Archived decisions

Copies of objections received

Objection 1

I would like to state my objections to the site of the new amalgamated, all through Primary school. I have several concerns about the site being at the current Infants school.

Firstly, the grounds will be significantly the St Peters site once new mobiles/buildings have been put up. Secondly, the perimeter fencing is such that it is easily scaled and not as secure as the St Peters site. Thirdly, the toilet facilities are very much smaller than that required by, at least, the years S and 6. It would be unfair to expect the older children to use toilets designed for 5, 6 and 7 year olds. Fourthly, and this is something I am particularly concerned about, the current Infant school configuration does not appear to have room for the excellent IT facilities currently held at St Peters. Finally, it would seem that in order to take in the current St Peters pupils mobile classrooms would be needed. I find this bewildering when St Peters school could take all the classes in one building right now. It would use up the three `spare rooms' upstairs but that seems less inconvenient than putting up mobiles and expecting the children to work in cold/overheated rooms and having to walk outside to get to the main buildings to move around the rest of the school.

As I understand it, Yateley Infants school meets the governments minimum standards for a school where St Peters does not. I find that incredibly difficult to believe when it seems to fall short in all the above mentioned points of what sensibly constitutes a school. I would very much like to see a list of government criteria and the relevant suitability/unsuitability points of both schools according to this list.
As for the future of this process, I am in no doubt that it will go ahead as you have planned. I have never been in any doubt that your public consultations have been nothing more than tokenistic, especially since you ignored the public majority and the petition you received which suggested the public wanted the school on the St Peters site.

I would like two things answered by yourselves though, firstly I would like explanations and answers to the queries stated above. Please do not say these issues are up to the new governing body to decide as, frankly I think that would be highly irresponsible of you to do that. You make the rules, you can change the rules and would do so if you want the new school to be a success. Secondly, I would like written confirmation that the money made from the eventual sale of the St Peters site is ring fenced to pay for the building and improvements to the Infants site. I have been informed that this is impossible but I don't see why something so simple should be so difficult - if you really do want a successful, ongoing school to remain on that site.

Objection 2

I am supportive of the merger on the grounds that both schools will benefit.
However, I am against the idea that the school retain Church of England status, and cannot understand the applicability for this status once the junior school is no longer on Church of England entrusted land.

My other concern is with regard to the potential use of the land that comprises the St Peter's school site; as I understand it, the playground and school field are Hampshire Council owned whilst the school land is in trust to the Church of England - hence the school status. I have the currently enviable position of living adjacent to the school field and wish to have the field remain as is, rather than see development of the site. Working in planning, I am aware that the St Peter's site is within the Yateley Green Conservation Area, which will obviously impact on any future schemes for use of the land.