Cllr Brian Lord gives his opinion on new Saddleworth School
Cllr Brian Lord
Parish Councillor, Brian Lord, has provided Saddleworth News with his views on the proposed new Saddleworth School. He gives the following opinion on various matters.
Build on existing site – The EFA have stated that the LEA has to provide a site of at least 13 acres for a new school. The existing site is below that, with only 6 acres capable of being built on.
The cost both financially and educationally to decamp 1350 pupils to schools all over Oldham, and possibly beyond, is unacceptable. Would you like your child to have to complete years 10 and 11 travelling out of Saddleworth every morning and returning in the evening with their teachers travelling from school to school to teach them? – With the obvious loss of teaching time as teachers travelled, and having to make their own way back if they wanted to stay on for extra lessons or sports sessions.
There is no one place in Oldham that could take the whole school but there are sufficient spare places in the Academies to take most of the school. How many people would send their year 7 pupils to Saddleworth whilst this was going on and would they then want to return afterwards?
The cost of all this (a good few million) would have to be taken from the £15 million thus giving a much poorer building. Outdoor sports facilities would remain almost non existent.
Diggle Action Group – Whenever a new school (or other large development is proposed) you always get a residents action group made up of people who live close by and would be directly affected (one can understand this) and those who object to change, especially if affects green views. I think that I am right in saying that all the newly built Oldham Academies had opposition groups. You may recall that Jim McMahon said that they would not let the views of the few override those of the majority.
Work in present school – Certainly not. But this is not the main problem with the present school. The school requires a massive amount of money to bring it up to required modern standards. Money which the school could never dream of having and money which the LEA would be foolish to spend (even if it had it). Would you spend £1000 on your car if it was only worth a couple of hundred?
Diggle site problems – Clearly immediate local residents would lose some of their present view (although everything possible would be done to minimise this and this is not a matter that can be used in planning law to object). I am not convinced that traffic would be worse as the problem at the moment is largely down to cars parked on Huddersfield Road.
If these were moved then traffic could flow. (Private parking arrangements at the rear of the roadside properties would actually be better for residents) only a small percentage of Saddleworth School students come to school by car so the thought of 1500 cars arriving in Diggle each morning and afternoon will not happen. Extra buses would reduce this risk further.
A new layout of the junction at the end of Huddersfield Rd and Wool Road will also help reduce peak period problems. Flooding problems would only be a risk if the school was built at the rear of the site.
Good or bad move? – Given that a move to Diggle is the only option on the table at present there is little choice. If we refuse this or fail to get planning permission then I cannot see any Government being in a rush to offer us a new school in the foreseeable future.
The same problems would remain. The old site will still not be an option and given that almost 20 potential sites were looked at this time round and all bar Diggle were either not for sale or not big enough or would require a split site.
Thus if no new school is built and Saddleworth School has to be closed there would be nothing to stop OMBC building a new school outside of Saddleworth or the pupils moved to the existing Academies. To me it seems clear we either make the most of the move to Diggle or condemn our children to an uncertain future.
Author: Jude Gidney - Editor
If you would like to share an interesting story, achievement, photo or something you just want to happily shout about please send it in an email to hello@saddleworthlife.com We'd ❤ to hear from you!!
38 Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Hear, hear.
I live in Diggle and unlike some of my neighbours, I welcome the move.
The road improvements needed to facilitate the move will really improve life here, especially the Wool Rd junction and all those annoying cars parked on the road.
And hopefully there will be ancillary services related to the school including a busier Diggle chippy, some tuck shops maybe, and finally, a bit of life to the village.
And don’t forget, a local school can add 10% to property prices. Our gain is Uppermill’s loss!!!
I thought it had just been established that the EFA had not actually ruled out the current site as we had been lead to believe by OMBC. Furthermore, it has also been suggested that the new school could be built on the current site whilst keeping the majority of the school in operation by building on the playing fields behind and than flattening the current school to make way for new playing fields and a separate gym building. I’m getting a little cheesed off with all these conflicting reports.
