Agenda item

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Children's Services.

The report outlines the 2 options available to the local authority regarding the management and governance of the new school.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to note the report and to make recommendations to the Cabinet as appropriate.

Officer contact: Geraldine Gerard, 0161 474 3837, geraldine.gerrard@stockport.gov.uk

The Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Children's Services submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) outlining the two options available to the local authority regarding the management and governance of the new school.

The Cabinet Member for Children, Family Services & Education (Councillor Colin Foster) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/issues raised: -

·         There was a discussion regarding the draft report previously circulated to the Governors of Queensgate School before local ward councillors and the Scrutiny Committee.

·         Clarification was sought regarding the number of children that had applied to Queensgate in 2021 and how many places were offered. In response, it was stated that 176 applications for Queensgate were made and 30 places were allocated up to national offer day. In the lead up to national offer day discussions with the Governing Body and Headteacher had taken place regarding flexible arrangements to take the offer up to 45. It was also stated that further work was being undertaken regarding pupil projections across the borough while ensuring the commissioning of new places would not undermine existing schools or places.

·         Clarification was sought regarding the costs of the highway mitigation to get children from Bramhall to Woodford. It was commented that the work had not been done in the process as the considerations at this time were only the options contained in the report.

·         It was commented that the Woodford Garden Village was not geared up for the highway network that would be generated twice a day. In response, it was stated that there would need to be a travel impact assessment for both options that would be provided in due course. It was also noted that in the Section 106 agreement that the developer has agreed to employ a person to look at the needs and the infrastructure.

·         It was noted that in order to make the area safe for the children who would be walking and/or taking a bus or car would be quite costly and needs to be considered.

·         There was a discussion regarding the 750 houses being proposed by Redrow and the 920 houses included in the report. It was noted that certain information could not be included in the report regarding any further developments.

·         Clarification was sought on the length of the consultation and when it could be opened in 2022. In response, it was reported that it was not a long consultation relating to the importance of the decision to be made, but will take it into account.

·         It was commented that there was a planning decision taken in 2014 with comments made by the then Head of Education. In response, it was noted that a school will be opened on the site and would be delivered and it was important to listen to local councillors, officers, local community and schools.

·         Clarification was sought regarding paragraph 4.19 and the reference to “a small number of current pupils will have to travel over 3 miles to get to the new site”. In response, it was stated that a written response would be provided to the Committee.

·         It was commented that the report provided a start of the formal process with the options being established and what needs to be worked through. It was also stated that once it is established what Queensgate want to do, that engagement should involve local councillors going forward.

·         Clarification was sought regarding paragraph 2.1 and the reference to “the Section 106 agreement to ensure that the school is available in for the academic year when the 450^th unit is occupied”. In response, it was stated that the school would be available from June 2022.

·         Clarification was sought regarding when the decision was taken relating to Queensgate and the two options. In response, it was stated that a decision had not been taken as there were only two options and it was not reduced to two options. It was also noted that the report with the options had only been available since April 2021.

·         It was commented that one larger school rather than two smaller schools, there would be implications for road safety and more people travelling and the increase in air quality.

·         It was noted that despite the constraints on the Council for the options for the new school, there were implications to balance place planning between the local plan and the projections and the capacity for the new school.

·         It was commented that most of the schools in Stockport are already oversubscribed and there are parking issues, problems with pollution and children’s safety at risk, so the new school in Woodford Village should be pursued.

·         Councillor Bagnall also made a statement to the meeting that included the following key points: -

o   The report being biased in favour of Queensgate School closing;

o   The report lacking supporting data and not taking into account children and their families and the right to parental choice;

o   The right solution would be for Woodford Garden Village to be opened next September and Queensgate School to remain open;

o   The Education Authority failing to understand the local geography and the current and future housing development;

o   More cars and carbon emissions would be on the local roads and would deter more children from walking to school;

o   There was a lack of highways costs or plans for children and cars to safely access the site;

o   Local councillors were keen to see the planning permissions tied to deadlines to establish a sense of community and provide confidence for families moving into the area;

o   Families in Woodford Garden Village need school places near their homes now, not in two years;

o   Local residents would be affected by this proposal and it would wreck their quality of life;

o   A School Place Planning Board was only just being put together seven years after the school was first suggested;

o   The report was not consistent and refers to there being ‘pressure on school places’, but then refers to ‘more places undermining existing schools’;

o   The parents and children of Woodford and Bramhall deserve to have a choice and deserve to have both an excellent school and a new school that has been promised;

o   The cost implications for opening a new school and updating the existing school;

o   The planning permission involved and a legally binding agreement;

o   The housing density across Woodford and the demand for primary aged children;

o   Other local schools that are already oversubscribed;

o   The movement of the SEND Resource provision;

o   The statutory walking distances for primary school children under eight years old compared to the shortest walking route from Queensgate to Woodford School;

o   The length of the pre-stage and stage two consultation periods;

o   The current timetable needed to be reconsidered to allow sufficient time for potential bidders; and

o   The advantages of opening a school in September 2022.

RESOLVED – (1) That the report be noted.

(2) That the following proposals be forwarded to the Cabinet for consideration: -

·         That the Deputy Chief Executive and the Director of Education include local ward councillors in the decision making process.

·         That the timelines are brought forward to provide the most opportunity for officers and other parties to deliver it on time.