Appendix 3 Appletree Gardens First School and Langley First School: Stage 1 Pre-Publication Consultation Outcomes
Cabinet agreed at its meeting on 22 September 2025 to authorise the commencement of an initial pre-publication consultation with schools, parents and other stakeholders in relation to the potential merger of Langley First School and Appletree Gardens First School to create an alignment of admission numbers across the reception years of all North East Planning Area first schools to 390. This would mean the closure of Langley First School and the use of Appletree Gardens First School to accommodate the combined pupils. The merged school would retain the original Appletree Gardens First School DfE school number and be based on the Appletree Gardens site.
Responses from stakeholders to the Pre-Publication Consultation were provided online via the following link:
https://haveyoursay.northtyneside.gov.uk/hub-page/education-review-2
All responses to this anonymous questionnaire were dealt with in accordance with the Authority’s privacy notice, which can be found here in the privacy statement.
https://www.northtyneside.gov.uk/data-protection-and-privacy/privacy-statements
The Authority reviewed all responses in detail.
There were a number of requests for the period of pre-publication consultation to be extended or paused regarding this proposal. Those requests were carefully considered but the decision was that the process did not need to be paused or referred back to Cabinet. One of the reasons cited for the pre consultation process to be paused was due to some minor errors in the pre-publication consultation documentation. These errors have been corrected and amended on the consultation pages.
While it is important to rectify the information provided during the consultation and decision making, the corrections are not considered to be of significance in the context of the decision which is to be made and do not have any material impact on the recommended options
The errors corrected and amended are as follows:
- Reference to the playing fields and halls at Langley First – alerted to and amended/removed on 2 October 2025.
- The Langley First deficit chart graphic was incorrect in the initially published consultation and did not match the written statement about the finances. This was corrected following a meeting on 8 October 2025.
- Reception figures for Langley and Appletree - The Authority has identified an error in the published data and corrected this. The Projected number on roll for Reception in 2025-26 for Appletree Gardens First school was published as 26, this is incorrect and the correct projected number (using January 2025 census) should have been 44 which is consistent with the number rolling forward into Year 1 in 2026-27. The Projected number on roll for Reception in 2025-26 for Langley First school was published as 59, this is incorrect and the correct projected number (using January 2025 census) should have been 53 which is consistent with the number rolling forward into Year 1 in 2026-27. At the point that a decision is made on the outcome of the pre-consultation, the decision maker will have the correct details available to them.
- An error in the alternative options considered (the option to close Rockcliffe or Whitley Lodge and reduce another school with a pan of 60 to a pan of 45) – there was a typographical error and it should have read “leaving two schools with a pan of 45”, not three. This has been corrected.
- A query over the PAN of Marine Park First School - in the consultation document, the Marine Park PAN is stated as 90. However, in the Essential Guide to North Tyneside Schools Admissions 2026, the figure given for Marine Park PAN is 75. The consultation document should have referenced the fact that Marine Park admit to 90 with the agreement of the Governors. This has been amended in the consultation document.
1.1 Consultation Questions
The following questions were used to gather views from stakeholders.
|
Q1. Are you responding to the questions about the proposal to merge Langley First School and Appletree Gardens First School mainly as a:
|
|
Q2. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to merge Langley First and Appletree Gardens First Schools?
|
|
Q3. Having read the proposal in the background documents and the options appraisal, do you have an alternative option to the merger of Langley and Appletree First Schools?
|
| Q4. We would like to know what your suggestion is and how you think it could be achieved – please explain in the space below: |
| Q5. We are keen to understand how a proposal to merge the schools could affect you, your child, or your family – please explain in the space below: |
1.2 Consultation Responses
- 499 people participated and completed the Appletree and Langley survey.
- 573 downloaded a document, with 1.007 visiting multiple project pages.
- Overall, 3,230 people were aware of the Langley and Appletree consultation (visited the site more than once).
Please see Appendix 4 for full responses to the pre-consultation questions. These responses are as written by respondents to the pre-consultation questions, the only amendments made are to maintain confidentiality and remove any information that could identify any individuals when the documentation is published. The full unedited text has been made available to and considered by the decision maker.
Chart 1: Make-up of respondents (499 responses):
Chart 2: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal (499 responses)
Q.4 Suggested suitable alternatives
Question 4 asked people to suggest any alternatives they might have. However, many of the answers were more about their general views on the proposals. These views are reflected in the themes shown in the tables below.