Could a new school be built on the land behind the current schol site. This would increase the size of plot. Sports facilities and access could remain. Children could stay in school whilst the building was built? Just a suggestion.
At last some clear information. By the way, at least 2 years ago the pallet works site was designated as a business enterprise zone and the front fields designated to be used for light industrial/warehousing/office development. A business enterprise zone also allows for housing under certain conditions. As this didn’t appear to cause a problem for The Action Group & Parish Council then, I cannot see why they are complaining now when something positive for Saddleworth is happening.
I fully agree with Mr Lord.
I see he makes no mention of the alleged land swap between Oldham and a building contractor – he makes no mention of the totally undemocratic protocol used thus far – he makes no mention of the huge extra costs involved in road building, resident car parking which will have to be paid by council tax payers – he makes no mention of the appalling idea of having the buses stop at the Navigation turning and making the students walk the rest In all weathers – no mention of the fact that the parish council supported the green belt preservation – no mention of the fact that the total land area at the present site is MORE than that at Diggle – no mention of the tiny pavement width walking around the Diggle area, this will be a fatality in the making no doubt
And if anyone really thinks that bringing even more activity to Diggle which only has one insufficient road in and out, will make things better they need their brains testing – the chippy couldn’t cope, what a laugh
OMBC’s independent Hybrid Strategic Flood Risk Assessment of 2010, produced a recommendation that the Diggle site was not a preferred option for a school. Why has this changed? Do we want to put a school of 1500 children at risk?
How does Mr Lord answer this one?
“I am not convinced that traffic would be worse as the problem at the moment is largely down to cars parked on Huddersfield Road.” “Only a small percentage of Saddleworth School students come to school by car”
I can’t see any provision on the plans for residents parking, would this be done first, before all the construction traffic?
Figures for traveling by car or opinion? Move the school out of Uppermill and how many more will do ‘the school run’
I would say the majority of saddleworth school kids either catch the bus or walk to be fair . It is part of them feeling grown up and also the un availability of their parents at this time .So I also doubt the traffic would cause such problems as we believe . Most Teachers are in school a lot earlier than the kids , some kids do breakfast club , the change in school hours starting 2014 will also have effects . I believe as this is the only available site which will cause no disruption to our children’s education then it is the only viable option unfortunately .
Who are you trying to kid the existing school site is 14.5 acres
Wonder if a survey on transport of children and staff attending saddleworth school would be helpful to assess the extent of the concerns raised ?
Just to be clear here the £15 million given to OMBC by the EFA is for the building and construction work of the school only. I don’t understand how you can say that ” The cost of all this (a good few million) would have to be taken from the £15 million thus giving a much poorer building. Outdoor sports facilities would remain almost non existent” Therefore this would not eat away as you suggest to the building of the school. OMBC would have to fund all the ideas you suggest, residents parking, changes to Huddersfield Road, the flood drainage, etc, etc. They would therefore have to fund any work on the existing site. I have seen the report from the EFA that states that the location is entirely OMBC’s decision and that the 13.5 acres that keeps being banded around is not a stipulation, but merely a guideline, yet at this public meeting held at Uppermill Civic Hall, every single person on that panel said that they would not receive the funding for the school if it was to be re-built on the existing site. Are you now back tracking on this statement along with Jim McMahon and Amanda Chadderton. My question is how and why has Saddleworth school got into this state of disrepair, who has allowed this to happen? How can we trust anyone from there to ensure what they say they will deliver actually happens. You only have to look at the news around Oldham currently to see how OMBC do not give any consideration to it’s constituent’s – Foxdenton, Churchill playing fields, Diggle village green. We also read that OMBC have just let a developer off with a £500,000 fine for not building “affordable housing” We all know Saddleworth needs a new school, but something does not sit right here. I don’t feel that the existing site has been looked at in detail and my question is why?
“Do we want to put a school of 1500 children at risk?”
This is just unhelpful and alarmist. There’s a sensible discussion to be had about levels of risk from flooding, and what could be do to mitigate them.
