Tag: Councillor Steve Foulkes

Planning Committee approves planning application for houses in Irby by seven votes to five

Planning Committee approves planning application for houses in Irby by seven votes to five

Planning Committee approves planning application for houses in Irby by seven votes to five

                        

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.

Video of Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting of the 16th April 2014

The Planning Committee meeting started as usual with her usual spiel about who were sitting around the tables (which considering that everyone had name plates seems a little unnecessary). She said that to her left was the solicitor (Rosemary Lyons) to “make sure everything is done legally” and that the officers (of which there were four) to her left where there to “guide us through our decisions and make sure everything is done appropriately with planning legislation”.

If the Chair thinks the role of the officers to her left is to make sure that decisions about planning applications are made according to planning legislation, then what’s the purpose of having a solicitor too? When every other committee at Wirral Council manages to cope with one legal adviser why does the Planning Committee need five to advise it on such matters?

She then went on to recap the rules on speaking for petitioners and applicants. The only change to usual is that she said, “A ward councillor can come forward and talk upon any item in their ward and they can speak for longer than five minutes but everybody only gets a chance to address the Planning Committee once.”

Until recently ward councillors were under the impression they could address the Planning Committee at any time when a planning application concerning their ward was being discussed. The Code of conduct for Planning Committee meetings and Wirral Council’s constitution have nothing in them about ward councillors talking at Planning Committee meetings. Certainly in the recent past at least one councillor thought they could speak at any time but the Chair told them they couldn’t. The only reference in the constitution to councillors and Planning Committees is that ward councillors can decide that they want a planning application to be decided by the Planning Committee rather than by officers.

The constitution states that any councillor can decide that a planning application is decided by the Planning Committee. The fact this isn’t limited to councillors in the ward the planning application relates to has been misused in the past. With fictional names I’ll give an example.

Mrs Smith is standing as the Labour candidate in Puddleton (a made up ward that doesn’t exist on the Wirral). Unfortunately for Mrs Smith Puddleton has three councillors from a different political party who know she is the Labour candidate in Puddleton. Mrs Smith spots a planning application that she thinks she can get a large petition of residents against it and gain votes of local residents affected by it. As the lead petitioner she will also get to speak against it for five minutes, if a councillor takes it out of officer’s hands and makes sure it is decided by the Planning Committee.

Unfortunately for Mrs Smith it’s over a minor matter and wouldn’t usually be decided by the Planning Committee. The planning officer wants to approve the planning application. Mrs Smith asks a Labour councillor (who doesn’t represent Puddleton) to make sure that it will be decided by the Planning Committee, therefore ensuring it is decided nearer the election and that there will be more media coverage of Mrs Smith’s campaign. The Labour councillor makes sure that this happens, thus making the residents think that Mrs Smith is influential and when the application is turned down a better choice than the existing councillor (also a candidate) which didn’t want it to be decided by the Planning Committee as he/she knew it was part of a party political ploy by Mrs. Smith to gain votes from local residents.

However, going back to the Planning Committee. The minutes of the meeting held on the 20th March 2014 were agreed. Nobody declared any interests and no requests for site visits were made.

The first planning application to be decided was OUT/14/00094: 38 Thurstaston Road, Irby, CH61 0HF: Outline planning application to create 2 No. new residential properties. A Wirral Council officer said that there had been seven letters of objection detailing various issues which she listed. Despite the objections officers felt it was compliant with national and local planning policies and recommended it for approval subject to conditions.

Councillor Wendy Clements said that had Tony Cox not resigned as a councillor that he would’ve attended the Planning Committee meeting and detailed the concerns of local residents. She talked about trees, British standards and asked planning officers about a tree survey.

Matthew Davies replied that there had been a tree survey with the application and it had also been assessed by the Council’s arboricultural officer. He pointed out that some of the trees mentioned by Cllr Wendy Clements were not part of the planning application and that they couldn’t impose conditions on trees outside of the boundary. He said that if trees were damaged outside of the boundary it was a civil matter.

