Crewkerne & Ilminster Strategic School Review Report (Stage 0) · the current locality system and...

of 137

Futures for Somerset Limited

(The Somerset Local Education Partnership)

Crewkerne & Ilminster

Strategic School Review Report

(Stage 0)

Document Status: v1.0 FINAL

12th June 2019

Futures for Somerset Ltd

Crewkerne & Ilminster Strategic School Review

of 137

Document Control

Document Properties

Document Owner Futures for Somerset

Organisation Futures for Somerset (FfS)

Title Crewkerne & Ilminster –

Strategic School Review Report

Abstract

This document contains the Report for the Crewkerne and Ilminster Area Strategic Education

Structure Review, developed by the Somerset Local Education Partnership (“the LEP”)

(Futures for Somerset Ltd. (“FfS”)) and commissioned by Somerset County Council.

The document outlines the findings from activities completed as part of the Stage 0 Strategic

Review, including the identification and assessment of site opportunities and constraints, site

capacity (BB103), review of potential alternative structural options and impact on a range of

key factors relating to the delivery of education within this area of Somerset.

Version History

Date

Editor Version Status Reason for change

07/05/2019 HW 0.1 Draft Draft Report Structure

04/06/2019 HW 0.2 Draft Formatted report for pre-issue review

12/06/2019 VS 0.3 Draft Draft Executive Summary

12/06/2019 HW 1.0 FINAL Final for issue



of 137

Contents:

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 9

SCC Statement of Intent ..............................................................................................................15

1. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................17

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 17

1.2. Background & Context .................................................................................................................. 17

1.3. FfS Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 19

1.4. Overarching Objectives ................................................................................................................. 21

1.5. Opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 21

1.6. Constraints .................................................................................................................................... 22

2. Academy & MAT Landscape ................................................................................................23

2.1. Summary of Evolving Academy & MAT Landscape ..................................................................... 23

2.2. Potential Benefits of Evolving Academy & MAT Landscape ........................................................ 24

2.3. Potential Challenges of Evolving Academy & MAT Landscape ................................................... 25

3. Site & Buildings ....................................................................................................................25

3.1. First Schools in Scope .................................................................................................................. 25

3.2. Primary Schools in Scope ............................................................................................................. 32

3.3. Middle Schools in Scope ............................................................................................................... 34

3.4. Upper Schools in Scope ............................................................................................................... 36

3.5. Out of Scope Schools – Impact on Review .................................................................................. 37

4. Review Team .......................................................................................................................38

4.1. Futures for Somerset Ltd (the Somerset Local Education Partnership) – Strategic Review and

Project Management .................................................................................................................................. 38

4.2. Grainge Architects Ltd – Capacity Review and Masterplanning ................................................... 38

4.3. Randall Simmonds – Cost Advisors ............................................................................................. 39

4.4. Susan Fielden (Effervesce Ltd) – Specialist School Finance Advisor .......................................... 39

4.5. Jill Ewen – Education Consultant - Education Impact Review ..................................................... 40

5. Methodology ........................................................................................................................40

5.1. Area Wide Capacity Review ......................................................................................................... 40



of 137

5.2. Review of Basic Need & Growth Projection Data ......................................................................... 41

5.3. Masterplanning Scenarios ............................................................................................................ 41

5.4. Report Stage Consultation ............................................................................................................ 41

5.5. Future Consultation ....................................................................................................................... 42

5.6. Option & Scenario Scope .............................................................................................................. 43

6. Evaluation ............................................................................................................................44

6.1. Option & Scenario Scope .............................................................................................................. 44

6.2. Capital Cost Impact ....................................................................................................................... 46

6.3. Revenue Impact ............................................................................................................................ 47

6.4. Staffing .......................................................................................................................................... 47

6.5. Education ...................................................................................................................................... 47

6.6. Transport and Geography ............................................................................................................. 48

6.7. Equalities Impact ........................................................................................................................... 49

6.8. Community Impact ........................................................................................................................ 49

7. Scenario Testing – Option 1 (Baseline) ................................................................................50

7.1. Option 1 – Summary & Key Findings ............................................................................................ 50

7.2. Scenario 1A - Specifics: ................................................................................................................ 51

7.3. Capital Cost ................................................................................................................................... 52

7.4. Building Condition ......................................................................................................................... 52

7.5. Site rationalisation / disposal opportunities and condition improvement cost avoidance ............. 53

7.6. Revenue Impact ............................................................................................................................ 53

7.7. Education and Staffing Impact ...................................................................................................... 55

7.8. Transport / Geography .................................................................................................................. 56

7.9. Equality and Community Impacts ................................................................................................. 58

8. Scenario Testing – Option 2 .................................................................................................58


8.2. Revenue Impact ............................................................................................................................ 58

9. Scenario Testing – Option 3 .................................................................................................59

9.1. Two-tier education models ............................................................................................................ 59




of 137

9.3. Scenario 3B Specifics: .................................................................................................................. 62

9.4. Capital Cost ................................................................................................................................... 63

9.5. Building Condition ......................................................................................................................... 64

9.6. Revenue Impact ............................................................................................................................ 65

9.7. Education and Staffing Impact ...................................................................................................... 66

9.8. Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care ............................................................. 68

9.9. Transitions ..................................................................................................................................... 69

9.10. Pre-school and Nursery ................................................................................................................ 69

9.11. Transport / Geography .................................................................................................................. 69

9.12. Equality and Community Impacts ................................................................................................. 70

10. Scenario Testing – Option 4 .............................................................................................72


10.2. Scenario 4A - Specifics: ................................................................................................................ 74

10.3. Scenario 4A - Capital Cost ............................................................................................................ 75

10.4. Scenario 4 - Building Condition ..................................................................................................... 76

10.5. Scenario 4A - Revenue Impact ..................................................................................................... 77

10.6. Scenario 4A - Education and Staffing Impact ............................................................................... 78

10.7. Scenario 4A - Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care ...................................... 80

10.8. Scenario 4A - Transitions .............................................................................................................. 81

10.9. Scenario 4A - Pre-school and Nursery ......................................................................................... 81

10.10. Scenario 4A - Transport and Geography ................................................................................. 81

10.11. Scenario 4A - Equality and Community Impacts ...................................................................... 82

10.12. Scenario 4D - Specifics: ........................................................................................................... 85

10.13. Scenario 4D - Capital Cost ....................................................................................................... 86

10.14. Scenario 4D - Building Condition .............................................................................................. 86

10.15. Scenario 4D - Revenue Impact ................................................................................................ 87

10.16. Education and Staffing Impact .................................................................................................. 88

10.17. Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care ......................................................... 89

10.18. Transitions ................................................................................................................................ 89

10.19. Pre-school and Nursery ............................................................................................................ 89



of 137

10.20. Transport and Geography ........................................................................................................ 89

10.21. Scenario 4D Equality and Community Impacts ........................................................................ 90

11. Scenario Testing – Option 5 .............................................................................................92


11.2. Scenario 5C specifics: .................................................................................................................. 95

11.3. Scenario 5C - Capital Cost ........................................................................................................... 95

11.4. Option 5C - Building Condition ...................................................................................................... 96

11.5. Scenario 5C - Revenue Impact ..................................................................................................... 97

11.6. Scenario 5C - Education and Staffing Impact ............................................................................... 98

11.7. Scenario 5C - Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care .................................... 100

11.8. Scenario 5C - Transitions ........................................................................................................... 100

11.9. Scenario 5C - Pre-school and Nursery ....................................................................................... 101

11.10. Scenario 5C - Transport and Geography ............................................................................... 101

11.11. Scenario 5C - Equality and Community Impacts .................................................................... 102

11.12. Scenario 5D - Specifics: ......................................................................................................... 103

11.13. Scenario 5D - Capital Cost ..................................................................................................... 103

11.14. Scenario 5D - Building Condition ............................................................................................ 104

11.15. Scenario 5D - Revenue Impact .............................................................................................. 105

11.16. Scenario 5D - Education and Staffing Impact ........................................................................ 106

11.17. Scenario 5D - Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care ............................... 107

11.18. Scenario 5D - Transitions ....................................................................................................... 107

11.19. Scenario 5D - Pre-school and Nursery ................................................................................... 107

11.20. Scenario 5D - Transport and Geography ............................................................................... 107

11.21. Scenario 5D - Equality and Community Impacts .................................................................... 108

12. Most Viable Options ....................................................................................................... 109

13. Project & Programme Management (Live Project) .......................................................... 112

13.1. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 112

13.2. Governance ................................................................................................................................. 112

13.3. Change Management ................................................................................................................. 115

13.4. Programme ................................................................................................................................. 115



of 137

13.5. Key consultation stages (depending on preferred / viable options) ............................................ 118

13.6. Risk Management ....................................................................................................................... 118

13.7. Stakeholder Engagement ........................................................................................................... 119

14. Conclusions & Recommendations .................................................................................. 120

14.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 120

14.2. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 125



of 137

Appendices

1. Baseline Information

a. School site information

i. Site Plans

ii. General Arrangement Plans

iii. SoA Schedules

iv. Condition Information

2. Options Information

a. Geographical Plan

b. Pupil Number Comparison

c. Site Area Comparison

d. Building Area Comparison

e. Provision of Spaces Comparison

f. Under provision Solutions (as required) (Master planning)

3. Capital Cost Modelling

4. Revenue Budgets

5. Education Impact

6. Options Appraisal

7. Consultation

8. Programme

9. Risk Register

10. Catchment Map

Annex A - Supporting Design Information (by site)

i. Options Summary Data

ii. Space types - ESFA tool data

iii. Space types - Recommended v existing

iv. Site areas - ESFA tool data



of 137

Executive Summary

Futures for Somerset Ltd. were commissioned by Somerset County Council (SCC) to complete a

Strategic School Review exercise for the Crewkerne and Ilminster area. The purpose of the review

was to assess and test current and alternative education structures for viability and potential

sustainability into the future, in response to ongoing financial and demographic pressures.

This review is not intended to provide a definitive solution to the issues and challenges experienced

in the Crewkerne and Ilminster area, but is intended to provide a strategic overview to establish the

most viable alternative option(s) for consideration. These can then be taken forward as appropriate

for further, more detailed dialogue and consultation with stakeholders and more detailed stages of

work to establish the feasibility and deliverability of the preferred option(s) for change.

Somerset County Council requested that alternative options for the structure of education in the

Crewkerne and Ilminster area be explored, where possible utilising the existing school estate and

recognising the national presumption against the closure of small rural schools. Options considered

were to include both three-tier and alternative two-tier; primary and secondary structures, based on

the current locality system and wider national picture.

The educational system in Crewkerne and Ilminster is currently based on a three-tier system

comprising seven First Schools (Years R-4), two Middle Schools (Deemed secondary, Years 5-8)

and 1 Upper School (currently Years 9-13). It also includes two very small Primary Schools

operating within the system (Years R-6), accommodating just over 70 students between them.

The two towns of Crewkerne and Ilminster are small in scale and located in a relatively rural area

of South Somerset approximately 7.5 miles apart. The schools here serve the town populations and

a number of surrounding small rural villages and hamlets. Closure of small rural schools is an

important factor as the current educational system in Crewkerne and Ilminster comprises a network

of small first and primary schools with 6 schols based in rural communities outside of the main town

areas.

The first step of the review was to establish:

• The current position of the existing school estates, specifically what opportunities and

constraints there were for potential expansion and re-structuring.

• What capacity the system needs to be able to cater for to ensure sufficient educational

places in the future – i.e. growth projections for the locality for the next 10+ years.

The review has been designed to take account of growth and test the structure of education within

the area over the next 13-year period based on school population forecast and housing projection



of 137

data to 2032 as provided by the Local Authority. The projected additional housing demand is based

on submitted and approved new housing developments within the education locality in accordance

with SCC methodologies. The projected maximum demand is 2902 student places and this is the

same within all options and scenarios, whether delivered through two or three-tier structures.

A strategic review of all 12 of the education estates within the Crewkerne and Ilminster locality was

completed, assessing existing buildings and sites against Building Bulleting guidance (BB103) for

both current and projected numbers (projected demand to 2032 in accordance with SCC data).

Accommodation and site footprints were then also assessed utilising ESFA Building Bulletin

Schedule of Areas (SoA) tools for potential alternative educational delivery models (first, primary,

infant, junior, secondary) as required under the relevant options, to ascertain opportunities and

constraints for future site utilisation under different phases of education. This allowed the review to

conduct an objective analysis of possible viable scenarios, ascertaining which expansion and re-

structure options and combinations were viable at both individual site levels and as part of an

overarching system for the locality. It also allowed consideration of potential scope of changes and

associated works costs.

Viable options were then able to be identified and scenarios modelled to allow a wider evaluation

team to assess how these fit with key agreed criteria, such as optimal use of the existing school

estate, minimisation of development and cost implications and impact on other key factors such as

education delivery and outcomes, revenue budget implications, transport, geography and equality,

access and community needs.

Presented scenarios were developed within the framework of five agreed Option parameters:

Option 1 – The do nothing or minimum requirement option focused on retaining the existing three-

tier education structure but taking into account growth and future capacity needs. This option

demonstrates that ‘doing nothing’ is not an option – development is required to provide sufficient

places long term with growth exceeding existing capacity in both first and middle school areas.

Existing upper school numbers continue to exceed demand. This requirement and associated

Capital cost was established as the baseline for comparison of all alternative options and scenarios.

Option 2 – making no changes to the baseline structure but exploring the financial options and

implications relating to formula funding changes.

Options 3 and 4 – looking at viable alternative two-tier Primary and Secondary Structures. Option

3 utilising consolidated primary and secondary schools only, and Option 4 utilising split site Infant

and Junior or mixed Primary and Infant / Junior models, with secondary provision.

Option 5 – a hybrid three-tier system model focused on retaining the existing first school structure

but consolidating middle and upper year into combined ‘all through 9 – 16’ school provision.



of 137

Potentially viable structures were established against these options, resulting in six scenarios

deemed to represent the most viable models for further assessment and discussion. Scenarios are

identified based on their viability and deliverability and as such many alternatives have been

discounted on the basis of not being deliverable within the assumptions and constraints of the

review scope (e.g. where sites are too small to practically deliver a scenario, physically or in terms

of viability of the resultant educational model, the scenario is not carried forwards as it would not

be viable / deliverable / recommended as a structure). Resultant scenarios vary in numbers of

schools in the system (and converse potential school closures) and the complexity of associated

changes.

These scenarios are not recommendations but an assessment of viable models for future

consultation and feasibility study, and as such no single scenario or hybrid scenario is proposed as

the best solution. The scenarios show ways required capacity and alternative educational structures

could be delivered within the constraints of existing and potential future expanded site

developments; but this needs to be reviewed in the wider context of community and Diocese impact,

Academisation, estate ownership and the changing MAT landscape etc. No one option can be

progressed without critical decisions being taken by stakeholders to agree a way forward.

It is important to understand not just the physical opportunities and constraints of the sites but the

regional context and ownership and control position in which they sit.

All schools within the Ilminster and Crewkerne area remain as maintained schools with the

exception of Maiden Beech which is an Academy (and therefore no longer a maintained school).

However, 8 of the 9 first / primary schools are designated as Voluntary Controlled (VC) Schools

along with the Upper School at Wadham. These school sites are typically owned by the Diocese

of Bath and Wells and therefore the Diocese holds significant influence over the future of the schools

and their sites. Only two schools (Swanmead Middle and Merriott First) remain as maintained

community schools under ownership of the Local Authority at the date of this report.

The above split in control of the Ilminster and Crewkerne Schools presents the Local Authority with

a significant challenge. Any implementation of structural change within the Ilminster and Crewkerne

area will require numerous stakeholders to work together to achieve an area wide structural change.

The review has reinforced the complexity of the issue that Somerset County Council are currently

contending with in the Crewkerne and Ilminster area. Somerset County Council currently hold the

financial burden of the deficit budget at Wadham school but have very limited ability to effect change

to alter this situation. Whilst there are potentially viable alternative options for consideration the

current education landscape and breadth of stakeholders within the education structure results in a

lack of strategic control to shape the structure for the future.



of 137

Throughout the review several key themes and decision points have established themselves due

to the intrinsic nature of their relationship to all proposals - these are considered to be key for

discussion and agreement by stakeholders and form the core conclusions of the review.

There is a strong relationship between the size of schools and efficiency of education delivery and

progress, with optimal sizing of schools or groups of schools enabling an efficiency in the delivery

of education, sport, extra-curricular and wrap around care against set budgets whilst crucially

offering an appropriate breadth of education. This appears to support the potential benefit of

consolidating the school estate either physically or structurally.

The consolidation of schools within a new education structure has the ability to result in greater

efficiency of curriculum delivery, however there is a considerable degree of uncertainty over who

would benefit from such consolidation in the medium to longer term future. It remains unclear as to

whether the Local Authority & Schools or the Department for Education would see the greater

benefit of such improvements. If the latter, then this may lead towards a false benefit in that the

overarching budget would be resized to reflect any amalgamation and consolidation and therefore

counter any realisation of financial benefits. It is similarly unclear should any options containing land

disposals (consequential from school closures) be considered. With most schools in scope being

VC Church of England Schools, it is understood that any capital receipt would revert to the Diocese

of Bath & Wells and therefore would not necessarily benefit the overall project unless an alternative

agreement could be reached.

The introduction of a MAT(s) needs to be recognised as bringing a potentially significant opportunity

for improving the efficiency of revenue costs through the centralisation of core school functions (e.g.

HR, Procurement, IT, Estates, Finance etc). The central management, scale of economy and wider

buying power of a MAT model could add significant benefits to the structure of schools if developed

alongside the structural change.

Overall the review has identified a number of scenarios that could provide improved viability and

sustainability for the Crewkerne and Ilminster area schools, but none are viable without the need

for critical decisions to be taken by stakeholders. Consideration needs to be given to:

• The preferred solution for Secondary / combined Middle & Upper provision within the area

and the geographical impact that such a decision could have, particularly on Year 5 & 6

pupils.

• The education phase of the Middle School sites and potential conversion to Primary or

Secondary places. Any change to a viable two-tier Primary / Secondary model is contingent

upon the Middle school estate providing Primary capacity. This offers the greatest

opportunity to consolidate and rationalise the wider school system within the Crewkerne and

Ilminster area.



of 137

• Implications of any potential closures to small rural schools, proposed in order to seek

greater efficiency in the school estate and therefore greater consolidation of places in fewer

sites (impact on community to enable optimisation of school sizes).

• The importance of Church of England VC schools within the Crewkerne and Ilminster area

and whether there is any scope for change to Governance arrangements in order to facilitate

alternative solutions.

The outcome of the above decisions will undoubtedly impact on the ability to carry forward any of

the solutions, and without the support of key stakeholders, progression of any option other than

‘baseline – as is’ will likely not prove deliverable. A detailed cost / benefit analysis of baseline

Scenario 1A against other options is recommended so the limitations and constraints of proceeding

with changes for natural growth only are fully understood, in terms of continued impact on education

provision (and potential future performance) and finances. All proposed improvement scenarios

require increased levels of Capital expenditure and have potential revenue cost associated with

factors such as travel; this needs to be better understood in relation to likely ongoing financial

deficits and baseline capital funding requirements.

Ultimately to move any other change forwards all Stakeholders need to be committed to achieving

a step change in the education structure for the Crewkerne and Ilminster area.

In order to progress the development of any viable option it is critical that all key stakeholders work

together to establish an agreed solution, recommended next steps are as follows:

• Establish appropriate review and feedback groups with all schools and governing bodies to

specifically review and consult on options, with the intention of moving towards an agreed

way forward and identifying which option(s) will be taken forward to a strategic level forum

for further work, review and consultation.

• Enter into detailed dialogue with the Diocese of Bath and Wells in relation to the Voluntary

Controlled Schools within the scope of this review. The willingness of the Diocese to work

with the Local Authority on the exploration of viable options will be critical to the deliverability

of a solution.

• Given the national education agenda and increasing move towards academisation within

the Crewkerne & Ilminster area it would be prudent develop a strategic working relationship

with an incoming MAT(s) to help shape the area review in greater detail. This could enable

added financial benefits to be gained for schools within the area.

A further stage of detailed feasibility work will be required on the Preferred Option(s) once identified

and agreed with the wider stakeholder group. That stage of work would seek to establish a

deliverable programme structure and add more detail to key workstreams including capital and



of 137

revenue budgets, estates surveys and reference scheme designs and required consultation and

change management processes, to clarify and support the agreed scope of change.



of 137

SCC Statement of Intent

The market towns of Crewkerne and Ilminster, together with surrounding villages, are served by a

three-tier school system, consisting of first, middle and upper schools. There are 12 schools in total

with 2,120 pupils on roll from Reception to Year 11 (October 2018 census).

The future financial viability of the upper school (Wadham), and the two middle schools (Maiden

Beech and Swanmead) requires a re-evaluation of the suitability of the education system in this

area of Somerset.

The upper school (Wadham) currently has a significant budget deficit which, despite school leaders’

best efforts, is growing year on year. The cumulative deficit at the end of 2017/18 was £393,686,

giving a combined deficit at the end of 2018/19 of £646,301 and by the end of 2019/20 this is

anticipated to be in the region of £1m. This accumulated and growing deficit has placed the school

into a position where it will not be able to repay the Local Authority. The Local Authority has worked

hard with the school to support them in attempting to balance the budget; but has got to the position

where any further reductions in staffing will mean that standards at the school will risk significant

decline, which will result in less pupils attending the school and therefore less funding – the school

is then in a declining cycle.

The school currently caters for years 9-13; but the Sixth Form offering is no longer viable with the

money it receives from the ESFA. The Sixth Form currently has 40 students on role across years

12 & 13. The accepted view is that for a Sixth Form to be viable and offer a broad and balanced

curriculum, it needs a minimum level of 100 students per year group. However, closure of the Sixth

Form provision will not leave the school viable as an educational establishment with only 3 year

groups (Years 9-11). Around 30% of pupils who take GCSEs at Wadham remain in the Sixth Form

and this has been the case for a number of years. Those that leave tend to either attend Richard

Huish College in Taunton or Yeovil College.

The Local Authority is also aware that the two middle schools are facing increasing financial

pressure and have had to make staff redundant in order to balance their individual budgets.

It is understood that a number of First schools within the area are also under significant budget and

performance pressures with two schools having recently been judged as Inadequate by Ofsted.

The smaller schools are potentially vulnerable to fluctuations in pupil numbers and the financial

challenge that this brings in an already challenging financial climate.

A review of pupil numbers shows that there are around 800 11-16 year old pupils in the area with

no significant increase expected in the foreseeable future. This is the size of a medium sized



of 137

secondary school. At present these pupils are spread between three schools. Financially this is

not an effective use of resources, but it also means that at a time of difficulty in recruiting specialist

subject teachers, there are three schools competing to attract the best candidates.

From an academic perspective, all the schools in the area are currently judged as Good or better.

The middle and upper schools were subject to short inspections in the last academic year. All

retained their Good judgements with Wadham and Maiden Beech Academy being told they will be

subject to full inspections in the near future.

The 2016 area review (instigated by the local Headteachers) recommended closer working

relationships between schools and a move to federation / Multi-Academy Trust arrangement(s).

Some progress has been made but no tangible proposal for structural change have been

forthcoming. An initial approach to the Regional Schools Commissioner’s Office to form a Multi-

Academy Trust (MAT) in the area did not progress after the schools were informed that they would

not be able to form a new MAT but would have to join an existing one.

It is the view of Local Authority officers that the current system is not sustainable, and that the Local

Authority (working with the schools) should look to move to a different structure in the area where

possible utilising the existing estate of schools and recognising the national presumption against

the closure of small rural schools. If no action is taken the deficit at Wadham will continue to

accumulate and it is likely that in time the two middle schools could follow suit. Academic standards

are likely to slip with a real risk of Inadequate Ofsted judgements in the future.

It should be noted that the surrounding areas both within Somerset and across the border in Dorset

are all two- tier education structures.

