Review into Croft school consultation blames council for residents’ disquiet (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Review into Croft school consultation blames council for residents’ disquiet
9:10am Thursday 7th March 2013 in News By David Wiles
Keith Carby, who chaired the independent review into the opening of the new Croft School
AN INDEPENDENT review has criticised Swindon Council over its ‘confused’ public consultation on Croft School – blaming it as the source of residents’ grievances.
The 420-pupil primary school, off Marlborough Lane, opened to its first intake of reception pupils in September.
Residents had claimed it was in the wrong site and said the council did not listen to their concerns, and did not answer their questions.
Now an independent review group, set up by the children and young people’s overview and scrutiny committee, has concluded the council did not fail to follow the statutory process, or attempt to mislead, but at times its consultation was ‘at best confused’.
Following calls from opposition groups, an independent review, chaired by businessman Keith Carby, was set up into procedures for opening and closing schools, focusing as examples on Croft School and Northview Primary School, in Highworth.
The report, discussed by councillors last night, found that Croft residents lost faith in the integrity and transparency of the process, because Cabinet had clearly decided to build the school at Croft in June 2010.
But the council then started a statutory consultation and asked questions which made residents feel they were still in the process of deciding the best location.
The report states: “As soon as a decision on location for the school had been taken, it should have been made clear that the consultation was about a number of important factors relevant to the safe and successful operation of the school, but not the decision to site the school at Croft. This would not have meant the suppression of views challenging the decision.
“In the case of Croft School, the consultation process became confused because there was insufficient clarity about which questions were being put to the public at which points.
“There was always the potential for problems, if for example the public was being asked, ‘Should we have a school on the Croft site?’ at the same time as being asked, “What type of school should we have on the Croft site?’ Or, ‘What will be the traffic problems for the new school at Croft?’ “This problem was exacerbated by a few individual council members who, albeit unintentionally, confused residents.”
The review group, which found the council was diligent and rigorous in answering public questions, gathered evidence on Croft from several sources.
Coun David Renard, cabinet member for children’s services, said: “I think there’s maybe something around the type of questions we ask when we go out to consultation and being a bit clearer about what is and isn’t being consulted on.
“But otherwise, in every other respect, this report, as indeed all of the others, has vindicated the council in terms of its process and choice of site and answering all the questions being asked.”
Croft School campaigner Kareen Boyd, of Hesketh Crescent, said: “In my opinion, this is a shambolic state of affairs and does neither Swindon Council nor the public any service.
“Based on my initial read of this core report it relies upon unsubstantitiated events.
“An independent external review would have worked to a fixed budget and timelines, to agreed terms of reference, have ensured consistent treatment of all contributors and provided output to accepted professional standards with clear authorship and sign off.
“It will be instructive to learn what action committee members will take at this juncture.
“When I have received a hard copy of all paperwork and have had time to read this I will provide specific detailed feedback and questions.”
Comments(22)
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
9:45am Thu 7 Mar 13
Quote "But the council then started a statutory consultation and asked questions which made residents feel they were still in the process of deciding the best location."
So the council decided where to build the school, then later opened a consultation around it.
But they didn't do anything wrong....! Why waste public money on something that had already been decided.
For many people the biggest issue surrounding the school was that it was not the area of Swindon that should have had the highest priority for new school places based on actual and forecast demand.
That was North Swindon and has been for a while. Children are being taught in porta cabins at schools which were bribed into taking multiple intakes of classes due to a lack of places that they were not designed for.
Secondary school places will be next on the agenda once North Swindon gets primary schools places sorted out and that is scheduled to be over subscribed within 2 years.
Of course I'm sure its just coincidence that the council chose to build a school in the area where the leader of the council chose to represent following boundary changes.
LW1986
says...
9:47am Thu 7 Mar 13
Its about time the opposition was dropped. Perhaps they should be proud that there is a local school, meaning that less children are having to travel miles for education because there isnt space at a nearer one.
In fact I can think of a number of residents who would happily have sent their children to the school, had it been there when their children were of school age.