Maybe best to start by reading the report:
www.oldham.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1254/hybrid_strategic_flood_risk_assessment_level_2
Logistically the existing site could be reworked, the existing site is central to most of the villages and on the main bus routes.
I am baffled as to why the area must be of a certain area when the current site has been big enough from day one. Personally I think the school should stay where it is and lets let our local ‘big buider’ do what he will on the Diggle site. If the existing site was to be redeveloped and the school moved to Diggle it would be great to see some industry rather than a more profitable housing estate springing up. Lets face it when was the last time any affordable housing was built in Saddleworth?
Here’s an excerpt from the report:
9.5.1.2 The Diggle Brook flows through the Diggle School site; however, the risk from this small watercourse is estimated to be low. The sequential approach to development layout should be applied within the site so that the most vulnerable development is located away from the watercourse. Flood depths are predicted to be shallow and flood hazard is considered to be low. Where flood depths are up to 0.6m, this risk can be managed by appropriate access, egress, flood warning and emergency planning procedures.
9.5.1.3 Whilst the actual risk to Diggle School from Diggle Brook is low, the residual risk from the Huddersfield Canal is more significant, as it lies on higher ground to the east of the site. This residual risk could potentially cause the greater flood hazard to the school, which is in the Canal Hazard Zone. Subject to the findings of more detailed Flood Risk Assessments, these development sites should manage this residual risk by appropriate access, egress, emergency planning procedures and finished floor levels which incorporate a freeboard allowance for the risk from the canal.
I don’t care so long as my children’s education isn’t compromised.
I certainly don’t want them sent all over Oldham for classes. They get little enough free time as it is once homework is done.
Mr Lord says;”The cost both financially and educationally to decamp 1350 pupils to schools all over Oldham, and possibly beyond, is unacceptable” …But is a mass decamp really the only option? Not for most the other schools in the program ,www.portakabin.co.uk/whole-schools.html . Check out the testimonials from headmasters and teachers from all over the country…. Here are but a few.
“Deputy Headteacher and Site Manager Keith Jones, says: “We have all been impressed by the excellent quality of the buildings. They are very well insulated and provide a high standard of teaching accommodation. Staff have been very happy to teach in them, and we are delighted to see that the pupils have really taken to their new classrooms”
” Nick Alwyn, School Manager at Bentley Wood High says: “The buildings are very spacious, light and airy and far larger than traditionally built classrooms. They give us the ideal teaching environment. The buildings are so good that many of the teachers don’t want to move back into the permanent buildings! Everyone who has seen the new buildings has been very impressed with the quality and space of a modular solution from Portakabin.”
From the picture painted of the current state of saddleworth school this would definitely be an a vast improvement and have little or no detrimental effect educationally on the pupils.
Considering the infrastructure is already in place in Uppermill, I.e the bus turnaround which was only built recently. a new one would be built in diggle or as the current rumours suggest to save cost use the turning circle facing The Navigation (Surely not an option the turning circle was built for and is used by 40ft lorries that are coming in and out of the loom works mill which by the will stay fully operational if school is built and will be the main access road to the school) but if used will effectively dump at the much highlighted bottled necked entrance to the village at least 90% of the school population as we are lead to believe by Mr Lord ,I Quote:”Only a small percentage of Saddleworth School students come to school by car so the thought of 1500 cars arriving in Diggle each morning and afternoon will not happen. Extra buses would reduce this risk further” .
If you also take into account that current school site has plumbing/sewage and electrical needs already in place is it really cost effective to start completely from scratch in the middle of a field?, as for the potential flood risk how ever insignificant would still have to dealt with to specific requirement as mentioned by Dave. Yet another avoidable cost that OMBC and it’s taxpayers would have to find. It would be interesting to see the comparative costs which as taxpayers we are entitled to know .
River,canal,railway,flood plain,a school drive that will not only be used by buses but
also hgv’s to access the mill, you also need to be aware of the increase of flood risk
in Uppermill etc. further down the valley there will be a significant increase flowing down
the river if the fields in Diggle are tarmac!