To achieve this review, it is proposed that alternative options for the structure of education in the

Crewkerne and Ilminster area are explored. The Local Authority have commissioned Futures for

Somerset Ltd. to complete this review on their behalf in order to establish and test a series of

alternative options with a view to consulting of the most viable options that ensure best use of pupil

funding in the area over the next 10-year period.



of 137

1. Introduction and Background

1.1. Introduction

1.1.1. FfS have been appointed by Somerset County Council to complete a review of current and

alternative education structures for the Crewkerne & Ilminster area in response to ongoing

financial and demographic pressures. The review focuses on the structure of education

from Reception stage to and including Year 11.

1.1.2. This review seeks to analyse the current education structure and compare against potential

alternative solutions in order to assess whether more financially viable structures are

possible, whilst remaining cognisant of the impact that alternative structures could

potentially have on a host of other important factors (e.g. education outcomes, transport

impact etc).

1.1.3. It is important to note from the outset that this review is not intended to provide a definitive

solution to the issues and challenges experienced in the Crewkerne and Ilminster area.

The exercise is designed to establish the most viable alternative options for consideration

and if appropriate further, more detailed dialogue and consultation with stakeholders.

1.1.4. The importance of taking time to ensure the right outcome from this exercise cannot be

over-stated. This report serves as a strategic overview and will need to be followed by

detailed stages of work to look at feasibility and deliverability of preferred options. With

such a significant number of stakeholders potentially impacted upon by this review it will

be critical to ensure shared Governance, objectives and outcomes before moving forwards

to a live programme of work.

1.2. Background & Context

1.2.1. The Crewkerne and Ilminster area are located within the South Somerset District of

Somerset. The two towns are approximately 7.5 miles apart, connected by a series of A

and B roads. Both towns are small in scale and located within a more rural area of

Somerset they also serve a number of surrounding small rural villages and hamlets.

1.2.2. Crewkerne is a historic town with significant history recorded back to 899 and the main

town along with many outlying villages is designated as a conservation area. The town

and surrounding area is served by a number of First Schools, a Middle School and an

Upper School. Crewkerne has a recorded population of c. 7000 (2011 census).

1.2.3. Ilminster is also an historic town with a history recorded back to 725. The main town and

many outlying villages are also designated as conservation areas. The town is served by



of 137

a number of Primary and First Schools, and a Middle School (Swanmead). Ilminster has

a population of c. 5088 (2011 census).

1.2.4. Both towns are surrounded by a number of larger towns with Yeovil located to the East

(9.5 miles from Crewkerne and 15 miles from Ilminster) and Chard located to the West (8

miles from Crewkerne and 5.5 miles from Ilminster). Langport is located to the North (15

miles from Crewkerne and 10 miles from Ilminster). Bridport (Dorset) is located to the

South (13 miles from Crewkerne and 18 miles from Ilminster). All these towns are

reachable by car or bus within a 45-minute travel period in average traffic.

1.2.5. The school system in Crewkerne and Ilminster is primarily based on a three-tier structure

comprising First Schools (Years R-4), Middle Schools (Deemed Secondary) (Years 5-8)

and an Upper School (currently Years 9-13). In addition there are two small Primary

Schools operating within the system (Years R-6).

1.2.6. Schools within wider Somerset mainly operate on a two-tier structure based on Primary

(Years R-6) and Secondary (Years 7-11). There are however a number of areas within

the County that continue to operate on a three-tier system including West Somerset and

Frome.

1.2.7. For context there has been a significant move away from three-tier school systems over

the last 30+ years (since the early-mid 1980’s). Data suggests that whilst there were c.

2,000 middle and combined schools in England and Wales in the early 1980’s there are

now less than 150 such schools, a reduction of more than 90% which appears to be

primarily down to adjustments in the National Curriculum and Key Stages, resulting in the



of 137

majority of these schools re-designating / reverting to Primary school status1. Those

remaining middle schools tend to be classified as Middle (Deemed Secondary) due to the

age range and teaching approach implemented.

1.2.8. All schools within the Ilminster and Crewkerne area remain as maintained schools with the

exception of Maiden Beech which is an Academy. There are a total of 12 schools within

the scope of this review, made up of 9 First / Primary Schools, 2 Middle Schools and 1

Upper School.

1.2.9. 5 schools have established early years pre-school / nursery facilities on site which are in

most cases instrumental in acting as feeders into foundation stages within the First /

Primary Schools.

1.2.10. A number of the First and Primary Schools have entered into Federation arrangements in

order to establish joint working relationships.

1.2.11. 8 of the 9 First / Primary Schools and the Upper School (Wadham) are designated as

Voluntary Controlled Schools. These school sites are typically owned by the Diocese of

Bath and Wells and therefore the Diocese holds significant influence over the future of the

schools and their sites.

1.2.12. 1 of the 2 Middle Schools (Maiden Beech) has become an Academy and therefore is no

longer a maintained school.

1.2.13. Only two schools (Swanmead and Merriott First) remain as maintained community schools

at the date of this report.

1.2.14. The above split in control of the Ilminster and Crewkerne Schools presents the Local

Authority with a significant challenge. Any implementation of structural change within the

Ilminster and Crewkerne are will require numerous stakeholders to work together to

achieve an area wide structural change.

1.3. FfS Assumptions

1.3.1. The following assumptions have been applied throughout the review in order to ensure a

consistent approach, clear boundaries and scope:

1.3.2. The core purpose of this review is to remain focused on the structure of education within

the Crewkerne and Ilminster area. Whilst Academy and MAT developments may occur

during or subsequently to the review they should not unduly influence the process or

1 Baseline information on Middle School numbers taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_school

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_school



of 137

outcomes. At this stage the review needs to lead developments in the Crewkerne and

Ilminster area to establish firm foundations for future developments.

1.3.3. It is noted that the geography within this rural area of Somerset is a significant factor

impacting on access to education and parental choice. It has been assumed that the

review needs to be cognisant of the impact that structural changes could have on travel

distances to school sites.

1.3.4. The review has been designed to test the structure of education within the area over the

next 13-year period based on housing projection data to 2032 as provided by SCC, thus

taking account of growth projections provided by the Local Authority.

1.3.5. For purposes of this review it has been assumed that the current revenue funding model

for schools remains broadly as the 2018-19 funding arrangements (i.e. no significant

change to National Funding Formula or current grant arrangements).

1.3.6. For purposes of this review it has been assumed that the current curriculum requirements

for schools remains as the 2018-19 curriculum requirements.

1.3.7. The Local Authority have advised that analysis is to assume that the Sixth Form (Years 12

& 13) at Wadham School is no longer viable.

1.3.8. Local Authority growth projections show significant growth to both the Yeovil and Chard

secondary phase over the next 5 years taking these schools to capacity. It is therefore

assumed that migration of pupils from Crewkerne and Ilminster into these neighbouring

schools will be reduced in the short-medium term due to capacity constraints.

1.3.9. The review is required to seek the optimal use of the existing school estate for the projected

numbers whilst minimising cost implications and balancing other impacted factors (e.g.

education delivery and outcomes, revenue budget implications, transport etc).

1.3.10. It has been assumed that Greenfylde School will relocate to a new 15-classroom (3 Form-

Entry) site as part of wider development of Ilminster town, with scope for further expansion

to a 20-classroom (4 Form Entry) site. The Local Authority have provided feasibility stage

information for this project which has been incorporated into analysis of the school estate.

1.3.11. It has been assumed that the existing Greenfylde School site will be disposed of by the

Local Authority and is therefore outside of the scope of this review.

1.3.12. The review has based all analysis of school sites and buildings on the Government Building

Bulletins (those current in May 2019) in order to assess facility and area requirements,

surplus areas and shortfalls within the existing sites and scenarios tested. It should be

noted that the ESFA do not provide specific area guidelines for middle schools (years 5-

8). Area assumptions for these facilities have been based on best practice utilising primary

and secondary models applied proportionately to the year group splits.

1.3.13. The review was based on use of the current ESFA Schedule of Areas tool available at the

point of the review taking place (May 2019).



of 137

1.3.14. The review has focused on trying to implement / maximise best practice from current

Building Bulletin standards using optimal class sizes and dedicated separate year group

structures.

1.3.15. It is noted that a number of schools have well established Early years, Pre-schools or

Nursery facilities on site. The review has wherever practical assumed that these facilities

are retained to serve the respective schools.

1.3.16. All schools have been treated as separate organisations unless already in a formal

relationship with another school – e.g. through federation or where Academy transfers

have already completed.

1.3.17. The Local Authority has provided condition survey information for each of the school sites.

This information has been used to inform the development of options, enabling current

condition issues to be considered across the school estate.

1.3.18. All Architect design work is indicative only at this stage and subject to further feasibility

work.

1.3.19. Assumed that rented and leased land is not in scope, only core school sites under

consideration.

1.3.20. The review does not aim to address inherent issues with school sites or buildings unless

there is a proposed change to the function of the site / buildings or expansion of the site

due to growth where it would need to be recognised.

1.4. Overarching Objectives

1.4.1. This strategic review focuses on the following overarching objectives:

1.4.2. The strategic review of education estates within the Crewkerne and Ilminster locality

against Building Bulletin guidance for current and projected numbers running through to

2032;

1.4.3. The strategic review of education delivery models / options for Crewkerne and Ilminster

schools and phases of education;

1.4.4. The assessment of options against evaluation criteria, covering Operational, Physical and

Financial criteria to establish viable and preferred alternative education structures.

1.5. Opportunities

1.5.1. The following opportunities have been established for this project:

1.5.2. The opportunity to ensure the implementation of a financially viable and sustainable

education structure capable of responding to growth and need over the next decade.



of 137

1.5.3. The opportunity to enable a strategic and pro-active response to demographic and housing

growth within the area rather than reliance on reactive and ad-hoc responses.

1.5.4. The opportunity to ensure an efficient and effective area wide school estate.

1.5.5. The opportunity to ensure appropriate breadth of curriculum offer through education

phases, with appropriate staffing and resource to maintain and improve standards.

1.5.6. There may be an opportunity for some rationalisation of the education estate across the

area in order to reduce financial overhead, whilst maintaining suitable and sufficient

education provision within the area.

1.5.7. There may be an opportunity for the disposal of whole or parts of sites within the area

where facilities or land is identified as surplus to requirements, enabling capital receipts to

be used as funding for any wider adjustment of education facilities or expansion.

1.6. Constraints

1.6.1. The following constraints have been identified for this project:

1.6.2. The Local Authority have limited control over the school estate and therefore are restricted

in their ability to implement recommendations from this review without key stakeholders

with interests in the area coming on board (e.g. office of the Regional School

Commissioner, Diocese of Bath & Wells, Academies and potential Multi-Academy Trusts).

1.6.3. The Academy and Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) landscape within the Crewkerne & Ilminster

area was been slow to develop with only one school having converted to Academy status.

For a number of reasons there is now a higher level of activity developing with potential

Academy transfers and the establishment of a MAT hub (see section 2). This activity has

potential to act as a significant constraint on the Local Authority’s ability to pursue

recommendations or preferred options from this report.

1.6.4. The school estate within the Crewkerne and Ilminster area is one of multiple ownership.

The ability to develop or dispose of assets in part or whole is therefore more constrained

than other areas of Somerset.

1.6.5. Pupil numbers within the area are projected to grow with a requirement for expansion of

school places, however this growth is happening over a significant period of time (10+

years). With demand not expected to fill existing capacity under the current structure for

some time, or never in the case of upper school places this leave significant periods of

time with lower pupil numbers. These projections impact on the ability to consider swifter

changes over a shorter timescale and have potential to result in significant surplus floor

area across the estate over the short-medium term with related financial implications.

1.6.6. A number of the schools within the area have sites that are constrained or protected by

Conservation Area status and / or listed buildings on or adjacent to the sites.



of 137

1.6.7. A number of the schools within the area are severely constrained by building and site

areas, resulting in compromised accommodation and facilities.

1.6.8. The majority of smaller schools within the scope of this review are classed as ‘Rural

Schools’ within the 2018 DfE List of Designate Rural Primary Schools. This is the latest

list of local authority-maintained primary schools in England that the Secretary of State has

designated as rural under the Designation of Rural Primary Schools (England) Order 2018.

Section 15 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires that when either a local

authority or governing body of certain schools formulates proposals for the discontinuance

of a designated rural primary school it has regard to specific factors. These factors include

the likely effect of discontinuance on the local community and any alternatives to the

discontinuance of the school. Before publishing proposals for discontinuance, the local

authority or governing body must consult certain persons, including parents and, where

the local authority is a county council, any district and parish councils.

2. Academy & MAT Landscape

2.1. Summary of Evolving Academy & MAT Landscape

2.1.1. The Crewkerne and Ilminster area schools have to date only seen one Academy

conversion (Maiden Beech Academy), with all other sites remaining as Local Authority

Maintained schools. The majority of the school sites are Voluntary Controlled schools

linked to the Diocese of Bath & Wells.

2.1.2. The 2016 area review (instigated by the local Headteachers) recommended closer working

relationships between schools and a move to federation / Multi-Academy Trust

arrangement(s). Some progress has been made but no tangible proposal for structural

change have been forthcoming. An initial approach to the Regional Schools

Commissioner’s Office to form a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) in the area did not progress

after the schools were informed that they would not be able to form a new MAT but would

have to join an existing one.

2.1.3. During 2019 the Local Authority has been made aware of a proposal for the Bridgwater

College Trust (BCT) to establish a Multi-Academy Trust MAT Hub model within the South

Somerset area. It is understood that BCT are currently in well-developed discussions with

both Maiden Beech Academy (regarding transfer) and Swanmead Middle School

(regarding conversion), with the intention of both schools joining the proposed BCT MAT

Hub.



of 137

2.1.4. The Bridgwater College MAT was established in 2012 and have developed to be a very

successful Multi-Academy Trust of 5 schools within the Bridgwater, Sedgemoor and West

Somerset areas of Somerset.

2.1.5. It is understood that BCT have also held some initial discussions with Wadham School

about the potential of joining the BCTMAT Hub, but these discussions have not been

progressed further due to a number of complicated factors that potentially act as barriers

to such a transfer. It is also worth noting that:

▪ Wadham School is Voluntary Controlled and would potentially require 50% diocese

representation on the Trust board. BCT is not a Church MAT and therefore would

be unwilling to agree to such representation.

▪ Wadham school is currently operating with a significant budget deficit and it is

therefore unlikely that BCT would want to accept this liability without clear line of

recourse or remedial action to resolve the problem.

2.1.6. The Regional Schools Commissioner (RSC) have been asked to consider supporting

approval for the transfer and conversion of Maiden Beech Academy and Swanmead

Middle School respectively at the June 2019 Head Teachers Board.

2.1.7. It is understood that BCT may seek a change to the age range of the two middle schools

in order to enable education of Years 5-11 (where the middle schools currently operate

and deliver education to Years 5-8 only).

2.2. Potential Benefits of Evolving Academy & MAT Landscape

2.2.1. The establishment of a hub by a successful MAT in the South Somerset area has the

potential to offer significant benefits to the group of schools that it serves. Such an

arrangement would enable core functions within the group of schools to be centralised in

order to gain increased efficiency and deliver more effective and streamlined systems.

However, it should also be noted that this change alone would not be seen as sufficient to

resolve the scale of challenges faced within the Crewkerne and Ilminster area. If not

carefully managed the introduction of a successful MAT for a small proportion of the

schools in this area could have a detrimental impact on the stability of the wider structure

through an increased migration of students (due to surplus places), resulting in a

decreasing cycle of reduced pupil numbers, worsening of financial challenges and

consequently potential reduction in outcomes and standards.

2.2.2. A MAT has the potential to enable an increased breadth of curriculum offer, improved

continuity of resources and career progression across its schools, something that



of 137

individual schools, standalone academies and small federations cannot offer to the same

degree.

2.3. Potential Challenges of Evolving Academy & MAT Landscape

2.3.1. Any MAT entering the Crewkerne and Ilminster area at this current date will be operating

within an Education Structure and Funding Arrangement that is not viable or sustainable

into the future. This has the potential of resulting in a number of risks:

▪ The introduction of a MAT to a small proportion of schools in the area will potentially

make structural change harder to achieve if the basis of the change is not pre-agreed

with the MAT, or implemented prior to the MAT moving into the area.

▪ Academisation of maintained schools in this area will make any structural change

more complicated with an increased number of stakeholder and competing

aspirations potentially increasing the chance of the current challenges remaining

unresolved into the future.

▪ A reduced chance of achieving an area wide change that can respond to future

needs Crewkerne and Ilminster communities and projected growth.

2.3.2. If not managed with great care the introduction of a MAT could result in short-medium term

stabilisation of some schools, but significant worsening of others in the area due to student

migration and potential of age range changes.

2.3.3. Without carefully considered adjustment to the education structure in the short-medium

term, the ability to accommodation longer term (5 years plus) growth and expansion of

places within the area could provide difficult to achieve in a viable way.

3. Site & Buildings

3.1. First Schools in Scope

3.1.1. Greenfylde Church of England First School, Ilminster

(Note: SCC have provided a feasibility study which shows the proposed move of Greenfylde C of E

First School to a new site. For the purposes of this review, the details of the existing site are listed

below for information, but the modelling within the options appraisal has been based on the new

site as detailed within the feasibility study).



of 137

Type of Establishment Voluntary Controlled

Establishment Type Group LA Maintained

Diocese Bath and Wells

Federation N/A

Pre-School Provision Governor-led Pre-School

Pre-School Age Range 2-4

Pre-School NOR 60 (March 2019)

Land ownership Ilminster Educational Trust

School Age Range 4-9

NOR 341 (March 2019)

Ofsted Outstanding (March 2009)

Eligible FSM % 9.9% (April 2019)2

Number of Year Groups 5 (excluding Pre-School)

Number of Classrooms 16 Classrooms:

• 1 Pre-School Classroom

• 3 Reception Classrooms

• 6 Shared Yr1/2 Classrooms

• 4 Shared Yr3/4 Classrooms

• 2 Yr4 Classrooms

Recipient Schools Generally Swanmead

Catchment Area See Appendix 10 for details

Description of Site Centrally located Ilminster school surrounded by shops and housing.

The site comprises three permanent blocks supported by a number of temporary units, located around a central play area. No on-site playing fields, but the school has a swimming pool and has use of the local recreational ground

Block TF houses the Pre-School which is integral to the site.

Note – it is anticipated that the school will be moving to a new site, as per the SCC proposed Feasibility Study.

Third Party / Community Use Block D – used at weekends by Methodist Church

School Kitchen Small kitchen used for receiving and serving meals.

No production kitchen

Site Development Proposed move to new site as per SCC Feasibility Study.

No information available on proposals for existing site, but noted that the site is in the ownership of the Ilminster Education Trust

Site Constraints No dedicated parking on existing site, no on-site playing field

2 FSM Data taken from ‘get-information-schools.service.gov.uk’



of 137

Condition Required condition improvement works include refurbishment of heating, cooling and water systems, plus works to refurbish WCs and repair external wall

3.1.2. Hinton St George Church of England First School, Hinton St George




Federation N/A

Pre-School Provision Pre-School (run independently from school but located within school grounds)



Land ownership Diocese / Trustees

Somerset County Council (Playing Field)


NOR 54 (March 2019)

Ofsted Good (May 2018)

Eligible FSM % 7.7% (September 2018)2

Number of Year Groups 5


• 1 Pre-School

• 1 Shared YrR/1 Classroom

• 1 Shared Yr2/3/4 Classroom

Recipient Schools Generally Maiden Beech


Description of Site Victorian village school located between Crewkerne and Ilminster, comprising one main block. School is surrounded by village housing, with a detached playing field a five-minute walk away and no dedicated parking. The school also have use of the church as required, and the village hall (for PE)

Third Party / Community Use First Floor Block A hired out to independent Pre-School

School Kitchen No production kitchen, very limited space for preparing serving school meals

Site Development N/A

Site Constraints Extremely constrained site, limited options for development.

Condition Required condition improvement works include refurbishment of playground surfaces, electrical wiring and lighting and repair of external walls



of 137

3.1.3. St Bartholomew’s Church of England First School, Kithill, Crewkerne



Diocese Bath & Wells

Federation N/A

Pre-School Provision N/A

Land ownership Somerset County Council



Ofsted Good (November 2017)

Eligible FSM % 11.9% (May 2019)2



• 2 Reception

• 2 Shared Yr1/2

• 1 Shared Yr 2/3

• 2 Shared Yr3/4



Description of Site Site comprises one main masonry block (purpose built in 1994) with one temporary unit with ample hard play area and a generous sloped playing field area.

The school is located to the eastern side of Crewkerne, is surrounded by housing and has dedicated parking.

A public footpath crosses inside the school boundary adjacent to the playing field area.

Third Party / Community Use N/A



Site Development Potential opportunities to develop the site are currently being considered – including possible extension of the main block

Site Constraints Extremely narrow site bordered by retaining walls and steeply sloping ground.

Condition Required condition improvement works include electrical fixed wiring.

3.1.4. Merriott First School, Merriott

Type of Establishment Community


Diocese N/A



of 137

Federation Merriott and Haselbury Plucknett Schools Federation

Pre-School Provision Voluntary Charity-run Pre-School (run independently from school but located within school grounds)


Pre-School NOR 48 (April 2015)




Ofsted Good (March 2016)




• Dedicated classroom for each year group (but note that Yr 4 Classroom is not suitably sized for larger pupil numbers)



Description of Site Village school (including Grade 2 listed elements) sited in a rural location approximately 3 miles north of Crewkerne, within a Conservation Area.

The site comprises the main Victorian block (previously extended) with the addition of two temporary units and a log cabin.

The school has a generous provision of grass and hard play areas to the rear of the site.

Merriott Pre-School (run independently to the school) is situated within the school grounds but is accessed separately.

Third Party / Community Use No formal third-party use

School Kitchen No school meal production

Site Development Possibility of developing grass area adjacent to Block TD

Site Constraints • Located within Conservation Area

• Grade 2 listed elements

• No dedicated parking available (but local agreement in place with Church for use of car park)

Condition Required condition improvement works include refurbishment of external hard play area, external decorations, replacement of rainwater goods, doors and windows

3.1.5. Haselbury Plucknett First School, Haselbury Plucknett, Crewkerne




Federation Merriott and Haselbury Plucknett Schools Federation



of 137

Pre-School Provision Governor-led Pre-School



Land ownership Part Trustees / Somerset County Council

School field leased from private owner


NOR 50 (March 2019)

Ofsted Good (July 2018)




• 1 Pre-School

• 2 Shared YrR/1 and occasionally Yr2

• 1 Shared Yr3/4 and Yr2 (mornings)



Description of Site Village school sited in a rural location approximately 3 miles north-east of Crewkerne and located within a Conservation Area. Victorian school building with temporary unit accommodating Nursery / Pre-School and dining area, with access to leased field at the rear of the site.

Third Party / Community Use No formal third-party use



Site Development Possibility of developing site in area of Block TA.

Site Constraints • Leased Playing Field, narrow / constrained site

• Conservation Area.

• No dedicated parking available

Condition No major condition issues noted

3.1.6. Ashlands Church of England First School, Crewkerne




Federation Ashlands and Misterton Schools Federation







of 137


Eligible FSM % 19.2% (December 2018)2


Number of Classrooms 5 Classrooms

• Dedicated classroom for each year group



Description of Site The school is located not far from the centre of Crewkerne on a busy through-road (A356).

A Victorian school (with Grade 2 listed elements) split over two levels which is sited on a constrained, steeply sloping site and located within a Conservation Area.

MUGA facility and large forest school area (available to other schools and organisations) are located on the lower level / to the rear of the site.

Third Party / Community Use School hall hired out once per week for community use

School Kitchen Small kitchen used for receiving and serving meals (meals received from Wadham).


Site Development The school have recently acquired the Children’s Centre. The school is currently undergoing development of a number of areas in agreement with adjacent housing development.

