Skip to main content

Stamford Park Consultation Responses

Stamford Park Schools – Informal Consultation Responses

On 23 September 2019, the Council announced an informal consultation process on a proposal to discontinue Stamford Park Infant School and Stamford Park Junior School, and to replace those two schools with a new 3 form entry primary school. 

The Council laid out its vision for the proposal and invited all interested parties to participate in shaping the proposal by submitting their comments and ideas for consideration. 

The Council is currently collecting and collating the responses received and preparing responses.

All the comments received from consultees, along with any information sent in response by the Council, will be included in a report to Trafford’s Executive for consideration in deciding whether or not to proceed to the next stage. 

The comments received to date are listed below and will be updated as more comments are received and responses are provided.

Comment 1

 

I strongly oppose the amalgamation and new build proposal.

The proposal does not provide greater learning spaces but talks of providing partitions for the new build hall to make it an appropriate space (the current schools benefit from two halls serving less pupils).

 

It also states that learning and ICT will take place in the library (the current schools have two libraries for less pupils).  I assume therefore that break away sessions and library use will be negatively impacted as a result of loss of space combined with more than double the amount of pupils using the space. The current infant library is not used for ICT, the classrooms have computers and they have a suite of 31 iPads. There is no longer a need in primary schools for ICT to be restricted to one room. By doing this the library space is being further restricted in it flexible use.

 

Children do not need bigger classrooms, they need to be close to their teacher and the white board when they are learning. The current classrooms are big enough, any bigger and the children would struggle to hear and see. The teacher would also struggle to have a birds eye view of what their pupils are working on.

 

The space for the new building is clearly inadequate as there is mention that it possibly needs to be three stories high! Staircases and groups of excited primary children are a major safety concern. The current building is one storey and so much safer when children are moving between lessons or playtimes.

 

Mention of a car park in the existing site being sympathetic to the local area are laughable. A concrete car park central to surrounding terraced Victorian housing will never be sympathetic to the area. The playing ‘field’ in the area will be fenced. Fencing on the recent Trafford new build schools exceeds ten feet, is an eyesore and has the feel of a detention centre. This type of fencing would not be sympathetic to the area!

 

The local roads surrounding the school can not accommodate increased traffic or parking due to more pupils. The roads are congested at present at drop off. The parking is dangerous, with parents continually parking on the zig zags and double yellow lines. There are currently three entrances on two different roads on either side of the building so the traffic and parking is staggered across the two roads. This would only get worse when all children enter the building via one gate on one road!

The loss of the existing green site with its trees and hedging will be detrimental to the area and the children’s mental wellness. The infant school is currently investing money into new outdoor wellbeing spaces with planting etc as they acknowledge the benefit this has on pupils.  Surely this is in contradiction to a new build on site that will remove the only grassed area the school has. I don’t think the new playing ‘field’ will be grass and the area it will be built on does not have any trees or hedging like the existing field does.

 

Concerns regarding other new build schools in Trafford (Bowdon being the main example) and mistakes I don’t want Stamford Park to make:

Bowdon still teach in the corridors (in fact the corridors were designed with small niches specifically for this purpose), yet the parents of our school have been continually told this is inappropriate and one of the reasons we need a new school by internal programme from a support group.

Parents are unable to enter the playground at drop off or pick up and express a loss of community feeling (our school is central to the terraced housing surrounding it and currently provides a great sense of community)

 

Parents are unable to see their children enter the building as the doors are out of view. This would greatly concern me, especially for children as little as 3 and 4 years old. Parents of the children at Bowdon have told me the little ones get distressed and the military style fencing between them and children has a lot to do with this. In fact, the parents sit behind the 10 foot fencing even on sports day.  Non of this is necessary or will ever be sympathetic to the surrounding area on Stamford Park school

 

There are at least two other schools in Trafford (The Willows and Wellgreen) which are in close proximity to Stamford Park and serve less children. The space these buildings occupy are therefore under-utilised. They would therefore be more appropriate for increased pupil capacity.

 

Finally, parents have been misinformed by a ‘school new build support group‘ and their propaganda as to what a new build school provides. I don’t believe this was purposeful, I believe they are misinformed and haven’t fully researched their claims by visiting other new build schools in Trafford and speaking to parents who have experienced the transition.

However, the behaviour of this group has been bullish (their behaviour at the junior school open evening and on social media being examples), hence a lot of responses, including my own, to the initial consultation were made anonymously. The anonymous responses have been treated with less gravitas than those who provided personal details. This is inappropriate of Trafford Council and raises concerns as to how seriously they are considering the concerns of the local community and teaching staff. Any further consultation should perhaps state that all responses need a specified level of personal detail. Either that or is shouldn’t be so readily dismissed.

 

Please don’t compromise our community when there are other more appropriate alternatives.

Comment 2

I strongly object to this proposal, why not spend £1m repairing the existing school (if that much?) then build a new school nearby in a more suitable location ie not an already over crowded area.

My daughter is the 4th generation of our family to attend Stamford Park & as a resident of Oak Rd I witness the carnage of pick up & drop off times, blocking drives and parking in disabled spaces etc. I don’t see how 40 car park spaces will help when there will be more children attending the new school ?

Comment 3

I am very much apposed to the new school building and will put a full reason why in a letter.

I think the schools should be left alone.  The only problems are too big class sizes (caused by Trafford council increasing numbers) and the state of repair of the buildings which need a little bit of upkeep.

Comment 4

I do not see the need for a car park at the school. Use of public transport by government employees should be encouraged. Air pollution outside schools needs tackling and not promoting. All other workers are increasingly being forced to use public transport on their commutes. The metrolink tram, bus station and two train stations are all within a ten minute walk from the school.

A car park which was within a five minute walk (on Brown Street) has just been sold by the council to build housing on for profit despite local objections. Just as the school development would ruin the exsisting historic school building, the development on the old car park will ruin the historic train station in Hale to which it is adjacent. 

Our beautiful heritage needs retaining, not destroying for profit

Comment 5

I'm not happy about the size of the proposed new school and think it totally unsuitable for small children.  My other concern is the stairs which would constitute a danger with so many children using them. 

I also fail to understand the idea of demolishing a venerable old buiding in order to erect an eyesore at eight times the cost. Surely the extra pupils could be accommodated elsewhere and a little money spent on preserving a valuable and irreplaceable building.  The work would also cause environmental damage and disrupt the education of the present pupils.

Comment 6

I do not agree with this proposal for the following reasons:

-            the current school building is an attractive historic asset to the local community (as a very attractive Victorian building which matches local Victorian terraced housing) and is a proportionate size for the quiet residential area that it is situated in. The plans mention the intention to maintain 'heritage features'

-            the best way to do this would be to maintain the beautiful heritage building itself rather than a small facade on an otherwise large modern building

-            the plan is for the new school to be up to 3 stories high which is out of keeping with the residential area and will change the nature of the surroundings

-            the traffic level is already stretched at school times (pickup, drop-off, for events) due to single lane roads and one-way systems in the surrounding 'tree' roads. There is not the capacity to add the extra traffic that comes with a third more pupils.

-            the proximity to Hale prep adds to the traffic and parking burden which already faces significant bottlenecks

-            potential negative impact on house prices and neighbourhood devaluation due to the above

-            loss of local green space (the playing fields on Queens Road)

-            the risk of over-extending one of our best local schools (Outstanding rated) by flooding it with more pupils

Comment 7

I've read your consultancy document and I'm 100% against the new school.

The existing school has stood for over 100 years and is a credit to the area; both as a seat of learning and as an addition to the character of the neighbourhood.  I'm aware of other schools that have been redeveloped (Nav Road for example) and they look shoddy and cheap by comparison, even after only 10 years. Putting a plaque on some concrete blocks looks cheap and embarrassing.

My son will be 4 in Dec and will hopefully be going to Stamford Park to enjoy the same superb learning experience as I did before him.  I do not wish for him to be put through the unsettling building and re-location work that will ensue.  I understand there are costs implications for maintaining an older school but this must be offset by the millions it must cost to build the new school.

The fact that the classrooms are small is a benefit as a parent. Limiting class size and increasing teacher and pupil time. More schools should have smaller classrooms. I fear that it is just a ploy to sell the caretakers house / some of the land to put more money in the council coffers. Sadly I also fear that my views like others will be ignored as the council forces through this application.

If school places are in such desperate need, build a new school.

Comment 8

I remain sceptical about the plan to build a new school. I understand the need for additional school places but don’t want to see Stamford Park used to solve this problem. Why has the school been allowed to become so over-crowded in the first place? How can we be assured that any new school won’t become over-crowded in time? How can we be assured that the existing site won’t be sold off for residential purposes? Is the proposed site for the new larger school genuinely large enough?  Why can’t we simply invest in the existing school? 

The information being provided regarding parking is inaccurate. Any benefit of providing 40 parking spaces to staff will be more than offset by the additional 140+ pupils with everyone entering the school via one entrance. Daytime parking is not an issue.  School drop off and pick up is where the problem exists and this will only become worse under this proposal and with children likely to be coming from further afield.

Comment 9

Major Concerns are ;

1) Child Safety - the area is already heavily congested and increasing the number of children will just make matters much worse. Risks will also be substantially greater during the one year construction period.                                                                                                                               

2) Environmental air quality will be much worse with idle engines giving rise to much higher pollution levels particularly in the winter period.

3) Loss of one of our iconic Victorian heritage buildings.

Comment 10

I disagree with the proposed amalgamation because I believe children with special needs, LAC children and previously looked after children are given much more sensitive and holistic teaching at the Stamford Park junior school than at the infants.

I believe the infants school ethos is one of “ship up or ship out”. This is evidenced by the fact that an infant school pupil who was in care was excluded last year which I do not believe would have happened at the junior school. The junior school leadership is much more compassionate about the needs of children with learning difference and children from traumatised backgrounds.

As this campaign to amalgamate is being led by the infant school head and her governors I really fear for children who do not come from middle class privileged backgrounds if this amalgamation goes ahead. Our Labour-led Council appears to be unaware of what being a child with learning needs and/or from a traumatised background experiences in the infants school.

I think if they did know they wouldn’t be so quick to support the head and governors at the infants school. Surely equality of opportunity particularly for the disadvantaged is core to Labour principles? Unfortunately this is not custom and practice at the infants school.

