Agenda item

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or a matter within the Cabinet’s remit can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5:00 pm on Monday 14 May 2012.

It was reported that there had been thirteen registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme and that three Members of Council had also requested to speak.

The following spoke in respect of Agenda item 6 (Secondary Education Provision on the East side of the city and the Future of Burnholme Community College):

Adrian Fisher spoke on behalf of Dawn Leatt, Gary Douglas and Darren Whittaker of the Burnholme Community College Parents Forum. He expressed their disappointment at the proposed closure which would not protect vulnerable children in a disadvantaged local community. They questioned how community services would continue from the site following closure of the school. Upkeep of the buildings and decommissioning costs were also questioned. The Parents Forum felt that all options had not been examined, especially as the College was only half way through a 5 year recovery plan to increase the number of students applying for places. They pointed out that this was not a failing school its results were improving year on year and the College had received numerous awards. It was pointed out that, as Archbishop Holgate’s the adjacent secondary school was now full, Burnholme was the only school in the catchment area with space which would cause issues in the future following closure. Members were asked to look at the bigger picture and vote against the proposed closure.

Nicole Naismith, a pupil of Burnholme CC, expressed concern that the wishes of school pupils were being ignored. Following the development of the Derwenthorpe site and an increase in birth rate she questioned where pupils would go. Burnholme College was an excellent school where everyone was known by name and where pupils made great progress but no one appeared to be listening or taking note of this.

Simon Gumn, Head Teacher of Burnholme CC, thanked officers for their in depth report on the proposals. He referred to the projected savings and future uncertainties and asked that if closure was agreed that the reasons put forward were certainties as he had no wish to upset staff or the education of his pupils if additional school places were required in the future. He requested that any closure should be dignified, causing least disruption to all concerned and he requested a future community injection for the area.

Simon Breare, Teacher at Burnholme CC made reference to the number of school places required year on year, both with closure of the College and without. Indicating that the limit would be breached with or without closure of the College. He expressed concerns at a possible future surge in demand for school places which could be disastrous for children in York. He felt that the authority should be planning for expansion rather than closure.

Stephen Hodgson, Chair of Governors Burnholme CC, expressed his agreement with the points raised by the parent’s forum. He confirmed that damage had been caused to the school following a second round of speculation in respect of the schools future. He asked members to ensure that every avenue had been examined prior to closure as there would be no way back from this decision. He pointed out that the school worked miracles with the pupils they received which was a credit to the dedicated staff. He requested members to work together with the school and officers to put together a long term plan to continue to provide an excellent education for children in the area.

Susan Williamson, Inclusion Leader Burnholme CC referred to the disadvantaged area the school covered explaining research undertaken in such areas and the affects on pupils. She referred to the achievements and successes of Burnholme pupils and the value added. Closure would mean the break up of a school in an already disadvantaged area with the consequential increase in NEET’s etc. She asked the Cabinet to protect the vulnerable as every child mattered.

Carmel Appleton, Teacher at Applefields School spoke to acknowledge the loss the school would have on the adjacent Applefields special school. A pilot Special Needs Satellite class had been embedded at Burnholme which was working extremely well allowing children easy access to speech and language facilities and providing an inclusive atmosphere for pupils at the school to join with their peers. She questioned the relocation of this facility, the safety of pupils and financial costs involved.

Sarah Neale, Manager of Burnholme Nursery referred to the siting of a purpose built excellent community nursery on the site. She questioned the affect of closure on the nursery with 55 children, 11 staff members and a waiting list. Reference was also made to the valuable service the nursery provided for work experience and reading assistance provided by College pupils. She referred to the affect closure would have on the local community with the loss of after school clubs and Adult Education classes.

Cllr Warters spoke in relation to the petition presented to the Council on behalf of residents against the closure of the College which he felt was being ignored. No consideration appeared to have been taken of residents or the wider communities wishes in this case. He referred to the falling pupil roll with families having been driven out of the area with the increasing use of family housing for student accommodation and questioned the use of the adjacent playing fields following closure.

Cllr Aspden referred to the Liberal Democrat Groups written comments to Cabinet, indicating that they were unable to support the recommendations in the report while there were still so many unanswered questions. He confirmed that he had met with the petitioners during which a number of issues had been raised which did not appear to have been addressed. He went onto question the prematurity of withdrawing the council’s commitment to a 5 year plan and strategy for the College. He therefore asked the Cabinet to address these points before making a final decision on closure.

The following spoke in respect of Agenda item 7 (Implementing the Review of the City of York Council’s Residential Care Homes for Older People):

On behalf of the York Branch of Unison, Andrea Dudding expressed disappointment that the authority were not making a commitment to providing care at all three sites. Reference was made to the public consultation which had resulted in overwhelming support for retaining care at the site in house. Concern was expressed at future security of jobs, staff morale and TUPE protection which could be eroded over time. She reiterated that quality of care should take precedence over profit.

Councillor Warters referred to the Lowfield School site proposed for a care village, in particular the 7 acres currently green fields and relocation of the football pitches for possible future development. He questioned the use of the capital receipt and the need to retain sport facilities/open space in the area. He went on to display a plan of the city indicating open space which had subsequently been developed.

Councillor Healey questioned the robustness of the risk analysis and the financial information.

The following spoke in respect of Agenda item 8 (Oliver House Elderly Persons Home – Options for the future use of the property):

Representations on behalf of the CVS were made by Angela Portz who urged members to support Option 1 to let Oliver House to a Voluntary Sector Management Group. She detailed the benefits this would bring from a vibrant voluntary sector, with a proven track record of running properties.

Councillor Warters also spoke in relation to Agenda item 11 (Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 – Police and Crime Commissioner – Update) he questioned the independence of the candidates and pointed out that politics should play no part in the appointment. Reference was made to reducing police numbers and the cost of the appointment.