From Helen Edgar: Report following Cabinet Member’s meeting considering 125 year lease of land to Blue Coat Academy
The meeting of the Cabinet Member for Education (Cllr Lynette Kelly) on Wednesday 29th June 2011 was attended by Cllr Nellist who spoke on behalf of residents of the St Michael’s area. This followed Cllr Nellist’s call in, supported by Cllrs Foster and Noonan (both also present), of the Cabinet Member’s initial decision with the then Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, Cllr Clifford, to approve the transfer of land to Blue Coat School on 29th March 2011.
Other councillors were also present last Wednesday, including Cllr O’Boyle, another St Michael’s ward councillor and current Cabinet Member for Children and Young People. The headteacher of Blue Coat School, Dr Roberts, was present. She spoke to the meeting as did Dave Griffiths, chair of Charterhouse Residents Association (CRA), who was accompanied by nine other Charterhouse residents.
The council’s report for the meeting was compiled by Colin Green, the Director of Children, Learning and Young People and can be found here: http://cmis.coventry.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=19126
Cllr Nellist informed Cllr Kelly that he would welcome a “resolution” to the Charterhouse Fields issue which for him has meant an involvement of 23 or 24 years. However, he stated that “unfortunately this report doesn’t go far enough”. He started off by criticising the fact that there is no reference to any evidence that the school is the main user of the land. The council did not request evidence from residents prior to the compiling of its report. However, in the report (2.4, pg 4) they claim to have reminded residents several times.
Having explained that residents had not been informed about how and to whom evidence should be provided Cllr Nellist suggested that the council’s report be withdrawn and a decision be delayed until residents’ evidence could be considered. But Cllr Kelly, with whom the decision rested, said that the meeting was not to address the issue of whole or main user but to consider the recommendations of the Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee, recommendations that were first suggested by her!
Despite Cllr Kelly’s assertion, accompanied by some emphatic arm waving and eye rolling, the council’s report did include the main user issue in one of the options it presented for consideration at the meeting (3.3, pg 6), although not the one that it was recommending.
So what was meant to be considered during the Cabinet Member for Education’s meeting?
The minutes of the Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee meeting (27 April 2011) state the following:
http://cmis.coventry.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=18935
(a) that the decision on the transfer be referred back to the Cabinet Member for further consideration.
(b) that in the meantime independent legal advice be sought from counsel to ascertain whether a legal right to access land could be established.
(c) that the local authority permits local residents to make representations that could be passed to counsel to assist in their investigations.
(d) that the Cabinet Member and officers be asked to attempt to broker a dialogue between the school and residents.
(e) that the local authority continues to liaise with Jim Cunningham M.P. who would try to raise this issue with Michael Gove (Secretary of State for Education).
(f) that the Cabinet raises with the appropriate Cabinet Member, the issue of the status of the remaining part of Charterhouse Fields that was purchased in 1941 and was not part of this lease in order to have it classed as public open space as a matter of urgency. (pg 4)
So, surely under point (a) Cllr Kelly should have been addressing the issue of main user, especially because one reason for the call-in was “To enquire as to what evidence was considered to establish 2.1 re “land wholly or mainly used by the school in the preceding 8 years” (pg 2). This was also something Cllr Kelly commented upon during the Scrutiny meeting stating that “Whilst I am aware that members of the public have used this land e.g. for dog walking, shortcuts, etc, the legal advice I have been given is that the land we had proposed to transfer clearly falls into the category of mainly used by the school” (pg 3).
A few tweaks were made to the details of the lease despite Charterhouse Residents Association previously having been told that no further changes were possible but, on the whole, the lease will remain as it was at the time of the residents’ meeting on 24th June. If you haven’t already seen it you can look at the letter sent to residents’ explaining the details of the lease with map here:
http://www.charterhousefieldscampaign.co.uk/charterhouse-residents-meeting-rejects-coventry-city-council-mediation/
The changes mean that CRA is now to be recognised and involved, according to the lease, and no signage can go up without agreement between the school and CRA first. This last point was conceded only after one resident, a former Blue Coat pupil and parent of a current Blue Coat pupil, expressed her concerns about how the school might word any signs that might go up.
Also the council is now designating the field adjoining Tabletop as “public open space” (see section 3.1. of letter). This can all be seen as progress, especially when three months ago we had absolutely no involvement. However, the Academies Act 2010
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/32/pdfs/ukpga_20100032_en.pdf
refers to land used wholly or mainly by the school and yet this was not considered on 29th March when Cllrs Kelly and Clifford first agreed to the 125 year lease. Then part way through the meeting on 29th June, whilst Dave Griffiths was speaking, Cllr Kelly declared this issue could no longer be mentioned. The council’s new line on the Academies Act is that the issue of main user only comes into play if the Secretary of State has to intervene.
Dave Griffiths, chair of the CRA, repeated what Cllr Nellist had said about the council failing to ask us for evidence. The council did not consult their own rights of way officer who has been working with residents on establishing rights of way across the land and had received many forms from residents already. Dave also identified the council’s omission of the footpath on the Tabletop side of the river from its report, despite the work that the council put in with residents when creating the path, using taxpayers’ money. Officers were adamant that only one path could be included!
Residents object to the lease because it appears to have been approved based upon the presumption that the school has been the whole or main user for the past eight years. Despite having been assured of the opportunity to provide evidence to counsel (point (c) of Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee resolution), residents’ declarations failed to even be presented to the Cabinet Member, who had previously been so easily convinced that the field was “mainly used by the school”. A failure due, not to residents’ lack of effort but, to the lack of opportunity provided by the council and, in particular, Cllr Kelly. (96 sworn statutory declarations were hand delivered on 20th June and a further 25 on the morning of the meeting).
No real attempt has been made by the council to hear representations from the residents, other than the 15 minutes account of locals’ use of the fields given by CRA representatives on 8th June. This was at a meeting of the school, the council and three residents during which no account was provided, or requested, from the school. Feedback from those residents that attended the meeting on 8th June suggests to me that Cllr Kelly’s attitude has been obstructive rather than constructive. This, I also feel, was demonstrated in her meeting on 29th June, in both her words and her body language and the fact that she felt that her life was “too short”. This point was also commented upon by Cllr Foster via his twitter account.
Whilst Dr Roberts, Blue Coat School’s headteacher, was talking there were no interruptions or eye rolling from Cllr Kelly not even when the head admitted that the school has been using the fields more than usual of late because the gym has been set out for exams, surely an admission that they are normally rarely used by the school.
The report for the meeting last week listed four options for consideration but it was only option 4, the one recommended by the report, that was taken into account by Cllr Kelly. Option 1, which states “to accept that the school playing fields are not wholly or mainly used by the school and grant a lease without them” must previously have been deemed a no-goer during private meetings that we know have taken place between the council and the school especially as the report goes on to say “this would deprive the school and its pupils of any outdoor playing fields for the pursuit of its curriculum”. This statement is obviously ridiculous considering the dual use that we have all enjoyed since the school was built.
I expect my ward councillors to represent me. One of them did. Cllr Kelly, on the other hand, used an example from her ward of Henley to try to argue with Cllr Nellist over potential financial costs to residents of a village green application. This is obviously an attempt to scare and discourage residents from continuing with the application. The message that is being given is that if the school is not leased the land then it will lose its use of the fields. This is far from the truth and is not what residents are trying to achieve. We only want to ensure that our use of the fields continues and this can happen alongside that of the school.