Councillor Wendy Clements said that that was difficult to understand as the existing standard referred to trees on or adjacent to the site. She referred to appearance and amenity issues but accepted that whether it was unacceptable harm was a matter of opinion, but she felt that the way officers had written the report it implied that some harm would result. Cllr Clements passed around photos to show the effect on light on neighbouring properties. She referred to policy HS4 and how the scale of what was proposed fitted into the surrounding area.

Councillor Elderton asked to see the plan, but he pointed out that as it was an outline planning application that the position of the houses was only indicative at this stage. He thought different positions of the houses would be more suitable but stated that it couldn’t be turned down based on the indicative positions as they were only indicative. He asked officers for advice as he was not happy with the proposed development.

Matthew Davies said that as it was an outline planning application that all matters would be reserved and that the plan was only for indicative purposes. He said that if the application was approved then Wirral Council would have significant control over the scale, site, appearance and where the properties were sited.

Councillor Wendy Clements moved refusal on the basis that it would result in a development that was cramped, overdeveloped and that the two dwelling would cause a detrimental change to the area contrary to the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and policy HS4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor Steve Foulkes said that he felt three was feasible on the plot, he asked what the average plot size was for surrounding properties? Matthew Davies replied that the officers felt it was possible to have three dwellings on the plot. Although plot sizes were similar on one site of the application site, they were different to what was proposed on another. Therefore in his opinion it was up to councillors to make a judgement as to whether three could be accommodated taking into account the detail that would be decided at the reserved matters stage.

Councillor Geoffrey Watt seconded Councillor Wendy Clements motion for refusal.

For refusal: Councillor Wendy Clements (proposer), Councillor Geoffrey Watt (seconder), Councillor Simon Mountney, Councillor Eddie Boult, Councillor David Elderton and Councillor Philip Brightmore (6)
Against refusal: Councillor Stuart Kelly, Councillor Bernie Mooney, Councillor Denise Realey, Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor Joe Walsh, Councillor Irene Williams (6)

The motion for refusal was 6 votes to 6. The Chair didn’t say how she used her casting vote. However she deemed the motion for refusal to be lost.

There was then a vote on the officer’s recommendation for approval. This was proposed by Cllr Denise Realey and seconded by Councillor Steve Foulkes.

For approval: Councillor Stuart Kelly, Councillor Bernie Mooney, Councillor Denise Realey, Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor Joe Walsh, Councillor Irene Williams and Councillor Philip Brightmore (7)
Against approval: Councillor Wendy Clements (proposer), Councillor Geoffrey Watt (seconder), Councillor Simon Mountney, Councillor Eddie Boult and Councillor David Elderton (5)

The motion for approval was won by 7 votes to 5 so the application was approved.

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

For Whom the Tunnel Tolls

For Whom the Tunnel Tolls

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.

For Whom the Tunnel Tolls

                   

Mersey Tunnel tolls have been decided annually by Merseytravel (Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority), however the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority ceased to exist at the start of this month and was replaced by the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (also known by its legal name which is the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority). The existing Merseytravel representatives from Wirral Council (along with representatives from the other Merseyside Councils) sit on the Merseytravel Committee of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority with the addition of two representatives from Halton.

Wirral Council’s Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee discussed a motion about the Mersey Tunnel tolls, which had been referred to it by the Mayor at the Wirral Council meeting of the 10th March 2014. Prior to recent changes to Wirral Council’s constitution such policy motions were discussed and voted on by a meeting of all of Wirral’s councillors (of which there are sixty-six). The Regeneration and Environment Committee has only fifteen Wirral Council councillors on it.

The motion about the Mersey Tunnel tolls was proposed by Councillor Les Rowlands (a Conservative councillor for Heswall ward whose term of office ends this year and will probably be standing soon for reelection). Councillor Les Rowlands is also one of four Wirral Council representatives on Merseytravel (the others representing Wirral Council are Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor Ron Abbey and Councillor John Salter). The motion was seconded by Councillor Andrew Hodson (who is also a Conservative councillor in Heswall ward) and a copy is below.

(1) Council regrets the recent tunnel toll increases for all toll classes forced through by the Labour-led Integrated Transport Authority.

(2) Council notes that since the introduction of the 2004 Mersey Tunnels Act, sponsored by former Labour MP Claire Curtis-Thomas and supported by Labour Members throughout its passage through Parliament, Merseytravel has accrued over £40 million in surpluses which have been used on their pet transport schemes and vanity projects.

