10th March 2006 - REPLY from DfES 10th March 2006

department for

education and skills

creating opportunity, releasing potential, achieving excellence Sanctuary Buildings

Great Smith Street

Westminster

London SW'I P 3BT

Mr S Taylor

Stockton Heath

WARRlNGTON

tel:0870 001 2345

fax: 020 7925 6000

info@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

www.dfes.gov.uk

Direct Line: 0870 000 2288

E-Mail: Titi.WlNDAP0@dfes.gsi.g0v.uk

Your ref:

Our ref: 200610203874

 

10th March 2006

 

Dear Mr Taylor,

Thanks you for your letter addressed to the Schools Organisation Unit regarding Warrington's Targeted Capital Funds (TCF) and the relevant rules that should apply to the programme. This has been passed to the Schools Capital Division, who has responsibility for allocating capital funding to Local Authorities and schools.

 

I appreciate the concerns you have raised regarding the methodology applied in the delivery of the Stockton Heath Community School TCF project. The TCF programme is competitive based and local authorities are expected to deliver priority building projects, which contribute to achieving educational improvement.

 

We expect the delivery of each TCF project to be in accordance with the objectives set out in the TCF application. Warrington Unitary Council clearly stated the aim of the project was to construct a new school on existing site and demolish three existing buildings on completion.

 

We would expect the Council to deliver the project accordingly. Any changes to the project objective or description could result in the department clawing back the TCF funds as it would be unfair on other authorities with unsuccessful projects if the remit of a project was amended or changed following funding approval.

 

The department provides funds to successful TCF projects net of contributions expected from local authorities. Hence we would not provide additional funding towards the cost of the project in a case where the cost of the project was underestimated.

 

In a situation where the cost of project is higher than expected, the local authority could fund the additional cost from formulaic funding or other education related funding it has been allocated by the department.

We are unable to get involved in local issues if the cost of the project is deemed to be higher and the local authority seeks to find other appropriate ways to fund the balance. As a way forward, I suggest you contact the Mr Malcolm Ruxburgh, Director of Education, Warrington Borough Council, New Town House, Buttermarket Street, Warrington WA1 2NJ, for further clarification on the delivery of the TCF project.

 

Yours sincerely,

Titi Windapo

SCHOOLS CAPITAL DIVISION

 

 

12^th March 2006

 

From: Taylors

Sent: 12 March 2006 15:27

To: WINDAPO, Titi

Subject: ref 2006/0203874

 

Titi Sorry to send a second mail, but I forgot to ask some other pertinent questions which I need to resolve. In the original bid document from Warrington Borough Council for the funding did it say what the 3 x buildings were that are to be demolished,and make reference to the age of the buildings?

 

I think it may say "1950's buildings" under descriptions of the buildings to be demolished! I need an answer to this question just to clarify something I am trying to establish about how much the council told the DFES about the age of the school and the buildings on the site.

To help you. I have attached a word doc letter that captures all the questions in one place.

 

Many thanks Stephen.

 

14^th March 2006

 

From:Taylors

Sent: 14 March 2006 13:38

To: WINDAPO, Titi

Subject: ref 2006/0203874 follow up telephone call

 

Dear Titi,

 

Thank you so much for your valuable time today.

 

I would like to confirm with you the main point of our conversation so that I can be clear what we discussed, and so that you can eliminate some/all of the points I raised in my letter.

 

• Warrington Unitary Councils' stated aim for the targeted bid was " To construct a 2 form entry primary school on the same site as the existing school; and to demolish the 3 existing buildings, one of which dates back to 1911".

 

• Money for this project has so far been paid as follows:- 04/05 approx £64K, and 05/06 approx £2.5M. figures would need final corroboration before you could be absolute.

 

• Monies granted each year must be spent by the august of the following financial year, So money provided in 05/06 should be spent by August 06.

 

• Failure to spend the money on anything other than the stated aim would incur a claw back on the grounds of fairness to others in the bidding process.

 

• During our conversation you were not aware of the full details of the bid, but you did believe that the description of the aim could be open to interpretation.

 

• You also indicated that as part of the bidding process, the LEA must gain local support and acceptance to the proposed changes. This should be resolved by a consultation process.

 

• The LEA can't change the project halfway through, to do something different with the money, although they may be able to change the location of the development with your organisations agreement.

