Kate Sheehan of Cox Green will ask the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

I applaud Councillors Bicknell’s comments at the last full Council meeting held in December 2015, stating 'every child should be able to walk to school safely'.  As this is RBWM's policy, why was planning consent given to Holyport College without a safe pedestrian and cycle route being part of the planning approval conditions'

Kate Sheehan of Cox Green will ask the following question of Councillor D. Wilson:

The original Holyport College travel plan stated that you would offer FREE transport to all pupils attending the school and at your consultation meeting in Holyport prior to build you stated to me that no pavement was needed because free transport would be available.  Why are you now supporting a walking/cycling route rather than Holyport College providing free transport as promised?

(A Member responding to a question shall be allowed up to five minutes to reply to the initial question and up to two minutes to reply to a supplementary question. The questioner shall be allowed up to 1 minute to put the supplementary question)

Kate Sheehan of Cox Greenasked the following question ofCouncillor D. Wilson:

I applaud Councillors Bicknell’s comments at the last full Council meeting held in December 2015, stating 'every child should be able to walk to school safely'.  As this is RBWM's policy, why was planning consent given to Holyport College without a safe pedestrian and cycle route being part of the planning approval conditions'

Councillor D. Wilson responded that he had checked the record of the meeting on 15 December 2015 and Cllr Bicknell had stated that 'every child should be able to get to school safely'. He continued to explain that the site now used by Holyport College was previously occupied by Holyport Manor school, an education establishment; permission was granted under application 13/00287 for the redevelopment of the site to provide a new secondary school.  The planning officer’s report to Panel on 28 May 2013, which he had chaired, clearly set out the highway considerations on which the application was assessed but also that the application was made on the basis of no pupil or staff member walking or cycling to school.  A draft travel plan was submitted with a transport assessment supporting the application and a condition of the permission was a requirement to have a full Travel Plan for the future.  This condition was discharged in consultation with highway colleagues.

Ms Sheehan, by way of a supplementary question, asked for confirmation that Holyport College be put on a list of all schools requiring safe routes and not prioritised?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that the council would consider safe routes for all schools; all would be looked at during the process. It was an evolving process.

Kate Sheehan of Cox Green asked the following question ofCouncillor D. Wilson:

The original Holyport College travel plan stated that you would offer FREE transport to all pupils attending the school and at your consultation meeting in Holyport prior to build you stated to me that no pavement was needed because free transport would be available.  Why are you now supporting a walking/cycling route rather than Holyport College providing free transport as promised?

Councillor D. Wilson responded that he was perplexed as he had not offered free transport and he had not attended a consultation meeting. As per the previous answer all schools in the borough would be provided with safe routes.

Ms Sheehan stated that she had submitted the question to Cllr Dudley rather than Councillor D. Wilson.

Councillor Dudley explained that originally there was free transport for pupils as part of the Travel Plan; those rights had been grandfathered for pupils still at that school who joined in 2014/15. Those attending from 15/16 onwards would have to pay for transport.  Parents and friends of pupils were keen that pupils could walk or cycle to school and had resented a petition to tis effect. The school has set aside over £80,000 in s106 funding and the council had agreed to look into such a scheme.

Ms Sheehan, by way of a supplementary question, commented that Councillor Dudley had stated that funding of £83,000 for the scheme would be paid by Holyport College as part of a legacy agreement. However, the agreement said the funding was for the Ascot Road and Forest Green Road junction rather than general improvements. She asked him to explain the discrepancy and who confirm would pay for the junction improvements if needed at a later date?

Councillor Dudley responded that the legal agreement between the borough and the school referred to funds to be used on schemes agreed by both parties. The scheme would be considered by Cabinet when a proposal was brought forward.

Councillor Werner suggested that Ms Sheehan should receive an apology for the tone of voice used by Councillor Dudley. The Mayor commented that it was not always easy to answer a question that a councillor was not prepared for and Councillor Dudley had done very well to respond; therefore an apology was not necessary.