Tag: Cabinet

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about the sensory garden, resources, Elleray Park and Stanley (Part 5)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about the sensory garden, resources, Elleray Park and Stanley (Part 5)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about the sensory garden, resources, Elleray Park and Stanley (Part 5)

                            

Continues from Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about Stanley, Elleray, Foxfield & the educational psychologist (Part 4).

The next question was about the £80,000 that had been raised by the public to pay for a sensory garden at Lyndale School. He asked what plans do they have for the sensory garden and how would you plan to get the money back to the people that donated it?

Phil Ward answered, “Well what it is, if a school, my colleagues can talk about the buildings on the site, but if a school does close clearly there would be in keeping, well we don’t know. We don’t know”.. “well resources that can be used, well resources that can be used certainly”… David Armstrong said, “It’s a what if question because there’s no decision made. There’s no real gardens, there’s no decision been taken to determine it.” The questioner replied with, “Well I’m sure if we knew at the time that there was the chance that all our hard work would be”… “we would not have done all that hard work.” to which David Armstrong replied, “All I will say is, all I will say is, that certainly in my time here we’ve always treated the school sites, what I’ve tried to do is do it with real sensitivity to what’s been the best care that I can.”

The questioner said it was a very, very unique school. David Armstrong replied with, “What we’ve done is anything that related to a particular pupil, anything that was in memory of a particular pupil we’ve dealt with that first and then we’ve gone on from that”…. The questioner asked who put the amphitheatre at the back of Lyndale School to which David Armstrong replied, “I don’t know.” The person asking the question said it was put there by lads working on a Youth Training Scheme for Wirral Action to which David Armstrong replied, “I can’t know every single detail.”

Phil Ward said, “Well clearly we’ve closed that one down, time moves on, there are different circumstances and we are where we are now.”

Ian Lewis said, “Four years ago, when I was a member of the Cabinet, the officers insisted on .. the officers brought a recommendation to close the Kingsway Primary School in Seacombe. It wasn’t a special school, it isn’t a special school and the argument for closing the school was that it isn’t financially viable.

I and the rest of the Cabinet voted against that proposal and four years later that school is still open and in its recent OFSTED inspection it was found to be outstanding. So on what basis do you think that, for the two directors, on the basis that this here is a school is for children who are vulnerable? If in four years time that’s still here, who’s to say it won’t be viable?”…

“Secondly, you mentioned the teaching in the other schools that you’re proposing Elleray Park and Stanley. That as I understand it won’t be one to one as we currently have at Lyndale, so issues such as basic issues such as toileting they would be left. If the children going to Lyndale, assuming this proposal went through, the children from Lyndale went to those other two schools and if their current level of education was to be maintained I would expect that they would have one to one levels of support as they have now, wouldn’t that therefore affect the viability of those schools that they were going to if they’re having to increase staffing to cope with the one to one and that’s a question to the two directors.”

Phil Ward said, “Well I’ll just reply to the one question if I may..”

Ian Lewis replied, “Sorry, I’m not familiar with who you are. Who are you?”

Phil Ward replied, “I’m the Strategic Lead for Special Educational Needs for Wirral. The question of one to one,…”

Ian Lewis said, “Can I ask the directors that question please?”

Phil Ward said, “If you’ll let me get to the last bit, the question of, I’ll bring them in in a sec, the question of one to one, I’ve spoken with the headteachers at the other schools and the basic premise that we’re working on and the staff that we’re working on that every school, every special school in this consultation can provide similar same levels of support to the youngsters if they had to move. It’s all about to the management of the curriculum and staff within the schools. Nothing is ruled out, nothing is impossible. We would not be significantly changing support for the children at the school.”

