Tilehurst
Globe
Minutes of meeting Wednesday
16th July 2003 Tilehurst Free Church (Main Hall)
Present: Liz Ellis
(chair), 66 local residents and RBC representatives (Jo Lovelock, Andrew
Daykin, Alec Kennedy, Steve Ward, Head Teacher of Park Lane School
Welcome and
introductions
Liz
welcomed the many people new to Globe meetings and explained the background to
the group. Globe is concerned with the quality of the environment-locally and
wider afield. This special meeting had one item on the agenda - the Park
Lane School/Blagrave Rec. Scheme. Liz welcomed Andrew Daykin, Director of
Education and Community, the other officers, and Jo Lovelock, Lead Cllr for
Education, to the meeting.
Andrew Daykin introduced
the scheme: he
explained that the Scheme is at a preliminary stage. There are no detailed
plans, and the council is seeking comments from all parties. This is the first
of several stages of consultation. If comments are broadly supportive then the
council will proceed to further stages of consultation e.g. with Charity
Commission, Sport England, so that the earliest a worked out scheme could be
completed would be 2004 with construction starting 2004/5. As with many schemes
the devil is in the detail, yet this is not a planning application - aspects
such as access, transport will be considered after the initial
broad-brush consultation. The scheme involves replacement of the buildings of
two schools (Park lane primary and, Blagrave Nursery School) enhancement of
community facilities (library and clinic) .The downside is disposal of land and
community assets and use of part of Blagrave Recreation Ground as a school
playing field. Some government funding is available, but it is insufficient to
pay for the entire scheme.
Cllr Jo Lovelock: Reiterated
the importance of responding to the consultation questions - encourage
everyone, neighbours etc to reply. Council officers are already working on some
of the issues raised.
Questions
(summarised
and re-grouped, some covering similar points have been combined):
Q:
If there Trustees of the Charity that owns the Recreation Ground were
independent rather than the Council itself would they approve the scheme?
A
Jo: The
Charity Commission has legal powers and will act as independent referee for the
scheme to proceed. They check that the Council behaves properly. People can
write to the Charity Commission with their own comments. Planning departments
too are fierce when Councils submit their own applications. The roles of the
Council as Trustee and as Education authority are separate.
Q: How is the scheme
justified –Blagrave Recreation ground was given to benefit children under 14
year at all times. Will the fence be taken down out of school hours?
A: The question is how best to
serve these children, the impact on the beneficial class. The Council think the
scheme is best for the beneficiaries of the Trust.
Q: What if the Charity
commission do not agree?
A:
If the commission do not agree this scheme will not go ahead.
Q:
Have they not given an idea in advance?
A:
The Commission lawyers have said it is a legitimate scheme, and what the
council must do is satisfy the needs of the beneficial class.
Q
At what stage will they be approached to say yes/no to the scheme?
A;
There will be a report to RBC Cabinet in Sept, if they agree to proceed the
Commission will be approached after that.
Q: How long has Blagrave Nursery School been on the Recreation ground. It should never have been allowed. We do not want to lose 40 % of the Recreation ground. The children who play there do not want it to be cut about either.
A:
The governors of Park Lane School have come forward with a scheme for better
facilities for the school; the council added
the library, clinic and the nursery school (originally a 1945 temporary
building). Staff in the two schools do
an excellent job with what they have, but buildings are past sell-by dates.
Choice is between better facilities, but need more cash. We have £2 million from the government, need £4 million more so must realize some assets
to fund the scheme.
Q:
What is wrong with the buildings?
A:
Rooms are wrong shape and size, We can’t get all the children together; the
school is on 4 sites.
Q:
Why one integrated school, not separate infants and juniors?
A:
Space requirements for separate schools are even greater, also they cost more
to run. The Governors and Council want Park Lane Primary to remain one school.
Q: What is so bad about Park Lane School building; several others are same age E.g. Caversham Park
A:
Problem is that it is split site, one issue is the difficulty for parents
meeting several children.
Q: Is this a good enough reason for us to spoil the Recreation Ground, de-value properties?
Q: What about Meadway school building-why not re-draw catchment areas?
A.
Meadway School is in a bad state and in the wrong place. Schools should serve
local communities Church End, Moorlands, St Michaels are all very close. The
future of Avenue school is being decided - suggestions include replacing The
Avenue Special School on part of the Meadway site.
Q: Most people are concerned at selling off the land. What assurances have we all the cash realised will go to Tilehurst?
A: All plans will have full financial details
attached. Some cash is available from PCT
Q: What about the Triangle proposals?
A:
The proposals for the Triangle will not be considered until the future for the
school is clear (Spring 2004)
Q: I want to ask about the facilities for under 14 s. In what ways will they be improved?
A:
They will have new school buildings and a new play area at Downing Rd playing
Field.
Q: The intake of the school will be reduced to 60, are there enough school places?
A:
Yes we have studied the housing figures for existing and projected houses.
There will be enough places for all children in the (slightly) revised catchment
area .The intake of 60 is far better than 72 organisationally-school classes
are 30 .The catchment area will be altered a little to ensure the new school
Q:
This questionnaire is unfair and difficult to complete. I do agree about
combining the schools, but I do not agree with the loss of open space, and an
interesting building. I want the old Park Lane School building kept. It is a
fine balance of judgement, I want more work done on costings and look for some
more cash. I want a school for 21 Century.
Q:
Why is the building only for 50 years
A:
This is notional, if no maintenance were done, we expect it to last much
longer..
Q:
The questionnaire is deceptive .The issue is we do not want houses on Downing
Rd and on Park Lane junior school site-we want assurances about this now. This
would be changing the face of Tilehurst, losing the open space, more houses we
don’t want.
Q.
If people will assume the funding issue has been sorted out - another source of
cash has been located.
Please
consider an alternative proposal from the Globe Group.
These Globe proposals mean that the Recreation Ground can be left intact if the Junior school site is used for the library, Clinic and Early Years Centre , with the integrated primary school on the current laurels and Library sites.
(Applause)
Q: Why is the Council content to sell off land when it was opposed to selling off allotment land owned by another Charity?
A.:
The situations are different. One was on the edge of the escarpment-scenery
value.
Q:
Why knock down the clinic? I worked there 30 years. 2 dental surgeries 9 other
rooms
Q:
Why are old buildings necessarily bad-some queue up to pay money to go to old
schools.
Q:
Once the Council tried to put a road through the rec. they were stopped. Old
people remember the opposition to the Red Cross hut and building the nursery.
We do not want them spoiling the recreation ground.
Q:
The Council is proposing a scheme that squashes too much into a small space-and
then wants to sell off assets, leaving no room for growth.
Q: We currently suffer from noise pollution living in Recreation Rd. We want to be sure the council keep an eye on over 14 s in the Recreation ground and on Downing Rd playing Field.
In response to a suggestion it was agreed to
ask the meeting if they supported the Council Scheme as outlined.
6
people supported the scheme, with an overwhelming majority against. There was
no agreement about whether to put an alternative to the meeting.
Liz
thanked the speakers for coming and all for attending the meeting. After
reminding people to complete their questionnaires and send in their letters
before 30 July, she closed the meeting.