The Planning Fiasco Part 2 - 2006

9th January 2006

The WBC Executive board discussed and passed the latest Local List of important local buildings which are deemed locally important in their stature.

Stockton Heath Primary School remains on the list

See Executive Board Meeting Minutes here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6452

See Local list with school here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6338 

16th January 2006

Den Dover MEP for North West England writes to Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, Department for Culture, Media & Sport.

The letter asks the Department to review their decision not to list the school

See Letter here - 06-01-16-Den Dover RtHonTessaJowellMP.doc 

23rd January 2006

Stockton Heath Primary School “New School Building” “Planning Design Statement” was produced for the future planning meeting, outlining the new school build and proposals etc.

See “Planning Design Statement” here - http://www.stocktonheath.org/architects/Final%20Draft%20Design%20Statement%20200106.doc

See New Build March06 -Slide show here - http://www.stocktonheath.org/architects/final/pages/01_jpg.htm

31st January 2006

Letter received from the DfES reference the earlier letter sent to Mr Blair, which concentrates on the fact that the School Organisation Committee should be involved in the process

See DfES Letter here - 06-01-31-DfES Letter to P-Mullee.pdf

1st February 2006

The Action Group sent details of the School situation as we saw it to Walton Parish Council and asked for their support

See copy of information here - 06-02-01-WaltonPC- Stockton Heath Primary School SENT.doc

1st February 2006

The Action Group sent a letter to Kate Simms - BBC

See copy of letter here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-02-01-Stockton Heath Primary School -LETTER to Kate Simms.doc

See copy of Photo's sent to Kate Simms - BBC here - 06-02-01-Stockton Heath Primary School Photos Kate Simms BBC.doc

2nd February 2006

Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group produced update documents including published pictures of the proposed “New Build” design and a pictorial photo document for publicity. A full information document was produced for the Petition handover days.

See Action Group Update Document here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-02-03-Stockton Heath Primary School Jan 06 update1.doc

See Action Group Photo Document here - 06-02-01-Stockton Heath Primary School Photos Kate Simms BBC.doc

See Action Group Full Information Document - ../../savestocktonheath/06-02-03-Petition communication 2.doc

3rd February 2006

The Petition was taken to London and handed to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for consideration by Tessa Jowell’s Office.

See website page here - Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group-The Petition.html

4th February 2006

Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group sent Freedom of information act requesting the full costing's of the revised “New Build” with alterations made to the roof and brickwork as a result of further public outcry.

To date these costing's have never been released even to the Development Control Committee.

See FOIA Document 1 here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-02-07-Freedom of Information Act Request- WBC-Building Costs -Jan 06.doc

See FOIA Document 2 here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-02-07-Freedom of Information Act Request- WBC-Planning Des State-Jan 06.doc

6th February 2006

A letter was sent by Stockton Heath Primary School to Parents and Carers informing them that the new plans could be viewed at the school from 8th February 

See School letter here - 06-02-06-Letter from School.pdf

See new building slide show here - http://www.stocktonheath.org/architects/final/pages/01_jpg.htm

7th February 2006

Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group formally requested the Development Control Committee meeting be held in a larger location due to the fact that the Council Chamber is too small and not fit for purpose. (This request was later declined)

See Action Group request here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-02-07-David Whitehead Dev Cont Change of Venue Request Jan 06 Final Sent.doc

February 2006

Planning application notice was placed in Warrington Guardian

See copy of notice here - 06-02-01-Planning notice Guard.pdf

February 2006

Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group produced and distributed the latest information document, including advice on how to object to planning. A guidance objection letter and pro-forma letter where produced for people who wish to complain and village collection points were set up..

See Action Group Objection Flier here - 06-02-01-Plan Objection flyer.pdf

See Action Group "What can I object to" info here - 06-02-01-What can I object to leaflet.doc

See Action Group Pro forma letter here - 06-02-01-Objection Letter Template.doc

See Petition % Graph here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-08-01-Petition graphs PERCENTAGE aug 06 UPDATED.doc

See Petition Numbers Graph here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-08-01-Petition graphs NUMBER Aug 06 UPDATED.doc 

16th February 2006

Walton Parish Council who support the Action Groups cause, placed their objection to the Planning Application.

