1. education
2. school

CABINET - 26 JANUARY 2009
PUBLIC FORUM BUSINESS
A.
QUESTIONS / ANSWERS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
Questions received relating to agenda item no. 3 - Primary Review, and the
answers to these questions are set out in a separate document, which is
available at this meeting.
B.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS:
Re: Item 3 - Primary Review
1. Statements re: Stockwood Green Primary School
B1.1 Mike Landen
B1.2 Sally Campbell
B1.3 Katie Burton
2. Statements re: St Pius X Catholic Primary School
B2.1 Ian McNiff
B2.2 Dr Mark Lloyd Davies
3. Statements re: St George C.E. Primary School
B3.1 Clare Gundry
B3.2 Lesley Lee
4. General statements re the primary review
B4.1 Dick North
B4.2 Cllr Richard Eddy
B4.3 Cllr Clare Campion-Smith
C.
QUESTIONS / ANSWERS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
Questions received which do not specifically relate to agenda items are set out
in a separate document, which is available at this meeting. In the interests of
agenda management, these questions will be dealt with after the main
business, as detailed on the agenda, has been transacted.
1
D.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
In the interests of agenda management, these items will be received after the
main business, as detailed on the agenda, has been transacted.
D1 Sarah Bailey - subject: Sefton Park school expansion
D2 Teresa Swift - subject: Sefton Park school expansion
D3 JP Coetzee & other Sefton Park parents and residents - subject: Sefton
Park school expansion
D4 Janet Bremner - subject: Sefton Park school expansion
D5 Joel Stokes - subject: Sefton Park school expansion
2
CABINET - 26 JANUARY 2009
A.
ITEM 1
PUBLIC FORUM - QUESTIONS / ANSWERS RELATING TO
AGENDA ITEMS
The following questions have been received for this meeting of the Cabinet :
Questions to Cllr Peter Hammond, Deputy Leader & Executive Member for
Cohesion & Raising Achievement re: agenda item no.3 - Primary Review
(the full text of the questions and answers are attached):
A1.
A2.
A3.
A4.
A5.
A6.
A7.
A8.
A9.
A10.
A11.
Fiona Crabtree
Elizabeth Wild
Vicky Carpenter
Rosabel Potela Barrios
Joanne Blackmore
Tony Lynch
Clare Weston
Mrs A D Greaves
Syra Alexander
Fran Buchan
K Coombs
Question
At the call in meeting Peter Hammond said "it was a lie that there was a shortage of
places within the city centre".
On Monday 23rdNovember 2008 Hotwells Primary had:
St George C of E had:
Christchurch C of E had:
St Michael on the Mount:
And your primary review document in May 2008 stated North 3 currently has a surplus
of 2% . On September 8'h2008 the Admissions department stated that there were no
reception places available in the City centre and that 21 children were being sent out of
the city centre to South St, and Ashton Vale.
Please could you clarify how it is a lie?
Fiona Crabtree
1 Harnpstead Rd
BS4 3HL
Answer to Question A1 (Fiona Crabtree) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
The data CYPS were asked to comment on was that for St George CE Primary School. In
January 2008 the number on role at St George was 88. First preference data for 2009
show 9 parents seeking a place at the school, for 15 places. This number will rise, as it
does each year, but of the 98 pupils at St George in September 2008, 64 live outside the
local area, see attached map.
Both Christ Church and Hotwells schools have a demand in excess of places, but there is
no evidence from the map attached that St George is looked to, by families in Clifton to
meet the need. The Council continues to seek a local solution to this issue and is working
with Christ Church to do so. With regard to Hotwells, data illustrates that the schools does
have enough spaces for local families, but currently continues to take children from
Bedminster, because of sibling requirements. There are surplus places in Bedminster.
The plans described at the ‘call in’ include the expansion of St Michael on the Mount CE
Primary to 2FE. This addresses any current need from the city centre.
Question
Your policy is to smooth the transition between different educational phases. How does
closing a thriving Early Years unit that provides 20 places ease transition?
Elizabeth Wild
Garden Flat, 34 Caledonia Place Clifton BS8 4DN
Answer to Question A2 (Elizabeth Wild) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
In the context of early years provision in Bristol and in particular in the central area that St
George’s serves Officers have advised
a)
Expansion of childcare for 2 year olds: - this is a scheme for the 25% most
disadvantaged 2 year olds. Officers are confident that this would not affect the
provision. The Council is looking at the most disadvantaged areas - replacement or
creation of provision in this area would not include development of 2 year old
places. If a child in this particular area needed to benefit from a 2 year old place
the Council would need to look at existing provision in the area for 2 year olds and
work in partnership (mainly with a private or voluntary setting) to ensure
appropriate provision.
b)
For childcare - there is a below average take up of free entitlement in this Ward,
which could mean that parents are already choosing to go elsewhere or not taking
up this opportunity for other reasons. There are sufficient places in this area should
families choose to attend nursery in their own area.
The concern on this setting is that at the moment all children who access can have a
full time place when they are only entitled to a part time (19 children, with a 20FTE
nursery), in future we may not pay for 'ghost' places.
There is a lot of childcare around this area from private providers.
Therefore, officers will ensure provision is appropriate when any changes in primary
provision take place.
Question
What has been proposed for the loss of nursery places at St George, especially now that
central government are suggesting nursery places for children from the age of 2?
Vicky Carpenter
48 Jasper Street
BS3 3DY
Answer to Question A3 (Vicky Carpenter) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
In the context of early years provision in Bristol and in particular in the central area that St
George’s serves Officers have advised
a)
Expansion of childcare for 2 year olds: - this is a scheme for the 25% most
disadvantaged 2 year olds. Officers are confident that this would not affect the
provision. The Council is looking at the most disadvantaged areas - replacement or
creation of provision in this area would not include development of 2 year old
places. If a child in this particular area needed to benefit from a 2 year old place
the Council would need to look at existing provision in the area for 2 year olds and
work in partnership (mainly with a private or voluntary setting) to ensure
appropriate provision.
b)
For childcare - there is a below average take up of free entitlement in this Ward,
which could mean that parents are already choosing to go elsewhere or not taking
up this opportunity for other reasons. There are sufficient places in this area should
families choose to attend nursery in their own area.
The concern on this setting is that at the moment all children who access can have a
full time place when they are only entitled to a part time (19 children, with a 20FTE
nursery), in future we may not pay for 'ghost' places.
There is a lot of childcare around this area from private providers.
Therefore, officers will ensure provision is appropriate when any changes in primary
provision take place.
Question
~ ~ Under risk
In The Strategy for Change Primary Capital Programme June 1 6 2008
assessment It says the main risks of agreeing to this course are as follows:- That the
process of change will, in the short term, be detrimental to the achievement of the key
outcomes.
The Action taken to mitigate these risks is:- New procedures will be introduced to
strengthen support during the transfsrmation prqcess.
Could you tell us what actions you plan for St Georges. So far all that has been done
is to suggest that in 21 12 our pupils will be moved to St Michaels if the build is ready.
Government guidelines are that closing schools should be closed within 2 school
years because of the detrimental effects on the staff and children in the school.
Children in closing schools suffer far higher rates of sickness for instance.
Rosabel Portela Barrios
26 Patterson House, Prewett St BS 1 6PF
Answer to Question A4 (Rosabel Portela Barrios) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
Until a decision is taken regarding St George, it is difficult to identify the time line with any
accuracy, but below is a list of the steps taken so far should the school close:
-
All primary schools have received a publication “Improving Through Change Managing Capital Projects in Schools: Guidance Manual” from the Council taking
staff and governors through the process of change, to act as a reference manual.
-
St George CE Primary School has been engaged in an initial meeting with the
Council to discuss their preferred timeline for closure, should this be agreed.
-
The Diocese of Bristol has been engaged at every step and continues to be so. The
Diocese will provide significant support to the school through the process.
If a decision is confirmed a range of actions can then be put in place to engage staff at
both schools in the plans and to draw up the preferred timeline.
Question
On the current plans you assume there will be no primary school age children living in
the Harbourside development. We know just in one block of flats where I live there are
I I preschool children and 4 school age children.
Joanne Blackinore
12 Anchor Point
Canons Way
Bristol
BSI 5JZ
Answer to Question A5 (Joanne Blackmore) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
The current plans do not assume there will be no children living in the harbourside
developments. What we do say, is that because of the nature of the housing and the
targeted market, it is less likely that there will be large numbers and this has been
accounted for in our planning.
Question
You claim to have carried consultation with heads prior to the original primary school
review in October 2007. But you only gave one weeks notice to the heads. Many of
whom had numerous prior meeting and commitments booked in as it was the school year.
The feedback from the heads forum about meeting one was that it was a discussion as to
the locations of Primary schools in Bristol. Our head could not make the first two
meetings and was told it was not appropriate for her to attend the 3rdas she had not been
to the previous ones.
Tony Lynch
BS4 3HL
Answer to Question A6 (Tony Lynch) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
There would appear to be a misunderstanding of the process regarding the
Review. The initial consultation in 2007 was not only one week. Head Teachers
were briefed at a city wide meeting in May 2007 and they were offered the
opportunity to join a working group at any or all of the meetings of this group
between the end of May 2007 and the end of term in July 2007.
The draft principle paper was then circulated widely in September 2007, before it
was taken to Cabinet at the end of October.
The Head of St George CE Primary School could have attended any or all of the
meetings and working group sessions.
Question
How does closing St George and expanding St Michael to 2 FE meet your key principles
of: I ) removal of surplus places.
I1 ) creation of places in area of need.
As it meets neither and is just a shifting of places, how can it meet your key principle of:
111) Improved attainment by the end of Stage 2.
The effect of transition will impact on the children's learning and the costs of this are not
known. How can you be sure it will meet principle
IV)
Value for money.?
Clare Weston
44 Donegal Rd
BS4 IPL
Answer to Question A7 (Clare Weston) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
The Primary review proposal to close St George CE Primary School and expand St
Michael on the Mount CE Primary School, is not one of the proposals relating to surplus
places. The expansion of St Michael to 2FE will create some extra places in the area, but
again this was not the prime purpose of this recommendation.
St George is a very small school with less than 1FE and the buildings that house it are the
worst in the city according to the Asset Management Plan.
It is one of a number of schools where the combined KS2 Level 4 English and mathematics
score is below 55% - despite generous teacher/pupil ratios, this is not a high performing
school.
We also know that recruitment of Head Teachers in future will be more challenging and it is
anticipated that this school will generate a specific challenge as it is so small and in such
poor condition.
First preferences over the last three years (8,9, 9 - for 15 places) have not filled the school
and a certainly not all from the local community (only 3 for 2009). There is no evidence that
large numbers of parents in the Clifton area select St George's because of a shortage of
places in Clifton.
The Church of England Diocese support the proposal as in the best interests of Church of
England provision in the city.
We can invest capital funds in the renovation of St Michael on the Mount and provide a
school fit for twenty first century education. If this resource was split we would achieve very
little.
Why are the committee not prepared to consider our proposal to extend upwards in
order to increase the school to 1FE. The plans already exit, have been judged feasible,
include a roof top play space, and we have been offered the old bowling green as
additional outdoor play space. The use of roof top play space and the idea of building
upwards are suggested by the committee for a number of other schools but are not
acceptable when we broach them and are all included in the document Strategy for
change Primary Capital Programme June 16' 2008. We sent in this proposal as a
response to the committee's proposal but we have never received response back.
