CABINET - 25 SEPTEMBER 2008 PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS

Transcription

CABINET - 25 SEPTEMBER 2008
PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS
A.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
1.
Cllr Geoff Gollop - notice requirements for Cabinet responses to
written questions
2.
J.W. Mound - Park Lane
B.
QUESTIONS FROM RESIDENTS
Note: questions received have been circulated to Cabinet members and are
available on the Council's web site. Copies of the answers will be placed in the
meeting room one hour before the start of the meeting.
C.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
ITEM 3 - TACKLING THE WASTE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES OF THE
CITY AND THE SUB-REGION
1.
Cllr Gary Hopkins
ITEM 5 - PRIMARY REVIEW - POST CONSULTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
2.
Susan Eriksson, Headteacher, Millpond Primary School
3.
Mark Davies, Chief Executive, Bridge Learning Campus &
Gus Grimshaw, Headteacher, Bridge Learning Campus Primary
4.
Brian Phillips, Headteacher, Air Balloon Hill Junior School &
Rob Worsfold, Headteacher, Air Balloon Hill Infant School
5.
Stephen Williams, MP
6.
Cllr Geoff Gollop
7.
Cllr Richard Eddy, Cllr Geoff Gollop & Cllr John Goulandris
8.
Cllr Clare Campion-Smith
Representations re: Sefton Park School
9.
Gwinear Lloyd - e-petition - to be presented by Merriel Waggoner
10. Robin Scott
11. Andrew Bennett
12. Ms I Lethbridge-Tatlow
13. Kate Knight
14. John Bass
1
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Alex Wilkinson
Sarah Galliford
Diane Herrod
Judith Murray
Elaine Hicks
Richard Mills
Robyn Coetzee
Cllr Bev Knott
Cas Brooks
Representations re: St George C.E. Primary School / St Michael
on the Mount C.E. V.C. Primary School
24. Cllr Mark Wright
25. Fiona Crabtree
26. Clare Gundry, Headteacher, St George CE Primary School
Representations re: Stockwood Green Primary School
27. Mike Landen, Chair of Governors, Stockwood Green Primary School
28. Cllr Jay Jethwa
ITEM 7 - CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2008-11
29. Cllr Geoff Gollop
30. Cllr Geoff Gollop
31. Cllr Simon Cook
ITEM 8 - BRISTOL PARTNERSHIP - ACCOUNTABILITY AND
GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
32. Martina Peattie, Chair, The Care Forum
ITEM 9 - SOUTH WEST REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY - PROPOSED
CHANGES - PUBLIC CONSULTATION
33. Cllr Dennis Brown
ITEM 10 - STRENGTHENING THE GOVERNANCE OF THE WEST OF
ENGLAND PARTNERSHIP
34. Cllr Alex Woodman
D.
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILLORS
None received by the deadline.
2
STATEMENT A 1
Public Forum Statement by Councillor Geoff Gollop to the Cabinet meeting of 25th
September 2008
To the Leader & Cabinet
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR CABINET RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS
I wish to convey my anger and frustration that a number of questions I have tried to table
for this meeting were rejected - on the basis of their having been submitted after the
deadline requirement of three working days.
Cabinet papers stipulate that these must be received 3 clear working days before the
meeting. They were in fact sent just after 11.00 am on Monday, 22nd September.
Unfortunately, I was then informed that the cut-off for receipt was 5.00 pm on Friday, 19th
September. An interpretation subsequently confirmed by our Monitoring Officer. Given
that the next Cabinet was scheduled for 6.00 pm on Thursday, 25th September, this
would effectively provide four working days in which to furnish me with a written response.
I submit that even if you do not count the “late” day of receipt, Officers and the relevant
Executive Member still had three clear days (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) in
which to answer the important questions I have raised concerning the problems
surrounding the management of some of this city's key capital projects.
It is quite frankly nonsensical to suggest that the timeline involved here is less than 3
working days. I doubt very much that anyone outside of the public sector would subscribe
to such a narrow view. Indeed, without getting into the realms of metaphysics, it strikes
me as contrary to the natural meaning or understanding of what is a standard (9-5)
working day.
If this Administration adheres to such a peculiar definition, similar problems or confusion
could well arise again. The refusal to admit also carries with it the faint whiff of
obstruction and obfuscation.
Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could arrange for future meeting papers to explicitly
state the time and date of applicable deadlines.
COUNCILLOR GEOFF GOLLOP
STATEMENT A 2
==6 The Manor House, Park Lane, BRISTOL.BS2 8BE
24th September 2008
Democratic Services
Bristol City Council
The Council House
College Green
BRISTOL
BS1 5TR
Dear Sir / Madam.
STATEMENT TO CABINET MEETING Thursday 25th September 2008:
I have previously drawn to the attention of this Bristol City Council Cabinet the shameful state of our
pavements & roads.
I now draw to their attention the parlous state of PARK LANE , a cul de sac, where for the last eight weeks
contractors for the University of Bristol have been using it as a dumping ground for their discarded waste
contrary to the safety and well being of residents, school parents, their children and the passing public.
In a letter dated 25th August 2008 [attached as Annexe 01] I requested Ms J Ormondroyd, the Council Chief
Executive to exercise the Council’s duty to clean up this litter or require the University of Bristol or its
contractors to do so.
This produced an inert response dated 27th August 2008 and of course no effective action.
I wrote again to Ms Ormondroyd on the 16th September 2008 [attached as Annexe 2 ]and I await her reply
with bated breath.
Given that we are a country in rapid decline andthat we have a City Council that appears determined to be
ahead of that game – does this Cabinet really support the inaction of officers to maintain Park Lane in a fit
and proper state for public and residential use just to appease the University of Bristol ?
Yours faithfully ,
J.W. MOUND
Elector & Citizen.
jwm.BCC CABINET STATEMENT 25 SEPTEMBER 2008
ANNEXE 1
COPY
Î 6 The Manor House, Park Lane, BRISTOL. BS2 8BE
25th AUGUST 2008
Ms Jan ORMONDROYD
Chief Executive
The Council House
College Green
BRISTOL
BS1 5TR
Dear Ms Ormondroyd
I request immediate remedial action by the appropriate Council facility in clearing up the
mess made by contractors for Bristol University in Park Lane outside the entrances to The
Manor House.
There has been for the past weeks, and there is currently ,a waste skip immediately outside
our entrance when it could have been placed on the other side of Park Lane. Not content with
that there has been endless debris deposited and left on the road – illustrated in the
enclosed photograph “A”. Apart from the visual blight, much of this debris is wood shards
which can pierce animal and human feet, and are an ever present hazard.
Furthermore there is the usual cavalier disregard by the University contractors for
residents and their welfare illustrated by the second photograph “B” when a piece of
apparatus was left hanging out of the waste skip across the entrance to The Manor House.
I request The Bristol City Council to make the University of Bristol and its contractors
aware of local residents and their welfare.
Yours sincerely,
J. W.MOUND
jwm.BCC CABINET STATEMENT 25 SEPTEMBER 2008
ANNEXE 2
Î 6 The Manor House, Park Lane, BRISTOL.BS2 8BE
COPY
16th September 2008
Ms J. Ormondroyd
Chief Executive
The Council House
College Green
BRISTOL
BS1 5TR
Dear Ms Ormondroyd,
ENVIRONMENTAL & HEALTH THREATS FROM University of Bristol Activities:
Further to my letter dated 25th August 2008 and your inert reply dated 27th August 2008 the Bristol City
Council has refused to act, and the situation has worsened.
At a time when St Michael’s Primary School has returned for the 2008 / 09 school year we have chemically
coated glass from a broken light bulb ( ? ) scattered on the road adjacent to our door, in addition to:
- the relentless occupation through parking on the double yellow lines;
- large boarding placed against our wall a fortnight ago and moved to the other by ourselves remains;
- continual replacement of skips overloaded , frequently with asbestos boards and uncovered fibre
glass;
- abrasive litter left on the road for weeks.
Today a large lorry parked across Park Lane such that residents’ cars could neither leave nor return to our
grounds, BUT neither could pedestrians like myself. ONLY yesterday an ambulance was called to The
Manor House for an elderly resident, had that been called today they would have neither vehicle nor
pedestrian access.
The refusal of City Council officers to perform their duty and act raises a number of questions .
Not for the first time have Council officers refused to act when the University of Bristol is treating public
roads as a sewer or dumping ground.
So on what grounds have Council officers granted immunity to the University of Bristol – an issue that
warrants public interrogation.
Are you not ashamed that I shall have to resort to enforcement proceedings to remedy this wrong as a result
of Council negligence?
Yours sincerely,
J.W. MOUND.
Citizen & Resident.
Mr Mound
6 The Manor House,
Park Lane,
Bristol.
BS2 8BE
Contact
Telephone
Fax
Judith Price
(0117) 967 8401
(0117) 967 8401
Date
22nd October 2008
Dear Mr Mound
May I begin by apologising for the delay in formally responding to your
concerns.
I would like to address the matters that you raised in your letters dated 16 th
and 24th September in relation to the contractors working on behalf of the
University of Bristol, and the effects on Park Lane.
I understand that there was a skip located on the highway, which was
overflowing. Unfortunately this was unlicensed at the time. Officers ensured
that this was remedied by ensuring that the skip had the relevant consents
and that the waste was also appropriately managed. Furthermore, the matter
has been raised with the contractors that cleanse the streets on our behalf to
ensure that Park Lane is cleansed in accordance with the schedule.
Concerns were raised, and advice given to both the university and
contractors about how they could maintain their operation whilst minimising
the effects on local residents.
In conversations with Mr Fyffe of Bristol University, Mr Fyffe has confirmed
that Park Lane will not be the main access point for Phase 2 of the
development and no skips/materials etc. will be stored at this site.
I can assure you that University of Bristol does not have immunity from the
authority and that our officers do their utmost to ensure that our
neighbourhoods are cleansed and maintained to a high standard.
Whilst I am confident that this matter has been resolved, please do not
hesitate to contact Aled Williams the Streetscene Enforcement Manager in
Neighbourhoods on (0117) 3525073 should you have any further concerns. I
have also ensured that members of the team regularly check the area
proactively.
Thank you for your interest in your neighbourhood and helping us ensure
that anything that can affect the quality of the area is actioned.
Yours faithfully
Judith Price
Homes and Streetscene Executive
ITEM 1
PUBLIC FORUM - QUESTIONS
Note - in accordance with the executive procedure rules, copies of the written
replies to questions will be made available in the meeting room ONE HOUR
before the start of the meeting.
The following questions have been received for this meeting of the
Cabinet:
1.
QUESTION TO CLLR PETER HAMMOND, DEPUTY LEADER &
EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COHESION & RAISING
ACHIEVEMENT
From: Fiona Crabtree
Subject: Primary review - post consultation recommendations - St
George Cof E / St Michael on the Mount primary schools
Q.
Why hasn't the feasibility study on St Michaels on the Mount
school been done before making the decision to close St
George CofE school was announced?
A.
The feasibility for St Michaels is currently underway, but we
know that we can increase the size of the school to 1.5FE.
However, the school have asked us to consider 2FE which is
now being undertaken. In June, the Church of England also
suggested the adjacent church was available and this gave
us even more potential. All these issues are being
considered.
In general terms, feasibility is only carried out when we have
known parameters. The recommendations of the Primary
Review are strategic in the first instance. If approved by
Cabinet, we then pick up each recommendation and develop
the project. Feasibility takes funding and this can mean less
money available for the development and construction if we
undertake detailed feasibility at a stage that is too early.
2.
ACHIEVEMENT
From: Julie Taylor
Subject: Primary review - post consultation recommendations - St
George Cof E / St Michael on the Mount primary schools
1
Q.
How can a decision be made about the closure of St
George CofE primary school without knowing whether the
alternative (i.e. the expansion of St Michael on the Mount) is
actually viable? To date, no feasibility study has been
initiated.
A.
Thank you for your question. It would be incorrect to say that
the Council is not certain that St Michael on the Mount school
is physically capable of expansion, as we do know that it is
capable of expansion from earlier work. However, the school
has asked the Council to consider expansion to 2FE and this
possibility is now being worked on. In June, the Church of
England also suggested that the adjacent church might form
part of the scheme and this is now also being pursued.
In general terms, feasibility studies are only carried out when
the Council has known parameters for any scheme. The
recommendations of the Primary Review are strategic in the
first instance. Only once there is a Cabinet decision will
officers pick up each recommendation and develop the
project. Feasibility studies require funding, and if undertaken
before the “in-principle” decision is made, could mean less
money available for development and construction of all
schemes should the “in-principle” proposal not be agreed.
It is incorrect to say no feasibility on St Michael on the Mount
has been made.
3.
QUESTIONS TO CLLR PETER HAMMOND, DEPUTY LEADER &
ACHIEVEMENT
From: Fiona O'Kane
Subject: Primary review - post consultation recommendations proposals to expand Sefton Park Infant and Junior schools
Q's. The questions are in relation to the proposals to expand
Sefton Park Infant and Junior school as part of the Primary
Review Strategy.
The consultation drew out a number of acknowledged
concerns about space constraints and loss of other children's
amenity. The feasibility study about how the limited space
can be properly and safely be expanded to house an
additional 210 pupils has only just been made public and
proper consultation has not yet taken place with the
2
stakeholders to prove that the scheme is viable .
Have the Cabinet seen and how much time have they had to
consider the feasibility study to enable it to properly assess
the recommendation to approve the Primary Review which
would include this expansion which is still in many people's
opinion because of a lack of information a poor alternative to
a new 210 place school?
If as part of the Primary Review the scheme to expand the
Sefton Park site proceeds this will be in lieu of building a new
school on land reserved by the Council in a Section 106
agreement negotiated with the developers of the site as part
of the process to give planning consent to provide some gain
for the City from the developer of the site who would gain
financially from the increase in residential housing in an
already congested part of the City with primary school places
in short supply.
The agreement was presumably promoted because of a
need for the space.
The consequence of a decision to proceed with the
recommendation is that the land will revert to the Developer.
The Council officers have maintained in published
documents that the loss of this land for a new school is a risk
but they have in responses to questions to Council previously
stated that the playing field land will still be available and
could be used by Sefton Park pupils to compensate for the
loss of open space as a result of the expansion.
With reference to the questions submitted to the Council for
the meeting on 22 July 2008:
Question 5 specifically asked what the Council proposed to
do with the site if not used for the new primary school
building.
The answer was that the site would be used for playing fields
for Sefton Park.
This cannot happen. The land will not transfer to the Council
and will therefore revert to the developer if it is not used
specifically for the construction of a new school and because
the playing fields are within the identified primary school site
on the plans they will not transfer to the ownership of the
Council.
3
I have also reviewed question 5 of RQ3. The question there
was how will children achieve their exercise quota with no
playground space.
The response was that extensive playing fields are being
provided at the cricket ground site and plans will provide play
space at the school.
If the site referred to is as above this land will not be
available on the basis of the 106 Agreement so this school
will not have the benefit of additional land for the sports part
of the curriculum.
My questions on these points are:
if my review of the S106 Agreement is correct which I believe
to be the case on what basis are the officers justifying the
recommendation and are the feasibility studies to be relied
on;
secondly does the Cabinet consider it is good and
reasonable governance to proceed with a scheme which
will lose the city of Bristol a valuable land asset for
educational use. How does it justify this to the tax payers of
the City?
I am copying this email to Stephen McNamara given the mix
up over my questions to Council on 22 July 2008 which were
not answered in time and therefore not published in advance.
A's
The recommendation to Cabinet takes the decision no further
at this stage. We continue to await the outcome of feasibility.
This will include full discussion with stakeholders.
The Section 106 agreement remains in place as it is a
condition of the developers planning approval. The Council
will be providing school provision on the Brunel site. The
scheme as proposed at Sefton Park, costs more, but Cabinet
feel it is a better educational solution.
The feasibility study has been commissioned and initial
proposals, in the process of being shared with stakeholders,
do consider using the Brunel site for extended school and
community services, including sports facilities and secure
facilities for the scouts and guides. This solution provides
a beneficial reconfiguration of the Sefton Park site, which
4
provides more space per pupil than currently and will offer
some highway solutions as well.
There will always be an option to build an additional school
on the Brunel site.
4.
ACHIEVEMENT
From: Valerie Emmott on behalf of the Sefton Park School
Parents' Committee
Subject: Primary review - post consultation recommendations proposed Sefton Park School expansion
Q1. Does the Cabinet accept that the overwhelming response
from the governing body, local residents and parents is
AGAINST expansion of Sefton Park School?
A.
The decision to expand Sefton Park was taken by Cabinet on
10th January 2008, dependent on the outcome of the
feasibility study. Cabinet will not be changing this decision
on 25th September 2008 as the outcome of feasibility is not
yet known.
Q2. Why has the Cabinet ignored those representations in their
response to the Primary Review?
A.
The responses from all groups with regard to the primary
review have been noted. The decision has been taken to
remove the recommendation regarding amalgamation. The
other issues raised will be considered, when feasibility is
completed.
Q3. Please can you list the reasons for opposition to expansion
given by the various stakeholders (governing body, local
residents and parents, as well as Scout and Guide groups,
after-school club parents, Windsor Playgroup parents to say
nothing of the former Youth Club users and their parents now
shut down due to uncertainties about Ashley House) and give
responses to each of those reasons, explaining how it is that
the Cabinet knows what is best for the children in and around
Sefton Park?
A.
The reasons for the expansion of Sefton Park were
discussed in the Cabinet report of 10th January 2008. They
5
were as follows:
-
There is an urgent need to address the shortfall of
primary places within the Ashley, Redland and
Bishopston wards.
-
The expansion proposal for Sefton Park Schools will
provide a better educational outcome than two schools
on separate sites.
-
The expansion of Sefton Park Schools is consistent
with the primary review.
-
In taking decisions around school provision in any area
of the city Cabinet is cognisant at the advice of
professional officers, schools, parents, governors, staff
and local communities. Any cabinet also has to
balance local views and strategic considerations. In
this case Cabinet is also mindful of the interests of
parents and families unable to access schools in their
locality as well as those currently in Sefton Park
Schools.
The outcomes of the feasibility study will be used to make a
final decision as confirmed by the Cabinet of 10th January.
5.
ACHIEVEMENT
From: Cllr Clare Campion-Smith
Subject: Primary review - post consultation recommendations
Q1. There have been several comments in the responses to the
consultation about a preference for full forms of entry rather
than half forms. If the planned admission levels are set at
1.5 form entry, for example, how many children will be taught
in classes that cut across academic age cohorts?
What evidence is there on the educational impact of this?
A.
Officers expectation is that a school admitting 45 pupils (1.5
FE)would have 90 pupils (out of 315 pupils) in mixed age
classes. These classes would not include children from
different key stages.
The principles on which class groupings are established
6
would be the responsibility of each school.
There are many successful schools operating with mixed age
classes but there is no identified academic research on the
impact of these arrangements. It is inevitable that
class groupings are re-sorted annually when schools have
mixed academic age classes. This could lead to friendship
groups and supportive classroom relationships between
children being broken and needing to be remade annually.
This can cause some anxiety to children. It also means that
teachers have to put more time and effort into getting the
individual programmes right, when their focus could be on
other issues.
Q2. Liberal Democrats welcome the decision not to amalgamate
Avon Primary and Avonmouth Primary. What were the
reasons for the proposal not to proceed?
A.
The main reason for proposing to retain these schools is the
current shortage of reception places in the north of the city.
All available reception places have been offered at both
schools. Moreover these are both 1FE schools,fall within
the range of 1 to 3FE schools that officers recommend as
appropriate for the city.
