Agenda item

5.1

Petition in respect of the Bannerdale Site and Consultation on School Places

5.1.1

Kitty Evans submitted a petition, containing 167 signatures, requesting that the City Council stop the sale of any part of the Bannerdale Site until after the consultation on new school site plans.

The petition stated the following:-

‘We call upon Sheffield Council to stop the sale of any part of the Bannerdale site for housing, until proposed plans for the new secondary school on the “car park area” of the same site can be confirmed as representing a viable way to provide an outstanding new school.

It is not possible for the community or the Council to have confidence in the outlined proposal in advance of the Council vote on 17^th February because:-

·      The “car park area” alone is clearly not large enough for the complete grounds of a secondary school, and would be even smaller than the original Holt House proposal unanimously rejected by the preceding consultation.

·      Existing plans for new housing on the Bannerdale building footprint require the use of an access road from Carter Knowle Road which would run right through any potentially larger school site in the “car park area”. This would raise significant safeguarding issues for the new school or split the school awkwardly between two sites.

·      The “car park area” is described in several previous Council documents as being a former landfill site which has poor ground conditions that make it unsuitable for housing development.

·      The new housing would require a system of open drains between the new school and Holt House Infants, in an area already prone to flooding.

As such it is critical that no part of the Bannerdale site is sold for housing until it can be confirmed that the proposed plan is viable, as it may prove necessary to consider alternative options for developing the entire site once the feasibility of the current proposal had been further explored.’

5.1.2

In response Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, thanked Miss Evans for submitting the petition. She welcomed the fantastic response to the consultation on school places which had involved lots of people and resulted in lots of different options and views being put forward.

5.1.3

Councillor Drayton further commented that there was a need to make a decision about the building of a new school at this Cabinet meeting to ensure there were school places available for children and young people when they needed them.

5.1.4

To move forward with the process a decision was required to be made at this Cabinet meeting and then the process would then progress to the planning and development of the school and following that the statutory planning process would be followed which would include further consultation.

5.1.5

Councillor Drayton confirmed that the school would be developed with the criteria in mind, including building an exciting new secondary school including community facilities, protecting green spaces as much as possible, ensuring the design, as much as possible, didn’t add to traffic congestion or air quality and would ensure housing on the site.

5.1.6

There was planning permission for housing already on the site and all proposals and designs for the school would be subject to the statutory planning process. A decision needed to be taken at this meeting and could not be delayed to ensure school places were available when they were needed.

5.1.7

Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, confirmed that no decision would be made at this meeting about building housing on any specific area of the Bannerdale site. However, the plans for the site did include housing which was badly needed in the area. Part of the site had outline planning permission and the sale was ongoing to market. Should the decision on the school go ahead this would add another dimension to the viability of housing on the site.

5.2

Petition in respect of Proposals for a Through School on the Ecclesall Infant Site

5.2.1

A petition was submitted, containing 33 signatures, objecting to the creation of a new through primary school on Ecclesall Infant School playground. As there was no one in attendance at the meeting to present the petition, Councillor Jackie Drayton stated that a written response would be provided to the petitioner.

5.3

Public Questions in respect of Councillor Behaviour and Council Procedures

Martin Brighton submitted a number of questions in respect of Councillor Behaviour and Council Procedures as follows:-

1) If an Elected Member makes promises to citizens during a digitally recorded meeting, is it reasonable to expect that the Elected Member keeps those promises?

2) If the Elected Member does not keep those promises, would the Council Leader be reasonably expected to ensure that the Elected Member keeps those promises?

3) Should it transpire that the Elected Member not only did not keep the promises made, but also demonstrated that there was never any intent to keep the promises, is not that Councillor’s position untenable?

4) Would the Council Leader have any objection to that digital recording being placed on YouTube, adjacent to an existing recording of a similar incident?

5) If a senior Council Officer gives an undertaking for an action, including a meeting with a concerned citizen, and it transpires that there was never any intention to either carry out the action or hold the meeting, is there any case for that officer’s continuing employment within this Council?

6) Is it not reasonable, if a Councillor is repeatedly informed of a Council document demonstrating an illegal activity within the Council, that the named department would be investigating, the culprit identified, and any wrong put right?

7) Should a Councillor fail to respond, as required by question 6 above, is not their position untenable?

8) Should a senior Council Officer fail to take appropriate action consequent upon question 6 above, is not that senior Officer’s position untenable?

5.3.1

Councillor Julie Dore responded that Mr Brighton’s questions appeared to refer to a specific incident and a specific Elected Member. As the incident and Member had not been cited Councillor Dore could not answer Mr Brighton’s questions. If he wished to put in writing the incident and the Member concerned a response would be provided.

