Chronological Order of Events |
Stockton Heath Primary school, Stockton Heath. Warrington Cheshire is a very statuesque Edwardian school exhibiting fantastic architecture in keeping with the rest of its surroundings and the village of Stockton Heath. “At the opening ceremony of the School on 2nd May 1910. Mr. H. J. Westbrook, Councilor, Solicitor and author of the only history of Stockton Heath in the early 20th Century, opened his speech by saying: “I regard the new school as a very valuable addition to the architectural features of the Parish”. The School opened on 2nd May 1910. Joseph Holt’s design was chosen from 30 in 1907 costing nearly £10,000 to build. The land was originally owned by the Greenalls’ brewery family and the school was built to house the growing community’s children. It was partly funded by the community of Stockton Heath. The adjacent housing was built in the same architectural style giving the area the attraction it has today. The housing in the surrounding streets are highly desirable properties being so close to the excellent school and local facilities. Below is a summary of events that have led up to the present day decision by the council to apply to demolish Stockton Heath Primary School for the second time: |
14th January 2003 |
Options Appraisal document produced during 2002 and was finalised in February 2003. It detailed 7 out of 13 options as possible considered outcomes
The New Build option was calculated as the most expensive option by £1.3 million above the refurbishment option by the WBC Architectural Design Unit See full document here - ../../savestocktonheath/03-02-14-Gold Consulting - Project comparison.pdf |
23rd May 2003 |
Accessibility Assessment Report for Stockton Heath Primary School conducted, and related to all aspects of access for all users; it also included consideration of the Disability Discrimination Act. This report is very detailed and includes all the areas that needed addressing to comply with the DDA. See summary document here - 03-05-23-Accessibility Assessment Report - Summary.pdf |
January 2003 – October 2003 |
Decision taken to submit a bid for £3.9 million “New Build” Option to DfES |
October 2003 |
Stockton Heath Primary School, “Targeted Bid” to central government for £3.9M was pursued by Warrington LEA. First bid was unsuccessful. See full document here - ../../savestocktonheath/03-10-01-WBC Targeted Capital Funding bid doc.pdf |
October 2003 |
Asset Management Plan / Condition Survey was conducted on Stockton Heath Primary School. The last one done was 1999 See full Asset Management Plan 2003 here - will be available soon! See full Asset Management Plan 1999 here - will be available soon! |
27th October 2003 |
Warrington Borough Council Executive Board Meeting Stockton Heath Primary School was discussed and it was agreed that the council submit the Targeted Capital Funding bid to the DfES for a "New Build see the council minutes here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=1226 |
19-21 January 2004 |
Full Ofsted inspection done on school. The report only highlighted a few areas of concern with regard to the accommodation at the school. See full document here - http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/reports/110/110996.pdf |
Compare the Ofsted report comments with comments from local officials since the process started
|
Autumn 2004 |
The bid was reconsidered by BSF team in Autumn 2004 |
Autumn 2004 |
The Review of Primary School Phase 1 was published in October 2004 and sent out to 16,000 consultees. Results were published in January 2005 See full document here - will be available soon |
29th-30th November 2004 |
Dfes allocated nearly £3.2 million of funding for the “New Build” bid. A letter to Warrington Borough Council from Sally Brooks DfES, was sent to inform them of the decision. See full document here - 04-11-30-DfES Funding allocation.pdf |
Tuesday 14th December 2004 |
Permission was applied for and granted at Parish Council Meeting to remove a tree from Stockton Heath Primary School to allow for the placement of “portacabins” At this time the Parish Council members were unaware that there was to be an announcement proposing to knock the school down. |
Between 14th December and 17th December 2004 |
WBC council members were made aware of the successful funding bid for the “New Build” option. |
15th December 2004 |
Official funding allocation letter sent from Titi Windapo DfES to WBC See full document here - 04-12-15-DfES Letter Titi Windapo.pdf |
17th December 2004 |
School officials have knowledge of the proposed new build and demolition of the old school. This was officially announced to the public and press. A letter sent to all Parents/Carers outlining the plan. See copy of School letter here –04-12-17-Letter from School - announce.pdf A Parish Councilor also raises concern over the matter regarding permission being requested to fell a tree at the school to gain access, when it was obvious that the same person making this request would probably have known of the school announcement; this gives the appearance of being somewhat underhand and inappropriate on the Council’s behalf. See copy of e-mail here - 04-12-17-E-mails Mullee-Roughsedge.pdf This news was not received well by the community and was a great shock to most, there had been no prior consultation at all. |
