28
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The government failed to carry out detailed surveys that would reveal problems such as asbestos and unstable concrete before buying up sites for its flagship free schools, an Observer investigation has found.

Gove made much of the fact that ministers would be tearing up planning laws to enable groups of teachers, parents and charities to set up schools in old offices, shops and houses.

However, documents seen by the Observer reveal that in some cases there was such haste to open large numbers of these new schools that the government agency tasked with buying the sites purchased “unsuitable” disused buildings without first undertaking the detailed surveys that experts insist are essential.

One of the most egregious examples is the purchase of a derelict Royal Mail sorting office to house England’s largest free school, Northampton International Academy.

In another case, the government’s Education Funding Agency (EFA)bought a former air traffic control training site next to Bournemouth airport to house Parkfield free school, on the basis of a four-page vendor’s report.

The Observer has seen two light-touch “overview surveys” commissioned before the EFA purchased two new free school buildings in London, which flagged concrete as a risk.


The original article contains 880 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
28 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3880 readers
45 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS