Reference Planning Application APP/19/00955/P with Reference To

Reference Planning Application APP/19/00955/P With reference to the report Pupil Place Planning Joint Response (2393176) - Assessing the impact, and proposed approaches for mitigating the impact, on school places of children generated from the strategic urban extensions in north Poole, the following comments and questions arise. The aim of these comments is to highlight potential problems/questions which might emerge for all Merley residents when the full implications of the options suggested are realised. NB. It is interesting to note that in the sales promotional literature for UE1 published on-line by Richborough Estate, aimed at potential developers, there is no mention of the availability of school provision other than the recognition of the existence of Merley First School on a map. In all considerations of this planning application BCP must return to the original Poole Local Plan PP10 which sets out 14 criteria which must be satisfied for planning permission to be granted on the sites UE1 and UE2. In relation to this Pupil Place Planning Joint Response there are 4 key statements listed in PP10 which have not been fully addressed. Documents published on the planning portal for this planning application demonstrate that these matters are unresolved and the additional issues raised by the provision of school places for Merley children adds more problems. The main four statements from PP10 which must be highlighted when dealing with the provision of school places are as follows:- (Poole Local Plan PP10 Page 52 ) PP10 (g) ensure the design of the scheme is capable of forming part of a sustainable transport corridor in terms of bus, cycling and walking; PP10 (h) in conjunction with wider strategic mitigation measures to be implemented by local authorities, provides suitable mitigation to address unacceptable impacts on the highway network: PP10 (i) makes a contribution towards the required additional school capacity; PP10 (n) has been prepared through a master planning exercise with the local community to inform a design code to be agreed by the Council. PP10 (g), (h) and (j) are dealt with in a separate submission made by David Staniland on behalf of Save Land North of Merley. This submission deals with PP10 (n) PP10 (n) requires that the plans for UE1 have ‘been prepared through a master planning exercise with the local community to inform a design code to be agreed by the Council.’ This element of the Pupil Place Planning Joint Response is of most concern. The simplistic proposed options offered in the Pupil Place Planning Joint Response document throws up a number of questions which I believe have not been considered and, more importantly, about which the community has not been informed and not been consulted. The education of Merley residents’ children is of fundamental importance to all parents. The solution to the schools’ provision is portrayed as a simple number exercise which does not take into consideration the individual circumstances and concerns of all current residents in Merley. The school provision issue does not only affect those who would occupy the houses on the proposed development at UE1. The following analysis of the published response is intended to highlight issues which will inevitably arise if the suggested options are adopted as a resolution to the provision of pupil places in Merley and Bearwood. No judgement is intended as to the value of either system or the individual schools within each system. This analysis is intended to clarify potential situations which might result if the proposed options are adopted. The report refers to school places as Primary and Secondary. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that Merley is sited on the boundary between BCP and Dorset Local Authorities. In the options proposed, children in Merley would be placed in either a 2-tier or 3-tier education system. ie. Those attending Merley First School would be in a 3-tier system and those attending either Elm Academy or Bearwood School would be in a 2-tier system. Traditionally, children in Merley have had the opportunity to commute across the LEA boundary whilst progressing through their school career. However, due to the individual responsibility of each local authority to make provision for the children “on their patch”, this traditional commuting is likely to cease. The demands placed upon the schools in all phases north of the river in Wimborne will inevitably mean that Merley children will have no opportunity to attend schools in Dorset LEA. If children attend Merley First School, they would expect to transfer to a Middle School at the end of year 4. Currently they transfer to either Allenbourn Middle School (in Wimborne – Dorset LEA) or Broadstone Middle School (BCP LEA). In the response document (Table attached to 6.11) it does not consider Allenbourn Middle school at all so it will not be available to Merley children; and Broadstone Middle School will be oversubscribed and it is considering adding a resource base for SEND, so will not be available for Merley children. The response acknowledges that ” Modelling has not been carried out on the impact these changes will have on numbers.” (Table attached to 6.11) QUESTION:- What is the route of progression at the end of year 4 for Children attending Merley First School? Assuming that there is Middle School provision for these children, what is the route of progression after attending a Middle School ? The traditional route of progression is either Queen Elizabeth School (Wimborne – Dorset LEA) or Corfe Hills School (BCP LEA). The response again highlights the unavailability of places at these schools. Queen Elizabeth School (Wimborne -Dorset LEA) is not even considered as a route of progression in table 6.11 and Corfe Hills School has no spare capacity due to the demand which will be placed upon it by housing developments in Corfe Mullen. QUESTION:- What is the route of progression for Merley children when they transfer from a Middle School to an ‘Upper School’ at the end of year 8? (Assuming there is Middle School provision available) There is no spare capacity at Merley First School. The report proposes that the additional places required for Merley children would be provided at Elm Academy or Bearwood School. Children attending these schools would be entering a 2-tier education system. Residents of Merley should be made aware that children from Merley attending Elm Academy or Bearwood School would progress to The Oak Academy at the end of year 6 since the transfer to a 3-tier school mid tier is unusual and can be very disruptive to a child’s education. (This fact is acknowledged in a note in the table attached to 6.11 Corfe Hills School – “It is unusual for pupils to transfer between 2-tier and 3-tier parts of the education system.” So, in effect, the allocation of a school at the start of a Merley child’s primary education will determine whether that child enters a 2-tier or 3-tier system. It must be re-emphasised that there is no judgement intended as to the value of either system or the individual schools within each system. However, Merley residents should be made fully aware of what this response proposes and the full implications. The allocation of school places is based upon proximity to the school. Therefore, this response is not only relevant to children on the proposed new development at UE1 but also all children in Merley including those who are resident now . In the interest of openness and transparency, Merley parents should be consulted! A further complication not recognised in the response is the opinions of the Wimborne Academy Trust. This Trust manages schools which cross the boundary between BCP and Dorset LEAs. Merley First School, Allenbourn Middle School and Queen Elizabeth School amongst other schools in the area are all part of the Wimborne Academy Trust. QUESTION:- Has BCP consulted the Wimborne Academy Trust to ascertain their opinions on the full implications of the route of progression for children joining Merley First School? Although there is a note in the table 6.11, the response does not appear to fully appreciate the consequences which would occur for children attending Merley First School at the end of year 4. Will these children be expected to transfer to Elm Academy or Bearwood School mid tier and join other Merley children who joined Elm Academy or Bearwood School from the start of their school career and then transfer to The Oak Academy at the end of year 6? This involves some children transferring school twice in the space of 2 years. Educationalists recognise that a major cause for short term regression in pupil achievement occurs when children transfer between schools. QUESTION:- If a child joins Merley First School, and at the end of year 4 there is no place for them at Broadstone Middle School, which school will they attend in year 5? PP10 (n) requires consultation with the local community. The response recognises these issues have not been fully discussed with all stakeholders. The options proposed represent a mathematical exercise in trying to provide school places at minimum expense and does not consider fully the educational, emotional and psychological impact on the children. It could be said that the settlement of the CIL at the lower rate has set in motion an exercise in trying to provide the extra infrastructure requirements at the minimum cost. Trying to maintain the viability of the development as a whole, and the increasing realisation that there are so many expensive modifications to the infrastructure required, has created a situation where BCP have an impossible task costing the modifications and setting the S106 at a rate which maintains the viability of the proposed development.

Load more