Stockton Heath Parish Council continue to support the “New Build”

See Walton Parish Council Objection here - 06-02-16-Walton Parish Council Planning Application objection 2006.doc

17th February 2006

Letter sent by school inviting the Parents/Carers to the works enabling meeting on the 9th March, obviously presuming that they were going to get the planning permission before it had gone before the Development Control Committee for planning decision.

See School letter here - 06-02-17-Letter from WBC Open evening.pdf

18th February 2006

Action Group Members submit their individual planning objection letters

See objection letter 1 here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-02-18-Objection Letter Richie Wells.doc

See objection letter 2 here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-02-01-PLANNING OBJECTION-Ian Deas.doc 

20th February 2006

Council planning department send acknowledgment letters out to objectors

See acknowledgement letter here - 06-02-20-Aknowl letters.pdf

26th February 2006

Further objectors letter

Objectors letter here - Objectors Letter

1st March 2006

Council planning dept reply to say that the Development Control Committee meeting would not be moved to another location. It would be on the 20th March 2006

See e-mail here - 06-03-01-Dear Mr Wells-.doc

9th March 2006

School Parents/Carers, attended works enabling meeting held at the school, which outlined the plan to put in the temporary kitchens over the Easter break and gave out a plan of what was going to occur at the school, including the Archaeological work etc.

Although the document and the meeting presenter stated that the planning had still to be decided; but that they had to forward plan due to tight deadlines, attendees did get the opinion that the planning application was already a forgone conclusion.

See Building Works Newsletter here -  06-03-09-Building Works Newsletter.pdf

9th March 2006

Mr James Gibson submits a letter asking for a “calling in” to be granted against the planning application, under sect 77 of the town and country planning act 1990, as it was contrary to Warrington Unitary Development Policy BH6, Sect 69 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) act 1990 as advised in Para. 4.14 of PPG 15 and other government planning advice in PPS 1 and PPG15. Mr Gibson also submits other letters to WBC Chief Executive, Mr Whitehead and submits a planning objection letter.

See Calling In letter here - 06-03-09-Mr Gibson Calling In.pdf

See Chief Exec letter here - 06-03-09-MrGibson to Chief Executive Officer.doc

See Planning Objection letter here - 06-03-09-MrGibson Planning Objection.doc

10th March 2006

Mr Stephen Taylor receives a reply from Titi Windapo - DfES reference the Targeted Capital Funding Bid, which clearly states that the bid was only for the “New Build” and that the Council would have to find any extra funding if it was over budget.

See full string of letters and email exchanges with the DfES here - Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group-DfES Letters.html

12th March 2006

Den Dover MEP for North West England writes to Rt Hon John Prescott MP, Deputy Prime Minister.

The letter asks to "CALL IN" the planning application for independent review. Further call in letter was also sent by Mr Iain Deas

See Den Dover Letter here -  06-03-12-Den Dover Letter to ODPM.doc

See Iain Deas Letter here - 06-03-13-Iain Deas call in letter

13th March 2006

WBC sends out acknowledgment letters to objection letters

See copy of letter here - 06-03-13-aknowl letter.pdf

19-20th March 2006

MEP Den Dover asks for the Development Control Meeting to be cancelled with reference to the DfES Correspondence and letter sent “for Calling In”

See full string of letters and email exchanges with the DfES here - Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group-DfES Letters.html

See Mr Dover’s Letters here -  06-03-20-Mr Den Dover.pdf

20th March 2006

Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group ask for Development Control Committee Meeting to be stopped on legal grounds because of the following

1. WBC misled the community over how the funding could be used
2. WBC did not carry out it’s Statutory obligations under “The school standards and framework act 1988 and had not followed the 5 stages for statutory proposals – Consultation, Publication, Representations, decision and Implementation as per the act and statuary instrument 2003 No. 1229, fully utilising the Schools Organisation Committee as per the act by failing to fully involve the community.