13th January 2005 |
A letter was sent to all Parents/Carers regarding a proposed meeting on the 3rd February at Bridgewater High school. Expressions of interest were sought from those who wished to attend. See copy of School letter here - 05-01-13-School Letter to parents ref feb meet.pdf |
17th January 2005 |
Warrington Executive Board Meeting The Primary School Provision Phase 1 document was discussed The Executive Board gave consideration to the following options and the Recommendations of Officers with respect to the four areas of the Borough: SOUTH WARRINGTON Options to consider for Appleton, Stockton Heath and Stretton
Recommendation Maintain the current provision as is, and replace the buildings of Stockton Heath Primary School with a new modern facility. See Executive Board Meeting Minutes here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=5478 The Primary School Provision Phase 1 background report gives an overview of the consultation feedback; however no consultation feedback for South Warrington was included in the report, as the Targeted bid for a New Building at Stockton Heath had already been decided! See Executive Board Background Report here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=5244 This was also the case on the full summary of consultation responses where there is no mention of Stockton Heath Primary School See Executive Board Summary of Responses – Primary School Provision Consultation here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=5245 We have requested the summary of responses for Stockton Heath Primary School under the freedom of information act Also of note at the Executive Board Meeting; there were attached to the papers, copies of letters and meeting transcripts about the issues at the time with respect to “Longbarn Primary”. The Council had been having protracted discussions about the schools future which had become very heated. Longbarn Primary doc here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=5246 |
19th January 2005 |
The School Website was announced, the idea was to give up-to-date facts of the “New Build” etc for all. A letter was sent by school and parents and carers were asked to write down questions for the meeting and return these by no later than 21st January. This was quite short notice really. See copy of School letter here - 05-01-19-School letter ref New Build.pdf See Stockton Heath Primary School Website Here - http://www.stocktonheath.org/building.htm (please note the official school website is offline as of 20/01/06, as internet domain needs renewing - very embarrasing at this important time) |
3rd February 2005 |
Public meeting held at Bridgewater High School at 6pm A large number of people turned up at the meeting. A presentation See copy of Power Point here - 05-02-03-T-Warren pres Bridgewater.ppt was given by Tim Warren; Head of Service (Children’s Services Directorate). Feelings were running very high on the night about the lack of consultation and to the suggestion that the school was to be demolished. It appeared that the L.E.A and council representatives were in some “shock” at the public backlash, as they had not given serious consideration to keeping the existing school building at that stage. The way that the “New Build” information had been given out implied that all the decisions had already been made. It was apparent at this stage that the “New Build” was now being sold to stakeholders etc, as the cheapest option and that money was the apparent overall factor in the decision making process. The D.F.E.S. has allocated £3.9 million to the project, keeping the old school and modifying it did not appear to have been a considered option at all. The strength of feeling from the parents and residents at the public meeting was so great that the council agreed to go back and look at all options of upgrading the school including conversion / refurbishment. However a number of people expressed the view that the council were going to look at the situation just to appease the public. |
March 2005 |
Newsletter published by the school outlining the process so far and the vision of the school staff and Governors. See copy of School newsletter here - http://www.stocktonheath.org/newsletters/March%202005.doc |
10th March 2005 |
Letter sent by School, announcing open evening /days on Thursday 17th March 2005 (5-7pm) and Friday 18th March (9-11.30am). See copy of School letter here - 05-03-10-Letter from School.pdf |
17th March 2005 |