Mrs
Greaves
5 Berkley Cresent
Cliton BS8 IHA
Answer to Question A8 (Mrs AD Greaves) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
The officers involved with the Primary Review have considered the school [plans for
expansion. Unfortunately, the plan retains a split site facility which we could not support. A
review of this proposal is now available to the school.
Question
As a working parent I wanted a school within easy reach of my work place, in order to
maximise the number of hours I could work, if my children went to school close to
my home I would not have been able to start until 10 00 am and even using the After
school club I would have been forced to leave by 4.00pm in order to get back by
5.30pm. I also wanted to be close if they were ill as Schools expect you to be instantly
available if your child becomes ill.
I believe more places, not less should be made available in the City centre for
working and studying parerts as it enhances work life balance.
Throughout this procedure many parents at St Georges who take there children into
the city centre have felt criticized by this administration and its officers when they do
it in order to work or study. Is it appropriate to criticize parents who are trying to
achieve the best for their families
Syra Alexander
18 Emerson Square
BS7 OPP
Answer to Question A9 (Syra Alexander) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
Bristol City Council is pledged to provide primary school provision for local communities
across the city. We want to ensure that no primary aged child has to travel more than two
miles to school. It is clear that children and their families benefit most from school when the
school is fully engaged in the community, knows the parents and can provide a range of
learning and social events beyond the school day. In fact this is a requirement of a school
becoming an extended school.
If a school can also provide a convenient venue for educating the children of parents who
work in the area, we appreciate this is useful, but it is not a key criteria for our planning of
primary provision. It is not a key priority anywhere in England. However, no criticism
implied or otherwise has been made of parents who choose to do this, if there are places
available.
Question
In the Strategy's for Change Primary Capital Programme June
2008 It states that
N3 where St Georges C of E is situated that you expect to experience increased
pressure over this period especially for admissions to reception How can moving our
children to St Michaels achieve any increase in provision for the area. And
presumably if there is an increase in reception admissions there will be an increased
need for Nursery places St Georges has an extremely effective early years unit,
Including up to 40 part time or 20 full time nursery places Where are these places
being relocated to St Micheals does not have a nursery and your plans do not include
this provision.
Fran Buchan, 27B Bellvue Cresent
Bristol BS8 HTE
Answer to Question A10 (Fran Buchan) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
In the context of early years provision in Bristol and in particular in the central area that St
George’s serves Officers have advised
a)
Expansion of childcare for 2 year olds: - this is a scheme for the 25% most
disadvantaged 2 year olds. Officers are confident that this would not affect the
provision. The Council is looking at the most disadvantaged areas - replacement or
creation of provision in this area would not include development of 2 year old
places. If a child in this particular area needed to benefit from a 2 year old place
the Council would need to look at existing provision in the area for 2 year olds and
work in partnership (mainly with a private or voluntary setting) to ensure
appropriate provision.
b)
For childcare - there is a below average take up of free entitlement in this Ward,
which could mean that parents are already choosing to go elsewhere or not taking
up this opportunity for other reasons. There are sufficient places in this area should
families choose to attend nursery in their own area.
The concern on this setting is that at the moment all children who access can have a
full time place when they are only entitled to a part time (19 children, with a 20FTE
nursery), in future we may not pay for 'ghost' places.
There is a lot of childcare around this area from private providers.
Therefore, officers will ensure provision is appropriate when any changes in primary
provision take place.
How does closing St George and expanding St Michael to 2 FE meet your key principles
of: I ) removal of surplus places.
I1 ) creation of places in area of need.
As it meets neither and is just a shifting of places, how can it meet your key principle of:
111) Improved a#ainment by the end of Stage 2.
The effect of transition will impact on the children's learning and the costs of this are not
known. How can you be sure it will meet principle
IV) Value for money.?
Answer to Question A11 (K Coombs) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
The Primary review proposal to close St George CE Primary School and expand St
Michael on the Mount CE Primary School, is not one of the proposals relating to surplus
places. The expansion of St Michael to 2FE will create some extra places in the area, but
again this was not the prime purpose of this recommendation.
St George is a very small school with less than 1FE and the buildings that house it are the
worst in the city according to the Asset Management Plan.
It is one of a number of schools where the combined KS2 Level 4 English and mathematics
score is below 55% - despite generous teacher/pupil ratios, this is not a high performing
school.
We also know that recruitment of Head Teachers in future will be more challenging and it is
anticipated that this school will generate a specific challenge as it is so small and in such
poor condition.
First preferences over the last three years (8,9, 9 - for 15 places) have not filled the school
and a certainly not all from the local community (only 3 for 2009). There is no evidence that
large numbers of parents in the Clifton area select St George's because of a shortage of
places in Clifton.
The Church of England Diocese support the proposal as in the best interests of Church of
England provision in the city.
We can invest capital funds in the renovation of St Michael on the Mount and provide a
school fit for twenty first century education. If this resource was split we would achieve very
little.
B.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS:
Re: Item 3 - Primary Review
1. Statements re: Stockwood Green Primary School
B1.1 Mike Landen
B1.2 Sally Campbell
B1.3 Katie Burton
2. Statements re: St Pius X Catholic Primary School
B2.1 Ian McNiff
B2.2 Dr Mark Lloyd Davies
3. Statements re: St George C.E. Primary School
B3.1 Clare Gundry
B3.2 Lesley Lee
4. General statements re the primary review
B4.1 Dick North
B4.2 Cllr Richard Eddy
B4.3 Cllr Clare Campion-Smith
1
STATEMENT B 1.1
Statement to Cabinet 30 October 2008
Re Proposal to Close Stockwood Green Primary School
We welcome the resolution passed at Full Council which urged that Cabinet
actively considers alternatives to closure, including progressing a pan-Stockwood
solution in our locality through the exploration of a schools’ partnership or
federation between the three schools. You will not be surprised that we have
welcomed this since we have been advocating local discussion for a long time.
We hope that this will give everyone involved the opportunity to seek solutions that
will be of the most benefit to the children of Stockwood. In particular we hope that
some of the issues that we have brought to your attention will now be seriously
considered. These are as follows:
1. The allocation of school places within Stockwood.
2. An opportunity to consider projected figures for the number of places required in
the area, taking into account any proposed new homes within Stockwood.
3. The provision of nursery and child care provision in the area.
We are appreciative of the fact that councillors have been willing to meet to
discuss the future provision of primary education in Stockwood and that we have had a
fruitful discussion with a senior officer of Bristol CYPS. This is precisely what should
have taken place at the start of the Primary School Review.
The basic problem is of course that of surplus places. The argument that has been
used is that closing Stockwood Green and providing extra places at Burnbush School will
significantly reduce the number of surplus places. Our response has been that this will not
produce the desired outcome since parents/carers do not wish to send their children to
Burnbush. Since the proposed closure it
will not surprise you to learn that a number of
children have left the school and they are now attending various other schools.
However none of these children has moved to Burnbush. The outcome of the proposals
will simply be to transfer the surplus places from Stockwood Green to
Burnbush.
Unfortunately yet again you have been provided with very selective data by the
Strategic Director of CYPS regarding the uptake of places. You will see that there are only
three children due to start
at Stockwood Green in September 2009. This is hardly
surprising given that the school has been threatened with closure since May 2008.
Before the proposal to close the school the actual
number of children starting at
Stockwood Green each year is always considerably higher than that
suggested by
those choosing the school as a first preference. For example in September 2007 this
was 21.
Having said that we welcomed the resolution, the task of finding a solution to what
is an extremely difficult set of problems is impossible to accomplish in such a short
timescale. To complete the task in two weeks when several months have passed
during which time politicians and officers have failed to find an acceptable solution
was not realistic.
We do not want Stockwood Green to close. However we do believe that there is
now a genuine opportunity to take a fresh look at the problem of surplus places in
the area. We do not wish for the school to remain ‘in limbo’ as it obviously causes
distress and uncertainty but we ask the Cabinet for two to three months to allow
the ideas that are presently being discussed by Councillors and officers to be
formulated into proposals for primary education in Stockwood. This will also give the
necessary time for our parents/cares to be consulted on their ideas for their
children’s education.
Mike Landen (Chair of Governors, Stockwood Green Primary School)
Mr Mike Landen
Chair of Governors
Stockwood Green Primary School
E mail: mikelanden@blueyonder.co.uk
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristoI.gov.uk
B 1.1 Cabinet 26" January 09
16/02/09
Dear
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26thJanuary 2009.
Over the last few months we have corresponded on a number of occasions and the range
of data shared has been significant. Regarding the allocation of school places in
Stockwood, officers have always been consistent on this, there are too many surplus
places in the area and there is a need to remove the surplus. There has always been a
willingness on the part of officers to have a dialogue with all the schools in Stockwood
about this. In fact, on going discussion has led to the current proposal outlined at the
Cabinet meeting.
None of the data has been selective. Officers have shared everything it is possible to
share. At this time of the year, the only data available is the first preference data for next
year. It is the same for every school. What all such data does for Stockwood Green is
draw attention to the small cohort in the school and it's continued viability. Your example
of 21 starters in 2007, is not a consistent figure and that is part of the problem.
Stockwood Green has been identified as 'not viable' before, it was given an opportunity to
become sustainable, but I am afraid this has not been possible.
I agree that a solution now needs to be found as soon as possible as the limbo created by
so many debates has been unhelpful. I hope this can be achieved, based on the Cabinet
decision.
'Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
C.C.
C.C.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
The Council House
College Green
Bristol BS1 5'rR
Executive Member
Website
www.bristol-city.g0v.uk
STATEMENT B 1.2
Statement to the Labour Cabinet, 26.01.09
Reference: Primary Review Consultation / Stockwood Green Primary School
Apologies for not being able to address the cabinet directly and put forward this statement.
As concerned parents of a four year old girl, living and working in Stockwood, we wish to express
our anger and distress at the Primary Review Strategy, and now the continuation of the
discussions about our local Primary School, Stockwood Green. The Primary Review published
recommendations have put our family life into great uncertainty as we go into the future. I am a
teacher at Stockwood Green Primary School and as a family we have for many years been
involved in the community of the school. Our family life is hanging on the decisions of Bristol City
Council. My husband and I truly believe this is the best and only place for our daughter.
The fact is that the closure proposals are destroying a community. We do have the knowledge
and understanding to be able to say this, and we have seen members of the community dividing
over trying to find ‘appropriate’ alternative school places for their children. We have seen our
daughter lose all of her close friends in recent months as parents move their own children in fear.
We do have a right to choose where our daughter goes to school. We do not feel that either of the
other Primary Schools in Stockwood are places were we would wish to send our daughter to
school, and in consequence we have already made the decision that we will seek schools outside
the Bristol Education Authority if the Labour Cabinet continue with their outrageous decision to
close what is an improving Primary School. I know we will not be alone in that decision.
There still needs to be an acknowledgement that the Cabinet have listened to parents (and the
community of Stockwood, petition submitted) about what is best for the children (We wonder how
many members of the Cabinet have children of primary school age?). Why is our parental choice
being ignored?
The emphasis of this review has now moved to put pressure on to the local Head Teachers and
Governors, whom now have been told to find alternatives if they wish Stockwood Green to stay
open. Is that not what the council is for? Head teachers should to be concerned with educating the
children, not the politics’. My husband and I (along with many others, evidence from petitions
already submitted to the Council) do accept that educating children at Stockwood Green is slightly
more expensive, and Mike Landon in previous addresses to the Council has shown that to be
quite insignificant. Are you saying that these children are not worth a few pounds more each?
