Case No: CO/2588/2015  
CO/2827/2015

Neutral Citation Number [2015] EWHC 2266 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Cardiff Civil Justice Centre
2 Park Street
Cardiff
CF10 1ET

Date: 30/07/2015

Before:

MR JUSTICE GILBART
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

	THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATIONS OF MANDY WIGGINS and DENISE JONES)	Claimants

	and		
	NEATH PORT TALBOT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL	Defendant	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sarah Hannett (instructed by Irwin Mitchell, Solicitors) for the Claimants
Rhodri Williams QC (instructed by Head of Legal Services, Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 17-18th July 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
MR JUSTICE GILBART: 
1.	This matter relates to the decision of the Defendant Council (“NPTCBC”) to close two primary schools in its area. The Claimant Ms Wiggins’ 6 year old daughter attends Clun Primary School, and the Claimant Ms Jones’ daughter attends Pontrhydyfen Primary School, which are the two schools concerned. Primary school education would be provided instead at Ynysfach Primary School (in the case of Clun) and Cwmafan Primary School (in the case of Pontrhydyfen). 
2.	Both Claimants are keen to see their children’s respective schools remain open.
3.	Ms Wiggins’ claim (CO 2588/2015) was refused permission to apply for judicial review on 16th June 2015 by Hickinbottom J. Ms Wiggins made an application for renewal on 22nd June 2015. On 3rd July 2015 Hickinbottom J ordered that the two claims be linked and that Ms Wiggins’ application to renew, and Ms Jones’ application for permission be set down for a rolled up hearing. I heard that rolled up hearing on 17th July.
4.	I shall deal with the matter as follows:
i)	The particular framework for decision making about school closures in Wales
ii)	The two schools in question and the schools which are intended to receive their pupils if they close, and the concerns of the Claimants
iii)	The original proposals- general
iv)	The proposal to close Clun Primary School and for the pupils to attend Ynysfach  Primary School
v)	The history of the closure proposals in each case
vi)	The cases for the Claimants
vii)	The case for NPTCBC
viii)	Discussion and conclusions.
The particular framework for decision making about school closures in Wales
5.	This has been set out comprehensively in R (McCann) v Bridgend County Borough Council [2014] EWHC 4335 (Admin) by HH Judge Keyser QC. I gratefully adopt his analysis at [6]-[16]. 
“The statutory framework
6.	The decision to close the School was taken under the provisions of Part 3 of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013, which for relevant purposes came into force on 1 October 2013.  I shall refer only to such provisions and such parts of the provisions as are directly material.
7.	Section 40(3) provides: “A maintained school may be discontinued only in accordance with this Part.”  The School is a maintained school (it is also a “mainstream” school and a “community” school; I need not go through the definitions), and the decision in question was a decision to discontinue it.  Part 3 sets out a procedure for decision-making to which it applies.  Section 43(1) provides in part: “A local authority may make proposals to discontinue—(a) a community … school.”  Section 48 provides in part:
“(1)	A proposer must publish proposals made under this Chapter in accordance with the Code. 
(2)	Before publishing proposals made under this Chapter, a proposer must consult on its proposals in accordance with the Code. 
(5)	The proposer must publish a report on the consultation it has carried out in accordance with the Code.”
 	
 	Section 49 provides in part:
“(1)	Any person may object to proposals published under section 48. 
(2)	Objections must be sent in writing to the proposer before the end of 28 days beginning with the day on which the proposals were published (‘the objection period’). 
(3)	The proposer must publish a summary of all objections made in accordance with subsection (2) (and not withdrawn) and its response to those objections— 
(a) in the case of a local authority that is required to determine its own proposals under section 53, before the end of 7 days beginning with the day of its determination under section 53(1) …”
 	The defendant as local authority was indeed in the position of being required to determine its own proposals.  Section 53(1) provides: “Where any proposals published under section 48 do not require approval under section 50 [i.e. by Welsh Ministers] or 51 [i.e. by the local authority, where it is not itself the proposer], the proposer must determine whether the proposals should be implemented.”
8.	Section 38 of the 2013 Act makes provision for “the Code”, as follows:
“(1)	The Welsh Ministers must issue, and may from time to time revise, a code on school organisation (‘the Code’). 
(2)	The Code is to contain provision about the exercise of the functions of the following persons under this Part— 
…
(b) local authorities; 
…
(3)	The Code may impose requirements, and may include guidelines setting out aims, objectives and other matters. 
(4)	The persons referred to in subsection (2) must, when exercising functions under this Part— 
(a) act in accordance with any relevant requirements contained in the Code, and 
(b) have regard to any relevant guidelines contained in it.”
9.	In summary, therefore, the position is as follows.  If a local authority proposes to close a school, it must first—that is, before publishing a formal proposal to that effect—consult on that proposal.  Upon the conclusion of the consultation, the local authority must then (a) formally publish the proposal in accordance with the Code, and (b) publish a report on the consultation it has carried out.  When the proposal is formally published, there will be a 28-day objection period.  At the conclusion of that period, the local authority must determine whether its proposal is to be implemented, and within seven days after the determination publish a summary of the objections received and of its response to the objections.  In exercising its functions—whether at the pre-publication consultation stage, or at the stage of publication of proposals and reporting on the consultation, or at the stage of determining the proposals and reporting on the objections—the local authority is required to act in accordance with mandatory requirements of the Code and to have regard to relevant guidelines contained in the Code.
10.	The School Organisation Code (“the Code”) was issued in July 2013 and came into force on 1 October 2013 with application in respect of all school organisation proposals in Wales published by way of statutory notice on or after that date.  The summary section at the front of the Code includes the following text:
“The Code contains the following elements:
1. It imposes requirements in accordance with which relevant bodies … must act. Failure by a relevant body to comply with the requirements set out in this Code may result in a complaint to the Welsh Ministers or to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. Where mandatory requirements are imposed by the Code or by the 2013 Act or another statute or statutory instrument, it is stated that the relevant bodies must comply with the particular provision.  Where practices are prohibited, it is stated that the relevant bodies must not use this practice.
2. It includes statutory guidance to which relevant bodies must have regard ... Where guidance is given by the Code, it is stated that relevant bodies should follow this guidance unless they can demonstrate that they are justified in not doing so.”
 The emphasis is in the original.  Accordingly the distinction in section 38(4) of the Act between requirements and guidelines is reflected by the use in the Code of “must” (or “must not”) and “should”; but it should be noted that the statute and the Code require that local authorities “must” have regard to guidelines that are not themselves mandatory.
11.	The following passages may be noted. (Judge Keyser QC then addressed Section 1 of the Code on “Development and consideration of proposals”.  I set out the parts relevant to this case below, so have omitted those parts of his judgement dealing with Section 1)  
“
“12.	Section 3 of the Code deals with “Consultation”.  I refer to the following extracted passages.
“3.1 Principles
…
Case law has established that the consultation process should:
• 	be undertaken when proposals are still at a formative stage;
• 	include sufficient reasons and information for particular proposals to enable intelligent consideration and response;
• 	provide adequate time for consideration and response; and
• 	ensure that the product of consultation is conscientiously taken into account when the ultimate decision is taken.
The process and guidance which follow have been developed with due regard to the principles listed above. Those considering bringing forward proposals will need to be fully aware of this process and guidance. However, proposers must be mindful of the four underlying principles and take any necessary additional steps to ensure that those principles are fully upheld.
From time to time proposers will have conducted ‘informal’ consultation with particular stakeholders at an earlier stage in the development of proposals. Such consultation must not be seen as a substitute for any part of the formal consultation processes set out below.”
“3.2 Consultation document
Those bringing forward statutory proposals must publish a consultation document in hard copy and electronically on their website or that of the relevant local authority.  Hard copies must be available on request. Consideration should be given to publishing in other formats where accessibility might otherwise be an issue.
The following must receive either a hard copy of the consultation document or be emailed a link to the relevant website …:
• 	Assembly Members (AMs) and Members of Parliament (MPs) representing the area served by/intended to be served by any school which is the subject of the proposals; …
In the case of all proposals, the consultation document must contain the following information:
Description and Benefits
• 	a detailed description of the status quo setting out its strengths and weaknesses and the reasons why change is considered necessary;
• 	a detailed description of the proposal or proposals …;
• 	the expected benefits of the proposals and disadvantages when compared with the status quo;
• 	any risks associated with the proposals and any measures required to manage these;
• 	a description of any alternatives considered and the reasons why these have been discounted;

Where proposals involve the closure of a school the following information must be included in the consultation document:
• 	details of any alternatives to closure that have been considered and the reasons why these have not been taken forward;
• 	the impact of proposals on the local community …”

I shall refer to other aspects of section 3.2 below. Judge Keyser QC 
went on: 
“3.5 Consultation reports
Within 13 weeks of the end of the period allowed for responses (and in any event prior to publication of the proposals), the proposer must publish a consultation report:
• 	summarising each of the issues raised by consultees;
• 	responding to these by means of clarification, amendment to the proposal or rejection of the concerns, with supporting reasons; and
• 	setting out Estyn’s view (as provided in its consultation response) of the overall merits of the proposal.
…
The following must be advised of the availability of the consultation report:
• 	Pupils, parents (and where possible prospective parents) carers and guardians, and staff members of schools which are subject to the proposals …
The following must receive either a hard copy of the consultation report or be emailed a link to the relevant website:
…
• 	Assembly Members (AMs) and Members of Parliament (MPs) representing the area served by/intended to be served by any school which is the subject of the proposals …”
13.	Section 4 of the Code deals with “Publication of statutory proposals”.  Section 4.1, headed “Manner of publication”, contains the following provisions that are material to this case:
“Once the proposer decides to proceed with a proposal they must publish the proposal by way of statutory notice. …

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
14.	Section 5 of the Code deals with “Determining proposals (other than proposals made by the Welsh Ministers)”.  The following provisions are relevant.
“5.1 Objection reports
Under section 49 of the 2013 Act proposers must publish a summary of the statutory objections and the proposer’s response to those objections (‘the Objection Report’).
…
The following must be advised of the availability of the Objection Report:
• 	Parents (and where possible prospective parents) careers and guardians, and staff members of schools which are the subject of the proposals; …

		…………………………………………………………
“5.4 Determination by proposers
…
Where a local authority’s proposals have received objections, and require determination under section 53 of the 2013 Act, the local authority must not approach the determination of these proposals with a closed mind. Objections must be conscientiously considered alongside the arguments in respect of the proposals and in the light of the factors set out in section 1.3 – 1.14 of this Code. In these cases the objection report must be published at the same time as the decision is issued rather than within 28 days beginning with the end of the objection period.”
15.	……………………………………………………………………………
16.	In my judgment, Part 3 of the 2013 Act and the provisions of the Code represent a careful and deliberate scheme of what may be called participative decision-making at a local level in a particular area of social life.  As mention of some of the case-law will make clear, the Code largely reflects existing standards and principles of public law.  It brings them, however, into a systematic structure that is designed to involve affected parties in a very real way in decisions that are likely to have significant effects on their communities.  The Code in no way divests the appointed decision-making bodies—in this case, the defendant—of their ultimate role in the process.  It does, however, go a long way to ensuring that the decision-making bodies must give to the public a full and meaningful opportunity to engage in the process.  Concrete examples of the process in the present case will illustrate what this means in practice.”

6.	In the context of this case, I must also draw attention to the following parts of sections 1 and 3 of the Code (NB italics and bold type as per original; footnotes omitted). 
1.2 Factors to be taken into account in preparing, publishing, approving or determining school organisation proposals
The following paragraphs set out the factors which should be taken into account by relevant bodies when exercising their functions of preparing and publishing school organisation proposals, or approving/determining them. Paragraphs 1.3 to 1.6 are applicable in the case of all proposals.

1.3 Quality and standards in education
Relevant bodies should place the interests of learners above all others. With reference to the key questions of the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales (Estyn), they should give paramount importance to the likely impact of the proposals on the quality of:
• 	outcomes (standards and wellbeing);
• 	provision (learning experiences, teaching, care support and  guidance, and learning environment);and
• 	leadership and management (leadership, improving quality, partnership working and resource management)
at the school or schools which are the subject of the proposals and at any
other school or educational institution which is likely to be affected.

Relevant bodies should pay particular attention to the impact of the 
proposals on vulnerable groups, including children with Special 
Educational Needs (SEN).

Relevant bodies should also consider the ability of the school or schools which are the subject of the proposals to deliver the full curriculum at the foundation phase and each key stage of education. This consideration should include the quality of curriculum delivery and the extent to which the structure or size of the school is impacting on this.

Where proposals involve the transfer of learners to alternative provision there should normally be evidence that the alternative would deliver outcomes and offer provision at least equivalent to that which is currently available to those learners (including learners with SEN). Proposers should ensure that the disruption to learners is minimised.

In assessing the impact of proposals on quality and standards in education and how effectively the curriculum is being delivered, relevant bodies should consider any relevant advice from Estyn, refer to the most recent Estyn reports or other evidence derived from performance monitoring, and take into consideration any other generally available information available on a school's effectiveness.

1.4 Need for places and the impact on accessibility of schools
Local authorities must ensure that there are sufficient schools providing primary and secondary education for their area. Schools are regarded as sufficient if they are sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide for all pupils the opportunity of appropriate education. In order to fulfil these duties, local authorities must ensure that they plan thoroughly and engage fully with relevant partners……………
In the light of the above, relevant bodies (Italics in original have regard to the following factors:
Where a school closure ………………………………………is proposed:
• whether alternative school-based provision will have sufficient capacity and provide accommodation of at least equivalent quality, for existing and projected pupil numbers;
………………………………………………………………….
• with reference to the nature of the schools subject to proposals, whether the alternative school-based provision is sufficient to meet existing and projected demand for schools of the same:
a. language category as set out in “Defining schools according to Welsh medium provision” Welsh Assembly Government Information document No: 023/2007 (Information document No 023/2007); and
b. (if relevant) designated religious character;
Proposals should ensure that the balance of school provision reflects the balance of demand. This means that where school provision is being reduced or removed, alternative school provision of the same nature (language category or, if relevant, religious character), wherever possible, should remain available and accessible to pupils in the local area.
However in some areas it may not be compatible with the cost effective provision of education to continue to maintain access to schools of the same nature.
In all cases, existing pupils at a school where provision is being reduced or removed must be able to continue receiving an education that provides at least equivalent standards and opportunities for progression in their current language medium. Specific transition arrangements may be necessary in order to achieve this.
……………………………………………………………………… 
• the nature of journeys to alternative provision and resulting journey times for pupils, including SEN pupils; in particular whether primary school pupils will have one-way journeys in excess of 45 minutes or secondary school pupils one way journeys of over an hour;
Arrangements for accessing the alternative provision should encourage sustainable transport; and they should address the possible effect of any transport difficulties on pupils' engagement with and attendance at school. Likely walking or cycling routes for safety and accessibility should be assessed prior to bringing forward proposals.

Where a new school, increase in capacity or age range expansion is proposed;
 • that there is evidence of current or future need/demand in the area for additional places, with reference to the school or proposed school’s language category, designated religious character, and the gender intake  (i.e. co-educational/single sex);

The demand for additional provision of any type in an area should be assessed and evidenced……. (In the case of Welsh medium provision this would include an assessment of the demand for Welsh Medium education conducted in accordance with any regulations made under section 86 of the 2013 Act).

•  ………………………………………………………

1.5 Resourcing of education and other financial implications
It is important that funding for education is cost effective. Relevant bodies should take into account the following factors in relation to the resourcing of education:
• Whether proposals will ensure a fairer and more equitable distribution of funding between mainstream schools within the local authority’s area.

Whilst some variation in the per capita funding provided to schools is to be expected, inefficient patterns of school organisation can result in uneven and unfair funding patterns where some schools receive a disproportionate share of funding at the expense of pupils attending other schools in the area. Proposals should not exacerbate such funding differences. Rather, wherever possible, they should contribute towards establishing a more equitable pattern of school funding.

• what effect proposals will have on surplus provision in the area;

Some spare places are necessary to enable schools to cope with fluctuations in numbers of pupils, but excessive numbers of unused places that could be removed mean that resources are tied up unproductively.

Where there are more than 10% surplus places in an area, local authorities should review their provision and should make proposals for school reorganisation if this will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of provision. This is especially important where individual schools, have “significant” levels of surplus places. A significant level of surplus provision is defined as 25% or more of a school’s capacity (as defined in Circular 21/2011) and at least 30 unfilled places.

It should not normally be necessary to provide additional places at
schools when there are others of the same type with surplus places within reasonable distance. However, proposals to increase the number of places in response to demand for a particular type of provision, e.g. Welsh medium, may still be appropriate; particularly if effective provision of school places is planned for the local authority area.

• whether proposals form part of the local authority’s 21st Century Schools Investment Programme and contributes to the delivery of sustainable schools for the 21st Century and to the better strategic management of the school estate through the removal of maintenance backlogs and school buildings which are in efficient or in poor condition.

Relevant bodies should also take into account the following factors in relation to finance:
• the recurrent costs of proposals over a period of at least 3 years and whether the necessary recurrent funding is available;

• additional transport costs incurred as a result of proposals;

Proposers should take into account the requirement on local authorities to provide free transport provision under the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure and should seek the advice of Regional Transport Consortia in relation to the impact the proposal might have on associated transport costs and their affordability.

• the capital costs of proposals and whether the necessary capital funding is available;

• the scale of any projected net savings (taking into account school revenue, transport and capital costs);

………………….................................................................................

• whether, without the proposals, the schools affected would face budget deficits;

• whether any savings in recurrent costs will be retained in the local
authority's local schools' budget; and

• whether the proceeds of sales (capital receipts) of redundant sites are to be made available to meet the costs of the proposal or contribute to the costs of future proposals which will promote effective management of school places.

In general, local authorities should look to recycle assets from any surplus school buildings and sites in their ownership into the overall improvement of their schools estate rather than allocate those proceeds to projects outside the education portfolio, although these decisions ultimately rest with local authorities.

1.6 Other general factors

………………………………………………………………………

1.7 Specific factors in the consideration of school closures

There is no presumption in favour or against the closure of any type of school. The prime purpose of schools is the provision of education and any case for closure should be robust and in the best interests of educational provision in the area.  Nevertheless, in some areas, a school may also be the main focal point for community activity, and its closure could have implications beyond the issue of the provision of education. This may be a particular feature in rural areas if school buildings are used as a place to provide services to the local community.

The case prepared by those bringing forward proposals should show that the impact of closure on the community has been assessed through the production of a Community Impact Assessment, and how any community facilities currently provided by the school could be maintained.

When considering whether a closure is appropriate, special attention should be given to the following:

• whether the establishment of multi-site schools might be considered as a
means of retaining buildings, or the reasons for not pursuing this option;
• whether alternatives to closure, such as clustering, collaboration or
federation with other schools, might be considered (taking account of the
scope for use of ICT links between school sites) or the reasons for not
pursuing these as an alternative;
• whether the possibilities of making fuller use of the existing buildings as a community or an educational resource could be explored;

(Local authorities should consider whether it would be feasible and
economical to co-locate local services within the school to offset the costs
of maintaining the school);
• the overall effect of a closure on the local community (including the loss of school based facilities which are used by the local community), particularly in rural areas or those receiving funding as part of regeneration activity; and
• how parents’ and pupils’ engagement with the alternative school and any
facilities it may offer could be supported (e.g. how pupils; particularly any
less advantaged pupils) will be helped to participate in after school
activities).

………………………………………………………………………

(1.8- 1.13)   ……………………………………………………………..

1.14 Factors to be taken into account in approving/determining
school organisation proposals
When approving or determining proposals, relevant bodies:
• must consider whether there are any other related proposals;
• must ensure that the statutory consultation has been conducted in
accordance with this Code…………..;
• must ensure that the proposal has been published in accordance with this
Code and the notice contains all the required information;
• must consider the consultation document and consultation report;
• must consider the objections and the objection report and any responses
to the notice supporting the proposals;
• …………………………………………………………………
• …………………………………………………………………”

7.	I refer also to the following passages in section 3.2 of the Code, which deals with Consultation:
“  3.2  Consultation document 
 
Those bringing forward statutory proposals must publish a consultation document in hard copy and electronically on their website or that of the relevant local authority. Hard copies must be available on request. Consideration should be given to publishing in other formats where accessibility might otherwise be an issue.  
 
The following must receive either a hard copy of the consultation document or be emailed a link to the relevant website (but see also the section on Consultation with Children and Young People): 

 ……………………………………………………………………… 
•	the governing body any school which is the subject of the proposals and of other schools likely to be affected by the proposals, including those that might receive any displaced pupils; 
•	parents (and where possible prospective parents) carers and guardians, and staff members of those schools; 
•	………………………………………………………………… 
•	Estyn; 
•	teaching and staff trade unions representing teachers and other staff at any school which is the subject of the proposals; 

…………………………………………………………………

The consultation document must be issued during the term time of the schools affected and consultees must be given at least 42 days to respond to the document, with at least 20 of these being school days. 
 
In the case of all proposals, the consultation document must contain the 
following information: 
 
Description and Benefits 
 
•	a detailed description of the status quo setting out its strengths and weaknesses and the reasons why change is considered necessary; 
•	a detailed description of the proposal or proposals (a proposer may consult on more than one potential proposal),  the projected timetable for statutory procedures and for implementation of the proposals and any proposed interim arrangements which might be necessary for their implementation. In describing the proposals, proposers should normally refer to them using the terms set out in this Code (e.g. school closure) but where two or more existing schools become one school operating on more than one site (e.g. where former infant and junior schools become a primary school) the terms ‘merger’ or ‘amalgamation’ might be used; 
•	the expected benefits of the proposals and disadvantages when compared with the status quo; 
•	any risks associated with the proposals and any measures required to manage these; 
•	a description of any alternatives considered and the reasons why these have been discounted; 
•	information on any changes to learner travel arrangements were the proposals to be implemented and the impact on accessibility of provision. 
 
Details of affected schools 
 
•	the names, locations and categories (i.e. community, voluntary controlled, voluntary aided, foundation) of all existing schools likely to be affected by the proposals (for example, in the case of a proposal to close a school information should be provided about all the surrounding schools to which it might reasonably be considered that pupils may wish to transfer); 
•	the number of pupils on roll currently  and the figures recorded for the previous four annual school censuses at all existing schools likely to be affected by the proposals; 
•	five year forecasts of pupil rolls at all existing schools likely to be affected by the proposals both currently (i.e. based on the existing configuration of schools) and if the proposals are implemented; 
•	the pupil places capacity  of all existing schools likely to be affected by the proposals; 
•	the number of nursery places at any existing school likely to be affected by the proposals; 
•	information about the quality of accommodation at all existing schools likely to be affected by the proposals including reference to the condition category of the school as identified by the 21st Century Schools Survey; 
•	the language medium of all existing schools likely to be affected by the proposals (using the Welsh Government Circular 23/2007 “Defining schools according to Welsh medium provision”). 
 
Quality and standards in education 
•	the likely impact of the proposals on the quality of the following (reference to relevant Estyn Key Questions are included in brackets): 
 
a.	outcomes (standards and wellbeing); 
b.	provision (learning experiences, teaching, care support and guidance, and learning environment); 
c.	leadership and management (leadership, improving quality, partnership working and resource management); 
 
at the school or schools which are the subject of the proposals and at any other school or educational institution which is likely to be affected. 
 
•	information from the most recent Estyn reports for each school likely to be affected; 
•	the likely impact of the proposals on the ability of school or schools which are the subject of the proposals or any other school which is likely to be affected, to deliver the full curriculum at the foundation phase and each key stage of education.   
 
Finance 
 
•	the financial costs of the proposal and any potential savings (including where appropriate the current costs per pupil and the projected costs upon completion) – capital and recurrent (including school transport and staff costs);  
•	the sources from which capital funding will be provided; 
•	how any capital receipts or recurrent costs savings will be deployed; 

Land and buildings 
 
• details of any potential transfer or disposal of land or buildings that may need to occur as a result of the proposals. 
 
Consultation details 
 
•	details of how people can make their views known including the address to which comments in writing can be made and the deadline for those comments; 
•	details of how people can ask further questions about the proposals;  
•	a statement to the effect that responses to consultation will not be counted as objections to the proposal and that objections can only be registered following publication of the notice; 
•	and (sic) explanation of the publication process, the making of objections and determination of published proposals; 
•	a pro-forma for comments, including an opportunity for consultees to suggest alternatives to the proposals and to register their wish to be notified of publication of the consultation report. 
 
…………………………………………………………………. 
 
Where proposals involve the closure of a school the following information must be included in the consultation document: 
 
•	details of any alternatives to closure that have been considered and the reasons why these have not been taken forward; 
•	the impact of proposals on the local community, particularly in rural areas and in areas designated for communities first programmes or successor programmes; 
•	the likely impact on staff of schools named in proposals; 
•	in the case of alternative provision: 
 
a.	the name and location of the proposed alternative provision; 
b.	a comparison of the quality and standard of education provided at the school from which pupils would be transferred and the proposed alternative school or schools and an outline of any steps necessary in order to ensure that any shortcomings in the latter are addressed; 
c.	admission arrangements at the proposed alternative school; 
d.	a comparison of the quality of accommodation at the school from which pupils would be transferred and at the proposed alternative and an outline of any steps necessary in order to ensure that any shortcomings in the latter are addressed; 
e.	information on any building works necessary to ensure that transferred children can be accommodated at the alternative provision; 
f.	the impact on pupils’ journeys to school and on school transport costs; and 
g.	information regarding available walking routes to the alternative provision; 
h.	the language medium at the proposed alternative school. 
 
…………………………………………………………………… 

In some circumstances, proposers may consider it appropriate to consult on a range of options rather than one specific proposal, but in such cases, all of the information set out above must be provided in relation to each of the identified options. 
 
A recommended template consultation document is at Annex C. Proposers are not required to adhere to the suggested format, but must ensure that any alternative format they choose to adopt provides the required information.”

