Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group
Comment on Warrington Borough Council Letter dated 24th November 2006.
As a Parent/Carer/Stakeholder/Resident of Stockton Heath Primary School you would have now received the latest letter from Warrington Borough Council.
The letter announces the forthcoming second planning application to demolish the existing school and put up a new building in its place.
It also urges you to support the application and claims it is the “Only Alternative” and even provides a form to fill in if you support it.
Our first point is that what happened to free democratic choice? Where is the form to submit if you do not support the new build and wish to object? Surely in an open and transparent process all the stakeholders have the right to complete a form to “Object” or “Support” the planning application. We have yet to see if any major changes have been made to the new planning application, to allow any of us, supporters or objectors, to make up our minds.
This is another clear example of how from that very first announcement in December 2004, the council has only ever had one intention; to demolish the school and put a new one in its place. The council has again failed to properly consult the community and has never been intent on refurbishing and remodelling the school, continually quoting a figure of £800.000 more to carry out the refurbishment. What refurbishment might that be? You may well ask.
The council has never published any full cost figures for the refurbishment; however in the feasibility study of November 2005 (see our planning fiasco page – 9th November for full details) the difference was
£ 281.416. We know that additions were made to the March 06 design, which increased the “New Build cost still further; however we still do not have any up to date costings. We have challenged the council to produce them, to no avail. In fact Mr Warren admitted at the last planning decision meeting, that refurbishment plans were never worked up to a sufficient level to provide such detail!
The latest Full report from Lathams, Education Architects "Evaluation of Feasibility Studies" for Stockton Heath Primary School also mentions cost and design.
See full report here - 06-09-23-Evaluation of Feasibility Studies.pdf
http://savestocktonheath.co.uk/06-09-23-Evaluation%20of%20Feasability%20Sudies.pdf
This Report is very damning as regards the two options and how they were designed. The "New Build Option" does not meet the National Aspiration of inspiring learning environments quote -
"Despite the due diligence of the process undertaken, the limitations of the budget, time, site and brief requirements appear to have constrained radical thinking and the options are considered currently not to demonstrate the national aspiration of inspiring learning environments. Further development of the options should keep this aspiration in mind."
The report makes several other points, which basically say that both Refurb & New Build Options are not up the standards that modern schools should have.
We look forward to seeing the New Designs that we are now promised!
The Action group has always had concerns for the children’s education and not just for the building itself and the many educational references supporting the refurbishment can be found on our web site.
We have always stated that our children’s education is paramount. The children of Stockton Heath Primary School love going to the school and are having an excellent and well- balanced education. The sort of education we as parents want our children to have. This is largely due to the excellent teachers we have there at the school and also in some measure to the environment they are in!
A New Build will not automatically mean greater learning, especially in one that is under-funded as this one is proposed to be.
The council letter makes reference to Professor Stephen Heppell, who is the nationally recognised “Guru for Computers and IT in schools” who regularly features in the national “Guardian” and “Times” newspapers.
Now we cannot find the quote given in any of his reports or web-casts etc, which can be found at http://rubble.heppell.net/
However he was commissioned in the 2004 by CABE and RIBA to research the question "what does pedagogy look like in the future?", and "are we building the right schools to house it today?” His final report is here - Here is my final report. Here is a shorter page / paper of the drivers of change.
The report makes some excellent observations about school environments and the way forward including these comments from the “Executive Summary”
Fundamentally, the UK is not building a broad enough, or brave enough, variety of schools. It needs to.
Many of the schools that are being built are unsuited to the changing future pedagogy, curriculum and learner expectations that we can already anticipate. They also lack the agility to cope with further anticipated changes that we cannot yet know in detail.
This exploration requires a substantially increase research effort, but this research will not put the learners involved at risk. There is a confidence that, through engaging learners in the research design process, it will universally enrich their learning and in doing so will progress school standards.
Some simple pragmatic changes could make a substantial difference to the effectiveness of the existing stock too.
School buildings do not exist in a vacuum. The way that teachers are developed professionally, the school curriculum, assessment and testing systems, parental engagement, expectations and entitlements all intermesh with the design of schools.
No one ever said that designing exceptional learning environments was going to be easy and indeed a primary finding from the research is that building appropriate, engaging, challenging, seductive, ambitious, effective, world class schools is highly complex. That complexity is neither well understood nor well documented; it is thus not well implemented either.
