Agenda Item No

AGENDA ITEM NO.:

Originator: P N Marrington

Tel 39 51151

REPORT OF HEAD OF SCRUTINY AND MEMBER DEVELOPMENT MEETING: OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DATE : 4TH JANUARY 2006 SUBJECT : CALL IN OF DECISION – BRIEFING PAPER Electoral Wards Affected Specific Implications For :

Ethnic Minorities Women Disabled People

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, a decision of the Executive Board has been Called In.1 The background papers to this particular decision are set out as a separate agenda item and appropriate witnesses have been invited to give supporting evidence.

1.2 This report advises the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the procedural aspects of Calling In the decision.

2.0 REVIEWING THE DECISION

2.1 The process of reviewing the decision is as follows:

• Members who have requested the Call In invited to explain their concern/reason for Call In request.

• Relevant Executive Board Member, or nominee, asked to explain decision (for Executive Board decisions).

• Further questioning from the Scrutiny Board as appropriate.

1 Scrutiny Board Procedure Rules Paragraph 23 3.0 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD

3.1 Having reviewed the decision, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will need to agree what action it wishes to take. In doing so, it may pursue one of three courses of action as set out below:

Option 1- Release the decision for implementation

3.2 Having reviewed this decision, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide to release it for implementation. If Overview and Scrutiny Committee chooses this option, the decision will be immediately released for implementation and the decision may not be Called In again.

Option 2 - Recommend that the decision be reconsidered.

3.3 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may decide to recommend to the decision maker that the decision be reconsidered. If the Overview and Scrutiny Committee chooses this option a report will be submitted to the Executive Board.

3.4 In the case of an Executive Board decision, the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be presented to the next scheduled meeting. The Executive Board will reconsider its decision and will publish the outcome of its deliberations within the minutes of the meeting. The decision may not be Called In again whether or not it is varied.

Option 3 - Recommend that the decision be reconsidered and refer the matter to full Council if recommendation not accepted.

3.6 This course of action would only apply if the Overview and Scrutiny Committee determined that a decision fell outside the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework and this determination were confirmed by the Council’s Section 151 Officer (in relation to the budget) or Monitoring Officer (in relation to other policies).

3.7 If, at the conclusion of this meeting, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee forms an initial determination that the decision in question should be challenged on the basis of contravening the Budget and Policy Framework, then confirmation will subsequently be sought from the appropriate statutory officer.

3.8 Should the statutory officer support the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s determination, then the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be presented in the same manner as for Option 2. If the decision maker accepts the recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in these circumstances, then the revised decision will be published in the same manner as for Option 2 and the decision may not be Called In again. If, however, the decision maker does not accept the recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, then the matter will be referred to full Council for final decision. Decisions of full Council may not be Called In.

3.9 Should the appropriate statutory officer not confirm that the decision contravenes the Budget and Policy Framework, then the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would normally be progressed as for Option 2 (i.e. presented as a recommendation to the decision taker) but with no recourse to full Council in the event that the decision is not varied. As with Option 2, no further Call In of the decision would be possible.

3.10 However, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee may resolve that, if the statutory officer does not confirm contravention of the Budget and Policy Framework, then it should be released for implementation in accordance with Option 1.

4.0 FAILURE TO AGREE ONE OF THE ABOVE OPTIONS

4.1 If the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, for any reason, does not agree one of the above courses of action at this meeting, then Option 1 will be adopted by default, i.e. the decision will be released for implementation with no further recourse to Call In.

5.0 FORMULATING THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT

5.1 If the Overview and Scrutiny Committee decides to release the decision for implementation (i.e. Option 1), then the Scrutiny Support Unit will process the necessary notifications and no further action is required by the Board.

5.2 If the Overview and Scrutiny Committee wishes to recommend that the decision be reconsidered (i.e. Options 2 or 3), then it will be necessary for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to agree a report setting out its recommendation together with any supporting commentary.

5.3 Because of the tight timescales within which a decision Call In must operate, it is important that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s report be agreed at the meeting.

5.4 If the Overview and Scrutiny Committee decides to pursue either of Options 2 or 3, it is proposed that there be a short adjournment during which the Chair, in conjunction with the Scrutiny Support Unit, should prepare a brief statement proposing the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s draft recommendations and supporting commentary. Upon reconvening, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be invited to amend/ agree this statement as appropriate (a separate item has been included in the agenda for this purpose).

5.5 This statement will then form the basis of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s report (together with factual information as to details of the Called In decision, lists of evidence/witnesses considered, Members involved in the Call In process etc).

5.6 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is advised that the there is no provision within the Call In procedure for the submission of a Minority Report.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION

6.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is asked to note the contents of this report and to adopt the procedure as detailed within it.

AGENDA ITEM NO.:

Originator: P N Marrington

Tel 39 51151

REPORT OF HEAD OF SCRUTINY AND MEMBER DEVELOPMENT MEETING: OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DATE : 4TH JANUARY 2006 SUBJECT : REVIEW OF CALL IN DECISION

Electoral Wards Affected Specific Implications For :

Ethnic Minorities Women Disabled People

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 This paper presents the background papers to a decision which has been Called In in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.1

1.2 Papers are attached as follows:

• Copy of completed Call In request form • The report of the Chief Executive of Education Leeds to Executive Board • The Executive Board minute of 14th December 2005

1.3 Appropriate Members and/or officers have been invited to attend the meeting in order to explain the decision and respond to questions.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is asked to review this decision and to determine what further action it wishes to take.

1 Scrutiny Board Procedure Rules Paragraph 23

SSU Ref 2005/06- Leeds City Council Scrutiny Support Unit 149-18

CALL IN NOTIFICATION (EXECUTIVE BOARD DECISION)

To:

Director: Chris Edwards

Department: Education Leeds

Minute number: 149

Decision description:

Primary Review – Far Headingley (Beckett Park Primary School)

I have received a request to call in the above decision which will be considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The decision should therefore not be implemented until further notification.

The Committee will be meeting within the next seven days, immediately after which I will inform you of the status of the decision.

Signed: Peter Marrington……………...(Head of Scrutiny and Member Development)

Date: 21/12/05

Notification receipt Copy to: Constitution and Corporate Governance Department:

Name: Electronic copy to: Signature: Executive Board Members Corporate Management Team Date:

Time:

SSU/EB/01 AGENDA ITEM:

Originator: Richard Stiff Telephone: 2243749

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF EDUCATION LEEDS REPORT TO EXECUTIVE BOARD DATE 14th December 2005

SUBJECT: Primary Review: Proposals for Far Headingley Primary Planning Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Introduction 1.1 This report informs the Executive Board of the outcome of public consultation on the proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School in September 2006. Education Leeds submitted a report summarising consultation on this proposal to the Executive Board’s meeting on 16th November 2005. At this meeting, the Executive Board asked Education Leeds to re-evaluate the proposal in the light of consultation responses, including the views of the Board and the North West Area Committee. The report has been updated to reflect this work.

2 Background 2.1 The Far Headingley Planning Area comprises St Chad’s (VA) Church of England Primary School and three community schools – Beckett Park, Hawksworth Wood and Weetwood Primary Schools. There are insufficient children of primary age to support full intakes for all schools in the area. This is very similar to the position in both Headingley and Kirkstall areas where there has been a significant and steady decline in the birth rate. There is only demand for around 250 of the 356 places available in Reception each year across the three planning areas Far Headingley, Headingley and Kirkstall. Projections suggest this number is likely to fall further. The Far Headlingley school that has felt the impact the most is Beckett Park Primary School, which in September 2005 had only 85 pupils on roll.

3. Main Issues raised during Consultation Previous Proposal: Education Leeds was questioned on the reasons for bringing forward a second proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School just two and a half years after an earlier proposal, when many of those affected believed the school would be given five years to improve its situation.

Education Leeds response: Enrolment at the school has continued to fall since the City Council considered the closure of the school in 2003. Although this initial proposal was withdrawn, Education Leeds was asked to continue to monitor primary provision in the area and has done so, leading to the recent resurrection of the proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School. The current pattern of provision is not sustainable and pupil projections suggest that pupil numbers could fall further, impacting on the quality of the educational experience offered. The aim of the current proposal is to provide a sustainable pattern of excellent primary provision for the future in Far Headingley.

3.1 Alternative Proposals for Beckett Park Primary School: A number of alternative proposals were suggested for Beckett Park Primary School. These included amalgamating with at least one neighbouring school on the Beckett Park Primary School site (Headingley and St Michael’s Primaries or Beecroft Primary), or looking at the possibility of a Federation.

Education Leeds response: An amalgamation with Headingley and St Michael’s Primary Schools on the Beckett Park site would see the loss of two central Headingley sites, which would be detrimental to the community regeneration efforts in the area. The proposal to amalgamate Headingley and St Michael’s is aimed at ensuring strong and viable school serving the community in central Headingley.

Beecroft Primary School has gone from strength to strength in recent years. There is no guarantee that an amalgamation with Beckett Park Primary School on the Beckett Park site would be an improvement for children attending the school.

A Federation with a neighbouring school was also suggested. The decline in the birth rate in this area of Leeds is such that there is a need to reduce the number of school places available and tackle surplus places. A Federation in this area has been evaluated, but is not considered to be the best way forward in the particular circumstances the schools face.

3.2 Transition Issues: A number of concerns were expressed about how Beckett Park Primary School children would be accommodated at other schools if the proposal goes ahead. Some parents expressed an unwillingness to send their child to Hawksworth Wood Primary School. Many were concerned that the children could only possibly be housed in temporary accommodation.

Education Leeds response: Whilst parents would be guaranteed a place for their children at a number of schools, if the proposal proceeds they will be asked to express a preference for the school that they would like their child to transfer to. Education Leeds would try to meet as many parental preferences as possible. However there are no guarantees as this will also depend on the number of places available at individual schools. The need for temporary accommodation would be evaluated as part of the implementation of this proposal. It would depend on where parents would prefer their children to transfer to and what the impacts might be on individual schools.

3.3 Future of the school site: Many people felt that Beckett Park Primary School was the best site in the area, and feared that closure of the school meant the site would be lost to the community.

Education Leeds response: Education Leeds agrees that Beckett Park Primary School is on an attractive site with plenty of hard play and green space. It is unfortunate that parents are not choosing to send their children to the school, despite the site’s facilities. The quality of the site does not by itself support retaining the school. Demographic projections based on recent birth data clearly support the view that the current pattern of provision cannot be sustained and some action must be taken to reduce the number of surplus places.

It is yet to be determined whether the site would continue to be used for some form of educational provision. A number of suggestions have been made, such as the transfer of another local primary school to the site or use for other education purposes. Education Leeds intends to explore these further in the eventuality that this proposal proceeds. If Education Leeds was to declare the site surplus to educational requirement, it would be for the City Council to consider its future use.

3.4 Impact of new housing: Concern has been expressed that there were many new housing developments in the area, and this would lead to increased demand for school places

3.5 Impact on SEN pupils: Concern was expressed over where the autistic children attending Beckett Park Primary School would be accommodated. Respondents were full of praise for the resourced provision at Beckett Park Primary School and felt that the unit should be kept together. There was also concern that there were insufficient resourced places in the City.

3.6 Community Issues: Concern was expressed that community facilities would be lost, rather than being expanded on the excellent site.

Education Leeds response: It is important the issue of school closure is not confused with the future of the site. Education Leeds will carefully consider the future use of the site, which if retained could continue to offer facilities for the community, such as access to school playing fields for local sports teams. If the site were to pass back to Leeds City Council, the needs of the local community would also be considered before determining a future for the site. It is highly likely that the green space and playing fields will be retained whatever the use on the current footprint of the building.

3.7 Early Years Issues: Concern was expressed over the future of the nursery on the site, which was recently located at the school housed in a temporary unit.

Education Leeds response: The neighbourhood nursery will remain open, although it may be relocated, depending on the future use of the site. Although the nursery it is not attached to the school, relocation onto an alterative school site could be a possibility welcomed by the nursery.

4. The Way Forward There is clear evidence that there are too many surplus places in primary schools in Far Headingley and neighbouring areas (Kirkstall and Headingley) to accept that no action should take place. The proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School focuses on the school most impacted upon by falling pupil numbers. The school remains particularly undersubscribed despite excellent facilities on site, including a neighbourhood nursery.

Much of the weight of opposition to the proposal has been on the grounds that the site is an excellent facility and should not be lost either as a school or to the community. The Inner North West Area committee noted that they were not persuaded of the merits of the proposal. It has been suggested that Education Leeds should ensure that the school has more pupils, although this is a school’s responsibility. This could only be achieved to the detriment of one or more other local schools, as the problem is crucially one of insufficient children in the area. Education Leeds believes that an amalgamation with other schools on the Beckett Park Primary School site would not be in the best interests of all children and would be likely to increase journeys to school for a significant number.

The site has been acknowledged as a valuable asset to the community, but its future is not necessarily dependent on Beckett Park Primary School remaining open. Several different agencies already operate from the site because the building has surplus capacity and is too large for the number of pupils it serves. It is clear that if the school closes careful consideration must be given by Education Leeds and the City Council to the future use of the site.

Education Leeds is of the view that this proposal should proceed. The closure of Beckett Park Primary School would consolidate primary provision in the remaining schools to ensure that there is a sustainable pattern of provision for the future. However, for this proposal to successfully proceed, there will need to be very careful management of the transition period to support parents, staff and pupils. Education Leeds will engage with all affected schools and other agencies to plan implementation to minimise the negative impacts on the school and wider community.

5 Financial Implications 5.1 There would be an annual revenue saving of approximately £120,000 from this closure proposal.

5.2 Consideration will be given to the future use of the site. If no appropriate educational use can be found then the site will be declared surplus to educational requirements. There is a potential for the building to be retained by the City Council for public service provision and/or community use. If, however, a capital receipt is generated from the site, this would be used to fund primary review works.

6. Recommendation Executive Board is asked to approve that a statutory notice is published to close Beckett Park Primary School on 31st August 2006.

AGENDA ITEM:

Originator: Richard Stiff Telephone: 2243749

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF EDUCATION LEEDS REPORT TO EXECUTIVE BOARD DATE 14th December 2005

SUBJECT: Primary Review: Proposals for Far Headingley Primary Planning Area

Electoral Wards Affected: Please indicate that the following have been addressed within the report: Headingley, Kirkstall Specific Implications For: Resource Implications: Ethnic Minorities Finance Women Personnel Disabled People Accommodation/Buildings

Policy Implications:

Executive Board Eligible for Call-in Not Eligible for Call-in Decision

______

1 Purpose of the Report 1.1 This report informs the Executive Board of the outcome of public consultation undertaken on the proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School in September 2006. Education Leeds submitted a report summarising consultation on this proposal to the Executive Board’s meeting on 16th November 2005. At this meeting, the Executive Board asked Education Leeds to re-evaluate the proposal in the light of consultation responses, including the views of the Board and the North West Area Committee. The report has been updated to reflect this work.

2. Background 2.1 The Far Headingley Planning Area comprises St Chad’s (VA) Church of England Primary School and three community schools – Beckett Park, Hawksworth Wood and Weetwood Primary Schools. There are insufficient children of primary age to support full intakes for all schools in the area. This is very similar to the position in both Headingley and Kirkstall areas where there has been a significant and steady decline in the birth rate. There is only demand for around 250 of the 356 places available in Reception each year across the three planning areas Far Headingley, Headingley and Kirkstall. Projections suggest this number is likely to fall further. The school that has felt the impact the most is Beckett Park Primary School, which in September 2005 had only 85 pupils on roll.

3. Consultation summary 3.1 Public consultation on the proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School commenced on 8th September 2005 and ended on 20th October 2005. A consultation document was widely distributed to parents, staff, governors and agencies working in the area and was made available through a number of outlets including the local library. The consultation document included a pro-forma response form to encourage written responses. During this period, meetings were held with a range of stakeholders and minuted for the purposes of recording the views expressed. A copy of all written responses and the minutes from the consultation meetings are available in the Members’ Library.

Timetable of Consultation Meetings 20th September Beckett Park Staff 20th September Beckett Park governors 28th September Public meeting at Beckett Park Primary School 20th October Inner North West Area Committee

3.2 Ninety written responses were received. There were forty four letters written by pupils at the school and twenty nine identical letters signed by various opponents of the closure. Responses were also received from the Ward Councillors, parents, members of the public, governors, Beckett Park Primary School and Beecroft Primary School. The Inner North West Area Committee noted that they were not persuaded of the merits of the proposals and felt that Education Leeds case for closure was weak.

3.3 All of the written responses received have been analysed in detail. The following section provides an overview of the key issues raised during consultation and Education Leeds’ response. It should be noted that this is a summary and there is therefore an inevitable loss of detail.

4. Main Issues raised during public Consultation 4.1 Previous Proposal: Education Leeds was questioned on the reasons for bringing forward a second proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School just two and a half years after an earlier proposal, when many of those affected believed the school would be given five years to improve its situation.

Education Leeds response: Although a proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School was withdrawn in the summer of 2003, Education Leeds was asked to continue to monitor primary provision in the area and has done so, leading to the recent resurrection of the proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School. Enrolment at the school has continued to fall. Larger year groups higher up the school are being replaced with very small numbers entering the school in Reception. In September 2004 the reception intake was just 6 pupils and a similar number have entered the school this September. This position cannot be sustained. The school will find itself in the position of a deficit budget if the situation was allowed to continue and the number of staff at the school remained constant. The consequent high cost of provision poses a threat to the viability of the school curriculum. The school is already operating with Reception, Year 1 and Year 2 pupils being taught together in a single class. The aim of the current proposal is to provide a sustainable pattern of provision for the future in Far Headingley.

