing junior block would be built onto in the form of a two storeyextension.• The school hall would be extended incorporating the main hall, small hall andstudio area.• Administrative and Staffing facilities would be extended.• If approved the new build is expected to take place over a five year periodand be ready for September 2015.Why?This expansion has been prompted by the Diocese of Westminster in responseto the projected numbers of catholic pupils requiring places within theborough and catholic pupils being unable to be obtain a place in a catholic157

school including those requiring a place at St Gregory’s. This has created asituation where there is a pressure of places within Ealing Local Authority andthe Diocese working with the Local Authority is working hard to secure thefuture of Catholic education within this area. The Local Authority haveendorsed the expansion of St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School and otherexpansion options continue to be explored by both Diocese and Localauthority. The School and Governors of St Gregory’s have worked togetherwith the Local Authority and Diocese and believe that this is the right locationto secure the right provision for catholic children now and in the future.What next?We need your views to assist us in making an objective decision as towhether to support or object to the proposal. As a Governing Body we havediscussed the proposal at length and summarise below our views to the prosand cons as we see them. We recognise that this list is not exhaustive andhave left space on the attached questionnaire for you to add your views.Pros• Better to meet the needs of the Catholic community and support theDiocesan strategy for securing Catholic education.• St Gregory’s is able to offer places to catholic pupils who presentlycannot get a place in a catholic setting.• St Gregory’s is able to accommodate more catholic pupils requiring aplace at St Gregory’s.• A real opportunity to build a 21 st Century Foundation Stage settingthese pupils so richly deserve.• An important feature of the new build will be “fit for purpose” ICTsuites in the Infants and Juniors.• Extended hall provision.• Dedicated music room with improved facilities.• Increased storage and resource facilities.• Improved staffing facilities.• Job creation and greater career progression opportunities for staff. Theexpansion of the school will provide at least 7 additional teachingposts, additional classroom assistants posts and SMSA posts by 2017.• Increased financial flexibility and resourcing.• A significant benefit for our future children securing a legacy for thefuture.Cons• Risk of adversely changing the character of the school:• The school size will increase by 50% from 420 to 630 places (excludingnursery) over seven years.• If projected increased birth rates don’t materialise within the parishcatchment area there would be an increase in out of catchment pupils.Distance would be the determining factor in such admissions whichcould impact traffic movements.158

• Less outside space per pupil as the site is not expanding in total.• Significant disruption as a project of this size and length is a largeundertaking.• Impact on the management and organisation of the school during thebuilding phase. Some classes may have to move into temporaryaccommodation.• Access to the site for heavy plant and machinery, and storage ofbuilding materials will need to be located on the school site but this willbe governed by Health and Safety regulations and the school will alsodraw on the experiences of orther schools in a similar position.• Local traffic will be disrupted.• No immediate benefits to our Year 2-6 pupils as facilities will not beavailable until at least 2015.• Risk of having to compromise the initial vision of building works as LAand Diocesan funding is finitePlease take time to complete the attached questionnaire so that wecan take account of your views. We attach a plan of the proposal foryour information Please return it to school by twelve noon March12 th 2010.(St Gregory’s) Appendix 3: Feedback formSt Gregory’s Catholic Primary SchoolPlease indicate your views on the proposal to expand St Gregory’s CatholicPrimary School by one form of entry from 2012 by ticking the mostappropriate box.Expansion would mean wecould:Improve educational facilitiesfor Catholic pupils:Help meet the growingdemand for Catholic schoolplaces:Offer more “in-catchment”places:StronglyAgreeAgreeDon’tKnowDisagree StronglyDisagreeI support the proposal:Please add other comments on the proposal (continue overleaf if necessary):159

For your views to be counted, you must provide your full name andaddress. Only one response per person will be accepted. We will notpass on your personal information to a 3 rd party. Your views will betreated as strictly confidential.Name:____________________________________________________________________Address___________________________________________________________________Please tell us your interest by ticking appropriate boxes:Parent/Carer at St. Gregory’s Member of Staff LocalResidentGovernor at School Prospective Parent Other,specify…………..Please return this form to St Gregory’s Catholic School by March12 th . Boxes for completed forms will be placed in the Reception area.Alternatively please post to:St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School, Woodfield Rd, Ealing W5 1SLThere will also be a Public Session meeting with the SchoolGovernors in St Gregory’s School Hall at 7.30p.m. on ThursdayMarch 4 th . All Welcome.160

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 4: Frequently asked questionsProposals to expand St. Gregory’s Catholic primary schoolto 3FE (forms of entry)Frequently asked questions – February 20101. Why has St. Gregory’s been suggested for expansion?There is strong evidence that, with rapidly rising birth and retention rates, the Borough needsto plan for an additional permanent 16 forms of entry (480 places) in reception classes overthe next few years. ‘Bulge’ classes will also be required at many other schools in order tomeet demand for places.The LA has a statutory responsibility to provide sufficient school places and is thereforeproposing to expand six primary schools in the Central Ealing area and others across theborough. The Diocese of Westminster are also looking to add three forms of entry to thevoluntary aided sector. If demand continues to rise, even more additional places than arecurrently planned for will be required in local schools.Updated figures in the Diocese of Westminster’s School Organisation Plan hasfor some time shown the need for between 3 and 5 additional forms of entryof Catholic primary provision in the Borough of Ealing. This has coincided witha presenting need for additional primary school places generally in theborough, and officers of the Diocese have been working with the Authorityand school governing bodies in an effort to identify an appropriate strategy.The Diocese was invited to put forward options for the provision of initiallythree forms of entry into the Catholic sector and a feasibility studycommissioned through Diocesan Consultants, DHP was the first part of thatprocess.The governing body of St Gregory’s have been supportive partners in this processand have demonstrated their willingness to expand. The school is in the right part ofthe Borough relative to the need and with the endorsement of Local Authorityofficers, further development and planning works have progressed through theconsultants.The school has historically been very popular but demand for places hasincreased significantly in the past few years. In the last admissions round,there were 104 on-time applications for one of the 60 places in the currentreception year. The table below shows the number of applications for the pastfive years:St Gregory’s Admission Numbers 2005 - 2009Year TotalApplicationsCatholic In Parish In Ealing OuterBorough200584 82 59 25 0200699 93 71 26 22007161

20082009100 95 70 27 3110 105 79 29 2104 101 64 40 0A bar chart showing the above information is attached as an appendix to this letter.2. How would the school fit more pupils onto its site?The St Gregory’s site more than exceeds the DCSF (Department for Children Schools andFamilies) requirements for external area, play and learning spaces for a 3FE (630 pupil) plusnursery school.3. How could the school benefit from any expansion?If it were decided that the expansion should go ahead, it would create an opportunity toreview the usage of all areas of the school. Existing difficulties with the school’s physicalenvironment would be discussed as part of this process, to consider how they might beresolved. Whilst there are concerns about a possible expansion it is also recognised that thiswould bring with it significant funding to improve the learning environment and experiencesfor all children.The entire school accommodation has been reviewed against current DCSF criteria and goodworking / teaching practice, and the proposed scheme has been developed to provide thevery best accommodation possible (internally and externally). The proposals will address allthe school’s current accommodation suitability issues.Phase one of the work would provide new classbases and specialist teaching spaces (IT, DT,group teaching spaces) that will benefit all pupils at the school (except the 2010/11 year 6pupils). All pupils will also benefit from the educational opportunities afforded by the actualconstruction process.Much of the tired existing building would be refurbished or replaced as a part of the worksand significant condition related issues would be addressed (eg failing roof, services nearingthe end of their economic life etc). The new and refurbished buildings would be moresustainable, very energy efficient and would incorporate renewable energy technology.4. Isn’t a 3FE school too big and won’t any expansion damage the schools ethos?The school is well regarded for its friendly and welcoming ethos and the LA would not wishthis to change. This does not however preclude expansion, as there are many primaryschools of 3 or even 4 FE. Research from the NCSL (National College for School Leadership)found schools over 2FE in size had the advantage of more staff expertise, opportunities toshare good practice, increased facilities for peer support, greater financial flexibility andenhanced curriculum provision. The Heads of 3 and 4FE schools who were interviewed feltthat it wasn’t hard to sustain the school’s ethos, children weren’t overwhelmed and the schooldidn’t become impersonal. It is recognised that the ethos of a school reflects the vision andleadership of the school and the local community, with teamwork being a key to success anda formal communication system being important with the larger staff and pupil numbers.If it is decided to proceed with the expansion, the additional 30 pupils will be admitted intothe reception year only from September 2011 (N.B. the school has agreed to take a ‘bulge’year in September 2010 and this is separate from the consultation to permanently expand to3FE). It would therefore take seven years for the higher numbers to work their way throughall year groups, allowing time to plan and create suitable accommodation.5. How would the increase in traffic congestion be managed?162

If the expansion is to go ahead, one of the earliest studies undertaken would be a trafficstudy. As the scheme is at such an early stage it is difficult to predict what may be requiredin terms of any permanent traffic management. The health and safety of the children andany concerns of local residents would be paramount. Currently local pupils are beingeducated elsewhere (whether they be Catholics attending other Catholic schools, or nonCatholics displaced from local Community Schools by Catholics who cannot get places inCatholic Schools). Either way, the effect of the current local pupil place shortage is probablymore and longer car journeys across this part of the borough. The development will help toalleviate this.6. What is the proposed building programme?The exact building programme has not yet been fully developed as this issubject to funding availability and timing and, most importantly, theGoverning Body decision as to whether to proceed with expansion. Aminimum of 24 months of continuous construction work will be required tocomplete the development. Every use will be made of the school holidayperiods, however, work will have to continue during term time. TheGoverning Body suggest that the following would be priority for anydevelopment:-- A two-storey extension to the north (existing junior classbases) and a singlestorey extension to the east (existing infant class bases- The replacement of the existing foundation stage building to the south-westof the site- The replacement of the existing hall and kitchen to the centre of the siteThrough this process, and if the decision is made to proceed to the nextstage, through the subsequent consultation processes, we would like to hearthe views of parents/carers, residents and local community on what prioritiesthey feel need to be looked at in order to improve the school.7. Would temporary classroom accommodation be required?LB Ealing are funding a double temporary classroom to take a bulge year fromSeptember 2010 (not connected with expansion plans)8. Would the building work affect curriculum delivery?The entire project has / will be planned around the continued full operation ofthe school. DHP design and project manage many similar projects everyyear and have significant experience in planning and implementing projects ofthis nature without any adverse effect on education delivery.9. How would pupil, staff and visitor safety be maintained during the works?Health and safety is absolutely paramount in all aspects of the work we do. At design stage,our designers seek to remove or reduce risk wherever possible. During the construction phase,DHP work with main and sub contractors, both pre and post contract, to ensure that health andsafety on site is prioritised, and that all have sufficient time and resources to plan effectivelyand safely. Our CDM Coordinators are heavily involved in the design and construction processfrom the beginning to ensure health and safety coordination. Accordingly if the proposedexpansion was to go ahead then all the points below would be taken into account.163

- Proof of competence, previous experience working within occupied schools and anexcellent health and safety record would be key contractor selection criteria.- The contractors would be required to comply with the latest and most stringent healthand safety standards and procedures.- Where works have an unacceptable risk, would be unacceptably disruptive or noisy,these would be limited to school holiday periods.- The construction site would be entirely and securely segregated from the remainder ofthe school.- Contractor vehicle movements on site would be entirely segregated from schoolpedestrian routes.- Vehicle movements onto site will be supervised by banksmen and vehicle movementswould not be permitted during vulnerable morning and afternoon periods.- All contractors will be required to wear identification and would have to sign in and outof the site.- Any contractor working in the occupied school will be CRB checked (or accompanied)and would only be able to work with a permit, after a full risk assessment and methodstatement have been approved. Work within the occupied school would only be permittedoutside school hours, except in exceptional circumstances.- The main contractor would provide site inductions for all new personnel, detailing sitesafety requirements and school operational procedures.- All work on site would be planned, subject to risk assessment and closely supervised toensure health, safety and welfare of all.10. What are the next steps?• The meeting for the Stakeholders will take place on 4 th March at 7.30 p.m. in theSchool Hall.• On February 9 th and 11 th between 3.30 and 6.00 p.m. governors will be available todiscuss the proposal with parents.• Full scale colour maps are on view in the school foyer.• All stakeholders should return their questionnaires to the school.• We welcome suggestions about what we could do to enhance the proposedexpansion and what parents may see as priorities in regard to this. Suggestions canbe emailed to admin@st-gregorys.ealing.sch.uk• The “Steering Group” appointed by the Governing Body can be contacted at thesame email address if any stakeholder wants to make additional points or raise otherissues.• The Governing Body will meet once the consultation has closed to consider theresponses and make a decision on whether to proceed to the next stage of furtherconsultation; a feasibility design works. This decision will be made after the Easterbreak.• If the decision were to be made to expand then further consultation would beundertaken, including a Statutory Period of consultation (possibly in the SummerTerm), and there would be the opportunity for interested peoples to meet the designteam and reflect their own suggestions into any proposed scheme.164

St Gregory’s Appendix 5: Report to Governing Body on responses to theconsultationSt Gregory’s Primary SchoolWoodfield Road, Ealing, LondonProposed Expansion of St Gregory’s to a Three Form EntryReport of the Steering Group to the Governing Bodyon the Consultation1. Time table of the consultation22 nd January GB consider Draft Letter and Agree Governing Body Steering Group1 st February Staff Consultation Meeting (To explain proposal)4 th February School Council Consultation (To explain proposal)9 th and 11 th February Drop In Session for Parents with Governors (ParentConsultationEvening) from 3.30 to 6.30 p.m18 th February School Council Consultation (To hear views and feedback)4 th March Public Session Meeting12 th March Consultation ends30 th March Steering Group meet to consider evidence from consultation and makerecommendations to Full GB.29 th April Full GB meeting to• Agree to expand• Reject expansion• Modify expansionMay After May Half Term: Statutory Notices sent out if GB agree to expand(Four week period)June Steering Group meet at end of Statutory Notice period to producereport for GB.Full GB meet.2. Outcome of the consultation1000 questionnaires were issued and distributed to parents, staff, local residents. Thequestionnaires were also available in the school reception area, the Ealing Abbeyentrance hall, and on the Ealing Abbey website. During the process, a “questions andanswers” document was made available to parents to answer some of the concernsraised in communications received by the governors.During the drop in sessions, parents exchanged with governors and expressed theirviews which were in majority against the project. The main concerns discussedincluded traffic and parking, the impact of building works and the management of theproject, the preservation of the Catholic character of the school and the “localcommunity” atmosphere, and the reasons advanced for expansion, the impact of the165

expansion on their children education. The duration of the project for up to five yearswas considered too disruptive over a too long period of time.The views expressed back to the School Council by classes showed that the childrenmainly thought the benefits would be “new friends” and improved resources. Childrenfelt that the main disadvantages included concerns about a lack of “space” during andafter building work was completed. They also believed the school would become too“big” which would also impact upon “lunchtimes”. They also felt that the “buildingprogramme would take too long” and were concerned about health and safety duringthis time. Their final main concern was that it would be “environmentally unfriendly”during and after the work was completed.The GB accompanied by representatives of the Diocese and the Ealing LocalAuthority lead a public session meeting. After a presentation on the reasons forexpansion in St Gregory’s by the Diocese and the Local Authority to an audience ofca. 80, questions were mainly focused on traffic and parking, health and safety and theimpact of the build on the area. A full report of the meeting was presented at the GBmeeting which took place on 10 th March.163 questionnaires were received, representing 16% of the total of forms issued.These forms were received from 54% parents, 8% staff and 31% local residents, 5%parents who are also local residents, 1% prospective parents and 1% from “others”who identified themselves as part of the Parish. Most of the questionnaires had boxesticked. Results are as follows:60% disagreed or strongly disagreed with supporting the proposal. While staff,prospective parents and parishioners strongly agreed with the proposal, local residentand parents disagreed and strongly disagreed to support the proposal. 37% (parentsand local residents) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the expansion would improveeducational facilities for Catholic pupils. 58% parents, 100% staff, 43% localresidents, 55% local residents and parents, 100% prospective parents and 100%parishioners agreed or strongly agreed the expansion would help meet the growingdemand for Catholic places. 36% disagreed or strongly disagreed the expansion wouldoffer more “in-catchment” places.The comments box was not always filled. It was usually filled to detail reasons fordisagreement. However, some forms submitted which agreed with the proposal, alsoincluded comments on issues which should be addressed, but did not see these issuesas preventing the expansion. Some forms commented on several issues and theywould be taken into account for the calculation of percentages for each of theconcerns expressed. While comments may slightly differ from one form to the other,it was however possible to define categories of comments as presented below.10% of all forms received commented on the benefits the expansion would bring withmore Catholic places offered to Catholics in need of education, the fact that it wouldhelp to get up-to-date facilities and provide better teaching and a stronger Catholiccommunity overall. These forms were supportive or strongly supportive of theexpansion and from parents, staff and local residents.166

54% of all forms received commented on the issue of traffic and parking. Thesecomments were made on forms disagreeing as well as agreeing with the expansion.As traffic was considered as being already an issue now, especially on WoodfieldRoad, fears were expressed that traffic would worsen and could potentially becomeunmanageable, as potential new pupils were assumed as coming from a distance.35% of the forms received commented on potential issues related to health and safetyand expressed fears on the impact of the building works on the pupils, their educationand the local area. These comments were made on forms disagreeing as well asagreeing with the expansion.23% of the forms received showed worries that the school would allegedly loose itsCatholic character and its local community spirit.14% expressed concerns about the duration of the project, and its potential impact onthe pupils, staff and the local area.14% believed that 3FE would deteriorate the level of education received by the pupils.11% commented on the access to the school, with views stressing the potentialdifficulties of opening the three accesses to the school in Woodfield Road andWestmoreland Place.11% imagined a possible loss of playground area and worried on the impact on thechildren especially the infants.8% commented on the risks they saw in current budgeting and funding the school.7% had concerns on the potential increased noise levels and nuisance the expansioncould bring.Other comments concerned the need for extra places in the secondary system, and thepossible impact on flooding.3. Recommendations to the GBBased on all the above elements, and previous discussions during GB meetings and inmeetings involving the GB, the Diocese and the Local Authority, the SteeringCommittee would recommend the following way forward for consideration by theGB.1. The issue of traffic and parking in the vicinity of the school, especially onWoodfield Road, needs to be addressed whatever the decision on a 3FE, as itis seen by all stakeholders as a current risk to the safety of our children andgeneral public. Pupils should be encouraged (again and again) to walk toschool or use public transport means, cars should not be allowed to park on ayellow line (seehttp://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069860)and enforcement should be sought if necessary. A stakeholders group could be167

set up to try and find long term solutions, such as car sharing, use of publictransport etc. The opening of all school accesses could be investigatedwhatever the decision on 3FE to distribute the flow of people coming to theschool.2. Should the GB take a decision in favour of expansion, it is suggested that a setof conditions should be associated:a. The health and safety issues should be addressed thoroughly andincluded in any development plan right from the start of the project;the duration of the project should be kept minimal as this would alsoimpact on these issues;b. Whilst it is recommended that traffic and parking should be addressedseparately to deal with the current issue, it is recommended to include arequirement for provisions which would help easing the traffic in theevent of a 3FE. Accesses through all gates should be sought, and a planshould be developed;c. On the issue of the character of the school, reassurances should begiven on the school admission criteria, and on the ethos of the school;d. The budget should be secured for all phases of the build and the projectcost should be contained; competition should be encouraged in order toensure best value for money;e. The project should ensure appropriate provisions in accordance with a3FE, especially for playground, common areas, IT suite.3. Should the GB take a decision in favour of expansion, the following wayforward is suggested:a. Issue a statutory notice including the associated conditions;b. Issue a letter informing of the decision;c. The letter should be sent to parents, to people who filled thequestionnaires; it should be made available on the Parish website.168

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 6: Notes of public meeting 4 March 2010St Gregory’s Primary SchoolWoodfield Road, Ealing, W5 1SLConsultation meeting on aThree Form Entry (3FE) projectReport by: Betty Bonnardel-Azzarelli, parent governorSt Gregory’s Primary School Hall, Thursday 4 March 2010Present:Abbot Martin, foundation governorSuzan Abbott, Deputy Head TeacherMarysia Andrew, foundation governorPeter Allott, foundation governorBetty Bonnardel-Azzarelli, parent governorKeith Brett, foundation governorTerry Cooper, Head TeacherRosanna Elliott, foundation governor, Deputy Chair of GovernorsRay Ellis, parent governorAndrew Etherington, Partner, DHPKate Gavan, foundation governorMaura Lyons, foundation governor, Chair of GovernorsAnna-Maria Murphy, staff governorDerek Murphy, Local Authority, EalingMaureen O’Brien, parent governorGarry Redhead, Local Authority, EalingMaureen Roe, Deputy Director of Education, Diocese of WestminsterMatthew Sane, Partner, DHPNigel Spears, Diocese of WestminsterWendy Todd, Local Authority, School Development PartnerGerry Wilson, foundation governorArchitect, DHPApologies:Arthur Blake, foundation governorIan Potts, foundation governorThe meeting opened with a prayer.An audience of ca. 80 included current teachers, parents and local residents.169

After an introduction by Maura Lyons, the Chair of Governors, Garry Redhead fromthe Local Authority presented several slides. Information given included that theexpected increase in the number of children in the Borough of Ealing which was duepartly to new births (5,600 births were registered in 2008) and partly to retention ofpopulations. The Local Authority has the duty to provide education to each child inthe borough and therefore 16 new forms of entry have already been planned, and theLocal Authority is allocating £13.5 millions which would be used to fund three extraforms of entry to provide 90 extra places in the Catholic sector in Ealing, if theDiocese wishes to proceed and governing bodies agreed to expansion. St Gregory’sPrimary is the school envisaged for one form entry and a new two form entry schoolwould be considered for development in Acton. Would the governors confirm interestin a 3FE, a four week consultation would be launched in the summer, with a decisionscheduled in September/October, subject to planning permission. Elements in thedecision include the view of families and residents, the school standards ofachievement, the demand, the size and accessibility and the value for money.Maureen Roe presented the Catholic context of the project: the Diocese spans over 19local authorities, and there is a pressure on the number of places, with a mostidentified need in Ealing. The figures presented by the Local Authority are consideredrobust as the Diocese’s own statistics based on Mass attendance, CIS census, baptismand level of applications and admissions show the same trend. Foundation governorsare in the majority in a Catholic school governing body, and they answer to theCatholic community as a whole, present and future. The Diocese wants to ensureCatholic education for all. While Catholics generally represent 10% of the population,the rate is much higher in Ealing.All Ealing Catholic schools have been approached for expansion but St Gregory’s isthe only one which is well placed to answer the need and has sufficient onsite space towelcome a new intake.Andrew Etherington from DHP reminded that no decision had been made and thatDHP designed the feasibility study. If St Gregory’s decides to proceed, a full planningand design process will have to be developed. The initial work should last 14-18months, and the project should allow bringing the school to brand new standards.It was noted that the discussion during the evening was about the educational need,not the building plans.Nigel Spears mentioned the wider capital investment coming from Governmentgrants: Ealing Council would fund £13.5M, but some additional money should comefrom LCVAP. There is a general commitment by all Primary Catholic schools inEaling and the Diocese that the majority of the money should be directed towards theprogramme of development.It was mentioned that while 2010 admission figures for St Gregorys could not beshared, as the applicants have not yet been informed, the number of applications is sohigh that no child in the other side of Argyle Road would have been offered a place,without the bulge class. It was noted that the consultation is not about the bulge class,which will start in September, but about a project for a three form entry in StGregory’s school.170

Answering questions about the traffic which would be increasing, Peter Allott, alsoCouncillor for Perivale gave the example of St John Fisher where efficient planningmanaged to reduce the issue greatly. Practical solutions should be thoroughly lookedat.Answering a question on the school admission policy, Maureen Roe confirmed that itis in line with policies of other catholic schools and the Diocese, and that the LocalBorough of Ealing is limited to ensure that the policy meets the code of admissions.There is no current plan to modify the admission criteria.On the question of the catchment area, it was answered that there is no plan to changethe boundaries. If the school does not expand, the actual intake area would actually bemuch smaller than the current boundaries of the school’s catchment area. In addition,the school is not centred in its catchment, showing a potential for rejecting childrenliving closer to the school.The School Improvement Partner answered a question on academic achievement. Theschool has already moved to satisfactory and a new OFSTED inspection is now due.St Gregory’s Primary School’s teaching and management, including governing bodyis very much towards the top end.The importance of the impact of the building work on the children health was stressedand it was suggested to ensure that the site should be fully boarded.There are three accesses to the site, and therefore the actual path of children andbuilding trucks during the work in progress should be reviewed and assessed as partof the planning process.It is important that a decision is made on accurate information, and thereforegovernors have gathered evidence such as the one provided by the Local Authorityand the Diocese and views from all stakeholders including parents and residents inorder to take an informed decision. The Local Authority confirmed that as the needexists, if the Ealing Catholic schools and Diocese decline their offer, the funds wouldbe allocated to three non Catholic forms of entry.It was stressed again that the only question the governing body has to answer at thisstage is “Should a statutory proposal for 3FE be issued?” If so, questions such as theones relating to traffic and access would be answered as part of the legal planningprocess. Therefore the question left to the governors is “Do we believe there issufficient demand for extra Catholic places?”The meeting concluded with a prayer.[end text]171

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 7: Notes of residents consultation meeting, 19July 2010172

173

174

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 8: Extract from Cabinet paper, 12 January 2010This appendix can be viewed by clicking on the link below:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/education/investment/psc/_rep_docs/Ravenor-StGreg/appendices/StGreg/8_extract_cabinet-paper.pdf175

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 9: Extract from Admissions Forum paper, 28September 2010CHANGES TO THE PUBLISHED ADMISSION NUMBERS (PANs) FORSCHOOLSBackgroundEach year the Admission Forum is asked to consider proposals for any changes tothe Published Admission Number (PAN) for schools in the Borough. As theconsultation process is quite lengthy this usually takes place at least eighteenmonths before any changes are proposed to take effect. Changes are consulted onfor admissions in the primary phase to Reception for primary schools or Year 3 if aJunior school. The last update, on proposals for changes to schools PANs forSeptember 2010 and 2011, was presented to the Admissions Forum at its meeting inFebruary 2009. This confirms and updates the proposals outlined in that report.Admissions Forum members will be aware that Ealing is experiencing a significantrise in birth rates, and corresponding increase in demand for school places. Cabinetagreed the need for an additional 750 Reception places (25.0 Forms of Entry) inprimary schools by September 2012 of which 16FE will be permanent. Details of the16FE permanent expansions are detailed in this appendix.A report was made to July 2010 Cabinet, updating pupil projections. (The fullreport can be viewed on the Council’s website in the Committee’s section). Thereport outlined that recently released birth data indicated that numbers have riseneven further than had previously been forecast. It is therefore necessary to planfor between 29 and 33FE in order to meet demand (the council has agreed 25FE).It is expected that this will be met through a mixture of permanent and temporaryexpansions and officers will be discussing options for funding with members andthe Department for Education.Expansion proposals progressed and agreed by Cabinet to date are shown in Table 1below.Table 1: Permanent expansions: Schools Cabinet have agreed toexpandSchoolCurrentsize (FE)Expandedsize (FE)Additionalplaces (FE)Implementation ofpermanent expansion(increase in PAN)Ealing and HanwellLittle Ealing 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1) September 2010(Agreed 2009)Fielding 90 (3FE) 120 (4FE) 30 (1) September 2010(Agreed 2009)North Ealing 60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1) September 2010(Agreed 2009)St John’s 45 (1.5) 60 (2) 15 (0.5) September 2009(Agreed 2009)Brentside 45 (1.5) 60 (2) 15 (0.5) September 2011176

SchoolCurrentsize (FE)Expandedsize (FE)Additionalplaces (FE)Implementation ofpermanent expansion(increase in PAN)(Agreed 2010)Hobbayne(Agreed 2010)St Mark’s(Agreed 2010)Oldfield(Agreed 2009)Selborne(Agreed 2009)Stanhope(Agreed 2009)Wood EndInfant (Agreed2009)Wood EndJunior (Agreed2010)Total60 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1) September 201145 (1.5) 60 (2) 15 (0.5) September 2011Greenford, Northolt & Perivale45 (1.5) 60 (2) 15 (0.5) September 200960 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1) September 200960 (2) 90 (3) 30 (1) September 200990 (3) 120 (4) 30 (1) September 200990 (3) 120 (4) 30 (1) September 2012300 (10FE)Confirmation of changes to the number of Reception age pupilsadmitted in September 2011• Brentside –To increase the school’s PAN from 45 to 60.• Hobbayne – To increase the school’s PAN from 60 to 90.• St Mark’s – To increase the school’s PAN from 45 to 60.Other proposals• Faith schools - Following discussions with both Diocesan Authorities, it is intended thatproposals will be made by the Dioceses to expand both Catholic and Church of Englandprimary age provision for future years. As the admissions authority for their schools, thegoverning bodies and the Dioceses will undertake any consultation around proposedexpansions and subsequent publication of Statutory Proposals.The London Diocesan Board for Schools has gained agreement from the governingbodies of Christ Church Junior and St Saviour’s Infant’s schools to start consultation withparents on possible expansion. Any expansion is proposed to be by expanding theschools to become a 4FE infant and a 4FE junior school. The two schools are alsoconsulting on possible amalgamation from 2011. This will expand provision in the Churchof England sector by 1FE. The earliest date that these places could be provided is 2012.The Diocese of Westminster is seeking to firm up its expansion proposals for upto an additional 3FE in the Catholic sector. The governors of St Gregory’s schoolare keen to expand by 1FE to 3FE and the Diocese supports this expansion. Theschool are currently consulting on these plans. The Diocese of Westminster arealso progressing plans for a new 2FE primary school in West Acton, with placesbeing available from 2012 at the earliest.177

• Wood End Junior school – The governing body of the school published StatutoryProposals in the autumn term 2009 to expand their school by 1FE to become a4FE Junior school. This will be proposed to take effect for admissions to year 3from September 2012. This will bring the Junior school in line with the recentlyagreed expansion of Wood End Infant school.Changes to the Published Admission Numbers (PANs) forschools September 2011Table 2: Changes to Planned Admissions Numbers (PANs)DCSFNo.School NamePAN for Sept2010ReceptionProposed PAN forSept 2011(if different)2161 Allenby Nursery & Primary 302083 Beaconsfield Primary 302006 Berrymede Infant 90 90**2005 Berrymede Junior Year 3 – 902162 Blair Peach Primary 602185 Brentside Primary 45 603301 Christchurch Junior * Year 3 - 902163 Clifton Primary 452088 Coston Primary 60 60**2164 Dairy Meadow Primary 602165 Derwentwater Primary 90 90**5203 Dormers Wells Infant * 1095202 Dormers Wells Junior * Year 3 -1032092 Downe Manor Primary 602094 Drayton Green Primary 302166 Durdan's Park Primary 60 60**2022 East Acton Primary 30 30**3510 Edward Betham Primary * 602180 Featherstone Primary 902167 Fielding Primary 1202168 Gifford Primary 90 90**2187 Grange Primary 90 90**2169 Greenwood Primary 60 60**2150 Hambrough Primary 602184 Hathaway Primary 602170 Havelock Primary 60178

DCSFNo.School NamePAN for Sept2010ReceptionProposed PAN forSept 2011(if different)2151 Hobbayne Primary 60 902171 Horsenden Primary 90 90**2153 John Perryn Primary 60 60**2173 Lady Margaret Primary 902174 Little Ealing Primary 902076 Mayfield Primary 452182 Montpelier Primary 903500 Mount Carmel Primary * 602046 North Ealing Primary 902115 North Primary 602175 Oaklands Primary 60 60**2033 Oldfield Primary 603503 Our Lady of the Visitation* 602176 Perivale Primary 60 60**3511 Petts Hill Primary 30 30**2121 Ravenor Primary 60 90**2125 Selborne Primary 902154 Southfield Primary 60 60**3505 St Anselm's Primary * 303506 St Gregory's Primary * 60 60**3504 St John Fisher Primary * 602058 St John's Primary 603507 St Joseph's Primary * 602059 St Mark's Primary 45 603508 St Raphael's Primary * 603302 St Saviour's Infant * 903509 St Vincent's Primary * 602177 Stanhope Primary 902181 Three Bridges Primary 602183 Tudor Primary 302186 Vicar's Green Primary 30 30**2178 Viking Primary 302071 West Acton Primary 60 60**6905 West London Academy (Primary)* 60 902067 West Twyford Primary 30 30**2172 Willow Tree Primary 90 90**2179 Wolf Fields Primary 305201 Wood End Infant * 120179

DCSFNo.School NamePAN for Sept2010ReceptionProposed PAN forSept 2011(if different)5200 Wood End Junior * 903512 Khalsa VA Primary* 60DCSFNoSchool Name9/2011 PAN(Year 7)9/2012 PAN for Year 7(if different)4035 Acton High 2405400 Brentside High 2104603Cardinal WisemanHigh 3004030 Dormers Wells High 180 2405403 Drayton Manor High 2405402 Ellen Wilkinson High 2164036 Elthorne Park High 1804031 Featherstone High 2405401 Greenford High 2405404 Northolt High 2404602 Twyford High 1804020 Villiers High 2406905West LondonAcademy 180Total High 2,886 2946* Please note schools shown with an asterix determine their own admissionarrangements** A double asterix indicates where changes to PANs may be required on atemporary basis in 2011 as the school falls into an area of significant increasein demand for places.Proposals for permanent expansions from September 2012The Council are planning to publish statutory notices to permanently expandthe following schools from September 2012. The notices are due to bepublished in the autumn term 2010.• Ravenor primary school – by 1FE, increasing from 60 to 90• East Acton primary school – by 1FE, increasing from 30 to 60180

In addition the following Governing Bodies (in consultation with the relevantDiocesan Authorities) will be publishing notices for the following schools from 2012.These notices are also due to be published in the autumn term 2010.• Christ Church/ St Saviours CofE – by 1FE, increasing from 90 to 120 (there isalso a proposal to amalgamate the schools)• St Gregory’s Catholic school – by 1FE, increasing from 60 to 90• New 2FE Catholic primary school in West Acton, Holy Vale.The West London Academy have also gained approval from DfE to expand theprimary phase by 1FE, from 60 to 90. A detailed consultation process will beundertaken with residents and parents in order to create a suitable scheme for all.(St Gregory’s) Appendix 10: Letter confirmation of funding from LocalAuthorityMrs Maura LyonsChair of GovernorsSt. Gregory’s Catholic primary schoolWoodfield RoadLondonW5 1SLSchools ServiceEaling CouncilPerceval House 2:NE/314-16 Uxbridge RoadLondonW5 2HLTel: (020) 8825 5773Fax: (020) 8825 5665Your ref: My ref: Please ask for Date:Gary Redhead 1 November 2010Dear Mrs Lyons,Re: St Gregory’s Catholic Primary SchoolI write with regard to the Governing Body Statutory Notice for an enlargement to St Gregory’sCatholic Primary School.Point 13. of the Statutory Notice requires that “A copy of confirmation from the Secretary ofState, local education authority and the Learning and Skills Council for England (as the casemay be) that funds will be made available (including costs to cover any necessary sitepurchase)”.The Local Authority confirms that funding will be made available for this project to provide theagreed additional accommodation to enable the enlargement of the school in accordance withthe Statutory Notice, should the Cabinet approve the proposals. This will be as part of afunding agreement with the Diocese of Westminster for them to provide an additional threeforms of entry (FE) (proposed to be met through the expansion of St Gregory’s by 1FE and181

providing a new 2FE Catholic school in Acton) within a £13.5 million funding envelope. Iunderstand the estimated costs for expansion at St Gregory’s are currently £5,960,000.Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.Yours SincerelyGary RedheadAssistant DirectorSchools Planning and Resources182

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 11: Letter from governing body to LocalAuthority and Diocese of Westminster indicating the wish to publishstatutory proposals183

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 12: Ealing primary school rolls 2006/07 to2019/20184

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 13: Reception class rolls 2006/07 to 2019/20185

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 14: Ealing and Hanwell primary school rolls2006/07 to 2019/20186

(St Gregory’s) Appendix 15: Ealing and Hanwell reception pupilprojections 2006/07 to 2019/20187

Appendix 11: Statutory Notice and full proposals for the amalgamation of StSaviour’s CE Infant and Christ Church CE Junior schoolsSTATUTORY NOTICE FOR ST SAVIOUR’S AND CHRIST CHURCH SCHOOLS,EALINGProposal to close St Saviour’s Church of England Infant and Nursery School, Ealingand Christ Church Church of England Junior School, Ealing and to establish a newChurch of England Voluntary Aided Primary School. Related proposal to enlarge,and increase the pupil admission number of, the new primary school with effect fromSeptember 2012.Part 1: Closure of St Saviour’s Infant and Nursery and Christ Church JuniorSchools, EalingNotice is given in accordance with section 15 (2) of the Education and InspectionsAct 2006 that the Governing Bodies of St Saviour’s Church of England Infant andNursery School and Christ Church Church of England Junior School intend todiscontinue, respectively, the following schools with effect from 31 August 2011.St Saviour’s Church of England Infant and Nursery School,The Grove, Ealing, London W5 5DXChrist Church Church of England Junior School,New Broadway, Ealing, London W5 2XAIt is proposed that pupils currently attending these schools will automatically transferto the new school being proposed in part 2 below, as appropriate. Admission mayalso be sought to other schools which may have places available.The new school will continue to operate on the sites of the existing schools; thereforethe current schools’ existing transport policies will continue to apply.Part 2: Establish a New Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary SchoolNotice is given that the London Diocesan Board for Schools, London DiocesanHouse, 36 Causton Street, London SW1P 4AU intends to establish a new Church ofEngland Voluntary Aided Primary School under section 10 (1) of the Education andInspections Act 2006. The Secretary of State’s consent has been obtained in orderto publish this proposal.It is proposed that the school will open on 1 September 2011.The new school will occupy a split site. The main address for the school, the site ofnursery and infant provision, will be The Grove, Ealing, London W5 5DX and thesecond address, the site of junior aged provision, will be New Broadway, Ealing,London W5 2XA. The school is open to any child living in the London Borough ofEaling or other adjacent local authority area whose parents are seeking a Church ofEngland primary education for their child.The proposed school will have a Church of England Christian religious character andit is confirmed that the proposer intends to ask the Secretary of State to designatethe school as a school with such a religious character. The school’s vision is to bean aspirational school delivering excellence in learning by being creative, inclusiveand founded on the Christian faith, preparing children for life. Within a Christiansetting which values the uniqueness of each child, supported by the national primarystrategy and the principles of Every Child Matters, the school will seek to help allchildren achieve as well as they can and become confident and motivated learners.188

It is intended that the new school will contribute to community cohesion throughworking with existing public, private and voluntary organisations. The curriculum willfollow current guidance with regards to promoting citizenship and personal, healthand social education. The school would continue, and build on, current provision forextended services which include links with providers of before and after school care,school clubs catering for a range of pupil interests and use of the junior site for aborough holiday play scheme.The new school will cater for pupils between the ages of 4 and 11 and provide placesfor 630 boys and girls. In addition, 25 full time equivalent places will continue to beprovided for nursery pupils.The admission number for the school on the opening date will be 90.The admission arrangements and over-subscription criteria for the new school will beprioritised as follows:a) Looked after childrenb) The parent(s) or guardian and child have a weekly attendance for at least2 years at a Church of England church, with active involvement in churchactivities. Priority will be given to parents in this criterion who haveanother child attending the school at the time of entry.c) The parent(s) or guardian and child attend weekly at a Church of Englandchurch. Priority will be given to parents in this criterion who have anotherchild attending the school at the time of entry.The first three admissions categories only are shown; further details are available inthe full proposal. Over-subscription preferences within the above criterion will begiven to children whose homes are closest to the school gate in terms of walkingdistance. (In cases where a child is resident in more than one home the location ofthe nearest home to the school will be used).The admission authority of the proposed new school will be the Governing Body.The LA’s current transport policy will continue to apply at the new school includingthe School Travel Plan currently adopted by the above closing schools.Part 3: Proposed enlargement of, and increase in the admission number at, thenew primary school described in Part 2 above with effect from September 2012Notice is given in accordance with section 19(1) of the Education and Inspections Act2006 that the London Borough of Ealing intends to make a prescribed alteration tothe new Church of England Voluntary Aided primary school proposed under Part 2above from 1 st September 2012.The London Borough of Ealing proposes to enlarge the premises of the proposednew Church of England primary school, by incrementally admitting an additional 30pupils into the reception year from September 2012. These proposals will beaccommodated through phased building and remodelling works.The current net capacity, which assesses the physical space of the two existingschools (excluding the nursery), is 630 in total, and the proposed capacity will be840. The current number of pupils registered at the two existing schools (excludingthe nursery) is 593. The current admission number for the existing schools is 90 andthe proposed admission number will be 120.189

This Notice is an extract from the complete proposals. The full proposals can bedownloaded from the St Saviour’s website at www.webfronter.com/ealing/stsavioursor from the London Borough of Ealing’s website at:www.ealing.gov.uk/services/education/investment/psc/Alternatively, copies of the complete proposals can be obtained from the SchoolOffice of either school:St Saviour’s Infant and Nursery School, The Grove, Ealing, London W5 5DXTelephone 020 8825 8790 or by email from admin@st-saviours.ealing.sch.ukChrist Church Junior School, New Broadway, Ealing, London W5 2XATelephone 020 8567 6252 or by email from officechristchurch@tiscali.co.ukor from: Holly Morgan-Smith, Perceval House 2NE/3, 14/16 Uxbridge Road, EalingW5 2HL or by email from: hmorgansmith@ealing.gov.uk.Within six weeks from the date of publication of this proposal (between 29 October2010 and 10 December 2010), any person may object to or make comments on theproposal by sending them to Holly Morgan Smith, London Borough of Ealing,Perceval House 2NE/3, 14 – 16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, London W5 2HL or by emailto hmorgansmith@ealing.gov.ukSigned:Richard EastmondChairman of Governors, St Saviour’s Church of England Infant and Nursery SchoolRevd Andrew DavisChairman of Governors, Christ Church Church of England Junior SchoolThe Revd Dr Howard WorsleyDirector of Education, London Diocesan Board for SchoolsDavid Archibald, Executive Director, Children and Adults, London Borough of EalingPublication Date: 29 October 2010. All responses must be received on or before 10December 2010.Explanatory Notes190

1. A questionnaire covering the proposed expansion of a number of primaryschools, including the new Church of England primary school, will beavailable to be completed on line at www.ealing.gov.uk/consultations2. Following a substantial rise in the birth rate and subsequent increase in thenumber of resident children, the Local Authority has embarked on a strategyto increase the number of primary school places in the Borough. As one ofonly two Church of England primary schools in the London Borough of Ealing,from September 2012, the proposed new primary school will help to meet theprojected increase in demand for Church of England primary school places.191

MATTERS TO BE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 15 PROPOSALS TODISCONTINUE A SCHOOLExtract of Schedule 4 to The School Organisation (Establishment andDiscontinuance of Schools)(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended):Contact details1. The name of the LA or governing body publishing the proposals, and acontact address, and the name of the school it is proposed that should bediscontinued.The Governing BodySt Saviour’s Church of England Infant and Nursery SchoolThe GroveEaling London W5 5DXImplementation2. The date when it is planned that the proposals will be implemented, or, wherethe proposals are to be implemented in stages, information about each stage and thedate on which each stage is planned to be implemented.31 st August 2011Consultation3. A statement to the effect that all applicable statutory requirements to consultin relation to the proposals were complied with.The Governing Body has complied with all applicable statutory requirements toconsult in relation to the proposals.4. Evidence of the consultation before the proposals were published including:a) a list of persons and/or parties who were consulted;b) minutes of all public consultation meetings;c) the views of the persons consulted; andd) copies of all consultation documents and a statement of how these weremade available.(b) The following groups were sent copies of the Christ Church and St Saviour’sconsultation document and survey questionnaire, which included the proposedamalgamation of St Saviour’s and Christ Church schools. A list is included asAppendix 1:• The Local Authority• The governing body for each of the two schools• Pupils and their families, teachers and other staff at both schools• All neighbouring authorities whose schools may be affected by theproposals, due to significant cross-border movement of pupils• The governing body and headteacher of all Ealing primary schools• Trade unions representing staff at the school and staff at other schools192

affected by the proposals• The diocesan authorities• Local MPs, including those MPs whose constituents may be affected bythe proposals• Local residents associations• Local community groups and cultural associations• Private nursery providers in the surrounding area• Local parent and toddler groups• The local Primary Care Trust• Ealing Borough, Metropolitan Police• Local churches(d) The governing bodies of both existing schools were in favour of the proposalfor the amalgamation of the two schools from September 2011.a. Public meetings were organised by the governing bodies inDecember 2009 during the period of formal consultation, with LArepresentatives in attendance, at which both amalgamation andexpansion were discussed. A copy of the presentation given oneach occasion is attached at Appendix 2. Meetings were held asshown below and notes of the meetings are attached in appendices:• 2 December 2009, 2pm at St Saviours Infant School (Appendix 3)• 7 December 2009, 9am at Christ Church Junior School (Appendix 4)• 10 December 2009, 7.30pm at Christ the Saviour Parish Hall (Appendix5)• (There were also LA meetings with the chairs of governors and headteachers that were not minuted.)• Staff meetings and school assemblies that discussed the issues were notminuted.) St Saviour’s and Christ Church fully consulted on amalgamation andseparated the issue from expansion in their November 2009 publicconsultation, ensuring stakeholders were aware that either proposal could goahead without the other. The views of respondents on amalgamation areoutlined in Appendix 6.g) The consultation document relating to the St Saviour’s and Christ Churchproposal is attached at Appendix 7 and was made available in the followingways:• All schools in Ealing were sent copies of the public consultation paper andquestionnaireooThe issues covered by the consultation paper were also raised atschool governor and staff meetings, assemblies and addressed inschool newsletters throughout 2009 and 2010Representatives of the LA and the London Diocesan Board forSchools have held ongoing discussions with the schools’ chairs ofgovernors and head teachers.• The chairs of governors for both schools addressed a joint letter to staff inautumn 2009, which included amalgamation of the two schools from193

September 2011 (Appendix 8)• A letter and survey questionnaire were sent directly to the otherstakeholder groups listed in section 5 (a). The accompanying letter toparents is attached at Appendix 9 and to other stakeholders at Appendix10.• Copies of the consultation document were made available on the schools’websites, which can be found at:http://webfronter.com/ealing/christchurch/ [the website is being updatedat present] and http://www.webfronter.com/ealing/stsaviours.Respondents were invited to contact the Chairs of Governors through theschools if they wished to discuss issues raised by the consultation.• The Governing Bodies formal views on expansion and amalgamation afterconsidering the results of the consultation are included as Appendix 11.• An extracts from the report to the Schools Admissions Forum inSeptember 2010 where the proposals were discussed are included asAppendices 12.• Pupils at both schools also participated in the consultation; a summary oftheir views is included as Appendix 13.Objectives5. The objectives of the proposal.The objectives of the proposal are to close both Christ Church and StSaviour’s Schools, Ealing and then immediately open a new Voluntary AidedChurch of England primary school on the same sites. The objectives of theproposal are:• to promote high educational standards by developing continuity andconsistency in teaching and learning• to ensure seamless transition for pupils through the school from EarlyYears to Key Stage 2• to offer enhanced career opportunities for staff• to share best practice, resources and expertise for the benefit of allpupils, current and prospective, of the new school within a strongChristian ethos.Standards and Diversity6. A statement and supporting evidence indicating how the proposals will impacton the standards, diversity and quality of education in the area.The closure of the school will not change the current diversity of education in thearea since a new primary school, with the same admission number, willimmediately open on the same site and all pupils at St Saviour’s will be offeredplaces at the new school. St Saviour’s is one of three schools providing Church ofEngland primary education in the London Borough of Ealing. This proposal willreduce the number of voluntary aided Church of England schools in the boroughby one but will not reduce the overall number of places in voluntary aided Church194

of England primary schools.The new school will continue to provide primary education based on Christianvalues and incorporate all that is best in the educational practice of the two closingschools, to promote high standards and enable pupils to become confident andmotivated learners. The school will build on current good practice to enablechildren to be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution tocommunity and society and achieve economic well being.Provision for 16-19 year olds7. Where the school proposed to be discontinued provides sixth form education,how the proposals will impact on:a) the educational or training achievements;b) participation in education or training; andc) the range of educational or training opportunities,for 16-19 year olds in the area.N/ANeed for places8. A statement and supporting evidence about the need for places in the areaincluding whether there is sufficient capacity to accommodate displaced pupils.No pupils will be displaced by these proposals as it is proposed that all pupils willautomatically transfer to the new primary school in a proposal related to theseproposals.9. Where the school has a religious character, a statement about the impact ofthe proposed closure on the balance of denominational provision in the area and theimpact on parental choice.The new Church of England primary school, to be opened immediately after theclosure of St Saviour’s, will provide the same number of places as at present forchildren of nursery and infant age for parents and carers who are seeking aChurch of England education for their children. There is thus no impact on thebalance of denominational provision or parental choice in the area.Current School Information10. Information as to the numbers, age range, sex and special educational needsof pupils (distinguishing between boarding and day pupils) for whom provision ismade at the school.Current provision at St Saviour’s is for 270 boys and girls aged 4 – 7, in receptionand years one and two; the Pupil Admission Number [PAN] is 90 per year. Inaddition, there are 25 full time equivalent [FTE] nursery places; 25 boys and girlsattend each session.As at 1 st September, there were at St Saviour’s 2 children with Statements, 5 onSchool Action Plus and 17 on School Action. As at 18 October 2010, there were268 children on roll from reception to year 2 (90 in reception, 89 in year 1 and 89 inyear 2) and 50 children in the nursery,. There are no boarding pupils at the school.195

Displaced Pupils11. Details of the schools or FE colleges which pupils at the school for whomprovision is to be discontinued will be offered places, including:a) any interim arrangements;b) where the school included provision that is recognised by the LA as reservedfor children with special educational needs, the alternative provision to be made forpupils in the school’s reserved provision; andc) in the case of special schools, alternative provision made by LAs other thanthe authority which maintains the school.No pupils will be displaced as a result of this proposal. The new school will providethe same number of infant and nursery places as are currently provided by StSaviour’s. All pupils at St Saviour’s at the time of its closure will be transferred tothe roll of the new primary school to be established on the sites of St Saviour’s andChrist Church Schools. Nursery and infant provision will remain on the St Saviour’ssite. Parents may, if they wish, choose to apply for a place at any other schoolwhere places are available.12. Details of any other measures proposed to be taken to increase the numberof school or FE college places available in consequence of the proposeddiscontinuance.N/AImpact on the Community13. A statement and supporting evidence about the impact on the community andany measures proposed to mitigate any adverse impact.The same number of nursery and infant places will be provided at the new primaryschool as are provided currently at St Saviour’s. Nursery and infant provision willcontinue to be on the St Saviour’s site. There is thus no adverse impact on thecommunity.14. Details of extended services the school offered and what it is proposed forthese services once the school has discontinued.Current provision at St Saviour’s is as follows, and would be developed further inthe new school: There is 1 breakfast club and 4 after-school clubs that drop offin/pick up from the playground (there is no on-site provision). Activity clubs: drama,football, modern dance, ballet, Spanish (and girls' football planned). The SENCOmakes pupil referrals to external specialist support agencies (eg speech therapist,educational psychologist) as necessary. The school hall is available to thecommunity for commercial lettings out of school hours/holidays.Travel15. Details of the length and journeys to alternative provision.The new primary school will be located on the sites of the current schools. Therewill thus be no increase in the length, or change in the method, of pupils’ journeysto school196

16. The proposed arrangements for travel of displaced pupils to other schoolsincluding how they will help to work against increased car use.No pupils will be displaced by this proposal.Related Proposals17. A statement as to whether in the opinion of the LA or governing body, theproposals are related to any other proposals which may have been, are, or are aboutto be published.These proposals are related to those to close Christ Church Church of EnglandJunior School, Ealing on 31 st August 2011 and to open a new primary school onthe same sites as the existing schools on 1 st September 2011.These proposals are also related to a proposal to expand the new primary schoolby 30 additional places each year from September 2012 to September 2018.Rural Primary Schools18. Where proposals relate to a rural primary school designated as such by anorder made for the purposes of section 15, a statement that the LA or the governingbody (as the case may be) considered:a) the likely effect of discontinuance of the school on the local community;b) the availability, and likely cost to the LA, of transport to other schools;c) any increase in the use of motor vehicles which is likely to result from thediscontinuance of the school, and the likely effects of any such increase; andd) any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school,as required by section 15(4)N/AMaintained nursery schools19. Where proposals relate to the discontinuance of a maintained nursery school,a statement setting out:a) the consideration that has been given to developing the school into achildren’s centre and the grounds for not doing so;b) the LA’s assessment of the quality and quantity of alternative provisioncompared to the school proposed to be discontinued and the proposed arrangementsto ensure the expertise and specialism continues to be available; andc) the accessibility and convenience of replacement provision for local parents.25 FTE nursery places will continue to be offered by the new primary school on thecurrent site of St Saviour’s.Special educational provision20. Where existing provision that is recognised by the LA as reserved for pupilswith special educational needs is being discontinued, a statement as to how the LAor the governing body believes the proposal is likely to lead to improvements in thestandard, quality and/or range of the educational provision for these children.197

N/A198

Appendices1. List of those consulted2. Copy of presentation given at public meetings3. 2 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting4. 7 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting5. 10 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting6. Views of respondents on proposed expansion and amalgamation7. Consultation document and questionnaire8. Consultation letter to staff November 20099. Consultation letter to parents November 200910. Consultation letter to other stakeholders November 200911. Governing Bodies responses to consultation January 201012. Extract from September 2010 Admissions Forum Report13. Results of pupil consultation(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 1: List of those consulted• The Local Authority• The governing body for each of the two schools• All primary schools in the Ealing and Hanwell area were sent information onthe consultation along with details of how to respond• Pupils and their families, teachers and other staff at both schools• All neighbouring authorities whose schools may be affected by the proposals,due to significant cross-border movement of pupils• Trade unions representing staff at the school and staff at other schoolsaffected by the proposals• The governing body and headteacher of all Ealing primary schools• The Diocese of Westminster and the London Diocesan Board for Schools• Ealing borough MPs as well as MPs of neighboring boroughs• Children’s centres• Private nursery providers in the Ealing area• Schools consulted with pupils as they saw fit at this stage• Local residents associations (please see list below)• The schools did a letter drop to all local residents informing them of theconsultation• Local parent and toddler groups• The local Primary Care Trust• Local Anglican churches• The local policeResident’s associations (including):Gunnersbury Drive Residents AssociationThe Grove Estate Residents AssocationCentral Ealing Res AssocBirkdale Residents AssociationThe Lawns Residents AssociationWarwick Road Residents AssociationWestbury And Madeley Roads Residents AssociationWalpole Residents AssociationAscott Avenue Residents Association199

Park View Road (Ealing) ResidentsCentral Ealing Residents' AssociationThe Grange Residents AssociationHanger Hill East Res AssocEaling Fields Res. AssocEaton Rise & Blakesley Residents AssocCreffield Area Res AssocCranmer District Res. AssocNorth & South Residents AssociationGunnersbury Avenue Residents AssociationGrange Road Residents (Ealing) LtdBoston Manor Res. Assoc(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 2: Copy of presentation given at publicmeetingsThis appendix can be viewed via the following link:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/education/investment/psc/_rep_docs/CofE/appendices/amalgamation/2_presentation_public-meeting.pdf(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 3: Minutes of public meeting- 2December 2009ST SAVIOUR’S AND CHRIST CHURCH SCHOOLS, EALINGPARENT CONSULTATION MEETING ONAMALGAMATION AND EXPANSIONWednesday 2 December 2009 2 – 3.15pmheld at St Saviour’s Infant SchoolQUESTIONS AND ANSWERSQ It is clear that there will be a bulge year in 2012, but the latest nationalprojections suggest a 10 – 20% decrease in birth rates; the Greater London Authorityis also revising its figures downwards and there is evidence of outward migration.This gives rise to concern that the figures you are basing school expansion on will notbe correct.A The Local Authority is taking a conservative approach and therefore itspermanent provision is not based on the highest projections on birth rates andmigration. While it is providing up to 25 additional forms of entry across the boroughto cater for ‘bulge’ years from 2010, it has only approved the provision of 16permanent forms of entry. In addition, the Ealing area has historically had a very lowlevel of surplus primary school places. The Local Authority believes that by investingin popular and successful schools with good prospects, supply can create demand.200

Q To what extent are St Saviour’s and Christ Church currently oversubscribed?To what extent would the Christian entrance criteria enable the school to takeadditional pupils from outside the faith?A Historically, St Saviour’s has never had spare places in Nursery or Reception,although this year there are a few places in Reception because of families moving outof Ealing. These places are expected to be filled after Christmas. There is now anincreased pressure on school places in Acton, so increasing numbers of pupils areexpected to come from there in future. The Christian entrance criteria only apply inthe event of oversubscription, so they are not a barrier to accepting pupils.Q These consultations seemed to have been squeezed in at the end of term wheneveryone is busy, and not been advertised enough. Why couldn’t they have beenearlier in the term? And why did it take so long to talk to parents about it in the firstplace – it was first discussed with us in the summer after you had been talking about itfor a year?A The governors have been working extremely hard to make this consultationhappen. It had to take place before Christmas because of the Local Authority’stimescales - decisions on investment have to be made in March or will be delayedbecause of the forthcoming elections. The governors want to emphasise that this is nota ‘done deal’ – there are many hurdles to be overcome such as getting satisfactoryplans for each site and getting enough finance to be able to achieve what they wouldwant for the schools. Once architect’s plans are available, the governors will presentthese to parents.Q To what extent will parents’ views be taken account of in the final decision?The questions in the consultation document seem biased towards gaining a positiveoutcome on expansion. Also, what about staff’s views? They know the schools andtheir needs so much better than parents do.A It will not be a case of ‘counting votes’. The responses to each question in theconsultation document will be looked at individually, but the key question is – do yousupport the proposal or not? In addition, governors would encourage parents to askadditional questions. In terms of staff views, the governors are having a similarmeeting with both staff teams and there are two staff members in addition to theheadteachers on each governing body. The final decision will ultimately be made bythe governing bodies of both schools, using their best judgement having taken intoaccount all responses from parents, staff and children.Q If we don’t get this money now, what level investment can the schools expectin future?A There will be no money for anything beyond the schools’ maintenance – andChrist Church needs more than this to make it fit for the 21 st century.Q You have said that expansion would mean improved educational facilities –will this mean more resources per pupil?201

A No, it will not mean more resources per pupil, but the remodelling of theschools would enable them to provide a better ICT offering, a better school hall, alarger nursery perhaps… A better idea of the improvements that can be offered willnot be known until the initial feasibility studies and architects’ plans have been doneby the Local Authority – however, this involves significant expenditure so the LocalAuthority needs to know that the schools are committed before it undertakes that. Ifthe final decision is then make to proceed with expansion, both schools would appointtheir own architects for the final plans.Q One of the main charms of St Saviour’s is its ‘village school’ atmosphere andcommunity feel. How could this be achieved with three extra classes on site?A St Saviour’s is actually a big school by local standards – its atmosphere hasbeen created by the efforts of the school management.Q Christianity is at the core of St Saviour’s and Christ Church. Don’t we risklosing that ethos and becoming more secular if more non-Christian children attend theschools?A The schools’ Christian ethos lies in their Foundation status and Christiangovernors make up a majority of the governing bodies so this is not at risk. Theschools see an opportunity to exert a beneficial influence on non-Christian childrenand their families. The consultation document has also been sent to our local churchesfor their view – governors recognise the need to look to the community beyond ourcurrent parents, particularly since many children would have left the school by thetime expansion happened.QAWill the presentation used today be made available to parents?Yes, it will be published on both schools’ websites.(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 4: Minutes of public meeting - 7December 2009ST SAVIOUR’S AND CHRIST CHURCH SCHOOLS, EALINGPARENT CONSULTATION MEETING ONAMALGAMATION AND EXPANSIONMonday 7 December 20099 – 10.15amat Christ Church SchoolQUESTIONS AND ANSWERSQ Given all the statistics about the additional school places that Ealing will need,has the local authority not given thought to building new schools?202

A Ealing Council has been looking for appropriate sites but it is difficult to findland that is suitable for schools. It also has to demonstrate value for money to counciltax payers (for example, one available site - the Barclays sports ground - was sold for£10 million).Q If the need to expand the schools has been known about for a considerableperiod of time, why has the Dickens Yard development been allowed to take up somuch space?A The Christ Church governors did raise this with Ealing Council at thebeginning of negotiations with them, but the Council would not amend its plans.In terms of the impact of the Dickens Yard development on Christ Church, there willbe a marginal gain to the school. It is losing some of the Orchard for the constructionof a new building, but it gaining the space currently occupied by the old hall.Q If the schools decide to amalgamate (but not expand), what would the impactbe on the amalgamated school’s budget?A The total budget for the amalgamated school would be £16,000 less than thecurrent combined budgets of the schools (which total around [£4?] million). Althoughthis is a significant amount (and it was accepted that it is equivalent to the amount ofmoney that the St Saviour’s Friends Association has historically handed over eachyear for things needed by the school), it is a relatively small proportion of the totalbudget. A decision to expand would give the schools greater resources.The schools are in fact in a better financial position now than they have beenpreviously. St Saviour’s is only 6 pupils short (which means a £12k reduction in itsfunding, since schools receive £2k per pupil). The deficit of pupils at Christ Church is24, with these numbers concentrated in years 4 and 5. Only 90% of children from StSaviour’s currently continue on to Christ Church and the desire is to increase thisamount – it is possible that with an amalgamated school, fewer would go elsewhereafter Year 2.Q What about the disruption that will be caused to children during the buildingworks?A Clearly there will be an impact - whether or not it will be such as to affectchildren’s educational achievements can be debated. We need to take a long-termview – some do inevitably pay for longer-term gain. If the local authority was to builda new primary school, it would not be a Christian-based school – this is ouropportunity to offer the benefits of a Christian-based education more widely.Q Has it occurred to governors that parents who are in the catchment area of agood local [community] school might choose to send their children there rather thanto St Saviour’s in the event of expansion?A Adding an additional form of entry would make the number of infant childrenon the St Saviour’s site equivalent to the numbers you would have in a through schoolwith two forms of entry. Although St Saviour’s has a wonderful intimate ‘villageschool’ appeal, it is in fact a very big school. It is to the credit of the St Saviour’s203

leadership that it has managed to create this atmosphere with 90 children in each year,and it could do the same with 120 children. The site will remain an ‘infant area’.Q How much thought have you given to creating two schools, each with twoforms of entry? Competition is healthy, so creating two competing ‘good’ or‘outstanding’ schools would surely be a good thing.A We have given it a lot of thought, with the support of an independentconsultant. Key reasons for not choosing that configuration were the competitionissues between the two schools; that there would be slightly more children on eachsite; and that the building works would be more expensive as both sites would have toaccommodate smaller or larger children than currently.Q There are issues about having greater numbers of children in the junior school,such as playtimes being dominated by even more Year 6 children.AQYes, governors do need to find satisfactory answers to this kind of question.Who will make the final decision on amalgamation and expansion?A Ealing Council needs to agree to provide the funding, but the ultimate decisionlies with the governors at both schools. The decision will be made on amalgamationduring the course of the current school year, and on expansion in the Summer Term2010 (depending on satisfactory plans and funding being in place).QWill some of the schools’ current funding be withdrawn if we don’t go ahead?A No, but because of the economic climate, this is the only way that the schoolswill get substantial (ie capital) funding with which to upgrade the sites in the next 5 to10 years.QWhere would the new buildings go? On top?A Some of the preliminary feasibility work by Ealing Council have suggestedthat the buildings would go ‘up’ - there are also other considerations regarding carparks.QAWould there be building on the St Saviour’s nature area?Retaining the nature area will be high up on the brief to the architects.Q What do you mean about there being a better use of resources in anamalgamated/expanded school?A For example, we could have a home economics room, more music rooms forperipatetic teachers and a drama studio. There could be a kitchen capable of cookingbetter quality meals for children on both sites, which would also help the schoolbudget by increasing the take up of school meals (NB - the meals would travel, not thechildren). Year groups could move between the sites (in a highly planned way – eg fora block of time) in order to benefit from the facilities on each.204

QAre the governors pro-expansion?A Both governing bodies have voted in favour of expansion in principle.Between the two governing bodies there are 12 current parents, and the final decisionis genuinely subject to getting satisfactory answers to the questions on funding andplans. We still need more information. The funding we have been allocated is £5.6million for both sites. The London Diocesan Board for Schools has a view that this isenough, and we will be able to judge when we have seen proper plans.Q Having seen the feedback from the questionnaire, will you carry on regardlessof parent concerns? The questions seem to suggest that a decision has already beenmade.A You have to accept that the governors are acting in good faith – it has not beenan easy journey for us and we are doing our best. Current parents, future parent andother stakeholders all have a view. We want to open up communications with parentsand we are genuinely listening and taking note of what you say – we have sufficienttime to take into account parent views and weigh up all the factors.Q This consultation seems to have been squeezed in before Christmas, withoutgiving parents enough time to think about it.A These issues have been raised in both schools for four or five months now.People who cannot attend these meetings can put forward their views in writing.Q Parents are currently very emotional about these issues – many of us have along history with the schools and it is our children’s school experience that is at stake.In order for us to be more objective, we need some more substance from which todraw conclusions.A The governors do need to ask you to suspend judgement. We have not come toyou with plans – we are inviting your comments before we have got to that stage. Weare currently working on a shortlist of architects to give the brief to. Once plans areavailable, they will be made available for you to see.205

(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 5: Minutes of public meeting - 10 December2009EXPANSIONST SAVIOUR’S AND CHRIST CHURCH SCHOOLS, EALINGPARENT CONSULTATION MEETING ONAMALGAMATION AND EXPANSIONThursday 10 December 20097.30 – 8.45 pmat Christ Church Parish HallQUESTIONS AND ANSWERSQ Deborah Pepper’s report mentions 2 x 2form entry schools – what is thethinking against each school being all through?A [DP] One issue is competition – how to decide which school to go to? Eachseparate school would need, for example, both infant and junior toilets. The needs ofReception through to Year 6 would need to be considered in each school. Thebuilding budget would not go as far in 2 x 2 form schools.Q Christ Church’s last Ofsted mentioned the need for more outside space. Howwould that be addressed?A Play space is a critical issue. How we use the play space is most important –we would like to create a quiet area, a football area, a creative area to supportlearning. The use of off site facilities could be developed further – Years 5 & 6already use Fox’s Reservoir and Gurnell swimming pool.Q Budget and funding - £5.6 million is not enough, surely? Where will it comefrom and what will be the quality of work for that money?A [Laurence Field, LA] The Local Authority has already delivered quality newbuilds – eg the award-winning John Perryn and the rebuilt Perivale Primary at a costof £8 million each. They were on budget and fit for purpose. A budget of £5-5.5million is realistic.Governors share the same concerns.Q I do not believe that the sites can support extra children and parents. Doconditions come with the money?A A space feasibility study still has to be done. The architect has to demonstratethat it is feasible.QWhy not build a whole new school instead, eg as part of Dickens Yard?206

A The Local Authority are looking for new sites. They need 16 new forms ofentry = 8 new schools. It is cheaper to expand current good schools.Christ Church did approach Ealing about building a new school on the Dickens Yardsite but this was refused. We are not losing any space in the Dickens Yarddevelopment.QWhat about the safety of the children during building work and the noise?A These are important issues and other schools across the borough are managingin similar circumstances. The Dickens Yard developer has already agreed to provideinsulation and sound proofing at Christ Church.Q There is a suspicion among parents that a decision has already been madewithout consultation. We want the real facts. St Saviour’s opposed expansion at ameeting in the summer; our parent governor has not heard views; this consultation isbeing held for one month at the busiest time of the year; the phrasing of the brochureis manipulative; is parental consent required?A The ultimate decision for expansion lies with all governors, subject toachievability, etc. It is not a democratic vote, but we are taking the views of allstakeholders. We want your input to inform our thinking.The St Saviour’s decision was a majority vote, not unanimous, and we have a duty torepresent sceptics. It is in the interests of all children and parents.Q The slide presentation header “amalgamation and expansion” implies that theschools are joined already. The brochure leads us towards the one school model.A We have been at pains as to know how to provide more data. We feel that ifwe provide a lot of information parents feel that the decision has already been made;if we provide little information parents feel they don’t have sufficient data to considera response. Reports have been made available for parents. If you would like moreinformation please let us know.Q What are the dissenting views of individual governors – we don’t feel we havebeen told all the facts.A No final decisions have been made. No expansion will take place until allconcerns are satisfied. We want to hear concerns from all stakeholders to informarchitects plans.Q What about the options of amalgamation and expansion together orseparately?A We looked to federate but ended recommending amalgamation. Following apositive Vision Day in September we feel more comfortable with the idea ofamalgamation and expansion. These two decisions are linked by time but they areseparate.207

