Thank you for your question to Council concerning closure of access to Stoke Park via William Penn School and unspecified Council land. Your question has been passed to me for answering.

This Council believes in the maximum possible access to public land where there are no Health and Safety or legal issues. It also wishes to see the maximum possible access to and usage of school sites by the community, out of school hours.

However, the Council also has duties to pupils, parents and all the residents of Slough to consider. Schools and the Council (LEA) have a duty for the welfare and safety of pupils and staff while on school sites. Sadly, we no longer live in a society where open access conforms to this. Schools also have a responsibility to avoid burdening the LEA with avoidable costs such as those arising from repairs due to vandalism and the Council has a similar duty to avoid such cost falling to the public.

For those reasons, casual and uncontrolled access to school sites, or across them, is not as practical as it was in the past. Fencing of perimeters to educational sites has shown greater security for users and a significant saving of public money that can then be spent on the educational service.

You mention that access has only been closed in the last two years. I believe that it may have been around this time that the previous Labour administration sold-off Stoke Park. I will have to check this.

However, Stoke Park is now privately owned and so far as I know there is no general public right of entry. Therefore access across school or council land would not seem to serve any purpose. Also, the private owner of Stoke Park and not William Penn School or Slough Borough Council may have erected some of the fences to which you refer. I would need to know exactly what access, fences and gates you were referring to and what purpose the access could serve now.

Finally, an application to redevelop the school was heard by the Planning Committee on 11th May and approved, subject to officers concluding an acceptable Section 106 Agreement. Where access and paths can be shown to be of benefit to the local community but not compromising Health & Safety or site security, it may be possible to consider those in the detailed planning stage. Clearly, access that leads no-where except to fenced-off private land would not be of benefit.

I would welcome more detailed discussion with you.