Comment 11

I’m opposed to the plan to knock down Stamford Park School and build on the existing playing fields on Queens Road for the following reasons:

 

  1. The new school intake will be a substantial increase in the current number of pupils, going from two form entry to three form, thereby causing greater traffic and noise to local residents in an already congested neighbourhood.
  2. This will undoubtedly be a danger to all, but especially to young children  - in addition to the extra pupils, parents and carers there will also be a significant increase in the number of younger siblings on drop off and pick up who will require close attention at a chaotic and busy time.
  3. The present building is a beautiful example of Victorian architecture and should be celebrated as such rather than demolished.
  4. At present residents on Cedar Road look out on to an attractive building.  The new proposals mean that their view will be a tarmac car park. 
  5. It is well known that car fumes are a danger to the environment and to the people who breathe them in, especially children in buggies or prams who are at the exact level of car exhausts.  Studies have shown that idling, favoured by many parents for dropping off school children,  is the most damaging method of car use.  At a recent information talk by the Trafford Clean Air Group participants were informed that Trafford council has said  80% of pollution in Trafford is created by vehicles. 25% of our journeys are under a mile. If we each considered walking/cycling for these journeys then we would be getting exercise as well as helping reduce the pollution level. At a time when green issues are at the forefront it is disappointing to see that many more cars will be encouraged to be in close proximity to the school.
  6. The much larger new building and car park will adversely effect homeowners in the two neighbouring roads, in terms of disruption, environmental damage and the lowering of house values.
  7. The building of a brand new school and subsequent demolition of the existing building plus the laying of a new car park will cause major disruption to the immediate vicinity for a considerable time. This is already a traffic bottleneck at school times, exacerbated by the fact that Cedar Road is one way for the first part of the road which directly adjoins the school.
  8. The flats for senior citizens and its grounds are directly next to the proposed school building. This will be very noisy, both during construction and once it is up and running, for elderly residents and not a suitable choice of venue.

Comment 12

I do not agree with the proposed amalgamation because I believe the proposed academy structure put forward by the junior school will provide a better education for our children and children in the area. Thank you.

Comment 13

I think a new build is a colossal waste of money which would be better spent on improving facilities at the current schools.

Comment 14

I manage St Andrews Court and also live onsite in Flat 24.

 

I feel the new build will bring issues with both noise and large vehicles during the building work. Also we are already affected by parents parking in our private car park, so if the school is then on this side of the road I feel this will happen more.

 

My residents range from 60 to 94 years old and they are unhappy with the noise from the children, the light blocked out by the building and the prospect of this impacting on any future apartment sales.

 

We feel the school is currently in the right place and is a complete waste of money to be rebuilt and moved.

Comment 15

[Anonymous] manages St Andrews Court on Queens Road Hale which overlooks the school playing field where the proposed new school will be built. The scheme is for people who are aged over 60

Residents have a number of concerns over the proposal however due to age and frailty have been unable to attend any of the consultation meetings that have been held. They have queried the possibility of you holding a consultation meeting in the communal lounge at the scheme.

I am concerned about the impact that building work will have on St Andrews Court itself and on the residents who overlook the site . Q- what are the plans for the boundary of the site between the site and St Andrews Court?

I am concerned about increased traffic on Queens Road as the road is a hazard already with cars parked both sides of the road and parents have in been known to use the car park at St Andrews Court whilst dropping off their children.

We feel the school is currently in the right place and is a complete waste of money to be rebuilt and moved.

Comment 16

I feel both as a resident and employee of St Andrews Court for residents over 60 years old, the building of the new school is not needed.

This will impact on the light coming into our building, create more noise issues and with the work lorries create traffic problems.

 

One suggestion is to use temporary porta cabins to teach the children whilst the current school is renovated. It would be a shame to lose such a lovely historical building to something on the opposite side of the road and this would save a lot of money long term.

The building would be easily renovated to new requirements.

Comment 17

I feel that smaller schools are better within primary education.  It would be very hard for the nursery children to go straight into a 21 form and potentially 3 storey school.

Comment 18

Paragraph references are to the "Our vision for the future of Stamford Park schools" paper.

Paragraph 2 - states that "a further 25 places to be provided in Altrincham". However, paragraph 1 states that the increase will be from 70 places to 90 places so there are 5 "missing" places. Is the actual proposal to create 95 places per year group? If not, how are the other 5 places that are required to be provided?

Paragraph 4 - how big will the new school playing field be (in square metres)? How big will the car park be? Will the new school playing field and car park be opened at the same time as the school? If not, when will they be opened?

Paragraph 4 - how will "pedestrian and vehicle traffic... be carefully managed"?

Paragraph 4 - states that Junior classrooms will "accommodate 30+ class groups". Large class groups and the "+" used in this sentence worries me. What is the maximum size of class groups that will be permitted?

Paragraph 5 - some more information on the proposed car park would be helpful. In particular: where will the entrance to the car park be (Queens, Cedar or Oak Road)? Who will the car park spaces be for?

 

Paragraph 5 - states "Residents on Cedar Road will benefit from the increased parking facilities at the school" - could it please be explained how; is it because staff who currently park on Cedar or Oak Road will park in the school car park in the future?

Comment 19

I am a resident on Stanway Drive and this new school build would have a negative impact on the quality of our lives which include privacy, right to light and noise pollution.

 

At present there is congestion within the nearby roads during school times and at present we cannot even get into our road during these hours .  I  believe that building a larger school with increased pupil and staff numbers would result in greater congestion  and difficult access for neighbouring properties in the local roads.  Should the new build progress the existing school could not be demolished to make way for the new car park until the new school has opened.  Where would all the extra staff cars be parked in the meantime?

 

We have a wonderful outlook from our property and this would be greatly defaced by the building of the new school.  We would like the current playing field to be preserved for the environment, wild life and natural habitat.  The design and size of the new building and views for residential properties should be carefully considered as this may have a negative impact on house prices.  I do not believe that the playing field would be large enough to accommodate a two storey construction.

 

Should the building works commence on the existing school playing field there would be constant disruption from HGV's, cranes and noise pollution, particularly as it is suggested that works would commence in the summer of 2020, whereby windows will be open.  I am sure the noise pollution would also greatly affect the elderly residents within St Andrews Court.  Members of our household work on a shift pattern basis therefore causing added disruption to quality of life. 

 

Has consideration been given to alternative sites within the area with easier access routes?

 

This is a total waste of money to demolish the existing school to build new accommodation. Why not refurbish and / or extend the existing school?

Comment 20

It's a shame to demolish this historic and striking building especially at a time when we're thinking about the environmental impact of building works.

Comment 21

My concerns are around the size & design of the school - the playing field is not a large site for such a large building and play areas. It is difficult to comment without seeing plans.  A three story primary school would give health & safety concerns for the pupils, as would limited access off Queens Road for escape.

Comment 22

Having attended the drop-in session at Altrincham library, I have two questions that no one could answer:

1. For comparison, what is the area of the existing school playing field?

2. It seems that the methodology for estimating the future numbers of children has taken no account of the possible effects of Brexit, which, as people make decisions on their futures which have been on hold, could influence the numbers greatly - either way. Did nobody think this was an important consideration?

 

From the discussions it seems that traditionally Stamford Park is not over-subscribed in the early years as a small number of children come from out of catchment. However in Year 5/6 there is a surge as parents move into the area to be eligible for the grammar schools. (And just as quickly move out again in Y7!)

 

As everyone seems to agree it is a real shame to lose the beautiful and historic existing buildings, could not they be utilised for an enlarged Y5/6 intake?

Comment 23

This seems quite a radical solution when it would seem that the same ends could be achieved at lower cost and less disruption  by expanding the schools on the  current site and adding additional car park spaces on the existing playing field (if necessary). There seems no concern in the consultation document for the destruction of beautiful historic buildings, and adding some stained glass windows to a new building is hardly a substitute. Although it appears the Council has made up its mind on this, I urge a rethink and believe an incremental solution would provide better value for money for council tax payers, maintain the heritage of the area and still help the schools to thrive.

Comment 24

I am against the proposal. The new school would be much too big and daunting especially for the younger kids.

Traffic problems likely to be exacerbated.

Also I am suspicious that the site of the existing school building would be sold off in full or in part.

Comment 25

With just a small amount of the planned budget the current schools could be brought up to modern standards very easily.  There are other sites locally where schools could be extended or built that would not involve the destruction of a fantastic local school.

Comment 26

We own a property opposite the existing school. We understood it is proposed to demolish the existing school and build car parking and playing fields. This makes no sense when you consider Stamford Park has unused fields at the end of Queens Road. Why can’t the money be invested in Stamford Park for use by the school and the existing building be converted and used for other purposes?

Comment 27

A new build school would be an eyesore.  Teachers would potentially lose their jobs.  There is not enough space to accommodate an outside play area for all those extra children on the proposed site.

Comment 28

I do not agree with making the school a 90 intake.  Children feel safer and more comfortable in smaller schools.  Starting school is already daunting for little children, don't forget they start aged just 4/5, and a smaller environment is infinitely preferable for their well being.

There is not currently demand for these extra places.  Will they be filled by families from further away, thereby increasing traffic to the school?

Traffic is already dangerous around the schools, which currently have 3 entrances.  The new building will only have one entrance, at the front. This will lead to traffic chaos. 

The current building is over 100 years old and is an iconic Altrincham and Trafford landmark.  To knock it down would be a terrible loss.

Nobody believes the council will keep space for a playing field for the school.  The land there is worth a fortune to developers.  The council could never suggest building on the current playing field as it would be a PR disaster and parents would never agree.  This is a selling off of our children's green space by stealth.

Comment 29

I feel there is not enough room in this built up area to house such a large school.  The roads are small and it is a residential area.  Bottle necks would be an issue and this risks children’s safety.

Comment 30

I sent the following email during the last consultation process and my view has not altered and therefore I am restating the same information. If you would like to speak to me in more detail about the problems we encounter in school I would be more than happy to speak with concerned parties if that helps.

 

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the academisation of Stamford Park Junior School.

 

I am writing from three perspectives, I am a mother of two children who have completed their education at Stamford Park Infant and Junior Schools, I live Within the catchment area and I currently work at Stamford Park Infant School.

 

I would like to point out that neither the infant or junior schools are fit for purpose, this has been true for a long time, my son and daughter had between 32 to 36 children in their classes throughout their time at the Junior School. The school is Victorian and the classrooms not large enough or in a suitable condition to accommodate the number of children in each class and neither schools are fit to teach a 2019 curriculum as is evidenced in the suitability reports for both schools. The schools are a patchwork quilt of repairs and are not cost effective to maintain or suitable to teach children in. In the summer there is barely any ventilation and in the winter it is difficult to stay warm, the walls run with condensation in the Infant school. In the Infant school we teach in the Staff room, in the corridors and in the Library. Whenever our Head Teacher does not need her office, we use that space also to teach in. Other TAs lead small teaching groups on benches in the hall. I specialise in teaching children with SEN difficulties in particular speech and language difficulties. Some of the children have hearing impairments, others struggle to produce sounds, some have mutism as their challenge, many children find attention and listening extremely difficult. For all these children I am trying to develop skills, increase confidence and practise strategies and whilst other children are bustling pass to go to the toilet, collect their coats, get a drink etc. This is not an environment conducive to educating our young people.

