PRIMARY SCHOOL REVIEW
CONSULTATION DOCUMENT
SEPTEMBER 2002
Primary School Review – Consultation Document September 2002_______________________________________________________________
_ Appendix
1
BACKGROUND
The Options shown for each area do not represent a final decision. They are initial options presented
to demonstrate actions which could be undertaken to achieve the necessary reductions in surplus
places. They are intended to generate discussion which might bring forward other options, which will
also be analysed and presented to members of the Council for their decision.
The options have been generated out of lengthy discussion and analysis by Council officers
responsible for standards, assets, organisation of places, school admissions, arts and leisure,
demographic projections, buildings design and maintenance, estates, housing, regeneration, personnel,
and finance. As a result, they form a balance of that wide range of factors, and are not necessarily the
options of choice from each individual perspective.
A powerful aspect of this must be, however, that schools maintaining in excess of 25% surplus places
feature strongly and adversely in the Education aspects of the Council’s Comprehensive Performance
Assessment (CPA). Action must be taken regarding schools who are on or approaching this level of
surplus.
It should also be noted that the closure of surplus schools will enable the recycling of recurrent
funding to schools that remain. Current estimates relating to the closure of 8 primary schools, as an
example, indicate an annual saving of approximately £1 million available to distribute amongst other
schools. This should enable significant standards improvements. Salford is amongst the worst
performing LEAs in terms of maintaining primary surplus places.
SCHOOL LEVEL DATA
This data is driven by the new Net Capacity figures which have resulted from the comprehensive remeasure of schools undertaken over the last year for Salford by the Valuation Office. The measure
applies a new system which has been introduced by the DfES.
The figures provided are:





The new physical capacity figure (NC – Net Capacity);
The number on roll (NOR);
The capacity of the school as determined by the new Planned Admission Number;
The number of surplus places in the school is calculated by subtracting the NOR from the
physical capacity (which is how the DfES calculates);
The surplus expressed as a percentage (the figure which advises the Council CPA assessment in
respect of that school).
On the following sheets, the information below is shown for each area:
1.
PUPIL NUMBER AND SURPLUS PROJECTION

The current and projected number on roll for all Community and Controlled Primary schools in
the area.
The surplus places beyond the desired 8% level in the area.
The number of places beyond 8% surplus that need to be lost to maintain 8% as a cumulative
total.


Primary Review Options Document Revised 29 August 2002
Appendix 1
Basis of projections
The pupil number forecasts used for this review of Primary Schools are based on a model that follows
national best practice in this area and has been audited a number of times by District Audit. The
current model in use has been further improved, and over the last five years produces figures that are
within 0.8% of actual pupil numbers in any one year.
Salford has embarked on a significant building development programme, and the already rapid
building rate is likely to increase over the next five years as the City continues to regenerate.
However, there is unlikely to be an impact on pupil numbers within the timeframe of this review due
to the time lag between redevelopment and regeneration. Furthermore, while the number of dwellings
is expected to increase by about 5% over the next five years, changes are taking place in household
structure and accommodation type that make it unlikely that the number of families living in Salford
will increase in this short term.
The above view has been produced as a corporate view by officers, based on the following factors:










2.
The link between housing development and demographics is tenuous;
Increase in dwellings does not mean increase in number of families;
Corporately, our aim is stabilisation before growth – i.e. to reduce the level of turbulence in the
housing market;
Over the next five years, the number of families will continue to fall in the City;
The projected growth in the number of dwellings carried out for the boundary review exercise
will not necessarily result in an increase in households or in the number of school-age children;
Our tactic is to reduce the rate of loss, and focus on attracting and retaining thereafter;
Most of the development growth is not family accommodation, e.g. Salford Quays, Chapel
Street;
There is a time lag until regeneration activity bites;
The projected 5% increase in the number of dwellings is not much in terms of pupils generated;
Attracting families requires more than new build, as the 95% existing stock would need to be
improved, as would the environment.
SCHOOL DETAILS
Information on all schools within the area detailing:





Net capacity (NC);
Number on roll (NOR 2002);
Capacity (based on Planned Admission Number);
Number of surplus places;
Surplus percentage.
Appendix 1
Primary Review Options Document Revised 29 August 2002
KERSAL, PENDLETON, BROUGHTON/BLACKFRIARS
1.
