Are all the Primary Schools in Oakham now full?
August 6, 2014 Schooling, transparency, Section.106
We have had several people approach us saying they cannot get their children into Primary School in Oakham, so are the Primary Schools now full?
At a recent Places Scrutiny Meeting the Deputy Leader, Councillor King, stated; “There is pressure on school places with the growth in Primary School Children”.
If this is the case, why has the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Kenneth Bool, not made this a priority? Why has the Chair of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Gale Waller, not made this a priority item for discussion at Scrutiny?
Why have Rutland Council just sold a Primary School site for housing in the ideal location for a new school to fill the gap?
If this is the case, why have Officers not reported the situation as a matter of urgency? We are talking about children’s education and their future, this has to be a number one priority.
Before the huge Hawksmead development, involving the construction of 1100 houses, Councillor Nick Wainwright (now RGUKIP), was previously a Member of the Conservative Cabinet as the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Development. Councillor Wainwright was therefore invited to a pre-meeting to discuss the level of Section.106 for the Hawksmead development with the Leader, Councillor Begy, Deputy Leader, Councillor King and Chief Executive, Mrs Briggs. Councillor Wainwright put forward to them what he considered would be the priority item for any Section.106 discussions with Hawksmead, that of the provision of Primary School education along with the potential pressure on Secondary education, Councillor Wainwright suggested that the development of a new Primary School should be included. Unfortunately Councillor Wainwright was not then permitted to attend the meeting with the developer, whereby he could have re-enforced this priority, instead the meeting with Hawksmead went ahead with just the three aforementioned and therefore with the actual Portfolio Holder responsible excluded.
Later in a private meeting with the Development Director for Hawksmead, a Mr Paul Bywater, he stated to us that the first thing Hawksmead offered to Rutland Council as part of the Section.106 was the provision of a brand new Primary School, yet this was not accepted and never put to the Council. The question is; why did those present representing the Council turn it down? Furthermore, where is the Minuted record of this meeting showing the commuted sum and what it was for? Yet another of the documents we have asked to see and been refused.
The whole purpose of meeting Hawksmead representatives to discuss any Section.106 agreement would be to decide what contributions should be made by the developer towards the community infrastructure as a result of the added pressures from the development. In fact it should also involve the local community and the Ward Members. One of those added pressures was undoubtedly going to be primary schooling. At that time Oakham only had 4 primary schools, Burley Road Oakham (FULL); St Nicholas RC (Practically FULL); Brooke Hill (Practically FULL); Catmose Primary (Then over half FULL with 100 places available, now FULL). It was obvious to Councillor Wainwright that further Primary school places would be needed, if not the need for a brand new Primary School, especially as there were currently two of the four Primary Schools in the Oakham East Wards and two Primary Schools in the Oakham South East Ward yet no Primary School whatsoever in the North East Ward, the largest single Ward of all and the very Ward that was to now have a further 1100 houses under Hawksmead and recently 200 more houses with other developments such as Bellway on the Parks School site.
Despite Councillor Wainwright’s best efforts to have provision within the Section.106 agreement for a new build Primary School in the Oakham North West Ward, as ever, Councillor King did not think it necessary. Instead Councillor King thinks it better to spend the Section.106 money on a Business Park, or £630,000 spent on a football pitch; or waste Government Grants on replacing the Bus Stop at a projected cost of £935,000; or spending £230,000 on two buses driving around Rutland Water all day empty; or spending £1M on refurbishing the sports hall in a prison.
But think on, the Council was offered the whole of the Rutland College site, sitting on a 13 acre site for £2.2M, which included the existing College, for a staggering £3.3M less than buying a clapped out Business Centre and then converting it.
We proposed retaining the existing large single storey science block at the old Catmose College site, as it was a relatively new build and would convert easily to a perfect new Primary School on the Catmose site with the new College alongside with associated facilities. Instead Councillor King thought it better to sell this off for development for a pittance against the value of the existing building or the purchase of a replacement site and then have yet more houses built to add to the pressure.
Then again, the Council owned the existing Parks School and Day Centre site and building, a building that was originally built as a Primary School and had within it a hydrotherapy pool, instead Councillor King thought it better to sell this site off for a mere £1M for housing, only to bring in yet more children with no school to go to, it is all pure genius!
We also now have the Harrington Sixth Form College looking for a site, the problem is they have all been destroyed and sold off under Councillor King’s master plan to turn the beautiful historic market Town of Oakham into something more akin to Milton Keynes.
As Councillors we have basic duties, one is to ensure the children of this County receive the best education possible and as near to where they live, quite clearly the Conservative Leader, Councillor Begy, and Deputy Leader, Councillor King, and the rest of the Conservative Councillors do not see this as being a priority. Far better to spend £50,000 supporting the Chief Executive in bringing a case of “Defamation” against us for asking questions and asking for the very information that relates to such basic matters as this, which included asking to see the Minutes of the Meeting to discuss the negotiations on this Section.106 agreement with Hawksmead. The question is; why do they refuse to allow anyone to see this information?
However, first we need the Chair of Children’s Services, Councillor Gale Waller, to explain to the people of Rutland why this has not been made a priority?