 

For the Juniors school to academise with The Hamblin Trust is not appropriate. The Hamblin Trust has no expertise to impart to a Junior School with its area of experience being in Secondary Education. The Junior school if it were to academise, should find an academy comprised of other Primary Schools so it can share it’s areas of experience and expertise and also take good practice from the other Primary Schools that are in the academy. It is a grave mistake at this time, with an offer of a brand new school to academise with The Hamblin Trust and is not a decision with the best interests of the children at its heart.

 

The Infant and Junior School should amalgamate not only to gain a brand new school, but also so that it can save staffing costs and use every penny in providing the very best education that we can give our young community. By amalgamating we give better continuity to our school children and have better communication with all the amazing teachers in both schools and all the support teaching staff, sharing and growing our own knowledge and practise with each other.

 

I oppose the academisation of Stamford Park Junior School and pledge my full support to the establishment of a new amalgamated Stamford Park Primary School. Our children and our community should not miss out on the opportunity of an aspirational new building.

Comment 31

I currently have 2 children at the school (one in infants and one in juniors) and welcome this proposal. The current buildings are cramped, not environmentally friendly and in desperate need of improvement. The new school will benefit the community, the pupils and help bring the two schools together, which at the moment seem at logger-heads with one another.

Comment 32

I’m a former governor and chair of governors at Stamford Park Infant School and also chaired the buildings committee for several years. I whole heartedly support the new school proposal. The reasons are:

 

- Current building is in poor state of repair due to age and the old fashioned design of the roof and parapet wall which is time consuming and expensive to maintain. This is true for both buildings.

- The design if buildings is not fit for modern teaching eg the central hall is impractical, the dining arrangements are sub optimal especially noise levels for infants who are intimidated by this. The classrooms are too small and do not facilitate modern teaching.

- There is no space for special needs intervention.

- The infants have no kitchen facilities.

- Other schools in similar catchment are modern and Stamford Park is falling behind

- Trafford needs extra school places

- The 2 classes of 35 will reduce to 3 of 30 which is much better for the children and staff.

- There is no doubt the merger and new building will be an asset to school children for generations to come and to the wider community who will be able to benefit from the facilities.

Comment 33

I believe that an amalgamation is a great idea. Neither school is upto modern standards, and they will surely not be fit for purpose for much longer. The infant school feels like too many children are crammed in.  I think the amalgamation would be a good thing for the current children at the school, and also future children.

Comment 34

As a teacher at the Infant school, It is my strong belief that a combined primary school is far better than two separate, infant and junior schools for a multitude of reasons. The continuity of each child’s development would be supported in a more collaborative way. Parents can collect their children and drop off at one primary school. The lack of space has always been a fundamental issue at both of the schools both indoors and outdoors.  Furthermore, I attended both these schools 20 years ago. The walls were crumbling back then and I remember how cold and damp it felt as a child, particularly in the junior school with its size. I would not wish for future generations to have to endure the same when there is an alternative.

Comment 35

I would support the building of a new school and the amalgamation of the two schools. Having had children at Stamford Park until recently, I believe that management under or Head Teacher would be positive for the children. Furthermore, the current building is not fit for purpose.

Comment 36

Why wouldn’t you support a new build.  The old schools are not fit for purpose now and certainly not fit for future.

Better facilities, reduced maintenance, better for kids.

Better access and parking , so safer for the kids.

New school cheaper to run and therefore better for environment.

I can’t see any negative

Comment 37

exciting times for the education of local children. the existing school, whilst full of character, is outdated and no longer fit for purpose.  the events around the black mould, leaking roofs, inefficient heating systems, etc. simply mean that a new build school would benefit all parties.

from a teaching angle, having proper sized classrooms with fully equipped facilities can only be a good thing for the existing children and future generations. i still find it bizarre that there is resistance to the proposals.

 

The weight of support for the amalgamation must be taken into account and those who seek to disrupt and delay the process based on non-truths and petty arguments need to be ignored. this isnt about us or our personal opinions/self promotion, this is about providing a quality educational facility suitable for generations of local children so they can get the best start in life. its an easy decision to make. we've had our education, let them have theirs...

Comment 38

I believe the proposal from Trafford Council to amalgamate the two schools and provide a new, purpose-built school building has significant benefits for all pupils (from Nursery to Year 6) and the wider school community.  These benefits include:

 

Academic

  • Shared vision and values throughout the school from Nursery through to Year 6.
  • Clearer intent, implementation and impact of curriculum that flows seamlessly from EYFS to end of KS2.
  • Continuity of assessment across all key stages in teaching and learning.
  • Consistent expectations regarding attainment, achievement and progress. 
  • Improved quality and continuity of provision for SEN (Special Educational Needs) children.
  • Seamless transition between the Key Stages.

 

Pastoral

  • Shared values regarding expectations of behaviour and attitudes throughout all key stages.
  • Consistent behaviour policies.
  • A cohesive PSHE (Personal, Social, Health, Education) programme from Nursery to Year 6 ensuring appropriate opportunities for personal development.
  • Pupil welfare opportunities to develop successful, long lasting relationships and partnerships with pupils and parents across 8 years instead of 4 years.
  • Safeguarding procedures and policies consistent throughout the school.
  • Increased capacity to offer coordinated onsite wraparound care.

Comment 39

As the father of children at Stamford Park Junior School I strongly support the proposal to amalgamate the two schools. I am convinced that this path – amalgamation of the two schools and the construction of a purpose-built new primary school – will deliver the best possible learning environment and educational experience for the current and future pupils of the Stamford Park school community. I associate myself with the letters submitted to Trafford Council over recent months by the Governing Board of Stamford Park Infant School which set out the clear benefits of amalgamation and a new building respectively. I feel strongly that the best interests of our children would be served by amalgamation and the construction of a new school, with the merits of academisation to be considered on their merits by the Governing Board of the new school in light of the circumstances at the time. I encourage Trafford Council to act proactively and decisively to deliver amalgamation and the construction of a new school, exercising its influence over relevant stakeholders and fulfilling its responsibilities to the current and future pupils of the Stamford Park school community. Having identified this proposal as the best option to meet the pressing need for more school places in this area, I feel that the Council has an obligation to do everything in its power to bring it to fruition. I should declare that I am also a Parent Governor of Stamford Park Infant School but am submitting this response in my personal capacity. Thank you for all you are doing in this regard and for proceeding with this proposal.

Comment 40

I think that an amalgamation and ultimately a new build will benefit the children and pupils to come immensely.  It will provide more and shared resources, a school that is purpose built and that needs low maintenance compared to the current build.

 

By amalgamating the two schools will become cohesive, extending schemes and ideology across key stages, sharing expertise and ideas. 

 

Currently the infants have a 2 1/2 form entry - split classes are not ideal, especially where other classes need to have the same experience. All in all, I believe this is a very good thing for the children.

Comment 41

I am in favor of amalgamation, I have a child in year 4 and another in year 2. I think a new building is badly needed, as the current one is not built for purpose and also it makes sense to have just one school instead of two.

Comment 42

I am a former parent  of Stamford Park pupils and a current infant school staff member.

The infant school has sadly not been fit for purpose for 210 children for a number of years. Children are taught in corridors as there are no rooms available for intervention groups. The school is cold and draughty in winter, and lacks ventilation and is too warm in summer. The  playground is on an incline, which means every time it rains (this is Manchester, it’s always raining) the run off ends up in the reception outside space making it unpleasant for the children to access the activities. As this space is open to the elements, any resources outside or displays are frequently ruined by the elements.

 

Edwardian children were discouraged from looking out of the windows so they are too high for the children to see out. The hall is in frequent use, but as most classrooms exit into the hall, PE lessons are disrupted with children coming and going.

 

A new purpose built school will benefit the children enormously, we desperately need more quiet intervention spaces, more space for the children to play at lunchtimes and outside learning spaces for all key stages.

Comment 43

My view as a parent, a local resident and an experienced educationalist is that amalgamation is the necessary step to strengthen the curriculum vision and coherence of the two current schools, enabling a smooth clearly planned curriculum progress across all year groups. Strategic planning will be aligned to one vision, professional development of all staff will also be aligned and will enable the vision to be delivered.

 

That this aligned vision will be able to be delivered in a new, well designed building enhances the offer, and that this new building will also support the education of an increasing number of young people in the local area is of equal value.

 

Whilst in the short term there will be impact on parking, in the long term resident parking will be improved by the creation of a car park for staff.

I support this project whole-heartedly.

Comment 44

I am in full support of the proposal to amalgamate and re-build a new school (Stamford Park Primary School). I have worked in the current infant school since January 2019 in the role of SBM and have witnessed first hand the need to improve the current cramped conditions for pupils and staff. A new building will greatly enhance the teaching and learning for generations to come and allow the school budget to be used for the education of the children and not be wasted on a crumbling building.

I also believe the local community will benefit greatly with the school provision of off-road parking for staff. This will make the area far less congested during the school day and make it safer for all children travelling to and from school.

Comment 45

Having a daughter who currently attends Stamford Park Infant School I can see how a new building is urgently required for the children who attend there. I applaud the headteachers initiative in placing tables outside in the tiny playground for the children to use to ease the congested space in the classrooms as I strongly believe that being outside is good for all of us, however, this should not be a replacement for adequate indoor space, which all human beings (especially young children) should have a right to shelter from the elements, not a privilege.

 

This is just one example of how a new school is critical for Stamford Park Infants.

Comment 46

I refer to my earlier correspondence and would like to restate my support for the proposal to invest in a new primary school. My support is based on two key factors;

 

The need for additional space and purpose-built facilities;

 

I currently work as an EAL support assistant in the Infant school and struggle, on a daily basis, to deliver English lessons in a corridor outside the cloakrooms and girls' toilets.

 

The figure of 36% below the required space translates into real, daily difficulties for all the staff and pupils the Infant school. Although we work hard to be creative and flexible, these compromises and limits inevitably have an impact on our children and particularly our more vulnerable groups of SEN and EAL children who require additional support outside the classroom.

Amalgamation to bring the two schools together;

Amalgamation makes complete sense for two schools that already share pupils, staff and space. The move to a single school would enable a more seamless and continuous education for the children and deliver longer term cost savings to the local authority.

Comment 47

I have two children in the infants currently and whilst we are thrilled with teaching the building is clearly not fit for use. I know classrooms are cramped and the facilities are not best setting for young children.