Ian Lewis replied, “Sorry if you can’t answer a question than I don’t think you should be involved. You haven’t answered the question about the children.” Phil ward interrupts. Ian Lewis continues despite the interruption, “What I’m saying is, let me finish please, what you’ve said is, you will move resources around into the two existing schools because of the increase in, for the children at Lyndale and therefore by definition, the education of the children in these two schools, will be diminished” and again Phil Ward interrupted him and they both started talking at the same time. Ian Lewis continued, “No sorry, will you please let me finish!? Let me continue please! It’s very, very rude for an officer, thank you! What I’m saying to you is, if you’ve got a set finite number of resources and don’t look at me like that I’d appreciate it. If you’ve got a finite number of resources and you share those amongst the number of pupils, then what you’re doing by putting more of those resources onto the children that need it as we have at Lyndale you must be taking those resources from somewhere.”

Phil Ward replied, “Right, I think I’ll bring in the Director on that.”

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Kingsway, funding and hydrotherapy pools (part 6).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about banding, outdoor space and Stanley School (Part 3)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about banding, outdoor space and Stanley School (Part 3)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about banding, outdoor space and Stanley School (Part 3)

                          

Continues from Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: David Armstrong explains why there’s a consultation and questions begin (Part 2)

Julia Hassall said, “I think the point I was just going to raise is that we’ll make sure that the high level notes, I think it’s a very valuable suggestion looking at grouping them for each meeting to get a sense of the themes, are made public when we go to Cabinet with our report. So those will inform in part along with other things, the recommendations that are made to Cabinet.”

A member of the audience described the consultation document as “not worth the paper it’s written on” and “utterly deceiving”. Phil Ward replied with “point taken” and asked for any other questions?

A different member of the audience asked whether they would look at the banding system and see whether it was adequate? Phil Ward replied, “No, there is an intention for the work around the children, not n relation to costing but it was in relation to in the event of Cabinet agreeing to close the school and it finally does so, then we had captured the up to date information that we retain on the children so that we could begin, on an individual family basis, because we’re not talking about groups of children looking for one place or another, I have to speak up on an individual basis just to ensure that discussions with parents and discussions around the receiving schools and so forth we just had to give the fullest information. That was the purpose of that.”

David Armstrong said, “Just on the banding system, the banding system where we have five bands because of the special schools budget. Clearly, it’s new so it’s only been in place for a short while and I mentioned the Schools Forum before. We had an issue before to review that, clearly we’ve got to make it run for this financial year.” He referred to the Schools Forum and how questions about the banding feed into the Schools Forum.

Someone in the audience said that even if the school was full, that this didn’t matter as what mattered was whether they were adequately funded because without that they couldn’t stay open. Phil Ward replied to that and Councillor Dave Mitchell referred to a petition to Council five years ago about Lyndale School and a presentation. He referred to bullet points from the agreed notice of motion and other issues presented at that time. He asked if that would be presented to Cabinet?

David Armstrong replied, “The Cabinet report will have to include the history of all the previous reports that have gone over the last couple of…”

Councillor Dave Mitchell asked, “Will that include the decisions made by Council which were fully supported by all parties?” David Armstrong answered, “No, it would just include references to previous reports.” Councillor Dave Mitchell replied, “I think that’s a very important issue, it should be actually highlighted. It was a notice of motion to Council and it was fully supported by the local authority at that time.” Julia Hassall said, “We did make very clear reference to that to my recollection at the call in.” Phil Ward thanked Councillor Dave Mitchell for his point.

Someone from the audience said they wanted to raise a point about outdoor space at the three schools (Lyndale, Elleray Park and Stanley). She said she thought it was where it’s going to fall down on the SEN [Improvement] Test. Lyndale School was described as “it’s an absolutely fabulous site, it’s got established gardens, it’s got established trees, we take children out into the garden, we take lessons in the garden, we take children at a lunchtime”. She said, “the idea of squashing people in is not conducive to a good education”. Phil Ward replied, “Thank you for that point.”

The next question was about Stanley School. David Armstrong replied, “The school’s brand new and what we learnt when the Lyndale School was built was looking at primary schools. We built them absolutely tight on the existing campus. We found that the schools became more popular and also you’re building something for fifty or sixty years. We’re building something for fifty or sixty years, so we’re building to a generous standard and the new style that was built to a generous standard.

The school, the school that we’re building had a capacity of ninety pupils. The new building is capable of taking a hundred and ten and the reason for that is that we’ll be building to the maximum standards in place, we’re building some spare capacity because we’re investing several million pounds for the next couple of years.”

