Councillor Kent was invited to ask his question which was: what other, potential, sites were considered for this school before deciding to recommend selling the six acre park, Elm Road Open Space? Councillor Halden responded that two other sites had been considered which were Curzon Drive and Thurrock Parkway. He stated that they were discounted because they were too small and not appropriately located as they were in industrial areas. He went on to add that the Education Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) may have looked at other privately owned sites, but that Council owned sites are faster to build schools on and ensures the Council can enter into Heads of Terms with the ESFA. Councillor Kent responded that all can agree new schools need to be built, but that the Osborne Trust has been working for three years on the proposed new school. Councillor Kent raised concerns that members of the community would not accept the loss of the open space, and also that streets around the proposed sites were already clogged with traffic due to the proximity of Thameside Primary School. He stated that the addition of a 900 place school, as well as staff members would create extra traffic within the area. He also raised concerns that the site was very small as government guidelines indicated a site needed to be 2 acres, and although the site was 6 acres when parking and access roads were included, it would be a small space. He also stated that there was an issue in process as the Osborne Trust had been left out of conversations that were happening between the Council and the ESFA.

Councillor Halden agreed that he felt the process was cumbersome, and had already written to the ESFA to try to make this easier. In regards to space, Councillor Halden stated that Thurrock, in terms of planning, was much more of a city than a country borough, and building was difficult as sites were small and complex. He then drew Members attention to section 8 of the report which stated that the school’s amenities would still be available to the public outside of school hours for community use. He went on to mention that it was a difficult site, but this was why there was an additional recommendation which allowed Officers and Members to consider other pieces of land if the Elm Road site fell through. Councillor Halden then summarised by stating that this new school would be a benefit to the community as it would provide 900 new ‘good’ or better school places, and that this was ‘infrastructure before expansion’ in practice. He also said that the community would have a chance to consult at many stages of the process.

The Leader again reiterated that although he had no pecuniary interest, he lived close to the Elm Road site and used it for recreational purposes. He then invited Councillor Halden to deliver the report.

Councillor Halden began by stating that the Elm Road site would deliver 900 new school places, and was significant infrastructure for Grays. He mentioned that Thameside Primary, which would be a ‘feeder’ school, was next door and this was an added opportunity as the sites could share resources. He then drew the Cabinet’s attention to a memo which had been received from the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee, following their extraordinary meeting on the site. Councillor Halden started with point 1 of the memo and explained that with the proposed three new schools, and the expansion of existing schools, 3,500 additional school places would be available within the borough. In regards to point 2 of the memo, Councillor Halden stated that a condition of disposal of the land would be that the school site would be accessible to the community outside of school hours. He then addressed point 3 and commented that he felt it had been discourteous to not discuss this site with the Ward Member, and agreed he should have written to him prior to the meeting. He also stated that he could not agree to point 4 or 6 of the memo as there was already plenty of opportunity for public consultation, and did not want to add another layer of bureaucracy to proceedings. Councillor Halden then said that he would agree to the recommendation in point 5 and that in future reports will give alternative options and reasons why other sites had been discounted. Finally, Councillor Halden discussed point 7 of the memo and said Officer’s would not go against what the Portfolio Holder’s wanted, and stated the recommendation would remain as “Officer’s in consultation with Portfolio Holder’s”.

Councillor Coxshall then spoke on the item and reiterated the difficulty in finding sites as Grays was becoming more built-up. He felt that co-locating a primary and secondary school was a good use of space, as they could share amenities and resources. He added that by 2020, the borough would have opened ten new schools, which equated to ten new schools in ten years. He reemphasised the point that this was infrastructure first, as there were also new four new state-of-the-art medical centres being built.

The Leader of the Council restated that the site was very close to where he lives, but agreed that the site would remain accessible outside of school hours. In addition, he mentioned that there were other small open spaces nearby that could be used. He continued by saying that the open space was occasionally unusable during the day, as during the night people used it as a drinking spot and smashed bottles on the ground, making it unsafe.

RESOLVED that Cabinet:

1. Noted the Free Schools Programme progress to date and the partnership working with the ESFA.

2. Subject to the outcome of any consultation pertaining to the disposal of open space land, approved the disposal of the Elm Road Open Space to the Department of Education (acting through the ESFA) for the purposes of building and establishing a new Free School on the site

3. Authorised the Corporate Director of Place, in consultation with Portfolio Holder for Education and Health and the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration to dispose of the Elm Road Open Space on terms to be agreed with the ESFA, in accordance with Section 8, recognising that the disposal of the site is subject to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government consent

4. Delegated authority to the Corporate Director of Place in consultation with the Corporate Director of Children’s Services and Assistant Director of Law and Governance, and in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Education and Health and the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, to agree heads of terms for the disposal of the identified site to the DfE/ESFA and to take all necessary steps to complete the transactions.

5. Endorsed authorised officers to undertake consultation for the proposed disposal of open space land at the site where applicable and delegated authority to those officers and members identified in 4 above to consider any pertinent objections to the disposal of open space land and to determine whether or not the disposal should proceed in the light of such objections.

6. In the event that the Elm Road site is not deliverable that delegated authority be given to the Corporate Director of Place, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Children’s Services and Assistant Director of Law and Governance, and in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Education and Health and the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, to identify an alternative site and to dispose of it on terms to be agreed with the ESFA for the purposes of a new free school.

Reason for Decision – as stated in the report
This decision is subject to call-in