The basis for the Cabinet's decision on Monday to reverse an earlier decision to grant PlayFootball a lease on land at Bitterne Park School may not be clear.

The decision was based not only on local opposition to the proposed development (though there has been considerable opposition), but on the fact that a significant part of the land in question lies within the Public Safety Zone (PSZ) of Southampton Airport. PSZs are not simply “areas under the flight path”; they are very precisely delineated areas of land at the end of the runways of UK airports – areas delineated by Government, on the basis of risk modeling and aircraft accident data. None of Bitterne Park School’s buildings fall within the PSZ, but part of the land proposed for development does.

The Department for Transport gives detailed guidance to local authorities concerning the sort of development that should / should not be allowed in a PSZ; their document states that the “the basic policy objective governing the restriction on development near civil airports is that there should be no increase in the number of people living, working or congregating in Public Safety Zones and that, over time, the number should be reduced as circumstances allow”, and goes on to state that “Nor should playing fields or sports grounds be established within Public Safety Zones, as these are likely to attract significant numbers of people on a regular basis”.

Part of SCC’s Local Development Plan – SDP19 – refers to this government guidance, stating that “planning permission will not be granted for ... development or changes of use within the Airport Public Safety Zone, which would result in an increase in the number of people within the zone”.

Were the PlayFootball development to go ahead, the result would clearly be an increase in the number of people in the PSZ. Apart from anything else, it would result in a significant number – a very significant number indeed, if the facility were successful – of people in the area in the evenings and at weekends, when at present it is empty. (As the Cabinet paper states, “It is likely that the proposal for the use of part of the school site for a publically accessible five a side football centre would [involve] a significant increase in users at the site outside of current levels and times of use by the school, including children.”

What this means is that the PlayFootball development could be approved by the Council only at the cost of going against explicit government guidance and against its own local plan. This, I believe, was at least as significant a factor as anything else in the Cabinet’s decision not to grant a lease on the land in question to PlayFootball. It would have been absurd to allow a proposal to go to planning once it was clear that it had no hope of success.

The interesting question is not so much why Cabinet voted last night to reverse the decision to grant a lease to PlayFootball, as why they (and we are talking about different Cabinets, involving all the parties) ever took the decision to grant the lease on land falling within the PSZ, for the kind of development proposed, in the first place.

Well I am sure PlayFootball must be very impressed having gone to the trouble of developing a proposal (with an apparently supportive partner) only to have the Council run away from the whole thing under cover of the PSZ requirement which could (indeed should) have killed the whole thing at the outset and saved a lot of people a lot of effort.

Mind you, isn't it odd that the only part of the zone which covers the school site is the very part of the site which everyone thought least likely to be developed. Obviously wreckage from falling aircraft will only ever land on the tennis courts rather than the school buildings only a few yards to the north....

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the misfortune of Playfootball. They have scant regard for any problems these developments would cause to local communities and schools. They have also had very similar proposals in Northampton rejected by the council there. As the Northampton development was used by the company as an example to persuade the Bitterne Park school governors to agree to their proposals here, it seems clear that Playfootball should research their projects with more care - and the school should have put some effort into verifying the company's claims. What does it say about senior management and the Governing body if they have agreed to a copy of a facility that doesn't even exist?

You are quite right Ena, PlayFootball deserve little in the way of sympathy although I do think that (ironically) they emerge from this as paragons of good faith compared to the other parties involved.

The school and councillors, however, have behaved extremely unprofessionally (never mind their contempt for local residents) and one begins to get some idea of why the Council achieves so little so slowly.

There were certainly many areas of this whole shambles that were beyond belief and the Council were guilty in the initial stages of not doing enough to ensure that this project had been correctly planned with the necessary consultation. However, I should say that everyone at the Council I have had dealings with as an opposer of the proposals has acted with honesty, diligence and politeness at all times (despite the "politics" involved).
Such a contrast to Mrs Trigger, her senior management team and the Governors!

Certainly the Council officers can't really be criticised (although it might be the case that Councillors should have been advised about the PSZ right at the outset which presumably they were not).

