NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

APPENDIX 4

Notes of Public Consultation Meeting concerning the BAWB Federation (of West Burton, Bainbridge and Askrigg Primary Schools) Reorganisation Proposals.

Meeting held on 8 October 2025 at Askrigg Primary School

Present: Sue Ryding (Chair of Governors of The BAWB Federation of Primary Schools); Vicky Collins (Executive Headteacher of The BAWB Federation of Primary Schools); Cllr Annabel Wilkinson (Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills, North Yorkshire Council (NYC)); Jon Holden (Strategic Planning Manager, Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS), NYC); Mark Ashton (Strategic Planning Officer, CYPS, NYC); John Lee (Strategic Planning Officer, NYC); Howard Emmett (Assistant Director, Resources, NYC); Julie Pattison (Principal Education Adviser, NYC); Cllr Yvonne Peacock (NYC); school staff, pupils, parents, residents and other interested parties

23 People were present.

Apologies: None

AGENDA

6.00	Meeting Opens – Brief welcome	Jon Holden, local authority officer, Sue Ryding, Chair of BAWB governing board
6.05	Opening Remarks	Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills
6.10	Presentation from NYC on: The proposals Background to the proposals How people respond	Jon Holden, local authority officer, Sue Ryding, Chair of BAWB governing board
6.25	Questions and Answers	Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills; Jon Holden; Julie Pattison, Principal Education Adviser; Howard Emmett, Assistant Director, Resources;
6.50	Closing Remarks	Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills
7.00	Meeting Closes

Welcome and Introductions

Sue Ryding, Chair of the Federated Governing Board of BAWB Schools, opened the public meeting at 6pm and she welcomed those present.

Sue Ryding said that she thought she was among friends and proceeded to introduce several members of her federated governing board.

She introduced Jon Holden, Strategic Planning Manager, in the Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS), NYC.

Jon Holden welcomed those present and said that he would explain the proposals. And hopefully reassure parents about the proposals.

He introduced Councillor Annabel Wilkinson, the Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills at NYC.

2. Executive Member’s Opening Remarks

Cllr Wilkinson thanked parents and others for attending and said that this evening’s public meeting formed part of the consultation on the future organisation of the schools which formed the BAWB federation.

Cllr Wilkinson said that there would be a presentation by Jon Holden on behalf of the Local Authority on the proposals.

Cllr Wilkinson said that representatives of the local authority, and the federation would then answer any questions on the proposals. She said there would be an opportunity to hear people’s views in the question-and-answer session following the presentation and hoped that everyone would contribute to the discussion.

3 Presentation from NYC

The Strategic Planning Manager, CYPS, NYC, Jon Holden gave a presentation. He explained that the meeting was part of a broader consultation exercise that is being undertaken on the future organisation of the BAWB federation of West Burton Church of England (VC), Bainbridge Church of England (VC) and Askrigg (VC) Primary Schools.

Jon Holden said that he hoped that parents had already seen the consultation paper. He said that he hoped that he would be able to reassure them that the proposals are school organisational that there was nothing new in his presentation that was not in the consultation paper. He said the purpose of the meeting was to provide more clarity on the proposals, to reassure parents that there would be little change in practice on the ground, and to answer any questions.

Jon Holden emphasised that the proposals were primarily technical aspects of school organisation, about the way the schools are organised and funded. They are not, he emphasised, about the way the children are educated. The fundamental point for the children in the schools is that, following the temporary suspension of teaching in West Burton, the remaining two schools will continue to in a broadly similar way as they are now within the federation, under the leadership of the executive headteacher and federated governing body, and for the children in the schools there will not be a significant change.

Jon Holden explained the roles and responsibilities of those formulating and then determining the proposals. He said that Councillor Wilkinson, the Executive Member, had authorised the consultation on the proposals. The Executive Committee of NYC is the decision maker on the proposals and Cllr Wilkinson is a member of the Committee and would feedback comments made at the meeting.

Jon Holden introduced other officers from the council who were present at the meeting. He introduced Mark Ashton and John Lee from Strategic Planning, CYPS, Howard Emmett, Assistant Director of Resources, NYC; and Julie Pattison, Principal Education Adviser, NYC.

Jon Holden explained that the federated governing body had requested the consultation, but that the Council then determines the proposal. Jon Holden introduced Sue Ryding, Chair of the Federated Governing Board of BAWB Schools, and Vicky Collins the Executive Headteacher of the Federation

Jon Holden started to outline the proposals, saying these were:

· That the age range of Bainbridge Church of England Primary should be changed from 3-11 to 3-7 such that it should become Bainbridge Church of England Infant and Nursery School from 1 September 2026

· That the age range of Askrigg Voluntary Controlled Primary School should be changed from 4-11 to 7-11, such that it should become Askrigg Voluntary Controlled Junior School from 1 September 2026

· That West Burton Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School should be closed from 31 March 2026

· That the two remaining schools should have a shared catchment area that comprises an amalgamation of the current catchment areas of the three schools.

· The PAN will be 15 at each school, to reflect the pupil forecast.

Sue Ryding, Chair of the Federated Governing Board of BAWB Schools then spoke in some detail about the alternative options for the future organisation of the schools to ensure compliance that had been considered fully by the federated governing board before their conclusions were reached on the proposals. She explained that four alternative options had been fully evaluated.

Sue Ryding gave reasons why three options were discounted by the federated governing board. She said these reasons included financial considerations around lost revenue and considerations around wanting to maintain classes of similar aged pupils.The option of operating separate primary schools with children taught at their home school was neither educationally or financially viable, she said. Closing two schools was considered, however, the Governing Board considered that there would be insufficient space on one site for the full age range, including nursery. An amalgamated school across two or three sites was discounted on financial grounds.

Sue Ryding confirmed that the federated governing board had identified the establishment of separate infant and junior schools as their preferred option for achieving compliance with the regulations. The advantages are the educationally beneficial structure of teaching the children with their peer groups, that full funding for the two remaining schools would be maintained and that there would be minimal disruption for children, parents, staff and the community. However, she said that the disadvantage was the loss of West Burton School.

Sue Ryding then spent some time explaining why the federated governing board had taken the decision to temporarily suspend teaching at West Burton. One factor was the educational time lost due to travel between the children's registered school and the school where they were taught. Pupils were delivered by NYC home to school transport to the school where they were registered and then had to be taken from that school to the school where they were taught on a BAWB federation bus, with the longest journey being the one between West Burton to Bainbridge or Askrigg.

Another factor was the availability of that BAWB transport and the cost which was in the region of £56,000 per year. Money governors felt would be better used for a different educational purpose. In the summer term of 2023, two extra classrooms in the redundant Sure Start Centre in Askrigg became available. This meant that five classes would be accommodated at the site at Askrigg. The number of pupils registered at West Burton has dropped and they are currently at 15.

Having explained the option appraisal prior to making the proposals and the reasons for the proposed closure of West Burton, Sue Ryding handed back to Jon Holden.

Jon Holden reiterated and emphasised again that, given that teaching at West Burton had been suspended, then, should the proposals be implemented, there would be little impact for pupils. He pointed out that the infant and junior schools will continue to operate in a federation with a single federated governing board, and with an executive headteacher. Pupils would continue to be taught in class groups with their peers, he added.