The two schools in question and the schools which are intended to receive their pupils if they close, and the concerns of the Claimants
8.	Clun and Ynysfach : Clun Primary School lies a little to the east of the River Neath. It serves the village of Clyne and the surrounding rural area.  It is an English medium school for boys and girls aged 3 to 11. As at 2014 it had 57 pupils (excluding nursery) on the roll, but has a capacity for 118 pupils. It was projected to have 52 pupils in 2015.
9.	Ynysfach Primary School lies in the village of Resolven and is about 1.6 miles north east of Clun Primary School. It serves the village of Resolven and the surrounding rural area. It had 119 pupils (excluding nursery) on the roll, with a capacity of 176 places (excluding nursery). In 2015 it was projected to have 124 pupils (excluding nursery).
10.	Ms Wiggins chose to see her daughter educated at Clun. When her daughter was approaching school age, she visited a number of schools and considered that Ynysfach as a larger school, would be too boisterous for her. For reasons which I will not set out in the judgment, her daughter was withdrawn when she started school. She is full of praise for the way in which the school supported her daughter, who is now fully integrated in the life of the school.  Although Ynysfach School is closer to where she lives, she is concerned that it could not offer the same level of support. 
11.	Ms Wiggins is very actively involved with the school at Clun, where she helps run the Mother and Toddler Group. She also chairs the Clun Primary School Parent Teachers’ Association. When the proposals to close Clun were made known, she leafleted other parents, and after a meeting organised by the Governing Body to inform parents of what was proposed, an Action Group was formed, of which she is the Treasurer.
12.	Pontrhydyfen and Cwmafan: Pontrhydyfen village lies at the confluence of the Rivers Pelenna and Afan. Its primary school serves the village and the immediate rural area. It is an English medium school for boys and girls aged 3 to 11. As at 2014 it had 69 pupils (excluding nursery) on the roll, but has a capacity for 87 pupils (excluding nursery). It was projected to have 65 full time pupils (excluding nursery) in 2015.
13.	Cwmafan lies about 2 miles to the south southwest, further down the River Afan. The primary school was to be formed from amalgamation of the Junior and Infant schools in January 2015. That combined school had a capacity (2014 figures) of 398 full time places (excluding nursery) with a pupil roll (excluding nursery) of 344, with 54 surplus places. In January 2015 the pupil numbers were projected to be 349 (excluding nursery). 
14.	Ms Jones has two children, one of whom is at Pontrhydyfen School, as her older brother was before going to his secondary school. She moved to the village from Port Talbot when looking for a quieter environment. The children were and are both very happy at the school. She considers that the school is central to village life, and praises the staff as being approachable. 
15.	She is dependent on public transport and walks her daughter the half mile to school every day. She particularly values the Breakfast Club, which her daughter uses when she has to attend meetings in Port Talbot. She also makes use of a homework and board and games club in the evening three times a week. Ms Jones is currently unemployed, and could not afford the costs of a return ticket to Cwmafan.  She has great concerns that closure of the school would affect her daughter’s well-being, as she is very happy at Pontrhydyfen. 
The original proposals- general
16.	On 1st October 2014 a report was made by the Head of Resources and Commissioning of NPTCBC to the Council’s Cabinet. It set out proposals for consultation on the closure of 5 schools, including Clun and Pontrhydyfen. It contained the following statement about context. I shall set out the proposals for the two sets of schools separately, as I shall address the process of consultation and consideration of the proposal separately in the case of each school.
“2. Context
The Council is responsible for promoting high educational standards and for delivering efficient primary and secondary education. Having the right schools in the right place and ensuring that they are fit for the 21st century learner is the challenge facing the Council. Achieving this will involve reviewing the number and type of schools the Council has in its area and assessing whether or not best use is being made of resources and facilities.
Implementing the Strategic School Improvement Programme involves reviewing existing provision and determining the number and type of schools needed to deliver education effectively and efficiently across the County Borough. It will lead to substantial change involving opening new schools, closing existing schools, merging or amalgamating schools, federating schools and promoting new initiatives that support collaborative working between schools.
The Council has decided to review its provision on the basis of:
a. educational standards
b. the need for places and the accessibility of schools
c. the quality and suitability of school accommodation
d. effective financial management.

………………………………………………………………………………

Following approval to consult, detailed consultation documents will be published in relation to each school affected.

…………………………………………………………………………………

The proposal to close Clun Primary School and for the pupils to attend Ynysfach 
Primary School

17.	The report then set out what was proposed. Given the fact that the Cabinet decision resulted in a Consultation Document being put out, I shall refer to the latter:
“Following consideration of a report of 1st October 2014, the Council’s executive gave approval to consult on a proposal to close Clun Primary school and to make arrangements for the pupils to receive their education at Ynysfach primary school.

Unless stated otherwise the sources for pupil numbers, financial figures and school capacities quoted in this document are: the January 2014 PLASC statistical return; the 2014/2015 school budget allocations; and the 2013 school accommodation schedules respectively.  A ‘small primary school’ refers to a primary school of 90 pupils or fewer.  

1.	The proposal and why the change is being proposed

It is intended that the proposal will take effect on 1st September 2015.

The proposal
It is proposed to make provision for pupils in the area served by Clun Primary school to receive primary phase, English-medium education at Ynysfach Primary school and to close Clun Primary school.

If implemented, the proposal will mean that Clun Primary school will close on 31st August 2015 and, subject to parental preference as to the choice of school, pupils who would otherwise have attended Clun Primary school will receive their education at Ynysfach Primary school as from 1st September 2015.

Why the change is being proposed?
The Council, as the local authority for the area, has a statutory responsibility for the planning of school provision and has an ongoing programme of school organisation review.

Clun is a small primary school.  It currently has 48 full-time and 4 part-time pupils on roll (Sept 2014) and projections do not anticipate pupil numbers increasing significantly in the future.  Clun Primary school has the capacity to accommodate 115 full-time pupils but low pupil numbers means that the school has a surplus capacity of 53%.  Coupled with this the school has a higher than average cost per pupil at £4,472.  The cost of maintaining a small school with significant surplus places does not represent efficient use of educational resources or the effective delivery of education and improved outcomes.  The proposal will remove some £286k of backlog maintenance responsibilities and, over a 5 year period, deliver potential revenue savings of £568k through per pupil funding and leadership efficiencies.

Delivering the range and breadth of the curriculum from Foundation Phase to Key Stage 2 can be more challenging in a small school, placing increased burdens on a small number of staff.  In larger schools the workload and curriculum responsibilities can be shared across a wider staffing complement, providing greater opportunity for developing expertise and specialism, which in turn should lead to improved curriculum provision.  Larger schools also present greater opportunity for wider friendship groups and a wider range of social sporting and cultural activities.

An alternative school, Ynysfach Primary, is available within reasonable travel distance.  Ynysfach Primary is the nearest Neath Port Talbot school to Clun Primary, the schools are approximately 1.5 miles apart.  Both schools are designated English-medium schools providing education for boys and girls aged 3 - 11 years.  Ynysfach Primary school has sufficient capacity to accommodate pupils from the area served by Clun Primary school. 

Current performance at the school is judged to be good.  As at September 2014, 81% of the pupils on roll live within the catchment area of Clun Primary school whilst some 12% live within the Ynysfach Primary school catchment area.  Some 6% of the pupils on roll at Ynysfach Primary school live within the catchment area of Clun Primary school.

Ynysfach Primary is a larger school which increases the opportunities for teaching and learning.  Both schools are partner primary schools to Llangatwg Community school where secondary English-medium education is provided.

The possible risks/disadvantages of the proposal
•	Change can create a degree of anxiety
•	As a result of closure school staff no longer employed at Clun Primary school may be concerned and worried about their future employment.
•	To accommodate additional pupils adequate staffing arrangements and appropriate class structures are needed
•	There could be a concern that pupils will not successfully integrate into a different, larger school and that they will not receive the same level of individual attention and support.
•	It could be perceived that a larger school means larger class sizes
•	Parents may choose not to send their child to Ynysfach Primary school
•	It could be perceived that there would be a loss of identity for the school community directly affected by the closure.
•	There will be increased travel distance and travel time for some pupils and parents which could impact on regular school attendance.

2.	Impact of the proposal

Impact on pupils and parents
Closing the school can cause disruption and uncertainty for a period of time.  However, experience shows that if managed appropriately this can be kept to a minimum and should not impact negatively on children’s education.

Neither Clun Primary school nor Ynysfach Primary school have a specialist unit for children with statements of special educational needs.  Both schools support pupils with additional learning needs, including children with statements of special educational needs, in a mainstream setting with appropriate funding for this purpose.  

Impact on pupil admission
Implementation of the proposal will mean that, as from 1st September 2015, Clun Primary school will be closed and the catchment area for Ynysfach Primary school will be extended to include the area served by Clun Primary school.  Full-time pupils currently on roll at Clun Primary school will automatically transfer to the roll of Ynysfach Primary school, subject to the wishes of parents and Y6 pupil transfers to secondary education.  Prospective pupils (that is those not on roll at the point of transfer to Ynysfach Primary school), including nursery pupils transferring to full-time education, will need to apply for a place in line with the Council’s Admission Policy.

Parents may, of course, express a preference for an alternative school.  In seeking a place for their child in a Neath Port Talbot maintained school, the Council’s admission arrangements allow parents to apply to a school of their choice.  A place will be made available where there is a suitable vacancy.  For parents seeking a placement at a school other than a Neath Port Talbot maintained school, the relevant authority’s admission arrangements will apply.

The Council’s school admissions policy can be viewed on the Council’s website www.npt.gov.uk

There will be no change to arrangements for transfer to secondary education.  Both schools are partnered with Llangatwg Community school, the partner school for English-medium secondary education.

Impact on travel arrangements
It is likely to be the case that, as a result of this proposal, some children will have further to travel to school.  Under the Council’s school transport policy two miles is within the recognised walking distance for primary aged school children.  Assistance with transport is provided where home addresses are more than two miles from the nearest suitable school or there is no safe walking route.  As part of the proposal’s development, learner travel needs will be assessed to ensure the availability of safe travel routes and to determine entitlement to assistance with home to school transport.

The schools are in close proximity and it is the case that there are parents and pupils from the Clun Primary school catchment area who have already determined that travel to Ynysfach Primary school is not a barrier to accessing that school. 

There will be no entitlement to transport assistance for nursery children.  These arrangements are no less favourable than those applying to other parents of nursery age children across the County Borough.

Where there are exceptional circumstances, individual cases will be considered on their merits.

In accordance with School Travel Plan requirements, all schools, together with the Council’s Road Safety Team, are committed to:
•	improving road safety within the local community
•	raising awareness about travel issues
•	encouraging walking, cycling and public transport for the school journey where applicable
•	encouraging independent travel where applicable

The Council’s Home to School Transport Policy can be viewed on the Council’s website www.npt.gov.uk

Impact on school staff
As with any school closure there will be changes to current staffing arrangements.  The proposal will mean changes that impact on school staff employment.  If the proposal goes ahead Clun Primary school will close on 31st August 2015 and all staff will cease to be employed at that school.  However, the Council will be working with Clun Primary school and the teacher associations/trade unions to secure the employment of staff.  The Council has a proven track record for supporting staff in such situations and staff affected will be fully consulted and supported throughout.

Impact on governors
If the proposal goes ahead and Clun Primary school closes on 31st August 2015 the existing governing body will cease to exist.  It is anticipated that the governing body at Ynysfach Primary school will seek to ensure the school community of Clun Primary school is appropriately represented on their governing body. 

Impact on Welsh language education
Both Clun Primary school and Ynysfach Primary school teach Welsh as a second language in line with the National Curriculum.  Welsh Medium education is available at YGG Cwmnedd, which serves the catchment areas of both Clun Primary and Ynysfach Primary schools.

Impact on the community
A Community Impact Assessment has been undertaken and this recognised the role of Clun Primary School in providing a venue for school based events, extra-curricular activity and partnership working.  The assessment also concluded that those activities can be preserved and transferred to Ynysfach Primary School.

The community use of the school would need to be displaced to suitable venues in either Clyne or Resolven.  These venues have capacity to receive more bookings.  If the displaced hires that have traditionally used Clun Primary School are not adequately housed they will be lost.

Given the perceived problem of remoteness and carlessness in Clun alternative solutions such as a Community Transport initiative need to be explored.

The transfer of pupils from Clun Primary School is seen as an opportunity to extend and enhance the community provision in Ynysfach Primary School and in Resolven.
This proposal also presents an opportunity to make better use of existing community facilities in Clyne, Melincourt and Resolven that do not operate at full capacity.

4.	Options that have been considered

Option 1 – Status quo: maintain Clun Primary school.

The Council has a responsibility to review the number and type of schools it has and whether or not it is making the best use of resources and facilities to deliver suitable educational opportunities for the children and young people of Neath Port Talbot.

Clun Primary school is a small, English-medium primary school with high per pupil costs and significant surplus places.  Ynysfach Primary school is a nearby English-medium primary school with slightly lower than average per pupil costs and with sufficient capacity to accommodate pupils who would otherwise attend Clun Primary school.  The catchment areas of the schools are adjacent.

Given the close proximity of the schools, there is significant cost inefficiency in maintaining two schools on separate sites, both with high maintenance/repair liabilities and surplus places.

The efficiencies and economies of scale that can be achieved at larger schools with increased numbers on roll provide a more effective use of public money and deliver a wider range of learning and development opportunities for pupils and staff.  These benefits will not be fully realised with the status quo position.

On the grounds of school improvement and the efficient use of public money, the current arrangement cannot be supported and alternative arrangements are necessary.

Option 2 – Establish a federation of Clun Primary school and Ynysfach Primary school

Under a single leadership and governance there are potential teaching/learning benefits, staff development opportunities and funding efficiencies that can arise from a federated arrangement, particularly given the close proximity of the schools and with both teaching through the medium of English.  However, federation will not address the significant cost inefficiency in maintaining two schools on separate sites, both with high maintenance/repair liabilities and surplus places.  Similarly, federation does not achieve efficiencies through removing duplication, for example, both schools would be inspected separately by Estyn.

The benefits and opportunities presented by a federation, in this instance, are outweighed by the inefficiencies that remain, particularly in light of the availability of alternative arrangements. 

Option 3 – Establish a federation of Clun Primary, Ynysfach Primary and other nearby schools 

Whereas the benefits of federation as set out in Option 2 above may be increased, adding to the number of schools in a federated arrangement would not, in this instance, address the significant cost inefficiency in maintaining a small, high per pupil cost school nor would it achieve efficiencies through removing duplication, for example, all schools would be inspected separately by Estyn.

The benefits and opportunities presented by a federation are, in this instance, outweighed by the inefficiencies that remain, particularly in light of the availability of alternative arrangements. 

This option is not recommended

Option 4 – Close Clun Primary school and make arrangements for the pupils to receive their English-medium primary education at Ynysfach Primary school.

This option removes the issues surrounding a small school with high per pupil costs and significant surplus places.  It also reduces surplus places at Ynysfach Primary school.  The nearness of the schools (approx. 1.5 miles apart), the adjacency of the catchment areas and the travel distance to school also support this option.  There is sufficient capacity at Ynysfach Primary school to accommodate pupils who would otherwise attend Clun Primary school.  A small number of pupils from the Clun Primary school catchment area already attend Ynysfach Primary school.  A single larger school removes the cost inefficiency in maintaining the two schools on separate sites.

The efficiencies and economies of scale that can be achieved at a larger, single school with increased numbers on roll and single governance and leadership structures will enable a wider range of learning and development opportunities for pupils and staff to be delivered.  This option also removes duplication of activity.

Although this option will involve disruption for pupils, parents and staff at Clun Primary school, the benefits to be realised from a single site primary school would appear to outweigh the alternative options.

Option 5 – Close Ynysfach Primary school and make arrangements for the pupils to receive their English-medium primary education at Clun Primary school

Currently there is insufficient accommodation at Clun Primary school to provide for the pupils of Ynysfach Primary school and capital investment would be needed to increase capacity.  It is also unlikely that the site would be able to accommodate the necessary additional buildings and external areas required for a larger school.

Preferred Option (subject to the outcome of consultation) - Option 4
Having considered information gathered to date on the two schools and weighed this against the evidence of the educational and financial cases for change, the option of  closing Clun Primary school and making arrangements for the pupils to receive their English-medium primary education at Ynysfach Primary school is recommended as the basis for consultation

5.	Details of the schools affected

Clun Primary school
Clun Primary school is an English -medium, community school for boys and girls aged 3-11 years.  It currently has 48 full-time and 4 part-time pupils on roll (Sept 2014) and English is the main teaching medium.  The school serves the village of Clyne and immediate surrounding area.  81% of the pupils on roll are drawn from the school’s catchment area.  However, some 12% of the pupils on roll reside in the Ynysfach Primary school catchment area (Sept 2014).  Clun Primary school is a partner primary school to Llangatwg Community school where secondary English-medium education is provided.

22% are entitled to free school meals; this figure is lower than the County Borough average and lower than the national average.  30% of pupils have additional learning needs and 2 pupils have statements of special educational needs.

Clun Primary school site comprises of two separate buildings with associated hard and soft landscaped pupil play areas and benefits from an adjacent grassed playing field.

The most recent building condition assessment for the school assesses the school to be a grade ‘B’ and states that whilst areas internally and externally are generally in fair to good condition, the Kitchen Block is fitted with gas fired heaters that are past their life expectancy and the heating distribution system throughout has reached the end of its lifespan and will require replacement. 

Backlog maintenance and accessibility costs amount to some £286k.  Implementation of the proposal will mean that the buildings and site at Clun Primary school will be surplus to operational requirements and will be disposed of in line with Council’s protocols.  Capital receipts resulting from school reorganisation will be ring fenced for reinvestment within the general education budget.

Ynysfach Primary school
Ynysfach Primary school is an English-medium, community school for boys and girls aged 3-11 years.  It currently has 123 full-time and 19 part-time pupils on roll (Sept 2014) and English is the main teaching medium.  The school serves the village of Resolven and the nearby rural area.  92% of the pupils on roll are from within the school’s catchment area whilst some 6% of the pupils on roll reside in the Clun Primary school catchment area (Sept 2014).  Ynysfach Primary school is a partner primary school to Llangatwg Community school where secondary English-medium education is provided.

19% are entitled to free school meals; this figure is lower than the County Borough average and lower than the national average.  19% of pupils have additional learning needs and 1 pupil has a statement of special education needs.

Ynysfach Primary school site comprises of two separate school buildings set within tarmacadam pupil play areas and benefits from an adjacent grassed playing field.

The most recent building condition assessment for the school assesses the school to be a grade ‘C’ and states that whilst the building is around 100 years old, it is in fair condition with several building elements requiring replacement or refurbishment. With continued maintenance, the site should have a long term future.

Backlog maintenance and accessibility costs amount to some £927k

Capital build does not form part of this proposal.  Building repair and maintenance requirements will be dealt with as part of the Council’s Capital programme for maintaining schools and from the school’s delegated budget responsibilities.

6.	Quality of teaching and learning

The following information is an overview of the teaching and learning at the 
schools that are the subject of this proposal.  Full Estyn reports are available 
at: www.estyn.gov.uk/english/inspection/inspection-reports 

Outcomes 

Clun Primary school has been judged by Estyn (April 2013) as having good outcomes for pupils, with recommendations to improve attainment in Foundation Phase, extend vocabulary and writing skills in early Key Stage 2, and improve data handling skills.  The prospects for improvement were also reported to be good.
During the autumn core visit in 2013 the local authority found that outcomes for pupils in Clun Primary school were adequate and the schools capacity to improve to also be adequate; reporting that the school needed to improve aspects of leadership and/or provision and placing the school in the category of ‘school causing concern’, within the context of the following categories of schools: Good and Outstanding Schools/ Schools that need to improve outcomes/ Schools that need to improve aspects of leadership and / or provision, or Schools Causing Concern. 
End of Foundation Phase and Key Stage 2 data is judged to be unsatisfactory.  The Foundation Phase Outcome Indicator (FPOI), which is achieved by gaining Outcome 5 or above in each of the three core areas of learning, has consistently placed the school in the lowest quartile for the last 3 years when compared to similar schools in Neath Port Talbot and across Wales.  At Key Stage 2 the core subject indicator (CSI) gained by achieving Level 4 or above in the three core subjects of Maths, English and Science, has also been in the 4th quartile for two years.  The very small numbers of pupils being assessed in Clun Primary school has a significant impact on the data produced, meaning that it is often variable and cannot be accurately used to measure performance over time. 
Ynysfach Primary school was inspected by Estyn in April 2014 and the current performance was judged to be adequate, with good prospects for improvement.  Estyn will monitor the school and revisit in Spring 2015.  Areas for improvement include improving reading in Foundation Phase and providing greater challenge for more able pupils. 
During the local authority autumn core visit at Ynysfach Primary school in 2013, the school was placed in the category of ‘schools needing to improve outcomes’, reporting that learner outcomes were adequate and the capacity to improve was good.  The school had shown improved outcomes for pupils moving from the bottom to the top quartile in English, maths and science in Key Stage 2, and from quartile 4 to quartile 2 in the three core areas of learning in Foundation Phase.  This trend has continued in 2014 with the Key Stage 2 CSI of 92% placing the school in the second benchmarking quartile.  The larger numbers of pupils being assessed makes the data more reliable, and a more accurate measure of performance.
Attendance has improved during 2013 – 2014 by over 2% to 94.88% in Clun Primary school attributed to the school adopting a proactive approach and working with families in an effort to further improve pupil attendance.  At Ynysfach Primary, attendance is also above 94%, and is given an equally high priority by the school.

Pupils from Clun Primary school should not be disadvantaged on transfer to Ynysfach Primary school and are likely to attain good standards.

Provision 

Estyn judged provision at Clun Primary school to be good, and notes that it promotes a caring, inclusive ethos. In Ynysfach Primary school Estyn reported that provision is also good and that pupils’ wellbeing has a high prominence in the everyday life and work of the school. 
Teaching in both schools is reported to be good.  Estyn report that teachers at Clun Primary school use a range of well-planned, imaginative and relevant activities to engage pupils’ interest and manage their classrooms well.  This can be a challenge for teachers in a small school as there is more than one age group in each class, which can make planning more difficult.  At Ynysfach Primary school teachers are reported to move pupils’ learning forward at an appropriate pace and set challenges that stimulate and stretch them.  It is also noted that teachers’ planning generally takes good account of the wide range of pupils’ needs and abilities, although this is across a smaller age range.
At Clun Primary school good use is made of the school grounds to encourage pupils to be active, and pupil views have been taken into account when play areas have been developed. Equally at Ynysfach Primary school the Foundation Phase areas in particular are noted by Estyn to provide a good learning environment and games and activities in the junior yard are used well by pupils. 
Both schools provide suitable learning experiences for children in attractive and stimulating environments, with effective teachers.  It is unlikely that children moving to Ynysfach Primary school would be at a disadvantage in terms of teaching and learning or in the experiences provided.  In addition larger schools are often better able to appropriately provide for children with a wide range of needs due to increased staff numbers with a variety of expertise, ensuring that both children with additional learning needs and those who are deemed more able, are appropriately supported.
Leadership and Management 

Estyn have judged both Clun Primary and Ynysfach Primary schools to have good leadership and management. At Clun Primary school self-evaluation is established and efficient performance management systems have been successful in improving pupil outcomes. At Ynysfach Primary school recent successful initiatives are also having an impact on pupil outcomes. 
The head teacher and governors of Clun Primary school have high expectations of staff and pupils and all staff have clear roles and responsibilities. At Ynysfach Primary a strong senior leadership team exists which also has high expectations, and which ensures that there is a robust system of self-evaluation in place focussed on school improvement.  Leadership and management can often be far easier to manage in a larger school with more staff, as the responsibility for developing subjects or aspects of the curriculum can be shared, lessening workload and improving quality.  In a small school often one person can be responsible for many curriculum areas which can be very challenging and create a heavy workload.
Both schools are noted to manage their resources efficiently and effectively. However, in larger schools the curriculum is often better resourced due to efficiencies of scale, meaning that pupils can possibly benefit from a greater variety of available resources.

7.	Pupil Numbers

In relation to Clun Primary school, the latest statistical return (January 2014) indicates that there were 54 full-time and 6 part-time nursery pupils on roll.  With the physical capacity to accommodate 115 full-time and 54 (27 a.m/27p.m) part-time nursery pupils, the school has 61 (53%) full-time surplus places and 48 (89%) part-time surplus places.  Projected pupil numbers do not suggest that this situation will significantly change.

Clun Primary school	
	               Jan 2014		2019	
	School capacity	Actual. Pupil Nos.	Surplus places	Projected Pupil Nos.	
Full-time	115	54	61 (53%)	52	
Part-time
(Nursery)	54	6	48 (89%)	9	

In relation to Ynysfach Primary school, the latest statistical return (January 2014) indicates that there were 119 full-time and 27 part-time nursery pupils on roll.  With the physical capacity to accommodate 176 full-time and 94 (47a.m/47p.m) part-time nursery pupils, the school has 57 (32%) full-time surplus places and 67 (71%) part-time surplus places.  Projections suggest a slight rise in pupil numbers but nothing to indicate that the school would not be able to accommodate pupils from Clun Primary school.

Ynysfach Primary school	
	Jan 2014		2019	
	School capacity	Actual Pupil Nos.	Surplus places	Projected Pupil Nos.	
Full-time	176	119	57 (32%)	129	
Part-time
(Nursery)	94	27	67 (71%)	25	

The table below indicates the pupil numbers over a 5 year period for both Clun Primary school and Ynysfach Primary school and, additionally, includes current numbers on roll as at October 2014

School Census Jan 2010 – 2014 & current school roll	January
2010	January
2011	January
2012	January
2013	January
2014	September
2014	
Clun Primary school (excl. nursery)	64	68	61	61	54	48	
Clun Primary school ( nursery only)	13	13	17	10	6	4	
Ynysfach Primary school (excl. nursery)	108	107	118	119	119	123	
Ynysfach Primary school( nursery only)	23	27	23	22	27	19	

The following table shows a 5 year forecast for pupil numbers in respect of Clun Primary school and Ynysfach Primary school
	January
2015	January
2016	January
2017	January
2018	January
2019	
Clun Primary school (exc nursery)	52	52	50	46	52	
Clun Primary school (nursery only)	11	9	9	10	9	
Ynysfach Primary school (exc nursery)	124	124	133	132	129	
Ynysfach Primary school (nursery only)	24	24	25	24	25	
Combined roll	211	209	217	212	215	
Combined roll (exc. nursery)	176	176	183	178	181	

The proposal directly addresses excess places.  Based on current accommodation usage full-time surplus capacity is reduced from 118 places (40%) to 0 places (0%).

Combined roll (Ynysfach Primary school site) 	
	Jan 2015		
	School capacity	Proj. Pupil Nos.	Surplus capacity	
Full-time	176	176	0	
Part-time
(Nursery)	94	35	59	

There is sufficient total capacity at Ynysfach Primary school to accommodate pupils who would otherwise attend Clun Primary school.

8.	Financial Appraisal

For the financial year 2014/15, Clun Primary school receives £4,472 per pupil, which is 28% higher than the average for primary schools in the County Borough.

	Financial year 2014/15	
	Clun Primary school	Pri. sector av.	Lowest funded	
Per pupil funding	£4,472	£3,499	£2,863	

For the financial year 2014/15, Ynysfach Primary school receives £3,316 per pupil funding, which is 5% lower than the average for primary schools in the County Borough.

	Financial year 2014/15	
	Ynysfach Primary school	Pri. sector av.	Lowest funded	
Per pupil funding	£3,316	£3,499	£2,863	

In the table below, the status quo position (a) shows the combined current school budgets of Clun Primary school and Ynysfach Primary school rolled forward five financial years.

The financial effect of closing Clun Primary school and making provision for the pupils at Ynysfach Primary school (b) is represented as an illustrative budget for the school based on current budget data, again rolled forward five financial years.  These figures do not include any additional revenue expenditure arising from implementation of the proposal, e.g. potential redundancy costs.

On the basis of this illustrative appraisal, the effect of implementing the proposal is that potential savings of some £568k could be realised over a 5 year period.

Any saving arising from this proposal will be reinvested in the general education budget for the benefit of teaching and learning.

	Financial years	5yr effect	
	2015/16
(7/12th)
k	2016/17
k	2017/18
k	2018/19
k	2019/20
k	2015/20
k	
Status quo (a)	£406	£704	£703	£699	£686	£3,198	
Proposal effect (b)	£339	£548	£588	£583	£572	£2,630	
Efficiencies (b-a)	-£67	-£156	-£115	-£116	-£114	-£568	

NB: The figures in the table above are notional as annual budget allocations are dependent on the Council’s revenue support grant allocation; the amount of money set aside for schools (the individual schools budget); and the formula for allocating that money to individual schools.

The impact of the proposal is that Ynysfach Primary school’s notional per pupil funding for 2015/16 would be 11% (£400) lower than the 2014/15 average for primary schools in the County Borough which supports the Council’s effective management of the education budget and the more equitable distribution of funding across local schools.

	Financial year	
	2015/16	2014/15           	
	Ynysfach Primary school (inc Clun Primary school)	Pri. sector av.	Lowest funded	
Per pupil funding	£3,099	£3,499	£2,863	

The issue of significantly higher funding per pupil at Clun Primary school would be removed as a consequence of the school’s closure, as would the liability costs for repair and maintenance, and access.

