Fri, 20
13 °C
Sat, 21
15 °C
Sun, 22
12 °C

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Fair Funding speech at full council meeting

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Fair Funding speech at full council meeting

Tom Roddy

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Fair Funding speech at full council meeting

Here is the full statement read out at last night's full council meeting by Lindsey Blake, on behalf of Catherine del Campo, lead petitioner for the Developer Funding Petition.

On behalf of the Fair Funding team and all our supporters, thank you for inviting me to speak here this evening and agreeing to listen to our concerns.

In the sixteen days that our developer-­funding petition was open, it received over 1,600 signatures — an average of 100 a day — and we believe this may be the Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead’s most popular online petition ever. It is fair to say that there is wide support for a review of the decision to award almost half a million pounds of developer funding to Holyport College, a brand new school two-­and-­a-half miles away from the development in question.

Signatures have been received from residents throughout the borough and of all political viewpoints; even loyal Conservative voters have voiced their concerns to us. It stands to reason then that a good proportion of those who signed the petition will also have voted this council into power.

The council claims to have already answered our questions, but frankly, we’ve been left with more than we started with.

Take for example, the requirement for developer funds to be restricted to one or two schools. At the public meeting on 13th July, we were first told this requirement came from the planning team because of new pooling rules, then that the developer had made the stipulation and then, that the planning team and the developer had come up with the restriction together. It’s difficult to know what to believe, especially as the developer emailed us this week to say, “The level of contribution and nature of project to be funded was dictated by RBWM, as is normal practice.”

It’s easy to see why we feel misled.

On the subject of fast-­tracking the money from council funds, something we’d like to see revoked, I quote from the Head of Children’s Services: “Why wait? The school is willing and able to accept more pupils for September 2015, allowing us to offer more children a place at a school they want to attend.”

This week, however, we discovered the minutes of the March 19th Governors’ meeting at Holyport College, which was chaired by Councillor Dudley in his capacity as Chair of Governors. It turns out that the changing rooms are not even adequate for the college’s original planned intake this September. Again, I quote word for word:

“Mr Stephenson noted in particular that lack of changing room space and it was noted that these may be addressed within the potential expansion of the College. The head master noted that this really needed to be addressed before the pupil population doubled in September 2015.”

We have been told time and time again that this money is being awarded to aid additional expansion but it is now clearer than ever that the changing rooms are nowhere near fit for purpose and that this funding is being used to throw Holyport College a lifeline.

Why has this council, which is committed to openness and transparency, glossed over the real reasons for advancing the money? 

As you can imagine, we have many more questions which have either not been fully answered or not answered at all. But in the time left, I’d like to address the way we have been dealt with by our elected representatives and their officers.

A freedom of information request to see Holyport College’s plans and submissions has gone unanswered, and follow-­up emails have not been acknowledged. A code of conduct complaint, which should have been responded to within two weeks has not been answered, more than six weeks later.

Why is the council neglecting its responsibilities to respond to information requests and complaints?

We have been told that our questions will only be answered face to face from now on. Given the number of outstanding questions at the last meeting, to which only a handful of people were invited and for which no follow-up meeting has been planned, this effectively denies us a voice.

Why is this council trying to shut down dialogue? It’s no wonder we’re “jumping up and down”.

When we have tried to engage with our councillors on social media, we have been named and shamed online, blocked on Twitter, labelled as ‘trolls’ and dismissed as ‘opposition’.

Should councillors who use social media to promote their political activities and interests be blocking and belittling the people they claim to serve?

Let me make it clear that this campaign has never been about politics or opposition to free schools. We are not your opposition, we are ordinary people looking at this decision and saying it’s not right, and we’re not happy with the way the council has acted. We are mums and dads, grannies and granddads; we are teachers, head teachers, governors and heads of governors; we support Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and none of the above; some of us even work for free schools because we are passionate about changing children’s lives. We know what outstanding looks like and quite frankly, we are looking at a council which needs a lot of improvement.