Avonmouth Primary is also built on a flood plain and is
unlikely to be allowed to expand.
Officers have also noted the degree of support both schools
enjoy in their communities.
Q3. There are considerable concerns about the expansions of
Sefton Park Infant and Junior schools. The cost of the
planned expansions is £6.92m.
An alternative proposal to satisfy the urgent demand for
school places in the area was the new build of a 1 FE
primary school. The cost of building a 2FE primary school for
the amalgamation of Connaught Primary and Ilminster
Avenue Primary is £6m. On these figures a new build
primary school in Bishopston would give better value for
money.
Were cabinet members aware of this information when they
took the decision in 2007 not to proceed with a new
Bishopston primary school?
7
What are the reasons behind the proposal to opt for the,
apparently, more expensive option?
A.
The Cabinet were aware of the broad cost differences when
decisions were made in 2007, although these are only costs
based on feasibility.
The key decision made by Cabinet with regard to Sefton Park
expansion was based on:
The issues of effective management and leadership. The
city finds it much more difficult to find high quality leaders for
smaller schools and this extends to the recruitment of
governors and the opportunity to have a leadership team of
more than two people. A larger leadership team allows for
distribution of responsibility, development of leaders for the
future and opportunity to develop ways of working
collaboratively.
The opportunity to do something with the Sefton Park site,
which is poorly laid out, through no fault of the school. Traffic
management at the beginning and end of the day is chaotic.
Being able to consider the whole site as a redevelopment
opportunity was recognised as good value for money.
Had the decision been taken to build a new school in
Bishopston, work and considerable capital resource would
also need to be spent on the Sefton Park site in addition to
the capital spend on a new school.
8
STATEMENT C 1
I wish to make clear to cabinet that there is now a serious danger that their actions on
waste could lead to a position where the wishes of the majority of Bristolians and indeed
Cllrs in this authority are overridden by a defective and questionable process that will tie
the hands of a future administration.
This is clearly not a sustainable position.
Completely contrary to the information given at the briefings held just in advance of our
debate on the waste call in on 09/09 indemnity payments/penalties will bite on this
authority from next month unless radical changes are made to the waste plan and the
governance.
The governance arrangements that you have before you are completely inadequate and
their weaknesses were exposed recently on scrutiny.
It is no use to hope that"it will be alright on the night". We are dealing here with a budget of
around £1Bn and sloppy ,unclear drafting ,some of which was exposed as very
misleading, and a failure to address the dilemma of how Bristol can be forced against its
will to build an incinerator at Avonmouth (now confirmed as the reference site) or pay a
penalty into tens of millions to our neighbours is extremely irresponsible.
I also know that as well as our own Cllrs being opposed to an incinerator there is little
enthusiasm for that last century technology amongst our neighbours.The difficuilty is that
as the plan moves towards the incinerator other options are being subtlely excluded our
neighbours will in the future be left will little choice in terms of self interest than to force the
choice we do not want.
You have been requested by council to set up an all party working group on this issue.I
urge you to agree to that and to make sure it is set up immediately and that it has access
to all the information it needs.
Gary Hopkins
Cllr G Hopkins
C/o Liberal Democrat Office
Council House
Reply to
Telephone
Minicom
Fax
Email
Our Ref
Your Ref
Date
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
0117 92 22879
0117 92 22090
mark.bradshaw@bristol.gov.uk
Dear Cllr Hopkins
Response to Cllr Hopkins statement to Cabinet 25th September 2008
I note your statement which ignores once again the sound and consistent advice
coming from BCC officers, officers elsewhere in the sub-region and our retained
professional advisors that measures are needed to protect Bristol's council tax
payers from the certain and escalating cost of landfill. This urgency is supported by
the Audit Commission in their report 'Well Disposed: responding to the Waste
Challenge.' This can be found at www.audit-commission.gov.uk/waste
As you have been involved from 2005-07 in shaping the Executive Member input to
designing a Joint Waste Strategy this is very surprising, if a little inconsistent.
You make some sweeping accusations about the governance arrangements and I
have taken advice on this from the BCC Head of Legal Services.
He says " I am afraid that I must strongly disagree with Cllr Hopkins with respect to
his comments on the Constitution and the Joint Arrangements. The development of
the Constitution has taken a regrettably long time. There has been considerable
input from a range of lawyers, and it has been the subject of helpful (albeit critical)
scrutiny and improvements were made up to the day of the cabinet meeting itself.
The result is that we have now in place a good and fit for purpose constitutional
framework. Clearly if it needs to be modified as it goes about its business, or if it can
be improved then that will happen. I stress here that Joint Committees are a very
ordinary way in which local authorities can work together - and the truth is that our
constitution (after all the negotiations and fine tuning) is really a quite standard type
of document. So "sloppy, unclear drafting" whilst has a certain rhetorical force is not
really accurate or fair.
The Head of Legal Services also states that 'I attended both briefings and whilst
there may have been some confusion in the way some of the proposals on the
indemnities were presented, I just do not think that the description of the briefings by
Cllr Hopkins is accurate. I made clear that it was only when the work on the joint
arrangements were finalised would be know how the indemnities would work, Amy
Auton-Smith gave very clear advice on the different stages within a procurement
process. I think that the attempt to reduce a complex piece of negotiation on a
complex process might well have resulted in a confusion - and that is regrettable but there was no definite information given or claim made at those meetings.
As you know, we must select a reference project and that selection does not entail
that we will end up with that reference project - this simply is the nature of how the
PFI process works."
Can I remind you of several additional points at the risk of repeating myself, as these
have been conveyed to you in oral and written answers, replies to letters, emails,
statements and media comments you have made.
Firstly, the Reference Project is exactly that, a hypothetical exercise by which the
authorities will benchmark offers to provide a technology or technologies to meet our
long term waste treatment requirements. This will not bind the participating councils
to energy from waste with combined heat and power technology, nor to the PFI
funding route. As such, your wild assertion that a 'mass burn feed the beast
incinerator' has or will be procured is false, misleading and contrary to all the advice
you and I have received. Indeed, I, as the Executive Member with responsibility for
strategic waste policy, seconded the Motion approved by Full Council on 9th
September which included the wording “...that Council notes that the majority of
Council Members are opposed to a 'feed the beast' mass burn incinerator.”
You are wrong to suggest that newer technologies have been excluded from the
procurement exercise. Indeed, quite the contrary, as the phased approach adopted
for the Joint Strategy will encourage new and innovative technologies to be part of
the tendering process. This is quite different from your advocacy on behalf of Ethos
Ltd, a private company.
Lastly, the small all-party working group agreed by Council on 9th September is
intended to 'look at ways to achieve greater reductions in the volume of waste
generated and to boost recycling (including commercial and industrial waste) and to
examine the feasibility of giving Council Tax rebates to low residential waste
producers.' It is not intended for this group to scrutinise the Joint Strategy (a role
performed by the Joint Scrutiny arrangements and by the existing Bristol Scrutiny
Commissions). As such, it will be well-placed to take forward some of the thinking
and outcomes resulting from the earlier Citizens Panel review , about which I recall
you were deeply dismissive.
Yours sincerely.
Councillor Mark Bradshaw
Executive Member for Sustainable Development
Millpond Primary School
Aiming
Headteacher: Susan Eriksson
High,
Achieving Baptist Street, Baptist Mills, Bristol BS5 OYR
High, Tel: 0117 377 3085 Fax: 0117 377 3086
Together.
millpond.p@bristol.gov.uk
17th September 2008
STATEMENT C 2
Re: Primary Review Proposal for Millpond Primary School
The strategic recommendation of the Primary Review for Millpond Primary School is that the
school undergoes a rebuild in Phase 2 and becomes a 2 form entry primary.
I am delighted with this proposal as we, in common with other schools in EC3, are facing huge
pressure on places throughout the school but in particular in the Infant Department. This year,
we have, at the request of the LA, opened 2 additional classes to accommodate an extra 30
places in Reception and 30 places in Year 1. We are now able to offer places to children within our
area who last year were unable to access any local school places. We are already full in nursery
and have a sizeable waiting list for places.
The increase in our numbers has resulted in us having a double demountable building and we are
facing the possibility of a further building in the next academic year. Whilst the buildings will
provide a satisfactory learning environment, they are not ideal.
The children in our catchment area are amongst the most needy in Bristol and face many
challenges, and I am thrilled that we will, at last, be able to offer them an outstanding learning
environment in a modern, purpose built building.
Our current building is extremely close to the motorway and suffers from very high levels of
noise and air pollution. The opportunity the Primary Review offers our children is the chance to
learn and achieve in a healthier environment. The prospect of a new building with all the learning
areas contained under one roof (we currently have four separate buildings) will impact on time
spent moving around the school and allow resources for school staff to be more efficiently used
and accessed.
All staff, children and parents currently have to access the school through an extremely
cramped and non-pushchair/wheelchair friendly entrance. This has in a large part prevented us
from being able to offer as many community activities as we would like.The benefits to the local
community in having a modern school in their locality which they will be able to easily access for
family learning and cultural activities are manifold. I hope that we will at last be the heart and
hub of the community.
Ms Susan Eriksson
Headteacher
Millpond Primary School
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
C2 Cabinet 25th September 08
13/10/08
Dear Ms Eriksson
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 25th September.
The Primary Review proposal to expand Millpond Primary school was made in recognition of the
need to identify places in this part of Bristol, the large site the school occupies, the space available
in the current buildings and the improving standards in the school.
Early discussion with planners has identified the poor locations of the school, adjacent to the M32.
As a result, feasibility is likely to identify a complete rebuild for the school meaning the community
will have a much enhanced facility in the future. Any opportunity we have to include other facilities
on the site, to provide for the local community will be considered as we move forward.
This is a real opportunity to improve facilities at this fast improving school.
Once again, thank you for your representation.
Yours sincerely
Deputy Leader and Executive Member
for Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, CYPS, Council
House
c.c.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Room 404, Council House
STATEMENT C 3
The Building Schools for the Future and Bristol’s Primary schools review has
allowed the transformation of educational opportunities for the community of
Hartcliffe and Whitchurch Park. There is always the expectation of replacing
like with like in school buildings but this community driven project wanted
more than change it wanted transformation. The new build of Bridge
Learning Campus has allowed the former schools of HECC and Teyfant to be
remodelled into an all-through school. There will also be a 50 place Student
Support Centre and KS4 vocational base which will be run in partnership with
the City of Bristol College and the relocation of New Fosseway Special School
to provide a fully inclusive educational campus. The aim, to place at the
centre of community aspirations - learning, and to provide a centre of
national importance. Through the “trust in learning” plans are progressing to
provide a staff training centre on the campus.
For too many people in the 50 years history of the schools education meant
failure, frustration and lost opportunities. By working under one leadership
team, led by Chief Executive Mark Davies, progression in learning will be
managed for 3 years olds through to successful and fulfilling life long
learners. The staff team is already seeing benefits of the larger community
with a clear emphasis upon quality teaching and learning. The new buildings
have created a spirit of enthusiasm, excitement and belief in the future.
Personalisation and partnership will bring learning success to this community
of Bristol.
Enabling a new primary school to be funded and built alongside new
secondary provision is a statement of intent that a quality learning
environment is as important in Nursery and Primary as any other phase of
education. The accommodation at Bridge Learning Campus Primary provides
us with the opportunity of shaking us free of conventional thinking about
years; ages and key stages. It will provide learning bases that can be tailored
to individual and personalised need and will enable us to be much more
flexible about teaching & learning. Open spaces for learning and for increased
use of ICT in Primary education are features of the new facility.
Whereas it would be foolish to think that a new build becomes the panacea
for all our ills, nevertheless the building and the environment can become the
catalyst for personal change. Purpose built accommodation and appropriate
resources can become effective leavers for change and for new and more
radical approaches and thinking. It is of course for leadership to then
maximise such opportunities for the benefit and success of children and the
wider community.
Mark Davies, Chief Executive, Bridge Learning Campus
Gus Grimshaw, Headteacher, Bridge Learning Campus - Primary
Mr Mark Davies, Chief Executive
Mr Gus Grimshaw, Headteacher
Bridge Learning Campus
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13th October 2008
Dear Mr Davies and Mr Grimshaw
Primary Review
Thank you for your Statement to Cabinet on 25th September 08.
The quality of buildings being created for secondary schools in Bristol is world class. The
city has benefitted more than most other areas of the UK in terms of attracting the BSF
funding to make this possible. This has been achieved through dedicated work of staff in
schools, governors and LA officers.
The Bridge Learning Campus is an example of where, with a little creativity and massive
community support, we have been able to spread the programme to have some impact on
the primary sector. The Primary Review aims to be as creative in Phase 2 as we attract
money from a range of sources to make a difference to the primary estate.
Teyfant, as part of the campus will have the benefit of a much larger resource base,
specialist teaching rooms, specialist teachers, ICT support, mentors, finance and
administration, through sharing the site. The secondary school will benefit from early
years practitioners on site and experts in teaching literacy and numeracy skills. The whole
will provide much more cohesion and opportunity for progression in learning.
The Bridge is a first in the country and is re establishing Bristol on the map as a city of
innovation and learning.
Yours sincerely,
c.c.
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, CYPS, Council House
Mr Brian Philips, Headteacher
Mr Rob Worsfold, Headteacher
Air Balloon Hill Junior School
Air Balloon HIll Infant School
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13th October 2008
Dear Mr Philips and Mr Worsfold
Thank you for your Statement to Cabinet on 25th September 08.
The opportunity to amalgamate Air Balloon Infant & Junior Schools will mean that
provision in this part of Bristol will be significantly enhanced. The schools currently have a
number of demountable classrooms which we plan to remove as part of the refurbishment.
Opportunities for improved transition and progression are also part of the extended
development, supported by Head Teachers and governors.
Yours sincerely,
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, CYPS,
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 4
Statement to Cabinet – 25th September 2008
We are writing in support of the Primary Review, which has recently taken
place. We have found Kate Campion to be particularly helpful in listening
to our concerns and taking on board our suggestions. The modified
recommendation to plan for a 3 FE has been very well received by
everyone at these two schools. The agreement to move the consultation
on the proposed amalgamation from Stage 2 to Stage 1 has also been
welcomed. This will remove any uncertainty for the future and will pave
the way to access the generous funding provided by the DCSF, which in
turn will allow the two schools to be modified to achieve the benefits of a
straight through Primary school.
Brian Phillips, Head, Air Balloon Hill Junior School
Rob Worsfold, Head, Air Balloon Hill Infant School
Stephen Williams MP
Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Bristol West
and
STATEMENT C 5
Dear Members of the Cabinet
Primary Review
I am aware that you will be considering the recommendations made as a
consequence of the Primary Review at your meeting on September 25th.
First of all, allow me to welcome the investment in Primary Schools which is proposed.
However, I remain gravely concerned about a number of issues which do not seem
to have been addressed as a result of the consultation. As I am sure you will
appreciate, a large number of my constituents have contacted me about this
matter and on their behalf I make the following comments:
I am deeply concerned at what I believe to be the Council’s flawed assumptions
regarding demographic changes in the City Centre. The proposals allow for no
growth in the number of Primary School age children in the area, despite extensive
building plans. I believe therefore that in such circumstances the closure of St
Georges and Hotwells schools would be premature,
A number of my constituents are also concerned about the lack of places for
children living in the North West of the City. Whilst I welcome the expansion of
Westbury Park which will go some way to alleviating the shortage of places, I remain
concerned that the proposed expansion of Sefton Park School on its current site is
inappropriate and extremely unpopular with local parents. Like them, I am
unconvinced that shifts towards larger primary schools will necessarily lead to
enhanced education for the Bristol’s children. In order to retain some parental
choice regarding school size, I would once more urge reconsideration of the plans
to build a single class primary school in Bishopston.
I am also aware of significant objections from several Infant and Junior schools,
including Henleaze and Ashley Down to the amalgamations proposed. I would
harbour grave concerns were such changes to be forced through purely on the
basis of principle, despite trenchant opposition from the governing bodies
concerned, and I fail to see how this would improve standards in schools where such
clear opposition exists.
Westminster Office:
House of Commons y London y SW1A
0AA
℡ 020 7219 8416 y ¬ 020 7219 4802
Constituency Office:
PO Box 2500 y Bristol y BS6 9AH
℡ 0117 942 3494 y ¬ 0117 942 6925
www.stephenwilliams.org.uk
Furthermore, I share the sense of disappointment of Westbury on Trym School at
plans to house additional pupils in temporary classrooms on a split site. Such a
proposal fails to take account of the strategic needs of the population in the area,
where additional places are likely to be needed for some considerable time.
Finally, I have concerns at the income streams from which the Primary Review
changes will be made. I note that a significant proportion of projected revenue
stems from capital receipts which are subject to market realisation of land values.
Such values are likely to have reduced drastically over recent months and I fear that
depending on such income in the future may not be prudent.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Williams MP
Stephen Williams MP
Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Stephen
Primary Review
The Local Authority has consulted widely with other departments regarding demographic
change in all parts of Bristol, including the central area. We know that this needs to be
updated on a regular basis which is why we have recommended an update of the review in
2011, in order to note and adjust the recommendations, especially as they pertain to
Phase 3.
I am surprised to see your suggestion that Hotwells primary School should close. There is
no intention to close Hotwells school and there never has been. We would like to expand
the school for the local community, but know that this is a challenge, given its physical
location.
St George is a school not fit for purpose in terms of the buildings available and the size of
the site. It is also very expensive to run, compared to other schools in Bristol. The Church
of England diocese have offered the Council the opportunity to develop the St Michael on
the Mount site into a cohesive 2FE primary school. They support the recommendations
made to close St. George CE Primary school.
The decisions on Sefton Park were made at a Cabinet meeting on 10th January 2008,
subject to feasibility. This process is in hand and regular discussions have been arranged
with the school and community. We want to ensure that the school can provide places for
children from the local community.
The reasons for expanding Sefton Park are:

There is an urgent need to address the shortfall of primary places within the Ashley,
Redland and Bishopston Wards.