It should also be remembered that the project really started falling apart when the Planning Officer indicated that the application was going to be turned down - even before the PSZ came into play. So no, certain elements of the Council do deserve to be given some credit.

The Cabinet Member responsible for this was another matter and I wonder how interested he would have been in local opinion if his seat hadn't been at risk.

I have to disagree, Richard. For my money, Councillors (of all parties - don't forget that the decision to grant a lease to PlayFootball was made by a different Cabinet, and proposed by a Labour councillor) have been poorly advised by council officers. As you say, the PSZ should have been brought to Councillors' attention from the start. And the paucity of the school's so-called “consultation process”, among other things (I could go on and on!), should in my view have been picked up by Council officers a lot earlier.

Having said that, I think that our local Councillors have behaved professionally, in dealing with a pretty tricky situation. (And for what it's worth, I'm not a dyed-in-the wool Conservative Party supporter!) Whatever anyone might be tempted to say now, it's just not true - and many of us who have been opposing the PlayFootball proposals know this all too well! - that ward Councillors have simply caved in to pressure from local residents / voters. From our point of view, at times very frustratingly, ward Councillors, including the Cabinet member in question, have all along insisted on taking the demands of the school every bit as seriously as the concerns of local residents. It's to their credit that they have been prepared to take both sides seriously.

Once the PSZ issue emerged, it's hard to see how the Cabinet member – and Cabinet as a whole - could have acted other than they did. Government advice is unequivocal: don't allow the development of playing fields in a PSZ. Council policy is unequivocal: we follow government guidelines on PSZs. I think that this, all by itself, explains the Cabinet decision. I really don’t believe that there’s any issue of them going after votes; after all, they stand to lose as well as gain on the decision.

I’ve had a lot of dealings with our local Councillors on this issue over the last five months. I’ve disagreed with them about many things, and have at times been frustrated by their unwillingness to commit publically to things that some of us have wanted them to commit to. Nonetheless, none of them have ever given me any reason to doubt their integrity; just the reverse, in fact. (And to repeat, I’m very far from a dyed-in-the-wool Tory!)

Actually I AM a dyed in the wool conservative AND I voted for Bailie even when he was an independent. However, what I would ask is this - what efforts did any councillor make to involve the local residents in this large and significant project until the scale of opposition was obvious (at which point community approval suddenly became a crucial factor)?

As for this being a tricky situation - the main lesson for the Council is that the situation only became tricky because the Council (and perhaps perversely I include Councillors under that heading) tried to let this scheme slip through under the radar of public attention and put themselves in the position of appearing to be acting deviously.

I'm not sure it is fair to say that "the Council tried to let the scheme slip through under the radar of public attention". The mistake I think they made is that they let the school carry out the "initial consulation" (and we know how flawed that was) and didn't check exactly what the school had done and whether it was "fit for purpose" - it was not. It seemed that the Council started taking an interest when all the objections started to come in for the planning application which had apparently already been fully consulted on and hadn't raised a single objection. The school is clearly to blame here.

The Cabinet Decision


Usually I would respond to a comment shortly after it was posted.

However my delay in responding is due to being traumatised after watching Harcourt Mansions, 74 Whitworth crescent, (after a campaign by residents to conserve it) burning for the second time in a couple of months.
My comments and photographs on this will be posted elsewhere on this website.
=======================================================
======
There were many members of the community and other interested parties in the public gallery above the Council Chamber.

Five members of the community attended the meeting to present their comments against playfootball’s proposal.

Three were from Bitterne park live residents who proposed a joint objection but these were individually presented.

A member of the “City of Southampton Society”.

I was there as a parent and my comments follow;

I thanked the chairman for allowing me to speak.

When I first raised my issues as a parent of a child at the school, I was asked to refrain from commenting on other issues.

I pointed out that I had read all the paperwork relating to the privatisation of our schools and that what I had to say was relevant.
I also said that we were all aware of the value of our school land to developers once our children had been moved to the new academies.

I said that I would have my say and that if the cabinet felt that what I had to say was irrelevant they had the right to disregard it.

There follows what I said;

I would like to challenge the legality of the decisions of Southampton City Council’s
Department for Education and Children’s services?

