In our case, the excessive listing of 30 feeders namely in 2 directions means that in the future a girl not attending one would stand very little chance of ever gaining a place at the grammar. None of the feeders are over the nearby boundary and 3 have the same postcode, that's how close they are.
I'm not sure of the current state of play, but there's also a county boundary/catchment area/local schools debate going on in East Warwickshire at the moment relating to schools in Rugby. There's discussion in the Warwickshire section.
Loopyloulou wrote:Greenwich doesn't say you can't use county boundaries when setting catchments, but it does say you can't use them unreasonably. So if you have a school built up against a county boundary (pretty much the case in the Greenwich judgement itself) you can't use the county boundary, but if the school is geographically central to the county you probably can.
Two things stand out about the Poole adjudication. First, neither the indies involved on the one hand, nor the council on the other, objected to the use of the borough boundary. Secondly the borough boundary isn't really unreasonable in the "Greenwich" sense. Ergo use of the borough boundary in Poole has been deemed acceptable. It might not be the case elsewhere, though. WP's earlier comment about Mr Parker's interpretation of the Admissions Code is also worth noting, and whether another adjudicator (much less a high court judge) would follow him in non-Poole circumstances is by no means certain.
The reasoning in the Poole decision is odd. There is no consideration of the factors you mention, just a blanket statement that it's fine to use the borough as the catchment. I agree with you that his legal theory might not stand scrutiny. However it won't get it because a judicial review is too expensive for the small number of losers.