PUPIL NUMBER AND SURPLUS PROJECTION
KERSAL, BROUGHTON/BLACKFRIARS
Net Capacity (NC) Area Total = 1,988
YEAR
NC
NOR
Surplus
Number
Surplus%
Number of
places to lose
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1,988
1,988
1,988
1,988
1,988
1,988
1,988
1,988
1,988
1,818
1,772
1,740
1,709
1,680
1,655
1,634
1,619
1,611
169
215
247
278
307
332
353
368
376
9.30%
11.83%
13.59%
15.29%
16.89%
18.26%
19.42%
20.24%
20.68%
24
73
108
141
173
200
222
238
247
2.
SCHOOL DETAILS
COMMUNITY / CONTROLLED PRIMARY
SCHOOL
St. Paul’s CE (VC)
Brentnall
Marlborough Road
Lower Kersal
St. George’s CE (VC)
Charlestown
The Friars
North Grecian Street
Total
Capacity
NC
NOR (2002)
(based on Planned
Admission Number)
207
175
420
243
182
210
210
341
1,988
173
145
463
188
181
168
194
306
1,818
+ 145 (8%)
1,963 places
needed
210
175
420
210
182
210
210
315
1,932
No. of
Surplus
34
30
-43
55
1
42
16
35
170
Surplus
(%)
16
17
-10
23
0
20
8
10
Currently at 9% surplus
Lower Kersal and
Charlestown close to CPA
Minimum places to be removed (2002) = 25
Target number of places to remove (2007) = 200
Option
(i)
Amalgamate Lower Kersal and St. Paul’s CE on Lower Kersal site
COMMENTARY
St. Paul’s CE and Lower Kersal have levels of surplus which indicate action. They are suitably located
for amalgamation and are unlikely to benefit from growth in demand passed on from other schools.
Charlestown’s position will remain under review, both for immediate means of addressing surplus place
issues and future developments including those arising out of NDC.
Appendix 1
Primary Review Options Document Revised 29 August 2002
SWINTON NORTH, SWINTON SOUTH, CLAREMONT, PENDLEBURY
1.
PUPIL NUMBER AND SURPLUS PROJECTION
SWINTON NORTH, SWINTON SOUTH, CLAREMONT, PENDLEBURY
Net Capacity (NC) Area Total = 3,655
YEAR
NC
NOR
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
3,655
3,655
3,655
3,655
3,655
3,655
3,655
3,655
3,655
3,324
3,257
3,174
3,092
3,016
2,946
2,878
2,812
2,742
2.
Surplus
Number
331
398
481
563
639
709
777
843
913
Number of
places to lose
Surplus%
9.06%
10.89%
13.16%
15.40%
17.48%
19.40%
21.26%
23.06%
24.98%
65
137
227
316
398
473
547
618
694
SCHOOL DETAILS
COMMUNITY / CONTROLLED PRIMARY
SCHOOL
Summerville
Light Oaks Infants
Light Oaks Juniors
St. John’s
Grosvenor Road
Moorside
Broadoak
The Deans
Mossfield
Wardley
Clifton
Total
Capacity
NC
NOR (2002)
(based on Planned
Admission Number)
248
270
360
196
621
385
420
210
432
198
315
3,655
208
252
330
216
464
322
438
204
405
181
304
3,324
+ 266 (8%)
3,590
places
needed
210
270
360
210
630
315
420
210
420
210
315
3,570
No. of
Surplus
40
18
30
-20
157
63
-18
6
27
17
11
331
Currently at 9% surplus
Grosvenor Road close to
CPA
Minimum places to be removed (2002) = 65
Target number of places to remove (2007) = 473
Options
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Moorside Primary School – reduce to 1FE
Grosvenor Primary School – reduce to 2FE
Summerville Primary School – reduce to 1FE
Surplus
(%)
16
7
8
-10
25
16
-4
3
6
9
3
removes 175 places
removes 201 places
removes 38 places
REMOVES TOTAL OF 414 PLACES
COMMENTARY
These proposals address the issues of surplus places in schools at 16% or above and will maintain all
schools in the area at viable levels of at least 1FE.
Appendix 1
Primary Review Options Document Revised 29 August 2002
ECCLES, WINTON, BARTON
1.
PUPIL NUMBER AND SURPLUS PROJECTION
ECCLES, WINTON, BARTON
Net Capacity (NC) Area Total = 2,421
YEAR
NC
NOR
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2,421
2,421
2,421
2,421
2,421
2,421
2,421
2,421
2,421
1,992
1,968
1,897
1,824
1,750
1,676
1,604
1,535
1,465
2.