Education should not only be about money. According to current Government legislation ‘every
child matters’, we see no evidence of this in your proposals.
Some of the alternatives being bounced around include ideas about federation, amalgamation
with Burnbush Primary or a new central school for all the children of Stockwood. These are still
not practical ideas, as residents of Stockwood, we see how each Primary School has its own
identity and small community, mixing them would not work. It would still result in parents leaving
the locality in search of other schools. Leave Stockwood Green Primary School to continue as it is
now, that is what parents want. The Primary Review and the Cabinet are entirely to blame for the
reduction in numbers attending the school, including probably a small reception intake for 2009.
The misrepresentations and often untrue comments about the school quoted by Councillor
Hammond in recent months have had a detrimental affect on the school and its hardworking staff.
There is no legal requirement that classes have to be big and certainly no research that’s presents
any evidence. (We have listened to Councillor Hammond’s theories from Prof. Ron Richie)
What the Primary Review is doing to this Primary School is not fair and not right.
Stockwood Green Primary School received positive feedback in its last OfSTED inspection
(OfSTED 2007), noting in particular that it is an improving and ‘sound’ school. Why would the
Cabinet wish to close a school which has good leadership and dedicated teachers, not to mention
support staff? We see this as a huge waste of teaching resources, when so many other schools in
Bristol are not up to that standard and are falling behind. Why should good staff lose their jobs?
We understand that the Primary Review should address weak Primary Schools as well as reduce
surplus places. Although Stockwood Green does have some surplus places, the school is not a
weak Primary School. We therefore feel that keeping the school open will allow for continued
improvement and an increase in numbers as parents would regain confidence in attending
Stockwood Green once the threat of closure has been removed.
Mr and Mrs Campbell
Mr and Mrs Campbell
E-mail: sallycampbelll7@hotmail.co.uk
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
B 1.2 Cabinet 26* January 09
16102109
Dear Mr and Mrs Campbell
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26thJanuary 2009.
I am sorry that the strategic review of primary provision has caused you and your farrlily
personal anguish, but can also assure you that nothing the Local Authority is proposing
should reduce the standard of education you can expect for your children.
The area of Stockwood currently has three schools. Stockwood Green is undersubscribed
by 25% and this is unacceptable. While I appreciate that you and your family benefit from
the school and community, not enough parents make it a positive choice of school for their
children.
The solution, suggested at Cabinet is that we create enough places at Waycroft to transfer
children during this transition period and officers will explore this possibility.
The Cabinet has at all times listened to the voice of Stockwood Green parents and
governors and that is why we have deliberated very carefully over the decision.
Unfortunately Stockwood Green was identified a few years ago for closure. At that time it
was given a reprieve, but the numbers have still not grown significantly and There are two
alternative, nearby schools for you to choose from. Choice is maintained.
The Council acknowledge the 'sound' OfSTED the school received in 2007 and is working
with staff at the school to ensure the good aspects of learning the school promotes will
transfer to other schools on closure
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Co~~ncil
House
C.C. Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
C.C.
I
The -CouncilHouse
College Green
Bristol BS1 5TR
Executive Member
Website
www. bristol-city,gov.uk
STATEMENT B 1.3
Good evening and thank you, for allowing me to express my feelings
regarding the plans that Bristol city council have to close Stockwood Green
primary school. I am sure that you are all aware of the campaigns, protests
and upset that this has caused the pupils, parents, teaching staff and the local
community of the school and yes, we are all aware that this is always the
case in these types of situations.
I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that this really is a missjudged decision. Pupils, parents and staff thrive on the friendly and personal
environment that Stockwood Green School offers. Each pupil is nurtured
and encouraged at this school. Due to this, every child is achieving well
even though each child is different. All the children are taught together
which has benefited every child as they have grown together as a whole
meaning friendships are good and strong, Attendance is good and bullying is
extremely rare.
The government has recently announced a threat to close failing schools in
Bristol, Stockwood Greens ofsted report has significantly improved over the
last 3 years and has now become a chosen school by most parents instead of
as it was in the past being a second choice school that was struggling. Taking
this right away from the parents and children is wrong, Where will the chose
be to send them to a school that they don't like or to a school that Ofsted
mark as outstanding but they are unlikely to get into???
The amount of families that have moved to Stockwood recently has certainly
increased largely due to the value for money that houses in the area offer; as
a result, the amount of school-aged children in Stockwood has increased.
One School is oversubscribed and the other School is simply not convenient
geographically for many residents of Stockwood as many live at least half a
mile away and do not have the advantage of a car plus many have small
babies meaning they would have to take the long walk up and down an
extremely big hill if their children had to go to Burnbush.
Also with the planning of up to 400 homes awaiting planning approval, what
will the government do when there really are no places left, BUILD A NEW
SCHOOL? Well if this is the case, why not close all 3 schools now and build
one big 3FE school that will accommodate the amount of children in
Stockwood. Surely, this is not cost effective to close one school then build
another.
A private nursery that resides within the same building as Stockwood Green
School has many children on their books that attend Stockwood Green.
Working families in Stockwood rely on the pre and post school services that
they offer, relocation would simply put many working families in
Stockwood at financial risk due to having to find alternative child care pre
and post school hours. Even though Burnbush will have their children’s
centre we have been informed the nursery could be providing the under 3’s
care for this centre.
Stockwood Green is a much-loved school by the local community and is
indeed a community in its own right. Bigger really is not better and the
success of this school is due to its size, so please reconsider your plans to
close the school and allow peace of mind to the pupils, parents and all staff
which are responsible for making this much improved school what it is
today.
Ms Katie Burton
E-mail: katieburtonl19@hotmail.com
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
01 17 92 23812
01179222090
peter.hammond@bristoI.gov.uk
B 1.3 Cabinet 26'" January 09
16/02/09
Dear Ms Burton
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26thJanuary 2009.
I am sorry that the strategic review of primary provision has caused you and your farr~ily
personal anguish, but can also assure you that nothing the Local Authority is proposing
should reduce the standard of education you can expect for your children.
The area of Stockwood currently has three schools. Stockwood Green is undersubscribed
by 25% and this is unacceptable. While I appreciate that you and your family benefit from
the school and community, not enough parents make it a positive choice of school for their
children.
The solution, suggested at Cabinet is that we create enough places at Waycroft to transfer
children during this transition period and officers will explore this possibility.
The Cabinet has at all times listened to the voice of Stockwood Green parents and
governors and that is why we have deliberated very carefully over the decision.
Unfortunately Stockwood Green was identified a few years ago for closure. At that time it
was given a reprieve, but the numbers have still not grown significantly and There are two
alternative, nearby schools for you to choose from. Choice is maintained.
The Council acknowledge the 'sound' OfSTED the school received in 2007 and is working
with staff at the school to ensure the good aspects of learning the school promotes will
transfer to other schools on closure
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
C.C. Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
C.C.
The Council House
College Green
Bristol BS1 5'rR
Website
www. bristol-city.g0v.uk
STATEMENT B 2.1
Statement to Cabinet of Bristol Council
Monday 26 January 2009
The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton wish to reaffirm their support for
St. Pius X Primary School. In addition to previous statements the Trustees would wish
members to consider the following:
•
•
•
•
The closure of St. Pius would reduce faith presence in considerable areas of need
within Bristol
There would be comparatively few schools in the south of Bristol which would
mean young pupils having to travel considerable distances in order that parental
choice could be exercised
A significant number of new arrivals to the City of Bristol are Catholic but not
able to access Catholic education. Any review of provision should take into
account the different nature of the Catholic catchment area and parental choice.
The closure of St. Thomas More secondary school has resulted in the reduction of
parental choice and the proposed alternatives offered at the time of closure have
not come to fruition. It is felt that a similar situation could occur with the closure
of St. Pius.
The Trustees reiterate their offer to work with the Local Authority. to do detailed work on
alternatives taking into account the needs of the new arrivals and their preference for
Catholic education. It is believed that this could be integrated with other council services
such as housing. This would require the council and the diocese working together to
establish need, through analysis, of appropriate statistics. In addition the Trustees would
be willing to work with the council to consider how all the primary schools in the south
of Bristol could work in effective partnership with the Diocesan secondary School, St.
Bernadette’s, to establish a confederation which would maximise places for Catholic
families and reduce surplus places.
We reaffirm our commitment to working in partnership with Bristol Local Authority to
ensure that pupils in Bristol receive the highest quality education and attain the highest
standards possible.
Ian McNiff
Director
Mr Ian McNiff
Director
Clifton Diocese
Alexander House
160 Pennywell Road
Bristol BS5 0TX
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
B 2.1 Cabinet 26th January 09
12/02/09
Dear Ian
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26th January 09.
The Cabinet have considered all the points you make regarding the retention of St Pius and the
months of debate reflect this. However, if officers, working with the diocese, can provide an
extension to facilities at the School of Christ the King through acquisition of further land, an
expanded Catholic provision in Knowle will strengthen learning in south Bristol.
The amount of surplus capacity in St Pius cannot be allowed to continue. The school was
identified some years ago for closure, at that time it was granted the opportunity to work on
sustaining and improving numbers. Clearly the school has improved standards, but unfortunately
numbers have not increased significantly. Parents are not seeing the school as their school of
choice.
The economic downturn has meant the rate of new arrivals in south Bristol has slowed down and
officers think that with the expansion of the School of Christ the King, enough capacity can be
created for catholic families.
Officers will work with you and members of the Diocesan Board to achieve the best solution.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
c.c.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
STATEMENT B2.2
Public Forum Statement fiom.Dr Mark Lloyd Davies to the Cabinet
Meeting of 26th January 2009
Item 3 PRIMARY REVIEW
Dear Leader & Cabinet
I am saddened to note that the Cabinet are clearly determined to
stubbornly continue with the closure of St Pi's X RC Primary School.
This is against the wishes of the majority of this Council, against the
wishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese and most importantly of all
against the wishes of the school and the community it serves.
St Pius is an excellent example of a school which has bounced back from
tough times. Pupil numbers are up by more than 50% from when it was in
Special Measures. Just as the school begins to regain its confidence and
win back the respect of the local community, this Cabinet wants to force
its closure.
I cannot emphasise enough the superb work of Headmaster Tony
Halloran and his staff, with SATS results now up above the national
average and the school set for further improvement.
However, in response to my last statement to Cabinet, the Deputy Leader
said that due to the high numbers of Catholic families attending St Pius
that he believed Catholic provision to be 'key'. However, I fail to see
how the closure of any well-performing and much loved local, Catholic
primary school, can ever be described as 'key' for the Catholic families in
Bishopsworth and Withywood.
Despite the national rhetoric from this Government about the importance
of education, the reality on the ground for the Headmaster, staff and
families of St Pius School is obviously very different.
As we have heard many times from this Cabinet, the proposed closure of
St Pius is part of the wider education strategy for Bristol. Indeed
consultations have been carried out. However, they have clearly forgotten
from their ivory tower that people do not want impersonal consultations
or theoretical strategies.
Schools are not marks on a map to be shifted in tune with a remote
strategy, but are instead central to any thriving community. To close St
Pius School might suit strategy, but let me make clear that the staff,
children, local Roman Catholic Diocese and local community are not
interested in any such misguided solution.
Instead they want something quite simple: to keep their respected, local
and much loved Roman Catholic Primary School.
I urge you once again to reverse your recommendations and give St Pius
X a happy, successfbl and secure future.