Land that is held by the City Council on behalf of its citizen’s, should remain under the control of the City Council for the benefit of its citizens who originally paid for that land.

I question the openness and accountability of this administration to the general public?

I question the ethics and morals of an authority that removes the power of parents, governors and the local community in having a say over how their children are educated?

I also question why when our children are being moved into these new academies, why they have no basic rights?

I do not believe that sensible decisions are being made about our children’s education and I would like these decisions put on hold until this department of the City Council is held open to public scrutiny.

The lease for this land was after all advertised by the City Council prior to any public consultation.
=======================================================
======
The chairman’s reply, answered by the solicitor for the Council was that yes, the City Council did have the right to dispose of this land.
(What a good job that they have not got hold of a large chunk of Riverside Park then?)

(Peter Baillie looked uncomfortable)

After the comments were made by others in opposition to playfootballs proposals

Angela Whettingsteel chairwoman of the governors and Tony Lehrle-Fry, John Denham's agent (and a parent Governor at the School) made their comments.
Both spoke in favour of the playfootball proposal.

Councillor Royston Smith an ex pupil of the School commented on the volume of opposition from the local community and that this should be taken into account.

Various other councillors spoke on the issue.

Councillors Phil Williams and Ivan White left the meeting before the vote declaring that they both had a declared interest in the decision.
(I wonder what those interests were then.)

The councillors voted unanimously to withdraw the offer of a lease on the land to playfootball.

Firstly, happy new year everyone!
I just wanted to mention that, during the cabinet meeting, Mrs Whettingsteel remained largely silent and when asked if she wished to contribute, was unable to think of anything to say. Perhaps she had covered all the (ir)relevant points she wished to make when she co-signed with Mrs Trigger the offensive and factually inaccurate letter sent to objectors at the beginning of September.
To be fair to her though, she did actually turn up, doubling the number of representatives from the school!
I wasn't one of the speakers at the meeting but I am very thankful to all those that took the time to research and prepare their cases to present to cabinet, even Mr Lehrle-Fry despite him being on the opposite side of the fence.
Whilst the importance of the PSZ or huge local opposition didn't seem to have been taken on board he was, at least, polite, clear and honest about his views on the proposals. What a shame this approach wasn't taken by the school from the start.

I spoke at the meeting in my role as a governor of the school (not a parent governor) and this has got nothing whatsoever to do with my paid work for John Denham (and I am not his agent).

As some people will know, I was initially doubtful of this scheme but became convinced that PlayFootball and the school had addressed the concerns of residents particularly regarding opening hours and the size and use of the bar. I feel strongly that the school needs the facilities and that, in the absence of any council plan to provide them by other means, that the PlayFootball proposals represented a good way forward.

The Council, under the Conservatives, agreed in principle to the scheme and the deal was later signed off under the short-lived Lab-Lib coalition. The PSZ was in existence all that time and would have been known about as it came up during the planning process for the school's sports hall. If it really is a concern then perhaps we should be looking to move the school as I'm not convinced that wreckage from a plane will fall only on the area covered by two and a half small football pitches.

What suprised me at the meeting was not that the previous decisions taken by councillors to support the scheme were reversed. The surprise was that Peter Baillie, as the Cabinet member responsible, did not contribute anything to the debate and did not feel a need to explain his thinking. This is a key issue affecting the school that is one of the main factors why Southampton's school results are not even worse than they are and he didn't feel the need to speak?

I've no doubt that some residents are feeling pretty pleased and I don't begrudge them that. They clearly had concerns and, although I think they had largely been addressed, obviously they didn't think so. I think what we need to do now is to keep pressure on the Council to make sure that Bitterne Park School gets the educational and sporting infrastructure it deserves as one of the most successful schools in the city.

Hello Tony,

Thank you for your polite and thoughful message, and for considering that residents do actually have a right to have concerns.

As I understand it, PlayFootball did made a few changes to the proposals to try to address residents' concerns but, speaking for myself, it is all just talk. There is no way that you can make a development such as this in the middle of a residential area "disappear" so that no-one is distrurbed by it. And the restrictions written into the lease can still be changed. Are we to believe that all the restrictions will stay in place for 25 years without PlayFootball trying to overturn them? PlayFootball are in dire financial straights (has anyone from the school looked at their last set of accounts?), and it is ridiculous to think that they are going to put residents concerns above their own bottom line.

