Agenda item

4.1

The following questions were received from members of the public:-

(a)       Mike Hodson (Carterknowle and Millhouses Community Group) questioned whether the Committee was aware that the report to the Cabinet meeting on 17^th February 2016, regarding the school places consultation and recommendations, was not correct in claiming that the proposal to build a new secondary school on the Bannerdale car park was formally consulted on, and thoroughly explored.  Mr Hodson stated that there was no Council proposal to this effect and it was a third-party proposal.  It was only included on the Council website in the ‘alternative option’ document on 27^th November 2015 – the day the consultation finished.  The original single proposal – only for buildings on the Holt House site, and subsequent piecemeal changes to Council proposals, were both probably illegal and certainly against the Local Government Ombudsman’s good practice guidelines.

(b)       Umberto Albarella raised the following three questions:-

(i)          The ‘consultation’ document of the Council, rather at the last minute, added the following proposals – ‘Build a new 3-4 entry primary school at Ecclesall Infants and allow Ecclesall Junior to be the junior phase for Clifford’.  No more detail was provided and this is now the proposal that the Council is supporting.  How can a consultation that provides such minimal level of detail, and so little time, be regarded as credible, particularly when most of the local community was kept in complete darkness?

(ii)        Many in the local community supported the expansion of the Infant School to three classes per year, which would feed the Junior School, and with Clifford allowed to expand locally.  This project would have solved the issue of the extra need of school places and would have been much more cost effective.  Why was such much more logical choice ruled out, rather than opting for a project that will have a devastating impact on the Ecclesall community?

(iii)       Access to the Ecclesall Infant School playground is very difficult at the moment, with 180 children hosted on site.  An increase to 630 children will obviously require a substantial change to the access to the ground, with massive problems for the people living in the area.  Will houses be knocked down and why did such a serious issue not feature at all in the consultation document?

(c)        Nicole Brown raised the following questions:-

(i)         was there a right to reply in this meeting and could members of the public offer further explanation if the reply to their questions contained inaccuracies? 

(ii)        why did there appear to be an issue in terms of the Council investing in faith schools?

(iii)       what was the Council’s definition of the word ‘over subscription’?

(iv)       why was Silverdale School built for 150 per year in 2009?

(v)        why do Councillors appear to be making decisions based on poor information and inaccurate advice?

(d)       Jen Hardy referred to a number of questions she had raised at the Cabinet meeting on 17^th February 2016, to which she had not yet received responses.  Ms Hardy questioned the clarity of the way forward to secure junior places for Clifford children within a through school.  She considered the suggestion that children go to a reduced single-form entry, under-funded school, under split leadership, was unacceptable.  Clifford need a designated, funded junior phase. 

(e)       Ted Gunby stated that the planning permission for the Bannerdale site arose from almost two years’ consultation with the community.  In particular, the consultation reached firm agreement about the need to protect open space in the area.  Would the Committee please scrutinise the way in which the Cabinet disregarded the planning permission for the site and other statements by the Council.  Mr Gunby added that, in the planning documents, the Council stated ‘should a future applicant wish to develop any of the open space, instead of the housing area, it must have a compelling rationale, showing how the open space could be replaced within the site’ and “quantitative shortage of open space in the area means that proposals for the loss of open space will not be permitted” (Core Strategy Form B).  Furthermore, he stated that the Cabinet decision is also in conflict with (i) Sports England licensed the building of the car park on sports pitches for a limited time (now expired) with the condition that the green space would be restored and (ii) the planning documents which stated “the north of the area (including the car park) is a former tip, which has poor ground condition, which means the area precludes housing development”.

(f)        Ann Blair (Governor at Clifford School) questioned how many Councillors had seen the document produced by Clifford Governors, which outlined the way forward. 

(g)       Neil Fitzmaurice requested that the decision be deferred until the Scrutiny Committee had considered relevant issues and made recommendations to the Executive.  Mr Fitzmaurice stated that there were so many aspects to this complex issue, which needed to be considered calmly and fairly, outside pressures from those wishing to close down the decision, and suggested that more time was needed, and alternatives should not be ruled out.  He added that he was very concerned at the implications of traffic which he considered to have been a consideration in rejection of other options.  In addition, he commented that schools were closing down green spaces, not just during school hours, but also in holidays and at weekends.

(h)       Fiona Greensit raised the following questions:-

(i)          Would it still not be easier, and presumably less expensive, to allow Clifford to expand on its current site, rather than build a whole new primary school on one Ecclesall Junior site?  This would also serve to alleviate the issue of pollution and traffic problems, and stop the Infants from losing a lovely playing field, which also serves the Juniors.

(ii)        Can you please explain why it is better to build a new school rather than support the current schools in expanding?

(iii)       Ecclesall Junior School currently offers 1200 church places to the local community.  This is going to be reduced to 120 – why?

(iv)       If the new through school does go ahead, how is the transfer going to happen from the old junior school to the current primary school?  Has the Council thought about how this will affect the children and their families?

(i)         Helena Jones raised the following questions:-

(i)          When Tapton, Silverdale, King Egbert and Newfield, and possibly other schools, are willing to expand, why are you proposing to spend money on a new school?

(ii)        Although not discussed in the consultation in detail, catchment areas will be radically changed, and this will lead to upset and disruption.  All this can be avoided if current schools are expanded.  If child numbers drop in the future, one school will inevitably be left as the least popular, and individuals’ choice will lead to another under-filled school.  Why disrupt catchments and spend money on a new school, when local schools are ready and willing to expand?

(j)         Jason Leman raised the following questions:-

(i)          Can the promised ‘Big Conversation’ after the decision by the Cabinet, include consideration of whether a housing development is built on the Bannerdale site, or whether the whole site is used for the proposed secondary school?

(ii)        King Egbert and Newfield have both offered to expand, along with Silverdale, which had the potential to take projected demand in the short-term at least.  Why can’t the founding of the new school be delayed to allow a fuller process of development, rather than rushing the decision?

(iii)       The HSBC recreation ground has been muted as an alternative site, in a similar area to currently oversubscribed schools.  Why was this proposal not seriously considered in the Cabinet report?

(iv)       Is there an actual plan of the new school proposed on the Bannerdale site?

(v)        How much money would the sale of the Bannerdale site for housing raise?

(k)        Peter Scott raised the following questions:-

(i)          What alternatives were considered to the development of the Ecclesall Infant School site to include the Junior School?

(ii)        If alternatives were considered, what were they, and why were they discounted?

(iii)       What efforts were made to invite residents near Ecclesall Infant School (not parents) to participate in the consultation process?

4.2

The Chair stated that all the questions raised would be referred to the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, who would arrange for written responses to be provided.