The closure of a school site is expected to be approved at a meeting of senior councillors next week, paving the way for the land to be sold, almost certainly for housing.
If councillors agree, Hove Park School could move ahead with the formal process of closing its Valley Campus, in Hangleton Way, and teaching all pupils on its Nevill Campus, in Nevill Road.
A report said that Brighton and Hove City Council had worked on the closure proposal in partnership with the school’s governors and head teacher.
The school had a deficit of more than £1.8 million by the end of the latest financial year – currently the biggest deficit among local authority maintained schools in Brighton and Hove.
In part, the financial position has been made more difficult by the duplication of some costs over the two school sites – all while pupil numbers have been falling.
The school hopes to have all pupils together on one site from September 2028, with some building work – estimated to cost £7.6 million – expected to be undertaken before then.
The first phase would involve, among other things, a classroom extension, dining room extension and more toilets. The second phase would include putting in an artificial sports pitch and floodlights.
The proceeds from selling the Valley Campus, would according to a report to the council’s cabinet, be retained by the council. In the meantime, architects are being consulted on the site’s potential.
The report said: “Any capital receipt arising from the disposal of the Valley Campus will be treated as a corporate capital receipt, available to the council for deployment in accordance with its capital investment priorities.”
The council would have to obtain permission from the government’s Education Secretary before the Valley Campus could be sold, even if it has been closed.
Two public consultations have taken place so far. Many of the 169 responses to the first consultation last year wanted more detail.
During the second consultation, more detailed information was published, but overall more than 60 per cent of respondents were against the changes in principle.
The school has a published admission number (PAN) of 180 but offered places to only 136 potential new starters for September on “national offer day” in March.
Pupil numbers have fallen from 1,604 in 2013 to 1,214 in 2021 and 1,051 in 2024, By May this year, the school had 930 pupils – down 58 per cent in 13 years.
There are about 1,120 surplus places across the remaining state secondary schools in Brighton and Hove and closing the school has been ruled out.
The report said: “The school continues to serve a significant number of pupils, including those already enrolled, and closure would cause considerable disruption to current and prospective families, many of whom would face significantly longer journeys to alternative schools.
“While closure would reduce surplus capacity across the city and remove the ongoing financial burden of the school’s licensed deficit from the council, these considerations do not outweigh the impact on pupils and families, and the council does not consider closure to be a proportionate or acceptable course of action.”
The report said that the council could consider reducing the number of admissions at other secondary schools to try to manage surplus places.
One option, not mentioned in the report, would be to merge Hove Park with neighbouring Blatchington Mill School.
The two schools shared a sixth form for a while – and both were initially formed by merging their predecessor grammar and secondary modern schools.
A decision on the closure of the Valley Campus is due to be made by the council’s cabinet at a meeting at Hove Town Hall which is scheduled to start at 10.30am on Thursday 16 July. The meeting is expected to be webcast.
Another fat juicy site to sell for loads of money! Price families out of the city and close and sell all the schools. Well played Council.
You only read the headline before going off on another one, didn’t you?
To be fair to Tracy, they are highlighting an issue of grave concern for all residents. It does seem that this administration’s definitely factored position is to strip public assets to the detriment of the community. There should be more resistance to this apparent policy and it really is beholden to our elected representatives to lead the battle against this approach.
*Apologies: auto correct does not compute de facto but replaced it with “definitely factored!”
You make a good point, I certainly see that perception and how the kneejerk reaction, that is often encouraged by opposition, is held. Where I would challenge that narrative, regarding schools at least, is that there’s a very logical explanation why which contradicts it completely:
There are too many spaces; it’s costing loads of money, and it is unsustainable.
That’s the crux.
We bang on loads about wanting a financially astute council that doesn’t waste money. Tracy specifically has asked for this previously, in so many words – this is an answer to that question.
However Benjamin, with the building of more “affordable” homes and expansion of social housing, comes the need for more school places. This is a regular cycle within Society so we need to be prepared. There does not seem to be any contingency planning by this authority, evidenced by the King Alfred proposals which are woefully inadequate for an expanding city. Their position has perhaps been jaundiced by the fanciful figures embraced by previous administrations when backing the i360. King Alfred should be a landmark development, seeking to host international competitions as well as catering for local use. It does neither. Selling off public assets for short-term gain is generally a way to bankruptcy. It might not suit the accountants but it certainly improves our standards of living even if it comes with a bit of pain.
It’s a reasonable point, which I would add the word “eventually” to. Focusing on schools because we’re jumping around a bit; eventually there will indeed be a need for additional school placements, should house building continue in the positive trend it does, and more young people are created. But because it’s such a long way off, at least half a decade – and that’s if there was an immediate and sudden influx of births – it’s financially responsible to reduce the excess capacity so money isn’t spent on effectively nothing.
Give the city a decade, and there will probably be a need for a new school! Perhaps it’s more a question of timing?
Turn it into a leisure complex with playing fields.
They wanted to relocate the King Alfred complex below Sainsbury’s but the Hovite Nimbys opposed it.
Would have been at a better value too, according to the proposals.