The start times of the open evening meetings made it difficult for working families to attend and consequently, were not well attended. All attendees were asked to make comments about what they wanted from the school in terms of facilities etc. Nearly all agreed about what resources and classroom accommodation was required in the school, to improve it. The vast majority of parents/carers commented that they wanted to keep the school and have a refurbishment. These notes and comments made were typed up and published soon afterwards. Copy of School document “Setting the Vision for the 21st Century” - 05-03-17-School Setting the Vision Doc.doc Copy of School document “Setting the Vision for the 21st Century” with Action Group comments - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-11-Vision Doc-What we all want - word doc.doc |
May 2005 |
Preliminary Feasibility Stage Report by James & Hague, planning supervisors this report concentrates on the health & safety issues of the site for both options. See copy of report here - 05-05-01-Preliminary Feasability Study.pdf Special Note - The conclusion Favoured the Refurbishment Option! Quote "Both options clearly present a serious challenge from a Health and Safety management viewpoint. From our initial obsevations subject to more detailed site investigations/surveys by other parties to assess the buildability of the proposals, we would err to option 2 (Refurbishment & Extension) from a Health 7 Safety management point if view. Given the complexity of both options, serious consideration perhaps should be given to the procurement process, with the early appointment of a preferred contractor under a "project partnering" ethos. This advice was not taken up! |
May 2005 |
The Gilbraithe Partnership Report on Refurbishment and Extension of Existing School Building was prepared for WBC We do not have a copy of the similar “New Build” Option report that was done nor seen one. See copy of report here - 05-05-01-Report-Proposed Refurbishment & Extension.pdf Main points include; "No Evidence of any significant distress that could be associated with foundation inadequacies or general settlement." - so "structurally sound" "Roof" - "No evidence of undue distress" "Structural Modifications" listed as per the initial refurbishment plans that were later presnted to the public! "Summary" -"Structurally Sound" - suspended floor above basement/cellar needed sorting out (as per refurb plans) Loadbaering walls wouls have an effect on the adaptation of the building - remedial work should be considered-further investigations required. |
20th May 2005 |
Warrington Borough Council sent out a letter to Governors, Staff, Parents/Carers, local residents and other users of the school, asking for expressions of interest, as volunteers in attending separate Focus Groups, the aim was to consider the consultation on the details of the feasibility studies. See copy of School letter here - 05-05-20-Letter form WBC.pdf They were only looking for 6/8 members for each of the groups. (This stipulation of 6/8 was later crucial to the lack of attendance at the later 2nd consultation meeting by all parties). Quote: “various groups will be established to consult on the details of the feasibility studies.” Further meeting proposed week commencing 18th July 2005 |
2nd June 2005 |
Full BES Consulting Survey done, with reference to asbestos checks in the school. Full report was published Sept 05 See extracts from report here - 05-09-30- BES Consulting Asbestos Survey.pdf |
6th June 2005 |
Letter sent to volunteers of the focus groups, who would now be on these new focus groups,Parent focus group to be on 14th June 2005 6.30-8.30 Copy of letter here - 05-06-07- Focus Group set up.pdf Similar e-mail to Stakeholders as seen above Residents focus group to be on 15th June 2005 Staff focus group to be on (N/K) June 2005 Governors focus group to be on (N/K) June 2005 |
9th June 2005 |
The Gilbraithe Partnership did a North Boundry wall feasibility Study, highlighting issues about the boundary that needed addressing. See copy of report here - 05-06-09-Gilbraithe Partnership-North Boundry wall.pdf |
14th June 2005 Parents Focus group 6.30-8.30. Stockton Heath Primary School |
In this ‘consultation meeting’ the L.E.A./council presented a “refurbishment” option alongside the ‘new build’ option, giving a presentation for both options, however it was presented to make it apparent that the conversion will cost more money than the new build. This was due to the architect agreeing this at the meeting in response to a question from the audience. Tim Warren stepped in to say that no costing's had been done at that stage and that there would be a better idea of costing's before the next meeting. See Provisional School Plan “Existing Building here - 05-06-14-Origional Existing Building Plan.pdf See Provisional School Plan “New Building here - 05-06-14-Origional New Build Plan.pdf See Provisional School Plan “Refurbish & Remodel Existing Building here - 05-06-14-Origional Refurb & Extension Plan.pdf The chair of Governors stated that they and the school staff all support the new build, stating various disadvantages of the conversion as their reasoning, (we now know from subsequent discussions and the survey that this is not the case, as some want the refurbishment) including ‘some of the classrooms will be too large’, ‘it will be more difficult