For interest I am forwarding the questions I have sent for the
next meeting. Unfortunately I can't make it but at least my points will be
documented.
Karen.
I
would like to submit the following questions to the cabinet meeting on Thursday
November 27th.
The
subject is the proposed expansion of
There
are a multitude of unanswered questions concerning the proposed expansion of
1.
Does the council intend to have any collaborative meetings with interested
stakeholders i.e. parents and residents to try and work together to address the
many issues which have been raised repeatedly to council? More creative
solutions are needed rather than the quick fix approach which seems to be
favoured.
2.
I recently attended a meeting at the school organised by concerned parents and
for the first time was able to fully understand the awful plans for Option 1 of
the architects plans, apparently the favoured option.
Does
the council really feel it is acceptable to have 2 separate buildings with no
sensible link between the 2?
Does
the council feel it is acceptable to have a rooftop playground enclosed by a
wall, rather like putting children in a cage?
Does
the council feel it is acceptable that the new building would take away all the
existing level green space and leave the unusable sloped green area without
buildings, when with imaginative architecture the sloping area could be used to
build on and leave the flat area for the children to play on. Or would that be
too expensive?
3.
To date no details have been given as to how the increased traffic will be
managed. How will traffic on
4.
At what stage will risk assessments be carried out to address the following
areas of concern
Increased
traffic in the surrounding streets
Reduction
in outdoor play space ACTUALLY ON SITE. There are already concerns about this
issue with the present number of children.
How
will the walk to Brunel playing field be safely managed on a regular basis -
not just as a one off for sports day.
5.
Can the council categorically state that it is legal for them to change the
wording on the original 106 agreement to allow them to use the playing field at
the Brunel site for use other than building a school?
6. Can
the council categorically state that it is legal to have an expanded Sefton
Park school where part of the space needed to meet requirements for space per
child is on another site a 20 minute walk away?
In
a response to my statement to council on October 14th it states " The
intention is that the Brunel site becomes play and games space for the school,
thus enabling more physical activity for children at the school. The PE
curriculum is currently delivered at Fairfield school. The Brunel site will be
closer and a MUGA is proposed". Firstly, the Fairfield site is not
used for PE. The Brunel site may be closer, but still a long dangerous walk for
a class of children and IT WILL NOT be feasible for regular daily use for the
majority of the children, so it should not be used as part of the calculation
for daily space per child.
7.
In a response to my statement to council on October 14th it states "There
is no suggestion that consultation of Sefton Park Expansion has been
closed" yet I received an email from Stella Mann of IRIS on 30/10/08
stating "The consultation for this
stage has now been completed and my role facilitating the consultation is
finished. A decision will now be made by the Primary Rewiew Board at
Bristol City Council.". This certainly suggests that democratic
consultation has finished.
Can
you outline how a FULL and fair consultation will continue?
I
could go on with question after question. I hope the plan to expand Sefton Park
school is reversed and the Brunel site is seen as the logical option.
Thank
you
Karen
Cook (parent)