We also suggest people to look at:
“Executive Summary” – Page 2
“Research & Development Needed Urgently” – page 23
“Pragmatic Changes Needed Urgently” – pages 24-28
“Recommendations Summary” – pages 29-30
So does the new build come up to the mark we ask? Is the new build going to provide an exceptional learning environment”? Have a look at the plans, and judge for yourself, is this an “engaging, challenging, seductive, ambitious, effective, world class” result?
There are of course other options to improve the design to deal with these challenges.
The council could put more money into the project but we have been told on a number of occasions that they are either unable or unwilling to do this. This is despite the fact that the “New Build” may well end up costing near £5 million upon conclusion. (There must be contingent budget to pay for the new build over-run costs, every project like this is bound to go over budget) The council could go back to the drawing board and go through the process properly from the start. Apply for the correct amount of money to ensure that we get a 21st Century Leaning Environment for our Children for years to come! What our children really deserve!
With respect to the HORSA buildings that are mentioned, the action group has said all along that the outbuildings at the school need knocking down, new ones put up in place and a proper extension put in to enhance the school.
Another question is, do we really need a two form of entry school now that intakes of local school age population of Stockton Heath, Walton, Hatton and Stretton cannot fill the school roll? The facts area that numbers have dramatically fallen over the last four years as evidenced in the Warrington Guardian this week, they are predicted to fall even further. The council is actually now planning what to do with the school stock and is looking to develop them as community halls. Could it be that a new build school would provide a better brand spanking new community centre for Stockton Heath?
Over the years a large number of the children attending the school are now coming from Latchford East & West (88). It is our opinion that this has been encouraged by the council to bolster the case for a two-form of entry in this school! This movement of children in this way, in turn increases the traffic near to the school
and the trend is set to continue if school numbers increase as per the recent notice. Local Latchford primary schools are now vastly under capacity! So these children could go to Latchford Schools. Why create this false demand at Stockton Heath?
In summary, it is our position that, the council should give everyone the option to “Object” or “Support” the planning application. Then pending the outcomes of the School Organisation Committee Meeting and then the Development Control Meeting, consider its’ position.
To knock down the school and rebuild is NOT THE ONLY OPTION! It is merely the option with least imagination!
Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group
28th November 2006
Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group - 1st August 2006
Excecutive Board Members
All Councillors
Warrington Borough Council
Town Hall
Sankey Street
Warrington
WA1 1UH
David Whitehead Chief Executive
Town Hall
Sankey Street
Warrington
WA1 1UH
e-mail dwhitehead@warrington.gov.uk
Dear Councillors, Executive Board Members, Mr Whitehead
We find again that the future of Stockton Heath Community Primary School is on the main agenda for your meeting on the 14th August 2006.
The Action Group wishes to present this report with, some facts to the board, which may not be contained in Mr Warrens Report to yourselves with respect to issues and facts, which you will have to consider before making any further decisions about the school.
1. Development Control Committee meeting of the 20th March 2006
On the 20th March 2006 the Development Control Committee voted by a majority of 7 votes to 1 to reject the Councils application to demolish Stockton Heath Community Primary School and build a new school.
There were a number of reasons quoted, on the night, which supported refusal, but the published reasons were as follows;
“That application 2006/07415 be refused planning permission as there was insufficient justification for the demolition and replacement of a locally listed building and contravention of the UDP Policy BH5.”
Full explanation as published
“The proposed development would result in demolition of a building, which is included on the local list of buildings, which are valued as a result of their architectural or historic contribution to the local scene.
The reasons provided in support of the demolition of the existing building and the proposed new development are not considered to clearly demonstrate justification for the removal of the existing structure.
Development is thereby considered to fail to meet the tests required by policy BH5 of the Warrington Unitary Development Plan.”
As a result of this decision, the Council should now take a lead and direct officers to look at a viable refurbishment option, taking note of the many valid reasons for refusal of the planning application.
The reasons cited above are reinforced by a range of additional arguments demolition and in favour of refurbishment, a number of which found support amongst members of the Development Control Committee. For example: it is likely that there would be increased, long term, effects of increased traffic (due to higher pupil numbers in a new build) in an area which already has one of the worst congestion and pollution problems in Warrington. This particular concern was echoed by Cllr Dirir, who was portfolio holder for environment in 2004– a position, which included responsibilities for traffic control. We have used this example as it is one which affects the health and safety and quality of life of a number of people, not only residents of Stockton Heath, pupils and parents of the school, but also the very great numbers of people visiting or passing through the area. This, and the many other reasons given in our report to Committee, remains valid.