4.2 Alternative Proposals for Beckett Park Primary School: A number of alternative proposals were suggested for Beckett Park Primary School. These included amalgamating with another neighbouring school on the Beckett Park Primary School site, such as Beecroft which occupies a site in the ownership of the Catholic Diocese, or looking at the possibility of a Federation. Local Councillors noted that they were not persuaded of the merits of the case for closure and felt that the case presented by Education Leeds was weak. It was felt that other alternatives had not been satisfactorily explored.

Education Leeds response: There has been a general acknowledgement that there is a problem with surplus places in this area of Leeds that needs to be addresses. However many respondents feel that a school should remain on the Beckett Park site, even if that involves the amalgamation with another school. Amalgamation requires the closure of two or more schools and the opening of a new school with a new governing body and leadership team. To proceed with a proposal to amalgamate would require a high degree of confidence that the end product would be better than either of the two existing schools. There would need to be a certain belief that the newly established school would have a viable future, along with the other schools in the local area.

It was suggested that Beckett Park should be considered with Headingley and St Michael’s Primary Schools as part of one larger amalgamation on the Beckett Park site. To pursue this option would see the loss of two central Headingley sites which Education Leeds considers would be detrimental to the community regeneration efforts in the area. The proposal to amalgamate Headingley and St Michael’s is aimed at ensuring sustainable provision in the central Headingley area. Both schools have been working together to ensure that the amalgamation will achieve a positive outcome and result in a strong and viable school serving the community in that area.

Another alternative that was put forward was an amalgamation of Beckett Park and Beecroft Primary Schools. Beecroft Primary School is the only school in the Kirkstall, Headingley and Far Headingley areas that has seen its numbers increasing in the last ten years. This has occurred through a combination of factors including the governance and leadership of the school, its location and its diverse intake. Not only the pupil roll, but also levels of attendance and attainment have increased during this time. Beecroft Primary School is oversubscribed by parents, enjoys strong leadership, high standards and Beacon Status. The school is already popular and successful. There is no reason to believe that by bringing it together with another school on a different site would enhance and improve provision for a greater number of children. Education Leeds acknowledge that the site occupied by Beecroft is not owned by the City Council and that a rental is paid for the site. Despite this a significant amount of investment has been made in the school in recent years, much of it through successful bids that the school itself has made.

It has been suggested that the City council amalgamates Beckett Park Primary School with Kirkstall St Stephen’s CE (Aided) Primary School, also on Beckett Park site. The site at Beckett Park has significantly more space and extensive playing fields than the site of St Stephens. However, in this case there are factors beyond site and popularity to consider. Kirkstall St Stephen’s is an Aided school and many children that go to the school have chosen to do so specifically because of its faith ethos. The school has very close links to the local church. An amalgamation of these schools would most likely deliver a school with CE status, whereas on of the arguments that has been emphasised through the consultation process is that Beckett Park parents are looking for places in community schools.

A Federation with a neighbouring school was also suggested. The decline in the birth rate in this area of Leeds is such that there is a need to reduce the number of school places available. It would not be best value to retain the current number of sites, given that the number on roll at Beckett Park is already very low and likely to fall further. It has been generally acknowledged by stakeholders that there is a need to address the number of surplus places. A Federation in this area has been evaluated, but is not considered to be the best way forward given the particular circumstances schools face.

4.3 Transition Issues: A number of concerns were expressed about how Beckett Park Primary School children would be accommodated at other schools if the proposal goes ahead. Some parents expressed an unwillingness to send their child to Hawksworth Wood Primary School. Many were concerned that the children could only possibly be housed in temporary accommodation. It has been noted that there would not be sufficient community places available in the area to accommodate all children.

Education Leeds response: Education Leeds accepts that, based on admission numbers and current numbers on roll at the schools named for transfer in the consultation, there would be insufficient community schools in the locality, if all children in Beckett Park at the time of closure chose one of those schools. In situations of school closure, however, other local school typically work with Education Leeds during the transition period by taking above their admission number to accommodate parental preferences and to support parents through the transition period. In this case Beecroft Primary has agreed to offer such support through the transition stage. Whilst parents would be guaranteed a place for their children at a number of schools, if the proposal proceeds they will be asked to express a preference for the school that they would like their child to transfer to. This may be any school, not just those named. A team from Education Leeds would work closely with parents to discuss their individual situation with a view to meeting as many parental preferences as are possible. However there are no guarantees, as this would also depend on the number of places available at individual schools. We accept that parents may want to choose a range of different schools and would work with them to achieve a satisfactory outcome.

The need for temporary accommodation would be evaluated as part of the implementation of this proposal. It would depend on where parents would prefer their children to transfer to and what the impacts might be on individual schools. At the point of closure in August 2006, should the proposal proceed, there would only be around 60 children on roll at Beckett Park Primary. If all of those children chose to attend Beecroft Primary then the transition arrangements would be discussed in detail with the school. As the slightly higher numbers at Beckett Park are in the upper year groups, this would mean that any transitional accommodation that may be necessary would only be for a minimum period of time. Children would not be housed in temporary accommodation for longer than necessary. This is a feature of many transitional arrangements. Without its occasional and appropriate use it would be very difficult to bring forward organisational change.

Parents are welcome to express a preference for any other community school in the area with places, and where those schools are full Education Leeds would discuss with other head teachers and governing bodies if they are willing to exceed their admission numbers in support of the transition. Although a voluntary aided Church of England school, Kirkstall St Stephens Primary has expressed a willingness to support the transition process should any parents wish to consider their school.

4.4 Future of the school site: Many people felt that Beckett Park Primary School was the best site in the area, and feared that closure of the school meant the site would be lost to the community. If the school is closed there would be a gap in local primary provision.

Education Leeds response: Education Leeds agrees that Beckett Park Primary School is on an attractive site with plenty of hard play and green space. It is unfortunate that parents are not choosing to send their children to the school, despite the site’s facilities. The fact remains that the number on roll at Beckett Park Primary School has been falling for many years. The falling number on roll reflects the changing demographic profile of the area – there are simply fewer families in the locality. However, the school has not proved popular with those families who do have it as their nearest school, and a significant majority currently choose a school for their children that is further away from where they live than Beckett Park.

The quality of the site does not by itself support retaining the school. Demographic projections based on recent birth data clearly support the view that the current pattern of provision cannot be sustained and some action must be taken to reduce the number of surplus places.

It has yet to be determined whether the site would continue to be used for some form of education provision. A number of suggestions have been made, such as the transfer of another local primary school to the site or use for other education purposes. Education Leeds intends to explore these further in the eventuality that this proposal proceeds.

If Education Leeds was to declare the site surplus to educational requirement, it would be for the City Council to consider its future use.

4.5 Impact of new housing: Concern has been expressed that there were many new housing developments in the area, and this would lead to increased demand for school places

Education Leeds response: Education Leeds is informed of all new housing developments by the City Council’s Development Department and has up-to-date information on known sites within an area. This information is factored into projections of future pupil demand before proposals of this nature are brought forward. Respondents have also noted that more families are moving back into existing housing stock. The formula used to estimate the number of pupils generated by new housing is 25 primary aged pupils for every 100 family-sized units. This formula suggests that at least an additional six to seven hundred new houses would be required in the immediate vicinity for Beckett Park Primary School to be full at one form of entry. Although there may be some additional families in the area, Education Leeds is confident that there are sufficient places in other schools in the area to accommodate them.

4.6 Impact on SEN pupils: Concern was expressed over where the autistic children attending Beckett Park Primary School would be accommodated. Respondents were full of praise for the resourced provision at Beckett Park Primary School and felt that the unit should be kept together. There was also concern that there were insufficient resourced places in the City.

Education Leeds response: If this proposal proceeds, Education Leeds would discuss the needs of each child accessing the resourced provision individually with parents to seek a suitable and appropriate alternative placement. There are currently nine children accessing the resourced provision at Beckett Park Primary School. However a number of these children are currently in year 6 and will be due to transfer to secondary school at the proposed time of closure. Education Leeds is confident it can accommodate the remaining pupils in alternative inclusive settings, if that is what the parents wish for their children.

4.7 Community Issues: Concern was expressed that community facilities would be lost, rather than being expanded on the excellent site. There was concern that the closure of the school would drive families away from the area. The view was expressed that he Beckett Park Primary School site was not only ideally suited to meet the extended school agenda but possibly the only site in the local area to do this. It was noted that savings from the closure could only be made at a high social cost.

Education Leeds response: It is important that the issue of school closure is not confused with the future of the site. Education Leeds will carefully consider the future use of the site, which if retained could continue to offer facilities for the community, such as access to school playing fields for local sports teams. If the site were to pass back to Leeds City Council, the needs of the local community will also be considered before determining a future for the site. It is highly likely that the green space and playing fields will be retained whatever the use on the current footprint of the building.

The majority of the children living in the area already choose to attend an alternative school to Beckett Park. Indeed one of the concerns expressed was that local people did not know the school was there. In light of this it seems unlikely that if the school closed it would drive families away from the area.