Any savings arising from this proposal will be reinvested in the general education budget for the benefit of teaching and learning.

9.	Equality Impact Assessment

An equality impact assessment has been carried out and found that there is no adverse effect on any particular group and the process has checks and monitoring in place.  Any potential adverse effect has been evaluated and impact mitigated.”

18.	The proposals were approved at Cabinet on 1st October 2014, and were made available for Consultation, with a period for responses running from 20th October 2014 to 14th December 2014.
19.	A consultation meeting was held with the parents of both schools, as well as meetings with staff, the governing bodies, and with pupils. Among concerns raised were;
i)	the fact that no provision was made for the potential redundancy costs of staff members, which rendered the financial appraisal incomplete, and incapable of use as a reason for the closure and potential financial savings;
ii)	NPTCBC had not assessed the walking route for pupils, or provided for the extra transport costs incurred as a result of the route being unsafe for use as a walking route;
iii)	would a school bus be provided to those in Clyne who will have to travel to Ynysfach, and had the costs been factored into the potential saving suggested by closing the school ?
iv)	there was no indication of the NPTCBC plans for Clun Primary School were it to close. Would the money raised by selling it be given over to Ynysfach Primary School to improve the existing facilities?
20.	On 20th January 2015 the Clun Action Group sent in a number of questions. Although out of time, NPTCBC accepted them as made within the process. Among them were
“Question 8: What is the detailed information on the estimated financial impact of closing Clun Primary? That is additional costs and reduction to the LEA”
21.	In its Consultation Report of 11th February 2015, NPTCBC responded to the above matters which had been raised as follows
i)	It referred to the Council’s school transport policy. Under that, two miles was within the recognised walking distance for primary school aged children. Assistance with transport was provided where home addresses were more than two miles from the nearest suitable school, or where there was no safe walking route. The route had been risk assessed and the costs of mitigation measures needed to make it safe were likely to be significant. As such assistance with travel would be provided, at a cost which would amount to approximately £25,000 per annum. That cost would be met from the school transport budget.
ii)	The buildings at Clun Primary School would be surplus to requirements, and would be disposed of in line with the Council’s protocols. Capital receipts resulting from school organisation would be ring fenced for investment within the general educational budget.
iii)	A resurvey of the costs of backlog maintenance and accessibility costs at Clun, which it described. Clun was described as the most recent building assessment putting it in Grade “B.” While the internal and external areas were in generally fair to good condition, the gas fired heaters in the kitchen block were past their life expectancy and required replacement. The heating distribution system was also said to have reached the end of its lifespan and would require replacement.  Building and replacement costs were now put at £ 458,000 (a change upwards from the original figure of £286,000). At Ynysfach, a similar survey put the costs at £ 876,000 (a slight change downwards from the original figure of £927,000). 
iv)	In answer to Question 8 raised by the Clun Primary School Action Group, the document set out NPTCBC’s response as 
“ The consultation document sets out an initial estimate of costs associated with the proposal. Update costs will be presented to the Council’s Cabinet in the report on consultation. This information is not currently available.”
22.	The report also set out the views of Estyn, which were generally favourable. However, among other matters, it raised concerns about the transport arrangements. NPTCBC responded by referring to its policy (set out above) and referred to its intention to assess learner travel needs. The Cabinet approved the statutory publication of the proposal. It gave as the reasons for its decision that 
i)	The case for the proposal remains strong and comments received during the consultation process have been addressed. Comments opposing the proposal do not, on balance, present a convincing argument suggesting its modification or abandonment;
ii)	To enable the Council to:
a)	Promote high standards in the fulfilment of every child’s potential;
b)	Meet its duty to secure effective education in its area;
c)	Comply with legislative requirements.”

23.	The statutory notice under section 43 of the School Standards and Organisation Act 2013 and the School Organisation Code was given on 24th February 2015. It stated that NPTCBC proposed closing Clun Primary School on 31st August 2015, and making alternative provision at Ynysfach Primary School.  The period within which objections could be made expired on 28th March 2015.
24.	On 20th March 2015, the Governing Body’s then solicitors, Public Law Solicitors of Birmingham, made objections by letter. It took many points. I shall refer only to those which are germane to the claim for judicial review as argued before me; 
i)	It contended that the initial projected savings had been reduced by what were now expected to be £ 25,000, which would reduce the initial assessed savings of £568,000: 
ii)	The detailed costs of closing Clun and re-accommodating pupils at Ynysfach were not estimated, and it went on “In particular no estimate is provided of redundancy costs.” It referred to Question 8 and its response, as set out above.
iii)	It submitted that insufficient information had been provided, and that that insufficiency had occurred “against a commitment which raised a legitimate expectation on the part of the consultees.”
iv)	It contended that the proposal was based principally on financial savings, and also went to the consideration of alternatives, and in particular that of federation.
v)	It contended that the lack of information amounted to a breach of the Code, and a breach of their client’s legitimate expectation. 
25.	That letter was not responded to until 27th May 2015. I shall refer to what was said when I have dealt with the Reports to Cabinet on 22nd April 2015. It received a Report, a Supplemental Report and an oral report.
26.	The Report set out the following
“Purpose of Report 
 
To obtain Cabinet approval to implement a proposal that makes provision for pupils in the area served by Clun Primary school to receive English-medium, primary education at Ynysfach Primary school and to close Clun Primary school. 
 
Background 
 
The Council is responsible for promoting high educational standards and for delivering efficient primary and secondary education.  Having the right schools in the right place and ensuring that they are fit for the 21st century learner is the challenge facing the Council.  Achieving this will involve reviewing the number and type of schools the Council has in its area and assessing whether or not best use is being made of resources and facilities.   
 
Implementing the Strategic School Improvement Programme involves reviewing existing provision and determining the number and type of schools needed to deliver education effectively and efficiently across the County Borough.  It will most likely lead to substantial change involving opening new schools, closing existing schools, merging or amalgamating schools, federating schools and promoting new initiatives that support collaborative working between schools. 
 
The Council has decided to review its provision on the basis of:
a.	educational standards 
b.	the need for places and the accessibility of schools 
c.	the quality and suitability of school accommodation 
d.	effective financial management. 
 
Following consideration of a report of 11th February 2015, the Council’s 
Cabinet gave approval to publish by way of statutory notice its proposal to close Clun Primary school and to make education provision for the pupils at Ynysfach Primary school. 
 
The Proposal  
 
It is proposed to discontinue Clun Primary school and to make provision at Ynysfach Primary school for pupils who would otherwise have attended Clun Primary School.  Both schools are 3-11, English-medium community schools maintained by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. 
 
If approved, the proposal will take effect on the 1st September 2015 with Clun Primary school closing on 31st August 2015.  
 
Clun Primary School 
 
Clun is a small primary school.  As at January 2015 there were 40 full-time and 3 part-time pupils on roll and projections do not anticipate pupil numbers increasing significantly in the future.  The school has the capacity to accommodate 115 full-time pupils. 
 
As at 14th April 2015 there were 37 full-time and 5 part-time pupils on roll. 
 
For the 2014/15 financial year the school had above average per pupil funding of £4,472, which was 28% higher than the average (£3,499) for primary schools in the County Borough.  For the 2015/16 financial year, the school’s per pupil funding is £4,661, which is 34% higher than the average (£3,467). 
 
Ynysfach Primary School 
 
As at January 2015 there were 121 full-time and 25 part-time pupils on roll, with the physical capacity to accommodate 176 full-time pupils. 
 
As at 14th April 2015 there were 123 full-time and 25 part-time pupils on roll. 
 
For the 2014/15 financial year the school had below average per pupil funding of £3,316, which was 5% lower than the average (£3,499) for primary schools in the County Borough.  For the 2015/16 financial year, the school’s per pupil funding is £3,304, which is 5% lower than the average (£3,467). 

Ynysfach Primary school - combined roll  
The following table shows a 5 year forecast in respect of Clun Primary and Ynysfach Primary schools (these forecasts are based on January 2015 PLASC returns). 

Table 1 
 	January 2016 	January 2017 	January 2018 	January 2019 	January 2020 	
Clun Primary school (exc nursery) 	35 	31 	29 	31 	27 	
Clun Primary school (nursery only) 	6 	5 	5 	5 	5 	
Ynysfach Primary school (exc nursery) 	120 	128 	128 	127 	123 	
Ynysfach Primary school (nursery only) 	25 	26 	25 	25 	25 	
Combined roll 	186 	190 	187 	188 	180 	
Combined roll (exc. nursery) 	155 	159 	157 	158 	150 	
 
The impact of the proposal is that Ynysfach Primary school’s notional per pupil funding for 2015/16 would be 14% (£477) lower than the average (£3,467) for primary schools in the County Borough which supports the Council’s effective management of the education budget and the more equitable distribution of funding across local schools. 
 
Admission to the primary school, including nursery pupils transferring to fulltime education will be in line with the Council’s Admission Policy.  However, full-time pupils currently on roll at Clun Primary school will automatically transfer to the roll of Ynysfach Primary school, subject to the wishes of parents and Y6 pupil transfers to secondary education. 
 
The efficiencies and economies of scale that can be achieved at a larger, single school with increased numbers on roll and single governance and leadership structures will enable a wider range of learning and development opportunities for pupils and staff to be delivered.  Ynysfach Primary is an effective school which has secured good levels of learner outcomes in key performance indicators.  Children moving from Clun Primary to Ynysfach Primary will not be disadvantaged educationally, and will find benefit in some aspects of the move, for example having a larger group of friends, wider extra -curriculum provision and greater opportunities for team games and sporting activities. 
 
Both Clun Primary school and Ynysfach Primary school teach Welsh as a second language in line with the National Curriculum. 
 
Currently, neither Clun Primary school nor Ynysfach Primary school has a specialist unit for children with statements of special educational needs.  Both schools support pupils with additional learning needs, including children with statements of special educational needs, in a mainstream setting with appropriate funding for this purpose.  Children transferring to Ynysfach Primary school will continue to benefit from this level of support. 
 
Ynysfach Primary is a medium size school and forecasts suggest that pupil numbers will not increase significantly from within the current catchment area.  With a combined roll of 155 full time and 31 part time, there is sufficient capacity at Ynysfach Primary school to accommodate pupils from Clun Primary school without the need for additional accommodation or building works.  Class sizes and organisation are for the school’s leadership to determine.  As such, capital build does not form part of this proposal.  Building repair and maintenance requirements will be dealt with as part of the Council’s programme for maintaining schools and from the school’s delegated budget responsibilities. 
 
At Ynysfach Primary school, new traffic regulation orders are required and some external site works are planned to provide for the drop-off and pick-up of pupils travelling from Clyne so as to enable children to access the bus safely via the school yard.  The one-off costs of these works will amount to £7,500. 
 
Statutory Notice 
 
At the Cabinet meeting of the 11th February 2015, the outcome of consultation was considered.  Members determined that the case for the proposal remains strong and that comments received during the consultation process were addressed in the relevant Cabinet and Consultation Reports.  Comments opposing the proposal did not, on balance, present a convincing argument suggesting its modification or abandonment.  As such Members approved the statutory publication of the proposal.  To this effect, a statutory notice was published on the 24th February 2015 allowing the required 28 day period for submitting objections which ran until 23rd March 2015.   The statutory notice is available using the electronic link in the section on background papers listed below. 
 
Objections to the proposal 
 
140 individuals objected to the proposal.  As well as the individual objections a 56 page signed petition has been submitted to “Save Clun Primary School”. 
 
Copies of the objections are available in the Members’ Library at the Civic Centres at Neath and Port Talbot.  The Objection Report is attached to this report as an appendix and is also available using the electronic link in the section on background papers, listed below. 
 
Staffing  
 
Closure of Clun Primary school will mean that existing staff contracts will need to be terminated.  To support staff, the management of change process will apply.  The Council has a proven track record for supporting staff in such situations, working with the teacher associations/trade unions to secure, as needs arise, alternative employment for staff. 
 
Funding 
 
Consolidated Budget Shares for 2015/16 were issued in early March 2015.  As the outcome of the proposal to close Clun Primary school was not known at that juncture, arrangements for the school’s budget allocation were modified to accommodate this situation.  Whereas Clun Primary school’s budget share allocation for the full financial year has been calculated, only funding for the period April 2015 to August 2015 has been released.  Funding for the period September 2015 to March 2016 has been centrally retained until a decision as to whether or not to implement the proposal has been taken. 
 
Community Impact Assessment 
 
A Community Impact Assessment has been undertaken and this recognised the role of Clun Primary School in providing a venue for school based events, extra-curricular activity and partnership working.  The assessment concluded that those activities can be preserved and transferred to Ynysfach Primary School. 
 
The community use of the school would need to be displaced to suitable venues in either Clyne, Melincourt or Resolven.  These venues have capacity to receive more bookings.  If the displaced hires that have traditionally used Clun Primary School are not adequately housed they will be lost. 
 
Given the perceived problem of remoteness and carlessness in Clun, alternative solutions such as a Community Transport initiative need to be explored. 
 
The transfer of pupils from Clun Primary School is seen as an opportunity to extend and enhance the community provision in Ynysfach Primary School and in Resolven. 
 
This proposal also presents an opportunity to make better use of existing community facilities in Clyne, Melincourt and Resolven that do not operate at full capacity. 
 
The full community impact assessment is available using the electronic link in the section on background papers, listed below. 
 
Equality Impact Assessment 
 
An equality impact assessment has been carried out and found that there is no adverse effect on any particular group and the process has checks and monitoring in place.  Any potential adverse effect has been evaluated and impact mitigated. 
 
The equality impact assessment is available using the electronic link in the section on background papers, listed below. 
 
Consideration of the objections to the proposal 
 
The objections are summarised in the Objection Report (attached) together with officer responses. 
 
Although the case for maintaining Clun Primary as a village school has been clearly voiced by those opposed to the proposal, it is the opinion of officers that concerns raised by objectors can be mitigated by management and organisational arrangements as set out in the responses to the objections.   In addition, comments opposing the proposal do not, on balance, present a convincing argument against implementation. 
 
The case for closure remains strong and Members are recommended to approve implementation of the proposal to make provision for pupils in the area served by Clun Primary school to receive primary phase, English-medium education at Ynysfach Primary school as from 1st September 2015 and to close Clun Primary school on 31st August 2015. 
 
Formal procedures 
 
The School Standards & Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 provides for the local authority to determine whether to implement proposals where there is no requirement for approval by the Welsh Ministers.  This proposal requires no such approval and, as such, following consideration of the objections submitted during the 28 day statutory objection period it falls to Cabinet to determine whether the proposal is to be implemented. 
 
Recommendation 
 
Having given due regard to the EIA in respect of this proposal it is recommended that, in line with Section 53 of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013, Members determine to implement the proposal to close Clun Primary school and make arrangements for the pupils who would otherwise attend there to receive their English-medium, primary education at Ynysfach Primary school. 
 
The date of implementation to be 1st September 2015. 
 
Reasons for Proposed Decision 
 
The concerns raised by those objecting to the proposal can be mitigated by management and organisational arrangements as set out in the objection response and the case for closure remains strong.  With no requirement for approval by the Welsh Government, the decision to implement the proposal rests with Cabinet.  Implementing the proposal will enable the Council to meet its commitment and responsibility to: 
(a) promote high standards and the fulfilment of every child’s potential; 
(b) meet its duty to secure efficient education in its area;  
(c) comply with legislative requirements. 
 
List of Background Papers 
 
The objections to the proposal are available for Members to read in the 
Members’ Library at Neath and Port Talbot Civic Centres.  In addition, the following background papers are relevant to this proposal” (Listed) 

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT  
 
STRATEGIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME – PROPOSAL TO CLOSE CLUN PRIMARY SCHOOL AND TO PROVIDE EDUCATION FOR PUPILS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE ATTEND THAT SCHOOL AT YNYSFACH PRIMARY SCHOOL 
  
(a)	Implementation of Decision 
 
 	The decision is proposed for implementation after the 3-day call-in period 
 
(b)	Sustainability Appraisal 
 
 	Community Plan Impacts 
 
Economic Prosperity 	positive 	
Education, Leisure & Lifelong Learning - 	positive 	
Better Health & Well Being 	positive 	
Environment & Transport 	 no impact 	
Crime & Disorder  	positive 	
 
 	Other Impacts 
 
Welsh Language   	positive 	
Sustainable Development 	 no impact 	
Equalities 	 positive 	
Social Inclusion 	 positive 	
 
(c) 	Consultation 
 
Consultation with interested parties has been undertaken during the period 20th October 2014 – 14th December 2014.   A statutory notice was published on the 24th February 2015 allowing 28 days for receipt of objections. 
Appendix 
 
OBJECTION REPORT 
 
Proposal to close Clun Primary school and make arrangements for the pupils to receive their education at Ynysfach Primary school 
 
1. 	Purpose of the objection report 
 
This report is to inform the outcome of the objection period which commenced on 24th February 2015 and ended on 23rd March 2015. During this period a statutory notice was made available on the Council’s website under the Strategic School Improvement section and sent to all those on the consultee list attached under Appendix A. 

2. 	Summary of objections received  
 
140 individuals submitted an objection, these are categorised as follows: 
 
School staff  	2 	
Governor 	 	1 	
Pupil  	 	27 	
Parent 	 	10 	
Other  	 	100 	
 
As well as the individual objections a 56 page signed petition has been submitted to “Save Clun Primary School” (some pages are a copy of the petition submitted during the consultation process) 
 
(Elected Members are provided with a copy of all objection e-mails and letters received for their reference. A summary of those objections are set out below)”

(A summary of the points of objection was set out. It included the following)
 
-	“My son previously struggled in larger classes and larger schools since him joining Clun he has thrived.  My son can walk to school safely if Clun closes he won’t be able to get to and from school safely.  I don’t drive. 
-	I would miss my teachers, I would miss the view, I would not be able to walk to school.  I have a hard time fitting in to larger schools and I will always get lost in them. 
-	I would not be able to walk to school or go to breakfast club. 
-	I will have to catch a bus and I don’t want to travel without my mother. 
-	I wouldn’t be able to go to breakfast club; I enjoy going to have breakfast with my friends. 
-	I would not be able to walk or cycle to school because there are no pavements on the way to Resolven. 
-	I don’t want to go on a bus to the other school because there will be people that I don’t know and it is bad for the environment. 
-	They do an excellent job and children have a safe environment.  At a young age children do not need the stress of travel to a different location. 
-	Parents on a low income will not be able to afford any extra outgoings for travel. 
-	It can’t always be about budgets you must keep the school open.  Our building is in far better condition than Ynysfach. 
-	Young children should be in a local school too young to be travelling to school on their own. 
-	What will happen to the building it will be boarded up and left to deteriorate which will be a terrible shame. 
-	Pupils will have to leave home earlier and travel greater or longer distances. 
-	Job losses for support staff and teachers. 
-	Cllr Gill Francis, Clyne Community Council states: Clun pupils are being treated less favourably without adequate justification for a reason which relates to cost savings.  We have never seen the financial data to support the proposal for closure.  There has been no risk assessment of the route although the Road Safety Officer for the authority has been repeatedly requested for one.  This should have been a prerequisite of the proposal.  Our pupils are being denied breakfast club.  Our pupils will be denied early learning provision since it depends on whether their parents can afford to have the means to transport the children to Ynysfach school nursery for the half day programme.  Clun children currently participate in hourly programme of activities after school but they will be denied access to these because of transport constraints.  The cost saving of federalism has not been addressed or provided.  NPT draft document reveals flawed arguments on closure.  It appears to have been selective and misleading in making the case to close.  The situation has been exacerbated by neighbouring schools touting their vacant places. 
-	Peter Jenkins Chair of Governors at Clun Primary school states: The Authority has failed to assess the walking route prior to the proposal being brought forward.  The proposal to transfer pupils from Clun Primary to Ynysfach Primary does not meet the criteria set out by the Welsh Government (although the authority has consulted Estyn on the issue, the gap in the standards of education is too great. Core data information, is there a procedural failure by the authority or just a reluctance to provide information.  The proposal does not provide equivalent provision (education or property).  Costs per pupil, teaching cost is a large part of the budget and you get what you pay for.  If you want the best you have to pay for it it’s the children that will benefit.  Estyn’s conclusion “Clun Primary provides good value for money”.  Information for Parents Handbook 2015/2016 – the authority fails to follow its publication to parents and does not respect the right of education in their local community.  The authority has failed to observe the Welsh Assembly’s directive not to reduce the education budget by moving budget allocation from education to transport.  Some pre planning or pre determination on the part of the Authority to improve the status at Ynysfach while allowing Clun’s to deteriorate.  The Authority has failed to provide for projected pupil numbers from 2017.  There is a fundamental omission in the (Community Impact Assessment) report because the school serves the villages of Clyne and Melincourt.  I therefore submit that the authority has failed in the process. Transport costs, the information presented by the Authority is inconsistent and therefore the whole report is in doubt.  Local Development Plan, this is a significant issue to ignore and not to include in the decision making process.  The Authority have not considered the cost of change of school uniforms, they have assumed that this will be covered by the parents in a community when 25% of pupils are entitled to free school meals (another hidden cost).  Savings could be generated by federating; the authority did not provide financial information to justify the reason not to federate. 
 
NPTCBC response to objections raised (these have been categorised) are shown below: 
 
Educational Standards 
…………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………

Pupils with Additional Learning Needs  
……………………………………………………………………….

…………………………………………………………………………
Small schools – v- large schools 

………………………………………………………………………….
Home to school travel (Clyne to Resolven) 
Under the Council’s school transport policy two miles is within the recognised walking distance for primary aged school children.  Assistance with transport is provided where home addresses are more than two miles from the nearest suitable school or there is no safe walking route.  The travel needs of individuals will be assessed to ensure the availability of suitable travel routes and to determine entitlement to assistance with home to school transport.   
 
The route between Clun Primary school and Ynysfach Primary school has been risk assessed and the cost of mitigation measures needed to make it a suitable walking route are likely to be significant.  As such, assistance with home to school travel will be provided in the form of a 49 seater bus, the cost of which will amount to approx. £24k per year. 
 
The proposed route from Clun Primary school to Ynysfach Primary school would be via the B4434 Neath Road from Clyne to Resolven.  There is a one way street outside main entrance to Ynysfach Primary school where the bus will drop-off and pick-up children.  On the return journey, the school bus would continue along the one-way system to join the B4434 Neath Road back to Clyne. 
 
New traffic regulation orders are required to prevent parking outside the school main entrance and to allow one school contract vehicle to wait at this location. Another entrance gate into the school yard will be provided at this location complete with guardrail, to enable children to access the bus safely via the school yard.  The costs of these works will amount to £7,500. 
 
Nursery transport and cost 
There is no entitlement to transport assistance for nursery children. These arrangements are no less favourable that those applying to other parents of nursery age children across the County Borough.  Seats may be purchased at a cost of £130 per year for travel one way, either at the start or end of the school day.  For primary age children, escorts will be provided. 
 
Breakfast/After school clubs 
Extra transport for pupils to access breakfast club and after school activities will not be provided.  Arrangements will be made by the head teacher and governing body of Ynysfach Primary should the proposal go ahead, with the aim of ensuring that all pupils attending the school regardless of where they live have equal opportunity to access facilities and activities at the school.  This can be managed via the arrangements for transporting children to school by bus. 
 
Pupils not able to walk or cycle to school 
While this proposal recognises that for the majority of children cycling and walking to school will not be practicable, there will still be opportunities through curricular and extra-curricular arrangements for pupils to learn about the importance of a healthy lifestyle, and to take part in various activities that promote this. 
 
School Uniform  
……………………………………………………………………
Future housing development in Clyne 
……………………………………………………………………
Pupil numbers and accommodation at Ynysfach Primary school 
Information included in the consultation document indicates that the current capacity at Ynysfach Primary is 176 full time pupils.  If pupil numbers were to increase significantly in the future, the school buildings at Ynysfach have enough flexibility to be able to provide for more children than the current capacity allows, through changes in room usage.  
 
Backlog maintenance 
Full detail regarding Ynysfach and Clun Primary School buildings is contained in the consultation document. It is the case that at Clun Primary the most recent building condition assessment for the school assesses the school to be a grade ‘B’ and states that whilst areas internally and externally are generally in fair to good condition, the Kitchen Block is fitted with gas fired heaters that are past their life expectancy and the heating distribution system throughout has reached the end of its lifespan and will require replacement.  Backlog maintenance and accessibility costs amount to some £458k (2014 re-survey). 
 
At Ynysfach Primary the most recent building condition assessment for the school assesses the school to be a grade ‘C’ but notes that with continued maintenance, the site should have a long term future.  Backlog maintenance and accessibility costs amount to some £867k (2014 re-survey).  This reflects the fact that the school consists of two large buildings, and that work is needed to replace some items which have reached the end of their life expectancy.   
 
Clun Primary school staff 
As with any school closure there will be changes to current staffing arrangements and this proposal will impact on school staff employment.  If the proposal goes ahead Clun Primary school will close on 31st August 2015 and all staff will cease to be employed at that school.  To support staff, the management of change process will apply.  However, the Council will be working with Clun Primary school and the teacher associations/trade unions to secure the re-deployment of staff.  The Council has a proven track record for supporting staff in such situations. 
 
Community impact on Clyne and Melincourt 
………………………………………………………………………. 
 
Surplus accommodation.   
…………………………………………………………………………
Statutory Publication of Proposal. 
…………………………………………………………………………

Federation of Clun Primary and Ynysfach Primary with both schools remaining at their existing sites. 
 
Federation provides for two or more schools to be managed under a single governance arrangement.  The schools remain separate legal entities and, as such, are funded as separate establishments receiving individual budget shares allocated in line with the Council’s scheme for funding schools (i.e. formula funding), see table 1 below.  For comparative purposes the budget share savings resulting from the Council’s proposal to close Clun Primary school and transfer the pupils to Ynysfach Primary school is also shown in this table.  These savings represent expenditure savings to the Council and, as such, would be available for reinvestment in the general budget for schools. 
 
In a federation, finance, resources and staffing arrangements will be managed by the single (federated) governing body which will have the responsibility to deploy the pooled resources across the two schools.  Under a federated governance (and particularly if this is accompanied by a single leadership structure) there are potential teaching and learning benefits, staff development opportunities and efficiencies that can arise.  A federation also provides the opportunity to co-ordinate curriculum provision and to improve school performance and enhance educational experiences. 

Table 1 
 	2015/16 
7/12ths 
£k 	2016/17 
Projected 
£k 	2017/18 
Projected 
£k 	2018/19 
Projected 
£k 	2019/20 
Projected 
£k 	5 year total 
£k 	
Clun primary	123 	206 	202 	202 	199 	 	
Ynysfach primary 	248 	433 	440 	437 	432 	 	
Federated Total 	371 	639 	642 	639 	631 	2,922 	
Council’s Proposal 	308 	531 	534 	530 	524 	2,427 	
Potential savings 	63 	108 	108 	109 	107 	495 	
NB: for 2016/17 onwards the figures in the table above are notional as annual budget allocations are dependent on the Council’s revenue support grant allocation; the amount of money set aside for schools (the individual schools budget); and the formula for allocating that money to individual schools. 
 
Although separate budget allocations provide the opportunity for economies in school based expenditure; for example employing 1 x head teacher rather than 2 releases a significant amount of money to be used elsewhere at the schools, such an arrangement does not provide financial savings for the Council for reinvestment into the general budget for schools to the benefit of all schools.  In the case of Clun Primary school the school would receive a high level of small school protection in its budget allocation.  Because of this, federation would not address the significant cost inefficiency in maintaining a small, high per pupil cost school nor, compared to a single school, would it necessarily achieve efficiencies through removing duplication, for example, in a federation both schools would be inspected separately by Estyn and there would be separate expenditure trails to manage and audit. 
 
