PLANS to divert almost £8 million from rebuilding one Poole school to developing eight others have provoked a “feeding frenzy”, according to one councillor.

Creekmoor Ward councillor John Rampton was speaking at an extraordinary all-day meeting of the children and young people overview and scrutiny committee on Tuesday.

It was called to look into plans to redistribute £7.8 million from rebuilding run-down Hillbourne School in Creekmoor towards providing places for an additional 150 four-year-olds elsewhere in the borough where the birth rate is rising.

Under the proposal the money would go to developing to eight other Poole schools.

But Creekmoor ward councillors suggested the plans were “far more generous” than was required to meet the council’s statutory duty to provide school places.

Cllr Rampton asked: “Are we witnessing a feeding frenzy here?”

Cllr Judy Butt said it was felt that “the opportunity has been taken by some schools to negotiate extra provisions”, giving examples including a computer suite, a new hall and roof repairs.

She added: “Why should eight schools have 21st century provision to the detriment of one which is hardly in the 20th century?”

Hillbourne parent Sonya Allan also made a passionate speech to the committee, describing how parents felt “angry and betrayed”, and hitting out at the way schools were being “pitted against each other” to justify their need.

But Anne Newton, strategic director, Borough of Poole, stressed it was not a meeting “which set schools up to compete with each other” but a way for councillors to gather information to make “informed but difficult choices”.

The day-long meeting recommended that the council went ahead with projects at St Aldhelm’s Combined, Sylvan First, Longfleet Combined and Talbot Combined – but looked into the “value for money” presented by the schemes for Baden Powell and St Peter’s Middle, Branksome Heath Middle and Heatherlands First.

The committee also recommended that “costed options” for Hillbourne School and Longspee Special School, which has also lost funding, were looked into, and alternative funding avenues explored.

The meeting will reconvene to address the thorny issue again on May 10, and the recommendations will go before the full council.