|
Residents' views on the proposal for a primary school on Meadowside Recreation Ground NOTE: These are residents' views and not necessarily the views of the Parish Council.
Minutes from the meeting between the Meadowside Action Group, WCC Leader George Beckett, and Consortium Representative Ron Gorman on Tuesday 19th September 2006 7pm Rich introduced Cllr George Beckett and Ron Gorman to the meeting, and explained that the Meadowside Action Group were a concerned group of residents who wished to continue to protect the public open space at the Meadowside. The reason for inviting Cllr Beckett and Ron Gorman was to clarify the position regarding the Meadowside and to discuss the viability of Bunney Land. George Beckett introduced himself as the leader of Winchester City Council and proceeded to answer the questions sent to him prior to the meeting by the MAG team. Q1: What exactly is your position regarding the proposal to build a school on the Meadowside Recreation Ground? A. WCC fully support the need for additional primary education facilities in Whiteley, but they believe that the Meadowside is not suitable for several reasons: a) Eventually a 1FE school will not be big enough and will need expanding to 2FE. b) The amount of open space in Whiteley was designed to be that size to support the Whiteley Community. c) WCC are interested in looking for long-term solutions, not short-term fixes. d) WCC weighed up all the facts, and came to the view that the permanent loss of space from the recreation ground was too high a price to pay for building a school a few years early. All the Councillors agreed on these points. Q2: Have you been invited to discuss the issues regarding the school with HCC, since the WCC decision to decline selling them the land? A: No. Cllr Beckett has discussed the issue informally with Ken Thornber, but WCC will only formally discuss the issue if some significant change in circumstance comes to light. Q3: What is your understanding of the basis for the extension of the DfES grant to September 2007? A: That the grant was available on the
same terms as before (ie to find a suitable site), only the time limit has
changed. A: Cllr Beckett said that the main discussion at the ACE meeting was about how they could persuade WCC to re-open the Meadowside issue. He told them that there would need to be a significant change in circumstance, and that signatures alone would not be considered a significant change in circumstance. Even though the public response to the Statutory Notice was in support of the Council’s decision, that was not in itself a deciding factor, just a further matter to take into account. Cllr Beckett said that a significant change in circumstance could be if no alternative site for the school could be found.
A: ACE would have to produce something that WCC would consider to be a significant change in circumstance – 1000 signatures would not be enough. They would have to prove with absolute and incontrovertible evidence that no other site exists within the next 5 – 10 years. A change in the offer of mitigation land
might also be considered a significant change in circumstance, but the land
would have to satisfy the WCC Estates Officer that it was of equal or superior
merit to the land being lost at Meadowside, and of such benefit to the community
as to outweigh the loss at Meadowside. A: 2 conditions had not been met – the
mitigation land had to be of equal or superior merit, and in a good position. A: Identify an alternative site. A: Cllr Beckett said that he was not a
surveyor, but in the long term the Bunney Land site would be a far better
solution than building on the Meadowside, as it would be able to expand to
support the growing community. Eventually the site could become the centre of
Whiteley. If HCC still refuse to look at the Bunney Land, or pay for the feasibility study and still refuse to build the school there, what should we do? As the deadline for applications for Reception children is 17th November, parents need to know by the end of October if there will be a new school. Can we force a definitive answer from HCC regarding the Meadowside site and the Bunney site? A: We would need to lobby HCC, asking to know why they say the Bunney Land isn’t suitable. We should be asking for comparison breakdown costs between the Meadowside and the Bunney Land site. These costs should also include the costs of the amelioration land. There then followed an open question and answer session with Cllr Beckett. It was asked if ACE had managed to obtain a copy of the WPC petition which was presented to WCC during the Statutory Notice process, as it is believed that ACE may have obtained the names and addresses of people on that list. Cllr Beckett said he would speak with the City Solicitor to find out. There was some discussion as to why HCC was refusing to carry out the feasibility study on the Bunney Land. One reason suggested was that it could be because they didn’t want to expose the hidden costs of the Meadowside. It was also argued that evidence was needed to prove that the site was not viable. Cllr Beckett said that the Bunney Land was viable in both planning and development terms. Cllr Beckett discussed the issue of HCC giving planning permission to themselves to build the school on the Meadowside. He said WCC, as scrutinee, would refuse on the grounds that it contravenes two local planning policies. He said that HCC could then still give themselves consent, but the DCLG could then take away HCC’s planning authority. Also, the GOSE would be lobbied by both the NPFA and Sport England, and the planning application would be called in for a possible 18 month enquiry. Bunney Land doesn’t have those planning difficulties. There were more discussions about why HCC are refusing to look at the Bunney Land. It was proposed that HCC are playing for time now, because although they are obliged to provide school places, they do not have to be in Whiteley. Currently there are enough places in the Western Wards to accommodate children from Whiteley. However, there is concern that with the continued development in the Western Wards this would reduce the number of available places. It was suggested one reason could be that as part of the ‘planning gain’ when North Whiteley is developed, a primary and a percentage of a secondary school (depending on catchment area) would be provided free by the developers. It was suggested that maybe HCC don’t actually want to build a school. Cllr Beckett said that WCC were not aware of HCC’s intentions. WCC are the custodian of our public open space, not an education provider. A parent with young children spoke to say he fully supported the building of a school, but not on the Meadowside. He explained the difficulties involved in transporting children to a school outside of Whiteley, but said he still supports the WCC long-term view. He expressed concerns that the issue of a new primary school could drag on for years, and still there might be no schoolClarification regarding the mitigation land was sought. Cllr Beckett said it is the responsibility of property professionals to decide if mitigation land is suitable. The land has to be superior or equal in value to the community, but does not have to replace like with like. The WCC Estates Officer agreed that the land offered at Leafy Lane was not of equal or greater value to the community to that which would be lost at Meadowside. Presentation from Ron Gorman Ron Gorman, a representative from the Consortium, then gave a presentation to show how they envisaged a school could be sited on the Bunney Land. The Consortium consists of the Bunney family who own 80-90 acres of land, and 3 developers - Crest, Taylor Woodrow and Bovis. Ron said that the planning process for North Whiteley, should it go ahead, was at least 2 – 3 years away, but they had heard about the proposal for a new primary school, and knowing that should NW go ahead, some advance infrastructure would be needed, the Consortium looked at what might be a sensible site for a primary school. Since Government guidelines recommend a 400 to 500 metres walk distance to a primary school, to ensure it is easily accessible to the community, they thought that the Bunney Land would make a good site. The land was offered to HCC around 12 months ago, but the discussion they had then with HCC was fairly negative, the reasons given at the time being policy, accessibility, that the land was outside the development area, and that infrastructure should be paid for by the developers as ‘planning gain items’. It was suggested that HCC don’t want to pay for something which the developers would normally pick up. Ron said that the Consortium would pick up any costs relating to the development once North Whiteley is agreed – eg they would pay for the school to be expanded to a 2FE, because that would be required by the new development. They would also pay the costs for the road since it would be needed for the new development if North Whiteley went ahead. Ron was asked how long he would expect the building of a 1FE school to take. He said the consortium were just starting the process of building a 1FE school elsewhere, for £3.35 million. He expected planning permission to be granted early 2007, then there would be around a 16 month build time, plus a handover period, so he would expect the school to be ready for the 2008 intake. He was questioned about the suitability of the Bunney Land for a school, and he said there was no problem with the size of the land, and there was nothing unusual about its physical nature. The land is the same as that being built on, off Dickens Drive. Ron did say that the one extraordinary thing about the Bunney Site was the need for an access road. He said that HCC would not normally build a road – they would expect the developer to do it. It was confirmed that Bluebell Way would need extending down to the school site by approximately 0.5km. Ron verbally estimated the school to cost £3.5 mill, plus £0.5mill for the road, and £1 mill for site preparation. He was asked again about build time, and said that if the school was started today it would be a struggle to have it ready for the 2008 intake, but that would be the same for the Meadowside too. He said the build time for both sites would be very similar. Ron was asked about the piece of land at the bottom of the Bunney Site – what would happen to it if HCC didn’t want the extra piece for the school. He said it was a natural ‘sink’ area, and should be kept as woodland or a nature conservation area. Ron showed the meeting some plans of North Whiteley, showing the 500 metre walk zone around the primary school, and the possible siting of a secondary school, and indicated where the housing would be in relation to the primary school. He was asked how much a feasibility study would cost, and said £50,000 - £80,000 if it was taken to the preliminary build stage. A question was asked about the 106 agreement on the recreation land, as HCC would be required to pay compensation to Mr Bunney for change of usage. Ron said there was little difference in value of land used for recreational purposes, and that used to build a school. There is a condition on the Bunney Land that means it can only be sold for educational purposes ie building a school. A question was raised regarding how we could put pressure on HCC to start looking at the Bunney Land for the school, since Ken Thornber was not answering letters written to him by the WPC. Further discussion took place, and it was suggested that we write jointly to Mark Oaten and Mark Hoban, and ask them to help lobby HCC, and to write to the local press. Someone asked what was involved with the Feasibility Study, and how long it would take. Ron answered, saying it would take around 3 months, and involves land testing to determine suitability, and location of services, costs, and assessments as to how the services would be provided to the school. It was asked if Ron was aware of any other site in Whiteley, other than the Meadowside and the Bunney Land, suitable for building a school. He said he wasn’t aware of any that wouldn’t involve significant costs converting residential land to school land. Ron confirmed that the developers were a neutral party regarding a school site. MAG thanked the guests for coming to the meeting, and reiterated its support of the decisions WCC had taken so far for the preservation of Meadowside. Meeting closed at 8:40pm.
September 2006 From Wendy Roostan regarding the ACE campaign The following items are lifted from the Whiteley Action for Children’s Education (ACE) website. The reader needs to be aware that many of these ‘myths’ are ACE creations. Also, while some of their facts may actually be facts, they may not actually relate to the myth or deal with the bigger picture. ACE myth: Alternative access to “Bunney Land” is only a few metres away through the new housing development off Dickens Drive. ACE fact: The new housing development off Dickens Drive is surrounded by a buffer zone which prevents road access from being created. (Source: Planning department at Fareham Borough Council) Comment: This ‘myth’ is a fact. Being only a few metres away, only pedestrian access will be needed from that part of Whiteley as this would encourage walking by both stay-at-home parents and those off to work afterwards. It is technically feasible to construct a greenway linking the site to the Dickens Drive area. ACE myth: North of Whiteley “Bunney Land” school can be completed for September 2008 ACE ‘fact’ - It took 1 year to build Whiteley Way (towards Tesco). School building will rely on a new access road. The existing Whiteley Primary School took 18 months to complete its first phase. ACE ‘fact’ - It took over 2 years after the planning application to establish the road/services at Solent Business Park 2 (opposite the Solent Hotel). This is due to the construction requirements for electricity, street lighting, water, foul and surface water drainage, gas and public highway. ACE ‘fact’ - 2 years road planning, 1 year road building and 18 months school building adds 4-5 years from September 2006. This means that the school building could not be complete until September 2010 or even 2011. ACE ‘fact’ - Delaying the school building by 2-3 years adds £1 million building cost inflation to the school costs. (Source: Director of Property, Business & Regulatory Services, Hampshire County Council) ACE ‘fact’ - Opening the school 2-3 years later puts another 70 to 105 Whiteley children in schools outside Whiteley commuting across Segensworth Roundabout for 1 hour or more each day. Their parents may even suffer double this time if they commute back. (Source: Whiteley Primary School waiting list) Comment: This ACE ‘myth’ is theirs alone, as the supporters of the Bunney land as the alternative have said the date is possible but unknown as HCC has insisted only that the land is unsuitable, without providing a timescale of site acquisition / preparation / costing. While actual completion of the school building is a priority, it is not the crucial factor, publication of statutory notices by the Diocese to establish a school is. Once published (with the reasonable certainty of success, e.g. all parties in agreement, such as the Diocese, HCC, WCC, & WPC) then a temporary school can be established. We just need road/services for a 1FE school, not a business park. Notices for the original school were published in February 1996, and the school opened in temporary accommodation in September 1997. In September 1996 the scheme was already running late “because of site problems and major questions concerning development of the site (including) provision of access road to the site; location of an existing mains sewer across the proposed site; compulsory purchase order for part of the site; need to address how to deal with the woodland and other environmental matters.” [from HCC Education Committee 10 September 1996] From HCC SE Hampshire Divisional Building Panel – 18 March 1997: school will open in temporary accommodation in September 1997. “In the months preceding this considerable preparation works will be undertaken to include site clearance and the provision of an access road (approx. 200 metres), surface water drainage and mains services.” Eighteen months was from tender to occupation for the 2FE school. ACE myth: The access road (Bluebell Way/Whiteley Lane) to the “Bunney Land” is only 250 metres away Ace ‘fact’ - This 550 metres will cost at least £550,000. (Source: North Whiteley Consortium planning consultants) Ace ‘fact’ - Whiteley Parish Council has conceded that the site will actually require a 600 yard (550 metre) access road. (Source:Meeting between Whiteley Parish Councillor and new Whiteley School Temporary Governing Body) Comment – This ACE ‘myth’ is a fact. The beginning of the Bunney land is 250 metres from the end of the current road. The end of the Bunney land is another 300 metres. There is no reason why the road must extend the full length of the land. The Bunney land consists of 2 ‘sections’. The more westerly, higher, larger section is preferable for an expandable 1FE school and would need approx. 400 metres of road to access at its midpoint. ACE myth: The “Bunney Land” site is suitable for building a Whiteley school. ACE ‘fact’ - The “Bunney Land” is outside the Whiteley development area and even has an SO31 (Burridge) postcode. (Source: Ordnance Survey Maps of Whiteley) ACE ‘fact’ - There is a surface water problem on the “Bunney Land”, and to develop it as a school you may have to divert the existing drainage infrastructure for the existing houses. (Source: Director of Property, Business & Regulatory Services, Hampshire County Council) Comment – The Bunney land is outside the current development, however, it abuts the current Whiteley boundary making the postcode irrelevant. WCC Principal Scrutiny Committee minutes (10 July 2006) state that building a school on Meadowside would be “contrary to Policies RT1 and RT2 of the recently adopted Winchester District Local Plan. These policies were based upon national guidance regarding the protection of recreational land.” “It was explained that the flexibility of policies within the Local Plan allowed for the development of the alternative site suggested for the school at land north of the existing Whiteley development. Policy C5 could allow essential community facilities, such as a school, to be provided outside the existing development boundary.” On a simplified basis, if one were to compare the Bunney land to the Meadowside land, the Bunney land can be used because of policy C5, it has been offered to HCC at £12k an acre (total 5 acres), it’s large enough to easily expand to 1FE when needed, it is at the edge of the development accessible by footpath and one road (as is the current school). The Meadowside site is contrary to local and national planning policies, conflicts with PPG17, RT1 and RT2 and will be called in by the government, would need a land swap (which has been offered and valued by HCC as worth £1.5m, but which has been declined by WCC as not meeting the appropriate criteria), could not be expanded to 2FE, encroaches on a recreation open space area next to a shopping village, and would be accessed from the west by footpaths but would have to be accessed from the south on a road HCC does not own and which would put pedestrians and traffic in the same space. The Meadowside site would also put construction and construction traffic directly across the only footpath leading from the western housing to the Meadowside Centre/Whiteley Village. ACE myth - “Bunney Land” school can be completed within the £5.5m budget secured ACE ‘fact’ - Hampshire County Council (the Local Education Authority) confirmed on 27th July 2006 that the site will cost approximately £7.5m (School £4.5m, 2-3 years building inflation £1m and £2m site abnormals/ road/services/drainage). They are a professional body and their business is procuring, running and maintaining schools. They have also confirmed that there are not additional funds available to secure the £2m extra needed for this site. (Source: Director of Property, Business & Regulatory Services, Hampshire County Council) Comment: Another reason why HCC should not have wasted our time. Their most recent estimates (March 2006) for the Meadowside site indicate the school would cost £4.5m and the relocation costs at £800k. The DfES grant plus HCC’s contribution total £5.521m. HCC Children’s Services Policy Review Committee, 12 July 2005 Report of the Education Officer (Primary education provision to serve the Whiteley area) stated: “Any shortfall on the community option would have to be met from the Education or Policy and Resources capital programme. This could include a receipt from the sale of land at Heath Road, Locks Heath (held by Education) and the disposal of the Leafy Lane site (held by Policy and Resources) if that site is not used for the school.” The North Whiteley consortium have recently quoted a costing, including road and site abnormals, of £5m if they were building the school on the Bunney site. ACE myth: A Temporary School could be provided at Whiteley Primary School ACE ‘fact’ - It would not be practicable to provide a temporary school on the Whiteley Primary School site as there is insufficient suitable space. (Source: Temporary governing Body of new Whiteley School) ACE ‘fact’ - Possible sites have been identified to provide temporary land for facilities for the new School for an intake in September 2007 (as the School building on Meadowside land will not be ready for new pupils until early/mid 2008). (Source: Temporary governing Body of new Whiteley School) Comment – This is another created ACE ‘myth’. A temporary school cannot be provided at Whiteley Primary School though the reason given is incorrect. The second ‘fact’ applies wherever the school is built. ACE myth: A Two Form Entry School is required. ACE