We're lucky to have the education that we do, and that it is accessible.
Its time people stopped complaining about it being on their doorstep, be grateful for what we have!
James Smith Bowser
says...
12:10pm Thu 7 Mar 13
http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
10271499.Apathy_over
_control_of___1m_Too
thill_Lottery_fund/
Sort your own committee out first eh Kareen?
whaddahey?!
says...
12:34pm Thu 7 Mar 13
It seems to me that its clear that a council is elected to try to serve the interests of ALL residents. That their job.
Consultation has to be transparent and meaningful, otherwise its a waste of time, a waste of money and likely to enrage people negatively effected by the final decision, regardless of whether its right or wrong according to the facts of the case.
IF the decision in this case was a fait accompli, as clearly suggested in the piece, then the council has shown itself to be grossly negligent of its duty of care to those local residents effected - and the other tax payers who funded this presumably pointless and expensive exercise.
Thats simply a matter of fact, regardless of whether people think the school was needed at Croft or otherwise.
'Consultation' with residents over a vast number of issues is increasingly seem by the vast majority of people as a total con. It has simply become a way by which statutory boxes can be ticked, but ultimately, allows politicians to simply steam-roller ahead with what they originally intended anyway. Just go and look at the utterly false mandate they seem to have taken from a section of a mere 100 respondents regarding the stagnant ditch canal concept as another example.
We have too many self-appointed Napoleons and visionaries on our council, and not enough servants of the people. That cuts across all political shades, I'm afraid.
Empty Car Park
says...
1:02pm Thu 7 Mar 13
And so the political rather than rational start their traditional comments section tub-thumping.
My thoughts exactly
Not the least surprised in who was first to comment
Tim Newroman
says...
4:18pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Empty Car Park wrote:Your comment was entirely predictable. No real reference to the article, no thought, no input... just the usual stupid digs.
And so the political rather than rational start their traditional comments section tub-thumping.
My thoughts exactly
Not the least surprised in who was first to comment
I can't really see any political comments above, almost all of what's been posted - apart from Empty Car Park's pointless effort - has been fair and rational.
mariusgoring
says...
4:30pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:As well as being really stupid Tim you obviously cannot read. The report which was "independent" concluded that SBC misled residents.
So, the independent report has concluded the council didn't actually do anything wrong?
It always seemed to me that the anti-Croft School residents were always going to scream, 'Unfair lack of democracy from our appalling council' unless they got their way. It doesn't work like that.
The school's built, open and children are attending. Game over, really.
Let's assume that you can look at two proposed expenditures. Would you rather spend less than £10,000 teaching costs for one year or more than £1million?
I have kept the question simple in the hope that you provide me with your honest answer.
Tim Newroman
says...
7:31am Fri 8 Mar 13
Now an independent review group, set up by the children and young people’s overview and scrutiny committee, has concluded the council did not fail to follow the statutory process, or attempt to mislead,
So, the independent report specifically stated that the council dis NOT attempt to mislead residents.
As for your 'question' - it's utterly meaningess, of course, as there's absolutely no quantification. But, assuming you're comparing like for like (which you can't possibly be), then, yes, obviously £10k on the same standard and amount of teaching would be more sensible than spending £1m on the same thing.
Empty Car Park
says...
9:51am Fri 8 Mar 13
I have kept the question simple in the hope that you provide me with your honest answer.
Apparently not simple enough
Emma's speech was pretty poor too
Tim Newroman
says...
10:05am Fri 8 Mar 13
Empty Car Park wrote:You obviously missed the part where I answered the question. No surprise there, reading things has never been your strong suit.
I have kept the question simple in the hope that you provide me with your honest answer.
Apparently not simple enough
Emma's speech was pretty poor too
Peter Mallinson
says...
6:59pm Fri 8 Mar 13
The report finds no fault with SBC on due process but comments on the inability of some local residents to understand the consultation.
It stated "the consultation was about a number of important factors relevant to the safe and successful operation of the school, but not the decision to site the school at Croft".