See copy of objection letter and evidence here -../../savestocktonheath/06-03-20-David Whitehead Chief Executive - Legal Complaint 20th March 2006 FINAL.doc  

20th March 2006

Complaint letters to WBC were submitted by Mr James Gibson and Mr Iain Deas

See copy of comlaint letter Mr James Gibson here - Legal Complaint James Gibson  

See copy of comlaint letter Mr Iain Deas here - Legal Complaint Iain Deas

20th March 2006

The “Now Famous” Development Control meeting went ahead

See Agenda 1 here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6567

See Agenda 2 here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6568

See Planning Application Document here - 06-03-20-Dev Con Planning report.doc

See one of the speeches here - 06-03-20-I am here as a Parent - Richie Wells.doc

See one of the speeches here - 06-03-20-speech.doc

See Picture used by the Action Group here - index.html

See Short Minutes of Meeting - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6641

After a number of people stood up for 3 minutes each to object to the planning and the application proposer Mr Tim Warren, Stockton Heath Liberal Democrat Councilors Celia Jordan and Maurice Leslie  then spoke in favour of the new build. The planning application and the issues were then discussed at length by the committee.

The planning officer “Mr John Groves” had said on more than one occasion during the debate that once the decision had been made it was final. The council could not appeal against the decision. This was very strongly reiterated at the time.

The committee then voted 7 – 1 to refuse planning as it was against the councils own Unitary Development Plan Specifically BH5

“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.”

21st March 2006

The news of the planning refusal was published across the Warrington press and was hailed as a success for the community

See Warrington Worldwide Article here - 06-03-21-Warr Worldwide article.pdf

See Warrington Guardian article here - http://archive.warringtonguardian.co.uk/2006/3/21/267527.html 

21st March 2006

WBC posted the result notification to all interested parties; however they did not say exactly why the planning was refused at this time, which seems unusual since the meeting had contemporaneous notes recorded at the time.

See copy of letter here - 06-03-21-letter from WBC.pdf

21st March 2006

The children at Stockton Heath Primary School were told of the result. Cheering was heard from some of the classrooms that day and was reported back to the parents at the end of school.

21st March 2006

A letter to all Parents/Carers, which presumed parents will be in uproar. It urges parents to express their reaction and views.

See copy of letter here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-03-21-School Letter to Parents ref Planning result.doc

21st March 2006

The Action Group sent a letter to Mr David Whitehead outlining a positive suggested way forward.

See copy of Letter here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-03-21-David Whitehead Chief Ex-Action Group Letter-The Way Forward.doc

24th March 2006

WBC writes to the DfES for clarification over the funding and how it  could be utilised for different options. However Mr Tim Warren the then Interim Operational Director of Education fudged the issue asking a leading question about using the money to refurbish the School, which was only going to get one result.

He wrote “The Council is looking at the following options:”

1. 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.”

What should have been asked is “If the refurbishment option meets the Dfes Criteria, are the Targeted Capital Funds allowed to be utilised for this option”

As it is Titi Windapo had only one option and 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.”

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 hasn’t been any real drive to even look at it.

The council should have pursued a proper design for refurbishment, that meets all of the Dfes criteria and then the funds would be available to do it. If there is a will there is a way!

Copy of Tim Warrens Letter here - 06-03-24-Letter to DfES from WarringtonBC.doc

Copy of Titi Windapo’s 11/04/06 reply here - 06-04-11-MrTimWarren from Titi W.doc

See full string of letters and email exchanges with the DfES here - Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group-DfES Letters.html

24th March 2006

A letter was sent to Stockton Heath Primary School Head teacher, Chair of Governors and WBC Chief Executive, raising concerns about the letter sent out from the school on the 21^st; This was done after speaking with other parents, who were also concerned about the approach being taken in  the letter

Copy of complaint letter here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-03-27-Complaint letter to Head Teacher ref letter 21-03-06.doc

28th March 2006

Stockton Heath Primary School chair of governors writes to Parents/Carers asking for them to contact the school with their views. Also attached was the official planning result from Mr Tim Warren

“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 is 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.”

This in itself is again interesting in that it took more than a week to come out and was slightly longer than the originally published version of the decision.

On the night there were a number of reasons given by the Development Control Committee but the council only chose to publish the BH5 reason.

See copy of letter here - 06-03-28-Letter to Parents-Carers.pdf

31st March 2006

The same result letter was sent to stakeholders 

4th April 2006

Stockton Heath Action Group sent out a press release, explaining how we saw the way forward working.

See copy of press release here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-04-03-Press Release-Action Group.doc

April 2006

Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group asked for a copy of the full minutes taken on the night, on numerous occasions over the next couple of weeks. We were aware that full Contemporaneous notes were taken on the night, as is normal procedure.