‘fact’ - Birth rates in Whiteley for each of the years 2000-2005 (and
based on numbers Jan-Jul 2006) are an average of 127 babies born each year +/- 6
babies. ACE
‘fact’ - Applications at Whiteley Primary School have been an average of 108
children each year for the last 3 years (with only 90 applications being
successful). ACE ‘fact’ - If birth rates jumped in 2007 or thereafter this will only impact school intake in September 2011. This timeline is commensurate with expectations of the North of Whiteley development, which, if it happens, will have to provide extra infrastructure including schools. Therefore no expansion of the proposed new school at Meadowside would be needed. (Source: Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act) ACE ‘fact’ - The new school together with the existing school would provide 120 places, which is 95% of the anticipated application rate of 127 (current preference fulfilment by the existing school is 78%). 3 out of 4 currently being declined will be accepted into Whiteley. Comment – - Another ACE-created myth. A 2FE school is not required now, but most certainly will be in the future. The figures above also erroneously presume that all babies born in Whiteley are still here 5 years later. HCC stands by its projection modelling for school-aged children. This indicates (Consultation February/April 2005) that there will be 124 Whiteley children seeking reception places in 2007, 110 in 2008, and 109 in 2009. The oversubscription for in-catchment children has been 8 (2003), 2 (2004), 26 (2005), and 19 (2006) taken from minutes of Whiteley Primary School Governing Body. HCC states their projections include all present/future house building for the Whiteley development. Therefore, theoretically, this new school in the year 2009/2010 would have (including the current school waiting list) a total of 120 children (19 in reception, 20 in year 1, 34 in year 2 (4 over its published admission number), 19 in year 3, 20 in year 4, 5 in year 5, 3 in year 6). Once North Whiteley development begins school places will be needed before new schools come online. The developers’ obligations to provide community facilities will remain. ACE myth: The new school would be in competition with Whiteley Primary School ACE ‘fact’ - Whiteley Primary School and the new primary school intend to work together in partnership, not competition. (Source: Temporary governing Body of new Whiteley School) ACE ‘fact’ - Whiteley Primary School has offered assistance and advice for establishment of the new school and welcomes its creation to alleviate the over-subscription of places suffered by Whiteley residents. (Source: Temporary governing Body of new Whiteley School) Comment – The idea of ‘competition’ has been misunderstood. Whiteley Primary School has always worked very closely with other schools, both primary and secondary, and will continue to do so. The competition aspect concerns the comparison between a well-established, successful school set in magnificent grounds with 21 teachers plus auxillary staff to provide complementary activities to that of an untested new school with fewer than 7 teachers initially (as the pupil population does not yet warrant a full staff) with the possibility that older children may be taught in combined year groups (1/2, 3/4, 5/6) until the need for 7 teachers is established. ACE myth: The majority of Whiteley residents are against the building of a new primary church school on the Meadowside land. ACE ‘fact’ - 2 petitions, collected by Whiteley Parish Council, were submitted to Winchester City Council. Petition 1 contained more than 60 signatures from children and included 24 signatures from non-Whiteley residents. Petition 2 was an e-mail petition. Almost half the names (170 out of 380) are from people who live close to the Meadowside land. This is not a fair representation of the views of the whole of Whiteley. (Source: Inspection of letters and petitions at Winchester City Council offices) ACE
‘fact’ - 118 letters were received by Winchester City Council objecting to the
transfer of a piece of land at Meadowside Recreation Ground for construction of
the new school representing little more than 2% of the adult population of
Whiteley. ACE ‘fact’ - 4,400 adults live in Whiteley (Source: Fareham Borough Council Leader) Comment – The argument regarding petitions/letters and how many for/against is a distraction. Residents were given two opportunities to voice an opinion, firstly during the HCC consultation for a proposed new school, and secondly when WCC published the statutory notice that it was considering disposing of the land to HCC (the second was not a consultation but a legal notice). Whether most residents are for or against is now academic as WCC has voted unanimously (one abstention) NOT to sell the land. Their primary reason is that HCC cannot offer mitigation land, and the secondary reasons are that more ‘against’ letters were received in response to their published notice and the fact that HCC cannot meet the conditions WCC has imposed. HCC’s minutes (17 July 2006) state in the appendix of conditions that rather than meeting the conditions it finds #1 acceptable but attaches conditions of its own, #2 acceptable, #3 acceptable (willing to offer .5 hectare of land it values at £1.5m – why such generosity?), #4 acceptable in principle, #5 acceptable but concerned about open ended liability, #6 acceptable, #7 acceptable, #8 acceptable, and #9 requires further discussion. Finding a condition acceptable and meeting it are two very different things. ACE myth: There is a covenant on the Meadowside Recreation Ground which only allows its use for recreation and it would cost a great deal to remove it. ACE ‘fact’ - HCC was proposing to override the 'recreation use only' covenant using powers contained in s237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) Comment – This ACE ‘myth’ is a fact. While HCC may be able to have the protective covenant removed, they will still have to pay the developers as the land was provided as open space/recreation land. The difference between that cost and the cost of development land in Whiteley is considerable. WCC Cabinet minutes (31 May 2006) state “compensation would be payable and the City Council would require a full indemnity (from HCC).” ACE myth: 17,000 people a month use Meadowside Recreation Ground ACE ‘fact’ - Following photographic observation of the Meadowside Land use, excluding the facilities that will be relocated, we can be 95% certain that continuous use throughout the day will, on average, be between 2 and 5 persons in July and August (the time of year expected to be the busiest). There can be more people at a given time (we observed 9 people and 12 people on 2 sampling occasions), however we observed 10 occasions where there were 0, 1 or 2 persons using the land. (Source: Photographic evidence obtained through site visits) ACE ‘fact’ - 210 children will benefit on a daily basis from the extra use of the 5% of land lost and 5% of land shared. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) ACE ‘fact’ - If 5% of land lost is provided for school use, this will be replaced by additional public land equal to the land lost plus 1 acre. This new public site at Leafy lane will be available to all. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) Comment – Believe the 17,000 figure actually refers to users of the Meadowside Centre, and close to 200,000 people use the fields annually (Centre records). However, unscientific sampling is irrelevant to the discussion as a minimum amount of land must be provided in a development as open space/recreation land. The Leafy Lane land is not acceptable as mitigation land. Winchester Cabinet report received 10 July 2006 states: “ … unacceptable because, regardless of current ownership, this land is already factored into the calculations of open space requirements for Whiteley.” ACE myth: A new school at Meadowside would prevent any future expansion of Meadowside Leisure Centre. ACE ‘fact’ - The plans drawn by Hampshire County Council ensure that the school is not built against the side of the Meadowside Leisure Centre. There would be sufficient room for expansion. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) Comment – This ACE ‘myth’ is a fact stated in the Proposal published by HCC in January/February 2006 which said: “It would prevent any future expansion of the sports facilities at the Meadowside Centre which would be a disadvantage.” This is also confirmed by HCC’s own site plan. ACE myth: Building at Meadowside site means that the football/cricket teams in Whiteley will not be able to play on the pitches for 3 years. ACE ‘fact’ - Hampshire County Council has provided plans which minimise disruption and attempt to keep both adult size pitches in operation throughout any building and landscaping works. Some disruption is, however, inevitable. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) ACE ‘fact’ - The expected time for playing football after commencing earth works will be around 4 months. Therefore the September 2007 and September 2008 playing seasons would have pitches to play on. (Source: Sport England Pitch contractor) ACE ‘fact’ - Fareham Borough Council has confirmed it will attempt to make alternative sites available for cricket or football teams, if asked. (Source: Fareham Borough Council Leader) Comment – The proposal published by HCC in January/February 2006 states: “These proposals would result in a loss of amenity open space and there would be considerable disruption for a period while the changes are made.” The ‘facts’ are contradicted by the report from the National Playing Fields Association. ACE myth: Existing facilities will be lost if Meadowside has a school built on some of its land ACE
‘fact’ - The new school plans include a drama/music studio, an ICT suite
and a junior football pitch which can be made all-weather if the community
required. ACE ‘fact’ - The existing 2 adult football pitches, cricket pitch, tennis courts, skateboard park and children’s playground are being relocated, not lost. All costs of reinstatement are being met within the school building costs and have been budgeted for. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) ACE ‘fact’ - The temporary governing body setting up Whiteley Church School has agreed in writing to provide the extra facilities for public use outside school hours by entering into a “community use agreement” with Winchester City Council. (Source: Whiteley Church School Temporary Governing Body letters to Winchester City Council) Comment – Another ACE-created ‘myth’ which could become fact as relocation of existing facilities is not guaranteed as planning permission would need to be obtained to move them. The NPFA report says the tennis courts’ current position is due to residents’ objections to the siting HCC is now proposing to move them to now. One of WCC’s conditions is that planning permission/funding be obtained first, but HCC has not met that condition. ANY new school will provide community facilities; it is the cost and availability of those facilities which is not guaranteed. ACE myth: Fencing will be a physical barrier on the recreation ground. ACE ‘fact’ - Many new sports centres now include a fenced-off pitch area to allow for 5-a-side football, junior football, hockey or basketball. ACE ‘fact’ - One option being explored is to build a fence which separates the school from the junior football pitch. This would enable the public to have their own entry point and a fence that keeps their ball in when the pitch is in public use. (Source: Temporary governing Body of new Whiteley School) ACE ‘fact’ - Winchester City Council has been informed that the junior football pitch will be available for Meadowside Leisure Centre’s commercial/social activities and can be marketed as an extension of the Centre outside school hours and during school holidays. (Source: Whiteley Church School Temporary Governing Body letters to Winchester City Council Comment – The definition of fencing is physical barrier. The playing field is a legal requirement for the school, therefore it cannot be used in the calculations for open space. Its use would have to consider availability around school use during the day and after-school activities, balanced with church activities (as this is a church and school, not just a faith-based school) such as services, weddings, funerals, etc. WCC Cabinet report (10 July 2006): “…community use of any new school, but there is some difficulty in identifying a legal mechanism for doing so.” “… there will be a risk, albeit a small one, that school facilities would not be open to the community or only on terms which are not favourable.” As the school and land would be owned by the Diocese, access could be restricted at any time.
ACE myth: Hampshire County Council have planned that any school at Meadowside will be expanded to a Two Form Entry School. ACE ‘fact’ - Hampshire County Council has repeatedly confirmed that it has now withdrawn any intention to expand the school to 2 form entry. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) ACE ‘fact’ - Funding was secured from the Department for Education & Science (DfES) for a 1 Form entry expandable to 2 Form entry (30 x 7 class years expandable to 60 x 7 class years). There are no conditions on this funding that the school must expand to 2 form entry. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) Comment – Sorry to be pedantic but DfES stands for Department for Education and Skills (not Science). Somewhat worrying that both ACE and Cllr. Woodward (online comments) do not know this. HCC’s current policy is to build a 1FE which is expandable to 2FE (also included in HCC Cabinet resolution in July 2005). When North Whiteley is developed we will need additional school places long before the first brick is laid for a North Whiteley school. Residents are extremely sceptical of HCC’s intentions regarding expansion at Meadowside, and it is odd that even ACE say that HCC has ‘now withdrawn any intention to expand the school.’ The phrase ‘only available option within budget and timescale’ may surface again. ACE myth: Increased noise proximity to residents ACE ‘fact’ - Noise carries over open spaces. Football shouts have been heard at 500 metres away from the football pitches. Moving the pitches 30-40 metres West will not have significant impact on surrounding residents. (Source: Actual testing at Strawberry Fields pathway) Comment – Skateboard park location was selected as the noise is buffered by its being behind the Meadowside Centre. Also see comment below. ACE myth - Meadowside Land will not benefit from improved drainage. ACE ‘fact’ - Whiteley Football Club games are currently cancelled due to poor drainage. (Source: Member of Whiteley Football club) ACE ‘fact’ - Whiteley Parish Council has confirmed that improved drainage is required at Meadowside Land. (Source: Meeting between Whiteley Parish Councillor and new Whiteley School Temporary Governing Body) ACE ‘fact’ - A proportion of the budget for the new school is to improve and relocate the football/cricket pitches and other facilities. This will deliver the much needed improved drainage. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) ACE ‘fact’ - Drainage at Meadowside Recreation Ground will remain poor if the school does not happen as the school is the only established way of securing funds to alleviate this problem. Comment – All land in Whiteley would benefit from improved drainage but hardly a justifiable reason to build a school at Meadowside. Other funding avenues exist to fund drainage issues and Whiteley Parish Council have already applied for an NPFA grant for this purpose. ACE myth: Over half of Meadowside Recreation Ground will be lost to building ACE
‘fact’ - If the school is built the Meadowside site will be comprise the
following: ACE ‘fact’ - 90% of land will be left on the existing basis comprising 2 adult football pitches incorporating a cricket pitch, 2 tennis courts, 1 skateboard park, 1 children’s playground, ecological land, paths and grassed margins. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) ACE ‘fact’ - The school/church building takes up so little land that it does not cross the existing playing field path boundary. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) ACE ‘fact’ - The Meadowside Recreation Ground comprises over 16 acres of public land. (Source: Ordnance Survey Maps of Whiteley) Comment – The proposal from HCC in January/February 2006 states: “The development would not be in accordance with planning policy at national and local level.” WCC minutes from 10 July 2006 state that Hampshire Playing Fields Association spoke against the proposal. Reasons given include that there is “already a shortfall of 16 acres for recreational use at Whiteley,” that pitches “would be moved to an area of wetland and would be too close to neighbouring residential properties,” and that “it was likely to have a severe effect on the sports clubs.” Rather than quibble over percentages, have a look at the map with HCC’s proposal as overlay at http://www.whiteleypc.info/aerial_views.htm and see for yourself.