Titi, once again thank you for this, it has been most helpful to my understanding of this process. I would like to take this opportunity to just review my last correspondence that you now have, and agree that you don't need to respond in full to all the points in the letter. I hope that you agree that the above bullet points are an accurate reflection of our conversation.

 

With regard to the letter, I would like you to acknowledge receipt of it by email, and note the content was discussed with me on the telephone. Perhaps you could confirm the exact amounts and payment periods mentioned above. The only remaining issues for correspondence are highlighted in yellow in the second version of the letter. I understand that you may have to request a colleague to provide some of the documents.

 

Once again, many thanks

 

Stephen Taylor

 

14^th March 2006

 

From: DOVER Densmore
Sent: 15 March 2006 15:34
To: WINDAPO, Titi
Cc: DOVER Densmore
Subject: Stockton Heath Primary School, Stockton Heath, Warrington

For the attention of Titi Windapo, SCHOOLS CAPITAL DIVISION

 

Your ref: 2006/0203874

 

Dear Ms Windapo

 

I am writing about the above because I have to attend a meeting of the local Action Group this Friday March 17th at 5pm.

I was born near to the school and attended it with my two brothers more than 50 years ago.

I have read your recent exchange of correspondence with Mr Taylor and know that this has been very helpful to him.

There are however three quick questions which I would much appreciate the answers to, by email by noon on Friday please to ddover@europarl.eu.int

In the third paragraph of your letter of March 10th to Mr Taylor you say that "Warrington Unitary Council clearly stated the aim of the project was to construct a new school on existing site and demolish three existing buildings on completion." In a letter of May 20th 2005 entitled "Stockton Heath Primary School - Targeted Bid" Tim Warren of Warrington Borough Council wrote to all Stakeholders of Stockton Heath Primary School and said in his second paragraph that "After seeking clarification with the DfES it has been confirmed that it would be possible to either rebuild the school or refurbish and remodel the school. Therefore two feasibility studies have been commissioned to establish which will be the best option to proceed with."

What date did the Council state the aim of the project was to construct a new school etc? Also do they have to present the two feasibility studies to you as part of the justification process? In connection with these points you wrote to the Chief Education Officer on December 15th 2004 entitled "Targeted Capital (TCF) 2005-06  Project: Replacement of a two form of entry primary school." Did this letter relate to the demolish and rebuild option, or are the funding allocations irrespective of which option is proceeded with?

Yours sincerely

Den Dover MEP for North West England

 

17^th March 2006 - Response from Titi Windapo – Schools Capital Division – DFES reference above e-mail from Mr Densmore Dover

 

From: Titi.WINDAPO@dfes.gsi.gov.uk
Sent: Fri 3/17/2006 7:07 PM
To: DOVER Densmore
Cc:
Subject: RE: Stockton Heath Primary School, Stockton Heath, Warrington

Dear Mr Dover

 

I have gone through the TCF application form submitted by Warrington on behalf of Stockton Heath Primary School. 

 

To reiterate, the project description was to construct a new two form of entry primary school on existing site and demolish the existing three buildings on completion. The Department would except Warrington to adhere to the aim of the project as the TCF round is a competitive bidding exercise and changing any part of the scheme would be unfair to other local authorities particularly those that were unsuccessful.

 

In response to your first question, the original application refers to the project proceeding as originally planned. This was agreed with Mike Cooper at Warrington Council. For the 2004-05 TCF round, all local authorities were expected to submit their applications by October 2003. We do not have an exact date for the receipt of Warrington's TCF bid but the local authority would have been submitted its bid by 31 October 2003 at the very latest. This was the closing date set for submission of all TCF applications.

 

Question 2 - My understanding is at some stage after approval for the TCF project was granted,  Warrington approached the department with the option to either rebuild or refurbish / remodel the school. It was decided that the local authority should deliver on the original project approved.  

 

Question 3 - My letter dated 15 December referred to the original scheme submitted during the 2004-05 TCF round set out in the project description.

 

To provide some background information, there was no TCF bidding round per se during 2005-06 as it was decided that there were some worthy projects which although were unsuccessful in the previous 2004-05 round should be considered for 2005-06. TCF bids are normally scored against the criteria set and ranked in order of the number of points obtained which made the process fair and equitable.

 

In summary, we except the Warrington to deliver the TCF project as described in the project description. We expect the local authority to approach us for any variation in the scheme and as mentioned earlier, this is usually unacceptable on the basis of fairness.