The expansion proposal for Sefton Park Schools will provide a better educational
outcome than two schools on separate sites - The city finds it much more difficult to
find high quality leaders for smaller schools and this extends to the recruitment of
governors and the opportunity to have a leadership team of more than two people.
A larger leadership team allows for distribution of responsibility, development of
leaders for the future and opportunity to develop ways of working collaboratively.

The expansion of Sefton Park Schools is consistent with the Primary review

The Sefton Park site is poorly laid out, through no fault of the school. Traffic
management at the beginning and end of the day is chaotic and so being able
to consider the whole site as a redevelopment opportunity was recognised as
good value for money.
The city now has much experience in building new secondary schools, sometimes on
very tight, awkwardly shaped sites, taking account of the impact on children’s
learning while construction is ongoing. Such developments have been a huge
success and this experience would transfer to the plans for Sefton Park.
With regard to Westbury on Trym, the planned expansion for this school is to 2FE at
a cost of over £2m being invested in the school.
The issue of Capital receipts is a challenge in the current economic situation. This
makes the £12m available from government more important to the whole review and
this will only be obtained if we can demonstrate the removal of surplus places.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 6
PUBLIC FORUM STATEMENT from Councillor Geoff Gollop to the Cabinet, 25th
September 2008
ITEM 5 - PRIMARY REVIEW
I have one general and one specific point to make.
The general point I have already put on record and I will reiterate that the decision is
flawed and is not logical. Mergers are being proposed for the sake of mergers.
I gave the specific example of Henleaze and Elmlea Junior Schools which are both
amongst the top performing Junior Schools in Bristol and well ahead of both Bristol and
the national averages at Key Stage 2. Is our idea to merge junior and infant schools at
both locations? There is no evidence to suggest that this would improve results and many
indicators suggest it may well be to the detriment of those results. These and other
mergers are totally inappropriate and will not result in improved standards.
The second issue is a specific item relating to Westbury Church of England Primary
School which raises doubts about the whole basis of the capital project proposed.
The Executive Member has been briefed on these issues and has kindly offered to visit the
school for which I and the Governors are most grateful but I do need to put on record my
concerns:
(a)
The current school was designed for 315 pupils and it currently has within those
facilities 367 pupils which will be increased to 420 over the next six years.
(b)
The school is scheduled to be refurbished in Phase 1 and I most certainly do not
want to jeopardise that refurbishment. However, I am told, the proposed spend of £2.7
million will result in the provision of 7 temporary classrooms. It is not acceptable for
schools to be still using temporary classrooms but even less acceptable that they are
proposing to provide them as part of the general capital programme.
(c)
Even with the provision of new classrooms, the staffroom, the hall and the ICT suite
will still be undersized and are not being expanded to cope with increased numbers.
If the same level of budgeting and planning is being carried out in terms of capital
programmes for other schools then a very unsatisfactory situation will arise. The school
needs an urgent re-build and refurbishment and if that were to be delayed then its ability to
cope with the number of children on its books must be seriously questioned.
Councillor Geoff Gollop
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 922 3812
0117 922 2090
13th October 2008
Dear Councillor Gollop
Primary Review
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 25th September. The recommendations to Cabinet
and amalgamations proposed are with the support of the schools concerned. Proposals for
amalgamations in Phase 3 have been deferred until at least 2011. (Though if one of the criteria for
amalgamation is triggered, a discussion with the school and governing body would take place).
It is generally accepted that primary schools offer better continuity and progression in learning and
reduce the number of transitions a child has to experience, which evidence shows can generate a
slow down in progress.
With regard to Westbury on Trym, in Phase 1 the school will have £2.7m of investment to take it up
to 2FE. The school currently admits close to this number, but does not have the appropriate
accommodation. There may well be temporary accommodation provided, to provide learning
spaces while permanent classrooms are being adapted and extended. However, there is no plan
to retain temporary accommodation.
The intention is that provision at the school will then meet DCSF requirements for a school of this
size.
As you have commented in your statement I will be visiting the school to assess the proposed
investment and look forward to meeting staff/governors and yourself on that occasion.
Yours sincerely,
c.c.
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, CYPS, Council House
STATEMENT C 7
Public Forum Statement on behalf of the Conservative Group to Cabinet, 25th September
2008
To Leader & Cabinet
Item 5 - PRIMARY SCHOOL REVIEW
At the Full Council Meeting of 9th September, the Conservative Group sought to bring a
motion expressing our profound misgivings over the Primary School Review PostConsultation Recommendations which Cabinet is being asked to approve this evening.
Unfortunately, due to pressure of time, Members never had the opportunity to debate
these concerns.
The Conservative Group is therefore taking this opportunity to reiterate publicly its fears
while formally thanking those who have engaged in the consultation exercise held during
Summer 2008.
We bitterly regret the poor timing and organisation of the launch of the Primary Review
consultation, which caused unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for staff, governors,
pupils and parents. The Group therefore welcomes the news that the Deputy Chief
Executive will be undertaking an urgent review of the Authority's Consultation &
Communications Strategies and sincerely hopes that there will be no repetition of this
plainly deficient consultation exercise.
In particular, we are extremely disappointed that CYPS's post-consultation
recommendations seem to have taken little or no account of the responses to some of the
more contentious options, including the proposed closure of St George's CE Primary, St
Pius X RC Primary and Stockwood Green School. Perhaps this is not surprising given the
casual way in which petitions bearing thousands of names opposing closure (plus
Councillor representations) were discarded from the audit of responses!
The Conservative Group remains completely unconvinced by the dogmatic desire to
amalgamate/federate schools regardless of current performance and questions the 'onesize-fits-all' assumption that mega-schools will deliver a superior education to those that
operate on a more human scale.
Even at this late stage, we urge Cabinet to re-examine urgently the flawed rationale which
appears to lie behind the Primary Review proposals and specifically reverse the
recommendations proposing the closure of St George's CE Primary, St Pius X RC Primary
and Stockwood Green.
Unless Cabinet can give these assurances, or agrees to refer the matter to Full Council
with a firm commitment to honour the majority view of Members, the Conservative Group
hereby gives notice of its intention to call-in this muddled strategy.
COUNCILLOR RICHARD EDDY - Group Leader
COUNCILLOR GEOFF GOLLOP - Deputy Group Leader
COUNCILLOR JOHN GOULANDRIS - Education Spokesman
Councillors Richard Eddy
Geoff Gollop
John Goulandris
Conservative Group
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear
Primary Review
Primary schools were made aware that proposals were to be published in May. The
consultation continued for 8 weeks and no concerns about this proposed date were
received prior to the publication of the proposals for consultation and so the Conservative
Group statement does not reflect the true position in respect of that exercise.
The DCSF required Bristol to submit its Primary Strategy for Change by 16 June. This is
the mechanism for securing the BSF Primary capital grant that Bristol has been offered. As
a result, the Primary Strategy for Change had to be approved by Cabinet on 29 May.
Whilst BSF only contributes part of the funding to achieve the Primary Review, the
Strategy for Change must be articulated in the whole city strategic context: e.g. The
Primary Review. Thus, 29 May became the imposed deadline for Primary Strategy for
Change proposals to be published in the public domain. Cabinet was minded that this date
was in the middle of the school holidays, and so the launch was scheduled to ensure that
schools were briefed on the proposals before they were put in the public domain.
I was glad to see that thirty-one of the recommendations have been broadly supported by
schools and governors.
All Phase 3 recommendations have been deferred until 2011 to reconsider the population
data at that point.
There are 3 outstanding recommendations which Cabinet has referred to full council for
discussion as a result of the response during consultation. It should be noted that some
responses during consultation did support the closure of St. Pius and the Church of
England Diocese, with regret, support the expansion of St. Michael on the Mount and the
subsequent closure of St. George.
If Bristol City Council is unable to demonstrate a cohesive strategy for primary provision,
where surplus places are removed, we will fail to receive the capital grant from
government and many proposals in Phases 1 &2, for which there is a lot of support, will
not be possible.
The Conservative Group is wrong to suggest that ‘mega schools’ are proposed as the
outcome of this Review. Bristol will retain 1FE, 2FE and 3FE schools at the end of
the process – hardly ‘mega schools’! Conservatives should be aware that we have
successful schools of all sizes – and the most important determinant of
success/improvement relates to the way in which schools are run. Conservatives
should also be aware that everybody else acknowledges that there is a dip in
attainment between KS1 and KS2 with separate infant and junior schools which
amalgamation into primary phase schools (or federation) can reduce or eliminate
(and indeed there are some paired infant/junior schools where admission numbers
between them!).
I am unsure as to what the Conservative Group regards as ‘flawed’ in the rationale
behind the Primary Review:

Is it the investment of £46 million in Bristol’s Primary schools?

Is it the removal of surplus (empty) places in some of our primary schools
which are being subsidized by other primary schools?

Is it the provision of extra places in other schools in response to local
community needs?

Is it the strengthening of school leadership potential that can arise through
different organisational models?

