Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Thursday, 11 February 2010

Building Schools for the Future-Options South of the Borough

Approximately 100 officers, councillors, members of the public and the MP for Stockton South were in attendance to hear Cabinet consider further options under the Government's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme for the three schools of All Saints Church of England School in Ingleby Barwick, Conyers School in Yarm and Egglescliffe School in Eaglescliffe. No capital funding for these schools had been included in the first wave of BSF funding granted to the Council, and the Government had until now given no indication of the likely timing of a second wave of BSF investment in the borough. This would mean that the whilst the Council could not commit at this stage to delivering any of the options presented to Cabinet, Members were requested to authorise further deliverability studies of options prior to community consultation so that the Council would be ready to proceed with an agreed strategy should a second wave of BSF funding be announced.

It was noted that the Council's BSF strategy was informed by projections of future student numbers which indicated that a total of 2,850 secondary school places (11-16) would be needed across Eaglescliffe, Ingleby Barwick and Yarm in 2018. All of the options submitted to Cabinet were based on that projection and this was the number of school places for the South of the Borough agreed with Government agencies.

Cabinet had previously asked for feasibility studies on the following four options, and had asked that any other site options that emerged during the study be investigated:-

A: The current preferred option set out in the BSF Strategy for Change agreed by Cabinet and approved by government.
B: To create a second school in Ingleby Barwick.
C: To increase the capacity of All Saints School beyond 900 places.
D: To relocate Egglescliffe School to a site within Preston Park.

The full list of sites were identified as follows, and accompanying maps submitted illustrating their location:-

Site Description
1. Conyers School existing site at Green Lane, Yarm
2. Egglescliffe School existing site at Urlay Nook Road, Eaglescliffe
3. All Saints Church of England School existing site at Blair Avenue, Ingleby Barwick
4. Land to the west of Ingleby Mill Primary School, Low Lane, Ingleby Barwick
5. Land at Little Maltby Farm, Low Lane, Ingleby Barwick
6. Land south of the TIBS playing fields at Thornaby Road
7. Land north of Blair Avenue, Ingleby Barwick (shown on the map as 7a, 7b, and 7c)
8. Land south of Sunningdale Drive, Eaglescliffe
9. Egglescliffe School playing field site at Allens West
10. Land to the rear of Durham Lane, Eaglescliffe
11. Land within and adjacent to Preston Park, Eaglescliffe (shown on the map as 11a and 11b)
12. Land at Preston Farm, Eaglescliffe
13. Land near Queen Elizabeth Way
14. Land between A67 and Urlay Nook, Eaglescliffe
15. Land north of Allens West rail crossing, Eaglescliffe
16. Land to rear of the former Logistics Centre, Eaglescliffe

The four original options, together with the additional possible sites identified above, had been summarized into the following variants:-

Cabinet was advised of the methodology of the feasibility studies undertaken to date, which included:-

• Whether that option would result in all schools in the South of the Borough area being of viable size
• Whether that option would maintain a secondary school in each geographical community (Eaglescliffe, Ingleby Barwick and Yarm)
• To what extent the number of school places in each geographical area would match the number of resident students
• The impact on the distances travelled and the number of students required to travel to schools outside their own area
• The impact on post-16 education provision
• Whether any additional land (not currently in Council ownership) would be required
• An assessment of the likely availability of such land>
• The likely impact on the existing long-term PFI contract for the maintenance of the site and buildings of All Saints Church of England School
• Any planning and/or highways issues
• The likely development cost (excluding costs funded through BSF).

Factors both in support and against each of the options were summarised. It was noted also that regulations provided that BSF funding could not be used to fund the purchase of land.

The Cabinet Member for Children & Young People indicated that in already approving option A1 contained within the Council's Strategy for Change submission, the Government had requested that the Council explore other options. A petition had also been received from residents of Ingleby Barwick requesting that another school be provided in their area. There was however no available BSF funding beyond what had already been granted to the Council for the twelve schools in the first group of BSF funding. Work on any option could only begin after funding was formally approved by Government and following completion of the works involved in the first group of funding. This was likely to be 2016 at the earliest.

Cabinet subsequently determined that detailed investigations should be carried out to test the deliverability of the following options and in doing so, the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People referred to the Cabinet's ambition to retain a school in each of the three communities without compromising the existing redevelopment proposals for Preston Hall and Park:-

It was agreed that the above options be the subject of more detailed technical assessments, the results of which would be reported to Cabinet later in the year. Cabinet would then be invited to decide which of the options they would like officers to further pursue through public consultation. The public's views would then be reported back to Cabinet so that it could consider them when deciding a strategy for the three schools in the south of the Borough should be included in the Building Schools for the Future strategy should BSF or any other form of funding become available

Cabinet heard representations from spokespersons and elected members in attendance speaking on behalf of residents and groups affected by the proposals.

Borough and Parish Councillors representing Ingleby Barwick emphasised the importance of securing another school for the community and the strength of public support behind the campaign. The impact of the existing travel arrangements required to transport pupils from Ingleby Barwick to other schools on the Council's challenge to reduce carbon emissions in the future, was noted, and it was suggested that a further option to those proposed should be a submission for a further additional school.

Reference was made to the proposed use of land at Preston Hall and Park (Option D2) and concern was expressed by both elected representatives, residents in the adjacent area, and spokespersons on behalf of the affected Allotments Association and the Commission for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). Reference was made to the effects of the proposal on the Council's already approved strategies and master plan for the Hall and Park, and the public concern in losing part of the Park, which had resulted in the recent submission of a public petition to Council objecting to the proposal. It was suggested also that this option would still require many pupils having to travel, some increased distances than was the case currently, and the lack of any financial certainty regarding the creation of a bridge link from Ingleby Barwick to Preston Park cast further doubt on this particular option. The possible increase in the number of pupils in Eaglescliffe requiring schooling arising from new housing developments in the area, was also cited as a reason for retaining Egglescliffe School on its existing site, albeit with an increased capacity. The implications of the possible development on Preston Park in terms of the loss of parking available within the Park, the displacement of the existing allotment holders, the impact on the nearby Nature Reserve and on the Heritage Park, and the increased traffic disruption to the business community, were all voiced as causes for concern regarding the proposed use of the Preston Park site.

The MP for Stockton South, in welcoming the fact that there were now four options put forward for consideration as opposed to only two in place at the outset, praised the well balanced presentation of the options for the way forward and the fact that the public would be given further opportunity to comment as part of the planned consultation process on any options subsequently approved by Cabinet.

For further information regarding the Council's Building Schools for the Future programme, contact Kirsty Watt, tel. 01642 524525; e-mail: Kirsty.Watt@stockton.gov.uk