ACE myth: Relocated football pitches will not be acceptable as the margin around them is not sufficient ACE ‘fact’ - The football pitches have been designed at 7 metres above the minimum 45.72m required. If insufficient space around the pitches is justified then the pitches can be narrowed to allow 7m (23 feet) more room on the extreme left and extreme right hand sides of the playing fields. The cricket square in the middle already allows for around 30 metres of margin between the 2 football pitches. (Source: BBC website states minimum pitch width allowed is 50 yards (45.72 metres), Hampshire County Council suggested pitch width is 53 metres) Comment – NPFA report says relocated football pitches would breach FA regulations for safety, and there would be no room for spectators. Minimum space required around edge of pitch is 7 metres so all pitches would be smaller than their present size. Western corner of pitch would breach RoSPA minimum safety distance to nearest houses. ACE myth: Relocating existing facilities is a waste of money. ACE ‘fact’ - £4 million of funds secured by Diocese of Portsmouth from the Department for Education & Science will be lost if a school does not post statutory notices by 30th September 2007. (Source: Temporary governing Body of new Whiteley School) ACE ‘fact’ - The relocation cost (around 10% of the overall school build cost) will include provision for improved drainage for the existing football and cricket pitches, benefiting the community. (Source: Documents released by Hampshire County Council) Comment – ‘Fact’ 1 has no relationship to stated ACE myth. In ‘fact’ 2, according to the above figures, money spent on relocation which gain the residents nothing could be spent on the road which would be beneficial. Unless it is free, relocating 2 football pitches, 1 cricket field, 2 tennis courts, 1 skateboard park, 1 children’s playpark, and various footpaths is a waste of money. ACE myth: The owners of the access to the Meadowside site, USS, will not allow access for a school ACE ‘fact’ - USS has confirmed that in principle it is prepared to grant access rights over its roadway. It wanted the County Council to commission a transportation consultant to advise on any improvements needed to cater for the extra cars, and also to consider how pedestrian safety would be managed. HCC added these requirements to the brief given to their transport consultants working on the planning application, although that work has currently been suspended. (Source: Actual testing at Strawberry Fields pathway) Comment – Another ACE-created myth. The road belongs to USS Ltd. which quite rightly must not leave itself open to liability, particularly on health and safety concerns. USS has requested HCC meet its own conditions before granting access rights. This is also one of the WCC conditions HCC has not met. From ACE website: “A very strong team of people were carefully chosen because of their varied fields of expertise to form a temporary governing body for the proposed new school. They have met many times as a whole team and in committees they have put together a draft Admissions Policy, School name, logo and brochure. They have also drafted a person specification and job advert for a Headteacher, as this key player would need to be in place early next year in order to have the school ready in some form for new entrants in September 2007. The teacher governors are set to attend building meetings in order to offer advice to the planners as they develop and agree the final school plans. This group of dedicated people were working towards providing the much needed school places for those very young children who are having to travel outside of Whiteley for their first stage of education. Incorrect facts spread by a few people have seriously affected the possibility of this happening.” Julie Kelly, Chair of the Temporary Governing Body of the proposed new church school for Whiteley On a personal note: It is somewhat disconcerting that those involved with ACE, purportedly including current teachers, are attempting to pass off their opinions as ‘facts’ and skewed interpretations of amateur sampling as proof of their correctness. It is also somewhat presumptive to have chosen a school name, logo and prospectus before a Headteacher is in place. The comment made by Ms. Kelly is also inappropriate. It is extremely presumptive to say that those who expressed an opinion against HCC’s proposal did so because of ‘incorrect facts’ instead of reading and acting on HCC’s proposal itself. Prepared by Wendy Roostan Whiteley Resident since 1995 Parent Governor/Chairman Resources Committee: Whiteley Primary School 1996-2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Whiteley Parish Council has received 372 emails or signatures of support from Whiteley residents who support a new school for Whiteley but not on Meadowside Recreation Ground, we have many more signatures from outside Whiteley which are not included in the above. A summary of responses is available to view in EXCEL (no names or house numbers shown) Residents' views received in August 2006 Good afternoon – I would like to express my interest in the above issue. I am not against a second school in Whiteley but I am very much against it being sited at Meadowside and would like to be part of any meetings/consultations etc.
Folks,
Please put me down as a supporter for a new school in Whiteley but NOT on
the Meadowside site
Residents' views received June & July 2006
Copy of resident's response to recent letter from HCC Leader
I was disgusted at the letter you had sent to Whiteley residents. General Information re Admissions, Temporary Classrooms, and a New SchoolProvided by Wendy Roostan as a courtesy to others. (For up-to-date, specific information, always contact the Education Office.): The Whiteley Forum has a link to a document regarding Hampshire School Places Plan 2006 (consultation draft). While the document is informative, the figures are already out of date as they pull from the January 2006 Form 7. For the school year 2006/2007 the Whiteley Primary website indicates 584 children on roll (with only 46 places remaining available in years 5/6). Projected filled reception places for 2006/2007 can be found on individual schools’ pages online (prediction/total spaces per year group): Hook (48/60), Locks Heath Infant (99/120), Park Gate (47/60), Sarisbury Infant (74/90), St. John (24/60), Titchfield (21/30), Whiteley (90/90). While all these schools, except for Whiteley, have places in reception this coming school year, this does not indicate how many spare places will be available or in which schools for the September 2007 reception class. A forum user again raised the question of Whiteley Primary taking an extra class of reception children this September. The response from a local councillor is incorrect and misleading: “The governors refused some years ago [March 2002] to accept an extra class in reception when I was a governor and proposed that course of action. Their decision was upheld on appeal. I am no longer a governor of the school.” [This resignation was received a few weeks before he co-presented the parents’ appeal. The 3 points he offered at that hearing were, as pointed out by the Panel Chairman, irrelevant to the discussion, and included his claim of being a member of an admissions committee (which did not exist) and for which he could provide no Terms of Reference.] It is not within a governing body’s power to increase or decrease the intake of their school. That is the responsibility of the Local Education Authority (LEA) which for us is Hampshire County Council. If the LEA had proposed increasing the intake from 3-form to 4-form it would have then been appropriate for the governing body to respond. The LEA did not make that proposal. According to the minutes of the full governing body (March 2002), the tabled proposal that ‘the Governing Body wishes to accept no more than 90 pupils per year’ was carried 15 to 3. The proposed amendment ‘that the number 90 be amended to 120 for one year only in Reception’ failed 16 to 2. In any case, it was not a decision the Governing Body had the power to make. This point was made quite clear during the discussion of the proposals. The appeals that followed in May 2002 had nothing whatsoever to do with this ‘decision’, as each appeal is unique to the individual. Each appeal is judged on its own merits, is based on the two criteria published within the appeals guidelines, and is the responsibility of the Independent Appeals Panel. If an appeal is successful it becomes the responsibility of the LEA to decide, usually including consultation with the affected governing body, how this is implemented. For infant classes (R, yr 1 & 2) the maximum is 30 per class. If a successful appeal makes an infant class 30 plus and that does not come down to 30 by the following year, the school must employ another teacher. Most parental reasons for an appeal, while justifiable in the parents’ judgment, do not meet the two criteria. If a site can be identified (with a reasonable possibility of approval), and statutory notices published by the Diocese before the end of September, the possibility of temporary classrooms can then be addressed. It is usual that these would be on or near the identified site. The current church site at Whiteley Village is a possibility. The Diocese would need to apply to USS Ltd. for a temporary change of use of the site. The idea of using ‘a spare classroom’ at the current school is not a solution, as children cannot simply be ‘parked’ somewhere as though they were stray cats. Children must be admitted to a school, so that a legal and educational responsibility exists. More than 90 per year group cannot legally (outside of appeals) be admitted to Whiteley Primary as their limit is 90. A new school, even temporarily, cannot be opened on another school’s premises. The School Organization Committee (SOC) would undoubtedly refuse this for a myriad of reasons including the negative impact it would have on those children as well as on the school affected. Historical item of interest: July 1998 – Report received by Whiteley Primary: “In the early 1980’s HCC Education Dept. undertook a feasibility study for the building of a primary school to serve Whiteley. During this time the building trade and demand for houses was booming and it was intended that there would be estates in both South and North Whiteley. It was decided that a 3-form entry school was required and the present land acquired on the basis of a 3FE. By the 1990’s however the building boom had slowed and it was decided that there was unlikely to be a North Whiteley development. Hence it was decided that a 2FE would be sufficient to cope with all Whiteley’s needs….By the year 2002/2003 it is predicted that Whiteley will need school places available for 612 pupils of primary age. Enough for a 3FE school. As North Whiteley has not materialized there is nowhere to build another primary school at Whiteley. There is also no second site on South Whiteley to build another school. The only solution available would be to turn the new school being built into a 3FE school.” Admissions History Whiteley PrimaryFor September 2001 reception (oversubscribed by 2 in catchment) – in by school start. (By October 2001, there were 474 on roll with spaces available in all year groups.) For September 2002 reception (oversubscribed by 33 in catchment) – everyone on waiting list eventually offered a place and waiting list was clear by October 2003. Some on the waiting list refused the place when offered, thereby disadvantaging their younger siblings for later admissions.) [49 of 90 were w/sibling] For September 2003 reception (oversubscribed by 8 in-catchment) – in by school start For September 2004 reception (oversubscribed by 2 in-catchment) - in by school start. [28 of 90 were w/sibling] For September 2005 reception (oversubscribed by 26 in-catchment) – waiting list currently 20. [43 of 90 were w/sibling] For September 2006 reception (oversubscribed by 19 in-catchment) – waiting list currently 19. [44 of 90 were w/siblings From HCC ‘consultation’ regarding school places (February/April 2005): The predicted in-catchment number seeking school places at Whiteley Primary for: September 2005 – 116 (actual 116) September 2006 – 106 (actual 109) September 2007 – 124 September 2008 – 110 September 2009 – 109 (September 2010 – 100) Sent : , 13 June 2006 14:46:11 To : , CSS@winchester.gov.uk CC : , parishclerk@whiteleypc.info Subject : , Objection to Meadowside Proposal Dear Sir/Madam As a residents of Whiteley we would like to register our objection to the proposal by Hampshire County Council to use the Meadowside Recreation land as the site to build a new primary school. The recreation ground is always in use for various sports or leisure activities and it would be a shame to lose this area. We feel that there must be a more suitable site to be considered. Regards
Sent : , 13 June 2006 15:39:31 To : , "'CSS@winchester.gov.uk'" <CSS@winchester.gov.uk> CC : , 'parish' <clerk@whiteleypc.info> Subject : , Proposals for new Primary School on Meadowside Recreational Ground Good Afternoon I would like to raise an objection to selling Meadowside Recreational land for the purpose of a new primary school on that specific site. My husband and I do not directly object to a primary school being built on Whiteley, however we do feel that this particular site is ill conceived. Like ourselves a lot of people have moved to the area, happy in the knowledge that there are open spaces availiable to us for walks and nature to enjoy. We believe this will spoil the atmosphere of Whitely and have a negative impact on the environment as there is a whole plethora of wild life living on or around the site. The facilities will diminish (i.e. cricket, football etc), and all the money which has currently been spent on the grounds, tennis courts, skate park etc will be a waste, which ultimately is a waste of our taxes. Lastly there is already a problem with regards to there only being one road in and out of Whiteley, and the traffic issues we believe need to be addressed prior to causing further disruption to the residents of Whiteley. Kind regards Sent : , 14 June 2006 08:13:40 To : , "'CSS@winchester.gov.uk'" <CSS@winchester.gov.uk> Sirs, I write today to strongly object to the proposed new site of another Whiteley primary school located on the public playing field/cricket pitch. I live at if you require any further correspondence please do not hesitate to contact me at my home address or e-mail address at Cc. Thank you. Yours Aye, Sent : , 14 June 2006 09:24:18 To : , "Nicki Oliver" <whiteleyparishcouncil@msn.com> Subject : , Re: Proposals for new primary school on Meadowside Recreation Ground Dear Nicki, Thank you for your email. I have already sent a letter to Winchester Council on the 21st March 2006. I received a reply from Councillor Ken Thornber on the 19th May, 2006. Basically he thought my objections were incorrect and the school would be build anyway. The trouble is, despite all the protests and petitions, these applications are passed without listening to the electorate who matter. Powerful people have already made the decisions and that is usually how things get passed. And we are told that we live in a democracy. Sorry to be so defeatist but unfortunately that is how it is. Kind regards Sent : , 14 June 2006 15:36:55 To : , "'CSS@winchester.gov.uk'" <CSS@winchester.gov.uk> CC : , "'whiteleyparishcouncil@msn.com'" whiteleyparishcouncil@msn.com Dear Sirs,
I write to you to strongly object to the proposed new site of another
Whiteley Primary School located on the public playing field and
cricket pitch.
My address is if you require any further information
please reply to this e mail.