Objectors *are* feeling pretty pleased at overturning a proposal that would have quite literally ruined many peoples' home life. But as many of us have said all along, the school *is* a good school and deserves good facilities. I hope that the powers-that-be at the school will be able to ask for help and support (and pressure on the Council!) from the residents for a more appropriate, *non-commercial* development for use by the school that *everyone* will be happy with.

Whilst I appreciate Tony's courteous message I feel I must take up a few points here.
There is an absence of a Council plan to provide these facilities for the school because the school has never applied to the Council for such facilities.
The Head was asked repeatedly at the information evening to provide details of any application she had made to the Council for funding for these or similar facilities but she could not. This manner of development is not deemed necessary by Ofsted despite the Head's claim that they have described the sports facilities as "still inadequate" - please check with Ofsted as many objectors have. It only became "necessary" to have so many astro-turf pitches when someone told the school that they could have them for free, plus some rent thrown in for good measure and they wouldn't even have to maintain them. So what that it would be appalling for the families that live in the surrounding area? There is a reason the parents and residents are "pretty pleased" - we didn't want our school ruined and our chidren's safety compromised.
The PSZ was very clearly explained in the first post on this page by adn1, so I won't go over it again!
The PSZ issue took some research for one of the objectors but did it not occur to the school to check this out, bearing in mind Tony appears to suggest that the school were aware of it due to the sports hall build? How many man hours could have been saved? How much money from the school budget would have been saved had someone been more proactive?
I fail to see how the issues regarding the bar were addressed by Playfootball - they presented the Governors with a model for the Bitterne Park facility in their Northampton development - which didn't exist at the time and never will as the Northampton council have put a stop to it! Nobody checked that out either?
Has anyone ever seen a written agreement between Playfootball and the council or school stating that the opening hours were to be different to those stated on the planning application?
I am afraid that there wasn't a single issue that Playfootball "addressed" that turned out to be fact which is why the huge opposition remained. It is worrying that no-one on the Governing body appeared to feel it necessary to do any research on this.
A previous post on this website from Tony on 25th July makes it clear that the proposals had been pushed through to planning stage without any agreement, much less a vote from the Governors. It states that it "seems irresponsible when we are trying to combat teenage drinking to set up another alcohol outlet in school grounds" The offer of changing the hours slightly, even if it had been followed through, surely does not address that issue?
In summary, the parents and residents are more incredibly relieved than "pretty pleased" and I am sure there would be many of them who would actively help to improve the facilities at the school (as they always have). However, there will be some for whom working with the school management team is no longer an option, and who can blame them?

If it really is a concern then perhaps we should be looking to move the school as I'm not convinced that wreckage from a plane will fall only on the area covered by two and a half small football pitches.

Or move the airport? Or certainly stop its growth so close to a residential area.

I would like to take issue with one or two comments concerning the recent cabinet decision, especially some by 'Richard'.
Some of the accusations are : why is the PSZ so delineated? That is just the way it is - it is a line on a map. The fact that it cut through some proposed pitches and not others is not relevant. The point is it exists, and we (SCC) are supposed to abide by it. I suspect 'Richard' would be the first to complain if SCC decided to build over the PSZ. Local councillors behaving with contempt to the local residents - if that really is 'Richard's' view then it beggars belief. We have worked tirelessly to ensure that local people's views have been fully heard on this issue - not always easy. I took to cabinet a short paper to ensure that the project could only proceed with the consent of the local community. We have always placed the highest value on local residents' views. 'Richard' then goes on to say that I have only listened to local residents because I am worried about my seat. He wants it both ways. Personally, I find that type of accusation deeply, deeply offensive and very cheap. As Cabinet Member I have a responsibilty to the whole city - as local ward member I try my best for Bitterne Park. I would also like to know in what possible way I have behaved 'unprofessionally' as 'Richard' claims. Again, cheap and easy jibes. This whole project has suffered from problems - my summary would be - lack of real consultation by the school (Sept 07 - Dec 07), lack of input and understanding by the governors, lack of clarity of the planning application (before it was published), lack of understanding of the PSZ (until after the planning application), and a continual problem with misinformation. Lessons need to be learnt - and they certainly have been from the Children's Directorate. As to the Cabinet Report - everything had been said by other Cabinet Members. I saw no need to just prolong the meeting. Finally, as to the future - yes, I would hope that some pitches will be provided by BSF in the nearish future, but most of all I would hope that relations between local residents and the school can be rebuilt and move forward positively - because all of us want an excellent, local school.