Surplus
Number
429
453
524
597
671
745
817
886
956
Number of
places to lose
Surplus%
17.72%
18.71%
21.64%
24.66%
27.72%
30.77%
33.75%
36.60%
39.49%
270
296
372
451
531
611
689
763
839
SCHOOL DETAILS
COMMUNITY / CONTROLLED PRIMARY
SCHOOL
Alder Park
Monton Green
Westwood Park
Beech Street
Lewis Street
Barton Moss
St. Andrews CE
Christ Church CE
Clarendon Road
Total
Capacity
NC
NOR (2002)
(based on Planned
Admission Number)
210
297
315
315
210
243
206
210
415
2,421
186
255
280
184
185
208
180
188
326
1,992
+ 159 (8%)
2,151 places
needed
210
315
315
315
210
210
210
210
420
2,415
No. of
Surplus
24
42
35
131
25
35
26
22
89
429
Surplus
(%)
11
14
11
42
12
14
13
10
21
Currently at 18 % surplus
Beech Street and Clarendon
Road close to CPA
Minimum places to be removed (2002) = 270
Target number of places to remove (2007) = 611
Options
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Closure of Beech Street Primary School
Closure of Lewis Street Primary School
Consolidate Alder Park Primary School pupils
into Westwood Park Primary School and relocate
onto Alder Park site – 1½FE
removes 315 places
removes 210 places
removes 210 places
REMOVES TOTAL OF 735 PLACES
COMMENTARY
The above options combined remove more than the identified 611 places for 2007. However, projected
decline in this area is particularly problematic. The proposals address the schools with rolls substantially
less than 210. In the case of Clarendon Road, the school will receive attention with a view to reduction of
surplus places by internal measures, if necessary.
Appendix 1
Primary Review Options Document Revised 29 August 2002
WEASTE AND SEEDLEY, LANGWORTHY, ORDSALL
1.
PUPIL NUMBER AND SURPLUS PROJECTION
WEASTE & SEEDLEY, LANGWORTHY, ORDSALL
Net Capacity (NC) Area Total = 2,092
YEAR
NC
NOR
Surplus
Number
Surplus%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2,092
2,092
2,092
2,092
2,092
2,092
2,092
2,092
2,092
1,574
1,531
1,453
1,375
1,298
1,222
1,149
1,079
1,010
518
561
639
717
794
870
943
1,013
1,082
24.76%
26.82%
30.54%
34.27%
37.95%
41.59%
45.08%
48.42%
51.72%
2.
Number of
places to lose
392
439
523
607
690
772
851
927
1001
SCHOOL DETAILS
COMMUNITY / CONTROLLED PRIMARY
SCHOOL
Tootal Drive
Seedley
St.Luke’s CE
Larkhill
Langworthy Road
Radclyffe
St. Clement (Egerton) CE
Total
Capacity
NC
NOR (2002)
(based on Planned
Admission Number)
240
420
189
420
311
302
210
2,092
183
303
149
281
266
229
163
1,574
+ 126 (8%)
1,700 places
needed
210
420
210
420
315
315
210
2,100
No. of
Surplus
57
117
40
139
45
73
47
518
Surplus
(%)
24
28
21
33
14
24
22
Currently at 25 % surplus
All (except Langworthy
Road) close to CPA
Minimum places to be removed (2002) = 392
Target number of places to remove (2007) = 772
Options
(i)
(ii)
Replace Seedley and Langworthy Primary schools
with a new school
Closure of St. Clement’s CE (Egerton) and
Radclyffe Primary Schools and open new 1½FE
school on Radclyffe site
removes 311 places
removes 197 places
REMOVES TOTAL OF 508 PLACES
COMMENTARY
The proposals regarding St. Clements CE and Radclyffe are straightforward and could form an early bid
submission in December 2002. The further options have been generated out of a balance of issues,
one of which has been the current stage of regeneration in the area.
The position regarding the schools will need review and investment when the area is more stabilised.
Appendix 1
Primary Review Options Document Revised 29 August 2002
LITTLE HULTON
1.
PUPIL NUMBER AND SURPLUS PROJECTION
LITTLE HULTON
Net Capacity (NC) Area Total = 2,220
YEAR
NC
NOR
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2,220
2,220
2,220
2,220
2,220
2,220
2,220
2,220
2,220
2,053
2,034
1,989
1,940
1,889
1,836
1,783
1,729
1,672
2.