The next question was if there were any children with profound and multiple learning disabilities at Stanley School? David Armstrong answered, “The school was built to take the full range of pmld [profound and multiple learning disabilities]. The same questioner asked, “Are there any there at the moment?” followed by asking that if you put four or five from Lyndale into the school surely it would fail the SEN [Improvement] test as Lyndale provided one to one care in a school that catered for their complex needs? Phil Ward replied, but people started talking over each other again.

Julia Hassall said that she’d talked about the children with profound and multiple learning disabilities not growing in size, but that there had been an increase in children with complex learning difficulties, the questioner referred to the numbers over the last five years. Julia Hassall replied, “In terms of how we meet the SEN Improvement Test we are confident that the staff at the Stanley School…” and then was then interrupted.

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: questions about Stanley, Elleray, Foxfield, the educational psychologist (Part 4).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall explains why Wirral Council are consulting on closure (Part 1)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall explains why Wirral Council are consulting on closure (Part 1)

Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: Julia Hassall explains why Wirral Council are consulting on closure (Part 1)

                            

The last of the meetings concerning the consultation on closing Lyndale School was held in the hall at Acre Lane Professional Excellence Centre. There to answer questions people had were David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive), Julia Hassall (Director of Children’s Services), Andrew Roberts and Phil Ward (who was chairing the meeting). There was also a sign language interpreter called Sue March, however Phil Ward sent the sign language interpreter away as there was no one present (from the twenty-five or so others present at the start of the meeting) that indicated they needed sign language interpretation.

Labour’s Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services Councillor Tony Smith arrived about five minutes late to the meeting. He sat with the three officers, but didn’t take a part in answering the questions people had.

Julia Hassall said she was “pleased to see so many people” and that there had been some people who had been to all six meetings. She was giving the same introduction at each one, which was drawn from the consultation document (copies of which were available for people at the meeting). She described Lyndale School as a special school in Eastham for children with complex learning disabilities whose viability was compromised by a falling roll and a small number of children.

It was at this point that Councillor Tony Smith arrived.

She repeated a point she had made at a previous meeting, that the consultation on closure was nothing to do with standards of education at the school as the last OFSTED inspection in November 2012 had concluded that the school was good with many outstanding aspects. However in her view Wirral Council needed to get future provision right and in her view two other schools (Elleray Park and Stanley) were able to provide good quality education and care.

Ms Hassall said that the closure proposal was not linked to Wirral Council’s need to save money as any money saved would be used elsewhere, however they were under a duty to make sure there were sufficient school places. She referred to the Children and Young Peoples Plan and the Children and Families Act 2014 c.6. She said that the new legislation would improve the partnership between education and health as the care plan would detail how both education and health would meet the children’s needs in a joined up way.

She referred to the report to the Cabinet meeting of the 16th January when they had agreed to start the consultation and the other options that were being consulted on (she went through the options some of which other than closure were becoming a 2-19 school, federating with another school, co locating with another school, becoming a free school or academy). The full list of options are detailed in an appendix to the Cabinet report. Julia Hassall said that during the consultation all options and any new ones were being considered.

Continuing she told those present that the Cabinet decision of the 16th January had been called in and looked at again by the Coordinating Committee on the 5th February and 27th February. She said that the Coordinating Committee had recommended that the consultation start, which had begun on the 2nd April.

Since the consultation had begun, there had been three meeting in April, two already in June with this meeting being the last of the six. Issues that had been brought up previously were referred to. She said that they had to apply the SEN Improvement Test as any alternative had to be as good as or better than the current provision. Julia Hassall said that they had agreed to engage an independent consultant Lynn Wright (Ed – I am unsure of the exact spelling of this person’s name however this was what it sounded like Julia Hassall said) to offer advice how how they looked at the eight options, any new options and to assess how they applied the SEN Improvement Test. She said that Lynn Wright was not known to the officers prior to this and would produce a separate report with an independent view that would be included when Cabinet decided whether to proceed for a formal proposal.