Q Could interested [St Saviour’s] parents visit and have a look round the ChristChurch school site?AYes!Q I have issues with children’s experiences at Christ Church – my child is nothappy with the move to Year 3. What about belonging, self-esteem, long lunchqueues in the hall, head injuries in the playground from balls. Quiet girls aresuffering. There is already pressure with the current number of pupils. How will theymanage even more?A The Headteachers of both schools are present this evening. They would behappy to discuss these issues with you.Q Concerns have been expressed about the pastoral care for children. What areyou doing about them?A Christ Church – the points have been heard and will be addressed regardless offuture development.Q What are Ealing’s figures to support expansion? What are the problems thatother expanding schools are experiencing?A The children have already been born in the borough and will be starting schoolbetween 2010 – 2012.St John’s Primary School’s latest Ofsted ranked them as “good” up from“satisfactory” last time. The other 3 schools have already got bulge Receptionclasses. There are regular design meetings and design quality meetings. There is alot of liaison with the schools. Governors will learn from others in the LocalAuthority.QWhat is the analysis of geographical rates of residence in central Ealing?A The birth rates have risen across Ealing and within the catchments of localschools. The only area in the Borough not expanding is Southall. The admissioncriteria for faith schools allow an intake of children from across the borough.QAWhat are the consequences of not expanding?There would be no capital funding for several years to come.Q Why is it up to St Saviour’s and Christ Church to solve the Council’sadmission problems? The schools are under-subscribed anyway. There is a risk thatthey may end up being “sink” schools. St Saviour’s will loose its family feel.A The ethos of the schools depends on their foundation. St Saviour’s is in factalready a large school which has maintained its intimate atmosphere. This is down to208

the way it is managed. It has already been rebuilt successfully. Governors haveconfidence in the present staff.There is no catchment for St Saviour’s or Christ Church. We will accept any childinto the school, regardless of need – it is part of our mission as Christian schools.Q I understand that 2 properties opposite St Saviour’s are for sale. Why can’tthey be compulsorily purchased to acquire new land for expansion?A This is something that both governing bodies are concerned about. StSaviour’s governors have requested the compulsory purchase of these properties.Christ Church governors have asked the Council for land at the edge of the DickensYard development.Q Are the Local Authority doing as much as they can to find new sites and toconsider the cost of house purchases?A We are at an early stage of consultation. The Local Authority will ultimatelydecide.Qbuild?What about funding? Would the schools be expected to contribute to theA The Council would expect the schools to contribute 10% of the cost. TheGovernors’ strong view is that the schools should contribute nothing.This consultation process is being funded by the Local Authority.Q What happens next ?A Governors will be holding a joint meeting on 12 January 2010. Feedbackfrom consultation together with notes of these meetings will appear on the schools’websites to continue to inform parents.The meeting closed at 9.30pm.209

(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 6: Views of respondents on proposedexpansion and amalgamationST SAVIOUR’S AND CHRIST CHURCH CHURCH OF ENGLANDSCHOOLS, EALINGCONSULTATION ON AMALGAMATION November/December 2009VIEWS OF RESPONDENTS1. The Governors of St Saviour’s and Christ Church Schools undertook a joint consultationexercise in November/December 2009 to seek the views of parents, staff, residents andmembers of the wider Ealing community on two proposals:a. Amalgamationb. ExpansionRespondents were asked for their views separately on the two proposals in two separate sectionson the Feedback Form. It was made clear in the consultation document that these proposals wereseparate and that one could go ahead without the other.2. The overall numbers replying to the consultation exercise were as follows:Category of respondentChrist Church parentsSt Saviour’s parentsChrist Church and St Saviour’s parents(not included above)Staff from both schoolsLocal residents (not parents)Parents of a former pupilProspective parentTotalNumber of responses29544576111433. Overall results for Proposal 1 Amalgamation, expressed in both numbers and percentages,are as follows:StronglyagreeAgree Don’tknowDisagree StronglydisagreeTotalrespondentsNo. %No. %No. %No. %No. %No.The childrenof the 2schools willbenefitThe parentsof the 2schools willbenefit46 34 47 34 12 9 11 8 20 15 13644 32 50 36 16 17 12 9 15 11 137210

The staff ofthe 2 schoolswill benefit 43 31 48 35 27 20 6 4 13 10 137I support theproposal 46 35 47 36 10 8 9 7 19 21 131Overall results: Strongly agree/agree 71%Don’t know 8%Disagree/strongly disagree 21%4. Breaking down the responses to the two proposals by parents and staff groups, resultsare as follows:Proposal 1: AmalgamationI supporttheproposalParents ofCC and SSpupilsStronglyagreeNo. %AgreeNo. %Don’tknowNo.%DisagreeNo. %StronglydisagreeNo. %15 34 15 34 4 9 3 7 7 16 44Parents ofSS pupils 19 36 18 35 5 10 3 6 7 13 52Parents ofCC pupils 10 38 10 38 1 4 1 4 4 15 26Staff 1 14 4 57 0 2 28 0 7Overall results:Stronglyagree/Agree%Don’t knowTotalrespondentsDisagree/StronglyDisagree%%Parents of CC andSS pupils 68 9 23Parents of SS pupils 71 10 19Parents of CC pupils 76 8 15Staff (small sample) 71 0 28Themes from consultation meetings5. Parents asked questions and raised concerns on a range of issues:Amalgamation – comments and questions• reasoning about progression from federation to amalgamation• why have governors moved away from the idea of 2 two form entry primaryschools?211

• whether closer working could be achieved between schools withoutamalgamationConcerns about:• whether funding will be redirected from St Saviour’s to Christ Church• reduction in funding by choosing amalgamation over federation• views of staff to proposed changeThemes from written comments to consultation6. Staff commented as follows:• those staff supporting amalgamation felt it was a logical step given the closelinks between the two schools and would offer good opportunities for staffdevelopment• those opposed to amalgamation cited concerns about the effect on the ethos ofSt Saviour’s and that the interests of infants would be subordinate to juniors7. Parents expressed a wide range of views on amalgamation. Those views expressedmost often are marked with asterisks:ProsConsContinuity and smooth transition would Split site will make successful amalgamationbenefit children and parents *too difficult to achieve**Streamlined admissions procedureLoss of focus on Early Years and KS1 **Natural progression from federationLoss of funding compared with hard federationOpportunity to improve school kitchen **facilitiesLoss of caring and nurturing ethos of StAdvantages for career development for Saviour’s **staffFunding will be reallocated from St Saviour’s toChrist ChurchUpheaval for staffTwo schools need two headsWould prefer 2 two form entry primaries to a 4form entry primaryNeed to manage the transition successfullyST SAVIOUR’S AND CHRIST CHURCH CHURCH OF ENGLANDSCHOOLS, EALINGCONSULTATION ON EXPANSION November/December 2009VIEWS OF RESPONDENTS3. The Governors of St Saviour’s and Christ Church Schools undertook a joint consultationexercise in November/December 2009 to seek the views of parents, staff, residents andmembers of the wider Ealing community on two proposals:a. Amalgamationb. Expansion212

Respondents were asked for their views separately on the two proposals in two separate sectionson the Feedback Form. It was made clear in the consultation document that these proposals wereseparate and that one could go ahead without the other.4. The overall numbers replying to the consultation exercise were as follows:Category of respondentChrist Church parentsSt Saviour’s parentsChrist Church and St Saviour’s parents(not included above)Staff from both schoolsLocal residents (not parents)Parents of a former pupilProspective parentTotalNumber of responses29544576111433. Overall results for Proposal 2 Expansion, expressed in both numbers andpercentages, are as follows:Expansionwould mean wecould:Improveeducationalfacilities for allpupilsHelp meet thegrowing demandfor school placesin the boroughOffer morenursery placesExtend Christianeducation incentral EalingStronglyagreeNo. %12 9 181320 15 5742Agree16 15 464224 19 5140I support theproposal 15 10 2417No. %Don’tknowNo. %26181813242213101410DisagreeStronglydisagreeTotalNo. No. % No.%26 18 59 42 1418 6 34 25 1374 4 19 17 1098 6 32 25 12811 8 78 55 142Overall results: Strongly agree/agree 27%Don’t know 10%Disagree/strongly disagree 63%4. Breaking down the responses to the two proposals by parents and staff groups, resultsare as follows:213

Proposal 2: ExpansionI supporttheproposalStronglyagreeNo. %AgreeNo. %Don’tknowNo.%DisagreeNo. %StronglydisagreeNo. %Parents ofCC and SSpupils 1 2 5 11 6 13 3 7 30 67 45Parents ofSS pupils 6 11 9 17 6 11 3 5 30 56 54Parents ofCC pupils 6 20 8 27 2 7 4 13 10 33 30Staff 1 14 2 29 0 1 14 3 43 7TotalrespondentsOverall results:Stronglyagree/Agree%Don’t knowDisagree/StronglyDisagree%%Parents of CC andSS pupils 13 13 74Parents of SS pupils 28 11 61Parents of CC pupils 47 7 46Staff (small sample) 43 0 57Themes from consultation meetings5. Parents asked questions and raised concerns on a range of issues:Expansion – comments and questions• are new places really needed since schools are not currently full?• why is the LBE not proposing to build a new school to accommodate theadditional children?• how would remodelled buildings be to the benefit of all pupils?• how would the 10% contribution to funding be financed?• impact on access to capital funding if schools decide not to proceed withexpansion• options for overall building enhancements if expansion goes ahead• whether allocated capital funding is adequate• options to acquire additional properties currently for sale opposite St Saviour’sConcerns about:• loss of character and change of ethos at St Saviour’s if school enlarged• playspace and nature area at St Saviour’s will be adversely affected byadditional buildings• dilution of schools’ Christian character because more non Christian childrenmight attend• loss of play space at Christ Church through rebuilding214

• sites at both schools too small to accommodate additional children at work andplay• safety and welfare of children during building workProcess – comments and questions• consultation too close to Christmas• questions on consultation document did not allow expression of full range ofviews• many parents wanted more information particularly about building design• how the decision making process for amalgamation and expansion operatedand how the responses of parents and staff would be factored in6. Themes from written comments to consultationStaff commented as follows:• concerns that site, particularly of St Saviour’s, too small to accommodateexpansion without loss of amenity and ethos7. Local residents commented as follows on the expansion proposal:• concerns about increased traffic, possibilities of accidents for children andresidents, increased pollution, inconsiderate parking and driving by parents8. Parents expressed a wide range of views. Those views expressed most often aremarked with asterisks:Pros• Can help meet the educationalneeds of children in Ealing• More children will have access toChristian educationCons• Sites of both schools are too small toaccommodate extra pupils *****• Loss of playspace ***• Dilution of Christian ethos becauseadditional places will be taken by pupils whosefamilies are not Christian ***• There will be insufficient Christian childrento fill the school; schools are currentlyundersubscribed **• Disruption caused by building works**• 4 form entry is too big; schools are alreadybig enough and CC playground alreadycramped *• Quality of education may be compromisedby expansion; changes at CC not yet embedded• To fill the schools, children with SEN, whohave been excluded or have behaviouralproblems may be admitted• Issues of access, parking and safety• Additional work required of schoolleadership and governing bodies to implementamalgamation and expansion will detract fromwork on improving standards215

• Funding will be insufficient for buildingwork needed by two schools and Christ Churchwould take the lion’s shareInevitably, respondents opposed to a proposal wrote at greater length than those whosupported a proposal.9. Questions raised most regularly were:• What will the new buildings look like and what facilities will be available?• Why don’t LBE build a new school?• How will the quality of education be maintained and enhanced ifamalgamation and expansion are embarked upon?• What is the case for amalgamation over federation?• How will the need of children for adequate play space be met?• What is the proposed timetable for these initiatives?• What would the new leadership structure look like?• What will be the practical effects of amalgamation and expansion on the dayto day running of the school?(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 7: Consultation document andquestionnaireThis appendix can be viewed via the following link:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/education/investment/psc/_rep_docs/CofE/appendices/amalgamation/7_consultation-document-andquestionnaire.pdf216

(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 8: Consultation letter to staff -November 2009Dear ColleaguePreliminary Consultation for Federation and ExpansionAs you know, the governing bodies recently received a request from the local authority to expand ourschools by one form of entry from 2012. At the same time, we have also been reviewing the success ofthe federation between St Saviour’s and Christ Church and considering the best future relationshipbetween the two schools.Since then, the governing bodies of both schools have undertaken a thorough assessment of the options,working together and separately to explore all options and seeking expert external advice to inform usin different areas.In all respects, our aim has been to be vision led, not needs driven, and to explore how theseopportunities can be used to achieve the best outcomes for children in ‘Learning to excel at life’. Webelieve that these issues present us with a unique opportunity to develop Christian education forprimary school children in central Ealing.As a result, the Governing Bodies of both schools wish to seek a preliminary response from allstakeholders in the school, including staff, to two specific proposals as follows:1. Firstly that St Saviour’s and Christ Church Schools amalgamate to form one primary schoolcatering for children from nursery to year 6.2. Secondly that the schools work with the Local Authority to implement a plan to expand by oneform of entry from 2012 subject to a satisfactory agreement on funding and an appropriate planfor the development on the current school sites.The consultation runs from 23 rd November to 21 st December 2009. The proposals are notinterdependent and one could be developed without the other.The attached document sets out these proposals for the future of the schools in more detail and includesa response form. Governors will be available at the staff meeting on Monday 7 th December at 3.30pmto discuss these proposals further and hear your views. We are also planning to invite Chris Prowse,the schools’ personnel adviser at LBE to attend a staff meeting to discuss any issues you may wish toraise with him. Copies of the consultation document have also been sent to the trades unionsrepresenting staff employed in the schools.Yours faithfully217

(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 9: Consultation letter to parents -November 2009218

(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 10: Consultation letter to otherstakeholders - November 2009Dear StakeholderPreliminary consultation on a proposal for expansion and amalgamation of St Saviour’s CE Infant Schooland Christ Church CE Junior School, EalingWe are writing to let you know that the Governing Bodies of the two schools have recently issued a consultationdocument seeking the views of all the schools’ stakeholders on the above proposals. We have written separately toparents, staff and governors about the proposals and are addressing this letter to others consultees, includingprospective parents, other schools, local providers of children’s services, local churches, local councillors and MPsand local residents. The consultation will run from 23rd November to 21st December 2009.The schools have been approached by the Local Authority with a request to provide 30 additional places forreception age children (those aged 4 and 5) in 2012 to meet the growing demand for school places within theBorough.These children would then move up through the schools so numbers would increase by 30 each year until theinitial intake reached age 11. All expansion plans are, of course, subject to planning processes and a period ofstatutory representation.The request to expand places came at a time when the schools were already working more closely together in a‘soft federation’. The Governing Bodies have therefore taken the opportunity to develop a broader vision for thetwo schools to enable them to deliver excellence in Christian education for the primary school children in centralEaling.As a result, the Governing Bodies of both schools wish to seek a preliminary response from stakeholders on twospecific proposals as follows:• Firstly that St Saviour’s and Christ Church Schools amalgamate to create a primary school providingeducation to children from nursery to aged 11 and• Secondly, that the schools work with the Local Authority to implement a plan to expand by one form ofentry from 2012, subject to an appropriate plan for the development on the current school sites andsuitable agreements on funding.These proposals are currently at an early stage of development. They are not interdependent and it would bepossible to proceed with one and not the other.The consultation document sets out these proposals for the future of the schools in more detail and indicates howyou can respond. It is available from the school offices or on each school’s website as follows:St Saviour’s: www.stsavioursealing.net Christ Church: http://www.lgfl.net/lgfl/leas/ealing/schools/christchurchPlease return the consultation form to either school at the addresses below, marking it for the attention of the Chairof Governors.St Saviour’s CE Infant and Nursery School, The Grove, Ealing, London W5 5DXorChrist Church CE Junior School, New Broadway, Ealing, London W5 2XAThe Governing Bodies recognise that stakeholders will have a range of different interests in the proposals. Inparticular, they will be contacting local residents’ associations to offer them the opportunity of a consultationmeeting.We do hope you will be excited about the future opportunities for our schools. If there are particular issues onwhich you would like more information, please contact either of the Chairs of Governors, the signatories to thisletter, through their respective schools. We look forward to hearing from you.Yours faithfully219

Richard EastmondChair of GovernorsSt Saviour’s CE Infant SchoolMark SheardChair of GovernorsChrist Church Junior School(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 11: Governing bodies responses toconsultation - January 2010220

(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 12: Extract from September 2010admissions forum reportCHANGES TO THE PUBLISHED ADMISSION NUMBERS (PANs) FORSCHOOLSProposals for permanent expansions from September 2012The Council are planning to publish statutory notices to permanently expandthe following schools from September 2012. The notices are due to bepublished in the autumn term 2010.• Ravenor primary school – by 1FE, increasing from 60 to 90• East Acton primary school – by 1FE, increasing from 30 to 60In addition the following Governing Bodies (in consultation with the relevantDiocesan Authorities) will be publishing notices for the following schools from 2012.These notices are also due to be published in the autumn term 2010.• Christ Church/ St Saviours CofE – by 1FE, increasing from 90 to 120 (there isalso a proposal to amalgamate the schools)• St Gregory’s Catholic school – by 1FE, increasing from 60 to 90• New 2FE Catholic primary school in West Acton, Holy Vale.The West London Academy have also gained approval from DfE to expand theprimary phase by 1FE, from 60 to 90. A detailed consultation process will beundertaken with residents and parents in order to create a suitable scheme for all.(St Saviour’s closure) Appendix 13: Results of pupil consultationSt. Saviour’s CE Infant SchoolThese are the views of years 1 and 2 following discussions in their classes.ExpansionThe overriding view expressed was that it would be nice to have a bigger schoolbecause they would have more friends to play with.DisagreeNot enough space for the new classes.• Would like St Saviours to stay the same.• Not enough space in the playground.• More accidents in the playground.• We would need more staff to make it nicer. Harder for adults to manage morechildren.• Get annoying having more children – more problems.• If builders come may miss school.221

• More new children will mean that current friends may go off with themAmalgamationAgreeYear 2 on the whole liked working with Yr 3 and Yr 4.• They thought that they could see more of their brothers or sisters.• Would make more friends with the children in Christchurch because theycould play with them• Make friends because we would all belong to one school.• Liked the idea of both schools having one name.• Liked the idea of one uniformDisagree• Won’t have our St Saviours uniform.• Too many children in the school222

St Saviour’s CE Infant and Christ Church CE Junior SchoolsPreliminary Consultation Questionnaire for Amalgamation and ExpansionDecember 2009School: Christ ChurchYear Group: 3 4 5 61. The amalgamation of St Saviour’s and Christ Church will benefit the pupilsAgree Disagree Don’t know3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6TotalTotalTotal43 31 28 2712927 28 43 3413210 10 1 627The benefits of amalgamation will be;• Knowing each other well• Keep families close together• Older children may have a chance toplay with the younger children• We will meet more children• We won’t need to reapply for theJuniors• We can share after school clubs• Better communication• We won’t have to get used to a newHeadteacher• It will help relationships• Transition won’t be difficult• There will be one set of rules• One uniform is cheaper and better forfamiliesThe drawbacks of amalgamation will be;• The Headteacher in one school mightlose their job• We like the differences between thetwo schools• Separate schools gives opportunity tobreak and make new friendships• It will be difficult to be one schoolon two sites• Problems with having whole schoolevents• The Hall would have to be bigger sothe playground would have to besmaller?• The Headteacher can’t deal withproblems on two sites• How can the HT take assemblies onboth sites?• Too tiring for the HTIf the plans go ahead the following things will need to be considered;• People will need to be informed about the changes and be happy• A place where the whole school can meet up• New Cloakrooms• School uniform / badge / motto• We need a good name• We will need to spend the money fairly• Privileges for the older children• Where does the HT spend their time?• How do we take school photos?• Would the school join together for Productions and other events2. The expansion of St Saviour’s and Christ Church will benefit the pupilsAgree Disagree Don’t know223

3 4 5 6Total40 33 44 421593 4 5 6Total26 24 24 261003 4 5 6Total14 11 11 945The benefits of expansion will be;• We will make more friends• School will be more exciting• There will be lots of children tocheer you up• There will be new spaces in thebuildingThe drawbacks of expansion will be;• Crowded playground / ICT suite• Waiting for Lunch• Disturbance during the building work• Lots of noise• We will need more equipment224

MATTERS TO BE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 15 PROPOSALS TO DISCONTINUE ASCHOOLExtract of Schedule 4 to The School Organisation (Establishment andDiscontinuance of Schools)(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended):Contact details1. The name of the LA or governing body publishing the proposals, and acontact address, and the name of the school it is proposed that should bediscontinued.The Governing BodyChrist Church Church of England Junior SchoolNew BroadwayEaling W5 2XAImplementation2. The date when it is planned that the proposals will be implemented, or, wherethe proposals are to be implemented in stages, information about each stage and thedate on which each stage is planned to be implemented.31 st August 2011Consultation3. A statement to the effect that all applicable statutory requirements to consultin relation to the proposals were complied with.The Governing Body has complied with all applicable statutory requirements toconsult in relation to the proposals.4. Evidence of the consultation before the proposals were published including:a) a list of persons and/or parties who were consulted;b) minutes of all public consultation meetings;c) the views of the persons consulted; andd) copies of all consultation documents and a statement of how these weremade available.The following groups were sent copies of the St Saviour’s and Christ Churchconsultation document and survey questionnaire, which included theproposed amalgamation of St Saviour’s and Christ Church schools. A list isincluded as Appendix 1:• The Local Authority• The governing body for each of the two schools• Pupils and their families, teachers and other staff at both schools• All neighbouring authorities whose schools may be affected by theproposals, due to significant cross-border movement of pupils• The governing body and headteacher of all Ealing primary schools• Trade unions representing staff at the school and staff at other schoolsaffected by the proposals225

• The diocesan authorities• Local MPs, including those MPs whose constituents may be affected bythe proposals• Local residents associations• Local community groups and cultural associations• Private nursery providers in the surrounding area• Local parent and toddler groups• The local Primary Care Trust• Ealing Borough, Metropolitan Police• Local churches(e) The governing bodies of both existing schools were in favour of the proposalfor the amalgamation of the two schools from September 2011.a. Public meetings were organised by the governing bodies inDecember 2009 during the period of formal consultation, with LArepresentatives in attendance, at which both amalgamation andexpansion were discussed. A copy of the presentation given oneach occasion is attached at Appendix 2. Meetings were held asshown below and notes of the meetings are attached in appendices:• 2 December 2009, 2pm at St Saviour’s Infant School (Appendix 3)• 7 December 2009, 9am at Christ Church Junior School (Appendix 4)• 10 December 2009, 7.30pm at Christ the Saviour Parish Hall (Appendix5)• (There were also LA meetings with the chairs of governors and headteachers that were not minuted.)• Staff meetings and school assemblies that discussed the issues were notminuted.h) St Saviour’s and Christ Church fully consulted on amalgamation andseparated the issue from expansion in their November 2009 publicconsultation, ensuring stakeholders were aware that either proposal could goahead without the other. The views of respondents on amalgamation areoutlined in Appendix 6.) The consultation document relating to the St Saviour’s and Christ Churchproposal is attached at Appendix 7 and was made available in the followingways:• All schools in Ealing were sent copies of the public consultation paper andquestionnaireooThe issues covered by the consultation paper were also raised atschool governor and staff meetings, assemblies and addressed inschool newsletters throughout 2009 and 2010.Representatives of the LA and the London Diocesan Board forSchools have held ongoing discussions with the schools’ chairs ofgovernors and head teachers.• The chairs of governors for both schools addressed a joint letter to staff inautumn 2009, which included amalgamation of the two schools fromSeptember 2011 (Appendix 8)• A letter and survey questionnaire were sent directly to the other226

stakeholder groups listed in section 5 (a). The accompanying letter toparents is attached at Appendix 9 and to other stakeholders at Appendix10.• Copies of the consultation document were made available on the schools’websites, which can be found at:http://webfronter.com/ealing/christchurch/ [the website is in the course ofbeing updated at present] andhttp://www.webfronter.com/ealing/stsaviours. Respondents were invited tocontact the Chairs of Governors through the schools if they wished todiscuss issues raised by the consultation.• The Governing Bodies formal views on expansion and amalgamation afterconsidering the results of the consultation are included as Appendix 11.• An extracts from the report to the Schools Admissions Forum inSeptember 2010 where the proposals were discussed are included asAppendices 12.• Pupils at both schools also participated in the consultation; a summary oftheir views is included as Appendix 13.Objectives5. The objectives of the proposal.The objectives of the proposal are to close both Christ Church and St Saviour’sSchools, Ealing and then immediately open a new Voluntary Aided Church ofEngland primary school on the same sites. The objectives of the proposal are:• to promote high educational standards by developing continuity andconsistency in teaching and learning• to ensure seamless transition for pupils through the school from EarlyYears to Key Stage 2• to offer enhanced career opportunities for staff• to share best practice, resources and expertise for the benefit of all pupils,current and prospective, of the new school within a strong Christian ethos.Standards and Diversity6. A statement and supporting evidence indicating how the proposals will impacton the standards, diversity and quality of education in the area.The closure of the school will not change the current diversity of education in thearea since a new primary school, with the same admission number, willi di t l th it d ll il t Ch i t Ch h ill b ff d227

community and society and achieve economic well being.Provision for 16-19 year olds7. Where the school proposed to be discontinued provides sixth form education,how the proposals will impact on:a) the educational or training achievements;b) participation in education or training; andc) the range of educational or training opportunities,for 16-19 year olds in the area.N/ANeed for places8. A statement and supporting evidence about the need for places in the areaincluding whether there is sufficient capacity to accommodate displaced pupils.No pupils will be displaced by these proposals as it is proposed that all pupils willautomatically transfer to the new primary school which forms part of theseproposals.9. Where the school has a religious character, a statement about the impact ofthe proposed closure on the balance of denominational provision in the area and theimpact on parental choice.The new Church of England primary school, to be opened immediately after theclosure of Christ Church, will provide the same number of places as at present forchildren of junior school age for parents and carers who are seeking a Church ofEngland education for their children. There is thus no impact on the balance ofdenominational provision or parental choice in the area.Current School Information10. Information as to the numbers, age range, sex and special educational needsof pupils (distinguishing between boarding and day pupils) for whom provision ismade at the school.Current provision at Christ Church is for 360 boys and girls aged 7 - 11, in schoolyears three to six; the Pupil Admission Number [PAN] is 90 per year. The numberof pupils registered at the school (as at 18 October 2010) was 325 full-time pupilsaged 7 to 11; 79 in year 3, 84 in year 4, 76 in year 5 and 86 in year 6. There is noprovision for boarding.As at 1 st September 2010, there were 4 statemented pupils, 15 on School ActionPlus and 25 on School Action. There were 325 pupils in school at the start of theSeptember term 2010.Displaced Pupils11. Details of the schools or FE colleges which pupils at the school for whomprovision is to be discontinued will be offered places, including:a) any interim arrangements;228