Dr Mark Lloyd Davies
Prospective Conservative Parliamentary Candidate Bristol South
5 Westfield Park
Bristol
BS6 6LT
Dr Mark Lloyd Davies
5 Westfield Park
Bristol
BS6 6LT
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
B 2.2 Cabinet 26th January 09
12/02/09
Dear Dr Davies
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26th January 09.
The Cabinet have considered all the points you make regarding the retention of St Pius and the
months of debate reflect this. However, if officers, working with the diocese, can provide an
extension to facilities at the School of Christ the King through acquisition of further land, an
expanded Catholic provision in Knowle will strengthen learning in south Bristol.
The amount of surplus capacity in St Pius cannot be allowed to continue. The school was
identified some years ago for closure, at that time it was granted the opportunity to work on
sustaining and improving numbers. Clearly the school has improved standards, but unfortunately
numbers have not increased significantly. Parents are not seeing the school as their school of
choice.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
c.c.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
STATEMENT B3.1
St George C of E Primary School
&oltwaltd t o ethelt,
-owCed~&-e.
akiLLa anpaftitudBristol
Inclusion
Standard
fblt L'+.
Brandon Hill, Queens Parade, Bristol BS1 5 X J
Telephone 0117 3772480
Fax 01173772481
sf.qeor ae.p@bristo/!QO v.uk
www.sfueoraeprimary. ik. orq
Head teacher
Heather Tomlinson
Director of Children & Young People%Services
Statement f r o m S t George CE Primary school f o r t h e cabinet meeting on Monday
Presented by Clare Gundry
Clare Gundry
January.
What a shame all the information was not shared with us at t h e beginning of t h e process, instead we feel as
though we have given t h e cabinet a million arguments which have been shot down with l i t t l e or no real evidence,
t h e goal posts have changed a t every meeting, each time there has been a new piece o f t h e jigsaw which we
then have t o wait until t h e next meeting t o argue against. I f that is open dialogue and democratic, then there is
l i t t l e hope o f anyone trusting t h e system.
Consequently there are a few more points we would like t o put forward f o r consideration.
The Regional Spatial Strategy [RSS]
Bristol is currently looking at providing 36,000 more homes by 2026. They should be providing sustainable
communities which means having appropriate resources near t h e housing areas and this should include shops and
education. There is huge opposition t o using greenfield sites and instead t h e council should be looking a t
brownfield sites or mixed use development, eg t h e harbourside. The strategy states t h a t housing should be
near areas of employment eg t h e city centre. Housing should be within 4 0 0 and 800 metres of primary
education facilities and currently this would mean S t George's primary.
Unfortunately because t h e section 106 money was not claimed for t h e harbourside developments and because a
clear strategy f o r education did not exist t o identify a new city centre site f o r a city centre school, t h e only
school which could cater for this developing community is S t George and then only if it is enlarged t o meet t h e
increased demand f o r places.
The total lack of consideration for t h e unique position of S t George.
The fact t h e school does not have 100% of pupils from the immediate area shows t h e government strategy f o r
allowing parental choice is working a t our school. Parents who live outside t h e city centre but have their
workplace within t h e city centre choose t o commute their children t o us. Surely t h e council does not want t o go
against this national strategy!
W e save t h e c i t y money.
The positive ethos of t h e school means challenging pupils thrive. They have often failed in other primaries but
are turned around a t our school and go on t o succeed a t secondary level. Thereby saving money on outside
agency intervention.
High achievement
Last year we suffered t h e impact of a private school becoming an academy and poaching year 6 students t o
ensure they got places in year 7. I f t h e 3 students we lost in this way had stayed we would have had 72% level
4 children. This was acknowledged in our Ofsted report and is well above t h e 55% claimed by officers. Our SIP
reports f o r t h e last 3 years show we are a good school with children making good progress and teaching t o be
of a good standard. The SIP visits on a regular basis and is an ex Ofsted inspector.
Who has t h e better picture o f a school, a visitor f o r a day, called an Ofsted inspector, who states that SATs
results will lead his judgement or someone with comprehensive knowledge o f t h e school built up over time,
called a SIP?
The current plans for enlarging S t Michaels
We have shared our feasibility study with everyone, t h e plans are attached again today. Who has seen t h e
feasibility study f o r S t Michael?
How can an idea be judged before that feasibiliiy study is shared? What am the costs hvolved?
Where are t h e children located who need t h e extra places? Kingsdown near S t Michaels or t h e city centre?
My understanding from t h e admissions team is they come f r o m Hotwell and t h e immediate city centre and this
is why S t George and Hotwell schools still have waiting lists f o r Reception places.
The diocese started by supporting t h e officers plans but are now more aware of t h e circumstances and have
said they are open t o doing t h e right thing f o r t h e city centre. [letter attached]
Anyone walking around S t George and S t Michaels school will see t h e many similarities in t h e age and state of
repair of t h e buildings, t h e f a c t they have more than one building and children have t o move between them, t h e
potential problems of increased size and location related t o cars versus pedestrians, [at least S t George is not
on a main road]. Neither school has a playing field attached but S t George use t h e community playing space in
the park as well as local secondary school facilities, what does S t Michaels do?
There are no real arguments t o discuss until t h e council is open about t h e plans they say they have for t h e
development of S t Michael.
Lastly. The councils point about recruitment is really clutching a t straws. Recruitment for headship is becoming
proportionately harder inline with t h e increase in paperwork. I t has very l i t t l e t o do with t h e size of t h e school.
Head teachers are individual people with a love of teaching and a vision for education. Some of these will favour
large schools, some will prefer small schools. Some will like t h e challenge of a deprived area while others prefer
t h e challenge of t h e high flying leafy suburbs. To claim that it would be hard t o plan f o r succession a t S t
George because it is a small school is nonsense, it will actually be potentially be very easy t o replace me because
of t h e positive ethos and high level of parental support found a t t h e school. The bad news is Ihave no intention
of moving on yet. I
am looking forward t o t h e increased challenge of running a single f o r m entry school when S t
George is enlarged as I believe it should be.
While we believe t h e Primary Review is necessary and of course t h e council have succeeded in many areas o f it,
we feel t h e closure of t h e three 'small' schools is t h e soft option and will not actually really address t h e issue
of raising standards within the city. The cabinet have failed t o convince us.
So, what will Bristol lose if we are closed?
40 part time Nursery places and one of t h e only Foundation Stage units in t h e city.
8
City centre primary education - despite t h e fact t h e numbers of children in t h e city centre are
8
already rising and due t o increase a lot more. The only other schools are a t least $ mile away and they are
both full.
A good school [SIP reports for t h e last 3 years] which consistently shows children making good or
8
satisfactory progress despite not always meeting government targets.
A school with an innovative curriculum; working with QCA on t h e curriculum futures project; a lead
O
practitioner school for SEAL; a Healthy School; a Bristol Standard school; an Inclusive school with t h e
Inclusion Standard.
A community school with active links with local secondary schools and colleges, 3 local universities and
8
Teacher Training status for GTP students. Links with local businesses and a multitude o f outside agencies
including the church and t h e police force.
A unique school t h a t champions i t s children, has an ethos that supports t h e whole school community and
O
lives its vision of .............
"Forward together. Knowledge, skills and attitudes f o r l i f e ."
One day the children from S t George will be leading our country forward and t h e training they have had at our
school will give them the foundation that will make them fit f o r t h e job!
CHARTERED SURVEYORS
The Dunstan Centre
QUANTITY SURVEYORS
Pennywell Road
CONSTRUCTION COST MANAGERS
Bristol 855 OTJ
PLANNING SUPERVISORS
Tel: 0117 - 955 4545
BUILDING SURVEYORS
Fax: 0117-955 5355
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
E-Mail: bristol@hookway.org.uk
20 June 2008
For the attention of Ms Claire Gundrv
St George's C of E Primary School
Queens Parade
BRISTOL
BS15X.l
Dear Sirs
Proposed Enlargement of School to 210 Place plus Nursery
We have examined the proposals previously prepared on behalf of Bristol City Council as
requested and can confirm that suflicient accommodation to meet current DfCSF guidelines
could be achieved by the construction of the proposed new block and remodelling of the
existing main school site.
Play space would remain less than guidelines, however, the proposal to create an all weather
surface on the redundant bowling green on Brandon Hill would help to reduce the shortfall
------whist
-.- pmi~dingafacili.-f6f..fie--Gd Frc6mm.~-v-.
-
.- -
- ....
- - - -
... .
.
~
..
..
.. - - .- .-
--
...
.~
. .-
We trust this initial assessment is sufficient to allow you to consider the detailed delivery of
the local authority's proposals.
Yours faithfidly
The Hookway Partnership LLP
cc:
Ms J Waters-Dewhurst - Bristol Diocese, All Saints Centre
Rec:Schools/.St Georges, BristoV.LetterdTo
Ms Claire Gundry 20.6.08 JPC
The Hookway Partnership LLP is registered as a limited liability partnership in England and Wales.
Registered Number OC 301631
Registered Gffice: The Dunstan Centre, Pennywell Road. Bristol BS5 OTJ
Members: J.P Corrigan BSc., (Hons). MRICS, Dip. EM. PA. Price BSc., MRlCS T. Gwinnell Tech RICS. MaPS
Consultant: W.P. Barnett MRICS, MaPS
Bristol - Tel: 01 17 955 4545
Stroud - Tel: 01453 763201
Wolverhampton - Tel: 01902 788061
.
-
--
e
THE CHURCH
OF ENGLAND
Department f;~Children&Young People
All Saints Centre, 1All Saints Court, Bristol BS1 1JN
Diocese 4 Bristol
Board of Education
Telephone: 0 1 1 7 927 7 4 5 4
Jackle Waters-Dewhurst: Director of Education jackie.wd@bristoldiocese.org
9 January 2009
Kate Campion
Programme Director - Transforming Learning
Children & Young People's Services
Bristol City Council
The Council House
College Green
Bristol
BS1 5TR
Dear Kate
Closure of St George Church of England VC Primary School
I would likelo clarify the Board's position re St George's.
-
We welcome the increase of Church school places in this area of Bristol and the much needed capital
investment planned and understand the limitations of sites and finance that BCC is working with and the
sensitivities of any primary proposal. We would like to assure all parties that we fully support the
consultation that is taking place and look forward with interest to working in partnership with the schools
and with BCC officers to ensure that the issues raised are taken into consideration when final decisions
are made.
Having now received the alternative proposal from St George's we note with interest the idea of
federation and feel that this may well be a way forward either in the short term to aid the transition should
the decision be to close St George's or as a long term plan should St George's remain open.
We would of course need to be assured that whatever the outcome of the consultation enough funds
would be available to ensure that all pupils gained the educational experience and environment that they
deserve both now and well into the future.
I hope that this clarifies the position of the board
With kind regards,
ters-Dewhurst
Diocesan Director of Education
cc: Clare Gundry (Head); Peter Davis (Chair of Govs)
Ms Clare Gundry
Headteacher
St George C of E Primary School
Brandon Hill
Queens Parade
Bristol BS1 5XJ
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
B 3.1 Cabinet 26th January 09
12/02/09
Dear Ms Gundry
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26th January 09.
As the Cabinet have upheld your argument to retain St George and undertake a review of
pupil numbers as part of Phase 3 of the Primary Review, I have not given a detailed
response to outstanding queries, or assertions. In 2011, it has been agreed that the
Phase 3 proposals be re evaluated in the context of population and housing growth. A
working group to consider the role of St George within the plans to provide Clifton with
more primary places will be established as part of this work.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
c.c.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
STATEMENT B3.2
TWO STATEMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE PRIMARY REVIEW
I understand that one of the reasons given for closing St George's school is that an
insuficiently high percentage of children achieved Grade 4 in their SATS results.
