Bradford primary schools were today warned cuts must still be made to reduce the number of surplus places in the district.

Dozens of schools may be forced to axe classes in order to get in line with tough new Government targets.

And a fresh threat of closures was not ruled out at last night's meeting of the Education Policy Partnership.

Chairman David Mallen said tough decisions needed to be taken quickly to avoid criticism from the Government.

The Department for Education and Skills had scrapped its 'target' of a five per cent surplus and no longer believed a surplus was necessary, the meeting was told.

But Mr Mallen said there were more than 1,400 surplus places in the Shipley and North Bradford areas and a further 973 in Keighley, Ilkley and Aire Valley primary schools.

And - although the Bradford average had fallen from more than 12 per cent to eight per cent - he said it needed cutting further to avoid a roasting from Government inspectors.

"We need to examine where places can be taken out in order to take us down to a surplus figure more like five per cent," he said. "It may take a combination of taking out schools and reducing schools in size."

The revelations follow the publication of an updated version of the School Organisation Plan which provides details of the number of pupils moving through the district's schools. There was outrage last year when it was revealed seven primary schools faced closure because of the surplus place problem.

It was estimated each surplus place cost £1,300.

The problem was eventually resolved by ordering 18 schools to cut their pupil intake and reduce the number of teachers.

But schools and parents were warned last night that spare capacity remained in Allerton, Baildon, Bierley, Oakenshaw, Buttershaw and Bradford North East.

Councillor David Ward, executive member for education, admitted there was a problem but said closing schools was not necessarily the answer.

He said some schools may be able to use free space to house other community facilities such as youth clubs or Sure Start centres.

But he said the data published in the draft version of the School Organisation Plan was misleading because some schools needed the surplus places to enable them to grow.

"We have just taken something like 500 places out through reducing forms of entry, and this is not something that we need to rush into," he said. "However, it is an obligation on us to continually review the number of surplus places and we would be criticised by Ofsted if we weren't taking measures."

He said there was no legal obligation on the authority to cut surplus places but admitted it was uneconomic to have children "rattling around in schools".

Director of education Phil Green said proposals needed to be drawn up but stressed the importance of full consultation with schools, parents and the wider communities involved.

He said any proposals would be delayed until after a Council review into the way such reforms should be undertaken.

Pam Aston, headteacher at Ingrow Primary School in Keighley which was reduced from a three to two form entry last year, said she was not surprised that further cuts needed to be made.

Her school lost four teachers as a result of the cutbacks in Keighley which has been affected by a falling birth rate.

"They have just got the numbers wrong in quite a number of areas but the trouble is people want schools near where they live," she said. "It is a terrible thing for a school to go through and I have had three staff on long term sick since we went through it."

Councillor Ralph Berry (Lab, Wibsey) told the EPP he had concerns that Bradford may witness a smaller-scale programme of the cuts currently being implemented in Leeds.

Members of the Education Policy Partnership backed a move to postpone a move to a six-term school year until September 2005 at the earliest.

There was strong support for the new school year and agreement that the 2003 terms had caused problems for parents, pupils and teachers.