5.4

Public Question in respect of Northern Powerhouse

5.4.1

Nigel Slack asked, with the Government continuing to prove by its deeds (BIS closure, Bradford’s photo collection, 85% of hardship funding going to Tory Councils) that its words on the Northern Powerhouse are ringing hollow, can the Council still be confident that the promises contained in the proposed ‘devolution’ deal will be honoured?

5.4.2

Councillor Julie Dore commented that the BIS closure had come as a shock especially considering the Government must have taken time to make the decision and done a full appraisal on it. For the Council therefore to find out about the decision on the morning that consultation on staff redundancies began was shocking.

5.4.3

Upon finding out about the decision, Councillor Dore wrote to the Secretary of State outlining the Council’s concerns over the loss of jobs particularly in the light of the Government’s statements for the past months that the Northern Cities would be where the growth would be seen in this country. On the one hand therefore the Government were seeking inward investment into the Northern Cities whilst at the same time disinvesting with decisions such as the BIS closure.

5.4.4

Councillor Dore did not receive a response to her letter to the Secretary of State within 7 days and therefore wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a result, a response was received from the Secretary of State which Councillor Dore was still not happy with. Councillor Dore stated that she then wrote a further letter to the Secretary of State outlining that she was not happy with the response and consequently the Secretary had agreed to a meeting to discuss Councillor Dore’s concerns.

5.4.5

Councillor Dore had also discussed the issue of the Government’s hardship funding with other Core Cities. She was concerned that the Northern Cities had faced cuts for a number of years and not been given any funding to cope with this and now when it appeared that Conservative Councils were beginning to suffer they were offered funding to manage these pressures. The Core Cities would discuss further how they would respond to the Government on this issue.

5.5

Public Question in respect of Devolution

5.5.1

Nigel Slack commented that the public response to the proposed ‘devolution’ deal consultation (250 across the region, 50 of which were Social media contacts of Mr Slack) had been woefully low and illustrated the concerns he had raised over the timing and lack of publicity about the consultation. That aside, Mr Slack asked when will the full details of the consultation be available to the public?

5.5.2

Councillor Julie Dore responded that the 9 local authorities in the Sheffield City Region had not all decided their membership status and as such declared their position on the Devolution deal which Councillor Dore believed appeared to offer positive provision for the City Region. Once all the 9 local authorities had declared their position statutory consultation would have to take place. This would be dictated by the Government and the City Council would then decide how to inform and consult. A date for this could not yet be confirmed but it was likely to take place shortly.

5.6

Public Question in respect of Budget Reserves

5.6.1

Jeremy Short asked was it not possible to use £27.6 million from reserves to prevent any cuts to Portfolio Services in 2016-17, i.e. only spend £52.5 million on financing the pension fund deficit in 2016-17 instead of paying £80.1 million?

5.6.2

In response Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources, commented that he would respond in writing to the more detailed proposals Mr Short had emailed to him. If the Council were to pursue the route suggested by Mr Short, Councillor Curran questioned whether this would even be legal.

5.6.3

Councillor Curran further commented that Mr Short’s proposals would also have practical implications for the Council. The money would be gone and the Council would still have to make the same level of cuts over two years. There would be a need to replenish the Streets Ahead funds which would raise the question of fairness for those who had not yet had their roads repaired. There would also be abortive costs and the risk of clawback.

5.6.4

In conclusion therefore, whilst thanking Mr Short for his suggestion, Councillor Curran did not believe this represented a practical solution. It may appear clear on a spreadsheet but the Council needed to make a budget for the next few years rather than just the next year. The budget needed to be signed off legally and Mr Short’s proposal would call this into question.

5.7

Public Question in respect of School Places

5.7.1

Lauren Slent commented that the Council had stated their proposal as ‘Creation of junior places for the children who attend Clifford Independent School by changing the age range to become a through primary’. Council officers and Cabinet Members had verbally and in writing confirmed that the Council had committed to working alongside local people to build a junior phase for Clifford. She therefore stated that people were pleased that the Council continued to commit to listening to them and Lauren and others would like the Council to clearly state the next steps in making the successful infant school into a through primary?

5.8

Public Question in respect of School Places

Jen Hardy stated that every child in Clifford Church of England school will be affected by the proposal to expand Ecclesall Infant School, as the Junior phase for the school will be affected financially and in many other ways. Those concerned therefore requested the right to partner equally in the proposed consultation, and to include options which will provide the best outcomes for all children such as:-

(A) sell the Junior School site and divide the proceeds between feeder infant schools, allowing Clifford Infant School to become a through infant school on our Psalter Lane Site; and

(B) propose that Ecclesall Infant expands as a two form intake primary school, and that Clifford Infant increases to a two form Infant School on Psalter Lane, feeding a two form Clifford Junior School on the Ringinglow Road site. This would fulfil the 30 extra places required, and crucially, avoid the loss of 240 faith school places in the area.