Table 2: Q4. Suggested alternatives - Langley and Appletree (respondents could make multiple suggestions)
| Theme | Count |
| Strong sense of community and ethos associated with Langley – keep open / Concerns proposals would negatively impact the community and harm wellbeing | 178 |
| Look at alternative models (e.g. Federation / shared leadership / academy) / Create a Federation and shared leadership model | 122 |
| Criticism of Authority strategy and transparency | 116 |
| Criticism of the financial explanations / look at funding alternatives | 108 |
| Catchment area and admission policies should be reviewed before any closures | 100 |
| Closure would reduce Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) support in the area | 90 |
| Future growth and housing development in the area would create need for school places | 15 |
|
Close Appletree instead (Appletree Gdns close and Langley move to Appletree site)
|
12 |
| Look at alternative sites - merge both schools into one building (e.g. Monkseaton High) | 10 |
| Look for funding alternatives | 7 |
| Concerns with traffic and safety at Appletree site | 5 |
In addition to the 499 completed surveys received where respondents were asked for any alternative options, we also received separate correspondence from a number of individuals (staff, parents and other members of the community) as well as Langley First School.
The majority of the suggested alterative options received in addition to the survey responses are captured in the themes above (as in they were suggested in at least one response to Question 4) but all other alternative options submitted through different channels (including by the school) are covered below:
|
School Option 1: Reversal – Close Appletree Gardens First School (AGFS) and relocate Langley to AGFS site
|
|
School Option 2: Merger but with a firm commitment to create a new ethos/name
|
|
School Option 3: Amalgamation
|
|
School Option 4: Academise.
|
|
School Option 5: Federate with Woodlawn
|
|
School Option 6: Reduce PAN across the NEPA.
|
|
School Option 7: Langley / Appletree Federation
|
| Close other schools (Appletree Gardens; Southridge; South Wellfield; Rockcliffe; Coquet Park) And/or Reduce PANs at other schools |
|
Build a new school – either for Langley or for Woodlawn
|
|
Langley First / Appletree Gardens First to become a Primary School
|
As stated above, the Authority reviewed all responses in detail and all alternative suggestions were duly considered.
Q5. Further comments
At the end of the questionnaire, people were asked how the proposals might affect them, their children, or their families. The answers have been grouped into key themes, which give a general idea of what people said — these are shown in the tables below.
Table 2: Q5. Further comments on proposal to proposals to merge Langley and Appletree (respondents could make multiple suggestions)
| Theme | Count |
| Concerns with extra travel & accessibility | 214 |
| Look at alternative models (e.g. two-tier system, shared campus, federation) | 92 |
| Concerns with how SEND Provision for vulnerable pupils would be administered | 88 |
| Criticism of Authority strategy/transparency | 78 |
| Concerns with bigger class sizes & impact on quality of education | 57 |
| Important part of local community and has positive ethos (Langley) | 47 |
| Catchment area and admissions policies should be reviewed before any closures | 35 |
| Impact on children's Wellbeing | 26 |
| Concerns with wraparound care & nursery provision as a result of potential school closures | 22 |
| Housing Development and future growth in the area | 18 |
1.3 Review of Main Themes
The tables below summarise and address the most common themes, and provides a response to any suggested alternatives.
Suggested alternatives
| Theme | Response |
| Strong sense of community and ethos associated with Langley – keep open |
It is acknowledged that Langley First School is a good, valued school, however, the proposal is based on a number of factors including financial viability, proximity to other schools and the size of the school. The underlying need for change in the NEPA area is driven by the need to align all year groups to a PAN of 390.