However, he pointed out that there would be some differences, most notably, a transition between the two schools at the end of Key Stage 1, and pupils in the infant school would have to apply for a place in the junior school. However, staff would help smooth that process and the schools would have integrated arrangements for the assessment of learning. The proposal to amalgamate the three existing catchment areas into a single combined catchment was highlighted. Jon Holden then explained that a Planned Admission Number (PAN) of 15 was being proposed for both the infant and junior schools, based on pupil forecasts in the existing schools, and the forecast pupil numbers in the infant and junior schools. However, this was not fixed and could be reviewed in the future.

The home to school travel policy was highlighted as applying to new applicants after 1 September 2026. However, he reassured parents that it is also proposed that the Council provide discretionary assistance with travel for pupils on roll at the schools on 1 September 2026, and who have already been assessed as eligible for assistance with travel for the duration of their education at the schools within the same federation, subject to there being no change in their circumstances was outlined.

It was noted that the discretionary assistance would not apply to pupils who joined the school after 1 September 2026.

The statutory guidance on the School Organisation Regulations relating to the proposals was referenced, together with what is required to be compliant with the regulations on registration.

Jon Holden then provided some detail on the ownership of the Askrigg and West Burton school buildings, pointing out that the Yorebridge education trust were landlord of part of the Askrigg building and that NYC is not the landlord of the West Burton building, which would revert to its trustees, should it close.

Jon Holden concluded by emphasizing that a two-stage consultation process would take place before any decision on the proposals is taken. Written responses and views expressed at this public meeting would form part of the report which is considered when the decision on whether to proceed to the second statutory consultation is taken. The statutory consultation is a further 4-week period when there is a further opportunity for comments and responses.

He then handed over to Cllr Wilkinson, who thanked him and re-iterated that this is a consultation, and a decision has not yet been taken.

4 Questions and Answers.

Jon Holden invited questions from those present.

A parent asked whether pupils who are currently at Askrigg, and will go to Bainbridge, will receive transport from Askrigg to Bainbridge.

Jon Holden explained that, under the proposed discretionary provision, if they have current eligibility for assistance with transport, they will be transported to the school at which they are registered and will be taught. However, he said, if they are not currently eligible for assistance they will be assessed under the NYC school transport policy, which is to the nearest suitable school.

The parent then said that the criteria for transport was two miles or more and he said that they lived closer than two miles to Bainbridge School. However, he said that NYC must know that it is not a safe walking route, and he asked whether it had already been assessed as an unsafe route. He asked Jon Holden to tell him whether they would receive transport because the route was unsafe.

Jon Holden responded that he did not know whether that route had been assessed as a safe, or an unsafe, walking route. However, he made a commitment to the parent to take his details away and to respond.

The parent thanked him.

A parent said that they had two children and due to their ages, one would be attending the infant school while the other would be attending the junior school. They asked whether there would be any provision for dropping both children off at the same school and of the federation providing their transport between the schools.

Vicky Collins, the executive headteacher of the BAWB federation of schools, responded that while funding a minibus from the federation’s budget for education would not be practical, the governing body and school leadership had been looking at the possibility of staggered start times for the two schools so that different drop-off times could be accommodated.

The parent responded that her point also applied to picking up after school. It would be difficult to get to two places at the same time for collection.

Vicky Collins replied that they were considering the same principle of staggered finish times at the two schools.

Sue Ryding, the chair of the federated governing board, said that governors were aware that there would be certain anomalies in the transport arrangements. She said that the governors and head would work hard to resolve these and that she understood there was to be a certain element of leeway, at least at the beginning.

Jon Holden reiterated that the discretion was for pupils entitled to transport and already on roll in September 2026, while for others the policy was to the nearest suitable school.

Cllr Yvonne Peacock said that she had tried for many years to have the route that went around a particular corner alongside an almshouse (she referred to as ‘Almshouse Corner’) classed as an unsafe walking route. She said that the community knew it was dangerous and had wanted a footpath across the area for some time. However, she said so far it had been impossible to get a footpath and therefore she thought it still unsafe for children to walk around Almshouse Corner and could not imagine that it had been classified as safe.

Cllr Peacock added that she had not realised that it is only a-mile-and-a-half between Askrigg and Bainbridge schools, while the policy was two-miles. She said that Almshouse Corner was situated along the walking route between the two schools.

Jon Holden responded to confirm that he would investigate the position in respect of the route.

Cllr Peacock said that she was fully behind the proposals to become infant and junior schools since to have children of the same age educated together, rather than a class spread across many years because there were so few children, is the benefit. She added that she also thought this to be by far the best solution since pupils are no longer getting off one bus and then waiting and then getting onto another bus. However, she added that the Almshouse Corner route between the schools is not a walking route for individuals, and she felt it needs to be looked at.

Jon Holden confirmed that the question would be taken away for an answer.

A parent said that they live on an isolated farm slightly short of two miles away from Bainbridge. She said that because of this they had fallen foul of the entitlement to transport. However, while an older child did not qualify on distance, they had more recently worked very hard to have this decision reversed for their youngest child due to the route being unsafe.

She then asked (but also said that this situation no longer applied to her, because her youngest child was now already assessed for transport) whether once one older child in a family was already assessed for transport, was there still a need for a younger child to be assessed for transport when they start to attend the school.

Jon Holden responded that the discretion is about existing children who have got eligibility for assistance. If they do not have that eligibility, officers will have individual conversations with parents about the situation.

The parent said that their situation was resolved because her children were older but other parents might face a similar issue in the future.

Jon Holden replied that, with the parent’s permission, he would review the details of the case

The parent agreed with his proposal.

A parent said they were continuing with the theme of transport with their question. The parent asked whether the discretionary provision applied to younger siblings of older pupils already on roll in September 2026 and entitled to the discretionary provision - because they had one child currently in the school who would be eligible to transport under the discretionary policy, but a younger sibling who would not be eligible when they apply in a later year.

Jon Holden replied that the home to school travel policy would apply to all applicants after September 2026, whether they applied as a sibling from the same household or not. Jon Holden replied that he understood the concern, but the home to school travel policy would be applied to that younger sibling. The distance used would be the distance to the nearest suitable school with places available, and the sibling would only be eligible for transport if they live above the statutory walking distance from the nearest suitable school that has places.

A parent (who had spoken earlier) said that they did not qualify for the transport entitlement and already made a financial contribution for the provision for their older child. They said that if there is room on the same bus for a younger child, would they be able to travel on the same bus. (They said that – as before - this did not apply to them but again it might apply to another family.)

Jon Holden said he would look at that particular situation.

A parent said that they were now looking into the costs of paying for their child (currently in Year 6) to be transported to secondary school. They said that, in their view, the cost was substantial. The parent asked: with these issues around transport, with some parents not qualifying for assistance, and the significant cost, would there be a risk of pupil numbers falling because parents would send children to alternative schools?

Jon Holden said that there had been an undertaking to work with schools to look at the impact of the transport policy and that was particularly true in this case, given the organisational changes involved for the federation.