We have pointed to the implications for the proposed redevelopment for a number of UDP policies, including BH5 and BH6. These policies have not changed. As a result, a further planning submission for a new build could again fail at the Development Control Committee stage.
There still will be “insufficient justification for the demolition and replacement of a locally listed building and contravention of the UDP Policy BH5.”
2. The integrity of Council procedures
In addition to the range of substantive points against demolition and in favour of refurbishment that we have outlined to date, an area of further concern is that on the night of the planning decision, it is not clear whether full minutes of speakers’ representations and members’ deliberations were recorded. If it is the case the full minutes were not taken, this is in clear contravention of the correct procedure, announced at the outset of the meeting, when introductions were made by the usher, as per the council’s constitution.
Since the relevant meeting of the Development Control Committee, a short planning result minute has been published on the WBC website. We have asked for a copy of the full minutes taken at the time, under the freedom of information Act 2000. We have been told a number of things about what could have happened to the full minutes, but finally informed that they been destroyed and consequently not available.
We have made further enquiries with public records and found that we can obtain full minutes from Development Control Committee meetings prior to and after the meeting of the 20th but none for the all important and controversial Stockton Heath Community Primary School meeting of the 20th March, 2006.
This in itself calls into question the probity of Council business. That full minutes appear not to have been recorded – or at the very least have not been made available – is a serious indictment of the efficacy of Council procedures. This is especially serious since the Council has been penalised in the past by the Ombudsman for exactly this failure to record and disseminate full and accurate minutes at Council meetings.
3. The perceived need for a two form of entry Primary School at Stockton Heath
With the £18.5 million Warrington school review now ongoing, the overall factor that has come out is the falling school rolls across the borough (South Warrington with a deficit of 47 year 7 pupils by 2013)
With a capacity of 330, Stockton Heath Primary school is currently running at approximately 360 pupils for a Pan of a 420 pupil school and there are no real signs of this ever increasing over the coming years. It was noted in the last Ofsted report that the school had a high proportion of pupils from outside the area; this has increased even further since then. Why has the school not regulated intake to capacity?
Mr Warren, when questioned about predicted admissions figures, said that no catchment area criteria applied to the school. This may possibly be to promote the widest possible parental choice. However, parental choice can only be applicable where there are places available. Allowing more pupil places than there is capacity for, and thus producing cramped conditions, cannot be classed as conducive to a good educational environment for any of the children and could in fact be regarded as ‘prejudicial to the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
Mr Warren might be recommended to note the 1997 Rotherham Judgement, which confirmed that there is nothing unlawful in the principle of admission authorities operating catchment areas as part of oversubscription criteria and thereby giving priority to local children whose parents have expressed a preference for the school. Given the health & safety issues of traffic /pollution problems which already exist in the area, it would appear that the use of a catchment area should have long since been applied. Whilst Mr Warren has repeatedly stated that there will be no increase in pupil numbers it must be realised that this is entirely misleading. A New Build 2 form of entry school will have a capacity for at least 420 pupils; this is a definite increase on the present student roll of 360.
With regard to national demographic trends and the added consideration that Stockton Heath has a higher than average aged population, local birth rates will never be high enough to justify a 2 form entry school in this area.
The drive from Warrington is to ensure that the school can take 420 at maximum occupancy, why is this case when, there will never be a need for it? This is again evidenced clearly in the “Review of Secondary Provision 2006” document.
The more natural consideration should be for the school to be a 1.5 form of entry school instead, which is more realistic for the future, as you know from this project there is no more suitable land to build on in Stockton Heath. This would allow the funding to be used more wisely than currently suggested.
4. Health and Safety issues to support the “New Build”
Questionable and often unspecified health and safety concerns have been expressed at various meetings we have attended and included in press reports – largely, it appears, to fuel parental unease about the current building. The main allegation is that the existing school building is not fit for purpose and parts of it – in particular the area around the main stairway – constitute a Health and Safety risk for the children. This is is spite of the fact that Mr Warren and others have admitted on several occasions that the school as currently configured does not represent any kind of threat to the physical wellbeing of staff or pupils.