Site Constraints • Conservation Area

• Possible listed built elements (fireplace)

• Steeply sloping site

• Possible issues ground water levels in some areas of the site

Condition Majority of built elements are condition C/D, requiring refurbishment works to Heating, decorations, roofing, fencing, doors, windows and ceilings / floors

3.1.7. Misterton Church of England First School, Crewkerne




Federation Ashlands and Misterton Schools Federation


Land ownership Trustees / Diocese

Private Landowner (field)


NOR 46 (March 2019)



of 137


Eligible FSM % 4.3% (February 2019)2



• 1 Shared YrR/1

• 1 Shared Yr2/3/4



Description of Site Located on a busy through road (the A356) approximately 2 miles south-east of Crewkerne, in a rural village location. The school comprises a single Victorian school building on a constrained site, with play areas to the rear including access to a privately-owned, leased field.


School Kitchen Small kitchen used for receiving and serving meals (meals received from Wadham).


Site Development N/A – but possibility of sharing accommodation across the federation (Ashlands School)

Site Constraints Leased playing field

Constrained site

No parking, adjacent to a busy through road

Condition Majority of built elements are condition C/D requiring refurbishment to electrical / heating systems, playground surfaces, roofing, windows and doors

3.2. Primary Schools in Scope

3.2.1. Shepton Beauchamp Primary School, Shepton Beauchamp, Ilminster




Federation The Three Saints Federation


Land ownership • Trustees / Diocese

• Shepton Beauchamp Parish Council (War memorial site)

• Lethbridge Memorial Recreational Field Committee (field)


NOR 40 (March 2019)

Ofsted Good (January 2018)

Eligible FSM % 11.1%2



of 137



• 1 Reception

• 1 Shared Yr 1/2

• 1 Shared Yr 3/4/5/6



Description of Site Village school located to the North East of Ilminster, comprising one main block with adjacent hard play area and informal grass area (unsuitable for formal use due to uneven ground). The school use the off-site Rectory Garden for recreational activities and have use of the church, village hall and recreational field on a regular basis. There is no dedicated parking.




Site Constraints • No dedicated parking on existing site

• No on-site school playing field

• Victorian building on constrained site

Condition Required condition improvement works include footpath surface, roof lights and external window glazing.

3.2.2. St Mary & St Peter’s Church of England VC Primary School, Ilton, Ilminster




Federation The Three Saints Federation






NOR 34 (March 2019)

Ofsted Special Measures (January 2019)




• 1 Pre-School

• 1 Shared Reception, Yr 1/2



of 137

• 1 Shared Yr 3/4/5/6



Description of Site Village school located to the North of Ilminster, comprising two temporary blocks and an attached playing field. The school site is situated on the edge of Ilton village in a rural area. There is no dedicated parking. The school also have use of the church and the village hall on a regular basis.




Site Constraints • No dedicated parking on existing site

• Constrained site comprising numerous temporary unit

Condition Required condition improvement works include footpath surface, roof lights and external window glazing.

3.3. Middle Schools in Scope

3.3.1. Maiden Beech Academy, Crewkerne

Type of Establishment Academy Converter

Establishment Type Group Academy

Diocese N/A

Federation N/A





Ofsted Good (June 2018)



Number of Classrooms Approximately 20 classrooms used by all year groups.

Feeder / Recipient Schools Feeder Schools:

• Generally Crewkerne First Schools including Ashlands, St Bartholomew’s, Misterton, Haselbury Plucknett, Merriott, Hinton St George

Current Recipient School:

• Wadham


Crewkerne-centric, bordering Swanmead catchment area to the west, with no other adjacent Middle School Catchment areas.



of 137

Description of Site Site comprises five masonry blocks and five temporary units with generous playing field on a large site.

The school is located to the southern side of Crewkerne, is surrounded by housing and has limited dedicated parking.

Third Party / Community Use Extended school use as required

School Kitchen Production kitchen supplies meals to other schools

Site Development No known site development plans.

Site Constraints Site suitable for redevelopment if required.

Condition Required condition improvement works include:

• Mechanical Heat Source (Block A and D)

• Electrical Automatic Control System (Block A)

3.3.2. Swanmead Community School, Ilminster

Type of Establishment Community School


Diocese N/A

Federation N/A



Pre-School NOR 44 (June 2017)




Ofsted Good (February 2018)



Number of Classrooms Pre-School (Block TF)

Approximately 12 classrooms used by all year groups.

Feeder / Recipient Schools Feeder Schools:

• Generally Ilminster First Schools including Greenfylde, Shepton Beauchamp, St Mary & St Peter’s

Current Recipient School: Wadham


Ilminster is located to the mid-west of the catchment area and borders Maiden Beech catchment area to the east, with no other adjacent Middle School Catchment areas.

Description of Site Site situated on the edge of Ilminster opposite a residential area. The site comprises one main permanent block, one temporary building, MUGA, hard pitch and a large level playing field.



of 137

Third Party / Community Use

Hall, Gym and MUGA used by Community on regular basis

School Kitchen School production kitchen

Site Development Possibility that Swanmead may purchase the adjacent Ilminster Skills and Learning Centre

Site Constraints Site suitable for redevelopment if required.

Condition Required condition improvement works include roofing, windows, external decorations, water systems, electrical elements, boilers and WC refurbishment

3.4. Upper Schools in Scope

3.4.1. Wadham School, Crewkerne


Establishment Type Group LA Maintained School

Diocese Diocese of Bath and Wells

Federation N/A


Land ownership The Crewkerne Education Foundation

Age Range Currently 13-18 years

(Noted that due to the non-viability of the 6th Form it is proposed that Years 12 & 13 will be closed)


Ofsted Good (May 2018)


Number of Year Groups 19 Tutor Groups across 3 year groups (excluding sixth form)

Number of Classrooms Approximately 30

Feeder Feeder Schools – Maiden Beech, Swanmead


Possible impact on neighbouring secondary schools (e.g. Stanchester, Beaminster, Preston, Holyrood etc) if catchment area altered

Description of Site • Purpose-built secondary on a generous site footprint, located within a large housing development to the north east of Crewkerne.

• Substantially permanent 1970s construction (steel frame with external precast artificial stone envelope) designed around linked departmental blocks. In addition, the site accommodates one temporary unit, a caretaker’s bungalow plus the Community Leisure Centre and a derelict Cricket Pavilion (of historical interest)

• Two large playing field areas (one of which is currently out of use due to badger undermining) plus areas of sloping, wooded land that are unsuitable for sports use.



of 137

A public footpath separates the larger playing field from the main site which generally includes a large number of mature trees and informal green spaces throughout.

Third Party / Community Use • Leisure Centre (Block J) - The school has recently taken-on the management of the Lottery-funded leisure centre on the site, with services to be developed for September 2019

• Sports Block (Block E) – used every evening for community sports

• Sports pitches - regular evening / weekend community use of football pitches

• Playing fields - current negotiations underway with the Town Council and Football Association re possible installation of 3G pitch to address shortfall of provision in the area

• Temporary Unit on field leased to Air Cadets

• Tennis Courts - Current negotiations underway with Town Council re provision of tennis courts for community use

School Kitchen Currently produces meals for Wadham, Ashlands and Misterton Schools

Site Development Possible requirement to improve road junction adjacent to school entrance if numbers significantly increase

Site constraints Site suitable for redevelopment if required, aside from sloping wooded areas of school field

Condition Required condition improvement works include window, door and boiler replacement. WCs require refurbishing throughout and a number of areas require improved thermal comfort / control.

External surfaces (including Redgra pitch) require refurbishment, alongside areas of structural improvement

3.5. Out of Scope Schools – Impact on Review

3.5.1. The neighbouring school systems in Chard, Yeovil across the County border into Dorset

remain outside of the scope of this review. It is noted that a number of pupils in catchment

for Crewkerne and Ilminster schools opt to attend schools in these areas and that due to

parental choice and capacity in the system this situation will continue. However, within the

Chard and Yeovil Schools (where Somerset County Council is the Local Authority) the

spare capacity in the system is fast being eroded by growth. SCC projections currently

predict that these schools will be operating at capacity by c. 2022 and therefore migration

from Crewkerne and Ilminster will be minimised.



of 137

4. Review Team

4.1. Futures for Somerset Ltd (the Somerset Local Education Partnership) –

Strategic Review and Project Management

4.1.1. The Futures for Somerset team is comprised of a number of experienced Project and

Programme Managers who have a wealth of experience of working with schools,

academies, MATs and FE colleges on both capital and revenue projects – ranging from

the creation of new multi-million-pound secondary schools (as part of the Building Schools

for the Future Programme), to procuring and managing school improvement fund works.

The team has delivered projects in close collaboration with the Local Authority, the

Department for Education and the Education and Skills Funding Agency and works

regularly on behalf of education establishments and Multi Academy Trusts to provide

strategic advice, property consultancy, capacity reviews and site master planning services.

4.1.2. Alongside strategic-level work, Futures have experience of procuring and managing a

range of education / community service contracts including IT, Facilities Management, and

Community Leisure services – giving the team a broad insight and understanding of

operational and financial requirements in both education and community environments.

4.1.3. The team recognises the value of effective stakeholder engagement and strong

partnership working, and has utilised this to good effect across private, public and

community sectors in order to effectively deliver projects on time and to budget.

4.1.4. The team applies Prince 2 and Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) methodologies

in order to effectively manage a broad range of projects and programmes across the

education and community sector.

4.2. Grainge Architects Ltd – Capacity Review and Masterplanning

4.2.1. Grainge Architects have built up a strong reputation as being one of the leading

Architectural practices in the South West, with particular expertise in the education sector.

Grainge have successfully delivered projects across the entire range of educational

buildings, from Early Years accommodation, primary and secondary school new builds and

expansions, through to specialist, FE and university facilities. Futures and Grainge have

worked collaboratively to successfully deliver a number of projects in Somerset, involving

feasibility studies, capacity reviews, site masterplanning and Architectural design services.

4.2.2. The Grainge team comprises architects, designers and technicians who are highly

experienced at calculating education accommodation requirements in accordance with the



of 137

ESFA Building Bulletin documents, whilst applying a sensitivity and understanding of client

needs in order to deliver creative design solutions

4.3. Randall Simmonds – Cost Advisors

4.3.1. Randall Simmonds are a professional construction consultancy providing construction

development and cost advice services to Local Authorities, Housing Associations and

private developers across multiple industry sectors (including education). They provide

advice on projects and programmes ranging from high level strategic planning

programmes through to individual construction projects; providing cost plans,

benchmarking and assessment tools alongside procurement and delivery advice.

4.3.2. Randall Simmonds have worked with Futures on a number of education projects in

Somerset in a cost consultancy role. They understand the specific needs, standards and

legislation / regulation involved in constructing educational buildings and are familiar with

local market conditions in terms of construction materials and labour costs. Their multi-

skilled team of Quantity Surveyors, Project Managers, CDM Advisors and construction

professionals are experienced in providing early, informed views on feasibility and

affordability.

4.4. Susan Fielden (Effervesce Ltd) – Specialist School Finance Advisor

4.4.1. Susan has developed a wealth of experience in the school funding sector, working across

a range of strategic-level roles for Somerset County Council (SCC) and the Department

for Education since 1991. Previous SCC roles include the Strategic Project Manager for

School Funding and Services, and the Executive Officer for the Children and Young

People’s Compact (a strategic joint commissioning partnership between schools,

academies, early years providers and SCC). More recently, Susan has worked as the DfE

School Funding Policy Lead and is now Director of Effervesce Ltd – a specialist

consultancy working with school and education leaders to connect vision with strategic

financial planning.

4.4.2. Susan has been appointed to carry out the financial review of the options appraisal due to

her in-depth knowledge and understanding of the school finance sector, combined with her

drive to secure outstanding and sustainable provision for children and young people.



of 137

4.5. Jill Ewen – Education Consultant - Education Impact Review

4.5.1. Jill has thirty-two years of education experience with over twenty-two years in schools

(including roles ranging from maths teacher - to over ten years in senior leadership roles

as Deputy, Vice-Principal and Acting Principal,) and ten years as the SCC School

Improvement Advisor. This role incorporated various responsibilities including maths

adviser, lead adviser for Special Schools, responsibility for the NQT Appropriate Body

service, managing Governor Services and Headteacher recruitment.

4.5.2. Jill now works as an independent consultant providing support for leaders in schools,

including Headteacher recruitment, school reviews, improvement planning,

coaching/mentoring and Ofsted preparation, and is also a Somerset Education Partner

(SEP) for SCC.

4.5.3. Jill has been appointed to carry out the ‘Education Impact Review’ of the options appraisal

due to her breadth of knowledge and experience, particularly in relation to Somerset

schools.

5. Methodology

5.1. Area Wide Capacity Review

5.1.1. Within the brief for this work package, Grainge Architects have completed a detailed

capacity review to assess the current and future accommodation needs at each of the 9

First / Primary Schools, 2 Middle Schools and 1 Upper School against the current Building

Bulletin 103 Recommended Minimum Areas for Basic Teaching, Large Spaces (Hall,

Dining, PE), Learning Resources, Staff & Admin, Storage, Non-Net and Supplementary &

Community, to identify any shortfalls in areas based on current pupil numbers and future

potential requirements. This exercise was based on the following methodology;

5.1.1.1. Review of the existing accommodation (“baseline”) to identify current layout and

usage of building (to ensure accuracy of information, Futures for Somerset

engaged with the schools, as required, to verify current room usage and the ESFA

space reference type i.e. Basic Teaching, Large Space etc), including (where

appropriate)

▪ Identification of any life-expired building stock and removal of this

accommodation from the assessment.



of 137

5.1.1.2. Production of formalised coloured plans for each site to reflect the BB103 criteria.

5.1.1.3. Development of BB103 area schedule for potential future requirements and

comparison back to baseline schedule to identify accommodation surpluses and

/ or shortfalls.

5.1.1.4. Development of Functional SoA covering accommodation required for potential

future requirements.

5.2. Review of Basic Need & Growth Projection Data

5.2.1. Somerset County Council current population numbers and forecasts and recently updated

Pupil Product Ratios (the number of pupils that new housing developments will yield) have

been utilised in conjunction with housing data to assess future potential growth

requirements for the area. The projected numbers are the same under all tested Options.

The projected additional housing demand is based on submitted and approved new

housing developments identified within the education locality in accordance with instructed

SCC data and methodologies.

5.3. Masterplanning Scenarios

5.3.1. Grainge Architects have completed an initial master plan review of each school site. This

exercise looked at the potential areas within each school site for possible expansion /

development based on current shortfalls and future potential requirements (depending on

the preferred / viable options) as well as identifying any current site constraints. The

potential expansion / development has been shown as sqm blocks based on the findings

of the shortfall analysis with no internal details at this stage.

5.4. Report Stage Consultation

5.4.1. Futures for Somerset attended a series of meetings with Somerset County Council in the

initial stages of our appointment in order to understand the full scope / brief of the proposed

review. Further update progress meetings have been held with the County Council

throughout the development of the report.

5.4.2. Two consultation / update events, attended by both Somerset County Council and Futures

for Somerset, were held on 12th March 2019 and 3rd April 2019 with the Headteachers

and Chairs of Governors of the 12 identified schools. The events were an opportunity to

report on the progress of the review and to seek comments on the proposed contents /

details.



of 137

5.4.3. Somerset County Council have separately engaged with the Regional Schools

Commissioner in order to promote the importance of the review and its timing in relation to

ongoing Multi-Academy Trust developments within the area. The Local Authority and

Regional Schools Commissioner have responded to acknowledge the importance of the

review and to confirm that the outcomes will be considered ahead of key decisions being

taken on Academy Transfers within the Crewkerne and Ilminster area.

5.5. Future Consultation

5.5.1. The review proposes a two-phase informal consultation prior to any formal consultation

that may be required as part of a statutory process for making a prescribed alteration

change (depending on the preferred / viable options). The suggested phasing and

timescale for the informal consultation has been developed with due regard to the DFE’s

“Consultation Principles Guidance 2018” and following research into recent reviews of

current and alternative education structures undertaken by other Local Authorities.

5.5.2. To ensure best practice, consultations should;

▪ Be clear and concise

▪ Have a purpose

▪ Be informative

▪ Last for a proportionate amount of time

▪ Be targeted

▪ Be agreed before publication; seek collective agreement before publishing a written

consultation.

▪ Take account of all relevant considerations

▪ Consult about proposals / plans when the development of those proposals / plans

are at a formative stage.

5.5.3. The proposed overall timescale for the informal consultation allows a period of time for the

collective agreement of the scope of the proposed consultation, the preparation of the

consultation documents and the prior advertising of the consultation itself including any

proposed events and details of where to find / how to respond to the consultation

document.

5.5.4. Phase 1 of the informal consultation allows for further engagement with the Headteachers

and Chairs of Governors of the 12 identified schools in advance of the wider consultation



of 137

proposed under Phase 2. It allows for a number of meetings to be arranged with the

schools, as required, and includes a period of time to review feedback and comments and

to incorporate any agreed changes into the Phase 2 consultation. It is suggested that the

Regional School Commissioner and the Diocese of Bath and Wells are invited to these

meetings.

5.5.5. Phase 2 is the wider consultation and will include the publication (hard copy and electronic)

of the consultation and response form documents. Suggested key consultees could

include, but are not limited to, governors, staff, parents and pupils of the 12 schools, the

Diocese of Bath and Wells, local Parish, County and District Councillors, Headteachers

and Chairs of Governors of schools in nearby / adjacent areas, Headteachers and Chairs

of Governors of schools in neighbouring local authorities, Directors of Education /

Children’s Services in neighbouring local authorities, Early Years care / education

providers, the local MP, staff union representatives, local community groups.

5.5.6. The proposed timescale for Phase 2 allows for a number of consultation events including

wider public engagement. It also allows for a period of time to collect, review and

incorporate relevant considerations from the various events and the completed response

forms into the final documentation for the formal (statutory) consultation required as part

of any prescribed alteration change. A period of eight weeks has been allowed for the

formal consultation period.

5.6. Option & Scenario Scope

5.6.1. Option 1 – Current Scenario (baseline Option)

5.6.1.1. This is the “do nothing” or minimum option. It serves as a baseline for the other

tested Options retaining the existing structure but incorporating required growth.

5.6.2. Option 2 – Adjusted Formula Funding

5.6.2.1. This option retains the current first, middle and upper three-tier structure but with

the potential for adjustments to the current formula funding arrangements.

5.6.3. Option 3 – Primary & Secondary

5.6.3.1. This is the first of two Options which look at a two-tier model of education (primary;

secondary) focusing on the potential for consolidated primary schools across the

review area. It is assumed under this Option that Secondary (11-16) places will

come from within the existing middle and upper schools.

5.6.4. Option 4 – Primary (split) & Secondary



of 137

5.6.4.1. Under this Option, split site Infant and Junior, and hybrid split site and

consolidated Options are considered. It is assumed, as per Option 3, that

Secondary places will come from within the existing middle and upper schools.

5.6.5. Option 5 – First Schools & Secondary (extended age range)

5.6.5.1. Option 5 specifically looks at Options to retain the existing First School structure

but amalgamates middle and upper years into one consolidated education

provision.

5.6.6. Sixth Form – Wadham School currently operates a Sixth Form (Years 12-13) alongside

the main Secondary provision (Years 9-11). The sixth form is currently operating with c.

40 students on role which sits significantly below the recognised minimum of 180-200

students across years 12 & 13 required to ensure a financially viable Sixth Form Centre.

The Local Authority have advised that their projections have demonstrated that the local

need is not sufficient for continuation of a Sixth Form offer and therefore, for purposes of

this review, it is to be assumed that the sixth form provision is to be wound-up. Students

would therefore seek to enter Further Education in Taunton, Chard, Yeovil or Huish

Episcopi. The floor area currently reserved for Sixth Form would therefore become

available as free space and can be factored into the review accordingly.

5.6.7. All-through (single site) – consideration has also been given the whether a greatly

simplified all-through (single site) provision could be provided within each of the Crewkerne

and Ilminster town areas - this has the potential to offer the most cost-effective delivery

model in terms of revenue budgets due to a scale of economy. Following initial

investigation this option was discounted on the basis that:

▪ no individual site is of a suitable size to offer such a large-scale development / co-

location of schools.

▪ The capital cost for such a development would prove cost prohibitive and

implementation would not be possible.

6. Evaluation

6.1. Option & Scenario Scope

6.1.1. Prior to starting the review process and development of options the structure, methodology

and evaluation process were carefully developed to ensure a fair evaluation process that

would not sway outcomes too greatly from any one factor, whilst still recognising that some



of 137

factors need to hold greater importance than others by the very nature and importance of

their role on day-to-day business. The table below summarises the evaluation categories

identified and the percentage weighting (relative importance) to be applied to these

categories during the evaluation of options.

6.1.2. It is recognised that a number of these categories overlap, but on closer inspection it is felt

that the overlaps cannot be avoided and that they actually prove useful in identifying where

a decision impacts on a number of functions of a school or set of schools. As a simplistic

example there is a very close link between the Revenue Budget, Staffing and Education –

where increased staffing is required this may potentially have a positive impact on

Education, but consequently is likely to have a more negative impact on the revenue

budget.

6.1.3. Evaluation of options will be completed by the appointed review team in order to establish

well considered analysis of each element of each option enabling an appropriate score to

be developed.

6.1.4. Option 1 (baseline) has been developed as the baseline option for reviewing alternatives

to the structure of education in the Crewkerne & Ilminster area. The option focuses on the

current structure of education and considers growth required to satisfy basis need running

through to 2032 based on Somerset County Council projections. This option serves as the

foundation against which other scenarios are reviewed and tested to ascertain whether

they could offer and improvement or worsen the existing situation in part of whole.

6.1.5. Within the scope of Option 2 to Option 5 set out within the Methodology Section of this

report (Section 5), a number of scenarios are developed and tested to establish their

Evaluation Category Weighting

1 Capital Cost 20%

2 Revenue Cost 25%

3 Education (Curriculum, SEN, Sport, Early Years)

25%

4 Staffing 15%

5 Transport 5%

6 Equalities 5%

7 Community 5%

Total 100%



of 137

viability and relative scoring to the baseline option. Under each option heading one or two

of the most viable scenarios are carried forward for evaluation against the Baseline Option

(Option 1). Scenarios are identified based on their viability and deliverability and as such

many alternatives have been discounted on the basis of not being deliverable within the

assumptions and constraints of the review scope (e.g. where sites are too small to

practically deliver a scenario, physically or in terms of viability of the resultant educational

model, the scenario is not carried forwards as it would not be viable / deliverable /

recommended as a structure).

6.1.6. The evaluation of options and related scenarios has been based upon a consistent review

principle that has aimed to establish degrees of positive or negative impact that each

scenario creates against the review criteria. The scoring system therefore seeks to

understand whether aspects of each scenario improve, worsen or remain the same when

compared to the Baseline Option (Option 1). This also enables the ranking of scenarios

relative to one another and the Baseline Option. The scoring system applied has been

outlined below:

Score Summary

-3 Significant negative impact compared to baseline proposal

-2 Considerable negative impact compared to baseline proposal

-1 Moderate negative impact compared to baseline proposal

0 No notable change when compared to baseline solution

1 Moderate positive impact compared to baseline proposal

2 Considerable positive impact compared to baseline proposal

3 Significant Positive impact compared to baseline proposal

6.2. Capital Cost Impact

6.2.1. The review will aim to assess the estimated capital cost of delivering options through the

development of high-level cost models based on the level of intervention required within

the school estate. Cost models will aim to establish levels of new build, remodelling and

refurbishment within options and will model costs against these categories of work

accordingly.

6.2.2. Cost modelling will be completed by Randall Simmonds based on estate options

developed by Grainge Architects. Modelling will use BCIS rates for work categories – all

costs are at baseline only with no inflation index applied as final works timeframes not

currently known. Inflation will therefore need to be applied to all project costs to establish

appropriate project budgets.



of 137

6.2.3. In addition to the development of a capital cost model consideration will also be given to

the opportunity cost of disposing site elements (if deemed surplus to requirements in any

developed options). Any such capital receipts from the disposal of land or buildings would

be seen as beneficial in helping to balance capital costs.