Sue Ryding responded to the parent, that the nearest school to her location in the West Burton catchment area was Bainbridge, so she thought that they would qualify.

Jon Holden said to clarify, he had not said that anybody after September 2026 is not eligible for home to school travel. He said that their eligibility will be considered in the context of the policy and not that discretionary provision he had mentioned earlier.

Sue Ryding said that they had a map showing the combined catchment area, which is not necessarily the same as the transport map and had considered where anomalies could be when the two are overlaid. She said that the governing board had decided that as these anomalies crop up, they will be looking at helping and persuading people to let common sense prevail.

Vicky Collins, the headteacher, spoke directly to the parents who had raised concerns regarding transport. She said that she had spent time looking very carefully at postcodes and distances and at each individual family and how they might be affected. And thought it likely that few would be impacted, though she could not make promises because she was not the Council.

Vicky Collins also said that, given these calculations, it looked to her like the vast majority of parents living in the West Burton catchment area would benefit. This was because, rather than having to be dropped off at West Burton Primary School and then transported on another bus, they would be taken directly to their school at either Askrigg or Bainbridge. She said that she could not promise, but that it did look like the vast majority would benefit.

Jon Holden said that if the decision is taken in March to adopt the proposals, officers will come back to the school to meet with parents to talk through the application process and any impact on the possibility of home to school travel.

Jon Holden drew the meeting to a close by thanking everyone for their comments and questions.

He handed over to Sue Ryding for the closing comments.

5 CLOSING REMARKS

Sue Ryding thanked officers for their help in presenting the proposals clearly. She said that governors and officers would be staying on after the meeting and if anyone wished to discuss a particular concern quietly, or did not feel confident raising an issue, they were happy to discuss it privately with them after the meeting.

Sue Ryding said that there was going to be a new beginning, that it was going to be a new chapter. She said that they were looking forward to this and they were looking at the possibility of new uniforms (which would be phased in) and also the possibility of a new name for the federation.

The Meeting Closed at 7pm.

Notes of Public Consultation Meeting concerning the Reeth and Gunnerside Schools Federation Reorganisation Proposals.

Meeting held on 14 October 2025 at Gunnerside Methodist Primary School

Present: Brenda Price (Chair of Governors of The Reeth and Gunnerside Schools Federation); Gordon Stainsby (Executive Headteacher of The Reeth and Gunnerside Schools Federation); Jon Holden (Strategic Planning Manager, Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS), North Yorkshire Council (NYC)); Mark Ashton (Strategic Planning Officer, CYPS, NYC); John Lee (Strategic Planning Officer, CYPS, NYC); Julie Pattison (Principal Education Adviser, CYPS, NYC); Cllr Yvonne Peacock (NYC); Reverend Jo Brown (Methodist Minister); school staff, parents

8 parents were present.

Apologies: Cllr Annabel Wilkinson, Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills, NYC

AGENDA

Meeting Opens – Brief welcome	Jon Holden, local authority officer
Opening Remarks
Presentation from NYC on: The proposals Background to the proposals How people respond	Jon Holden, local authority officer, Gordon Stainsby, Executive Headteacher
Questions and Answers
Closing Remarks
Meeting Closes

Welcome and Introductions

Jon Holden, Strategic Planning Manager, opened the public meeting at 6pm and welcomed those present.

Jon Holden gave apologies from Cllr Annabel Wilkinson, the Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills, who was unable to attend this evening. He said that Cllr Wilkinson had asked for a briefing about tonight’s meeting, and would also be receiving the notes of the meeting.

2. Opening Remarks

Jon Holden said that he hoped that the meeting could provide reassurance – that these proposals were about the organisation and financing of the two schools, and on the ground, things shouldn’t feel a great deal different, if and when the proposals were implemented.

3 Presentation from NYC

Jon Holden gave a presentation. He explained that the meeting was part of a broader consultation exercise that is being undertaken on the future organisation of the federation.

He said the purpose of the meeting was to provide more clarity on the proposals, to reassure parents that there would be little change in practice on the ground, and to answer any questions.

Jon Holden explained that the federated governing body had requested the consultation, but that the Council then determines the proposal.

Jon Holden started to outline the proposals, saying these were:

· That the age range of Reeth Community Primary School be changed to from 3-11 to 3-7, and that the school becomes Reeth Community Infant School

· That the age range of Gunnerside Methodist VC Primary School be changed from 4-11 to 7-11, and that the school becomes Gunnerside Methodist (Voluntary Controlled) Junior School

· That the schools would have a shared catchment area, comprising an amalgamation of the existing schools’ current catchment areas; and

· The Local Authority approves through its discretion a ‘nearest gate in the federation’ policy for home school transport, which would be conditional upon the federation continuing to provide support with inter-school transport where that is required.

· To establish a Published Admissions Number (PAN) of 15 at each of the two schools

· That the proposal be implemented from 1 September 2026

Jon Holden presented further slides on the background to the proposals. These included an explanation of the shared group teaching arrangements and the legal advice that the model of teaching year groups together at the schools was not compliant with the regulations for school admissions and registration. These regulations require that school pupils receive the majority of their education at the school at which they are registered. He explained that the legal advice had been provided to the federated governing board in September 2024 and that the federated governing board had considered 4 compliant options for the future organisation of the schools.

Gordon Stainsby, Executive Headteacher then explained why the infant/junior school model had been selected and why the other three options had been discounted by the federated governing board. He said that the federated governing board had spent a lot of time thinking about the solution that would be the very best for the community.

The option of two separate schools would reverse the progress that had been achieved through the federated approach. More year groups would need to be taught together. At Gunnerside for example, at least 4 year groups would need to be taught in a single classroom. Resources would be stretched. It was felt that this option would have a negative impact on quality of education.

The option of one primary school on one site had also been discounted. Neither school would be large enough to accommodate the whole federation. There would also be a substantial loss of funding, as well as the loss of a school in one community.

The option of one school across two sites would have meant the loss of funding associated with losing one lump sum.

The option of separate infant and junior schools was the closest option to the current model. It would be very similar to how the schools currently operated. They would be able to maintain current class structures. This option was thought to retain all the benefits that the federation had built over the last 20 years.

Jon Holden noted that there was now a national funding model over which the council had very little scope to adjust for local circumstances.

Jon Holden reiterated that should the proposals be implemented, there would be little impact for pupils. He pointed out that the infant and junior schools will continue to operate in a federation with a single federated governing board, and with an executive headteacher. Pupils would continue to be taught in class groups with their peers, he added.

However, he pointed out that there would be some differences, most notably, a transition between the two schools at the end of Key Stage 1, and pupils in the infant school would have to apply for a place in the junior school. However, staff would help smooth that process and the schools would have integrated arrangements for the assessment of learning. The proposal to amalgamate the existing catchment areas into a single combined catchment was highlighted. Jon Holden then explained that a Planned Admission Number (PAN) of 15 was being proposed for both the infant and junior schools, based on pupil forecasts in the existing schools, and the forecast pupil numbers in the infant and junior schools. However, this was not fixed and could be reviewed in the future.