If Cabinet decided to proceed to the next stage, then there would be a four week statutory representations period and if Cabinet finally approved to close the school it would close at the end of the summer term in 2015 and children at Lyndale would be transferred in September 2015. She wanted to stress that no decision had been made and they would take everybody’s views into account. Ms Hassall referred to someone called Janice who was taking notes on the front row. She continued by saying that small schools could go into financial deficit whereas larger schools had more flexibility and could spend a higher proportion on teaching and meeting children’s needs.

Every January they took a census of pupil numbers. There were 401 children attending nursery with complex learning difficulties and within this 401, sixty-four had profound and multiple learning difficulties. However the number of children with profound and multiple learning difficulties had been similar over the past four years and wasn’t a growing trend. She referred to the number of places at Elleray Park and how through discussions with the school and building work they planned to increase the places there to 110. Stanley School had moved from its former site to a purpose built school and in her view they could add a further five to ten more children there without an extension but could extend it if needed to give sufficient places. She referred to a meeting between the Chief Executive (Graham Burgess) and three parent governors and how there would be a further meeting on Friday (20th June). She then handed over to David Armstrong.

Continues at Lyndale School Consultation Meeting: David Armstrong explains why there’s a consultation and questions begin (Part 2).

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

2 different opinions on what regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 means

2 different opinions on what regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 means

2 different opinions on what regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 means

                           

This is going to be a rather long and detailed piece about whether Wirral Council’s eviction notice for Fernbank Farm was valid (or in other words lawful). It is something that Wirral Council and I have a difference of opinion on. I have numbered these paragraphs for ease of reference in any comments people might wish to make.

1. On the 8th August 2012, Wirral Council started a case in the Birkenhead County Court requested a possession order for the land known as Fernbank Farm at Sandbrook Lane, Moreton. The defendants were two trustees of the Upton Park Pony Owners Association and are called Mrs Kane and a Mrs Woodley.

2. The statement of truth to Wirral Council’s claim and particulars of claim was signed on the 5th August 2013 by Surjit Tour.

3. Attached to Wirral Council’s claim form were particulars of claim and a map detailing the land the matter was in relation to, which was 10.12 acres. The particulars of claim outlined the history between Wirral Council and the defendants. The history was that Wirral Council had entered into a lease of the land with the two defendants on the 29th July 2008. This fixed term lease expired on July 2011 and became a monthly periodic tenancy. Rent was paid by the defendants of £4,200 a year payable by equal monthly instalments.

4. On the 13th July 2012, Wirral Council served a notice on the two tenants. The notice served on each tenant were identical and were both of the form which is form one in Schedule 2 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004. This form is headed “LANDLORD’S NOTICE ENDING A BUSINESS TENANCY WITH PROPOSALS FOR A NEW ONE”.

5. Regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 state “The form with the number shown in column (1) of Schedule 1 to these Regulations is prescribed for use for the purpose shown in the corresponding entry in column (2) of that Schedule.” The prescribed purpose for the form that Wirral Council used is stated as “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).” “Act” refers to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

6. According to the notice, if a new tenancy was not agreed between Wirral Council and the defendants before 31st May 2013, then the defendants had the right to apply to the court to order the grant of a new tenancy. If no agreement was reached and no application made then the tenancy would end on the 31st May 2013 (unless Wirral Council agreed to extend the deadline).

7. The form itself which contains the words (attach or insert proposed terms of the new tenancy) was accompanied with Wirral Council’s proposals for a new tenancy. Wirral Council’s offer was to increase the rent to £4,500 and charge £500 for legal fees.

8. Before the deadline of 31st May 2013, Mrs Kane wrote to Wirral Council agreeing different terms to that which were proposed. She agreed to no increase in the rent (£4,200 instead of £4,500) and for a waiver of legal fees for reasons outlined in her letter. Wirral Council did not agree her proposed terms.

