School has no Plan B if its current scheme is rejected

Three things emerged most clearly for me. First, that the school urgently needs money spending on improving its premises and facilities.

Second, the arguments put forward for the absolute necessity of building on the green belt land at Wheatley Lane are inadequate.

Third, the school itself tacitly conceded that their are concerns with creating very large establishments.

However, my real concern is that, whatever the pros and cons of the proposed site, there appears to be no ‘Plan B’ if, as seems quite possible, the current proposals fail. The Wheatley Lane scheme is the only one being offered by the planners, and indeed the only one that was seriously evaluated. One can speculate on the reasons for this – most obviously, that the sale and redevelopment of the existing school site, together with the old Middle School site, would be financially attractive to Bradford and also help the council with its housing targets. The Wheatley Lane scheme is supposedly the planners’ “preferred” one. What, I should like to know, is their second preference? If they don’t have one, where does that leave the school if the preferred scheme is rejected? The current proposals, it seems to me, were based on what might be called the Tony Blair approach to planning – selecting the evidence to fit the only outcome that you want.

I believe that other alternatives for secondary eduction in Wharfedale that should be being actively explored with a more open mind about what would meet all the various educational and environmental concerns. Possibilities already raised include example a second school somewhere in the Burley/Menston area, where projected population increase is greatest, or building a new school for 11 to 16s on the old Middle School site together with a sixth form college located on either the existing IGS or old Spooners factory sites. I’m sure there are others that should be considered.

It seems quite evident that the current IGS proposals were hastily concocted as a result of short-term expediency. This is not the basis on which the future of educational provision should be decided.

Peter Higginbotham

Cheltenham Avenue, Ilkley

Solutions exist on present site

I would like to take issue with some of the contents in your article and the letter from the Chair of Governors at Ilkley Grammar School (February 4). That the school exists in its present form is probably due to the fact that I was one of those, on the executive of the Education Committee of Bradford council, way back last century, who drove through the reorganisation of the system from three tiers to two. The arguments for that change were overwhelming and if anything the phrase not fit for purpose, which is much bandied about in the current debate, could have been applied to the old system.

However I do remember there being vociferous opposition to this move. One of the arguments for retaining the old system was the intimate nature of the middle school and it being an ideal transition from primary school; that a large secondary school would be impersonal, kids just moving from primary would be lost, intimidated, overwhelmed and perhaps exposed to bullying.

In 2000, the last year of the old grammar school the role was 1,030 and with reorganisation we foresaw this rising by over 400 which would have been quite big enough. Now the chair of governors is championing a mega school.

The educational disadvantages of schools of around 2,000 pupils, according to much research, are problems of indiscipline, bullying and low attainment.

The school says there are “Increasing difficulties in serving the admissions desires of our local community.” Well in the school’s e-mail to parents last week it says that there are only 53 pupils from Keighley and Silsden. Putting aside the redefinition of the Wharfe valley as including the Aire Valley, what were the families of those 11 kids from Addingham told when they could not get admission recently? The fact is that, according to their own documents, submitted in the planning application – a postcode data table, that there are 109 kids from 25 Bradford Postal Districts and 28 (137 in total) from eight Leeds postal districts outside the LS29 catchment area. If Bradford Council wants a North Bradford Grammar School it should come clean.

It may be that there are problems with the current site and all of us who oppose ravaging the Green Belt would support a sympathetic solution but it is not right that rebuilding there is impossible.There are architects and civil engineering contractors, given £30m, who could come up with a solution which would produce the all singing all dancing school aspired to and will even supply specialists who will manage such things as decanting pupils and rehousing them in a phased programme.

Any of the four options put forward could have been perfectly viable (even though there were difficulties with three of them). Because the easy option was chosen and preferred that does not pass the test set by National and local Planning policies that Very Special or Exceptional circumstances have to be demonstrated to take land out of the Green Belt. They would have to demonstrate that it would be impossible to build on the current site to pass that test and the existence of three other options shows that this is simply not the case.

It is also being said that 1 “Funding Constraints mean only Bradford Council land could be considered.” Why then were funding constraints not taken into consideration when the need to purchase three parcels of privately owned land around the site will be required, as envisaged by the plan, and they will be at prohibitively ransom strip prices to say nothing of the vast sums needed for drainage, sewage, traffic and other expenses such as bridge building which the application admits there is no budget for.

2. “Cowpasture Road site is above springs” is put forward as one of the difficulties for not extending on the current site. Do they imagine Ben Rhydding is not riddled with springs? Local drainage experts say that the present watercourse is flat and liable to silting and a new drain would be necessary - and at a massive cost. To discharge into the Wharfe it would need to either to cross the sports ground or an SEGI and what chance is there of that?