Jon Holden noted that eligibility for assistance with home to school travel would be considered in accordance with the Council’s Home to School Travel Policy but noted the following proposals for discretionary assistance:

· pupils on roll at the schools on 1 September 2026, and who have already been assessed as eligible for assistance with travel for the duration of their education at the schools within the same federation, subject to there being no change in their circumstances was outlined.

It was noted that the discretionary assistance would not apply to pupils who joined the school after 1 September 2026.

He noted, also, that the federated governing board had also asked the Local Authority to approve through its discretion a ‘nearest gate in the federation’ policy for home school transport, which would be conditional upon the federation continuing to provide support with inter-school transport where that is required.

Cllr Peacock asked if this could be repeated for clarity.

Jon Holden said that the governing board had asked the council to consider if the home to school travel distance could be measured from home to the nearest gate in the federation, rather than to the nearest suitable school. This element of the discretionary assistance is conditional upon the federated governing board continuing to provide transport between the two schools.

Gordon Stainsby added that the bus provided by the federation between the two schools had the added benefit that children would have supervision on those journeys.

A parent whose child was currently eligible for transport and was attending Reeth School, and who lived closer to Gunnerside, asked if the school will receive funding for transport?

Brenda Price replied that the federation was already paying for transport between Reeth and Gunnerside school sites.

Jon Holden added that funding for home to school transport was entirely separate from funding distributed to schools.

Jon Holden presented the Numbers on Roll and the proposed Published Admission Number and explained that both schools can accommodate the pupil numbers forecast.

The statutory guidance on the School Organisation Regulations relating to the proposals was referenced, together with what is required to be compliant with the regulations on registration.

Jon Holden explained that Gunnerside is a denominational school, and the junior school would continue as a school with a religious designation. As a Methodist school, the school organisation proposals for Gunnerside also require approval from the Methodist Schools Team. He understood that the Methodist Church was supportive of the scheme.

Reverend Jo Brown, Methodist Minister replied that this was why she was here.

4 Questions and Answers.

A parent said that the community had been put through quite a bit with the recent changes to home to school transport as well as this consultation. She wanted to thank the governing board and hoped the Executive would take the proposal forward.

Another parent said that following on from the transport issue she wanted to say thank you for the positive progress being made. She was however concerned that there could be objections, or legal issues raised. The discretion being requested on home to school transport was important; working with the schools was essential.

A parent added that the nearest gate was very important.

Jon Holden responded that these proposals had been approved by the Executive Member for consultation. The Executive understood that the issue of home to school transport was very sensitive. The council's legal service had reviewed all the proposals. He sensed that there was a positive mood. Views from the consultation will be taken into consideration in the decision-making process.

Councillor Peacock said that she had been delighted when the proposal had come through from the governing board. These proposals would be going to the Council’s Executive. She would attend the meeting and speak at it. This was a consultation and there may be some tweaking, however she was very confident in the proposals.

Brenda Price said that they had moved forward very cautiously. They had tried to reflect the views of the community.

Jon Holden said that as arrangements at the two schools had been developed for the benefit of the community over a long time it was understandable that the governing board wanted to make sure any changes continue to build on this.

A parent asked if children applying for school places for next September would have to apply now for the proposed infant/junior schools.

Jon Holden replied that parents of children starting school should apply for an existing school of their choice. A decision on the proposals will be taken before places are allocated. Those applying to Reeth and Gunnerside will be contacted by the council.

Councillor Peacock asked if the process would be messy.

Jon Holden replied that Reeth Infant School does not currently exist so this approach has to be taken. Officers will contact and support parents through the process.

A parent said that junior-aged children currently at Reeth would need to apply for Gunnerside.

Jon Holden agreed and added that there would be an opportunity for parents to meet with admissions staff, should the proposals be approved. Capacity at either school was not a concern.

Gordon Stainsby added that the published admission number of 15 was a combination of the separate published admission numbers of the two schools of 8 and 7. Sometimes schools take above their published admission numbers. The number 15 comes from the infant class size maximum of 30. They have a class of two year groups. If there is less than 15 in the year group above or below they could admit above the published admission number in a particular year. He did not see foresee any problems in cohorts going through the communities. There was sufficient capacity within both schools.

5. Closing remarks

Jon Holden encouraged people to respond by the 7 November and thanked everyone for their comments.

A parent said that her eldest daughter had gone through the school from nursery to year 6 and felt that this was the best outcome. The council had communicated well with parents and the governing body had done a great job too.

A parent added that the transport issue was very important. If the nearest gate proposal was not adopted, her son would potentially have to go to a primary school over the hill rather than to this junior school.

Brenda Price said that it was about finding the right solution.

Councillor Peacock said that she felt that this would be a very good solution.

The meeting closed at 6:40 PM

Notes of Public Consultation Meeting concerning the Federation of Middleham and Spennithorne Primary Schools Reorganisation Proposals.

Meeting held on 2 October 2025 at Middleham Primary School

Present: Josh Hadfield (Chair of Governors of The Federation of Middleham (VA) and Spennithorne (VC) CE Primary Schools); Marie Mann (Executive Headteacher of The Federation of Middleham (VA) and Spennithorne (VC) CE Primary Schools); Cllr Annabel Wilkinson (Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills, North Yorkshire Council (NYC)); Jon Holden (Strategic Planning Manager, Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS), NYC); Mark Ashton (Strategic Planning Officer, CYPS, NYC); John Lee (Strategic Planning Officer, NYC); Howard Emmett (Assistant Director, Resources, NYC); Karen Butler (Principal Education Adviser, NYC); Cllr Karin Sedgewick (NYC); Darren Dudman (Deputy Director of Education, the Church of England Diocese of Leeds), Ian Paul-Jowett (Mayor of Middleham); school staff, pupils, parents, residents and other interested parties

24 People were present.

Apologies: None

AGENDA

6.00	Meeting Opens – Brief welcome	Jon Holden, Local Authority Officer
6.05	Opening Remarks	Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills
6.10	Presentation from NYC on: The proposals Background to the proposals How people respond	Local Authority Officer
6.25	Questions and Answers	Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills; Jon Holden; Karen Butler, Principal Education Adviser; Howard Emmett, Assistant Director, Resources; Darren Dudman, Deputy Director of Education, the Church of England Diocese of Leeds.
6.50	Closing Remarks	Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills
7.00	Meeting Closes

Welcome

Jon Holden, Strategic Planning Manager, Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS) NYC opened the public meeting at 6pm and he welcomed those present.

He introduced Councillor Annabel Wilkinson, the Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills at NYC.

Executive Member’s Opening Remarks

Cllr Wilkinson thanked parents and others for attending and thanked the school for facilitating the consultation evening. She said that the evening meeting formed part of the consultation on the future organisation of the schools which formed the federation.

Cllr Wilkinson said the proposals would be explained by Jon Holden. She said that there would be a presentation by him on behalf of the Local Authority on the proposals. Cllr Wilkinson said that representatives of the Local Authority, Diocese and the School would then answer any questions on the proposals. She said there would be an opportunity to hear people’s views in the question-and-answer session following the presentation and hoped that everyone would contribute to the discussion.