Is it the raising of attainment across the Primary phase?
My Cabinet colleagues and I believe that the use of inaccurate and emotive soundbites is no way to improve Bristol’s schools.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 8
Statement by Cllr Clare Campion-Smith
(Liberal Democrat shadow spokesperson for CYPS)
It seems a long time since Thursday 22nd May when the Primary Review was first
unveiled. Serious concerns were expressed at the time by the Lib Dem group about
the manner of the presentation of the proposals. The proposals came as a shock to
some headteachers and chairs of governors. Their sense of surprise (alarm, in some
cases) was compounded by an equal sense of futility that the executive member and
the officers were not willing to change. I welcome the fact that changes have been
made to some schemes in response to the consultation.
The Liberal Democrat group sent in a response based on four criteria. The first was
that we should provide a primary school place for each child within their local area.
That requires a network of schools across the city and an awareness not just of
physical distance but also of physical barriers that might separate a community from
its school. The proposal to expand Hotwells School, for instance, is in phase 3 and
dependent on a site being found. Site choice will clearly have an impact on schools
that are near neighbours. One near neighbour is St George’s School which is due for
closure in phase 2. This feels the wrong way round since until a site choice is made,
the Council cannot predict the effect on surrounding schools and whether they can
provide an adequate network of school places. On the same theme of timing and
choice of site, can the cabinet assure us that there is joined-up thinking between the
plans for Connaught and Ilminster Ave schools and the regeneration plans of in south
Bristol?
My second concern is about surplus places. We accept the general principle that too
many surplus places will be a drain on resources. If the Primary Review proposals are
agreed, how will the cabinet ensure that the money saved will be identified and
returned to schools and targeted at improving educational attainment? Some of the
proposals for removing surplus places will reduce flexibility and parental choice.
They will add extra to journeys and the inconvenience can only be justified if cabinet
are certain that it will improve educational performance
My third concern relates to whether some of the proposed building and refurbishment
schemes will deliver the educational improvement that we wish. Until there is a clear
picture of what is holding a school back, we cannot be sure that the disruption of
proposed changes may not be stamping out green shoots rather than encouraging
them. The evidence from the secondary sector is that new buildings do not
automatically revitalise a school. The rush for government money should not put
pressure on schools to accept changes that they feel are not justified on educational
grounds.
Councillor Clare Campion-Smith
(Liberal Democrat Shadow Spokesperson
for CYPS)
Liberal Democrat Group Office
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear
Primary Review
All Head Teachers were appraised of the primary review in May 2007 and some were part of a
working group that developed the principles that were then consulted on prior to the Cabinet
Report in October 2007. All Head Teachers were aware of the timeframe and that the initial
strategic recommendations would be published for consultation in May 2008.
The proposed closure of St George is because the school is very small and the site is unsuitable
for expansion without disproportionate investment. The Church of England Diocese and the Local
Authority agree that a better use of resources would provide a remodelled, 2FE school at St
Michael on the Mount.
In the case of Hotwells, numbers indicate the local community need more places at the school. If it
can be expanded on the site, this will be taken forward for feasibility in the future. The alternative,
to accommodate local children is to find an alternative site.
With regard to Ilminster Avenue Primary and Connaught Primary, the recommendation will be part
of regeneration plans for Knowle and to this end, consultation has already commenced.
The money saved in reducing surplus places is money that is automatically passported by the
Local Authority to school budgets. It is part of the Direct Schools Grant (DSG) and will be
redistributed across the cities schools.
The DCSF have been working with Bristol for some time on the improvement agenda. The most
recent meeting identified clear progress and officers from Government Office of the South West
and the DCSF are pleased with both the identification of the barriers to progress and the plans to
overcome these. The Primary Review is seen very much as part of the solution. There has been
no ‘rush’ for government money as the primary capital grant has been known of for some time.
I am glad that you agree that surplus places must be removed, however you should be aware that
money ‘saved’ is part of the DSG and will be automatically re-distributed back across all of Bristol’s
primary phase schools.
However, I am concerned that the tone of your submission on behalf of Liberal Democrats on
Bristol City Council implies a ‘wait and see what happens’ piecemeal approach to primary provision
in Bristol. That is not appropriate in current circumstances and frankly has contributed to where we
are currently.
The Review proposals are not simply about buildings but a holistic approach to raising
standards for Bristol schoolchildren. The Council needs to act firmly and decisively to
improve our schools. My colleagues and I are committed to make a difference to young
people’s achievements in our schools and prevarication is therefore ruled out.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
Date Prepared: 22/9/08
E-petition: SEFTON PARK SCHOOL IS UNSUITABLE FOR EXPANSION
1. E-petition summary details
1.1.
Title: SEFTON PARK SCHOOL IS UNSUITABLE FOR EXPANSION
Petitioner:
1.2.
The e-petition was raised by Gwinear Lloyd of Ashley
ward.
Dates e-petition opened and closed:
The e-petition was raised on 3rd July 2008 and was closed for
signatures on 21st September 2008, after running for a period of 9
weeks.
1.3.
Statistical overview of signatures:
A total of 149 signatories signed this e-petition; 148 of which were
within the Bristol area. The distribution of the petitioners by electoral
was:
Ashley
Avonmouth
Bedminster
Bishopston
Bishopsworth
Brislington East
Brislington West
Cabot
Clifton
Clifton East
Cotham
Easton
Eastville
Filwood
Frome Vale
Hartcliffe
Henbury
Hengrove
Henleaze
Hillfields
Horfield
84
2
37
1
1
2
4
1
4
Kingsweston
Knowle
Lawrence Hill
Lockleaze
Redland
Southmead
Southville
St George East
St George West
Stockwood
Stoke Bishop
Westbury-on-Trym
Whitchurch Park
Windmill Hill
1
8
1
-
South Gloucestershire
North Somerset
Bath & North East
Somerset
1
Other UK
Brief prepared by Corporate Consultation, Bristol City Council, Bristol BS1 5TR
Tel: 0117 922 2848, fax: 0117 922 2948. email: consultation@bristol.gov.uk
1
2
1
-
1.4.
Validity of signatures:
The petition had no invalid signatures.
2. Full e-petition text
The Petitioner objects to the expansion and amalgamation of Sefton Park
School. The objections are due to parking and congestion problems, loss of play
and PE space, loss of community buildings and green space, the detrimental
effect of large schools on children's education and well-being and the recent
pressure on the head and governing bodies due to federation of the school. The
petitioner believes a new school on the Brunel site, as promised, would be a
better remedy for the demand for school places in the area; or failing that, a new
school on the old Fairfield site, leaving St Barnabas where it is.
3. Additional information provided by those raising the e-petition
• The site is too small, and an extra 210 pupils would massively increase
problems of parking and congestion, road safety issues and lack of play and PE
space, especially during building works.
• We object to the loss of community buildings and green space (scout hut and
environs, playgroup, youth centre and after school club).
• There are other sites more suitable for the badly needed school provision,
where no community buildings need to be knocked down – the Brunel site,
where a school was supposed to have been built as a prerequisite of the housing
developments there, the proposed new supermarket site, or the old Fairfield
school (St Barnabas should not be moved from a site with ample green space to
a site with none.)
• The expansion of Sefton park school will cost 2 million pounds more than
building a new school at the Brunel site. That money would be better spent in
building a new school and refurbishing Sefton Park School.
• Three form entry schools are not justified on educational grounds. All available
research indicates that small schools out-perform large schools in every criteria,
with 300-400 pupils being the optimum number (not 690 as would be the case
after expansion, taking the nursery children into account). Ethnic minority pupils
and special needs pupils especially suffer in large schools.
• Lastly with the school having recently undergone changes to a soft and then
hard federation, with the existing infant head taking on the juniors as well, this is
the wrong time to rush into expansion, and amalgamation should be ruled out for
the same reason.
4. Synopsis of comments to the site
64 comments were received. These are summarised below:
Many commented that the original plans for the building of another school on the
Brunel site should be honoured and that the Sefton Park site was not suitable for
expansion as it could simply not accommodate a further 210 pupils safely; it did
not have sufficient space or supporting infrastructure. One petitioner
commented that the proposal broke the '106 agreement'.
In addition, many petitioners were concerned that their children's education
would be damaged if the school size was increased, as it was already
overcrowded. Many suggested that bigger schools do not equate with better
schools and that there was a significant body of research to demonstrate that
smaller schools deliver better quality education.
As well as the to objecting to the expansion on educational grounds, many
petitioners expressed concern about the environmental impact such expansion
would have. In particular increased road use and parking difficulties in the area,
loss of community green space, damage to community identity and importantly
the loss of the local and well used scouting amenities. Several petitioners were
also concerned about the demolition of the existing architecture which, in their
opinion, should be preserved.
Date Prepared: 22/9/08
E-petition: Sefton Park School is Unsuitable for Expansion
Name
Street
Town
Gwinear Lloyd
Postcode
Location
BS7 9BH
Ashley
rich brooks
101 Sommerville Road
BS6 5BX
Ashley
Andrew Nicholls
8 Williamson Road Bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Cas Brooks
101 Sommerville Road
BBS6 5LH
Ashley
Sascha Bishop
Williamson Rd
Bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Glenys Mills
14 St Bartholomew's Road
BS7 9BJ
Ashley
Elaine Hicks
296 Ashley Down Road
BS7 9BQ
Ashley
Emma Humphries
16 Briavels Grove
BS6 5JJ
Ashley
BS7 9BG
Ashley
Leonard Lang
Ashley Down Road BRISTOL BS7 9BG
Ashley
Kate Fryer
114 Cromwell Road Bristol
BS6 5EZ
Ashley
David cemlyn
22 Effingham Road Bristol
BS6 5BJ
Ashley
Vicky Duggan
BS6 5BJ
Ashley
Niki Underhill
9 Maurice Rd
Bristol
BS6 5BZ
Ashley
Julia Tuckey
15 wathen Rd
Bristol
BS6 5BY
Ashley
Sophie Clinkard
2 Watercress Road Bristol
BS2 9YJ
Ashley
Dan Williamson
231 Mina Road
Bristol
BS2 9YN
Ashley
Jill Woodley
133 Sommerville Rd Bristol
BS6 5BX
Ashley
Robyn Coetzee
16 St Bartholomews Rd
BS7 9BJ
Ashley
Wayne Woodley
Sommerville Road
BS6 5BX
Ashley
Lorna Perks
BS7 9BQ
Ashley
Garry Frost
Chesterfield Road
BS6 5DU
Ashley
Natascha Wolf
304 Ashley Down Road,
BS7 9BQ
Ashley
steven phillips
20 williamson road bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Helen Phillips
20 williamson road bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Valeria Germini
18 Burghley rd
Bristol
BS6 5BN
Ashley
Stephen Felix
18 Burghley Road
Bristol
BS6 5BN
Ashley
joe joseph332 ashley down road
bristol
BS7 9BQ
Ashley
Kate Conlon
Osborne Avenue
Bristol
BS7 9BL
Ashley
Saida Joseph
BS7 9BQ
Ashley
Pete Wolf 304
Ashley Down Road, Bristol
BS7 9BQ
Ashley
Isaac Wolf Wright
304 Ashley Down Road,
BS7 9BQ
Ashley
Barbara Crow
67 Chesterfield Rd Bristol
BS6 5DW
Ashley
Sarah Rutherford
1 WOLFERTON ROAD
BS7 9BB
Ashley
Emma Makin
55 Chesterfield Road
BS6 5DW
Ashley
David Parsons
7 Walsingham Road Bristol
BS6 5BU
Ashley
Sarah Chope
7 Walsingham Road Bristol
BS6 5BU
Ashley
Bristol
Julie LangAshley Down Road BRISTOL
Bristol
Bristol
conor wilson
28 Williamson Road Bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Alison Roberts
Williamson Road
Bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Dan Cary 11
Osborne Avenue
Bristol
BS7 9BL
Ashley
Paul Tinkler
73 Chesterfield Road
BS6 5DW
Ashley
Ian Dunn 2 Clifton Villas ,balmoral road Bristol
BS7 9AY
Ashley
Elizabeth Johnson
5 Ryland Place
Bristol
BS2 9YZ
Ashley
Merriel Waggoner
231 Mina Road
Bristol
BS2 9YN
Ashley
Charlie Duggan
BS6 5BJ
Ashley
dawn Fretten
28 Williamson Rd
BS7 9BH
Ashley
jan clench23 fairlawn road/monpelier
Bristol
BS6 5JS
Ashley
Chris Robinson
Balmoral Road
Bristol
BS7 9AX
Ashley
anna gorman
12 st bartholomews rd
BS7 9BJ
Ashley
Aidan Searle
Balmoral road
Bristol
BS7 9AX
Ashley
Derek Hart
58 Cobourg Road
Bristol
BS6 5HX
Ashley
simon murphy
10 burghley rd
bristol
BS6 5BN
Ashley
Toni Burrows
48, Belvoir Rd, St Andrews
BS6 5DJ
Ashley
Clare Benians
4 Richmond Avenue Bristol
BS6 5ET
Ashley
Sean Burrows
Belvoir road
Bristol
BS6 5DJ
Ashley
Esme Burrows
48, Belvoir Rd, St Andrews
BS6 5DJ
Ashley
Jake Burrows
48, Belvoir Rd St Andrews
BS6 5DJ
Ashley
Jemima Lumley
78 Sefton Park Road
BS7 9AL
Ashley
Catherine Correia
16 Maurice Road
BRISTOL BS6 5BZ
Ashley
Kate Sacof
39 Balmoral Road
Bristol
BS7 9AX
Ashley
Mandie McKeown
11 Osborne Avenue Bristol
BS7 9BL
Ashley
Richard Nutter
9 Lynmouth Road
Bristol
BS2 9YH
Ashley
Suzanne Williams
25 Mercia Drive
bristol
BS2 9XG
Ashley
Rufus Willcott
25 Mercia Drive
bristol
BS2 9XG
Ashley
Mathew Parry
5 Ashley Park
Bristol
BS6 5DX
Ashley
Sophie Holland
5 Ashley Park
Bristol
BS6 5DX
Ashley
Gurchetan Shoker
38 Burghley Rd
Bristol
BS6 5BN
Ashley
Emily Wade
1 Maurice road
Bristol
BS6 5BZ
Ashley
jenny etches
8 ashley park
bristol
BS6 5DX
Ashley
Christopher pull
7 Chesterfield ROAD
BS6 5DN
Ashley
Chloe King
320 Ashley Down Rd
BS7 9BQ
Ashley
Paul B Reinge
14 Williamson Rd
Bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Anne P Reinge
14 Williamson Rd
Bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Ian D Reinge
14 Williamson Rd
Bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Alan Taylor
26 Willianson Road Bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Will Clinkard
2 Watercress Rd
Bristol
BS2 9YJ
Ashley
Alfie Clinkard
2 Watercress Rd
Bristol
BS2 9YJ
Ashley
Pippa Clinkard
2 Watercress Rd
Bristol
BS2 9YJ
Ashley
roger owen
12 williamson rd
bristol
BS7 9BH
Ashley
Hannah Jenkins
16 Maycliffe Park
Bristol
BS6 5JH
Ashley
Trevor Johnson
66 Chessel Street
Bristol
BS3 3DN
Bedminster
Judy Gowenlock
10 Upper Belmont Road
BBS7 9DQ
Bishopston
Emma Stanley
3 Theresa Avenue
Bristol
BS7 9ER
Bishopston
Caroline Bartle
8 Lancashire Road Bristol
BS7 9DL
Bishopston
Richard Stanley
3 Theresa Avenue
Bristol
BS7 9ER
Bishopston
Clare Elliott
BS7 9DL
Bishopston
Julie Allison
Seymour Avenue
Bristol
BS7 9HH
Bishopston
Julia Hinchliffe
18 Longfield Road
Bristol
BS7 9AG
Bishopston
Jasmin Krischer
34 Longfield Road
Bristol
BS7 9AG
Bishopston
Reg Bragonier
34 Longfield Road
Bristol
BS7 9AG
Bishopston
Amanda Hazell
26 Upper belmont Road
BS7 9DQ
Bishopston
Piers Calascione
85 Sommerville Road
BS7 9AE
Bishopston
Sara Crossley
149 Sefton Park Road
BS7 9AW
Bishopston
Mike Rawlinson
BS7 9AW
Bishopston
Claire Jarvis
41 Sommervill RD
Bristol
BS7 9AD
Bishopston
Mark Symonds
41 Sommerville Rd Bristol
BS7 9AD
Bishopston
Rebecca Thames
25 Theresa Avenue Bristol
BS7 9ER
Bishopston
Annie Johnson
2 york aveBristol
BS7 9LH
Bishopston
Emma Lawrence
Lilstock Avenue
Ashley
BS7 9LE
Bishopston
niallbcc farrington
Lilstock Avenue
Bristol
BS7 9LE
Bishopston
Valerie Emmott
75 Sefton Park Road
BS7 9AN
Bishopston
martin terry
14 Lilstock Avenue Bristol
BS7 9LE
Bishopston
Gayle Wilson
97 Sefton Park Road
BS7 9AW
Bishopston
Bronwen Shave
BS7 9DL
Bishopston
Diane Herrod
BS7 9AW
Bishopston
Sabine Okraffka
BS7 9DL
Bishopston
Sara Davies
6 Denmark Place
Bristol
BS7 8NW
Bishopston
John Penny
39 Nottingham Rd
Bristol
BS7 9DH
Bishopston
Jacky Humphreys
39, Nottingham Road
BS7 9DH
Bishopston
Helen Burgess
39 Theresa Avenue BishopstoBS7 9ER
Bishopston
Katy Taylor
25 Upper Belmont Road
BS7 9DG
Bishopston
Jessica Peters
BS7 9JT
Bishopston
Joe Melia Kennington Avenue Bristol
BS7 9ES
Bishopston
James Sibson
54 Kennington Avenue
BS7 9ET
Bishopston
Karen Cook
14 Clevedon Road Bristol
BS7 8PT
Bishopston
Neil Emmott
75 Sefton Park Road
BS7 9AN
Bishopston
Sarah Ubhi
Sefton Park Road
BRISTOL BS7 9AW
Bishopston
Suki Ubhi Sefton Park Road
BRISTOL
BS7 9AW
Bishopston
Alice Kirk queens parade
bristol
BS1 5XJ
Cabot
Alison Wylie
6 Fernbank Court, Fernbank rdBS6 6QJ
Cotham
Helen Dooley
67 Redhill Drive, Fishponds
Eastville
BS16 2AG
Jeremy Hough
67 Redhill Drive, Fishponds
BS16 2AG
Eastville
Gill Elloway
10 Fallodon Way
Bristol
BS9 4HR
Henleaze
Zoe Ladjimi
Kellaway Avenue
Horfield
BS7 8UU
Horfield
Julia Morgan
Kellaway Avenue
Bristol
BS7 8UU
Horfield
Richard Morgan
Kellaway Avenue
Bristol
BS7 8UU
Horfield
Kathryn White
Lindsay Road
Bristol
BS7 9NP
Lockleaze
Judy Kerry
33 Kings Ave
Brsitol
BS7 8JL
Redland
Fiona O'Kane
Belmont Road
Bristol
BS6 5AR
Redland
BS6 7TW
Redland
Liz Crow 1c Birchall Road
Bristol
Tracey Northcott
84 Belmont Road
Bristol
BS6 5AU
Redland
Robert Beach
89 Belmont Road
Bristol
BS6 5AR
Redland
Katie Breeze
Belmont Rd
St AndrewBS6 5AR
Redland
Molly Crow
1c Birchall Road
Bristol
BS6 7TW
Redland
BS15 3JG
South Glos
BS3 2AQ
Southville
Elizabeth & Ken Strong
16 Monkton Road
clare gundry
23 carrington road
bristol
Sally Campbell
31 Showering Road Bristol
BS14 8DL
Stockwood
Paul Campbell
31 Showering Road Bristol
BS14 8DL
Stockwood
Cheryl Hawkins
12 Stoke Paddock Rd
BS9 2DJ
Stoke Bishop
Tom Smith
3 Keeper's Lane
Bristol
BS7 9BX
Ashley
Sarah Bailey
20 The Yard
Bristol
BS2 9YR
Ashley
Rachel Freeman
54 Grittleton Road
Horfield
Bristol
Horfield
Helen Ostle
5113 Airpoint
BedminsteBS33NA
Bedminster
Isobel Taylor
1 Keepers lane
Ashley DownBS7 9 BX
Ashley
Dominic Taylor
1 Keepers lane
Ashley DownBS7 9 BX
Ashley
zelah vincent
40 Redland Court Road
Bs6v 7 eh
Redland
janet Miller
19
BS10 5EF
Westbury-on-Trym
Jacqui Harrison
69 Lake Road
BS10 5HZ
Westbury-on-Trym
Carole Theyer
34 Marksbury Road
BS3 5JU
Windmill Hill
Cranham Road
Bristol
Ms Gwinear Lloyd
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Ms Lloyd
Thank you for your e-petition to Cabinet on 25th September.
The decision regarding the expansion of Sefton Park school was made by Cabinet on 10th
January 2008. The expansion will go ahead if the outcomes of feasibility provide a good solution
for the school, parents the community and most of all the children of the Ashley and Bishopston
area of Bristol. The architects presented three possible plans for the Sefton Park site at a recent
post consultation meeting. Three of the options being considered provide two new halls.
There is no suggestion that consultation of Sefton Park expansion has been closed. The position
is unchanged from that following the Cabinet decision in January 2008. The expansion of Sefton
Park infant and junior school to 3FE will go ahead only if the outcomes of feasibility demonstrate
an acceptable way forward.
The reasons for considering the expansion of the Sefton Park site are:
There is a need for places for local children (by 150 pupils, not 50%);
The opportunity to do something with the Sefton Park site, which is poorly laid out - through no
fault of the school;
Traffic management at the beginning and end of the day is chaotic; and
Being able to consider the whole site as a redevelopment opportunity was recognized as good
value for money.
There is a need in the Ashley area to expand pupil numbers for local families. This is not about
turning a good school into a mediocre school. Successful leadership is the key to successful
schools, good facilities support this. The Council is confident that the leadership shown by school
staff and governors at Sefton Park will maintain levels of performance in the school that parents
have come to expect. The Council will work with the school to improve outcomes, so that in the
future, Sefton Park is one of the best schools in the city.
Traffic management at the beginning and end of the day is chaotic and will be addressed in any
proposed solution.
The issues of effective management and leadership. The city finds it much more difficult to
find high quality leaders for smaller schools and this extends to the recruitment of governors
and the opportunity to have a leadership team of more than two people. A larger leadership
team allows for distribution of responsibility, development of leaders for the future and
opportunity to develop ways of working collaboratively.
Plans to provide for extended activities and services are incorporated into the feasibility. The
city now has much experience in building new secondary schools, sometimes on very tight,
awkwardly shaped sites, taking account of the impact on children’s learning while
construction is ongoing. Such developments have been a huge success and this experience
would transfer to the plans for Sefton Park.
The feasibility work on the Sefton Park site has provided a range of options to be considered.
The options for the school at 3FE on the current site all provide each pupil with more space
than is currently available to them. This is because we would be able to reconfigure the
buildings and use the Brunel site for some aspects of the extended provision, this, with the
extra land available allows the space to child ratio to be improved.
There will be an increase in external play space on site, within what is currently the Youth
Centre area. The extended school clubs are being included in the options as is the
replacement of the Scout hut. The plans discussed on 15th September do illustrate where
the Scout and Guide accommodation would be located. They are integral to any plans. The
intention is that the Brunel site becomes play and games space for the school, thus enabling
more physical activity for children at the school. The PE curriculum is currently delivered at
Fairfield School. The Brunel site will be closer and a new MUGA is proposed.
The issue regarding the use of the Brunel site by the cricket club relates to parking facilities
not the playing field and the requirement is for 25 days. Gloucestershire Country Cricket
Club has been in consultation with the Local Authority to utilise the playing field for car
parking. This requirement was resolved through design and access agreements.
St Barnabas will be expanded as a result of the primary review, either on the current site, or
on the old Fairfield site. Thus adding further capacity to schools in the area
The specification for the school, while meeting the Department for Children, Schools and
Families (DCSF) Restricted Site Recommended Requirements will also be in excess of these
requirements in some areas. Under the DCSF BB99 regulations “congested site” criteria,
sufficient “soft play” is provided on all three options currently being considered. There is also
the inclusion of a MUGA.
Neither the building of Fairfield nor the building of Redland Green took place through the
current procurement route, which is the same as for the successful completion of Bristol
Brunel Academy (formerly Speedwell Secondary School), Bristol Metropolitan College
(formerly Whitefield Fishponds Secondary School) and Brislington Enterprise College. All
were completed on time and on budget and have been used nationally to exemplify good
school buildings. The Local Education Partnership and our contractor SKANSA have these
successes to build on. All buildings, on an existing site were rebuilt with minimal disruption
and no impact on learning outcomes.