(3) Council also notes that Merseytravel have squandered large amounts of money as can be evidenced by the £70 million failed tram scheme colloquially known as ‘Line 1 to Nowhere’ and its extravagance in occupying a half empty building at No 1 Mann Island.

Therefore Council believes

(a) The consistent increases year on year is damaging Wirral’s economy putting further pressure on motorists and businesses.

(b) Council recognises such increases place a greater strain on tunnel users who have to travel to and from work placing an unfair tax burden on Wirral residents.

(c) Council recognises discount toll schemes/free crossings for local residents already exist in other parts of the country and while recognising that fast tag users benefit from a discount, Council believes that regular users should be rewarded with a local discount scheme over and above that afforded by use of the fast tag such as that announced for the Mersey Gateway Bridge of a “local user discount scheme” with up to 300 free journeys per year.

Council therefore requests the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to write to the Chief Executive/Director General of Merseytravel requesting an urgent meeting to discuss: if and how the Mersey Tunnels can be reinstated back into the national road network and Tunnel Tolls abolished.

If that is not possible how a ‘local user discount scheme’ over and above that which already exists through the Fast Tag can be implemented to ease the burden on the hard pressed motorists of Wirral.

Video of the first twenty-five minutes of the meeting can be watched above.

The meeting started with Councillor Steve Foulkes asking for legal advice from the “Borough Solicitor” (who is Surjit Tour who wasn’t present but Colin Hughes was present to offer legal advice to committee members) on whether he should declare just a personal interest in the Mersey Tunnel tolls agenda item as a member of the Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority*.

Councillor Steve Foulkes also pointed out that Councillor Les Rowlands was also a member of Merseytravel and that he “did state he [Councillor Les Rowlands] could take part in the debate”** and asked for clarification over the nature of the interest.

* The Merseyside Integrated Transport Authority had in fact ceased to exist as it had been abolished eight days previously by s.6 of The Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014. What Councillor Steve Foulkes probably meant instead was an interest arising as he is a member of the Merseytravel Committee of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

** Whether Councillor Les Rowlands took part isn’t a decision for Councillor Steve Foulkes to make. Councillor Les Rowlands isn’t part of the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee but as the proposer of the motion Standing Order 7(6) applies which states “A member of the Council who has moved a motion which has been referred to any committee shall be given notice of the meeting at which it is to be considered. The member shall have the right to attend the meeting and an opportunity of explaining the motion.”

Colin Hughes who forgot to turn on his microphone when replying said, “Yes, I’d declare that if I was you I’d do that.” However Colin Hughes didn’t state whether it was a personal or prejudicial interest, just that Councillor Foulkes had to declare an interest.

The Chair asked if anyone was subject to a party whip (no one replied that they were). The Chair then said the next item was “minutes of the last meeting which was held on the 10th March”.*

*The Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee hadn’t met on the 10th March, only Cabinet and a meeting of full Council met on the 10th March.

The Chair said they would change the order slightly and have the second notice of motion (on the Mersey Tunnel Tolls) first. He then said (in relation to Cllr Les Rowlands), “I think I’m right, he was here but he’s not here now but Councillor Les Rowlands doesn’t wish to speak to that.” Other councillors drew Cllr Alan Brighouse’s attention to the fact that Councillor Les Rowlands was in fact sitting on the front row with cries of “He’s here” to which Councillor Alan Brighouse replied, “He’s here is he? I can’t see him!”.

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

What did officers say about Lyndale School in reply to “how much money you would expect to get if you sold that land?”

What did officers say about Lyndale School in reply to “how much money you would expect to get if you sold that land?”

What did officers say about Lyndale School in reply to “how much money you would expect to get if you sold that land?”

 

Councillor Paul Doughty asks a question of Julia Hassall about confidence in the Lyndale School closure consultation

Councillor Paul Doughty asks a question of Julia Hassall about confidence in the Lyndale School closure consultation

Julia Hassall (Director of Children’s Services) and David Armstrong (Assistant Chief Executive) answer questions from councillors on the Lyndale School closure consultation decision

Continuing from yesterday’s transcript of the Coordinating Committee meeting is a transcript of the next fourteen minutes of what officers said at the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February 2014 that was to reconsider the Cabinet decision to consult on closing Lyndale School. On April 2nd, Wirral Council plan to start a twelve week consultation on the closure. The Cabinet report titled “Report seeking approval to consult on the closure of Lyndale School” can be read on Wirral Council’s website.