Obviously, when the number of children taking the tests is low, if 2 high achieving
chlldren are removed from the school before the tests take place the outcome is an
atypical result. This was the situation last year. Two girls from St George's were offered
places by Colston's Girls' School and these places were accepted before the SATS tests
took place. This is testimony to the high level of achievement by pupils at St George's
and also explains why last year's SATS results are atypical.
We understand that St Michael's school achieved an evaluation of Satisfactory in the
latest OFSTED Report. As this is identical to St George's, the argument that
amalgamating St George's with St Michael's will raise the standard of St George's is
illogical.
Lesley Lee Grandmother of Callurn Lee (Year 3 St George's) and teacher with over 40
years experience in the profession.
Ms Lesley Lee
Grandmother of Callum Lee Year 3
St George C of E Primary School
Brandon Hill
Queens Parade
Bristol BS1 5XJ
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
B 3.2 Cabinet 26th January 09
12/02/09
Dear Ms Lee
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26th January 09.
As the Cabinet have upheld your argument to retain St George and undertake a review of
pupil numbers as part of Phase 3 of the Primary Review, I have not given a detailed
response to outstanding queries, or assertions. In 2011, it has been agreed that the
Phase 3 proposals be re evaluated in the context of population and housing growth. A
working group to consider the role of St George within the plans to provide Clifton with
more primary places will be established as part of this work.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
c.c.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
STATEMENT B 4.1
CABINET 26 JANUARY 2009
PUBLIC FORUM
STATEMENT BY BRISTOL DIVISION, NATIONAL UNION OF
TEACHERS
PRIMARY SCHOOL CLOSURES
This statement incorporates comments made at previous meetings and responds to some
further recent developments. One of the original “principles” of the Primary Review was
“the removal of small units of provision which fail to provide value for money”. Throughout
the review process this assertion has never been supported by evidence. Such evidence as
there is nationally, such as the outcomes at very small rural schools, suggests that although
costs per pupil are inevitably higher the standards achieved are almost invariably well above
national averages. Of course, such schools imply mixed age classes, but since a number of
already agreed proposals in the Primary Review envisage 1.5 and 2.5 forms of entry, we
cannot suppose that this is being advanced as a reason for closure.
At the Cabinet meeting on 25th September 2008, Peter Hammond quoted Dr Ron Ritchie,
Dean of the School of Education at UWE. Dr Ritchie had stated that there is no conclusive
evidence to show that larger schools are more effective than smaller schools or the converse.
We agree with Dr Ritchie’s analysis. There are many examples of well run and successful
schools across the size range. Although it is also true that for certain, more vulnerable, pupils
the atmosphere created in a smaller establishment can be very beneficial. This is even
recognised at large institutions such as Brislington Enterprise College which are, in effect,
operating as a number of distinct units – schools within a school.
The table below sets out the percentage of pupils achieving NC Level 4 in the 2008 Maths
and English SATs. All three schools are doing well.
SCHOOL
ST GEORGE
ST PIUS X
STOCKWOOD GREEN
DCSF FLOOR TARGET
MATHS (%)
60.0
70.6
76.5
65
ENGLISH (%)
70.0
76.5
82.4
65
Only one of these values falls below the DCSF national floor target of 65% and, since this
target is being revised downwards to 55% for 2009, all three schools should easily achieve
this standard next year. This is especially likely as all the schools have achieved very
significant improvements since 2007. In the case of St Pius X, English results are well above
the FFTB measure (which compares schools progress with that of similar schools) while
Maths results place it in the top 25% nationally for rates of progress (the FFTD measure). In
English, St George is in the top 25% for progress and Stockwood Green also achieves well
above predicted levels. Significantly, although the NUT will not engage in invidious
comparisons, it is not the case that there is higher achievement in the schools to which
displaced pupils would probably be transferred if closure goes ahead.
School closures do not “save” as much as would, at first, seem. Although there is a premises
related element in a school’s formula funding, the great majority of the allocation is based on
age-weighted pupil numbers. This element of council funding would remain exactly the
same as pupils transferred to other establishments. If we accept the council’s own figures,
about £15 per pupil would be available to other primary schools if the three closures were to
proceed. Although any increase of funding is welcome, it should be noted that the average
annual cost per pupil in Bristol primary schools is £3115, so the increase would be less than
0.5%. Even the most partisan advocate of the Primary Review could not claim that such a
sum could make very much difference to outcomes. But even this miniscule re-distribution is
not achievable since, as the number of schools reduces, so does central government funding.
It is true that a smaller establishment must spend a higher proportion of its overall costs on
premises, but if that is what the local community prefers then they should be allowed to
make such a choice. Parents will form a view as to whether they are getting “value for
money” – which they have certainly done in the case of the schools under threat. If the
council think that the present allocations are unfair the solution is to review the funding
formula, as is being done currently through the Schools’ Forum, rather than close schools.
The council is well aware that the only really significant savings are achieved through the
sales of land and premises. This is the real motive for closure. The Primary Review contains
a number of very welcome proposals for the improvement and rebuilding of premises. But it
is particularly unfortunate that the whole debate has had an unpleasant undertone – if
councillors do not agree closures then other schools will not get desperately needed
improvements. In fact what is “put at risk” is the expansion of St Michael on the Mount,
School of Christ the King and Burnbush which would not be necessary were it not for the
closures and which nobody in the local community wants anyway!
The real threat comes from central government with the disgraceful decision to hold back on
the extra £12m needed for developments at Air Balloon Hill, Cabot, Millpond, Parson Street,
Sea Mills, St Nicholas of Tolentine and Whitehall. The truth is that the overwhelming
proportion of recommendations arising from the Primary Review have been accepted on all
sides and very significant numbers of surplus places have already been removed. However,
the impression is being created that if the closures are not agreed then Bristol will not get the
£12m. This looks suspiciously like financial blackmail. If we allow such considerations to
dictate all of our decisions there is little point in the existence of local government. What a
contrast between the billions spent subsidising bankers and money held back from
desperately needy working class pupils in this city.
However, perhaps the most important consideration, irrespective of the merits of the case, is
whether the decision reflects the views of the electors of Bristol. At the meeting of Cabinet
on 26th June 2008 I sought assurances from Peter Hammond that he would support the
reference of any final proposals to a meeting of the Full Council and would abide by the
recommendations of such a meeting. I was pleased that the reference to Council was agreed
but disappointed that Cllr Hammond left us in no doubt that he intended leave the final
decision to the Cabinet. Since then we have had a Council decision, agreed nem con on 13th
January 2009, to explore ways in which the three schools could remain open. Cllr Hammond
has also agreed, albeit reluctantly, to participate in an all-party group to consider the future
of the schools. This was another welcome development, but no sooner has that group begun
its work than we are faced with another Cabinet recommendation for closures!
Almost every member of the public to whom I speak is astonished to learn of the
fundamentally undemocratic practices that have been foisted on local government, usually
by politicians who don’t hesitate to lecture foreigners on their arrangements. Electors fondly
imagine that the councillors that they choose will be able to make the vital decisions on the
services that the council provides. In fact, virtually all decisions are made by Cabinet. The
call-in procedure, which has been invoked in this instance, can ensure that disputed matters
are brought before scrutiny commissions or the full council, but even that body only has the
power to refer matters back to Cabinet.
We have an absurd position where a large majority of the council, Conservative, Liberal
Democrat and Green, are opposed to the three closures, but have no opportunity to make a
binding decision on the issue. Even more absurdly, the vast majority of Labour activists
whom we have canvassed, even some councillors who are not Cabinet members, are also
opposed to some of the proposals.
Dick North
Bristol Division NUT
Dick North
Bristol Division
National Union of Teachers
E-mail: pletnorth@blueyonder.co.uk
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
B 4.1 Cabinet 26th January 09
12/02/09
Dear Dick
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26th January 09.
As the Cabinet have upheld the argument to retain St George and undertake a review of
pupil numbers as part of Phase 3 of the Primary Review, I have not given a detailed
response to outstanding queries, or assertions on this school. In 2011, it has been agreed
that the Phase 3 proposals be re evaluated in the context of population and housing
growth. A working group to consider the role of St George within the plans to provide
Clifton with more primary places will be established, as part of this work.
With regard to the other closures, The council cannot sustain schools where there is more
than 25% surplus places. Both schools have been considered in the past and each has
been given the opportunity to increase the number of pupils to ensure sustainability.
Neither has been able to do so. While you say this makes little difference to the funding of
schools, it makes enough difference for other schools to benefit from the extra funding and
make best use of it.
With regard to standards, both schools maintain quite small classes, if as the NUT states,
smaller class sizes make a difference to the quality of teaching, should we not be looking
for better outcomes from schools with small class sizes?
The realisation of capital receipts from land disposal does provide important capital for
school redevelopment. The Council has made the commitment to invest all the money
from land sale of school sites, into the primary capital spend. This will add significantly to
the work that can be undertaken and should be celebrated.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
STATEMENT B 4.2
Public Forum Statement from Councillor Richard Eddy (on behalf of the Conservative
Group) to the Cabinet, Monday, 26th January 2009
Item 3
MATTERS REFERRED TO THE EXECUTIVE FOR RECONSIDERATION
BY A SCRUTINY COMMISSION OR BY THE FULL COUNCIL
PRIMARY REVIEW
The decision before Cabinet today does not just touch on the future of three small Bristol
primary schools but goes to the very heart of this Administration's credibility - both to
shape education in this city and to work corroboratively with other political parties and
partners.
Despite the unfounded claim of the Cabinet Member for Cohesion & Raising Achievement,
the Conservative Group found much in the original Primary School Review
recommendations on which we could agree. However, we have always been totally upfront and open about our concerns over the rationale used to support some of the more
controversial aspects of the Review - including the closures of St George CE, St Pius X
RC and Stockwood Green primaries - and the robustness of the underpinning educational
evidence. This is a view clearly shared by the Department for Children, Schools &
Families, which is why Bristol's bid for Primary Capital funding floundered at its first
attempt.
Conservatives have been profoundly sceptical over the case advanced for closing these
three good and improving schools, while weak and ineffective primaries have not been
similarly targeted. Nevertheless, we have striven at every stage to play a constructive role
in trying to improve your flawed recommendations.
The proposal of a cross-party working group was first mooted at the Call-In Panel of 17th
November 2008 (which supported the Conservative call-in and referred it for debate to Full
Council). Two meetings of the working group were held before the Council meeting of
13th January 2009, which resolved that Cabinet should actively consider alternatives to
closure, including investigating increased capacity at St George CE in the light of the
heavy demand for places in the Clifton/Cabot area; working with the RC Diocese to
ensure a sustainable future for the four Catholic primaries in South Bristol; and
progressing a pan-Stockwood solution to surplus places through a schools' partnership (or
federation) between Stockwood Green, Burnbush and Waycroft primary schools.
Those who attended the last Council Meeting were profoundly dismayed by the
performance of Councillor Hammond and his evident lack of commitment to genuinely look
at fresh ideas.
Sadly, the third meeting of the working group was equally disappointing. The desktop
study looking at increased capacity at St George completely failed to examine the idea of
using adjacent land; there seems to have been no attempt to discuss imaginative solutions
with the Roman Catholic Diocese; and, whilst the possibility of a “hard” federation of
Stockwood schools is acknowledged, this is only on dictated terms - with the closure of
Stockwood Green going ahead from September 2010.