Once again, that you for your submission.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 10
I understand that the cabinet meeting on Thursday will be dealing with the proposals
regarding primary school provision in Bristol and that the public are allowed to submit
written statements. I have the following to say about the proposed expansion of Sefton
Park School to 630 primary school places.
"Having just returned from a presentation from the architects given the task of planning the
expansion of Sefton Park Infants and Juniors School to 630 places, I am amazed that this
proposal can be given serious consideration. As a local resident, I have a particular
interest in this but I do not have any objections to work being done on the school per se.
However, it was clear from the presentation - and the architect made no attempt to hide
the fact - that the site is highly unsuitable to cope with this degree of expansion. The only
way to have the bare minimum requirements of open space - both hard and soft areas will be to build large, 3 storey buildings, which is hardly ideal for a primary school - and the
impact of this on some local residents will be massive. Additionally, the traffic in the
surrounding area - on a main route into the centre of Bristol in the rush hour - will become
even more congested and dangerous. My two children attended Bishop Road School,
itself too big a school in my opinion (but smaller than the proposed Sefton Park expansion)
but are now fortunate enough to attend Fairfield and Redland Schools - both purpose built
schools with good facilities and lots of open space. In comparison to this, it astounds me
that a proposal should be put to cabinet which short-changes our primary school age
children in the area by trying to increase by 50% the size of an already congested site and
I cannot believe that this proposal can be taken seriously.
Robin Scott
Mr Robin Scott
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Mr Scott
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 11
As a father of two children at Sefton Park School and a local resident, I
would like to comment on the proposed expansion of the school.
The proposed expansion threatens to undermine the work of one of the
outstanding primary schools in Bristol, and will necessarily entail a
severe reduction in quality of provision, particularly with regard to
outside space, and in terms of problems with access and overcrowding. The
architect's feasibility study makes it clear that increasing pupil numbers
by up to 50% can only be achieved with severe compromises on facilities,
through the construction of disproportionately large, three-story
buildings, by a significant reduction in outside play areas, and by
demolishing buildings that currently provide self-contained accommodation
for the after school club, scouts, and other activities that offer an
important focus for the local community. The c.50% increase in traffic will
put an intolerable burden on the already highly restricted access to the
school and the surrounding roads. The space available only just meets the
statutory criteria even for a 'congested site', and only with the use of
the Brunel site for playing fields. In the architect's words (at a public
meeting at the school to introduce the feasibility study on 21/9/08), while
the plan is technically 'feasible', it would result in 'an incredibly
congested site'. The additional use of the Brunel site will involve
difficult, time-consuming and dangerous journeys for very young children
along a main road. The plan would almost certainly compromise the quality
of education at one of the best-performing primary schools in the area and in fact in the country - and rather than opening up that high quality
education to more children, threatens to close it down for all.
Bristol City Council has a long and distinguished record of failure with
regard to its responsibility to provide high quality education for all
children. Enlarging this highly successful primary school would be to
continue that record by moving directly against current best practice and
Government policy with regard to school size. To increase the size of
Sefton Park School in this way would constitute an act of shocking
educational vandalism by severely compromising the education of local
children for generations to come. It is axiomatic that the Council has a
non-negotiable responsibility to preserve what is successful about its
education provision, not destroy it. Other possibilities exist to meet the
primary education needs of the local community, such as the original plan
to build a new school on the Brunel site: the Council now has a duty to
revisit those other alternatives.
Andrew Bennett
Mr Andrew Bennett
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Mr Bennett
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 12
Sefton Park expansion
Please note for the Primary Review taking place on Thursday 25th September my strong
objection to the plans put forward last night at the IRIS meeting at the school.
On the architects own addition the site in very 'congested' as it stands.
The only way the council could increase the in take would be an unbelievable, horrendous
14 months of building AND to use the Brunei site (originally planned for a new school ) as
a playing field.
The whole scheme is a non starter.
As usual the council are being underhanded.
What about the Fairfield site, which appears is not even being considered?
What about the original plans for a school to be built on the Brunel site?
I will try to attend the meeting in person but please add this email to the meeting.
Yours digested, resident and parent.
Ms I. Lethbridge-Tatlow.
Ms I Lethbridge-Tatlow
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Ms Lethbridge-Tatlow
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 13
Sefton Park primary school
I am the parent of a child who has started in Sefton Park reception
class this year. I have real concerns about the proposed expansion of
the school.
Had I known that there were plans to extend the school, I would not have
chosen it for my son. The disruption that all the children will have to
suffer for a period of at least 18 months will be detrimental to their
education. Sefton Park school site is not of a suitable size for
expansion - and using off-site playing fields is not a practical option.
I would appreciate clarification on one point. Are you now at the stage
of official consultation on the expansion of the school, or this just an
engagement period? If so, when does official consultation start? My
understanding is that, under Cabinet Office guide-lines, any official
consultation needs to involved more than one option.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kate Knight
Ms Kate Knight
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Ms Knight
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 14
Hello Ian
Having been to the presentations yesterday at Sefton Park School for the
proposed re-development, we were given your email address as someone to
address issues to take on board at the council meetings.
Many of the people seem to oppose the scheme. Some I guess resent change
and some are concerned about the well being of the school and the
children in it. The general consensus is that the Brunel site is the
best place to build a new school which would solve the lack of places in
the area AND have the least impact on neighbours and current users of
Sefton Park.
However, I understand that the Council have decided not to use this
option (can you say why?) and also not to use the old Fairfield School
either.
I am a parent who has been denied a place at all of the local schools
for my 6 year old so I am forced to travel to Fishponds everyday where
he attends school. We have just applied for our other son for the 2009
in-take and hope and prey that we will have better luck with getting a
local school place for him. Given our situation, and that of many
others, we welcome any scheme that allows local children to attend a
local school and gets us away from this continued anxiety experienced by
us and every other parent in our position.
Best Regards
John Bass
St Andrews resident
Mr John Bass
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Mr Bass
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 15
Dear Mr Hird
I would be grateful if this letter could be read out at the Primary Review meeting on
Thursday.
Last evening I went to residents consultation meeting at Sefton Park School about the
proposed expansion of the school. I remember reading that for a period in the middle ages
the greatest ‘ brains’ of the time devoted their considerable skills in debating ‘how
many Angels you get on the head of pin’.
Clearly the architect and the LA project manger are clever, professional and well –meaning
people, as the presentation made clear, it is technically feasible to build buildings that can
‘accommodate’ 620 pupils on the Sefton Park site.
What is absolutely clear, and seemed to be to everyone at the meeting, is that what is
‘feasible’ and what is ‘sensible’ are two completely different things.
Others will raise issues about impact on quality of life for residents, however I, as a Junior
School Headteacher and Governor of Redland Green Secondary School, want to make
four simple points:
1.
It is absolutely impossible to expand the site to 620 pupils within the spirit (and
probably with in the specific guidance) relating to the duty on schools to ‘promote
Community Cohesion’. Turning the ‘Scout hut’ (the only community building and
green space in the whole area) into a car park for about 1/3 of the staff cars that a
school of 620 will require, is totally unacceptable.
2.
I have had one of my own children at Sefton Park Schools for 8 years. They have
had (and will hopefully continue to have), a really good education. But at no point
have they have had, what recently become statutory, namely 2hrs of physical
activity a week. There simply isn’t space with 2 form entry. Provision for competitive
team sport and after school sport is also very, very ‘thin’. I simply cannot see how,
even with ‘ a netball court in the sky’, how the school could timetable 21 classes
each to get 2 hrs a week of physical activity. It simply won’t happen.
3.
90 year 6 children, upstairs, in minimum spec size classrooms and no (or severely
restricted) outdoor space to let off steam! Have the councillors who read this as
‘feasible’ any experience of actually managing a Primary School? Have they
listened to those who are including Jan Lonsdale? What for some years has been a
‘beacon school’ in Bristol will very soon cease to be.
4.
As a governor of Redland Green Secondary, and living close to Fairfield I have had
some experience of school building ‘cock up’s’ that cause real problems for
everyone but could so easily have been avoided IF THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE
DECISIONS LISTENNED TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE AND LIVE WITH THE
CONSEQUENCES.
It seems absolutely astonishing that Bristol City Council seems completely
determined to learn nothing, ignore everyone and pursue this scheme simply
because it could be ‘architecturally feasible’. The expansion plan is a recipe for
educationally and community disaster.
Alex Wilkinson
Mr Alex Wilkinson
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Mr Wilkinson
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 16
Dear Mr Hird,
I attended the meeting at Sefton Park School on Monday and briefly heard the architects
plans. I therefore have the following queries/comments that I would like the cabinet to
consider.
1. I wonder if the cabinet have visited the school or will visit the school before any decision
over the feasibilty of its expansion? Sefton Park is a wonderful school but is already short
of on-site play and sports space and the plans for the expansion proposals do not
convince me that there will be an increase in on-site, practical useable space for lessons
or break times, despite the increase in numbers using them. For example how would 21
classes (plus nursery) use 1 hall for PE, assemblies and lunch - the architects suggested
in their presentation to parents that with a new hall the old halls could be used as the
school thought fit implying there would be new useable space -but surely they would have
no choice but to still use them for PE and so there would be no additional space for
intervention work/break out groups despite the additional number of classes needing these
areas?
2. If the cabinet visited (or do visit) have they included a walk to the proposed playing
fields and timed how long it would take to reach them? I wonder how feasible it would be in
terms of staffing, curriculum time not to mention the children's safety for the school to
ensure that children could actually use the playing fields on a regular weekly basis to meet
the requirements for PE?
3. I also wonder what would happen to the children's PE on the 35 days that the Brunel
site is apparently inaccessible because of the Cricket grounds need to use the adjacent
area as access for parking? I assume if it was felt inappropriate to have a school built on it
for this reason it would not be appropriate to have young children playing sport on these
days?
I am very worried about a number of other issues that affect my children including
disruption if/when teh works take place, the provision of facilities for the After school club
and the Scout hall. I am also concerned about the lack of information and consultation that
has so far been forthcoming from the Council.
yours sincerely,
Sarah Galliford
Ms Sarah Galliford
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Ms Galliford
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 17
Dear Mr Hird
I understand that you are compiling any statements re the Primary Review for the Cabinet
meeting on Thursday. I am afraid that because of childcare issues I am not able to attend
in person, but would be grateful if you could include my statement regarding the proposals
in the information brought to the attention of the members.
'There are many concerns that have been raised regarding the proposed expansion of
Sefton Park School. It was very informative this week to finally see some draft designs,
however this has also raised many more questions, the key one being is the expansion
actually feasible? It was made quite clear that the expansion is only considered feasible
and meets statutory building regulations with the inclusion of the Brunel site as a sports
area for the school. What is not clear is that this off-site area can actually be used by the
children in any meaningful, regular way or whether it would be an option at all for the
younger children. The logistics for staffing, timetables and health and safety to negotiate
the busy Ashley Down Road safely have not been clarified. If it is not workable the
expansion is not feasible. In addition to this it is admitted that the existing Sefton Park site
is 'congested' and will not be able to provide the required soft play space. Until the
consultation can be properly completed and the implications of this proposal properly
worked through I urge the members not to approve the expansion of Sefton Park School.
There should be confidence that the best solution to providing additional primary places in
Bishopston area is reached and not a compromised make-do.'
Thank you
Diane Herrod
Parent
Ms Diane Herrod
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Ms Herrod
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 18
Dear Sirs,
We were this evening informed by a friend and neighbour that a meeting was held
yesterday evening at Sefton Park School to discuss the proposals for development at the
Sefton Park School site. Although our son has just started at the school and we live
immediately behind it the fact that the meeting was due to take place and the agenda for
discussion were not brought to our attention in advance of the meeting so as to enable us
to take part.
We are disappointed by this as Bristol City Council have a duty to properly consult in
connection with any proposals with us not only as parents but also as local residents who
will be affected by any such development. You will be aware that the local plan indicates
that full account will be taken of the views of teachers, governors, pupils, parents and the
wider community in connection with any proposed development. The lack of more
widespread and advance notice of the meeting and, as we understand it, the failure to
address a number of key concerns raised at the meeting, calls into question the efficacy of
any attempt at consultation to date.
Nevertheless, I understand that if this email is received by you by 12 tomorrow it will be
read and taken into account at a meeting which is due to consider the issue of the
proposed development of the Sefton Park schools. Please could you therefore
acknowledge this email on receipt.
We have a number of concerns regarding the proposals in addition to the point raised
above regarding the dearth of detailed information regarding the specific proposals which
have been made available to us to date. Please would you comment on the following
issues:1. We understand that there is a proposal that the Happy Lane entrance to the school may
be closed. Is this correct? If so, we are concerned that this will make the buildings less
easily accessible particularly to those less-able bodied (the disabled, pregnant parents of
which one of the authors of this email currently numbers and most importantly the small
children attending the Infant School). Additionally, we would consider that this amounts to
inconsiderate and impermeable design which the Local Plan aspires to avoid. In addition,
surely such a move would be contra the "Safe Routes to Schools" policy?
2. We are concerned that an increase of size will necessarily generate an increase in the
numbers of cars, bicycles and people trying to access the school site for drop off/pick up
(increased yet further if the Happy Lane entrance is closed). There is already a great deal
of congestion in the streets surrounding the school in the morning which is a hazard,
particularly for those walking or cycling to school. Have road safety issues been
considered and, if so, what proposals have been made to address these very real
hazards?
3. The development plans will result in a vast increase in size for both the Infants and
Junior Schools. An expansion on this scale will fundamentally change the character and
ethos of the school. This is particularly the case for the infant section where the current
inclusive, approachable and relaxed atmosphere is particularly vulnerable yet one of the
most important aspects of early school life to ensure the integration of young children to
schooling. These early years play a fundamental part in ensuring the stability of the pupils
and ultimately the success of the school. Can you confirm if this factor has been
considered or, if considered, how weighting has been given to it in the proposals and how
it is intended to address these concerns.
4. We understand that part of the development plans involves the demolition of the
building which currently houses the after school club. Have all practical steps been taken
to save and refurbish the building and to adapt it for use by the school/youth groups?
Additionally, what provision will be made for the after school care of children and the youth
club if this site is lost either temporarily or permanently? This will be particularly important
in the event that development proceeds as there will be an increased demand for these
services, as the Local Plan recognises.
5. We have also been informed that the proposals include the potential demolition of the
scout hut immediately behind our house and to replace it with a two storey building topped
by a playground. Notwithstanding the proposal to wall the playground and surround it with
netting the safety and practicality of such a design seem questionable to us as parents as
we know that children love nothing more than the challenge of scaling a wall/fence
regardless of the height at which the playground is located. Additionally flat roofs need
frequent overhauls and the site may well be lost as an amenity space for the children
every few years. In addition, as neighbouring residents, the implementation of such
proposals is highly likely to result in loss of light to our house and garden and an increase
in noise and disturbance. Has the Council considered these issues and, if so, how is it
intended to address them?
6. We have further concerns regarding the loss of space for the children at the school to
play in. An increase in size will put further demands on the already-pressured playgrounds
and limited space surrounding the school. Already the grassed space to the rear of the
school is difficult to maintain other than as muddy ground due to the pressure of numbers
using it. We understand that part of the development plans also include the possibility of
relocating the scout hut to this land which will further reduce the space available. How is it
intended to ensure that there is sufficient safe space for the children to play during
break/lunchtimes and after school, particularly given the importance which is being
attached to encouraging healthy lifestyles and play for children?
7. Finally, we understand that it was previously proposed to site a new single storey school
on the site to the rear of the GCC ground but that these plans have been abandoned. This
would seem to us to have been an ideal way in which to ensure that a new school site with
accessible, well-designed facilities could be made available to accommodate the need for
additional school places but without damaging an already successful school with plans for
development which do not take into account the existing pressures (in terms of site, space,
road safety, day care and community facilities) on the school and the damage that further
development will necessarily occasion. Could you please confirm 1) what the proposals for
development of this alternative site were; 2) why it was decided not to proceed with
development on the site; and 3) whether the Council still owns or has an interest in all or
any of the land which was initially proposed to be developed.
We have very real concerns both as parents of an infant attending the school and
neighbouring residents that the views of those directly affected by the proposals are not
being taken into account and therefore look forward to hearing from you as soon as
possible regarding the issues set out above.
Yours faithfully,
Judith Murray
Ms Judith Murray
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
C18Cabinet 25th September 08
13/10/08
Dear Ms Murray
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 19
A statement regarding the Sefton Park School’s expansion proposal
As a resident of Ashley Down Road, I am totally opposed to the idea of increasing the
number of school places at Sefton Park School to 600 plus.
The proposal raises serious ecological, environmental and community issues. The
destruction of a beautiful natural green habitat, within our city, that has been part of the
cityscape for hundreds of years would be a great pity as trees will need to be felled to
create more space for the bricks and the concrete needed to build the proposed three
story school building, plus other new construction plans. Such a loss of green vegetation
will no doubt contribute to an increase in pollution, as the site becoming incredibly
congested with new buildings. Children lose out on the learning potential of present green
spaces. Is it educationally viable to crowd children into constricted built spaces, at the loss
of a natural environment?
An increase in the number of children attending the school creates huge access issues for
site. How is it possible with such an increase in the number of children, to get them
physically and safely into the school? In addition there are issues to do with coping with
the increased parking needs of more school staff. This will have a serious impact on
residents in nearby roads.
The present site is used by others as well as the school. The Scout group is still in full
operation and is a great example of education operating within the context of the wider
community. Their work is important, however, it is under threat with the expansion
proposals. The group needs protecting and a space kept for them. Education is much