The federated arrangement in this option requires the delivery of Foundation Phase and Key Stage 2 education at both sites.  Whereas there are potential advantages to keeping both sites operational, there are potential disadvantages too, not least in relation to funding inefficiencies that impact upon overall affordability. 
 
Potential advantages  
•	Each school would continue to operate within its locality, so existing school/community interaction could be maintained. 
•	Staff  redundancies could be less as each school will need to maintain appropriate staffing levels for safety reasons and to ensure pupil: adult ratios 
are met – for example teaching assistants and lunchtime supervisors will need to be employed at both sites 
•	Notionally, savings could be made by reducing the current teaching and support staff complement, including the reduction of 1 x head teacher and 1 x deputy head teacher. 
•	A larger school establishment potentially creates greater teaching and learning opportunities, including the sharing of resources 
•	Some of the small school disadvantages for pupils at the Clun Primary school site could be mitigated with savings from 1 x head teacher salary to enable pupils to meet together regularly – for example joint school council meetings, sporting events, etc.  Although management of two sites could present an issue, the head teacher salary savings could be used to improve curriculum provision. 
•	To benefit from being part of a federated school staff at both sites would need to come together for training purposes, curriculum planning, assessment and standardisation procedures.  Head teacher salary savings could help fund these activities. 
 
Potential disadvantages 
•	While the combined pupil numbers for a federated school would be 155 full-time and 31 part-time (nursery), there will be pupils accessing the full range of primary phase education at both sites, with 35 full-time and 6 part-time (nursery) pupils based at Clun Primary school and 120 full-time and 25 part-time (nursery) based at Ynysfach Primary school. 
•	For the number of pupils at Clun Primary school there would need to be 2 teachers while Ynysfach Primary would need 5 teachers – a total of 7. 
•	Clun Primary school classes would be mixed age, possibly across 4 age groups: N-Y2 and Y3 –Y6, presenting a significant challenge for teachers. 
•	Realising financial savings by employing 1 x head teacher and 1 x deputy head teacher to manage both sites would lead to a considerable increase in workload for these individuals and the staff as a whole who would be called upon to manage situations in their absence. 
•	To respond to management issues across two sites would require either to have a non-teaching deputy head teacher to share management responsibility for both sites or two deputy head teachers, each with a part time teaching commitment.  Either of these options would require an extra 1 x full-time teaching post to release either one or both of the deputy head teachers from full-time teaching commitments. 
 
In light of the above, it is the professional view of education officers that to deliver education on both sites a minimum of 1 x head teacher and 7 x teachers (including 2 x deputy head teachers or equivalent responsibility grade posts with part-time teaching commitments and 1 x teacher to cover for the noncontact time of both deputy head teachers) are needed.  In this federated option, savings on teaching posts effectively will rely on reducing head teacher posts from 2 to 1. 
 
Officer comment 
The case put forward in the consultation document against federation remains applicable to this option.  In comparison to the Council’s proposal the real terms effect of federation would be an annual budget allocation of £495k to enable the school to benefit from 1 x head teacher salary savings which equals the annual savings to the Council from implementation for reinvestment in the general budget for schools.   
 
In terms of capital costs, the inefficiencies of maintaining two schools on separate sites, one of which is a small school, remain.  Some £458k of backlog maintenance and accessibility responsibilities has been identified by the 2014 building condition assessment for Clun Primary school which is categorised as a grade ‘B’.  The efficiencies and economies of scale that can be achieved at larger schools with increased numbers on roll provide a more effective use of public money and can deliver a wider range of learning and development opportunities for pupils.  Although the case for maintaining Clun Primary school as a village school has been clearly voiced by those opposed to the proposal, it is the opinion of officers that this alternative option does not represent an acceptable alternative financial model to the proposal as consulted upon for both schools, particularly as there is capacity at Ynysfach Primary school to accommodate the pupils.” 
27.	The Supplemental Report consisted of a document prepared by the following bodies opposed to the closure: The Parents Group, Clun School Management, the School Governors and Clun Community Council. It also contained an objection from the Chair of the Governors. The former took points already set out above. Among them, it reiterated the complaint that the detailed financial data had not been seen which justified closure, and that there had been no risk assessment of the route between Clyne and Ynysfach Primary School.
28.	According to Ms Wiggins’ witness statement, the Cabinet was not informed in writing of the Governing Body’s objections. However she states that after the officers had referred to the Addendum Report, reference was made orally to a letter from solicitors threatening judicial review proceedings. She states that she understood that to refer to the letter of 20th March 2015. She states that the letter referred to four points
i)	The interpretation of Estyn’s report on small schools
ii)	Assisted school transport
iii)	Fuller use of existing buildings
iv)	The amalgamation of the two schools.
She states that the terms of the letter about those issues were not referred to; nor was the officer’s response. 
29.	On 22nd April 2015, the Cabinet determined to approve the proposal.
30.	On 13th May 2015 the Governing Body's solicitors wrote a letter before action, but on behalf of Ms Wiggins. On 27th May 2015 the Head of Legal Services at NPTCBC replied to the letter of 20th March 2015 (i.e. the letter of objection by the Governing Body). It dealt with the arguments raised in that letter. I shall refer to the passages germane to the claim as argued before me
i)	In relation to the allegation that there was insufficient financial data provided, and that the commitment to provide it had not been honoured, it set out that the issues had been addressed in the report to Cabinet on 11th February 2015, including travel costs, and that further information had been provided to the Chair of the Governors in March 2015. It also referred to the report to Cabinet on 22nd April 2015.
ii)	On questions of amalgamation, it pointed out that that option had been explored in the original Options section of the original Consultation Document. 
31.	On 29th May 2015, a reply was sent to the Pre Action protocol letter. I need not refer to its contents here. 
The closure of Pontrhydyfen Primary School and its pupils attending Cwmafan Primary School
32.	The Report presented to Cabinet on 1st October 2014 stated.
“5. Formal consultation on a proposal to make provision for pupils in the area served by Pontrhydyfen Primary school to receive English-medium primary education at Cwmafan Primary school and to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school 
 
a. The proposal 
 
It is proposed to make provision for pupils in the area served by Pontrhydyfen Primary school to receive primary phase, English-medium education at Cwmafan Primary school and to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school. 
 
Provision will be made enabling full-time pupils on roll at Pontrhydyfen 
Primary school to transfer to Cwmafan Primary school.  In line with the 
Council’s admission policy, parents may express a preference for an alternative school.  Admission applications for transfer from nursery to full-time education will be required in accordance with the Council’s nursery to reception admission arrangements. 
 
Subject to the outcome of consultation and Cabinet approvals, this change to provision will be implemented on 1st September 2015, with Pontrhydyfen Primary school closing on 31st August 2015.” 
 
33.	Given the fact that the proposed consultation was approved, I shall set out the terms of the Consultation Document which was put out. It was followed by an additional document relating to the two proposals to close Bryn Primary School and Pontrhydyfen. In each case the primary English speaking pupils were expected to attend Cwmafan.
34.	The Consultation Document stated

“Background 
 
The Council is committed to providing high quality education for all children and young people across the County Borough.  It has implemented a Strategic School Improvement Programme that will help ensure that the right schools are in the right places and that they are capable of delivering an education fit for children and young people in the 21st Century.  The Strategic School Improvement Programme informs the planning and decision making processes that will enable the Council to secure first class schools, delivering high standards of teaching and learning - for now and into the future.  At the heart of the programme is the delivery of quality educational experiences that encourage and support pupil development - experiences that meet the aspirations of young learners, enhancing and enriching their lives and their life opportunities. 
 
Implementing the Strategic School Improvement Programme involves reviewing existing educational provision and determining the number and type of schools needed to deliver education effectively and efficiently across the County Borough.  As a result of this there will be changes which will involve opening new schools, closing existing schools, merging or amalgamating schools, federating schools and promoting new initiatives that support collaborative working between schools.  The changes will be necessary to improve standards of education, reduce surplus capacity, reduce large building repair bills and ensure the right schools in the right places for both English and Welsh medium education together with provision for those pupils with additional learning needs. 
 
The Council has decided to review its educational provision on the basis of: 

a)	educational standards
b)	the need for places and the accessibility of schools 
c)	the quality and suitability of school accommodation 
d)	effective financial management 
 
Following consideration of a report of 1st October 2014, the Council’s Cabinet gave approval to consult on a proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school and to make arrangements for the pupils to receive their education at Cwmafan Primary school (Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools until their amalgamation on 1st January 2015). 
 
Unless stated otherwise the sources for pupil numbers, financial figures and school capacities quoted in this document are: the January 2014 PLASC statistical return; the 2014/2015 school budget allocations; and the 2013 school accommodation schedules respectively. 
 
In this document, a ‘small primary school’ refers to a primary school of 90 pupils or fewer and significant surplus capacity means 25% or more unfilled places. 

The proposal and why the change is being proposed 
 
It is intended that the proposal will take effect from 1st September 2015. 
 
The proposal 
It is proposed to make provision for the pupils in the area served by Pontrhydyfen Primary school to receive their primary phase, English-medium education at Cwmafan Primary school and to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school. 
 
If the proposal goes ahead, it will mean that Pontrhydyfen Primary school will close on 31st August 2015 and, subject to parental preference as to the choice of school, pupils who would otherwise have attended Pontrhydyfen Primary school will receive their education at Cwmafan Primary school as from 1st September 2015. 
 
Why the change is being proposed? 
The Council, as the local authority for the area, has a statutory responsibility for the planning of school provision and has an ongoing programme of school organisation review. 
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary is a small school.  As at September 2014 it had 68 full-time and 7 part-time (nursery) pupils on roll.  Low pupil numbers means that the school is sustained by higher than average per pupil costs and it is not anticipated that pupil numbers will increase significantly in the future.  Pontrhydyfen Primary school has the capacity to accommodate 87 full-time and 24 part-time (nursery) pupils.  The cost of maintaining a small school with surplus capacity (22% full-time unfilled places) does not represent efficient use of resources or the effective delivery of education and improved outcomes. 
 
Delivering the range and breadth of the curriculum from Foundation Phase to Key Stage 2 can be more challenging in a small school, placing increased burdens on a small number of staff.  In larger schools the workload and curriculum responsibilities can be shared across a wider staffing complement, providing greater opportunity for developing expertise and specialism, which in turn should lead to improved curriculum provision.  Larger schools also present greater opportunity for wider friendship groups and a wider range of social sporting and cultural activities. 
 
As from 1st January 2015 an alternative school, Cwmafan Primary (Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools at present) will be available within reasonable travel distance.  Cwmafan Primary school will be the nearest Neath Port Talbot primary school, approx. 2.1 miles from Pontrhydyfen Primary school.  It, too, delivers education through the medium of English for pupils aged 3 – 11 years. 
 
Almost 63% of the pupils on roll at Pontrhydyfen Primary school (as at September 2014) reside outside the school’s designated catchment area.  Of these, some 28% live within the catchment area to be served by Cwmafan Primary school.  There will be sufficient accommodation at Cwmafan Primary school to provide for pupils who would otherwise have attended Pontrhydyfen Primary school. 
 
Cwmafan Primary school will be a larger school and increased numbers will create additional opportunities for teaching and learning.  Cwmafan Primary will be a partner school to Dyffryn School where secondary phase English-medium education is provided.  Historically, pupils at Pontrhydyfen Primary school have transferred to both Cefn Saeson Comprehensive school and Dyffryn School for their secondary education. 
 
The school condition survey of 2009 identifies some £729k of backlog maintenance and accessibility liabilities that will be removed by this proposal which will also deliver revenue savings of £164k through per pupil funding and leadership efficiencies. 
 
A school with a small number of children on roll can limit the opportunities for learning and social interaction of pupils and the professional development of staff.  Estyn’s report ‘Small Primary Schools in Wales’ states that whereas schools of all sizes can provide a high quality education for pupils, small schools in Wales face a wide range of issues and challenges including: 
•	limited or lack of positive peer group interaction and motivation to achieve high standards; 
•	mixed age classes, often covering three or more year groups and sometimes more than one key stage (in these schools, teachers need to match work to a very wide range of pupils’ learning needs); and 
•	low numbers of teaching staff.  As a result, subject responsibility cannot be widely shared which places a heavy workload on a few teachers. 
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary is a small school.  Transferring the pupils to Cwmafan Primary school would allow these small school learner challenges to be addressed. 
 
The benefits of the proposal include: 
•	Small school status diminished. 
•	Delivering the range and breadth of the curriculum from Foundation Phase to Key Stage 2 can be more challenging in a small school, placing increased burdens on a small number of staff. 
•	Pupils transferring to Cwmafan Primary school receive additional learning opportunities by making use more classes of same age pupils. 
•	In larger schools the workload and curriculum responsibilities can be shared across a wider staffing complement, providing greater opportunity for developing expertise and specialism, which in turn should lead to improved curriculum provision. 
•	Larger schools also present greater opportunity for wider friendship groups and a wider range of social sporting and cultural activities. 

The possible risks/disadvantages of the proposal 
•	Change can create a degree of anxiety for pupils and parents. 
•	The proposal requires the closure of Pontrhydyfen Primary school as a result staff may be concerned and worried about their future employment. 
•	Accommodating additional pupils will require adequate staffing arrangements at the alternative provision as it could be perceived that the additional numbers will mean larger class sizes. 
•	Governors and staff will operate their responsibilities and accountabilities for an increased number of pupils. 
•	Concern that pupils will not successfully integrate into a different, larger school and that they will not receive the same level of individual attention and support. 
•	There will be increased travel distance and travel time for pupils and parents which could impact on regular school attendance. 
•	It could be perceived that there would be a loss of identity for the school community resulting from the closure. 
•	Given the distance to alternative English-medium primary schools, some parents may choose not to transfer their children to Cwmafan Primary school, preferring instead to seek admission elsewhere. 

Impact of the proposal 
 
Impact on pupils and parents 
Closing a school will inevitably cause some disruption and uncertainty for a period of time.  Experience shows that if managed appropriately this can be kept to a minimum and should not impact negatively on the children’s education. 
 
The children from the two schools as a result of coming together will meet new friends.  The children transferring from Pontrhydyfen Primary school will be meeting a wider range of teaching and non-teaching staff. 
 
Impact on pupil admission 
Implementation of the proposal will mean that, as from 1st September 2015, Pontrhydyfen Primary school will have closed and the designated catchment area will be served by Cwmafan Primary school.  Full-time pupils currently on roll at Pontrhydyfen Primary school will automatically transfer to the roll of Cwmafan Primary school, subject to the wishes of parents and Year 6 transfers to secondary education.  Prospective pupils (that is those not on roll at the point of transfer to Cwmafan Primary school) and nursery pupils transferring to full-time education will need to apply for a place in line with the Council’s School Admissions Policy. 
 
Parents may, of course, express a preference for an alternative school.  In seeking a place for their child in a Neath Port Talbot maintained school, the Council’s admission arrangements allow parents to apply to a school of their choice.  A place will be made available where there is a suitable vacancy.  After Cwmafan Primary, the next nearest English-medium school is Tonmawr Primary which is currently the subject of a closure proposal. 
 
For parents seeking a placement at a school other than a Neath Port Talbot maintained school the relevant authority’s school admission arrangements will apply. 
 
At secondary phase transfer, Cwmafan Primary school will be partnered with Dyffryn School. 
 
If you have queries regarding admission, please contact the School Admissions Team, on tel: 01639 763580 or e-mail: admissions@npt.gov.uk 
 
Impact on travel arrangements 
It will be the case that as a result of this proposal many of the pupils on roll at Pontrhydyfen Primary school will have further to travel to school.  Cwmafan Primary school is approximately 2.1 miles from Pontrhydyfen Primary school.  Under the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy two miles is within the recognised walking distance for primary aged school children.  It is recognised that within the catchment area of Pontrhydyfen Primary school there may be pupils who will live further than 2 miles from Cwmafan Primary school and who, therefore, may qualify for assistance with transport. 
 
As part of the proposal’s development, learner travel needs will be assessed to ensure the availability of safe travel routes and to determine entitlement to assistance with home to school transport. 
 
There is no entitlement to transport assistance for nursery children.  These arrangements are no less favourable than those applying to other parents of nursery age children across the County Borough. 
 
Pupil journey times resulting from this proposal will fall within the requirements of Welsh Government guidelines and will not be in excess of 45 mins.  Therefore, the home to school transport arrangements resulting from the proposal are not considered to present an unreasonable journey length for pupils. 
 
Under the School Travel Plan requirements, all schools, together with the Council’s Road Safety Team, are committed to: 
•	improving road safety within the local community 
•	raising awareness about travel issues 
•	encouraging walking, cycling and public transport for the school journey where applicable 
•	encouraging independent travel where applicable 
 
The Council’s Home to School Transport Policy can be viewed on the Council’s website www.npt.gov.uk 
 
Impact on school staff 
As with any school closure there will be changes to current staffing arrangements and this proposal will impact on school staff employment.  If the proposal goes ahead Pontrhydyfen Primary school will close on 31st August 2015 and all staff will cease to be employed at that school.  However, the Council will be working with Pontrhydyfen Primary school and the teacher associations/trade unions to secure the alternative employment of staff.  The Council has a proven track record for supporting staff in such situations. 
 
Impact on governors 
If the proposal goes ahead the existing governing body will cease to exist.  It is anticipated that the governing body at Cwmafan Primary school will seek to ensure the community of Pontrhydyfen is appropriately represented on their governing body. 
 
Impact on special needs education 
Pontrhydyfen Primary school does not have a specialist unit for children with statements of special educational needs and neither will Cwmafan Primary school.  Both schools support pupils with additional learning needs, including children with statements of special educational needs, in a mainstream setting with appropriate funding for this purpose. 
 
Impact on Welsh language education 
At Pontrhydyfen Primary school English is the main teaching medium and the language of the day to day business of the school.  This will be the same at Cwmafan Primary school.  Welsh-medium education is available at YGG Rhos Afan, which serves the catchment areas of both schools. 
 
Impact on the community 
A Community Impact Assessment has been undertaken.  It recognised that Pontrhydyfen Primary school is an important venue for school based events and extra-curricular activity.  The assessment concluded that, under this proposal, these activities could be preserved and transferred to Cwmafan Primary school. 
 
There are no external hires of the school buildings as community groups are catered for elsewhere in the village, but the school plays a very important part in village life.  If the proposal is implemented it will be important to ensure that the education and welfare of the children beyond the traditional school day are adequately provided for within the wider community. 
 
Existing community facilities in the village of Pontrhydyfen are to be retained and under this proposal there is an opportunity to make better use of those that are presently underutilised. 
 
Options that have been considered 
 
Option 1 – Status quo: maintain Pontrhydyfen Primary school 
 
The Council has a responsibility to review the number and type of schools it has and whether or not it is making the best use of resources and facilities to deliver suitable educational opportunities for the children and young people of Neath Port Talbot. 
 
Maintaining the status quo at Pontrhydyfen Primary school is not considered to be best use of resources and facilities.  Pontrhydyfen Primary school is a small school with high per pupil costs and surplus capacity.  Cwmafan Primary school will be a nearby school with below average per pupil costs and with sufficient capacity to accommodate pupils who would otherwise attend Pontrhydyfen Primary school. 
 
There is significant cost inefficiency in maintaining the two schools on separate sites.  The efficiencies and economies of scale that can be achieved at larger schools with increased numbers on roll provide a more effective use of public money and can deliver a wider range of learning and development opportunities for pupils. 
 
On the grounds of school improvement and the efficient use of public money maintaining the current provision is difficult to justify. 
 
Option 2 – Establish a federation of Pontrhydyfen Primary and Cwmafan Primary schools 
 
In a federation schools are managed by a single governing body which takes decisions about such matters as staffing structures and expenditure.  Under a single leadership and governance there are potential teaching and learning benefits, staff development opportunities and efficiencies that can arise from a federated arrangement.  A single governing body will be able to pool resources, share staff and facilities.  A federation also provides the opportunity to co-ordinate curriculum provision or teaching and learning strategies for the benefit of the pupils and staff to improve school performance and enhance educational experiences.  Likewise, these benefits could be delivered at a single site school. 
 
Schools within a federation continue to be funded individually, receiving their budget allocations as separate establishments.  Whereas this provides the opportunity for efficiencies in school based expenditure, for example employing one head teacher rather than two releases a significant amount of money to be used elsewhere at the schools, Pontrhydyfen Primary school would continue to be supported by higher than average per pupil costs.  As such, there would be no opportunity for financial reinvestment into the overall central budget for schools.  In a federation, schools remain separate legal entities retaining their name, registered pupils and budget.  Because of this, the federation would not address the significant cost inefficiency in maintaining a small, high per pupil cost school nor, compared to a single school, would it necessarily achieve efficiencies through removing duplication, for example both schools would be inspected separately by Estyn and there would be separate expenditure trails to manage and audit. 
 
In this instance, the benefits and opportunities presented by a federated arrangement are considered to be outweighed by the inefficiencies that remain, particularly in light of the availability of alternative, more efficient provision. 
 
Option 3 – Establish a federation of Pontrhydyfen Primary, Cwmafan Primary and other nearby small schools  
 
Whereas the benefits of federation as set out in Option 2 may be increased in a larger federation, for example employing one head teacher in place of three or more, there would be no cost benefit to the overall central schools budget as schools would continue to receive their budget allocations as separate establishments.  Adding to the number of schools in a federated arrangement would not, in this instance, address the significant cost inefficiency in maintaining small, high per pupil cost schools; nor would it necessarily achieve efficiencies through removing duplication. 
 
As with Option 2, the benefits and opportunities presented by a federated arrangement are considered to be outweighed by the inefficiencies that remain, particularly in light of the availability of alternative provision. 
 
Option 4 – Close Cwmafan Primary school and transfer the pupils to Pontrhydyfen Primary school. 
 
There is insufficient accommodation at Pontrhydyfen Primary school to provide for the pupils of Cwmafan Primary school and even with significant investment it is unlikely that the site would be able to accommodate the necessary additional buildings and external areas required for a larger school. 
 
Option 5 – Close Pontrhydyfen Primary school and transfer the pupils to Cwmafan Primary school 
 
For the majority of pupils, Cwmafan Primary school will be the nearest alternative Neath Port Talbot primary school.  Pontrhydyfen Primary school and Cwmafan Primary school are both designated English-medium schools. 
 
There will be sufficient capacity at Cwmafan Primary school to accommodate the pupils from Pontrhydyfen Primary school and there are educational benefits for pupils arising from the transfer to a larger school. 
 
This option removes the issues surrounding a small school with high per pupil costs and surplus capacity.  It also addresses the cost inefficiency in maintaining the two schools on separate sites, in particular the maintenance and repair liabilities at Pontrhydyfen Primary school. 
 
The efficiencies and economies of scale that can be achieved at a larger, single school with increased numbers on roll and single governance and leadership structures provide a more effective use of public money and deliver a wider range of learning and development opportunities for pupils and staff. 
 
Although this option will involve disruption for the pupils, parents and staff at Pontrhydyfen Primary school, the benefits to be realised from a single site primary school are considered to outweigh the alternative options. 
 
Preferred Option (subject to the outcome of consultation) - Option 5 
Having considered information gathered to date and weighed this against the evidence of the educational and financial cases for change, the option of closing Pontrhydyfen Primary school and making arrangements for the pupils to receive their English-medium primary education at Cwmafan Primary school is recommended as the basis for consultation 

Details of the schools affected 
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary school 
Pontrhydyfen Primary school is an English-medium, community school for boys and girls aged 3- 11 years.  As at September 2014 it had 68 full-time and 7 part-time (nursery) pupils on roll.  The school serves the village of Pontrhydyfen and immediate surrounding rural area.  37% of the pupils on roll are drawn from the school’s catchment area while 28% of the pupils on roll reside in the Cwmafan Infant/Junior schools’ catchment area (as at September 2014). 
 
12% of the pupils are entitled to free school meals; this figure is lower than the County Borough average and lower than the national average.  28% of pupils have additional learning needs and 2 pupils have statements. 
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary school is sustained by high levels of budget allocation because of the low number of pupils on roll.  In broad terms this means that Pontrhydyfen Primary school receives around £47k more than schools funded at the average per pupil level. 
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary school occupies and utilises three separate buildings comprising the main teaching block, dining block and gymnasium (PE) block. The main teaching block is surrounded by a secure pupil play area whilst the kitchen/dining and gymnasium blocks are stand-alone buildings located apart from the main teaching block site.  
 
The 2009 building condition assessment assesses the overall condition of the school buildings to be a grade ‘C’ noting that the main teaching block is over 100 years old and having been well maintained is generally in ‘fair to good’ condition whilst both dining and gymnasium (PE) blocks are generally in ‘poor to fair’ condition requiring internal and external refurbishments. All three buildings have mechanical and electrical installations that are nearing and in some cases have exceeded their life expectancy. Backlog maintenance and accessibility costs amount to £729k. 
 
Cwmafan Primary school 
Cwmafan Primary school will be an English-medium, community school for boys and girls aged 3-11 years.  As at October 2014 the combined roll of Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools was 340 full-time and 46 part-time (nursery) pupils and English is the main teaching medium.  Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools serve the village of Cwmafan and 90% of the pupils on roll are from within the school’s catchment area. 
 
25% of the pupils are entitled to free school meals; this figure is higher than the County Borough average and higher than the national average.  31% of pupils have additional learning needs and 2 pupils have statements. 
 
The enhanced numbers at Cwmafan Primary school will enable the school to continue to be sustained by below average levels of budget allocation per pupil funding. 
 
Cwmafan Primary school will be a partner primary school to Dyffryn School where secondary phase English-medium education is provided. 
 
The Cwmafan Primary school site comprises school buildings and play areas of the existing Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools on a shared site with a number of shared facilities such as canteen and boiler.  The 2014 building condition assessment for the Infant school, states that whilst external paths and walls require remedial works, the building appears sound with repairs required to roof and walls.  Water ingress has damaged some wall finishes and the small power supply is inadequate in terms of socket provision.  Internal doors and toilet areas would benefit from a renewal/refurbishment.  The school is graded ‘B’ overall. 
 
The most recent building condition assessment for the Junior school assesses the condition of the school to be a grade ‘C’. The building is in a poor to fair condition and would benefit from and external and internal refurbishment. 
 
Backlog maintenance & accessibility costs amount to £339k at the Infant school and £1.269M at the junior school. 
 
Capital build does not form part of this proposal.  Building repair and maintenance requirements will be dealt with as part of the Council’s Capital programme for maintaining schools and from the school’s delegated budget responsibilities. 
 
The amalgamation of Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools to form a single, primary school enables more flexible use of existing accommodation to meet fluctuations in pupil numbers across the 3 – 11 age range and to provide scope for potential growth in pupil numbers. 

Quality of teaching and learning 
 
The following information is an overview of the teaching and learning at the schools that are the subject of this proposal.   
Full Estyn reports are available at:
 www.estyn.gov.uk/english/inspection/inspection-reports 
 
Outcomes  
Following an Estyn Inspection of Pontrhydyfen Primary School in March 2012, learner outcomes were judged to be adequate, and prospects for improvement were reported to be good.  The school was placed in Estyn monitoring and a revisit took place in July 2013.  At this visit the school was judged to be in need of significant improvement and a further period of monitoring took place.  At a further revisit in September 2014, the school was judged to have made sufficient progress in relation to the recommendations following the core inspection in March 2012. 
 
