Agenda item

The following Notices of Motion have been received:

 

1.    Motion against the proposed closure of Corpusty School

 

Proposed by Cllr A Brown, seconded by Cllr C Ringer

 

2.    Sheringham Sixth Form Provision and Post-16 Educational Inequality

 

Proposed by: Cllr Liz Withington, seconded by C Ringer

 

The Chair advised members that there were two Notices of Motion. As thirty minutes was allocated for this item in total, he suggested that 15 minutes was allowed for each motion.

 

The Chair then invited Cllr A Brown to introduce the first motion:

 

Proposed closure of Corpusty School

 

Cllr Brown began by thanking residents of Corpusty for attending the meeting and showing their support. He said that Corpusty Primary School had been operating since 1881 and had survived economic depressions and two wars and had weathered declining pupil numbers before. It had taken Synergy Trust just 7 years to preside over a period of managed decline. The consultation in January 2026 was circulated to some local residents but not the local member.

 

He went onto say that Corpusty had the first neighbourhood plan in North Norfolk and the school was central to the community and additional housing had been planned around it. Without any detail from Synergy Trust regarding what they wanted to replace it with, it was hard to gauge future viability. The principal reason provided was falling pupil numbers but Cllr Brown felt that this was disingenuous. Governance appeared to be obscure. If it was accepted that the school was due to close, then the alternative options were Reepham or Gresham rather than Astley school which was much closer and had capacity.

 

Cllr Brown concluded by saying that although he acknowledged that education was not a responsibility of the District Council, members had a duty to try and understand what was going on at Corpusty school and what was being withheld. The vibrancy of the village depended on having an active school. He therefore proposed the motion.

 

The Chair invited members to speak:

 

Cllr L Shires said that as a parent of a child who had attended a small rural school, she was supportive of village primary schools. They were special to the young people who attended them and the communities around them.

 

Cllr J Boyle said she was concerned that when schools were closed in villages that had been earmarked for expansion, there were significant ramifications. The Council had worked hard to prepare a Local Plan and had allocated new housing in villages such as Corpusty due to the presence of a school. The wider impact of not taking a holistic approach was worrying.

 

Cllr C Ringer then spoke as seconder of the motion. He said that the primary school had stood at the centre of village life in Corpusty since 1881. The rhythm of daily life changed when schools closed and it should always be a last resort.

 

If falling numbers were the rationale for closure then more investigation was needed to explore all reasonable alternatives. Modest viability in one setting could relieve pressure in another. Holt Primary School was under significant strain at the moment and a more strategic approach to intake across local schools would be beneficial.

 

He asked if there had been meaningful engagement with NNDC at any point regarding projected housing growth in the village. As far as he could see there had not. Thirty eight new homes were planned in Corpusty, with the assumption that there was a school in the village.

 

To make a short-term decision now before those homes were built would undermine the very framework that had been put in place to protect the future of the village. The Academy Trust had played no part in shaping the Neighbourhood Plan or NNDC’s Local Plan, which they could have been expected to have done if they really wanted to ensure the future viability of the school.

 

Cllr C Ringer said that now it had been confirmed that the County Council elections would take place in May 2026, any decision regarding closure of the school should be delayed until after the election. Norfolk County Council was responsible for strategic planning for education and it was only right that a newly elected authority with a democratic mandate had the opportunity to scrutinise, challenge and help shape decisions of this magnitude.

 

For a school that had existed for 145 years, allowing sufficient time for new housing to come forward, proper engagement and a newly elected County Council to consider the matter was not unreasonable. He seconded the motion.

 

The Chair asked Cllr Brown, as proposer of the motion, to close the debate.

 

Cllr Brown said that he agreed with Cllr Ringer’s comments. The school had over 100 pupils in recent years and there had to be an explanation for the significant drop in numbers. More time was needed to fully explore this. he did not believe that the whole story was being told.

 

It was proposed by Cllr A Brown, seconded by Cllr C Ringer and

 

RESOLVED unanimously

 

1. To write to the DfE Regional Director for the East of England requesting:

• Intervention and review the decision to close Corpusty School
• A pause in implementation pending completion of:
  • A full Equality Impact Assessment under the Public Sector Equality Duty;
  • A rural and coastal access impact review;
• Clarification as to how the decision aligns with forthcoming legislative reforms to MAT accountability.

 

2. To write to Norfolk County Council’s Cabinet Member for Education seeking:

• An explanation of how this decision aligns with Norfolk’s strategic vision for 4-11 years education in North Norfolk;
• Details of alternative delivery models explored with Synergy MAT;
• Assurance that a coherent plan remains in place for continued Ofsted rated good schooling provision for displaced pupils at alternative schools.

3. To write to Synergy Multi-Academy Trust requesting:

• Publication of the Trust’s impact assessment: including projected effects on participation, travel burdens and Free School Meal pupils over five years;
• Explore Alternatives: To instruct the Chief Executive to pursue the Trust for further information about viable alternatives to closure including engaging with Astley Primary School in Briston by potentially merging Briston and Corpusty school catchment areas.  Further to explore possible combination with SEND children sharing the school premises;   
• Enhanced Consultation: To conduct an independent Community Impact Assessment to fully understand the long-term social and economic consequences for the Corpusty and Saxthorpe area;
• Management Audit: To pursue a review of the Trust’s performance in other schools within their federation and the auditing of financial accounts since inception.