more than what happens between the walls of a school.
So, do not end up destroying the present community and landscape of Sefton Park School
by agreeing to the proposed expansion. Please find the answer to the need for more
school places, locally somewhere else. Do not make a decission to destroy a beautiful site
that is just not the right size for the proposed increase in children numbers.
Elaine Hicks
Ms Elaine Hicks
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Ms Hicks
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 20
dear mr hird,
i live at 294 ashley down rd, immediately opposite the proposed development . I strongly
object to the proposal . Quite apart from the immediate disruption caused by the works it
will generate long term additional traffic in an area already under strain-you should witness
the daily chaos generated by the existing school. It will destroy green space with the
attendant environmental problems. Additionally, the building itself is far too big and
dominant and will destroy the aesthetics of the site and existing building and surrounding
environment and due to its height will reduce the level natural light into our property .i
would suggest the area is being over developed . The construction of the college site
( with none of the promised amenities eg the rail link ) and the loss of the nearby ashley
court hotel to developers are cases in point . I ask that you bring this to the attention of
the committee.
Yours sincerely, richard mills
Mr Richard Mills
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Mr Mills
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 21
Statement for Cabinet Meeting Thursday 25th September 2008
Planned expansion of Sefton Park School.
This Monday local residents were shown the new plans for the expansion of Sefton Park School, drawn up
as a result of the feedback received during earlier consultation.
We are disgusted and INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTED to see that none of the concerns of local residents
have been addressed - the loss of green space, the loss of local amenities, increase in traffic etc - as well
as the idea that large schools are unpopular with children and parents.
It gets worse. We are the owners of 16 St Bartholomews Road adjacent to Sefton Park. We love our home
as the view from our house is of green grass and trees in the grounds of Ashley House, with lots of light
falling on our property, wild-life, and more importantly a fantastic neighbourly feel.
School buildings in the favoured plan are now shown to be much nearer to our road than in previous
plans, and three storeys tall, taller than our house.
The green area directly opposite us is to be turned into a service yard at the back of the school, for
deliveries, kitchen refuse and other rubbish. Trees are to be removed. All of our view of green trees and
grass will be gone. Our light will be much diminished. The view from our house will be looking across a
dark, shaded and dingy service alley onto rubbish bins in a concrete yard overshadowed by a threestorey school with all our nearest trees gone.
As a result of this our quality of life will be seriously reduced, as well as negatively affecting the value of our
houses.
WE ASK THAT THIS EXPANSION BE DROPPED. It is obvious from the serious shortcomings of all the
plans presented to us on Monday night that Sefton Park School cannot expand on the present site. IT IS
JUST NOT FEASIBLE. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SPACE!
Will the Council PLEASE RECONSIDER its opposition to small schools and use the Brunel Fields site
instead? New homes are being built - surely a decent size site should be ear-marked for the provision of all
the new families that will be moving into the area?
We cannot believe that the Council - which trumpets Bristol as a green city and encourages the teaching of
environmental responsibility in its schools - is allowing this wanton destruction of our immediate
environment.
I also invite Kate Campion, Peter Hammond and any other council officer to my home so that you can
meet the residents of St Bartholomews Road and look at it from our point of view - literally - rather than just
on paper.
Thank-you for listening.
Robyn Coetzee
Mr Robyn Coetzee
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Mr Coetzee
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 22
Statement to Cabinet, 25 September 2008 re Primary Review
What is absolutely essential is to provide more Primary places in the Bishopston area.
This need has been clear for some years and the Local Authority's projections strongly
suggest the need will increase.
The question is should the extra places be put on the Sefton Park site as an extra class
from the existing school, as proposed by this administration, or by building a single class
entry school on the Brunel site, as proposed by the previous administration.
The current proposal could provide economies of scale and advantages of organisation
and educational provision that could enhance the education on offer. However the
Administration has produced no public case that demonstrates that larger size correlates
closely with improved attainment, which is the prime driver for this Review; nor for the
reverse, that smaller size of itself means diminished attainment.
Also the addition of accommodation for a third class of intake would make the use of this
very limited site very intensive; a previous temporary increase in numbers, not so great
and without as much enhancement of accommodation, did harm the schools capacity to
work well. There is a statutory formula to ensure there is enough space for a school, and
the current proposal only meets this formula by including the Brunel site which is offsite
and some distance away. Therefore, the school community will necessarily spend all or
most of its time on the present schools site which has been described as LA Officers as
“congested”, “constricted”, “tight”. There must be a question whether such a congested
can provide a good educational environment.
The current proposal also requires the Brunel site to be used as a playing field for the
expanded Sefton Park in order to satisfy the statutory formula for school’s area. This
means the Brunel site could not in future be used for a new school (as this administration
once suggested might be a possibility if needed) which is a concern unless there is strong
confidence that future increased need can be addressed locally, given the lack of suitable
sites. If it is still not clear that the Section 106 agreement allows the use of the Brunel site
for Playing field use only, this is a very serious concern and a question about competence.
Nor is it clear what arrangements there are to manage the field. And there must be
questions about the usability of the field for PE given its distance from the Sefton Park site
along a busy main road.
I am very concerned that nearly a year after the idea of expanding Sefton Park, there is no
satisfactory solution for the scout and guide hut and site. This week it was said “we may
have to look at alternative location”. To be so cavalier and vague about this important
centre of activity for young people is disgraceful. And so is the fact that the playgroup has
not yet been catered for, since it seems at this late stage “it has been found hard to fit onto
the site”.
I don’t know when it was discovered that the Planners were unhappy at the idea of
demolishing the Youth Centre Building, but it certainly makes the whole project more
complicated if the building has to be retained. Locals know only too well from experience
that the education department hasn’t always thought of talking with the Planners in good
time.
The original proposal could have meant the first pupils entering a new school next
September. The current proposal delays this for another year and the complications about
the field and the fact that feasibility is only now, if indeed it is the case, being concluded,
must question even that date. Delay in providing the long needed extra places results from
believing the assertion that big is good and small is bad for improving attainment, an
assertion that has not been publicly substantiated. In any case the extra provision could
have been built on the Brunel site and federated with Sefton Park; federation is a process
well understood and pioneered by the Sefton Park School community, and now finally
excepted by the Administration as a satisfactory scheme – just as well since they
encouraged it. This could have provided the advantages of a large school without the
pressures of it all being on one cramped site.
It has taken far too long to provide the extra Primary places that have been needed for
years. I wish I had confidence that these badly needed extra places will be provided
efficiently, competently, and with proper regard to the school community and to the local
residents ;
and that future needs, in terms of probable extra demand in the Bishopston area, will be
addressed in a timely, competent, and transparent manner and that this time the local
community can feel, unlike now, that they have been properly engaged and involved.
Councillor Bev Knott
Bishopston Ward
Councillor Bev Knott
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Councillor Knott
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 23
FAO Ian Hird
I understand there is a deadline today for statement to the council meeting tomorrow.
I am very concerned at the level and quality of the consultation we have received. I am
also very concerned about the proposed expansion.
I sent the below e-mail to Stella Mann who I understand is co-ordinating the consultation,
but unfortunately have not received a reply. There seem to be some anomalies in her
report given to BCC - see below e-mail dated 21/09/08 with comments and questions.
I would also like to comment on the feasibility of Sefton Park Expansion. It seems
ludicrous that plans are being drawn up when clearly the site has many, many problems
with space. From the draft plans I saw at the Parent's consultation on Monday night, this
site is so congested they cannot work out where they will put the children during the works,
they cannot say how the children will safely get down the very busy, narrow pavement to
the off-site playing fields, they cannot guarantee that the children will have any useable (ie
not on a steep slope) green space. Access issues to the school are not clear etc. Yet
despite all this SKANSKA announce they hope to achieve planning permission in
December 2008. How can this happen when so many questions remain unanswered?
I would like to add that I think there are far more suitable sites and I cannot understand
why the council cannot re-look at the Brunel site - especially in light of the current housing
crisis - there may be the opportunity to purchase more land and create a 2 form entry
school - even with the existing land it surely makes more sense to put a 1 form entry
school here - which would be better for human scale education. There is also the old
Fairfield School site. It appears St Barnabus want to stay and expand on their current site
- leaving a ready made school empty. How can this be justified? I think a feasibility study
needs to be done on this site and a new feasibility looked at on the Brunel site.
We are all sympathetic to children who cannot get places close to where they live - but
overcrowding to dangerous levels at Sefton Park is not the answer. Primary schools
should be caring, nurturing, family environments where children feel safe to learn. I don't
believe this can happen when the school is trying to meet the needs of 630 children plus
nursery. This is the ideal size for a secondary school not a primary. It should not be about
cost but children's welfare.
I urge you to re-consider.
Yours sincerely,
Cas Brooks
From: Cas Brooks
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:12 PM
To: Stella Man
Cc: Gwin Lloyd ; Sarah Ubhi ; Valerie Emmott ; Fiona O'Kane ; Steven Phillips
Subject: Re: Sefton Park Schools Expansion
Hi
I would like to make some comments/raise some questions, regarding the information you
sent through as part of the Sefton Park Consultation Process:
1.. Page 1 - states you received 109 responses. Page 2, bullet points - if you add up this
number it comes to 186 (75+21+20+11+14+16+29). Page 2, para 1 - It now appears there
are 116, if you add up the 8 who welcomed, 18 with questions, and 90 against. In the
BCC Primary Review Consultation papers it states that 90 were received of which 90 were
against. I am concerned about the consistency, reliability and quality of this information.
Could you clarify exactly how many responses you received please and what category
they fall into?
2.. Page 1, under NB - My understanding of the petition which was set up to save the
Brunel Field, was exactly that. Not, as you have translated, against 'using the Brunel site
for building a new school'. If a new school is not built on this site, there is a danger it may
revert to the developers. It seems there is some uncertainty over whether using it as a
playing field only will meet the Section 106 agreement - although I also understand some
money has already passed to BCC for building of changing facilities. The issue was to
save the field for sports use - but I understand this can happen with a new school on site,
as it will retain the playing field for that purpose. I signed this e-petition for this purpose,
and I know many of the signees are in favour of the new Bishopston School being built on
the Brunel field.
3.. Page 4 - What will it cost? Could you let me know how much of the £6.92 million has
been allowed for the build costs. Despite misleading press releases, I understand that this
is amount includes costs gained from new places through to 2010/2011 and is not all for
improving the school. What budget have the architects been given?
4.. Page 5 - What is the proposed use of the Brunel field? As stated above - this needs
legal clarification before any feasibility plans can go ahead. Without the use of this field
the combined square meterage of the current Sefton Park site does not meet BB99
guidance. It seems a pointless exercise until this field is signed officially over.
There are many other issues actually concerning the detail of the proposals, which I look
forward to discussing tomorrow night, but I thought it may be useful to clarify some of
these issues to save time tomorrow, in what already looks like quite a tight agenda.
I look forward to your responses. I hope you are able to gain answers from the necessary
council officers, if necessary.
Thanking you in anticipation,
Yours sincerely,
Cas Brooks
From: Stella Man
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 11:03 AM
To: iris.1@iris42.freeserve.co.uk
Subject: Sefton Park Schools Expansion
Please find attached information compiled in response to the participation forms collated in
August with regard to the proposed Sefton Park Schools Expansion.
Stella
Ms Cas Brooks
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Ms Brooks
value for money.
proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 24
Proposed Closure of St George’s C of E Primary, Brandon Hill
Statement to Council by Cllr Mark Wright, School Governor
The report before you today, and the Primary Strategy it is based on, have by any
measure been comprehensively picked to pieces over the last few weeks. The strategy
itself it full of contradictions and completely fails any test of rigour. It is quite clear that it
is not a strategy built from the bottom-up based on data, but a retrospective attempt to
justify a top-down “vision” that is misguided at best and dangerous at worst.
The aim is to reduce the number of schools in Bristol, and small schools are the target.
The Primary Strategy says that small schools “fail to offer the range of opportunity that
we would expect a primary phase of education to offer children”. Saying this shows a
total misunderstanding of why parents send their children to small schools – a
misunderstanding that would not have arisen if parents had been included in the
formulation of this review. When parents chose to send their child to a small school
they do it knowing that a small family atmosphere is more important to the needs of their
child than a larger range of provision.
The strategy goes on to say “It will be an aim of policy to ensure that no school admits
less than 30 pupils each year”, and then claims “No steps will be taken to close or
amalgamate schools solely because they have an admission number of 30”. There is a
name for this kind of language: “double-speak”.
When I asked many months ago for the detailed documents that had been behind the
proposals to close the three schools I was told again and gain that they didn't exist. I
hardly believed this, but it then became clear that indeed there was no bottom-up case
for the closures, and the case for closure had been built after the decision was taken.
The proposed closure of St Pius X is intended by the Council to be offset by the
expansion of Christ the King RC Primary in Filwood. This school is over 2.5 miles away
and it is implausible that all the children will be sent that far away to a new school,
outside their community, without it affecting their attainment and education.
The proposal to close St Georges and expand at St Michaels doesn't appear to satisfy
any of the objectives of the review: other than getting rid of a small school.
The proposal doesn't change the number of spaces provided. The existing plans
to expand the school have been ignored, then after pressure during the
consultation they have been dismissed instead as “too old” (at 5 years old).
St Georges are told that the building is “not fit for purpose” because it is old.
However, the replacement will be a much older church!
(It may also have
escaped notice that most of Bristol's highly successful private schools are in very
old buildings.)
St Georges are told that their split site (by 50m) is a liability, and yet the strategy
itself will create dozens of splits sites by amalgamation or federation - not a
problem for others, evidently.
St Georges are told that their attainment is not high enough (despite being
relatively good in Bristol); but the children are going to be sent to a less well
performing school instead.
St Georges are told that they are too expensive, yet they are in fact only the 7th
most expensive. In addition, modifying the Grade II* listed Church will cost a
fortune - if it is even possible.
It is clear that there is an officer desire to close schools. A significant driver seems to
be a perceived need to give headteachers a better “career path” via bigger schools in
Bristol, in the hope that that will improve childrens' results. As emerged during Scrutiny,
the Council cannot close the worst performing schools because they are in areas where
closure would mean no schools were left. So instead the closures must be further along
the hit-list, and a weak collection of circumstantial evidence forms the case for closure.
This policy is the educational equivalent of the Jill Dando murder case.
I.e.: the
situation is dire, and someone must be convicted. But in the absence of any real
evidence we will simply jail the most likely suspects. This kind of reasoning never
works, and if taken here will be bitterly regretted within a few years.
The Cabinet must see through the smokescreen and reject these baseless closures.
Any proposed closures must be instead based on sound evidence and not ideology.
Councillor Mark Wright
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13th October 2008
Dear Councillor Wright
Statement to Cabinet 25th September 08 - St George's C of E Primary
As you are aware, the Primary Strategy has been tested against data sets at Scrutiny and Cabinet.
The data sets are available for all Members and Officers offered an update for members earlier this
month, regrettably only 6 members attended.
The vision for primary education was made public following public consultation (which included
schools, governors, staff and the public), after a Cabinet decision in October 2007. The vision was
shared with Head Teachers at the time, and Primary Head Teachers were part of the working
group that helped create the vision paper.
The aim is to provide a balance of provision for primary aged children, across the city, with schools
ranging from 1FE to 3FE, so that parents do have a choice, where all the choices are of high
quality.
The key drivers are:•
•
•
•
Additional places where needed.
Reduction in surplus places
Opportunity to invest funds wisely in expansion, refurbishment and new buildings.
To raise standards of achievement at KS2 which are on average, below National
outcomes.
Any school that is smaller than 210 pupils is expensive and in a city the size of Bristol this does not
represent good value for money, as the other schools have less money to spend and are
effectively subsidizing smaller schools.
With regard to St George in particular, the C of E is in support of the proposal to expand St Michael
on the Mount and the consequential closure of St. George as a better option. Plans put forward by
St George were not ignored.
Assessment reveals that the site is too small, in two locations and is not a site a school of 1FE
could be built on without incurring significant extra cost.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
Statement on behalf of St Georges C of E Primary School
I would like to ask the council to have the feasibility studies for St Michaels on the
Mount School and Hotwells School done, before making a decision about the future
of St Georges School. We believe the conversion of the listed church building into a
new school will prove to be impossible for many reasons, cost, space, and access
issues being just a few. And even if it were possible no extra spaces would be created,
one of the aims stated in the review. And as far as we know no site has been found for
Hotwells School at this time.
No Provision has been made for our extremely successful nursery unit, so extra costs
will be incurred elsewhere as new places will be needed for the growing population.
If our school was extended, in the way plans which have already been drawn up and
deemed feasible suggest ,you could increase the number of primary school places in
the city centre, where there is already a shortfall, the school would be more financially
effective, you would still have a still have a good nursery unit and it would cost a lot
less to achieve than the conversion of St Michaels on the Mount church.
St George's is a successful school in more ways than just academic results, over the
years it regularly takes on children who have not managed to fit in elsewhere for
many reasons and these children find the smaller more intimate environment much
easier to cope on. I believe it is necessary to have different types of school, so that
those children who have problems are not forced out, because in the long run children
who fail in school cost us all a lot more.
Please look at our plans and at the feasibility studies before you make a decision, as
the damage to our school if it is left in limbo indefinitely will be terrible, and the
strong teaching team and parental support may be lost, and the education of many
young children damaged unnecessarily.
Fiona Crabtree, Parent.
Ms Fiona Crabtree
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13th October 2008
Dear Ms Crabtree
Thank you for your question. In general terms, feasibility studies are only carried out when
the Council has known parameters for any scheme. The recommendations of the Primary
Review are strategic in the first instance. Only once there is a Cabinet decision will
officers pick up each recommendation and develop the project. Feasibility studies require
funding, and if undertaken before the ‘in-principle’ decision is made, could mean less
money available for development and construction of all schemes should the ‘in principle’
proposal not be agreed.
The feasibility study for St Michael on Mount is currently being developed, as we know that
it is possible to expand this school to 1.5FE. However the school has asked us to consider
2FE, which is now being worked upon. In June the Church of England suggested that the
adjacent church might be available and this gave us even more potential. This potential
will now be included in the feasibility study.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning CYPS, Council