Regards
CC : , parishclerk@whiteleypc.info Subject : , Objection to proposal to build a school on Meadowside recreation ground Whiteley Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to you to register my strong objection to the continued consideration of Meadowside recreation ground as a suitable site for a new primary school in Whiteley. This area is heavily used by residents for sports and leisure purposes and is currently the only site in Whiteley that is available for this. Additionally, I do not feel that the provision of a one-form entry school will serve Whiteley's needs. It may well alleviate the immediate problem of over-subscription to Whiteley Primary School however it is not a long term solution. Whiteley is a family oriented residential area and the solution should be something that caters for the future as well as the present. The use of Meadowside is not the best solution for Whiteley residents and I urge you to look at alternative sites for the new school. yours faithfully
To The City Secretary and Solicitor Winchester City Council. I wish to register my strong objection to the proposed site as well as the utterly biased one sided presentation of information by the Director of Development in his letter dated June 12. The partial information as presented is deliberately designed to afford the residents of Whiteley with one option which is that H.C.C. are intent on imposing and is therefore undemocratic. For at least 7 years H.C.C.(as the education authority) has denied representation by Whiteley councillors that the primary school provision was inadequate and presented projections to justify the claim that H.C.C. were using an incorrect formula to calculate projected school place requirements for Whiteley children. Their dogged attitude persisted even when irrefutable proof was self evident when 40+children 5 years or younger and their parents were forced to suffer the added trauma being bussed out of Whiteley. Eventually H.C.C. could no longer deny the obvious and some 2 years or so ago agreed that they had got it wrong and that a second primary school was needed but that it was to be a single form entry with no provision for expansion to a two form entry as had been found to be necessary at the Yew Tree Drive primary school. With future plans set to just about double the population of Whiteley these same H.C.C."expert forecasters" are in grave danger of getting it badly wrong again and a two form entry school is found to be necessary but the site being proposed now will be incapable of accommodating the expansion. H.C.C. have stated thatthe school on the proposed site will never be expanded from one form entry but as already stated H.C.C.are historically inaccurate forecasters. To permit the Meadowside site to be used as proposed will almost certainly place the remaining open recreation space in jeopardy. The consultation letter already indicates the attitude of H.C.C. to disregard undertakings when it has declared its intention to quash the 106 agreement which was to protect the open public recreation space known as Meadowside and as it is the duty of W.C.C. to protect and act in the best interests of the community charge payers of Whiteley they would be failing in this duty of care if they agreed to the H.C.C. demand for this piece of land when a perfectly satisfactorily alternative site has been identified by the Parish Council and offered by the landowner (Mr.Bunny) at a very competitive price. This site will provide for a school capable of expansion to two form entry, provide adequate car parking and remove the school from the commercial vehicles servicing Tesco,The Retail Outlet Shops and the Meadowside Leisure Centre. At present the W.C.C. owned Meadowside car park is full on many occasions forcing vehicles to park not only in the access road but also in USS Retail Outlet car parks. The existing Yew Tree Drive School creates considerable car movements and car parking demand twice a day on every school day. This cannot be any different for the new school(which could be two form entry in the future) and will seriously impinge on customers of the USS Retail Outlet with school run cars overcrowding the USS private road between R2 and the W.C.C. Meadowside car park as well as overspill parking in the USS shoppers car parks. It is interesting to note that the consultation letter of the 12th refers to the existence of an alternative site identified by W.P.C.this was discussed with W.C.C. and H.C.C. but the residents whose opinions are sought are only provided with any information or plan to allow an informed response. Surely favouring the H.C.C. plans for the new school site in this one-sided, biased fashion is undemocratic. I must now express my deep concern that £4m of government (i.e.public) money as well as publicly owned land is to be given to and will become an asset of a church. Presumably if costs exceed £4m this will also be topped up with more public money probably from H.C.C. community charges. The school and land should remain in public ownership as is the existing primary school which is attended by Whiteley children whatever colour, culture or creed. The church funded and run school will have governors who apparently will have authority to decide who does or does not attend their school. Wherever the school is sited will there be any obligation on the governors to ensure priority is always given to Whiteley children and that no child will ever be denied a place at this school because of colour or religion? Whiteley is a multi religion, multi race community all of whom are equally entitled to school places on Whiteley for their children. The second primary school in Whiteley which has been campaigned for many years was never envisaged to be church run. Another unexpected feature sneaked in by H.C.C. with no regard for the views of Whiteley residents. It does seem that, whilst H.C.C. was finally obliged to correct their original error in underprovision of primary school places, they are deliberately following a proposal for the school site which, if denied(as it must be by W.C.C. as recommended by W.P.C.) then H.C.C. can place the blame for the loss of a second primary school on W.C.C. or W.P.C. What is in the best interest of Whiteley residents should be the only consideration of W.C.C. Despoiling existing open air recreation space when a suitable alternative site is available is not in Whiteley residents best interests and W.C.C. will be failing in their public duty if Meadowside land is sold to H.C.C Best regards, I am writing to express my desire for the land not to be sold to be used as a joint school/church building. This area of land is the only large open space in Whiteley and would have a disastrous effect on the sporting life of young people in Whiteley. I say this as a resident, parent, and coach for Whiteley Junior Football Club and also as a cricket coach for Whiteley Juniors. It would effectively ruin the football club for 2/3 years. We have steadily built up a club since 1998 and there are now a vast number of children involved. We already have a lack of space to operate so many teams. How we could operate whilst the school was built I cannot imagine. We are told little disruption would be caused whilst the pitches were moved???!!!! This is absolutely impossible. As for the cricket club...we've finally got the nets installed only for them to come straight back down? And a new pitch takes several years to "bed in". I understand the concern of parents who are unable to get a space at the primary school, but the site propsed, in my view, is totally wrong and would have a very undesirable effect on the young people of Whiteley. Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:03 PM Subject: Re: Proposed Appropriation and Disposal of Open Space Recreational Land at Meadowside, Whiteley FAO S Whetnall, City Secretary and Solicitor I write in response to the proposal to appropriate Public Open Space at Meadowside for use as a combined Church/School, which I strongly oppose. The land which is being considering for release is used by a high proportion of people in Whiteley, not just for playing sport, but for running, walking, dog walking, sitting and enjoying the peace and greenery etc. The young people also use it as a meeting point and are looking forward to the skateborading facilities which are in the course of construction. I am sure that, whilst they are being built to be re-locatable, there will be huge difficulties in securing planning permission for them, given the history of this, and the fact that the proposed relocation will cause them to be closer to private dwellings. To move the pitches would cause so much disruption to the Sports Clubs and to all the various other users of the facilities, and the siting of a school in the middle of the space would cause the character of the environment to be permanently and irretrievably ruined. There are very few facilities in Whiteley which are designed/appropriate for the growing number of teenagers. A large number of them are, therefore, involved in Sporting Clubs, such as football and cricket, where they are learning valuable team skills for later life, and which avoid them hanging around causing a nuisance or being perceived as intimidating, both of which would detract from the character of the area. Therefore, it is concerning that it is the only clubs open to them which will be forced to close because they are unable to honour fixtures and play sufficient matches.
The proposal to relocate the
pitches appears unrealistic. As it is the pitch currently furthest away from
the Meadowside Centre is often waterlogged and does not defrost sufficiently to
make it playable until at least 11 a.m. during the winter. To consider that
this will be the first to defrost and drain with the new proposals for
relocation would mean that the other pitch would not be playable until the
afternoon. There is already too high a demand for pitch space, with matches
having to start early and finish late in order to fit them all in. It would
also take away the valuable wetlands and leave less space for them to drain
into, surely exacerbating the problem. This could also impact on homes, such as
my own, which is very low-lying, and where there has been a history of high
water levels. I would also be concerned that the cricket square would become
far too close to houses, and render them vulnerable to accidental damage. The apparent U-turn by the City Council appears to contravene all local and national strategic planning policies and priorities. With the drive to preserve open space and leisure land, and the fact that this was specifically built to be central within Whiteley, it appears to me to be beyond belief that Winchester City Council are even considering releasing this land and spoiling the character of the area permanently and irretrievably. With the nation's obesity problem and the drive to increase exercise and health lifestyles, disposal of leisure space used so intensely (I run around the sports field at 5.30 a.m. and always see a number of people out with their dogs and/or running/cycling) and where young people can join sports clubs appears in direct contravention to the national agenda and I am amazed that this is legal or desirable. Any proposal to "replace" land used is unacceptable as it would not be in the same area given the development that has taken place. The "temporary" measures being suggested to accommodate the sports clubs' needs whilst redevelopment of the Meadowside is taking place of use of land in Leafy Lane appear naive and do not show an understanding of the nature of the difficulties. They are located in an area difficult to get to, and to park around (hence it being unsuitable for a school to be built there) and are so far away from the vast majority of the users that this will not be successful or used to their optimum. They are also simply not large enough. The current arrangements mean that goals and nets are needed to be obtained from Meadowside for use, then taken down and returned. It will be impossible for people to transport either goals or nets and return them. The cricket square that is replaced will also need to bed in for a number of years, by which time all the clubs will have had to have folded because they have no ground. I do feel sympathy with those parents whose children need to leave Whiteley to attend school, but feel that the current proposal is a short-sighted and foolish knee-jerk response which will irretrievably damage the landscape, environment and facilities, particularly when alternatives have been identified that may be of some use in a couple of years and the school is so close to the current school provision. Far fewer people will benefit from such a small school, than currently benefit from the leisure facilities on a weekly basis. PLEASE, PLEASE do not allow the school to be built, and ruin the environment, ambience and character created by the current arrangement of the facilities and open space at Meadowside, which the majority of people of Whiteley enjoy and utilise on a very regular basis. Yours sincerely Resident. 10. Dear Sir/Madam Having received your letter dated 12th June regading the proposal to site a new primary school on the land behind the Meadowside Centre, I wish to register my continued objection to this proposal, for the following reasons: - 1) You state in your letter that the County Council "tell us that there is no other suitable site." I believe a more suitable site has been made aware to HCC, which it is unnecassarily refusing to consider. 2) Construction of the school on the proposed site will force all sports pitches, courts & play areas closer to existing housing. 3) I believe the proposal is contrary to government planning advice and local planning policies, necessitating a lengthy planning application which may delay construction for a number of years anyway. 4) The Meadowside Centre would become detatched from it's external amenities, and plans to offer further sporting amenities would be hampered by the lack of available space. 5) The additional cost and disruption of relocating the existing amenties will ensure the proposal is viewed negativley by the local community. I fully support the idea of a new primary school in Whiteley, and being half of a young professional couple recently moved to the area look forward to one day my own children using the facility, however i also wish them to have the free use of a large expanse of public playing field and a wide range of leisure amenities alongside this. I believe the current proposal will deny them this. Regards Proposed New Primary School for Whiteley Dear Sir I refer to Steve Tilbury’s letter dated 12 June concerning the possible sale of recreational land to accommodate a new primary school. I have already raised my concerns with the County Council about the proposed siting of the new school and outline my objections below: 1. I feel that the sale of part of the recreational land behind the Meadowside Centre would be a betrayal of trust. This ground is used extensively by local residents of all ages. Families moving into the area would have known that this facility was available to them and its presence may have influenced their decision to choose this location. Some of the facilities which have been developed over a number of years are not readily replaceable. For instance, it would take some years to establish a new cricket pitch. There have been proposals to provide alternative recreational ground but in my opinion this would not be acceptable since it would be less easily accessible and would not have the benefit of being next to the Meadowside Leisure Centre. 2. I believe that the ground is unsuitable for a school. At the time that the recreational area was being developed local gardens suffered flooding on a number of occasions. There is a high water table and gardens in the area become marsh-like in the winter. Even though extra drainage measures are proposed, this is an ecologically delicate area and disturbance of the ground could cause additional flooding. I suggest that it is not good use of funding to spend money on extra drainage. I believe that the local houses would be at risk not only during the development of the school but also long term. Car parking in the area is currently just sufficient and any further pressure is bound to cause problems. There would be a significant increase in traffic associated with a new school and I cannot agree with the assessment which has been put forward which suggests that parking would not constitute a major problem. 3. It is being suggested that there are no other suitable sites available but there is available land north of Whiteley which is only half a mile distant. The owner, a Mr Bunny, has indicated his willingness to sell. This has been dismissed as being too far away but since most people these days drive their children to school this is less relevant. In my view the extra distance could easily be walked. In a few years time this land will be in the centre of Whiteley rather than on the outskirts, and thus will be central. Mr Bunny’s site is larger that the Meadowside site and would allow for expansion. It would also be easily accessible to families moving into the new parts of Whiteley. I have not heard a good argument against using this land, and I feel that the reasons given for the dismissal of the site are inadequate. It has also been indicated that USS have refused to sell land for an alternative site but at a recent public meeting it became clear that no offer had been made to them. I believe that this possibility should be revisited with vigour. I am very much in favour of a new, voluntary aided school in Whiteley but am disappointed with the handling of the project. I have yet to find one person who is not directly involved in the project who agrees with the council’s proposal. There are alternative sites available. They, too, are not perfect, but in my opinion present a much better benefit: risk/cost ratio. I urge the council and relevant authorities to radically review their proposal. Yours faithfully
Winchester City Council
As a resident of Whiteley and Team Manager/Coach for Whiteley Juniors FC
Under 10 Team I write to oppose the possible sale of a proportion of
Meadowside Recreation Fields to Hampshire County Council for the
construction of a new one form entry School. I accept that there is a need
for an additional School in Whiteley and ask that you give strong
consideration to finding another area of Land within Whiteley other than the
Recreational Fields of the Meadowside. I have been a resident in Whiteley at
31 Mustang Avenue, PO15 7EN since 1999 and have two children aged 11/12 both
of whom attended Whiteley Primary School.
I have been actively involved Coaching Foot-ball skills to the young
children (Boys and Girls) within the Community of Whiteley since 1999 one
year after the foundation of the Whiteley Juniors Football Club. I along
with several other adults have dedicated endless hours of time to give the
children of the Community an opportunity to take part in an activity that
fosters tremendous Team spirit, allows for physical activity and develops
the individuals soccer skills. To achieve FA Charter Standard Community
Status which means that the Children are Coached in a safe environment by
Qualified professional adults has meant a considerable amount of unpaid work
by the volunteers. The Community of Whiteley has one of the best run clubs
in Hampshire. I have seen in the past 7 years the Club grow from strength to
strength (currently over 150 children in 8 Teams) this continuous
development will not be able to be maintained without the facilities and
Recreational Land currently available at present at the Meadowside.