This proposal has been largely driven by concerns around demographic demand and the sustained educational viability of primary school in the area. Education Leeds has listened carefully to the views expressed during the consultation regarding the importance of the school within the local community. The community values the services that the school provides and that there is a potential for the school to develop further services as an extended school.

Education Leeds fully supports the development of extended school facilities in the area as part of the Change for Children agenda. Across the city clusters of schools are considering how between them the can extend facilities for pupils and their families. Such developments would be supported in local schools, but the core function of schools has to be sustainable and based on healthy pupil intakes.

4.8 Early Years Issues: Concern was expressed over the future of the nursery on the site. The neighbourhood nursery was only located on site about twelve months ago and is currently housed in a temporary unit.

Education Leeds response: Colleagues in Early Years have stated that the neighbourhood nursery will remain open, although its location may depend on the future use of the site. For example, if the site is retained for educational or community usage, the nursery may not have to be relocated. As the nursery is a neighbourhood nursery it is not attached to any school nor is it directly linked with the future of Beckett Park Primary School. However, relocation onto an alterative school site could be a possibility welcomed by the nursery.

5. The Way Forward There is clear evidence that there are too many surplus places in primary schools in Far Headingley and neighbouring areas (Kirkstall and Headingley) to accept that no action should take place. The proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School focuses on the school most impacted upon by falling pupil numbers. The school remains particularly undersubscribed despite excellent facilities on site, including a neighbourhood nursery.

Much of the weight of opposition to the proposal has been on the grounds that the site is an excellent facility and should not be lost either as a school or to the community. It has been suggested that Education Leeds should ensure that the school has more pupils. This could only be achieved to the detriment of one or more other local schools, as the problem is crucially one of insufficient children in the area. Local Education Authorities are required by the government to seek to maximise parental preference where possible. Parental preference for places at Beckett Park Primary School is lower than for any other local school and many families who live near the school already choose to send their children to alternatives. Education Leeds does not believe that an amalgamation with other schools on the Beckett Park Primary School site is in the best interests of all children and would be likely to increase journeys to school for a significant number.

The site has been acknowledged as a valuable asset to the community, but its future is not necessarily dependent on Beckett Park Primary School remaining open. Several different agencies already operate from the site because the building has surplus capacity and is too large for the number of pupils it serves. It is clear from the concerns raised by the local community and ward councillors that Education Leeds and the City Council would have to carefully consider the future use of the site if the school closed.

However, for this proposal to successfully proceed, there will need to be very careful management of the transition period to support parents, staff and pupils. Education Leeds will engage with all affected schools and other agencies to plan implementation to minimise the negative impacts on the school and wider community.

6 Financial Implications 6.1 There would be an annual revenue saving of approximately £120,000 from this closure proposal.

6.2 Consideration will be given to the future use of the site. If no appropriate educational use can be found then the site will be declared surplus to educational requirements. There is a potential for the building to be retained by the City Council for public service provision and/or community use. If, however, there is a capital receipt generated from the site, a proportion of this would be used to fund works at other primary schools in the locality, that are also affected by this proposal.

7. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The review of primary provision fulfils the LEA’s statutory requirement to keep under review the supply and demand of school places.

7.2 The recommendation of this report to proceed with the proposal initiates the required statutory process. If objections are received during the representation period of the statutory notice, the proposal will be forwarded to the School Organisation Committee for consideration.

7.3 Timescale The envisaged timescale for the statutory process is as follows:

Dec 05 – Jan 06 Publish notices giving 6 weeks for representations.

Feb 06 Exec Board for permission to refer to School Organisation Committee, if there are objections otherwise for Executive Board to determine

April 06 Deadline for SOC decision

Sep 06 Implementation

8. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS

8.` The proposals have been subject to equality impact assessment. There are no anticipated significant differential impacts on the basis of ethnicity, disability or gender associated with the proposals.

9. LINKS TO KEY PRIORITIES

9.1 Proposals under the Primary Review reflect key priorities identified in the Education Development Plan, the Asset Management Plan and the Corporate Plan by contributing to the target to reduce primary surplus places, the raising achievement agenda and improving the school estate.

10. CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER’S COMMENTS

10.1 Proposals for the establishment, alteration or discontinuance of schools and the determination to implement such proposals remain a function to be performed by the Council under the arrangements involving Education Leeds.

10.2 The arrangements require that the Council have regard to advice and draft plans where appropriate from Education Leeds when carrying out this function.

10.3 Capital receipts from the release of sites arising from the Primary review are being ring-fenced to support the funding of new building requirements arising from the review. It will be important to ensure that all of the required capital is in place if any proposals move to the School Organisation Committee stage.

10.4 The contents of this report have been discussed with the Chief Education Officer. The Chief Education Officer feels that the report includes all the analysis and considerations that he would wish to be drawn to the Executive Board’s attention in considering this matter.

11 RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 Executive Board is asked to approve that a statutory notice is published to close Beckett Park on 31st August 2006

Appendix A:

Summary of concerns raised by individual responses to the proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School Number of responses Access No bus route to Beecroft 1 Dangerous walking routes 2 Secure and quiet site 34 Free from traffic and fumes 33 EL force children into cars & buses instead of healthy walking 2 BPPS children will have much further to travel 2

Buildings & Sites If amalgamated with BPS, BPS pupils would live too far from BPPS 1 A lot has been spent on BPS buildings 1 What would happen to site? Sold for more students housing? 1 Amalgamate another school on the site of BPPS 33 Before & After school clubs 10 Breakfast club 2 No other site appears to meet requirement of current users of the Before & After School Club 1 Ed Leeds previously stated Beckett Park was best site in area 2 If school closes there would be no primary school in central Headingley 1 Concerns over portacabins being used to house extra pupils at other schools 3 BPPS would be an ideal location for an Extended School/Children Centre 3 BPPS is a very spacious school 14 BPPS has fantastic site 33 BPPS has large green space 32 Excellent grounds 33

Community BPPS is used by many organisations in the voluntary sector 3 Closure would drive families away from area 32 Has provision been considered for families moving back into the area 1 Beckett Park is part of the local community 6 Beckett Park has links with Carnegie and Leeds University 3 Don't want to lose facilities 30

Disruption to children Closure of BPPS will be detrimental to children’s future 32

Early Years BPPS has new Community Nursery 14 Nursery means many children from nursery will want to proceed to BPPS 3 Schools without state nursery are less popular with parents 1

Ethnicity BPS is only community school in area 1 BPPS respects religious values 3

Facilities BPPS has modern ICT suite 10 e learning room 2 Smartboards at BPPS 12 BPPS has the Education Library service on site 3 Brilliant playing fields and playgrounds (also adventure playground) 53 BPPS has excellent facilities 38

LCC owns Beckett Park site, so why waste money paying rent for Beecroft Finance site. 1 Claims that per pupil funding data is wrong 1 Argues that school will not have financial difficulties 1 Parental No other schools in the area 35 Choice

Process Proposal is short-sighted 2 Ed Leeds had promised no review for 5 years in 2003 5 Amalgamate Beckett Park with Beecroft 1 Amalgamate Beckett Park with Kirkstall St Stephen's C of E Primary 1

Pupil numbers Class sizes would be bigger 3 Children benefit from mixed aged classes 1 Aware of the problem of surplus places 2 Higher roll numbers at neighbouring schools due to more densely populated areas 1 Neighbourhood Nursery is attracting pupils from other areas 1 Proposal has led to reduction in numbers at BPPS 2 small classes are good 1 Argues (erroneously) that birth rates are going up

SEN issues Excellent autistic unit 38 Concerns over future of SEN children 41 No other suitable alternative autistic provision available 3

Staffing Dedicated staff 3 Concerns over future of staff if BPPS closes 1

Standards Excellent Ofsted report 33 Good standards 3 Happy environment 33 Offers a good all round education 2 Excellent discipline 1 BPS is successful because of its leadership 1

Transition BPS is willing to assist in transition if BPPS is closed. 1

Other Don't close school 73 Appendix B:

Demographic Data

Table 1a: Current position: Far Headingley (2004/5) Nursery Number Surplus Type of Admission Reception NET Roll on Roll Places School Limit Jan 2005 Capacity Jan 2005 (Jan 2005) (%) Beckett Park 5-11 55 30 6 107 162 Primary primary (34%) Hawksworth Wood 3 - 11 19 37 30 22 191 210 Primary primary (9%) St Chad’s CE 3-11 -33 37 30 27 202 169 Primary primary (-20%) 3 – 11 -2 Weetwood Primary 41 30 30 212 210 primary (-1%)

Area totals 120 85 712 771

Table 2a: Projections: Far Headingley

Admission School 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 limit

Beckett Park Primary 6 7 6 6 6 30 Hawksworth Wood Primary 21 18 17 17 20 30 St Chad’s CE Primary 26 29 27 26 32 30 Weetwood Primary 29 31 30 29 33 30 Area totals 82 85 80 78 91 120

Standards

Table 3a: Improvement Measure - Key Stage 2 combined SATs results – Far Headingley 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Beckett Park Primary 246 195 206 142 221 199 Hawksworth Wood Primary 125 123 171 167 179 183 St Chad’s CE Primary 290 253 270 257 272 258 Weetwood Primary 272 279 277 257 289 300 LEA average 235 234 236 238 238 240 England Average 231 233 234 234 237 240

Table 4a: KS2 SATs data summer 2005 (provisional results) – Far Headingley KS2 percent Level 4+ % Free SEN (cohort) % (2004) School No. Value Meals English Maths Science Pupils Non- Added With (whole Tested statemented statements school) SEN Beckett Park 43 65 65 69 60 99.4 7.1% (1) 21.4% (3) Hawksworth Wood 51 57 53 73 33 100.2 9.1% (3) 12.1% (4) St Chad’s CE 12 81 85 92 32 101.3 0% (0) 27.6% (8) Weetwood 0 100 100 100 23 101.4 0% (0) 0% (0) LEA Average 19 79 75 86 3.2% 15.7% National Average 79 76 85 3.4% 18.3%

EXECUTIVE BOARD

14TH DECEMBER 2005

PRESENT: Councillor A Carter in the Chair Councillors D Blackburn, J L Carter, Harker, Harrand, Harris, Jennings, J Procter, Smith and Wakefield

Councillor Blake – Non-voting advisory member

145 Exclusion of the Public RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the second report referred to in minute 174, Appendix A to the report referred to in minute 177 and the report referred to in minute 178 on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information or confidential information, defined in Access to Information Procedure Rules as indicated in the minute.

146 Late Items It was reported that the Chair had admitted the following late items to the agenda for the reasons stated:

(a) Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement 2006/07 (minute 165) in order that the Board be apprised of the details of the announcement at the earliest opportunity.

(b) Access to Information – Appeals (minute 166) in order that a current appeal be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.

(c) Headingley Cricket Ground (minute 177) because of the time constraints in relation to the agreement on the future ownership of the ground.

(d) Comprehensive Performance Assessment (minute 178) in order that the Board be informed of the result at the earliest opportunity.

147 Declarations of Interest Councillor A Carter declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the item relating to Headingley Cricket Ground (minute 177) as a former member of Yorkshire County Cricket Club.

Councillor Harris declared a personal interest in the item relating to the Route 4 Showcase Bus Project (minute 168) having had previous business dealings with Arriva and First Bus.

Councillor Blackburn declared a personal interest in the item relating to Leeds Grand Theatre (minute 154) as a member of the Theatre Board and Councillor Blake a personal interest as a Director of Opera North. Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006

Councillor Wakefield declared a personal interest in the items relating to the Commissioning Strategy for Day Services (minute 161), the Tobacco Control Strategy (minute 162), Achieving a Smoke Free Leeds City Council (minute 163) and the Local Area Agreement (minute 160) as a non-executive member of the East Leeds PCT and Councillor Smith a personal interest in the same items as a non-executive member of South Leeds PCT.

Councillors Wakefield, Harris, Harker, Smith and Jennings declared personal interests in the item relating to Headingley Cricket Ground (item 177) in the same terms as recorded in the finally agreed minutes of the meeting held on 16th November 2005.

Further declarations of interest made during the meeting are referred to in minute160 (Councillor Wakefield) and minute 172 (Councillor Harker)

148 Minutes RESOLVED- That the minutes of the meeting held on 16th November 2005 be approved subject to a correction to minute 112 to show that the personal interest declared by Councillor Harker related to attendance at rugby union and not rugby league matches.

LEARNING

149 Primary Review – Far Headingley Further to minute 118 of the meeting held on 16th November 2005 the Chief Executive of Education Leeds submitted a report on the outcome of public consultation on the proposal to close Beckett Park Primary School in September 2005 RESOLVED- That a statutory notice be published to close Beckett Park Primary School on 31st August 2006

(Under the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 16.5 Councillor Wakefield required it to be recorded that he voted against this decision)

150 Procurement of a Strategic Partner –ICT for Education in Leeds The Chief Executive of Education Leeds submitted a report on the adopted delivery model for ICT through the Buildings Schools for the Future programme, providing an overview of the relationship between the various partners and seeking agreement to undertake the procurement of a strategic partner.

RESOLVED – That the approach taken by Leeds City Council and Education Leeds be noted and that approval be given to the procurement of a strategic partner for ICT services.

151 Department for Education and Skills White Paper – ‘Higher Standards, Better Schools for All’ The Chief Executive of Education Leeds submitted a report on government proposals for the development of the education system in England and Wales as set out in the above White Paper.

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006 RESOLVED – That the report be noted. 152 Adult Learning Inspection – Adult and Community Learning The Director of Learning and Leisure submitted a report on the main findings and implications of the Adult Learning Inspectorate inspection of Adult and Community Learning provision within the Jobs and Skills service.

RESOLVED – (a) That the findings of the Adult Learning Inspectorate’s inspection of Leeds’ Adult and Community Learning provision be noted. (b) That the Scrutiny Board (Thriving Communities) be requested to monitor the implementation of the action plan resulting from the inspection.

LEISURE

153 The Mansion House, Roundhay Park The Director of Learning and Leisure submitted a report on the application for change to the approved scheme submitted to the Heritage Lottery Fund, on the outcome of public consultation and seeking authority for an injection into the existing capital scheme.

RESOLVED – That, subject to the Heritage Lottery Fund approving the City Council’s application to change the approved scheme for the development of The Mansion, approval be given to the project brief, scheme design and to the funding plan as presented, that the injection of £1,356,500 into existing capital scheme no 12462 be authorised and that expenditure in the same amount be approved.

154 Leeds Grand Theatre Proposed Additional Mechanical and Electrical Works The Director of Learning and Leisure submitted a report on proposed additional works required to be undertaken at the Leeds Grand Theatre to reduce foreseeable health and safety risks and having the potential to impact on the recommissioning of the theatre following completion of the phase 1 works, but which were outside both the budget and current phase 1 scope of works and the phase 2 works.

RESOLVED – (a) That authority be given for an injection of £672,000 into existing capital scheme no 03611/PH1, the incurring of expenditure on additional mechanical and electrical works required in the theatre and, for expenditure by the Leeds Grand Theatre and Opera House Ltd on client direct works associated with the selective refurbishment of the Grand Theatre. (b) That authority be given to bring forward and incur expenditure of £81,000 from existing capital scheme no 03611/PH2 on fees and survey costs associated with the additional mechanical and electrical works required in the Grand Theatre. (c) That the proposed expenditure of £417,000 from the City Council’s Priority Major Maintenance Budget on the additional health and safety mechanical and electrical works required in the Grand Theatre be noted. Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006

(This decision was exempt from Call In to avoid delay on the construction programme for the Phase 1 works, with consequential cost and operational implications)

155 New Bye-Laws for Pleasure Grounds, Public Walks and Open Space The Director of Learning and Leisure submitted a report on the new draft byelaws covering pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces proposed to be recommended to Council to be sealed and placed on deposit for public consultation.

RESOLVED – That Council be recommended to authorise that the draft byelaws be sealed and placed on deposit and that the Director of Learning and Leisure be authorised to advertise the intention to apply for confirmation of the byelaws and then to apply to the Secretary of State for their confirmation.

(This being a decision reserved to Council it was not eligible for Call In)

156 Farnley Hall The Director of Learning and Leisure submitted a report on a proposal to utilise Farnley Hall as office accommodation for Parks and Countryside staff.

RESOLVED – (a) That approval be given to the project brief, scheme design and funding plan as presented. (b) That the injection of £297,000 into the 2005/06 Capital Programme be approved and that total scheme expenditure in the same amount be authorised.

157 Living Landmarks Submission – Art Gallery The Director of Learning and Leisure submitted a report on a proposal to submit a bid for a Living Landmarks grant to build a contemporary art gallery and public space on Victoria Gardens,

RESOLVED – (a) That a bid be made for Living Landmarks grant to build a contemporary art gallery and to rationalise public space on Victoria Gardens. (b) That, in the event that the bid is successful at stage one, a further report be brought to this Board to determine whether to proceed to further stages in light of the capital investment that may be required from the Council.

158 West Leeds Country Park and Green Gateways The Director of Learning and Leisure submitted a report on the aims, objectives and scope of the West Leeds Country Park and Green Gateways initiative.

RESOLVED – (a) That the various voluntary groups already acting as environmental stewards in the West Leeds Country Park and Green Gateways area be supported. Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006 (b) That the arrangement of green linkages throughout the area be progressed. (c) That all relevant departments of the Council be instructed to ensure that members are informed of developments or issues which impact on the designated area. (d) That works be undertaken to improve and maintain all the areas of greenspace within the designated area (e) That the resource implications detailed in the report be noted.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

159 Implementing the Children Act 2004 in Leeds – Update The Director of Learning and Leisure, Director of Social Services and Chief Executive of Education Leeds submitted a joint report on developments nationally and locally on the Children Act 2004 since the last report to the Board on 21st September 2005.

In introducing the item the Chair and members of the Board congratulated Rosemary Archer on her appointment as Director of Children’s Services which would take effect on 1st March 1006.