to manage the children’, ‘the new build will be purpose built’. However the refurbishment would have more space overall. On the downside the “New Build” would be immediately opposite residents in West Avenue. Already this week, one set of parents have removed their two children. It had been publicly stated by the parent that this was because of the proposed new build. Parents put their views across and again the parents in this group were opposed to the new build option. Notes were made at the time by Council / LEA staff and were to be added to the other focus group comments. These were later published on the 8th July See copy of letter - 8th July here with focus groups recorded views - 05-07-08-Letter from WBC - Views.pdf See copy of letter - 8th July with focus groups recorded views & Action Group comments here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-11-1ST Consultation meeting views from all&Action Group comments.doc This was the first & incidentally only meeting we discussed in detail our concerns with the Council, openly in a focus group format. It was by far and away the view of the group, that they acknowledged that money was limited, but were not in favour of a new build & that we would wish to discuss options for further refurbishment. These views were supposedly shared with the Council, who although obviously not too happy with them, seemed to be accepting some of the points in a fair & unbiased manner. The members of the group asked for the proposed plans to be published on the School Website. |
14th June 2005 |
Letter sent from Warrington Borough Council to Parents / Carers, highlighting that the focus groups were occurring that week and that the plans for the options would be on display in the lower hall Wednesday 15th and Thursday 16th June between 3pm and 5pm (an inconsiderate time again) however the school did offer people the opportunity to see the plans by contacting the school directly. See copy of letter - 14th June here - 05-06-14-Letter from WBC.pdf |
7th July 2005 |
Gilbraithe Partnership published it full test drilling report of the borehole core samples taken in and around the school grounds See copy of report here - will be available soon |
8th July 2005 |
Letter sent from Warrington Borough Council to Stakeholders announcing a “second consultation meeting” at Stockton Heath Primary School on Monday 25th July 2005 at 6.30pm. The letter again mentioned the previous consultation meetings and said that the plans were available on the School Website. It announced that the Architect’s proposals would be shared. It wasn’t clear how many people were sent this letter and it wasn’t clear that it was open to everyone to attend. The letter did however ask for attendees to complete a slip and return by 15th July (short notice). The Council also invited comments to go through the school website and contact could be made with Mrs Carnes. Focus group members assumed that this was another focus group meeting and that the many focus groups were being brought together to discuss all comments from all focus group meetings. There was the “summary of views” given out in this letter. The “summary of views” appeared to be a true record of the “Focus Group” Comments See copy of letter - 8th July here with focus groups recorded views - 05-07-08-Letter from WBC - Views.pdf See copy of letter - 8th July with focus groups recorded views & Action Group comments here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-11-1ST Consultation meeting views from all&Action Group comments.doc |
Friday 22nd July 2005 |
A small A5 Letter was sent from the School to parents (given to children Friday pm, in schoolbags) mentioning the meeting of the following Monday. This now stated “the final LEA consultation meeting” and “this is your final opportunity” See copy of letter 22nd July here - 05-07-22- Late letter from School.pdf Now that was a completely different message from “second consultation” mentioned in the letter dated 8th July and to be honest, because of the delivery method, most Parent/Carer focus group members never picked this up until after the meeting. So in reality people went from everyone thinking that there was an ongoing consultation to suddenly, 2 days before, being informed that it was now final. People did not pick this up and it led to just attendees from previous focus groups going on the Monday 25th meeting! There was also no indication that there would be a vote at the next meeting. |
Monday 25th July 2005 – 6.30pm |