The Club offers a great opportunity for Children from the age of 5 up to 16
to be part of something very special. We are a Club that advocates that
taking part in more important than winning and welcomes everyone into the
fold. As a keen supporter of a Healthy Lifestyle I respectfully request your
council not to sell the Recreational Land at the Meadowside to Fareham
Council otherwise it could see the demise of a fantastic, family football
organisation and would be disastrous for those children that really enjoy an
activity that really stimulates them. By building a new School on a
proportion of the Land at the Meadowside will have a disastrous effect on
Whiteley Juniors FC please give the views of an experienced Royal Navy
Physical Training Instructor with 30 years Naval Service some strong
consideration.
Kind Regards
13. Dear sir/madam As a resident of whiteley, and one that would live very near to the proposed school, I and my wife whole heartedly object to it being built where suggested. The reasons why we object are
We find it astonishing that there is NO proper doctor’s surgery in our town; when will this be addressed, surely there is a greater need for that than a school on our doorstep! The council seem to have its priorities wrong. If land is being offered at reasonable rates and is of suitable grade, which is away from residents, why not take up that offer? We didn’t chose to live here to listen to school noise and traffic chaos. We decided to live here because it is peaceful and mainly due to the open space behind our home, which we use!!! Don’t waste it. While we accept there is a need for education in the area and are not against that decision, why on doorsteps of residents? Your concerned resident. To : , CSS@winchester.gov.uk CC : , whiteleyparishcouncil@msn.com Subject : , (no subject), Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to you to register my very strong objection to the continued consideration of Meadowside recreation ground as a suitable site for a new primary school in Whiteley. This area is heavily used by residents for sports and leisure purposes and is currently the only site in Whiteley that is available for this. Additionally, I do not feel that the provision of a one-form entry school will serve Whiteley's needs. It may well alleviate the immediate problem of over-subscription to Whiteley Primary School however it is not a long term solution. Whiteley is a family oriented residential area and the solution should be something that caters for the future as well as the present. The use of Meadowside is not the best solution for Whiteley residents and I urge you to look at alternative sites for the new school.
15. Response to statutory notice & recent letter from Winchester City Council Responding to your recent notice regarding the ‘proposed appropriation and disposal of open space recreational land at Meadowside, Whiteley’, I am categorically and unconditionally opposed. While I can appreciate the City Council’s wish to keep the prospect of a new school alive, I strongly disagree with its assertion that it will only sell the land if a large number of stringent conditions are met. The point I, and very many of my neighbours, have been making is that the Meadowside land should not by used for development under any set of conditions, and the contravention of local & national planning regulations and overturning of protective covenants is sufficient reason to turn down Hampshire County Council’s request for the land. Whiteley residents have recently received a letter, regarding use of the Meadowside site, from Winchester City Council (WCC). Even though it is not stated in the letter, some residents are aware that Hampshire County Council (HCC) had input into its wording, so it’s somewhat disingenuous not to make that plain at the outset. Examples: - ‘Pitches moved around quite considerably’ and ‘30-40 metres’ has now become ‘slightly’. - ‘Considerable disruption’ has now become ‘promised to keep this to a minimum’. - ‘Development would not be in accordance with planning policy at national and local level’ has become ‘require planning consent’. Beyond the point that the letter contains very little in the way of comparative facts, this spin is insulting to the residents and undermines the consultation process itself. Also, quite amazingly, the letter simply states ‘The County Council and the Diocese…tell us that there is no other suitable site,’ and that ‘we are told that there is no alternative.’ Why is the City Council not requesting site studies, feasibility reports, impact statements, cost analysis, etc. as proof of these claims? Realistically, HCC will not be able to meet the stringent conditions that should be imposed on it. Its assertion that there is no other option is not backed up with fact, only interpretation. Therefore, this has become an expensive time-wasting exercise. It would be preferable to concentrate on the more appropriate site of North Whiteley to deliver an expandable 1-form entry primary school thereby ensuring its viability. This would mean no disruption to residents and users of the recreation land, and no loss of amenity. Particular reasons why the Meadowside site is unsuitable: 1- Protective covenants on recreation land would need to be overridden at considerable cost. 2- Sole access is one road owned by USS, Ltd. and would need to be negotiated and compensated for. 3- ‘Not in accordance with planning policy at national and local level’ (quote from proposal) 4- ‘Sports facilities…moved around quite considerably’ (quote from proposal). 5- ‘Moving the existing pitches some 30-40 metres west…be nearer to people’s houses…and removed from the leisure centre (quote from proposal) 6- ‘Loss of amenity open space’ (quote from proposal) 7- ‘Considerable disruption’ (quote from proposal) 8- ‘Prevent any future expansion of the sports facilities’ (quote from proposal) 9- Significant, widespread, and growing objection to the proposal, including the National Playing Fields Association and advice from Sport England. 10- No environmental impact statement prepared. 11- The urban development would be detrimental to the ambience and character of the area. Approx. 1.5 hectares would be fenced off as school property. 12- Proposal does not provide value for money. Current cost of a primary school is £3.5m. HCC is spending over £5.5m. A 1-form entry school is also uneconomic to run. 13- Authority’s policy when building a 1-form entry school is to build on a site with potential to expand to 2-form, which this site makes impossible. 14- No space on proposed site to provide temporary accommodation before school is ready, or when extra places are needed. 15- Nowhere in the Council’s proposal is this site described as suitable. 16- A departure of this magnitude from current planning policies requires an extensive public consultation exercise, as statutory notices in the local papers are not sufficient for such a sensitive issue.
Also of considerable importance: 1- Inconsistency, omission of information, and unrealistic timescales from HCC during/after the ‘consultation’ process has made its recent assurances very questionable. 2- Understanding that the City Council’s policy is to provide a minimum of 2.8 hectares of recreational space per 1000 residents (calculating 2.5 persons per 2700 Whiteley households = 6750 persons), Whiteley should have a minimum of 18.9 hectares. This proposal would have a significant impact on the minimum required. 3- Land offered in mitigation by HCC is unsuitable and inappropriately located. The Leafy Lane site is 1-2 km from 90% of the housing in Whiteley, as well as (quoting from proposal): ‘separation from the main area of Whiteley housing by main distributor road and Solent Business Park; noise and air pollution from the M27; and poor access at the top of a long residential road.’ The overuse of this road by traffic is already a major problem for the health and safety of residents and is not served by public transport. 4- An alternative, more suitable site has been offered to HCC, which it is refusing to consider and for which no detailed study is available. Landowners have offered this site at extremely reasonable rates (£12k an acre - site abutting the current development boundary, and adjacent to existing housing). It is well positioned, large enough for a 2-form entry primary, and there are planning policies to allow it to be developed as a school. 5- Why has the Diocese refused to consider the North Whiteley site? A section of their response quoted in WCC Cabinet minutes is that it is ‘detached from the community’, but WCC’s minutes state this is ‘not the view of the Local Plan Inspector and Council planning officers’. The Diocese also mentioned the ‘difficulties of transport issues for young children.’ If we consider the housing west of Whiteley Way (90% of the housing in Whiteley), the North Whiteley site is actually within 1 km of every recently rejected application and 75% of this housing, whereas the Meadowside site is up to 1.5 km distant and is within 1 km of only 65% of this housing. Younger children from the Leafy Lane/Bader Way area are more likely to be driven than walked due simply to the distance to any school in Whiteley, their age, and timescales for the parent. The road (Whiteley Lane), which used to serve Mr. Bunney’s farm, can be upgraded for vehicular/pedestrian access (300-400 metres). More pedestrian access can be achieved from the new housing at the bottom of Dickens Drive by an additional footpath. Bottom line is that we are building a school, not a church. 6- Both HCC and WCC acknowledge that there will be further development of North Whiteley. The North Whiteley site could provide the school within a timescale perhaps only marginally longer than the time taken for a public enquiry on the recreation ground site and for which the outcome is still uncertain. More importantly, it would cause no disruption to Whiteley residents or to users of the recreation areas, sports fields, Meadowside Centre, or its surrounding footpaths and carpark, while providing an expandable 1-form entry school, ensuring the school’s viability. Consider a possible scenario: HCC and the Diocese confirm to the government that they are proceeding with the North Whiteley site (funding kept). Hampshire County Council, Winchester City Council, Whiteley Parish Council, and the residents can now work together. USS Ltd. can be approached to utilize the current site covenanted for a church for temporary accommodation for September 2007. We use the next 12 months appropriately to organize a temporary governing body, advertise for/hire a headteacher (min. 2-3 months), advertise for/hire staff (another 2 months minimum), head/staff develop curriculum, then open school in September 2007 in temporary buildings on Church land at Whiteley Village, and move to completed school at North Whiteley in September 2008. Finally, as a long-term resident of Whiteley I am utterly shocked and appalled that the residents have been placed in the position of having to convince the council NOT to overturn planning regulations and breach protective covenants. Rather, it is Hampshire County Council who should be providing an overwhelming, thoroughly documented case, supported by at least 75% of the residents, for consideration. Thus far, they have accomplished neither. If our choice, as a rather abusive County Councillor phrased it during the consultation meeting in Whiteley, is the Meadowside site or no school – take it or leave it - then we will leave it. If Hampshire County Council and the Diocese continue to refuse consideration of the North Whiteley site, then they are both abrogating their responsibility for the welfare of the residents they serve. The vast majority of Whiteley residents do not want a destructive, short term fix. We expect a long term, sustainable solution.
Dear Mr Tilbury Thank you for your letter dated 13th June 2006 (Your Ref: ST/gb) concerning the building of a new primary school in Whiteley. I write to you to register with you my disapproval for the siting of a new school on the recreational land behind the Meadowside Centre. Whiteley is a large residential development and its further expansion will place even greater strain on the limited public amenities that are currently available. The Meadowside recreational area is the only such area within the whole development of Whiteley and any encroachment upon this area can only be detrimental to the quality of life of the residents. I do feel very strongly that undue emphasis is being placed on the need for more housing in this area of the country by local government as a result of pressure from central government. In order not to have residents’ quality of life eroded it is vital that provision of infrastructure at least keeps pace with increase of population density. There is, in fact, plenty of suitable land available on which to build a new primary school, this is the land which has been designated as future development for Whiteley. Despite lessons from the past, Whiteley’s success as a desirable place to live has been the victim of grave errors of judgement, the fact that there is still only one main route in and out of this development is a case in point, but not the only one. Both Winchester City Council and Hampshire County Council are well aware of the problems that Whiteley has – they will also be aware that further building on such open land and consequent increased pressure on infrastructure will only serve to increase those problems. There is a solution, I mentioned it earlier, and that is to build a new school on land that has been set aside for further residential development. This will be the most difficult course to follow since it would face the strongest commercial and bureaucratic opposition; support for such a decision would come from the weakest voice, the Whiteley resident. The deciding factor in this issue will be, in my opinion, the level of commitment the authorities concerned have towards serving the residents of Whiteley. Yours sincerely
Hello Ken Thornber I am very annoyed at your letter suggesting that there is ‘a lot of positive support’ for the new proposals. This is the kind of appalling spin that has got New Labour into so much trouble so please don’t use that kind of selective reporting when you write letters to the general public. As an elected member I expect you to be balanced and also report that there is a lot of opposition to the proposed site of the new school. I am not naïve and I know that it is all about money. It is OK to chop a few trees down to fit another Industrial estate in front of the Solent Hotel because that is going to be a massive money spinner. I suspect that there are alternative motives for placing the school on a much used and treasured open space. Demographics suggest that primary schools are going to close and of course this primary school is only a one form entry so in future it would be uneconomic to keep it open as the demographics of Whiteley change. When it is closed it is highly unlikely to be given back to the residents as open space; I’ve no doubt it will be tarmaced over for another industrial money spinner or sold for housing development. I suggest you and your council think very hard before building the school there. There is a large and growing population of disaffected teenagers in Whiteley with very few facilities, so the security costs of keeping a school in that particular area in reasonable order are going to be quite high. I quite often come across groups of 6 or so teenagers drunk in an evening hanging around the shopping centre and sports centre so I hope cctv and other security measures are factored into your costs. There are plenty of sites that could be used in the current industrial sprawl that is slowly eating away at the so called ‘protected’ copses. Why not lay on quality transport from Whiteley to another primary rather than building? It would be much cheaper and the escape costs would be easier to bear when schools need to be closed. The so called demand for more primary school places is nowhere near the anti vote. There is gong to be the huge backlash against the 4 x 4 brigade clogging up the sports centre car parks. The car park outside the popular sports centre is often full to overflowing and a mass of ignorant 4 x 4 drivers dropping their kids off and picking them up again 10 times a week is not going to go down very well. I know it is a local primary school and everyone should walk but it doesn’t happen. When my son went to Whiteley primary; a walk taking about 5 minutes, many lazy parents around where I live used to drive their children even though it was a much longer route. Of course I don’t expect a reply and I certainly don’t expect you to correct the misinformation you have been using in your propaganda attempts to overcome any planning problems that you occur as you try and railroad this through because what do you care about Whiteley? You probably live in Winchester and so it’s not your problem to care. Yours A downtrodden resident of an area that used to be a nice place to live but is turning into a massive housing estate ghetto as our council ignores us and tramples over our needs in their quest to squeeze more rates money out of us to feather their own pleasant city.
I am writing to you to convey my concerns at the proposal of having a new school built on the playing fields at Whiteley. The football pitches, cricket pitch and tennis courts are extremely important to all those living in the community. It is my understanding that if the go ahead is given to build this school then these facilities will be lost for a significant amount of time. Not only will various teams loose the ability to play but a valuable recreation space will be lost for all the young families in Whiteley. You only have to walk around the area on a Saturday and Sunday to realise how many peaple use this facility and it is even more prevelent at this moment in time with warm summer evenings to see so many people there from playing with theie kids to walking the dog. As a parent of three boys 14, 10 and 8 who all play for Whiteley Juniors the effect on them and the club would be devastating. This is the only area in Whiteley that this facility could be, the process of building the school would take this away for at least two years, causing the break up of the club for which so much hard work has been done to get it to where it is today in such a small space of time. I urge you to do all you can to keep this land the way it is as in an ever increasing technical world the importance of a healthy lifestle is paramount to the wellbeing of our children. I obviously understand that there is a need for another school in the area, however I am sure a lot more research can be done to find a suitable site even if the cost is more after all what price can be put on making sure you have a healthy lifestyle
19 Dear Sir Subject: Proposed New Primary School for Whiteley. We would like to register our objections to the proposed use of Recreational Land at the Meadowside Leisure Centre. We fully support the Whiteley Parish Councils reasons for objecting which are confirmed below:-
· The proposed relocation of the play area, skatepark, cricket nets and tennis courts to less desirable locations closer to housing and more likely to impact on nearby residents. · The proposed relocation of football pitches 40m to the west, within a few metres of newly built houses.