6.3. Revenue Impact

6.3.1. The need to try and establish a viable and sustainable school structure in Crewkerne and

Ilminster has been instrumental to the establishment of this review. Therefore, it will be

critical to understand and assess the implications of each option on school revenue

budgets. At this stage, given the breadth of options it is not practical to model them all in

detail, but it is possible to complete an assessment of whether an option is likely to worsen

or improve key elements of a school budget (e.g. implications for revenue lump sum

funding, staffing costs, site maintenance costs etc).

6.3.2. The evaluation will take account of a high-level analysis for the likely impact that options

would have on school revenue budgets, establishing whether a negative, positive or no

change position would exist in each scenario.

6.4. Staffing

6.4.1. This section of the evaluation focuses on the impact each option may have on staffing

arrangements and whether the tested scenarios for improve, worsen or maintain current

staffing provision.

6.4.2. The staffing element does not take into account staff costs for each scenario, which are

considered under the revenue impact section of the evaluation.

6.4.3. The level and appropriateness of staff resource is considered along with the quality and

breadth of resource that each scenario would be likely to result in. Scenarios are reviewed

on the basis of whether they would be most likely to result in maintained, improved or

worsened staffing to support the required breadth of curriculum activity.

6.5. Education

6.5.1. Each scenario is reviewed to ascertain the level of impact that it is likely to have on the

delivery of Education. The Education workstream has been split down into a number of

sub-categories to facilitate the review, covering the following areas:

6.5.2. Curriculum – alternative scenarios are considered in terms of their potential impact on the

efficiency, viability and sustainability of curriculum delivery. Scenarios are reviewed using



of 137

a set of principles establish with the Education Consultant in order to understand whether

they are likely to result in a positive, neutral or negative impact on the breadth, quality,

consistency and continuity of curriculum delivery.

6.5.3. SEND – consideration is given the ability of each scenario to support SEND within

mainstream school settings, establishing the likelihood of positive, neutral or negative

effects for each scenario when compared to the current Baseline Option.

6.5.4. Sport & Extra-Curricular Activity – the varying impact that scenarios have on the ability to

deliver Sport & Extracurricular activity from school sites is specifically considered within

the review. This is again scored by reference to the current Baseline Option, establishing

where options improve, offer a status quo or worsen current arrangements and delivery.

6.5.5. Early Years – consideration is given throughout the review to the potential impact on Early

Years arrangements through tested scenarios. Whilst assessment of places is outside of

the scope of the review, the importance of existing Nursery and Pre-school arrangements

is recognised and reflected within the evaluation of scenarios, identifying if the existing

Baseline is impacted, remains the same or worsens due to alternative proposals.

6.5.6. Church Schools – the review is cognisant of the fact that the majority of schools in the

Crewkerne and Ilminster area are established as Church of England Voluntary Controlled

schools. Consideration has therefore been given to the impact that scenarios could have

on this current arrangement, in terms of the education offer in the area.

6.6. Transport and Geography

6.6.1. This section of the review aims to consider the geography and transport implications and

challenges for each option / scenario tested in order to establish whether an option results

in a positive, neutral or negative impact on the following factors:

6.6.2. Infant and Primary Schools are currently provided within local communities and therefore

travel distances for many families are typically short. Developed options will be reviewed

to establish their likely impact on the current position, establishing whether the position is

improved of worsened. The Local Authority have advised that no Primary age student

should be forced to have a travel time of more than 45 minutes to their local school.

6.6.3. Consideration will be given each options impact on the ability of parents and pupils to walk

to school. In rural village schools this is an important part of the village and community

and therefore options will be reviewed to reflect adjustments based on geography of the

various options.

6.6.4. The evaluation of options will also consider the high-level impact on parents dropping

pupils to school on route to work. Whilst individual travel routes cannot be taken account



of 137

of, proposed options will be reviewed in terms of the level of impact they are likely to have

on current arrangements based on geography.

6.7. Equalities Impact

6.7.1. This section of the review aims to consider the equalities implications and challenges for

each option / scenario tested in order to establish whether an option results in a positive,

neutral or negative impact.

6.7.2. Consideration will be given to the potential impact that structural changes to the school

system and estate could have on the ability to gain fair and equal access to public services

and premises and the scale of impact any identified changes could have (either positive or

negative). Consideration will also be given to the current baseline position presented by

the current school structure and estate (including current compromises where compliance

cannot be fully achieved due to the constraints of the facilities).

6.7.3. A full Equalities Impact Assessment will be required for any Preferred Option that is taken

forward, but as part of this Strategic Review, an initial view has been taken on the potential

positive, neutral or negative impact of each option on the relevant protected characteristics,

to include (but not be limited to) age, disability, race (including ethnicity, nationality,

Gypsies and Travellers), religion and belief, rurality and low income.

6.8. Community Impact

6.8.1. This section of the review aims to consider the implications and challenges of each option

/ scenario tested on the local Community in order to establish whether an option results in

a positive, neutral or negative impact.

6.8.2. It is recognised that most of the first schools are designated as Rural Schools under the

Designation of Rural Primary Schools (England) Order 2018. On this basis the testing and

evaluation of options need to ensure that any proposed changes to schools take account

of potential impacts on local community character and the function that schools play within

their communities (i.e. community use, polling stations, community hubs etc).



of 137

7. Scenario Testing – Option 1 (Baseline)

7.1. Option 1 – Summary & Key Findings

7.1.1. Option 1 comprises the ‘do nothing’ or minimum requirement position. It serves as a

baseline for other options under review and outlines what needs to be done to retain an

‘as is’ existing three-tier first, middle and upper school system; when taking into account

projected requirements for growth to meet school population forecast and additional

housing development demands. The table below summarises the current student numbers

(as at SPF population baseline 2018), the assessed existing capacity with the 12

Crewkerne & Ilminster schools (based on SCC SCAP data and existing school site

accommodation analysis), and the projected required student numbers for the area by tier

type:

Current NoR Existing

Capacity Projected Required Number

Uplift beyond current capacity

First Schools 998 1044 1317 Uplift of 273

Middle Schools 683 840 924 Uplift of 84

Upper School 450 775 661 Excess of 114

Total 2131 2659 2902

7.1.2. It is important to note that whilst several of the existing schools are currently under-utilised

with pupil numbers below site capacity (particularly across middle and upper schools –

consistent with the outlined associated financial pressures), the projected growth of pupil

numbers across the Crewkerne and Ilminster area over time is expected to exceed existing

capacity; with additional school places needed across first and middle year groups to meet

educational needs. This option does therefore represent a ‘minimum requirement’ position,

on the basis that do nothing is not feasible if sufficient educational places are to be realised.

7.1.3. Scenario 1A therefore illustrates the position ‘As is, taking into account growth’.

7.1.4. The main area of projected growth is within the first school tier / year groups where there

is currently very little spare existing capacity. A small number of places have been identified

across Ashlands and Greenfylde, but the majority of the small first / primary school sites

(particularly those of less than 100 pupils) are struggling to comply with building & site

BB103 SoA (Government template - Schedule of Accommodation) requirements for their

existing pupil numbers, let alone suggested increased SCAP numbers - meaning additional

expansion capacity needs to be found to serve future pupils under this model.



of 137

7.1.5. The middle schools of Swanmead and Maiden Beech have existing capacity in place and

will see growth of student numbers over time to take them to full occupancy, plus a small

level of increased demand requiring additional accommodation to support.

7.1.6. Analysis shows that whilst Upper year student numbers are expected to grow from the

current position it will not be significant and is not expected to exceed the capacity that

currently exists within the Wadham site. The gap between max. Site capacity and NoR will

reduce slowly over time but will not close. Excessive or redundant upper student capacity

will continue to exist at Wadham under this model; which leaves residual risk regarding

ongoing financial sustainability. If this option were to be adopted as the preferred strategy

going forward knowing this to be the case, further risk mitigation actions or financial support

/formula funding changes may need to be considered (that is explored further under Option

2)

7.2. Scenario 1A - Specifics:

7.2.1. Scenario 1A summarises the following actions anticipated to be required under the ‘do

minimum’ option – to maintain existing structure whilst incorporating projected growth:

▪ Expand First numbers at Ashlands school site utilising existing vacated

accommodation. A block has been identified on site, following closure of the former

Children’s Centre – with the potential to be reconfigured to house 2 additional

classrooms.

▪ Expand First numbers at Greenfylde’s school, based on the relocation and

expansion to alternative SCC site – as outlined in existing feasibility study provided

by the Local Authority. With expansion options very limited on smaller sites this

relocation and expansion is critical to realising the required numbers.

▪ Plan for small expansion of Middle student accommodation at Maiden Beech as

existing capacity nears exhaustion – there is scope for limited expansion on both

Swanmead and Maiden Beech sites, but Maiden Beech has the greater site area

and flexibility of options to incorporate so increased capacity has been indicated

there.

▪ Consider excess area to remain unutilised at Wadham and review and consider short

term and longer-term options to close / decommission / mothball areas of redundant

estate. Practical application will likely be limited but should be reviewed alongside

potential options for funding support, long term or to bridge until growth reaches

suitable position.



of 137

7.3. Capital Cost

7.3.1. Expansion works will be required to ensure continued provision of student places under

the existing three-tier system and this will have an associated Capital cost. We have looked

to assess this cost as part of the review; on the basis of the works remit outline above, to

establish a Baseline of potential cost against which we can compare alternative options.

There is effectively no capital cost neutral option to cater for the future, so assessment of

capital cost will be relative to this ‘do minimum’ level of funding.

7.3.2. Each site (with the exception of Greenfylde where there is an existing costed feasibility

study) has been analysed using the relevant BB103 SoA tools to identify area shortfalls

and accommodation types that will be required to support additional numbers and establish

calculated estimates of additional area. These areas have then been fed into a high-level

cost model to establish appropriate works rates and provide an outturn Order of Magnitude

capital cost. A copy of the feasibility cost model completed by cost advisors Randall

Simmonds can be found within Appendix 3. The table below summarises the calculated

development areas, works type and Order of Magnitude Capital Cost:

Site Area Works Type OoM Capital Cost

Ashlands 170m2 Refurb / Reconfiguration £379,000

Greenfylde 2700m2 New Build £7,300.000

Maiden Beech ~500m2 New Build £1,538,000

Total Baseline Cost: £9,197,000

7.4. Building Condition

7.4.1. All buildings will need to be retained under this model meaning that any remedial and repair

works associated with the age and condition of the buildings will need to be addressed as

they arise going forward (through LA maintenance funds or CIF / Academy based grants

as appropriate). We have reviewed and presented known building condition data relating

to each site to establish a RAG rating, but as ‘retain all’ is the default or Baseline position

we limited the focus at this stage of the review on assessing and highlighting any potential

opportunities for improvement upon that position under the alternative options. The only

exception to this could be where reviewing the excess capacity at Wadham to see if any

areas that could be decommissioned / mothballed temporarily or permanently could be tied

in with known areas of poor condition. This may be limited in practical application.



of 137

7.5. Site rationalisation / disposal opportunities and condition improvement cost

avoidance

7.5.1. As outlined above this scenario has limited scope for site rationalisation and disposal

opportunities, beyond the assumed change of Greenfylde site, as all buildings are required

to be retained and utilised to sustain the existing three-tier education system. The table

below captures a high-level summary of the current building condition status for each of

the 12 sites within the relevant Crewkerne and Ilminster area to give an indication of

potential future maintenance needs – potential site rationalisation / disposal opportunities

and condition improvement cost avoidance under other options will reference back to this:

Site Rationalisation / Disposal Opportunity

Building Condition

RAG rating

Notes / Comments

Haselbury Plucknett None – All sites proposed to be retained under this option

Amber / Green Any remedial / repair / replacement works associated with the age and condition of the buildings will need to be addressed as they arise going forward. No cost avoidance opportunity with all sites in operation.

Hinton St George Amber

Misterton Amber / Red

Shepton Beauchamp Red / Amber

St Mary and St Peter’s Unknown**

Merriott Amber

St Bartholomew’s Amber / Green

Ashlands Amber

Greenfylde* New Site Green

Swanmead Amber / Red

Maiden Beech Amber / Green

Wadham Potential for excess area rationalisation

Amber May be limited in practical application – applying to very limited area

*Greenfylde is modelled above on basis of new replacement site. The disposal opportunity arising from old site (Red / Amber condition

status) is assumed to be available to the Local Authority / relevant Education Trust as part of proposal.

**Unknown building condition status (not captured ESFA Property Data Survey) - site comprised entirely of temporary buildings.

7.6. Revenue Impact

7.6.1. This option essentially shows the position as it is now, but after the required levels of

expansion and growth have been applied. A calculation of formula cost, derived from basic

lump sum funding (and any other relevant factors in terms of split site or scarcity funding)

has been completed to estimate the new baseline revenue cost position in the expanded

state. The table below indicates the calculated baseline against which other options have

been assessed, in terms of variation and potential savings / improved financial position:



of 137

Option Estimate of Lump Sum Costs

Variation from Baseline (Potential saving)

Year 1 saving Grant Lump sum (PE / Sports premium etc)

Variation from Baseline (potential saving)

Overall Revenue Saving to Public Purse

1A Baseline

£1,320,000 N/A N/A £192,000 N/A N/A

7.6.2. A detailed summary of the Financial impact assessment can be found within in Appendix

4; the information below is a summary of the scope of the financial assessment completed

for this initial options appraisal stage review.

7.6.3. The financial assessment has focused on delegated budgets or ISB (ISB being the

Individual School Budget and term used to describe the budget allocated to schools

through the funding formula). However, the assessment also includes comment on non-

ISB financial implications, financial risks, the revenue costs associated with implementing

change and overall cost-effectiveness.

7.6.4. Judgements were made on the basis of the following assessments:

▪ The cost to the public purse – recognising that some options present considerable

revenue savings but that the benefit would accrue to the DfE not Somerset

▪ Other financial implications, in terms of the loss of funding to the area and the scope

for further savings

▪ Financial risk, including where the responsibility for bearing costs was uncertain or

the risk of financial failure

▪ Curriculum efficiency – a measure of the likely proportion of revenue spend that

would be for class teaching, educational support and resources rather than

leadership and management, administration and premises costs, based on

benchmark data.

7.6.5. The equivalent sections following within this report (under other options headings) will

contain an extract of the key comments and factors identified relevant to the specific

Scenario under review, as has been used to contribute to the options appraisal evaluation,

based around those four key headings:

7.6.6. Funding Implications

7.6.6.1. The figure outlined in the table above represents the baseline position.



of 137

7.6.7. Other Financial Implications

7.6.7.1. Six of the twelve schools are already collaborating within three federations, each

of two schools. Each federation has a single headteacher, realising beneficial

leadership cost savings.

7.6.7.2. Further integration of these federations, leading potentially to an area-based

multi-academy trust would provide further opportunities for efficiencies and cost-

effective collaboration.

7.6.8. Financial Risks

7.6.8.1. Wadham is at serious risk of financial failure, with premises costs and minimum

staffing levels exerting a disproportionate demand on the budget.

7.6.8.2. Three schools reported a cumulative deficit at the end of 2017/18 with five more

showing an in-year deficit. The in-year deficit at Maiden Beech academy

considerably exceeds the residual balances indicating a risk of financial failure in

the current financial year.

7.6.8.3. Retaining this configuration risks irrecoverable deficits which could be, in the

event of educational failure, be left for the LA to write off, from the LA budget not

DSG. A deficit in an academy could lead to withdrawal of the funding agreement.

7.6.9. Curriculum Efficiency

7.6.9.1. The results found under this assessment form the baseline position against which

other options are compared. It is noted that the small schools are likely to

experience lower proportion of spend attributed to classroom teaching and

educational support/ resources due to fixed costs.

7.7. Education and Staffing Impact

7.7.1. As per other areas of analysis this option serves as a baseline for comparison and

effectively looks at the anticipated size and education phase of the encompassing schools

after growth, to allow factors such as relevant factors (such as pupil to teacher ratios,

numbers per year groups, current mixed age year classes, numbers of school transition

points and at what age they occur, potential disadvantages and opportunities of alternative

sizes and models to staffing skills and recruitment and retention) to be considered to

assess if changes under Scenarios are anticipated to largely; maintain the status quo,



of 137

provide opportunity for improvement to deliver a position better than the current status or

potentially have a detrimental or worsening impact.

7.7.2. As expected for option 1A under retained existing three-tier first, middle and upper school

model, the baseline system comprises the following:

▪ 9 existing first and primary schools - 5 very small with less than 100 pupils, 3 small

between 100 and 200 and 1 of medium / larger size at 346.

▪ 2 middle schools of medium primary or small / very small secondary size, and

▪ 1 upper school of equivalent size to medium size secondary.

7.7.3. A detailed review of considerations and findings relating to Educational Impact and Staffing

can be found within Appendix 5 of this report, the following is a summary of the structure

of the review and key points of note:

7.7.4. The review was centred around assessment of implications for each of the following

scenarios / model types; Primary, Secondary, Infant and Junior and First and all through 9

– 16 years. The principles and key consideration of these and how they link with student

numbers / sizes and education phases was established and then applied to each scenario

based on the new proposed structure. Each alterative / option under consideration is

therefore structured against these key headings with factors relating to Sport and Extra-

curricular activities, SEND and Wrap around care following.

7.7.5. The current three-tier system has 5 school sites with nursery provisions and (with the

potential exception of ~ 74 students at existing primary schools) requires all students to

make 2 transitions within their educational pathway, from first to middle and then from

middle to upper. All alternative scenarios are measured in terms of impact on these

measures, I.e. any potential loss to nursery places or potential benefit to continuity of

education through reduction in transitions.

7.7.6. The key conclusion within the assessment was that the staffing and educational

opportunities that a school can offer depends far more on the size of the school than the

age phases or tier system it operates within, and that the older the pupils within the school

the more important that becomes in terms of being able to offer a diverse range of options

with access to staff that can specialise in that subject – how this translates under each

scenario is summarised within the option heading but there is a clear correlation between

optimal school sizes and positive educational impact.

7.8. Transport / Geography

7.8.1. An overview map illustrating the geographical locations of current existing capacity across

the relevant Crewkerne and Ilminster sites is included within Appendix 2 of this report titled



of 137

‘Existing Schools Overview’ – it shows the current spread of educational places across the

three-tier year groups as in the current baseline on which commentary on transport and

geography is based.

7.8.2. The key points of note are:

▪ 6 of the small existing first / primary school sites are within rural village / community

settings, with the remaining three spread between Ilminster and Crewkerne.

▪ The 2 existing middle schools are split between Crewkerne and Ilminster with

provision in both areas.

▪ Upper school places are only available in Crewkerne with all pupils attending

travelling there from across the region.

7.8.3. As outlined within the summary of Educational Impact assessment (see Appendix 5) the

greatest distance between existing schools (St Mary and St Peter’s and Haselbury

Plucknett) equates to 12 miles. On the basis that it is possible to travel this within the

stipulated 45-minute time limit any proposed change in school site for pupils and their

families will be within a permissible distance. It is assumed however that most moves will

be to next nearest school cutting down the potential distances considerably from that

worst-case scenario. As illustrated within the appendix table over one third of all the

schools are located at a proximity of 5 miles of less from each other.

7.8.4. Each potential alternative option will consider the equivalent overview in terms of

implications for split of student places and year groups over the geography, the potential

travel distances of proposed changes and numbers affected, and implications on

opportunity to walk to school.

7.8.5. Option 1A is illustrated on an overview map included within Appendix 2 of this report titled

‘Option 1A Overview’ – it effectively shows the current spread of educational places across

the three-tier year groups but with the relevant sites shown at their expanded student

numbers.


▪ As expected there are no changes to transport considerations or geographical split.

▪ The required uplift in first school numbers is based on area need – with the vast

majority of additional first school places delivered via the Greenfylde expansion there

may be families in new housing areas having to travel from further afield as local

provision will be full.



of 137

7.9. Equality and Community Impacts


‘Option 1A Overview’ – it effectively shows the current spread of educational places across

the three-tier year groups but with the relevant sites shown at their expanded student

numbers.

7.9.2. Option 1A is anticipated to have neutral equalities impact on any of the protected

characteristics as there is no change to the existing educational structure or geographical

spread of provision. Planned future expansions to Greenfylde, Ashlands and Maiden

Beech sites will also have neutral impact as they are designed to deliver growth and

demand needs for the area based on existing locations / sites. Likewise, there is likely to

be no foreseeable community impact directly due to planned site expansions.

8. Scenario Testing – Option 2


8.1.1. Option 2 is focused on retaining the existing first, middle and upper three-tier structure but

with assessment of potentially viable adjustments to formula funding. The required pupil

numbers and site constraints remain the same, so the model in terms of required

developments (capital cost, and impacts on transport, equality and community etc) is

essentially the same as outlined above under Scenario 1A. The section below therefore

captures any relevant aspects of change relating to revenue that could provide

improvement to financial sustainability of this model.

8.1.2. A detailed analysis of the potential considerations, tools, options and discussions that

might be utilised to target formula funding and strengthen areas of identified financial risk

and weakness within the existing system (‘As is’ scenario) is included within the

accompanying Financial impact assessment report which can be found within in Appendix

4; the information below is a summary of the key elements broken down across the four

assessment headings:

8.2. Revenue Impact




of 137

8.2.1.1. Any divergence from the National Funding Formula will be at a cost to the

Somerset DSG and therefore affect all schools. The most targeted approach

would be to seek support from the DfE to vary sparsity thresholds and minimum

funding levels to fairly reflect the three-tier system. This, combined with the use

of a lump sum rather than tapered sparsity value for secondary/upper schools

could provide relief for Wadham until pupil numbers increase. A similar approach

could be considered for the first and middle schools.


8.2.2.1. The most significant financial risk to an individual school is year on year loss of

pupils, leading to a level of operation that is significantly under capacity.

8.2.2.2. Implementing a formula change to support the three-tier system would encourage

community confidence in the schools and reduce pupil drift.


8.2.3.1. The process of seeking these sorts of changes to the local formula requires local

consultation and an application to the DfE to disapply the Regulations. Failure to

carry the support of the Schools Forum places other aspects of the Schools

Budget at risk, particularly strategies to address High Needs demands.

8.2.3.2. Changes to formula funding for Wadham in particular may increase in-year

viability but will not address cumulative deficits.

8.2.3.3. Formula change has the effect of reducing financial risk to LA funds through

adding a planned additional charge to the DSG. This shifts from uncertain to

known, and from LA funds to DSG.


8.2.4.1. In Option 2 the basic configuration of educational provision is as for Option 1.

There is no change in predicted curriculum efficiency as any beneficial change in

the formula for Wadham school in particular would reduce the deficit rather than

allow for increased curriculum spend.


9.1. Two-tier education models



of 137

9.1.1. Options 3 and 4 consider alternative two tier primary and secondary education models; in

order to assess this in the same way as the baseline model both existing and potential

future capacity needs to be mapped against the relevant equivalent primary and secondary

years – as previously this needs to take into account projected requirements for growth to

meet school population forecast and additional housing development demands. The table

below summarises the current student numbers (as at SPF population baseline 2018), the

assessed existing capacity with the 12 Crewkerne & Ilminster schools (based on SCC

SCAP data and existing school site accommodation analysis), and the projected required

student numbers for the area, this time by two-tier primary and secondary types:




Primary Places (split over existing first and middle school sites)

1340 1464 1799 Uplift of 335

Infant 568 641 787 Uplift of 146

Junior 753 823 1012 Uplift of 189

Secondary (split over existing middle and upper school sites)

792 1195 1103 Excess of 93

Total 2131 2659 2902

9.1.2. The projected growth of primary pupil numbers across the Crewkerne and Ilminster area

over time is expected to exceed existing capacity; with additional school places needed

across both infant and junior primary year groups to meet educational needs. Secondary

provision however shows a different story; indicating that even with anticipated growth

there is excess capacity across the region once existing under-utilised sites are filled. As

outlined previously; several of the existing middle and upper schools which contribute to

secondary year group capacity are currently significantly under-utilised (with pupil numbers

well below site capacity), providing ample / excess capacity even for future numbers.