On the night of the meeting, there were about 85/90 people in attendance; however it was apparent to the Parent /Carer focus group members who did attend, that most of the people were not recognisable to them. Nearly all of the Teachers were there, Governors, some councilors, council and LEA staff and Teachers and council staff, from across the Warrington area and it appeared to some parents/carers/residents, that these individuals had been brought in to bolster the new build support on the night. A summary document See copy of advantages/disadvantages document here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-07-25-2nd-Final- Consultation meeting-surprise adv-dis document.doc See copy of advantages/disadvantages document here with Action Group comments - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-11-2nd-Final- Consultation meeting-surprise document&comments.doc which was supposed to represent what was discussed at the previous focus groups was handed out to all attendees. It bore no relation to the previous circulated document whatsoever! See copy of letter - 8th July here - 05-07-08-Letter from WBC - Views.pdf People were visibly shocked to see that any reference, in favour of refurbishment had been completely ignored & it consisted only of positive advantages towards the rebuild option and many disadvantages against the refurbishment option. The council compiled these notes, but it seemed the comments from our interest group were lost in translation. One of the Parent Carer Focus Group Members Mr Wells stood up and said “I’m sorry to say that these notes do not resemble anything that was said in the last meeting. I don’t accept their validity as they are not a true picture of what occurred” Other Focus Group members also stood up and agreed with the comment. Other parents and residents present also then disagreed with the notes handed out. There were presentations from LEA, Architect, Health and Safety, a head Governor who defiantly supported the New Build as the only option available and even Highways were mentioned. Later on in this meeting everyone was split into groups. It became apparent that the group Leaders/Speakers were obviously selected for the breakout groups before the process started, and guided the answers written on the flip charts. The consensus of opinion was always going to be the council one. Everyone then went back together and Tim Warren then proceeded to get what he described as a consensus of opinion from the group leaders. This appeared to be just a voting session with numbers being added up. Due to the makeup of the group there was a high percentage of the vote for a new build. This was subsequently reported by councilors, officers and in the press as being “70% in favour of the New Build”. How can this be justifiable, it was not announced that this meeting was to be a voting session for the final recommendation to the Council Executive Board. If it had many more would have turned up. Any kind of democratic vote should be closely controlled. The people should be registered & state their interest. Where were the extra people in the audience from? Did they register when people were asked to complete the attendance sheet? What area were they from. Was there insider knowledge of what was to happen so everyone knew to bring all of their friends & family along to assist with the democratic process? So overall, the final consultation meeting did not truly represent the aims of the meeting that was advertised in the first instance. There was a poor turnout from residents and parents because of the failure to effectively communicate the content of the meeting. The time of the meeting also disadvantaged Parents who would still be traveling home form work etc. Residents/Parents do not feel that they have been fully consulted. The school’s fate was as someone mentioned recently “Doomed from the outset” There has always been a sense of Fait-a-Compli with respect to the whole process and the outcome. It was not a true representation of all the genuine stakeholders. |
August 2005 |
A full Archaeological Evaluation was done on the site, which included the exploratory digging of trenches on the playground. Roman Remains were found just a matter of inches under the playground, which almost certainly including a well preserved Roman Road. See copy of the Archaeological Evaluation here - - will be available soon |
7th Sept 2005 |
Rotary Test Drilling Ltd did a Site investigation and Report was published. Worthy of note, are the different/shorter test drilling depths at West Avenue compared with rest of site – Why – This maybe where the old Mersey River crossing is. This questions the site suitability, or may indicate increased site preparations costs to cut across the original costing's? See copy of the Rotary Test Drilling Ltd report here - will be available soon |
12th September 2005 |
Warrington Borough Council - Executive Board Meeting. At the Halliwell Jones Stadium. See copy of the Executive Board Agenda document here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=5957 See copy of the Executive Board Report document here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=5972 Report recommending “New Build” presented and accepted See copy of Approval to Procedure to work for Capital Works: Stockton Heath Community Primary School document here - http://212.248.237.112/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=6122 |
13th September 2005 |
