School Buildings: Rushcliffe

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

18:00

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the condition of school buildings in Rushcliffe constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the Minister for hot-footing it down from the main Chamber in just five or 10 minutes— I congratulate him on that. I also apologise to him for securing today’s debate; we recently bumped into each other in a non-educational context, and he specifically thanked me for not mentioning a Rushcliffe school to him at that moment. I therefore suspect that he was neither surprised nor particularly pleased to see that I had secured a whole debate on the subject, but hopefully it also means that he is ahead of the game and in a position to give me some of the answers that I am looking for today.

There has been some genuine progress in education settings in Rushcliffe over the past two years, so I want to start by recognising that: more than £120 million of new education investment has either been spent or is now planned for this Parliament. That includes £3.8 million for Nottingham college—including the campus in Ruddington—to modernise facilities, and £1.2 million for the centre for sustainable construction technology to tackle regional skills shortages. More than £30 million of basic need funding has been used for a 450-place block at Rushcliffe Spencer academy in West Bridgford. Almost £40 million of works are under way at South Wolds academy in Keyworth to replace a single-storey classroom building with a new three-storey block.

Some £8 million has been spent on a state-of-the-art primary school in Sutton Bonington, and £1.2 million has been allocated for building upgrades at Willow Brook primary school in Keyworth. We have seen the completion of cladding, insulation, safety and lighting works at Keyworth primary and nursery school. Some £230,000 has been allocated for building upgrades at Willoughby primary school in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, and £200,000 has been spent on energy infrastructure at Pierrepont Gamston primary school. A new heating system has been installed at Langar Church of England primary school to reduce running costs. And, of course, £35.8 million of Nottinghamshire county council’s special educational needs and disabilities deficit has been offset and absorbed by this Government.

Improvements are taking place in our schools across Rushcliffe, and I wholeheartedly welcome that level of investment, but my local schools are also facing some significant challenges. Today, I want to highlight six issues that I believe illustrate wider problems in the way we plan, fund and maintain our school estate.

First, St Peter’s C of E junior school in Ruddington unexpectedly became one of the flagship issues in my constituency last Christmas. St Peter’s was built in 1956 using the Derwent system. Last December, surveyors discovered severe structural deterioration, including decay in the timber columns supporting the floors and roof. On 9 December, the building was closed and around 360 children suddenly found themselves without a school building, just three weeks before Christmas.

The response from the community was extraordinary: staff, governors, parents, neighbouring schools and academy trusts pulled together to keep teaching going. A temporary learning village was subsequently constructed by Nottinghamshire county council, at considerable cost, and is now in use. I put on record my sincere thanks to everyone involved. I also thank the Minister for his personal intervention, which helped secure St Peter’s place on the school rebuilding programme earlier this year.

That was such a positive outcome for Ruddington. The challenge now is delivery. Understandably, residents want to know when St Peter’s children will have a permanent school again. The county council would like reassurances about the financial implications of the project, including the cost of the temporary village. St Peter’s itself needs clarity about the proposed design, especially for SEND provision. Its existing provision includes dedicated spaces for therapy, nurture, one-to-one support and targeted interventions. However, the initial plans for the replacement building appear to reduce that provision significantly. I welcome the Department’s recent indication that additional SEND space will be considered through the business case process.

I would welcome three reassurances from the Minister today. First, when can the community expect a clear timetable for the rebuild? Secondly, will the Department ensure that the new school retains the specialist places needed to deliver its existing SEND provision? Thirdly, will the Department work with Nottinghamshire county council to provide clarity about the costs and funding responsibilities, so that financial uncertainty does not delay progress? We have secured the right decision in principle for the parents, pupils and staff of St Peter’s. We now need to get the delivery right and move at pace.

Secondly, St Peter’s points to a much wider issue facing my home county of Nottinghamshire, which has an unusually high concentration of buildings built in the CLASP—consortium of local authorities special programme—and Derwent styles. The county council tells me that more than 750 of the approximately 3,500 CLASP buildings across the UK are in Nottinghamshire—more than one fifth of the national total. These buildings were constructed in the mid-to-late 20th century, using systems that offered quick and economical solutions to the demands of their time. Many are now well beyond their intended working lives. They present significant challenges involving structural deterioration, asbestos, accessibility, insulation, heating and maintenance. This is not only an education issue. I have also campaigned extensively about the condition of East Leake health centre, where the legacy of an ageing CLASP building has become a major obstacle to local healthcare provision. There is therefore a broader question about the concentration of ageing public infrastructure in Nottinghamshire, and whether national capital programmes sufficiently recognise that particular legacy.

When St Peter’s was condemned, Nottinghamshire county council wrote to the Department requesting emergency capital funding and a wider investment plan. Specifically, it wants all two-storey CLASP and Derwent school buildings included in the school rebuilding programme, and existing projects accelerated. I would welcome the Minister’s response to this request. I am concerned that without a specific approach, we could face a major problem in the coming years, like at St Peter’s, potentially comparable in scale to the crisis of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. We should not wait for buildings to fail before acting. Will the Department undertake a strategic assessment of the risks associated with these particular construction types, and work with Nottinghamshire to develop a properly prioritised programme of intervention?

Thirdly, I want to address the growing problem of temporary school accommodation effectively becoming permanent. Two particularly troubling examples in my constituency are Edwalton primary school and Lady Bay primary school. At Edwalton, approximately 120 children are taught in temporary modular classrooms that are more than 20 years old and more than five years beyond their intended lifespan. The headteacher has shown me evidence of a roof with a hole the size of a football, water dripping down walls and timber deteriorating. The school has already spent hundreds of thousands of pounds patching up the buildings over recent years, and they will soon need replacing entirely. That is a classic example of good money chasing bad.

I was grateful to meet the Minister about Edwalton. I warmly welcome the Government’s renewal and retrofit programme worth more than £700 million, which will increase the focus on life-expired temporary buildings. Edwalton’s overall condition rating often combines the permanent building with severely deteriorated temporary classrooms. The danger is obvious. The best buildings on a site could conceal the very worst. Will the Minister confirm that individual temporary buildings can be assessed separately, that local evidence will be considered, and that schools such as Edwalton will have a meaningful route to make their case? When in 2027 should schools expect the renewal and retrofit programme to open, and when are decisions and investment likely to be made? The five classrooms at Edwalton need patching up today, but the headteacher would understandably prefer to reserve funds for a genuinely long-term solution.

Lady Bay primary school has similar problems, with a double mobile classroom first installed in 2007 to accommodate extra children. Those classrooms are still being used today. The school has been waiting for investment to address both accommodation pressures and buildings reaching the end of their useful life. Yet the investment was postponed earlier this year by Nottinghamshire county council due to funding constraints. I raised that with the Department over the summer and was told that funding has been allocated to meet forecast demand for places across the wider planning area. However, as the Minister knows, that has been contested by Nottinghamshire county council, which has pointed to a wider gap between the cost of school places and the funding available. Parents and schools should not have to navigate competing explanations for delay from different public bodies. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s help today in establishing precisely where responsibility lies in ensuring that projects like the one at Lady Bay primary school do not remain in limbo indefinitely.

Fourthly, there is a related problem in Rushcliffe of schools expanding their pupil numbers without receiving the infrastructure investment that they were promised. Rushcliffe is a fantastic place to live and work, and our schools are understandably popular. That popularity creates pressure, particularly where schools have agreed to accommodate additional pupils. At West Bridgford school the published admission number is 222, but the school has been admitting approximately 270 pupils annually. The county council had planned building works to support a permanent increase to 270. Those works have now been postponed, despite the school having accommodated higher numbers for several years.

In another case in south Rushcliffe, East Leake academy has been pursuing an expansion of its dining facilities because the existing space is too small for its population. I welcome the more positive recent engagement with the county council, which has indicated that the project can progress following the end of the current private finance initiative contract in July 2027. But in both cases, investment did not happen when it was promised. These cases are causing genuine frustration among parents, pupils and teachers. Will the Minister explain what safeguards exist to ensure that the promised capacity-related investment is delivered? How does the Department hold local authorities to account on these commitments? Can the Department intervene when agreed projects are subsequently postponed?

Fifthly, I want to briefly raise the future of Ash Lea special school in Cotgrave. Ash Lea serves children with some of the most complex needs in my constituency and beyond. In line with what I described earlier about class buildings across Nottinghamshire, the condition of its building is poor, and the county council, school and academy trust agree that a replacement is needed. I believe an application for the school rebuilding programme was submitted earlier this year, but there are concerns that local government reorganisation could complicate decisions about potential investment and/or finding alternative sites.

I hope the Minister agrees that the future of a special school should not be held hostage to uncertainty about local authority boundaries. Can he confirm the status of Ash Lea’s application, say when a decision can be expected and set out how the Department is working with Nottinghamshire county council to secure a viable long-term solution? Children with complex needs, their families and their teachers deserve certainty, and I hope we can provide it soon.

Sixthly and finally, I want to raise the future of small rural primary schools. Nationally, birth rates have fallen to an all-time low, and many rural schools face the prospect of declining pupil numbers. For small schools, even relatively modest changes in admissions can have a disproportionate effect on staffing budgets and long-term viability. Normanton-on-Soar primary school illustrates that. I am never 100% sure which data to refer to, but I believe that the total school capacity is 83 and the expected number on roll for this year is only 59. Parents, understandably, have raised questions about subsequent staffing reductions, the availability of teaching assistant support and the implications for children with SEND. The parish council has also written to Equals Trust, emphasising the school’s importance to village identity, stability and community cohesion. Indeed, we must recognise that rural schools are not simply units of educational provision; they are vital community institutions.

As chair of the Labour Rural Research Group, I have been arguing for a more sophisticated approach to rural education funding, including proper recognition of sparsity, small school costs and the opportunities created by surplus space. Specific recommendations from the LRRG include, first, using surplus rural school capacity to boost SEND provision by starting new SEND expansion in these areas and, secondly, amending funding formulas for rural schools and rural SEND provision to reflect the impending crisis. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on these points. More fundamentally, what work is the Department undertaking to understand the cumulative impact of declining birth rates on small rural schools, and when can rural communities expect a clearer national strategy for the future of their schools?

I have raised six issues today, but they share a common theme. Whether it is a structurally failing building, a temporary classroom that has outlived its usefulness, a promised extension that has not materialised or a village school facing falling numbers, the underlying problem is uncertainty: uncertainty about funding, about responsibility, about priorities and about timescales.

I am grateful to the Minister for the leadership that he has already shown, particularly at St Peter’s. That experience shows me that rapid progress is possible when local concerns receive proper attention. I hope that today’s debate can secure the same clarity and the same momentum for the other schools that I have mentioned. As the Minister knows, children only get one chance at their education, so they—and we—cannot afford to have their education compromised by inadequate buildings or a lack of local or national willingness to address these long-standing problems. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

18:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this debate and on his formidable advocacy for schools across his constituency.

As a former teacher who has spent years standing in front of young people in classrooms in Oldham and Stockport, I know at first hand that although the space around learning is not the entire story, it can make a difference to the whole learning process. Now, as a Minister in the Department for Education, I am proud that we have set out a 10-year plan to renew our schools and colleges so that children and staff have the high-quality classrooms that they deserve.

This Government are doing things differently to fix the failures of the past. Across Government, we are maintaining public investment at the highest sustained level in four decades, supported by an increase in capital spending over this Parliament of more than £120 billion on previous plans. We are increasing and prioritising investment where it is needed most, through maintenance, renewal and rebuilding programmes. For that reason, we are providing unprecedented long-term funding and have increased overall capital investment in education to about £38 billion through to 2029-30—the highest amount since 2010.

With over 22,000 schools and colleges in England, the education estate supports the outcomes, health and wellbeing of 10 million children and young people. The benefits are clear, but the challenges are real. For too long, schools have had to patch and mend buildings that have already deteriorated, instead of getting the rebuilds they need and arguably should have had a long time ago.

We are already turning the page on years of decline in the school estates. Our education estates strategy set out a 10-year plan to deliver a decade of renewal in the estate, backed by unprecedented long-term funding. We are investing almost £3 billion per year by 2034-35 in capital maintenance to improve the condition of the estate and are investing almost £20 billion through to 2034-35 in the school rebuilding programme. There are more than 500 schools already in the SRP, with over 80% in delivery already; 68 schools have been rebuilt, with 56 completed under this Government.

There are two schools in the programme in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Rushcliffe. The rebuild of Sutton Bonington primary school was completed last year. Earlier this year, I was delighted to confirm that St Peter’s junior school is joining the school rebuilding programme, following my hon. Friend’s representations about the conditions at the school; it was his leadership that made the difference in getting that school rebuild confirmed. The Department is working closely with Nottinghamshire county council to rebuild the school, with high-quality buildings for pupils and staff ensuring that the new space supports inclusion now and into the future. The delivery timeline is shaped by the feasibility and design work for the rebuild; this is being developed at the moment in discussions with Nottinghamshire county council and the school.

We will select a further 250 schools to join the school rebuilding programme by early 2027. Places will be prioritised for schools in the worst condition and in the local areas where places are needed now. Earlier this year, responsible bodies were asked to nominate schools using published guidance and criteria. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s support for Ash Lea academy, which is nominated for the school rebuilding programme. The Department is carefully assessing all the nominations. There is not much more that I can say at this stage, given that it is an ongoing process.

I was grateful to meet my hon. Friend in September to discuss Edwalton primary school. Flying High Trust has a school condition allocation of £1.6 million for 2026-27 to decide how to invest in its schools, including Edwalton. Nottinghamshire county council also has a school condition allocation of almost £5.9 million for this financial year to invest across its maintained schools, including Lady Bay primary school. Those are the main ways in which we allocate resources in the system to ensure maintenance.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Like Rushcliffe, my area has received some condition improvement funding for a few schools: Hayfield secondary, South Axholme secondary and two primary schools, Green Top and Auckley. I have visited nearly all the schools in my constituency. How can they make representations, through me and the Minister, to get some funding for their own improvements?

[Josh MacAlister]

I would be very happy to exchange letters or discussions with my hon. Friend to help to resolve any issues. We have a specific route for funding very small multi-academy or single-academy trust schools through the funding formula, where they are not in larger responsible body groups. That is why some schools get funding through the condition improvement fund and others get it through the wider allocation process.

In addition to maintenance funding and the school rebuilding programme, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe mentioned that we have launched the renewal and retrofit programme. The programme is backed by more than £700 million to improve the condition of schools and colleges and increase their resilience to, among other things, the changing climate. It started this year in three regions: Yorkshire and the Humber, the east midlands and the south-east. The current phase is targeting the worst 50 schools—in the sense that their condition is the worst, not their performance; many of them are fantastic schools—with potential projects identified for 2026-27 based on the condition of individual temporary buildings.

The temporary buildings at Edwalton primary school have not been shortlisted for phase 1 based on the available condition data, but following my hon. Friend’s representations I have asked my officials to visit the school and see the building at first hand. From next year, the renewal and retrofit programme is being expanded to all regions in England. Detailed delivery plans, including how schools and colleges will be selected, will be confirmed in due course. I will be happy to keep my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) updated on that expansion.

High-quality school and college buildings are essential to delivering-world class education and creating the conditions for all children and young people to achieve and thrive. Children, families and communities are at the heart of the 10-year plan for a decade of renewal in our school and college buildings. This is about more than just buildings. It is about showing children that their education matters, that their futures matter and that the Government are determined to give them the best possible start in life.

Question put and agreed to.

18:25

Sitting suspended.