No amount of shouting and moaning is going to alter the fact that the school exists and is functioning well.
So what is the Nimby's end game ?
mariusgoring
says...
10:16pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:This is a quote from the report. I think it is saying people were misled?
@mariusgoring: before you accuse others of being 'stupid' and being unable to read, you really ought to read things properly yourself. If you don't, you can end up looking very, very stupid:
Now an independent review group, set up by the children and young people’s overview and scrutiny committee, has concluded the council did not fail to follow the statutory process, or attempt to mislead,
So, the independent report specifically stated that the council dis NOT attempt to mislead residents.
As for your 'question' - it's utterly meaningess, of course, as there's absolutely no quantification. But, assuming you're comparing like for like (which you can't possibly be), then, yes, obviously £10k on the same standard and amount of teaching would be more sensible than spending £1m on the same thing.
7.10 It is clear that the opening of this school generated a significant amount of
opposition from a considerable number of local residents. This is perhaps not
surprising given that they had reasons to believe they were still in the process
of deciding the best location. Moreover, they had not been given details of
either the process or the factors that had produced the decision.
The question by the way was put to Cabinet in November 2009. You've guessed maybe that SBC plumped for the £1million+ solution!!
Tim Newroman
says...
8:46am Sat 9 Mar 13
This is a quote from the report. I think it is saying people were misled?
Seriously? You're either on the wind up or need to get some reading tuition.
Which part of:
the council did not attempt to mislead
did you not understand?
mariusgoring
says...
8:59am Sat 9 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Which part of SBC spent over £1million when they could have spent less than £10,000 do you not understand?
This is a quote from the report. I think it is saying people were misled?
Seriously? You're either on the wind up or need to get some reading tuition.
Which part of:
the council did not attempt to mislead
did you not understand?
Empty Car Park
says...
8:58am Sun 10 Mar 13
http://www.talkswind
on.org/index.php/top
ic,9175.0.html
Peter Mallinson
says...
11:05am Sun 10 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
11:13am Sun 10 Mar 13
Empty Car Park wrote:The Adver really should prevent you from continually linking to your pro-Labour forum.
If you would like a proper grown up discussion of this topic, without the sock puppets and troll, try this link
http://www.talkswind
on.org/index.php/top
ic,9175.0.html
Tim Newroman
says...
11:15am Sun 10 Mar 13
mariusgoring wrote:The report stated that the council did not attempt to mislead the public.
Tim Newroman wrote:Which part of SBC spent over £1million when they could have spent less than £10,000 do you not understand?
This is a quote from the report. I think it is saying people were misled?
Seriously? You're either on the wind up or need to get some reading tuition.
Which part of:
the council did not attempt to mislead
did you not understand?
It's not my fault you were unable to grasp plain English.
Empty Car Park
says...
8:57pm Sun 10 Mar 13
The Adver really should prevent you from your continual pointless political campaigning and accusations
mariusgoring
says...
10:37am Tue 12 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Forget the misleading bit.
mariusgoring wrote:The report stated that the council did not attempt to mislead the public.
Tim Newroman wrote:Which part of SBC spent over £1million when they could have spent less than £10,000 do you not understand?
This is a quote from the report. I think it is saying people were misled?
Seriously? You're either on the wind up or need to get some reading tuition.
Which part of:
the council did not attempt to mislead
did you not understand?
It's not my fault you were unable to grasp plain English.
I asked you a question which I will type very slowly in the hope that you understand it. It is the sentence with a ? (that is a question mark) at the end.
Which part of SBC spent over £1million when they could have spent less than £10,000 do you not understand?
Tim Newroman
says...
5:07pm Thu 14 Mar 13
Tim Newroman says...
9:27am Thu 7 Mar 13
It always seemed to me that the anti-Croft School residents were always going to scream, 'Unfair lack of democracy from our appalling council' unless they got their way. It doesn't work like that.
The school's built, open and children are attending. Game over, really.