Presentation from NYC

The Strategic Planning Manager, CYPS, NYC, Jon Holden gave a presentation (slides attached to these notes). He explained that the meeting was part of a broader consultation exercise that is being undertaken on the future organisation of the federation of Middleham (VA) and Spennithorne (VC) CE Primary Schools. He hoped that parents had seen the consultation paper and said that there was nothing in the presentation that was not in the consultation paper. The purpose of the meeting was to provide more clarity on the proposals and to answer questions.

He emphasised that the proposals were about technical aspects of school organisation, about the way the schools are organised and funded. They are not, he emphasised, about the way the children are educated. The fundamental point for the children in the schools is that the schools will continue to operate as they are now within the federation, under the leadership of the executive headteacher and federated governing body, and for the children in the schools there will not be a significant change. He emphasised that the proposal will not result in a separation of the schools.

Jon Holden explained the roles and responsibilities in determining the proposal. Councillor Wilkinson, the Executive Member, had authorised the consultation on the proposals. The Executive Committee of NYC is the decision maker on the proposals and Cllr Wilkinson is a member of the Committee.

Jon Holden explained that the federated governing body had requested the consultation, but that the Council then determines the proposal. Jon Holden introduced Josh Hadfield, Chair of the Federated Governing Board of Middleham and Spennithorne Primary Schools, and Marie Mann the Executive Headteacher of the Federation of Middleham (VA) and Spennithorne (VC) CE Primary Schools.

He also introduced Darren Dudman the Assistant Director of Education in the Church of England Diocese of Leeds.

Jon Holden started to outline the proposals, saying these were:

· That the age range of Spennithorne Church of England (VC) Primary School be changed from 4-11 to 4-7, and that the school becomes Spennithorne Church of England Infant School

• That the age range of Middleham Church of England (VA) Primary School be changed from 4-11 to 7-11 and that the school becomes Middleham Church of England (VA) Junior School

At this point Marie Mann the Executive Headteacher of the Federation of Middleham (VA) and Spennithorne (VC) CE Primary Schools interjected, saying that in conjunction with the community and in consultation with Darren Dudman from the Church of England Diocese of Leeds, they proposed to call the schools Middleham and Spennithorne CE Infant and Middleham and Spennithorne CE Junior Schools, so that both schools represented both communities.

Jon Holden responded that while the name is important to the community and the school governors, in terms of the school organisation process, it was insignificant. He understood the point and explained that renaming was a governing body decision, that followed any school organisation decision by the LA.

Jon Holden continued to explain the proposals. He said that the remaining proposals were:

• That that the category of Spennithorne Church of England School is changed from Voluntary Controlled (VC) to Voluntary Aided (VA)

• That the schools would have a shared catchment area, comprising an amalgamation of the existing schools’ current catchment areas

• To establish a Published Admissions Number (PAN) of 20 at each of the two schools

• That the proposal be implemented from 1 September 2026

Josh Hadfield, Chair of the Federated Governing Board of Middleham and Spennithorne Primary Schools then spoke in some detail about the alternative options for the future organisation of the schools to ensure compliance that had been considered fully by the federated governing board before their conclusions were reached on the proposals. He explained that four alternative options had been fully evaluated.

Josh Hadfield gave reasons why three options were discounted by the federated governing board, and these reasons included financial calculations of lost revenue and considerations around wanting to maintain the advantages of similar age group classes and teaching.

He confirmed that the federated governing board had identified the establishment of separate infant and junior schools was their preferred option for achieving compliance with the regulations.

Jon Holden reiterated and emphasised again that, should the proposals be implemented in September 2026, the infant and junior schools will continue to operate in a federation with a single federated governing board, and with an executive headteacher. Pupils would continue to be taught in class groups with their peers, he added.

However, he pointed out that while there were these similarities, there would be some differences. In particular, pupils would transition between the two schools at the end of Key Stage 1, and pupils in the infant school would have to apply for a place in the junior school. However, staff would help smooth that process and the schools would have integrated arrangements for the assessment of learning. The proposal to amalgamate the two existing catchment areas into a single combined catchment was highlighted. Jon Holden then explained that a Planned Admission Number (PAN) of 20 was being proposed for both the infant and junior schools, based on pupil forecasts in the existing schools, and the forecast pupil numbers in the infant and junior schools. However, this was not fixed and would be reviewed and, in the future, determined by a voluntary aided school.

The federated governing board’s rationale for wanting to change the category of Spennithorne from voluntary controlled to voluntary aided was outlined. It would be the same voluntary category as Middleham and give the governing board and the Diocese the same responsibilities for both schools. It was explained that both schools are denominational and would continue to be schools with a Church of England religious designation and to require support from the diocese. Darren Dudman the Assistant Director of Education in the Church of England Diocese of Leeds, agreed with this point.

The home to school travel policy was highlighted as applying to new applicants after September 2026. However, he reassured parents that it is also proposed that the Council provide discretionary assistance with travel for pupils on roll at the schools on 1 September 2026, and who have already been assessed as eligible for assistance with travel for the duration of their education at the schools within the same federation, subject to there being no change in their circumstances was outlined.

It was noted that the discretionary assistance would not apply to pupils who joined the school after 1 September 2026.

The statutory guidance on the School Organisation Regulations relating to the proposals was referenced, together with what is required to be compliant with the regulations on registration.

He then handed over to Cllr Wilkinson, who thanked him and re-iterated that this is a consultation, and a decision has not yet been taken.

Before the question-and-answer session started, Marie Mann the Executive Headteacher of the Federation of Middleham (VA) and Spennithorne (VC) CE Primary Schools said she would respond to several concerns raised to her by parents before the meeting. She said that she felt it important to alleviate their concerns.

Marie Mann said there had been concern over a change of uniform. She reassured parents there was no plans currently to change the school uniform under the proposals.

Marie Mann said that parents had also expressed concern over the loss of the federation’s own school mini-bus. She reassured them that it had been included within the federation’s planned budget for the next three years.

Finally, Marie Mann reassured those parents concerned about the PAN proposal. She said that the PAN of 20 can be adjusted by governors should the need arise due to an increase in numbers. She added that there were promising signs around this, with two new starters recently.

Questions and Answers.

Jon Holden invited questions from those present.

A parent and local councillor asked whether the proposed discretionary assistance would apply to children of families with children already attending, who apply after September 2026.

Jon Holden replied that the home to school travel policy would apply to all applicants after September 2026, whether they applied as a sibling from the same household or not.

The parent responded that this made no sense, because they had one child currently in the school who would be eligible to transport under the discretionary policy, but a younger sibling who would not when they apply in a later year.

Jon Holden replied that he understood the concern, but the home to school travel policy would be applied to that younger sibling. The distance used would be the distance to the nearest suitable school with places available, and the sibling would only be eligible for transport if they live above the statutory walking distance from the nearest suitable school that has places.

Cllr Annabel Wilkinson asked whether that was something the governing board could think about.

Jon Holden responded that the policy is to the nearest suitable school. So the distances and nearest school would be subject to where the parent-councillor lived.