Regards

 

Titi Windapo

 

17^th  March 2006

 

From: Titi.WINDAPO@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

To:Taylors

Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:19 PM

Subject: RE: ref 2006/0203874

 

Dear Stephen

 

In response to your letter (attached).

 

Yes, the Department is bound by the Freedom of information Act and according to guidelines; we have up to 21 working days to respond in full to your enquiry.

 

1. I am unable to locate a letter from the Council to the Department dated May 2005 or thereabout. I am not certain if such letter exists and would have to liaise with Warrington. I tried earlier but was informed the official I need to speak with was unavailable.

 

2. Same as 1 above.

 

3. We expect the TCF project to be delivered as stated on the application.

 

4. This point was addressed in my earlier email.

 

5. The original bid received states the project aim as' the construction of a new form of entry primary school on existing site and demolition of the existing three building on completion. The rooms in the existing building, which dates from 1911, have high windows and ceilings but very small floor areas. The two HORSA huts dates from 1950 ...' I hope this clarifies the dates you referred to.

 

Regards

 

Titi Windapo

Schools Capital Division

 

17^th March 2006

 

From: Titi.WINDAPO@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

To:Taylors

Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 7:48 PM

Subject: RE: ref 2006/0203874 follow up telephone call

 

Dear Stephen

 

In response to your email below, I have made some comments in blue within your note.

 

Titi Windapo

Schools Capital Division

 

Ref 14^th March 2006 e-mail

 

From:Taylors

Sent: 14 March 2006 13:38

To: WINDAPO, Titi

Subject: ref 2006/0203874 follow up telephone call

 

Dear Titi,

 

Thank you so much for your valuable time today.

 

I would like to confirm with you the main point of our conversation so that I can be clear what we discussed, and so that you can eliminate some/all of the points I raised in my letter.

 

• Warrington Unitary Councils' stated aim for the targeted bid was " To construct a 2 form entry primary school on the same site as the existing school; and to demolish the 3 existing buildings, one of which dates back to 1911". The project description stipulates the construction of a new two form of entry primary school on existing site and demolish the existing three buildings on completion.

 

• Money for this project has so far been paid as follows:- 04/05 approx £64K, and 05/06 approx £2.5M. figures would need final corroboration before you could be absolute. According to my letter dated 15 December 2004 issued to Warrington Council, our allocation would be phased over a three year period as follows: £64.2k in 2004-05; £2.53million in 2005-06 and £590k in 2006-07.
• The Total amount of the project grant is £3.18M Correct.

 

• Monies granted each year must be spent by the august of the following financial year, So money provided in 05/06 should be spent by August 06. Yes. We expect local authorities to inform us if they are unable to spend the full funds allocated by August following the financial year. We have in the past been flexible on clawing back funds. This is considered on a case by case basis

 

• Failure to spend the money on anything other than the stated aim would incur a claw back on the grounds of fairness to others in the bidding process. We expect each TCF project to be delivered as stated in the application and variation to the contents of the project is not acceptable on the ground of fairness and equity in particular to bids that were unsuccessful.

 

• During our conversation you were not aware of the full details of the bid, but you did believe that the description of the aim could be open to interpretation. I have since looked at the application form and it clearly states the construction of a new two form of entry primary school with the demolition of existing three buildings. This is in line with the information I provided during our conversation as being held on our database.

 

• You also indicated that as part of the bidding process, the LEA must gain local support and acceptance to the proposed changes. This should be resolved by a consultation process. We expect where necessary for the local process e.g. consultation and approval by the local schools organisation committee to be secured before the project can be implemented.

 

• The LEA can't change the project halfway through, to do something different with the money, although they may be able to change the location of the development with your organisations agreement. Yes.

 

Titi, once again thank you for this, it has been most helpful to my understanding of this process. I would like to take this opportunity to just review my last correspondence that you now have, and agree that you don't need to respond in full to all the points in the letter. I hope that you agree that the above bullet points are an accurate reflection of our conversation.

 

With regard to the letter, I would like you to acknowledge receipt of it by email, and note the content was discussed with me on the telephone. Perhaps you could confirm the exact amounts and payment periods mentioned above. The only remaining issues for correspondence are highlighted in yellow in the second version of the letter. I understand that you may have to request a colleague to provide some of the documents.

 

Once again, many thanks

Stephen Taylor

 

17^th March 2006

 

From: Taylors

To: Titi.WINDAPO@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

Cc: DOVER Densmore

Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 3:22 PM

Subject: Stockton Heath Primary School targetted bid

 

Dear Titi

 

I would like to enquire yet again, for some further information from you about the above situation.

