“… across our 46 primary schools, almost one in five Reception places are unfilled. The primary roll dropped by over 300 pupils across all year groups in the last year. This has contributed to surplus places across all primary schools in all year groups totalling over 18%, or 2,800 of places. At six primary schools, surplus places exceed 30%. We expect this surplus to continue to rise if no action is taken.”
“…our plan was to approach capacity reduction in a phased way, starting with PAN reduction and then considering closure as a last resort. The first phase involved a total reduction of 2.5 FE, through the amalgamation of two schools in the Barnsbury planning area (achieving a reduction of 0.5 FE) and agreed PAN reductions at Highbury quadrant primary school in Highbury, Montem school in Hornsey, New North Academy in Canonbury, and the School (achieving a reduction of 2FE). That reduction, equivalent to 75 places, was clearly not sufficient to deal with the 402 vacancies identified …”
“As DCS, it is my duty to champion children and families, with the proposal to match a sponsored academy with Pooles Park, that it would severely compromise the falling rolls situation in Islington. Should our proposal to close Pooles Park not progress, I would then be forced to explore options around the closure of another local school in the same planning area, as part of our implementation of our School Organisation Plan. To close a school rated as good in the same locality, seems perverse and does not sit well, when there is sufficient capacity to place all the pupils attending Pooles Park at schools that are currently rated good or better and are all within walking distance.”
“… The key from my point of view is to find out whether the trust in question believes – based on its having a carefully thought out plan – that it can create a model that renders plausible the future thriving of the school. An important part of my role and that of my team is to assess the extent to which we have confidence in what the trust tells us – rather than (necessarily) to replicate the analysis that they have conducted.”
“It is important that we preface our answer to this question with a healthy dose of realism. It won’t be easy to immediately raise pupil numbers at the school; there is clearly a diminishing pupil population in the area, and the inadequate judgement is also likely to have a short-term impact on parental preferences. We are, however, confident that we could stabilise numbers so that the school operates at capacity as a one form entry school within three years. This means that we will have to invest some trust reserves into the school in the short term. Some difficult choices may need to be made, for example we will need to adically (sic) consider where there may be duplication across New North and Pooles Park and rationalise. In the long term the best way to stabilise numbers is to offer a great education so that the school is a school of choice…”
“We would propose designing a staffing structure which runs across both schools, with one Headteacher, one Deputy Headteacher and staff who work on both sites. This would enable us to share knowledge and skills across the two schools. It also makes both schools financially viable for the foreseeable future. In addition, we would replicate our approach to special educational needs at Pooles Park. We would accept all pupils who wanted to attend the school or who the Local Authority chose to place at the school (including special school overflow placements). The school is in Islington but is on the border of Islington, Haringey and Hackney. Our willingness to accept and work with pupils with significant special educational needs could be communicated to all three local authorities. All are having real difficulties finding placements for all their pupils identified as having special educational needs. We could provide a solution. This also adds further security to the viability debate. In time, the SEN provision could be formalized into a unit for both schools. Sponsoring Pooles Park provides a local solution for the pupils presently attending the school, ensures that Hungerford Primary School remains financially viable by staffing across the two schools and provides a model of inclusion which will meet the needs of a large number of pupils with significant special educational needs, at both schools. This could provide a model for other areas across London where they are also facing falling rolls but want to maintain local schools and urgently need additional provision for pupils with special educational needs which is local and cost-effective.”
“25…Closure of Pooles Park would help the Council to reduce surplus in the borough by removing 3 forms of entry from the primary system, it would also be likely to increase numbers at other local primary schools who are also struggling to fill places. However, there is also currently the possibility that an academy sponsor could give the school a long term future, and the school could remain open to serve the local community, albeit at a reduced size. The Council have not put forward any alternative options other than closure. Given that we have two academy sponsors who are keen to sponsor Pooles Park and are confident that they could make it viable as a 1xFE school, we feel that sponsorship by a strong sponsor, in this case the Trust, is a preferable option to closure. This would allow the school to remain open and education provision to continue to be locally accessible in a deprived area. However given the availability of places in other schools locally, all of which are good or better, it is a finely balanced decision.” (Emphasis added)
“… From my knowledge of the demand for places across London and from a knowledge of the Bridge MAT’s experience, this was, on balance, a sensible and pragmatic decision that made strategic sense. I thought that the proposal deserved to be given the opportunity to succeed. I was reassured that my board members all highly experienced leaders in the sector, agreed with me, and were equally excited by the opportunity that this proposal offered.”
“The Ofsted inadequate judgement in November 2022, together with the 56% surplus Reception capacity and a growing financial deficit budget, all demonstrate the request for a revocation of the Academy Order, allowing the Local authority can proceed to closure, is in the best interests of children. Our challenge is based on the section within the Schools Causing Concern Guidance that references the DFE decision being based on the ‘best interest of children.’ Appointing an academy trust does not support the ‘best interest of children’ because we will be forced to close another good or outstanding local school.”
