Agenda item

This report sets out the outcomes of informal consultation on a proposal to relocate Atkinson House Special School to a former school site in Ponteland and to change the designation of the school to become co-educational. This consultation has arisen as a result of the need to provide additional places for young people, including girls, in Northumberland with Social, Emotional and Mental Health needs (SEMH) in September 2022 as a result of the steady upward trend in the demand for special school places in the county and nationally over the last ten years.  Cabinet is now asked to permit the publication of a statutory proposal in line with the requirements of The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2013 following the outcomes of informal consultation.  Comments made by this Committee will be reported to Cabinet on 11 January 2022.

The Cabinet report set out the outcomes of informal consultation on a proposal to relocate Atkinson House Special School to a former school site in Ponteland and to change the designation of the school to become co-educational. S Aviston, Head of School Organisation and Resources provided a comprehensive introduction to the report advising that the consultation had arisen as a result of the need to provide additional places for young people, including girls, in Northumberland with Social, Emotional and Mental Health Needs (SEMH) in September 2022 as a result of the steady upward trend in the demand for special school places in the County.  Councillor Renner-Thompson thanked those who had taken part in the consultation exercise advising that the County had an increasing need for SEMH places within the County.  He referenced the inappropriate and offensive comments which had been received during the course of the consultation which had been removed from the register advising that these were of a highly offensive nature and were deplorable in the 21^st century.

The Chair advised that a further letter had been received from the Church of England Diocese on 31 December following the publication of the report.  Mr Rickeard, the Diocese representative, drew attention to the commentary on page 77 of the report which had raised concerns from the Newcastle Diocesan Board of Education (NDEB).  The Committee was advised that the Board wished to make it clear that the two NDEB positions mentioned were filled by two nominated individuals, one of who was an officer who did not have a vote on such statements and the other was a Professor from the University of Sunderland who had declared an interest at the time of discussion of this report. He advised of the purpose of the NDEB and stated that whilst the NDEB always looked to consider the needs of the CoE schools, it was always done with consideration of the wider education and community interests in line with its charitable objectives.  He advised that to suggest that the NDEB would be biased in supporting a Trust above its own charitable objectives was openly disparaging to both the Board and its Members who were skilled Trustees and had considered the proposals very carefully in light of the varying education, moral and safeguarding aspects involved. The Board had not had sight of the Pele Trust response and had not stated that it supported their objections, and had not itself objected to the proposals only made it clear that the safeguarding issues needed to be firmly addressed.  The Chair of the NDEB had been personally offended by this section of the report and requested that this be removed and an apology be issued to the NDEB to avoid any further misrepresentation or suggestion of bias. 

Mrs Aviston apologised to the Diocese for the interpretation of the comments originally made and advised that by the time the further response from the Diocese was received it was too late to retract the commentary that had been written, but this would be made clear when the report was considered at Cabinet.  She advised that she had made it clear in her introduction to Members at this meeting that this was not an objection to the proposals but were concerns raised by the Diocese.

In response to concerns expressed by Members in relation to security, safeguarding, road safety, drop offs and the shared sporting areas the Chair advised that the purpose was to scrutinise the results of the informal consultation and make a recommendation to Cabinet for their decision on whether to move to the more formal consultation stage and that a lot of concerns would be picked up during the formal consultation if this was agreed.  Mrs Aviston advised that it was hoped to bring together all users in order to provide a design solution which was suitable for and safeguarded all users on the co-located site.  Cabinet were also being asked to agree at risk funding for feasibility and design work to be undertaken parallel to the consultation on the Statutory proposal should it be agreed that this should be published. 

In relation to concerns regarding the distance to be travelled by pupils attending the relocated school, Members were advised that there was currently no provision in the west of the County and this more central location could result in shorter travelling times for some pupils.  It was further clarified that no child would be required to move to the Gilbert Ward school in Blyth once opened unless they wished to do so. 

Co-opted members questioned whether the timeframe of September 2022 was achievable and whether having a design solution in place before the formal consultation started would help reassure residents of the viability of the proposal. It was agreed that September 2022 was a challenging date; however, members were told that the team felt this date was achievable. There would be a delay of approximately 6 weeks should work on the design solution have to be undertaken prior to the commencement of a statutory consultation.  Officers felt that the design work currently being undertaken demonstrated a commitment and would be sufficient to demonstrate how the building would function.  It was also clarified that other locations had been explored for the relocation of Atkinson House, but this suggested site was the most suitable for a number of reasons.

Members had their attention drawn to a comment from parents who highlighted the change to co-education would create better provision for girls at the school and would be more representative of the world into which the pupils would enter and so help to prepare them to be good citizens. Members raised problems with the perception of Atkinson House and felt the proposal was a step in the right direction for the children of Northumberland with SEMH needs.

RESOLVED that Cabinet be advised that this Committee supported the recommendations as outlined in the report.