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.( I wrote to Norris, and did not get satisfaction, I have complained to the Ombudsman) (I have the info)

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 of the all important and controversial Stockton Heath Community Primary School meeting of the 20th March 2006 are available.

This in itself calls into question the probity of Council business in that full minutes appear not to have been recorded correctly, or at the very least have not been made available; this 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 retain appropriately, full and accurate minutes at Council meetings’.

A short 1 page of minutes has been produced.

See Short Minutes of Meeting - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6641

11th April 2006

Titi Windapo – DfES replies to the original Tim Warren clarification letter as previously discussed above.

Copy of Titi Windapo’s 11/04/06 reply here - 06-04-11-MrTimWarren from Titi W.doc

28th April 2006

WBC writes to Parents/Stakeholders explaining the contents of the DfES letter. The letter also says that they will consider their next course of action.

Copy of 28/04/06 WBC letter here - 06-04-28-Letter to Parents-Stakeholders.pdf

26th May 2006

WBC letter sent to all Parent/Stakeholders

The letter appears to now recognise that there is flexibility with the funding if the DfES Criteria are met, so are revaluating the three options.

1. New building on existing site
2. Refurbishment and extension of existing school
3. New building on alternative site

With regard to the refurbishment and extend option the Council has judged that it would not be possible to meet all of the required outcomes of the grant within available resources. This was after two feasibility studies, one for refurbishment and one for new build option. These options would be submitted for independent evaluation and assessment to see if the council’s judgment has been flawed in any way.

A short questionnaire was going to be used to seek stakeholder views on the option.

See copy of Letter here - 06-05-26-WBC Letter to all.doc

May 2006

Latham Architects are appointed to do the Independent Evaluation

WBC submit a number of documents for consideration

List of docs that the Action group have been told were supplied is here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-09-09-Independant assessment docs list given to Ann.doc 

June 2006

The review of secondary Provision was now published for the whole of Warrington. Consultation events were being run over the same period as the announcement. There was confusion and many parents especially from Stockton Heath Primary School were not told until it was too late to attend. This is another clear example of how WBC mismanages its’ processes in relation to public consultation. Many letters of complaint were received about this and some were published by local papers

Letter here from WBC ref issue here - 06-06-27-letter from wbc.pdf

Copy of Executive Summary Secondary Provision 2006 here - http://www.warrington.gov.uk/images/Executive%20Summary%20for%20Secondary%20Review%20June%208%20version1_tcm15-9094.pdf

Copy of Review of Secondary Provision 2006 here - http://www.warrington.gov.uk/images/Review%20of%20Secondary%20Provision%20Final%20version_tcm15-9093.pdf

18th June 2006

Den Dover MEP for North West England writes to Mr David Whitehead, WBC Chief Executive.

Mr Dover states - First I cannot see how “the Council has judged that it would not be possible to meet all of the required outcomes of the grant within the available resources” since the letter goes on to say that the refurbishment option has not yet been fully designed.

See Letter here -  06-06-18-Den Dover letter18-06-06.doc

26th June 2006

Full council meeting held. Stockton Heath Action Group asks two questions of the council as allowed under current procedures.

Quote

“Madam Chairman and Members of the Town Council

Tonight, I ask this question on behalf of myself, (Patrick Mullee) and over 5,000 people who have signed a petition calling for the refurbishment of the Stockton Heath Primary School. 2,642 of whom live within one mile of the school.”

Question 1

“At the Development Control Meeting of 20th March 2006, regarding the demolition/rebuild of Stockton Heath Primary School, everyone was told that the decision made at that Meeting was FINAL AND IRREVERSIBLE.”

“By whose authority and WHY has this decision been ignored, resulting in more public money being spent going through a similar but more rushed (and probably just as flawed) a process?”

Councilor Woodyatt stated that “The Planning application was refused” with no recourse to appeal. The process was being reviewed by the Interim Director of Children’s Services, and the results would go before the Executive Board in August

Question 2

“On the 20th June 2006, the Warrington Worldwide News published, on-line, an article regarding the major review of secondary schools in Warrington and Councilor Woodyatt was QUOTED as saying:  

“The Council is committed to full and open consultation with the whole community”. 