Letter sent from Warrington Borough Council to tell Parent/Carers that the Warrington Borough Council Executive Board had approved the recommendations for the demolition of school and to build a new one See copy of letter - 13th September 2005 here - 05-09-13-Letter from WBC Decision ex board.pdf There have been a number of press releases, articles and letters published in the Warrington Guardian and Warrington Worldwide over the same period. These have been collated together in one document. See copy of Warrington Guardian Materials news reports here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-11-Guardian Press Coverage and Letters.doc
“Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group” The “Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group” had now been set up to object to the proposed “New Build” option. The group consist of a number of people from the Stockton Heath area and includes Parents/Carers/Residents and other stakeholders. The school is already “Locally Listed” although it is not a “Nationally Listed Building” Communications have already been made with English Heritage, applying for the building to be Nationally Listed. This process had already been underway for some time and the group now awaits the decision from the secretary of state. See copy of English Heritage Communications here - 05-09-13-English Heritage Reply 1.pdf See copy of English Heritage School Buildings doc here - http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/HELMSchools.pdf A formal request for all documentation relating to the process as regards Stockton Heath Community Primary School was made under the “Freedom of Information Act 2000” See copy FoIA2000 requests here - 05-10-21-Freedom of Information Act Request- Warrington Borough Council.doc A petition was raised against the proposed demolition and was distributed around Stockton Heath. Three petition signing/action days occurred in Stockton Heath over 3 weekends. On the first Saturday, 1,462 members of the Stockton Heath Public signed the petition, indicating that they were against the proposed demolition of Stockton Heath Community Primary School. See copy of Petition Sheet here -../../savestocktonheath/05-10-15-School Petition Final.doc See copy of Petition Poster here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-10-14-COLOURPOSTERdefinate.pdf See copy of Petition door to door flier here - 05-10-12-leaflet2 front page & rear page.doc To date 5, 164 people have signed the petition against the demolition. The results are expressed in datail in the Pie charts on the links below See Petition % Graph here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-08-01-Petition graphs PERGENTAGE aug 06 UPDATED.doc See Petition Numbers Graph here - ../../savestocktonheath/06-08-01-Petition graphs NUMBER Aug 06 UPDATED.doc 62% of signatories live in Stockton Heath and a further 22% live in the Warrington Area. This overwhelming support against the demolition is in total contrast to the picture portrayed publicly by Warrington Borough Council and some local councilors. The petition has been ridiculed continually by some council officers and councilors since its publication, with taunts of bullying tactics. Trying to bully over 5000 members of the public is a little far fetched to say the least. |
30th September 2005 |
BES Consulting – Asbestos Survey Report – This is a large report, which does not find Asbestos in the main building structure. It does however find Asbestos products in all of the sink pads in the classroom sinks and some asbestos in the cellar pipe work coverings. Example Pages from the report - 05-09-30- BES Consulting Asbestos Survey.pdf |
3rd October 2005 |
Letter published in Warrington Guardian by Councilor Celia Jordan and Sue Dodd supporting the “New Build” option Stockton Heath Action group replied in open letter, also published in Warrington Guardian See councilors published letter here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-10-03-Guardian Letter-Celia Jordon.doc See Action Groups published response letter here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-10-03-Response to Celia Jordan-Warr Guard Final 300 words.doc |
21st October 2005 |
Mal administration Complaint The “Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group” made a formal complaint to Warrington Borough Council as regards mal-administration. See Complaint Cover letter here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-10-21-Tim Warren Head of Service 20-10-05 Final Sent.doc See the Action Groups mal-administration complaint here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-10-21-Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group - Complaint-20-10-05 Final Sent.doc See the Action Groups mal-administration complaint supplementary Document list here - 05-10-21-Supplementary Document List.doc Under the Mal-administration Procedures, “Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group” formally made a complaint that Warrington Borough Council has failed to conduct the process correctly since December 2004, in connection with the “Stockton Heath Targeted Bid”. The process has not been fully completed openly in the public arena and some of the practices undertaken have been