The parent responded that there could well be empty seats on the bus used to transport his older child, who is entitled to transport under the discretionary element. Couldn’t his younger child use one of these seats, he asked?

Jon Holden said that the policy had been applied rigorously. He said that this was to ensure that all schools and parents could be assured the policy has been applied equitably across the council.

Josh Hadfield, Chair of the Federated Governing Board, asked the Executive Member to clarify her earlier point regarding the governing board looking into the question of transport.

Cllr Wilkinson responded that she wondered whether there might be an opportunity to explore whether any other options regarding transport were available, nothing more. Because this is a consultation.

Josh Hadfield responded that he was just trying to clarify the governing body’s role in that.

A parent asked about the relation between the deadline for their child applying for a place in the junior school and the timing of the final decision. They said that the deadline for applying for a place is January 2026 but the decision on the proposals will not be made until late March 2026. Therefore, they will miss the deadline for applying.

Jon Holden thanked the parent for raising this point and replied that the recommendation would be that the parent apply for a place in the school they want to apply for. In the event that the proposals are approved, the Local Authority will contact anybody who applied for a place in the school that is not going to be the junior school and talk through the implications of that.

The parent responded by asking whether they would need to apply again.

Jon Holden replied that officers will come into the school and talk through the implications as soon as the decision is made.

A parent said that their child in Year 1 was transported by NYC from home and dropped off at Middleham School. She is then subsequently transported to the Spennithorne School on the school minibus. They asked whether this dual transport arrangement would continue under the proposals.

Jon Holden responded that it would not; that those eligible for transport would be transported to the school at which they were registered and would be taught. So, his daughter would be transported to Spennithorne during her infant years and then subsequently to the junior school, because they were already on roll in September 2026.

A parent governor said that sometimes in these situations people were suspicious about whether council had a hidden agenda. He asked whether some assurance could be given by the council; some reassurance that all of this wasn’t part of some hidden agenda to close schools.

Jon Holden reassured the parent that there was no hidden or alternative agenda. He said that officers had worked with the governing board for over a year to say that the current structure is not compliant and that governors had put a great deal of time into considering all aspects of the proposals, including the financial and curriculum delivery implications. He said that would not have been the case against any sort of a backdrop and if there had been any hidden agenda.

He said that one of the reasons the schools had come together under a federation in 2018, and then subsequently taught classes of similar aged pupils together, was in response to falling rolls. But the success of the governing board speaks for itself and the pupil numbers currently certainly did not indicate that threat.

A parent asked whether the federation had ever been compliant and why it had only just been announced.

Jon Holden replied that no one had deliberately set out to establish a non-compliant arrangement. That the regulations that applied were the registration regulations, finance regulations, and others which were all complex. The advice that had been provided to the federated governing board had arisen in the context of a very specific school funding issue. This issue had been discussed in detail with the Department for Education, who had advised that it was not compliant. As a result, the council had approached the federated governing board to advise them of the position and support them through the process. Again he emphasised that no one has knowingly set out to set up arrangements that are not compliant.

Jon Holden advised that the regulations are developed to apply to all schools within the country, and not specifically for situations like those Spennithorne and Middleham. What the council had to do was support the federated governing board to develop proposals that achieve compliance for their situation and circumstances.

The parent responded that they wonder how it can be that schools have been non compliant.

Jon Holden responded that he thinks it is the complexity of three or four different sets of regulations all coming up against the specific circumstance here.

A parent-governor questioned the explanation that the federated governing board were non-compliant. She said her understanding of the situation was that they had been compliant for some time and that it was only once shared classes were established that they were not.

Jon Holden responded by explaining the non-compliance element. He said that relates to children registered at one school being taught for most of the time in another school. The regulations require that a child receives the majority of their education in the school they applied for and at which they are registered. The non-compliance arose because age groups were combined across the schools.

A parent said that they had a question as a representative of the PTA association. They asked whether they could continue to raise money for both schools or whether they had to raise it for only one school.

Darren Dudman Assistant Director of Education at the Diocese of Leeds reassured them that they could continue to raise money for both schools, because the federation would be continuing under the proposals.

Jon Holden thanked everyone for their comments.

CLOSING REMARKS

Jon Holden drew the meeting to a close by thanking everyone for their comments and questions.

Cllr Wilkinson said the comments about the proposal had been useful. She assured those present that all their comments would be included in the meeting notes and considered in the final report.

TheMeeting Closed at 6.50pm.

Notes of Public Consultation Meeting of the Synergy Schools Federation (concerning Leeming and Londonderry and Aiskew Leeming Bar Primary Schools) Reorganisation Proposals.

Meeting held on 15 October 2025 at Aiskew Leeming Bar Primary School

Present: Andrea Offord (Chair of Governors of The Synergy Schools Federation); Mike White (Executive Headteacher of The Synergy Federation of Primary Schools); Jon Holden (Strategic Planning Manager, Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS), NYC); Mark Ashton (Strategic Planning Officer, CYPS, NYC); John Lee (Strategic Planning Officer, NYC); Julie Pattison (Principal Education Adviser, NYC); school staff, pupils, parents, residents and other interested parties

18 People, including 6 parents, were present.

Apologies: Cllr Annabel Wilkinson (Executive Member for Education, Learning and Skills, North Yorkshire Council (NYC)

AGENDA

6.00	Meeting Opens – Brief welcome	Jon Holden, local authority officer, Mike White, Executive Head of Synergy Schools
6.05	Opening Remarks	Jon Holden, local authority officer
6.10	Presentation from NYC on: The proposals Background to the proposals How people respond	Jon Holden, and Mike White, Executive Head of Synergy Schools
6.25	Questions and Answers	Jon Holden; Julie Pattison, Principal Education Adviser; Mike White, Executive Head of Synergy Schools
6.50	Closing Remarks	Jon Holden, local authority officer
7.00	Meeting Closes

Welcome and Introductions

Jon Holden, Strategic Planning Manager, in the Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS), NYC. opened the public meeting at 6pm and he welcomed those present.

Jon Holden proceeded to introduce several members of the Federated Governing Board of Synergy Schools. He introduced Andrea Offord, Chair of the Federated Governing Board, and Mike White the Executive Headteacher of the Federation.

He introduced Mark Ashton and John Lee, Strategic Planning Officers, in the Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS), NYC and Julie Pattison, Principal Education Adviser (CYPS).

Opening Remarks

The Strategic Planning Manager, CYPS, NYC thanked parents and others for attending and said that this evening’s public meeting formed part of the consultation on the future organisation of two of the schools which formed part of the Synergy federation of schools.

Jon Holden said that, while he would present some Powerpoint slides on the proposals on behalf of the Local Authority, he thought parents would already be very familiar with much that he would say because he knew that Mike White, the executive headteacher, had already informally consulted widely with parents on the proposals. He was now engaging in the more formal process required to take the proposals forward.

Jon Holden said there would be an opportunity to hear people’s views in the question-and-answer session following the presentation and that representatives of the local authority, and the federation would then answer any questions on the proposals.