Will the Council, confirm to members of OUR COMMUNITY, that every consultation response (i.e., completed questionnaire) received from constituents of Stockton Heath and other catchment areas of the Primary School, will be ACCORDED EQUAL VALUE whether they currently have children at the school or not……and……..will the questionnaire be made freely available to people in OUR COMMUNITY, via the Council’s website?”

27th June 2006

Stockton Heath Primary Action Group send open letter to Councilor Sheila Woodyatt – Strategic Director of Children’s services, seeking further clarification and raising further issues.

See Action Group Letter 27/06/06 here -../../savestocktonheath/06-06-27-Open Letter to Councilor Susan Woodyatt.doc

27th June 2006

WBC sends out letter and questionnaire to Parents /Stakeholders stating that no decision has been made. This letter and questionnaire did not arrive until the first week of July. It had to be back in by the 7th of July. Again a very short time for people to reply!

See copy WBC Letter 27/06/06 here - 06-06-27-letter from WBC-1.pdf

See copy WBC Questionnaire 27/06/06 here - 06-06-30-Copy of Cons Quest.pdf

27th June 2006

Stockton Heath Primary Action Group chairperson Richie Wells publishes letter on School message board to update public about the latest views of the group on the situation.

This was also sent to local press

See copy letter 27/06/06 here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-07-03-Ref reply Warrington Borough Council Questionaire.doc

1st July 2006

Councilor Woodyatt acknowledges receipt of Action Group Letter

See copy WBC Councilor Woodyatt Letter 27/06/06 here -06-07-01-Letter from Councillor Woodyatt.pdf

7th July 2006

The Chair of Governors writes letter to Chief Executive. He makes some remarks which appear untrue about "Parents Moral" where the feeling on the ground was that a lot of parents were happy with the planning being thrown out!

see letter here- 06-07-07- Chris Arden-Chair of Gov Letter.pdf

8th July 2006

Councilor Woodyatt’s full reply sent in reply of the Action Group Letter. She did not accept the action group observations and tried to clarify some of the points raised

See copy WBC Councilor Woodyatt Letter 08/07/06 here - 06-07-08-Full Reply from Counc Woodyatt.pdf

11th July 2006

WBC sends out letter to Parents /Stakeholders stating that the questionnaires are being evaluated and that a public meeting would be held on the 17th July for information sharing.

See copy WBC Letter 11/07/06 here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-07-11-WBC Letter to all ref meeting 17-10-06.pdf

14th July 2006

WBC sends out letter to Parents /Stakeholders publishing the questionnaire results.

See copy WBC Letter 14/07/06 here - 06-07-14-WBC Letter ref Qest Results.doc

The Action Groups view is as follows:

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 against 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 robustness, with little or no understanding of established sampling and statistical survey methods. 

However, even with these discrepancies the overall vote was in favour 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 have been.

17th July 2006

The stakeholder information evening was held and Mr Tim Warren presented the findings of the questionnaire to the attendees and took a large no of questions from the public. It was obvious that there was still a lot of anger out in the community about  how WBC  handled the whole process.

A number of Specific questions asked were by a number of members of the community. its was again apparent that there are a number of parents out there who are very unhappy with the council and the way of dealing with their views.

See summary of Questions and Answers here -

18th July 2006

The Council publish the independent Evaluation – 1 page Executive Summary to Parent/Stakeholders.

Latham Architects stated that the 2 feasibility studies conducted for the proposed “New Build” and “Refurbishment” options were very detailed and above the required standard.

The summary does say however:

 “The limitations of the budget suggest that area reductions are the main mechanism to achieve cost savings if necessary.”

And

“The budget for the project is challenging given the phasing implications of implementation of either option. In trying to achieve affordable schemes the level of specification has been reduced to the minimum considered acceptable”

So the “New Build” proposal has been done with the minimum specification allowed and is not the all-singing, all-dancing 21st Century school that has been promised!

The group has asked for the full report, but WBC claim that they did not have a copy. This has now gone on for a number of weeks,  and finally WBC say they have a copy but are not releasing it until they have thoroughly studied  the document themselves.

This is odd in that the report is exactly that, a report; surely they can’t think of editing it or only giving out parts of it?

