Enfield school closure consultation delayed over report errors

A consultation on the potential closure of three Enfield schools has been delayed after the council's overview and scrutiny committee identified errors in the decision-making report. The committee sent the proposals back for further consideration, postponing a decision on whether to proceed with consulting on the closures of Bishop Stopford’s School, Suffolks Primary School, and Starks Field Primary School.

Errors in report prompt delay

The decision to delay came after Labour councillors requested the committee 'call in' the proposals, arguing the report contained "serious flaws and inaccuracies". The committee debated the issue for over two hours on Tuesday, with parents and staff observing from the public gallery. While Conservative committee members agreed the report needed further review, they voted against a Labour proposal for a full council debate involving all councillors.

Labour councillor Ian Barnes, who led the call-in, questioned the accuracy of the figures presented. He also raised concerns about the recent expansion of special educational needs and disabilities (Send) provision at Suffolks Primary School, which has specialist autism units, stating families had been given "hope and the prospect of stability" before the closure threat emerged.

Concerns over Send provision

Protests were held outside Enfield Civic Centre prior to the meeting, with attendees highlighting the potential impact of closures on children with Send. Enfield North MP Feryal Clark joined the demonstration, stating that Suffolks Primary School exemplified the inclusive mainstream model recommended by government Send reforms. Headteachers from all three schools also addressed the committee, expressing doubts about the evidence base for the proposals and the transparency of the process.

Tammy Day, headteacher of Bishop Stopford’s School, asked councillors to consider if the decision was supported by "comprehensive and valid evidence", noting that viability assessments appeared to ignore academic performance and educational quality. Andrea Cassius, headteacher of Suffolks Primary School, echoed these concerns, stating the council had based its decision on "flawed information" and that the school was already expanding its Send provision, with a projected 96 special needs pupils by 2029. Melissa Davies Oliveck, headteacher of Starks Field Primary School, identified the welfare of Send pupils, who constitute nearly a fifth of her school's population, as her primary concern.

Council leader apologises for announcement

Council leader Alessandro Georgiou apologised "unreservedly" for the manner in which news of the potential closures was revealed over the summer, stating it was published on the council's website before affected schools were notified. He maintained that no pre-determined decision had been made and suggested the Labour opposition was attempting to "whip up" opposition. Cllr Georgiou also attributed the need to address declining pupil numbers to decisions made by previous Labour administrations.

Peter Nathan, the council's director of education, acknowledged that some data used in the report was out of date, explaining it was taken from the January census and that figures change. He stated that declining birth rates across the borough, with annual school starters falling from 5,000 a decade ago to 3,300, significantly impact school viability. Nathan also noted a combined financial deficit of £1.68 million across the three schools, describing it as a "considerable deficit" and stating the proposals were based on the needs of the borough as a whole. He assured that the council had a strong track record in Send provision and plans to expand capacity, expressing confidence that suitable provision would be found if closures proceeded.

Next steps

The council leader pledged that officers would provide a response to the identified inaccuracies before any consultation is launched. The overview and scrutiny committee agreed the issue should be sent back to cabinet for further consideration, but the call for a full council debate was not supported. The process now awaits the council's response to the inaccuracies before a formal consultation period can begin.