CAM’s Formal Response

CAM has engaged a firm of solicitors who have drafted CAM’s formal response to the consultation which will be sent to Surrey County Council on behalf of CAM, and which will also be sent to the Governing Body at Tomlinscote School.
The report is split into six sections:

1. Introduction
2. Government Guidance
1. A system shaped by parents
2. Standards
3. Diversity
4. Surplus places
5. Expansion of successful and popular schools
6. Impact on Community
7. Community cohesion and race equality
8. Travel and accessibility for all
3. Consultation
1. Failure to consult by Tomlinscote School
2. Pre-determination
3. Method of consultation
4. Sufficiency of information
5. Misleading information
6. Further consultation
4. Kings International College for Business and the Arts
1. Pupil numbers
2. Standards
3. Travel
4. Community cohesion and diversity
5. Costs savings
5. Tomlinscote School and Sixth Form Centre
1. Impact of expansion on standards
2. Cost
6. Conclusion

The main areas that have been raised are:

Overall Points

• The consultation document is from County Council but it states that the Governing Body of Tomlinscote School will issue a joint statutory notice with Surrey County Council if the Governing Body approves the expansion. This is considered unlawful as the proposer, which is the Governing Body of Tomlinscote School, has not carried out the consultation.  Tomlinscote School has not consulted with its parents and stakeholders.
• The consultation document does not make it clear that Tomlinscote will be obliged to issue a statutory notice relating to the acquisition of a new site (the Kings site). If notice is given without Tomlinscote carrying out an appropriate consultation as the proposer of the change it will be unlawful

Consultation Process Points

• Case law states that consultations should be carried out fairly and properly.
• There are elements of Pre-determination regarding the closure of Kings.
• There are certain legal implications regarding how and when parties were informed and which parties were involved
• There should be sufficient information to enable intelligent consideration of and intelligent response to the consultation
• The use of the “School Organisation in Surrey 2010-2020” document in verifying figures which is itself in draft form and being  consulted on is misleading unless SCC have also predetermined  the consultation on this document.

Government Guidance

• That Kings should not be closed as it is in a phase of improvement.
• There is a removal of school choice for parents. The LA has a duty to secure diversity in the provision of schools and to increase opportunities for parental choice.
• In relation to standards the government guidelines recommend changes which boost standards and opportunities for young people and the consultation does not address this for Tomlinscote students.
• The consultation fails to take into account diversity. The government’s vision is to create schools which offer excellence and choice where each school has its own ethos, sense of mission and a centre of excellence or specialist provision.
• There is no consideration within the consultation of how the Kings ethos and specialism will be protected. Closing Kings and expanding Tomlinscote does not appear to meet the guidelines required.
• The closure of Kings would represent a loss to the community and closure guidance focuses on the impact to the community which uses the Kings site heavily through afterschool sports facilities and the Beacon Church.
• There has been a failure to engage with and consider the Nepalese community who account for 22% of the Kings students.
• There are concerns that travel and accessibility have not been properly dealt with in relation to the LA’s duty to promote sustainable travel and transport to school.
• It is not sufficient to just examine surplus places when considering closing a school. Other factors such as extended journey times and community impact must be considered.

Surrey County Council and the Governing Body of Tomlinscote School will be receiving this document from CAM this week. Once it has been issued we will be placing the full version on the blogsite.
CAM believe that this formal response will show the Governors of Tomlinscote that they must vote NO to the current proposal and that Surrey County  Council cannot proceed with this consultation in the manner that it has been presented.

Louise Nicholas and Robert Raymont




Please note we still need to raise money for this ongoing and very important legal advice - please donate to our campaign.