A DEAL is almost finalised to acquire land for a new Saddleworth School in Diggle, Oldham Council has announced – despite opposition from some local residents and councillors.
The local authority is in final negotiations to buy 13.28-acres of land at the former WH Shaw Pallet Works off Huddersfield Road.
A fit-for-purpose secondary school for 1,500 pupils aged 11 to 16-years-old will be delivered on the preferred site under the Government’s Priority School Building Programme.
To select the site Oldham Council worked with the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and Saddleworth School’s Technical Group which comprises Ward and Parish Councillors, Council officers, school representatives and members of the local community.
These parties agreed the site in Diggle is the best viable option out of 15 potential sites to deliver the project within its finite budget and tight timescales.
Councillor Amanda Chadderton, Cabinet Member for Education, Employment and Skills, said: “We’re making good progress on the next steps to deliver a new Saddleworth School fit for future generations.
“Oldham Council, the Saddleworth School Technical Group and the EFA are united in our view that the Diggle site is the best viable option.
“Two new schemes were also recently assessed that were submitted by a local architect. These proposed the new school could be built on grass pitches on the existing 11-acre Saddleworth school site.
“Neither of these schemes was viable. Some of the projected costs were incorrect and underestimated whilst other significant costs had not even been factored into the plans.
“There were also other weighty practical problems which included safety issues and a lack of car parking during the proposed construction period.”
But numerous concerns have been raised about the preferred site in Diggle by local residents and councillors, including access, parking and building on a greenfield area.
But Cllr Chadderton added: “We fully understand some people remain concerned about certain aspects of the plans and we are listening to them.
“Oldham Council has already allocated an additional seven-figure sum to deliver major improvements to highways and traffic arrangements and we’ll share these plans with the public as soon as they are ready.
“I also want to make it clear again that, despite repeated and misleading claims to the contrary, there is no truth in the suggestion that we’re building a school on Green Belt land.
“The Diggle site is designated for industrial use. Green Belt land would only be used in this scheme for sports facilities and ancillary buildings, which does not alter its current status at all.
“We must not lose focus on the bigger picture here. Saddleworth desperately needs a modern secondary school and a facility the whole community can benefit from and be proud of. This is an opportunity to deliver that – and it’s one that we simply must not squander.”
But Cllr Mike Buckley, an Independent Councillor on Saddleworth Parish Council and spokesperson for the Save Diggle Action Group, criticised Oldham Council’s statement.
Cllr Buckley, who resigned from the Liberal Democrats last month over the school debate, declared: “This is nothing but pure propaganda in favour of relocating the school in Diggle.
“Contrary to the council’s claims, the school is being partly built on green belt land – the two storey sports hall is entirely on the green belt, as are the playing fields and fences.
“The so called ‘Technical Committee’, largely composed of individuals with no technical qualifications, is self-elected and accountable to no one; it is neither representative of the community nor unbiased in its views.”
He added: “The decision of the Committee to abandon the proposals to build the school in Uppermill was far from unanimous, many members objecting to being forced to make a decision in the absence of any meaningful financial or technical information on the two options.
“The claims about inaccurate costings of some aspects of the scheme cannot be substantiated without the evidence on which these statements were made.
“The Health and Safety issues are clearly a red herring as building a school on an existing site is the norm in most situations. These concerns can clearly be successfully managed.
“Uppermost in the Council’s decision is undoubtedly the land swap deal, exchanging the existing Uppermill site for the green fields of Diggle.
“I am amazed the Council are close to signing a deal. Surely they should first wait for planning permission to build on the Diggle site – by no means a certainty in view of the number of National and Local planning polices with which the proposals will conflict.
“I continue to be very disappointed at the secretive way this project is being handled by the Council. It is probably the most significant development proposal faced by Saddleworth for decades.”
Cllr Graham Sheldon, chair of Saddleworth Parish Council, said he is concerned with a range of issues including the narrow single footpath along Huddersfield Road and the loss of open space.
He said: “The decision to use the Diggle site in my opinion is the wrong move now and for the future. The existing site has been overlooked and has been proved to be more than adequate for this model school.
“The Diggle decision is certainly not the best decision for Saddleworth.”
Stuart Coleman, chair of Diggle Community Association which represents more than 2,000 villagers, is a new member of the school’s technical group.
He added: “I’m surprised to discover there is, in Oldham Council’s opinion, unity amongst Ward and Parish Councillors, Saddleworth School’s Technical Group and members of the local community.
“As far as I am aware several members of the technical group are against building in Diggle, as are the majority of parish councillors.
“As the DCA’s chair, I meet members of the community on a regular basis and I have not, as yet, met anyone in favour of the school being built on the greenfield site in Diggle.
“I find it disturbing on one hand, OMBC say they will not build on Green Belt and then go on to say, ‘Green Belt land would only be used in this scheme for sports facilities and ancillary buildings.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.