Comment 48

I am a teacher at the Infant School and have been for the last 15 years. I love working at SPIS but it is becoming more difficult to teach in the current building. I have spent my own money buying coat pegs for the children and on resources to make my room look nice. I love teaching Infants and am not against merging with the Junior School but the time has come for a new building so Stamford Park Infant School can last another 100 years.

Comment 49

Hi, I just wanted to write to you to express my full support in the amalgamation of the two schools at Stamford park. I feel that I am your perfect target market as I have a son in year 4 in the junior school, my second son in year 1 in the infant school and my 2 year old daughter who is  hopefully set to start in the preschool nursery next sept (2020). Each of my children deserve the best opportunities that the school can offer and this can only happen (in my opinion) if the new school is allowed to be built to match the existing incredible work that the teachers already provide. They also deserve to teach our children in the best possible environments.

Comment 50

I fully support the proposal as the current school is no longer fit for purpose and have always felt the two schools should be joint

Comment 51

I think it is a good idea

The old school is a beautiful building but it is no longer fit for purpose

 

Comment 52

A great proposal. Stamford park needs a fit for purpose facility. The local population is growing. This is the only primary school which is actually withinn walking distance of Hale. Provision for parking for staff and visitors can only be a good thing. Very much in favour of our pupils having a more continuous education from nursery to year 6.

Comment 53

I am so pleased for hearing about the new school project.

we are (as parents) suffering in the parking every morning and afternoon .

The school is very old and does not very convenient for use anymore.There is no enough classes for each class where they use to mix the reception with year one as my child spent last year.

 

Hopefully the new school will be ready for my little one.She is still 3 years old.

Comment 54

I am a grandmother of three children two of whom are currently at the school and I fully support the proposal.  It goes without saying the running costs will be considerably reduced in both management and maintenance costs.  The upkeep of the current premises must be considerable given its age etc. The proposed car park will inevitably impact favourably on the local community.

Comment 55

I am in full support of the Amalgamation of the schools and the need to build a new replacement school.

 

My reasonings for supporting this proposal are similar to the reasonings provided within the information provided by Trafford Council, so i won't go in to details, but in summary i feel a new amalgamated school is required for the following reasons:

- Existing classroom sizes and teaching spaces are not fit for purpose in todays society

- The condition of the existing school with regards to maintenance requirements, the environment and  H&S of the children and staff is not sustainable going forward. I have concerns that if not acted upon, it is only a matter of time before a member of staff or child's welfare will  be harmed by the existing condition.

- An amalgamated school will better support the education and mental health of the children.

Comment 56

I have been a local resident for 25 years and both my children attended the infant and junior schools. I was also a governor in the infant school for 12 years and Chair of Governors there.

Both the infant and junior schools are excellent schools and form an important part of our local community. Generations of children have attended the schools and the buildings are a familiar sight to all.

 

Everyone has a view on the schools and their future, for varying reasons. At the heart of the matter though is the key issue of the interests of the children: current and future pupils.

For this reason above all I strongly favour amalgamation of the infant and junior schools and the building of a new school. Yes, I acknowledge the old 1905 buildings are pretty to look at (from the outside),  but they are unfit for purpose - both schools have problems with their buildings, which lead to an additional costs burden in maintaining them .

 

Paramount is the fact that the buildings are far too small for the children they currently hold.  Infant children are being taught in corridors and outside the toilets; this is unacceptable in 2019.

Children in both schools deserve better than they have now They deserve appropriate modern facilities that are fit for purpose.

 

Other advantages from amalgamation and the new build are:

- a single school that works in a unified way as a team for the benefit of pupils, staff and community - currently the two schools operate in silos;  this does not benefit children or families

- a more integrated approach between the schools , both in curriculum and management

- a common staff who can work together to a joint aim

- staff and children have the opportunity to get to know each other throughout the school

- a seamless transition for children from year 2 to  year 3 ; at present this is not the case

- opportunity to deploy staff more flexibly

- cost savings eg bulk purchasing , administration, maintenance and services

- a joint , seamless approach to special needs; this is very important.

 

Finally, related to this is the junior school's proposal to become an academy. The schools should be working more closely together, rather than one school seeking to draw away from the other. That is the wrong direction to take and has no discernible benefit for the children or the community.  I oppose that proposal at the current time, but agree it could be considered in future once the schools have been amalgamated and have a new building that will cost less to maintain (since an academy is responsible for its own maintenance costs).

Comment 57

The vision the council have is completely the right direction for the school. At the moment the team are coping with a decrepit school and they deserve state of the art facilities. also, the school should bot be linked to an academy if at all possible, this path can only lead to exclusion of less abled pupils and not the democratic and all-round education that the school has valued for most of its history.

Comment 58

As a teacher at the Infant School, the proposal from the Council is an amazing opportunity to address the substantial issues of the Victorian built building. Furthermore, this proposal presents the opportunity for the schools to amalgamate and provide a unified delivery of teaching from Nursery to Year 6.

 

The proposal for a new build school would lead to each Infant year group having their own learning space, compared to the current vertical groups and it would allow smaller class room sizes within the junior school contrasting to the current 35 children in a class. The schools are built on repair after repair and cannot be cost effective to maintain, or suitable to teach children in. Neither the infant or junior schools are fit for purpose. The classrooms not large enough or suitable to accommodate the number of children in each class. I currently teach 31 children in a classroom suitable for only 23 children. Additionally, the suitability reports have both shown that neither schools are fit to teach a 2019 curriculum.

 

Outdoor space allows children to develop muscle strength and coordination, gain self-confidence, increases flexibility, fine and gross motor skills, and is related to the development of a wide variety of physical skills. A new school would lead to improved outdoor space, something that we have never had that has such a positive impact on children’s mental health. Indoor space is also an issue, in the summer there is barely any ventilation, classrooms are too warm with windows too heavy and old to open. In the winter, the walls run with condensation and now our new concern – mould spores. In the Infant school we teach in the staff room, in the corridors and in the Library. A new built school would allow extra space to teach vulnerable children who need intervention teaching in a quiet space, not a corridor.

 

The proposal for a new build school would lead to one amalgamated office, Head Teacher, teaching staff, Governers and Parent Support Group. By amalgamating we give better stability and continuity to our pupils with all the remarkable teachers in both schools sharing their strengths, knowledge and practise with each other.

 

I oppose the academisation of Stamford Park Junior School and pledge my full support to the establishment of a new amalgamated Stamford Park Primary School. As a teacher, my role is ensure that my pupils succeed. No matter how you measure success, a teacher’s goal is to strive and help each and every student reach their full potential. A new, purpose built school would allow myself and my colleagues to do just that. I do not believe Stamford Park Junior School are making a decision with the best interests of the children at its heart. Our children and our community should not miss out on this opportunity.

Comment 59

I am a mum of three children spread across Stamford Park Infant School and Stamford Park Junior School. I strongly support the proposal to amalgamate the two schools. Along with the proposal to construct a brand new purpose built primary school, I am confident that this would deliver the best possible learning environment and educational experience for all current and future pupils. I feel incredibly lucky that all three of my children were able to go to this school and more school places certainly need to become available in this area. But the classrooms are cramped, with some learning having to take place outside in the corridors and the building is not fit for purpose. There are virtually no provisions for any children with special needs including disability access. And it just makes perfect sense that the children's education is fluid and continuous from one key stage to the next without them having to move to a different school at the end of Year 2. I am strongly in favour of the amalgamation and construction of a new school. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views in this consultation.

Comment 60

I wholeheartedly support the proposal to amalgamate and Crete a new build environment for current and future generations of children to learn in.

 I have a year 3 in SPJS and a 2 year old who will hopefully join the school nursery in 2021; while the teach at the schools is of no concern to me, the facilities at both the infants and juniors are outdated and cramped and are no longer fit for purpose.

Comment 61

This is a must for the future of the school and most importantly the current and future children of this area. Surely watching in corridors with large mixed year classes isn’t conducive to optimal learning. A new fit for purpose amalgamated school would allow this.

Comment 62

I can’t remember if I have already stated my view but as a parent of a child in both the infants and juniors, I would like to offer my support for an amalgamated school. It is ludicrous how separate the two schools are. It is the same families, the same local area and should be the same support system. The infant school is painfully badly managed from a parent-facing perspective. They appear to do anything possible to make it difficult for working parents to support their children. We are ‘getting through’ this final year (child in yr2) before finally moving into the juniors for some supportive office and management staff.

 

Please don’t take this as a criticism of the teaching - both schools have excellent teachers and we couldn’t find a bad word to say about that.

Comment 63

I am for the amalgamation of the two schools.

I work in the infant school and the space is so limited.

The booster groups, assessments, EAL work and 1:1 support can take place in busy corridors/ staff room ( sometimes when staff are trying to also eat their lunch ) and the main hall where all the children walk through to get to the toilets or outdoor areas.

The condition of the building  is causing numerous problems, the windows in the hall not being able to open and let the air circulatate through the building along with numerous leaks from the roof that has destroyed the carpets and left damp smells in the rooms.

The outdoor space is limited and the children really need more room to run around at lunch and break times.

A new school would benefit all staff and children.  The schools need to work together as one and show a united front.

Comment 64

I am a parent of children  in both the Infant & Junior schools (Yr2 & Y4) and I strongly support the proposal for the amalgamation of these schools & the building of a new fit for purpose school.

The current buildings are old, and completely unfit for purpose - just last week I sat in the Junior school hall for a Harvest assembly & saw water pouring through into the hall (I have photos of it). This happens every time it rains. There is obvious evidence of mould caused by damp in both schools, and neither children or staff should have to put up with this when there is an offer of a new building on the table. Conditions such as this are just unacceptable.  With clear and obvious damp & mould issues in conjunction with the fact that the classes are too physically small to house/accommodate the number of children in the schools a new building absolutely must happen. Smaller class sizes are known to be more beneficial for the learning outcomes of children, and I strongly support smaller class sizes.

 

I am also a very strong advocate of children being taught in primary schools where the primary learning experience/journey does not involve a transition between schools. There is significant evidence to support a single end to end primary learning experience being better for the children in terms of both academic achievement & social development. This in turn is also better for the school's achievement.

 

I do understand the concerns regarding short term disruption during construction, however he school can utilise this as an amazing learning experience for the children - this was the case in a previous school my children went to (Evendons Primary School in Wokingham, Berkshire), where there was both demolition & construction work on the existing school site. The children had learning experiences that were second to none from a  STEM  perspective.  The benefits of this proposal by the LEA far outweigh the very short term and quickly forgotten impacts of construction, and I sincerely hope that the LEA move forwards with the proposal to amalgamate & build a new school.

Comment 65

We are strongly in favour of a new school. Having a child in the junior school, we know how difficult it is for children to learn in the currently cramped and oppressive environment. Our youngest child is in school nursery and it would be fantastic for him to have access to a purpose built school without the need for mixed year group teaching.

Comment 66

I am writing on behalf of my husband and I. We fully support idea to amalgamate Stamford Park Infant and Junior schools.

We are parents of two children, one who is currently a year 2 pupil at the Infant school, and one who is yet to reach school age.

Bearing in mind the air quality problems which affected the school this year, leading to the last minute closure of the Infant school by the council and air testing at both schools, we believe that keeping the existing building will be detrimental to the interests and possibly the health of both current and future pupils. Amalgamating and building a new school is absolutely the right course of action.

Providing a consistent and joined up education for all children from their early years up to age 11 is a wonderful opportunity which is currently being missed at the school.

Comment 67

I am strongly in favour of the proposals for the new build amalgamated school.

The current schools are no longer fit for purpose and cannot provide the right environment for optimal learning due to the number of pupils attending the school and the facilities available.

There have been limited alterations made in the thirty years since I attended and the schools are not appropriate for the modern age.

Additionally the existing set up provides no parking facilities in an area where parking is difficult, resulting in dangerous road conditins at pick up and drop off time due to drivers parking inappropriately

Comment 68

I fully support a new build school due to the poor conditions of the current schools. The new build will meet national standards for classrooms that neither school currently meet.

Comment 69

My two boys are will hopefully attend this school and I am in support of a new build amalgamated school.

 

The current building looks tired and no longer fit for purpose. A new energy efficient, sustainable school would provide a better learning environment and could be used to teach the children about sustainability and green technologies.

 

There are mixed year group classes in the infants which are challenging for younger pupils. A new school will create 3 full classes in each year and mixed year classes won’t exist anymore. Children in the infants are often taught in the corridor and hall which isn’t good. The junior classrooms are also small and oppressive, lack natural light and space to move. A new build school is much more likely to attract a high calibre of teacher and it would be much better for children and staff’s wellbeing. It would also mean unity between infants and juniors, siblings would see each other more and benefit from shared resources.

Comment 70

I have a child in each of the Infant and Junior schools.  I do not believe it is in the interest of my children or the wider community that the schools should head in separate directions. I also believe the schools (whilst aesthetically attractive from the street) are worn, tired and no longer fit for purpose. For these and other reasons I am wholly supportive of a new Primary school being built provided that it is done to a good specification and with minimum disruption to current Junior pupils. I would hope a new design would support extracurricular activities and permit initiatives such as the ‘morning mile’.

Comment 71

I wholeheartedly support the proposal by Trafford Council. It not only provides extra capacity but also provides an environment which supports learning far more so than the existing facility. The current building has clearly reached the end of its economic life and is for all intents and purpose no longer suitable. I struggle to believe there are not also economies of scale in a Primary school rather than separate Junior and Infant schools. Enabling the budget to be spent on the necessary equipment and consumables rather than senior management wages.

Comment 72

I have read the consultation document and strongly support the proposed amalgamation and construction of a new build primary school. I think this is a fantastic opportunity to improve our children's educational facilities, which the consultation document advises are currently significantly below the DfE recommended guidance. I consider the proposed amalgamation and new build primary school is in the best interests of my children (pupils at the schools) and the community as a whole.

Comment 73

 I think that whilst the existing school buildings are lovely heritage buildings, they do feel very small for the number of children. A new building would be very beneficial to the learning environment overall. An amalgamated school would also make things easier for families with children across the school age range.

Comment 74

I am very much in favour of the Council's proposals for a new build school.  I currently have one child in the junior school and another in the infant school, with my youngest child due to start next September.  I can see that the proposals will be a great improvement to the current school and benefit present and future pupils of the school.

Comment 75

It is vital that the proposed new build goes ahead for the current and future children of Stamford Park - as a mother of three and a local resident I fully support the proposal and have no reservations what so ever. It would be a travesty if the proposal does not go ahead, the current buildings are no longer fit for purpose and do not reflect the ambition and excellence of Trafford education.

Comment 76

I believe that the debated amalgamation of Stamford Park Infant and Junior schools is in best interest of our children.

Comment 77

I am a parent of a child who is currently in the infant school. I am absolutely convinced a new building is an imperative for both the school and the community. This is a straightforward case of future financial cost avoidance. The building will continue to require extensive upkeep and repair, plus increasing financial burden of heating due to its age and size. Therefore constructing  a new, purpose built building will resolve all of these issues plus enable a sustainable and appropriate learning environment for the children.

However, of upmost consideration and must not be overlooked, is the cultural re-organisation and changes required to bring two frankly disparate organisations together. A new building will not create a harmonious transition to a joint operation. I would strongly suggest a change readiness assessment should be undertaken across both schools. A review of joint operability with a view to developing a fully integrated and deliverable structure and culture to join both organisations together needs to be done as soon as possible. The business change aspects of this transformation must not be forgotten, if they are the current success of both schools will be jeopardised as such the teaching of the children likely will be impacted negatively, certainly in the short term.

Comment 78

The teaching facilities for the Infant school are currently somewhat inadequate by today's standards.  Although the Junior School is a little better equipped it is far from ideal.

The beauty and history of the current school don't make up for the shortfall to the expectations of a 21st Century School.

 

In addition, the simpler administration of a single school makes sense when the two schools share a location.

 

I firmly support the amalgamation of the two schools and the plan to create a new school facility, where the design and build of the school meets or exceeds the requirements and expectations of the teaching staff, pupils and parents of a Primary School.

Comment 79

I am passionate about the proposals moving forward ! A new 21st century school for our children would be brilliant and I warmly support the plans.

Comment 80

The new build will provide great purpose built, clean , airy setting for the children. If there’s parking facility on new site,  that would make it safe for children and  solve other parking related problems.

The amalgamation will also make the transition to year 3 easier and seamless.  Thank you for consulting.

Comment 81

I strongly believe that a new school will provide children with access to a better education and facilities that allow the curriculum to be delivered more effectively. The current schools are not fit for purpose and do not give the current children opportunities they should have. Classrooms are too small to accommodate class sizes and areas for teaching additional groups are inadequate.

Comment 82

Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing to express my views with regards to the future plans concerning Stamford Park Junior and Stamford Park Infant School .

I strongly agree with the amalgamated plans for a new purpose built primary school as in my opinion it would hugely benefit all of the current and future children .

I believe it is in all of the children's best interests for the two schools to join forces and accept the proposal from Trafford council.

The buildings of Stamford Park Juniors and Stamford Park Infants are no longer fit for purpose and are certainly not suitable to teach a 2019 curriculum, this is evidenced in the suitability reports that were carried out for both schools.

Recent air quality tests at Stamford Park Infant School had shown high levels of mould spores causing major concern which then resulted in the School being closed down for a few days. This is extremely alarming and definitely not the right environment for any child or staff to be learning  or working in.

Groups of children are being taught in corridors due to lack of space in the current building. Without a new build the current and future children will continue to be taught in buildings that are no longer fit for purpose. How is this morally right ?!

The children at Stamford Park Infant and Stamford Park Junior school deserve a building and environment that IS fit for purpose.

A building that meets 'todays' standard, most importantly an environment where they will have the much needed space, opportunities and facilities to flourish, learn and grow.

Comment 83

I consider it is very important to amalgamate the primary school and junior school as one entity

This will ensure continuity throughout our childrens school experience

There will also be more opportunities for both the primary and juniors to share more joint ventures

Comment 84

I have four childten .I live in the area and a big supporter of the new £8million building. I am very excited for the kids and the area.Trafford counil has my fill support and blessings for this project.

Comment 85

I think it would be a big change to the school and the students but I think I would like this offer to be achieved. Where will the new building be built and if it is going to be built, where will our students study at? Thank you

Comment 86

The current building is not fit for purpose, I have a younger child and I would love for him to attend the new build school

Comment 87

As a parent of a pupil in reception I fully support the proposal. I also hope that our 2 year old daughter will benefit. Whilst the school has been excellent so far, I believe that it would benefit from more space, both in classrooms and elsewhere. I also think that the infants and juniors joining together would benefit the pupils and their continuity through the school. It would also ensure that all involved in the governance and leadership share the same goals and vision for the future of the school.

Comment 88

I feel the amalgamation of the 2 schools is the most important thing and this opportunity to build a new school will achieve that and as such I am in favour of proceeding with the new school proposal.

Comment 89

I fully support Trafford Councils vision for the future of Stamford Park Infant School and Stamford Park Junior School.

 

I believe that a stream lined amalgamated school, is in the best interests of both of my children, which would assist their journey from Keystage 1 to Keystage 2. Ensuring it to be a smooth effortless experience, as opposed to the somewhat over facing transition that it currently is, with the changes that inevitably come with effectively changing school and dealing with their difference policy's, learning outcomes and journey. Further, I do not see that there are any benefits to parents or the Local authority in having 2 SLT, across both the schools. For example in Stamford Park Junior School, there is a Head Teacher, a non teaching Head of School and a teaching Assistant Head, this seems to be a gross waste of resources for such a small school, who have sited struggling with meeting ever changing financial demands as a reason for wishing to academise.

 

Having read both schools Net Capacity Assessments and Suitability Reports, familiarised myself with DfE Pan guidelines, and understanding the Capital investment required across the entire building in the coming years, I strongly believe that the current schools are no longer fit for modern day teaching. Aside from the leaking roofs in both schools, intermittent boiler issues, windows that have to be prized open, carpet on the walls to deal with acoustic issues. There is overcrowding in all bar a couple of class rooms, and EAL and SEN children being taught in the infant school reception area, and in corridors with no day light outside toilets, that are a through fare for the entire school. This is not acceptable for the most venerable in society in this day and age, not when £8m is being offered to build a new modern purpose built school.

 

Residents who have concerns over the building of the new school aside, I do not understand how any parent or teacher can not want this for their children and future generations to come, and I whole heartedly thank Trafford Council for all the work they are putting into my children's education.

Comment 90

As a local resident and a parent with two children in the junior school, I am fully supportive of the councils proposal to amalgamate both schools and provide a new building. The size and state of repair of both schools is not fit for purpose, with my eldest often being moved into spaces in a overcrowded classroom of 35 where he cannot readily see the board. I think the smaller class sizes, integrated approach to teaching throughout the key stages and modern facilities, will give the present and future pupils the level of education they deserve. My only question would be regarding how the extra 3rd class would be integrated into each year group - would this solely be done at reception level go start and then moved progressively up the school with that and future year groups, or would year groups further up the school immediately take in more students after the new school is built. If this second scenario is the case - can you give a more details about how exactly this would be managed. Many thanks.

Comment 91

Hi there

 

What attracted me to STIS was the fact that it was a small school that seemed very personal. I loved the old building (before I knew how unsuitable it was!!)