9. On the 27th September 2012, Wirral Council’s Cabinet (comprising of ten Labour councillors) discussed an item called “Local Development Framework – Core Strategy – Publication of Proposed Submission Draft”. The minutes reflect the following concern about one of the recommendations expressed by a Councillor Pat Hackett “Councillor Pat Hackett raised concerns that planning policy was being revoked which could have implications on greenbelt land. He asked Officers to take all necessary steps to try to ensure that the greenbelt was not eroded.”

Despite Councillor Pat Hackett’s concerns, the Cabinet agreed the following recommendation (which was recommendation four out of nine agreed): “recommends to the Council that the Interim Planning Policy be revoked, to allow decisions to be determined in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan, the Regional Spatial Strategy (until it is revoked) and the National Planning Policy Framework and to allow sites within the previously restricted areas to contribute towards the ongoing housing land supply;”.

10. A meeting of all of Wirral Council councillors (except three who had sent their apologies) met on the 15th October 2012 to consider the Cabinet’s recommendation. An objection to the Cabinet minute (Local Development Framework for Wirral – Core Strategy – Publication of Proposed Submission Draft) had been received. This objection was proposed by Councillor Stuart Kelly and seconded by Councillor Dave Mitchell. This objection (if passed) would’ve deleted recommendation 4 and replaced it with a new recommendation 4: “(4) Council, therefore, requires that the LDF policies retain the principles and policies currently outlined within the current interim planning policy for new housing development for the purposes of development control and regeneration.”. The matter was not debated and there was a vote on the objection. Twenty-six councillors voted in favour of the objection and thirty-six councillors against (with the Mayor abstaining). The voting was split along party political lines. The twenty-six councillors who voted in favour of the objection were the Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors (apart from the Mayor who abstained). The thirty-six councillors who voted against the objection were Labour councillors. The objection was therefore lost and in mid-October 2012 Wirral Council’s planning policy changed.

11. Wirral Council’s position, which in July 2012 had been stated in the eviction notice unequivocally as “I am not opposed to granting you a new tenancy” to “I am opposed to granting you a new tenancy”. Mr Dickenson told those at the fast track trial that answered that he had been told not to engage in discussions with the tenants between November 2012 and May 2013.

12. Wirral Council’s change of position was not communicated to the tenants. If the landlord is opposed to the granting of a new tenancy then the regulations require that a different form (form 2) should be used which has very different wording to form 1. Wirral Council could have (in either October or November 2012) sent the tenants a new eviction notice and explained to the tenants that their position had changed. However they did not, leading the tenants to believe that Wirral Council still wanted to renew the tenancy. When questioned Wirral Council maintain that there is no legal mechanism to withdraw their earlier eviction notice.

13. Wirral Council asserted in their particulars of claim that as a result of the eviction notice that the “tenancy had been terminated in accordance with the law and the Claimant is therefore entitled to possession”.

14. There are a number of questions that arise however. If Wirral Council genuinely were not opposed to granting a new tenancy, why was a new tenancy not agreed between Wirral Council and the defendants between July and October of 2012? Does Wirral Council’s later change of heart in October 2012 render the earlier eviction notice of July 2012 invalid as they did not send out another?

15. Various court cases have determined the questions that need to be asked to determine whether eviction notices are valid or invalid. In a decision of the United Kingdom Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) [2012] UKUT 20 (LC) paragraph 42 of the judgement of George Bartlett QC, President stated:

Mr Barnes submitted that, save in a few exceptional circumstances, a failure to comply with a procedural requirement in relation to something such as the content of a notice will not invalidate the notice if either (a) the non-compliance is insubstantial so that there has been substantial compliance with the requirement or (b) the non-compliance has been waived or (c) the non-compliance does not result in any significant detriment to the other party. He relied for this submission on R v. Home Secretary, ex p Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354. Mr Baatz said that Jeyeanthan did not provide the right test, because it was concerned with a failure to comply with a statutory procedural requirement and not, as here, a failure going to jurisdiction. The correct approach in relation to statutory notices in respect of property was that set out by the Court of Appeal in the later decision of Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd [2002] 1 EGLR 61. This simply required asking two questions: what does the statute require? and does the notice fulfil those requirements?

16. Regulation 3 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 states “The form with the number shown in column (1) of Schedule 1 to these Regulations is prescribed for use for the purpose shown in the corresponding entry in column (2) of that Schedule.”