Presentation from NYC

Jon Holden opened his presentation by explaining that the meeting was part of a broader consultation exercise that is being undertaken on the future organisation of the federation of Leeming and Londonderry Community Primary School and Aiskew Leeming Bar Church of England (VC) Primary School.

Jon Holden said that he hoped that parents had already seen the consultation paper, which the Powerpoint slides would expand on but reiterate. He said the purpose of the slides and the meeting was to provide more clarity on the proposals, to hopefully reassure parents about their limited implications for practice on the ground, and to answer any questions.

Jon Holden emphasised that the proposals were primarily technical aspects of school organisation, about the way the two schools are organised and funded, and that amalgamation would enable a more flexible division of the age groups on the two sites than would be possible if they simply became infant and junior schools. The fundamental points are, he emphasised, that for the children in the single school, following the amalgamation, there is the benefit of being taught in classes of similar aged pupils and that the amalgamated school will continue to be within the Synergy federation, under the leadership of the executive headteacher and the federated governing body, and for the children in the schools, the governing board’s primary aim will be for minimal disruption to their education.

Jon Holden introduced other officers from the council who were conducting the consultation process and he explained that the federated governing body had requested the consultation, but that the council then determines the proposal.

Jon Holden started to outline the proposals, saying these were:

· That Aiskew Leeming Bar Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School and Leeming and Londonderry Community Primary School amalgamate with effect from 13 April 2026

· That this would be achieved through the technical closure of Leeming and Londonderry Community Primary School and the expansion of Aiskew Leeming Bar Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) Primary School onto an additional site (the Leeming and Londonderry school site)

· That the schools would have a shared catchment area, comprising an amalgamation of the existing schools’ current catchment areas

· The PAN for the school will be 15, to reflect the pupil forecast.

· It is also proposed to open a governor led nursery

Jon Holden presented further slides on the background to the proposals. These included an explanation of the adjacent catchment areas of Leeming and Londonderry Community Primary School and Aiskew Leeming Bar Church of England (VC) Primary School and of how they joined the Synergy federation in 2021 and 2024 respectively. He explained that, with capacities of 56 and 103 places and only 24 and 47 pupils on roll respectively, both schools operated with only two classes of mixed groups. Due to low numbers, both schools run one combined class of Reception and Key Stage 1, and another of all Key Stage 2 ages.

Jon Holden noted how, following the incorporation of Aiskew, Leeming Bar Church of England Primary School into the Synergy Federation in 2024, the federated governing board had – over the last 18 months – reviewed the similar two-class organisation of the two small schools and undertaken a detailed consideration of alternative models for school organisation to allow for further improvement in learning, He asked Mike White to further explain the review of three options by Synergy’s governing board.

Mike White, Executive Headteacher of the federation of Synergy Schools then spoke in some detail about the alternative options for the future organisation of the schools that had been considered fully by the federated governing board before their conclusions were reached on the proposals. He explained that three alternative options had been fully evaluated.

Mike White gave reasons why two of these options were discounted by the federated governing board. He said these reasons included financial considerations around lost revenue and considerations around wanting to maintain classes of similar aged pupils.

The first option of operating separate primary schools with children taught at their home school was neither educationally or financially viable, he said. He said that sometimes when children were spread across the two sites there was a cohort of one or two boys or girls in each year group and that was something they wanted to try to improve or avoid.

A second option of closing one of the two schools, including its site, was also considered. He said that the Governing Board concluded, however, that there would be insufficient space on one site for the full age range, including nursery. They also don’t want to lose one school as part of the community and are looking to future proof the amalgamated school, given significant local housing and potential additional pupils.

Mike White said that the second option would also result in a significant reduction in the revenue received compared to that currently received by the federation which the governing board considered would have a detrimental impact. It would mean that a proposed new structure of four classes would not be affordable.

Mike White confirmed that, following detailed consideration, the Synergy federation’s governing board had concluded that the third option of establishing an amalgamated single primary school across two sites, with a governor led nursery, was their preferred option for achieving the best outcomes for pupils, in line with the regulations for educating different aged pupils together on different sites. A key educational benefit of this structure, he said, was teaching the children with their peer groups: the amalgamated structure enables the provision in four separate classes across the two sites to be afforded from the funding. In addition, he added, the two sites would provide the space required to extend early years provision and operate the governor led a pre-school.

Having explained the governing board’s option appraisal prior to making their proposals and the reasons for the proposed technical closure of Leeming and Londonderry Community Primary School, Mike White handed back to Jon Holden.

Jon Holden noted that a key reason for retaining the unique DfE number of Aiskew Leeming Bar as part of the proposals, was that the school has a religious designation and therefore the single primary school would also be a Church of England (Voluntary Controlled) school. He said that the school organisation proposals, in respect of Aiskew Leeming Bar Church of England Primary School would require Diocese agreement.

Mike White confirmed that the Diocese had given their support.

Jon Holden further pointed out that, while the primary school would retain both the DfE number and the religious designation, it would not need to retain the name. He said that one suggestion was ‘Leeming Church of England (VC) Primary School’. However, this was only a suggestion and for the governing board to subsequently determine.

Andrea Offord, Chair of the Federated Governing Board of Synergy Schools then reassured parents that no decision on the name had yet been taken.

Andrea Offord said that the governing board had recently met and discussed various options for the name and would consult parents and the community on options before reaching any decision.

Jon Holden reiterated and emphasised again that, if the proposals are adopted, the single primary school will continue to operate in a federation with a single federated governing board, and with an executive headteacher. However, he pointed out that there would be some differences, most notably, a transition between the two sites at the end of Reception, although early years pupils, when leaving the EYFS provision on the Leeming and Londonderry site, would not have to apply for a school place on the Aiskew Leeming Bar site. Moreover, staff would help smooth that transition between the two site and the amalgamated school would have integrated arrangements for the assessment of learning.

The proposal to amalgamate the two existing schools separate catchment areas into a single combined catchment area for the primary school was highlighted. Jon Holden then explained that a Planned Admission Number (PAN) of 15 was being proposed, based on both pupil forecasts for the existing two schools, and the forecast pupil numbers for the single primary school. However, the PAN is not fixed and could be reviewed by the governing board in the future.

Jon Holden spoke on the issue of a parent who may have a child being taught on both sites and various suggestions, included the staggered start, were discussed. Mike White said they were determined to make things work for parents in that situation, whether by staggered starts or use of the school’s minibus.

It was noted that the discretionary assistance would not apply to pupils who joined the school after 1 September 2026.

The statutory guidance on the School Organisation Regulations relating to the proposals was referenced, together with what is required to be compliant with the regulations on registration.

Jon Holden concluded by saying that the local authority was following a process determined by regulations and that a two-stage consultation process would take place before any decision on the proposals is taken. Written responses and views expressed at this public meeting would form part of the report which is considered when the decision on whether to proceed to the second statutory consultation is taken. The statutory consultation is a further 4-week period when there is a further opportunity for comments and responses.

Questions and Answers.

Jon Holden invited questions from those present.

A parent mentioned the reference to a flexibility of the transition point between schools in one of the Powerpoint slides. They asked what the position would be if there was a very low intake of Reception pupils and a very low intake of nursery pupils one year. They asked whether there was a minimum number required to make the separate site viable.