I am glad Mr Baillie has put his side of the matter.
I believe he has listened to ALL sides of this debate and has never given me the impression that his concern was for anything other than the best interests of the school and the families that live in the surrounding area.
As a parent of a child at the school and a resident I have had dealings with both my ward councillors and the school hierarchy over this matter and if "unprofessional" was to be thrown at anybody it would not be my elected representatives!
We cannot elect people to represent the views of the local community and then whinge when they do!
Yes, it was all a huge mess but it produced the correct result in the end.
Mr Baillie says that the Council have learned lessons from this debacle and I can honestly say the parents and residents have too.

Whoa there Tony,

Before we start having a go at our elected representatives lets go back to square one.

1. The school decided it wanted this development.
2. You acknowledge that because of the sports hall the school and governors already knew about the safety zone
3. DFT guidance (para 12 circular 1/2002) states that playing fields or sports grounds should not be developed in these zones - this is on grounds of safety.

Yet even knowing all this the schools managers suggested this scheme and then the governors voted in favour of a proposal which contravened DFT safety guidance and would have put everyone using the facility at risk.
The primary responsibility of a school, even before the requirement to educate the children as well as possible, is to ensure the safety of children in its care, NOT increase the danger they are in.
If the school managers and governors had done their job properly then this plan would have been stillborn. It would never have got as far as council.
What went wrong at the school?
What incentive was the school and governing body offered which carried more weight than your legal duty of care for my child and every other child at the school?

I am very pleased that the council and the senior school have not been allowed to sell off public property even though it appears this is by default however we now have the resurection of the proposal to appropriate public land at the rear of the junior school to extend the school grounds a public notice has been issued in the echo giving 21 days to object

Sorry to start this off again but it appears that the cancellation of the Playfootball project is still being used by Bitterne Park School to snipe at the very community that provides it with pupils!
A newsletter sent to parents today includes a letter from Mrs Trigger stating that the main complaints made by the community are about litter, minor vandalism and anti-social behaviour.

My main argument with the letter is with the following passage -
"Minor vandalism/anti-social behaviour: Link together and are as a result of young people wandering about with "nothing to do". The local police constabulary raised this issue with me, asking for the school to solve this via Youth clubs etc. I have to point out that I tried my best to secure organised, safe provision for young people in the evenings via our multi-sport Playfootball plans, which included a clubhouse for students to socialise in. This was, as you know, rejected by the same community that complain to the police about these youngsters roaming about. Any thoughts or suggestions about these community issues would be of interest."

Firstly, I want to make the point that I, personally, have never complained to the school about litter, vandalism or anti-social behaviour I don't think the school are responsible for any behaviour that takes place out of school hours - the parents and the children are, and that would include me and mine. I think the majority of kids around here are perfectly fine - it is not really too far removed from how it was when I was that age.

Apparently the police asked the school if it could provide something to do in the evenings for the community's youth by providing a youth club. At what stage did the police suggest a public bar and "world class" football pitches? A youth club? Isn't that a snooker table, a dart board and some cans of Lilt? It is clearly stated in the letter from Mrs Trigger that the Playfootball facility was to provide a clubhouse for the students and a safe environment for them to play multi-sport in the evenings.

But during the extraordinary governing body meeting on 22/09/08 the following exchange took place between a governor and a representative from Playfootball -

Gov: Would it be the usual scenario that children can only use the facility until 5pm? How late would you be planning to use it?
Playfootball: On week days adults would be coming in only after work.
Gov: Therefore after 6pm the scheme is basically about adults?
Playfootball: Yes.