It is the obvious that all stairs are a Health and Safety risk. Modern open school stair designs can be far more dangerous, and children and staff alike trip up and slip for numerous reasons, including the modern style and sometimes inappropriate footwear worn by all.
Children throw bags off the top of the stairs over the open banisters, deliberately hitting others; this is far less likely to happen in enclosed stairs.
The School accident book does not contain details of the numerous accidents that are perceived to be waiting to happen.
A proper refurbishment can, and will have to ensure that any Health and Safety issues are covered. This is part of building regulation etc.
5. Perceived condition of the building
Many comments have been aired about the state of the existing building; again, it appears, to give the misleading impression that the building should be demolished. Many of these have already been recognised by Council officers as incorrect.
The overall school structure is sound as stated in various reports supplied in the past. This is an unequivocal fact and supported by the English Heritage Report. The physical soundness of the current structure has also been recognised by Mr Warren.
A properly designed refurbishment will be able to improve the school to acceptable DfES standards for the approved funding and provide us with a 21st Century School. By contrast, it is now recognised in the “Independent Evaluation” that the proposed new build has only been designed to cost, and that “the level of specification has been reduced to the minimum considered acceptable”. This finding has not been made clear as part of a proper consultation process. Members of the public have been told that the new build will result in a state of the art new building for the 21st Century. In fact, the building that is proposed falls some way short of any reasonable definition of a state-of-the-art structure.
The refurbishment will be able to provide all of this and more, and could have been well on the way to being delivered had the consultation processes been handled properly from the outset.
6. Independent Evaluation of the Council’s feasibility studies
On the 18th July Mr Warren sent out a copy of the Executive Summary of the “Independent Evaluation of the Council’s feasibility studies” to stakeholders.
We have repeatedly requested a copy of the full report by the Independent Assessor and the latest information we have is that even on the 3rd August 2006, the Children’s Services Directorate had reportedly still to receive a copy of the full document. .
We are aware from our own working environments that an executive summary always forms part of a fuller document. The summary in question here surely cannot be written up until the full report is prepared.
Assuming this to be the case, why is it that after nearly three weeks there is still no full report available? What does the full report say? Will it cause further difficulties for the Council if released before the Executive Board meeting?
We urge the Executive Board to read the full report before making any decisions, and ask that it now be released into the public domain as soon as possible.
7. Educational justification
This is the most important area of all!
The educational environment and wellbeing of the children concerns members of the Action Group as much as it does any other parents, many of our group members are parents.
It also concerns us as much as it does any other education professionals, as our group members include Heads, Deputy Heads, Teachers, Senior Lecturers and Lecturers.
All members of our group are committed to ensuring a good quality education for the children of Stockton Heath and thus, this is an area we have researched intensively.
There has been much misrepresented justification for the new build in that a 'shiny new school', it is glibly asserted, will be the best option for our children and will provide the best educational environment for our children, in the 21st Century.
Such assertions are based on little available evidence. Mr Warren was challenged on a number of occasions, including at the Development Control Committee, to provide evidence to substantiate the claim that the new build will provide the best quality educational environment. He freely admitted that no such evidence was in existence.
There is, however, a range of research which demonstrates that new build is poorly correlated with educational outcomes, and that a wider mix of factors is important in contributing to an effective learning environment. The major report on the matter, " The Impact of School Learning Environments" , is attached for members’ perusal This report, by a team of researchers at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, reviews the research literature on school building programmes across the UK. It identifies a variety of lessons to be learned from previous phases of school building if the government's £2 billion flagship 'Building schools for the future' (BSF) programme is to succeed. The team found evidence that while improvements to schools where the buildings fell below an acceptable standard did have a significant impact upon health, student morale and student performance, the same could not be said where already sound school buildings were demolished to make way for new structures. Further research reports, entitled School Building Programmes: motivations, consequences and implications and The impact of school environments: a literature review , cite research carried out in 2000, which demonstrate that student performance does not improve when already sound facilities are upgraded via demolition. “This would strongly suggest that the government's school building programme would benefit by providing buildings that are adequate to the needs of the school, rather than offering 'bells and whistles' and expecting standards to rise dramatically”, says researcher Pam Woolner.
These are vital conclusions given that it is agreed by all that the current school is structurally sound. Whilst it is agreed that the Horsa buildings will, at some stage, need to be replaced, the previous Ofsted reports have never suggested that the main school building is inadequate.