Anyway i am sure OMBC will have turned a blind eye to that like everything else by the way
i know OMBC are not legally bound to inform people of this development but you would have
thought common courtesy would have prevailed at least to residents in the immediate
vicinity if nothing else!
‘Wabosso’ doesn’t care as long as his childrens education isn’t compromised but this is
a compromise too far!
One thing is for certain, somebody needs a new tape measure.
Well Emma, pardon me for having one of those “annoying” cars that slow you down as you exit the village! When the road is cleared for Whit Friday you should see the speed people do past my house when there are no obstacles in their way. Try crossing the road with a dog, pram and toddler and see how you fare.
Dave you conveniently left out the bit on page 74 of the Hybrid Strategic Flood Risk Assessment that recommended that the Diggle site was “not preferred” for a school.
An independent company, knowledgeable in flood risk, had their reasons why they recommended this to OMBC.
Now OMBC are trying to ignore this recommendation and put the children of Saddleworth at risk just because of some dodgy land swop deal.
I don’t think the existing site has ever been properly considered by OMBC because they don’t want to redevelop the existing site. They want to give the xxxxxxxxx not what we want.
The same xxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx by OMBC.
It just all smells bad to me.
Edited by editor for libel
First of all, as one of the organisers of the Save Diggle campaign I was disappointed that we were not offered an opportunity to put our point of view alongside Brian Lord’s.
Nevertheless,I will try and do so here.
First, I assume Brian is speaking in his capacity as Chairman of Governors of the School rather than as a Saddleworth Parish Councillor. The Council voted at their last meeting to support the residents in the their campaign to have the school built in Uppermill rather than Diggle. Andt his vote was consistent with long standing adopted Council policy.
Size of Site
We have contacted the EFA and they have confirmed that 13.5 acres is a national guideline for a school of 1500 pupils. It is not an absolute requirement and many new schools do not meet this. Waterhead Academy is a good example. The area occupied by the proposed school in Diggle, is in the order of 7.6 acres. the rest of the land is screening, banking and potential flood defenses along the river.
The existing usable area of the Uppermill site measured from the OS Map is 8.75 acres. In addition as at Counthill, sports facilities additional to those on site are within walking distance.
So the existing Uppermill site is plenty big enough for the new school and benefits from more sports facilities within easy reach, which is not the case at Diggle.
Bussing children to Oldham while the school is built.
There are many solutions to finding temporary accommodation while the new school is built. Oldham Council appear to have only considered one, which is the least practical. Our analysis, backed by professional architectural and building advice is that only eight class rooms need to be relocated while the new school is built on the back of the existing site. Temporary accommodation for these would easily fit on the existing site while the new school was being built and would be quite affordable. The rest of the school could continue in the present accommodation until building work was completed and the school was able to move into the new building. This practice is the norm and indeed the College at Doncaster which has been seen by Brian and his colleagues was built while the whole college continued on site in temporary accommodation.Only a small amount of temporary accommodation would be required at Saddleworth.
Diggle Action Group.
Th views of a small minority? Why have over three quarter of the people who have completed the Saddleworth News Poll opposed the Diggle site in preference to the Uppermill one? Furthermore the Parish Council survey of 2009 asked all Saddleworth residents whether they would be prepared to give up the green fields and green belt in Diggle for a new school. 64% replied thay would not. Hardy the views of a group of Nimbbys. So far in the campaign only one person has contacted me saying they are in favour of the move, hundreds have expressed the opposite view. Facebook tells a similar story as does the Diggle News website.
Diggle Site Problems.
First of all planning issues. The proposed building on the Diggle site contravenes at least three major planning policies. First, views of a number of existing houses will be affected in a majorand this is classed as loss of amenity, as it noise and disturbance. All of these are material planning considerations and are often given as grounds for refusal of development. More importantly the field on which the school is to be built in Diggle is zoned for business use, as such the building contravenes adopted planning policy. The importance of local employment has been defended strongly by both Oldham and Saddleworth Parish Council. Finally, adopted national and local policy is that development should take place on brownfield sites in preference to greenfield sites. The whole of the Diggle School site is classified greenfeild and as such the development also contravenes this policy; particularly so since there is an available brownfield site, the existing school site, in Uppermill.