The location of Langley First School on a shared site with Woodlawn Special School, the layout, and structure of the existing school buildings make the site well-suited for an important and growing area of need within the community: SEND provision. It is proposed that the Authority works with the Governing Body of Woodlawn Special School with a view to repurposing the site to focus on and support the development of high-quality, specialist education for children with SEND at Woodlawn Special School. |
| Future growth and housing development in the area would create need for school places |
North Tyneside’s population is changing. Birth rates have fallen steadily since 2018/19 and there are now around 300 fewer children born each year. That’s the equivalent to 10 fewer classes annually. There are now too many schools for the number of children in North Tyneside. Housing delivery by private sector developers, especially on the Authority’s strategic housing sites at Murton Gap and Killingworth Moor, have experienced reduced build-out rates which are below the annual target identified in the Local plan 2017. This, together with delays in the expected submission of planning applications is delaying the anticipated increase in pupil numbers. Also, new homes do not always mean new children of education age. On average, each 100 homes create 32 pupils across all twelve-year groups. Current projections show that the total number of pupils new developments would bring remains lower than the current birth rate decline. In the period 2010 to 2024 there has been a net increase of 7,777 dwellings across the Borough, with an average build per year of 555 dwellings. This therefore suggests that despite that level of new homes, the decline in the birth rate and pupil population continues.
|
| Close Appletree instead |
Both schools are good schools. There is no justification to close Appletree Gardens instead of Langley. The proposal is to use the Langley site for Woodlawn. Appletree Gardens is the most appropriate site for the merged school.
|
| Look at alternative sites - merge both schools into one building (e.g. Monkseaton High) | This option to use the Monkseaton High site for younger pupils was considered last year in the consultation around the closure of Monkseaton High School. However, the Monkseaton High School building is not designed for primary age pupils, and work would be needed on the building and external spaces to accommodate younger pupils. It was decided that this option was not financially viable and this remains the case. |
| Concerns with SEND and wraparound care if Langley is merged with Appletree |
The Authority understands the impact the consultation may have on those impacted. The Connect Mental Health Team works directly with schools and can provide additional support to pupils, colleagues and parents. School leaders, education services and support networks would work together to ensure transitions are thoughtful and inclusive for every child. There would be additional support for children with SEND. SEND Support Service and Educational Psychology teams can work with a child’s current and future school to create a personalised transition plan. Visual timetables and sensory-friendly tours may be used to reduce anxiety. Staff who know pupils well would be involved in handover planning. Joint events and transition days help children meet new teachers and explore the new environment gradually. Schools would try to keep friendship groups together during the transition where possible. It is understood that change can be particularly challenging for children and young people with SEND, including those with SEN Support Plans and Education Health and Care Plans. School leaders, education services and support networks would work with children, young people and families to have in place the transitional support needed, which is thoughtful and inclusive for every child. To ensure the new school's wraparound care and nursery fully meet parent needs, a data-led audit of existing provision across both merging schools would be conducted to identify the true gap between current service capacity and community demand (including required hours and specialist needs like SEND support). This strategic audit would inform a co-designed operational model developed in partnership with parents and providers. The plan would be based on verified demand and benchmarking quality against the EYFS framework, the resulting offer is not merely a combination of old services, but a reviewed, sustainable, and high-quality provision designed specifically to provide the necessary support and flexibility for our families.
|
| Look for funding alternatives |
It is important to note how school funding works and the respective role of the school and the Authority. School funding is the responsibility of the DfE; either by direct funding agreements with Academy Sponsors or via local authorities to schools where budget management is the delegated responsibility of each governing body.
Since 2017, there has been a move towards a National Funding Formula (NFF) approach to determine how funding is allocated to schools. In North Tyneside, the NFF approach has been applied since 2021/22, and is agreed each year by the North Tyneside Schools Forum (a representative group of school leaders and governors) before being ratified by Cabinet. This means that the Authority neither directly funds nor determines how much money is allocated to schools.
Several comments were included in the consultation about Appletree Gardens’ financial position being favourable due to the school receiving Falling Rolls funding. Whilst an application was received from the school for the current financial year (2025/26) no funding has been awarded this year (Schools Forum agreed in September to delay any award of Falling Rolls funding until the end of the financial year) or indeed in the last 5 financial years. Therefore, this funding application is not included in the schools budget forecasts.
|
| Create a Federation and shared leadership model |
As with the option of joining or becoming a MAT, the Authority do not have the powers to action a proposal around a Federation. This would be a Governing Body decision and is not something that the Authority can mandate schools to do.
|
| Concerns with traffic and safety at Appletree site |
The Authority will work with colleagues in Highways, and the Safer Route to Schools team, to consider options to manage traffic movement around the school.