But most of all I loved STISs sense of wellbeing for the individual child. The fact that it is Montessori led with a strong ethos on growing the childs sense of self behaviours and confidence and in line with the teachers saying we teach you support I have found my child thriving here.

I would worry if this was lost in the new school with it becoming too academic.

 

My interactions with STJS hasn't been as favorable - they haven't picked up on issues to do with bullying or screen time.

 

I hope as part of the planning the Infant Schools ethos of education and parent interaction inc taking responsibility for the childrens behaviours (if a child needs help we look.at our behaviours too as found in the policies) as well as the beautiful and gentle language used towards the children as part of their learning, will be continued as part of the amalgamation.

I do believe the school needs more space and more.provisions for after school.activities. the class rooms are too full.

 

But SPIS is a great school.

Comment 92

I feel that a new build purpose built school is desperately needed. The infants are taught in very small classrooms which aren’t fit for today’s teaching methods. I also feel that an amalgamated school would be best for the children with a streamlined education from nursery to year 6.

It would also be beneficial to not have to do vertical split classes. Although the infant school handles it very well, to no detriment to the teaching standards, it obviously isn’t ideal from a socialisation perspective.

 

My concerns would be that the new build would keep some of the features of the old school and not just be a new built ‘box’.

Comment 93

I think a new school is a very positive move but I think it is important for it to have an exterior design that is sympathetic to the residential properties on the surrounding roads.

Comment 94

The amalgamation must go ahead. Although the school is a beautiful old building it is no longer fit for purpose. The most important people in this decision are the children, this must not be overlooked in favour of jobs oR nostalgia. Any disruption in the local area will be temporary and the school will be present to serve the community for many more years to come. Presumably a building could be produced that retains some of the lovely historical features like Springfield school in Sale.

Comment 95

I feel that the best decision would be to go ahead with the proposal to go ahead as I do not feel that the best interest of the children has been thought about by the juniors governing body.

I do think that it is very important to keep some parts of the old school in the new build like it has been done with others schools in the area.

  • Will the juniors and infants be sharing a hall space ?
  • Will there be a big enough playground for the children at playtimes?
  • Will the new school help reduce parking issues around drop off and pick up times ? If so how?
  • If the proposal doesn’t go ahead what will happen to the future of the infant school ?
  • What will be done with the current building issues?

I hope that the final decision is made thinking about what is best for the children and future children also the community.

Comment 96

My husband and I are fully in favour of the amalgamation and new build primary school.

I have one question regarding heritage pieces from the existing school..... How can they be incorporated if the children are still in the school whilst the new one is being built?

Comment 97

I couldn’t be more in favour of the Council’s proposals.  The children need and deserve a new learning environment  and I can’t wait to see further details.

Comment 98

In full support of school amalgamation. Highest priority should be given to incorporating outdoor space and a build that will enable the evolution of learning future generations will need - ie space which allows for group projects and utilises outdoor and natural Learning.

Comment 99

As a member of staff at the infant school for the past 7 years, I have seen a real need for better facilities for the children at our school. Classroom sizes limit the quality provision we can use without cluttering the space. Children that would benefit for targeted intervention also often struggle with focus and attention and therefore would make better progress in small groups in a quiet area. There are, however, no such areas in the school other than the library which is in use all day.  Damp has been an on going issue since I have worked there, discovering that I was unable to stick things to certain walls because they would become damp and fall off. There is of course a huge concern for our health with a number of staff suffering from chest problems. A real benefit though, would be improved communication between schools. At the moment we put many things in place for children to make progress only to see or hear that they havr not been continued once at the junior school. It seems unfair that the children in year 2 have to deal with the worry, and they do worry, of moving to a new school at age 7 despite it being on the same site. Parking is of course an issue and I often have to park some distance away from school and carry bags of files, my laptop and marking. I think a new purpose built primary school would be an incredible asset to the area for the children in the community.

Comment 100

I think the plan to amalgamate the two schools into a new state of the art school is a fantastic opportunity and the children would gain huge benefit from the improved facilities a new school would provide. 

 Car parking is a particular problem on the roads around the school and the plans for dedicated parking spaces would greatly reduce the congestion on these roads which would, of course, make it safer for the children.

Comment 101

Very much for a new school as the infants is in desperate need of space as is the juniors but my concern is the impact it would have on current junior pupils in terms of disruption/transition.

Comment 102

Firstly, thank you for sending a letter to local residents regarding the proposal to demolish Stamford Park Infant and Junior schools, to replace these with a new building on the existing playing fields and to construct a new car park. I appreciate the Council seeking residents' views on this proposal.

 

As I understand it, the procurement of external design work has already commenced, which does imply that a decision to proceed with this scheme has been made. I do hope that this isn’t the case, or if it is, that the Council is willing to reconsider their position when the consultation closes.

 

I appreciate that the existing school buildings are expensive to maintain and run compared to a new build facility and the Council has been offered funding if it can provide additional school places. I can therefore entirely understand why those responsible for Children’s Services feel this is the good solution.

 

This having been said, the proposal would unfortunately inevitably have negative impacts.

 

  1. Loss of Heritage Assets and destruction of a cohesive Edwardian Neighbourhood

Whilst not listed, Stamford Park Infant and Junior Schools are clearly both heritage assets situated at the very heart of the Edwardian Stamford Park residential area. Having served many generations,  even setting aside their architectural and historic qualities, these buildings are significant because of the collective memories they hold for so many people in the local community. Such memories are important to a local community’s sense of place.

 

Additionally, and importantly,  these buildings provide a strong visual anchor for the Edwardian neighbourhood which comprises the ’tree roads’ and surrounding contemporaneous residential streets. To date, this area has managed to retain its original charm, avoided unsympathetic redevelopment proposals, and benefits significantly from having a preserved cohesive architectural style, materials and character.

 

Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. I am saddened to see the Local Authority not striving to sustain, enhance and if necessary extend these heritage assets and instead choosing to demolish and rebuild.  I have no doubt that a modern new build school on the playing fields and a car park on the existing school site would significantly detract from the cohesive visual character of the area, if not completely undermine it. I note the intention to potentially save elements of the existing school buildings to reuse as features in a new build, but this gives me no comfort. Springfield Primary school is given as an example of a new build incorporating elements of the previous school. Having viewed this school, I am left in no doubt that if a similar build is developed, in this locality,  this will totally undermine the current cohesive character of the area.

 

To allow the character of the area to be so harmed would have long term repercussions in terms of the attractiveness of the area as a place to live.    I would urge the Council to think not just about the potential benefits of this scheme but the far-reaching and long term implications of such a proposal to the character of the wider area. 

 

  1. Climate Emergency

 

Trafford Council’s speed in declaring a climate emergency and setting out a plan to reduce carbon emissions is commendable. I appreciate that new builds are more energy-efficient than older buildings but I urge the Council to think beyond the impact of reducing CO2 associated with running the building and think about the extensive CO2 emissions associated with a new build scheme. CO2 is generated at many stages of the building process:  extracting raw materials; manufacturing the building materials; transporting those materials to the site (often from abroad), and in the construction process itself. Added to that is the carbon that would be generated in demolition and transporting demolition materials for disposal.

 

Please, do not allow arguments to be made that the building will be more energy-efficient, whilst the wider and true picture around carbon emissions is ignored.

 

In summary, I would urge the Council to find an alternative solution to the issues faced which allows the existing buildings to be retained and upgraded rather than lost. Please, cherish our heritage,  invest in improving what already exists, and protect, not destroy the character of this neighbourhood.

Comment 103

I am a parent of a child at Stamford Park Infant school. I support the decision to amalgamate the school and build a new building.

I did read at one section in the report that there could be 30+ students in a group. My child is already being overlooked in a class of 30 so would oppose larger class sizes.

Comment 104

I agree with the proposals to amalgamate the schools. I have 3 children who are pupils of Stamford Park, 1 in the juniors and 2 in infants. I strongly agree that the new school will provide a better learning environment. I do, however, have a couple of points/questions that I would like to raise:

 

  • Would the new school be subjected to a new Ofsted inspection? How soon would this be after the opening of the Primary school? I believe the Ofsted reports provide the parents with valuable information on the teaching standards within the school. As the two separate schools currently have different ratings, and with the infant school not having had an inspection for 9 years, I would be interested to know the plans for the next visit.

 

  • I understand some local residents could have concerns with the appearance of the school, with the differing appearances to the surrounding areas. Would they be able to object to the planning application and insist on alterations?

 

  • What would happen to the two separate board of governors? Would they also amalgamate to form one board or would a brand new selection process begin? If members of the junior board are part of the new primary school, could they propose that they academise the new school as soon as it is built?

 

  • At what steps in the process can appeals to decisions be made? Can appeals be made to the Schools Adjudicator's decision? I imagine some residents will appeal the planning application, can they do this? Has the appeals process been factored in to the delivery date of September 2021?

Comment 105

My comments are as in the previous consultation - I agree with amalgamating the two schools but I don’t agree with knocking down the existing building and building a new one.  I don’t understand why only two options are being considered - either amalgamate and build a new school, or do nothing - why are there not other options such as amalgamating and renovating the existing buildings?

 

I think the buildings should be renovated and additional buildings added to allow for more space - a smaller building could be built on the field in addition to keeping some or all of the current buildings.  Queens Road could be closed or a footbridge built over it to join the two sites.  The field is massively underused currently, so it could be used more as playing areas if the existing playgrounds had additional buildings on.  I just don’t think anyone’s thinking very imaginatively about this - it’s just two easy options being considered.

Comment 106

I am in full favour of a new amalgamated school but would prefer the school to be improved on the existing site. Such a shame to demolish an old building but it is in dire need of repair and if a new school has to be built then so be it.

Comment 107

I am in favour of amalgamating the schools because I believe the continuity of education would be better and the translation between infants and juniors would be smoother.

I also agree that we need better facilities and that some areas of the current building are not fit for purpose.

 

However, I have a few questions/concerns:

 

Surely repairs/extensions to the original red brick building are cheaper than building an entirely new school? We all live in Victorian houses surrounding the school and have managed to bring our homes up-to-date for less than it would cost to move to a new home, let alone build one. My grandmother and mother both attended the school and I believe in preserving its wonderful heritage and sense of tradition.

 

Will we still have the same recreational space as we currently have on Queen’s Road? It’s irritating that they are working on the MUGA court when it may well be removed next year anyway.

 

I’m concerned about the destruction of three large, mature trees on the current site. Aside from the obvious assault on nature, these trees provide invaluable shade for the children on sports’ days and other events.

 

The timing of the build will inevitably disrupt junior children who are doing SATs and preparing for secondary school. This is especially distressing for children with SEN who rely or order and routine. What provisions have you put in place to protect them?

