Sunday, 29 August 2010
Monday, 23 August 2010
Sunday, 22 August 2010
Friday, 20 August 2010
If a query is complex, customers will be able to speak to a Planning Officer through a Call Back Service. The initial contact process will be designed to answer basic enquiries. Where more detailed technical knowledge is required we will seek to obtain enough information to allow a planning officer to answer the query. Following this a Planning Officer will aim to call back within 24 hours of the initial query.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
It is another attack on Bath by a group of councillors that represent wards outside of Bath, first the BRT now this. All they appear to want to do is to sell off the site. There many comments from the cabinet that this wasn't an option, then they said "all money gained from the sale would be ploughed back into education " the didn't seem to be the realization that these comments are opposite.
The back to Bath campaign clearly had the right idea
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
Friday, 6 August 2010
Ø The consultation was based on the scenario of closing three schools and reopening two – one in the north and one in the south of the city. This scenario was approved by the majority of respondents (66%). By abandoning this scenario and recommending the closure of one school in the south, the Cabinet has disenfranchised residents who, believing that the outcome of the consultation would be a new, coeducational school at Culverhay (which is what the community has wanted for a long time), did not respond to the consultation in large numbers.
Ø The decision is premature. The availability of ‘Building Schools for the Future’ funding was a significant driver of reorganising secondary provision in Bath. Given that this funding stream is no longer available following the change in Government, the Cabinet has not adequately considered the need to wait until the situation regarding schools legislation and future funding mechanisms is more certain.
Ø The Cabinet has decided that there should be no change to schools in Keynsham, but the option of no change to schools in Bath has not been considered under section 9 of the report. This is inconsistent.
Ø If the primary purpose of the review is to improve educational standards, it is inconsistent to close a school which is rated as ‘good’ by Ofsted but to keep both schools in Keynsham, which have lower Ofsted ratings, open. Furthermore, insufficient consideration has been given to the extra services provided at Culverhay school to pupils and to the community (e.g. leisure centre, extracurricular activities, links with primary schools and Bath Spa University) and to the ‘value added’ to pupils’ educational attainment.