) where the school included provision that is recognised by the LA as reservedfor children with special educational needs, the alternative provision to be made forpupils in the school’s reserved provision; andc) in the case of special schools, alternative provision made by LAs other thanthe authority which maintains the school.No pupils will be displaced as a result of this proposal. The new school will providethe same number of junior aged places as are currently provided by Christ Church.All pupils at Christ Church at the time of its closure will be transferred to the roll ofthe new primary school to be established on the sites of St Saviour’s and ChristChurch Schools. Junior aged provision will remain on the Christ Church site.Parents may, if they wish, choose to apply for a place at any other school whereplaces are available.12. Details of any other measures proposed to be taken to increase the numberof school or FE college places available in consequence of the proposeddiscontinuance.N/AImpact on the Community13. A statement and supporting evidence about the impact on the community andany measures proposed to mitigate any adverse impact.There should be no adverse impact on the community. The same number of junioraged school places will be offered at the new primary school as are currentlyoffered at Christ Church. Junior aged provision will continue to be offered on theChrist Church site.14. Details of extended services the school offered and what it is proposed forthese services once the school has discontinued.The current provision is as follows and would be developed further in the newschool. There are 3 after-school clubs that pick children up from the playground(there is no on-site provision). Activity clubs include Ealing Music ServiceOrchestra (available to schools pupils in local area), dance, Lego, street hockey,cricket, netball, gardening club, newspaper club. The school is looking at setting upa drama and football club in near future. The SENCO makes pupil referralsto external specialist support agencies (e.g. educational psychologist) asnecessary. The school is let to the LA Ealing Playscheme for use in most schoolholidays.Travel15. Details of the length and journeys to alternative provision.The new primary school will be located on the sites of the current schools. Therewill thus be no increase in the length, or change in the method, of pupils’ journeysto school.16. The proposed arrangements for travel of displaced pupils to other schoolsincluding how they will help to work against increased car use.229

No pupils will be displaced by this proposal.Related Proposals17. A statement as to whether in the opinion of the LA or governing body,the proposals are related to any other proposals which may have been, are, orare about to be published.These proposals are related to those to close St Saviour’s Church of EnglandInfant and Nursery School on 31 st August 2011 and to open a new primary schoolon the same sites as the existing schools on 1 st September 2011.They are also related to the proposal to expand the new primary school by 30additional places each year from 2012 to 2018.Rural Primary Schools18. Where proposals relate to a rural primary school designated as such by anorder made for the purposes of section 15, a statement that the LA or the governingbody (as the case may be) considered:a) the likely effect of discontinuance of the school on the local community;b) the availability, and likely cost to the LA, of transport to other schools;c) any increase in the use of motor vehicles which is likely to result from thediscontinuance of the school, and the likely effects of any such increase; andd) any alternatives to the discontinuance of the school,as required by section 15(4)N/AMaintained nursery schools19. Where proposals relate to the discontinuance of a maintained nursery school,a statement setting out:a) the consideration that has been given to developing the school into achildren’s centre and the grounds for not doing so;b) the LA’s assessment of the quality and quantity of alternative provisioncompared to the school proposed to be discontinued and the proposed arrangementsto ensure the expertise and specialism continues to be available; andc) the accessibility and convenience of replacement provision for local parents.N/ASpecial educational provision20. Where existing provision that is recognised by the LA as reserved for pupilswith special educational needs is being discontinued, a statement as to how the LAor the governing body believes the proposal is likely to lead to improvements in thestandard, quality and/or range of the educational provision for these children.N/A230

Appendices1. List of those consulted2. Copy of presentation given at public meetings3. 2 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting4. 7 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting5. 10 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting6. Views of respondents on proposed expansion and amalgamation7. Consultation document and questionnaire8. Consultation letter to staff November 20099. Consultation letter to parents November 200910. Consultation letter to other stakeholders November 200911. Governing Bodies responses to consultation January 201012. Extract from September 2010 Admissions Forum Report13. Results of pupil consultationN.B. These appendices are included as part of the previous proposal to close StSaviour’s, the appendices are the same as for this proposal to close Christ Church.231

Information required to be included in section 10 and 11 Complete Proposals toestablish a mainstream school outside of a competition.Enter the information required in the expandable boxes below.Extract of Part 1 of Schedule 3 to The School Organisation (Establishment andDiscontinuance of Schools)(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended):Contact Details1. The name of the proposer or proposers and a contact address.The London Diocesan Board for SchoolsLondon Diocesan House36 Causton StreetLondon SW1P 4AU2. Whether the proposals are being submitted independently or jointly withanother proposer or proposers.Independently.Category3. The type of school that it is proposed be established (a foundation schooland, if so, whether it is to have a foundation, a voluntary school or a communityschool) and, if required by section 10, a statement that the Secretary of State’sconsent has been obtained to publication of the proposals.It is proposed that the school to be established is a Voluntary Aided Church ofEngland Primary School. As required by section 10, the Secretary of State’s consenthas been obtained to publish these proposals.Consultation4. A statement to the effect that all applicable statutory requirements to consultin relation to the proposals have been complied with.All applicable statutory requirements to consult in relation to the proposals have beencomplied with.5. Evidence of the consultation before the proposals were published including —a) a list of persons and/or parties who were consulted;b) minutes of all public consultation meetings;c) the views of the persons consulted; andd) copies of all consultation documents and a statement of how these weremade available.(c) The following groups were sent copies of the Christ Church and St Saviour’sconsultation document and survey questionnaire, which included the proposedamalgamation of St Saviour’s and Christ Church schools, a list is included as

Appendix 1:• The Local Authority• The governing body for each of the two schools• Pupils and their families, teachers and other staff at both schools• All neighbouring authorities whose schools may be affected by theproposals, due to significant cross-border movement of pupils• The governing body and headteacher of all Ealing primary schools• Trade unions representing staff at the school and staff at other schoolsaffected by the proposals• The diocesan authorities• Local MPs, including those MPs whose constituents may be affected by theproposals• Local residents associations• Local community groups and cultural associations• Private nursery providers in the surrounding area• Local parent and toddler groups• The local Primary Care Trust• Ealing Borough, Metropolitan Police• Local Anglican churches(f) The governing bodies of both existing schools were in favour of the proposal forthe amalgamation of the two schools from September 2011.a. Public meetings were organised by the governing bodies in December2009 during the period of formal consultation, with LA representativesin attendance, at which both amalgamation and expansion werediscussed. A copy of the presentation given on each occasion isattached at Appendix 2. Meetings were held as shown below andnotes of the meetings are attached in appendices:• 2 December 2009, 2pm at St Saviours Infant School (Appendix 3)• 7 December 2009, 9am at Christ Church Junior School (Appendix 4)• 10 December 2009, 7.30pm at Christ the Saviour Parish Hall (Appendix 5)• (There were also LA meetings with the chairs of governors and headteachers that were not minuted.)• Staff meetings and school assemblies that discussed the issues were notminuted.) St Saviour’s and Christ Church fully consulted on amalgamation and separatedthe issue from expansion in their November 2009 public consultation, ensuringstakeholders were aware that either proposal could go ahead without the other.The views of respondents on amalgamation are outlined in Appendix 6.k) The consultation document relating to the St Saviour’s and Christ Churchproposal is attached at Appendix 7 and was made available in the followingways:• All schools in Ealing were sent copies of the public consultation paper andquestionnaireoThe issues covered by the consultation paper were also raised at school

ogovernor and staff meetings, assemblies and addressed in schoolnewsletters throughout 2009 and 2010Representatives of the LA and the London Diocesan Board for Schoolshave held ongoing discussions with the schools’ chairs of governors andhead teachers.• The chairs of governors for both schools addressed a joint letter to staff inautumn 2009, which included amalgamation of the two schools fromSeptember 2011 (Appendix 8)• A letter and survey questionnaire were sent directly to the other stakeholdergroups listed in section 5 (a). The accompanying letter to parents isattached at Appendix 9 and to other stakeholders at Appendix 10.• Copies of the consultation document were made available on the schools’websites, which can be found at: http://webfronter.com/ealing/christchurch/[the site is currently under reconstruction] andhttp://www.webfronter.com/ealing/stsaviours. Respondents were invited tocontact the Chairs of Governors through the schools if they wished todiscuss issues raised by the consultation.• The Governing Bodies formal views on expansion and amalgamation afterconsidering the results of the consultation are included as Appendix 11.• An extracts from the report to the Schools Admissions Forum in September2010 where the proposals were discussed are included as Appendices 12.• Pupils at both schools also participated in the consultation; a summary oftheir views is included as Appendix 13.Objectives6. The objectives of the proposal.The objectives of the proposal are to close St Saviour’s and Christ Church Schools,Ealing and replace them immediately with a new Voluntary Aided Church of Englandprimary school on the same sites. The objectives of the proposal are:• to promote high standards by developing continuity and consistency inteaching and learning• to ensure seamless transition for pupils through the school from Early Yearsto Key Stage 2• to offer enhanced career opportunities for staff• to share best practice, resources and expertise for the benefit of all pupils,current and prospective, of the new school within a strong Christian ethos.Extended Services7. Information on the extended services which it is envisaged will be provided onthe site of the school.The school would build on and further improve the current provision which is asfollows:St Saviour'sThere is 1 breakfast club and 4 after-school clubs that drop off in/pick up from theplayground (there is no on-site provision). Activity clubs: drama, football, moderndance, ballet, Spanish (and girls' football planned). The SENCO makes pupil referrals

to external specialist support agencies (e.g. speech and language therapist,educational psychologist) as necessary. The school hall is available to thecommunity for commercial lettings out of school hours/holidays.Christ ChurchThere are 3 after-school clubs that pick children up from the playground (there is noon-site provision). Activity clubs: Ealing Music Service Orchestra (available toschools pupils in local area), dance, Lego, street hockey, cricket, netball, gardeningclub, newspaper club. Looking at drama club and football in near future. The SENCOmakes pupil referrals to external specialist support agencies (e.g. speech andlanguage therapist, educational psychologist) as necessary. The LAPlayscheme uses the site during most school holidays.Pupil numbers and admissions8. Information on —a) the number of pupil places the school should provide;b) the upper and lower age limits of the school;c) where it is intended that it should provide sixth form education, the number ofpupils for whom it is intended that such education should be provided;d) where it is intended that it should provide nursery education, the number ofpupils for whom it is intended that such education should be provided;e) where it is intended that the school should provide for boarding pupils, thenumber of pupils for whom it is intended such facilities should be provided;f) the number of pupils to be admitted to the school in each relevant age groupin the first school year in which the proposals will be implemented or, where it isintended that the proposals should be implemented in stages, the number of pupils tobe admitted to the proposed school in each stage that the proposals will beimplemented;g) whether it is proposed that the school should admit pupils of both sexes orboys or girls only and, in the case of a single sex school where it is intended toprovide sixth form education, whether both sexes or boys or girls only are to beadmitted to the sixth form.a) The school should provide places for 630 pupils of statutory school age.b) The school will serve pupils between the ages of 3 and 11.c) N/Ad) 25 FTE places, currently 25 morning and 25 afternoon. Children will be offered 5x 3 hour sessions i.e. 15 hours per week.e) N/Af) Pupils at the predecessor schools will be pupils at the new schoolg) The school will admit both boys and girls.Ethos/Religious Character9. A short statement suitable for publication setting out the proposed ethos ofthe school, including details of any educational philosophy, which it is proposed thatthe school will adhere to.

The proposed school will deliver a high quality of education for children of primaryschool age within a Christian setting which values the uniqueness of each child andensures that their needs are known, understood and addressed.Within the framework of Christian faith and values, the national primary strategy andthe principles of Every Child Matters, the school will seek to develop a creative andinclusive curriculum which helps children achieve well and become confident andmotivated learners.The school will work closely with pupils, parents, staff, governors and the widercommunity, in shaping and developing the future of the school.10. If the school is to have a religious character, confirmation of the religion orreligious denomination in accordance with whose tenets religious education will, ormay be required to be provided at the school; and a statement that the proposersintend to ask the Secretary of State to designate the school as a school with such areligious character.The proposers intend to ask the Secretary of State to designate the school as aChurch of England school. Religious education will be provided in accordance withthe teachings of the Church of England.Area or community that school serves11. The area or particular community or communities which the new school isexpected to serve.The school will serve families in the London Borough of Ealing or other adjacent localauthority areas where parents/carers are seeking primary education in a Christiansetting for their children.Admission Arrangements12. An indication of the proposed admission arrangements and over-subscriptioncriteria for the new school including, where the school is proposed to be a foundationor voluntary school or Academy which is to have a religious character —a) the extent to which priority for places is proposed to be given to children ofthe school’s religion or religious denomination; andb) the extent, if any, to which priority is to be given to children of other religionsor religious denominations or to children having no religion or religious denomination.. The proposed admissions arrangements for the new primary school are set outbelow (these arrangements will be consulted upon through the admissions forum inearly 2011. For entry into reception in September 2011 arrangements will be as theyare currently):LONDON DIOCESAN BOARD FOR SCHOOLSPARISH OF CHRIST THE SAVIOUR - EALINGProposed Primary School – New C of E Primary SchoolProposed Admission Criteria 2012ADMISSION POLICY AND APPEALSThe admission number for each year is 90The school does not have a local “catchment area” and is thus open to any childliving in the London Borough of Ealing or any other local authority area.- Applications are considered by the Admissions Committee of the

Governing Body.- Parents are informed of the decision and their right of appeal by letterApplicants applying under criteria a, b, c, d, e, f and g should complete aSupplementary Information Form so that the governors can consider theapplication fully.Ethos and valuesThe school’s philosophy is centred in the Christian Faith and seeks to create anenvironment in which Christian values influence every activity and relationship andwe promote the intellectual, spiritual, moral, social, cultural, aesthetic and physicaldevelopment of each individual pupil to the maximum of his/her potential.We ask all parents applying for a place here to respect this ethos and its importanceto the school community. This does not affect the right of parents who are not of thefaith of this school to apply for and be considered for a place here.In allocating places the Governors apply the following criteria in this order:d) Looked after children (*a)e) The parent(s) or guardian and child have a weekly attendance for at least2 years at a Church of England church, with active involvement in churchactivities (*b). Priority will be given to parents in this criterion who haveanother child attending the school at the time of entry.f) The parent(s) or guardian and child attend weekly at a Church of Englandchurch. Priority will be given to parents in this criterion who have anotherchild attending the school at the time of entry.g) The parent(s) or guardian and child attend a Church of England churchtwice a month. Priority will be given to parents in this criterion who haveanother child attending the school at the time of entry.h) The parent(s) or guardian and child attend weekly at another ChristianChurch (*c). Priority will be given to parents in this criterion who haveanother child attending the school at the time of entry.i) The parent(s) or guardian and child attend twice a month at anotherChristian Church. Priority will be given to parents in this criterion whohave another child attending the school at the time of entry.j) The parent(s) or guardian and child are practising members of other worldfaiths (*e). Priority will be given to parents in this criterion who haveanother child attending the school at the time of entry.k) The child or the child’s family has a particular social/medical or personalneed. This application should be supported by a letter from theapplicant’s parish priest, religious leader, medical consultant or otherappropriate body, which will be treated in the strictest confidence, andwhich clearly states why it is necessary for the child to attend Christ TheSaviour School and the difficulties that would be caused if the child had toattend another school.l) In all categories where there are more children than places remaining,priority will be given to those applicants whose homes are closest to theschool gate in terms of walking distance. (*f) (In cases where a child isresident in more than one home the location of the nearest home to theschool will be used)”Notes:

(*a) A “looked after child” is a child who is in the care of a local authority orprovided with accommodation by that authority.(*b) The Governors regard the following as signs of active involvement within theChurch of England:• The child is baptised.• At least one parent or guardian is a member of the Electoral Roll ofthe Parish.• At least one parent or guardian holds a recognized position ofresponsibility or involvement within the church.(*c)(*d)(e*)(f*)A similar degree of commitment to other denominations is expected forapplications falling under criteria e & f above.The term Christian Church is taken to mean any Church affiliated to ChurchesTogether in Britain and Ireland and/or members of the Evangelical Alliance.Sibling refers to brother or sister, half brother or sister, adopted brother orsister, step brother or sister, or the child of the parents/carers partner wherethe child for whom the school place is sought is living in the same family unitat the same address as that siblingThe governors regard the following as signs of practicing members of otherworld faiths• At least one parent has attended a meeting of the local religiouscommunity on a weekly basis for a minimum of two years• At least one parent holds a recognized position of responsibility orinvolvement within the local religious communityIn cases where a child spends part of the week in one location with aparent/guardian, and part of the week in another with another parent/guardianwhere they are ‘resident’ shall be deemed to be the location of the nearesthome to the school.Tie BreakIn all categories where there are more children than places remaining, prioritywill be given to those applicants whose homes are closest to the school gatein terms of walking distance (*f). (In cases where a child is resident in morethan one home the location of the nearest home to the school will be used)Where two applications have the same distance random allocation will beused.In year applications:Applications for In-Year admissions are made in the same way as thosemade during the normal admissions round. If a place is available and there isno waiting list then the local authority will communicate the governors’ offer ofa place to the family. If more applications are received than there are placesavailable then applications will be ranked by the governing body inaccordance with the oversubscription criteria with the followingmodifications: children without an offer of a school place are given priorityimmediately after other ‘looked-after’ children. If a place cannot be offered atthis time then you may ask us for the reasons and you will be informed ofyour right of appeal. You will be offered the opportunity of being placed on a

waiting list. This waiting list will be maintained by the governing body in theorder of the oversubscription criteria, as modified above, and not in the orderin which the applications are received. Names are removed from the list at theend of each academic year. When a place becomes available the governingbody will decide who is at the top of the list so that the LEA can inform theparent that the school is making an offer.Any child whose application is unsuccessful can be placed on a waiting list which willbe kept for a term at the request of the parents/guardian. Admissions from thewaiting list will also be dealt with in accordance with the criteria above.Any child whose application is unsuccessful can be placed in a ‘pool’ at the requestof the parents/guardian. Admissions from the ‘pool’ will also be dealt with inaccordance with the criteria above.If a child is not offered a place at the school an appeal may be lodged against thedecision. Forms are available from the school and should be returned to:Committee Section (Stephen Noble/Mike Davidson)Ealing Town HallNew BroadwayEalingW5 2BYORFax: 020 8825 7220The appeal hearing will take place as soon as possible in accordance with theprovisions of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.If an application is received after the given date it will be regarded as a lateapplication, put in the ‘pool’ and be dealt with in accordance with the criteria aboveAFTER the closing date.Grammar schools13. Where the school is to be established in substitution for one or morediscontinued grammar schools, a statement to this effect and a statement that theschool may be designated as a grammar school for the purpose of Chapter 2 of Part3 of SSFA 1998.N/ASchools with a religious character or particular educational philosophy –parental demand14. Where the school is —a) proposed to have a religious character, evidence of the demand in the areafor education in accordance with the tenets of the religion; orb) proposed to adhere to a particular philosophy, evidence of the demand foreducation in accordance with the philosophy in question that is not already met inother maintained schools or Academies in the area.

a) As at 18 October 2010, St Saviour’s Infant and Nursery School had 268 pupils onroll compared with a capacity of 270. There were 50 (PTE) pupils in the nursery, 90pupils in Reception, 89 pupils in year 1 and 89 pupils in year 2. St Saviour’s nurseryhas always been highly oversubscribed. In 2009, the Reception year at St Saviour’shad around 150 applications for its 90 places for admission in September 2010.As at 18 October 2010, 325 children were registered at Christ Church Junior School.There were 79 pupils in year 3, 84 in year 4, 76 in year 5 and 86 in year 6. In 2009,Christ Church had 79 first preference applications for 90 places for admission inSeptember 2010.The London Borough of Ealing is experiencing a substantial rise in birth rates with aconsequent increase in demand for reception places. The LA’s projections includean assumption that the demand for Church of England places will increase in linewith the overall increase in demand for school places. There is currently only oneother Church of England primary school in the Borough.Sixth Form Education15. Where it is proposed that the school will provide sixth form education, how theproposals will —a) improve the educational or training achievements;b) increase participation in education or training; andc) expand the range of educational or training opportunities,for 16-19 year olds in the area.N/AEarly Years Provision16. Where the proposals are to include provision for pupils aged between 2 and5, the following information must be provided —a) details of how the early years provision will be organised, including thenumber of full-time and part-time pupils, the number of places, the number andlength of sessions in each week, and the services for disabled children that will beoffered;b) how the school will integrate the early years provision with childcare services,and how the proposals for the establishment of the school are consistent with theintegration of early years provision with childcare;c) evidence of parental demand for additional provision of early years provision;d) assessment of capacity, quality and sustainability of provision in schools, andin settings outside of the maintained school sector who deliver the Early YearsFoundation Stage within 3 miles of the school; ande) the reasons why schools and settings outside the maintained school sectorwho deliver the Early Years Foundation Stage within 3 miles of the school and whohave spare capacity, cannot make provision for any forecast increase in the numbersof such children.a) In the Nursery, there are 25 FTE pupils (25 pupils in the morning and 25pupils in the afternoon, with 5 sessions of 3 hours each per week in eachcase. In Reception, there are 90 full time places. In terms of services fordisabled children, St Saviour’s as a whole has wheelchair access, a toiletfor the disabled, a stair lift and patio access to all ground floor classes, and

children with disabilities would have full access to the nursery/Early Yearscurriculum.b) No childcare services are currently offered although the school actively cooperateswith local external providers of child care. The local area is well servedwith pre-school childcare provision, and the school has good contacts withproviders e.g. they are involved in the travel plan group; the adjacent privatenursery is willing to drop off and pick up children from the St Saviour’s Nursery aspart of their attendance at the nursery for the rest of the day.c) Applications for the Nursery always far exceed the number of placesd/e) This proposal, to open a primary school to replace the current infant and juniorschools, does not change the capacity of the nursery. Nevertheless, as a result ofthe overall increase in the birth rate in Ealing and the popularity of St Saviour’snursery, the demand for nursery places significantly exceeds the numbers ofplaces available.Specialisms17. Whether the school will have any specialisms on implementation and whetherthe promoter intends to apply to the Secretary of State for the school to be aspecialist school from implementation.N/AEffects on Standards and Contributions to School Improvement18. Information and supporting evidence on:a) how the school will contribute to enhancing the diversity and quality ofeducation in the area; andb) how the school will help to raise the standard of education in the area andcontribute to school improvement.The Governing Body of the new school hope to appoint an experienced, permanentprimary headteacher to build on the strengths and address any weaknesses incurrent provision and ensure that there is continuity in the quality of learning andconsistency in standards and methodologies across the key stages. As the onlyChurch of England primary school in central Ealing, the school will seek to offerexcellent teaching and learning embedded in a strong Christian ethos.19. Information and supporting evidence on how the proposals will contribute toenabling children and young people to be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve,make a positive contribution to the community and society, and achieve economicwell-being.St Saviour’s was inspected in June 2010 by OFSTED and the school was judged tobe ‘good’. A denominational (SIAS) inspection at around the same time identifiedsignificant strengths in the school’s current provision.Christ Church was inspected in October 2010 but the results of the inspection are notavailable at the time of publication.The Governing Body of the new school will aim to build on the strengths andaddress any weaknesses in the legacy of how children and young people areenabled to be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution tothe community and society and achieve economic well being.

Community Cohesion20. The following information relating to the proposals —a) how the school will promote and contribute to community cohesion;b) how the school will increase inclusion and equality of access for all socialgroups; andc) how the school will collaborate with other schools, and in relation tosecondary school proposals how the new school will collaborate with colleges andtraining providers.a) The school would build on and further develop the schools’ current approach tocommunity cohesion including building on the strong partnership with parents. Theschools raise money for national and international charities throughout the year. Theschools have had visits from members of the local community to share with thechildren their various interests and talents, such as when the St Saviour’s childrenperform for a Senior Citizens' Tea Party. St Saviour’s has a DCSF InternationalAward in the light of the school’s strong global perspective. The schools have hostedvisits from representatives from different community groups from abroad.b) As outlined in the proposed admissions criteria, the school would not have a“catchment area” and would thus be open to any child living in the London Boroughof Ealing or any adjacent local authority area whose parents/carer was seeking aChurch of England primary education for them.c) The school would continue to work with other schools. St Saviour’s for examplehas lead teachers in the ‘Assessing Pupil Progress’ assessment approach fornumeracy, who are working with another infant school in Ealing. The school is alsosharing expertise with schools in Wandsworth, Brent and Tower Hamlets, andthrough the Church Heads group for Hounslow and Ealing. Christ Church hasdeveloped a partnership with Twyford Church of England High School in support ofthe musical activities in their school.Single sex or co-educational school21. Where the school is to admit pupils of a single sex —a) evidence of local demand for single sex education and how this will be met ifthe proposals are approved; andb) A statement giving details of the likely effect the alteration will have on thebalance of provision of single sex education in the area.N/ALocation22. A statement about —a) the location of the site (including, where appropriate, the postal address oraddresses if the school is to occupy a split site);b) whether the school will occupy a single or split site;c) the accessibility of the site (or if the school is to occupy a split site theaccessibility of the accommodation);d) the current ownership and tenure (freehold or leasehold) of the site and theproposed use of any buildings already on the site;

e) details of the tenure (freehold or leasehold) on which the site of the school willbe held, and if the site is to be held on a lease, details of the proposed leaseincluding details of any provisions which could obstruct the governing body or thehead teacher in the exercise of any of their functions under any of the Education Actsor place indirect pressures upon funding bodies;f) whether the site is currently used for the purposes of another school whichwill no longer be required for the purposes of that school. If so, provide details as towhy the site will no longer be required for the purposes of that school; andg) the estimated costs of providing the site and a statement about how the costswill be met.a) The Grove, Ealing, London W5 5DX and New Broadway, Ealing, London W5 2XAb) The main address for the school, the site of nursery and infant provision, will beThe Grove, Ealing, London W5 5DX and the second address, the site of junioraged provision, will be New Broadway, Ealing, London W5 2XA. The school willoccupy a split site.c) The school’s sites are situated in a central Ealing location, with good publictransport links. The schools currently are committed to providing a fullyaccessible environment which values and includes all pupils, staff, parentsand visitors regardless of their educational, physical, sensory, social,spiritual, emotional and cultural needs. St Saviour’s has wheelchair access,a toilet for the disabled, a stair lift and patio access to all ground floorclasses. Christ Church, as an older school, has more physical accessibilityissues but plans, over time, to increase the accessibility of provision for allpupils, staff and visitors to the school. Children with disabilities have fullaccess to the curriculum and take full part in school activities.d) Both school sites are owned by the Vicar and Churchwardens of Christ theSaviour Church and are held on educational trusts for the education of children.The buildings on the school sites will continue to be used for the education of thechildren in the primary school.e) See d) abovef) N/Ag) N/AImplementation23. The date when it is planned that the proposals will be implemented, or wherethe proposals are to be implemented in stages, information about each stage and thedate on which each stage is planned to be implemented.The proposals will be implemented on 1 st September 2011 when the new primaryschool opens.24. Where the proposals are to establish a voluntary controlled or foundationschool, a statement as to whether the proposals are to be implemented by the LA orby the proposers, and if the proposals are to be implemented by both,a) a statement as to the extent that they are to be implemented by each body,and

) a statement as to the extent to which the capital costs of implementation areto be met by each body.N/AProject Costs25. A statement of the estimated capital cost of the proposals and the extent towhich the costs are to be met by the proposers and/or the LA.N/A26. A copy of a confirmation from the Secretary of State or LA or the Learningand Skills Council for England (as the case may be) that funds will be made available(including costs to cover any necessary site purchase).N/A27. Details of how it is proposed to fund the proposer’s share of the capital costsof implementing the proposals (if any).N/ATravel28. The proposed arrangements for travel of pupils to the school.Pupils will continue to travel to the new school by the same means as at present.The schools are well served by public transport - buses, underground andoverground services. St Saviour’s has an active travel plan group consisting of policeand other local stakeholders. Pupils, parents and carers, as well as staff, areencouraged to either walk to school or to use a bicycle or scooter whenever possible.The school provides adequate space where these can be safely secured during theday. Christ Church similarly encourages children to cycle or walk to school or comeby public transport. The schools do not have a catchment area so where pupils needto travel some distance by car, the schools have made arrangements with a local carpark for free parking at drop off and collection times.Federation29. Details of any proposals for the school to be federated with one or moreschools (by virtue of section 24 of EA 2002 and section 12).N/ACurriculum30. Confirmation that the school will meet the general requirements in relation tocurriculum contained in section 78 of EA 2002 and an outline of any provision thatwill be in addition to the basic curriculum required by section 80 of EA 2002, inparticular any 14-19 vocational education.The school will meet the general requirements in relation to curriculum contained inSection 78 of EA2002.

Voluntary aided schools31. In addition, where the school is to be a voluntary aided school —a) details of the Trust on which the site is to be held; andb) confirmation that governing body will be able and willing to carry out theirobligations under Schedule 3 to SSFA 1998.a) Both school sites are owned by the Vicar and Churchwardens of Christ theSaviour Church and are held on educational trusts for the education of children.The buildings on the school sites will continue to be used for the education of thechildren in the primary school.b) The Governing Body will be able and willing to carry out their obligations underSchedule 3 to SSFA 1998. Form 18 has been submitted to the London Borough ofEaling in support of this proposal.Staff32. Not applicable – removed by amending Regulations.Foundation Schools33. Where the school is to be a foundation school, confirmation as to whether thenew school —a) will have a foundation established otherwise than under SSFA 1998 and, ifso, the identity of that foundation;b) will belong to a group of schools for which a foundation body acts undersection 21 of SSFA 1998; orc) will not fall within sub-paragraph (a) or (b).34. Where the school is to be a foundation school which has a foundation:a) the name of the foundation where known;b) the rationale for the foundation and the particular ethos that it will bring to theschool;c) the details of membership of the foundation, including the names of themembers;d) the entitlement to appoint charity trustees and the number of trustees to beappointed;e) the proposed constitution of the governing body;f) details of the foundation’s charitable objects;

g) where the majority of governors are to be foundation governors, a statementthat a parent council will be established in accordance with section 23A of EA 2002;h) a statement that the requirements set out in the School Organisation(Requirements as to Foundations) (England ) Regulations will be met;i) a statement of how the foundation will contribute to the advancement ofeducation at the school and how it is envisaged it will help to raise standards; andj) a statement of how the foundation will contribute to the advancement ofcommunity cohesion and the impact the foundation will have on the diversity ofschool provision in the area.Special educational needs35. Information as to whether the school will have provision that is recognised bythe LA as reserved for children with special educational needs and, if so, the natureof such provision and the proposed number of pupils for whom such provision is tobe made.N/A36. Details of the proposed policy of the school relating to the education of pupilswith special educational needs.The SEN policy of the new school would build on the schools’ current approach. TheSt Saviour’s SEN policy commits to the following: “The school is committed toproviding an appropriate and high quality education to all the children attending ourschool. We believe that all children, including those identified as having specialeducational needs have a common entitlement to a broad and balanced academicand social curriculum, which is accessible to them, and to be fully included in allaspects of school life. We believe that all children should be equally valued in school.We will strive to eliminate prejudice and discrimination, and to develop anenvironment where all children can flourish and feel safe. We are committed toinclusion. Part of the schools’ strategic planning for improvement is to developcultures, policies and practices that include all learners. We aim to engender a senseof community and belonging, and to offer new opportunities to learners who mayhave experienced previous difficulties.“37. Where the school will replace existing educational provision that would berecognised by the LA as reserved for children with special educational needs:a) a statement on how the proposer believes the proposal is likely to lead toimprovements in the standard, quality and/or range of educational provision for thesechildren;b) details of the specific educational benefits that will flow from the proposals interms of —i) improved access to education and associated services including thecurriculum, wider school activities, facilities and equipment with reference to the LA’sAccessibility Strategy;

ii) improved access to specialist staff, both education and other professionals,including any external support and/or outreach services;iii)iv)N/Aimproved access to suitable accommodation; andimproved supply of suitable places.Relevant experience of proposers38. Evidence of any relevant experience in education held by the proposer, orproposers (other than a local authority) including details of any involvement in theimprovement of standards in education.The proposer, the London Diocesan Board for Schools (the education department ofthe Church of England Diocese of London) supports and nurtures 149 Londonschools (including 5 academies).Planning permission39. Where the establishment of the new school involves development for thepurpose of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a statement as to whetherplanning permission has been obtained and, if it has not been obtained, details ofwhen it is anticipated that it will be obtained.N/AIndependent schools entering the maintained sector40. A statement that the requirements of section 11 (3) are met.N/A41. A statement as to whether the premises will meet the requirements of theEducation (School Premises) Regulations 1999 and, if not:a) details of how the premises are deficient; andb) details of how it is intended to remedy the deficiency.The premises will meet the requirements of the Education (School Premises)Regulations 1999.

Appendices1. List of those consulted2. Copy of presentation given at public meetings3. 2 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting4. 7 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting5. 10 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting6. Views of respondents on proposed expansion and amalgamation7. Consultation document and questionnaire8. Consultation letter to staff November 20099. Consultation letter to parents November 200910. Consultation letter to other stakeholders November 200911. Governing Bodies responses to consultation January 201012. Extract from September 2010 Admissions Forum Report13. Results of pupil consultationN.B. These appendices are included as part of the previous proposal to close StSaviour’s and Christ Church, the appendices are the same as for those proposals.

Appendix 12: Statutory notice and full proposal for the expansion of the newChurch of England Primary SchoolLondon Borough of Ealing Statutory Notice for a proposed enlargement to thenew Church of England primary school.PROPOSALS FOR PRESCRIBED ALTERATIONS OTHER THAN FOUNDATIONPROPOSALS: Information to be included in a complete proposalExtract of Part 1 of Schedule 3 and Part 1 of Schedule 5 to The School Organisation(Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools)(England) Regulations 2007 (asamended):In respect of a Governing Body Proposal: School and governing body’s details51. The name, address and category of the school for which the governing body arepublishing the proposals.Not applicable. The Local Authority is publishing the proposals.In respect of an LEA Proposal: School and local education authority details2. The name, address and category of the school.Currently:1. St Saviour’s Church of England Infant and Nursery School,The Grove, Ealing, London W5 5DX2. Christ Church Church of England Junior School,New Broadway, Ealing, London W5 2XASubject to Cabinet approval from September 2011:New Church of England primary schoolInfant and Nursery department - The Grove, Ealing, London W5 5DXJunior department - New Broadway, Ealing, London W5 2XAThis will be a Church of England voluntary aided primary school.Contact details for the proposers are:Holly Morgan-Smith,Perceval House 2/NE/3,14-16 Uxbridge Road,EalingW5 2HLEmail: hmorgansmith@ealing.gov.ukWebsite: www.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/consultations/Implementation and any proposed stages for implementation52. The date on which the proposals are planned to be implemented, and if they areto be implemented in stages, a description of what is planned for each stage, and thenumber of stages intended and the dates of each stage.Currently the governing bodies of both schools and the Diocesan board have linked statutory

proposals to close both St Saviour’s Church of England (CE) Infant and Nursery School, andChrist Church CE Junior School, and open a new Church of England Voluntary Aided PrimarySchool in September 2011 to replace them. All subject to Cabinet approval.The purpose of this proposal is to permanently increase the new school’s Published AdmissionNumber (PAN) from September 2012, when an increase of 30 additional pupils will be admittedinto the reception year. Up to 120-reception age pupils will be admitted in each subsequentyear. Building work will be undertaken to ensure that age-appropriate accommodation isavailable at the relevant times at each of the two sites. Expansion of nursery provision is beingconsidered but would not be implemented until 2013 at the earliest.Objections and comments53. A statement explaining the procedure for making representations, including —(a) the date prescribed in accordance with paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 (GBproposals)/Schedule 5 (LA proposals) of The School Organisation (PrescribedAlterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), bywhich objections or comments should be sent to the local education authority; and(b) the address of the authority to which objections or comments should be sent.Within six weeks (by 10 th December 2010) from the date of publication of the Statutory Notice,any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by sending representations tothe London Borough of Ealing.The Notice was published in the Ealing Gazette series on Friday 29 th October 2010, and theclosing date for representations will be by close of business on Friday 10 th December 2010.Any representations should be sent to:Holly Morgan-Smith, Perceval House 2/NE/3, 14 - 16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2HL.Email: hmorgansmith@ealing.gov.ukAlteration description54. A description of the proposed alteration and in the case of special schoolproposals, a description of the current special needs provision.The London Borough of Ealing proposes to permanently increase the PublishedAdmission Number (PAN) for the new primary school, to admit 120 receptionpupils (an additional 30 pupils per year group) from September 2012. This willbe achieved through the addition of new accommodation at each of the sites,meeting the needs of the increased numbers of pupils in the nursery and in allseven-year groups, and ensuring that age-appropriate accommodation isavailable at the relevant times.School capacity55.—(1) Where the alteration is an alteration falling within any of paragraphs 1 to 4, 8, 9 and 12-14 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/paragraphs 1-4, 7, 8, 18, 19 and 21 ofSchedule 4 (LA proposals) to The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations toMaintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), the proposals mustalso include —(a) details of the current capacity of the school and, where the proposals will alterthe capacity of the school, the proposed capacity of the school after the alteration;

The pre-expanded school’s net capacity, which assesses the physical space of the school(excluding the nursery), is 630, 270 on the infant and nursery site, and 360 on the junior site.Once the proposals have been implemented and necessary building works completed theproposed capacity will be 840, 360 on the infant and nursery site, and 480 on the junior site.(b) details of the current number of pupils admitted to the school in each relevantage group, and where this number is to change, the proposed number of pupils to beadmitted in each relevant age group in the first school year in which the proposalswill have been implemented;The current number of pupils admitted at St Saviour’s Infant and Nursery School (as atSeptember 2010) is up to 270 from reception to year 2, plus 50 part-time equivalent (25 fulltimeequivalent) nursery places. And the current number of pupils admitted at Christ ChurchJunior School (as at September 2010) is up to 360 from year 3 to year 6,The current admission number for both of the schools for pupils in reception to year 6 is 90.The proposed permanent admission number will be 120 from September 2012. In the first yearfollowing implementation of the proposals, up to 120 pupils will be admitted to the receptionyear.Current number as at September 2010St Saviour’s CE (VA) Infant & Nursery Christ Church CE (VA) Junior TotalNursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R-650 (Part-time) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630Proposed new primary school opens in September 2011Proposed number at September 2012Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650(Part-time) 120 90 90 90 90 90 90 660(c) where it is intended that proposals should be implemented in stages, thenumber of pupils to be admitted to the school in the first school year in which eachstage will have been implemented;The school’s published planned admission number (PAN) will increase to 120 for receptionaged pupils starting in September 2012, and each subsequent year thereafter. This will not beaffected by the phased building work.Proposed September 2012Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650(Part-time) 120 90 90 90 90 90 90 660Proposed September 2013Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650(Part-time) 120 120 90 90 90 90 90 690Proposed September 2014Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650Part-time) 120 120 120 90 90 90 90 720Proposed September 2015Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650(Part-time) 120 120 120 120 90 90 90 750Proposed September 2016Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650(Part-time) 120 120 120 120 120 90 90 780

Proposed September 2017Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650(Part-time) 120 120 120 120 120 120 90 810Proposed September 2018Nursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R – 650 (Part-time) 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 840(d) where the number of pupils in any relevant age group is lower than theindicated admission number for that relevant age group a statement to this effect anddetails of the indicated admission number in question.Not applicable.(2) Where the alteration is an alteration falling within any ofparagraphs 1, 2, 9, 12 and 13 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 18 ands 19 of Schedule 4 (LA proposals) toThe School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to MaintainedSchools) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended), a statementof the number of pupils at the school at the time of the publicationof the proposals.The number of pupils registered at each of the schools (as at 18 October 2010) was 325 fulltimepupils aged 7 to 11, 268 full-time pupils aged 4 to 7, and 50 part-time pupils aged 3 and 4.As follows:St Saviour’s CE (VA) Infant & Nursery Christ Church CE (VA) Junior TotalPart-time pupils Full-time pupils Full-time pupilsNursery YrR Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Year R-650 (PTE) 90 89 89 79 84 76 86 593Implementation56. Where the proposals relate to a foundation or voluntary controlled school astatement as to whether the proposals are to be implemented by the local educationauthority or by the governing body, and, if the proposals are to be implemented byboth, a statement as to the extent to which they are to be implemented by each body.The local authority, in full consultation with the new governing body, will implement the proposals,as the proposed new school does not yet have a governing body.Additional Site57.—(1) A statement as to whether any new or additional site will be required ifproposals are implemented and if so the location of the site if the school is to occupya split site.No new or additional site will be required in addition to the two sites that already make up the newschool.(2) Where proposals relate to a foundation or voluntary school a statement as to whowill provide any additional site required, together with details of the tenure (freeholdor leasehold) on which the site of the school will be held, and if the site is to be heldon a lease, details of the proposed lease.

Not applicable.Changes in boarding arrangements58.—(1) Where the proposals are for the introduction or removal of boardingprovision, or the alteration of existing boarding provision such as is mentioned inparagraph 8 or 21 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/7 or 14 of Schedule 4 to TheSchool Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England)Regulations 2007 (as amended) —(a) the number of pupils for whom it is intended that boarding provision will bemade if the proposals are approved;Not applicable.(b)the arrangements for safeguarding the welfare of children at the school;Not applicable.(c) the current number of pupils for whom boarding provision can be made and adescription of the boarding provision; andNot applicable.(d) except where the proposals are to introduce boarding provision, a descriptionof the existing boarding provision.Not applicable.(2) Where the proposals are for the removal of boarding provisionsor an alteration to reduce boarding provision such as is mentionedin paragraph 8 or 21 of Schedule 2 (GB proposals)/7 or 14 ofSchedule 4 (LA proposals) to The School Organisation (PrescribedAlterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 (asamended) —(a) the number of pupils for whom boarding provision will be removed if theproposals are approved; andNot applicable.(b) a statement as to the use to which the former boarding accommodation willbe put if the proposals are approved.Not applicable.Transfer to new site59. Where the proposals are to transfer a school to a new site the followinginformation—(a) the location of the proposed site (including details of whether the school is tooccupy a single or split site), and including where appropriate the postal address;Not applicable.(b)the distance between the proposed and current site;

Not applicable.(c)the reason for the choice of proposed site;Not applicable.(d)the accessibility of the proposed site or sites;Not applicable.(e) the proposed arrangements for transport of pupils to the school on its newsite; andNot applicable.(f) a statement about other sustainable transport alternatives where pupils arenot using transport provided, and how car use in the school area will be discouraged.Not applicable.Objectives60. The objectives of the proposals.The objectives of the proposal are to:• Meet the need for additional school places by increasing the:o PAN from 90 to 120 for admissions to reception from September 2012 onwardso Denominational provision for parents seeking a Church of England primary education fortheir children. The proposed new primary school would be one of only two Church ofEngland primary schools in the London Borough of Ealing.• Remodel and expand existing facilities to provide suitable accommodation for 50 nurserychildren and 120 pupils per primary year group throughout the school.• To support the school in progressing towards the objectives contained within the PrimaryStrategy for Change (PSfC), via the provision of suitable accommodation.Consultation61. Evidence of the consultation before the proposals were published including—(a) a list of persons who were consulted;(b) minutes of all public consultation meetings;(c) the views of the persons consulted;(d) a statement to the effect that all applicable statutory requirements in relationto the proposals to consult were complied with; and(e) copies of all consultation documents and a statement on how thesedocuments were made available.

(d) The following groups were sent copies of the Christ Church and St Saviour’sconsultation document and survey questionnaire, which included the proposedincremental increase in the new school’s published admission number fromSeptember 2012 onwards. A fill list in included as Appendix 1:• The Local Authority• The governing body for each of the two schools• Pupils and their families, teachers and other staff at both schools• All neighbouring authorities whose schools may be affected by theproposals, due to significant cross-border movement of pupils• The governing body and headteacher of all Ealing primary schools• Trade unions representing staff at the school and staff at other schoolsaffected by the proposals• The diocesan authorities• Local MPs, including those MPs whose constituents may be affected by theproposals• Local residents associations• Local community groups and cultural associations• Private nursery providers in the surrounding area• Local parent and toddler groups• The local Primary Care Trust• Ealing Borough, Metropolitan Police• Local churches(g) The governing bodies for both existing schools were conditionally in favour ofthe proposal for expansion of the proposed new school from September 2012onwards.a. Public meetings were organised by the governing bodies, with LArepresentatives in attendance at which expansion was discussed. A copyof the presentation given on each occasion is attached at Appendix 2.Meetings were held as shown below and notes of the meetings areattached in the appendices indicated:• 2 December 2009, 2pm at St Saviours Infant School (Appendix 3)• 7 December 2009, 9am at Christ Church Junior School (Appendix 4)• 10 December 2009, 7.30pm at Christ the Saviour Parish Hall (Appendix 5)• There were also LA meetings with the chair of governors and head teacherthat were not minuted.• Staff meetings and school assemblies that discussed the issues were alsonot minuted.(l) St Saviour’s and Christ Church fully consulted on expansion and separated theissue from amalgamation in their November 2009 public consultation, ensuringstakeholders were aware that either proposal could go ahead without the other.The views of respondents on expansion are outlined in Appendix 6.The LA included reference to possible expansions in the voluntary aided sectorwhilst consulting on the expansion of its community schools. Although unlike with

the Church of England (CE) schools’ consultation, the LA’s accompanyingquestionnaire did not ask respondents their views on the possible expansion ofthe existing or proposed new voluntary aided CE primary school. Theconsultation document did however review some wider principles around primaryprovision across the Borough, and the need for more places, including those inthe voluntary aided sector.(m) All applicable statutory requirements in relation to the proposals have beencomplied with.(n) The consultation document relating to the St Saviour’s and Christ Churchproposal is attached in Appendix 7 and was made available in the followingways:• All schools in Ealing were sent copies of the public consultation paper andquestionnaireoThe issues covered by the consultation paper were also raised at schoolgovernor and staff meetings, assemblies and addressed in schoolnewsletters throughout 2009 and 2010o Representatives of the LA and the London Diocesan Board for Schoolshave held ongoing discussions with the schools chairs of governors andhead teachers.• The chairs of governors for both schools addressed a joint letter to staff inautumn 2009, which included possible expansion from 3FE to 4FE fromSeptember 2012. (Appendix 8).• A letter and survey questionnaire were sent directly to the other stakeholdergroups listed in section 11 (a). The accompanying letter to parents isattached at Appendix 9 and to other stakeholders at Appendix 10. Copiesof the consultation document were made available on the schools’ websites,which can be found at: http://webfronter.com/ealing/christchurch/ andwww.webfronter.com/ealing/stsaviours . Respondents were invited tocontact the Chairs of Governors through the schools if they wished todiscuss issues raised by the consultation.• The Governing Bodies formal views on expansion and amalgamation afterconsidering the results of the consultation are included as Appendix 11.• Extracts from the report to Cabinet of 26 January 2010 and the report to theAdmissions Forum in September 2010 where the proposals were discussedare included as Appendices 12 and 13.• Pupils at both schools also participated in the consultation; a summary oftheir views is included as Appendix 14.• In order to encourage the public to respond to the statutory proposal stage,the LA intends to circulate a final questionnaire, which will highlight theissues specific to several schools, including St Saviour’s and Christ ChurchSchools, which have published statutory proposals. Copies will again besent to all interested parties listed above, and will run for the last six weeksof the representation period.• To further encourage the public to respond to the statutory proposal stage,local authority officers will be available to attend governing body meetingsand public evening meetings where required. The results/minutes of suchmeetings will be collated, and will be covered in the final report to Cabinet inJanuary 2011.

Project costs62. A statement of the estimated total capital cost of the proposals and thebreakdown of the costs that are to be met by the governing body, the local educationauthority, and any other party.Local Authority early indicative estimates are for approximately £6 million, which will be borne bythe Local Authority.63. A copy of confirmation from the Secretary of State, local education authority andthe Learning and Skills Council for England (as the case may be) that funds will bemade available (including costs to cover any necessary site purchase).The Local Authority confirms that funding will be made available for this project.Age range64. Where the proposals relate to a change in age range, the current age range forthe school.Not applicable.Early years provision65. Where the proposals are to alter the lower age limit of a mainstream school sothat it provides for pupils aged between 2 and 5—(a) details of the early years provision, including the number of full-time and parttimepupils, the number and length of sessions in each week, and the services fordisabled children that will be offered;Not applicable.(b) how the school will integrate the early years provision with childcare servicesand how the proposals are consistent with the integration of early years provision forchildcare;Not applicable.(c)evidence of parental demand for additional provision of early years provision;Not applicable.(d) assessment of capacity, quality and sustainability of provision in schools andin establishments other than schools who deliver the Early Years Foundation Stagewithin 3 miles of the school; andNot applicable.(e) reasons why such schools and establishments who have spare capacitycannot make provision for any forecast increase in the number of such provision.Not applicable.

Changes to sixth form provision66. (a) Where the proposals are to alter the upper age limit of the school so that theschool provides sixth form education or additional sixth form education, a statementof how the proposals will—(i) improve the educational or training achievements;(ii) increase participation in education or training; and(iii) expand the range of educational or training opportunitiesfor 16-19 year olds in the area;Not applicable.(b) A statement as to how the new places will fit within the 16-19 organisation in anarea;Not applicable.(c) Evidence —(i) of the local collaboration in drawing up the proposals; and(ii) that the proposals are likely to lead to higher standards and betterprogression at the school;Not applicable.(d) The proposed number of sixth form places to be provided.Not applicable.67. Where the proposals are to alter the upper age limit of the school so that theschool ceases to provide sixth form education, a statement of the effect on the supplyof 16-19 places in the area.Not applicable.Special educational needs68. Where the proposals are to establish or change provision for special educationalneeds—(a) a description of the proposed types of learning difficulties in respect of whicheducation will be provided and, where provision for special educational needsalready exists, the current type of provision;Not applicable.(b) any additional specialist features will be provided;Not applicable.(c)the proposed numbers of pupils for which the provision is to be made;Not applicable.(d)details of how the provision will be funded;

Not applicable.(e) a statement as to whether the education will be provided for children withspecial educational needs who are not registered pupils at the school to which theproposals relate;Not applicable.(f) a statement as to whether the expenses of the provision will be met from theschool’s delegated budget;Not applicable.(g) the location of the provision if it is not to be established on the existing site ofthe school;Not applicable.(h) where the provision will replace existing educational provision for childrenwith special educational needs, a statement as to how the local education authoritybelieves that the new provision is likely to lead to improvement in the standard,quality and range of the educational provision for such children; andNot applicable.(i) the number of places reserved for children with special educational needs,and where this number is to change, the proposed number of such places.Not applicable.69. Where the proposals are to discontinue provision for special educational needs—(a) details of alternative provision for pupils for whom the provision is currentlymade;Not applicable.(b) details of the number of pupils for whom provision is made that is recognisedby the local education authority as reserved for children with special educationalneeds during each of the 4 school years preceding the current school year;Not applicable.(c) details of provision made outside the area of the local education authority forpupils whose needs will not be able to be met in the area of the authority as a resultof the discontinuance of the provision; andNot applicable.(d) a statement as to how the proposer believes that the proposals are likely tolead to improvement in the standard, quality and range of the educational provisionfor such children.Not applicable.70. Where the proposals will lead to alternative provision for children with specialeducational needs, as a result of the establishment, alteration or discontinuance of

existing provision, the specific educational benefits that will flow from the proposals interms of—(a) improved access to education and associated services including thecurriculum, wider school activities, facilities and equipment with reference to the localeducation authority’s Accessibility Strategy;(b) improved access to specialist staff, both educational and other professionals,including any external support and outreach services;(c) improved access to suitable accommodation; and(d) improved supply of suitable places.Not applicable.Sex of pupils71. Where the proposals are to make an alteration to provide that a school which wasan establishment which admitted pupils of one sex only becomes an establishmentwhich admits pupils of both sexes—(a) details of the likely effect which the alteration will have on the balance of theprovision of single sex-education in the area;Not applicable.(b)evidence of local demand for single-sex education; andNot applicable.(c) details of any transitional period, which the body making the proposalswishes specified in a transitional exemption order (within the meaning of section 27of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975).Not applicable.72. Where the proposals are to make an alteration to a school to provide that aschool which was an establishment which admitted pupils of both sexes becomes anestablishment which admits pupils of one sex only—(a) details of the likely effect which the alteration will have on the balance of theprovision of single-sex education in the area; andNot applicable.(b)evidence of local demand for single-sex education.Not applicable.Extended services73. If the proposed alterations affect the provision of the school’s extended services,details of the current extended services the school is offering and details of anyproposed change as a result of the alterations.It is intended that the new school will continue to provide extended services and these will bedeveloped during the feasibility and design stage of the programme in consultation with theschool.

Need or demand for additional places74. If the proposals involve adding places—(a) a statement and supporting evidence of the need or demand for the particularplaces in the area;Rise in birth rate (Appendices 15 to 18)Ealing, in line with a number of other London boroughs, is experiencing a substantial rise inbirth rates. In the 1990’s and the early 2000’s the average number of births in each year wasin the region of 4,500. However, since the academic year 2002/03, where there were 4,469,live births have risen by more than 1,100 to 5,573 in 2007/08 academic year. A rise of nearly25% over the six-year period. For the calendar year 2009 ONS recorded live births for Ealinghave risen even further, to 5,638, a rise of over 26% since 2002/03.Birth rates are not rising equally across all areas of the borough. Increases have beenprimarily concentrated in the GNP (Greenford, Northolt & Perivale), Ealing and Hanwell andActon areas. The new Church of England primary school is part of the Ealing South planningarea, which falls within the collective Ealing and Hanwell area, where births rose from 1,403 in2002/03 to 1,781 in 2007/08 (latest available data), a rise of 27% over the period. ONS actualward and postcode level births for the 2008/09 academic year will not be available untilNovember 2010.Retention rate risesCoupled with this birth rate rise, there has also been an increase in the retention rate betweenbirth and children later appearing on reception class rolls. The retention rate for the 2009/10academic year was 82.5%, the highest since 1995/96, and 3.5% higher than the previous year.The three-year rolling average has now risen to 80.5%, and the five-year trend has risen to83%.As with live births, retention ratios vary around the borough. Applying the 5-year trend model,the birth to reception ratio for the Ealing and Hanwell area is 70%.Roll projection modelsProjected primary rolls in the London Borough of Ealing are usually calculated using either aLA 3-year retention ratio model, or a combined LA 5-year retention ratio model and the GreaterLondon Authority’s (GLA) catchment replacement ratio model, which factors in its highpopulation projections. All models used January 2010 and earlier use of January SchoolCensus data as a base.None of these models have anticipated the dramatic increases seen in reception classes inrecent years. Added to this, the models cannot not fully take in to account further increase inlive births in 2008/09. The 2008/09 GLA ward level data will not be available until January2011, at the earliest. As a result, January 2010 projections were based on a 5-year trendmodel, which was modified for the first two years, with a retention ratio of 86% for 2010/11 and85% for 2011/12. These are believed to be far more accurate in the short term than using theunmodified 5-year trend retention rate of 83%, which is used for birth to reception from 2012/13onwards.School roll projectionsUsing the unmodified 5-year trend ratio, overall primary rolls are projected to increase by13.5% between January 2010 (24,802) and 2012/13 (28,154).For the Ealing and Hanwell area, the projected increase is 11.5% over the same period, from7,088 in January 2010, to 7,905 for 2012/13.Reception year projections

At reception age the rise in school admissions between January 2009 (3,633) and January2010 was 10% (3,994), which is equivalent to an additional 12FE. The overall unmodified(83%) five-year trend shows reception rolls rising by a further 16% (21 FE), to 4,629 bySeptember 2012.In the Ealing and Hanwell area, the predicted rise is 8% at reception age, climbing from 1,172in January 2010, to 1,268 by September 2012. The Ealing and Hanwell area had 1,185planned reception places (including 30 temporary places at Drayton Green) in September2009. To meet a potential need of 1,268 by September 2012, a minimum of an additional 60places (2 FE) would be required on top of the currently agreed 1,215, which would provide atotal of 1,275 places for the Ealing and Hanwell area.Previous measuresThe baseline number of reception places available around the borough in the academic year2007/08 (prior to expansion) was 3,679 (122.6 FE). Over the last three years it has risen by 17FE to 4,189 (139.6 FE) as at September 2010. This has been achieved through permanentand temporary (bulge classes) expansions. The need for additional places in the Ealing andHanwell area has also been met by permanent and temporary expansions in the followingschools:• St John’s Primary - 15 places (0.5 FE) from September 2008 onwards• Fielding Primary - 30 places from (1 FE) September 2009 onwards• Little Ealing Primary - 30 places from (1 FE) September 2009 onwards• North Ealing Primary - 30 places from (1 FE) September 2009 onwards• Drayton Green Primary - 30 temporary places (1 FE) for September 2009 only• Brentside Primary - 15 places (0.5 FE) from September 2010 onwards• St Mark’s Primary - 15 places (0.5 FE) from September 2010 onwards• Hobbayane Primary - 30 places (1 FE) from September 2010 onwards• Grange Primary - 30 temporary places (1 FE) for September 2010 only• St Gregory’s Catholic Primary - 30 temporary places (1 FE) for September 2010, a proposalto permanently expand will be published on 5 November 2010Future demandThe number of permanent Ealing and Hanwell reception places has risen by 165 (5.5 FE), from1,050 (35 FE) in 2007/08 to 1,215 (40.5 FE) by 2011/12. A further 60 temporary places inSeptember 2010 raised the number of available reception places to 1,275 (42.5 FE).• By September 2012 the projected number of reception places needed is expected to peakin the region of 1,268 (5 year trend model) to 1,320 (combined GLA & LA model).• To meet this demand the Ealing and Hanwell area requires between 53 and 105 (2 FE to3.5 FE) reception places in addition to the 1,215 already agreed places for September2012.• Over the subsequent five years, from September 2013 onwards, current projections showdemand for reception places falling back to an average of between 1,223 (5 year trendmodel) to 1,275 (combined GLA & LA model). Although this is dependent on acorresponding fall in births.• It is hoped that adding permanent reception places at the proposed new CE primary schooland in the Catholic sector from September 2012 will help meet this future demand:o The new Church of England primary school - 30 places (1 FE) from September 2012onwards, subject to statutory approval.o St Gregory’s Catholic Primary - 30 places (1 FE) from September 2012 onwards,subject to statutory approval.

(b) where the school has a religious character, a statement and supportingevidence of the demand in the area for education in accordance with the tenets of thereligion or religious denomination;The LA and the London Diocesan Board for Schools envisage that demand for a Church ofEngland education will increase in line with the overall rise in the birth rate in the Ealing andHanwell area. St Saviour’s received 150 applications for 90 reception places for September2010.(c) where the school adheres to a particular philosophy, evidence of the demandfor education in accordance with the philosophy in question and any associatedchange to the admission arrangements for the school.Not applicable.75. If the proposals involve removing places—(a) a statement and supporting evidence of the reasons for the removal,including an assessment of the impact on parental choice; andNot applicable.(b)a statement on the local capacity to accommodate displaced pupils.Not applicable.Expansion of successful and popular schools25A. (1) Proposals must include a statement of whether the proposer considers thatthe presumption for the expansion of successful and popular schools should apply,and where the governing body consider the presumption applies, evidence to supportthis.(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to expansion proposals in respect of primary andsecondary schools, (except for grammar schools), i.e. falling within:(a) (for proposals published by the governing body) paragraph 1 of Part 1 toSchedule 2 or paragraph 12 of Part 2 to Schedule 2;(b) (for proposals published by the LA) paragraph 1 of Part 1 to Schedule 4 or 18 ofPart 4 to Schedule 4of the School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England)Regulations 2007 (as amended).St Saviour’s Infant and Nursery School was awarded a grade of “good” for its last Ofstedinspection in June 2010. Christ Church Junior School was awarded a grade of “satisfactory”

Both St Saviour’s and Christ Church can be said to be successful and popular schools,however expansion is not being sought on these grounds.Appendices1. List of those consulted2. Copy of presentation given at public meetings3. 2 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting4. 7 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting5. 10 December 2009 – minutes of public meeting6. Views of respondents on proposed expansion7. Consultation document and questionnaire8. Consultation letter to staff November 20099. Consultation letter to parents November 200910. Consultation letter to other stakeholders November 200911. Governing Bodies responses to consultation January 201012. Extract from 26 January 2010 cabinet report13. Extract from September 2010 Admissions Forum Report14. Results of pupil consultation15. Ealing primary school rolls 2006/07 to 2019/2016. Reception class rolls 2006/07 to 2019/2017. Ealing and Hanwell primary school rolls 2006/07 to 2019/2018. Ealing and Hanwell area reception pupil projections 2006/07 to 2019/20Appendices 1-11 are the same as those included in the proposal to close StSaviour’s, previously included.Appendix 12 can be accessed via the link below:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/education/investment/psc/_rep_docs/CofE/appendices/expansion/12_extract_26jan10-cabinetreport.docAppendices 13-14 are the same as appendices 12 and 13 as included in theproposal to close St Saviour’s, previously included.Appendices 15-18 are the same as appendices 12-15 as included in the proposal toexpand St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School.

Ealing Council: Full Equalities Impact AssessmentAppendix 13: Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) for the expansion of Ravenor Primary SchoolChoosefrom:Project Title: Expansion of primary places: Determination of Statutory Proposals (Ravenor Primary school)Is it HR Related?Yes NoAuthor Holly Morgan-Smith Service Schools Planning andResourcesDirectorateChildren’s ServicesCorporatePurposeCabinet Report Decision EIA relatestoProject/scheme/ initiativeIf other please specify:N/A1. What are the aims, objectives and desired outcomes of the Initiative :• To expand Ravenor primary school (Greenway Gardens, Greenford, UB69TT) by 1 form of entry on a permanent basis from September 2012.• This would mean that instead of the current planned admission number of 60,the school would admit 90 pupils into reception in 2012, and the school wouldbe incrementally expanded each year thereafter until the school is fullyexpanded.• The proposal to expand is because Central Greenford births rose by 53% from345 in 2003/04 (who were the 2008 intake) to 527 in 2009/10 (who will be the2014 intake). All the pupils admitted to Reception at Ravenor in September2010 live within the statutory walking distance (2 miles) of the school.2. Who are the main people/groups who will be affected:• Parents of current pupils at the school (including in thenursery), parents of future pupils at the school and localresidents.3. Does it affect proportionately more people of one groupthan another?• The school operates an admissions policy whichcomplies with the School Admissions Code.- 265 -

3. Equality Relevance Relevance to legislation. Does it involve or Described ImpactGroups (1) to the impact on…EqualityStrandsEliminatingdiscrimination &Promotingequality ofharassment:opportunityAge Medium Yes No Yes No The policy deals with the expansion of primary school places; primaryage children are 4-11 years old. Children are of statutory school age theterm after their 5 th birthday, when they are required by law to be ineducation. Expansion of primary places where there is increaseddemand means that more local children will have the opportunity toattend Ravenor Primary School.Disability Medium Yes No Yes No Ravenor primary school is a relatively newly built school (it opened inPromoting positive attitudes towards disabledpeople:2004) and as such is fully accessible for those with disabilities. Anyexpansion of the school will also be fully accessible to those withYes Nodisabilities, in line with the latest guidance. Ravenor primary schoolEncouraging participation by disabled peoplein public life:currently have temporary accommodation on site to accommodate ‘bulge’classes and this accommodation is also fully accessible for those withYes Nodisabilities.Taking steps to take account of disabledperson’s disabilities, even where that involvestreating disabled persons more favourablythan other persons:Yes NoGender Medium Yes No Yes No The school is a mixed gender community school and the school admitschildren based on admissions criteria fully compliant with the admissionscode and does not discriminate based on gender.RaceMediumYes No Yes NoPromoting good race relations?Yes NoThe admissions arrangements for all schools must comply with theSchool Admissions Code and the Schools Adjudicator has recentlyreviewed the Council’s admissions arrangements.The school is a mixed community school and the school admits childrenbased on admissions criteria fully compliant with the admissions codeand does not discriminate based on race. The proposals will meet thestatutory duty on schools to promote community cohesion and the schoolwould build on and further develop the schools’ current approach tocommunity cohesion including building on the strong partnership withparents.- 266 -

Religion/BeliefMedium Yes No Yes No The school is a mixed community school and does not admit pupilsaccording to their religious beliefs.SexualOrientationCaringResponsibilityMedium Yes No Yes No No differential impact on people based on sexual orientation.Medium Yes No Yes No The school will continue to serve a local community. It is thought that theschool expansion will have a positive impact on people who have adependants/caring responsibility as expanding places in an area of needwill reduce travelling times for pupils and their families/ carers.Other(s) (2) Medium Yes No Yes No N/A(1) Completion of this section indicates due regard being taken in relation to the following acts & legislation: Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 requires Race Equality ImpactAssessments; Disability Discrimination Act 2005; Equality Act 2006; Equality Act (Revised) 2010; Employment Equality (Religion and/or Belief) Regulations December 2003;Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations December 2003; Employment Equality (Age) Regulations October 2006; The Human Rights Act 1998(2) ‘Other ‘ might include the following: socio-economic deprivation; health impact; internal processes; marriage & civil partnership; and pregnancy & maternity. Further details areprovided in the guidance.- 267 -

4. HumanRights5. Identifyingthe ImpactRelevance to legislation. Does itinvolve or impact on any articlesor protocol listed within theHuman Rights Act 1998?Described ImpactYes No No differential impact.What systems do you have in place to find out who uses the service. What do your Service Users think?- 268 -

The Council have carried out extensive consultation on the proposal to expand Ravenor Primary School, responses to the StatutoryNotice to expand were positive with the majority were in favour 15 (60%) of the proposal. The minority 6 (24%) who were againstexpressed concerns about traffic congestions, the size of the site and how the school ethos and culture could be maintained with morepupils. The remaining 4 respondents (16%) were not sure whether they were in favour or against the proposal. The main serviceusers of schools are parents/carers and children but there is also an impact on local residents. The following people were consulted:Groups consulted:• Governing bodies of the schools named in the questionnaire• All primary schools in the Ealing borough were sent information on the consultation and copies of the questionnaire to respondto as appropriate and circulate as appropriate to their areas• Schools informed parents/carers of the consultation through various means, e.g. newsletters, parent meetings.• Schools consulted staff at staff meetings or other appropriate means• Neighbouring authorities• Trade Union representatives• The Diocese of Westminster and the London Diocesan Board for Schools• Ealing borough MPs as well as MPs of neighboring boroughs• A link to the consultation was put on the ‘Ealing Community Network’ website• Children’s centres• Private nursery providers in the Acton and GNP area• Schools consulted with pupils as they saw fit at this stage. Examples of consultation at schools included discussion atassemblies and through school council meetings• Residents associations were all sent information on the consultation as well as copies of the questionnaire• Letters were sent to residents within the planning areas for all schools named in the questionnaire.• Local parent and toddler groups• Community groups and cultural associations• The local police• Also available on Council’s website – current consultations sectionThe Headteacher and governing body support the proposal and believe that:“The strength of the school is that it includes all members of the community in its vision and the school's ethos extends to everyindividual and their family. The Governors and Senior Team support the proposal and view the extension to the facilities as an excitingopportunity for all connected with the school.”Full details of the responses are available in the Cabinet report ‘Expansion of primary places: Determination of Statutory Proposals’which is due to be considered at cabinet in January 11 2011, the report can be accessed at:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/committees/agendas_minutes_reports/cabinet/index.html- 269 -

6. ActionPlanning Cabinet approval ofproposalActions Outcomes Success Measures Timescales/Milestones Lead OfficerProgress with plans to Local families will beGary Redheadexpand the school with able to be offeredpermanent new facilities school places near tofrom 2012their homes7. Have the above actions been incorporatedinto your service/business plan or dedicatedproject plan?Permanent buildings to beready by September 2012where possible.Milestones include, theplanning process andadmissions processes foreach primary school yearIf no, how will these actions be monitored? Date for postimplementation reviewYes No • September 2012- 270 -

Completing Officer Sign Off: Service Director Sign Off: For HR related activities/projects/reviews only:Signed (completing officer)Holly Morgan-SmithSignedGary RedheadSigned (equalities officer)N/AName (Please print)Holly Morgan-SmithName (Please print)Gary RedheadName (Please print)N/ADate: 22/12/10Date: 22/12/10Date:For EIA’s relating to Cabinet decisions: received by Policy & Performance for publication by (date):- 271 -

Ealing Council: Full Equalities Impact AssessmentAppendix 14: EIA for the expansion of St Gregory’s Catholic Primary SchoolChoosefrom:Project Title: Expansion of primary places: Determination of Statutory Proposals (St Gregory’s Catholic Is it HR Related?Primary School) Yes NoAuthor Holly Morgan-Smith Service Schools Planning andResourcesDirectorateChildren’s ServicesCorporatePurposeCabinet Report Decision EIA relatestoProject/scheme/initiativeIf other please specify:1. What are the aims, objectives and desired outcomes of the Initiative :• To expand St Gregory’s Catholic Primary School (Woodfield Road, Ealing W51SL) by 1 form of entry on a permanent basis from September 2012.• This would mean that instead of the current planned admission number of 60,the school would admit 90 pupils into reception in 2012, and the school wouldbe incrementally expanded each year thereafter until the school is fully2. Who are the main people/groups who will be affected:• Parents of current pupils at the school (including in thenursery), parents of future pupils at the school and localresidents.• Catholic families in Ealing- 272 -

expanded.• The proposal to expand is because St Gregory’s falls within the Ealingquadrant, where births rose 24.1% from 1350 in 2003/04 to 1,675 in 2009/10.For the North and South Ealing areas combined the projected increase inreception classes required is in a range between 12Forms of Entry and 14Forms of Entry by 2014• In addition the proposal is to expand Catholic provision because, in terms ofdemand for Catholic places, there has been a 35% increase in baptisms inEaling between 2004 and 2009 (from 585 in 2004 to 790 in 2009). Thissupports the expansion of St Gregory’s Catholic Primary and also the plansthat the Diocese of Westminster are developing for a new 2FE CatholicPrimary School in West Acton (the plans for the new school are at an earlierstage and detailed consultation will continue before Cabinet consider theproposals).3. Does it affect proportionately more people of one groupthan another?• As the school has a faith-based over subscriptioncriteria in its admissions policy, the proposal is likely tobenefit Catholic families the most in terms of increasedchoice.• The Authority has a duty to promote a diversity ofprovision and the catholic community has increasedsubstantially in Ealing in recent years.- 273 -

3. Equality Relevance Relevance to legislation. Does it involve or Described ImpactGroups (1) to the impact on…EqualityStrandsEliminatingdiscrimination &Promotingequality ofharassment:opportunityAge Medium Yes No Yes No The policy deals with the expansion of primary school places; primaryage children are 4-11 years old. Children are of statutory school age theterm after their 5 th birthday, when they are required by law to be ineducation. Expansion of primary places where there is increaseddemand means that more local catholic children will have the opportunityto attend a school close to where they live. Children without a Catholicfaith are also eligible to apply for places at faith schools but the prioritygoes to those of the faith to which the school adheres.Disability Medium Yes No Yes No If the school were to be expanded then the new buildings would be fullyPromoting positive attitudes towards disabledpeople:accessible to those with disabilities and where possible work undertakento existing buildings to improve the accessibility.Yes NoEncouraging participation by disabled peoplein public life:Yes NoTaking steps to take account of disabledperson’s disabilities, even where that involvestreating disabled persons more favourablythan other persons:Yes NoGender Medium Yes No Yes No The school is a mixed gender voluntary aided school and the schooladmits children based on admissions criteria fully compliant with theadmissions code and does not discriminate based on gender.Race Medium Yes No Yes NoThe admissions arrangements for all schools must comply with theSchool Admissions Code and the Schools Adjudicator has recentlyreviewed the Council’s admissions arrangements.- 274 -

Promoting good race relations?Yes NoThe school is a mixed voluntary aided school and the school admitschildren based on admissions criteria fully compliant with the admissionscode and does not discriminate based on race. The proposals will meetthe statutory duty on schools to promote community cohesion and theschool would build on and further develop the schools’ current approachto community cohesion including building a strong partnership withparents.Religion/BeliefMedium Yes No Yes No The proposals will contribute to local diversity. Since 2008, the Council haveagreed to expand various types of primary schools, adding the followingprovision:• 7½FE to community schools• 1½FE to foundation schools (including Brentside primary school whichhas expanded by ½ FE and at the time of agreement was a communityschool, but is now foundation)• 1FE to the West London Academy. The DfE have agreed this expansionand it is subject to planning permission being granted.This proposal to add 1FE of catholic provision to Ealing’s primaryschools. Considering the increase in not only the birth rate in thelocal area, but also the increase in Catholic births, it is broadlyproportionate to increase Catholic provision.SexualOrientationCaringResponsibilityMedium Yes No Yes No No differential impact on people based on sexual orientation.Medium Yes No Yes No The school will continue to serve a local community. It is thought that theschool expansion will have a positive impact on people who have adependants/caring responsibility as expanding places in an area of needwill reduce travelling times for pupils and their families/ carers.Other(s) (2) Medium Yes No Yes No N/A(1) Completion of this section indicates due regard being taken in relation to the following acts & legislation: Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 requires Race Equality ImpactAssessments; Disability Discrimination Act 2005; Equality Act 2006; Equality Act (Revised) 2010; Employment Equality (Religion and/or Belief) Regulations December 2003;Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations December 2003; Employment Equality (Age) Regulations October 2006; The Human Rights Act 1998(2) ‘Other ‘ might include the following: socio-economic deprivation; health impact; internal processes; marriage & civil partnership; and pregnancy & maternity. Further details areprovided in the guidance.- 275 -

4. HumanRights5. Identifyingthe ImpactRelevance to legislation. Does itinvolve or impact on any articlesor protocol listed within theHuman Rights Act 1998?Described ImpactYes No No differential impact.What systems do you have in place to find out who uses the service. What do your Service Users think?- 276 -

The Diocese of Westminster and School Governing body, in consultation with the Council, have carried out extensive consultation onthe proposal to expand. Responses to the Statutory Notice to expand via a Questionnaire show that a clear majority of residents areagainst the proposal (76 respondents against, 4 in support and 4 not sure), with a smaller majority of parents opposed to the proposal(47 opposed, 28 in support and 9 not sure). All staff respondents (17 individual responses) support the proposal. Two pupilsresponded to the questionnaire, with 1 not sure and 1 opposed. 18 letters were also received all stating opposition to the proposal. Thefollowing people were consulted:• Governing bodies of the schools named in the questionnaire• All primary schools in the Ealing borough were sent information on the consultation and copies of the questionnaire to respond to asappropriate and circulate as appropriate to their areas• Schools informed parents/carers of the consultation through various means, e.g. newsletters, parent meetings.• Schools consulted staff at staff meetings or other appropriate means• Neighbouring authorities• Trade Union representatives• The Diocese of Westminster and the London Diocesan Board for Schools• Ealing borough MPs as well as MPs of neighboring boroughs• Children’s centres• Private nursery providers in the Ealing area• Schools consulted with pupils as they saw fit at this stage. Examples of consultation at schools included discussion at assemblies andthrough school council meetings• Residents associations were all sent information on the consultation as well as copies of the questionnaire• Letters were sent to residents within the planning areas for all schools named in the questionnaire.• Local parent and toddler groups• Community groups and cultural associations• The local police• Also available on Council’s website – current consultations sectionIn addition to considering the views of current parents, past parents and residents, the Council must also consider those who will beseeking school places in coming years and consider plans which respond to the increase in demand for places, which has increased inrecent years, but looks set to increase much more significantly in the next few years when consideration is given to recent births in theborough.Full details of the responses are available in the Cabinet report ‘Expansion of primary places: Determination of Statutory Proposals’which is due to be considered at cabinet in January 11 2011, the report can be accessed at:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/committees/agendas_minutes_reports/cabinet/index.htmlActions Outcomes Success Measures Timescales/Milestones Lead Officer- 277 -

Actions Outcomes Success Measures Timescales/Milestones Lead OfficerCabinet approval ofGary Redheadproposal7. Have the above actions been incorporatedinto your service/business plan or dedicatedproject plan?Progress with plans toexpand the school withpermanent new facilitiesfrom 2012Local catholic familieswill be able to beoffered school placesnear to their homesPermanent facilities to beready by September 2012where possible.Milestones include, theplanning process andadmissions processes foreach primary school yearIf no, how will these actions be monitored? Date for postimplementation reviewYes No • September 2012- 278 -

Completing Officer Sign Off: Service Director Sign Off: For HR related activities/projects/reviews only:Signed (completing officer)Holly Morgan-SmithSignedGary RedheadSigned (equalities officer)N/AName (Please print)Holly Morgan-SmithName (Please print)Gary RedheadName (Please print)N/ADate: 22/12/10Date: 22/12/10Date:For EIA’s relating to Cabinet decisions: received by Policy & Performance for publication by (date):- 279 -

Ealing Council: Full Equalities Impact AssessmentAppendix 15: EIA for the closure of St Saviour’s CE Infant and Christ Church CE Junior schools and the creation of a newCE Primary School.Choosefrom:Strategy Title: Expansion of primary places: Determination of Statutory Proposals (closure of St Saviour’s CEInfant and Christ Church CE Junior schools and replacement with a new CE primary school onthe existing sites)Is it HR Related?Yes NoAuthor Holly Morgan-Smith Service Schools Planning andResourcesDirectorateChildren’s ServicesCorporatePurposeCabinet Report Decision EIA relatestoAdapted policy/strategy/service/functionIf other please specify:1. What are the aims, objectives and desired outcomes of the Initiative :• The closure of St Saviour’s CE Infant and Christ Church CE Junior schoolsand replacement with a new CE primary school on the existing sites fromSeptember 2011.• The objectives of the Governing Body in putting forward the proposal are:‣ to promote high standards by developing continuity and consistency inteaching and learning‣ to ensure seamless transition for pupils through the school from Early Yearsto Key Stage 2‣ to offer enhanced career opportunities for staff‣ to share best practice, resources and expertise for the benefit of all pupils,current and prospective, of the new school within a strong Christian ethos2. Who are the main people/groups who will be affected:• Parents of current pupils at the school (including in thenursery), parents of future pupils at the school and localresidents.3. Does it affect proportionately more people of one groupthan another?• The school operates an admissions policy whichcomplies with the School Admissions Code. It admitspupils based on a parish areas.- 280 -

3. Equality Relevance Relevance to legislation. Does it involve or Described ImpactGroups (1) to the impact on…EqualityStrandsEliminatingdiscrimination &Promotingequality ofharassment:opportunityAge Medium Yes No Yes No The amalgamation of the schools into one primary school does not alterthe age range of the schools, which is 3-7 in the infants and 8-11 in theJuniors. The age range of the new primary school (including the nursery)would be 3-11.DisabilityMediumYes No Yes NoPromoting positive attitudes towards disabledpeople:Yes NoEncouraging participation by disabled peoplein public life:Yes NoTaking steps to take account of disabledperson’s disabilities, even where that involvestreating disabled persons more favourablythan other persons:Yes NoNo differential impact although the school will continue to cater forchildren and families with disabilities.Gender Medium Yes No Yes No No differential impact. The schools are mixed voluntary aided schoolsadmits children based on admissions criteria fully compliant with theadmissions code and does not discriminate based on gender. Anyfuture changes to the admissions criteria will need to continue to be fullycompliant with the School Admissions code and consulted upon in linewith agreed practice.RaceReligion/BeliefMediumYes No Yes NoPromoting good race relations?Yes NoThe school is a mixed voluntary aided school and the school admitschildren based on admissions criteria fully compliant with the admissionscode and does not discriminate based on race. The proposals will meetthe statutory duty on schools to promote community cohesion and theschool would build on and further develop the schools’ current approachto community cohesion including building a strong partnership withparents.Medium Yes No Yes No The proposal to amalgamate the schools will not impact on the numbersavailable in Church of England primary school provision. Please notethat there is a separate proposal to expand the schools and this is dealtwith in a separate EIA (equalities impact assessment)- 281 -

SexualMedium Yes No Yes No No differential impactOrientationCaringMedium Yes No Yes No No differential impactResponsibilityOther(s) (2) Medium Yes No Yes No N/A(1) Completion of this section indicates due regard being taken in relation to the following acts & legislation: Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 requires Race Equality ImpactAssessments; Disability Discrimination Act 2005; Equality Act 2006; Equality Act (Revised) 2010; Employment Equality (Religion and/or Belief) Regulations December 2003;Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations December 2003; Employment Equality (Age) Regulations October 2006; The Human Rights Act 1998(2) ‘Other ‘ might include the following: socio-economic deprivation; health impact; internal processes; marriage & civil partnership; and pregnancy & maternity. Further details areprovided in the guidance.- 282 -

4. HumanRightsRelevance to legislation. Does itinvolve or impact on any articlesor protocol listed within theHuman Rights Act 1998?Described ImpactYes No No differential impact.5. Identifying theImpactWhat systems do you have in place to find out who uses the service. What do your Service Users think?The Governing bodies of the school, in consultation with the Local Authority and the London Diocesan Board for Schools, havecarried out extensive consultation on amalgamation. In response to the publication of statutory notice to close and amalgamated thetwo schools, they received 3 responses – 2 were opposed to the idea and 1 was in favour. Previous consultations have indicatedthat there is overall support for the proposal and these can be viewed as appendices to the proposals at:http://www.ealing.gov.uk/services/education/investment/psc/pastproposals/CofE.html6. ActionPlanning Cabinet approve theproposalActions Outcomes Success Measures Timescales/Milestones Lead OfficerNew amalgamated Better transitionprimary school opens inSeptember 20117. Have the above actions been incorporatedinto your service/business plan or dedicatedproject plan?between infants andjuniors and ultimatelyimproved performanceof the schoolRecruitment of headteacherin early 2011, set up shadowgoverning body to progressarrangements for the newschool and then a newgoverning body set up oncenew school is open inSeptember 2011.Bob Anderson and GaryRedheadIf no, how will these actions be monitored? Date for postimplementation reviewYes No • December 2011- 283 -

Completing Officer Sign Off: Service Director Sign Off: For HR related activities/projects/reviews only:Signed (completing officer)Holly Morgan-SmithSignedGary RedheadSigned (equalities officer)N/AName (Please print)Holly Morgan-SmithName (Please print)Gary RedheadName (Please print)N/ADate: 22/12/10Date: 22/12/10Date:For EIA’s relating to Cabinet decisions: received by Policy & Performance for publication by (date):- 284 -

Ealing Council: Full Equalities Impact AssessmentAppendix 16: EIA for the expansion of the new CE Primary SchoolChoosefrom:Project Title: Expansion of primary places: Determination of Statutory Proposals (expansion of St Saviour’s Is it HR Related?CE Infant and Christ Church CE Junior schools) Yes NoAuthor Holly Morgan-Smith Service Schools Planning andResourcesDirectorateChildren’s ServicesCorporatePurposeCabinet Report Decision EIA relatestoProject/scheme/initiativeIf other please specify:1. What are the aims, objectives and desired outcomes of the Initiative :• To expand St Saviour’s CE Infant and Christ Church CE Junior schools (StSaviour’s – The Grove, Ealing W5 5DX, Christ Church – New Broadway,Ealing W5 2XA) to 1 form of entry on a permanent basis from September2012• This would mean that instead of the current planned admission number of 90,the school would admit 120 pupils into reception in 2012, and the schoolwould be incrementally expanded each year thereafter until the school is fullyexpanded• There is also a related proposal to amalgamate the two schools; a separateEIA has been undertaken for that proposal.2. Who are the main people/groups who will be affected:• Parents of current pupils at the school (including in thenursery), parents of future pupils at the school and localresidents.• Church of England families in Ealing3. Does it affect proportionately more people of one groupthan another?• As the school has a ‘faith-based’ over subscriptioncriteria in its admissions policy, the proposal is likely tobenefit Church of England families the most in terms ofincreased choice• Conversely, adding additional Church of Englandprimary school places could affect those who do notfollow that faith as they are less likely to gain admissionto the school than those of a Church of England faith- 285 -

3. Equality Relevance Relevance to legislation. Does it involve or Described ImpactGroups (1) to the impact on…EqualityStrandsEliminatingdiscrimination &Promotingequality ofharassment:opportunityAge Medium Yes No Yes No The policy deals with the expansion of primary school places; primaryage children are 4-11 years old. Children are of statutory school age theterm after their 5 th birthday, when they are required by law to be ineducation. Expansion of primary places where there is increaseddemand means that more local children following the Church of Englandfaith will have the opportunity to attend a school close to where they live.Children without a Church of England faith are also eligible to apply forplaces at the schools but the priority goes to those of the faith to whichthe school adheres.Disability Medium Yes No Yes No If the school were to be expanded then the new buildings would be fullyPromoting positive attitudes towards disabledpeople:accessible to those with disabilities and where possible work undertakento existing buildings to improve the accessibility.Yes NoEncouraging participation by disabled peoplein public life:Yes NoTaking steps to take account of disabledperson’s disabilities, even where that involvestreating disabled persons more favourablythan other persons:Yes NoGender Medium Yes No Yes No The schools are mixed gender voluntary aided schools and admitchildren based on admissions criteria fully compliant with the admissionscode and does not discriminate based on gender.Race Medium Yes No Yes NoThe admissions arrangements for all schools must comply with theSchool Admissions Code and the Schools Adjudicator has recentlyreviewed the Council’s admissions arrangements.- 286 -

Promoting good race relations?Yes NoThe school is a mixed voluntary aided school and the school admitschildren based on admissions criteria fully compliant with the admissionscode and does not discriminate based on race. The proposals will meetthe statutory duty on schools to promote community cohesion and theschool would build on and further develop the schools’ current approachto community cohesion including building a strong partnership withparents.Religion/BeliefMedium Yes No Yes No The proposals will contribute to local diversity. Since 2008, the Council haveagreed to expand various types of primary schools, adding the followingprovision:• 7½FE to community schools• 1½FE to foundation schools (including Brentside primary school whichhas expanded by ½ FE and at the time of agreement was a communityschool, but is now foundation)• 1FE to the West London Academy. The DfE have agreed this expansionand it is subject to planning permission being granted.This proposal is to add 1FE of Church of England provision toEaling’s primary schools. Considering the increase in the birth ratein the local area, it is thought broadly proportionate to increaseChurch of England provision. There is only 1 other Church ofEngland primary school in the borough and that is Edward BethamCE primary school in Greenford.SexualOrientationCaringResponsibilityMedium Yes No Yes No No differential impact on people based on sexual orientation.Medium Yes No Yes No The school will continue to serve a local community. It is thought that theschool expansion will have a positive impact on people who have adependants/caring responsibility as expanding places in an area of needwill reduce travelling times for pupils and their families/ carers.Other(s) (2) Medium Yes No Yes No N/A(1) Completion of this section indicates due regard being taken in relation to the following acts & legislation: Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 requires Race Equality ImpactAssessments; Disability Discrimination Act 2005; Equality Act 2006; Equality Act (Revised) 2010; Employment Equality (Religion and/or Belief) Regulations December 2003;Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations December 2003; Employment Equality (Age) Regulations October 2006; The Human Rights Act 1998(2) ‘Other ‘ might include the following: socio-economic deprivation; health impact; internal processes; marriage & civil partnership; and pregnancy & maternity. Further details areprovided in the guidance.- 287 -

4. HumanRightsRelevance to legislation. Does itinvolve or impact on any articlesor protocol listed within theHuman Rights Act 1998?Described ImpactYes No No differential impact.5. Identifying theImpactWhat systems do you have in place to find out who uses the service. What do your Service Users think?- 288 -

The Council, in consultation with the London Diocesan Board for schools and the Governing Bodies of the schools, have consultedextensively on the proposal to expand the schools. The following people were consulted:• Governing bodies of the schools named in the questionnaire• All primary schools in the Ealing borough were sent information on the consultation and copies of the questionnaire torespond to as appropriate and circulate as appropriate to their areas• Schools informed parents/carers of the consultation through various means, e.g. newsletters, parent meetings.• Schools consulted staff at staff meetings or other appropriate means• Neighbouring authorities• Trade Union representatives• The Diocese of Westminster and the London Diocesan Board for Schools• Ealing borough MPs as well as MPs of neighboring boroughs• Children’s centres• Private nursery providers in the Ealing area• Schools consulted with pupils as they saw fit at this stage. Examples of consultation at schools included discussion atassemblies and through school council meetings• Residents associations were all sent information on the consultation as well as copies of the questionnaire• Letters were sent to residents within the planning areas for all schools named in the questionnaire.• Local parent and toddler groups• Community groups and cultural associations• The local police• Also available on Council’s website – current consultations sectionThe Council received 124 responses to the proposal to expand St Saviour’s and 120 responses to the proposal to expand Christ Church.In addition three letters were also received, one of which supported the proposal and two which were opposed. Results were as follows:St Saviour’sParents – 22 respondents supported the proposal, 65 were opposed and 12 were not sure.Residents - 6 respondents supported the proposal, 11 were opposed and 2 were not sure.Pupils – 1 respondent supported the proposal, 3 were opposed and 1 was not sure.Staff – 7 were opposed.Governors – 1 was opposedChrist ChurchParents – 18 respondents supported the proposal, 58 were opposed and 20 were not sure.Residents – 5 respondents supported the proposal, 12 were opposed and 1 was not sure.Pupils – 1 respondent supported the proposal and 4 were opposed.Staff – 5 were opposed and 2 were not sure.Governors – 1 was opposed.In addition to considering the views of current parents, past parents and residents, the Council must also consider those who will beseeking school places in coming years and consider plans which respond to the increase in demand for places, which has increased inrecent years, but looks set to increase much more significantly - 289 - in the next few years when consideration is given to recent births in theborough.

Full details of the responses are available in the Cabinet report ‘Expansion of primary places: Determination of Statutory Proposals’ which is due to be considered atcabinet in January 11 2011, the report can be accessed at: http://www.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/committees/agendas_minutes_reports/cabinet/index.html6. ActionPlanning Cabinet approval ofproposalActions Outcomes Success Measures Timescales/Milestones Lead OfficerProgress with plans to Local families will beGary Redheadexpand the school with able to be offeredpermanent new facilities school places near tofrom 2012their homes.7. Have the above actions been incorporatedinto your service/business plan or dedicatedproject plan?Permanent facilities to beready by September 2012where possible.Milestones include, theplanning process andadmissions processes foreach primary school yearIf no, how will these actions be monitored? Date for postimplementation reviewYes No • September 2012- 290 -

Completing Officer Sign Off: Service Director Sign Off: For HR related activities/projects/reviews only:Signed (completing officer)Holly Morgan-SmithSignedGary RedheadSigned (equalities officer)N/AName (Please print)Holly Morgan-SmithName (Please print)Gary RedheadName (Please print)N/ADate: 22/12/10Date: 22/12/10Date:For EIA’s relating to Cabinet decisions: received by Policy & Performance for publication by (date):- 291 -