JULIA HASSALL
..are all included within the admissions book.

(heckling) I didn’t see it. I didn’t see it.

JULIA HASSALL
OK, if there are individual parents who are saying this evening they’ve not received that, then that’s something I will continue to look into.

(heckling)

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
So, quite right. My second question is errm, if you look at the, well the information tonight page 141, 140 to 141 2.5 if you skip the bullet points and go straight to the paragraph at the top of page 141, I won’t read the whole paragraph out but it just says that the changes proposed over a two year period, April 2014 to 16 and will be kept under review with regular reports to the Schools Forum. You’re looking to consult on closure for Lyndale, oh sorry.

JULIA HASSALL
Sorry Chair, is this the second report?

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
It’s the err…

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
The first.

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
It’s the 21st of March?

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
Quite right, that is under the funding report.

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
Oh no, no, no. Oh right. Maybe I should ask that? It’s not about funding.

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
It is under the funding report. I’m afraid, sorry.

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
OK, I’ll hold back on that. I’ll hold back on that question but I won’t forget.

Right, my next two questions are for David. You just said that you were involved when Lyndale sort of moved from Clatterbridge. How big’s the area, the size around Lyndale School’s on at the moment?

DAVID ARMSTRONG
I can honestly say Councillor Fraser that I don’t know the answer because I’ve deliberately because I don’t want it to confuse the debate and become a distraction, we have done no action whatsoever looking at the Lyndale site.

I said to Pat this evening after the parents spoke at the last meeting, I would very much like to have visited the school and have a look around, so I did talk to Pat but also to remind myself about the school as I was a mainstream teacher.

I deliberately haven’t done that because if I go to the school particularly with my current monitoring responsibilities everyone will think I’ve come to look at the building or look at the site or look at the land. I know the area that the site occupies but genuinely myself and no one else in my team that work with me would have come to look at the site. So I couldn’t actually quote that figure tonight.

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
Well if you’ve got, this leads me on to another point, without being difficult surely the Council has maps that you could look at? And also to see the size of the land? And also if the numbers at Lyndale are going down why are you extending Elleray Park?

(applause)

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
When my children went to school and I could choose the school, if there weren’t enough places there tough, you had to go to another school. Obviously it’s slightly different with special needs but I don’t understand why you’re not sending, suggesting that children go to Lyndale (making the most of the capacity)? Also I’d be interested if you looked at the map, how much money you would expect to get if you sold that land?

(applause)

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
OK, I’ll allow the officers to reply to that and then is that your questions finished?

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
Sorry no, I’ve got one more.

DAVID ARMSTRONG
Thank you Chair, yeah but clearly I could look at maps Councillor Fraser. As far as I’m concerned it would be totally irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about whether we should consult on whether to close the school.

I tried to explain, that I am known as the asset person in the Council and currently I have all the baggage and tags that go with that. There has been no work done on looking to dispose of the site.

I think it is useful, very useful that you raised that point because I would just like to take you briefly through the process because if I set that out now then I think it should clear it away for future debate.

The work to Elleray Park stems from a Cabinet report from 2009, where we were asked to go away and bring forward plans to build two new schools, one at Stanley and one at Elleray Park linked to primary school sites.

Clearly we’ve just completed the Stanley one, located it next to Pensby and that was done through funding claiming for that purpose. Because of the national circumstances the funding was withdrawn in July 2010. There’s no prospect realistically of funding on that scale now.

We have £21.5 million worth of funding capital in 2010/11. Next year we’ll have £4.1 million so we know we’re facing a different landscape. So what we want to do is go back and invest in the schools that we know now that we’ll not be rebuilding and that’s where that deal comes from, it has its origins there.