The most recent Local Authority Autumn Core Visit in December 2013 determined that learner outcomes were adequate and the school’s capacity to improve was good.  Consequently the school was judged to be a ‘School needing to improve outcomes for learners’ within the context of the following categories of schools: Good and Outstanding Schools/ Schools that need to improve outcomes/ Schools that need to improve aspects of leadership and / or provision, or Schools Causing Concern. 
 
Cwmafan Primary school will be formed from the amalgamation of Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools in January 2015 and has not yet been inspected by Estyn.  However, Cwmafan Infant school was inspected in February 2009, and six of the seven key questions were awarded a grade 2, ‘good features and no important shortcomings’ and one key question awarded a grade 1, ‘good with outstanding features’.  The most recent local authority autumn core visit judged the school as having good learner outcomes and good capacity to improve, and placed it in the category of ‘Good and Outstanding Schools’.  Cwmafan Junior School was inspected in January 2012 and the current performance was judged to be good with adequate prospects for improvement.  The school was revisited by Estyn in April 2013 and all recommendations were met.  The most recent autumn core visit by the local authority  judged the school as having adequate learner outcomes and good capacity to improve, placing the school in the ‘Schools that need to improve outcomes’ category. 
 
End of Foundation Phase data for Pontrhydyfen Primary has consistently placed the school in the bottom quartile for all three core areas of learning when compared with similar schools.  However end of phase data for 2014 indicates a significant improvement with 100% of the 11 children in the cohort attaining outcome 5 or above. 
 
Foundation Phase pupils at Cwmafan have consistently attained high outcomes at the end of the phase, with data for Language, Literacy and Communication in particular indicating excellent standards.  In 2014 89% of pupils attained outcome 5+ in Language, Literacy and Communication, 91% attained outcome 5+ in Mathematical Development and 98% in Personal and Social Development, in a cohort of 46 pupils.  Over three years the data places the school in Quartiles 1 and 2 for all areas of learning.  
 
End of Key Stage 2 data for Pontrhydyfen Primary again indicates a significant improvement in all subjects for 2014 with 100% of the 10 Y6 pupils attaining level 4+.  Benchmarking data which compares the school with similar schools across Wales has consistently placed the school in the bottom quartiles over the last two years, with a move this year to quartile 1.  
 
Results at Cwmafan Junior school have also improved this year with 92% of the 37 pupils attaining Level 4+ in all three core subjects.  Gathering data to measure performance is often more reliable in a larger school as there tends to be less variation year on year.  This process becomes more difficult in a small school, as low pupil numbers often have a significant effect on the data produced and can be far less reliable. 
 
Estyn report that many Pontrhydyfen pupils make variable progress through the school and note that the more able pupils, in particular, do not always achieve their full potential.  Generally, slightly more pupils attain the higher levels at the end of the primary phase in a larger school when compared to smaller schools.  
 
In Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools more able children generally perform very well when compared to similar schools, schools within Neath Port Talbot and schools across Wales.  In 2013, Foundation Phase pupils attained significantly higher results at Outcome 6 in all three core areas of learning and in Key Stage 2 boys in particular attained very good results at level 4+.  A recommendation from the Autumn Core Visit in 2013 proposed that the school should share aspects of good practice with other schools across the local authority, regarding their success at challenging more able pupils and highlights the fact that the school was at the top of its family of schools for attaining Outcome 6 at the end of Foundation Phase. 
 
Behaviour throughout the school day at Pontrhydyfen is reported by Estyn to be exemplary and all pupils show good levels of respect and care for adults and each other.  Pupil behaviour at Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools is also noted to be good with positive relationships between staff and pupils. 
 
Both schools have had targets in place to improve pupil attendance.  At Pontrhydyfen the overall attendance percentage was 96% for 2013-2014, while Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools both achieved over 94%. 
 
Children entering Cwmafan Primary would not be disadvantaged and are likely to attain good standards 
 
Provision 
Estyn reports that Pontrhydyfen Primary is a happy, safe community where pupils and adults respect each other and where older pupils provide friendly support to those younger than themselves. 
 
Cwmafan Foundation Phase has also been recognised as providing outstanding care, support and guidance for pupils by Estyn.  Key Stage 2 pupils are reported to show care and respect for each other and feel secure and valued in school.   
 
Learning experiences at Pontrhydyfen Primary were judged by Estyn to be adequate.  Staff develop warm and friendly relationships with pupils, based on mutual respect and there is a happy and positive atmosphere in each class.  Teaching overall is judged to be adequate.  Estyn report that greater attention should be given to independent learning, standards of achievement and progress in key skills, and expectations of pupil achievement are generally too low  
 
Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools provide good learning experiences for pupils.  The quality of teaching in the Foundation Phase was judged by Estyn to be consistently good with the majority of lessons observed having outstanding features, while teaching at Key Stage 2 was found to be adequate.  During the Estyn revisit in April 2013, it was reported that teachers in Key Stage 2 provide good opportunities for independent work with emphasis on investigation, creativity and problem solving skills. 
 
Leadership and Management 
Leadership at Pontrhydyfen is good.  Estyn report that the self-evaluation report is a comprehensive document, which clearly and accurately identifies areas that require improvement.  Partnership working is good and the school has effective liaison and communication with parents to support pupils’ learning and wellbeing.  The school also has appropriate partnerships with other local schools and is active in the two cluster groups to which it belongs. 
 
Estyn report that at Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools all staff and governors have high expectations and a clear understanding of the policies that are focused on pupils' needs.  In Foundation Phase, relationships with parents and the wider community is noted to be outstanding by Estyn, and at Key Stage 2 valuable links with individuals and groups in the neighbourhood effectively foster pupils’ sense of community involvement.  
 
Resource management at Pontrhydyfen is reported by Estyn to be adequate.  The school buildings are well maintained and resources are well managed.  
 
At Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools resource management is reported to be good.  At Key Stage 2  resources and used and managed well, while at Foundation Phase the safe, comfortable and attractive learning environment provides a suitable setting for good teaching and learning.  Estyn also reports that an abundance of good learning resources is available to meet the needs of the curriculum and that the resources are of excellent quality and are well-organised and maintained.  This is often easier to manage in larger schools due to efficiencies of scale, meaning that pupils in smaller schools can potentially be at a disadvantage. 

Pupil Numbers 
 
In relation to Pontrhydyfen Primary school, the latest statistical return (January 2014) indicates that the school had 69 full-time and 6 part-time (nursery) pupils on roll.  With a current school capacity to accommodate 87 full-time and 24 part-time (nursery) pupils, the school had 18 (21%) full-time unfilled places and 18 (75%) part-time unfilled places. 
 
Table 1 
	Pontrhydyfen Primary school 		
 		Jan 2014 	 	2019 	
 	School capacity 	Actual. Pupil Nos. 	Unfilled places 	Projected Pupil Nos. 	
Full-time 	87 	69 	18 	56 	
Part-time (Nursery) 	24 	6 	18 	10 	
 
In relation to Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools, the latest statistical return indicates that the combined schools had 344 full-time and 58 part-time pupils on roll.  With a current combined school capacity to accommodate 398 full-time and 96 part-time pupils, the schools had 54 (14%) full-time unfilled places and 38 (40%) part-time unfilled places. 
 
Table 2 
	Cwmafan Infant/Junior schools 		
 		Jan 2014 	 	2019 	
 	School capacity 	Actual Pupil Nos. 	Unfilled places 	Projected Pupil Nos. 	
Full-time 	398 	344 	54 	356 	
Part-time (Nursery) 	96 	58 	38 	64 	
 
The table below indicates the historical pupil numbers over a 5 year period for both Pontrhydyfen Primary school and Cwmafan Infant/Junior schools and includes numbers on roll as at Sept/Oct 2014. 

Table 3 
School Census Jan 2010 – 2014 & school roll as at Sept/Oct 2014 	Jan 2010 	Jan 2011 	Jan 2012 	Jan 2013 	Jan 2014 	Sep/Oct 2014 	
Pontrhydyfen Primary school (exc. nursery) 	44 	52 	65 	71 	69 	68 	
Pontrhydyfen Primary school (nursery only) 	17 	12 	18 	12 	6 	7 	
Cwmafan Infant/Junior school (exc. nursery)  	310 	299 	316 	315 	344 	340 	
Cwmafan Infant school (nursery only) 	62 	70 	68 	70 	58 	46 	
 
The following tables show a 5 year forecast for pupil numbers in respect of Pontrhydyfen Primary school, Cwmafan Primary school and the combined roll of both schools. 
 
Table 4 
 	Jan 2015 	Jan 2016 	Jan 2017 	Jan 2018 	Jan 2019 	
Pontrhydyfen Primary school (exc. nursery) 	65 	62 	61 	58 	56 	
Pontrhydyfen Primary school (nursery only 	12 	10 	9 	10 	10 	
Cwmafan Primary school (exc. nursery)  	349 	343 	353 	354 	356 	
Cwmafan Primary school (nursery only) 	65 	64 	63 	64 	64 	
Combined roll (inc. nursery) 	491 	479 	486 	486 	486 	
Combined roll (exc. nursery) 	414 	405 	414 	412 	412 	
 
Surplus capacity impact 
The proposal directly addresses unfilled places.  Based on current accommodation usage full-time surplus capacity is reduced from 72 places (15%) to 16 oversubscribed places. 
 
Table 5 
	Combined roll (Cwmafan Primary school 	site)  	
	 	Jan 2015 	 	
 	Current school capacity 	Proj. Pupil Nos. 	Unfilled places 	
Full-time 	398 	414 	-16 	
Part-time (Nursery) 	96 	77 	19 	
 
There is the potential and flexibility at Cwmafan Primary school for a change of room usage to ensure there is sufficient classroom capacity at Cwmafan Primary school to accommodate pupils who would otherwise attend Pontrhydyfen Primary school. 

Financial Appraisal 
 
This financial appraisal is based mainly on current (2014/2015) school budget allocations as determined by the formula funding arrangements for distributing money to Neath Port Talbot schools. 
 
For the financial year 2014/15, Pontrhydyfen Primary school receives £4,167 per pupil, which is 19% (£668) higher than the average for primary schools in the County Borough.  
This equates to additional funding of around £47k when compared with schools funded at the average per pupil level. 
 
Table 6 
 		Financial year 2014/15 		
 	Pontrhydyfen Primary school 	Primary sector average 	Primary sector lowest funded 	
Per pupil funding 	£4,167 	£3,499 	£2,863 	
 
For the financial year 2014/15, Cwmafan Primary school will receive £2,858 per pupil funding, which is 18% (£641) lower than the average for primary schools in the County Borough. 
 
Table 7 
 		Financial year 2014/15 		
 	Cwmafan 
Primary school 	Primary sector average 	Primary sector lowest funded 	
Per pupil funding 	£2,858 	£3,499 	£2,863 	
 
For the financial year 2014/15, Cwmafan Primary school will receive £2,874 per pupil  
In the table below, the status quo position (a) shows the combined current school budgets of Pontrhydyfen Primary school and Cwmafan Primary school, rolled forward five financial years.  
The effect of the proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school and to make provision for the pupils at Cwmafan Primary school (b) is represented as an illustrative budget for the school based on current budget data and an estimate for additional transport costs, again rolled forward five financial years. 
 
On the basis of this illustrative appraisal, the effect of implementing the proposal is that potential savings of some £164k could be realised over a 5 year period.  These figures do not include any additional revenue expenditure arising from implementation of the proposal, e.g. potential redundancy costs. 

Table 8 
 		Financial years 		5yr effect 	
 	2015/16 
(7/12th) 
K 	2016/1 7k 	2017/18 
k  	2018/19 K 	2019/20 k 	2015/20 K 	
 
Status quo (a) 	£778 	£1,334 	£1,337 	£1,341 	£1,336 	£6,126 	
Proposal effect (b) 	£757 	£1,298 	£1,302 	£1,305 	£1,300 	£5,962 	
Potential savings (b-a) 	-£21 	-£36 	-£35 	-£36 	-£36 	-£164 	
NB: The figures in the table above are notional as annual budget allocations are dependent on the Council’s revenue support grant allocation; the amount of money set aside for schools (the individual schools budget); and the formula for allocating that money to individual schools. 
 
The impact of the proposal is that Cwmafan Primary school’s per pupil funding would be 19.5% (£683) lower than the average for primary schools in the County Borough. 
 
Table 9 
 	Financial year  		
 	2015/16 	2014/15 	
 	Cwmafan Primary school (inc Pontrhydyfen Primary school) 	Pri. sector average 	Pri. sector lowest funded 	
Per pupil funding 	£2,816 	£3,499 	£2,863 	
 
The issue of higher per pupil funding costs at Pontrhydyfen Primary school would be removed as a consequence of the school’s closure, as would the liability costs for repair, maintenance and accessibility. 
 
The school site is owned by the Council and any future use will be considered within the context of the Council’s corporate asset management process.  If the site or part of the site is sold the monies raised will be reinvested into the general education budget. 

Equality Impact Assessment 
 
An equality impact assessment has been carried out and found that there is no adverse effect on any particular group and the process has checks and monitoring in place.  Any potential negative impact on any protected characteristic has been evaluated and the adverse effect mitigated. 

Consultation Details 
 
The purpose of this consultation document and the meetings being held with interested parties is to provide information and to invite views on the Council’s proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school and make arrangements for the pupils to receive their education at Cwmafan Primary school. 
 
Those being consulted are the pupils, parents, governors and staff of the two schools, as well as other interested parties.  A copy of this consultation document has been provided to all those required in accordance with the School Organisation Code 2013.  A list of interested parties is provided under Appendix A. 
 
Consultation will take place during the period: 10th November 2014 to 16th January 2015………………..”

35.	The Governors, Pupils and Parents made a lengthy response on 25th November 2014. I shall concentrate on the matters germane to the case as argued before the Court. 
i)	They were “astounded” at the figure of £ 729,000 cited in the report for the cost of backlog maintenance and repair at Pontrhydyfen, and asked whether it was a current figure, and for a full breakdown of current backlog maintenance costs. They considered that such costs would be met from a capital programme and not from the schools budget, and was therefore irrelevant. 
ii)	The costs of closure, such as redundancy costs, building security and the costs of converting Cwmafan had not been built into the proposal, which therefore made the comparisons meaningless;
iii)	Concern was expressed about the travel to school arrangements of those living more than 2 miles from Cwmafan, and an assurance sought that if free transport was to be provided it should be guaranteed. They also wanted to know about the travel costs of  Pontrhydyfen children who lived closer to another school than Cwmafan;
iv)	Option 1 (retention of Pontrhydyfen) had not had its costs properly assessed. It was argued that the original proposal as reported to cabinet at NPTCBC had posited savings of £ 399,000, which  had been reduced to £ 164,000 but did not take account of redundancy costs, transport, building modification (at Cwmafan)  and other closure liabilities. It sought reassessment, and argued that any saving would be negative;
v)	It asked why a federation of 2, 3 or 4 schools was not an option that had been explored. It gave as an example the federation of two schools, namely that of Pontrhydyfen with Tonmawr. Its analysis of the financial effects was set out in its Appendix 21. It is to be noted that none of the financial analysis spreadsheets it referred to related to the federation of Pontrhydyfen and Cwmafan.
36.	On 15th January 2015 an objection was made by the Governors by e mail. It complained again of inadequate information. It attached spreadsheet analyses of 6 options. They included the amalgamation of Pontrhydyfen Primary School with Tonmawr Primary School (on 1 or 2 sites), or amalgamating them both with Bryn school on 3 sites, or including Cwmafan as well on 4 sites. It contended that 5 of the options would produce savings which were greater than proposed by NPTCBC. It went on to say that “these are by no means the only options or combinations (e.g. Pontrhydyfen and Cwmafan, Pontrhydyfen and Bryn and Cwmafan, Pontrhydyfen and Cwmafan and Tonmawr etc etc.) that should have been detailed within the proposals and which could still be considered fully by the LEA (and which we at Pontrhydyfen are in no way excluding and would be equally keen to consider if they save Pontrhydyfen School); but rather represent examples of workable solutions that can easily (be) achieved by working together.”
37.	On 10th March 2015 a letter was sent by Public Law Solicitors on behalf of the Parents Action Group at Cwmafan (although at times it referred to their clients as “the Governors”). It contended that the consultation exercise was unlawful. Having reiterated parts of the consultation response referred to in the last paragraph, it argued that the process was unlawful because the consultation document did not includes sufficient reasons and information for particular proposals to enable intelligent consideration and/or response, and had not provided adequate time for consideration and response. It contended that there was a breach of the general principles governing the requirements of a fair consultation process, the statutory framework governing the consultation, and the legitimate expectations of consultees. It then addressed particular aspects. I shall set out those which are germane to the case argued before the court;
i)	it contended that the Consultation Document did not address the effect of the proposals on travel to and from school adequately, and in particular by failing to carry out an assessment on learner travel needs;
ii)	while the letter accepted that NPTCBC had provided an estimate of additional transport costs, it contended that a transport assessment was required to justify them. It was contended that the estimate was inadequate;
iii)	the information provided on the financial impact of closure and the claimed savings was inadequate. The Governors had sought to carry out financial modelling but had been unable to do so. It drew attention to the change from £ 399,000 to £ 164,000 in revenue savings (to which I have already referred), to the absence of any quantification of redundancy costs, and the lack of detailed information on the alternative options considered.
38.	No response was given until 1st May 2015. I shall address the response in due course.
39.	On 15th April 2015 the Cabinet considered the matter. It had a report before it (the “Consultation Report”), which set out to describe the consultation responses received in the consultation period, which had expired on 16th January 2015. It includes the following passages, germane to the matters raised before the Court
“Proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school and make arrangements for the pupils to receive their education at Cwmafan Primary school 
 
1. Purpose of the consultation report 
 
This report is to inform the outcome of consultation with stakeholders which took place between 10th November 2014 and 16th January 2015. During this period a consultation document was made available on the Council’s website under the Strategic School Improvement section and to all those on the consultee list attached under Appendix A. 
 
2. Consultation Process 
 
The consultation document invited views and opinions to be submitted in respect of the proposal.  Under the Welsh Government Statutory Code for School Organisation the Council is required to publish a consultation report summarising any issues raised by consultees, the Council’s response and setting out Estyn’s view of the overall merit of the proposals. 
 
If approved, the next stage of the process is to publish a statutory notice outlining the proposals which would need to be published for a period of 28 days and any formal written objections would be invited during this time.   
 
If an objection is received, an objection report will be published summarising the objection(s) and the Council’s response to the objection(s).  The Council’s Cabinet will need to consider the proposal in light of the objection(s) received and make a decision to accept, reject or modify the proposal. 
 
3. Summary of responses to consultation 
 
Parent Consultation 
A consultation meeting was held on 2nd December 2014 with parents of Pontrhydyfen Primary school to discuss the proposal with council representatives.  The comments made and officer responses can be viewed at Appendix B. 
 
School Staff Consultation 
A consultation meeting was held on 1st December 2014 with staff of Pontrhydyfen Primary school to discuss the proposal with council representatives.  The comments made and officer responses can be viewed at Appendix C. 
 
A consultation meeting was held on 8th January 2015 with staff of Cwmafan Primary school to discuss the proposal with council representatives.  The comments made and officer responses can be viewed at Appendix D. 
 
Governing Body Consultation 
A consultation meeting was held on 1st December 2014 with the governing body of Pontrhydyfen Primary school to discuss the proposal with council representatives.  The comments made and officer responses can be viewed at Appendix E (not included in this judgement) 
 
A consultation meeting was held on 8th January 2015 with the governing body of Cwmafan Primary school to discuss the proposal with council representatives.  The comments made and officer responses can be viewed at Appendix F. (not included in this judgement)
 
Pupil Consultation 
Consultation with the pupils took place at both schools.  A breakdown of consultation with the pupils can be viewed at Appendix G. (Not included in this judgement)
 
Summary of Comment Forms  
 
A total of 582 comments/comment forms were returned.   
 
Out of the comments received none of the respondents supported the proposal apart from the governors of Cwmafan Primary school. 
 
The category of respondent is as follows (some respondents may have indicated more than one category but only one category has been registered): 
 
Pontrhydyfen School Staff    1       	 
	Pontrhydyfen Governor  	  3* 	 	Cwmafan Governor 	  2 	 	 	 
	Pontrhydyfen Parent  	  78 	 	Cwmafan Parent   	  17 
	Pontrhydyfen Pupils 	 	  18 	 
	Unspecified  	 	 	  48 
Other (residents, grandparents,    415 
MP, AM etc) 
 	   	 
*This includes the consultation response from Pontrhydyfen Full Governing Body which is responded to below  
 
As well as the comments forms and correspondence: 
1628 signatures on an electronic petition objecting to the school closure. 
1409 signatures on a paper petition objecting to the school closure. 
109 signed forms from Cwmafan parents objecting to the plans to increase the traffic flow at Cwmafan Primary school. 
36 individuals signed to state that they had been misrepresented in the proposal put forward by Mr David Mackerras, Chair of Governors at Tonmawr Primary. 
30 individuals signed to state that the children were not allowed to express                      themselves and only a very small percentage were allowed to take part in the pupil consultation.  
 
All written responses are available to Cabinet members.  Copies of all responses to consultation have been available in the Members’ Room at Port Talbot Civic Centre and Neath Civic Centre as from 26th March 2015. 
 
A summary of the comments made is as follows:” (only those relevant to the issues before the Court are included)
 
-	“Tonmawr children could be moved to Pontrhydyfen Primary school. 
-	The consultation document is badly flawed.  It contains inaccuracies and generalisations.  You have not adhered to WAG guidelines for school closure which states you have to investigate safe traffic routes to the intended school before preparing a consultation document.  The traffic in Cwmafan is hazardous.  The loss of the school at Pontrhydyfen would be the final nail in the coffin of the fabric of the village. 
-	If the school closes I will miss my teachers and I will miss my friends.  I will miss walking to school.  It will be dangerous for me and my little sister to walk to another school. 
-	Please don’t close my school, I love going to Pontrhydyfen Primary, all my friends are there and I love my teachers.  I play football and rugby at break times and I love walking and riding my bike to school. 
-	We go on bike rides to the Afan Forest which I will miss.  We have a breakfast club which will close so my mummy and daddy won’t be able to go to work.  We walk to school which keeps me fit if our school closes I will have to go in the car. 
-	I would have additional travelling time if I am moved to Cwmafan Primary school and I would have to cope with the classroom sizes. 
-	There are limited times the buses run and this will affect my choice as to whether or not I wish to attend after-school clubs if I am moved to Cwmafan Primary school. 
-	I would have to cope with the amount of traffic if I am moved to Cwmafan Primary school. 
-	………………………………The roads are too dangerous in Cwmafan it will not be safe with all the parents driving and trying to park their cars at the same time.  The cars drive too fast and even mount the kerbs as I have seen it and it could easily knock a child over.  If Pontrhydyfen Primary school closes you may as well close the village as this is the main meeting point for the grandparents and old people.  My mother will have to stop working as I have no one to take me to school. 
-	Moving pupils from Pontrhydyfen to Cwmafan would put additional safety issues into the forefront especially at drop off and collection time at a place that already struggles to cope. 
-	It would be an alternative to let Pontrhydyfen Primary remain open and offer places to children of Tonmawr and Bryn. 
-	Added volume of traffic along the route and around the school at peak times will be at such a level that an accident is inevitable.  …………..
-	The Council report has errors and speculation on the school figures, current pupil numbers and predicted school numbers.  Walking from Pontrhydyfen to Cwmavon is unsafe.  Buses accessing the hilly terrain of the Afan Valley is unsafe in winter and there have been several accidents over the last few winters one resulting in fatality. 
-	Tonmawr is not big enough to house all the Pelenna pupils but Pontrhydyfen is.  If Bryn children attend Cwmafan and Tonmawr pupils attend Pontrhydyfen then with the closure of two schools a significant amount of money can be saved. 
-	This closure will limit my children from walking to school being involved in after-school activities, limit childcare options and possibly mean I will have to reduce my working hours. 
-	I object due to the environmental impact of more travelling and the effect on the children’s health by being transported instead of walking or cycling. 
-	Bring down the cost per child per year merging either Bryn or Tonmawr with Pontrhydyfen and sharing Headteacher. 
-	Pontrhydyfen to stay open and take in Tonmawr but to federate with Cwmafan. 
-	Dinner hall facilities cannot cater for children in Cwmafan. 
-	The current level of traffic congestion around Cwmafan School is unacceptable with parents frequently blocking the lane behind Depot Road.  It is already dangerous for adults and children on foot, this will only be made worse by increasing the numbers to include Bryn and Pontrhydyfen.  Pontrhydyfen as a single storey building is able to provide disabled access.   
-	The proposed route for children to walk is dangerous the track is unlit slippery when wet and runs along a fast flowing river.  The busy road has long stretches of unpaved areas.  The LEA have proposed transport for the affected children, would this cater for the two current start times breakfast club and normal start time and also part-time nursery.  …………………. 
-	For those without their own private transport how will emergencies be dealt with in the situation where a parent needs to attend school.  There is no direct bus route through Pontrhydyfen to Cwmafan.  Is it appropriate for children as young as three to be put onto a bus with one adult supervising 
-	My children need this school especially my son who can attend mainstream with his sister and have his needs met by this wonderful fantastic school and staff. 
-	How will pupils walk to school and stay healthy. 
-	I request the Authority to reconsider the proposal and look at alternative proposals including federation. 
-	I wish to register my concerns over the lack of balance in the way information has been presented. There seems to have been no attempt to evaluate post school closures and the effect on local communities. 
-	MP Peter Hain raised concern that the consultation document has made no suggestion of Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen forming one school to serve both communities on a suitable site within the parameters of the Pelenna ward.  Raised fears over the route to school and apprehension over the long-term consequences of the proposals which has the potential to split the community of Pelenna as traditionally the pupils from both Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen have attended Cefn Saeson Comprehensive school but the proposal places different catchment areas for secondary school provision. 
-	Peter Black AM promotes the amalgamation or merger of Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen schools on one site. 
-	Cllr Dave Whitelock promotes alternatives to closure and indicated that he is totally against the closure on the grounds that the proposal will result in a drop in inward investment into the village, with young families leaving the village.  Transport to Cwmavon having issues with safety and the cost for nursery children being charged at the rate of £130.00 for a one way journey.  The area around Cwmafan school being congested.  Access to breakfast and after school clubs.  Housing expansion in the Cwmavon causing overcrowding in Cwmafan Primary school.   
-	The Tonmawr proposal suggesting that Pontrhydyfen parents could send their children to Tonmawr Primary school is not accepted and was not agreed by the Pontrhydyfen parents.  Tonmawr governors have stated that 75% of Pontrhydyfen parents would chose to move their child to Tonmawr school this is incorrect and the Pontrhydyfen parents state that they have not been consulted. 
 
Cwmafan Parents  
Cwmafan parents voiced concerns with increased traffic congestion and extra numbers of pupils attending Cwmafan Primary  
A larger school can provide greater learning opportunities and social interaction 
Cwmafan needs time to focus on the recent amalgamation, federation would not be a priority 
 
Cwmafan Primary School Governing Body 
The temporary governing body at Cwmafan Primary school are fully supportive of the proposal in providing an excellent education for both our present children and children who may join us in the future.  They do not feel that federation would be appropriate option at the current time. 
 
Officer response to written comments: 
Alternative options 
The consultation document contains details of 5 options that were considered initially, including that of federation with other schools in the local area, with the fifth option- to close Tonmawr Primary school and transfer pupils to Crynallt Primary school - identified as the preferred option. 
 
The purpose of consultation is to further explore other options, some which may evolve as the process develops, as is the case with the option presented by Tonmawr Primary Governing Body to amalgamate with Pontrhydyfen Primary on the Tonmawr Primary site.  This was not considered to be a preferable option at the start of the consultation but full consideration of this proposal has taken place and the outcomes of this are reported as part of this consultation report. 
 