In addition to the above the provision of a New One Form Primary School will not in the medium term meet the needs of the expanding community. The Meadowside site does not in any way lend itself to further expansion – so an additional site will be required very soon. It would clearly make sense to identify and develop a site with potential to expand at this point in time and not be in a similar position in two years. Yours sincerely
Dear Sir, Following your recent letters detailing the new proposed primary school in Whiteley we feel we must object to the plans, our objections are based on the proposed siting not on the need for a school:
We feel that the proposal to locate the school on the Meadowside Playing fields is unsuitable and feel that the council is putting forward an unrealistic proposal so that the residents will object and the school never built with the blame being put on the residents.
Yours Faithfully
Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Proposed New Primary School for WhiteleyLetter from Mr Steve Tilbury dated 13th June 2006 Thank you for your recent letter outlining the details of the proposed new primary school for Whiteley. We agree in principle that Whiteley has a need for a new primary school, however we STRONGLY DISAGREE with the proposals of locating the new primary school on the current recreational facilities at Whiteley. The Government has a need for new homes, and we realise that Whiteley will grow in size. However, the proposed site for the new primary school is only small in scale, in comparison to other potential areas in Whiteley. Agreed, it will provide additional schooling spaces for the short-term, but what happens in a few years when the population of Whiteley outgrows this second school? Will more recreational land be reclaimed? With more housing planned for Whiteley and already a strong demand for school places, surely you should be looking to build a larger primary school, rather than a make do with one that, like the current one, will be too small again in a couple of years? Whiteley is a very attractive residential area, because of the nature of its open spaces. We live overlooking the current area of ecological land, next to the proposed area for development. It is so nice to have somewhere you can look out and not have a view of concrete monstrosities. Children living in Whiteley get a chance to run around on the greens, and get fantastic, safe exercise. Indeed, one of the Government’s priorities is for children to have more exercise to avoid Great Britain becoming a lard-nation. I am, myself a civil servant and know how important it is to the Government that children have access to sports facilities, and a healthier standard of living. We have seen the proposals HCC are putting forward to potentially relocate the recreational facilities, and it is just ridiculous. There will not be anywhere as near as much land available for public exercise. If you lived here, you would realise just how many people use the potential site to stay healthy every day, not just at weekends. Why as a Government are we attempting to prevent such a high priority initiative in aid of producing yet another primary school that we will outgrow? I note that you are proposing that Hampshire re-locate the informal recreational space. That does not replace what we currently have. Half of peoples’ exercise would be in one location and they would then have to get in the car to run the other part of their exercise in an entirely different location. We would require the same amount of space relocated, not split up. We also have concerns over the safety of, not only ourselves as residents, but also for the children of the primary school, being so exposed by the location of the site next to a shopping centre. Personally if I had children, I would prefer that they were on a site not as easily available for shoppers to be wandering around. Who knows who could be hanging around, or gain access to children? This would also be highlighted by the fact that any child using the football pitches would have to walk a lot further, round car parks, to get to the leisure centre to change, leading itself into further safety issues. I know many people who object to this application, it just appears that we are not getting much of a say in what happens to our community! Not everyone has the time to write letters, and it concerns me that the community feel that they are not going to get a say in something it objects quite strongly to. With the recreational fields and skate park moving yet closer to the residential area, this on its own is of great concern to us. We have had quite a few occasions where we have had to contact the Police, due to youths hanging around the car parks and children’s play area. They have caused lots of trouble setting fire to play equipment and also tampering with our cars (very dangerous indeed). We can only see this increasing by the proposed development bringing the areas where they hang around further towards the residential area. Also from this point, what happens to the children’s play park? I suppose this doesn’t feature very highly. Residents in Whiteley have numerous cars per family, why can’t we arrange a travel to school car share, or bus scheme and transport them to the outskirts? There is the proposed Church land, which I can see from Hampshire’s letter won’t be used for the church, but the church will be on the primary school site, so the primary school gets even smaller! I also notice there is land further down from the current proposed church site, which isn’t being used and wasted. What about the land near the existing primary school? Surely the logical solution would have been to extend the existing school on the grounds at that site? Oh no, I forgot, a hydro-therapy centre, a newsagent, two take-aways, a hairdressing salon and a beauty salon have been built there instead. I find it incredulous that this whole issue has been completely ignored. This whole problem could have been solved on the existing site without need for all this pain and nonsense. But then selling that land for commercial gain is probably more attractive than servicing the needs of the local community. Why do we need a hydrotherapy centre there? Every single commercial development located at that site could have been built where the industrial park is. The only benefit is the day nursery, which is complementary to the school. There is land to the north of Tesco that is a road that just goes no-where with trees – why not use that? There is lots of land around Leafy Lane and around the business park – set up school bus runs and residents (who are statistically more wealthy than surrounding neighbourhoods) would gladly pay a small premium to traffic their children to the school. Investigate the new plot of land that has been made available by the local landowner in North Whiteley. It is pure incompetence that HCC have not planned for sufficient schooling in a development that is growing apace and is specifically built to attract families. People already are put off moving to Whiteley because the poor planning has led to gridlock at peak times. The health facilities are akin to a deprived social area (nearly 10 years later a the doctors are STILL in a portakabin - and where is the dentist?). And now the only solution is a short-term, half-baked idea that is commercially driven for a short-term, small-space school that will remove part of the heartland of he community and is a religious choice in a community that does not seem to bother about religion. Please, please, please, for once listen to the community. We don’t want this project to go ahead, we never did and it will only need redoing again in a few years time, because it just won’t be big enough. Make the correct choice for the community, not the budget. Select a decent long-term site and put the community before the easy option. Yours sincerely,
Dear Sir, PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR WHITELEY Thank you for your recent letter regarding the site for the new primary school at Whiteley. I would like to strongly object to this proposal. There is very little recreational land in Whiteley for the residents to enjoy as it is and now you propose to build on the only piece of open space in the area - in my opinion you should find somewhere else to build the school. The housing around the park behind the Meadowside Centre is quite dense, I used to live in a flat in Thyme Avenue, and to be able to walk over to the park and just sit in the fresh air was a lifesaver. If your proposal goes ahead, there will be nowhere to do this, the land will either be school property or sports pitches. I also object to the fact that money will have to be spent moving amenities (tennis courts, skateboard park etc.) which have only just been built. Very bad planning and a waste of residents’ Council Tax. There must be other sites in Whiteley which have no buildings currently on them which can be used. Can the currently school site be extended? I do feel that you are taking the easier option and not really trying to find other land because it would be more difficult to acquire. I would be grateful if you could put my views forward to the Council, I do feel very strongly that the open space behind the Meadowside Centre should be preserved. If this proposal goes ahead you may just as well give the builders a free range to build everywhere because if the Council can build on open space why can’t they? Yours faithfully,
CC : , <parishclerk@whiteleypc.info> Dear Sirs.As residents and house owners in Angelica Way, Whiteley we wish to register our strongest objections at the proposal to build a school on the
sports field adjacent to the Meadowside centre.This is an ill thought scheme. It
should be built at North Whiteley wher it will cause less disruption.cost less
money and have room for expansion in the years to come. Kill this ludicrous idea
NOW.
Although I appreciate the need for a further school in Whiteley I wish to register my objections to your present proposal. I do no agree that it should be built on recreation facilities already being well used by a large proportion of Whiteley residents. A lot of households of different ages use this site for a variety of different purposes. It is not solely used for cricket and football. At present these activities can take place along side the sport. Children need space to do their own thing and still feel safe. Where else can they do this? Where else do you suggest our children run around, fly their kites and generally free play with their friends? Surely not at the top of Leafy Lane, out of sight of their parents and a fair distance away? Having lived in Whiteley for 10 years I have witnessed the expansion of our village and suffered the inconvenience of the planning mistakes that have been made in the past. But I am now proud of the area I live in and feel that to correct old mistakes with a quick-fix solution will jeopardise this. Not to mention the waste of our money in relocating the present facilities. The two options that I feel have not been explored enough, and would like you to clarify for me, are the compulsory purchase of land adjacent to our house and the offer of very reasonably priced land further north that the council have rejected. It will also be a relatively short space of time until a new school will be built in North Whiteley. I realise this would be slightly further into the future but will surely be a better option than spoiling what we have already. There are places in other local schools in the meantime. On a more personal note, you will notice by my address that this proposal will directly impact my family and myself. The sports pitches and pathways will all be brought closer to my property encroaching on our privacy. We will be within easy reach of cricket balls and footballs and I certainly do not wish to look out upon a mesh fence. We chose our house very carefully, weighing up all the potential problems with all the fantastic opportunities our children could have. Never once did we consider that such a proposal would ever arise. We will therefore, not sit back and let anyone destroy our environment which we have not only paid for, but watched mature in to a fantastic place to live. I have been informed that it is already a ‘done deal’ but I would like to believe that this is not the case and that you will do the best for us as you are elected to do. Put yourself in our shoes. Please reconsider.
Yours sincerely
Dear Sirs I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal by Hampshire County Council to use the Meadowside recreational land for a new school. Although long convinced of the pressing need for a new school, this plan to site it on precious recreational ground, a green space we consider the heart of Whiteley, appears to be be remarkably short sighted and ill thought through. The recreational ground is of such importance to Whiteley residents - families with children, sports teams, dogwalkers and everybody who considers a green open space to be the heart of an established community. The upheaval and destruction of building a school between the Meadowside Centre and the playing fields, would be crushingly detrimental to Whiteley. We are all aware of alternative sites which would be more appropriate. I urge you to give these proper consideration, rather than rushing headlong into this short term solution and long term disaster for Whiteley. Yours faithfully
As a former resident of Whiteley, I was appauled to hear that the new Primary School (long awaited and much needed) may be built on the recreational land currently enjoyed by the residents of Whiteley. My son plays for Whiteley Juniors Football Club and has done so since the summer of 1999. Football has been such a large part of his life at Whiteley and whilst we moved to Stubbington last summer, he still continues to play for Whiteley Juniors. It would be a tragic loss if the facilities at the Meadowside Centre were snatched away from the Football Club, and indeed the other sports clubs that use the playing fields. Also, I have been a member of Whiteley Church for 3 years and I did vote for the new school to be linked to the Church building, however, If I had known that the use of the Meadowside field was part of the deal I would have voted against it. There has to be an reasonable alternative. I am therefore appealing to Winchester City Council and Hampshire County Council to reconsider the sale of this land and look to building the Primary School on an alternative site at Whiteley. Yours hopefully
We would like to comment in response to the public notice concerning the proposed new Primary School in Whiteley. We would like to confirm that we are opposed to this proposal for the following reasons a) A one tier school is not sufficient to meet the medium to long term needs of the community, especially in view of the continuing residential development in Bluebell Way and the new development in Dickens Drive. We have 2 children currently attending the existing school and we are aware of many of their peers who were unable to gain admission there and have to go to Stubbington or Locks Heath. A one tier school is probably not big enough to meet existing demand and as there is insufficient land at Meadowside to expand further it would either mean the loss of the playing fields altogether or the need to start the whole exercise again to find suitable land to build on to meet future needs. b) Disruption to the local community. We already have large numbers of heavy construction vehicles using Whiteley Way to deliver to the current residential development and this would increase further whilst the school was being built. Car parking at the Meadowside is currently insufficient at peak times which would be exacerbated by the building nearby of the school. Furthermore, the building would rob the use of the playing fields whilst the school is being built. c) We are fundamentally opposed to the need for a church primary school, regardless of the fact that all faiths would be admitted. If the local authority has to rely on external funding from religious sources in order to build schools, then there is something fundamentally wrong with government process. It appears to us that the decision to build a church school has been based purely on financial issues without consideration of the wider social and educational aspects. We recognise the need to cater for school age children within Whiteley, but this is a short term option that is ill advised. Accordingly, we are in opposition to this proposal Yours faithfully
Dear Sirs We write to object in the strongest possible terms to the above proposal. The land at Meadowside is dedicated to the community in Whiteley. The people who use the land currently cut accross all age groups and the community is widely involved in the sporting clubs that use the facility. This is the only land of this type currently available for recreation in our rapidly growing village - and its disappearance would result in disbanding of the football club and loss of family activities which will directly affect family life in whiteley. Other sites proposed for playing fields are too remote for the community and unsuitable. The road access and parking for a school adjacent to Tesco and the outlet village on this site will be difficult and dangerous. We want another school in the village but not at the expense of this key facility - so like the majority of whiteley residents we strongly oppose use of the Meadowside land. Regards
I think if you were looking to gain support for this ridiculous idea you will be disappointed. What a short sited plan. The rate the council are allowing new housing to be put onto Whiteley, this is going to be an insufficient way of accommodating all our children. You have been offered a far more appropriate site in Whiteley but some one within your council fears it is too far away, but all the children who have not been successful have to be taken to Salisbury Green, a lot further away than the proposed site. What about the secondary school we were supposed to have is that now fallen by the wayside, it has been decided unacceptable for the new school to be built in the other proposed site but totally acceptable for my oldest son to catch a bus at 7.30am to Henry Cort School, yet I would have thought with the rate Whiteley is growing we should have plenty of children to build a secondary school on Whiteley I would like to point out that you are allowing offices to be built, even though a majority of the offices at the back of the parkway are not even let. The fireworks were such a lovely event for us all but have been cancelled because of traffic congestion which is getting worse due to more housing and more offices still being built. You allow more and more development and only supply us with two roads in and out of Whiteley, Traffic is appalling, if the traffic lights are not working, an accident occurs or Whiteley Village have an event on, you might as well sit at home than try and get off of Whiteley. I heard the lovely park and yellow slide my 5 yr old daughter refers to is being relocated to the top of leafy lane, that’s another idea that I am totally apposed to, why should we have to walk with my daughter to leafy lane so she can enjoy the park she loves. My middle son also plays in the under 9 football team and this will be an absolute nightmare for the team and other teams who use meadow side. How long will it take to rebuild the football pitch, what about the children who already live here? Do they have to suffer because no one has properly thought this through? Why was this over looked when Whiteley Primary was built, has the council just become too greedy and have decided to over develop it as a result? A one form school is not a solution it is a short term fix, which will cause nothing but upheaval for all who live here, and eventually we will be faced with extending the school again or moving it. I don’t believe you have the best interests of our children at heart you just want to save and make money. I am sure this will be of great interest to all the parish church that have apposed your ideas so far, to see you now intend to build a church within a school. I can not support your plans as I find them too detrimental to the community of Whiteley and not well thought out. I do hope the council will reconsider their plans and actually this time come to a solution which is both beneficial to all our children and the residents who have previously enjoyed living on Whiteley but feel it is being ruined by Winchester and Fareham councils. Yours sincerely Dear Sirs Re: Meadowside Land Use I am writing to oppose the sale of land adjacent to the Meadowside Centre, Whiteley, to Hampshire County Council. Whilst I support the provision of a new school for Whiteley, I object to the building of a new school depriving Whiteley residents of the only recreational space in the area. The land adjacent to the Meadowside centre is regularly used by many local residents, and there is no other recreational space in the Whiteley area. Whilst Hampshire County Council has offered to provide alternative recreational space close to Leafy Lane, this is a considerable distance from the majority of Whiteley residents, and is not easily accessible on foot – particularly for unaccompanied children. This land is deemed unsuitable as a school site due to its proximity to the M27 motorway and therefore pollution. If this is the case, then it is surely unsuitable for use as a recreational space for children? Whilst residents are “assured” that there would be no significant loss of land at Meadowside, there undoubtedly will be. Construction of a school and re-positioning playing fields would:
The Meadowside land is also unsuitable as a site for a new school, as the access road is inadequate for both construction traffic and then ongoing access to the school. This land is privately owned and access is not guaranteed. In addition to these reasons, the use of this land is contrary to government planning guidelines, and local planning policies – this is recreational land which is protected by the City Council’s Local Plan Policies RT1 & RT2. Other suitable sites do exist in the Whiteley area, but appear to have been dismissed for adequate reasons. The land to the north of Whiteley (adjacent to Bluebell Way) is a far more suitable site. The Diocese of Portsmouth dismisses this site as not being central to Whiteley – but it is clear that Whiteley will be expanded, and this site would be central to an ever expanding population. Rather than squeezing a school into a very limited space at Meadowside, the Bluebell Way site would allow for additional land to be allocated for future expansion of the school – which will clearly have to happen given current construction rates and forecasts. I urge you to consider the impact of selling this land, and ensure it remains available to all Whiteley residents, and that a site more suited to the long term needs of Whiteley be used instead. Please do not sell this land! Yours faithfully
Dear Sir, I am writing to put forward my strong objection to the proposed development of a new school on the Meadowside Recreation land in Whiteley. I am a Whiteley resident living close to the recreation land, and father of 2 children - one in Senior school, and one pre-school. I find the idea from Hampshire County Council to build on the only nearby recreation land to be totally unacceptable. My two year old son enjoys very much the nearby playground, and to relocate it to the Leafy Lane area, or to destroy it and rebuild in a different location with the time taken to do so, will deny him the opportunity to enjoy it, possibly right up until he reaches school age himself. My older son, and the rest of the family, enjoy the recreation ground and it's links with the leisure centre - which would be spoilt by the relocation of the recreation land further from the leisure centre. We also enjoy the recreation land which is not reserved for formal sports i.e. Football & Cricket pitches, but which can be enjoyed by anyone at any time. Hampshire County Council seems to have made no provision for the informal park ground, just illustrating in proposed plans how they can just about squeeze in 2 football pitches and a cricket pitch. If the proposal were to go ahead, the view from our living room would change from overlooking the recreation land, to overlooking the school only. I cannot understand Hampshire's reluctance to consider another more suitable site - this seems to be due only to laziness and stubbornness on the part of the council, as the other available land is not currently owned by another council, possibly creating more work in the purchase of said land. My older son currently has to take an hour and a half journey to school as there is no senior school in the area at all, but so far the only consideration of the council seems to have been to provide an additional primary school. Are they expecting all these children to not grow up? Also, Hampshire County Council behaves as if it is providing fair choice for parents of primary school, when in reality, the proposed new school will be part church funded. In 2006, I find it most alarming that the government will even allow state schools to favour one particular religion. A modern education should be more balanced. This church sponsorship and religious undertone to the school, rules it out as a choice for my young child, as I'm sure it must do for the majority of the mostly non-religious population. I would therefore be faced with a school being built on my doorstep, on our only nearby recreation ground, which would be of no use to me - even though I do have a child approaching school age. Hampshire also continually insists that this will be the quickest way to provide a new school, they seem to be ignoring the planned objections to planning permission, even if they do acquire the land Thank you for your time, and I hope we can rely on Winchester City Council to back the residents opinion, as it seems that without your support, ordinary residents will be bulldozed by Hampshire County Council, along with their recreation ground.