 

I’m sure you’ll try to make a decision that best reflects the needs of the community, the children, parents and staff. But, it’s worth remembering that your actions will define the area, the next generation of pupils and their opportunities. Whether that is positive or negative remains to be seen.

Comment 108

Makes sense to merge the schools but not convinced a complete rebuild is necessary. The current building needs refurbishment.  Not happy about more car parking space as this will encourage more people to drive to school.

Comment 109

I am in favour of the proposal, if all avenues have been explored with the exisiting school.

Would like to understand more on what will be done with exisiting school buildings once the new one is built.

Comment 110

I think the new school is an absolute must as the current facilities will cease to fit for purpose in the next few years.  I do however have concerns about the plans for the existing school and how that is going to fit into the surrounding area and community.

Comment 111

I whole heartedly believe that the proposal to amalgamate the infant and junior schools to create a new combined primary is absolutely in the best interests of not only the children who are currently at Stamford Park but for the community and those children who have yet to begin their schooling. As a current parent of the school I want to go and be part of harvest assemblies etc rather than being told the school hall isn’t large enough to accommodate parents too. I went to such events at my elder daughters school and I’m sure you appreciate how important it is to children when parents are invited to and able to attend such events. Secondly Christmas performance are repeated several times so parents of each class can be invited, surely the children and staffs time could be better spent? I also feel that as lovely as the school building is it simply isn’t fit for the modern day. It’s too small, needs major repair work but even if this were to be done and the building be in a good enough state of repair it still isn’t big enough. Children can’t see out of the windows and we were less than happy when the school was closed due to high levels of mould spores. Our daughter has asthma and whilst all reassurances were given its surely not ok for children to spend hours each week in a building where mould spores are present at any level? In this day and age children shouldn’t be being taught in corridors or cramped classrooms.

 

A new, modern, larger, lighter and brighter school is very much needed for the children of this community who will be the children of the next 100 years of Stamford Park school. If the current building isn’t sorted where will the local children go to school on the future? Also what will parents do if school is closed due to further issues, mould spores etc?

Comment 112

I am a parent to a child currently in year 2 of SPIS and Year 4 of SPJS and a local resident.  I am fully supportive of  the Councils proposal for a new amalgamated primary school.

 

Both of my children are very keen on sports and therefore I am very interested to hear about the Council’s proposals for more modern and improved sport facilities which I hope will b part of the proposal. I think it is very important for children to keep fit for both mental and physical health and one of my big big bears re the infant school is the virtually non existent sports facilities which are actually worse than those of the primary school  which I attended in 70s.

Comment 113

My 2 children both went to these schools and I fully support the plans to amalgamate and rebuild. The school buildings are not fit for purpose, and it amalgamation will deliver a vastly improved educational experience.

 

It needs to be done in a way which protects the heritage/character of the local streetscape and ease of the parking and congestion problems for residents and I'd like some assurances that the architects will respond to a local brief rather than deliver an out of the box 'school' solution. More community use (access to hall in the evening/outdoor spaces at the weekend might be a nice consideration). It sounds big 3 classes per year. Are you able to supply evidence of demand for that from the local community - and over a reasonable time frame.

Comment 114

I wholeheartedly support the proposal to amalgamate and Crete a new build environment for current and future generations of children to learn in.

 

I have a year 3 in SPJS and a 2 year old who will hopefully join the school nursery in 2021; while the teach at the schools is of no concern to me, the facilities at both the infants and juniors are outdated and cramped and are no longer fit for purpose.

Comment 115

We are fully in favour of amalgamation of both Stamford Park schools. As infant parents, we are more than happy with the teaching and leadership, however feel that the facilities could be improved greatly. Something important to us is not having vertically integrated classes and also having spaces for intervention groups. If our children are to have the same level of education  and opportunities as other schools in the area, it is important that we move with the times and provide the absolute best we can give.

Comment 116

I fully support the amalgamation of the schools and the building of a new building. I would hope that walking/cycling routes can be considered as there are particular concerns with pedestrian crossings around the junction of Moss Lane and Stamford Park Road.

Comment 117

I am a local resident and a parent of a 5 year old girl who attends Stamford Park School. I agree with building a new school given the current one if old and not fit for purpose. This was demonstrated by the recent mould issue which required the school to be closed for a period last year

 

I support the building of a new purpose built school so the children of the local area could be taught in a safe, modern environment.

Comment 118

It's important that the changes do not disrupt the education / facilities for the kids who are finishing their time at SPJS.

 

While the proposal may be a good long term solution there are kids that need the school to be the best it can be in the short / medium term - this includes access to sports area / field / games space.

If the proposal goes ahead, there needs to be measures to ensure that the school operates at a high level during the changes - the academy alternative offered more immediate access to funding to the juniors, it would be ideal to ensure there are some benefits before the project is complete or to re look at whether it is the right thing to do.

 

Some of the benefits are not as strong as outlined

 

 -  size isn't everything - the proposal shows that sizing is an issue but is this directly related to teaching?

 -  adding food technology units - this isn't really needed for primary age in my opinion, so some of the benefits are not perhaps strong.

- I found no issue with moving from infants to junior which is also listed as benefit of amalgamation

 - I  don't believe the school should be providing community use space as a priority

 

As a priority, a resolution to the debate is really needed so that there can be a focus on creating a continuing strong learning environment. I am concerned that if it goes ahead and there are changes to structure (eg recruiting a new head in 2020) the current year 5 kids, by then in their very important year 6 education, will not have the focussed leadership needed and also will not glean any benefit from the changes.

 

The process to now has been emotional and somewhat influenced by the few; I am very happy that there is an independent adjudicator and keen that all info is taken in. I am neither in support of or against the proposal, I simply would like all views taken on board and some clear steps in place soon so progress can be made.

Comment 119

I would support the plans of amalgamation to make improved single school

Comment 120

Support amalgmation

Comment 121

I fully support a new school - Stamford Park Primary School

Comment 122

A great proposal which will benefit the children

Comment 123

 I would like to offer my support for a new build school.

Comment 124

I wish for the schools to amalgamate. A new school for for purpose would be the best option. My son currently attends reception year and my younger twin daughters will hopefully get a place there in the next few years

Comment 125

I am in favour of the amalgamation as my son is in reception and twin daughters will be attending in 2021

Comment 126

As parent of a child in SPIS Year 1 group, I fully support the decision to build new modern school and believe that it will be in the best interests of the children and local community.

Thank you!

Comment 127

An excellent idea.....planning for the future of our children is everything.

Comment 128

 I agree with the new build

Comment 129

I support the amalgamation of the two schools

Comment 130

My daughter has started reception this year and I think the new school would be an amazing benefit for all pupils current and in the  future

Comment 131

This would be fantastic for the future of the school, pupils and the surrounding area.

Comment 132

Much needed!

Comment 133

As parents of children at the school we would like the amalgamation to go ahead with a new built school.  We feel it would certainly benefit the children on many different levels.

Comment 134

 I am in favour of amalgamation. Quite excited and happy for the Area and kids.

Comment 135

I fully support the amalgamation of both schools as a local resident (Sandileigh Ave) and a parent of a child at the infant school

Comment 136

Fully support the new build

Comment 137

As a local resident with a young child in the catchment area for the schools I wanted to send my support for the proposals to combine the schools on the current playing fields site.

 

Comment 138

I fully support the proposal for the new build school.

Comment 139

I would like to offer my support for the amalgamation and the new school.  I feel it is much needed and will solve many problems that the school currently has.

Comment 140

 I am ok and happy with the proposal of new primary school

Comment 141

I am in favour of the proposed amalgamation. I have two daughters in the junior school and I work part-time as a Midday Assistant in the infant school. The amalgamation would be of great benefit to everyone in the school.

Comment 142

I’m in favour of the proposal of having one school with better facilities for the children.

Comment 143

I fully support amalgamation and building new fit to purpose school. My daughter is currently in year 1 and I believe it will be the best option for her and other children

Comment 144

I believe amalgamation of the two schools is the way forward to provide the current children and future generations with the facilities required for modern education.

 

Comment 145

I am in full favour of the new school plans for the infants and juniors to be joined with a new school building

Comment 146

I am sure that a new fit for purpose school will benefit the children in the area for many years to come.   This is a welcome change as the school classrooms are not big enough and are in disrepair.

Comment 147

I am in favour of a new build school

Comment 148

Confirmation that  I am in favour of amalgamation and the building of a new school.

Comment 149

Please proceed in order to provide a better purpose built school for our children.

Comment 150

I think a new school would be excellent for the children who attended Stamford park schools and future children.

Comment 151

Fully support this amalgamation.

Comment 152

Hi fully support these plans

Comment 153

Happy with this idea

Comment 154

I support construction of a new amalgamated school

Comment 155

In favour.

Comment 156

I think the amalgamation and purpose built school is much needed and I'm in full support of these plans

Comment 157

I support the amalgamation of the schools and the building of a new school.

Comment 158

Agree and support proposal to merge both schools

Comment 159

We fully agree that a brand new school building is the best way forward for the future of our own children.

Comment 160

Yes we are very welcome in want to rebuild a new school. Many thnx

Comment 161

I think the new school would be beneficial to both the children and the community.

Comment 162

I think a new state of the art primary school will be both beneficial for the children and the local community

Comment 163

I fully back the amalgamation of the schools as a parent of infant school and local resident.

Comment 164

I have three children - one of which is at the infant school - the other in the juniors. Their sister will be due to start at the school in 2021.

Myself and my husband are all for the amalgamation - the space and opportunity for improved learning for the youngsters in the local community makes complete sense.

It would be a real shame if this project cannot go ahead.

Our only concern is over the amount of human traffic entering the school through one gate only - perhaps consideration needs to be made about the layout of Queens Rd?

Other than that - all for it!

Comment 165

I fully support the proposal and happy for the bid to proceed.

Comment 166

Absolutely for the new school . Ridiculous that people are trying to stop this happening . The children need a new school .

Comment 167

My son studies in the Stamford Park Infant School and I believe he deserves a brand new school. I am for the new school development.

Comment 168

I fully support the new build school as a parent of a child at the school.

Comment 169

If the proposal goes ahead what will the admission arrangements for the new school be?

Comment 170

I fully agree with the proposal to amalgamate Stamford Park Infant and Stamford Park Junior Schools for the following reasons;

1. I strongly believe that it is in the best interests of all children that they are taught in an amalgamated Primary School where there is a streamlined approach to education from EYFS to KS2 and relationships can be formed between children and all staff over a period of 8 years.