Traffic
I do not propose to discuss traffic problems that the school in Diggle will create. I think they are self evident and have been accepted by Oldham Council. Widening the entrance to Huddersfield Road will make very little difference to the problems of bussing nine tenths of Saddleworth school’s children into and out of Diggle every morning and evening. Removing parked cars will not stop large vehicles having difficulty passing each other nor improve road safety where there is about 100 yards of narrow pavement in front of the terraces at the entrance to Huddersfield Road. I am sure the school will not be encouraging large numbers of school children to walk along the canal towpath unsupervised.
The only Option
This appears to be declared in tablets of stone by those in favour of the Diggle move. What no one has done so far is say why. The EFA have been approached and have said it is not their decision,it is Oldham Council’s – yet Oldham Council have said the decision is the EFAs. Who are we to believe?
What is clear is that sizewise and operationally it is possible. Perhaps a more relevant reason is that the land swop will certainly help minimise the cost to OMBC. What we don’t know yet is by how much. If we were told it all boils down to money the argument becomes credible. No other reason given so far holds water when examined more closely.
Come on Brian, let’s have an independent professional assessment of the possibility of using the existing site and what it would cost. There has been no consultation so far- this is the least that Saddleworth people can expect.
isnt it strange that the existing site which was quoted as only actually being 8 acres in size originally now seems to have changed?
as if by magic there is only 6 acres avaliable to build upon.
does this mean that the school footprint is only 2 acres? as with everything to do with this scheme, something just doesnt stack up?
and as for outdoor sports facilities it worries me that local councillors and governors seem to forget the adjacent facilities of saddleworth pool for swimming and football and the churchill facilities for running, netball, football and rugby which have for decades been used by the school.
what was the point of upgrading them if they will not be used during the weekdays if the school moves?
We did email all councillors to ask for quotes.
I’m not against the new site at Diggle, or anywhere else in Saddleworth, however i feel that keeping the school where it is is totally do-able and excuses are being made. I could organise the re-build in my sleep.
I say if the school must be moved to Diggle demolish the school and allow the existing site back to return to nature and not allow any type of housing to be built. At all. Especially xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx. Because lets be honest here, that’s what this is all about isn’t it?
Editor removed text for libel
What is clear to me is that both sides are not prepared to consider opposing views and that it is impossible to get the full story from any side. I also did not appreciate being, what can only be described as ‘badgered’ by a supporter of Mr Buckley’s views at Dobcross Band Club last Saturday morning. It would be very interesting to hear what the current and future students of the school think-wonder if their views will be given equal weighting with those of our councillors.
What do we high tax-band council tax payers actually get from Oldham Council? If it takes a couple of million more to at least put it at the back of the site that is miles better than the side of the road. Time money was put back into Saddleworth instead of it being a source of income.Cancel nonsence projects that go to the allegedly deprived areas but pay little if any council tax!
It angers me to read statements regards travelling for sports facilities . This is the 21st century and quite honestly I don’t want my children going off school site during school hours on a twice weekly basis . Not only will they lose valuable teaching time but this would increase risks of accidents greatly.
Also the great many parents I have spoken to are not prepared to let any of the children’s education at any level be disrupted by any surrounding building work . My children will be leaving saddleworth school very shortly , hence may not even spend any time in the new build . It is the future of secondary education in saddleworth that I am passionate about and not some of the issues being raised
99% of your comments are about traffic, property prices, views, construction, green belt, flooding
1% of your comments are about our children’s education.
Emma Smith is right, everyone is being completely NIMBY-ish about the whole affair. Just let them build a new school on a new site and get over it.
Well said David Tucker. Pity is-those of us with children find it difficult to attend the meetings.