House
c.c.
St George C of E Primary School
Brandon Hill, Queens Parade, Bristol BS1 5XJ
Heather Tomlinson
Telephone 0117 3772480
Fax 01173772481
st.george.p@bristol.gov.uk
www.stgeorgeprimary.ik.org
Director of Children & Young People’s Services
Statement in support of keeping St George CE Primary open.
Head teacher
Clare Gundry
STATEMENT C 26
We would like to raise a few queries in your minds relating to the current proposals in the
hope you will consider following up our suggestions.
The current proposals suggest increasing the size of St Michael on the mount to 1 ½ or 2
form entry. This would increase the numbers on the site by either 120 or 240 children with
the associated issues of congestion, lack of play space, traffic and other health and safety
issues. It would mean using existing historical listed buildings and converting them to meet
the needs of 21st Century education and being fit for purpose!!! This, having said that old
buildings are unsuited to meet these needs.
Hotwells is supposed to be moving to a yet to be found site. As everyone who lives in the
area knows…. There are no suitable sites local to the existing school unless they involve
crossing the river with the associated health and safety issues and using another unsuitable
existing building, namely a bonded warehouse.
Although a feasibility study has supposedly been commissioned for St Michaels, it has not
yet been done so been done about Hotwells. How can you, the cabinet, make a decision about
what to do if you do not have the full information to consider.
St George CE Primary has had a feasibility study done a few years ago and although the
costings may be out of date the fact remains ……. It is not only feasible to build a new
building which would meet all DCSF requirements but the building work could start
immediately. This would clearly support the need in the city for additional places - 21
children had to be placed outside the city centre this year despite living very close to local
schools and more children are moving into the Harbourside and Jacob Wells every week.
Our suggestion is this:Please take the time to do feasibility studies for all three schools and make your decision
based on facts not theories.
Thank you
Ms Clare Gundry
Headteacher
St George C of E Primary School
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13/10/08
Dear Ms Gundry
The decision to expand St Michael on the Mount with the consequential closure of St.
George has been agreed jointly by the Local Authority and the Diocese. It is the better site
and provides a cohesive unit for primary education in this part of the city.
Desktop feasibility has been undertaken on St Michael on the Mount, and with the
Diocese, the Local Authority is comfortable that a 2FE school can be accommodated very
effectively on the site.
There are no decisions pertaining to Hotwells at this moment. The local community
around the school would like more places and the Council wish to support this, but further
work needs to be undertaken to achieve this aim.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, CYPS, Council
House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 27
Statement to Cabinet 25 September 2008
Re Proposal to Close Stockwood Green Primary School
All those connected with Stockwood Green Primary School, parents/carers, staff,
governors, pupils and former pupils were devastated to learn of the proposal to close their
School. This school is held in high regard within the local community and this was reflected
in the level of the response to the news of possible closure, including a petition of over
2400 signatories.
Parents/Carers choose the school because it is a small school. There is a ‘family’
atmosphere that cannot be replicated in a large school. Each child is known by all the
staff and this enables the school to provide the individual care that our parents/carers
want for their children.
We fail to understand why, when Bristol is trying to raise the standard of its primary
education, it is proposed to close a successful and improving school that not only is an
asset to the local area but to the whole of Bristol.
Following the publication of the Cabinet Report: Primary Review – Post Consultation
Recommendations, we would like to draw your attention to the serious misrepresentation
of our school in the School Data Sheets that form Appendix 9 of the document.
1. Pupil results
Throughout the Review process we have drawn the attention of both Councillors and
Local Authority Officers to the misleading nature of percentage data relating to small
cohorts of children. For instance in 2006-07 there were 9 children in our Year 6 cohort –
each child therefore represented 11% in the school data for that year. We have also
expressed our dismay that data relating to this cohort of children has been published in
the public domain, when it is not published by the DCSF in their Performance Tables or the
School Profile for this very reason.
We therefore find it incredible that once again, the same data is published in a public
document without any information re: the sizes of cohort to enable those making
decisions about the future of our school to make a reasoned judgement. It is wrong to
quote data that are not statistically significant and any conclusions based on these data
are invalid.
In addition no reference has been made to the CVA Data which is used by OFSTED to
make judgements about a schools performance. Great care should also be taken when
using Fischer Family Trust figures with a small cohort.
2. Value judgements about our school
Several value judgements have been made about the work of our school for instance
“In mathematics performance at L4 (76.5%) and L5 (23.5%) is below FFTB and indicates a
failure to meet a significant benchmark indicator of performance against the prior
attainment of the pupils”
Our FFTB estimate for Maths at L4+ was 77.5% and L5 was 27% for 2007-08. Our results
hardly represent significant underachievement when 1 child in this cohort of children
represents 6%.
No comments of this nature have been made about other schools in this Appendix. We
are extremely disappointed that they were used in the media, thus painting a false
picture of our school to the whole of Bristol.
“This school is one of the poorest facilities for learning in Bristol”
We are amazed that a comment like this can be made. Anyone who visits our school is
impressed with the range of facilities we have for personalised learning, a new ICT Suite,
school hall that easily accommodates the whole school and is used by the local
community, and extensive grounds. The whole building has recently been redecorated
and refurbished, including new windows throughout.
First preference applicants
Here, figures are given for the September 2008 intake. These figures are low in each of the
Stockwood Schools (given that Waycroft was also undersubscribed for that year). Once
again we would draw your attention to the fact that in September 2007 we admitted 21
children in our Reception Year Group.
Clearly we hope that councillors will bear this information in mind when considering the
future of our school and we would seek your reassurance that this would be the case.
If primary schools in Bristol were to be chosen for closure on the basis of their
performance, based on SATs results or on the CVA (Contextual Value Added) figure, we
can assure you that Stockwood Green would be way down the list.
Once again we must emphasise that we are extremely disappointed in the way our
school has been represented in this document. We hope you will appreciate that
presenting an inaccurate picture of our school to the public is extremely demoralising for
our school community at a time of considerable uncertainty about what the future holds.
We believe that we have made a very strong case for retaining Stockwood Green.
Mike Landen
(Chair of Governors)
Mr Mike Landen
Chair of Governors
Stockwood Primary School
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13th October 2008
Dear Mr Landen
Stockwood Green Primary School - Statement to Cabinet 25th September 08
In the agreed principles underpinning the primary review, which all schools and governing
bodies were consulted on in September 2007, it was confirmed that as a city Bristol would
remove all schools below 1FE. If a school is below one form of entry, there are extra
organisational challenges that impact on learning. If we spread our leadership teams
thinly across the city, the impact this leadership can make on accelerating our
improvement of Key Stage 2 standards, is materially less.
Stockwood Green is an improving school and officers acknowledge the improvements
made in recent years. However, the very argument regarding the publication of data
illustrates a concern regarding small schools. If they sit outside all comparative data sets
for the rest of the city, we cannot hope to accelerate the improvement for children in such
schools. The data is not inaccurate, however, it is a very small sample.
Additionally, Stockwood Green is a very small school, which is expensive to run when
compared to other schools in Bristol.
There are three primary schools in Stockwood and overall we have a surplus of places.
This does not provide good value for money for Bristol children or their parents.
Waycroft is an outstanding school following the most recent OfSTED report. Burnbush
was provided with a Children’s Centre recently, a considerable investment. Therefore of
the three schools, the recommendation is that Stockwood Green should close.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 28
Public Forum Statement by Councillor Jay Jethwa to Cabinet - 25th September 2008
Item 5 - Primary School Review Post-Consultation Recommendations
Firstly, I would like to place on record my profound unhappiness - and that of many people
throughout the city - with the hurried and thoughtless way in which this Authority has
carried out the Primary School Review consultation.
Along with my colleague Councillor David Morris, we share in the fears of local parents
that this whole exercise would prove to be a sham with the outcome already determined.
The Post-Consultation recommendation to close Stockwood Green School confirms these
fears were fully justified.
Since the launch of the consultation process we have been in constant contact with Head
teachers, Chairs of Governors and parents. The responses we have received have been
all the same, namely that the report upon which these recommendations are based is
flawed. There is a consensus emerging that much of the findings, assumptions and
rationale behind these proposals are fundamentally unsound. Indeed, there is no
evidential basis to support this model for change. In many ways the glossy brochure itself
is far from being easy to follow or user friendly.
With specific regard to Stockwood Green, we have a local community school which
already meets the criteria supposedly driving or underpinning this reorganisation. It is " fit
for purpose & equipped for 21st century learning" and currently provides “a range of
children's services in reach of every family ".
Cabinet, I know that Cllr Hammond has personally visited the school, so he is in a position
to confirm that Stockwood Green has a loving, caring environment, run by excellent staff.
Standards are improving and, as Ofsted has recognised, this school caters for many
special educational needs (SEN) children. Importantly, these young people are cared for
within the their class group so that mainstream pupils are taught to value and care about
those less able than themselves.
One explanation given for the proposed closure of Stockwood Green is that this is
necessary because it has too many surplus places. However, this rationale is later
contradicted by the observation in the report that " the proposed urban extension in the
Whitchurch area (bordering Stockwood) may generate the need for a new school." This
being the case, why close a good school when there will be a need for one in the very
near future?
In addition, there is planning permission already granted for about 200 houses in this
locality. New houses equal new families, which in turn brings an increase in children into
the area and henceforth a need for more schools.
My final concern relates to the paucity of financial information available to enable a proper
assessment of the proclaimed economies of scale to be made. I urge Cabinet to
scrupulously scrutinise the Strategy for Change submission to the Department for
Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). How can these radical changes be justified or
evaluated properly if the Cabinet (and Scrutiny) have not got up-to-date, individual
costings for each and every proposal?
In conclusion, I urge Cabinet Members to amend the report before them today by deleting
the proposed closure of Stockwood Green School, thus enabling my constituents to
continue to have a first-rate, improving and happy primary school to which they can send
their children and grandchildren.
CLLR JAY JETHWA
Conservative Councillor Stockwood
Councillor Jay Jethwa
Conservative Councillor - Stockwood
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
13th October 2008
Dear Councillor Jethwa
Stockwood Green Primary School - Statement to Cabinet 25th September 08
In the agreed principles underpinning the primary review, which all schools and governing
bodies were consulted on in September 2007, it was confirmed that as a city Bristol would
remove all schools below 1FE. If a school is below one form of entry, there are extra
organisational challenges that impact on learning. If we spread our leadership teams
thinly across the city, the impact this leadership can make on accelerating our
improvement of Key Stage 2 standards, is materially less.
Stockwood Green is an improving school and officers acknowledge the improvements
made in recent years. However, the very argument regarding the publication of data
illustrates a concern regarding small schools. If they sit outside all comparative data sets
for the rest of the city, we cannot hope to accelerate the improvement for children in such
schools. The data is not inaccurate, however, it is a very small sample.
Additionally, Stockwood Green is a very small school, which is expensive to run when
compared to other schools in Bristol.
There are three primary schools in Stockwood and overall we have a surplus of places.
This does not provide good value for money for Bristol children or their parents.
Waycroft is an outstanding school following the most recent OfSTED report. Burnbush
was provided with a Children’s Centre recently, a considerable investment. Therefore of
the three schools, the recommendation is that Stockwood Green should close.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
STATEMENT C 29
Public Forum statement by Councillor Geoff Gollop to the Cabinet of 25th September 2008
To the Leader & Cabinet
QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CAPITAL PROGRAMME WHICH REQUIRE
ANSWERING
Please find below a copy of my questions which have been ruled inadmissible.
I look forward to receiving a considered response in due course.
Questions from Councillor Geoff Gollop to Cabinet Councillors Walker, Bees or Holland,
whomsoever is considered to be the most appropriate:Agenda Item 7 Capital Programme
The Museum of Bristol
1.
What happened to the original “Appendix B” relating to the Museum of Bristol that
was designated “to follow” in the draft version of this report circulated to Scrutiny?
2.
Why has it now been omitted from the Full Cabinet papers?
3.
What aspects of the design have changed in respect of income generation?
4.
Is there a business plan for income generation?
5.
Was the partial delay in S.106 monies highlighted as a risk at the time of the original
proposals?
6.
Have the revised costings been subject to rigorous review internally?
7.
If so, who has conducted this review?
8.
As Cllr Walker accepted responsibility for the Budget at November’s Cabinet, does
she consider the current overspend to be acceptable?
Questions from Cllr Gollop for the attention of Cllr Bees, Executive Member for
Transformation & Resources
Redland School
1.
Would you acknowledge or concede that a glass domed corridor is very likely to
overheat when exposed to the rays of the sun?
2.
Can you give an indication of when it is anticipated the position will be finalised in
respect of the capital spend on this school?
Capital Programme Monitor
1.
Are you satisfied the Authority has the ability/capacity to manage major capital
projects?
2.
What procedures are in place to stop optimistic capital budgeting?
STATEMENT C 30
Public Forum Statement for Councillor Geoff Gollop for the Cabinet of 25th September
2008
Item 7 - Capital Programme 2008/2011
1
Museum of Bristol
I raised very serious concerns about spending on the Museum when the last increase of
£4.6 million was approved in last November's Cabinet. The Executive Member assured
me that expenditure was very much under her control and the project would come in within
budget.
Those responses were far from convincing then but I did not anticipate that I would be
presented with a woeful understatement of the costs within 10 months of that meeting.
I believe Members and the public need very substantial reassurances about the whole
project. We need to know that this is definitely the last variation and that the budget and
risks have all been reviewed. We need to know the named Executive Member and Officer
formally responsible for this project who have been responsible for overseeing that review.
2
Redland Green School
This is another continuing saga. I was led to believe that the Grant Thornton review was
an end to this project yet now we find that there are many more questions unanswered. It
is essential that an assessment is made to confirm whether the lessons from Redland
Green School have been learnt and whether they have been applied to other projects.
3
The Shortfall in Capital Funding is forecast at £10.1 million
As the financial situation deteriorates further, there must be fears that this position will
worsen. The Capital monitor makes no real indication of how this risk will be mitigated and
how the shortfall will be met.
4
Capital Spending
The worrying trend of failure to manage capital spending on major projects continues and
there is no indication that lessons have been learnt. It is surely time that a centralised
project management role was created to remove from individual departments the role of
project management so that best practice could be applied in all aspects of our key
projects.
STATEMENT C 31
Statement to Cabinet, 25th September 2008
Capital Programme
I am disappointed to see that Cabinet has not taken the unanimous request of the
Quality of Life Scrutiny Commission seriously and put the £340,000 needed to
progress on Phase 2 of the Colston Hall into the Capital Programme.
Councillor Walker and myself attended the launch of People, Places and Spaces in
Exeter last Friday. This document has been drawn up by Culture South West, together
with 12 other non-departmental public bodies – including the RDA and Government
Office - and is the development strategy for the cultural infrastructure of the South
West of England over the next 20 years.
It sets out the cultural priorities in terms of infrastructure and identifies 5 key projects:
one of these is the Colston Hall – specifically the ‘completion of phases two and
three to create an internationally significant concert hall for symphonic and
other musical performance.’ It goes on to say that these 5 projects ‘are beyond the
remit of a single agency and require collaboration to bring to fruition…and can
only be realised through multiple cross sector collaboration and investment.’
The intent of the document is very clear: that key agencies will work with us to
complete the Colston Hall. It is vitally important therefore that Cabinet immediately
amends the Capital Programme to include the funding referred to above, so as to
facilitate keeping the design team together and progress to RIBA Stage D. If this is
not done, then the message will go out to the NDPBs and Government that this
Labour Administration is not interested in finishing the project – and indeed has no
significant ambitions for the city.
People, Places and Spaces is clear about the significance of the cultural projects it
identifies as a priority. ‘Cultural infrastructure addresses the needs of diverse
communities within the region, taking account of factors such as social inclusion,
rurality, age, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, disability, gender, faiths and
religious beliefs.’
I therefore urge Cabinet to allocate the necessary funds immediately to move this
project forward.
Cllr. Simon Cook
Culture Spokesman and Deputy Leader, Liberal Democrat Group
Councillor Simon Cook
Culture Spokesman and Deputy Leader
Liberal Democrat Group
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor John Bees
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
john.bees@bristol.gov.uk
Statement C31 Cabinet 25
September
30/09/08
Dear Councillor Cook
Statement to Cabinet, 25th September 2008 - Capital Programme
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet (25th September 2008)
The cabinet report set out very clearly the extent to which the Capital Programme is
overcommmitted. The Capital Programme reflects the Administration's very significant
ambitions for the city, and includes very major programmes of school building, transport
infrastructure, social housing, renewal of social care facilities, parks and green spaces,
sports facilities and cultural facilities. However, given current market conditions and the
drying up of capital receipts, it would be imprudent of us to add further to the Programme
at this stage, particularly for projects where the funding is so uncertain.
Yours sincerely
Councillor John Bees
Executive Member for Transformation and Resources
The Vassall Centre
Gill Avenue
Fishponds
Bristol BS16 2QQ
19 September 2008
Tel: (0117) 965 4444
Fax: (0117) 965 0200
Minicom: (0117) 965 0800
Web: www.thecareforum.org
Email: martinapeattie@thecareforum.org.uk
Direct line: (0117) 958 9300
STATEMENT C 32
To members of Bristol City Council Cabinet
(Councillor John Bees; Councillor Mark Bradshaw; Councillor Terence Cook; Councillor Peter Hammond;
Councillor Helen Holland; Councillor Derek Pickup; Councillor Judith Price; Councillor Rosalie Walker)
Dear Councillor
Bristol Partnership – Voluntary Sector Representation
For 15 years, The Care Forum has been a unique voluntary sector infrastructure organisation working
throughout the greater Bristol area representing the interests of over 300 voluntary and community sector
organisations working in health and social care. These organisations play a vital part in providing much
needed services to the citizens of Bristol and have a key role to play in ensuring their health and wellbeing.
The Care Forum, with two other voluntary sector infrastructure organisations in Bristol, VOSCUR and the
Black Development Agency, have together previously represented the entire voluntary sector on the Bristol
Partnership. Each of our organisations has its own unique constituency of member organisations. The new
proposed structure of the Bristol Partnership includes VOSCUR and the BDA but excludes The Care Forum
from the Executive Board of the new Bristol Partnership. In so doing, large numbers of voluntary sector
organisations dedicated to maintaining and improving the wellbeing of Bristolians will no longer have a
voice at this level of strategic decision making within this city.
At this time, central government is encouraging the involvement of the third sector in local decision making
and service provision and the voluntary and community sector is playing an increasingly vital part in
contributing to achievement of some key local targets around the wellbeing of its citizens. The exclusion of
The Care Forum from the new Bristol Partnership Executive Board will hinder the achievement of these
targets.
In both South Gloucestershire and B&NES, the unique contribution The Care Forum makes as a voluntary
and community sector infrastructure organisation is recognised and The Care Forum has a seat on both
Local Strategic Partnerships. The Care Forum also occupies the only voluntary sector seat on the West of
England Partnership representing the sector throughout Bristol, South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and