either, negligent, underhand/divisive or at best incompetent. The following major questions were asked: Question 1: Why did the Council decide not to institute a consultation process on the future of the school before making any clear decisions on the building’s future? Question 2: What did the council representative know at this time as regards the proposed New Build and did the council mislead the Parish Council Meeting as regards the real reason for the removal of the tree, in that the tree needs to be removed so that an entrance can be made to access the old school building during the demolition phase, for the New Build Option? Question 3: Why did the school seek advance written notice of questions? On what basis was the deadline set for receipt of comments, and by whom? Question 4: Why was no consideration given to all, as regards suitable timings being allocated to the open evenings so that all stakeholders could contribute? On what basis was a one week deadline for responses agreed? Question 5: On what basis were the timings of consultation meetings agreed? To what degree, and in what ways, were the needs of different stakeholders groups taken into account? Question 6: Why did Mr Warren, at the meeting of 14th June 2005, deny that costing's of the two options had been already calculated, when the architect stated that the refurbishment would cost more? Question 7: When was the decision made to change the advertised ‘Second Consultation Meeting’ to the ‘Final Consultation Meeting’ and why was it not publicised in any reasonable way to all stakeholders? Question 8: What was the source of the document ‘Advantages/Disadvantages’ (Appendix B13)? What evidence is there to demonstrate that its content reflected the views expressed at the previous Focus Group meeting? Question 9: Why did the ‘Advantages/Disadvantages’ document (Appendix B12) bear little relation to the letter 8th July (AppendixB11), which was a more accurate record of what had been said at the previous focus group meetings? Question 10: At the focus group meeting of 25th July 2005, why was the letter of 8th July (Appendix B11) not employed as a true record of views expressed at the previous meeting? Question 11: Why did the break-out group leaders at the meeting of 25th July 2005 appear to have been pre-selected? Why had some of the break-out group leaders not been present at earlier focus groups? Question 12: At the meeting of 25th July 2005, why did the process turn into a voting session when it had previously not been indicated on any focus group literature prior to the meeting? Question 13 –Why has the council been adamant that the reason for going for the new build option was because the refurbishment would not be suitable for the children, when in fact both options would be suitable for the children’s needs and for the future of effective schooling in the 21st century? Question 14: although it is apparent that the refurbishment option will cost about £500,000 more than the new build option, why has the Council not chosen to divulge what efforts it has made to identify additional funding sources? |
21st October 2005 |
The “Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group” requested all the major documents associated with targeted bid from WBC, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. See Action Groups Freedom of Information Act 2000 request here - 05-10-21-Freedom of Information Act Request- Warrington Borough Council.doc |
9th November 2005 |
Another Feasibility Study Report was completed as regards the two options and makes interesting reading of the pro’s and cons for each option. New revised costings of the “New Build” option are contained within the text. The original costs published for the 2 options were as follows Option 1 "New Build" £ 4,326.664 million pounds Option 2 "Refurbishment" £ 4,963.373 million pounds Which was a difference of £ 636.709 thousand pounds New revised costing's as of this report were that Option 1 "New Build" was £ 4,681.957 Which is a difference of only £ 281.416 s, somewhat different to the published £500.000 difference at the time. This is mainly due to the fact that the revised design had gone to a steel girder construction type and incorporated suspended reinforced concrete slab floors, to ensure the project would be completed on time! Please also note that these estimates do not include the later modified slate style roof and new additional brickwork, so is the true cost of the “NEW BUILD” Option now over the £5 million mark? We would say yes! But the council refuse to give any up to date figures! See Feasibility Study Report pages 1-15 here - 05-11-09-Feasability Study Report pages 1-15.pdf See Feasibility Study Report pages 16-29 here - 05-11-09-Feasability Study Report pages 16-29.pdf Also of note was that the only conclusion listed was that extra funds above and beyond the origional 3.9 million had been identified. |
10th November 2005 |