A number of alternative options for organising the school have been submitted to the Council for consideration.  These seek to keep the school operational at its existing site through arrangements such as amalgamation/merger, federation and new build illustrating savings greater than that achievable through the Council’s proposal. 
 
A detailed review of these options is available using the following electronic link (given in document)

Housing development  
The Education Department at works closely with the Council’s Planning Department and prior to any proposal for school organisation being published a check will be made with planners to ensure there is no potential housing development in the vicinity that would have an impact on the schools in the vicinity. 
 
Community Impact 
…………………………..

Home to school transport. 
Under the Council’s school transport policy less than two miles is within the recognised walking distance for primary aged school children.  Assistance with transport is provided where home addresses are more than two miles from the nearest suitable school or there is no safe walking route.  The route between Pontrhydyfen Primary school and Cwmafan Primary school has been risk assessed and the cost of mitigation measures needed to make it a safe walking route are likely to be significant.  As such, assistance with travel will be provided for eligible pupils and, based on information held on the home addresses of pupils; a 49 seater bus will be required at a cost of approx. £25k per year. 
 
On implementation of the proposal, the catchment area of Cwmafan Primary school will be extended and will encompass the catchment area currently served by Pontrhydyfen Primary school.  The entitlement to assistance with home to school travel will be dependent in the first instance on a home address within the re-designated catchment area of Cwmafan Primary school.  Thereafter the 2 mile distance and safe walking route to school criteria will apply.  
 
Pupils on roll at Pontrhydyfen Primary whose home address is outside that school’s catchment area and on implementation of the proposal outside the re-designated catchment area of Cwmafan primary school will not have an entitlement to assistance with transport, as is the case with their current placement.  However, pupils on roll at the point of closure who live further away from Cwmafan Primary school than Pontrhydyfen Primary school, will be considered for a place on the school bus travelling from Pontrhydyfen. 
 
In line with the Council transport policy, an escort will be provided.  Parents of nursery age pupils will be able to purchase spare seats at a cost of £130 per year. 
 
As regards the morning drop-off and end of day pick-up arrangements for pupils using school buses, it is intended to upgrade the car park at the rear of the school for this purpose. 
 
Separate to the proposals to close Bryn Primary and Pontrhydyfen Primary schools, resurfacing and making good the car park at the rear of Cwmafan Primary school has been identified as priority work to arrest continued deterioration the effect of which, if not addressed, would likely result in it being taken out of use.  An opportunity presents itself develop this scheme further with supplementary work that would provide dedicated car parking bays, a separate, segregated turning area for buses (which could also be used as hard surface play area during the school day) and additional car parking area within the school grounds.  The extra costs of this scheme amounts to approx. £38k. 
 
Pupil Outcomes    

		…………………………………………………………………..
Social Skills  
		……………………………………………………………………
Wellbeing and Behaviour  
…………………………………………………………………………….
Attendance  

		………………………………………………………………………….
Provision School Size  
Delivery of education can be more effective in larger schools. The recent Estyn report ‘School Size and Education effectiveness’ December 2013, states ‘Curriculum provision is better in large schools’ – this means larger schools can provide greater opportunities for teaching and learning.’.  Full details including analysis of data gathered by Estyn is contained in the report.  
 
Schools receive funding based on pupil numbers. The more pupils in a school, the more money will be available for the head teacher and governing body to be able to resource the school both with staff and physical resources. One key factor in improving standards of education in schools is the quality of the teaching that children receive, and with the greater resources available the more opportunities will exist to train and support staff often from within the school itself. Larger schools build teams of staff who can share expertise and good practice, and who can work in partnership to improve aspects of curriculum delivery to meet the needs of the children in their care. Schools with more than one class in each year group can divide their workload, and shared teaching is possible which means staff can teach to their particular strengths, which can further benefit pupils.    As Estyn report in ‘School Size and Education effectiveness’ December 2013 ‘In large and medium sized primary schools, it may be more likely that staff have a wider range of expertise and knowledge of specific themes, topics and subjects that can enrich the curriculum for pupils’. 
 
Specifically to Pontrhydyfen, Estyn report in 2012 that there were shortcomings with the learning experiences offered, although these were deemed to be fully addressed in the final return visit in September 2014. However this would need to be sustained and developed further, which is challenging in a small school.  
 
The Estyn document ‘School Size and Education effectiveness’ December 2013 clearly demonstrates a correlation between school size and performance derived from data gathered from primary school inspections during 2010 -2013.  

   
Size of school / pupils numbers  	Estyn or local authority monitoring  	Special measures or 
significant improvement  	Total in follow-up  	
Small – 100 or less  	46%  	6%  	53%  	
Medium – 101 to 300  	37%  	6%  	43%  	
Large – more than 300  	32%  	1%  	33%  	

Learning Experiences and Environment  
………………………………………..
Nursery Provision  
The consultation document contains details of nursery provision, and all capacity calculations include nursery pupil numbers. There is no reason why nursery aged pupils who currently attend Pontrhydyfen would not have a place at Cwmafan Primary under this proposal.  
There is no entitlement to transport assistance for nursery children. These arrangements are no less favourable that those applying to other parents of nursery age children across the County Borough.  
Currently Pontrhydyfen is one of eight schools in Neath Port Talbot taking part in a Nursery Flexibility Pilot scheme funded by Welsh Government. The pilot is in its second year and will end in July. It is currently not expected to become a wider initiative and as funding stops in July, it is not likely to be continued in any of the 8 schools after this time.    
 
Lunchtime Provision  
Concerns were also raised over the management and facilities available for pupil lunchtimes and whether there would be space for all of the children. In every school there is an agreed order for children to access dining facilities, however large or small a school may be. In a larger school such as Cwmafan Primary, management systems have been set up to ensure that children can access the facilities with the minimum of disruption, and the avoidance of  waiting in queues for any length of time, for example by serving lunch for different groups over specific time periods. This is very common practice in schools across the authority, and is seen as good pupil organisation and management.  
 
The purpose built dining facility in Cwmafan Primary school is more than adequate to cater for the children currently attending the infant and junior school and there is a well established lunch time routine. Extra children will not have an adverse impact on these systems and the space available can easily accommodate the numbers of children affected by this proposal.  The kitchen facility was built with the potential to supply meals to schools within the Afan Valley in case of kitchen failure elsewhere, and will have no difficulty in managing to provide extra meals. 
  
There is currently no need to convert any of the three halls available at Cwmafan into classrooms – this was stated as a possibility if pupil numbers significantly increased in future years. If this was a necessity in the future then it is very unlikely that this would have any effect on the dining facilities currently available.  
Management of lunch time is decided by head teachers, including the management of pupils on days when the weather prevents outdoor play.  
 
Additional Learning Needs  
………………………………………………………….
Class Size and Classrooms 
Classes are set by the head teacher and governing body of a school following statutory and recommended guidelines set by Welsh Government which recommends classes do not go above 30.  At Cwmafan Primary classes span no more than 2 age groups while small numbers on roll at Pontrhydyfen means that mixed age classes can contain up to 4 age groups.  The wide age range can present significant additional teaching and learning challenges.  
 
Research undertaken in England in 2011 reports that the size of a class and teacher/pupil ratios makes little difference to the educational outcomes for pupils as they move through their primary school years, with the most impact noted for children in their earliest years of schooling (Class Size and Education in England Evidence Report).  The greater range of ages within a class however makes teaching far more difficult and often means that more able children are disadvantaged. The data for more able pupils at Pontrhydyfen Primary would appear to support this view, as for the last 3 years the school has been placed consistently in the bottom quartile for Maths, English and Science at KS2 Level5+.   
 
At Cwmafan Primary there are currently a number of empty classrooms which are available to use immediately without any building work being required. This would have no impact on the current provision in Cwmafan and would not lead to areas such as the library being displaced.  This extra space would also allow for further expansion in the future if numbers were to increase through pupils moving into the area. 
 
Playing Fields  
Cwmafan Primary School pupils use the adjacent playing fields for sporting activities and agreement has been reached by the Governing Body and the management committee of the playing fields for this to continue.  Any costs incurred will not impact upon this proposal as Cwmafan Primary has needed to make this provision for its current pupils regardless of whether or not Pontrhydyfen Primary pupils transfer to Cwmafan Primary.  
 
Breakfast and After School Provision  
Extra transport for pupils to access breakfast club and after school activities will not be provided.  Should the proposal be implemented it will be for the head teacher and governing body of Cwmafan Primary school to make appropriate arrangements with parents, with the aim of ensuring that all pupils attending the school regardless of where they live have equal access to provision. 
 
Secondary School Transition  
………………………………………………………….
Pupil Consultation  
………………………………………………….

Officer response to Pontrhydyfen Governing Body: 
Many of the points raised have already been addressed in the above responses. Further queries are responded to below. 
 
Estyn Inspection Outcomes  
Comments have been raised regarding the outcome of Estyn inspections in Cwmafan Junior School and Pontrhydyfen Primary school and across Neath Port Talbot schools generally. The data available does not support the comments made which appear to suggest it is the norm for schools to be placed in Estyn monitoring. Specifically to Neath Port Talbot, the majority of schools do not fall into the category of Estyn monitoring, and even fewer are in need of significant improvement. Using data compiled during early autumn 2014, it can be seen that Pontrhydyfen Primary is one of very small group. 
 
40 NPT primary schools have been inspected since Sept 2010 (to Summer 2014)  
	17 schools were deemed to be Good or Excellent in all areas            42% 
	6 schools were reported to be in need of LA monitoring  	              15% 
	15 schools were placed in Estyn Monitoring  	 	 	 	  37.5%  
	2 schools were reported to be in need of significant improvement        5%  
(1 has made progress and been removed from category, the second is awaiting the follow up inspection) 
 
Of the 15 schools in Estyn Monitoring  
	9 have made progress   	 	 	 	 	 	 	 60% 
	4 are awaiting a further inspection   	 	 	 	 	 26% 
2 did not make sufficient progress after a year and were reported to be in need of significant improvement. After a second year of monitoring both schools were found to have made progress and were then removed from category    13%  
Following a further inspection the 2 schools that did not make sufficient progress have now made progress and have been removed from category.  
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary school therefore was initially 1 of 37.5% of schools placed in Estyn Monitoring, moving to become 1 of only 13% of schools who following a second inspection were reported as not making sufficient progress and as being in need of significant improvement.  
 
There are some significant differences between Cwmafan Junior school and Pontrhydyfen Primary school in terms of their Estyn inspection reports. While both schools were initially in Estyn monitoring in the early part of 2012, Cwmafan Junior school made good progress and were removed from monitoring in 2013. In contrast Pontrhydyfen Primary school made insufficient progress and were reported as being in need of significant improvement, involving a further year of monitoring by Estyn. In September 2014 the school were deemed to have made sufficient progress and were removed from monitoring. 
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary school had 4 recommendations to include improving teaching, assessment and planning to ensure pupils of all abilities are suitably challenged, as well as improving governor accountability and raising standards in key skills  
 
Cwmafan Junior School’s 6 recommendations included independent application of skills across the curriculum, greater development of assessment for learning strategies and further development of key stakeholders to improve monitoring, self-evaluation and setting school priorities. While it could be argued that Cwmafan Junior school had more aspects to address, their recommendations are recognised to be less of a challenge than those of Pontrhydyfen Primary where fundamental improvements to ensure pupil progress were needed.  
 
Pupil Numbers and Surplus Places  
The data contained in the consultation document demonstrates that pupil numbers are expected to decrease in the future. These figures are based on the information available at the present time, as well as taking recent trends into account. The figure of 10 nursery pupils by 2019 therefore is arrived at through taking a three year average of historical intakes.  
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary is one of a number of small schools across the county borough with surplus places. The Council’s Strategic School Improvement Programme is an ongoing programme of school re-organisation.  Within Neath Port Talbot some schools have already been the subject of reorganisation while others are part of the Council’s 21st Century School Programme Band A delivery, 2014 -2018.  A number are the subject of the current proposals and others will be addressed within future proposals.  
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary school has a capacity for 87 full time pupils and 24 part time pupils (79 classbases). Even if the school was full it would still be classed as a small school and so the many benefits of larger schools outlined in the consultation document would not be realised in this situation. This is viewed as a disadvantage for pupils. 
 
Schools are requested to complete an annual capacity schedule in which they are obliged to indicate which rooms in the school are used for teaching  or for other purposes, for example for support groups. These schedules are signed off by the head teacher in consultation with governors. The local authority bases its capacity figures on the information provided by schools so any incorrect information provided will be the responsibility of the school. All schools should be aware of their capacity schedule and also of the surplus capacity within the school, and discussions with the local authority regarding room usage should be made at the time of completing the schedule. 
Pupil Costs  
The information submitted by the Governing Body in Appendix 1 conflicts with information held by the local authority, and it also contains a number of errors – for example some schools appear twice with different figures and other schools do not appear at all.   
 
It is difficult to comment other than in general terms on why pupil costs in other schools appear to be higher than those in Pontrhydyfen.  Firstly, schools with specialist facilities for children with special educational needs (Learning Support Centres) will be high cost provisions which will show in published financial tables as a high per pupil costs for the schools concerned.  Pontrhydyfen Primary does not have such a specialist provision.  Secondly, high per pupil costs are a factor of small schools because of the additional levels of support required.   
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary receives £4,167 per pupil which is 19% higher than the average for primary schools in the County Borough, equating to additional funding of £47k. This proposal seeks to address this by transferring pupils to Cwmafan Primary which is 18% lower than the average per pupil funding figure.  Details of per pupil costs associated with the proposal are included in the consultation document. 
 
Buildings /backlog maintenance costs 
As set out in the consultation document, implementation of the proposal will mean that the buildings and site at Pontrhydyfen Primary school will be surplus to operational requirements and will be disposed of in line with Council’s protocols.  Capital receipts resulting from school reorganisation will be ring fenced for reinvestment within the general education budget. 
 
The consultation document sets out an initial estimate of costs associated with the proposal, and identifies backlog maintenance and accessibility liabilities which will be removed by this proposal. 
 
The Council’s ability to maintain its school buildings is dependent on resources, i.e. public money.  As has been widely reported, the Council has an ageing school building stock, the repair and maintenance of which is greater than the resources available.  It is also the case that the Council has too many schools and too many surplus places, a situation which can be found in many areas of Wales.  The Council’s school organisation proposals combined with the Welsh Government’s 21st Century Schools Programme (the principle funding source for school building replacement) endeavours to rationalise the Council’s school building stock liability and enable it to make better use of the limited resources. 

 
The view of Estyn, her Majesty’s Inspectors of Education and Training in Wales.   In its response Estyn reports that:  
 
Summary/Conclusion 
It is Estyn’s opinion that the proposal is likely to maintain the current standards of education and provision in the area. The proposal is unlikely to have a negative impact on any other schools in the area. However, it is unclear what impact the proposal may have on any providers of pre-school education in the locality.  
Description and benefits 
The proposal contains an appropriate rationale and clearly defines the expected benefits. These include the more efficient, sustainable use of available school places and financial resources in keeping with the local authority’s broader plan. The proposal also highlights the potential benefits that a larger school can have on the quality of provision of the areas of learning within the Foundation Phase and at key stage 2. 
The proposal has compared the benefits of the proposal with the status quo and has considered all other reasonable options fairly. These include a federation of the two schools and providing education in one school on the Pontrhydyfen site instead of the Cwmafan site. It appears that the strengths of the preferred proposal clearly outweigh the benefits of the other options, for example, the Pontrhydyfen site does not have sufficient space to house the population of both current schools and the federation of the two schools would reduce the capacity for efficiency savings significantly. 
Although the schools are in close proximity to one another, the council acknowledges the potential implications of the proposal on travel arrangements for pupils. It fairly identifies that notable proportions of pupils already travel from the Cwmafan catchment area to Pontrhydyfen to attend school. The proposal outlines how the authority will apply its transport policy fairly to all pupils and the need to evaluate the availability of safe travel or walking routes to school. However, the proposal infers” (sic) “that this process has not taken place yet. 
The proposal identifies the implications for staff and governors at Pontrhydyfen Primary School accurately. The proposal does not indicate whether the local authority has considered the transfer of staff from Pontrhydyfen Primary School to Cwmafan Primary School. It does not identify whether any adjustments to the current staffing levels at Cwmafan Primary School are necessary or propose a staffing structure. Neither does the proposal identify the impact of any increased levels of staffing at Cwmafan Primary School and potential redundancy payments on the identified efficiency savings. The proposal contains appropriate information with regard to ensuring provision for pupils with additional learning needs and those with statements for special educational need. It seems unlikely that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on provision for these pupils. 
The proposal asserts reasonably that consolidating the provision on one site will more easily enable the school to share curriculum responsibilities among leaders and teachers. This would provide opportunities for staff to develop expertise and therefore potentially improve curriculum provision to support an improvement in outcomes. 
The proposal is thorough in its use of data with regard to past, present and future pupil numbers in both schools. It clearly demonstrates that the proposal would reduce surplus places. However, the proposed amalgamation on the site of Cwmafan Primary School will create an oversubscribed school based on a 5-year forecast for pupil numbers. The proposal states there is potential and flexibility for a change of room usage to ensure sufficient classroom capacity to accommodate pupils who would otherwise attend Pontrhydyfen Primary School. However, the proposal does not discuss any associated costs. This capacity issue is relevant to families because younger siblings of pupils presently attending Pontrhydyfen Primary School may find it difficult to gain admission to Cwmafan Primary School in the future. The proposal does not clearly outline how the authority will accommodate pupils that are not able to attend Cwmafan Primary School due to oversubscription over the next five years 
Cwmafan Primary School will be the result of an amalgamation of Cwmafan Infant and Junior schools as from 1st January 2015. The proposal has considered reasonably well an overview of the outcomes, provision and leadership and management in Cwmafan infant and junior schools and Pontrhydyfen Primary School. The overview is a reflection of the most recent Estyn inspection reports and the local authority’s view and categorisation on the quality of leadership, and outcomes at the schools. The proposal’s summary of outcomes at all three schools is concise and clear. It is Estyn’s opinion that impact of revised admission arrangements will lead to very little disruption to pupils’ learning. However, the proposal does not evaluate the potential impact of transferring from one school to the other on pupils well enough or describe how the local authority will manage this process. The proposal fairly identifies that there will be very little impact upon transition arrangements to secondary school. However, the proposal does not evaluate the implications for any pre-school educational providers in the locality. 
The proposer has undertaken an equality assessment. However, it is not possible to evaluate the impact of this proposal on the vulnerable pupils affected by the proposal, as the council did not provide a copy of the report. The proposal contains appropriate information with regard to ensuring provision for pupils with additional learning needs and those with statements for special educational need. It is Estyn’s opinion, that the proposal is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on provision for these pupils. 
Officer response to Estyn’s comment:  
As part of the proposal’s development, learner travel needs will be assessed to ensure the availability of safe travel routes and to determine entitlement to assistance with home to school transport.  
It is impossible to determine staffing needs at Cwmafan Primary School during the consultation period as there are so many unknown factors, including whether the proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary School will indeed take place. Ultimately it will be for the Governing Body and senior leadership of Cwmafan Primary School to develop a staffing structure and identify staffing needs at a later stage, if the proposal goes ahead.   
An additional document containing information on the capacity of Cwmafan Primary School was included as part of the consultation. Information contained within this outlines how all pupils can be accommodated at the school even when pupil numbers are predicted to be at their highest.  Applying the formula for measuring the capacity of schools shows that the current usage of rooms at Cwmafan Primary School provides for 398 full-time places and 96 part-time places. Use and designation of rooms is determined by individual schools in conjunction with the Council. Excluding rooms set aside for nursery provision, the schedule of accommodation for the present Infant and Junior school buildings shows 12 class bases; 6 in the Infant school building and 6 in the Junior school building. However, there is a range of rooms of suitable size within the combined footprint of the school that could be re-designated as class bases without the need for capital build or structural adaption. 
In the infant building a room used for group teaching/ library would be suitable for use as an additional classbase. In the Junior school building there are seven rooms which could be re-designated as additional classbases. These comprise a resource room; a library; an office; a room leased to an external user; and three learning support rooms. The effect of designating all seven rooms as classbases is that the capacity of the school would be increased by 127 pupil places (398 to 525). Additional furniture and equipment requirements should be met from surplus stock resulting from the proposed school closures and sufficient accommodation would remain for library, resource and support services.  
If the proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary School is agreed then the local authority will work closely with both schools to ensure that the transition process for pupils is as smooth as it can possibly be, and will ensure that pupils’ emotional as well as academic needs are fully accounted for. During the consultation period, children, parents and staff of both schools have been consulted and any concerns raised will be used to manage the process as sensitively as possible to alleviate any identified issues for all groups.  
Pontrhydyfen Primary School hosts a Parent & Toddler Group and a wraparound care provision. The Playgroup helps very young children and their parents to become familiar with the school. Under this proposal these activities can be preserved and transferred to Cwmafan Primary School.”

40.	There was also a document prepared by NPTCBC and presented to Cabinet, entitled “Review of Alternative Options”. It addressed various options for amalgamation or federation of schools which were being considered for closure. I set out the relevant options addressed in the case of Pontrhydyfen Primary School.
“This document reviews alternative options presented to the Council for consideration by consultees.  In particular, it assesses the financial base on which the alternative models are founded.  The information is supported, as appropriate, with school accommodation and teaching and learning considerations. 
 
School budget share allocations have been used as the basis for these assessments.  The budget share reflects the amount of money a school is allocated and from which it has to meet its expenditure.  Grant monies have not been included as these are intended for specific targeted needs and not as a means of sustaining schools.  The assessments rely on the most up-to-date data and, as such, the information will not necessarily directly correspond to that produced in earlier reports and documents.  The data sources are identified in the footnotes. 
 
The options presented fall into three main categories, namely: amalgamation or merger, federation and new school build.  Each option has been reviewed separately using, for consistency, the same assessment format as far as possible.  Each assessment ends with an officer comment. 
 
The alternative options reviewed comprise: 
1.	………………………………………………………. 
2.	Federation of Bryn Primary, Pontrhydyfen Primary & Tonmawr Primary schools with the three schools remaining at their existing sites.
3.	 Federation of Bryn Primary, Cwmafan Primary, Pontrhydyfen Primary & Tonmawr Primary schools with the four schools remaining at their existing sites.
4.	Amalgamation of Pontrhydyfen Primary & Tonmawr Primary schools with both schools remaining at their existing sites. 
5.	Amalgamation of Bryn Primary, Pontrhydyfen Primary & Tonmawr Primary schools with the three schools remaining at their existing sites. 
6.	Amalgamation of Bryn Primary, Cwmafan Primary, Pontrhydyfen Primary & Tonmawr Primary schools with the four schools remaining at their existing sites. 
7.	Amalgamation of Pontrhydyfen Primary & Tonmawr Primary schools on one site. 
8.	a. Amalgamation of Pontrhydyfen Primary and Tonmawr Primary schools in a new build on a single site; 
b. Amalgamation of Pontrhydyfen Primary, Tonmawr Primary and Bryn Primary schools in a new build on a single site; and 
c. Amalgamation of Pontrhydyfen Primary and Bryn Primary schools in a new build on a single site. 
9.	…………………………..
10.	Federation of Pontrhydyfen Primary & Tonmawr Primary schools with both schools remaining at their existing sites.
41.	The report then set out a detailed analysis of each. Ms Hannett’s complaint was not that any of the analyses was deficient, but that the federation of Pontrhydyfen with Cwmafan was not one of the options considered.  
42.	The Cabinet resolved to issue the statutory publication of the proposal to close the school, and to make provision for its pupils at Cwmafan, the proposal to be implemented on 1st September 2015. The Notice was to be published on 20th April 2015 with a 28 day period for the receipt of objections. It was minuted that the reasons for the decision were that “(the) comments opposing the proposal do not, on balance, present a convincing argument suggesting its modification or abandonment, and as such, the case for the proposal remains strong.”
43.	On 1st May 2015 Public Law Solicitors, now instructed by the Claimant Ms Jones, wrote a letter which was both an objection, and a “further letter before claim.” It referred to the previous letter sent on behalf of a different client, the Pontrhydyfen School Action Group, which Ms Jones was said to adopt in full.  It complained that the previous letter of 10th March 2015 had not been replied to, and was not referred to in the Consultation Report. While it accepted that the consultation period had closed before the letter had been sent, it argued that it should have been addressed in the Consultation Report and in the officer’s report to Cabinet. 
44.	It then made further representations. I shall refer to those germane to the issues argued before the Court. It referred to submissions made by the Governing Body on, inter alia, transport and the financial implications of the closure and of alternative options. It reiterated the concerns that
i)	the transport implications for learners had not been addressed;
ii)	there was inadequate information provided about the financial implications of the proposal;
iii)	the revenue savings claimed by the Council were exaggerated and the total cost of closure was not included.
45.	It argued that the consultation process was inadequate, and that the members were not informed that there had been a letter before action. It complained that members had not been provided with an account of the objections of the Governing Body.
46.	It argued that there had been inadequate consideration of other options of federation and amalgamation, and now contended that it should have addressed, among other options, the federation of Pontrhydyfen and Cwmafan primary Schools. It referred to the email from the Governors to NPTCBC of 10th January 2015.
47.	On 1st May 2015 NPTCBC had responded to the letter of 10th March 2015 (it appears that the two letters of 1st May 2015 had crossed in the post). It apologised for the delay in response.  It contended (on issues germane to the challenge before the Court) that
i)	the Alternative Options Review document put before Cabinet had reviewed all alternative options in detail;
ii)	the route for children attending Cwmafan who currently attended Pontrhydyfen had been risk assessed, and because the cost of mitigation measures to make it safe would be significant, assistance would be provided for eligible pupils. A 49 seater bus would be provided at a cost of £ 25,000 per annum. The original sum assumed for this purpose anticipated transporting every pupil on the roll at Pontrhydyfen. It was higher than £ 25,000. Every child within the catchment area who had a walk to school of more than 2 miles, or where there was no safe walking route, would be entitled to assistance with transport. Pupils living further from Cwmafan School than Pontrhydyfen Primary School would be considered for a place on the bus;
iii)	there would be works carried out to the car park and drop off pick up areas. The costs would be £ 38,000;
iv)	sufficient information on transport had been provided;
v)	on the issue of forecasted savings, it stated that the estimate of £ 399,000 (put before Cabinet in the original report) had been reduced to £ 164,000 as a result of current budget data and the estimated additional transport costs, and that had been recorded in the consultation document. It contained that the information made available was transparent. 
48.	On 15th May 2015 NPTCBC responded to the letter of 1st May, written on behalf of Ms Jones. It repeated the points in its previous letter. It also stated that the product of Consultation was taken into account. It noted that the deadline for submission of objections was 18th May 2015. As to matters germane to the issues before the court
i)	it contended that the Review of Alternative Options, ten in number, captured the range of permutations and the key issues that each presented. The effect would not have been different had a federation of Pontrhydyfen and Cwmafan been addressed specifically. It was argued that it would have been disproportionate and excessive to consider every potential permutation when a smaller number demonstrated the potential outcomes effectively;
ii)	it pointed out that all consultation comments were available to all Members of the Council from 26th March 2015 onwards.
49.	On 14th May 2015, the governing bodies of Pontrhydyfen and Tonmawr Primary Schools informed the Chief Executive of NPTCBC that they were proposing that the two schools be amalgamated on one site, to be known as Pelenna Primary School. (Tonmawr was another school whose closure was proposed, albeit that its pupils move to another school).
50.	On 18th May 2015 (the last day of the objections period), the Claimant’s solicitors made further representations. Although emailed after the close of business, NPTCBC took no point before me on it being out of time. It contended that
i)	the options considered did not include federating Pontrhydyfen and Cwmafan Primary Schools, although it had been assessed as an option in the original Consultation Document. That was said to be significant because of the change in savings from £399,000 to £ 164,000, and because there had been no account taken of redundancy, transport, closure and adaptation costs;
ii)	there was still inadequate financial information about the costs of closure and generally. It contended that the Council’s response about the assessment of alternative options in its last letter was inadequate. 
iii)	it included a table which argued that if transport costs were included in Table 18 of the Consultation Document, and the costs of the works to the car park and access at Cwmafan, the saving would reduce from £ 164,000 to £11,500. (It assumed that the £ 25,000 cost per annum of transport was an additional figure). That was before redundancy costs, and the costs of building modification and closure were taken into account. 
iv)	it contended that a federated arrangement would be cheaper because there would only be one head teacher, but that the main point was that the level of financial information was inadequate to be able to say whether there would be any savings.  
51.	The NPTCBC Cabinet met on 10th June 2015. It had the following placed before it
i)	a report from the Head of Transformation
ii)	an “Objection Report” which summarised the objections received. It referred specifically to the objections of the Governing Body and to the letters from the claimant’s solicitors. It also contained the officers’ responses: 
iii)	a report setting out the Pontrhydyfen Governing Body’s counter proposal for the Pelenna Primary School, together with officer comments. It should be noted that no part of the case before me argued that that proposal had not been properly considered;
iv)	copies of the correspondence passing between NPTCBC and Public Law Solicitors;
v)	a schedule setting out the list of questions (1- 53 and 2.1 to 2.19) asked by the Governing Body in its consultation responses, and the locations at which the Council contended it had provided the information. 
52.	I shall set out the parts of the above which are germane to the issues before the Court. In the report, the following appears on the issues relevant to these proceedings:
“Purpose of Report 
 
To obtain Cabinet approval to implement a proposal that will make provision for pupils in the area served by Pontrhydyfen Primary school to receive English-medium, primary education at Cwmafan Primary school and to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school 
 
Background 
 
The Council is responsible for promoting high educational standards and for delivering efficient primary and secondary education.  Having the right schools in the right place and ensuring that they are fit for the 21st century learner is the challenge facing the Council.  Achieving this will involve reviewing the number and type of schools the Council has in its area and assessing whether or not best use is being made of resources and facilities.   
 