I hope that by now you have a sense of the strength of feeling amongst the borough’s residents; people who want a fair deal for all our children, including the ones who have no choice but to go to so-­called ‘coasting and failing schools’. Even where the borough’s schools have opted out of local authority control, your responsibility to those children did not end — instead, your job to provide them with a quality education just got a whole lot harder. You now have the opportunity to debate this petition. Please do the right thing. Revoke the April 28th decision, don’t rubber-­stamp it — you work for us, and we deserve better.

Thank you.

On
behalf
of
the
Fair
Funding
team
and
all
our
supporters,
thank
you
for
inviting
me
to
speak
here
this
evening
and
agreeing
to
listen
to
our
concerns.
In
the
sixteen
days
that
our
developer-­funding
petition
was
open,
it
received
over
1,600
signatures

an
average
of
100
a
day

and
we
believe
this
may
be
the
Borough
of
Windsor
and
Maidenhead’s
most
popular
online1
petition
ever.
It
is
fair
to
say
that
there
is
wide
support
for
a
review
of
the
decision
to
award
almost
half
a
million
pounds
of
developer
funding
to
Holyport
College,
a
brand-­new
school
two-­and-­a-­half
miles
away
from
the
development
in
question.
Signatures
have
been
received
from
residents
throughout
the
borough
and
of
all
political
viewpoints;
even
loyal
Conservative
voters
have
voiced
their
concerns
to
us.
It
stands
to
reason
then
that
a
good
proportion
of
those
who
signed
the
petition
will
also
have
voted
this
council
into
power.
The
council
claims
to
have
already
answered
our
questions,
but
frankly,
we’ve
been
left
with
more
than
we
started
with.
Take
for
example,
the
requirement
for
developer
funds
to
be
restricted
to
one
or
two
schools.
At
the
public
meeting
on
13th
July,
we
were
first
told
this
requirement
came
from
the
planning
team
because
of
new
pooling
rules,
then
that
the
developer
had
made
the
stipulation
and
then,
that
the
planning
team
and
the
developer
had
come
up
with
the
restriction
together.
It’s
difficult
to
know
what
to
believe,
especially
as
the
developer
emailed
us
this
week
to
say,
“The
level
of
contribution
and
nature
of
project
to
be
funded
was
dictated
by
RBWM,
as
is
normal
practice.”
It’s
easy
to
see
why
we
feel
misled.
On
the
subject
of
fast-­tracking
the
money
from
council
funds,
something
we’d
like
to
see
revoked,
I
quote
from
the
Head
of
Children’s
Services:
“Why
wait?
The
school
is
willing
and
able
to
accept
more
pupils
for
September
2015,
allowing
us
to
offer
more
children
a
place
at
a
school
they
want
to
attend.”
This
week,
however,
we
discovered
the
minutes
of
the
March
19th
Governors’
meeting
at
Holyport
College,
which
was
chaired
by
Councillor
Dudley
in
his
capacity
as
Chair
of
Governors.
It
turns
out
that
the
changing
rooms
are
not
even
adequate
for
the
college’s
original
planned
intake
this
September.
Again,
I
quote
word
for
word:
“Mr
Stephenson
noted
in
particular
that
lack
of
changing
room
space
and
it
was
noted
that
these
may
be
addressed
within
the
potential
expansion
of
the
College.
The
Head
Master
noted
that
this
really
needed
to
be
addressed
before
the
pupil
population
doubled
in
September
2015.”
We
have
been
told
time
and
time
again
that
this
money
is
being
awarded
to
aid
additional
expansion
but
it
is
now
clearer
than
ever
that
the
changing
rooms
are
nowhere
near
fit
for
purpose
and
that
this
funding
is
being
used
to
throw
Holyport
College
a
lifeline.
Why
has
this
council,
which
is
committed
to
openness
and
transparency,
glossed
over
the
real
reasons
for
advancing
the
money?
1
Combined
online/paper
petitions
have
secured
more
votes

Comments

Leave your comment

Share your opinions on

Characters left: 1500

Most Shared

Most Commented

Top Ten Articles