 

At the last Parish council meeting, I was told that there were doubts over the availability of the grant, and whether it could be re-used to modernise the existing school. Comments from the LEA meeting.

 

From my previous correspondence and conversations with you, I know this to be inaccurate, and that you had indicated to the council to re-submit their plans as modified.

 

What I would like to know, is that whether WBC have contacted you in an official capacity yet, beyond any initial phone calls etc; i.e. have they re-submitted?

 

I believe that the council and some elected members may be prevaricating due to the imminent local elections, and in the meantime, blaming the supporters of the refurbishment for the delay. After the election I expect them to ride roughshod again over the local residents wishes.

 

The Parish council keep suggesting that the local action group should produce new plans, since we objected to the original approach. This appears a little ridiculous to me, but could you tell me whether as an independent body, could the local residents group apply for the grant with a bid to your department? There appears to be no will from the council to do so.

 

Presumably refurbishing this excellent building to modern standards would be allowable under your rules?

 

I fear that these delays are likely to either jeopardise the release of funds that this building/school sorely needs, or may mean that the council have other intentions that they are at pains to keep from local residents. I hope you can respond soon, the work we have done so far has been well supported by local residents and many parents, we do not wish to see the situation eroded by any underhand tactics or use of misinformation by the LEA to merely get their own way.

 

The silent majority has finally spoken out in Stockton Heath, and the minority of re-build supporters are grievously unhappy and appear to be prepared to do anything to get their way! The majority of stakeholders want this school kept in the existing building and brought up to modern standards.

 

Any information you can tell me on this would be welcome.

 

In the meantime, I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours sincerely

Stephen Taylor

 

24^th April 2006

 

From: Titi.WINDAPO@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

To: Taylors

Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:36 PM

Subject: RE: Stockton Heath Primary School targetted bid

 

Dear Stephen

 

Thanks for your emails. I have been on leave and have come back to some urgent work and outstanding work load. I aim to provide a full response in the next few days.

 

Regards

 

Titi Windapo

Schools Capital Division

 

24^th April 2006

 

From:Taylors

Sent: 24 April 2006 16:49

To: WINDAPO, Titi

Subject: Re: Stockton Heath Primary School targetted bid

 

Titi

 

thank you, I would appreciate your kind attention as soon as, I have heard that the LEA are to inform the school governors of their approach, I would like to be better informed on the matter with your help before, or as they meet. I think they meet this week.

 

Stephen

 

27^th April 2006

 

From: Titi.WINDAPO@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

To: Taylors

Cc: ddover@europarl.eu.int

Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:47 AM

Subject: RE: Stockton Heath Primary School targeted bid

 

 

Dear Stephen

 

Apologies for the delayed response, I was on leave on Friday and hope you received my 'out of office' message informing you I would not be available on the day. In response to your emails, I can confirm WBC has been in touch by telephone and also in form of a letter. As requested, I have attached an electronic copy of my response to the points raised in the WBC and for completeness, I have also attached the initial letter received from WBC. The contents of my letter should hopefully answer most of the questions you raised in your emails.

 

In response to your question in paragraph 6 below, Targeted Capital Fund (TCF) funding can only be applied for via the local authority so at the moment the local resident group would not be eligible to apply for this fund. There is a slightly different arrangement for voluntary aided schools (i.e schools with a religious ethos), however, application is also submitted through their respective local authority.

 

We expect local authorities to put forward the school(s) or/and project which they regards as a priority, in accordance with the asset management plan prepared locally. This is to enable local authorities to take a holistic and strategic view in planning and implementing projects relating to schools within their remit.

 

The latest 2006-09 TCF guidance is available on the teachernet website. You may find it useful to refer to this for further information on the programme. I have provided a link below for your convenience.

 

http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=8212

 

As part of my work remit, I liaise externally with local authorities that have applied for TCF funding since the programme commenced in 2001-02. This includes not just local authorities with projects approved for TCF funding but also authorities with unsuccessful bids. As much as I would like to deal with your enquiries within your timescales, this may not be possible at times due to other urgent and pressing work. You may wish to note that under the Freedom of Information Act, we are obliged to respond within 20 working days of receiving a request.

 

I hope the information above and attached letters answers all the questions you raised. If not, please let me know and I would try to respond as soon as possible.