August 6, 2014 Schooling, transparency, Section.106
We have had several people approach us saying they cannot get their children into Primary School in Oakham, so are the Primary Schools now full?
At a recent Places Scrutiny Meeting the Deputy Leader, Councillor King, stated; “There is pressure on school places with the growth in Primary School Children”.
If this is the case, why has the Portfolio Holder for Children’s Services, Councillor Kenneth Bool, not made this a priority? Why has the Chair of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Gale Waller, not made this a priority item for discussion at Scrutiny?
Why have Rutland Council just sold a Primary School site for housing in the ideal location for a new school to fill the gap?
If this is the case, why have Officers not reported the situation as a matter of urgency? We are talking about children’s education and their future, this has to be a number one priority.
Before the huge Hawksmead development, involving the construction of 1100 houses, Councillor Nick Wainwright (now RGUKIP), was previously a Member of the Conservative Cabinet as the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Development. Councillor Wainwright was therefore invited to a pre-meeting to discuss the level of Section.106 for the Hawksmead development with the Leader, Councillor Begy, Deputy Leader, Councillor King and Chief Executive, Mrs Briggs. Councillor Wainwright put forward to them what he considered would be the priority item for any Section.106 discussions with Hawksmead, that of the provision of Primary School education along with the potential pressure on Secondary education, Councillor Wainwright suggested that the development of a new Primary School should be included. Unfortunately Councillor Wainwright was not then permitted to attend the meeting with the developer, whereby he could have re-enforced this priority, instead the meeting with Hawksmead went ahead with just the three aforementioned and therefore with the actual Portfolio Holder responsible excluded.
Later in a private meeting with the Development Director for Hawksmead, a Mr Paul Bywater, he stated to us that the first thing Hawksmead offered to Rutland Council as part of the Section.106 was the provision of a brand new Primary School, yet this was not accepted and never put to the Council. The question is; why did those present representing the Council turn it down? Furthermore, where is the Minuted record of this meeting showing the commuted sum and what it was for? Yet another of the documents we have asked to see and been refused.
The whole purpose of meeting Hawksmead representatives to discuss any Section.106 agreement would be to decide what contributions should be made by the developer towards the community infrastructure as a result of the added pressures from the development. In fact it should also involve the local community and the Ward Members. One of those added pressures was undoubtedly going to be primary schooling. At that time Oakham only had 4 primary schools, Burley Road Oakham (FULL); St Nicholas RC (Practically FULL); Brooke Hill (Practically FULL); Catmose Primary (Then over half FULL with 100 places available, now FULL). It was obvious to Councillor Wainwright that further Primary school places would be needed, if not the need for a brand new Primary School, especially as there were currently two of the four Primary Schools in the Oakham East Wards and two Primary Schools in the Oakham South East Ward yet no Primary School whatsoever in the North East Ward, the largest single Ward of all and the very Ward that was to now have a further 1100 houses under Hawksmead and recently 200 more houses with other developments such as Bellway on the Parks School site.
Despite Councillor Wainwright’s best efforts to have provision within the Section.106 agreement for a new build Primary School in the Oakham North West Ward, as ever, Councillor King did not think it necessary. Instead Councillor King thinks it better to spend the Section.106 money on a Business Park, or £630,000 spent on a football pitch; or waste Government Grants on replacing the Bus Stop at a projected cost of £935,000; or spending £230,000 on two buses driving around Rutland Water all day empty; or spending £1M on refurbishing the sports hall in a prison.
But think on, the Council was offered the whole of the Rutland College site, sitting on a 13 acre site for £2.2M, which included the existing College, for a staggering £3.3M less than buying a clapped out Business Centre and then converting it.
We proposed retaining the existing large single storey science block at the old Catmose College site, as it was a relatively new build and would convert easily to a perfect new Primary School on the Catmose site with the new College alongside with associated facilities. Instead Councillor King thought it better to sell this off for development for a pittance against the value of the existing building or the purchase of a replacement site and then have yet more houses built to add to the pressure.
Then again, the Council owned the existing Parks School and Day Centre site and building, a building that was originally built as a Primary School and had within it a hydrotherapy pool, instead Councillor King thought it better to sell this site off for a mere £1M for housing, only to bring in yet more children with no school to go to, it is all pure genius!
We also now have the Harrington Sixth Form College looking for a site, the problem is they have all been destroyed and sold off under Councillor King’s master plan to turn the beautiful historic market Town of Oakham into something more akin to Milton Keynes.
As Councillors we have basic duties, one is to ensure the children of this County receive the best education possible and as near to where they live, quite clearly the Conservative Leader, Councillor Begy, and Deputy Leader, Councillor King, and the rest of the Conservative Councillors do not see this as being a priority. Far better to spend £50,000 supporting the Chief Executive in bringing a case of “Defamation” against us for asking questions and asking for the very information that relates to such basic matters as this, which included asking to see the Minutes of the Meeting to discuss the negotiations on this Section.106 agreement with Hawksmead. The question is; why do they refuse to allow anyone to see this information?
However, first we need the Chair of Children’s Services, Councillor Gale Waller, to explain to the people of Rutland why this has not been made a priority?