Implementing the Strategic School Improvement Programme involves reviewing existing provision and determining the number and type of schools needed to deliver education effectively and efficiently across the County Borough.  It will most likely lead to substantial change involving opening new schools, closing existing schools, merging or amalgamating schools, federating schools and promoting new initiatives that support collaborative working between schools. 
 
The Council has decided to review its provision on the basis of: 
a.	educational standards 
b.	the need for places and the accessibility of schools 
c.	 quality and suitability of school accommodation
d.	effective financial management. 
 
Following consideration of a report of 15th April 2015, the Council’s Cabinet gave approval to publish by way of statutory notice its proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school and to provide for pupils who would otherwise attend there, at Cwmafan Primary school, Port Talbot.  
 
The Proposal  
 
It is proposed to discontinue Pontrhydyfen Primary school and to make provision for pupils who would otherwise have attended there, at Cwmafan Primary school.  Both schools are 3-11, English-medium community schools maintained by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. 
 
If approved, the proposal will take effect on the 1st September 2015 with Pontrhydyfen Primary school closing on 31st August 2015.  
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary School 
 
Pontrhydyfen is a small primary school.  As at January 2015, there were 62 full-time and 8 part-time pupils on roll and projections do not anticipate pupil numbers increasing significantly in the future.  As at 3rd June 2015, a total of 57 pupils were on roll, 60% of whom have home addresses outside the designated catchment area for the school.  Pontrhydyfen Primary school has the capacity to accommodate 87 full-time pupils.  For the 2014/15 financial year the school had above average per pupil funding of £4,167 which was 19% higher than the average (£3,499) for primary schools in the County Borough.  For the 2015/16 financial year, the school’s per pupil funding is £4,091, which is 18% higher than the average (£3,467). 
 
Cwmafan Primary School 
 
As at January 2015, Cwmafan Primary school had 341 full-time and 63 part time (nursery) pupils on roll.  With the physical capacity to accommodate 398 full-time pupils, the school has 57 (14%) full-time surplus places.  Currently, there is capacity for 96 part-time (nursery) pupils.  With a projected combined roll of 389 full-time and 73 part-time (nursery), there is sufficient capacity at Cwmafan Primary school to accommodate pupils from Pontrhydyfen Primary school without the need for additional accommodation or building works.  
Cwmafan Primary is one of the largest schools in the County Borough.  Forecasts suggest that pupil numbers will not increase significantly. 
 
For the 2015/16 financial year, the school’s per pupil funding is £3,164, which is 9% lower than the average (£3,467). 
 
Cwmafan Primary school - combined roll (Pontrhydyfen Primary)  The following table shows a 5 year forecast in respect of Pontrhydyfen Primary and Cwmafan Primary schools (these forecasts are based on Jan 2015 PLASC returns) 
Table 1 
Pupil numbers 						
Schools 	Actuals 	Projections 				
 	Jan 2015 	Jan 2016 	Jan 2017 	Jan 2018 	Jan 2019 	Jan 2020 	
Pontrhydyfen Primary school (exc. nursery) 	62 	57 	56 	53 	50 	46 	
Pontrhydyfen Primary school nursery 	8 	9 	8 	8 	8 	8 	
Cwmafan Primary school (exc. 
nursery) 	341 	332 	344 	344 	347 	343 	
Cwmafan Primary school nursery 	63 	64 	62 	63 	63 	62 	
Combined roll 	474 	462 	470 	468 	468 	459 	
Combined roll f.t.e. 	438.5 	425.5 	435.0 	432.5 	432.5 	424.0 	
 
The combined impact of pupils from both Pontrhydyfen Primary and Bryn Primary school transferring to Cwmafan Primary is shown in the table below. 

Table 2 
Pupil numbers 						
Schools 	Actuals 	Projections 				
 	Jan 2015 	Jan 2016 	Jan 2017 	Jan 2018 	Jan 2019 	Jan 2020 	
Pontrhydyfen Primary school (exc. nursery) 	62 	57 	56 	53 	50 	46 	
Pontrhydyfen Primary school nursery 	8 	9 	8 	8 	8 	8 	
Bryn Primary school (exc. 
nursery) 	38 	37 	41 	40 	42 	34 	
Bryn Primary school nursery 	4 	7 	6 	6 	7 	6 	
Cwmafan Primary school (exc. 
nursery) 	341 	332 	344 	344 	347 	343 	
Cwmafan Primary school nursery 	63 	64 	62 	63 	63 	62 	
Combined roll 	516 	506 	517 	514 	517 	499 	
Combined roll f.t.e. 	478.5 	466 	479 	475.5 	478 	461 	

There is the potential to increase the capacity of Cwmafan Primary to 525 fulltime pupils, with an admission limit of 75 (2.5 form entry). 
 
The impact of the proposal is that Cwmafan Primary school’s notional per pupil funding for 2015/16 at £3,096 would be 11% (£371) lower than the average for primary schools in the County Borough which supports the Council’s effective management of the education budget, the more equitable distribution of funding across local schools and its ambition to create sustainable, appropriately resourced schools. 
 
Admission to the primary school, including nursery pupils transferring to fulltime education will be in line with the Council’s Admission Policy.  However, full-time pupils currently on roll at Pontrhydyfen Primary school will automatically transfer to the roll of Cwmafan Primary school, subject to the wishes of parents and Y6 pupil transfers to secondary education. 
 
It is not proposed that there will be any adaptations made to the buildings or facilities as there is sufficient accommodation available at Cwmafan Primary school.  Capital build does not form part of this proposal.  Site works amounting to £38k will be undertaken to provide a safe drop-off/pick-up point within the school grounds for school buses.  General building repair and maintenance requirements will be dealt with as part of the Council’s programme for maintaining schools and from the school’s delegated budget responsibilities. 
 
Statutory Notice 
 
At the Cabinet meeting of the 15th April 2015, the outcome of consultation was considered.  Comments opposing the proposal did not, on balance, present a convincing argument suggesting modification or abandonment of the proposal.  As such, the case for the proposal remained strong and Members approved the statutory publication of the proposal.  To this effect, a statutory notice was published on the 21st April 2015 allowing the required 28 day period for submitting objections which ran until 18th May 2015. 
 
The statutory notice is available using the electronic link in the section on background papers listed below.  An objection report is attached to this report as appendix A. 
 
Objections to the proposal 
 
A total of 1115 objections have been submitted.  A breakdown of the objections received is as follows: 
 
E-mails and letters (some of which are re-submitted from consultation)   246 
Re-submitted consultation comment forms as an objection   	 	    158 	
Signed standardised objection letter   		 	 	    191 	
Signed form objecting to increase in traffic flow (Cwmavon)  	 	      48 	
Signed form objecting to safety of children-  	 	 	 	    330 	
Signed form supporting proposed ‘Pelenna Primary School’  	 	    142 	
 
As well as the objections received, two petitions have been submitted to save Pontrhydyfen Primary School, a paper petition with 50 signatures and an electronic petition with 1734 names. 
 
It has not been possible to categorise the objections by type of objector as individuals have not, in the majority of cases, indicated whether they are school staff, governing body, pupil, parent or other. 
 
Copies of the objections are available in the Members’ Library at the Civic Centres at Neath and Port Talbot. 
 
In the period following the closure date for the submission of objections, Members will have been sent, direct by e-mail, bulletins from Pontrhydyfen Governors; the latest, to date, being marked as No 5. 
 
In the Cabinet reports of the 15th April 2015, a petition of 1628 signatures opposing the proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school was wrongly attributed to the Tonmawr Primary school consultation responses.  This error was immediately corrected on the Council’s SSIP webpage documentation and is reported, here, for completeness. 
 
Staffing  
 
Closure of Pontrhydyfen Primary school will mean that existing staff contracts need to be terminated and, in view of the requirement for notice of redundancy to be given by 31st May to take effect on 31st August, notice has been issued to staff.  Had this not been done then teaching contracts would have continued to 31st December 2015 even if Cabinet decide on 10th June to implement the proposal to close the school on 31st August.  To support staff, the management of change process applies.  Officers from the Council have met with staff and commenced the necessary processes to ensure staff are able to access their statutory rights and entitlements.  Should the proposal not be implemented, then offers of new employment upon existing terms and conditions, will be made to as many staff as the school’s budget permits.  The Council has a proven track record for supporting employees in such situations, working with the teacher associations/trade unions to secure, as needs arise, alternative employment for staff. 
Funding 
 
Consolidated Budget Shares for 2015/16 were issued in early March 2015.  As the outcome of the proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school was not known at that juncture, arrangements for the school’s budget allocation were modified to accommodate this circumstance.  Whereas Pontrhydyfen Primary school’s budget share allocation for the full financial year has been calculated, only funding for the period April 2015 to August 2015 has been released.  Funding for the period September 2015 to March 2016 has been centrally retained until a decision as to whether or not to implement the proposal has been taken. 
 
Community Impact Assessment 
 
A community impact assessment has been undertaken and this recognises the importance of Pontrhydyfen Primary School in providing a venue for school based events and extra-curricular activity.  Under this proposal these activities can be preserved and transferred to Cwmafan Primary School.  It will be for the head teacher and Governing Body of the school to plan and manage this to ensure that all pupils have equal opportunities.  
 
There are no external hires of the school buildings as community groups are catered for elsewhere in the village, however it is noted that the education and welfare of the children beyond the traditional school day should be protected and made provision for, an important factor if the children and the parents are to continue to play a full part in the community where they live.  All existing community facilities in Pontrhydyfen are to be retained and under this proposal there is an opportunity to make better use of those that are underutilised. 
 
The focus of the assessments is in line with the requirements of the Code of Practice and the full community impact assessment is available using the electronic link in the section on background papers, listed below. 
 
Equality Impact Assessment 
 
An equality impact assessment has been carried out and found that there is no adverse effect on any particular group and the process has checks and monitoring in place.  Any potential adverse effect has been evaluated and impact mitigated. 
 
The equality impact assessment is attached to this report (appendix B) and is also available using the electronic link in the section on background papers, listed below. 
Consideration of Pelenna Primary – a counter proposal 
 
The governing bodies of Pontrhydyfen Primary and Tonmawr Primary schools submitted a counter proposal on 6th May 2015, for the Council’s consideration.  They proposed the establishment of an amalgamated school on a single site that they contended would be “a sustainable, affordable and acceptable way of continuing the outstanding level of education of the children of the Pelenna community (and others who prefer small school education) in the 21st Century”.  The proposed school would be known as Pelenna Primary and would be located on the site of Tonmawr Primary school.  Both governing bodies agreed upon the site in response to a report commissioned by both schools and produced by an independent education consultant. 
 
This option (option 5 of the Review of Alternative options) was presented to Members at the meeting of the 15th April 2015.  However, the Governing Bodies requested further consideration be given on the basis of additional information provided. 
 
It is the view of officers that, having given careful consideration to the proposal, it cannot be recommended to Members.  The proposal is not considered to be sustainable both in the context of the requirements to improve standards and in the provision of a minimum level of resources for a school.  Pelenna Primary would still be a relatively small school receiving higher than average per pupil funding; having capacity issues in terms of the sustainable delivery of the curriculum; lacking the physical capacity to become a larger school without capital funding (not currently available); and requiring transport to be provided for approximately half the pupils. 
 
The submission and the officer response are attached to this report (appendix C). 
 
Consideration of the objections to the proposal 
 
The objections are summarised in the objection report (appendix A) together with officer responses.  Members are reminded that objections must be conscientiously considered in an open minded approach, alongside the case put forward for implementation of proposal.  In this respect, there is an expectation that Members will have read and given due regard to the consultation document, the consultation report, the statutory notice and the comments and objections received together with officer comments, as well as related background papers including the community impact assessment, the equality impact assessment, the review of alternative options and the Pelenna Primary counter proposal. 
In responding to the objections raised, officers have commented on: (a) Quality and standards in education; (b) Class sizes and pupil outcomes; (c) School size and education effectiveness; (d) Large schools and bullying; (e) Care, support and guidance in large schools; (f) Attendance; (g) Secondary school transition; (h) Pupil admission numbers; (i) Capacity at Cwmafan Primary; (j) Backlog maintenance; (k) Transport; (l) Alternative options including federation; (m) Nursery pupils; (n) Staffing; (o) Community; and (p) Consultation process.  Issues addressed directly with Public Law Solicitors comprise: (a) Alternative options; (b) Home to school transport; (c) Leadership and management; (d) Forecasted savings; (e) Alternative use of school buildings; (f) Failure to provide information; (g) Failure to provide sufficient reasons and (h) Failure to ensure consultation conscientiously taken into account.  The response to Public Law Solicitors is attached as appendix F. 
 
Although the case for maintaining Pontrhydyfen Primary as a local village school has been clearly voiced by those opposed to the proposal, it is the opinion of officers that concerns raised by objectors can be mitigated by management and organisational arrangements as set out in the responses to the objections.  In addition, comments opposing the proposal do not, on balance, present a convincing argument against its implementation. 
 
Having given careful and thorough consideration to the objections and to comments and alternative options, it is the opinion of officers that the case for closure remains strong and convincing.  Members, therefore, are recommended to approve implementation of the proposal to make provision for pupils in the area served by Pontrhydyfen Primary school to receive primary phase, English medium education at Cwmafan Primary school as from 1st September 2015 and to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school on 31st August 2015. 
 
Formal procedures 
 
The School Standards & Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 provides for the local authority to determine whether to implement proposals where there is no requirement for approval by the Welsh Ministers.  This proposal requires no such approval and, as such, following consideration of the objections submitted during the 28 day statutory objection period it falls to Cabinet to determine whether the proposal is to be implemented. 
 
Recommendation 
 
Having given due regard to the EIA and other relevant documentation as listed above, in respect of this proposal it is recommended that, in line with Section 53 of the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013, Members determine to implement the proposal to discontinue Pontrhydyfen Primary school and to make provision for pupils who would otherwise have attended there, at Cwmafan Primary school. 
 
The date of implementation to be 1st September 2015. 
 
Reasons for Proposed Decision 
 
The concerns raised by those objecting to the proposal can be mitigated by management and organisational arrangements as set out in the objection response and, as such, the case for closure remains strong.  With no requirement for approval by the Welsh Government, the decision to implement the proposal rests with Cabinet.  Implementing the proposal will enable the Council to meet its commitment and responsibility to: 
a.	promote high standards and the fulfilment of every child’s potential; 
b.	meet its duty to secure efficient and sustainable education in its area;  
c.	comply with legislative requirements. 
 
List of Background Papers 
 
The objections to the proposal are available for Members to read in the Members’ Library at Neath and Port Talbot Civic Centres.  In addition, the following background papers are relevant to this proposal” (a list was set out, with hyperlinks to the internet). 

53.	The Objections Report included the following passages
“Proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school and make arrangements for the pupils to receive their education at Cwmafan Primary school 
 
1. 	Purpose of the objection report 
 
This report is to inform the outcome of the objection period which commenced on 21st April 2015 and ended on 18th May 2015. During this period a statutory notice was made available on the Council’s website under the Strategic School Improvement section and sent to all those on the consultee list below. 
 
2. 	Summary of objections received  
 
Many of the objections received are resubmitted comments received during the consultation period.  These comments will be familiar as Members have already read the consultation responses.  However, Members are reminded that an individual is able to resubmit their previous comment as an objection.  Therefore Members should ensure that these comments submitted as an objection are reconsidered. 
 
All objections received during the objection period have been made available in the Members Library at Neath Civic Centre and Port Talbot Civic Centre together with all comments received during the consultation period for further perusal.  Comments and objections are available to all Neath Port Talbot Elected Members. 
 
1115 objections have been submitted, it has not been possible to fully categorise the objections by type of objector as individuals have not, in the majority of cases, indicated whether they are school staff, governing body, pupil, parent or other.  A breakdown of the objections received is as follows: 
 
E-mails and letters (some of which are re-submitted from consultation)   246 
Re-submitted consultation comment forms as an objection   		158 	
Signed standardised objection letter   	 	 	 	 	191 	
Signed form objecting to increase in traffic flow (Cwmavon)  	 	  48 	
Signed form objecting to safety of children-  	 	 	 	330 	
Signed form supporting proposed ‘Pelenna Primary School’  	 	142 	
 
As well as the objections received two petitions have been submitted to save Pontrhydyfen Primary School, a paper petition with 50 signatures and an electronic petition with 1734 names. 
 
A summary of those objections is set out below: 
 
Pontrhydyfen Primary School 
-	A number of the objectors have signed a standard letter which states:  based on the recent decision to move forward with the proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary School, I would like to resubmit my original letter of objection as I feel many of the objections remain valid and/or have not been fully answered in the final consultation report of the 10th April 2015. 
-	Amount of traffic surrounding the streets around Cwmavon School is going to cause extra dangers in getting children to and from school.  Drop off points are not accessible.  Class sizes at Cwmafan School.  It is going to rip the heart out of the community. 
-	Children are able to walk and cycle to school. The whole aspect of mixed age groups and small numbers of pupils has great advantages, the younger children are mentored by the older pupils. 
-	There is a limited bus service to Cwmavon resulting in lack of choice in attending breakfast club or after-school clubs. 
-	There will be additional pupil travel time and the road traffic at Cwmafan Primary School. 
-	The so called surplus places at the school were created by the LEA by changing the PAL in the years since I retired.    Pontrhydyfen is an excellent school and the staff over the years have proved themselves to be fully effective, adaptable and supportive of the children.  Children's progress and results have been exemplary, particularly those recently.  A system of Federation involving small schools was accepted and is in progress in the upper Afan Valley.  Why then cannot a similar system be put in place for the lower Afan Valley.  Closure would have a devastating effect on the future of the community.  Health & safety of the children would be compromised. 
-	……………………………….I am deeply concerned about the safety aspect of transportation of my daughter to Cwmafan School.  I would also have no contact with the school if I was to put her on the bus. 
-	I do not feel that the consultation process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner by the local authority.  Many of the questions and points raised during the consultation period have not been addressed or answered either fully or in most cases not at all.  The views of the pupils, parents, grandparents and the general public have not been considered at all whilst reaching the present decision, including the social and economic impact it will have on the families of Pontrhydyfen.  The only bus trial was carried out midmorning when school traffic conditions are not being replicated and do not in any way consider the chaotic and dangerous situation that presently exist. - 	The bus route and the plans for the car park behind the school needs to be robustly looked into before any decision can be made.  The lack of nursery provision and the proposal to charge parents for a possible bus space one-way is disgusting.  You are purposefully causing a barrier to children accessing education.  This will result in children needing to catch up with their peers who have the advantage of living in Cwmafan and being in a learning environment already for 1 / 2 years. 
-	Numerous individuals have signed a standard letter to state they support the actions of both the Pontrhydyfen and Tonmawr governing bodies who are actively working in partnership to propose a sustainable school, Pelenna Primary. This school would be located in the Pelenna Community and created by the amalgamation of both schools onto one site.  
-	Numerous individuals have signed a standard letter to state that they wish to register their objections.  The letter provides details under the following headings child safety/biased statements/delays in the process/costing of options/errors on the consultation report/budget/prejudgement – the details of the objections are responded to within ‘ NPTCBC response to objections raised’ below. 
 
Stephen Kinnock PM 
A federation of all the schools is the best option as it would deliver savings yet still maintain a school in our valley village communities.  Expresses concerns over pupil travel, capacity at Cwmafan Primary school and also building maintenance backlog at Cwmafan Primary school. 
 
David Rees AM 
The local authority has indicated in its proposals to provide transportation for pupils of statutory school age currently attending Bryn primary school but no such reassurances have been given to pupils attending Pontrhydyfen primary school unless they reside outside the 2 mile radius. This will impact upon pupils who live in Oakwood and who will be required to walk to school from the age of 5 (statutory) along the B4286 which will require them to cross that road at least once without any indication of safe crossings being made available.  These pupils will also have to cross other busy roads in Cwmafan where no school crossings exist. I do not consider the Sustrans route (cycle route along the old Swansea Bay & Rhondda Railway Line) safe due to its’ lack of lighting for winter months and the many secluded areas that exist along that route.  Concerns over where pupils will be ‘dropped off’ and ‘picked up’ from particularly if regular bus stops on Depot Road are to be used.  A robust provision of nursery education helps our young people develop and creates a strong educational ethos both in pupils and families.  This decision could place additional burdens upon families as they strive to ensure their children are able to benefit from the nursery education provision available with the authority.   Closure will result in young families being asked to find funding for transport and to make their own arrangements to collect them from school at the end of the nursery session.  This could result in children not attending nursery provision.  If the decision is to transfer all pupils to Cwmafan Primary School then the pupil numbers would significantly exceed Cwmafan’s current capacity any building works at Cwmafan would result in the loss of facilities and possible overcrowding in play areas.  The full detailed cost needs to be made available to all prior to any final decision being made.  The significant amount of work coupled with the additional costs of bus dropping off point improvements and transport costs cast serious doubts over any suggested savings.  Federation as an option – federate Bryn Primary School, Pontrhydyfen Primary School and Tonmawr Primary School, or federate Pontrhydyfen Primary School and Tonmawr Primary School alongside a federation between Cwmafan Primary School and Bryn Primary School. 

 
Bethan Jenkins AM 
The current level of traffic around Cwmafan School is unacceptable with parents frequently blocking the lane behind Depot Road.  It is already dangerous for adults and children on foot, this will only be made worse by increasing numbers to include Bryn and Pontrhydyfen.  There is no breakfast club at Cwmafan School.  The proposed route for the children to walk is dangerous, the track is unlit, slippery when wet and runs along a fast flowing river.  The busy road has long stretches of unpaved areas.  The Council report has errors and speculation on the school figures, current pupil numbers and predicted school numbers. 
 
Suzy Davies AM 
The LEA’s preferred option does not explain adequately why other options were dismissed.  The consultation report directs the reader to information by way of a web-link, anyone requesting a hard copy of the report would not have been able to access the additional information and for them the report would not have complied with the School Organisation Code.  In a borough with a high score on the multiple deprivation index and so a level of digital exclusion it was foreseeable that individuals entitled to a copy of the consultation responses would not have been able to access the weblink to the fuller officer responses. 
 
Pelenna Community Council 
………………………………………………The Community Council is particularly concerned for the safety aspect of busing pupils to Crynallt and Cwmavon schools, along busy commuter routes, arriving at schools with unsafe drop off points. Clearly this hasn’t been thought through at all.  The present situation outside Crynallt and Cwmavon Schools is already chaotic.  This cannot be allowed to deteriorate further with the transfer of our children. 
 
Cllr Martin Ellis 
Cllr Ellis has submitted a detailed 19 page objection letter a summary of his main points are: 
•	The value and success of Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen schools has been misrepresented and undervalued in both the initial closure consideration and in the consultation process 
•	The educational performance of small schools has been misrepresented generally and specifically to this local authority, and used as a basis to support the decision to close schools on the grounds of size. 
•	Alternative options to closure were not fully explored not provided in a timely nor objective way within the consultation time-frame, including the option of an amalgamation of the two schools on one site as a new school. 
•	There is some evidence that decision for closure has been pre-determined prior to the consultation and objection processes, and has not met consistently the requirements of the Schools Organisational Code, nor properly and fully responded to the consultations, and the Council is therefore open to challenge through judicial review. 
•	Throughout the process the letter and intention of the Schools Organisational Code has not been fully implemented and that a failure to establish clear lines of communication and discussion have led to a breakdown of trust to the detriment of both the schools and the Local Authority, who, with its clear intention to close these schools has failed to fairly consider the clear evidence from consultation that the process has not been seen as open and fair. 
 
Cllr David Whitelock 
Trial run (bus route) was carried out mid-morning and not at school starting and finishing times and requested that another trial be carried out.  It has still not been demonstrated how the bus from Pontrhydyfen will transport the children to Cwmafan school safely, there has been no mention of collection or drop of points or additional parking for relatives dropping off/collecting pupils or where these buses will turn in Pontrhydyfen, or where all the displaced cars will go from the car park in Cwmafan these cars will only serve to make matters worse when it comes to the busses arriving at Cwmafan.  The proposals put forward by both the Pontrhydyfen and Tonmawr governors for a merged school on a single site is something that a lot of very serious consideration should be given to. 
 
Pontrhydyfen Governing Body 
The GB has submitted two very detailed objections, response to the objections raised by Pontrhydyfen Governing Body is contained within ‘NPTCBC response to objections raised’ below. 
 
Pontrhydyfen Governing Body are promoting establishing a single school in the Pelenna Ward and have provided a detailed document in partnership with Tonmawr Governing Body for consideration. 
 
Public Law Solicitors (acting on behalf of a Pontrhydyfen Primary School parent and in respect of Pontrhydyfen School Action group ) 
The Council has received three letters from Public Law Solicitors in respect of the proposal relating to Pontrhydyfen Primary School, the first dated the 10th March 2015 (on this occasion acting on behalf of the Parent’s Action Group of Pontrhydyfen Primary School) was received outside of the consultation period.  The second dated 1st May 2015 outlines the grounds for objection and requests that their letter of the 10th March 2015 and the submissions contained therein also be considered as part of their objection which is submitted on behalf of their client Ms Jones.  The third letter dated 18th May 2015 considers a response from the Council and stipulates further submissions.  All letters received from Public Law Solicitors are provided within the bundle of objections available in the Members Library at Neath Civic Centre and Port Talbot Civic Centre.  Public Law Solicitors contend that insufficient accurate and informative financial data has been made available to enable consultees to make an informed submissive.  