 

Regards

Titi Windapo

Schools Capital Division

Department for Education and Skills

 

Attached Copy of Letter from Mr Warren Childrens Services to Titi Windapo 24th March 2006

 

 

Titi Windapo

Schools Capital Division

Sanctuary Buildings

Great Smith Street

Westminster

London

SW1P 3BT

 

Tim Warren

Interim Operational Director

of EducationChildren’s Services Directorate

New Town House

Buttermarket Street

Warrington

WA1 2NJ

 

Norma Cadwallader

Interim Strategic Director

Children’s Services

 

Chief Executive

David Whitehead

 

www.warrington.gov.uk

If you have difficulty making

contact please dial (01925) 444400

 

Our Ref: TW/JH 24th March 2006

 

Dear Ms Windapo

 

Targeted Capital (TCF) 2005-06 – Project: Replacement of a two form of entry primary school

 

I write to ask your advice on the project detailed above because the Council’s planning application for the replacement building was refused at a meeting of the Development Control Committee on Monday evening (20.03.06).

 

In December 2004 you notified the Council that it had been successful in a targeted capital bid to replace a two form of entry primary school.

 

The overall aim of the bid was to provide modern, suitable and sufficient accommodation for a popular school.

 

The bid was to replace three ageing buildings with a capacity of 333 as against a PAN of 60, with one modern two form of entry facility on the same site, providing for 21st century standards.

 

During one of the Council’s first consultation evenings there was some opposition expressed about demolishing the main school building.The school buildings comprise of a two storey brick building (which was opened in 1910) and three separate “HORSA” buildings (canteen, general classrooms and a private nursery). At that meeting the Council Officials stated further clarification would be sought from the DfES. This was obtained in a capital meeting with Peter Granville (DfES), Tim Warren (WBC) and Julie Hall (WBC) on 21st March 2005. It was agreed that if the outcomes of the scheme were met then there could be flexibility within the grant to refurbish or rebuild the school. This flexibility was also suggested by Philip Watson during a telephone conversation on 17th March 2005 after he had received a query from Helen Southworth MP.

 

From this meeting the Council commissioned two feasibility studies – one to rebuild the school and one to refurbish and remodel the school. Both feasibility reports were produced to provide suitable accommodation to maintain the current two forms of entry and also accommodate the current on-site private nursery, enhanced provision unit and after-school link club. The accommodation schedule was developed in accordance with Building Bulletin 99.

 

The results of the feasibility studies were presented to a consultation meeting of stakeholders in June and July 2005. The feasibility studies showed that:

 

• The new build option met all of the reasonable aspirations of the staff, governors and partners, whereas the remodel option could not because of restrictions proposed by the existing building.
• The Governing Body unanimously supported the new build option.

 

• The new build option could be achieved from the available resources, whereas the remodel option would cost at least £500,000 more than the resources available.
• The new build could begin in July 2006 and complete in summer 2007. Demolition and site works would complete by December 2007. In contrast, the remodel option would begin in July 2006 and complete in February 2008. Site works would complete in summer 2008.
• Disruption for the children during the building programme would be greater and take longer if the remodel option was pursued.

 

The Council progressed with the development of plans for the new build option and presented the application to the Development Control Committee. The application was refused because it would have resulted in the demolition of a building, which is included on the local list of buildings that are valued as a result of their architectural or historic contribution to the local scene.

 

The Council is still reviewing the options to see what can be achieved but clarification is again sought as to what flexibility is available within the grant. The Council is looking at the following options:

 

• Refurbish the existing school and replace the ageing separate buildings. Unfortunately it may not be possible to meet all of the outcomes of the grant within the available resources.
• Amend and resubmit the application in the near future and provide new evidence to support the new building.
• Seek alternative sites within the area to build the school.
• The timescale of the new project has now been put back by approximately six months. The Council has received the majority of the grant and will look to prioritise other school works that is scheduled from other Council resources, if this is acceptable.

 

The situation the Council has found itself in is very unusual and every effort will be made to ensure we provide the best opportunities for the children of Stockton Heath and that the resources made available are used appropriately. Your advice on this matter would be very much appreciated and if possible the opportunity to discuss this situation with you would be invaluable. Colleagues and myself are attending a Design Event on the 18th and 19th April 2006 where we would like to take the opportunity to discuss this matter with you or your colleagues but if this is not convenient another date would be appreciated. 