Surplus
Number
167
186
231
280
331
384
437
491
548
Number of
places to lose
Surplus%
7.52%
8.38%
10.41%
12.61%
14.91%
17.30%
19.68%
22.12%
24.68%
3
23
72
125
180
237
294
353
414
SCHOOL DETAILS
COMMUNITY / CONTROLLED PRIMARY
SCHOOL
Wharton
St. Paul’s Peel
Dukesgate
Peel Hall
Hilton Lane
St. Andrew’s Methodist
Bridgewater
North Walkden
St. Paul’s CE Heathside
Total
Capacity
NC
NOR (2002)
(based on Planned
Admission Number)
315
280
206
315
210
209
300
189
196
2,220
255
286
176
236
205
212
286
205
192
2,053
+ 164 (8%)
2,217 places
needed
315
280
210
315
210
210
315
210
210
2,275
No. of
Surplus
60
-6
30
79
5
-3
14
-16
4
167
Currently at 8 % surplus
Peel Hall close to CPA
Minimum places to be removed (2002) = 3
Target number of places to remove (2007) = 237
Option
(i)
(ii)
Wharton Primary School – reduce to 1FE
Peel Hall Primary School – reduce to 1FE
Surplus
(%)
19
-2
15
25
2
-1
5
-8
2
removes 105 places
removes 105 places
REMOVES TOTAL OF 210 PLACES
COMMENTARY
These proposals are designed to maintain provision at the existing locations. However, the picture
post 2007 is worrying and an alternative option would be to go for closure of one establishment now,
followed by the school rationalisations if decline continued. The recommended school for closure
would probably be Dukesgate, given its low NOR.
Appendix 1
Primary Review Options Document Revised 29 August 2002
WORSLEY AND BOOTHSTOWN
1.
PUPIL NUMBER AND SURPLUS PROJECTION
WORSLEY AND BOOTHSTOWN
Net Capacity (NC) Area Total = 1,309
YEAR
NC
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1,309
1,309
1,309
1,309
1,309
1,309
1,309
1,309
1,309
2.
NOR
1,372
1,374
1,365
1,354
1,341
1,327
1,312
1,297
1,279
Surplus
Number
-63
-65
-56
-45
-32
-18
-3
12
30
Number of
places to lose
Surplus%
-4.81%
-4.97%
-4.28%
-3.44%
-2.44%
-1.38%
-0.23%
0.92%
2.29%
-173
-175
-165
-153
-139
-124
-108
-92
-72
SCHOOL DETAILS
COMMUNITY / CONTROLLED PRIMARY
SCHOOL
James Brindley
Ellenbrook
Boothstown Methodist
St. Andrew’s CE
Mesne Lea
Total
Capacity
NC
NOR (2002)
(based on Planned
Admission Number)
210
210
175
399
315
1,309
215
213
204
430
310
1,372
+ 110 (8%)
1,482 places
needed
210
210
168
420
315
1,323
Minimum places to be removed (2002) = -173
Target number of places to remove (2007) = -124
COMMENTARY
There appears to be no issues of surplus places in this area.
No. of
Surplus
-5
-3
-29
-31
5
-63
Surplus
(%)
-2
-1
-17
-8
2
Appendix 1
Primary Review Options Document Revised 29 August 2002
IRLAM, CADISHEAD
1.
PUPIL NUMBER AND SURPLUS PROJECTION
IRLAM, CADISHEAD
Net Capacity (NC) Area Total = 1,744
YEAR
NC
NOR
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1,744
1,744
1,744
1,744
1,744
1,744
1,744
1,744
1,744
1,584
1,574
1,548
1,518
1,486
1,451
1,415
1,379
1,339
2.
Surplus
Number
160
170
196
226
258
293
329
365
405
Number of
places to lose
Surplus%
9.17%
9.75%
11.24%
12.96%
14.79%
16.80%
18.86%
20.93%
23.22%
33
44
72
105
139
177
216
255
298
SCHOOL DETAILS
COMMUNITY / CONTROLLED PRIMARY
SCHOOL
Moorfield
Fiddlers Lane
Irlam Endowed
Irlam
Cadishead
St. Mary’s CE
Total
Capacity
NC
NOR (2002)
(based on Planned
Admission Number)
210
315
210
383
416
210
1,744
132
274
236
384
337
221
1,584
+ 127 (8%)
1,711 places
needed
210
315
210
385
420
210
1,750
No. of
Surplus
78
41
-26
-1
79
-11
160
Currently at 9 % surplus
Moorfield close to CPA
Minimum places to be removed (2002) = 33
Target number of places to remove (2007) = 177
Options
(i)
(ii)
Amalgamate Moorfield and Fiddlers Lane
to create 1½FE primary school
Cadishead Primary School – reduce to 1½FE
Surplus
(%)
37
13
-12
0
19
-5
removes 210 places
removes 101 places
REMOVES TOTAL OF 311 PLACES
COMMENTARY
These options address the surplus issues at Moorfield, Fiddlers Lane and Cadishead. Whilst
Fiddlers Lane has the higher NOR, it is a very tight site: the Moorfield site has the greater potential in
terms of facilities for the new school.