RESOLVED - That the report be noted

(During discussion of this item Councillor Wakefield declared a personal interest as a governor at Brigshaw School)

CORPORATE SERVICES

160 Local Area Agreement The Chief Officer (Executive Support) submitted a report on the background to Local Area Agreements, the selection of Leeds in the second round of local authorities to complete an agreement with Government by March 2006 and on current proposals for the agreement.

Isabelle Mills of Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber attended the meeting, commented on the content of the Agreement to date and on matters to be progressed prior to completion

RESOLVED – That the current focus and direction of the Leeds Local Area Agreement be endorsed.

SOCIAL CARE AND HEALTH

161 Commissioning Strategy for Day Services The Director of Social Services submitted a report on a proposed set of principles to guide the development of a commissioning strategy for day services for adults and older people.

RESOLVED – (a) That the principles that underpin the department’s commissioning policy on day services be approved. Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006 (b) That consultation takes place on these principles and the more detailed service model for each of the service user groups. (c) That a commissioning plan for day services for each of the service user groups be prepared for approval by this Board.

162 Tobacco Control Strategy The Directors of Social Services and Neighbourhoods and Housing submitted a joint report presenting a new Tobacco Control Strategy for Leeds prepared by a multi-sectoral team led by the Leeds Primary Care Trusts and working under the umbrella of the Leeds Initiative Healthy Leeds Partnership Group

RESOLVED –That the objectives of the Tobacco Control Strategy as listed in paragraph 2.6 of the report be approved and that the implications of the Strategy for the City Council be noted.

CENTRAL AND CORPORATE

163 Achieving a Smoke Free Leeds City Council The Director of Corporate Services submitted a report setting out a framework for implementing fully the existing smoking at work policy, whilst recognising the importance of effective consultation to identify solutions to areas of particular challenge such as hospitality services and residential/domiciliary care.

RESOLVED – That the plan to implement the Council’s policy on smoking at work, as set out in the report, be approved.

164 Sixth Implementing Electronic Government Statement by Leeds City Council The Chief Customer Services Officer submitted a report on the sixth IEG statement to demonstrate progress towards the target of 100% electronic service delivery capability by 31st December 2005.

RESOLVED – That the contents of the Statement be noted and approved.

165 Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement 2006/07 The Director of Corporate Services submitted a report on the provisional Local Authority Revenue Finance Settlement for 2006/07 and 2007/08 which was announced on 5th December 2005.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted and that a further report be brought to the Board after the announcement of the final settlement, expected at the end of January 2006.

166 Access to Information – Appeals The Director of Legal and Democratic Services submitted a report on the administrative arrangements for dealing with appeals by members against a refusal to be given access to documentation in accordance with their statutory and non statutory rights.

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006 RESOLVED – (a) That a Committee of the Board be established to consider an appeal currently submitted. (b) That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be requested to review the provisions of the Constitution in relation to access to information.

DEVELOPMENT

167 Strategic Contractor Partnership for Leeds City Council The Director of Development submitted a report on the proposed establishment of a Strategic Contractor Partnering Framework for the delivery of the Council’s traditional building contracts. The report presented the options of continuing with current arrangements, project partnering on an individual scheme basis or strategic partnering on a long term basis

RESOLVED – That approval be given to the procurement of a Strategic Contractor Partnering Framework for the delivery of Leeds City Council’s traditional building contracts to preferred bidder stage and that a further report be brought back to this Board seeking approval to appoint.

168 Route 4 Showcase Bus Project The Director of Development submitted a report on proposed bus stop improvements along the service number 4 bus route between Pudsey and Whinmoor as part of the ‘Yorkshire Bus Initiative’.

RESOLVED – That the proposals be approved in principle, that issues in relation to buses accessing certain points on the route be addressed and that a further report be brought to this Board with regard to the proposals of the bus operator for the route prior to final approval of the proposal.

169 Leeds Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report The Director of Development submitted a report monitoring the performance of specific planning policy areas and on progress against the City Council’s previously submitted Local Development Scheme.

RESOLVED – That the Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report be approved for submission to the Secretary of State pursuant to Regulation 48 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

170 Evening Economy Action Plan Update The Directors of Development and Neighbourhoods and Housing submitted a joint report on progress on implementation of the Leeds Evening Economy and Night Time Study Action Plan.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted and that a further progress report be brought to the Board in six months time.

171 Sharp Lane / Sharp House Road, Middleton Junction Improvements

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006 The Director of Development submitted a report on the proposed design and implementation of an access junction, off Sharp Lane, to a proposed major housing development in Middleton.

RESOLVED – (a) That approval be given to the injection of £475,000 into the Development Department’s capital programme, funded £50,000 from a Section 106 agreement and the balance of £425,000 from Leeds General Resources. (b) That authority be given to incur expenditure of £260,000 works, £155,000 statutory undertakers costs and £60,000 fees.

CITY SERVICES

172 Integrated Waste Management Strategy The Director of City Services submitted a report outlining the draft Integrated Waste Management Strategy for Leeds and on proposals for public consultation on the strategy.

RESOLVED – (a) That approval be given to the content of the draft Integrated Waste Management Strategy and the proposal to undertake public consultation from January to May 2006, with a view to a further report being brought to this Board on the outcomes of the consultation on service improvements and collection arrangements in July 2006. (b) That the proposed development of a Sustainable Energy Park for the City (including a Materials Recycling Facility and Energy from Waste Plan), be approved and that the submission of an Expression of Interest to DEFRA for PFI credits be supported.

173 Proposals to Deal with Abandoned Shopping Trolleys – Adoption of Section 99 and Schedule 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 The Director of City Services submitted a report proposing that the Council formally adopt Schedule 4 of the Environmental Protection Act, as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

RESOLVED –That the report be noted and that Council be recommended to adopt the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as described by Section 99 of that Act, in order to deal with abandoned shopping trolleys.

(This being a decision reserved to Council it was not eligible for Call In)

NEIGHBOURHOODS AND HOUSING

174 EASEL – Outcome of the Exclusive Clarification Period with Bellway The Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing submitted a report on the result of the exclusive clarification period with Bellway plc and on proposed next steps in the EASEL procurement process.

Following consideration of a second report designated as exempt under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(8) and (9) it was: Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006 RESOLVED – (a) That Bellway plc be selected as Preferred Bidder and that officers be authorised to issue a Preferred Bidder letter on the basis of the position set out in detail in appendix 3 of the exempt report. (b) That reports be brought back to this Board on the matters identified in paragraph 6.3 of the exempt report. (c) That the Deputy Chief Executive and Directors of Neighbourhoods and Housing and Development be authorised to issue a reserve bidder letter to Land Lease Europe, to negotiate on the further matters detailed in section 6 of the exempt report and to conclude The Strategic Development Agreement (Phase 1) and the Joint Venture Agreement (Phase 2).

(During discussion of this item Councillor Harker declared a personal interest as a trustee of the Thackray Museum)

175 East and South East Regeneration Area Land Assembly Issues Associated with Phase 1 Development Sites The Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing submitted a report on progress relating to the eight Phase 1 development opportunities identified as part of the East and South East Leeds Regeneration Initiative.

RESOLVED – (a) That the minor changes to the boundaries of the Phase 1 sites as identified in Appendix 3 of the submitted report be noted. (b) That progress on the acquisition of remaining properties and land and the relocation of tenants within the EASEL Phase 1 sites be noted. (c) That a Compulsory Purchase Order, or Orders, be made under the provisions of Section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 99 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for the acquisition of land and properties shaded within the sites identified on Plans 3 (Amberton Terrace), 6 (Oak Trees) and 7 (Parkway Vale) in Appendix 4 of the report and indicated on the schedule in Appendix 2 of the report. (d) That officers be authorised to take all necessary steps to secure the making, confirmation and implementation of any Compulsory Purchase Order including: (i) the publication and service of all notices and the representations of the Council and its partners at any Public Inquiry (ii) approving the acquisition of interests in land and premises within the three sites either by agreement or the use of compulsory powers (iii) approving agreements with land owners setting out terms for the withdrawal of objections to the Order(s), including where appropriate, making arrangements for the satisfactory rehousing of all persons displaced by the Council and ALMO proposals. (e) That officers be authorised to enter into negotiations with and provisionally agree terms to facilitate the development of the EASEL Phase 1 sites and that final terms for the disposal of the sites be reported to this Board for approval.

Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006 176 Vacation of Chair Councillor A Carter having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the item relating to Headingley Cricket Ground vacated the Chair in favour of Councillor Harris and left the room for the remainder of the meeting.

177 Headingley Cricket Ground Further to minute 127 of the meeting held on 16th November 2005 the Director of Corporate Services submitted a report on progress of discussions in relation to a request from the Yorkshire County Cricket Club Ltd for the Council to provide assistance to enable them to purchase the Headingley cricket ground in order to secure test matches at the ground.

