The Myers Grove - Wisewood schools merge debate

[loopylulu 10]

He said: "There was no arguable defect in the consultation procedure, including the time allowed. It has not been shown that the defendant, Sheffield Council, arguably failed to take the results of the consultation into account." '

 

Im sorry but this is where I have to disagree with the judge.

 

Sheffield City Council took no notice of the responses from people during the consultation process, they took no notice of the letters of objection (which way outnumbered the letters for the merger), they took no notice of the 3,500+ signatures on the petition against the merger.

 

There may be a chance that the judge has got this wrong, so therefore SOCS are appealling.

 

SOCS have a legal right to appeal this decision and they will do so. They will fight everything that there is to fight with this merger.

 

Can I ask Redrobbo, are you aware of any Traffic Impact Assessment Report that should have been done by now - as Alena Prentice did state that it would be completed by January, but nobody has heard anything about this.

 

Alf Meade has stated that the air pollution was high already in the Malin Bridge area and that the council would fail on the Traffic Impact Assessment due to this reason as Malin Bridge is in a green area.

[redrobbo 10]

Im sorry but this is where I have to disagree with the judge.

 

Sheffield City Council took no notice of the responses from people during the consultation process, they took no notice of the letters of objection (which way outnumbered the letters for the merger), they took no notice of the 3,500+ signatures on the petition against the merger.

 

There may be a chance that the judge has got this wrong, so therefore SOCS are appealling.

 

SOCS have a legal right to appeal this decision and they will do so. They will fight everything that there is to fight with this merger.

 

The legal ruling couldn't be clearer. The judge clearly stated "It has not been shown that the defendant, Sheffield Council, arguably failed to take the results of the consultation into account."

 

Whilst you may personally feel that the council did not take the results of the consultation process into account - and SOCS sought a judicial review on this very point, the judgement is clear and concise, i.e., the council has been shown to have taken the results of the consultation into account.

 

Can I ask Redrobbo, are you aware of any Traffic Impact Assessment Report that should have been done by now - as Alena Prentice did state that it would be completed by January, but nobody has heard anything about this.

 

Alf Meade has stated that the air pollution was high already in the Malin Bridge area and that the council would fail on the Traffic Impact Assessment due to this reason as Malin Bridge is in a green area.

 

You may not be aware, I've been absent from the Town Hall for some months due to health problems, and am now only just returning to council duties. As a result, I'm still out of touch with a number of city-wide issues. If Alena Prentice has stated that the Traffic Impact Assessment Report should be completed by January, there doesn't appear long to wait now.

[loopylulu 10]

The legal ruling couldn't be clearer. The judge clearly stated "It has not been shown that the defendant, Sheffield Council, arguably failed to take the results of the consultation into account."

 

Whilst you may personally feel that the council did not take the results of the consultation process into account - and SOCS sought a judicial review on this very point, the judgement is clear and concise, i.e., the council has been shown to have taken the results of the consultation into account.

 

The judge may have stated what you have said but that doesnt mean that an Oral Hearing cant overturn it.

 

It is of my view and numerous others that the council did not take into accout responses to the consultation. If they had, given all the proof of the objections, then the merger wouldnt be going ahead.

 

Sorry to hear you havent been well, hope you are feeling better now.

[**spiral** 10]

The judge may have stated what you have said but that doesnt mean that an Oral Hearing cant overturn it.

 

It is of my view and numerous others that the council did not take into accout responses to the consultation. If they had, given all the proof of the objections, then the merger wouldnt be going ahead.

Sorry to hear you havent been well, hope you are feeling better now.

 

Or maybe they just don't care because they want the merger to go ahead, no matter what the public wants. What the public wants rarely seems to matter these days, it is just the publics lives they are messing with, nothing important to them as it doesn't affect them.

[loopylulu 10]

Or maybe they just don't care because they want the merger to go ahead, no matter what the public wants. What the public wants rarely seems to matter these days, it is just the publics lives they are messing with, nothing important to them as it doesn't affect them.

 

Thats exactly how everyone opposed to the merger sees things.

 

Well said:)

[redrobbo 10]

The judge may have stated what you have said but that doesnt mean that an Oral Hearing cant overturn it.

 

It is of my view and numerous others that the council did not take into accout responses to the consultation. If they had, given all the proof of the objections, then the merger wouldnt be going ahead.

 

Sorry to hear you havent been well, hope you are feeling better now.

 

Thanks loopylulu, I'm now much better and getting back into the swing of things again (including catching up on the dreaded emails!).

 

The application by SOCS for a judicial review was, I believe, on the basis that the council may not have conducted the consultation process properly or taken the results of the consultation into account.

 

The application has now been refused by the judge for the stated reason that "It has not been shown that the defendant, Sheffield Council, arguably failed to take the results of the consultation into account."

 

Your argument is that the council came to the wrong decision. That is an entirely different argument though.

 

I note that SOCS are now considering an oral application. I am sure that you will keep regular readers of this thread posted on the outcome of any application for an oral hearing.

[loopylulu 10]

Thanks loopylulu, I'm now much better and getting back into the swing of things again (including catching up on the dreaded emails!).

 

The application by SOCS for a judicial review was, I believe, on the basis that the council may not have conducted the consultation process properly or taken the results of the consultation into account.

 

The application has now been refused by the judge for the stated reason that "It has not been shown that the defendant, Sheffield Council, arguably failed to take the results of the consultation into account."

 

Your argument is that the council came to the wrong decision. That is an entirely different argument though.

 

I note that SOCS are now considering an oral application. I am sure that you will keep regular readers of this thread posted on the outcome of any application for an oral hearing.

 

Glad your feeling better.

 

The application for judicial review was on the basis that the council hadnt conducted the consultation process correctly amongst other things. Im sure Jonathan Crossley-Holland would have gone through these things with Councillors.

 

It was not the only item for the application for judicial review.

 

All I will now say on the legal action side of things is that the legal action is not over!

 

I dont know if you are aware, Redrobbo, but Alena Prentice has now been taken on the Wisewood/Myers merger so referring back to my earlier post about the Traffic Impact Assessment Report, I dont know who will now be producing this, if it ever gets produced.

 

Thanks for your comments, Redrobbo.

[cgksheff 44]

........... given all the proof of the objections, ..........

 

Does this refer to the "validity of the objections?

[loopylulu 10]

Does this refer to the "validity of the objections?

 

What do u mean by the 'validity' of the objections.

 

Arent all objections valid to the people who are objecting?

[barmyowls 11]

so now it seems Jim WATKIN taken off the merger (X bradfield governor and manager of the consultation document tho the labour council did not know he was a bradfield governor:loopy: and say he played only a tiny part in the consultation:loopy:

 

J c holland (now leaving the one that said MISTAKES was made in the consultation meetings)

 

Alena prentice (not sure what she did but shes now left the merger thing, but you never got a straight answer from her)

 

Harry harpham (now seems he will be moved on)

 

you would have thought these folks would have seen this thru BUT oh no the been moved on someone stated because of the big mistakes made ""heads would roll" well looks like they have:hihi:

[barmyowls 11]

Ive also had a good email about this new parents group that run the school i hope to put it on here very soon and in our local paper!! just got to make sure i can do this by the powers that be!! lol

[Benji 1+1 11]

What new parents group would that be then? If you have the information that a parents group has been set up please tell us all about it as I am aware the only group at the moment is the proposers group.