3. The opportunity for accessing some £30m of investment is limited. Do the school governors not know that this is not free money or some sort of government grant but merely a permission to borrow the money. And there will always be opportunities to borrow money in the future –hopefully the government will get the economy right and the country will not be as “bankrupt” as it is now. This not the sort of old-fashioned capital expenditure arrangement but to be accessed through the extortionately expensive PFI regime which tax and Council tax payers will be burdened with for years to come. Just to add insult to that sort of injury if the scheme does go ahead we will also probably be paying for years to come for “the Major Building Programme in 1970” and the “extensive building programme” over two years from 2000 including the schools extension block even though it may be demolished!

Sandy MacPherson

Wheatley Lane, Ben Rhydding

Let’s fight for the best solution

It was clear from last Thursday’s public meeting that most people there, whether for or against Integrated Bradford's plan to build a new school in Ben Rhydding, want the best educational provision for the children of the Wharfe Valley.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that all possible solutions to the problem of the existing site have been considered and I am therefore not convinced that what we are being offered is the best solution. Instead, parents and teachers are being emotionally blackmailed into believing that if we don’t pursue this option now, then the £30 million being loaned to build the school will be lost forever, together with the opportunity to improve our children’s education. We, as a community, should not submit to this pressure.

Instead, we should campaign and support the school to get the initial consultation process reopened. That process was deficient: the publicity was ineffective, the significance and importance of the events not conveyed, the time for responses short, and, perhaps most importantly, only four options were presented.

Three of these related to proposed works on the current site and Valley Drive, while the fourth option involved building a new school in Ben Rhydding. The consultation meetings merely went through the four options, listing the advantages and disadvantages of each, (purely from the planners'/school’s perspective), and involved no consideration of the many other key issues, such as transport. The community has therefore been denied the opportunity to be consulted on issues such as, why no consideration has been given to the brown field site in the centre of town, (formerly Spooners); why land in private hands was dismissed prior to consultation without approach to landowners;

what the real cost of the proposed build will be once issues such as significant highway improvements have been worked in and where this money will come from;

will the £30m produce a top quality school or will corners be cut to meet that relatively small sum; whether we as tax payers will be getting real value for money;

whether we want our children educated in a school of 2,000 pupils; whether smaller schools in Ilkley and Menston would better meet the future educational need of the soon to be expanded Wharfe Valley;

whether Addingham children will indeed be guaranteed places at the new school if the proposed level of new build in Menston takes place;

and what will happen to the vacated land on Cowpasture Road and Valley Drive and how will Ilkley and its already over-subscribed primary schools cope with any resultant house building programme?

Until we have been given the opportunity to have these and other relevant questions answered, we should not subscribe to what appears to be a poorly thought out proposal, rushed through in an attempt to secure the £30m before it can be taken off the table.

As we know from recent planning campaigns involving The Wheatley and Tesco, Wharfe Valley people can be a significant force once they come together. If a proper consultation resulted in a real solution to the current school problem then the whole community, working alongside IGS staff and students, could bring pressure on Bradford MDC to ensure that our children get the 21st century school they truly deserve.

Cherry Dexter

Strathmore Road, Ilkley

Good pubs will still thrive if smoking ban is exapanded

Otley MP Greg Mulholland’s comments about extending the smoking ban led me to one immediate conclusion: that he is a dedicated smoker. Why else would he so vigourously defend smoking in public places, since it is not at all obvious that it would be detrimental to pubs?

Before the smoking ban first came in, everyone was worried about how smokers would react, but they just went outside. In fact, last time I was on holiday in a non-ban country, I saw English people going out for a cigarette because they no longer liked smoke or smoking indoors. Sending them a little further away from where non-smokers are likely to gather in large numbers might once again encourage people to clock onto the unpleasant effects of their habits.

As for the detrimental effect on pubs, Mr Mulholland rightly nods to the “current climate” as hitting hard, which means that duties, rent, rates, drinks, everything a pub pays for is now massively more expensive than a couple of years ago.

However, there are pubs that are thriving even in this climate, pubs that are busier than last year, busier than before the financial crisis.Without wanting to seem like I’m blowing my own trumpet (I work at a successful pub), I have to say that I believe the reason for this to be that such pubs offer something that failing pubs don’t: quality. Clean, comfortable pubs with well-trained staff, good food and well-kept beer don’t have anything to fear from the economic crisis or an extension to the smoking ban.

I say bring it on. In the best case scenario, landlords will see it as a challenge and work even harder to provide customers with a top notch experience every time.

Emily Hallewell Wilton Road, Ilkley