In terms of bidding for the money, we’ve had that, we’ve been looking for that for a while. Yes when we bid internally for the money against our colleagues we did also make a reference to the fact that should a decision be taken to close Lyndale clearly we will need places at other schools but the Elleray Park building work is not dependent on any decision you make about Lyndale. The scheme at Elleray Park will be done for suitability reasons and flexibility reasons whatever the decision about Lyndale. So it is not dependant in any shape or form on a proposition about Lyndale.

It actually begins to sort out things again that I did in the mid 1990s, as a short-term measure. I converted the former caretaker’s house to teaching accommodation. I never intended that it would last the length of time that it did. The scheme deals with that issue.

It moves the kitchen from the back of the school to the front which makes sense in terms of deliveries, so it does deal with issues with the school that exist. In all schools we try and respond to parental choice. We provide extra accommodation where we can when people are clearly wanting to go to that school. That’s national policy and it’s something we’ve tried to do.

In terms of the site, the idea that we can somehow just sell the site and pocket the money is actually a bit, well it’s very far fetched. If the decision was taken to close Lyndale there’d be a stepped process. For me, if a decision was taken to close the school, that doesn’t automatically mean that it would mean there would be no education on the site.

The school could convert to a free school, it could convert to an academy. It could be a shared, split site school with another school and the site would carry on being used much as it is now.

If that didn’t happen, I’d want to look to see what other purposes we could put to it for children because it’s had investment as I say it had an investment in 1999 a substantial one. It’s one of only four schools we’ve got with pools and you’d want to explore other possibilities.

It has a youth hub and a youth club on the corner of the site so there’d be lots of other possibilities. If it came to the fact there was no school and no other use for it, we have to then apply to the Secretary of State. We have to get his permission to dispose of the site.

We have to do it under two pieces of legislation, one is section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act which covers the playing fields and the playing field is not just a pitch it’s any outside space and we have to do it under section 1 of the Academies Act for the rest of the site and the Secretary of State’s words are that “a presumption is against you” on this issue. So even if we went through all those processes and the Secretary of State did give permission to dispose of the site it could then be disposed of but that condition would be based on us having specific schemes where the funding would have to be reinvested in other schools.

So I think it’s useful to set all that out to show, it is a process we’ve gone through. We’ve relocated schools to school sites when schools have closed. We have disposed of sites but the money goes reinvested back into schools.

So there’s absolutely no motive on me and anybody else to address this as a capital or an asset issue. That comes at the end and I hope by going through that and it’s a legal process, it’s a national process that shows that really the debate needs to be had about the needs of the children not about the site.

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
Go on, you’ve got one more question Leah.

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
No, you said I could have four, no, but we’ve got plenty of time! But errm right,

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
No sorry, I’ll let you put the question if you like.

COUNCILLOR LEAH FRASER
Thank you Chair. My next question is, the email that Rochelle Smith mentioned, which I’m sure you were waiting for me to ask or somebody to ask that. From Paul Ashton “no plans for closure” sent in April 2012. What happened between April 2012 to a couple of months ago last year? That seems quite a change of policy, can you explain that?

DAVID ARMSTRONG
I think we’d like to. The letter came in when I was covering the Director of Childrens Services post, which we… Julia agreed upon to. So I was wearing two hats when that letter came in. I was covering the Director’s post but I was also still working with Andrew doing the finances. The letter was read in that context.

I asked Paul Ashcroft to reply to the letter because he was the specialist special, he was the senior inspector for special education, but I also had a discussion with him because if I sit there wearing the hat doing the thing with Andrew the very last thing we would want is for any member of our team, to be suggesting that children shouldn’t go to the school. It’s the very last thing we would want, it would make an already difficult situation even worse.

He went away, he replied to the letter, he replied to the parent and I also asked him to research whether he could come across any evidence of where our staff were directing children away from the school and that’s the most current and it’s interesting, it’s been really good to listen to what’s been said tonight because the references to me appear to have been mainly, if not exclusively to staff who work for another organisation and I think that’s an issue that Julia will research in her own way.

The situation is as I described at the very beginning, the national framework has now embedded itself in. Andrew and I are looking to the future landscape, we can see more hurdles that we’ll have to go through, other agencies will have to be involved in saying yes or no to the current arrangement we have with funding empty places, we see a clear direction now in special which is to move towards paying for the pupil rather than the place so it’s because, unbeknownst to us at the beginning of this, it’s that national context and also the numbers haven’t added, the numbers have stayed broadly stable and that clearly makes the problem difficult.