B&NES.
I earnestly request that you reconsider the proposals before you today and reinstitute a place for The Care
Forum on the Bristol Partnership Executive Board.
Yours sincerely
Martina Peattie
Chair, The Care Forum
cc:
Wendy Stephenson VOSCUR
Ayannah Griffith BDA
Jan Ormondroyd
The Care Forum is a Registered Charity No. 1053817 and a Company Limited by Guarantee in England No. 3170666
STATEMENT C 33
Representation by Cllr Brown to 25th September Cabinet on Agenda
Item 9 – South West Regional Spatial Strategy Proposed Changes:
Public Consultation.
As someone who has been involved with the development of the Draft
Regional Spatial Strategy, the Regional Assembly’s Climate Change Task &
Finish Group and also chaired the City Council’s Select Committee on Climate
Change, I have taken a particular interest in the response of the Secretary of
State (SoS) to this work and the comments of the Inspectors of the draft RSS
at the Examination in Public.
I broadly agree with the comments in this report, espcially those seeking
information on the basis for many of the SoS’s statements on housing
numbers and the reasoning behind recommending many localised, rather
than regionally agreed, levels of affordable housing and sustainable
construction. There is a considerable risk that setting such criteria at a local
level could cause developers to seek to provide housing of a quality reflecting
a lowest-common-denominator approach, potentially in Green Belt land. The
result could be to reduce, rather than raise, the quality of housing provision,
especially for buildings designated as “affordable housing”. I hope that, at
least in this sub-region, Bristol will take a lead in ensuring a consistent
approach within the West of England Partnership group.
I also support the comments highlighting the SoS’s emphasis on strategic
transport infrastructure, rather than linking this with essential locally relevant
provisions in order to ensure that a coherent mix of housing and employment
can be created.
Most of the Cabinet’s comments reflect similar concerns expressed by
Regional Assembly sub-groups who are now seeking endorsement from the
Regional Assembly.
STATEMENT C 34
Governance Arrangements for the West of England Partnership
As you will be aware, on 18th September, the Sustainable Development and
Transport Scrutiny Commission held an extraordinary meeting to discuss this matter,
and I wanted to reinforce the views of the Commission to you by making this
statement.
Firstly, we were forced to hold an extraordinary meeting because of the delay in
reports being ready for consideration. We are deeply concerned that this decision
is being rushed through, without adequate time for scrutiny. For that reason, we
urge you to refer this matter to Full Council for discussion and debate before any
decision is made to approve the proposed arrangements.
We also note with worry that the decision to approve the Joint Working
Arrangements will be made solely by the Leaders of the four local authorities. In
considering the proposals, we have found that much of the detail we would wish
to know, for example the conditions for withdrawal, will be contained in the Joint
Working Arrangements. We therefore believe that before the Arrangements are
agreed, the opportunity should exist for input from scrutiny, and the final decision
should be made by the Cabinet, with the opportunity for members of the public to
comment on the proposals.
The Commission acknowledges that the current voluntary working arrangements
have been successful and does not wish to suggest that joint working with
neighbouring authorities should be dissuaded. For that reason, we are concerned
that recent developments have caused Bath and North East Somerset to withdraw
from phase 3 of the Waste Strategy, and would suggest that the proposals be
revised to encourage BANES to re-enter into the joint arrangements for phase 3.
Furthermore, we feel that in light of the potential implications of setting up formal
joint decision making structures, adequate scrutiny and consideration should take
place before any commitments are made. I encourage you therefore to take
these suggestions on board when discussing the matter today.
Alex Woodman
Chair – Sustainable Development and Transport Scrutiny Commission
PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS - LATE STATEMENTS
The following late statements were received after the deadline:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Simon Belmont
Wendy Stephenson, Chief Executive, VOSCUR
Elizabeth Johnson
Dan Williamson
1
LATE STATEMENT 1
Iain
Further to our phone conversation can I apologise for the lateness of this
statement and I would appreciate it greatly if you would consult the leader as
to the possibility of having this statement read out at tomorrow's cabinet
meeting (ref discussion on the recommendations from the first stage of the
Primary Review).
Statement:
'To whom it may concern.
I believe my family is a key stakeholder in the process to determine the
optimum future for meeting the requirement to deliver an additional 210
Primary education places within the St Andrews ward.
The reason for this is
1. I have a son who joined Sefton Park School Reception Class this September
2. I live in Sefton Park Road directly behind the current Scout hut which is
next to Sefton Park School.
3. My son is a regular user of the after school club hosted in the building
affected by the current Sefton Park school review.
4. I am Bristol City Council Tax payer and therefore a contributor to the
cost any scheme
My statements are:
A) I do not believe the current consultation process relating to Sefton Park
has been FIT FOR PURPOSE and therefore phase 1 should not be classed as closed
or valid as consultation. The grounds I base this statement on is the fact
that the first time I received any informal notification about the process was
via a 'flyer' on the 19th September announcing a public meeting on the 22nd
which I attended. As a stakeholder in classes 1 to 3 above I am very concerned
that I did not receive any formal notification (by letter or other) from
Bristol City Council or its consultation agents (they admitted not mailing
Sefton Park Road). This concerns me greatly about the democratic credentials
of Bristol City Council and it has prevented me exercising my democratic right
to be informed and represent myself.
B) I do not believe the current risk assessment to have been completed to a
suitable standard to be deemed complete. The reasons I say this is:
i) The migration plans in the current plan are incorrect. All the project
representatives at the 22nd Sept meeting could say was it would be a 14month
re-development process and there was a potential requirement to move a
temporary class-room unit onto one of the 3 hard play areas of Sefton Park
school (occupying all the available space of the play area) during the
process. The representative demonstrated that the project team had not
considered the impact of such a loss of space on the well-being of existing
school population during play time.
ii) The project team were not able to provide satisfactory information or
evidence that consideration of the housing/support of the current after school
club either during the migration or following the redevelopment of the school.
This club provides a vital contribution to the local community as it enables
parents to balance work/home commitments and maintain full-time jobs thus
ensuring further tax revenues to treasury.
iii) The project showed no evidence of consideration of the impacts to local
residents, i.e. view / light impacts etc.
C) I understand the budget of the current project is >£6m which does not
represent value for money. I make this statement carefully because I
understand an alternative proposal for an alternative 210 single form school
in the St Andrews ward would have cost £4.2m which is 30% less cost to the
Council Tax payer. I understand this proposal would have addressed the GEC’s
requirement for Saturday parking through the provision of 20days reuse of the
school field per year.
D) I understand there a large element of the old Bristol College site
adjacent to the GCC including a number of Victorian Orphanage buildings that
were later part of the college will be being re-developed for residential
homes and retail units. I note that a number of retail units in Ashley Down
Road are currently un-used so I have to ask the rational for new retail units
on the college site. I would therefore like to propose that buildings from the
college be re-purposed as a 210 place school and therefore would formally like
to invite Bristol City Council to provide the rational for not doing this.
E) The Sefton Park project team admitted that Sefton Park School is a
congested site and the students would have to be taken to an off-site games
site which is presents danger to the students.
In conclusion
I would like to invite Bristol City Council to re-consider the sitting of the
210 additional student places within the existing Bristol College site either
through the re-purposing of the existing building stock or the building of the
£4.2m school.
Regards
Simon Belmont
Mr Simon Belmont
Parent
e-mail: simon@boku.net
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
Late Statement 1 Cabinet 25th
September 08
13/10/08
Dear Mr Belmont
value for money.
Traffic management at the beginning and end of the day is chaotic and will be addressed in
any proposed solution.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
Supporting Voluntary and Community Action
CREATE Centre
Smeaton Road
Bristol BS1 6XN
Tel: 0117 909 9949
Fax: 0117 933 0501
Email: info@voscur.org
Web: www.voscur.org
To members of Bristol City Council Cabinet
23 September 2008
Dear Councillor
Bristol Partnership Aims and Remit
We note that the Bristol Partnership Executive Board has responsibility for
‘3.1b giving city leadership to tackling deprivation and promoting equalities and
community cohesion’
The only reference to delivering this aim is to be found in the key risk summary, where it is
stated that the risk of reputational credibility will be mitigated through BME representation
at executive level and engagement with voluntary, community, faith, and equalities through
community conferences and other targeted work.
We are, therefore, concerned that there is to be no active representation from Equalities
Communities of Interest either in influencing decision-making or as a scrutiny function.
We acknowledge that previous mechanisms for engaging Equalities Communities of
Interest have not been robust, but are dismayed that rather than addressing this, these
groups have been excluded.
Three Equalities representatives and one faith representative have now been removed
from the Executive. We will be meeting with some of our member groups to discuss this
issue in early October. We would welcome the Councillors’ views as to how we can
remedy this situation.
Yours sincerely
Wendy Stephenson
Chief Executive
Voscur is a not for profit company limited by guarantee. Registered in England and Wales. Company No. 3918210
LATE STATEMENT 3
Please could the following statement be read out at the council meeting on Thursday 25th
September 2008.
As a parent of a child attending Sefton Park Junior school I went to the consultation
meeting on Monday 22nd September organized by IRIS where a presentation was made
by the architects engaged by the council to undertake a feasibility study into the expansion
of Sefton Park Infant and Junior Schools, I would like to raise the following points;
The Architect repeatedly used the words 'congested site' when referring to the
development of the existing site indicating to us all that in his professional opinion the
present situation is already congested, a fact we parents are already fully aware of, and it
is therefore unfathomable to us why the council feel that they could make this site more
congested than it already is by increasing its size to 630 pupils plus nursery places. This
will have a huge negative effect on the pupils, staff and community that use it.
To comply with the building regulation guidelines this site could not be used without the
inclusion of the Brunel field which is located some distance from the school. The logistical
and financial problems this would create for the school are unacceptable on two counts.
Either they must invest in large numbers of extra staff to escourt children to the site (ages
3 to 11) or hire public transport at vast cost to ensure the children remain safe within their
care. The time both of these options would take impinges greatly on the amount of time
children would have for their activities and detract from their other studies. It is widely
recognized the value of good physical activity for younger children and is vital for their
academic achievement, it would therefore have serious impact on the success of the
school as it stands at present and it's future. If the Brunel site were taken out of the
equation then this project could not go ahead.
Should the development go ahead, the contractors have indicted that they will have to use
the existing disabled access route, which is used by disabled parents and pupils on a daily
basis, and they will have to re-locate the porta cabins to a place that will restrict existing
play areas. This site is already too small for the children who attend so to remove more of
their play area is un-acceptable.
All of the proposed three options suggest that the green area that is presently part of the
after school club grounds would be available to children to use as play space. However,
there is a steep hill on this grass which would pose health and safety issues and once
again not viable.
We were also told that there would be a MUGA (multi-purpose games area) installed that
would be available for general play as well as more organized games. As a parent of a
child at Fairfield High, the MUGA on their site has been restricted to organized play only,
because the school were told by the contractors who installed it that it would only last 5
years if children were allowed to play on it at break times.
The existing class rooms are 'small' for the number of existing pupils and will not be
altered during the proposed development. This will also go against the building guidelines.
All three of the proposals suggest that there would be two separate buildings for the
children. One even splits the younger children from each other. This is not conducive to
cohesive teaching.
There is no provision for 'dropping off' children. Whilst it would be preferable that all
children walk, there must be provision for parents who work to be able to drop off their
children safely on their way to work.
And finally, there appears to be a colony of Bats roosting in the grounds of the school.
Has there been any survey into what impact this building work may have on their habitat
and what responsibility does the council have to ensure their welfare?
Please may I respectfully ask the council to re-consider using the Brunel Site and / or the
old Fairfield site to house the extra school places needed. Both of these sites would have
no effect at all on present school children (either at Sefton Park or St Barnabas), the after
school club, scouts and guides, and provide you with an opportunity to engage positively
with the local community which I am sure (speaking for myself and with tongue firmly in my
cheek) would have the desired effect at election time.
Sincerely
Elizabeth Johnson
Ms Elizabeth Johnson
e-mail: ecjohnson@blueyonder.co.uk
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
September 08
13/10/08
Dear Ms Johnson
value for money.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.
LATE STATEMENT C 4
Hello..thank you for the opportunity to air my views.
I am opposed to the expansion of the Sefton Park Infant and Junior school site. Even if
nothing else were at stake I would be deeply wary of risking the effectiveness of an
exceptional school.
No-one within the school and local community has actively supported these proposals.
The school thrives due to it's size and exceptional staff. The official claim that a larger
school will attract better staff is offensive and ridiculous, given the quality of the school at
present. There is a debate as to whether larger schools are more educationally effective
than smaller ones. The council doesn't recognise this debate, as to engage in it would
question the only other stated benefit of the proposals.
We will lose a well loved and well supported Scout hut, most, if not all, of the trees and
green area and our space for youth services in Ashley House. We gain more congestion
on an already overloaded road system and the chance to expose our children to enormous
disruption and danger during construction. At the end of the day the chances of getting a
better school for current pupils is nil , as we are already blessed. We understand the
difficulties of providing school places for new families, but having a problem doesn't mean
that any solution is a good one. Less than eighteen months ago the same Council
department dismissed the Sefton Park site as 'already too congested' and claimed it was
'not a workable solution'. What exactly has changed?
There is space at Brunel for a school, if the needs of International cricket aren't more
important.
Without the breathtaking underhandedness of including the Brunel playing field as ONE
HALF of the school's new footprint, the proposals would be an absolute non-starter in
terms of space per pupil even in an inner city constrained site. The actual use the children
will get from this 'half' of the school compared to the real half is miniscule. We are being
taken for idiots.
Aside from the cynicism of this proposal, the practicalities and risks of ferrying scores of
children down a busy main road every single day are boggling. Will the people proposing
this ask themselves how content they would be for their young children to make that
journey, and whether they would like to be the unlucky parent who gets that telephone call,
when tragedy inevitably strikes. I cycle along Ashley Down Road every day and it is a fast
and dangerous stretch of road.
The IRIS people told us the other day that this was 'a done deal' and that we were not
going to be able to stop it, just make our preferences known about which plan we would
get.
If 100% opposed is not enough to affect the proposals, what exactly is the consultation
for?
Thankyou.
Dan Williamson (Parent)
Answers to Questions from Councillor Geoff Gollop to Cabinet Councillors Walker,
Bees or Holland, whomsoever is considered to be the most appropriate:Agenda Item 7 Capital Programme
The Museum of Bristol
1. What happened to the original “Appendix B” relating to the Museum of Bristol that was
designated “to follow” in the draft version of this report circulated to Scrutiny?
The budget increase recommended in the report is based on recommendations from the
external project manager. While the overall total is accepted as a reasonable basis for
budget planning, officers are still reviewing the detailed build up.
2. Why has it now been omitted from the Full Cabinet papers?
See 1.
3. What aspects of the design have changed in respect of income generation?
Enlarging the retail area to maximise the income from shop/bookshop sales
Changing the shape of the conferencing suite to maximise corporate hire numbers
Increasing the size of the cafe to accommodate additional covers and maximise the use
of the west end square and 'orientation' area so that the cafe could operate outside the
hours of the museum.
Increasing the size of the learning suite to maximise use of the educational facilities by
schools and other academics (charging policy for non Bristol schools)
Adding acoustic lobbies to accommodate across requirements on entry to the gallery
spaces (DDA specific not income related issues)
4. Is there a business plan for income generation?
A detailed business plan is in the final stages of preparation and is a requirement of the
HLF funding agreement. It has in draft form been subject to the Council's Project
Appraisal Process. All the revenue income projections have been accepted but work is
continuing to review (downwards) the revenue expenditure projections. The revised
plan will then be represented to the Project Appraisal Group before submission to HLF
for sign off.
5. Was the partial delay in S.106 monies highlighted as a risk at the time of the original
proposals?
The Cabinet report of the 15th November 2007 made reference in the Financial
Implications (capital) section to the risk of cost escalation and the risk of shortfalls in
fund-raising and S106 contributions. The schedule of key project risks also identified
the “interface between the base build construction works and the Exhibition, FFE and
Commercial Fit Out Works, and the adjacent developments of Museums Square and
the Umberslade Development”.
6. Have the revised costings been subject to rigorous review internally?
There has been an intensive review process as follows:
The project management framework led by external consultants 'Focus' is set up to
ensure the continuous challenge to the design team, construction company and quantity
surveyor. Risk reviews are undertaken regularly, the next is scheduled for October
2008, and independently facilitated risks workshops have been a regular feature of the
project.
Where unforeseen difficulties have been identified Focus have prepared options for
discussion first with the project team and subsequently with the project board. The
Project Board have sought to minimise additional costs to the project. All of these
papers and discussions are recorded through the Project Board papers to provide an
audit trail. Key issues have also been regularly reported to the Asset Management
Board and Leader's Briefings.
7. If so, who has conducted this review?
See 6. Grant Thornton (external auditors) have identified this project as key and are
regularly reviewing progress with the project.
8. As Cllr Walker accepted responsibility for the Budget at November’s Cabinet, does she
consider the current overspend to be acceptable?
Cllr Walker considers that the proposed increase in the project budget is regrettable but
unavoidable, and believes, as I do, that appropriate project management arrangements
are in place.
Questions from Cllr Gollop for the attention of Cllr Bees, Executive Member for
Transformation & Resources
Redland School
1. Would you acknowledge or concede that a glass domed corridor is very likely to
overheat when exposed to the rays of the sun?
Whether it overheats or not will depend on other aspects of the design. I would expect
the Design Team to recognise this.
2. Can you give an indication of when it is anticipated the position will be finalised in
respect of the capital spend on this school?
It is notoriously difficult to predict the timescale for legal processes.
Capital Programme Monitor
1. Are you satisfied the Authority has the ability/capacity to manage major capital
projects?
I am never satisfied. However, I think that the budget changes proposed in the report
need to be considered in the context of:
• the overall size of the capital programme, and
• the fact that the programme includes a number of projects that have been
recognised from the outset as being high risk.
Project management for the Museum of Bristol project has reflected the Grant
Thornton recommendations - separation of project manager, QS and design team; use
of external professional advice; setting contingency budgets on the basis of costed
risk assessments; sign off of individual work packages. Regrettably, additional costs
are none the less projected to exceed the contingency.
2. What procedures are in place to stop optimistic capital budgeting?
See 1 above
Mr Dan Williamson
email: Dan.Williamson@aardman.com
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
September 08
13/10/08
Dear Mr Williamson
value for money.
Yours sincerely
c.c.
Council House
c.c.

CABINET - 25 SEPTEMBER 2008 PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS

Transcription

Similar documents

You can receive 12 weeks of free vouchers for Slimming World or

bristol apartments | morrisville, nc apartments

PDF 1 - Property Search

Presentación de PowerPoint - IES Parque Lineal, Albacete

More Buildings. Better Choices.

Dutch Master 55-ct Box

tug and butty £39000 - Channel Yacht Sales

Sefton Infants School Newsletter