“We recommend that you, Baroness Barran, refuse the request to revoke the academy order issued to Pooles Park because we have identified a strong academy sponsor who is willing to support the school, and following our policy consider the school to be viable as an academy. We have considered the concerns raised by Islington and believe these can be addressed through this strong sponsor. Keeping the school open will allow a strong local sponsor to support the school and provide additional places for students with SEND who are unable to access a place elsewhere, it will also ensure the school remains opens as a resource for the local community, including the community garden on the site. Do you agree?”
“(a) promoting high standards, (b) ensuring fair access to opportunity for education and training, and (c) promoting the fulfilment of learning potential by [all persons under the age of 20].”
“98…The first is concerned with whether the decision under review is capable of being justified or whether in the classic Wednesbury formulation it is ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it’: see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn[1948] 1 KB 223 , 233—234. Another, simpler formulation of the test which avoids tautology is whether the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker: see e.g. Boddington v British Transport Police[1999] 2AC 143 , 175, per Lord Steyn. The second aspect of irrationality/ unreasonableness is concerned with the process by which the decision was reached. A decision may be challenged on the basis that there is a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning which led to it—for example, that significant reliance was placed on an irrelevant consideration, or that there was no evidence to support an important step in the reasoning, or that the reasoning involved a serious logical or methodological error.”
“60... But what in the end I am unable to accept is that the minister had less information than the law required. The test is the familiar public law test: was something relevant left out of account by him in taking his decision? It is not, with respect to Mr Cavanagh, the different question whether his decision was vitiated by an error of fact (as to which see now E v Home Secretary[2004] QB 1044 ). 61.. I have found Brennan J's judgment in Peko-Wallsend particularly helpful here. He said (at 61): “A decision-maker who is bound to have regard to a particular matter is not bound to bring to mind all the minutiae within his knowledge relating to the matter. The facts to be brought to mind are the salient facts which give shape and substance to the matter: the facts of such importance that, if they are not considered, it could not be said that the matter has been properly considered.”
“[The] decision cannot be attacked on the ground that the minister has not given sufficient weight to detriment, but it can be attacked if the minister fails to have regard to detriment. The minister may deny any weight to detriment, but only if he has first had proper regard to that matter.”
“The department does not have to draw the minister's attention to every communication it receives and to every fact its officers know. Part of a department's function is to undertake an evaluation, analysis and précis of material which the minister is bound to have regard to or to which the minister may wish to have regard in making decisions …. The consequence … is, of course, that the minister's appreciation of a case depends to a great extent upon the appreciation made by his department. Reliance on the departmental appreciation is not tantamount to an impermissible delegation of the ministerial function. A minister may retain his power to make a decision while relying on his department to draw his attention to the salient facts.” 62.. Given the constitutional position as this court now holds it to be, a minister who reserves a decision to himself — and equally a civil servant who is authorised by him to take a decision — must know or be told enough to ensure that nothing that it is necessary, because legally relevant, for him to know is left out of account. This is not the same as a requirement that he must know everything that is relevant. Here, for example, much that was highly relevant was appropriately sifted by the Commission in formulating its advice and then distilled within the department in order to make a submission to the minister which would tell him what it was relevant (not simply expedient or politic) for him to know. What it was relevant for the minister to know was enough to enable him to make an informed judgment. This centrally included the Commission's advice and the reasons for it. It also included the fact of Professor Ernst's opposition and the essential reasons for it. All this he had. 63.. Did the legally relevant material go wider than this? In CREEDNZ Inc v Governor General[1981] 1 NZLR 172 Cooke P drew the distinction, which our courts had previously failed to draw, between things which are so relevant that they must be taken into account and things which are not irrelevant and so may legitimately be taken into account. It is axiomatically only a failure to take into account something in the former class that will vitiate a public law decision. Whether something falls into this class is typically a mixed question of law and fact, although — as with the statutory requirements to consult the CSM and to take account of the Commission's findings — it may be a matter of pure law. 64.. Here, while — as I have said — it might have been better had a certain amount more been drawn to the minister's attention, I am unable to hold that the three matters omitted from the briefing were things which either the statutory purpose or the nature of the issue before the minister made so relevant that a lawful decision could not be taken in ignorance of them. They are all things which undoubtedly enhanced the case against a ban, but that is not the test. Their context is a departmental submission conveying among other things a view reached by the Commission after a debate initiated by Professor Ernst on his newly published meta-analysis. Professor Ernst's standing and the quality of his paper will have been of considerable significance to the Commission. For the minister, by contrast, it will have been part of the background and not, in my judgment, something he had to know in order to take his decision. 65.. The decision not to put before the minister the exact reasons given by Professor Ernst for his conclusion seems to me closer to the borderline. It is one thing for the minister to know that a member of the Commission was against a ban. It is arguably another to read in his own words why. But among the accepted facts is that the submission summarised Professor Ernst's objections to a ban. In the absence of a copy of the submission itself there is no good reason to suppose that the summary did less than justice to the objections, and the gap closes.” (Emphasis added).