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
OK, next I’m going to deal with Paul, Pat and Adam in that order.

COUNCILLOR PAUL DOUGHTY
I am at an advantage actually over some of the parents and members of the audience because I know you as individuals and I know as individuals how passionate you are about children and your responsibilities towards them and our parents and members of the audience here don’t know that and they don’t have the advantage that myself and some of the other councillors have.

I think one of the problems we’ve got is the language that’s been used in some of the communication, perhaps in the newspapers and their responsibility for that. Also perhaps the, we referred to you that know some of the perhaps careless language of NHS staff perhaps and so we have a challenge really as a local authority as to how we can reverse that negative view that parents have so the question is given some of the comments that have been made to us where parents have a lack of confidence in the process and the consultation is there anything else that you feel that as officers we can do to try and restore confidence in the consultation process that haven’t already been presented tonight?

JULIA HASSALL
OK Chair, if I start the answer to that. One of the things that we’re deeply committed to doing should the decision be to proceed with the consultation is to talk with parents and each child, talk with the school and really make sure we’ve got as up to date assessment of the needs of each individual child at Lyndale School.

So that as we go forward, we are very genuinely looking at options in the knowledge of each individual child so that when we apply what’s called the SEN Improvement Test, we’re doing it based on our understanding of what each individual child needs and looking at how their needs can and if they can be met in a different setting.

So it’s making sure amidst what you say Councillor, a lot of the language that’s been used that we pull it back to first principle and say this is about getting it right for some exceptionally vulnerable children and how to care deeply about their children and we’ll need to be absolutely reassured whether the child is going to school they have staff in that school who can absolutely respond to their children’s needs in a very caring appropriate way and that is the very heart of what we must do as we take this forward.

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
OK, Pat and then Adam and then Leah and that… and I do want to spread it round the committee, all ok?

COUNCILLOR PATRICIA GLASMAN
I’ll try and keep my questions to the question of debating whether we should have a call in on, oh a consultation. One of the parent witnesses Julia has said earlier that she had or that parents had forwarded questions to you and not received replies. My question to you is, have you been waiting to reply to these queries on the fact that the parents have raised objections to the proposed current consultation? I’ve got one more question.

JULIA HASSALL
Thank you Councillor, I’m glad you asked me that question. I met with staff at the school and with parents on the 19th of December. It was the soonest date we could arrange after I met with the governing body at Lyndale School and I brought with me a colleague who took very detailed notes at the meeting.

Quite soon after Christmas, there were very detailed questions and did need to canvass a number of views to get accurate responses and Mrs Dawn Hughes who was a parent who spoke at the Cabinet meeting, I think Dawn is here this evening, on the 16th January very helpfully wrote to me saying this is a summary of the questions we asked and here are some additional questions and she did that under the freedom of information process and what I did I was a little delayed, but I did respond to Mrs Hughes within the freedom of information timescale which is about three weeks or so ago.

I’m probably mistaken because I understood that those questions and responses would be circulated to other parents. If that’s not happened I will do that tomorrow.

(heckling) The answers given they weren’t answers.

COUNCILLOR PATRICIA GLASMAN
One other question Chair.

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
OK.

COUNCILLOR PATRICIA GLASMAN
Another witness referred to the fact that the closure of Lyndale School has been brought to their attention by members of staff from another organisation. Have you had any contact yourself with the NHS about Lyndale School and the staff that were mentioned?

JULIA HASSALL
Councillor Glasman, I’ve been slightly chary about going very broad on consultation at this point, but I I I have indirectly made contact with Doctor Steiger but I will want to if the consultation proceeds, certainly meet with a group of community pediatricians to elicit their views and meet with other health professionals who are involved and I know that there are some who are actually directly working within the Lyndale School and I want to very much take soundings from them and from any other professional who’s directly involved.

COUNCILLOR PATRICIA GLASMAN
You want to emphasise to them that (inaudible)

COUNCILLOR STEVE FOULKES
OK, Adam.

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