 

Your advice on this matter would be most welcomed and I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours sincerely

Tim Warren

Interim Operational Director of Education

 

Direct Dial: 01925 442906

Fax: 01925 442929

Email : twarren@warrington.gov.uk

 

Copies to:

Helen Southworth MP

Stockton Heath Community Primary School

 

Attached Copy of Reply Letter from Titi Windapo to WBC

 

Mr Tim Warren

Warrington Borough Council

Children's Services Directorate

New Town House

Buttermarket

Warrington

WA1 2NJ

 

Direct line: 020 7925 6746

Local fax: 020 7925 6717

Email: Titi.windapo@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

 

Your Ref: TW/JH

Our Ref: 2006/0215807

2006/0217604

 

11 April 2006

 

Thank you for your letter of 24 March regarding proposed changes to Warrington Borough Council’s (WBC) Targeted Capital Fund (TCF) project, approved during the 2005-06 round.

 

We appreciate the difficulties you have faced, and in this letter intend to allow you as much flexibility as possible, consistent with you achieving the original objectives set out for the scheme. These are, to provide modern, suitable and sufficient accommodation for Stockton Heath Primary School.

 

You have set out three possible options which would enable WBC to take this project forward, and ask for the Department’s views. I note that we have already allocated you the full funding of £3.2 million, so you are seeking our approval in principle to use the funds for a variation to the original scheme.

 

Option 1 - refurbishment of the existing school. You stated in your letter that refurbishment of the existing school, and replacing the ageing separate buildings, would not meet all of the outcomes of the grant within the available resources.

 

Given your statement that the outcomes for the TCF project would not be met it would, on the face of it, be very difficult for us to agree for departmental funds to be used for this option. Unless, therefore, you can provide additional funds from the Council’s resources which would ensure the initial outcomes set were met, it is unlikely that we could support this option.

 

Option 2 - Amend and re-submit your planning application to support a new building. If you can demonstrate to us that this application, if accepted, would meet the original objectives of the scheme, then we would be prepared to fund this option. Accordingly, we would either allow you to retain funds you have already received, or earmark funds to re-allocate to you in accordance with your revised timetable.

 

Option 3 - Seek alternative sites within the area. This option seems feasible. Again, we would support this option provided it achieves the original objectives of this scheme. I am assuming, when I say this, that relocation of the school to an alternative site would still benefit the children in the original catchment area.

 

I hope that this letter will enable your authority to make final decisions on a way forward, and to start construction of the school as soon as possible. I look forward to hearing about your council’s decision. 

 

When I receive news of your council’s decision, we will need to take a look at the funding position and decide what arrangements need to be made. As you can appreciate, from a financial perspective, it is not in accordance with Government’s rules that allocated funds should remain idle.

 

If necessary, we could meet to discuss your preferred option. While Peter Grenville and myself are not able to attend the Design Event on 18 & 19 April, due to other commitments, we could meet at another time. Please call me on 020 7925 6746, or email to Titi.windapo@dfes.gsi.gov.uk to arrange a suitable date and time.

 

Titi Windapo

Schools Capital Division

 

Action Group Comment

 

As can be seen from the correspondance Titi Windapo could only reply to the direct text that Mr Warren included in his letter

 

Mr Warren -" Refurbish the existing school and replace the ageing separate buildings. Unfortunately it may not be possible to meet all of the outcomes of the grant within the available resources."

 

Titi Windapo replied

 

" Option 1 - refurbishment of the existing school. You stated in your letter that refurbishment of the existing school, and replacing the ageing separate buildings, would not meet all of the outcomes of the grant within the available resources.

 

Given your statement that the outcomes for the TCF project would not be met it would, on the face of it, be very difficult for us to agree for departmental funds to be used for this option. Unless, therefore, you can provide additional funds from the Council’s resources which would ensure the initial outcomes set were met, it is unlikely that we could support this option. "

 

The question which should of been asked was "If the refurbishment option met all of the DfES Criteria would the funds be available for Refurbishment Option?

 

We say that this is a open and fair question which should have been asked by the council. They have failed to seek proper guidance and clear direction as regards the funding!

 

As can be seen from the above correspondance "THE MONEY WAS AND IS AVAILABLE FOR A REFURBISHMENT OPTION!

The problem is that right from the start WBC has had no intention to persue the Refurbishment Option at any stage including the recent apparrent consultation process. The lack of proper consultation with the DfES is demonstrated above.

 

IF WBC were really going to look at other options, it would have explored them with the DfES to a Graeter degree!

 

WBC have again let it's public down!