Mike White responded that in the short term there was not a minimum number of Reception and nursery pupils required, but in the long term there was. He said if there were very low Reception and nursery numbers for three or four years running then there would be challenges for the school finances.

The parent asked whether the position of the Leeming and Londonderry would still be viable, in such a situation. Or would all pupils need to be moved to the Aiskew Leeming Bar site.

Mike White replied that in order to receive split site funding, one of the DfE’s funding conditions is that pupils of statutory school age have to be attending the school site. Therefore, Reception or above children – and particular children aged 5 – ie statutory age - at some point during the year, rather just (non-statutory aged) nursery children, would need to be attending if that funding is to be gained.

Mike White also replied that he and the governors are really confident that they have a positive proposal here, and an exciting proposal that they are bringing to parents that they think improves the education provision in the Leeming area. He said that when they get that message out to prospective parents – and he is doing that this coming Saturday with an open day for parents – they are going to look at the offer and like the sound of it, especially with the nursery and preschool involved.

He agreed that it was a little bit of a calculated risk; but it is very calculated, and they have thought long and hard about it. He said it had been on the cards for a long time and discussed by governors repeatedly during that period. He said that he had been in discussion with the local authority for a long time, in trying to get the ideas. He addressed the parent directly, when adding that she knew herself that they had been consulting parents a long time about this, talking and listening to parents in trying to get this right. He said that there had been a lot of work put in behind the scenes to try and get the proposal as right as they possibly can. He hoped that parents in the community would respond in the right way, and they flourish.

A parent asked what the position would be if there was a very low intake one year. They said prospective parents would be looking at something new, and not something that has existed over time with a proven track record, and therefore they may choose another provision with history. Would the site at Leeming and Londonderry still be viable in these circumstances they asked?

Mark Ashton, Strategic Planning Officer CYPS, said the references in the slides about the transition point being flexible was that it could change, depending on circumstances. For example, it could include Year 1 pupils at Leeming and Londonderry. This is the difference between an amalgamation option and the option of a junior and infant school split, he said, which would have a fixed point of transition.

A parent asked whether there is currently a proposal to have Year 1 children taught on the Leeming and Londonderry site. And if there is, won’t it disrupt their education?

Mike White replied that Mark Ashton was just giving parents an example of the flexibility that the federation could have under the amalgamation proposals. However, teaching Year 1 at Leeming and Londonderry was not part of the current proposals.

A parent asked if there was a very low intake one year, and a decision about who would be educated at Leeming and Londonderry had to be made, when would that decision be communicated to parents?

Mike White replied that he thought this was a very hypothetical question because the combined Reception numbers of both current schools would be sufficient.

A parent challenged this by saying that many of the current Reception pupils were younger siblings and that, in the future, there may not be new families with siblings coming to the area.

A second parent said they too had thought there might be only five Reception and five nursery children in a school that has 24 pupils currently. He said he could not see the total number ever getting above 15, which would be a small intake.

A Teacher replied that staff and leadership are trying to think of the two sites, not as two schools, but as just classrooms. The teacher added that, if they are thought of as just classrooms, while they understood what the parents were saying, they felt it was more appropriate to move away from thinking of them as two tiny schools, only a short distance apart.

The teacher concluded by saying that teachers and staff are all trying to change to the mindset of thinking of them as just another classroom with a bit of a gap in between.

A parent asked if there would still be the ‘federation Fridays’, where pupils work together, and whether this would also include the preschool.

Mike White replied that there would be loads of transition activities and sessions that involved Reception children to make sure that their transition went very smoothly.

Mike White added that the application window for Admissions had only been open for two days and they had already been notified of three first preference applications for admission to Reception in September 2026. He said they had already got three first choices in two days, which is promising for Reception numbers.

A parent said they knew that Aiskew-under-5s had witnessed a significant drop in numbers, down from about 15 to about 9. He said he did not know if they had gone to Bedale nursery but that they needed at least 6 to continue to employ two staff.

Mike White replied that the federation’s preschool would work in a slightly different way to Aiskew-under-5s because it would be led and taught by a qualified teacher.

He added that he done some work with Helen Smith, NYC’s Early Years Strategy Manager, who had provided an early years sufficiency audit, which showed there was a need in the area. He said that the parent’s analysis did not quite fit with the analysis that Helen Smith had provided through the sufficiency audit in terms of demand for places in this area.

Mike White said he did not know how that would grow with the housing planned, and that there was a bit of uncertainty in the forecasting. But he said that he thought the provision would be possible without having a significant impact on other providers.

A parent asked Mike White if there were plans to have any relationships with other pre school providers in the area. She said that, for example, Bedale Day Nursery go once a week to the forest school at Bedale Primary School, which is making preschool children already comfortable with Bedale Primary School and because they are already familiar with the teachers and buildings it encourages them to attend.

Mike White said that the school already does work with local preschools.

The headteacher of Aiskew Leeming Bar and Leeming and Londonderry Schools confirmed that there was already liaison work ongoing, and gave the examples of the teddy bears picnic they hosted and the nativity they were invited to. Anything they do, the head said, they put out to Aiskew-under-5s and Bedale Day Nursery and try to communicate with some of the others.

Mike White said going back to pupil numbers, the federation was very positive about numbers and know they have three first choices already after only 48 hours. He also knew that he had at least six families coming to the open day on Saturday and having cross referenced them against the three first choices, was confident they were six new families.

A parent asked Mike if he was showing the prospective parents both sites when they visited.

Mike White confirmed that he was.

A parent asked about the availability of capital funding for nursery provision on the Leeming and Londonderry site.

Mike White said that the bid to the DfE for nursery capital had already been developed. He said that the deadline for the application was December, and they would find out whether they were successful with the bid at Easter. He added that some improvement work was already underway from available funding.

The parent asked if the bid was successful, would it include internal improvements as well as external works.

Mike White confirmed that it would involve internal adaptations too. He added that they had already started the refurbishment of the outdoor area.

A parent asked about changes from four years in a class to two years in a class and the idea of thinking about classes, rather than schools. She asked whether existing teachers from both schools would be employed for this.

Mike White confirmed that existing teachers would be employed. There were currently four classes across the two schools and there would be four classes running under the proposals.

The parent asked whether it would be Years 3 and 4 in one class and Years 5 and 6 in another.

Mike White confirmed it would and also a Years 1 and 2 class. There would also be Reception and nursery provision, in an open plan format at the Leeming and Londonderry site.

A parent asked whether the two schools were following different curricula and how this would come together if they were covering different topics and areas.

The headteacher said that they were now following the same curriculum and that a great deal of work had gone into marrying the two provisions. She said that the teachers were working closely together to provide the same subjects and content. All planning is shared, now the schools are federated.

Jon Holden drew the meeting to a close by thanking everyone for their comments and questions. He concluded the meeting with some closing comments.

CLOSING REMARKS

Jon Holden encouraged people to respond, either online or by post. He said that all comments would be summarised in the report to the Executive Committee.

He said that subject to approval in December, there would be a further consultation on the proposals in January and February 2026.

The Meeting Closed at 6.45pm.