See WBC Letter to Stakeholders Here - 06-07-18-WBC Letter to Stakeholders.pdf

See Latham Architects – Executive Summary here - 06-07-18-Latham Arch - Executive Summary.pdf

28th July 2006

The Action Group was allowed to view 213 of the original Planning Objection letters received for the Development Control Meeting of the 20th March 2006. When this was compared with the council list of addresses of who received the Consultation Questionnaire,

It was found that 58 addresses who sent in objection letters did not receive a consultation questionnaire despite being Stakeholders. Surely these stakeholders should have been sent a questionnaire? This is another example of selective sampling to try and get the result the council wanted.

See action group findings here - - will be available soon

1st August 2006

The Action Group prepares and sends all WBC councilors a full report reflecting the groups concerns and explaining why the Executive Board must CONSIDER these issues before making a decision on how to proceed.

See action group report here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-08-01-Executive Board Meeting 14-08-06 Action Group Report-Full.doc

14th August 2006

The executive Board Meeting was held. The board decided to re-submit a revised “New Build” plan. Their reason being that  they were not able to give any money to the project beyond the grant available.

The summary published says:

It was considered that the work undertaken since the Development Control Committee decision had demonstrated that there was no viable way of combining the retention of existing buildings and providing good educational environment within the resources available to the Council. The feasibility study had demonstrated that the new build option had best delivered the educational aspirations for the school, accorded with the budget available and minimised disruption to pupils. The independent evaluation had confirmed the integrity and accuracy of the feasibility studies. It was also considered that the new build option best met the top three priority issues from the questionnaire. However, it was appreciated that there did not appear to be a change in general public opinion, with some people supporting a new build and some people supporting the refurbishment of the existing building. The Officer recommendation to the Executive Board was to submit a revised planning application for the new build and demolition option, and not to proceed with the other options for the reasons stated in the report.

Decision,

That, approval be given to the submission of a further planning application for the new build option.

So in the end it has come down to the fact that there are not enough funds to complete a refurbishment project. The council are not prepared to move on the issue and we now face a new planning fight as before on the same grounds as before.

See Executive Board Meeting School doc 1 here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6833

See Executive Board Meeting background Report here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6834

See Executive Board Meeting appendix doc ref DfES here - 06-08-14-Executive Board-Copy DfES Reply.doc

See Independent Evaluation - Executive Summary doc here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6836

See Executive Board Meeting Minutes here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6864

16th August 2006

WBC sends decision result to all Parents/Stakeholders

See WBC Parents/Stakeholders letter here - 06-08-16- WBC Letter to Parents-Stakeholders.pdf

4th September 2006

The Action group requests various documents from WBC under the Freedom of Information Act.

See FOIA Letters here

1 - ../../savestocktonheath/06-09-04-Freedom of Information Act Request- Warrington Borough Council August 2006- Chris Arden Letters.doc

2 - ../../savestocktonheath/06-09-04-Freedom of Information Act Request- Warrington Borough Council August 2006- Dev Control -Contemp Notes - Minutes.doc

3 - ../../savestocktonheath/06-09-04-Freedom of Information Act Request- Warrington Borough Council August 2006- Feasabilitiy Studies.doc

4 - ../../savestocktonheath/06-09-04-Freedom of Information Act Request- Warrington Borough Council August 2006- Independent Evaluation Report.doc

5 - ../../savestocktonheath/06-09-04-Freedom of Information Act Request- Warrington Borough Council August 2006- Lynda Carnes Letters.doc

6 - ../../savestocktonheath/06-09-04-Freedom of Information Act Request- Warrington Borough Council August 2006- Titi Windapo Letters.doc 

4th September 2006

The Action group submits complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman laying down 11 specific complaints as regards mal-administration and neglected processes.  

September 2006

The Action Group obtained sight of the following documents given by WBC

14th September 2006

The Local Government Ombudsman reply letter received and our case has been allocated a case no.

The Action Group is submitting this above report and all associated documentation for consideration and evidence for the complaint.

October 2006

WBC Finally release the Full Lathams Education Architects "Evaluation of Feasability Studies" for Stockton Heath Primary School

See full report here - 06-09-23-Evaluation of Feasibility Sudies.pdf

The 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.

This is really down to the lack of funds available! Or is it lack of Creativity and Innovation.