Statutory guidance states that the reasonable distance for children under eight years of age to travel is two miles and for those over eight years of age is three miles, to their nearest school with places available. Assistance with travel may be available in specific circumstances and each child’s circumstances would be considered individually. The Authority’s home to school transport policy is available here.
|
| Close other schools/reduce other PANs |
Other options were considered before the pre-publication consultation was launched. These included the closure and/or reduction of PANs in other schools instead, and the reasons why these options were discounted are available in the consultation documentation here
|
|
Option 1: Reversal – Close AGFS and relocate Langley to AGFS site
|
Both schools are good schools. There is no justification to close Appletree Gardens instead of Langley based on the criteria applied in reaching Cabinet’s initial proposals. The proposal is to use the Langley site for Woodlawn. Appletree Gardens is the most appropriate site for the merged school, which drives the decision to retain the DfE number of Appletree Gardens.
|
|
Option 2: Merger but with a firm commitment as option 1 but with a firm commitment to adopt the best of both schools
|
Same rationale at above, but it is agreed that the schools working together would be of benefit for the pupils together with a firm commitment to develop a cohesive school community.
|
|
Option 3: Amalgamation
|
Department for Education (DfE) guidance provides two options for merging or amalgamating two or more existing maintained schools. One is to close both existing schools and open a new one (option one), and the other is to close one school and merge it with another (option two). The DFE refers to both options as an amalgamation, with the second option also referred to as a merger in the DFE Guidance October 2024 Opening and closing maintained schools (see section on Amalgamations on page 25).
Both options were considered during the decision-making process and have been carefully reviewed during the ongoing consultation.
The Authority chose to consult on the proposal to close one school and merge it with another for the following key reasons:
|
|
Option 4: Academise.
|
Academisation is an option which a school may explore in order to join an existing Academy Trust. Academies are state-funded organisations that are run independently from local authorities and receive their funding directly from the Government (although this flows via the national funding formula approach that is administered by local authorities). Before taking on a school, a trust would look at finances, pupil numbers, results and more to see if it is viable. The Authority does not have the powers to action an academisation proposal and it is not something that the Authority can mandate schools to do. An Academy Trust has expressed an interest in Langley First School joining their Trust. The Academy Trust have said they have undertaken initial due diligence and are ready to proceed with a formal academisation proposal. |
|
Option 5: Federate with Woodlawn
|
As with the option of joining or becoming a Multi Academy Trust (MAT), the Authority does not have the powers to action a proposal around a Federation. This would be a Governing Body decision and is not something that the Authority can mandate schools to do. This would be a decision to be made with agreement of both schools. It is noted that when the option was proposed by the school, the option had not been agreed with Woodlawn School so it is not possible to comment on the commitment from both schools to this option.
|
|
Option 6: Reduce PAN across the NEPA.
|
Due to the declining birth rate, the current Year 1 and current Reception are both well below the total PAN of 450 – and both are below the figure of 390. If all 8 schools were to remain open and share a reduced number of children this would lead to further financial instability and would risk more schools falling into deficit. It is not an option which the Authority could support financially and it would not align PAN at 390 across the NEPA as the Authority cannot mandate schools to amend their PANs.
|
|
Option 7: Langley / Appletree Federation
|
As with the option of joining or becoming a MAT, the Authority does not have the powers to action a proposal around a Federation. This would be a Governing Body decision and is not something that the Authority can mandate schools to do. This would be a decision to be made with agreement of both schools.
|
|
Close other schools (Appletree Gardens; Southridge; South Wellfield; Rockcliffe; Coquet Park) And/or Reduce PANs at other schools |
Other options were considered before the pre-publication consultation was launched. These included the closure and/or reduction of PANs in other schools instead. The reasons why these options were discounted are available in the consultation documentation here:
|
| Build a new school – either for Langley or for Woodlawn | The cost of a new school is typically high, and usually paid for by the Central Government, not local authorities. The Authority does not have sufficient funds to pay for any new school in North Tyneside. |
| Langley First to become a Primary School / Appletree Gardens First to become a Primary School | In early 2024 the Authority explored an option for part of the North East Planning Area to become two-tier. Further modelling made it clear that this option would carry too much financial risk. Parental choice and the commitment to the three-tier system would be a significant factor against this option. It would leave the wider North East Planning Area with a split system (three-tier/two-tier) and there would still be too many surplus places in the secondary year groups. This would be further compounded by falling birth rates over the last five years, meaning there would not be the pupils to fill all the places in the future. |
Q5. Further comments
At the end of the questionnaire, people were asked how the proposals might affect them, their children, or their families. The answers have been grouped into key themes, which give a general idea of what people said — these are shown in the tables below.
