Etienne isn't around at the moment, so I'll do my best to answer the question instead.
We've received the school's case and it appears to be leaning quite heavily on the building regulations for classroom sizes (e.g. 60 metres squared for 30 pupils in new school buildings) in BB98. In their argument, only 5 general people classrooms meet this criteria
I've seen in other discussions on this forum that 49 metres squared is a measure used for minimum class sizes for 30 pupils. A further 23 classrooms meet this lower criteria!
Exactly. If every school in the country had to meet the criterion of 60 square metres, the education system would have collapsed a decade ago when Building Bulleting 98 was published. The argument they are putting forward relates to ideal
At Stage One I suggest you ask: "Apart from recently built schools, how many schools in the county do you think would meet the recommendations in BB-98?" (The answer should be "very few", or thereabouts.)
Although they don't have a net capacity, there will be a capacity figure somewhere in their funding agreement as an Academy, so ask them what it is. Then you can ask them what their net capacity was when it was last calculated. That will probably have been no more than a couple of years ago, and possibly even more recently.
If the two figures are similar, which they are likely to be, you can argue that in fact the figure should still be 49 square metres. If the figures are quite different, you can ask if that is as a result of new building work since the school became an Academy.
You can also ask how many classrooms were stated to be able to accommodate 30 children under the old net capacity. I am betting that it will be far more than the five they are claiming, and probably much nearer the 28 that you have unearthed!
Have they provided you with a list of general classrooms, showing the size of each room? If not, you can ask: "If this is central to the case the admission authority wishes to make, why isn’t this evidence available for the panel and appellants to see?"
Most of these points will be very familiar to the panel, but there is no harm in raising them, especially the lack of firm evidence in support of their assertion.Edited to add:
I’ve moved this to your previous thread. It really helps if you can stick to one thread so all the information about your case is in one place.