A copy of a proposed agreement between Yorkshire County Cricket Club and the Leeds Cricket Football and Athletics Co Ltd in relation to transfers of property was appended to the report, was designated as exempt under Access to Procedure Rule 10.4(7) and (9) and was considered in private at the conclusion of the meeting following which it was:

RESOLVED – (a) That relevant parties be informed that the agreement as presented to this meeting would not satisfy the requirements of the Council to a sufficient degree to offer assistance. (b) That officers be authorised to continue discussions in relation to the points of issue as now identified. (c) That a further meeting of the Board be held prior to 30th December 2005 to determine this matter.

(This decision was exempt from Call In because of the deadline to conclude this matter by the end of December 2005)

178 Comprehensive Performance Assessment The Chief Executive submitted a report on the result of the Council’s CPA for 2005. The report was designated as confidential under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.1 as it contained information given in terms which forbade its disclosure and was considered in private at the conclusion of the meeting.

RESOLVED – (a) That the Council’s categorisation as a four star CPA authority which is ‘improving well’ be noted. (b) That an additional day of leave be awarded to all staff in 2006/07. (c) That a further report on the CPA 2005 be brought to the January meeting of this Board.

(This decision was exempt from Call In in order to link the achievement of four stars with the agreement to award an additional day of annual leave, further communications being scheduled for 15th December 2005)

DATE OF PUBLICATION: 16TH DECEMBER 2005 LAST DATE FOR CALL IN: 23RD DECEMBER 2005 (5.00 PM)

(Scrutiny Support will notify relevant Directors of any items Called In by 12.00 noon on 28th December 2005) Draft minutes to be approved at the meeting to be held on 18th January 2006 Proposed closure of Beckett Park Primary School

We ask the Executive Board to treat Beckett Park School in Kirkstall, an area of high deprivation, exactly as they have treated Fir Trees in Alwoodley, a very affluent area, which was recommended for closure on exactly the same grounds as that proposed for Beckett Park. We also ask the Executive Board to accept the unanimous views of the NW Inner Area Committee, reiterated as recently as 8th December 2005 that Beckett Park Primary School should not close

We also note that the Liberal-Democrat Party has publicly opposed the closure as has the local Labour Party.

Grounds for non closure

It was only just over 2 years ago that the first closure proposal was refused, and at that time it was stated that it would be at least 5 years before any other proposal to close would be brought forward. It is dishonourable not to keep a promise, especially when no reason is given. Moreover, the officers from Education Leeds at the public meeting on 28th September did not even know that such an undertaking had been given. The school has not been given the time promised to it to demonstrate that its numbers will hold up. It has at last got a nursery on site, but it has been open less than a year so not even one intake from it has progressed to the school. There are 14 children of the right age who could move into the school next September.

This year’s figures have collapsed because of the closure proposal. Eighteen children were scheduled to come on roll in January 2005. This number was reduced to six by September, a reduction wholly attributable to the closure proposals.

This community needs its school for the care and continuity of education of its children. It has done an excellent job for the last half century and is needed as much now as then, even more if anything. Headingley Ward and Kirkstall Ward have been particularly affected by the increasing number of student lets. This has caused families to move out of the two Wards because they simply could not afford the cost of houses being snatched up by landlords for letting to students at predatory rates. If the School were to close young families would not take up tenancies on the Estate and houses becoming vacant may well be taken up for student lets or if the house remains in Council ownership, only the older generation will move into them. However there are now clear indications of a reversal of this process as houses formerly let to students are reverting to family occupation, familes with children

Savings might be made by this closure. Those savings could only be made at a very high social cost and at a very high cost in terms of the personal convenience and safety of parents and children.

It is very unclear what would happen to the children in the Autistic Unit. It is merely stated that arrangements would be made. In dealing with children with this specific educational need a high degree of responsibility towards them is required. This review betrays no such level of responsibility. It would appear to be the very reverse. The unit assisting autistic children is very successful. If the School were to close these children who need stability and support would be displaced and their progress quite inevitably affected. We should not do this to the most disadvantaged children in our community. If commitment to children with special needs is genuine the current proposals are an abomination. Parents at the meeting confirmed that there is no room at other local resourced provision, at Ireland Wood for example. And it seems clear that Education Leeds are not pointing out to any parents seeking provision that there is room to accommodate more at Beckett Park, which seems to indicate that it is being assumed the school will close.

The costs of provision at Beckett Park were questioned at the public meting and the school is trying to get clarification on the calculations. We understand that the school is operating within its budget. What also needs to be understood is the overall costs to the Council of closing the school, outside the school budget. What will be the costs of the Library service moving or staying? What will be the costs of the nursery moving or staying? What will be the costs of keeping public access to the fields and changing and toilet provision? What will be the costs of keeping the building dry and safe? No effort has been made in the review to relate putative savings on closing the School against the social cost involved.

Similarly no thought has apparently been given to additional uses of the site. It would for instance be an ideal location for an extended school/children centre serving Weetwood and Far Headingley. No other school has the room to accommodate this Centre.

The possibility of joint school provision on the lines of that being investigated with Miles Hill should be pursued.

The closure of the school would mean the closure of the Before and After school club without any guarantee of its replacement elsewhere and no other site appears to meet the requirements of the current users who therefore might have to cease employment at a great social and economic cost to some of the least affluent members of our community..

If the School closed, there would be a great gap in local primary provision. Parents without cars would have a very long walk, often with smaller children in buggies to the nearest School. Two thirds of this School's pupils walk to School. Parents with cars and there are some, would add further to the early morning congestion. Neither the report to Exec Board nor the public Review document says what these distances are, but they are considerable. The nearest School, Kirkstall St. Stephen’s C of E Aided, is just under a mile away. The next vary between 1.1 to 1.8 miles away. The plans for accommodating the displaced children seem almost non existent. It is stated that places would be guaranteed at either Beecroft or Hawksworht Wood schools. Beecroft we are told is full . Are portacabins to be provided? If so, will this not this cause disruption to a greater number of children? Is it policy to move children from first class accommodation to temporary classrooms? Is it not Council policy to rid all schools of temporary buildings? There is very little room at Hawksworth Wood too, and it is a LONG way away, up a long hill and down another, over a very narrow railway bridge with no pavement next to it, a very bad route for youngsters with prams and buggies or for older children on their own. It is very clear that both Weetwood and St. Chad’s are already full. It seems clear to us that Education Leeds has not enough room to cope on any reasonable basis with the children from the Queenswood Drive/ Woodbridges/ Spens/ Old Oaks community. All the pupils at Beckett Park School can walk to it in safety. It is Council policy to encourage children to walk to School ?

The School enjoys the best facilities probably of any school in the city. It is in idyllic surroundings. It would be wrong to move children from good accommodation to worse, even if no regard were to be given to the unfair treatment of many on the lower income scales and therefore deemed to be less vocal in their opposition than parents in wealthier areas. The Building is in good condition, far better than many which are to remain open. The space open to the children to play and engage in sports in safety is extensive and well designed.

The school is well away from any busy road and the fumes that are associated with today's heavy traffic.

Currently the facilities of the School are used by many organisations in the voluntary sector. For instance Kirkstall Crusaders is able to run a great many teams using the School facilities. If the School were to be closed these facilities could be lost and there would therefore be a very considerable social cost.

It hosts WEA - LEA workshop - courses and a Parents and toddler group.

A previous Secretary of State for Education has said that good Schools should not be closed. This School had a very good OFSTED report and continues to improve despite the difficulties of dealing with young children many of whom come from very disadvantaged backgrounds, and 13% of whom come from varied ethnic backgrounds. 42% are eligible for free school meals.

Beckett Park has been grouped with Far Headingley Schools. This would appear a devious trick to support the closure case. Beckett Park is in Kirkstall. There is no suggestion that displaced children will be sent to St Chads or Weetwood. They are to be sent to Kirkstall schools.

There is concern that the numbers are made more complex in the Kirkstall ward by the presence of three faith schools, two C of E and one RC. Parents who do not want their children to be taught in a faith school find their choice already restricted. There are already more children wanting a non faith school than there are non faith places.

Some cynics allege that school closure would release a capital asset for sale. as the the report of the CEO makes clear on page 25 This would not be possible, given the protected nature of the site and its very poor and restricted highway-access via a small and narrow cul de sac of semi detached houses.without major access improvements.

Summation

Education Leeds proposal is to close a School:

1. With excellent facilities

2. Which is situated in the best environment

3. Which the whole of the community - young and old - wishes to retain.

4. Which the majority of children for whom it is the nearest School make it their choice and 35% of other pupils choose it even though it is not the nearest School.

5. Which will mean the children are put into an infinitely inferior school environment with inferior playing facilities and sporting facilities.

6. Which will mean the children move from a non-polluted environment to one much more heavily polluted by heavy traffic.

7. Which will involve parents in at least a mile walk to the nearest alternative School or two miles if places at the nearest Schools are not available.

8. Which has had a very good OFSTED report.

9. Which has provided an excellent service for those children who suffer from autism which have been so expertly and skilfully integrated into the School whilst still remaining in the unit.