“[85] Before I turn to the individual grounds specifically, it is worth recording that the purpose of this judgment is not to substitute the court’s view of whether Swanmead should become an academy trust, with that of the Commissioner. That is not the function of judicial review. These proceedings are concerned with the lawfulness of the Commissioner’s decision. [86] In R (Campaign against Arms Trade) v Secretary of State for International Trade[2017] EWHC 1754 (Admin) a group concerned with thearms trade brought a challenge to the grant by the Secretary of State of exportlicences for arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The Divisional Court (Burnet LJ andHaddon-Cave J, as they both then were) gave valuable guidance at [209] onthe approach of the courts in situations where there was such a fine balancebetween competing issues. They referred to anxious scrutiny, verging onanguished scrutiny in that case, and made clear that the courts will recognisethe institutional competence of decision makers. The court made clear that‘such self-evidently finely balanced judgements are paradigm matters forevaluation and decision by the Executive’. That is no doubt a classicalstatement of the approach of the courts to such matters, and I follow it withouthesitation. The court will also give due deference to the expertise of thedecision-maker. In the instant case, it demonstrates how important it is thatthe different matters on either side of the balance are considered. [87] There is also a distinction to be made between whether something is a material consideration at all, and the weight to be given to that. The latter is for the decision maker, subject to rationality. This statement is again a classic one, set out in numerous authorities including the House of Lords in Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment[1995] 1 WLR 759 , 780per Lord Hoffmann. The former is a question of law, and the latter is a matterof judgment (in that case planning judgment, but the principle remains the same).”
“… were and are not based on an assumption that a formal ARP at Pooles Park would be commissioned and funded by Islington LA. Rather, my projections are based on my belief that we will be able to offer provision which attracts up to 40 pupils with EHC plans within the next two to three years. Those children may come to us from Islington, or they may come to us from other local authorities – most likely, they will come from several different LA areas, given the physical location of the school, which is very close to the boundary between the London boroughs of Islington, Haringey and Hackney.”
“…there was never an intention or suggestion from the DfE that Pooles Park would be able to become a special school, and nowhere in any of our evidence is that referenced. We are clear that a mainstream school cannot ‘become’ a special school. It was never assumed that The Bridge would convert a mainstream school, either Hungerford or Pooles Park into a special school. The intention was always for the Bridge MAT to accept pupils with EHC plans, with a possibility of formalising this provision at a later date, as they are a strong special trust with experience of educating children with SEN in a mainstream setting. It is unfortunate that in the Pooles Park Board Report 15.06.23, it states “mainstream school and special school places” when in reality, the project lead (“PL”) assumed (as most would internally) that the special school places refer to SEN places, either in the form of an ARP or simply in the form of educating pupils with SEN needs in a mainstream setting.”
“… no doubt we would have been able to fill the places by offering places to the neighbouring LAs, if demand from the Council had been lower, given the acute shortage of specialist SEN places in mainstream settings in the London area, relative to the rapidly rising level of demand.”
“15. Total funding for a pupil with autism and severe learning difficulties is£23,534 (23-24 amount). Total funding for an identified Key Stage 1 pupil with SEMH is£32,334 (acknowledging the extreme challenges these pupils present). Total funding for an identified Key Stage 2 pupil with SEMH is£17,322 . These amounts do not include the Age Weighted Pupil Unit [“AWPU”].”
“… means that I can provide additional staffing and support to Pooles Park from within the schools in my trust and can draw on the wider resources that we are able to fund as a trust. To focus solely on Hungerford and Pooles Park is to fundamentally misunderstand the context of a MAT and the opportunities that the MAT model provides. It underestimates the wider resources (in terms of funding, staff, expertise, community relationships and goodwill) that we as a trust can provide to support the pupils across both schools. One small example: the Head of School Improvement for [the Trust] is currently doing a lot of work at Pooles Park, support that we as a MAT can mobilise quickly and at no cost to Pooles Park.”
“Details of work that has gone into finding a sponsor”; and “Likelihood of being able to find a sponsor willing to take the school on…”
“[149] This case sets out the high hurdle that would have to be cleared by SCC for the Commissioner to have failed this test. It must be shown that by making the order, the Commissioner and the Secretary of State had ‘utterly defeated’ SCC’s target duties to provide education in the local area. The Defendant submitted that it cannot even be sensibly argued this is the case, as the academy order does not prevent education in the area. [150] I consider that some of the necessary building blocks for SCC to succeed on this ground are present. The making of the academy order would substantially impede SCC’s ability to achieve its target duties insofar as exercise of that ability needed to impose upon Swanmead changes to which it would not agree. It would also substantially impede efficient organisation of education in the relevant area across all the schools, and also the organisation of education of pupils in the secondary age range in particular, given Swanmead was the only middle school in the relevant area that was not an academy already, and which could therefore be directed by SCC. However, I do not consider that these substantial difficulties and impediments could be said to ‘utterly defeat’ SCC’s target duties. The passage in the One Search judgment above makes it clear just how unusual such circumstances are.”