| Theme | Response |
| Concerns with bigger class sizes & impact on quality of education |
Larger class sizes do not necessarily mean a reduction in the quality of education. The school would organise teaching and support for the number of pupils it has in each year group. No school would take on more pupils than they can support, and decisions would be made by school leaders to prioritise education. There is national legislation for a maximum of 30 pupils in a class for five to seven year olds. There is no maximum size for the remaining years of primary, pupils aged seven to 11, or for secondary education, pupils aged 11 to 19. Class sizes may increase but would not exceed these legal limits. Class structures would be reviewed by school leaders to ensure children’s learning and wellbeing remain priority. Schools would not admit more pupils than they can safely and effectively support.
|
| Important part of local community and has positive ethos (Langley) | It is recognised that work would be needed to support the school communities to integrate. This would be led by both schools’ leadership teams and governing bodies with support from Council officers, offering advice on best practice. Examples may include working with all pupils to look at what the merged school community means to them and gathering their thoughts and ideas; opportunities to bring the pupils together before any change is implemented including welcome meetings and shared curriculum based projects; establishing a new joint school student council with representatives from both schools; working with new joint school student council to look at matters which could include the name of the school, uniform, values that are important to the pupils to combine their thoughts and ideas; opportunities to celebrate the history of each school before any location change takes place; visits to the school site for those students relocating to a new school site; talking to the pupils about transition and understanding more about what they would like this to include. It is important that pupils from both schools can work with school leaders (and governors) to influence and shape the identity of the merged school. |
| Concerns with extra travel & accessibility |
The location of the merged schools within their catchments has been taken into account in the proposals.
Statutory guidance states that the reasonable distance for children under eight years of age to travel is two miles and for those over eight years of age is three miles, to their nearest school with places available. Assistance with travel may be available in specific circumstances and each child’s circumstances would be considered individually. The Authority’s home to school transport policy is available here.
|
|
Criticism of Authority strategy/ transparency |
Cabinet agreed at its meeting on 22 September 2025 to authorise the commencement of an initial pre-publication consultation with schools, parents and other stakeholders in relation to each of the four proposals. It is a statutory requirement for the Proposer (in this case the Authority,) to consult any parties it considers appropriate before publishing statutory proposals. The Pre-Publication Consultation ran from 2 October 2025 to 13 November 2025. The Stage 1 Pre-Publication Consultation was carried out in full accordance with DfE statutory guidance.
The Authority is conscious that while many staff and parents understand the reasons for the Pre-Publication Consultation, there is also understandably a great deal of emotion connected to any change within a school and its place in the community. Throughout the process the Authority has sought to respond to queries and concerns with transparency, for example through the survey, responding to resident enquiries and Freedom of Information requests and uploading documentation and FAQs to the Engagement Hub. In considering the matters raised during the course of the pre-publication consultation period, the Authority published additional information at various points and also updated the FAQs . Whenever an FAQ was updated this was made clear on the Have Your Say page to ensure it was obvious which ones were new or had been updated. Newsletters were sent out which informed those who had registered and/or already submitted a response that there had been some updated information and FAQs added to the Authority’s Have Your Say consultation page.
|
| Impact on children's Wellbeing |
The Authority recognises that a consultation of this nature will be a concern for local communities however the current educational and financial position is not sustainable. The Authority aims to have a system of education that brings about the highest possible standards of education for all children and doing nothing will not achieve this in the rapidly changing educational landscape. The Authority understands the impact the consultation may have on those affected. The Authority’s Connect Mental Health Team works directly with schools and can provide additional support to pupils, colleagues and parents. School leaders, education services and support networks would work together to ensure transitions are thoughtful and inclusive for every child. There would be additional support for children with SEND. SEND Support Service and Educational Psychology teams can work with your child’s current and future school to create a personalised transition plan. Visual timetables and sensory-friendly tours may be used to reduce anxiety. Staff who know pupils well would be involved in handover planning. Joint events and transition days help children meet new teachers and explore the new environment gradually. Schools would try to keep friendship groups together during the transition where possible.