Local Liberal Democrat Leader Ian Marks and Lib Dem Councilors had seen initial plans of the new build and described them as “looking more like a retail Warehouse” and asked for considered changes to be made. See press release here - http://www.warringtonliberaldemocrats.org.uk/news/PRESS188.phtml |
14th November 2005 |
Stockton Heath Primary School Action group gave a radio interview and announced a Public Information evening to present the facts so far to local people. Door to Door mail drops had been already done to all Stockton Heath and local Walton residents. See press release here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-14-Stockton Heath Primary School Action Group- Press Release.doc |
14th November 2005 |
Warrington Borough Council replied to the Action Groups Mal-administration complaint. They did not accept any of the complaints made, making a number of statements about their conduct during the process. See WBC Mal-administration complaint reply here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-14-WBC Reply to Stockton Heath Action Group Complaint-14 November 2005.doc |
16th November 2005 |
Stockton Heath Primary School Action group held the Public Information evening to present their views and findings. WBC Officers were invited and attended; yet again they faced some strong views and questioning from local residents, Parents, Carers. See Information Evening Poster here -../../savestocktonheath/05-11-16-Action Group Public Information Evening Poster.doc Copy of School document “Setting the Vision for the 21st Century” with Action Group comments -../../savestocktonheath/05-11-11-Vision Doc-What we all want - word doc.doc See copy of letter - 8th July with focus groups recorded views & Action Group comments here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-11-1ST Consultation meeting views from all&Action Group comments.doc See copy of advantages/disadvantages document here with Action Group comments - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-11-2nd-Final- Consultation meeting-surprise document&comments.doc See Stockton Heath Children’s Voices Slide show here - ../../savestocktonheath/05-11-16-voices slide show for Info Evening.ppt See Action Group presentation material here - - will be available soon |
18th November 2005 |
A letter was sent by WBC inviting stakeholders and residents to a public meeting on the 29th November 2005 to give an update and present the new build design with 3D Computer imaging. WBC asked the action group to produce the full petition at this time. The action group declined to do this. See WBC Letter here - 05-11-18-WBC Letter ref Bridgwater Meet 29-11-05.doc |
24th November 2005 |
An updated BREEAM for schools Pre-Assessment Criteria Report is published. The “New Build” just manages to get above the required “magic 55” score at 55.6526 The pre assessment had scored poorly in CO2 Emissions, scoring only 4 out of a possible 10 marks. This may be due to the fact that the emissions calculations had not been done for the development. Water consumption is another area that could be improved and the building scored 0 for rain noise and 0 for “Day lighting. There are a number of other areas, which could easily improve the score if included in the build specification. See BREEAM Extracts from Report here - 05-11-24-BREEAM Report.pdf |
24th November 2005 |
BREEAM Concerns from Eco-Homes, BREEAM Assessor are also raised via the attached report email; as the “New Build” Option would now drop under the “magic 55” mark, because of new the reinforced concrete floor and steel framework. See copy of email here - 05-11-24-BREEAM E-mail ref score.pdf |
29th November 2005 |
Public Meeting at Bridgewater high school. Computer generated images of the new school were shown to the attendees.
Again feelings were running high from both supporters of the “New Build Option” and the Refurbishment Option” as the design did in fact look like a prefabricated warehouse type development. |
12th December 2005 |
One of the Action Group members writes to Mr Tony Blair See letter here - 05-12-12-Letter to Mr Blair.pdf |
15th December 2005 |
English Heritage produce their report ref listing of the school See Report here - English Heritage report |
23rd December 2005 |
WBC delivered a number of documents requested under the FoIA 2000 to the action Group Including: Full project Briefing Document Targeted Bid and Information Funding Letter Targeted Capitol Bid October 2003 Full Costing's Project Document – February 2003 including all Options ref School Stakeholders Letters Original Presentation Review of Warrington Primary School Provision Autumn 2004 Executive Board Report September 2005 Executive Board Report January 2005 Building Maintenance / Expenditure from 1998 - 2005 Asset Management Plan / Condition Survey 1999 Asset Management Plan / Condition Survey 2003 Briefing Framework for Primary School Projects All Flipcharts from all July Consultation Meetings Latest Feasibility Study – Autumn / November 05 and associated Documents Bream Document 2005 Preliminary Feasibility Study May 2005 Civil Engineers Reports The Full Archaeological Evaluation and Pictures Document – Summer 2005 Test Drilling Report
|