Dear Sirs
Latest............. 28th March 2006.................. Whiteley Parish Council has been advised that contrary to the recent letter from HCC to residents, the May 2006 deadline for identifying a site to secure funding has extended until the end of September 2006. This gives HCC more time to find a more suitable site. At the Public Meeting on 9th February, The Parish Council was prevented from giving its presentation by Hampshire County Councillor Kirk. Copy available to view in WORD Residents may be interested to know that a local landowner has offered land for the new school at favourable rates (this is in anticipation of future development at 'North Whiteley' which is indicated in the South East Plan.) Winchester City Council has indicated an application for a school on the site would be viewed favourably as there are local plan policies to allow for such development, whereas a planning application for the Meadowside is contrary to local and national planning policy and is likely to be 'called in' resulting in a lengthy public enquiry, which would delay the opening of the school. The site offered would be easily accessible for parents living in the newer houses and allow for the school to expand should more houses be built in the future. View the map. An extension to Bluebell Way would be required which would be an additional cost but needs to be considered against the estimated cost of six hundred thousand pounds to move the football pitches, footpaths, street lights, skatepark, play park and tennis courts on the Meadowside. ********** Add your views email whiteleyparishcouncil@msn.com More recent views
Summary of responses to the PC school leaflet 8.2.06
1. Phone call 12.1.05 Meadowside is the heart of the village Children from Whiteley and outside the area use sports pitches Should have planned to extend the existing school 2. I would like to register my objection to the proposed primary school on the Meadowside recreation ground
3. Good Afternoon I would like to raise objection to the proposed plans of building a primary school on the currently playing fields on Whiteley.
I and my husband will be completing the forms issued by the county council and will persuade neighbours to do the same
4. After receiving your leaflet I write to support the Parish Council. I believe building the school on the proposed site by the city council would be disastrous. There are major concerns I fear mainly the access. We have enough problems around Whiteley with traffic, where and how would this be dealt with? The recreation area should be kept as it is. If the Winchester City Council and others, would stop the building of yet more houses and concentrate on getting the basics in place first, Whiteley would be a better place. Many residents would like to see the Meadowside centre expanded, a pool put in for example, more outdoor facilities up and running, to loose this ground just doesn't seem right. We need to get the access in and out of Whiteley sorted. Transport system cleaned up. I for one would love to be able to leave my car at home and use public transport but at the present time there isn't any option but to use my care especially as I work in Southampton. Councillors seem to think that everyone either works on Whiteley or in Fareham/Portsmouth!! I would like to hear more about "the other side" that is Fareham side. I only ever receive questionnaires on Winchester, why on earth do I want to answer questions regarding Winchester City, the car parks, the libraries, bus routes, all to do with Winchester City, does Winchester City Council not realise that residents of Whitely need their own backyard tidying up still? Or have they just turned a blind eye? I think the work the Parish Council do on the other hand is pretty good, at least it concerns Whiteley residents. I wait with baited breathe to find out what the next stage is going to be. One more question, when are there going to be some properties built to enable the young people, who are now up and coming, in Whiteley and surrounding areas are going to be able to afford. House prices are ridiculous and for the youngsters, whom I think we should be helping as they are the future, are going to be struggling big time. Here's hoping that the recreation site is not demolished and used for a school, that it can be extended pretty soon and include more facilities. Even before the school was completed the average resident knew that it wasn't going to be big enough. Had it been thought about properly in the first place, this situation may not have arisen. But then I am just a long standing resident of Whiteley who has throughout the years listened to various councillors make their claims and as they said "listen to the people" and in return it seems that all they have done is ignored the views of the residents of Whiteley in many ways. We are still waiting answers to many questions, how much longer do we have to wait to get results? Maybe I should become a housebuilder!!!!!! Good luck in your quest.
5. As residents of Thyme Avenue in Whiteley we would like to support the objection to the use of the Meadowside Recreation Ground as the site for the new Primary School
6. Dear Sir/Madam As a resident of Whiteley with one child currently attending Whiteley Primary School and another on the way - I am totally supportive of the Parish Councils position on the provision of land. The use and subsequent loss of existing recreational land is a totally unacceptable solution that would be of detriment to the whole of Whiteley and it's quality of life. I would go as far as to say that until such time as a reasonable alternative is found the Parish Council should object to any additional building of any type within the Whiteley Area. Why has the County Council not included provision of land for additional infrastructure etc within its overall Planning Strategy? Do they really think that by continuing to give permission for residential housing this does not involve commitments to the necessary community support facilities e.g. available schooling and recreational facilities as well as roads? Land off Leafy Lane is certainly not a viable alternative if it is to service
the bulk of Whiteley - the access is not geared to increases in traffic, already
Leafy Lane is a "rat run" for the Business Park at peak times. The quicker an
Access Only motion is proposed the better.
7. Hi, Thanks for the information flyer on the proposals to build a new primary School in Whiteley. You have my support objecting to the proposed use of the Meadowside Recreation Ground for the new school. Please let me know if you need any more information or is I need to do anything else to support you.
8. Thank you for the
leaflet "What You Need to Know about
9. I write to object
to the new proposal for the school to be put on our playing field.
10. To the parish clerk,
I have received a leaflet though my door from the Parish Council regarding
the opposed site of the new school in Whiteley.
I am also against the proposal as I moved to the area just over 2 year's
ago, I moved into the Whiteley because there is a
lovely green area and is good for walks and recreational facilities alike.
I am so worried now that this will all be taken away and a school will take
its place and most of the green belt could disappear for good.
If you feel that I can help with any matters regarding the opposing issues
you can count me in.
11. Phone call 30th January 2006 Object to use of Recreation Ground for the new school
12. To whom it may
concern,
13. Firstly, I do
think it is important to cater for the growing number of children that require
primary education. 14. Dear Sirs, We write with reference to your pamphlet received this evening regarding Hampshire County Council's proposals to build a new primary school in Whiteley. We live in Coriander Way and our house backs onto the Meadowside recreation ground. We wish to express our great concerns over the proposals and whole heartedly object to the Meadowside recreation ground being used as the site for the new primary school. This would be an unacceptable loss of well-used amenity, recreation space and sports pitches that we presently use. We firmly believe that the alternative privately owned site should be pursued to allow the recreation ground to be retained. We would be grateful if the Whiteley Parish Council could keep up fully posted as to the situation.
15. Dear Whiteley Parish Council I would just like to add my support to your opposition of the acquisition of the Meadowside Recreation ground for the new primary school. The loss of this much used, open space would be of detriment to the whole community of Whiteley. Whiteley needs a second primary school but not at the cost of another valuable asset. The people of Whiteley should not be punished for a lack of foresight from Hampshire County Council.
16. I have recently moved to Rosemary Gardens , Whiteley and I object to the proposed use of Meadowside Recreation Ground to build a new primary school in Whiteley. I believe the recreation ground should be retained, it is very well used and enjoyed by everyone and would be a loss to the community. Houses have also been built and designed around this open space and is one of the reasons I decided to buy in this area of Whiteley. I thought nothing else could be built on this parcel of land. I believe Hampshire County Council should pursue the privately owned site for the new school.
17. Dear Sir/Madam, I have just received the latest information leaflet regarding the proposals for a new Primary School in Whiteley. Firstly thank you for putting together these details to inform the residents of this issue. I have to admit being incensed at what is being proposed with regard to the Meadowside recreation ground with no alternative sports pitches being provided in return. This appears to be another completely nonsensical decision, Whiteley already suffers from a lack of communal space which in turn makes it even more difficult to build the sense of community it so desperately needs. It would appear that there is no joined up process with regard to planning and more importantly the infrastructure to support Whiteley, on the one hand we are told that there are to be another 3000 houses built in Whiteley yet we scarcely have the facilities to support the residents as it stands at present. I have lived in Whiteley 10 years and it is has been a series of broken promises with regard to infrastructure support the only constant has been the continual building of new properties and business units with insufficient investment to support them. Sorry to go a bit of a rant but as I am sure you appreciate it is very frustrating, I have a series of questions for which I would be grateful for answers to: What is the consultation process for this decision? Will the residents get any say, and will it make any difference? What is the position of our elected officials on this issue, and what if anything are they doing about it? Whereabouts is the alternative privately owned site? If there is any public consultation I would like to be involved.
18 Phonecall 19.1.06 Objecting to use of rec ground, existing school site should be used
19. Good Morning. I received your leaflet
regarding the council’s proposal to build a school on the recreation ground by
Meadowside. When we bought our house – our third in Whiteley – we were informed that a Church would be built on the waste ground between the recreation park and the tesco carpark but that the recreation ground was “protected” ground and would not be built on. I shall check my deeds and contact the builders over the coming days to clarify this. While I am a resident of a house over looking the park I do not want this to be seen as NIMBY – I am primarily against this proposal due to the park grounds being so widely used by so many different organizations. On any given weekend the park is full of footballers, cricketers, dog walkers, joggers, kite flyers, etc, etc. Were we to lose this park, or have it greatly reduced I see no area in Whiteley that could be used as an alternative venue for a number of the activities. A key reason we moved to Whiteley was the work the planners had done to retain trees and park land, while managing to squeeze so many houses in. Have we considered engaging Mark Oaten on this subject - I’d be interested in his opinion, although I appreciate it is a Hampshire County Council issue. Please keep me informed of any activities that are being planned to voice our objection to this proposal
20. Today I received the council leaflet outlining the options for a new primary school site in Whiteley and I would like to add my strong opposition to the use of the land currently occupied by the Meadowside Recreation Centre. I am in full agreement with the Parish Council’s stated views that the loss of such a well-used public amenity space is unacceptable. Since the first houses were built at Whiteley, provision of public amenities and all other infrastructure necessary to provide a pleasant environment to live in has, I feel, been too far down on the list of priorities of the governing county councils. There is a huge disparity between the amount of housing in Whiteley and the provision of public amenities. Anything that makes the situation worse is clearly not an option. I am deeply opposed to any further development in Whiteley which reduces the ratio of public amenities to housing density and would like to give my support to the Parish Council in this respect.