|
| Concerns with how SEND Provision for vulnerable pupils will be administered |
The Authority recognises that a consultation of this nature will be a concern for local communities however the current educational and financial position is not sustainable. The Authority aims to have a system of education that brings about the highest possible standards of education for all children and doing nothing will not achieve this in the rapidly changing educational landscape. The Authority understands the impact the consultation may have on those impacted. The Connect Mental Health Team works directly with schools and can provide additional support to pupils, colleagues and parents. School leaders, education services and support networks would work together to ensure transitions are thoughtful and inclusive for every child. There would be additional support for children with SEND. SEND Support Service and Educational Psychology teams can work with a child’s current and future school to create a personalised transition plan. Visual timetables and sensory-friendly tours may be used to reduce anxiety. Staff who know pupils well would be involved in handover planning. Joint events and transition days help children meet new teachers and explore the new environment gradually. Schools would try to keep friendship groups together during the transition where possible. It is understood that change can be particularly challenging for children and young people with SEND, including those with SEN Support Plans and Education Health and Care Plans. School leaders, education services and support networks would work with children, young people and families to have in place the transitional support needed, which is thoughtful and inclusive for every child.
Support may include:
|
| Look at alternative models (e.g. two-tier system) |
One option previously explored was moving the three-tier system to a two-tier system of education. This was considered in a review of education provision in 2000 and was not considered appropriate. It was then considered again in the education review of 2013-15. Significant consultation was undertaken in October 2014 and the feedback from that was clear that the schools and local community were committed to the three-tier system. As a result, it was agreed that the Authority would work with the schools to “maintain and raise standards and tackle the collective financial challenge” and would “work with Headteachers and Governing Bodies across the Whitley Bay and Monkseaton group of schools to retain the three-tier system while managing places, raising standards and controlling costs.”
The option was considered again in discussions with schools in 2022/23 but again dismissed as the vast majority of school leaders and governors were clear that they and the community wanted to maintain the three-tier system.
In the Cabinet Report of September 2023, the Authority gave a firm commitment to the three-tier system in the Planning Area and to working together with the schools to ensure it is viable and sustainable, but in order for this to be taken forward there needed to be a firm commitment from all the schools in the Planning Area to protect the integrity of the current three-tier system and to continue to collaborate and work closely together to ensure educational and financial sustainability.
In early 2024 the Authority explored an option for part of the Planning Area to become two-tier. Further modelling made it clear that this option would carry too much risk. Parental choice and the commitment to the three-tier system would be the biggest factor and it would leave the wider North East Planning Area with a split system (three-tier/two-tier) and there would still be too many surplus places in the secondary year groups. This would be further compounded by falling birth rates over the last five years, meaning there would be insufficient pupil numbers to fill all the places in the future.
|
| Concerns with wraparound care & nursery provision as a result of potential school closures | To ensure the new school's wraparound care and nursery fully meet parent needs, a data-led audit of existing provision across both merging schools would be conducted to identify the true gap between current service capacity and community demand (including required hours and specialist needs like SEND support). This strategic audit would inform a co-designed operational model developed in partnership with parents and providers. The plan would be based on verified demand and benchmarking quality against the EYFS framework, the resulting offer is not merely a combination of old services, but a reviewed, sustainable, and high-quality provision designed specifically to provide the necessary support and flexibility for our families. |
| Housing Development and future growth in the area |
North Tyneside’s population is changing. Birth rates have fallen steadily since 2018/19 and there are now around 300 fewer children born each year. That’s the equivalent to 10 fewer classes annually. There are now too many schools for the number of children in North Tyneside. The challenges and complexities around housing delivery have resulted in reduced build rates which are below the annual target identified in the Local plan 2017. This, together with delays in the expected submission of applications is delaying the anticipated increase in pupil numbers. Also, new homes do not always mean new children of education age. On average, each 100 homes create 32 pupils across all twelve-year groups. Current projections show that the total number of pupils new developments would bring remains lower than the current birth rate decline. In the period 2010 to 2024 there has been a net increase of 7,777 dwellings across the Borough, with an average build per year of 555 dwellings. This therefore suggests that despite that level of new homes, the decline in the birth rate and pupil population continues. |
| Catchment area and admissions policies should be reviewed before any closures | Catchment areas are an Oversubscription tool within each schools Admissions Arrangements. Catchment areas do not prevent parental choice, and would not allow admissions to be refused in circumstances other than oversubscription. Where capacity exists, a place would be offered, irrespective of the catchment position. |