Mrs Trigger attended that meeting. To my knowledge, any problem kids around here do not go to bed at 6pm! Equally, even if they wanted to participate in the "scheme" before 6, how many of these kids or their parents could afford it, even if discounted?

Let's tackle the extraordinary statement that the licensed bar would have been a "clubhouse for students to socialise in". Is this really what the police had in mind when they approached Mrs Trigger?

During the whole debate about Playfootball the community, parents and pupils have been told that the children will have their own entrance to the pitches and will never enter the clubhouse, the clubhouse will be used as a classroom, the clubhouse can be used at times to watch Sky news and now it appears to be a place for them to socialise in? Only before 6pm I assume as children are not welcome after that and the alcohol would become available. The suggestion that the bar was to merely be some jolly youth communal area is laughable. It’s my opinion that the school persistently tailored their view of the use of the clubhouse to suit the audience they were addressing.

What has really got my goat though are what I take as ongoing, petulant comments made at the community who didn't think a school was a suitable position for a pub and who, quite rightly, sussed out very early on that this facility was not for the benefit of their children out of school hours.

The community AND parents did not believe it would tackle anti social behaviour to invite hundreds of extra cars full of people in every evening and weekend for a game and a drink or two! Perhaps a movie night could have been tried first?

As we already know, it wasn't even the community that stopped the project - it was the PSZ.

I believe that using the school newsletter in this way is damaging to relations with residents and parents, and I’m hoping that our community website can afford a similar platform for the community view.

Another reason for posting this is the hope that parents from other schools may see it and check what their school is planning. According to an assembly held in October St George's will get the benefit of Playfootball's facility if Bitterne Park don't. They may wish to research it properly!

One final word - if it is so awful working within this community feel free to move on! That would be my suggestion!

---------------

Please try to keep comments brief - and no more than a few hundred words maximum. We may again set a limit with the software to impose this shortly. Readers can also use the 'contact' form to propose an article for the site. Thanks for your understanding - Ed.

I too have read Mrs Triggers newsletter, and what a bitter self-centred attitude it displays.

If the Head thinks a licensed bar is a suitable clubhouse for our children then I believe Bitterne Park would be better off without someone of such poor judgement.

No matter how she or anyone else describes this rejected plan, whether for or against it - children's clubhouse, sports centre, bar, pub, leisure centre or whatever - the bottom line remains the same - the planning application was for a licensed Sky sports bar and 5-a-side pitches, to be built in a location barred from development on safety grounds. A licensed bar is not suitable for 11-16 year olds. The proposed location is unsuitable for anyone of any age.

Perhaps the school governors could come out of hibernation and perform their duty by reminding the head that Bitterne Park School has one purpose only. It exists to educate the 11 - 16 year old children of this community as well as it can. The head is an employee of this community, via the city council, and it ill befits her to criticise so unpleasantly local parents and residents.
We want a school on this site, not a personal fiefdom where commercial businesses get set up against the wishes of those people the school serves, in a location which would have endangered everyone who used it.

Legal duty of care anyone?

At the governor's meeting, PlayFootball also confirmed that there would be no music. And what is a youth club without a bit of music!?!?

Here's another extract from page 15 of the governor's meeting minutes:

"Governor: How did PlayFootball feel they could stop young people congregating in groups on the premises?"
"PlayFootball: By working closely with the school caretakers and the local police. We would ask for them to be removed."

So we have Mrs Trigger claiming in her latest letter that the Play Football scheme was for the benefit of the kids in the evening, yet at the governors meeting (at which Mrs Trigger was present), PlayFootball claim that the scheme is for adults in the evening, and any kids hanging about are going to be removed from the site!

Which then makes a total farce of this comment from Mrs Trigger in the meeting minutes (page 15 again): "Susan Trigger said the school can explain clearly to the community what is accurate information ...". Unbelievable.

The school is a good school, with impressive exam results. Mrs Trigger no doubt is partly responsible for that, but it wasn't a single-handed effort - it has also taken a great deal of work from the other members of staff, and from the pupils themselves. A school should be responsible for steering pupils towards high moral standards, including honesty and respect for the rights and opinions of others. With yet another stream of misleading information from the very person who should be responsible for setting this moral example, is it right that Mrs Trigger is still in position?