Cllr Hammond has given Conservative Members no cause for confidence that he is
prepared to listen and act on the alternative solutions which have come forward.
Even at this eleventh hour, I urge Cabinet to re-think this misconceived plan to shut three
good and effective schools. If we are to secure Primary Capital funding, we need to
convince the DCSF that we have a robust but flexible model for transforming primary
education. This must have broad political and educational support irrespective of which
Political Group is running the Authority.
I am sure I do not need to remind Cabinet that Labour does not command a majority on
this Council - indeed you barely have one-third of its seats. At the formation of this
Administration in May 2007, Cllr Holland made much of the fact that she recognised this
reality and pledged to break with the past and run the Council in a more collaborative
fashion. If you fail to honour this pledge, then the Labour Party will be directly responsible
for the consequences which flow from such an arrogant abuse of power.
Councillor Richard Eddy
Leader, Conservative Group
Councillor Richard Eddy
Conservative Office
Council House
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
B 4.2 Cabinet 26th January 09
12/02/09
Dear Richard
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26th January 09.
As the Cabinet have upheld the argument to retain St George and undertake a review of
pupil numbers as part of Phase 3 of the Primary Review, I have not given a detailed
response to outstanding queries, or assertions on this school. In 2011, it has been agreed
that the Phase 3 proposals be re evaluated in the context of population and housing
growth. A working group to consider the role of St George within the plans to provide
Clifton with more primary places will be established, as part of this work.
With regard to the other closures, The council cannot sustain schools where there is more
than 25% surplus places. Both schools have been considered in the past and each has
been given the opportunity to increase the number of pupils to ensure sustainability.
Neither has been able to do so.
The cross party working group was provided with all of the data relevant to the se
decisions and I appreciated the opportunity to discuss these very important decisions with
you. It is clear that we could not go on deferring the decisions and I hope you now feel
that some of the points you made have been listened to.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
c.c.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
STATEMENT B 4.3
Liberal Democrat statement to cabinet on the Primary Review January 09
Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors share many frustrations at the conduct of
the Primary Review. It took four weeks to convene the first meeting of the cross-party
working group although there was a clear deadline set by the call-in committee for the
matter to be referred back to Full Council on 13 January. This suggests to me that the
Executive Member sets little store on gaining consensus for the proposals or of modifying
his views in the light of other possibilities. If he sees a role for the opposition parties then
that role appears to be to say ‘yes’ to plans conceived in private. Surely we can do better
for the people of Bristol than this. We have offered cross-party support on the
safeguarding review and we will support an Executive Member of any party when we are
convinced that the best outcome for the education of Bristol children has been negotiated
between Council and community.
Communication through statements to Council or Cabinet is partial communication. It
alerts the Executive Member and Cabinet to problems and concerns but it is not a
conversation nor is it a problem solving exercise. Both of these are desperately needed to
get a sensible solution to the issue of the three Primary School closures.
Since the proposals were introduced in May by the Labour Administration, those affected
by the closures have felt frustrated by the shifting reasons given for change, angry when
they feel that inaccurate statements are being made or selective data used and they have
no opportunity to query them and set the record straight and thoroughly depressed by the
apparent intransigence of the Executive Member. Such is the nature of making public
representation. In complex and nuanced situations it needs supplementing with strong
dialogue
Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors share many frustrations at the conduct of
the Primary Review. It took four weeks to convene the first meeting of the cross-party
working group although there was a clear deadline set by the call-in committee for the
matter to be referred back to Full Council on 13 January. This suggests to me that the
Executive Member sets little store on gaining consensus for the proposals or of modifying
his views in the light of other possibilities. If he sees a role for the opposition parties then
that role appears to be to say ‘yes’ to plans conceived in private. Surely we can do better
for the people of Bristol than this. We have offered cross-party support on the
safeguarding review and we will support an Executive Member of any party when we are
convinced that the best outcome for the education of Bristol children has been negotiated
between Council and community.
Stockwood Green
I believe there is the potential for a good solution for Stockwood children that uses the
skills and educational expertise of all three schools in Stockwood. A conversation was
started last week and it needs time for the representatives of the three schools and officers
to develop the vision and confirm the practical details away from the public forum.
Continued uncertainty about the future is detrimental to the schools but the opportunity for
joint progress after the stagnation fo the last five months is a prize worth having.
St Pius X
At this very late stage we see some movement on the part of the Executive Member on the
connected proposals for St Pius X school and the School of Christ the King. The cabinet
papers state “We are looking at possible relocation of the school (Christ the King) within its
community”. A hopeful sign indeed! But this was first suggested by the Liberal Democrats
in October and there has been three months since then for the Labour administration to
pursue this matter if they felt it of value. Its needs to be taken beyond a hopeful sign to a
proper dialogue with the Clifton Diocese about the means of reducing surplus places in
their schools and enhancing the education they offer to Catholic and non Catholic children
in South Bristol. We will continue to oppose the closure of this school until there is a
proper proposal for the scheme addresses the issues raised and gains the confidence of
the Diocese
St George
The city centre is changing rapidly. Change is rarely predictable and change in a period
of financial chaos is extremely unpredictable. So it is difficult to assess how the number of
children and families will alter within the city centre. This year for instance there appears
to be pressure on reception places in the centre of Bristol. Suitable sites for a school in
the centre have proved impossible to find. There are changes that are planned within
phase 2 of the Primary Review that may impact on admissions in the city centre but we do
not yet know their effect. We have an instinctive feeling that to remove a city centre
school at this stage would be highly risky.
In the months since the consultation period closed there have been many words written
and spoken in both Cabinet and Council. There have been ‘go-between’ meetings but we
have lacked the dialogue between all the interested parties around a table that would
address the main issues for each project. The Executive Member has given no indication
that he is welcoming to new possibilities. To make progress we all need to move to open
dialogue and embrace strategic thinking. So far we have seen no changes to the
recommendations coming to Council or Cabinet and I invite the Executive Member to set a
powerful example by moving away from what appears to be his entrenched position.
Cllr Clare Campion-Smith
Councillor Clare Campion-Smith
Liberal Democrat Group Office
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
B 4.3 Cabinet 26th January 09
12/02/09
Dear Clare
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26th January 09.
As the Cabinet have upheld the argument to retain St George and undertake a review of
pupil numbers as part of Phase 3 of the Primary Review, I have not given a detailed
response to outstanding queries, or assertions on this school. In 2011, it has been agreed
that the Phase 3 proposals be re evaluated in the context of population and housing
growth. A working group to consider the role of St George within the plans to provide
Clifton with more primary places will be established, as part of this work.
With regard to the other closures, The council cannot sustain schools where there is more
than 25% surplus places. Both schools have been considered in the past and each has
been given the opportunity to increase the number of pupils to ensure sustainability.
Neither has done so. There has always been a willingness on the part of officers to have a
dialogue with all the schools in Stockwood about this. In fact, on going discussion has led
to the current proposal outlined at the Cabinet meeting.
The Cabinet have considered all the points you eloquently make regarding the retention of
St Pius and the months of debate reflect this. However, if officers, working with the
diocese, can provide an extension to facilities at the School of Christ the King through
acquisition of further land, an expanded Catholic provision in Knowle will strengthen
learning in south Bristol.
I agree that a solution now needs to be found as soon as possible as the limbo created by
so many debates has been unhelpful. I hope this can be achieved, based on the Cabinet
decision.
The cross party working group was provided with all of the data relevant to the se
decisions and I appreciated the opportunity to discuss these very important decisions with
you. It is clear that we could not go on deferring the decisions and I hope you now feel
that some of the points you made have been listened to.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
c.c.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
CABINET - 26 JANUARY 2009
C.
ITEM 1
PUBLIC FORUM - QUESTIONS / ANSWERS NOT RELATING TO
AGENDA ITEMS
The following questions have been received for this meeting of the
Cabinet, which do not relate specifically to agenda items:
C1. Sean Burrows - subject: Sefton Park school expansion - question to Cllr
Peter Hammond
C2. Joel Stokes - subject: Sefton Park school expansion - questions to Cllr
Peter Hammond and Cllr Terry Cook
C3. Merriel Waggoner - subject: Sefton Park school expansion - question to
Cllr Peter Hammond
QUESTION C 1
Question from Sean Burrows to Cllr Peter Hammond re: Sefton Park expansion
I understand that Sefton Park expansion is not on the agenda for this meeting, but I would
appreciate it if you would please answer these 2 questions as I feel that it is important to
be given clarity on these points;
On several occasions now, you have acknowledged that the "technical" (as you refer to it)
consultation with regard to the Sefton Park expansion proposals was to some extent
flawed. More recent of your comments include:
It "could have been done better"
There were "defects in some of the ways it was carried out"
There were "problems and issues"
You also say that these would need to be addressed with regard to future
consultations of this sort.
I have two questions;
1. Could you please provide the most important 4 reasons why you now consider that the
consultation process carried out to date with regard to Sefton Park expansion has flawed
elements?
2. How would you go about ensuring that these problems do not occur in future
consultations of this sort? Could you please be as specific as you can about your
proposed strategy.
Sean Burrows
Answers to Question C1 (Sean Burrows) from Cllr Peter Hammond
A
1)
It seems clear to me from representations made in public on various
occasions that some members of the community felt that IRIS did not
Contact enough people re the consultation
Were unclear on timings and the nature of the process
Did not report swiftly enough on what was being said
These are the three points I would identify that have been taken forward by officers to
rectify in any further consultation process.
A
2)
The Council procured a private company to run the consultation and the
organisation was procured through BCC corporate procurement processes. Officers
are ensuring that corporate procurement have the ‘lessons learned’ log and that
they review the list of potential companies to carry out this kind of work.
Questions for Cabinet Meeting January 26th 2009 – Joel Stokes
QUESTION C 2
I do understand that Sefton Park is not on the agenda for this Cabinet Meeting however, we have
been informed that a decision will be made before the end of January concerning the proposals to
expand Sefton Park. Further I feel it is important to address the inflammatory statement made by the
Executive Member for Neighbourhoods at the last Full Council Meeting.
The following is an extract of the draft minutes of the meeting of the Call-In Panel of the Overview
and Scrutiny Management Committee held on 18th November:
“After further discussion, the Chair then invited Panel members to question both the
executive member/strategic director and the Callers In. The following is a summary of the
main points raised:
● in relation to questions about the proposals for Sefton Park School, it was explained that
the intention remained for the expansion of the current infants school building on the
existing site with 3 forms of entry. Building a new school at Brunel remained an option but
was more costly (by £500 K) and if pursued funding would need to be allocated from
elsewhere in the programme.”
Q1. Please would the Executive Member for CYPS explain in detail how the figure of £500,000
quoted above has been calculated? Would he also please reference all appropriate financial
documents that have been used in this calculation?
Q2. I am sure that the CYPS must have a contingency plan, (or Plan B), should expansion at Sefton
Park be shown to be contrary to the best interests of the children. Please would the Executive
Member for CYPS confirm or deny that the re-allocation of funds necessary, to proceed with a New
School at Brunel, has been or is being investigated? Please would he provide details of the
possibilities which have emerged from such investigations?
In the Full Council Meeting of January 13th 2009 the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods and
Involvement stated the following whilst referring to representations made by concerned
stakeholders on the issue of Sefton Park Schools expansion:
“It is a truism that, if you don’t like what is being proposed, you rubbish the consultation.”