9.1.3. It is however important to recognise that:

▪ The current illustrated excess capacity in secondary places is accumulated across

three existing sites, with two of the schools also currently delivering ‘junior’ primary

equivalent places – that capacity will not necessarily translate neatly into alternative

configurations.

▪ The projected number of secondary pupils requiring school places in the region after

growth is only 1103, equating effectively to one medium / large secondary school.



of 137

▪ With year groups mapped across from three-tier to two-tier systems (with the

exception of 2 very small primary schools; Shepton Beauchamp and St Mary and St

Peter’s, totalling 74 students) all current primary equivalent capacity is split – with

infant years delivered under ‘first’ and junior years split between ‘first and middle’

schools.

▪ Cumulative capacity across multiple locations, as opposed to planned re-structuring

across educational phases can give rise to unusual pupil class numbers / teaching

configurations and increased class groups, as opposed to optimal 30 to a class

model as specified under BB guidance. Though with student numbers growing into

capacity organically over time this can be true for periods within re-structured models

as well.


9.2.1. Option 3 is the first of two alternative two-tier primary and secondary options under review,

focusing on the potential for consolidated primary schools across the region. Consolidated

in this instance meaning that every viable site must be able to support the full 7 primary

year groups (Reception – Yr. 6) in one location. Option 4, covered later in this document

considers alternative split site Infant (R – Yr. 2) and Junior (Yr. 3 – Yr. 6) and hybrid split

site and consolidated options.

9.2.2. It was assumed prior to analysis that under each two-tier option, Secondary (11 – 16)

places would come from within the existing middle and upper schools only (namely

Swanmead, Maiden Beech and Wadham) and that all possible combinations for provision

of secondary education could apply equally to either primary model. Whilst this is true in

principle it was evident on analysis of consolidated primary options under Option 3 that not

all secondary options were feasible if the primary model was to be achieved with a number

of secondary options having to be discounted to support a switch of existing capacity to

primary.

9.2.3. Fundamental to understanding this is understanding how the existing first schools translate

in terms of potential consolidated primaries. The vast majority of the existing first /primary

school sites are very small in size and unable to accommodate the required 7 classrooms

or 210 students (for a 1 form entry school). The majority of sites (particularly those of less

than 100 pupils) are struggling to comply with building & site BB103 SoA requirements for

their existing pupil numbers let alone expanded NoRs. Development options on those

small sites are extremely limited if possible at all, meaning they cannot realise the

additional teaching areas to meet the SoA requirements and cannot function as



of 137

consolidated primaries without compromising efficiency of class sizes and/or promoting

heavy use of mixed age group teaching across multiple age range and key stages – to a

greater degree than is happening in practice within the existing 5 year groups. Only 2 of

the larger existing first sites were identified as potentially viable to support a consolidated

primary model (with a query around potential 3rd at St Bartholomew’s), and taking into

account growth and required numbers, even at maximum thresholds these schools alone

would leave a massive shortfall in primary numbers of at best ~750+ primary places.

9.2.4. Sufficient capacity utilising consolidated primaries can therefore only be achieved if

development of the larger first sites is supplemented with capacity from the current middle

school provision. I.e. for this option to work both middle school sites would be required to

change to primary schools (and take expanded numbers) to meet the area demand,

meaning there would be no capacity there to support secondary provision. Wadham having

the capacity to expand and deliver a sole site secondary option - and release the middle

school capacity for primary education - is intrinsic to this model having a viable scenario

and being able to deliver appropriate capacity in the appropriate age brackets.

9.2.5. Assessment of the viability of other secondary options is therefore detailed below under

Option 4, where greater flexibility in ways to deliver primary places opened-up additional

options. For completeness it is worth noting that the analysis found Wadham as a sole

site secondary to be the recommended secondary model, meaning the preferred Option 3

scenario summarised below correlates with the optimal secondary provision anyway and

is directly comparable against the other two-tier options in terms of evaluation of this

aspect.

9.3. Scenario 3B Specifics:

9.3.1. Scenario 3B summarises the following actions anticipated to be required to deliver a

solution utilising consolidated primary schools (all sites to cater for 7 year groups)

▪ The majority of existing small first sites are unable to accommodate 7 classroom

arrangements and are not viable as consolidated primary schools – under this option

there would be potential opportunity for closure of 7 existing school sites.

▪ Expand numbers at Ashlands school site utilising existing vacated accommodation.

A block has been identified on site, following closure of the former Children’s Centre

– with the potential to be reconfigured to house 2 additional classrooms and take

total to 7 to support 1FE Primary structure.

▪ Expand numbers at Greenfylde’s school, based on the relocation and expansion to

alternative SCC site and a change of provision to a 3FE Primary School. The current



of 137

feasibility study as provided by the Local Authority shows plans to support a 4FE first

school of 20 classrooms. It is considered viable that this could be revised to a 21-

classroom arrangement to support an alternative 3FE primary school.

▪ Expand numbers at Swanmead to accommodate a 420 pupil 2FE primary school –

this is in line with the maximum number that Swanmead site can hold while meeting

BB standards and fits well against the required provisions. The school building area

is of sufficient size currently and has an overprovision of each space type required

for primary education, requiring internal reconfiguration and refurbishment only to

ensure the correct functions and facilities appropriate to revised age range.

▪ Expand numbers at Maiden Beech to accommodate a 630 pupil 3FE primary school

– this is comfortably feasible within the site constraints. The school building area is

of sufficient size currently, requiring internal reconfiguration and refurbishment only

to ensure the correct functions and facilities appropriate to revised age range.

▪ Expand numbers at Wadham through delivery of a new accommodation block to

accommodate the full requirement of 1103 secondary students as a sole site facility

– this is comfortably feasible within the site constraints with potential identified site

areas. Wadham also has an overprovision of accommodation in some areas

meaning it may be feasible to realise some, or all, of the additional places through

internal reconfiguration.

9.4. Capital Cost








development areas, works type, ‘Order of Magnitude’ capital cost and comparative position

against the baseline ‘do minimum’ option:




Swanmead 506m2 Refurb / Reconfiguration £1,284,000



of 137

Maiden Beech 865m2 Refurb / Reconfiguration £2,109,000

Wadham* 1000m2 New Build £3,180,000

Total Scenario Cost Total Scenario Cost £14,232,000

Total Baseline Cost Total Baseline Cost: £9,197,000

*Costed based on New Build Option due to risks associated with condition of potential identified reconfiguration area

9.4.2. This option requires development across 5 sites as opposed to 3 under the ‘do minimum’

baseline taking into account the internal reconfiguration works associated with age change

requirements at Swanmead and Maiden Beech sites.

9.5. Building Condition

9.5.1. There is potential scope for the closure of 7 existing school sites under this scenario

meaning a significant opportunity to improve upon the baseline position; where all buildings

will need to be retained and any remedial and repair works associated with the age and

condition of the buildings addressed as they arise going forward.

9.5.2. Site rationalisation / disposal opportunities and condition improvement cost avoidance

9.5.3. As outlined above this scenario has significant scope for site rationalisation and disposal

opportunities, beyond the assumed change of Greenfylde site, with 7 additional existing

first/ primary sites identified for potential closure. The table below indicates the current

known building condition status for each of the identified opportunity sites to give an

indication of the potential scale of benefits (in terms of future maintenance needs):


Building Condition

RAG rating

Notes / Comments

Haselbury Plucknett Potential Closure Amber / Green

Hinton St George Potential Closure Amber

Misterton Potential Closure Amber / Red

Shepton Beauchamp Potential Closure Red / Amber

St Mary and St Peter’s Potential Closure Unknown** Temporary Buildings

Merriott Potential Closure Amber

St Bartholomew’s Potential Closure Amber / Green

Ashlands Sites to be retained Amber






of 137

Wadham Amber




9.6. Revenue Impact

9.6.1. A detailed summary of Financial impact assessment is included within in Appendix 4, the

information below is an extract of the key comments and differentiating factors identified

relevant to the specific Scenario under review, as has contributed to the options appraisal

evaluation:



Year One Saving

Grant Lump sum (PE / Sports premium etc)



1A Baseline

£1,320,000 N/A N/A £192,000 N/A N/A

Option 3B £550,000 (£770,000) (£115,500) £80,000 (£112,000) (£882,000)


9.6.2.1. This option represents the greatest saving overall, but it will be for the DfE -

funding into Somerset will reduce in line with formula and grant saving.

9.6.2.2. The additional lump sum payment in the year following amalgamation would

contribute to the cost of change.

9.6.2.3. Use of a split site primary option rather than using an existing middle school site

would add cost through the split site factor.


9.6.3.1. This option represents the largest reduction in DSG and grant funding coming

into Somerset and the Crewkerne and Ilminster area. Assuming that significant

savings could be realised through reductions in premises and administrative

costs, the saving is still likely to translate to a reduction in the number of teachers.

Whilst this will mainly affect leadership posts, if the saving is broadly proportionate



of 137

to school spending generally, it could be assumed that this would translate to a

reduction of 6 to 8 teachers.

9.6.3.2. This option also reflects a significant reduction in specific grant for PE and Sports,

which may be mitigated by more efficient provision in larger schools.


9.6.4.1. It is not clear if the expectation of 85% of lumpsum saving passing to the newly

amalgamated schools in year one would be at a cost to the DfE or Somerset

DSG.

9.6.4.2. It is not clear if any additional split site costs would be funded by the DfE, and if

funded there may be a lag of one year and/or an application process.

9.6.4.3. The larger schools in this option bring increased resilience and viability.


9.6.5.1. Whilst there is evidence that very large schools demonstrate a decline in

curriculum spending as a proportion of total spend, this may be as a result of

financial efficiency, with educational support staff and resources shared efficiency

across multiple classes in each year group. Despite the drop off in the curriculum

efficiency metric for larger schools, this option has close to the top weighted

metric.


9.7.1. A detailed Education and Staffing Impact review is included within Appendix 5, the

information below is an extract of the key comments and factors identified as relevant to

the specific Scenario under review, as has contributed to the options appraisal evaluation.

9.7.2. For this option the relevant assessment models were Primary and Secondary, and the

summary is split between the two areas accordingly.

9.7.3. Key findings of Primary assessment:

▪ The advantages / disadvantages of a primary model are different and more directly

correlated with the size of school rather than comparison of first or infant / junior

models however there can be greater consistency of approach to teaching and



of 137

learning, curriculum planning and behaviour management, and reduced potential for

repetition /misalignment of approaches when continuing from ages 4 to 11 in one

phase.

▪ Primary schools of small student numbers (particularly where retaining schools with

less than 100 students) with multi-age classes is considered challenging, in terms of

being able to stretch and challenge students when covering multiple curriculum

elements in class and with difficulties associated with staff recruitment and retention

and limitations on career progression.

▪ Larger primary schools with a larger staff body will benefit from greater access to

and retention of specialist staff and expertise with more opportunities for wider

curriculum and associated enrichment opportunities. Increased opportunities for

school leaders to focus on leadership and strategic improvement.

9.7.4. Key findings of Secondary assessment:

▪ Research indicates that the optimal size for a secondary school, where performance

is optimised is evidenced to be in the order of ~1000 pupils.

▪ Small / smaller secondary will not be able to offer the breadth of choice in KS4 that

a larger one can, as seen in review of comparable sized secondary sized schools in

Somerset. The smaller the school the less likely students are to have access to

specialist staff with increased challenges in recruiting and retaining staff and

covering all subjects with specialists, more part time staff may be needed or teachers

having to teach more than 1 subject.

▪ A review of recent Government Capacity UD1 data (covering 3376 schools across

the country designated with secondary pupils) showed that less than 1% of

secondaries existed of very small size (less than 350 pupils). It would be considered

highly unusual to create one and it is not recommended to be used for secondary

(11 – 16) provision.

▪ Increased size in secondary provision can provide greater support and opportunities

for both students and staff, with a larger staff body allowing a full and balanced

curriculum supported by the appropriate specialist staff / subject expertise to stretch

and challenge all pupils. Larger school sizes provide greater resilience and flexibility

in how staff are deployed.



of 137

9.7.5. This scenario proposes to have 4 consolidated primary schools ranging from smaller 1FE

entry 210 pupil size to 3 FE 640 pupil size, and one single site secondary school providing

all the required capacity at 1103 pupils and is considered the optimal model in terms of

educational and staffing impact, maximising the opportunities and advantages of

economies of scale with all school sites within optimal size ranges. Whilst secondary

provision was required to be a sole solution in order to have viable capacity at primary

level, the single site solution proposed is considered to be the optimal model and would

have been recommended anyway (as illustrated in more detail under option 4).

9.8. Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care

9.8.1. Impact or opportunities for improvement in these areas were found to also largely correlate

with size of schools proposed under the scenario, on the following basis:

▪ There are more opportunities in larger schools for team sports and for participating

in tournaments and competitive games. Training and specialist knowledge is also

more likely to be apparent in larger schools.

▪ There is likely to be increased range of additional other extracurricular activities,

such as music and drama in larger schools, where staffing time and expertise are

available.

▪ A larger school has the opportunity to deploy TAs in more creative way and can

support more pupils – they also have an advantage in training opportunities as TAs

can specialise in certain approaches I.e. ELSA. Smaller schools probably have more

limited opportunities in how they use Pupil Premium funding because they have

fewer staff to utilise.

▪ Wrap around care provision (before and after school clubs etc) is largely generated

by the school and parent demand and not confined to a particular type of school or

model – it could therefore be offered to equivalent standard in any provision, but with

greater opportunity to expand or increase financial sustainability at a larger school

where there is increased numbers and potential increased demand.

9.8.2. This scenario proposes to have 4 consolidated primary schools ranging from smaller 1FE

entry 210 pupil size to 3 FE 640 pupil size, and one single site secondary school providing

all the required capacity at 1103 pupils and is considered the optimal model in terms of

maximising the opportunities and advantages of economies of scale in these areas.



of 137

9.9. Transitions

9.9.1. This scenario proposes that all pupils will transition directly from primary to secondary

education after Year 6, this means a reduction to optimal position of only one transition,

which could provide greater continuity for the more vulnerable (reducing anxiety for some

students) and minimise impact associated with poor transition.

9.10. Pre-school and Nursery

9.10.1. This option has the most risk of potentially detrimental impact upon pre-school nursery

provision with 3 of the existing 5 nurseries on sites that are indicated for potential closure.

This would need careful consideration and mitigation planning if this option were to

progress.

9.11. Transport / Geography

9.11.1. Option 3B is illustrated on an overview map included within Appendix 2 of this report titled

‘Option 3B Overview’ – it shows the proposed spread of educational places delivered under

a two-tier structure using consolidated primary schools and a single secondary school site.

9.11.2. With a reduction from 12 to 5 schools and changes in year groups patterns there will be

transport implications for a large number of pupils and families.


▪ There remains a good split of capacity across both Crewkerne and Iminster areas

with 2 primary schools sited in each location.

▪ All moves resulting from the closure of the smaller existing first / primary school sites

require moves of under 5 miles.

▪ There will no longer be provision for the older middle year (Years 7 and 8) within the

Ilminster area as these become part of the secondary provision delivered from

Crewkerne – however this affects non-primary children. The longest travel distance

from primary to secondary will be 9 miles, which is equivalent to the current move

from Swanmead middle to Wadham Upper, the transition is just happening earlier in

line with primary / secondary model.

▪ The equivalent Yr. 7 and 8 pupils will move 1 mile from Maiden Beech to Wadham.



of 137

▪ With closure of smaller more rural schools there will be lost opportunity to walk to

school from village locations, however with increased capacity for lower age ranges

within Crewkerne and Ilminster hubs there may be increased opportunity there in

both denser populated areas.

9.12. Equality and Community Impacts

9.12.1. Significantly this option could see the closure of seven existing rurally-located first / primary

schools, with consolidated Primary provision now concentrated in four primary schools –

two in Ilminster and two in Crewkerne, plus a single Secondary School in Crewkerne. This

option sees a negative impact in relation to the existing status quo, largely due to the

number of planned school closures across the region, in particular leading to impact on the

following protected characteristics:

9.12.2. In particular, equalities impact assessments will need to ensure that impacts on the

following protected characteristics are understood and mitigated:

9.12.3. Religion and Belief - Proportion of church schools

9.12.3.1. Due to the high proportion of existing Diocese Schools in the area (8 of the 9

existing First / Primary Schools are Diocese Schools), option 3B would see a

reduction in the number of Diocese schools across the region and a reduced

geographical spread. However, the proposals see consolidated Diocesan Primary

provision available in Ilminster (Greenfylde) and Crewkerne (Ashlands), alongside

a non-denominational Primary in each town, offering greater parental choice across

the region.

9.12.4. Rurality - Rural and Village Schools and Communities

9.12.4.1. The majority of proposed schools for closure are considered to be designated as

‘rural schools’ and as such, a detailed impact assessment would need to ensure

that any significant impact on the community is understood and mitigated where

possible. The removal of schools from these areas could impact on community

facilities and cohesion, although currently there is no significant community use

noted for these schools.

9.12.4.2. Travel times for pupils and families (for those with an onward journey to works) are

likely to be increased and therefore proposals would need to consider the

availability of transport links etc in order to mitigate any impact.

9.12.4.3. A number of the schools have associated Pre-School / Nursery provision which

may be impacted should the school sites close. A lack of Early Years provision can

impact on the ability of rural families to work and can also have a negative impact



of 137

on a child’s Early Years development. A proportion of this Early Years provision is

delivered from school premises with the majority being run independently from the

school, although a small number are under school control. Future Early Years

growth, demand and provision is outside of the scope of this Feasibility Study, but

further assessment will be required in order to ensure that sufficient alternative

provision is available and that any negative impact on rural families is mitigated.

9.12.5. Race - Minority Communities

9.12.5.1. St Mary and St Peter’s school is proposed for closure under this option. It has been

noted that a number of children from the Travelling Community attend the school

and therefore further assessment will be required in order to understand and

mitigate any negative impact on this community.

9.12.5.2. At this stage, no other negative impact on race has been noted in relation to the

other schools proposed for closure, but further assessment will be required at

feasibility stage

9.12.6. Disability – Accessibility

9.12.6.1. A number of schools proposed for closure under this option are Victorian village

schools which are limited in terms of possible disability adaptations. A move to a

more consolidated Primary model in a smaller number of refurbished buildings, may

positively impact on the ability of schools across the region to accommodate pupils

and staff with disabilities, but it should be noted that the refurbishment of existing

building stock may limit accessibility in some cases.

9.12.7. Low income

9.12.7.1. Utilising the percentage of children eligible for Free School Meals as a deprivation

indicator (see Part 3 for details for each school), the majority of schools earmarked

for potential closure under this proposal demonstrate a level of deprivation below

the national average, with the exception of St Mary and St Peter’s (17.1%)2.

9.12.7.2. Ashlands (19.2%)2 site is proposed to be developed under this option and therefore

the investment in the site may impact positively on low income families within this

area. However further assessment will be required to ensure that any impact on

low income families attending St Mary and St Peter’s is recognised and mitigated.



of 137



10.1.1. Option 4 is the second of the two-tier primary and secondary options under review, with

the greatest number of sub-options as it looks at both split site Infant and Junior

combinations and hybrid split infant / junior and consolidated primary options. As

summarised under the previous option it is assumed that Secondary (11 – 16) places will

come from within the existing middle and upper schools (namely Swanmead, Maiden

Beech and Wadham) and that all possible combinations for provision of secondary

education could apply in conjunction with this primary model.

10.1.2. As site options for secondary places are more limited, and existing middle schools

(spanning both primary and secondary age ranges) could feasibly contribute to either

primary or secondary school solutions (as demonstrated under Option 3), assessment of

secondary capacity and requirement numbers was considered crucial. Determining the

most viable model for secondary provision helped establish what existing / future middle

school capacity could be considered under this option for incorporation into primary

models.

10.1.3. Analysis of secondary provision and site options can be summarised as follows:

10.1.4. All three potential middle and upper sites were assessed against government guidance

BB103 building and site standards to establish their potential for expansion and any

limitations on growth arising from site constraints. Analysis (summarised below) shows that

whilst all sites have the potential for some viable expansion, both Swanmead and Maiden

Beech have student number limits that would preclude them from delivering places for all

1103 students and being sole secondary school sites. Wadham is the only site with

sufficient expansion space to support that model. If existing middle schools are to

contribute to secondary capacity then this would need to be via a shared or split secondary

model.

▪ Analysis of Swanmead estate shows that whilst there is scope to accommodate

limited building expansion on site, with a site area of 30,764m2 ~420 students is the

maximum that the site can hold before breaching BB guidance on site space

standards per pupil (in terms of external learning, play and sports spaces etc).

▪ Maiden Beech has more development space and a larger site area of 52,352m2 with

~840 students being the calculated maximum that the site can hold before breaching



of 137

BB guidance on site space standards per pupil (in terms of external learning, play

and sports spaces etc).

▪ Wadham has a very large site at 119,000m2 and considerable scope for expansion

with viable BB101 compliant building and site solutions demonstrated for up to

~1600 students.

10.1.5. With all three schools potentially required to change the number of year groups they would

teach (from 3 or 4 to 5 secondary) it is also important to consider how capacity numbers

(existing and future) benchmark against optimal increments of 30 students to ensure that

proposals are efficient and workable without necessitating additional classes / teachers or

mixed groups etc.

Site Constraints Swanmead

Max 420

Maiden Beech

Max 840

Wadham

Max ~1600

Expansion Increments - based on 5 year groups (7 - 11) and optimal classes of 30 students where possible

150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1103

Required Secondary Number: 1103

10.1.6. With Swanmead’s estate constraints (and calculated maximum of 420 students) the site

cannot expand to 450 to support a full 3FE secondary school and would likely either have

to function with efficiency limitations at existing 348 capacity or reduce further to 300

students to support a 2FE entry model. There are various concerns regarding educational

implications for a such a small secondary site even at 3FE entry size, as captured under

the educational impact assessment and it is not considered a recommended viable option.

A review of recent Government Capacity UD1 data (covering 3376 schools across the

country designated with secondary pupils) showed that less than 1% of secondaries

existed of that range of pupil size. It would be considered highly unusual to create one and

it is not recommended to be used for secondary (11 – 16) provision.

10.1.7. With Swanmead unable to support a viable full secondary provision even as a multi-site

option, this leaves two alternatives, Maiden Beech and Wadham as a split two secondary

school provision or Wadham as a sole secondary school.

10.1.8. There are anticipated to be limited pupil numbers of secondary age, with 1103 students

equivalent to one medium / large secondary school required after growth. The existing

capacity across Maiden Beech and Wadham sites exceeds that required at maximum

student growth levels (even if Maiden Beech was capped at optimal 450 student size);



of 137

meaning one site would likely be left in a position of increased financial pressure as an

under-utilised facility. Assessment indicates that Secondary provision would be most

efficiently delivered and derive the most educational and financial benefits as a single /

sole site solution. Based on site constraints that would need to be based at Wadham.

10.1.9. On this basis a sole secondary site at Wadham was identified as the preferred position

(representing the optimal / most viable option for secondary places 11 – 16); and carried

through under both presented Option 4 scenarios.

10.1.10. We have included both a viable split site infant and junior and a hybrid split infant / junior

and consolidated primary option within the presented scenarios to represent the best of

the range of possibilities within this option.

10.2. Scenario 4A - Specifics:

10.2.1. Scenario 4A summarises the following actions anticipated to be required to deliver a

solution utilising a hybrid mixture of consolidated primary schools (catering for 7 year

groups) and split site infant and junior schools (catering for 3 and 4 Year groups

respectively).

▪ Expand numbers at Ashlands school site utilising existing vacated accommodation

to deliver a consolidated primary school. A block has been identified on site,

following closure of the former Children’s Centre – with the potential to be

reconfigured to house 2 additional classrooms and take total to 7 to support 1FE

Primary structure.

▪ Expand numbers at Greenfylde school, based on the relocation and expansion to

alternative SCC site and a change of provision to a 3FE consolidated primary school.