21. My wife and I would be glad to support Whiteley Parish Council in objecting to the proposed use of the Meadowside recreation centre as the site for a new primary school. As the parents of 4 children (2 of which are of school age) we appreciate the need for more school places to accommodate the increasing young population in Whiteley. However, to potentially lose 2/3rds of the existing recreation ground to allow this is not acceptable. The fields are used for playing sports and our children enjoy playing football there. The loss of this land with no alternative new space being made available would be greatly missed, both practically and aesthetically. We hope that this email is of use - if you require more formal support,
please contact us. 22. Dear Sirs/Madame I have just read with shock and horror that one of the new sites for the primary school in Whiteley will be the pitch near the Meadow side centre. How ridiculous is this and how short sighted on the side of the local planners. What was the point of having a playing field which is highly used by children and other individuals to suddenly want to build on it. Surely there are other sites that can be used. And then to build more houses on the site directly opposite is also ludicrous. At present Whiteley is such a nice area because of the greenery that is visible. Is it the mission statement of the council to completely obliterate all the grass areas - we might as well live in a city. People move into Whiteley because of its natural appeal. The business park near the dentists is surely a preferred spot for a primary school - look at all the land near the Air Traffic Control Centre. Also, why are the business units built for them to remain empty for most of the year. Also the site near Tescos that was ear marked for the church would be another good site. Also, if children, particularly youths are not allowed to let off steam on the playing field, surely this will encourage more youth crime. At present there are not enough facilities for older children but plenty for very young children. This will have consequences in the future. The proposed skate park for example has again been put on hold. Whiteley primary school is set in beautiful woodlands and perhaps this was short sighted on the part of the council - if they had made this bigger in the first place then we would not be in this position. Also the new physio centre that has been built. Was there a need for this facility. This would have been ideal land for perhaps a further extension to the primary school or a centre that could be used for various groups such as the genesis centre in Locksheath which I believe serves the community for various things. Parking there is also an issue - again a short sighted occasion. I believe the council will have a serious objection to the proposal of the new primary school. Perhaps the council should for once think about the residents that are left with their decisions.
23. We are
residents in Whiteley and have 2 children at the existing Whiteley School. In
September 2007, our third child will be due to start in Reception also. As
parents of young children, we are fully aware of how important recreation ground
is, and are fully opposed to the new one-form entry school being built on the
Meadowside recreation ground.
24. I would like to protest most strongly to H.C.C. proposal to locate the school on Meadowside rec. When I first moved to Whiteley 10 years ago, I was impressed by the planners attention to the recreation, cycle, and walk-ways around the area, and the promise of tennis courts, ( just arrived.) and a bowling green, for the more senior resident, (no sight or sound of one.) If the outright theft of the Meadowside site goes ahead, a bowling green will be completely out of the question. Did not the planners of this development have to fight for these recreational areas with the developers at that time, only now, to give it away? Someone or some people are not doing there jobs properly, and in my opinion, are looking for the easy and cheap option. I think the new school should be located at the North Whiteley Site. Let planners be seen to do there jobs, and now negotiate with the developers of this new site. Mr Tilbury should take to heart the points made by Nicki Oliver. **** 25 Information regarding the New School/Site Proposal This handout is being provided as a courtesy to my Whiteley neighbours and is not intended to be on behalf of anyone other than myself. As a long-time resident of Whiteley I have been involved in many forums and steering committees. I have also recently completed 10 years as a parent governor of Whiteley Primary School where I chaired the Personnel/Resources Committee, this committee being responsible for monitoring admissions to the school. After being lobbied by many individuals and groups, Hampshire County Council is now looking to provide additional primary school places within Whiteley. The only feasible method by which to accomplish this is to build another school. However, the proposal currently before us is wholly inadequate. The design is necessarily at a minimum to fit the school into a less than adequate space. The site itself sits on public leisure areas. I have included here a draft of my objection letter to the Council, which I will formalize following the public consultation on Thursday, 9th February. I am unconditionally opposed to the site offered in the current proposal. I would not presume to advise anyone as to how they should respond to this consultation. I would ask only that you read my letter and that you ask direct questions of those involved. The whole package that has been hastily assembled will not provide the quality of education that is needed and will permanently eliminate a large area of leisure space. The doctors pressed for years for an appropriate site with a building to house the services they felt were needed. They have finally succeeded. It was difficult but not impossible. There is also a large amount of misinformation regarding admissions, waiting lists and the appeals process. I am happy to answer any questions anyone may have about the new school proposal or the admissions process to the best of my ability. Whatever your decision regarding the proposal before us, please ask questions and make your views known either online or by post (details at end of the proposal you received through your letterbox). Wendy Roostan Objections to Proposed New School Site Whiteley residents have recently received Hampshire County Council’s proposal for a new school site, dated January/February 2006. It would be difficult to find a more unenthusiastic proposal than this one. The initial paragraph reiterates the decision the County Council Cabinet reached this past summer, that they “approved in principle the establishment of a new 210-place, one-form entry primary school, expandable to 420 places, subject to the availability of a suitable site and an appropriate funding strategy.” The remaining 10 pages cover numerous reasons why the site chosen is eminently unsuitable and that the school, if built, would not be able to expand to 2-forms of entry. Yet the intention is to have the building ready for September 2007, with ‘interim arrangements’ available for reception age children to be admitted in September 2006. One could stop here as the Council has written a most convincing document to NOT approve its own proposal. However, the many reasons should be noted. 1) The nature of the school, as to whether it would be a church voluntary aided school, has still not been fully formulated by the local Diocese. If approved, it is they who would need to publish the statutory notices required to establish such a school, set up a governing body, and hire the headteacher and remaining staff. 2) If the Diocese agrees to proceed, then a faith-based school will actually limit choice rather than extend it. If a child is refused admission to Whiteley Primary School (based on oversubscription) and the parent objects to a faith-based school then there would be no other choice within Whiteley. As only a small minority of Whiteley residents belong to the Whiteley Church, a faith-based school should be by choice not default. 3) If the Diocese wishes to incorporate a church within the school building, the proposal states that “funding would need to come from the churches concerned and the additional accommodation be added without increasing the amount of land required for the school, or contributing to any delay in its construction.” This will be difficult to agree and arrange within only a few months and may actually reduce the school facilities. 4) The government money of £4 million plus was granted on the assumption that the new school would be faith-based. The Diocese will need to publish the statutory notices by end of May. If residents would prefer a non-faith based school the contribution from the government can be re-negotiated. The rather desperate timescale on the present offer unfairly eliminates another choice. 5) The report dated 12 July 2005 from the County Education Officer stated that “the earliest date on which a new school could open is September 2008.” The stated opening date in the proposal is now set at September 2007 which is unrealistic for a completed building. 6) Proper interim arrangements for the reception class September 2006 within Whiteley are impossible as no site has as yet received planning permission. Even so, a local councillor has stated that a temporary classroom would be placed on playspace at the present Whiteley Primary School or a spare classroom utilized. The school’s governing body has already lodged its objection to both ideas based on legal, educational, and financial reasons. The children would be placed in a kind of limbo as they would not be in Whiteley Primary School uniforms and would not be the legal or educational responsibility of Whiteley Primary School. If there is a spare classroom in September 2006 it would be in the year 6 block, having been designed, resourced and equipped for 11-year-olds not 4-year-olds. The reception block is located at the other end of the building. 7) It is ludicrous to presume that a school will have been approved, planning permission granted, a governing body appointed, an instrument of government put in place, and a headteacher, staff, resources and curriculum arranged within the next 6 months. The Council cannot admit children to a school which consists of one classroom and a teacher. Twenty four-year-olds and a teacher parked within another school as a stop-gap measure is not the kind of education we should be promoting. A proper site would have enough land on which to place temporary classrooms while the permanent building is constructed. This would allow the headteacher and staff to create the school ethos while giving the children an identity, a focus, and a quality education. 8) One other possible site, a larger piece of land owned by pension scheme USS Ltd., is not impossible to obtain though it would increase the cost. 9) Land to the north of the present boundaries of Whiteley is not impossible to obtain. This site was mentioned at a recent meeting of Whiteley Parish Council and presumably the owners are open to discussion. The site is accessible from the old Whiteley Lane which led to the original Whiteley Farm and is closer to the new housing and to many who fall into the oversubscription category. 10) The proposed site would effectively cancel any further sports/recreation facilities at the Meadowside. As building in Whiteley is still incomplete, we should be maintaining/expanding our leisure facilities, not building on top of them. The alleged gains of this proposal are an illusion. 11) The proposed site would entail relocating the current football pitches, cricket square, recently-constructed tennis courts, the long-postponed skateboard park, and a large playpark. There is no guarantee that planning permission will be granted for the resiting of these facilities, particularly the tennis courts, skateboard park, and playpark, as their relocation would put them considerably closer to homes. 12) The insertion of the proposed school will effectively isolate the Meadowside Centre from these facilities. This separation will mean more difficulty in monitoring activities, and impose a greater distance to changing rooms and toilet facilities. 13) The need to raise the level of the relocated sports fields has drainage implications for nearby houses, and is historically difficult to achieve as the soil is clay-based. 14) There will be a permanent reduction in amenity open space. The proposal to replace this with additional open space off Leafy Lane is unacceptable and inappropriate. The Leafy Lane site is 1-2 km from 90 % of the housing and is accessible only by crossing the main artery into Whiteley, traversing a business park, and then proceeding up a hill along a narrow residential road. 15) The Cabinet decision included the proviso that the proposed school could be expanded to 2-forms if needed. The proposed site would make this impossible. The claim that this is now not needed to provide places for the existing Whiteley development is short-sighted based on Whiteley’s history. If the current figures are wrong, the proposed new school will be oversubscribed. If North Whiteley ever materializes, any new housing will need existing school places before any new facilities would be provided. We all know that housing always comes before infrastructure, whatever the developers may promise. 16) Nationwide, LEAs are proposing the closure of one-form entry schools as they are uneconomic to run and cannot provide the facilities/activities available from 2- or 3-form entry schools. The new primary school may be self-defeating in its purpose. Having only 7 staff and a headteacher, parents may opt for other schools which would provide a broader educational experience for their children. The new school may also have difficulty in attracting the desired calibre of headteacher as an unextendable one-form entry primary is seen by the teaching profession as more of a dead-end appointment rather than as a career progression. 17) The disruption to the area around the Meadowside Centre will be major and long term. Nothing in Whiteley has ever been built on time. The original school took 18 months from tender to occupation, and it was late. 18) The only road access to the Meadowside Centre/proposed school site is one narrow access road owned by USS, Ltd. Construction vehicles would have to use this road and then cross a major, well-used footpath to access the site. 19) There will be only 12 additional parking places provided for staff. There will be limited access to the school for delivery vehicles and then only through the current carpark. 20) The development contravenes national and local planning policy. 21) There are still ample places in local schools on the south side of the M27. Historically, approx. 15% of primary-aged pupils choose to attend schools outside of Whiteley. While their school choice is by preference not default, the reality is that they are able to do so effectively and still maintain friendships within the Whiteley community. While this is inconvenient and undesirable for those parents who are unsuccessful in achieving a place at Whiteley Primary School, it does allow time to obtain an appropriate site on which to build an extendable one-form entry primary school. 22) There is time to obtain a suitable site and to plan the opening of the school in a proper manner. Whiteley Primary School opened with 107 on roll. Even though it has been oversubscribed since Autumn 2001 (in-catchment applications: 2001 – 2; 2002 – 33; 2003 – 8; 2004 – 2; 2005 – 26; 2006 – 19), the oversubscription has been accommodated by the time the autumn term started except for the 2002 intake and last year’s. (The 2002 waiting list were all offered places within 13 months of the children starting school.) Even accounting for the movement into and out of Whiteley there are presently only 21 children on the waiting list of Whiteley Primary School (18 for reception/3 for year one), plus next autumn’s intake. Most residents of Whiteley would agree that those who wish to be educated at a primary school in Whiteley should be accommodated if at all possible. At the summer consultation regarding school places some parents argued that, “We want our children educated within Whiteley and we don’t care how you do it.” Presumably they do care, and though the current proposal seemingly satisfies that desire it does so with many drawbacks for the school itself and also imposes a great expense on all of Whiteley’s residents. The proposed school will meet the minimum for a one-form entry primary school but would inevitably always be seen as the inferior choice to the current school. Judging by current trends, the new school’s population in 5 years time will not be the maximum of 210, but more likely be closer to half that figure. To spend £5.5 million plus and cause massive disruption for so many, only to result in a small, unextendable school which permanently displaces so much amenity space is not value for money. If the choice is that Whiteley has to accept a faith-based school on the Meadowside site now or go without, I regretfully have to opt for the latter. Whiteley Primary School was extended from 2 forms of entry to 3 forms six years ago, because the Council claimed it was the best option as there was no suitable site elsewhere in Whiteley. Therefore, one must conclude that if the Meadowside site wasn’t suitable then it is no more suitable now. We’ve heard it before, but certainly true in this instance, Whiteley deserves better!
26 A New School for Whiteley – Consultation Exercise I am also wondering if the ownership and use of road and
car parks leading to Meadowside Leisure Centre will become an issue in future
years as there will be a conflict between the schools needs, the leisure centre
and the shopping mall.
For this reason I believe that the new school is likely to
be under pressure from day one to expand to meet the needs of the school users.
I am not sure if the design currently includes a school hall or a church but I
can see that these two facilities will be at the top of the list if they are not
included within the school on day one. 27. Support from a WCC Councillor 28. Just wanted to say that I fully support your objections to the school being built on the Meadowside site. I agree that we need a new school in Whiteley - i will be one of the parents looking for a school place in a couple of years time, but I don't think a single entry school in the one area of Whiteley that is widely used by both children and adults for recreational purposes is the solution. I live on the Fareham side near the school and every day see the cars parked along my road as parents drop their children off at school. we regularly use the Meadowside fields - we walk that way to the shopping village, our daughter often uses the play area and sometimes walk our dog. keep up the good work! 29. Sir / Madam, I read with interest, as a Whiteley resident with a soon to be 2 years old child the continuing saga of the proposed Whiteley second primary school , 50% of Whiteley resident who responded to the recent residents survey are not in favour of a school on the land adjacent to Meadowside leisure centre. This is a fact that the county council seem to be overlooking. It is all well and good picturing mums outside a school( Portsmouth News Thursday 16th march) who all proclaim they may have to drive to a school 4 miles away, yet if anyone has ever done a traffic survey outside Whiteley school at 8.45am and 3.15 pm you will find out that it seems as half the parents there drive to the school anyway , surely the furthest distance they live away is 20 to 30 mins walk ! The debate on where the school should actually be sited needs some foresight. With the future expansion of Whiteley to the north and the influx of families this would mean a one form entry school with no possible means of expansion is not the answer. Building anything on public open space goes directly against central government planning policy. Whiteley has only one large piece of open land , do not lose it as we will never get it back !! 30. Dear All , I read with interest today’s news that the city council have refused to sell the land needed at Meadowside , EXCELLENT!! keep up the good work and make the County Council see sense in this matter, indeed a school is needed but a more suitable location is also needed , the County Councils only factor in this seems to be the £4million pound grant which it will lose, how committed are they to actually building a school?? please keep the pressure on and be encouraged as you seem to have the majority support throughout the Whiteley residents (Fareham Whiteley resident) |
|
|