Q3. Would the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods please acknowledge that other Cabinet
Members and the CYPS have confirmed in public that the (IRIS) consultation on Sefton Park
expansion was “flawed”?
He also stated:
“With this Sefton Park issue, what we’ve seen is a group of very well motivated, very
articulate group of middle-class people who have used the system to get an issue raised
way, way up beyond, potentially, where it should be.”
Q4. Would the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods please publicly state which social class he
considers himself to be and how he came to the conclusion that petitioners on the Sefton Park issue
are middle class?
Q5. Would the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods please also suggest which avenues should
be used, outside of the system, to effectively challenge the suitability of the current expansion
proposals?
He further stated:
“We as a council need to be very careful of being browbeaten by committed people using the
system”
Q6. Please would the Executive Member for Neighbourhoods acknowledge that his statements
imply that he would prefer to limit public accessibility to council proceedings?
Q7. Please would the Executive Member for Cohesion express a view on the social labelling of
sections of a community and the potential impact on community relations?
Thanking you in advance for your considered responses.
Joel Stokes
Resident and Parent of Child at Sefton Park School
(class-less)
Answers to Question C 2 (Joel Stokes) from Cllr Peter Hammond and Cllr Terry Cook
A1
(answer from Cllr Peter Hammond)
Thank you for drawing my attention to the draft minutes of the Call-In Panel of the Overview
and Scrutiny Management Committee of 18th November. The minute of the Call-In panel is
not accurate and I have asked officers to ensure that these minutes when finalised reflect
what was said. The response made regarding Sefton Park was that the option to build on
the Brunel site was available, but the cost of building 1FE school at Brunel compared to
extra cost of an enhanced scheme at Sefton Park was not seen to offer good value for
money. The funds identified for building at Brunel are within the Cabinet Report of January
2008. The £500K referred to relates to the money that can be transferred to the Sefton
Park Scheme from the developer at the Brunel site.
A2
(answer from Cllr Peter Hammond)
Regarding a Plan B, this was identified at the Call-In panel. It would be to reconsider
building a 1FE school on the Brunel site. As you will be aware having been at meetings
with me, I have asked officers to clarify issues around the 'Brunel' site. At the time of
composing this response that information is not available to me.
A3
(answer from Cllr Terry Cook)
I am on the public record, on more than one occasion, stating that we as a council
do not always undertake consultation correctly.
In the speech quoted above I started by saying that my comments were ‘not to do
with the issue of the school itself’ and I ended by saying that I was putting
forward a warning to council but ‘not making any comments about the Sefton
Park situation itself’. I, however, stand by my speech and the truism stated above.
A4
(answer from Cllr Terry Cook)
I am middle class, motivated and articulate.
There are a number of social economic surveys such as Mosaic, measures of
deprivation undertaken by the Government such as super output areas and crude
individual measures such as free school meals and the analysis of first names, that
would indicate that Sefton Park is not one of the most deprived areas in the city and
would confirm that the area itself could be reasonably described as middle class. I
have used a ‘reasonable man’ test applied to both the area and the petitioners to
come to my conclusion.
A5
(answer from Cllr Terry Cook)
Nowhere in my speech or in any other public comments have I advocated people
using avenues outside of the system.
A6
(answer from Cllr Terry Cook)
As my full title is Executive Member for Neighbourhoods and Involvement I would
not agree with your conclusion that I wish to limit public accessibility for any council
proceeding. On the contrary I would like to see much wider engagement with the
whole community and greater involvement by the whole community in decision
making. It is my contention that this aim is not fully realised (and neither can it ever
be) through the use of these type of council proceedings.
A7
(answer from Cllr Peter Hammond)
Britain has been described by many individuals and institutions as still being the
most “class conscious” of modern democracies, and this is despite other measures
of social classification being devised such as those referred to in the answer to Q4.
One of the features of this “class consciousness” is that individuals and
communities themselves remain wedded to these class descriptors with some
degree of pride.
Until these communities themselves define different descriptors, then society in
Britain is stuck with those labels.
QUESTION C 3
Could you please tell me where the Equalities Impact Assessment and Environmental
Assessment Impact are to be found regarding the decision to continue with Stage 0 and
Stage 1 of expansion of Sefton Park Schools made by Cabinet in January 2008? The EIA
in the Appendix of Cabinet minutes refers to the Brunel school and not the Sefton Park
site.
Merriel Waggoner
Answer to Question C3 (Merriel Waggoner) from Cllr Peter Hammond:
A
An initial equalities impact assessment was undertaken for the Cabinet report of
January 2008. This has been updated and will be available on the Sefton Park data site
created following the consultation on feasibility. There is also an Environmental Impact
Assessment that will be posted as well.
However, these are not related to any Stage 0 or Stage 1 proposals, as these stages had
yet to be undertaken in January 2008. No Stage 1 process has been undertaken.
Stage 0 (feasibility) has still to be finalised.
D.
PUBLIC FORUM REPRESENTATIONS NOT RELATING TO AGENDA ITEMS
In the interests of agenda management, these items will be received after the
main business, as detailed on the agenda, has been transacted.
D1 Sarah Bailey - subject: Sefton Park school expansion
D2 Teresa Swift - subject: Sefton Park school expansion
D3 JP Coetzee & other Sefton Park parents and residents - subject: Sefton
Park school expansion
D4 Janet Bremner - subject: Sefton Park school expansion
D5 Joel Stokes - subject: Sefton Park school expansion
2
STATEMENT D 1
Please take my comments to the Cabinet meeting on Monday
1. The Sefton Park Expansion plans will enlarge the school to a degree
that it is physically unsustainable, thus ruining a successful school.
Has nobody learned any lessons from Fairfield?
2. It will still not be enough. We need at least 2 new forms per year
for the area not 1. That was true 5 years ago, even before the new
houses were built on the Brunel site. Plans would ruin Sefton Park and
still not work.
3. Please consider buying more land next to the new school site at
Brunel (not much money in houses at the moment), and build a new school
to become part of the Sefton Park Federation, keeping costs down by
sharing Management Staff, Caretaker, Admin costs. And benefitting from
Sefton Park's excellent leadership.
4. Make a bold decision to be proud of. Get it televised. The story of
building a new school. Take one excellent school and duplicate it.
Make it a feather in Bristol's cap. Be seen to be doing the right thing
not the wrong thing.
Sarah Bailey, past and present Sefton Park parent
Ms Sarah Bailey
E-mail: sarah6.bailey@uwe.ac.uk
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
D 1 Cabinet 26th January 09
12/02/09
Dear Ms Bailey
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26th January 09.
There is no evidence from the feasibility study that the planned expansion of Sefton Park
is unsustainable.
It is likely that in the future, more places will be needed in the area. We are already in
discussion with St Barnabas regarding expansion on that site. This is an issue that
officers are always asked to keep note of and advise on.
With regard to acquiring more land, if this is possible, it will be explored as an option.
From your suggestion, it may be necessary in the future to have a 2FE school at Brunel
(only possible if land was available) and an extended Sefton Park.
Bristol City Council always tries to do the best for children in Bristol, first and foremost.
This is what we hope to achieve from any decision regarding the Sefton Park area. The
procurement of new buildings for secondary aged students, through the BSF programme
have brought much praise to Bristol, however, the driver for school improvement remains
the key aim of both the Secondary and Primary Review process
Yours sincerely
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
c.c.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
STATEMENT D 2
Statement for Cabinet Meeting on 26th January 2009
I am the mother of one child at Sefton Park Infant school. I have two other
children who may attend the school in the future.
I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed expansion of the
Sefton Park schools.
The infant school recently received an outstanding Ofsted report. Only two
problems were picked up on, one of which states: "In the EYFS (Early Years
Foundation Scheme), the nature of the school site and Victorian buildings
restricts pupils' opportunities for outdoor learning, which means they do
not receive their full entitlement under the new EYFS framework."
Given that the size of the site cannot physically expand, and the only
building plans I have seen so far do nothing to change the existing
Victorian buildings, I do not see how shoehorning more pupils onto the site,
and building on the only green space the children have immediate access to,
can do anything but exacerbate this problem. The problem will be
particularly acute during any construction phase if this plan to expand goes
ahead.
On a personal note, when my child's school receives an outstanding Ofsted
report in its present state I can only feel that expansion, with all the
concerns I have about it, offers my children no extra benefit, and may
jeopardise the education they get.
Please return to the original plans to build a school on the Brunel Field.
The 210 children who would attend it would surely be better served with
their own 9,600 square feet of space and a purpose built new school instead
of being shoehorned into 10,600 square feet with 420 existing pupils at
Sefton Park. I understand that a school on the Brunel Field was part of the
deal for allowing so many new homes to be developed on the Brunel site. I
will feel very let down if I see the houses built but the promised amenities
and services for the community do not materialise, and Sefton Park shoulders
the burden instead.
Yours sincerely,
Teresa Swift
Ms Teresa Swift
E-mail: teresa.swift@blueyonder.co.uk
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
0117 92 23812
0117 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
D 2 Cabinet 26th January 09
12/02/09
Dear Ms Swift
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26th January 09.
I have already written to congratulate Sefton Park Infants on their successful recent
OfSTED. The whole idea of expanding the current Victorian school is that it allows us to
modify some of the buildings and provide better environments for learning than the school
has presently. The removal of Ashley House does give more space for the site and with re
configuration more play space, circulation space and learning space can be created.
The Brunel field is very small and any 1FE school built on this site would be a new school
on a constricted site, storing up challenge for the future.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
c.c.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
c.c.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
STATEMENT D 3
Statement to Cabinet 26th January 2009
Subject: Sefton Park Schools
In order to keep things brief we would like to make a collective statement.
We still feel we need to tell you why the plans to expand Sefton Park School
are wrong.
They could have a disastrous effect on the whole community and on present
and future pupils.
Our main concerns are:
• MEGA SCHOOL - creating a mega school which has 630 children
plus nursery in a "confined ... site which is 13,535 m2 below the
recommended minimum BB99 for a normal site" – Quote taken from
Atkins Report on Feasibility (15th Jan 2009)
• HUGE BUILDING - "the scale and form of the new building may be
overbearing on a restricted site, as the use of a roof for a MUGA
effectively creates a 3 storey structure" – Quote taken from Atkins
Report on Feasibility (15th Jan 2009)
• LOST HISTORY - destruction of Ashley House - a historic building
and former mayor's residence "... elegant Italianate villa by Samuel
Burleigh Gabriel in 1865, which should be listed" Quote taken from
SAVE Britain’s Heritage Letter (13th Jan 2009)
• COMMUNITY - loss of Scout Hut to make way for a car park - "Hub of
the Community with links to the local church in Ashley Ward" Quote
taken from Cannon Peter Bailey (January 2009)
• SCHOOL ETHOS - "the plan has no coherent concept of the school
as a whole .... it is impossible to imagine that it would feel like one
united school or even a sensible working building" Quote taken from
Sefton Park Governing Body - Evaluation of Option 1 (Nov 2008)
• TRAFFIC - existing traffic problems and congestion will be
exacerbated in a quiet cul-de-sac
There is a solution to this problem. If a school is built on the Brunel site as
originally promised, it will create an equal number of school places for the
area.
In fact there is a possibility that more land could be gained from Persimmon
and a 2FE could be built - creating additional places - looking to the future of
this increasingly densely populated area.