 

 

The Chair thanked members and then invited Cllr L Withington to introduce the next motion:

 

Sheringham Sixth Form Provision and Post-16 Educational Inequality

 

Cllr Withington showed several slides setting out the reasons why removing A levels from Sheringham Sixth Form’s curriculum from September 2026 would be detrimental to young people, the community and the local economy. She highlighted the likely impact on young people’s ambitions and future earnings and how having to travel long distances to reach alternative sixth forms would lead to disengagement from their community. In addition, she spoke about Sheringham’s growing creative & cultural economy which was embedded in tourism and how the reduction in creative arts subjects would reduce progression routes for young people. She urged the Government to give stronger local authority oversight of provision and responsibility for strategic development of educational opportunities and ensure alignment with national curriculum expectations.

 

Cllr C Ringer seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.

 

The Chair opened the debate:

 

Cllr C Heinink said that as a teacher based in Sheringham, the loss of A level provision at the Sixth form was a disaster for families in the town and beyond.

 

Cllr P Neatherway said that he echoed the previous comments and said that in simple terms economy of scale should not justify policy.

 

Cllr V Holliday said that as the member for a neighbouring ward where many families were affected by the proposals, she was very supportive of the motion. Without the possibility of attainment at sixth form level, options for progression were reduced. Barriers should be lifted – not put in place.

 

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett said that as the grandparent of a child who was currently in year 9 at Sheringham school, she was appalled by the proposals to close the sixth form. Under the current plans, children at the high school would no longer be able to stay at their place of education and it caused anxiety and disruption.

 

Cllr J Toye said that it was important to access the data behind the proposals from the Academy Trust. It was vital that the right courses were provided in the right place and that decisions were not driven by some other mechanism. He supported the motion.

 

The Chair then invited Cllr C Ringer, seconder of the motion to speak.

 

Cllr Ringer said that in a rural, coastal district such as North Norfolk, access to post-16 education was not an optional extra it was essential infrastructure. Where a young person lived in the district already shaped what was available to them and by removing A level provision from Sheringham, that geographic disadvantage becomes even more entrenched. The impact rippled out beyond the entire high school catchment and beyond. In many communities, public transport was sparse and infrequent. By removing A levels for many young people, you were not just adjusting the curriculum balance, you were removing their practical route to academic progression all together. Ultimately this meant that access to A levels became dependent not on ability or aspiration but on family circumstances. Finance or just the postcode. Narrowing the academic offer, apparently in anticipation of a Government White Paper, the contents of which were not known, raised many questions.

 

Academic and vocational studies can and should co-exist and the motion did not seek to dictate curriculum design, it asked for transparency. It asked for a full assessment and accountability, a full equality impact assessment and a coastal access review. It requested an analysis of implications relating to participation, NEET levels and inequality and how this aligned with forthcoming legislative reform of multi-academy trust accountability because at the moment an academy trust could remove this provision without any consultation at all. These weren’t unreasonable requests, they were the minimum the community should expect when decisions of this magnitude were made. North Norfolk already faced inequality, coastal and rural deprivation, lower than average wages, seasonal employment patterns, and transport limitations. If participation in post-16 education declines as a result of this decision, it would not be an abstract statistic, it would be young people’s horizons narrowing. The proposals to remove A level provision from Sheringham could undo three decades of good work. He seconded the motion.

 

Cllr Withington said that she had nothing further to add as proposer of the motion.

 

The Chair then moved to the vote.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Withington, seconded by Cllr Ringer and

 

RESOLVED unanimously to

 

 

1. To write to the DfE Regional Director for the East of England requesting:

• Intervention and review of the decision to cease A-Level provision in Sheringham.
• A pause in implementation pending completion of:
  • A full Equality Impact Assessment under the Public Sector Equality Duty;
  • A rural and coastal access impact review;
  • An assessment of implications for participation, NEET levels and inequality.
• Clarification as to how the decision aligns with forthcoming legislative reforms to MAT accountability.

 

2. To write to Norfolk County Council’s Cabinet Member for Education seeking:

• An explanation of how this decision aligns with Norfolk’s strategic vision for 16+ education in North Norfolk.
• Assessment of the projected impact on participation, progression and NEET levels.
• Details of alternative delivery models explored with Synergy MAT.
• Assurance that a coherent 16+ sufficiency plan remains in place for Sheringham and surrounding communities.

 

3. To write to Synergy Multi-Academy Trust requesting:

• Publication of the Trust’s impact assessment, including projected effects on participation, travel burdens, NEET levels and Free School Meal pupils over five years.
• A detailed explanation of the financial rationale for closure, including comparative data with other rural Norfolk sixth form, trends in numbers on roll since 2018, strategies undertaken to increase recruitment, and the evidence base supporting the proposed vocational curriculum as viable and sustainable.