5.9

Public Question in respect of School Places

5.9.1

Ian Platts commented that in respect of the report on School Places, on the agenda for the meeting, it was indicated on the Policy Checklist that there were no implications in respect of Equal Opportunities.

5.9.2

Mr Platts therefore stated that when the continuity provided by a through school on one site was deemed to provide best outcomes and to be the preferred option for a secular school i.e. the proposed new Ecclesall Primary, why this benefit was not to be extended to the children in faith based education? They will be split over two sites, with very unclear details for how the Ecclesall Junior site will be run. It seemed to Mr Platts that an outstanding faith based school (Clifford Infant) was being sidelined or marginalised and around 240 faith based education places will be lost. Would you please explain how this provides equitable access or equal opportunities?

5.9.3

Mr Platts further commented that to increase understanding, or for the avoidance of doubt, Clifford Infant provided a Christian based education via St Andrews Church, which was an Anglican/Methodist partnership, however it was open to and welcomed all faiths and currently included children of other faiths. Some parents of other faiths actively chose this school as they preferred a faith based education to a secular one. Would the Council please state whether it would prefer not to invest in or support such faith based education?

5.10

Public Question in respect of School Places

5.10.1

Alex Miller asked why is the proposed consultation limited to expanding Ecclesall infants to become an all through primary? Why isn’t the option proposed by Clifford Governors being consulted on?

5.11.

Public Question in respect of School Places

5.11.1

Neil Fitzmaurice asked will the Cabinet and Officers ensure the consultation on the building of a new school on the Ecclesall Infants site is thorough, inclusive and transparent with maximum effort made to involve local residents, unlike the phase carried out in the autumn term? Will the Cabinet also accept that other options for the provision of school places in this area should remain open until this option has been robustly examined?

5.12

Public Question in respect of the Value for Money of the new Ecclesall Through Primary

5.12

Laurence Mosley commented that he was a Governor of Clifford School. He asked that the value for money aspect was further considered in the next consultation and fully costed options disclosed to the public. The reason that they needed publishing was that for Clifford parents there was a perceived agenda of not extending Clifford at any costs. The investment in any option is public money and there should be transparency in the process, this has so far been lacking as no financial data had ever been disclosed.

5.12.1

Mr Mosley added that the logic of building a brand new school versus extending Ecclesall Primary and extending Clifford into the premises next door didn’t seem to make financial sense. This would also leave a school of 120 pupils in a building that was described by current governors as not fit for purpose. Possible options were:-

1) Currently as proposed build a new primary school with capacity for 3 form entry. Leave Juniors as is.

2) Build new junior school with 2 form entry, move Clifford/Ecclesall Juniors to a 2 form entry school. Could leave new build with 3 forms to create latent capacity.

3) Refurb Juniors – 3 form entry, leave juniors as it is. Extend Clifford next door to incorporate a junior phase (£2.7m)

5.12.2

Mr Mosley commented that the Council would need to consider the operating costs of running the schools suggested above, as some configurations will be more expensive, e.g. if 2/3 extra staff were required over 25 years equivalent there would be approximately £2.5m extra costs. The Council also needed to consider the environmental impact locally of putting all the growth into one street. Could the Council please therefore explain how a new school made economic sense?

5.13

Councillor Jackie Drayton then responded to the questions in paragraphs 5.7-5.14 as they all concerned one area of the proposals. She thanked everyone for their questions and stated that written responses would be provided, particularly where detailed proposals were presented.

5.14

Councillor Drayton further commented that she did have meetings with Clifford Governors, the Head of the School and the Diocese who presented their vision to have a through school on the Clifford site. The Council had set out the rationale of why school places in the area were needed. 2 proposals were suggested to deliver this. The Council could not support both options and needed to support the option that fitted best as to where places were needed and which was the best value for money.

5.15

Councillor Drayton recognised that the preferred option of the Council was disappointing for Clifford School and its Diocese and would raise questions about Ecclesall Junior School. Further discussions would be needed as to how to move forward and a meeting had been arranged with the Diocese.

5.16

Councillor Drayton expressed regret if people believed they didn’t have the chance to express their views in the consultation. The Council had received many comments from residents in the local areas. Because of the proposal to expand Ecclesall Infant to a through school, there was a legal requirement for the Council to reconsult for 4 weeks which residents would be part of.