2. My children and those of generations to come deserve to be taught in a building that is fit for teaching a modern day curriculum in. The Net Capacity report details that all classrooms are overcrowded with more pupils than they can comfortably accommodate and the Suitability Report grades all of the current teaching spaces in both schools as “inhibiting teaching methods” or “adversely affecting staff morale or pupil behaviour.” In addition, booster groups and the teaching of children with Special Educational Needs takes place in the corridor at SPIS because of an overall lack of space and there has been the recent closure of the SPIS due to high levels of mould spores in the building. The current Edwardian school building is not fit for purpose.

Comment 171

I fully agree with the proposal to amalgamate Stamford Park Infant and Stamford Park Junior Schools for the following reasons;

1. I strongly believe that it is in the best interests of all children that they are taught in an amalgamated Primary School where there is a streamlined approach to education from EYFS to KS2 and relationships can be formed between children and all staff over a period of 8 years.

2. My children and those of generations to come deserve to be taught in a building that is fit for teaching a modern day curriculum in. The Net Capacity report details that all classrooms are overcrowded with more pupils than they can comfortably accommodate and the Suitability Report grades all of the current teaching spaces in both schools as “inhibiting teaching methods” or “adversely affecting staff morale or pupil behaviour.” In addition, booster groups and the teaching of children with Special Educational Needs takes place in the corridor at SPIS because of an overall lack of space and there has been the recent closure of SPIS due to high levels of mould spores in the building. The current Edwardian school building is not fit for purpose.

Comment 172

I am the parent of two children in year one and nursery of Stamford park infants. We are very much in favour of the new school and amalgamation of the two schools, for a simpler flowing school. We hope the new build goes ahead as planned so then my children would move into the new school rather than go into the junior building as is. Larger brighter class rooms seem like a much better environment to educate our children than hallways that are currently used.

Comment 173

Totally in favour of new build. It will provide a much needed improved environment for our children and generations of future children to come. Also in favour of amalgamating the two schools, as this will make transitioning much easier for children and also parents on the admin side.

Comment 174

this is a no brainer for me. replacing an old, inefficient building where children are taught in corridors with leaking roofs to getting them into a purpose built facility where everyone involved can thrive.

i accept that people locally might want to retain a building but the reasoning behind objecting simply being "its a beautiful building" simply is a grasp at nostalgia. it needs to be clear that this enables many generations of local children to have a building that allows them to get the best start possible in life.

i find it totally unacceptable that there are still talks of rejecting the idea from teachers and governors in situ simply because they wish to pursue job protection. its not their choice im afraid, they are there for the best interests of the children.

Comment 175

I am in favour of this new school build and agree with the proposed plans.

Comment 176

I currently have one child in the infant school and one in the juniors.

I think that the two schools should be amalgamated. The current buildings are not fit for purpose anymore.

It seems to make more sense that the infant and junior learning journey is overseen by one body of teachers/head rather than two.

Comment 177

I am writing as a parent of 3 children who have attended and are currently still attending Stamford Park School. They have all been through both the Infant and Junior Schools.

While I understand the need to modernise the infrastructure to provide a suitable learning and working environment for both pupils and staff I do not agree with the plans to amalgamate and increase the school size.

Stamford Park has very good outcomes for its pupils and their education is carried out in a local and nurturing environment created by passionate, caring and professional staff. This is where additional funding should be directed rather than on new buildings. I fear that the real rationale for expansion is not pupil centred but rather to facilitate a growing population which is not local.

The traffic congestion on local roads which will flow from pupils travelling from further away will negatively impact on pupil safety and the environment and have a detrimental impact on local residents.

Increased funding from Trafford is welcomed for Stamford Park but this should be invested to maintain and increase the high standards of education and pastoral care to service the immediate local community and not to create a bigger education hub for a wider geographical area.

Comment 178

I am fully supportive of the proposals for the new combined school development.

Comment 179

Nice to hear about plan for New School of Stamford Park which will have Infant & Junior school together with advanced facilities that will help children's grow.

Comment 180

How long will it take to complete the whole process? Will it effect the before and after school clubs?

Comment 181

I feel it’s imperative the two school organisations merge to create a unified school and planning proposals should then be put forward to all stakeholders. Whilst I am largely in favour of a new build I do not feel I have sufficient information to approve the site development plans.

Comment 182

The school is old & problems with mould have recently been encountered. Combining the two schools should improve the continuity of the school as a whole & a new building surely has to be in the best interests of the pupils and the future pupils/community.

Comment 183

Myself and my husband would like to formally lodge our nil support of your proposal for conversion to an academy set to take place in Autumn 2019. This email follows our previous correspondence on the matter, our signing of the letter of representation filed by Laura Fisher and attendance at your Q&A session held on the 24th of April 2019.

We do not believe that Academisation at this time is in the best interests of the children (we have children in both Juniors and Infants) and would ask that you reconsider the LA’s proposal for a new build amalgamated school and then seek to acadamise once the new facility is in place (if it is then deemed appropriate). Our reasons for rejection of SPJS’s proposal to acadamise at this time are as follows:

1. Primarily, it would prevent the possibility of building a new £8m school building funded by the LA. This is something we know is desperately needed and outline the following reasons:

  • obvious age and condition of the Victorian building and knowledge that this will not got better in the future - recent worrying events at the Infants School with school closure due to air quality, water leaks, etc have further compounded this in our minds;
  • the Net Capacity and Suitability Assessments clearly outline a lack of suitable teaching space. We have personally seen our children working in the corridors and struggling for space in tiny rooms with little light. SPJS openly admit that they place 35 children in a class with the view that this is better for the children but we feel smaller class sizes must surely be the answer?
  • Additional intake of children in a larger building will ease growing demand for primary school places which as everyone knows is a real issue in the area;
  • A new build school would give our children the best working environment with improved sports and teaching facilities, new equipment, better grounds and potentially address obvious parking and drop-off issues around school;
  • We would like to see the money raised at the numerous fund raising events go directly to the children rather than plugging holes in the maintenance budget.

2. We support the amalgamation of the two schools and believe it is in the best interests of our children for the following reasons:

  • better integration and continuity through KS 1 & 2;
  • cost savings on head / office staff which could be better spent on teaching and resources;
  • bigger intake but reduced class sizes to provide better teaching generally.

3. We have reservations about privatisation of the school system and academisation generally and would wish to have a longer period of time in which to consider the impacts of this decision on our children. There has been much negative press about academisation and we are yet to be convinced. We could be in support of this at a later date if the new school is delivered and the children’s immediate needs have been put first.

Note on Communication

I would also like to point out that we have not been impressed with the consultation process thus far - in our view - too little, too late and what appears to be a made decision that does not take into account the thoughts and concerns of the parents. A lack of information and transparency has been noted and without the absolute passion and dogged determination of some parents of the school, the school community would be in the dark about much that has been going on behind the scenes.

We attended the Q&A session and it was clear to us that there was much dodging of some very credible and important questions and we feel that the school are merely running a process but have no intention of acting upon the strength of feeling about the new school. It is sad to us that we have lost faith in SPJS and the senior staff/Governors to make the right decision for our children (or at least provide us with credible arguments for why academisation has been selected over new build and amalgamation). We note, in your recent communication about this consultation there is no mention of the new build school and the LA’s statement (read out at the April Q&A) which clearly stated that the new build school was still on the table and that they would allow additional time for SPJS and SPIS to make an informed decision. We feel this is very disingenuous and a clear and blatant steering towards the approval of the academisation process.

In addition, we’d like you to note that this whole experience from announcement to today has left a very bad taste in our mouths. We have been so happy with both SPIS and SPJS in the past and now the clear seething resentment between the two schools, discontent amongst the parents and general uncertainty has left us feeling that SPJS’s approach to academisation has destroyed the very soul of the community. We hope that through this consultation period SPJS will reconsider their trajectory and put the people who matter most, our children and future children, at the heart of the decision making process.

Regards,

[name and address redacted]

Comment 184

These buildings are clearly no longer fit for purpose. We have heard reports of inadequate facilities, to the point where children are being taught in corridors due to lack of space in the buildings. There has been a well documented recent problem with mould in the Infant School , and we have witnessed buckets being placed in the Junior School under leaking ceilings! These children, and future generations, deserve to be taught in an environment where the curriculum can be effectively taught, and which offers safe, clean additional facilities to develop their skills. Their basic needs are not being met currently. I wholeheartedly support the Council s proposal, and believe that amalgamation is key to the future for these children. The current curriculum cannot be effectively delivered when there is a "split" in education when children move to the Junior School. In addition, there are clear economies of scale through reduction of duplicate office teams which will release funds to the direct benefit of the children.

I have heard several arguments about the need to preserve these school buildings, but the fact is that they can no longer be used as schools. Neither building is big enough, or in sufficiently good condition, and neither can be extended to create the additional space so desperately needed.

Comment 185

I am strongly in favour of the amalgamation of Stamford Park Infant and Junior Schools and the building of a new fit for purpose school on the existing school field.

I have a daughter in year 1 and two younger children, who I hope will also go to Stamford Park School. I believe that the proposals are completely in the best interests of the children who go to the school - class rooms of a correct size, no mould, no crumbling plaster, no confusing mixing of age groups in the infants, low maintenance..

I know families who have been put off going to SPIS because of the state of the buildings. It would be a shame if Stamford Park Schools became an unpopular choice in the area. With a new building and up to date facilities, many local families would choose this school rather than opting to drive to a further school.

I hope the new building can be made to look pleasing to the eye and retain a feature or two from the old school building.

The retirement home next door to the current school field is built lower than Queens Road and I believe it is 3 storeys. To decrease the impact of the new school, perhaps the same could be looked into?

I hope the car park will have plenty of trees and be made to look nice.

Stamford Park Infants and Juniors must move with the times and build a new school in order to best serve the local children. I believe the proposal is best for the children and for the area.

Comment 186

In favour of the new build - parent of children in infant and junior school at present

Comment 187

I fully support the building of the new Stamford Park school and believe it will have a huge benefit in the teaching of my two grandchildren and the enhanced facilities that the new school will bring.

Comment 188

I support this application. I believe for all the reasons stated in the consultation this will benefit the local community and in particular the children attending the new school. The provision of a staff car park will alleviate traffic congestion in the immediate area.

The new purpose built buildings will enhance the learning experience of all the children.

Comment 189

The two schools are no longer fit for purpose for a modern day school.

Running a larger (3 form entry?) EYFS to KS2 school with shared resource, support staff and Senior Leadership will serve the community better and mitigate risk of running at a budget deficit.

Once the new school is built then I'm in favour of a review towards academisation.

The current action by the Junior school govenors rings of protectionism and petty in-fighting and exactly the opposite example we wish to set for our communities children.

At the most recent "meet the governor session they were clearly not in possession of the financial status of Hamblin Trust, which while academically attractive is running at £800,000 in year deficit and on an obvious land grab for schools to support their organisational costs.

Build a new school then academise if appropriate.

Back to top