The current feasibility study as provided by the Local Authority shows plans to

support a 4FE first school of 20 classrooms. It is considered viable that this could be

revised to a 21 classroom arrangement to support an alternative 3FE primary school.

▪ Expand numbers at Maiden Beech to accommodate a 630 pupil 3FE consolidated

primary school – this is comfortably feasible within the site constraints. The school

building area is of sufficient size currently, requiring internal reconfiguration and

refurbishment only to ensure the correct functions and facilities appropriate to

revised age range.

▪ Utilise the larger remaining first sites of Merriott and St Bartholomew’s as Junior

Schools with the remaining smaller first / primary sites catering for Infants only. The



of 137

combined capacity from the smaller schools would deliver infant capacity in excess

of the required numbers and there would be options to close potentially 2 of those

sites – identification of those could be determined by a number of considerations

from existing challenges / performance to numbers of classrooms, geographical

locations or condition / finance factors.

▪ With existing first schools providing capacity as split site infant and junior schools

the existing capacity at Swanmead is surplus to requirement. Under this option there

would be the potential for closure of that site.







10.3. Scenario 4A - Capital Cost













Maiden Beech 865m2 Refurb / Reconfiguration £2,109,000


Junior Schools Additional Age Range Changes £37,000

Total Scenario Cost £12,985,000





of 137



requirements at Maiden Beech.

10.4. Scenario 4 - Building Condition

10.4.1. There is potential scope for the closure of up to 3 existing school sites under this scenario

meaning an opportunity to improve upon the baseline position; where all buildings will need

to be retained and any remedial and repair works associated with the age and condition of

the buildings addressed as they arise going forward.


10.4.3. As outlined above this scenario has scope for site rationalisation and disposal


first/ primary sites and 1 middle school site identified for potential closure. The table below

indicates the current known building condition status for each of the identified opportunity

sites to give an indication of the potential scale of benefits (in terms of future maintenance

needs):


Building Condition

RAG rating

Notes / Comments

Haselbury Plucknett Potential Closure of 2 sites – as over required numbers for Infant provision.

Amber / Green




St Mary and St Peter’s Unknown** Temporary Buildings

Merriott

Sites to be retained

Amber


Ashlands Amber


Swanmead Potential Closure Amber / Red Poorest condition of existing middle/upper sites

Maiden Beech Sites to be retained Amber / Green

Wadham Sites to be retained Amber





of 137


10.5. Scenario 4A - Revenue Impact




evaluation:



Year One Saving




1A Baseline

£1,320,000 N/A N/A £192,000 N/A N/A

Option 4A £1,210,000 (£110,000) (£16,500) £176,000 (£16,000) (£126,000)


10.5.2.1. This option would deliver a saving on lumpsum costs, but it will be for the DfE -

funding into Somerset will reduce in line with formula saving.



10.5.2.3. Further net savings could be achieved through amalgamation of primary schools

with multiple site provision retained. The saving on the lump sum would fall to

the DfE, with some doubt over whether any increased costs for a split site

payment would be funded.


10.5.3.1. Development of an area-based multi-academy trust would build on existing

federations and allow for further improvements in cost-effectiveness and

efficiency without the loss of funding associated with school closure or the extra

cost associated with split-site provision.




of 137



DSG.



10.5.4.3. The larger secondary school in this option brings increased resilience and

viability.


10.5.5.1. This option achieves a better score than the baseline position due to the improved

curriculum efficiency in secondary provision.

10.6. Scenario 4A - Education and Staffing Impact




10.6.2. For this option, the relevant assessment models were Primary, Infant and Junior and

Secondary and the summary is split between the three areas accordingly.

10.6.3. Key findings of Primary assessment:

▪ The advantages / disadvantages of a primary model are different and more directly

correlated with the size of school rather than comparison of first or infant / junior

models however there can be greater consistency of approach to teaching and

learning, curriculum planning and behaviour management, and reduced potential for

repetition /misalignment of approaches when continuing from ages 4 to 11 in one

phase.

▪ Primary schools of small student numbers (particularly where retaining schools with

less than 100 students) with multi-age classes is considered challenging, in terms of

being able to stretch and challenge students when covering multiple curriculum

elements in class and with difficulties associated with staff recruitment and retention

and limitations on career progression.

▪ Larger primary schools with a larger staff body will benefit from greater access to

and retention of specialist staff and expertise with more opportunities for wider

curriculum and associated enrichment opportunities. Increased opportunities for

school leaders to focus on leadership and strategic improvement.



of 137

10.6.4. Key findings of Infant / Junior assessment:

▪ Overall size of school is the predominant factor with many of the key considerations

and arguments very similar or the same as those outlined above under Primary

model.

▪ Splitting the year groups into infant and junior and reducing the years in any one

school to 3 or 4 gives increased opportunity in the smallest retained schools to

separate year groups to dedicated classrooms and reduce the probability of mixed

age classes.

▪ Reduced opportunity with separation of younger and older pupils for observing /

example setting between age ranges.

▪ Dedicated infant schools could benefit from increased age specific resources,

elements like outdoor play can be particularly focused, and younger pupils have the

opportunity for taking on responsibilities.

▪ Dedicated junior schools again could benefit from set up specifically for age group,

different ways of organising may be possible. Staff have increased opportunity to

discuss teaching approaches peer to peer and workload can be better spread with

headteacher having other to support them. TAs can be shared and used more

effectively.

10.6.5. Key findings of Secondary assessment:


is optimised is evidenced to be in the order of ~1000 pupils.

▪ Small / smaller secondary will not be able to offer the breadth of choice in KS4 that

a larger one can, as seen in review of comparable sized secondary sized schools in

Somerset. The smaller the school the less likely students are to have access to

specialist staff with increased challenges in recruiting and retaining staff and

covering all subjects with specialists, more part time staff may be needed or teachers

having to teach more than 1 subject.

▪ A review of recent Government Capacity UD1 data (covering 3376 schools across

the country designated with secondary pupils) showed that less than 1% of

secondaries existed of very small size (less than 350 pupils). It would be considered



of 137

highly unusual to create one and it is not recommended to be used for secondary

(11 – 16) provision.

▪ Increased size in secondary provision can provide greater support and opportunities

for both students and staff, with a larger staff body allowing a full and balanced

curriculum supported by the appropriate specialist staff / subject expertise to stretch

and challenge all pupils. Larger school sizes provide greater resilience and flexibility

in how staff are deployed.

10.6.6. Scenario 4A as a hybrid model proposes to have 3 consolidated primary schools ranging

from smaller 1FE entry 210 pupil size to 3 FE 640 pupil size, and a split of infant and junior

schools across the existing first school sites (3 larger junior schools at over 100 pupils and

in the order of 5 infant schools with less than 100 pupils). This option is considered to

increase educational benefit from the current system, but with limitations on application at

a primary level through the retention of multiple small school sites.

10.6.7. With one single site secondary school providing all the required capacity at 1103 pupils

secondary provision is considered to be optimised.

10.7. Scenario 4A - Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care

10.7.1. Impact or opportunities for improvement in these areas were found to also largely correlate

with size of schools proposed under the scenario, on the following basis:




▪ There is likely to be increased range of additional other extra-curricular activities,


available.



can specialise in certain approaches, i.e. ELSA. Smaller schools probably have

more limited opportunities in how they use Pupil Premium funding because they

have fewer staff to utilise.





of 137




10.7.2. Option 4A with the hybrid implementation is considered to have scope to increase

opportunities and advantages of economies of scale in these areas but with heavy

limitations on application at a primary level through the retention of multiple small school

sites.

10.8. Scenario 4A - Transitions

10.8.1. The hybrid implementation under Option 4A means that pupils within the area will have

different pathways and different numbers of transition points. The majority will transition

directly from primary to secondary education after Year 6, meaning a change to optimal

position of only move, however a proportion will retain a 2 transition need from infant to

junior to secondary (effectively the same as the current status quo but undertaken at a

different age).

10.9. Scenario 4A - Pre-school and Nursery

10.9.1. This option carries risk of potential detrimental impact upon pre-school nursery provision

with the potential for loss of up to 2 nursery sites. 1 is definitely affected by the potential

closure of Swanmead; with the potential for another arising from small school closures.

This would need careful consideration and mitigation planning if this option were to

progress.

10.10. Scenario 4A - Transport and Geography


‘Option 4A Overview’ – it shows the proposed spread of educational places delivered under

a two-tier structure using a mixture of consolidated primary schools and split site infant and

junior schools. Secondary education is from a single secondary school site.

10.10.2. With a reduction from 12 to potentially 9 schools and changes in year groups patterns there

will be transport implications for some pupils and families, but this is more limited in scope

than under the previous Option 3.




of 137

▪ There remains a good split of primary capacity across both Crewkerne and lIminster

with consolidated primaries in both locations, however with the closure of Swanmead

under this option there will be less primary capacity in Ilminster and more students

and families travelling to locations nearer Crewkerne.

▪ With the majority of small existing first schools retained the position for many

families in infant years (Reception and Yrs. 1 and 2) will be the same as now with

local provision in place; there will however be a requirement to make an earlier

transition across to Junior school site under this split site model. These moves would

all be 5 miles or less with the exception of St Mary and St Peter’s (~8 miles from

nearest Junior site).

▪ There is opportunity to potentially close two of the smaller sites (incorporating

students into the consolidated primaries) and travel distances and geographic

locations could be a consideration factor.

▪ As previously described there will no longer be provision for Years 7 and 8 within the

Ilminster area as these become part of the secondary provision delivered from

Crewkerne. The longest travel distance from primary to secondary will be 9 miles,

which is equivalent to the current move from Swanmead Middle to Wadham Upper,

the transition is just happening earlier in line with primary / secondary model. Travel

distances at this transition point will be less overall under this option with the split

site junior schools already nearer to Crewkerne.


▪ With closure of smaller more rural schools there will be lost opportunity to walk to

school from village locations, but this will affect only 2 potential sites in this instance.

With the closure of Swanmead there will be a reduction in numbers of students that

can potentially access on foot within the Ilminster area. There will be increased

opportunity within the Crewkerne Hub.

10.11. Scenario 4A - Equality and Community Impacts

10.11.1. Significantly, this option could see the closure of two existing rurally-located first / primary

schools (not identified at this point in time), with a slight geographical shift towards

Crewkerne. However, the opportunity within this option to further review which primary /

first schools to retain / close means that Option 4A could offer reduced negative equalities

impact in relation to Options 3B and 4D and generally sees a slightly increased negative

impact in relation to the status quo.



of 137

10.11.2. In particular, equalities impact assessments will need to ensure that impacts on the

following protected characteristics are understood and mitigated:

10.11.3. Religion and Belief - Proportion of Church Schools

10.11.3.1. Due to the high proportion of existing Diocese Schools in the area (8 of the 9

existing First / Primary Schools are Diocese Schools), option 4A is likely to see a

slight reduction in the number of Diocese schools across the region and a reduced

geographical spread. However, the proposals see consolidated Diocesan Primary

provision available in Ilminster (Greenfylde) alongside a range of Diocese Infants,

Junior and Primary Schools in Crewkerne, supported by a Diocese Secondary

School.


10.11.4.1. This option proposes the closure of two First / Primary Schools across the region.

As the majority of the outlying smaller schools are considered to be designated as

‘rural schools’, a detailed impact assessment would need to ensure that any

significant impact on the community is understood and mitigated where possible.,

and that the schools selected for closure lead to increased benefits and reduced

negative equalities impact. The removal of schools from any of these village areas

could impact on community facilities and cohesion, although currently there is no

significant community use noted for these schools.

10.11.4.2. This option offers a better Equalities outcome than that of Options 3B and 4D due

to the fact that less school closures are proposed and there is some flexibility within

the proposals.

10.11.4.3. The closure of 2 Primary / First Schools means that travel times for pupils and

families (for those with an onward journey to works) in these areas are likely to be

increased and therefore proposals would need to consider the availability of

transport links etc in order to mitigate any impact. However, in comparison to

Options 3B and 4D, the reduced number of closures will lead to reduced negative

impact.

10.11.4.4. Likewise, the impact on nursery provision (which can impact on a family’s ability to

work and child development) in rural areas would be reduced in relation to Options

3B and 4D due to the reduced number of site closures associated with Early Years

provision. Future Early Years growth, demand and provision is outside of the scope

of this Feasibility Study, but further assessment will be required in order to ensure

that sufficient alternative provision is available as required and that any negative

impact on rural families is mitigated.



of 137


10.11.5.1. Should St Mary and St Peter’s school be identified for closure under this option,

further assessment would be required in order to mitigate any impact on the

Travelling Community. However, this option provides the opportunity to review

provision in the area to ensure that there is still a school within an acceptable travel

distance for Travelling Communities and as such, offers a reduced negative impact

in relation to Options 3B and 4D



feasibility stage


10.11.6.1. The closure of two small village schools and the associated refurbishment of other

existing sites, may positively impact on the ability of schools across the region to

accommodate pupils and staff with disabilities, but it should be noted that the

refurbishment of existing building stock may limit accessibility in some cases.

10.11.7. Low income


indicator (see Part 3 for details for each school), the majority of schools impacted

on by this option demonstrate a level of deprivation below the national average,

with the exception of St Mary and St Peter’s (17.1%)2 and Ashlands (19.2%)2.

10.11.7.2. The impact on low income families should be considered when selecting which of

the two First / Primary schools to close and as such, there is opportunity to mitigate

negative impact.

10.11.7.3. Ashlands (19.2%)2 site is proposed to be developed under this option and therefore

the investment in the site may impact positively on low income families within this

area.



of 137

10.12. Scenario 4D - Specifics:

10.12.1. Scenario 4D summarises the following actions anticipated to be required to deliver a

solution utilising separate split site infant and junior schools (catering for 3 and 4 Year

groups respectively) across all of primary provision:

▪ Expand numbers at Ashlands school site to cater for 180 pupils at Infant Years

utilising existing vacated accommodation. A block has been identified on site,

following closure of the former Children’s Centre – with the potential to be

reconfigured to house the additional classroom required to take total to 6 and deliver

optimal 30 pupil classes.

▪ Expand numbers at Greenfylde’s school, based on the relocation and expansion to

alternative SCC site and a change of provision to a 5FE Junior School. The required

classroom total is 20, equivalent to the 4FE First school as outlined in existing

feasibility study provided by the Local Authority.

▪ Utilise the existing capacity at Swanmead to accommodate Infant age pupils. The

school building area is of sufficient size requiring an element of internal

reconfiguration and refurbishment only to ensure the facilities appropriate to younger

pupils.

▪ Utilise the existing capacity at Maiden Beech to accommodate Junior age pupils.

The school building area is of sufficient size requiring an element of internal

reconfiguration and refurbishment only to ensure the correct functions and facilities

appropriate to revised age range.

▪ Utilise the larger remaining first sites of Merriott and St Bartholomew’s to provide the

remaining required infant provision.

▪ Capacity at the smaller existing first sites is not required – there is the potential to

close 5 existing first /primary school sites under this option.









of 137

10.13. Scenario 4D - Capital Cost













Swanmead 158m2 Refurb / Reconfiguration £505,000

Maiden Beech 221m2 Refurb / Reconfiguration £691,000


Infant Schools Age Range SoA Changes £26,000






requirements at Swanmead and Maiden Beech sites.

10.14. Scenario 4D - Building Condition


meaning a sizable opportunity to improve upon the baseline position; where all buildings

will need to be retained and any remedial and repair works associated with the age and

condition of the buildings addressed as they arise going forward.




first/ primary sites identified for potential closure. The table below indicates the current



of 137




Building Condition

RAG rating

Notes / Comments

Haselbury Plucknett Potential Closure Amber / Green

Hinton St George Potential Closure Amber

Misterton Potential Closure Amber / Red

Shepton Beauchamp Potential Closure Red / Amber

St Mary and St Peter’s Potential Closure Unknown** Temporary Buildings

Merriott

Sites to be retained

Amber


Ashlands Amber




Wadham Amber




10.15. Scenario 4D - Revenue Impact




evaluation:



Year One Saving




1A Baseline

£1,320,000 N/A N/A £192,000 N/A N/A

Option 4D £770,000 (£550,000) (£82,500) £112,000 (£80,000) (£630,000)




of 137

10.15.2.1. This option would deliver a significant saving on lumpsum costs, but it will be for

the DfE - funding into Somerset will reduce in line with formula saving.




10.15.3.1. This option represents a large reduction in DSG and grant funding coming into

Somerset and the Crewkerne and Ilminster area. Assuming that significant

savings could be realised through reductions in premises and administrative

costs, the saving is still likely to translate to a reduction in the number of teachers.

Whilst this will mainly affect leadership posts, if the saving is broadly proportionate

to school spending generally, it could be assumed that this would translate to a

reduction of 4 to 6 teachers.

10.15.3.2. This option also reflects a large reduction in specific grant for PE and Sports,

which may be mitigated by more efficient provision in larger schools.




DSG.

10.15.4.2. The larger schools in this option bring increased resilience and viability.


10.15.5.1. This option achieves the highest weighted curriculum efficiency metric due to the

medium to large primary provision and cost-effective secondary provision size.





10.16.2. For this scenario, the relevant assessment models were Infant and Junior and Secondary

– the key findings and considerations are the same as captured under 4A above and can

be found in sections 10.6.4 and 10.6.5.



of 137

10.16.3. Scenario 4D as an Infant and Junior model proposes to have 6 schools provide all of the

required primary capacity, split between 2 medium / large junior schools (600 and 420)

and 4 infant schools ranging from smaller 1FE entry 90 pupil size to larger 4 FE 360 pupil

size. This option is considered to increase educational benefit from the current system and

represent a mid-point between current first and consolidated primary systems.

10.16.4. With one single site secondary school providing all the required capacity at 1103 pupils,

secondary provision is considered to be optimised.

10.17. Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care

10.17.1. The key considerations re Impact or opportunities are the same as captured under 4A

above and can be found in section 10.7.1.

10.17.2. Option 4D with proposed infant and junior structure is considered to have greater scope to

increase opportunities and advantages of economies of scale in these areas and represent

a mid-point between current first and consolidated primary systems.

10.18. Transitions

10.18.1. Option 4D proposes that all pupils will transition from infant to junior to secondary school

requiring two transitions. The transition points would be at different years to the current

three-tier structure but would be the same in number as under the current provision.

10.19. Pre-school and Nursery


with potentially 2 of the existing 5 nurseries on existing small school sites that are indicated

for potential closure. This would need careful consideration and mitigation planning if this

option were to progress.

10.20. Transport and Geography

10.20.1. Option 4D is illustrated on an overview map included within Appendix 2 of this report titled

‘Option 4D Overview’ – it shows the proposed spread of educational places delivered

under a two-tier structure using a split site infant and junior schools across the region.

Secondary education is from a single secondary school site.



of 137

10.20.2. With a reduction from 12 to potentially 7 schools and changes in year groups patterns there

will be transport implications for some pupils and families, this is more limited in scope than

under the Option 3 as affects the very smallest school sites only.


▪ There remains a good split of primary capacity across both Crewkerne and lIminster

with infant and junior provisions in both locations, with overall primary capacity in the

Ilminster area increased from that proposed under option 4A.

▪ All moves resulting from the closure of the 5 smallest existing first / primary school

sites require moves of under 5 miles.

▪ There will however be a requirement to make an earlier transition across to Junior

school sites under this split site model. These moves would all be 5 miles or less

with the majority transferring within a distance of a mile or less.

▪ As under the previously described two-tier options there will no longer be provision

for Years 7 and 8 within the Ilminster area as these become part of the secondary

provision delivered from Crewkerne. The longest travel distance from primary to

secondary will be 9 miles, which is equivalent to the current move from Swanmead

Middle to Wadham Upper, with the split very similar to how it works currently under

middle school system, just happening earlier in line with primary / secondary

transition model.


▪ With closure of smaller more rural schools (5 in this instance) there will be lost

opportunity to walk to school from village locations. Opportunity to walk to school

within Ilminster hub will be very similar to the baseline model with overall student

places largely the same just in a different age configuration. There will be increased


10.21. Scenario 4D Equality and Community Impacts

10.21.1. Due to the proposed level of closure of Primary / First Schools under this option, the

negative impact is similar to that of Option 3B and sees a negative impact in relation to the

existing status quo, largely due to the number of planned school closures across the

region. In particular leading to impact on the following protected characteristics:


10.21.3. Due to the high proportion of existing Diocese Schools in the area (8 of the

9 existing First / Primary Schools are Diocese Schools), option 4D would see a reduction



of 137

in the number of Diocese schools across the region and a reduced geographical spread.

The proposals include the provision of a Diocese Junior School (Greenfylde) in Ilminster,

with the remainder of the Infants and Junior and Secondary Diocese provision shifting

geographically towards Crewkerne. This may negatively impact on parental choice due to

the reduced availability and spread of Diocesan provision in the Ilminster area, although

Crewkerne would remain largely unaffected.


10.21.4.1. The majority of proposed schools for closure are considered to be designated as

‘rural schools’ and as such, a detailed impact assessment would need to ensure

that any significant impact on the community is understood and mitigated where

possible. The removal of schools from these areas could impact on community

facilities and cohesion, although currently there is no significant community use

noted for these schools.

10.21.4.2. Travel times for pupils and families (for those with an onward journey to works) are

likely to be increased and therefore proposals would need to consider the

availability of transport links etc in order to mitigate any impact.

10.21.4.3. A number of the schools have associated Pre-School / Nursery provision which

may be impacted should the school sites close. A lack of Early Years provision can

impact on the ability of rural families to work and can also have a negative impact

on a child’s Early Years development. A proportion of this Early Years provision is

delivered from school premises with the majority being run independently from the

school, although a small number are under school control. Future Early Years

growth, demand and provision is outside of the scope of this Feasibility Study, but

further assessment will be required in order to ensure that sufficient alternative

provision is available and that any negative impact on rural families is mitigated.


10.21.5.1. St Mary and St Peter’s School is proposed for closure under this option. It has been

noted that a number of children from the Travelling Community attend the school

and therefore further assessment will be required in order to understand and

mitigate any negative impact on this community.



feasibility stage.



of 137


10.21.6.1. A number of schools proposed for closure under this option are Victorian village

schools which are limited in terms of possible disability adaptations. A move to a

more centralised two-tier provision in a smaller number of refurbished buildings,

may positively impact on the ability of schools across the region to accommodate

pupils and staff with disabilities, but it should be noted that the refurbishment of

existing building stock may limit accessibility in some cases.

10.21.7. Low income


indicator (see Part 3 for details for each school), the majority of schools earmarked

for closure under this proposal demonstrate a level of deprivation lower than the

national average, with the exception of St Mary and St Peter’s (17.1%)2 and

Ashlands (19.2%)2.

10.21.7.2. Ashlands site is proposed to be developed under this option and therefore the

investment in the site may impact positively on low income families within this area.

However further assessment will be required to ensure that any impact on low

income families attending St Mary and St Peter’s is recognised and mitigated.



11.1.1. Option 5 represents a hybrid 2/ three-tier system looking specifically at options to retain

the existing first school structure but amalgamate middle and upper years into one

consolidated educational phase; taking into account projected requirements for growth to

meet school population forecast and additional housing development demands.

Consolidated in this instance meaning that every viable ‘combined middle and upper site’

must be able to support the full 7 middle and upper year groups (Yr. 5 to Yr. 11) in one

location; separation of those year groups across sites would default the position back to

the existing separate middle and upper structure as covered under the 1A do minimum

scenario.