Cwmafan Primary School  
-	A number of Cwmafan parents objected to the increased traffic flow to and from the school by directing children from Bryn and Pontrhydyfen Primary schools to Cwmafan.  The additional buses and cars will add to the clearly congested pavement and pick-up points causing even more traffic chaos and exposing parents and children to added risks. 
-	Cwmavon residents have issues with the proposal due to the problems with the parking that already exist and the proposals for Bryn and Pontrhydyfen making the situation worse.  Residents already have a problem with double parking and blocking access, there are regular complaints to Community policing. 
-	Concerns over the parking area now available be eliminated in favour of a turning point for buses to convey children upon closure of Bryn and Pontrhydyfen schools. 
-	Numerous individuals have signed a standard letter to state that they wish to formally register their objection/concerns regarding the safety implications/increased traffic problems relocating Bryn and Pontrhydyfen Schools to Cwmafan.  The plans in place to manage the cars and buses are not robust and will lead to significant worsening of already difficult situation and will be a permanent safety risk to the children/parents/residents of the area. - 	Cwmavon governors have not submitted an objection but make the following comment: The temporary governing body at Cwmafan Primary school are fully supportive of the proposal in providing an excellent education for both our present children and children who may join us in the future.  They do not feel that federation would be appropriate option at the current time. 
 
Officer response to objections raised 
 
Quality and Standards in Education  

		……………………………………………………………….
Class Sizes and Pupil Outcomes 
……………………………………………………………………………….
School Size and Education Effectiveness 
…………………………………………………………………….
Large Schools and Bullying  
……………………………………………………………………
Care, Support and Guidance in Large Schools 
……………………………………………………………………………
Attendance  
…………………………………………………………………….  
 
Secondary School Transition 
……………………………………………………………………   
 
Pupil Admission Numbers 
………………………………………………………………………
Capacity at Cwmafan Primary 
Objections have stated that extra pupils admitted to Cwmafan would mean that the school would exceed capacity but this is not the case and it has been fully demonstrated in the Additional Information document presented as part of the consultation documentation. Cwmafan has at least 19 rooms which could be designated as class bases, currently only 12 are being used as such and there are no associated costs involved in re -designating the rooms.  In addition playground areas are sufficient for the intended numbers of pupils including both hard standing and grassed areas, and dining facilities are able to accommodate many more children than they currently provide for. 
 
Full details of the projected pupil numbers for Cwmafan Primary in the near future have been included in previous reports.  
 
Backlog Maintenance 
The Council’s ability to maintain its school buildings is dependent on resources, i.e. public money.  As has been widely reported, the Council has an ageing school building stock, the repair and maintenance of which is greater than the resources available.  Maintenance works at Cwmafan Primary will take place when necessary, it is not the case that work needs to be done in preparation for extra pupils but as is the case for every school in the County Borough, repairs will be prioritised by need. 
 
All condition surveys relating to the schools involved have been summarised in the documents, and all relevant information has been reported.  
 
Transport 
Objections have been received which suggest that a trial run took place at a time of day which was not appropriate to assess traffic conditions.  A trial run has taken place to investigate fully the possibility of a 33 seater bus being able to travel to Cwmafan via Ynysygwas hill.  The trial proved conclusively that there would be no difficulty involved in travelling along this route under normal circumstances.  
 
Two further trial runs have been conducted, timed to arrive at Cwmafan at 8.20am and 8.40am.  At both times the bus arrived at the school with no delay and did not encounter any obstructions or difficulty in reaching its destination.  Further investigations undertaken on different days at similar times in the morning confirmed that this would appear to be the case and that there should be no difficulty or additional safety concerns for pupils should the proposal take place.  Trials have also been undertaken to assess traffic conditions at the end of the school day, and again there were no delays or obstructions noted.   
 
The travel time for pupils from Pontrhydyfen to Cwmafan under normal circumstances should take approximately 10 minutes.  
 
As regards the morning drop-off and end of day pick-up arrangements for pupils using school buses, it is intended to upgrade the car park at the rear of the school for this purpose. 
 
Separate to the proposals to close Bryn Primary and Pontrhydyfen Primary schools, resurfacing and making good the car park at the rear of Cwmafan Primary school has been identified as priority work to arrest continued deterioration the effect of which, if not addressed, would likely result in it being taken out of use.  An opportunity presents itself to develop this scheme further with supplementary work that would provide dedicated car parking bays, a separate, segregated turning area for buses (which could also be used as hard surface play area during the school day) and additional car parking area within the school grounds.  The extra cost of this scheme associated with this proposal amounts to approx. £38k. 
 
As noted in the consultation report, the route between Pontrhydyfen Primary school and Cwmafan Primary school has been risk assessed and the cost of mitigation measures needed to make it a suitable walking route are likely to be significant.  As such, assistance with travel will be provided for eligible pupils and, based on information held on the home addresses of pupils; a 49 seater bus will be required at a cost of approx. £25k per year.  The additional traffic expected to impact on Cwmafan because of this proposal and the separate proposal to close Bryn Primary should amount to two buses, timed to arrive at no later than 8.40am to minimise any further disruption in the area with parents dropping off pupils for the start of the school day.  
 
The Police and Crime Commissioner is a consultee in the proposal.  The Police traffic management unit has commented that provided any conflict between parents/pupils and bus movements are controlled in the car park area, any safety issues should be addressed. The NPTCBC road safety unit has been working closely with their colleagues within the Strategic School Improvement area, to address issues raised in the correspondence by the school governor’s.  
The school has all relevant safeguarding policies and practices in place and Traffic Management Plans have been a part of the school Safeguarding portfolio for many years.  Concerns over pupil safety have been thoroughly considered and any perceived risks have been mitigated.  Should the proposal be approved then further work will take place with pupils, parents and the school to ensure that updated management plans are in place, understood by all and are operating effectively in practice. It is universally recognised that the safety of both parents and pupils attending Cwmafan School is paramount. 
 
While this proposal recognises that for the majority of children from 
Pontrhydyfen cycling and walking to school will not be practicable, there will still be opportunities through curricular and extra-curricular arrangements for pupils to learn about the importance of a healthy lifestyle, and to take part in various activities that promote this. 
 
Alternative Options including federation 
Objections have been received which state that alternative options have not been considered.  However, the consultation document contained specific information regarding options that had been considered and included the justification of why these were not the preferred choice.  Additionally alongside the consultation report a 53 page document reviewing alternative options has been made available, outlining potential advantages and disadvantages, staffing considerations, financial implications both potential savings and costs including estimated additional works and transport as appropriate, and an officer comment explaining why the options are not the preferred choice.  These include various combinations including building a new school, amalgamation of Tonmawr and Pontrhydyfen primaries, a federation of Bryn, Pontrhydyfen and Tonmawr primary schools and a federation of Bryn, Pontrhydyfen, Tonmawr and Cwmafan primary schools.   
 
It is contended, therefore, that the option of federation, in all relevant combinations, has been fully considered.  In a federation schools are managed by a single governing body which will take decisions about such matters as staffing structures and expenditure.  Under a single leadership and governance there are potential teaching and learning benefits, staff development opportunities and efficiencies that can arise from a federated arrangement.  A single governing body will be able to pool resources, share staff and facilities.  A federation also provides the opportunity to co-ordinate curriculum provision or teaching and learning strategies for the benefit of the pupils and staff to improve school performance and enhance educational experiences.  Likewise, these benefits could be delivered at an amalgamated school.  In a federation, schools remain separate legal entities retaining their name, registered pupils and budget.  Because of this, the federation would not necessarily achieve efficiencies through removing duplication, for example both schools would be inspected separately by Estyn and there would be separate expenditure trails to manage and audit. Federation is not recommended as it is considered that in this instance the benefits from a federation do not outweigh the benefits gained through the proposal to close Pontrhydyfen Primary school and make arrangements for the pupils to receive their education at Cwmafan Primary school. 
 
Objections have been received and comments made during Cabinet meetings that the option of federation has been successfully implemented in other areas in Neath Port Talbot and that substantial savings could be made if the same model was followed in this situation.  The two examples cited are the amalgamation of Velindre, Ysgol Hendre and Bryncoch PRU, and the Federated Schools of the Afan Valley.  There are fundamental differences in these two examples when compared to the federation/amalgamation options that have been put forward in this case.  
 
Velindre, Ysgol Hendre and Bryncoch PRU offer specialist provision for mainly secondary pupils with a range of challenging needs including social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, children with autistic spectrum disorder, and with moderate or severe learning difficulties.  This federation came into existence due to the specialised nature of the schools involved and the recognition that current practice within the authority needed to adapt as a result of changes in demand for places and the needs of the children currently being educated in the county borough.  It was considered the best model for the schools in this instance but clearly operates under very different circumstances to those of a mainstream primary school. 
 
The Federated Schools of the Afan Valley also operates in a distinct way due to the nature of this particular federation.  This involves 4 primary schools and one secondary school, and has a management composition to reflect this structure.  Within the federation there is one overall head teacher with 2 phase leaders (for primary and secondary) who do not have a substantive teaching commitment.  The responsibilities of these individuals are substantial and are above those expected of a deputy or assistant head teacher in a primary school.  There are also 4 lead learners who are mainly based in each primary school, and who perform the role similar to that of a deputy head teacher, and includes a reduced teaching timetable. In the secondary sector there are approximately 6 TLR holders, and an Additional Learning Needs Co-ordinator operates across all the schools, again with limited teaching responsibility.  
 
The Review of Alternative Options document included estimated financial modelling based on the appropriate number of staff with the appropriate level of teaching commitment that is deemed necessary to ensure the effective delivery of the primary curriculum.  It is not dissimilar to that currently operating within the Federated Schools of the Afan Valley within the primary sector, although clearly the extra management support from the secondary sector would not be present or affordable.  In conclusion it can be seen that a more cost effective and sustainable model can be achieved through the closure of Pontrhydyfen and the transfer of pupils to Cwmafan. 
 
Nursery Pupils  
The consultation document contains details of nursery provision, and all capacity calculations include nursery pupil numbers.  There is no reason why nursery aged pupils who currently attend Pontrhydyfen would not have a place at Cwmafan Primary under this proposal.  
There is no entitlement to transport assistance for nursery children.  In line with the Council transport policy, an escort will be provided.  Parents of nursery age pupils will be able to purchase spare seats at a cost of £130 per year.  These arrangements are no less favourable that those applying to other parents of nursery age children across the County Borough.  
 
Staffing  
As stated in the consultation documentation and related reports, with any school closure there will be changes to current staffing arrangements and this proposal will impact on school staff employment.  Closure of Pontrhydyfen Primary school will mean that existing staff contracts need to be terminated and, in view of the requirement for notice of redundancy to be given by 31st May to take effect on 31st August, notice has been issued to staff. Had this not been done then teaching contracts would have continued to 31st December 2015 even if Cabinet decided on 10th June to implement the proposal to close the schools on 31st August. To support staff, the management of change process applies.  Officers from the Council have met with staff and commenced the necessary processes to ensure staff are able to access their statutory rights and entitlements.  Should the proposal not be implemented then offers of new employment upon existing terms and conditions will be made to as many staff as the schools’ budgets permit.  The Council has a proven track record for supporting staff in such situations, working with the teacher associations/trade unions to secure, as needs arise, alternative employment for staff. 
 
Community  
……………………………………………………………………..
Consultation Process 
An objection has been received which states that questions and points raised during consultation have not been addressed and that views of consultees have not been taken into account.  This is not the case.  The views, opinions, concerns and questions of all have been sought during the consultation period and reported upon in various documents, and where possible and appropriate, requests for further information have been responded to.  The range of views have been presented to Cabinet members through written responses to consultation, within reports presented, and through debate during Cabinet meetings. During consultation meetings, consultees were given answers to questions but were also reminded that views and queries should be written and sent in to the Council as formal minutes were not taken during meetings.  
 
It has been claimed that the consultation report contains ‘errors and speculation’ in the data presented.  All information presented is factual and correct at the time of publication.  
 
An objection has been received which questions the principles of the Strategic School Improvement Programme, and the justification for this proposal.  There are four aspects involved in reviewing educational provision - educational standards, the need for places and accessibility of schools, the quality and suitability of school accommodation and effective financial management.  This is clearly reported in the consultation document. 
 
Budget issues at individual schools do not form part of this proposal and schools are not identified to be at risk of closure because they may or may not be in deficit.  However it is possible that future changes in the budget formula could make many schools at risk of financial difficulties and it is a matter that Cabinet Members needed to be aware of. Pontrhydyfen Primary is currently in a deficit situation (despite having a part time head teacher for most of this academic year), and while a recovery plan has been agreed it is still possible that next year the situation could worsen.  Redundancy processes which may or may not be taking place at other schools would be the responsibility of the leadership at that school and has no part of this proposal. 
 
Relevant information relating to this proposal has been available on the Council’s website for interested parties to view.  Anyone requesting a hard copy of any of the reports has been provided with one, in line with the School Organisation Code requirements.   
 
Objections have been received which refer to the perceived delay in the process.  However it is necessary for all involved in the decision making to have available sufficient and relevant information in order to make a fully informed decision.  All statutory time frames have been adhered to.   
 
An objection has been received which states that the School Organisation Code has not been followed and that there is evidence of pre determination.  This claim is not substantiated with evidence.  The Council is confident that procedures have been followed and that the proposal has been considered at a formative stage. 
 
It is accepted that there was an error in the Consultation Report regarding the recording of the number of signatures received on a petition, however the content of the petition was correctly noted and issues raised were addressed within the document.  Flexible nursery provision was incorrectly labelled 
‘wrap-around care’ in the Council’s response to Estyn, again this does not directly effect on the response to the issue raised, i.e. that of pre-school provision in the area.  
 
As regards the list of 86 questions asked by the governing body, the Council is confident that these have been answered either directly or in the body and substance of the various documents.  A cross-check list is available. 
 
At the Cabinet meeting of 15th April 2015, officers confirmed that a judicial review pre-action protocol letter had been received and that a response would be prepared. 
 
It is contended, therefore, that due regard has been given to the pre-action protocol letter.”

54.	As noted above there was an Appendix dealing with a counter proposal which is not the subject matter of any challenge in these proceedings, and the Council’s list of questions asked by the Governing Body, and the source of the answers it relied on. 
55.	Cabinet resolved to approve the proposal, with an implementation date of 1st September 2015, and that officers investigate the provision of free school transport for a period of 2 years and report back to Members.
The case for Ms Wiggins
56.	The Claimant argued the following:
i)	the Code at paragraph 3.1 encapsulates the principles to be derived from Gunning v Brent LBC [1985] 84 LGR 168
ii)	there is a duty under paragraph 3.2 of the code to categorise the nature of the costs that might arise, which will include, for example the costs of redundancy for staff, the costs of maintaining the fabric of a closed school and the costs of any contracts which might have to be ended. If such costs cannot be quantified, then the proposing Council must explain why it cannot;
in the case of redundancy payments, if the Council did not know whether they would be payable (because of an employee getting another job) they could at least have set out the maximum costs which could occur. Despite the point being raised expressly with the Council, and information being promised in the Consultation Report, no response was ever given which dealt with the quantum of such costs;
iii)	it would be wrong to treat the £286,000 backlog figure for maintenance as coming from the school budget;
iv)	the Consultation Report gave a higher figure for backlog maintenance (£ 458,000) than the original figure of £ 286,000 but did not explain why it had occurred;
v)	the Objections Report did not refer to the objection from the Governing Body;
vi)	no response was made to the argument that the costs had been exaggerated;
vii)	it was wrong to rely on members reading objections;
viii)	a witness statement from Mr Peter Jenkins, Chairperson of the Governors, states that her claim was supported by the Governors, the Parents’ Action Group and the overwhelming majority of parents with children at the school. 
The case for Ms Jones
57.	The Claimant argued the following
i)	she argued the same point on the Code as Ms Wiggins
ii)	she argued the same point on the costs of redundancy as Ms Wiggins;
iii)	the change in the savings claimed had not been properly explained. In the Consultation Report the backlog maintenance figure had been given as £729,000, but there had been no explanation when asked for. The savings had reduced to £164,000 from the original £ 399,000, and no explanation was given;
iv)	while the Consultation Report stated that the costs of the school bus had been assessed at £ 25,000, it was not stated whether there was an overlap between that and the original assessment of costs;
v)	the Consultation Report did not reflect the responses that there was inadequate information, or that the figures had been exaggerated;
vi)	the Review of Alternative Options in the Consultation Report did not address the federation of Pontrhydyfen with Cwmafan. At the Objections stage it was wrong to treat that option as being covered by the review of other options;
vii)	the solicitor’s argument in the letter of 18th May 2015 that the transport costs had not been taken account of (and thus that the saving was reduced to £ 11,500) had not been addressed. Mr Wallace (the solicitor) argued in a witness statement that no amount had been included in the original Consultation Document, and that therefore the figure of c £ 25,000 per annum must be an additional cost;
The case for Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
58.	Mr Williams QC for NPTCBC argued as follows in the case of Ms Wiggins;
i)	the reasons for the proposal were set out in the original Consultation Document. Costs and the financial implications were one but only one factor;
ii)	although accepting that cost was a material consideration as a matter of general public law, it was argued that redundancy payments are one off costs which do not fall within the terms of the Code - see “Finance” in section 3.2;
iii)	the Court should look at what had happened since the decision with regard to redundancy. Evidence from Richard Gordon, the Programme manager of the Strategic Schools Improvement Programme, showed that of 9 members of staff served with redundancy notices, 4 had obtained other employment, and 4 had been advised of other suitable employment opportunities within the Borough Council. The Clun Head Teacher had applied for and been offered voluntary redundancy;
iv)	the backlog maintenance figures had all been sufficiently justified. They did not come out of the school’s budget;
v)	in the case of the transport costs related to pupils travelling to Ynysfach, there were no costs figures given in the original Consultation Document. The figures in the Consultation Report (£25,000) were added to the costs of the proposal. That figure was given as an estimate £ 28,000 in a meeting with parents on 28th November 2014, but was later refined to £ 24,000 per annum.
vi)	even if one assumed that every member of staff would be made redundant, and that each one earned the same salary as the head teacher, the savings would be less than the savings in backlog maintenance of £ 568,000, less the transport costs of £ 24,000 p.a. and one off roadworks costing £7500. There would also be some amount in saved costs of keeping the school open, and some unspecified amount to anticipate as proceeds of sale.
vii)	it followed that one should apply the test in section 31(3) (C) and (D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Even if redundancy costs had been taken into account the outcome would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred. 
59.	In the case of Ms Jones, NPTCBC argued that
i)	The same case was made on redundancy costs;
ii)	as shown in the witness statement from Mr Gordon of NPTCBC, the 49 seater bus was large enough so that all the pupils currently at Pontrhydyfen who live further from Cwmafan would be accommodated, as well as those entitled under the schools transport policy;
iii)	the financial appraisal in the original report to Cabinet did not give a particular figure for transport costs in its assessment (see Report under “Financial Benefits”).  However the revised figure of £ 164,000 in the Consultation Report took into account annual transport costs (see paragraphs preceding Table 8). That figure was later calculated as £ 25,000, as appears from the Consultation Report under “Home to School Transport.” It also (next page) refers to the cost of £38,000 for works to provide parking and access. The claimant’s contention that another  £25,000 p.a should be added is misconceived;
iv)	as to the suggested federation of the two schools, that had been considered and rejected in the original proposal, and the reasons set out. Mr Gordon’s evidence was that the later Alternative Options document could be used to allow members to form a view of the strengths and weaknesses of the options. No more was required;
v)	even if one assumed that every member of staff would be made redundant, and that each one earned the same salary as the head teacher, the savings would be less than the savings in backlog maintenance of £ 729,000, less the capital cost of £ 38,000 and transport costs of £ 25,000 p.a. There would also be some amount in saved costs of keeping the school open, and some unspecified amount to anticipate as proceeds of sale.
vi)	it followed that one should apply the test in section 31(3) (C) and (D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Even if redundancy costs had been taken into account the outcome would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained of not occurred;
vii)	she had complained that the process of consultation was unfair and unlawful. That being so, she should have issued her application for permission to apply for judicial review at that stage.
Response by Ms Hannett for the Claimants
60.	She argued that
i)	the Defendant’s claim that Ms Jones’ claim should not be granted permission because of delay was misconceived. If she had issued her claim before the process was complete, the point would have been taken that it had been premature.
ii)	the point about the ambit of the Code was never argued until after the claim had been made. The renewal application argues in any event that it was a material consideration;
iii)	the ambit of the Code Under “Finance” is not exclusive but inclusive;
iv)	so far as the explanation for the transport costs figure at Pontrhydyfen is concerned, the public were misled as to the cost;
v)	the Senior Courts Act 1981 point should be rejected. One should assess the circumstances as at the date of the decision, and not second guess how the decision maker would have weighed the factors;
vi)	as to the calculation of savings, it would be wrong to count them all, as we do not know the period over which they would be calculated. She also maintained that some would fall within the figure already identified as savings in the school budget. It was not to be assumed that the sites would be disposed of. The redundancy costs were significant, and other closure costs had not been identified;
vii)	There had been no argument before the court that the grant of relief would be harmful to good administration.
Discussion and Conclusions
61.	I start with three matters of general observation. Firstly, the closure of a school in a small community will often raise great concern, as one would expect. Parents like those of the children at these two schools want the best for their children, and can form strong bonds with the school and its teachers. As this case shows with clarity the prospect of change and of their children having to go to another larger school has excited considerable concern. It is quite natural that a parent’s view of what is best for his or her child may not coincide with the views of the Education Authority where the closure of a school is concerned.
62.	But secondly, resources are not infinite, and the Education Authority must do what it can to achieve the appropriate educational standards within such resources as exist. It had to grapple with the fact that these two schools are operating at well below capacity, and that there was evidence that the removal of pupils to larger schools could achieve better educational outcomes for them. In dealing with questions and objections, the Council is a under a duty to provide the relevant information which has informed their proposals. But there are some limits. Thus, a description of the work which needs to be done as backlog maintenance is appropriate. The supply of detailed costings, as though one were drawing up a schedule of works, is not, and would place too great a burden on an authority.  
63.	Thirdly, the decision maker is the Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, which is a democratically elected body. My task as judge is not to form any view of whether I agree or disagree with the decisions made, but to determine if they were made within the law.
64.	I can take the first issue (the relevance of redundancy costs) very shortly. Despite the fact that NPTCBC now contend that such costs are irrelevant under the Code, when the Consultation and Objection process were under way, it went to the trouble of identifying them repeatedly as a cost which could be incurred. I do not accept that that was an error, nor that they are irrelevant under the code. As a matter of fact any redundancy payments made to an employee at a school to be closed is a cost incurred as a result of the closure, which must come out of the education budget. I agree with Ms Hannett that the words in the Code
“the financial costs of the proposal and any potential savings (………) – capital and recurrent (including staff and transport costs)”
are inclusive and not exclusive. In any event, it is plain that when one is considering whether a proposal is cost effective and produces savings, the incidence of an element of cost must be material in any event. Mr Williams accepted that it was a material matter as a matter of general principle, whatever the interpretation of the Code.
65.	I accept that the actual turnout figure of redundancy entitlements cannot be known in advance. Some figures could be used as a worst case estimate. Here, beyond identifying that there were such costs, the Council neither identified them, nor responded to the questions raised at both schools on this topic. 
66.	Mr Williams wanted me to have regard to what happened after the decisions both as to pupil numbers which had transferred, and to the redundancy situation. I declined to do so in the context of considering the lawfulness of the decision making. I shall in due course return to the topic of the redundancy issue when addressing section 31(3) C) and (D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
67.	As to the costs issue at Clun (Ms Wiggins’ case) I am entirely satisfied that NPTCBC gave all relevant information on the transport costs issue. So far as the justification for the costs of backlog maintenance, the Council did justify it and identified the reasons for the increase by reference to a survey. Ms Hannett’s case that there could have been overlap between it and the amount in the schools budget was speculative and unsupported by any evidence from the documents. Her case that there would be closure costs, or costs from the termination of contracts, was also speculative.
68.	I turn now to the issues at Pontrhydyfen. Mr Williams argued that the proceedings were out of time because a challenge was made in the Pre Action Protocol letter to the process of consultation. That would not justify rejecting Ms Jones’ claim on the grounds of delay. This was an ongoing process, and in my judgment she was entitled to wait until the final decision had been made.
69.	So far as the transport costs issue is concerned, it became abundantly clear at the hearing that the approach of NPTCBC was correct. It had not identified a figure at the stage of the first report to cabinet. In the Consultation Document it was identified that there would be an additional transport cost, and some capital spent on roadworks. The annual revenue cost was identified as of the order of £ 25,000 per annum, as was set out in the Consultation Report. Later work identified that the provision made (the 49 seater bus) could accommodate all children attending Pontrhydyfen within the catchment who lived further from Cwmafan than Pontrhydyfen. I do not accept that Mr Wallace’s recalculation is based on the true factual position.
70.	As to the assessment of the federation of Pontrhydyfen with Cwmafan, the duty under the code was (page 26 section 3.2) to give “a description of any alternatives considered and why these have been discounted” in the Consultation Document.  That was done at Option 2. The complaint of the Claimant that the federation was not considered is thus unsustainable.
71.	I accept that the Governing Body, in its representation of 15th January 2015 addressed the issue of federation, but it concentrated on different combinations of school than that of Pontrhydyfen and Cwmafan, which was mentioned as simply one of several other possibilities. It asserted, wrongly, that it was a proposal that should have been, but had not been, considered. Since then the Governing Body has chosen to pursue a wholly different concept of the single Pelenna Community School. 
72.	I agree with the Claimant that the later “Alternative Options” document did not assess this option, and I am not taken by the NPTCBC argument that it enabled an assessment to be made, but the fact of the matter is that that had already been done. It is to be noted that the reasons why the option was rejected went much wider than ones of simple cost.
73.	As to the complaint that the Consultation Report and Objections Report failed to report the responses and objections adequately, I think that ground quite unarguable. The responses were set out at length, as were the views of the Governing Body and all objections were available to members to read. At the stage of consideration of objections, the documents show that the NPTCBC went to considerable length to ensure that every single point argued by the Governing Body was addressed again.	
74.	It follows that in my view the only arguable point for both claimants is the issue of the redundancy costs. I shall now address the point raised concerning section 31(3) (C) and (D) of the SCA 1981. I have no doubt that when considering whether NPTCBC acted lawfully at the time of its decision, it would be wrong to consider evidence of what has subsequently occurred. But what I am bound to do, is to consider whether, if the costs of redundancy had been taken into account, it is highly likely that  the decision would not have been substantially different. While I accept that it would have been sensible to assume that some of the employees at the two schools would have been re-employed, the fact of the matter is that no assessment was made at the time. I therefore consider it appropriate to look at the worst case figures. Even if one assumed that everyone would be made redundant, and that the potential redundancy costs were of the same order as that which would be paid to the deputy head teacher, the figures produced at the hearing, which were not the subject of challenge, show that there would still have been savings as a result of the proposal, plus some but unspecified amount for the disposal of the buildings. One must not lose sight of the fact that the reasons for the proposals were not only based on costs. These are two schools operating at well below capacity, where there was quite a substantial amount of material, relied on by NPTCBC, that the quality of educational provision would be improved as a result of the proposals. 
75.	I therefore accept the argument of NPTCBC in each case that it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimants would not have been substantially different. I refuse leave in both cases accordingly.