We are a mixed group of parents and residents who are trying to use the
proper council procedure in order to get our views heard.
Thank-you for listening to us.
Mr J P Coetzee
E-mail:
jp@AshleyGrangeResidentsOrganisation.co.
uk
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
01 17 92 23812
01 17 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
D 3 Cabinet 26thJanuary 09
1 6/02/09
Dear Mr Coetzee
'Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26thJanuary 2009.
A 3FE primary school is not a MEGA school, but part of a range of school sizes across
Bristol. Bristol has some very successful 3FE primary provision.
The feasibility plan, as has been discussed on many occasions, is only that. The plan for
this school must have sympathy for the surroundings and while I appreciate the point you
make about Ashley House, it would be made better use of as part of ,the school estate.
With regard to the Scot hut there is no intention to remove it. It would be relocated at the
Brunel field in new accommodation.
With regard to ethos, I am assured by officers that the ethos of a school comes from the
people in it, led by the Head and governors, assisted by the buildings.
The initial feasibility did provide some off road solutions to the traffic issues, but these
have been rejected by residents during consultation.
Yours sir
l o f i t e r HammondDeputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
C.C.
Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
C.C.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
'the Council House
College Green
Bristol BS15TR
Executive Member
Website
www. bristol-city.g0v.uk
BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL
SEFTON PARK SCHOOLS
ST BARTHOLOMEW’S ROAD
OFF WILLIAMSON ROAD
ASHLEY DOWN
BRISTOL BS7 9BJ
STATEMENT D 4
23rd January 2008
Dear Councillor Hammond
Proposed Expansion – Sefton Park Schools
We have read the recommendation of the Authority's officers, and the Atkins
technical report on the proposed Sefton Park expansion. The School's
Governors are said to be broadly in favour as long as certain modifications
are made.
We would like to make it absolutely clear that the Governors cannot support
the expansion proposals as they currently stand. We realise that there are
many benefits that an expanded and revamped school building could bring,
but only if the expansion is well-designed and based on the school's ethos
and way of working. The current plans are poor, and would not enable the
school to function well and maintain its high standards, as highlighted in our
commentary on the Option 1 plans.
For the Governors to feel able to support the expansion project, we require
an undertaking from the Authority that it will not steamroller inappropriate
plans through, but will instead commission the necessary radical revision of
the existing plans and the development of new ones. This is essential if the
expansion is to work, and if the resulting expanded school is to thrive.
Yours sincerely,
Janet Bremner
Chair of Governors
On behalf of the Governing Body, Sefton Park Schools
Ms Janet Bremner
Chair of Governors
Sefton Park Infant School
E-mail: via the groupwise
-
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
01 17 92 23812
01 17 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristol.gov.uk
D 4 Cabinet 26" January 09
16/02/09
Dear Ms Bremner
Thank you for your statement on behalf of the Governors to Cabinet on 26thJanuary 2009.
I appreciate everything you say in your letter. I do not think that officers or myself
assumed the current plans were fit for purpose, they simply demonstrate that a 3FE
school can be accommodated on the site.
If the scheme were to go forward, a proposal would be drawn up, based on your ideas and
thoughts along with those of officers and with an input from residents as well. I am aware
that there are many features you would want to change, though there are some that you
quite like. The only factor that will not change is the funding available.
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
C.C. Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
C.C.
Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
The Council House
College Green
Website
www. bristol-city.g0v.uk
STATEMENT D 5
STATEMENT TO CABINET – 26/01/09 – JOEL STOKES
I have just been passed a copy of the Evaluation of proposals for Sefton Park School – presumably this is the
document that Peter Hammond will be basing his decision on when considering whether or not to proceed to the next
stage in the plans to expand the school.
I now have approximately 30 minutes to respond to this report and feel that it is important to make some comments.
Firstly, there has been a great deal made of talks held with community members over this scheme and how this was so
that concerns could be addressed and opinions registered. It now appears that this has been simply a one-way
intelligence gathering exercise on the part of the CYPS to fine-tune their arguments for expansion.
Minimal reference is made in any of this report to the alternative options of a new 1FE school at Brunel or the
possibility of acquiring more land for the optimal 2FE solution there. No real attempt has been made to examine these
proposals in more detail. Stakeholders have been waiting for many weeks for information requested from the CYPS
regarding these alternatives. None has been forthcoming and the reason given has been staff shortages and lack of time
and resources.
The report has an obvious bias towards expansion. All points which support feasibility have been magnified in
importance and are clearly stated whilst any negative points, where included at all, have been down-played and treated
to a cursory dismissive response.
It is clear to anyone reading the actual Akins Report that there are huge areas of concern. These are hardly mentioned
in this Evaluation, the author preferring to highlight any positive statements that can be found. Take for example the
following extracts from the report which are not mentioned in this evaluation:
Executive Summary
2.1 “…. it is noted that the scheme does not provide all of the areas listed in BB99 nor does
it address rooms in the existing school which fall short of suggested minimum areas. e.g.
existing class space sizes of 45m² (60m² given as an ideal in BB99)”
2.3 The scheme does not bring the whole school up to current standards. There are
shortcomings with respect to compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA),
while maintenance issues with the school fabric and engineering services have not been
addressed.
2.5 The feasibility study notes that the site is 13,535m² below that recommended by BB99
for a school of this size on an unlimited site. The proposals therefore assume the site is
classified as a “confined site”. It is noted that the current school site has neither car park
nor service yard. The constrained nature of the site enables only minimum external area
requirements to be met.
2.6 It is noted that the proposals, whilst well thought through and comprehensive, have not
been able to address all issues presented by this confined and complex site with the
many user groups.
When discussing the cons to Option 1 for example, the Atkins Report states:
Disadvantages
• Isolation of reception classes from nursery and year one.
• Problems with external circulation caused by the location of the playgroup.
• The scale and form of the new building may be overbearing on a restricted
site as the use of the roof for a MUGA effectively creates a three storey
structure.
When looking at design inadequacies the Atkins report states:
6.3.1 The figures noted in the table for classroom areas are in line with BB99. However the
classrooms in the existing school are approx 45m² as opposed to the 66m², 60m²
required for nursery and infant/junior classrooms respectively. The proposal satisfies
BB99 for the new build areas but does not improve the small sized classrooms in the
existing school.
6.3.2 The requirement for nursery accommodation has not been included in the table.
6.3.3 The ICT suite does not provide the accommodation areas recommended by BB99
6.3.4 The Music room does not provide the accommodation areas recommended by
BB99
6.3.5 The library does not provide the accommodation areas recommended by BB99
6.3.6 6 small group rooms are recommended by BB99. Only 2 are provided which are
located with the Y5/Y6 upper floor.
6.3.7 The ancillary areas such as general office, PE store, class storage, lunch box
storage, do not provide the accommodation areas recommended by BB99.
6.3.8 The reception toilets do not provide the areas recommended by BB99
6.3.9 The hygiene room does not provide the area recommended by BB99
6.3.10 The total net area of the preferred Option 1 is 67m² below the area recommended
by BB99 however the total gross area of Option 1 is 198m² above that recommended by
BB99. This appears to be due to high circulation areas formed by the double circulation
routes planned within the existing hall and generous circulation space around the atrium
area of the new building.
The other sections of the Evaluation follow a similar vein quoting selectively and lacking reference to expert advice
and opinion. The educational appraisal is ridiculously simplistic and has no reference to the arguments of respected
experts such e.g. Barnardos, the Bridge Foundation, Child and Adolescent Mental Health Teams, James Wetz, the
National Union of Teachers (NUT), the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), etc., etc., - the CYPS has
not, it seems, consulted any child welfare or educational expert regarding these plans.
The Governors Appraisal of the proposals has been deeply negative. The consultation process deeply flawed.
This Evaluation is not a balanced view of the proposals – it has been written by the CYPS using selective quotes from
available data to support expansion at Sefton Park.
It is outrageous that no apparent effort has been exerted by the CYPS to examine alternative options in detail. Their
remit is far too heavily biased towards a fast bargain-basement solution which requires the least amount of effort to
achieve. It is unbelievable that a department which is trusted with the future welfare of Bristol’s children has so little
regard for expert research and testimony.
Time is short and, unfortunately, this statement must now be submitted as incomplete.
As an aside and concerning Council procedure:
I have been informed by Ian Hird that the Cabinet have taken the unusual step of restructuring the normal standing
orders of Cabinet Meetings so that non-agenda related questions are not heard until after agenda business has been
completed. This effectively requires anyone with legitimate questions to wait for an indeterminate length of time
before being heard. For working parents, who currently find it difficult enough to attend meetings, this will obviously
create even more difficulties.
I presume this move is designed to actively deter members of the public from attending Cabinet meetings. It certainly
falls in line with the hopes and wishes of your Executive Member for Neighbourhoods as stated in his animated
speech of January 13th. It is a shame that the Council leader (and presumably a majority of the Cabinet) now appears
to actively support the erection of these barriers to community involvement.
You will be aware that, on 5 December 2008, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill
was published. According to the Department for Communities and Local Government “This wide-ranging legislation
is designed to give communities and local people new rights to have a say in their local services, strengthen local
democracy and reform local and regional governance arrangements. At the heart of the Bill are new rights for the
citizen to have more information and influence over local decisions; new powers to hold politicians to account and,
where they choose, more opportunity to get directly involved in managing and shaping how local services are
delivered.”
They also say “One of the Key Areas of the Bill is to create greater opportunities for community and individual
involvement in local decision-making.”
To the more cynical elements of the community this action will be seen to actively discourage involvement at Cabinet
meetings and to go against the main thrust of new duties to promote democracy.
JOEL STOKES (PARENT AND RESIDENT)
Mr Joel Stokes
E-mail: joel@hammocks.co.uk
Reply to
Telephone
Fax
Email
Our ref
Your ref
Date
Councillor Peter Hammond
01 17 92 23812
01 17 92 22090
peter.hammond@bristoI.gov.uk
D 5 Cabinet 26'" January 09
16/02/09
Dear Mr Stokes
-
Thank you for your statement to Cabinet on 26thJanuary 2009.
Throughout the last few months officers have tried hard to convey to the residents and
parents from Sefton Park that the process currently engaged in is a very early stage of a
major piece of work. The feasibility undertaken during the Spring of 2008 was to ascertain
whether a school of 3FE could be developed on the Sefton Park site and the answer is it
can. The Atkins report identifies this to be the case, though like the school, staff,
governors, parents, residents and local authority officers, Atkins point out many areas for
improvement
Clearly, like officers, you have gone through the report and identified all the short comings
of the feasibility scheme. Thank you. This piece of work has been undertaken by officers
as well. However, from their impartial view, the opportunity to develop Sefton Park and
address some of the issues the current site has within the context of expansion, out
weighs the current weaker aspects of the feasibility, because these can be put right, in a
well comrr~issioneddevelopment brief.
Officers have also tried to reassure you that for any proposal to go through the planning
process, the views of local residents must be taken into account.
Officers are somewhat dismayed that such a feasibility scheme, duly consulted on, has
gained such prominence in the community as a 'completed project'. If a project brief is
drawn up, we will ensure you a r - d in the process.
C6uncillor Peter Hammond
Deputy Leader and Executive Member for
Cohesion and Raising Achievement
C.C. Kate Campion, Programme Director, Transforming Learning, Council House
C.C. Ian Hird, Cabinet Services Officer, Council House
The Council House
College Green
Bristol BS1 5TR
Website
www, bristol-city,gov.uk