Sean McDougall, leader of the Design Council’s Learning Environments campaign, comments that: “We are now at a point where almost half our children leave school with less than the recommended 5 A-C GCSEs and the evidence suggests that new buildings alone will do very little to improve this situation…Real educational transformation will come from a change in the way that we provide education – not the place where we provide it. We need courage to apply everything we know about how children learn and prepare them for the multi-cultural, team-focused, fluid society they will be entering”.
These and other reports demonstrate conclusively that the new build option is not a quick-fix solution that can engender improved educational performance, and that a wider array of factors – including investment in teaching staff – is of greater import. For this reason, we again urge that the Executive Committee looks at the refurbishment option and presser officers to search for a design that meets all of the DfES standards, within the given budgets.
8. Stockton Heath Primary School Consultation Questionnaire Results - July 2006
The recent questionnaire conducted by Mr. Warren and colleagues has generated results on the basis of an unrepresentative sample of respondents, many of whom were pre-selected. Questionnaires were sent to parent, teachers, governors, stakeholders and some residents, but not to all houses in streets close to the school. They were sent to various locations around Warrington, and further a field; one questionnaire was even sent to Wales!
A number of the households (58 in total) who sent in objection letters as regards the planning application received no questionnaire. These households are in locations such as Brookwood Close, Burnside Avenue, Cawdor Street, East Avenue, Frances Road, Hawthorne Road, Sandy Lane, Walton Heath Road. Certain addresses got the questionnaire, whilst others who objected to the planning did not. The process appears to lack any kind of scientific integrity, with little or no understanding of established sampling and survey methods.
However, even with these discrepancies the overall vote was in favor of the refurbishment option! The likelihood, we contend, is that the margin would have been wider still had all local people in the surrounding Stockton Heath Streets been involved, as they should.
Regardless of the robustness of the consultation exercise, the fact remains that refurbishment again came out as the preferred option, reinforcing the results of earlier attempts to canvass opinion. This is in spite of an organized campaign to distort the results of the exercise.
On the 28th June 2006 Mr Graham Roughsedge published the following on the School Message Board.
Subject: Letter/questionaire 27th June 2006 -- Name: Graham Roughsedge
Date Posted: Jun 28, 06 - 2:24 PM --Email: graham@roughsedge55.freeserve.co.uk
Message:
I received the latest letter/questionaire from WBC today 28th June 2006.The letter is number 293 and refers to the last letter of the 26th May 2006. It is being sent to Parents and Stakeholders.The opposition to the new school will be quickly forthcoming in answering the questions with a tick for refurbishment in questions 2/3, they have had their say for over 12 months it is now time for the people in favour of a new school on the present site (their is no other site in Stockton Heath. Three put forward,(1) old brewery site (2) parish council field in Parkgate Road,(30 land between Chester Road/Ackers Road are out. The brewery site(1) - the final date for tenders to build houses has expired and the Parish field(2) - has a covenant that it must stay as Parish land.)Land Chester Rd/Ackers Rd.(3) is unsuitable - the majority of children attending SHPS come from the west side of SH and distances either transport/foot access would be impossible. Yes, the opposers had a flawed petition having only a third of the names on the petition from residents of St Heath, parents of children in school, past pupils, parents of children who wish their children to go to the school.This is old news but I am certain all the old arguments will be brought forward again and again (Roman site - Victorian school - Will still be standing in 60 years time - still good for purpose - new school too close to West Avenue - new school within sight of Conservation area - 5000+ people signed petition - school is being demolished so apartments can be built on the site,etc.
So people for a new school get going with your campaign. Get organised.
end message
Mr Roughsedge explained why the “New Build on Alternative site” was a not an option. The Action Group considers this as being unprofessional and inappropriate correspondence from a serving Parish Councillor who is also acting Deputy Chairman. Given this, it is unclear why this option was included in the questionnaire. Were any of the other options decided before the questionnaire went out?
The 3rd option cannot possibly be excluded for the reason ‘no appropriate site’ if the catchment area criteria is not used for admissions. This is because as the situation currently stands, with a great number of pupils, including almost half this year’s intake being from outside Stockton Heath, an ‘appropriate site’ could be anywhere in the borough. Also Mr Warren has informed us that the alternative site option has been dropped because not a lot of people want it, yet over 5,000 people canvassed in our earlier petition do not want the new build option. Furthermore, in the very brief Executive Summary of the Independent Assessor we note that the alternative site option has not been included. Yet feasibility studies should have been undertaken and evaluated for all three options.