11.1.2. The overall pupil numbers required and splits across first, middle and upper phases are

the same as outlined previously under Option 1A and the proposal to deal with the



of 137

additional places required in first schools remains the same. The key change is a new

target number to be delivered from combined middle and upper pupil totals. The table

below summarises the current student numbers (as at SPF population baseline 2018), the

assessed existing capacity with the 12 Crewkerne & Ilminster schools (based on SCC

SCAP data and existing school site accommodation analysis), and the projected required

student numbers for the area mapped against hybrid combined two / three-tier splits:




First Schools 998 1044 1317 Uplift of 273

Middle Schools 683 840 1585 Overall uplift of 30 pupils

(Middle yrs + 84, Upper yrs –114)

Upper School 450 775

Total 2131 2659 2902

11.1.3. Analysis of combined middle/ upper school provision and site options can be summarised

as follows:

11.1.4. All three potential middle/ upper sites were assessed against government guidance BB103

building and site standards to establish their potential for expansion and any limitations on

growth arising from site constraints. Analysis (summarised below) shows that whilst all

sites have the potential for some viable expansion, both Swanmead and Maiden Beech

have student number limits that would preclude them from delivering places for all 1585

students and being a sole combined middle/ upper school site. Wadham was found to have

sufficient expansion space to potentially support that model. If existing middle schools are

to contribute to combined middle/upper capacity then that would need to be under a multi-

site model.

11.1.5. Analysis of Swanmead estate shows that whilst there is scope to accommodate limited

building expansion on site, with a site area of 30,764m2 ~420 students is the maximum

that the site can hold before breaching BB guidance on site space standards per pupil (in

terms of external learning, play and sports spaces etc).

▪ Maiden Beech has more development space and a larger site area of 52,352m2 with

~ 840 students being the calculated maximum that the site can hold before breaching

BB guidance on site space standards per pupil (in terms of external learning, play

and sports spaces etc).



of 137

▪ Wadham has a very large site at 119,000m2 and considerable scope for expansion

with viable BB101 compliant building and site solutions demonstrated for up to ~

1600 students.

11.1.6. With all three schools potentially required to change the number of year groups they would

teach (from 3 or 4 to 7 for combined middle and upper years) it is also important to consider

how capacity numbers (existing and future) benchmark against optimal increments of 30

students to ensure that proposals are efficient and workable without necessitating

additional classes / teachers or mixed groups etc and that movements of existing student

numbers can be accommodated as part of any potential transition.

Site Constraints Swanmead

Max 420

Maiden Beech

Max 840

Wadham

Max ~1600

Expansion Increments - based on 7 year groups (5 - 11) and optimal classes of 30 students where possible

210 420 630 840 1050 1260 1470 1585

Required combined Middle/ Upper Number: 1585

11.1.7. This position with regard to site constraints mirrors very closely the considerations and

analysis outlined previously in relation to secondary education (see section 10.1.6 under

Option 4) and leads to essentially the same conclusions – the key differences / nuances

are highlighted below.

11.1.8. Swanmead is still limited to maximum of 420 students by the identified site constraints – in

this instance with the capacity split over 7 year groups and the number of students in each

year, particularly KS4 reduced, the concerns with regards to educational impact are further

heightened and it is not considered a recommended viable option.

11.1.9. With Swanmead unable to support a viable combined middle/ upper provision even as a

multi-site (2 or 3 site option), this leaves two alternatives: Maiden Beech and Wadham as

a two site combined middle / upper school arrangement or Wadham as a sole combined

middle/ upper school. These options are both feasible and are presented accordingly as

the best representation of viable scenarios under this option – summarised below as

Scenarios 5C and 5D.

11.1.10. The total number of combined middle/upper students is anticipated to be 1585 equivalent

to one large ‘secondary / school’ facility. Assessment indicates that a combined middle/

upper provision would be most efficiently delivered and likely derive the most educational

and financial benefits as a single / sole site solution – and it should be noted that the two

sites feasible as a multi-site option are located geographically within 1 mile of each other

in Crewkerne, which means there is potentially negligible benefit to multi locations in terms

of catchments and travel distances across the wider region.



of 137

11.2. Scenario 5C specifics:

11.2.1. Scenario 5C summarises the following actions anticipated to be required to retain the

existing first school structure accommodating growth, and amalgamate middle and upper

years into one consolidated educational phase through 2 combined middle/upper schools;




classrooms.





▪ Utilise existing capacity at Wadham to accommodate combined middle and upper

year groups.

▪ Expand Maiden Beech to ~810 places to accommodate the remaining required

numbers of middle and upper year students – this is comfortably feasible within the

site constraints.

▪ Existing capacity at Swanmead is surplus to requirement. Under this option there


11.3. Scenario 5C - Capital Cost














of 137


Maiden Beech 2000m2 New Build £5,938,000

Wadham 180m2 Reconfiguration – Age change works

£288,000





requirements at Wadham to convert excess specialist rooms for general Year 5 and 6

teaching.

11.4. Option 5C - Building Condition

11.4.1. There is potential scope for the closure of 1 existing school site under this scenario







middle school site identified for potential closure. The table below indicates the current




Building Condition

RAG rating

Notes / Comments

Haselbury Plucknett Sites to be retained Amber / Green





Merriott Amber


Ashlands Amber





of 137

Maiden Beech Sites to be retained Amber / Green





11.5. Scenario 5C - Revenue Impact




evaluation:



Year One Saving




1A Baseline

£1,320,000 N/A N/A £192,000 N/A N/A

Option 5C £1,210,000 (£110,000) (£16,500) £176,000 (£16,000) (£126,000)






11.5.2.3. Further net savings could be achieved through amalgamation of first schools with

multiple site provision retained. The saving on the lump sum would fall to the

DfE, with some doubt over whether any increased costs for a split site payment

would be funded.



of 137









DSG.




11.5.5.1. Benchmark data for 9-16 schools is not available and so the combined

middle/upper combination is treated as a secondary school for this assessment.

11.5.5.2. Two modest sized middle/upper schools contribute to a reduced curriculum

efficiency score, but this could be enhanced through combining the schools and

delivering provision across two sites, facilitating sharing of leadership, support

staff and specialist teachers.

11.6. Scenario 5C - Education and Staffing Impact




11.6.2. For this option, the relevant assessment model was All through 9 – 16 schools (with first

school structure to be retained as is).

11.6.3. This option shares many similarities with Secondary assessment, but has additional

distinct features and considerations:


is optimised, is evidenced to be in the order of ~1000 pupils and that small / smaller

sized schools will not be able to offer the breadth of choice in KS4 that a larger one

can. Under the all through 9 – 16 model where 7 year groups are being taught within



of 137

one school, school sizes need to be larger in order to retain the same / equivalent

size year groups.

▪ The smaller the school teaching KS4 and the smaller the year group(s) the less likely

students are to have access to specialist staff with increased challenges in recruiting

and retaining staff and covering all subjects with specialists, more part time staff may

be needed or teachers having to teach more than 1 subject. Small school sizes are

not recommended for secondary provision and the reservations that would apply

equally here would be even more exaggerated / critical with increased age ranges.

▪ Increased school sizes for all through 9 - 16 models (in addition to ensuring year

group sizes are not detrimentally impacted) can provide greater support and

opportunities for both students and staff, with a larger staff body allowing a full and

balanced curriculum supported by the appropriate specialist staff / subject expertise

to stretch and challenge all pupils. Larger school sizes provide greater resilience and

flexibility in how staff are deployed, and potentially provides more career progression

opportunities without having to move school.

▪ There would be greater opportunities for staff to collaborate to ensure the curriculum

progresses logically, for development of an all-through pedagogy, and to plan

together for cross phase learning.

▪ Such an all through system could present challenges in terms of how to split the

curriculum plan between primary and secondary and the need for collaborative

working to ensure senior leaders understand and give appropriate credit and

recognition to all aspects of both primary and secondary expertise.

11.6.4. This hybrid two / three-tier scenario proposes to retain first schools as modelled under 1A

with no change, it is the change from existing separate middle and upper schools to

combined all through 9 – 16 only that is being assessed. This option proposes that this

combined middle / upper provision will be from 2 school sites each of medium size (~800

pupils).

11.6.5. This option is considered to increase educational benefit from the current system, through

the consolidation of the middle and upper years and associated benefits but is seen as

limited by the associated reservations about the size of proposed schools. As the first

school position remains the same as baseline position and it is effectively only the middle/



of 137

upper student element that can derive improvement this option scores less for educational

benefit than the optimal two-tier system.

11.7. Scenario 5C - Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care

11.7.1. Impact or opportunities for improvement in these areas are still seen to correlate with size

of schools proposed under the scenario, on the following basis:




▪ There is likely to be increased range of additional other extra-curricular activities,


available.



can specialise in certain approaches, i.e. ELSA. Smaller schools probably have more

limited opportunities in how they use Pupil Premium funding because they have

fewer staff to utilise.






11.7.2. This option is considered to have scope to increase opportunities and advantages of

economies of scale in these areas within the middle/ upper age ranges but with heavy

limitations on application at a first level through the retention of multiple small school sites.

11.8. Scenario 5C - Transitions

11.8.1. This scenario proposes that all pupils will transition directly from first to combined middle /

upper or all though 9 – 16 education after Year 4, this means a reduction to optimal position

of only one transition, which could provide greater continuity for the more vulnerable

(reducing anxiety for some students) and minimise impact associated with poor transition.



of 137

This is effectively the same as the optimal scenario under the two-tier system, but with

transitions happening at a younger age during ‘primary’ years.

11.9. Scenario 5C - Pre-school and Nursery


with the potential closure of Swanmead. This would be the only nursery location potentially

affected with all the smaller sites with nurseries effectively to be retained. This would need

careful consideration and mitigation planning if this option were to progress.

11.10. Scenario 5C - Transport and Geography

11.10.1. Option 5C is illustrated on an overview map included within Appendix 2 of this report titled

‘Option 5C Overview’ – it shows the proposed spread of educational places delivered

under the hybrid two / three tier system, with existing first schools retained and middle and

upper year combined into one consolidated education phase. In this scenario this

combined middle/upper capacity is over 2 site locations.

11.10.2. This option shows a reduction from 12 to potentially 11 schools with the closure of 1 middle

school site to support consolidated upper/middle model – with all first schools retained

impacts on geography and travel are limited to middle year (Yr. 5 – Yr. 8) students only.


▪ Provision of first year education remains the same with no change from 1A

▪ The required uplift in first school numbers is based on area need – with the vast

majority of additional first school places delivered via the Greenfylde expansion there

may be families in new housing areas having to travel from further afield as local

provision will be full.

▪ With the combined upper/ middle site locations both located in Crewkerne there will

no longer be provision for middle year students (Yrs. 5 – 8) within the Ilminster area.

This is a fairly significant change meaning increased travel distances for pupils at St

Mary and St Peter’s*, Shepton Beauchamp*, Greenfylde – and those transferring

from Swanmead prior to closure (*Primary sites may transition later at Yr. 7, if remain

as primaries). The longest travel distance from first / primary* to combined middle/

upper will be 10, with the majority in the region of 8 /9 miles. That is equivalent to

the current move from Swanmead Middle to Wadham Upper but would now be

happening earlier within primary years. All distances are within specified travel times

for Primary age students.



of 137

▪ With the closure of Swanmead there will be a reduction in numbers of students that

can potentially access on foot within the Ilminster area. There will be increased


11.11. Scenario 5C - Equality and Community Impacts

11.11.1. Due to the limited changes of this option in terms of school closures / adjustments to

educational structure, the negative equality impact is reduced in relation to Options 3B, 4A

and 4D, and remain more or less neutral in relation to the current status quo.


11.11.2.1. There are no planned closures to Diocese schools within this option, and

therefore no impact on the proportion or geographical spread of church schools

across the region.


11.11.3.1. The only closure proposed under this option is to Swanmead School, which is not

one of the more rurally isolated village schools, and as such – it is considered that

there would be no significant impact on rural schools and communities.


11.11.4.1. As above, as the only closure proposed is to Swanmead School, it is considered

that there would be no significant negative impact on minority communities under

this proposal, although further assessment will be required to ensure that travel

distances to middle and upper school provision is acceptable for the Travelling

Community.


11.11.5.1. The planned refurbishments under this option are likely to positively impact on

the ability of schools across the region to accommodate pupils and staff with

disabilities, but it should be noted that the refurbishment of existing building stock

may limit accessibility in some cases.

11.11.6. Low income

11.11.6.1. There is no expected impact on low income families under this option



of 137

11.12. Scenario 5D - Specifics:

11.12.1. Scenario 5D summarises the following actions anticipated to be required to retain the

existing first school structure accommodating growth, and amalgamate middle and upper

years into one consolidated educational phase at one sole middle/upper school site;




classrooms.





▪ Expand numbers at Wadham through delivery of new accommodation to meet the

full requirement of 1585 combined middle/ upper year students as a sole site facility

– this is feasible within the site constraints with potential identified site areas.

▪ Existing capacity at Swanmead is surplus to requirement. Under this option there


▪ Existing capacity at Maiden Beech is surplus to requirement. Under this option there


11.13. Scenario 5D - Capital Cost















of 137

Wadham 2700m2 New Build £8,544,000


Total Baseline Cost £9,197,000

11.13.2. This option requires development across 3 sites the same as proposed under the ‘do

minimum’ baseline.

11.14. Scenario 5D - Building Condition








middle school sites identified for potential closure. The table below indicates the current




Building Condition

RAG rating

Notes / Comments

Haselbury Plucknett Sites to be retained Amber / Green





Merriott Amber


Ashlands Amber



Maiden Beech Potential Closure Amber / Green






of 137


11.15. Scenario 5D - Revenue Impact




evaluation:



Year One Saving




1A Baseline

£1,320,000 N/A N/A £192,000 N/A N/A

Option 5D £1,110,000 (£220,000) (£33,000) £160,000 (£32,000) (£252,000)






11.15.2.3. Further net savings could be achieved through amalgamation of first school

provision with multiple site provision retained. The saving on the lump sum would

fall to the DfE, with some doubt over whether any increased costs for a split site

payment would be funded.






11.15.3.2. A multi-academy trust with a large middle/upper school and feeder first schools

provides a configuration that easily allows for centralised administrative functions

and specialist support for additional and high needs as well as wider early

intervention and family support. The benefits also accrue in the case of a hub

within a larger MAT.



of 137

11.15.3.3. These potential financial benefits are offset by the reduction of funding into the

area, with resultant loss of educational staff and funding for PE, though there may

be some mitigation by more efficient provision in larger schools.




DSG.



11.15.4.3. The large middle/upper school in this option brings increased resilience and

viability.


11.15.5.1. Benchmark data for 9-16 schools is not available and so the combined

middle/upper combination is treated as a secondary school for this assessment.

11.15.5.2. The single large middle/upper school delivers the prospect of enhanced

curriculum efficiency.

11.16. Scenario 5D - Education and Staffing Impact




11.16.2. For this option, the relevant assessment model was All through 9 – 16 schools (with first

school structure to be retained as is) – the key findings and considerations are the same

as captured under 5C above and can be found in section 11.6.3.

11.16.3. This hybrid two / three-tier scenario proposes to retain first schools as modelled under 1A

with no change, it is the change from existing separate middle and upper schools to

combined all through 9 – 16 only that is being assessed. This option proposes that this

combined middle / upper provision will be delivered from one sole site, a large combined

school of ~ 1585 pupils.

11.16.4. This option is considered to increase educational benefit from the current system and

optimise the educational benefits across the middle and upper years by optimising school

size. As the first school position remains the same as baseline position and it is effectively



of 137

only the middle/ upper student element that can derive improvement this option scores

less for educational benefit than the optimal two tier system, but is the highest scoring

option under hybrid two / three-tier systems where the first school structure is maintained.

11.17. Scenario 5D - Sports / Extra-curricular / SEND and Wrap Around Care

11.17.1. The key considerations re Impact or opportunities are the same as captured under 5C

above and can be found in section 11.7.

11.17.2. Option 5D is considered to have the greater scope to increase opportunities and

advantages of economies of scale in these areas by further consolidating associated staff

and funding through one larger combined middle/ upper school.

11.18. Scenario 5D - Transitions

11.18.1. This scenario is effectively the same as 5C in terms of transitions and proposes that all

pupils will transition directly from first to combined middle / upper or all though 9 – 16

education after Year 4. This means a reduction to optimal position of only one transition,

which could provide greater continuity for the more vulnerable (reducing anxiety for some

students) and minimise impact associated with poor transition. This is effectively the same

as the optimal scenario under the two-tier system, but with transitions happening at a

younger age during ‘primary’ years.

11.19. Scenario 5D - Pre-school and Nursery


with the potential closure of Swanmead. This would be the only nursery location potentially

affected with all the smaller sites with nurseries effectively to be retained. This would need

careful consideration and mitigation planning if this option were to progress.

11.20. Scenario 5D - Transport and Geography

11.20.1. Scenario 5D is illustrated on an overview map included within Appendix 2 of this report

titled ‘Option 5D Overview’ – it shows the proposed spread of educational places delivered

under the hybrid two / three-tier system, with existing first schools retained and middle and

upper year combined into one consolidated education phase. In this scenario this

combined middle/upper capacity is on one sole site location at Wadham.



of 137

11.20.2. The options show a reduction from 12 to potentially 10 schools with the closure of 2 middle

school site to support consolidated upper/middle model – with all first schools retained

impacts on geography and travel are limited to middle year (Yr. 5 – Yr. 8) students only.

11.20.3. With Maiden Beech and Wadham sites only 1 mile away from each other Option 5D is

essentially exactly the same as summarised under Option 5C above – see section 11.10.

There will still be increased opportunity overall to walk to school within the Crewkerne Hub,

but that arrangement will change slightly with all the capacity centred in one location within

the town.

11.21. Scenario 5D - Equality and Community Impacts

11.21.1. Due to the limited changes of this option in terms of school closures, the negative equality

impact is reduced in relation to Options 3B, 4A and 4D, and remain more or less neutral in

relation to the current status quo. However, further assessment will be required in terms of

travel distances to the consolidated Middle / Upper School provision.

11.21.2. Religion and Belief - Proportion of Church Schools]

11.21.2.1. There are no planned closures to Diocese schools within this option, and

therefore no impact on the proportion or geographical spread of church schools

across the region.


11.21.3.1. The only closure proposed under this option is to Swanmead School, which is not

one of the more rurally isolated village schools, and as such – it is considered that

there would be no significant impact on rural schools and communities.


11.21.4.1. As above, as the only closure proposed is to Swanmead School, it is considered

that there would be no significant negative impact on minority communities under

this proposal, although further assessment will be required to ensure that travel

distances to middle and upper school provision is acceptable for the Travelling

Community


11.21.5.1. The planned refurbishments under this option are likely to positively impact on

the ability of schools across the region to accommodate pupils and staff with

disabilities, but it should be noted that the refurbishment of existing building stock

may limit accessibility in some cases.



of 137

11.21.6. Low Income

11.21.6.1. There is no expected impact on low income families under this option.

12. Most Viable Options

12.1.1. A detailed options appraisal has been completed in accordance with the evaluation

methodology and weighting outlined in Section 6 of this report and can be found within

Appendix 6.

12.1.2. The appraisal document includes assessment notes and associated score sheets for each

of the agreed criterion and an overarching summary sheet indicating both the raw and

weighted scores for each of the presented scenarios. The table below provides a summary

of the outturn scores for each scenario against the 7 key measures:

12.1.3. The scores indicate that Scenario 3B, proposing a consolidated system of 5 larger primary

and secondary schools, is the strongest or most beneficial viable option ahead of Scenario

4D, the later again constituting a two-tier system model but split into consolidated infant,

junior and secondary schools. It was the strongest scoring option for positive improvement

across both revenue finance and educational and staffing impact assessment, scoring a

mid-range position in terms of required Capital expenditure.

12.1.4. It should be noted that Capital or Project Cost is presented as a negative in all instances

as all alternative models have cost estimates above the £9.17m outlined at baseline,

requiring varying degrees of additional Capital to expedite the proposed expansion,

restructure and age range changes required.

12.1.5. Transport, Equalities and Community also all present as neutral or negative positions. The

current educational model is very ‘localised’ with schools spread widely across the region,

within village settings as well as larger population hubs - all options to consolidate or

produce improved educational and / or financial benefit from optimal school sizes and

economies of scale therefore have the potential to worsen these measures.

Scenario 1A Scenario 2 Scenario 3B Scenario 4A Scenario 4D Scenario 5C Scenario 5D

Project Cost 0.000 0.000 -0.400 -0.200 -0.200 -0.400 -0.600

Finance Revenue 0.000 0.063 0.375 0.313 0.375 0.188 0.313

Education 0.000 0.000 0.458 0.167 0.208 0.250 0.375

Staffing 0.000 0.000 0.450 0.150 0.300 0.150 0.300

Transport 0.000 0.000 -0.075 -0.050 -0.075 -0.150 -0.150

Equalities 0.000 0.000 -0.100 -0.050 -0.100 0.000 0.000

Community 0.000 0.000 -0.125 -0.100 -0.100 -0.100 -0.125

Total 0.000 0.063 0.583 0.229 0.408 -0.063 0.113



of 137

12.1.6. Whilst Option 3B is the highest scoring under the agreed all round evaluation, it is important

to look at the strongest options against each of the key weighted criteria. Options 3B and

4D as highlighted above were tied as the strongest in terms of revenue assessment but

were closely followed by both options 4A and 5D; hybrid two-tier and three-tier models

respectively.

12.1.7. In terms of educational and staffing impact, Option 3B was the optimal model with Option

5D to retain existing first schools and move to one consolidate upper / middle all through

9 – 16 school in a strong second position. The key conclusion within this area of

assessment was that the staffing and educational opportunities that a school can offer

depends far more on the size of the school than the age phases or tier system it operates

within, and that the older the pupils within the school the more important that becomes in

terms of being able to offer a diverse range of options with access to staff that can

specialise in that subject. This is reflected within the scoring pattern, with education and

staffing showing the most potential for positive improvement where there are larger school

sizes, particularly as secondary or all through 9 – 16 phases.

12.1.8. A graphical summary is included below which illustrates the positive and negative aspects

of the scoring process and strongest and weakest scenarios under each of the key areas.

You can see within each option how the strengths are offset by the potential costs and

detrimental impacts on factors such as travel and equality and community.



of 137

12.1.9. This synopsis of most viable options is illustrating the findings of the scored evaluation

against the presented options, however, as highlighted through-out this report we

understand there are many additional complexities and considerations that may impact

upon both appetite and ability to pursue these presented courses of action.

12.1.10. We have taken the key findings through into the summary of conclusion and

recommendations (see section 14) and overlaid these wider factors, such as MAT

landscape, Academisation, LA and Diocese control of the estate to try and distil the key

decisions that need to be made to ascertain the preferred option(s) to progress for further

feasibility study.



of 137

13. Project & Programme Management (Live Project)

13.1. Overview

13.1.1. The scale and scope of programme / project management and the required governance

structure will be determined by the scale and scope of required activities identified through

the outcome of the Strategic Review. The following recommendations are appropriate for

a complex programme of work involving multiple users, stakeholders and projects.

However, this approach can be scaled down appropriately to suit the recommended

programme of activities.

13.1.2. Recognising the complexities involved in implementing any recommended change to the

Crewkerne and Ilminster education structure, it is imperative that robust programme and

project management structures are wrapped around any identified programme of activities,

irrespective of the scale of proposed activities.

13.1.3. Progress against the objectives and benefits of the programme / projects will need to be

closely monitored whilst balancing the interests of multiple stakeholders within tightly

constrained financial and programming requirements.

13.1.4. In order to streamline activity and utilise existing expertise and specialisms, the programme

will be developed around a number of defined programme workstreams including

Governance, Legal (including HR and Recruitment), Finance, Education Change

Management, ICT, Communications and Estates.

13.1.5. The use of accepted industry standard Prince / MSP methodologies will allow progress to

be monitored against cost, quality, scope, timescale, risk and benefit realisation, whilst

ensuring communications and decision-making processes are clear and well-defined.

13.2. Governance

13.2.1. Working on the assumption that the outcome of the Strategic Review is for a number of

projects to be taken forward, a strong Governance structure will be required to maintain

focus on the delivery of programme objectives and to ensure that there is a clear and

transparent governance and decision-making process which acknowledges the interests

of the multiple stakeholder groups. It is important that from the outset, the sensitivity around

any conflicting stakeholder interests and the changing Trust landscape, is recognised and

addressed within the governance model.