5.17

Councillor Drayton added that, once the plans were developed, they would need to go through the statutory planning process which included traffic and highway management assessments so there would be a further opportunity for people to express their views.

5.18

Public Question in respect of School Places

5.18.1

Helena Jones commented that a new secondary school caused disruption to families having children at different schools and catchment changes. Therefore, why is a new secondary school being built at great expense in a congested area when Silverdale, King Egberts, Tapton and Newfield have all agreed to expand which would cover the extra children?

5.19

Public Question in respect of School Places

5.19.1

Ted Gunby, Chair of Carterknowle and Millhouses Community Group, submitted the following questions in respect of School Places:-

1) Bearing in mind that this proposal was not a formal Council one and was published on only the final day of the consultation process, will the Cabinet defer a decision to enable proper consultation on this proposal in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations and its own policies on citizen involvement?

2) Do Members appreciate that a decision to build housing and a school on the site would be seen as duplicitous and greedy, given that the previous consultation clearly limited the area on which building could take place and the Council then concluded:-

- “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 46)”

3) Are Members aware of the status of the car park where the school is proposed in so far as:-

- 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

- The Council is on record as saying “The north of the area (including the car park) is a former tip which has poor ground condition which means this area precludes housing development”?

4) Does the Cabinet accept that even replacing the housing with a school is not a satisfactory solution given that there is a quantitative shortage of green space in the area (even less than Darnall and Tinsley) and that the loss of accessible green space would be far greater than the mere footprint of the school buildings?

5.20

Public Question in respect of School Places

5.20.1

Laurence Mosley stated that the proposed new secondary school on the Bannerdale site is going to be built on a site that was occupied by Abbeydale Grange and closed in 2010. Mr Mosley hoped the Council Members would ask the Executive why this school was demolished in the first place as it seemed a total waste of taxpayers’ money.

5.20.2

Mr Mosley added that the new school, despite all objections, was going to be on an extremely small footage of land, which was a car park servicing the school and could not be sold to developers as it was contaminated land. Would any of the Councillors feel comfortable sending their children to such a school?

5.21

Public Question in respect of School Places

5.21.1

Kitty Evans commented that in 2013 the car park area of the Bannerdale Centre was deemed unsuitable for development. Now the Council were proposing to build a school there. What has changed since then?

5.22

In response to the questions in paragraphs 5.18-5.21 above, Councillor Jackie Drayton commented that she would be willing to send children to the school on the site and she hoped that the school would be outstanding, as was the aim for every school in the City.

5.23

When the initial proposals were sent out to consultation the original proposals were to build on the Bannerdale site and at Holt House School. There was an overwhelming negative response to the Holt House as people believed the site was too tight, it would create traffic problems, worsen air quality and was generally not suitable.

5.24

Following this, Councillor Drayton commented, the whole site was looked at again. There was always a pledge to retain as much green and open space as possible, develop housing, which was badly needed in the area and to create a school.

5.25

Evidence had shown that in the last September intake in the South West of the City, parents had had a particularly difficult time getting their children into a school within their catchment area. One of the options suggested was to add places to all schools in the area. However, evidence had shown there was a spike in numbers forthcoming and this would mean a new school would have to be built in 4 years anyway even if places were added to all schools now.

5.26

Councillor Drayton further stated that one of the proposals was to permanently expand Silverdale School. However, the Council did not wish to set up a school to fail so the proposal was amended to temporarily expand Silverdale to assess the impact to ensure it was a successful school.

5.27

Catchment areas would be looked at moving forward. The Council did not want to put any school at risk so catchment areas would be created which were fair and equal.

5.28

In reference to the questions about Abbeydale School, Councillor Drayton commented that this was a different situation as the school was only 40% full at the time of closure and places were not needed. The Council knew that the secondary population would grow in coming years and a new school might be needed, but couldn’t be sure at that time exactly where. There had been major demographic changes in the South West and North East of the City in recent times. In the South West more families with children were moving into houses which used to have older people living in. The North East had seen a number of new arrivals. There had also been a 25% increase in the birth rate nationally and in some areas of Sheffield, higher than this.

5.29

The Council had a duty to be responsible and assess the most appropriate options for providing places. The green space referred to had actually been school playing fields so was not classed as open space as such. When the Bannerdale site was opened up the Council looked closely to see how the green space would work for the community and be protected.

5.30

It was clear from all the evidence that a new school was needed in this area. It was surely right to use land which the Council owned to develop this rather than buying land. Councillor Drayton concluded by commenting that she was certain that the proposals were the best for the future of children and young people in the City and that school places were made available where they were needed and where local people could go to local schools.