10. Which now has a nursery on site with 14 children of an age which make them candidates for the school

11. Which was promised 5 years before any proposal to close it would be repeated

12. Which has one of the best records for integrating people from different ethnic backgrounds and cultural groups as well as children with special educational needs and social needs.

13. Which performs an invaluable social and cultural service for the community of which it is regarded as its heart.

14. Which has some of the best kept and maintained buildings and facilities compared with any other Primary School in the City and enjoys the support of the whole of the Beckett Park Estate and areas beyond that confine.

15. Which if closed would not achieve any significant saving.

16. which if closed would involve an enormous social cost.

17. Would have very wide ramifications quite distinct from educational matters.

18. Whose children it seems doubtful can be reasonably accommodated elsewhere without temporary building on another site

19. And is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion. Parents are willing to test this view by judicial review if that is necessary one parent having already volunteered to apply for legal aid on behalf of his child for this purpose..

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Bernard Atha Councillor John Illingworth Councillor Elizabeth Minkin

2672485 (h) 2478328 (w) 2673735 (h) 3433135 (w) 2780218 (h) 2475576 (w)

HYPERLINK mailto:[email protected] [email protected] HYPERLINK mailto:[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Reports/BeckettParkSchool-Feb03 3 R S ýûýûùôïêôâ G:\LABOUR\Correspondence\Signatures\Restricted\Atha.jpg G:\LABOUR\Correspondence\Signatures\Restricted\Atha.jpg (:3=<9387@H\N@DWE78PmQW_bghg>Mqypdx\egcÿÛ /cB8BccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccÿÀ %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyzƒ„…† &'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz‚ƒ„… QTµmF-+O efHñ }+ oÇÑÚÎöútK9^<Ö?.{àw WWk:\ÚÅ

4 =FN}r1U®| ª<È T !* HÔä²[3)@71|ryâ¢ & QL– R§‚uËÙÙï.•~l3;–,=EzX ^m¯k—þ%¿m;KW{` l ! œE*9FÚÁNp} M^g£j eó<¾¡r 5ÉB-ìç9úVo‹u˜5Y"Ñl¤s3N«!è q %s^9Ónu- [4§h22þ' W $cæ\}{P QIE K*ZøðNÇxY#vU .6Šå>"éfãOMAYT RÒP =ãk¹-<;pbuV“ É kžÖüYc¤ùa].$2mt Q 'Gð,+¥3_sy"åH? pÈ.„xÂ?NtÝH\:m%cö„ : N× 8$§DrE«£¹A#¶ï q#u‘9ò M I ( zWI4}$ a…õ¯¢:o‹à 1»ÅnH8$Dxr‡ jEuH;08$ÎÉ xô8D°bO Â{,9IdF 8¬â»¤ ‡èfëž.‘Cê¿ÒspHWºaj4%Ž Uþ†udq$"= E‘¨þÐè~˜ïó9+$®D<"²Nµwsx· j<=Yqp Pn<µ+BúNŸ:zk ]îêl–ÇMÏyŠ?[oüqðŒbµ˜qø:¥4Wv7r < c* 9ee` Yý«Â7“ÞÈ»CY^2 |“–Y>U 'ha#da _âX#šX·g-s$LNï/oÊŠ [email protected] [email protected] mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] Normal Normal Default Paragraph Font Default Paragraph Font Hyperlink Hyperlink Cll AthaBH:\Word97\AutoRecovery save of Beckett Park Closure Sept 2005.asd Cll AthaBH:\Word97\AutoRecovery save of Beckett Park Closure Sept 2005.asd Cll AthaBH:\Word97\AutoRecovery save of Beckett Park Closure Sept 2005.asd Cll AthaBH:\Word97\AutoRecovery save of Beckett Park Closure Sept 2005.asd Cll Atha.H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure Sept 2005.doc Cll Atha.H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure Sept 2005.doc Cll Atha.H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.doc Cll Atha.H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.doc Cll AthaBH:\Word97\AutoRecovery save of Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.asd Cll AthaBH:\Word97\AutoRecovery save of Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.asd Cll AthaBH:\Word97\AutoRecovery save of Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.asd Cll AthaBH:\Word97\AutoRecovery save of Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.asd Cll Atha.H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.doc Cll Atha.H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.doc Cll Atha.H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.doc Cll Atha.H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure DEC 2005.doc Cll Atha>H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure e mail to Exec Bd Dec 2005.doc Cll Atha>H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure e mail to Exec Bd Dec 2005.doc Cll Atha>H:\Reports\Beckett Park Closure e mail to Exec Bd Dec 2005.docÿ ` Times New Roman Times New Roman Symbol Symbol a\\LS_CENT\DATA\HOME\LS\TOWNHALL\1F\DIRECTOR.GRP\EVANS- R\DATA\Ruth Evans\Templates\Blank Sheet.dot a\\LS_CENT\DATA\HOME\LS\TOWNHALL\1F\DIRECTOR.GRP\EVANS- R\DATA\Ruth Evans\Templates\Blank Sheet.dot Ruth Evans Ruth Evans Cll Atha Cll Atha Ruth Evans Blank Sheet.dot Cll Atha Microsoft Word 8.0 Leeds City Council _PID_HLINKS mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] G:\LABOUR\Correspondence\Signatures\Restricted\Atha.jpg G:\LABOUR\Correspondence\Signatures\Restricted\Atha.jpg \\MEM_CENT\DATA\SHARED\MEM\LABOUR\Correspondence\Signatures\Restricte d\illingworthjohn.gif \\MEM_CENT\DATA\SHARED\MEM\LABOUR\Correspondence\Signatures\Restricte d\illingworthjohn.gif \\MEM_CENT\DATA\SHARED\MEM\LABOUR\Correspondence\Signatures\Restricte d\Minkin.jpg \\MEM_CENT\DATA\SHARED\MEM\LABOUR\Correspondence\Signatures\Restricte d\Minkin.jpg Root Entry 1Table 1Table WordDocument WordDocument SummaryInformation SummaryInformation DocumentSummaryInformation DocumentSummaryInformation CompObj CompObj ObjectPool ObjectPool Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

The Civic Hall Leeds LS1 1UR

The LIB DEMS vote to close Beckett Park Primary School

The Lib Dem, Conservative, Green Coalition now runs Leeds. It has decided to close Beckett Park Primary School

We opposed the closure as we did two years ago and asked the Coalition to accept the unanimous views of the NW Inner Area Committee, (made up of nine Lib Dem Councillors and ourselves), that the school should not close We also pointed out that the Liberal Democrat Party publicly opposed the closure in its recently delivered leaflet.

Despite this, when the decision was made by the Coalition it was the Lib Dem Councillor Harris who strongly argued the school should close. He was supported by all the other Lib Dem Councillors on the Executive Board, who voted with him.

We are appalled at the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats promising to do one thing and then doing the opposite. One Lib Dem Councillor to his credit strongly supported the school by a letter to his colleagues.

So now the Lib Dem, Tory, Green coalition are going to close a school, Beckett Park Primary School,

1. With excellent facilities

2. Which is situated in the best environment

3. Which the whole of the community - young and old - wishes to retain.

4. Which the majority of children for whom it is the nearest School make it their choice and 35% of other pupils choose it even though it is not the nearest School.

5. Which will mean the children are put into an infinitely inferior school environment with inferior playing and sporting facilities.

6. Which will mean the children move from a non-polluted environment to one much more heavily polluted by heavy traffic.

7. Which will involve parents in at least a mile walk to the nearest alternative School or two miles if places at the nearest Schools are not available. 8. Which has had a very good OFSTED report.

9. Which has provided an excellent service for those children who suffer from autism, expertly and skilfully integrating them into the School whilst still remaining in the unit.

10. Which now has a nursery on site with 14 children of an age which make them candidates for the school

11. Which was promised 5 years before any proposal to close it would be repeated

12. Which has one of the best records for integrating people from different ethnic backgrounds and cultural groups as well as children with special educational needs and social needs.

13. Which performs an invaluable social and cultural service for the community of which it is regarded as its heart.

15. Which if closed would not achieve any significant saving.

16. Which if closed would involve an enormous social cost.

17. Would have very wide ramifications quite distinct from educational matters.

18. Whose children it seems will be put into temporary classrooms

BUT will bring in a lot of money when the site Is sold off as the Report put forward by Councillor Harker another Lib Dem Councillor points out.

We promise to join the school, the teachers, parents and local residents in a last ditch effort to save our school. The decision can be challenged in the Court and we are pursuing this idea very strongly. We shall need the support of the Community in due course, i.e. in the New Year. We also intend to use a procedure called “calling in” which is a means to having the closure investigated by other Councillors. The trouble is we can only use this procedure if we can get just one member of the Coalition to agree. Given their current record this does not look likely.

In the meantime we hope you have a happy trouble free Christmas and enjoy a fruitful and equally happy New Year.

Councillor Bernard Atha Councillor John Illingworth Councillor Elizabeth Minkin 2672485 (h) 2478328 (w) 2673735 (h) 3433135 (w) 2780218 (h) 2475576 (w) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]