13.2.2. ‘Terms of Reference’ should be agreed which clearly define roles and responsibilities,

accountabilities, management and reporting arrangements and the scheme of delegation

for each tier of the governance model.



of 137

13.2.3. Working on the assumption that the Strategic Review will outline a number of projects to

take forward, it is recommended that the Programme be managed under the following

indicative Governance structure, with details to be defined once programme activities and

key roles and responsibilities are agreed:

13.2.4. The Terms of Reference for each tier of the Governance model will clearly define the roles,

responsibilities and accountability of individuals and of the group as a whole. Whilst the

detail will be determined once the outcome of the review and therefore the scope and scale

of activities is known, a typical programme management model is recommended as

follows:

Strategic Programme Board

Programme Steering Group

Project Board 1

Project 1

(e.g. School 1 redevelopment)

Project Board 2

Project 2

(e.g. Schools 2 & 3 organisational

change)

LAB Chairs Group

School 1 School 2 School 3 etc...



of 137

• Responsible For

• Overall alignment of programme with strategic direction

• Overarching programme authority

• Financial decisions

• Assurance Reviews

• Members

• Senior Responsible Owner

• Executive Leadership Team

• Executive Stakeholders

Strategic Programme

Board

•Responsible For:

• Driving programme activity forwards to deliver outcomes and benefits

•Members:

• Senior Responsible Owner

• Programme Manager

• Business Change manager

• Project Executives (LAB, school, community, Diocese & Diocese representatives)

• Workstream leads (Finance, HR, Risk, Corporate Property etc)

Programme Steering Group

• Responsible For:

• Driving project activity forwards to deliver outcomes and benefits, aligned to programme requirements

• Members:

• Chair

• Project Manager

• Stakeholder Representatives

• School Representatives

Project Boards

(As required)

• Responsible For:

• Representing interests of Local Advisory Boards and liaising with Project Board / Steering Group as required

•Members

• Nominated Chair

•LAB Chairs

Local Advisory Board Chairs

Group



of 137

13.3. Change Management

13.3.1. Alongside robust programme and project management, recognised frameworks (such as

MSP, Prince etc) recommend that ‘Business Change’ management is embedded within

the Programme Management function for any programme that involves ‘Transformational

Change’ to an existing business / structure. The role of the Business Change Manager is

to work both at Programme level and with each affected organisation throughout

development and delivery of programme of activities, acting as the link between the

Programme and the operational / business element of the schools. This ensures that the

proposed changes are deliverable in terms of operational and business requirements.

13.3.2. The Business Change Manager’s role is to work closely with schools / stakeholders to

ensure that any required changes to operational delivery (triggered by the programme) are

understood, supported and embedded by all parties, enabling multiple schools and

stakeholders to adapt business models, operational models, behaviours etc as required in

order to deliver the desired Programme objectives.

13.4. Programme

13.4.1. An indicative programme has been developed based on initial discussions and guidance

from the Local Authority (see Appendix 8).

13.4.2. The scale of any transformational change and capital works required could range vastly

depending on the Preferred option chosen, ranging from some minor refurbishments to a

rolling programme of site adjustments across the area. This would lead to a programme of

co-dependent but individual projects across various sites and organisations, that sit under

an overarching programme structure. Therefore, the programme will need to be further

developed and refined once a Preferred option has been identified.

13.4.3. At this stage, the indicative programme has been developed on the following staged basis:

▪ Stage 0 – Desktop Review and Masterplanning:

Stage 0 dates are reflective of the current programme position and estimated dates

for the SCC decision making process.

This Stage is designed to provide SCC with the sufficient information to decide

whether to move forwards to more detailed feasibility studies for any Preferred

Option/s, incorporating:

▪ Desktop reviews of individual school and area-wide capacity, basic need and

growth projection figures and estates condition information, in order to

establish feasible Masterplan options.



of 137

▪ Scenario testing and evaluation of various Masterplan options including

impact on capital cost, staffing, school revenue, education, transport,

equalities and community.

▪ Production of Strategic Review for submission to SCC and Regional Schools

Commissioner.

▪ Decision to proceed to Feasibility

▪ Stage 1 – Feasibility

Stage 1 dates are reflective of the current programme position, plus estimated

timescales for the SCC decision making process and recommended timescales for

consultation periods, incorporating:

▪ Detailed revenue and capital costing exercises for any preferred option/s –

including production of Business Case/s and final budget approval for each

project within the agreed programme funding envelope

▪ Consultation period

▪ Preferred Option Decision

▪ Statutory Notices – as required for any identified ‘Significant Change’

including (but not limited to) significant expansion or reduction of places and

or premises, change of age range, transfer to a new site or closure of a site.

▪ Stage 2 – Tender (Capital Projects)

Stage 2 reflects the required tender period for required capital projects required as

per the Preferred Option. It should be noted that timescales included in this stage

are indicative of a typical programme plan but may be reduced or lengthened

depending on the complexity of the Preferred Option.

This stage incorporates:

• Development of tender documentation for any required capital works

• Tender release and evaluation

• Planning consultation, fine tuning of design and cost plans

• Contract award.

▪ Stage 3 – Implementation

As a preferred option is not known, the implementation phases of the programme

have been developed on an indicative programme of rolling transformational change



of 137

and capital works, that can be scaled up or down depending on the outcome of the

Strategic Review and the chosen option to take forward to implementation.

Educational transformational change activities will be dependent on the scale of

organisational change, and may include (but not be limited to) TUPE, recruitment,

training, HR adjustments, transport requirements, changes to governance structure

13.4.4. The key programme stages are currently anticipated as follows:

Task Start Complete Notes

Stage 0 - Masterplanning

Masterplanning 01/04/19 17/05/19 Including estates, capital, revenue, education impact

Options Appraisal 20/05/19 31/05/19 Scoring, Report

SCC Sign off (Options Appraisal)

03/06/19 28/06/19

Stage 1 – Preferred Option(s) – Detailed Feasibility

Phase 1 Consultation 01/07/19 09/08/19 Schools, Key Education Stakeholders

Phase 2 Consultation 26/08/19 01/11/19 Schools, community, wider stakeholders

Consultation Feedback / Fine Tuning

04/11/19 08/11/19

Detailed Revenue Feasibility

01/07/19 27/09/19 To include TUPE, training, recruitment, transport, governance etc

Detailed Capital Feasibility 01/07/19 27/09/19 Detailed Affordability Review, Business Case Review etc

SCC Review / Approval 18/11/19 07/02/20

Statutory Notices 10/02/20 03/04/20 As required

Stage 2 – Invitation to Tender (for Construction – as Required)

Develop Tender Documentation

06/04/20 03/07/20 Appointments, tender documentation development

Tender Period (Part 1 & 2) 06/07/20 19/03/20 Design development, Preferred Contractor selection, planning consultation etc

Detailed Design to Contract Close

22/02/21 30/04/21 Inc contract signing

Stage 3 – Implementation - Indicative Rolling Programme of Works

Phase 1 Education Change Management

03/05/21 20/08/21 TUPE, training, recruitment, transport, governance etc

Phase 1 Construction 31/05/21 20/08/21 Indicative refurbishment works



of 137



Phase 2 Construction 31/05/21 18/03/22 Indicative Greenfylde Project construction dates



Phase 3 Construction 20/09/21 07/01/22 Indicative refurbishment works

13.5. Key consultation stages (depending on preferred / viable options)

13.5.1. Consultation

13.5.1.1. It is likely that a period of consultation will be required – the scale and scope of

which will be dependent on the preferred options identified as a result of the

Options appraisal

13.5.1.2. As such, the indicative programme currently includes the following allowances for

required consultations which have been split into 2 phases (see 5.5.1 – Future

Consultation for further detail on phasing and scope):

▪ Phase 1 - Informal Consultation, 1st July 2019 – 23rd August 2019

To include Headteachers and Chairs of Governors of 12 schools, Regional

School Commissioner and Representative of Dioceses of Bath and Wells

8 weeks allocated to incorporate meetings, feedback, review etc.

▪ Phase 2 – Formal Consultation, 26th August 2019 – 8th November 2019

To include (but not be limited to) Phase 1 Consultees, plus wider

educational and stakeholder groups, parents, communities, unions, local

MP etc.

11 weeks allocated to incorporate meetings, feedback, review, fine-tuning

and SCC sign-off

13.6. Risk Management

13.6.1. Working on the assumption that the outcome of this review will identify a number of

recommended Programme activities that will involve multiple stakeholders, it is imperative

that Risk and Issue Management is embedded within the Programme Management

function. This applies no matter what the scale and scope of works but becomes

increasingly important with the possible complexities of working with multiple organisations

and stakeholders. A clear strategy will need to be set out to determine roles and



of 137

responsibilities, reporting requirements and the agreed process of communicating risks

and issues that span between programme and project activities.

13.6.2. Risk and Issue management procedures should therefore be applied at programme and

project level by the respective Programme / Project Manager, in accordance with the

agreed strategy. A typical model sees Risks and Issues being reported within regular

Project Board and monthly Steering Group meetings. Each Risk or Issue is rated to

establish its severity and priority level. Risks and Issues are allocated an individual owner

and management plan to ensure that appropriate mitigation is put in place.

13.6.3. Top risks identified for the project following this early stage review are summarised below

with further detail provided within Appendix 9. The risk log focuses on residual risks for

consideration and mitigation as the programme moves forwards through next stages

(rather than risks associated with each individual options / scenario).

13.6.4. The highest level risks identified at programme level generally relate to the potential

imbalance of individual stakeholder priorities, regional requirements and the potential

inability of the Local Authority to take forward any preferred options due to the existing

complex multi-stakeholder landscape. The options appraisal highlights that whilst a

number of options appear to be more preferable in terms of sustainability across the region,

there will be a recognised impact on existing school / MAT structures and communities for

any of the options taken forward.

13.6.5. Due to the sensitivities around any proposed changes, there is a high risk that stakeholders

may feel disengaged or unfairly treated and that there will be a negative impact on cross-

organisation relationships and possible reputational damage, unless there is an extremely

strong communications strategy and governance structure embedded at the earliest

opportunity within the programme. Early stakeholder communication and consultation is

therefore imperative in order to reduce some of the identified high-level risks.

13.6.6. A robust Equalities Impact Assessment will be required in order to recognise and mitigate

against the equalities impact of any preferred option.

13.6.7. A number of the high-level risks identified at this stage will need to be explored further

during the feasibility stage, once SCC have identified either an option, or a number of

options to take forward. This will enable a clearer understanding of the possible impact of

the associated risks and required mitigation measures of each option, which will

subsequently feed into the final decision as to which option to take forward to

Implementation.

13.7. Stakeholder Engagement



of 137

13.7.1. A recognised theme of effective Project and Programme Management, is the requirement

for a strong Stakeholder Engagement Strategy and a clearly defined Communications Plan

which recognises multiple stakeholder needs. As the recommended outcome of this review

is likely to impact on multiple stakeholders, it is absolutely critical that key project

information flows between all parties at both Project and Programme levels (as required).

13.7.2. Whilst the Governance Structure will provide defined Schemes of Delegation and decision-

making processes / responsibilities, the Communications Plan and Stakeholder

Engagement Strategy will provide the template and structure for sharing information

between all parties.

13.7.3. Communications will be designed to keep Stakeholders informed, manage expectations,

set out clear timeframes for activities / decisions etc and provide continual updates on the

Programme rationale and expected outcomes.

14. Conclusions & Recommendations

14.1. Conclusions

14.1.1. This basis of this review has been that of a reasonably clinical, high-level appraisal of

strategic options for the delivery of an effective, efficient, viable and sustainable education

structure for the future within the Crewkerne and Ilminster area. The review will need to

be followed by more detailed stages of work to complete more detailed feasibility stage

assessments of Preferred Options to establish the scope of any change programme and

related projects.

14.1.2. During the process of this review it has been established that there has been a strong

national trend since the mid-1980’s for 3-tier school systems to move back towards 2-tier

structures (in varying forms). In the main this theme appears to have been largely driven

by changes to the National Curriculum and a drive for increased efficiency in curriculum

delivery. However, the 3-tier system continues to offer benefits and in particular within

rural areas. This said, it is important to note that the Department for Education and

Education & Skills Funding Agency offer little to no guidance for 3-tier school systems in

terms of estates and building or revenue funding. Building Bulletin and DfE National

Funding guidance is based on standardised two-tier and all-through school systems due

to the drive to maximise efficiency and effectiveness within the school system.

14.1.3. In addition, National Guidance does not encourage the development of new small schools

on the basis that these are less viable. For example, the Free School programme tends



of 137

to focus on a minimum school size of 80-100 (albeit recognising that the management of

such a school would present financial challenges from day one).

14.1.4. The DfE do however recognise the importance of existing small rural schools through the

Designation of Rural Primary Schools (England) Order 2018. This order recognises the

importance of rural primary schools (which are often small schools) within their local

communities, however does not go so far as offering any financial subsidy or protection to

such schools.

14.1.5. The review has also reinforced the complexity of the issue that Somerset County Council

are currently contending with in the Crewkerne and Ilminster area. Somerset County

Council currently hold the financial burden of the deficit budget at Wadham school but have

very limited ability to effect change to alter this situation. The current education landscape

and breadth of stakeholders within the education structure results in a lack of strategic

control to shape the structure for the future.

14.1.6. Throughout the review a number of key themes have established themselves due to the

intrinsic nature of their relationship to all proposals and the evaluation process. In

particular the following themes are important to note:

14.1.7. There is a strong relationship between the size of schools, efficiency of education delivery

and progress. In Somerset the available data appear to demonstrate an optimal school

size of c. 420 for Primary and 1,200 for Secondary phase of education. This information

appears to support the potential benefit of consolidating the school estate either physically

or structurally.

14.1.8. The optimum sizing of schools or groups of schools enables an efficiency in the delivery

of education against set budgets whilst offering an appropriate breadth of education. This

becomes increasingly important during the Secondary phase of education and especially

during Key Stage 4 where smaller schools typically offer significantly reduced options.

Optimally sized school can enable improved breadth and quality of staff, improved

continuity of curriculum and teaching and stronger contingency planning and staff

coverage. They also have the ability to better support wrap around care, sport and extra-

curricular activities.

14.1.9. In Crewkerne and Ilminster the Middle School capacity is also critical to the ability to meet

the overall demand for places. With these sites and buildings sitting literally in the ‘Middle’

of the education structure for the area the facilities are critical to the development of all

alternative scenarios. A key decision in all scenarios has been whether to retain these

schools or to invest in their use as part of a revised consolidated estate and education

structure. In the scenarios where their use is retained (and potentially extended) there are

insufficient pupils to then sustain a small (non-optimal) upper school serving only years 9-

11. In scenarios where the Middle School estate is put to alternative use in either



of 137

supporting the consolidation of Primary or Secondary schools’ significant cost is incurred

and due to the location of the sites, a displacement of pupil places also typically occurs.

As such there are some key decisions that arise for the Local Authority and other key

stakeholders to contemplate before moving forwards – these are outlined in more detail

later in this section of the report.

14.1.10. In assessing the relative impacts of each scenario on revenue funding it has been

important to note that the above statement of optimal school sizes also hold true. Whilst

the option of a change to formula funding initially appeared as a potential quick fix, it soon

became clear that this would in effect only result in a temporary relaxation of the increasing

deficit and would not have any impact on the quality or sustainability of education going

forwards.

14.1.11. Other scenarios identified a similar theme to the Education workstream, demonstrating that

optimal school sizing results in positive impacts on revenue budgets. The consolidation of

schools within a new education structure has the ability to result in greater efficiency of

curriculum delivery, however there is a considerable degree of uncertainty over who would

benefit from such consolidation in the medium to longer term future. It remains unclear as

to whether the Local Authority & Schools or the Department for Education would see the

greater benefit of such improvements. If the latter, then this may lead towards a false

benefit in that the overarching budget would be resized to reflect any amalgamation and

consolidation and therefore counter any realisation of financial benefits.

14.1.12. Similarly, should any options containing land disposals (consequential from school

closures) be considered, it is unclear as to which parties would benefit. With most schools

in scope being Voluntary Controlled Church of England Schools, it is understood that any

capital receipt would revert to the Diocese of Bath & Wells and therefore would not

necessarily benefit the overall project unless an alternative agreement could be reached.

14.1.13. The introduction of a MAT needs to be recognised as bringing a potentially significant

opportunity for improving the efficiency of revenue costs through the centralisation of core

school functions (e.g. HR, Procurement, IT, Estates, Finance etc). The central

management, scale of economy and wider buying power of a MAT model could add

significant benefits to the structure of schools if developed alongside the structural change.

14.1.14. It should be noted that this review focuses on a given set of assumptions that recognise

the potential of an incoming MAT, but do not factor it into the alternative education

structures at this stage. This overlaying of the MAT developments within this area of

Somerset add a further layer of complication to an already complicated picture. However,

if co-ordinated well between all key stakeholders there is the potential to overlay a positive

change that can bring increased efficiency and effectiveness to education delivery in the

area. It is important however that the structural design of education leads first and that the



of 137

benefits of a MAT are overlaid to complement this. There is a significant risk in a MAT

establishing a part-presence within the area should their strategic direction differ from

preferred alternative structures for the area. This difference of direction could serve to

further fracture education and compound challenges, making a long-term solution harder

to achieve. However, there could be a positive opportunity in working closely with a MAT

and wider stakeholders to enable an area-wide structure that serves all parties well.

Ultimately there has to be a careful balance here as the eventual structure has to remain

attractive to the MAT landscape moving forwards as otherwise the Crewkerne and

Ilminster area could become disenfranchised from the National education agenda.

14.1.15. Overall the review has identified a number of scenarios that could provide improved

viability and sustainability for the Crewkerne and Ilminster area schools, but no single

scenario or hybrid of scenarios is without the need for critical decisions to be taken by

stakeholders. Consideration needs to be given to the following:

i. The preferred solution for Secondary / combined Middle & Upper provision within the

area and the geographical impact that such a decision could have on Year 5 & 6

pupils (and proximity of their nearest school). As things currently stand projections

do not demonstrate the need for three Middle and Upper School sites across the

Crewkerne and Ilminster area.

ii. The preferred use of Middle School sites and whether these should continue to

provide Middle (deemed secondary) places or revert to provide Primary or

Secondary phase places under an alternative model. Any change to a viable two-tier

Primary / Secondary model is contingent upon the Middle school estate providing

Primary capacity. The Middle school estate offers the greatest opportunity to

consolidate and rationalise the wider school system within the Crewkerne and

Ilminster area.

iii. Potential implications of any closures of small rural schools in order to seek greater

efficiency in the school estate and therefore greater consolidation of places in fewer

sites (enabling optimisation of school sizes). Many of the First Schools sit below

current Free School viability guidelines and therefore add to the challenge of keeping

the school structure financially viable.

iv. The importance of Church and Voluntary Controlled schools within the Crewkerne

and Ilminster area and whether there is any scope for change to Governance

arrangements in order to facilitate alternative solutions. There is a risk that the

Voluntary Controlled estate and Church School status will limit the ability any

restructure of education within the Crewkerne and Ilminster area.



of 137

14.1.16. The outcome of the above decisions will undoubtedly impact on the ability to carry forward

highest scoring scenarios or other hybrid solutions. Until there is clarity on whether parties

can work together to agree priorities the closest that this report can get is the presentation

of a range of viable solutions on a scale where some that have greater impact on the

existing school system (and potentially result in greater efficiency in delivery) and other

have a lesser impact on the existing system (with potentially lesser efficiency in delivery).

For example, the most controversial Scenario (3B&4D) proposes significant change to the

First and Middle School structure in order to achieve a vastly consolidated structure across

the area. This option demonstrates a reasonably clinical business driven approach that

reconciles the estate to the clinical need for places, resulting in a more negative impact on

various other factors such as Transport, Community, Equalities etc. However, without the

support of key stakeholders the option would not prove deliverable.

14.1.17. By contrast a debatably less disruptive scenario (4A) would also require key decisions on

the willingness to remove a Middle School from the system, resulting in a split-site Primary

model that keeps the majority of school sites open. Consequently, there is an impact on

community provision in Ilminster and the need to transport middle school students to

alternative sites in the area.

14.1.18. Without the support of key stakeholders progression of any option other than ‘baseline –

as is’ will most likely prove non-deliverable. A detailed cost / benefit analysis of ‘baseline

Scenario 1A’ against other options is recommended so the limitations and constraints of

proceeding with changes for natural growth only are fully understood, in terms of continued

impact on education provision (and potential future performance) and finances. All

proposed improvement scenarios require increased levels of capital expenditure and have

potential revenue cost associated with factors such as travel; this needs to be better

understood in relation to likely ongoing financial deficits and ‘do minimum’ capital funding

requirements.

14.1.19. Ultimately to move any proposed change forwards all Stakeholders need to be committed

to achieving a step change in the education structure for the Crewkerne and Ilminster area.

Due to the current structure no single party is able to act alone in instigating such a change.

Whilst the Local Authority is keen to drive change to achieve a sustainable and viable

structure for the future, it can only do so with the commitment of the schools, any incoming

MAT, the Diocese, the DfE and the RSC. In the event that any one of these parties were

to object or block such a change it would be extremely difficult to bring about a wholistic

longer term solution that can more effectively and efficiently serve the needs of the

Crewkerne and Ilminster are over and beyond the next decade.



of 137

14.2. Recommendations

14.2.1. In order to progress the development of any viable option it is critical that all key

stakeholders work together to establish an agreed solution. At present there are significant

divisions within the area that will not facilitate a sustainable solution for the future of the

area. Appropriate review and feedback groups need to be established with all schools and

governing bodies to specifically review and consult on options, with the intention of moving

towards an agreed way forward and identifying which option(s) will be taken forward to a

strategic level group forum for further work, review and consultation. This group should

include representative(s) from each of the key stakeholder groups with delegated authority

to enter into dialogue on behalf of their stakeholder group.

14.2.2. Detailed dialogue should be entered into with the Diocese of Bath and Wells in relation to

the Voluntary Controlled Schools within the scope of this review. The Diocese control the

majority of the school estate in the area and therefore any proposals would require their

commitment and ownership. The willingness of the Diocese to work with the Local

Authority on the exploration of viable options will be critical to the deliverability of a solution.

14.2.3. Given the national education agenda and increasing move towards academisation within

the Crewkerne & Ilminster area it would be prudent to work with an incoming MAT to help

shape the area review in greater detail. A close strategic working relationship with A MAT

could enable added financial benefits to be gained for schools within the area. Overall it

would be beneficial to have a greater number of schools working closely with or placed

within a MAT to help gain added budget efficiencies and ensure continuity of working

across the area.

14.2.4. A further stage of detailed feasibility work is required on the Preferred Option(s) once

identified and agreed with the wider stakeholder group. This stage of work would seek to

add more detail to the following workstreams in order to establish a deliverable programme

structure with clear mandate and scope:

▪ Consultation with wider stakeholder group;

▪ Education and Estate Structure – development of reference scheme design(s);

▪ Capital Cost Plan – development of cost plan;

▪ Revenue budget – development of revenue budget plan;

▪ Change Management – development of change management plan that provides

route map and workstreams for moving from current to new solution;

▪ Related surveys and investigations to inform feasibility and consultation work;

▪ Formal consultation – preparation for formal consultation process.



of 137

Appendices

1. Baseline Information

2. Options Information

3. Capital Cost Modelling

4. Revenue Budgets

5. Education Impact

6. Options Appraisal

7. Consultation

8. Programme

9. Risk Register

10. Catchment Area Map



of 137

Appendix 1

Baseline Information



of 137

Appendix 2

Options Information



of 137

Appendix 3

Capital Cost Modelling



of 137

Appendix 4

Revenue Budgets



of 137

Appendix 5

Education Impact



of 137

Appendix 6

Options Appraisal



of 137

Appendix 7

Consultation



of 137

Appendix 8

Programme



of 137

Appendix 9

Risk Register



of 137

Appendix 10

Catchment Area Map



of 137

Crewkerne & Ilminster Strategic School Review Report (Stage 0) · the current locality system and...

Documents

Transcript of Crewkerne & Ilminster Strategic School Review Report (Stage 0) · the current locality system and...