“Dave you conveniently left out the bit on page 74 of the Hybrid Strategic Flood Risk Assessment that recommended that the Diggle site was “not preferred” for a school.
An independent company, knowledgeable in flood risk, had their reasons why they recommended this to OMBC.”
No, people keep citing this report as saying that the Diggle site is ‘not the preferred option’ (see for example, the save Diggle website), as if the authors of the report are saying there is a more preferable site for the school. But that is not what they are saying. The terminology in the report ‘sequentially not preferred’, is just that – terminology which has to be understood in the context of the text of the report.
The text makes clear the possibility of considering risk-mitigating measures, and for the ‘exception test’ to apply and so on.
I’m pretty sure that at least some people who are part of the save Diggle group know full well that what this terminology means is not the same as ‘Diggle is not the preferred site for the school’ or ‘the school should not be built on the Diggle site’. Yet they are happy to paraphrase this report in a misleading way in order to support their viewpoint.
I’m not sure what I think the best option for Saddleworth School is, but trying to exaggerate or misrepresent the findings of this report is not a good way to go about having a reasoned debate, and frankly it instinctively makes me mistrust the motives of the people who are doing this.
David Tucker. if all those subject matters are highlighted as problems in the first place, shouldnt they have an overriding factor on the childrens education subject.
1) the access into the village and increase in traffic poses serious dangers to the children.
2) the quality of construction is going to be cheap and unfit for purpose for the children.
3) the flooding is also a danger to the children as those fields which the school will be built are the relief for the river to prevent flooding downstream.
its nothing to with being nimby’s its more to do with general safety of the children.
Angry Diggler,
1. Increased traffic doesn’t pose ‘serious danger’ to children. If it did there’d be casulaties aplenty in Uppermill. Read your traffic stats at Oldham.gov.uk
2. Good-value building materials don’t make schools ‘unfit for purpose’. Have you ever built a commercial structure? I have and the budget for the school seems entirely appropriate per square metre.
3. Flooding won’t cause a risk to the children. No building contractor will complete a structure that poses flood risks, as you need fully assessed construction insurance before works take place.
It’s everything to do with NIMBYism. These comment threads are full of hysterical reactionary people who’ve got nothing better to do than stand in the way of progress. So, a school moves to a new site? Big deal. Get over it.
There are plenty of bigger problems in the world people should be addressing, rather than attempting to micro-managing planning and educational decisions they don’t fully understand
Safety of the children ? The proposal is to go to school on a building site by those objecting to a new build . Oh and the disruption of being educated thrown in with no sports facilities .
‘It’s everything to do with NIMBYism.’
Nail on head. As with most things round here, NIMBYism rules.
Stupid question I know but what are people’s interpretation of “would prefer school to stay on present site ” . Just wondering ?
come in now, pull the other one! Increased traffic does pose a serious risk. You only have to take a drive through waterhead in a morning to see all the near misses that occur due to children running out in front of cars trying to cross the road (even though they’ve got ample crossings provided).
Bearing in mind the stretch of road that enters Diggle there just isn’t the space to widen the road to provide two lanes plus a decent pavement as well. This is a major hazard that wouldn’t be addressed. The council themselves have not even looked at this properly from the answers they’ve given.
I work in the construction industry and value for money buildings can be fit for purpose as you say. But how have you arrived ytqat your view on this school being of value? Have you based your figures on the £1500 per metre costing of the actual benchmark school in Doncaster? The same school that only has a whole floor area of 10651m2. The final cost for that project was £16 million. And that was a simplistic site with no complications.
Bearing in mind the Doncaster school only caters for 1200 pupils how will this new school cope with the 1500 the council says it will cater for?
And as for the river. You only have to look around saddleworth to see that building on areas of flooding still takes place. These fields flood when there is heavy rain fall. Building the school and playing fields up to protect them from the river will cost more money. But the fields provide the relief to the river up and down stream to prevent flooding in uppermill and Diggle villages. Where do you think that waters going to go if you take away that area of land?
In the spirit of healthy debate… bring it on!
twitter.com/school4diggle