The results of the questionnaire show clearly that refurbishment is by far the most popular option. Claims that ‘most’ parents want the new build are no longer plausible, as ‘most’ parents did not bother to respond to the questionnaire: in all only 43 parents voted for the new build, and of these only 17 are actually from Stockton Heath. To disregard the majority view of Stockton Heath residents because of the views of 17 people cannot possibly be justified.
9. Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group Petition Results
Mr Roughsedge and other councillors continue to make disparaging remarks about our petition, signed by over 5,000 people in support of refurbishment of the school. For clarification, Executive Committee members should note the following:
- A total of 5154 people signed our petition.
- 4421 are Warrington residents, most of them visiting, working or shopping in the vicinity of the school
- Of these 2,642 live within 1 mile of the school
- 204 are from further afield such as Sandymoor, Norton, Runcorn, Preston Brook (all relatively local)
- 383 are from other town/cities and visiting the area (some old pupils of the school)
- The remainder are entries which, for one reason or another, have been classed as queries and as a consequence have not been included in the detailed analysis. These are still being verified and may or may not turn out to be local.
This is a substantial number of local people, the views of whom matter. However, the overall point of view put across by local councillors is that the petition lacks official sanction and should be disregarded. This is totally unacceptable in an era that recognises the importance of community involvement.
The fact remains, the overwhelming community opinion is not to demolish the existing school, but to refurbish it!
10. School Organisation Committe
We ask the following questions in relation to discussion under the auspices of the School Organising Committee:
- Has the School Organisation Committee met to discuss all the new information received from the Executive Summary and the full”Independent Evaluation of the Council’s feasibility studies”, questionnaire results and discussions with the DfES?
Has the School Organisation Committee been supplied with the “Statement of Case” prior to the Executive Board Meeting?
We would argue that the SOC has to meet, review the new information and vote on options for the way forward before the Executive Board Members can make any decisions. However, there must again be question marks regarding Council probity given that, in effect, the LEA is ‘proposer’ and the SOC the ‘decision maker’. In view of this, will the School Organisation Committee be fully involved with the school’s future, following the five stages for statutory proposals: consultation, publication, representations, decision and implementation, as per the Act and Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 1229, including the involvement of the community, in line with Warrington’s own School Organisation Plan 2004-08?
11. Correspondence with Titi Windapoo Dfes
We are of course aware of the correspondence between WBC and Titi Windapoo of DfES as regards the funding allocation. We are well aware that the funding is available for a refurbishment of the school if it meets all of the needs of the DfES criteria set out in the original bid document.
Mr Warren’s correspondence to Titi asking about the funding after 20th March should have been clearer in that he should of asked the “Glass half full” question “If the refurbishment option meets the Dfes Criteria, are the funds available” rather than “Glass half empty” comment “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.”
That comment naturally got the reply from Titi
“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.”
This anomaly was never chased up or clarified properly, and when pressed in open meeting still has not been cleared up properly.
Again it appears that has never been any intention to pursue the “Refurbishment Option” and still isn’t any real drive to even look at it.
The council should pursue a proper design for refurbishment, that meets all of the Dfes criteria and the funds would be available to do it. If there is a will there is a way!
12. Final Comments
We ask that the above observations be duly considered along with the attached documentation in an open, logical and fair manner and that the refurbishment option be given the consideration it deserves. Executive Committee members ought not to be pressurized by misleadingly partial officer views about the merits of rebuild over refurbishment.
A full and more appropriate plan for refurbishment should be pursued immediately, in line with the spirit of the Council’s own Planning decision, and in accordance with the view of the overwhelming majority of Stockton Heath residents
To date, the decision-making process has been rushed, dominated by one-sided officer arguments and lacking the necessary objectivity. We have a fine school building already in place, highly valued by the majority of residents. A more realistic refurbishment is in the best interests of the present children, future children, our environment and the wider community.
Yours sincerely,
Richie Wells
Tony Murphy
“Stockton Heath Community Primary School Action Group”
From the Design Council website, under publications
(see http://www.design-council.org.uk/webdav/harmonise?Page/@id=6016&Session/
@id=D_U4aRAyBRVFFyFwIrIg0B&Document/@id=8710)