Schedule 1 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 states in relation to form one that Wirral Council used that the purpose for which it is to be used is “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).”

17. The date the eviction notice was sent was 13th July 2012. The date the eviction notice stated that the tenancy would end was 31st May 2013. If the serving of the eviction notice ended the tenancy on the 31st May 2013 and its purpose is defined in statute as “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).” surely on the date the eviction notice ends the tenancy (31st May 2013) then the landlord has to not be opposed to the grant of a new tenancy on the date the tenancy ends?

18. If the regulations stated that the purpose of the eviction notice was “Ending a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Act applies, where the landlord was not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy (notice under section 25 of the Act).” then I would agree with Wirral Council’s position that the eviction notice brought the tenancy to an end. However Wirral Council’s position on the 31st May 2012 was that it was opposed to the grant of a new tenancy.

19. Therefore does this render the eviction notice invalid and therefore it did not end the tenancy on the 31st May 2013? If so then the monthly periodic tenancy is still in effect and the tenants are also in lawful occupation of the land.

20. The result of the fast track trial was that Wirral Council has a possession order awarded in February 2014 which will come into effect in February 2015. Therefore this needs to be cleared up before then.

I’d be interested to hear other people’s opinion on this matter. Please point out if I’ve made some error or mistake. The above is just my opinion. As detailed here I did ask Surjit Tour to produce a report on this matter. His position is that when the eviction notice was served, Wirral Council weren’t opposed to granting the tenancy. However Wirral Council’s position later changed (before the date for ending the tenancy stated in the eviction notice). Therefore he views the eviction notice as lawfully ending the tenancy and valid. He therefore does not see this as a matter, that he as Monitoring Officer has a legal duty to write a report on for councillors.

Personally, I think it’s a matter that reasonable people can take a completely opposite viewpoint on. Sadly the wording, meaning and interpretation of the regulations of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 weren’t brought up (apart from the Judge asking Wirral Council to provide a copy of the prescribed form) during the fast track trial.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.

10 weeks left in Lyndale School closure consultation

10 weeks left in Lyndale School closure consultation

10 weeks left in Lyndale School closure consultation

                       

front of thank you card from Lyndale staff and children
Front of thank you card from Lyndale staff and children (you can click on the image for a higher quality version)

inside of thank you card from Lyndale staff and children
(you can click on the image for a higher quality version)

As you can see above, Leonora and I received a thank you card fortnight ago from the Lyndale staff and children (the scanned images probably don’t do it justice). So I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Lyndale staff and children for the thank you card.

In the three and half years since starting this blog I think it’s the first thank you card that Leonora and I have received and came completely out of the blue so I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Lyndale staff and children for creating it and sending it.

The consultation on closing Lyndale School started on April 2nd. The consultation document can be downloaded here, as well as the Cabinet report. The link from Wirral Council’s consultation page to the Coordinating Committee report doesn’t work. However it can be read on this blog at pages five to six of this document. Hopefully Wirral Council will fix the link! There is also a feedback form and Wirral Council has more detail about the consultation on closing Lyndale School on this page on their website.

Video of the original Cabinet decision of the 16th January is below (the item starts in the first video at 1:53). Video of the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February is below that. This blog has also published transcripts of the Lyndale School item at the Cabinet meeting and a partial transcript of the Coordinating Committee meeting. The transcript of the Lyndale item at the Cabinet meeting can be found at How did the Lyndale School closure consultation begin?. The Coordinating Committee item on Lyndale School last for about three and a half hours. The first transcript of it is at What did officers say at the Lyndale School call in? “we had a problem the rules mattered more than the children”, followed by What did officers say about Lyndale School in reply to “how much money you would expect to get if you sold that land?”. During the consultation period I hope to have the time to type up some more transcripts of the Coordinating Committee meeting.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Wirral Council Cabinet meeting of 16th January 2014 at which the decision to consult on closing Lyndale School was made

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Wirral Council Coordinating Committee meeting of 27th February 2014 at which the Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School was reviewed

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.