Bournemouth RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Bournemouth from the Bournemouth Eye Balloom in the Lower Gardens. Picture by Richard Crease, Bournemouth Echo. To buy this photo of Bournemouth seafront and to see more pictures, click here

Must house be demolished for school growth in Bournemouth?


ANGRY residents are questioning the need to demolish a Victorian villa and cut down 29 trees in the heart of a conservation area – to make way for extra classrooms that they believe are not required.

Last week’s planning board voted by five votes to four in favour of extending St Michael’s Primary on Bournemouth’s West Cliff.

But a linked application to demolish 2 Somerville Road to make room for the development was rejected and will now be decided by the full council on July 27.

The former hotel was turned into flats six years ago.

A deputation of residents is expected to attend the meeting and more than 200 have signed a petition to try and halt the demolition and the loss of protected trees, which include a 100-year-old beech tree and a large Monterey pine.

One resident, who asked not to be named, said: “I don’t think the process has been very democratic.

“A meeting was called on the worst night of the winter to make people aware of what was going on at the school.

“Six people turned up.

“We asked for another meeting, but were told ‘no’.

“There’s been an assumption that planning permission will be granted.

“The council bought the freehold (of number 2) and six families left their homes.

“Councillors seem to take the view that there’s an overwhelming need for expansion, but almost 40 per cent of the pupils come from outside the catchment area.

“We need to provide more school places in the borough, but not here.”

The council says all this September’s intake is expected to come from the catchment area.

Cllr Nicola Greene, cabinet member for culture and school development, said in a statement: “An unprecedented rise in the birth rate in the town has meant the council has needed to find more primary places year on year, with particular pressure on the centre and south-east of the borough.

“Public consultation showed support for our proposed school expansions.”

The Bournemouth birth rate in 2008 was the highest for more than 30 years.

Immigration and the recession – with fewer parents paying for private education – are also increasing pressure on state schools.

Comments(11)

marmite man says...
10:30am Thu 1 Jul 10

Does this council really know what its doing?
The new school classrooms and the 'house' need dual planning permission, you can't have one without the other! Yet the council vote for one and not the other. Typical of Bournemouth Council - the right hand doesn't know what the left hands doing.
Local Elections are next May so just remember all these idiotic councillors can then be voted out.

Corrupto says...
2:08pm Thu 1 Jul 10

I think you will find the 8 odd million grant the Council picks up is the real reason for this stunning breach of conservation. There is money to be made through the contracts handed out and the Town Hall can cream off the top of the schools grant.

mike1213 says...
2:42pm Thu 1 Jul 10

This property seems to empty and converted into flats so with the shortage of houseing why is this council not houseing people in the flats

Corrupto says...
7:48pm Thu 1 Jul 10

Has anyone even checked the need for extra school places? I think you will find it has fallen off since the Polish etc have found the recession makes it better at home.
Townsend closure now looks even more cynical to fix the figures so the Town Hall could fill there boots with the 8 million grant. We know what a bunch upstanding freeloaders they are. I expect the School will get stuffed to make money for the parasites who will try to deflect the Government cash. All the while the area will be destroyed and the Children will be disrupted.

The filthy greed and manipulation has to stop. And a tree needs to be saved.

Corrupto says...
7:57pm Thu 1 Jul 10

BTW - Council CONsultation happened in a rush on the most icy day of the year when no one could make it. These pocket fillers will not get away with this if we write to Central Government as they are trying to save money not help fill local Councilors pockets by giving the freeloaders another chance to give their interested parties/mates tenders and contracts. There is no need for this destruction other than the greed of the Town Hall.

oneshortleg says...
6:37am Fri 2 Jul 10

I have said this before and will keep saying it until someone in the Government listens. Why are councils allowed to submit their own planning applications and then vote on them, this has to be wrong. You cannot have a system of judge and jury, I think where council planning applications are concerned either a neighbouring council should hande it or an independant group.

marmite man says...
11:07am Fri 2 Jul 10

oneshortleg wrote:
I have said this before and will keep saying it until someone in the Government listens. Why are councils allowed to submit their own planning applications and then vote on them, this has to be wrong. You cannot have a system of judge and jury, I think where council planning applications are concerned either a neighbouring council should hande it or an independant group.
HuH, No good Poole Council doing what you say - they are as corrupt as Bournemouth Council!!!

The funny hand shake and the rolled up trouser leg leave a lot to be desired!!

compass99 says...
7:13pm Sun 4 Jul 10

Correction: It is not the derelict hotel that is being demolished to make way for the school. It is a lovely villa which is in the conservation area. Families have had to leave the flats already despite the council not getting planning permission to demolish the building. One family had a child at the school and have had to leave the area and the child has had to leave the school. One less place needed!!
This whole applicastion has been handled in an underhand way and the council have been pursuing their own agenda from the beginning.

You are right! The determination to spend the £8 million has driven this forward. The new coalition government should stop this.

Go and see the building (2 Somerville Road) for yourself and the lovely trees in the area.

compass99 says...
9:32pm Sun 4 Jul 10

In this article, Cllr Nicola Greene is quoted as saying that there was support for this scheme at the consultation phase. She neglects to mention that if you do not count support from school staff, school governors and councillors, there were only 52 respondents and of these 29 were in favour and 23 against. That is hardly a resounding yes for the scheme to go ahead. It is interesting that 50 school staff responded and all 50 were in favour. Is this our democracy in action. The consultation was woefully inadequate and requests for an additional consultation meeting were denied to us.

compass99 says...
6:11pm Wed 7 Jul 10

Michael Gove is visiting st michaels school on july 8th at 1.30 pm. Conor burns has heard that there might be protests by parents and has said that he hopes it is only gossip. Is this a threat?? Parents have a right to protest if they want to. Conor Burns needs to get involved in the issues instead of trying to stop legitimate concerns from being voiced. People feel they have no voice and are therefore resorting to protest. Threats wont keep us quiet.

david.king says...
10:32am Wed 14 Jul 10

The Council Planning Board have approved the planning application for the extension to the school but rejected the planning application for demolition of the house next door. They have then referred the 2nd application to the full council.

I do not understand how they can approve the planning application for one when it appears to be very much dependant upon the other application i.e demolition of No 2 Somverville. The whole is a single development and I would have thought they should have submitted the whole development as one planning application. Much of what is written in Planning Application 7-2010-3204-J for the Alteration and extension of the school is relevant to the second application 7-2010-3166-1 for the demolition of No 2 Somerville.

I also do not understand why they have only referred the application for the demolition of No 2 Somerville to the whole council without also referring the application for the extension of the school. The council needs to review both at the same time as the two separate reports to the Planning Board are linked and much of the impact to the site at No 2 is contained in the report for the extension which the main council may not see or read.

Is it normal policy to refer planning board’s decisions to the whole council when an application is refused by the planning board. I think not!
Would the council still follow the same procedure if it had been planning application submitted by a commercial developer rather than the council themselves?


controversial: The site in Somerville Road where an extension to St Michael's School may be built controversial: The site in Somerville Road where an extension to St Michael's School may be built

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses