BROAD Oak pupils were sent off on their summer holidays yesterday with a happy heart after their school was spared.

Mr Neil O'Connor, headteacher, broke the news to the students at lunchtime as they headed off on their long break.

He said the school was pressing ahead with its open day on September 28 because it now seems certain they will be able to take in pupils in 2007. If the council had succeeded, this year's intake would have been the last.

"The local authority has not tackled the heart of the problem, which lies on the other side of town," he said. "I would have been happy to go to the adjudicator: we had a very strong case, and I think we would have got through it, but the council's decision is the icing on the cake."

"We've come out of this a lot stronger," he said. "I can now come back from summer and do what I'm paid to do, which is to teach kids."

Sue Arnall, chairman of governors, added: "We need five years to look at all the options; I'm sure that the money the council needs for rebuilding can be found in that time. This was a panic measure, the review was rushed and flawed from the start. We need one that is imaginative and creative. We always knew we had a good case. I think the recent visit to the school swung our case, when they saw how good it is."

In last Thursday's debate, the council's case was outlined by David Pritchard, director of learning and culture.

He made it clear that no Bury schools were failing, and this review was purely to do with falling rolls.

Head teachers and staff unions had supported the need for a review: in fact, eight heads ultimately backed the council's proposals. An independent consultant said the consultation was clear, comprehensive and objective.

Mr Pritchard pointed out that falling pupil numbers led to less money for schools: Bury had lost £1 million this year, and would lose a further £2.7 million next year. He said Bury had to draw up a strategy for future investment in order to attract Government money for rebuilding and refurbishment.

But schools group representative Chris Tulloch said East Bury was in a regeneration area, and that had not been taken into consideration.

Paul Cooke, head of planning and management services, said there were sufficient places in other schools in the borough to take Broad Oak pupils.

But this was disputed by council group member Roy Walker. Only 42 places are available at two nearby schools, which were two buses away, not enough to accommodate a Broad Oak year.

Several members pointed out the distance that Broad Oak pupils would have to travel to go elsewhere: currently, more than 90 per cent walk to school.

This was conceded by Mr Cooke, but he said that parents made their choice of school on a range of factors, not just proximity. He said that Asian parents were just as likely to choose a school outside their immediate area as other people.

Roy Woollard, Broad Oak's legal adviser, accused the council of running roughshod over the school and said the council's figures were suspect.

He claimed the council was closing schools to find money to support investment in other schools, and said the council was ignoring community cohesion.

"Bury has only two per cent surplus places," he said. "These plans remove parental choice. The consultation was a sham. Where did the four pairs of schools come from? We feel the criteria was manipulated so the required result was given.

"1,400 children will be trapped in these dying schools. Derby will draw in all the ethnic heritage children and become a majority ethnic school, running in the opposite direction of what we as a nation are trying to achieve."

Mr O'Connor said Broad Oak was "a vibrant place for learning and has a unique atmosphere. We support some of the most socially deprived and vulnerable children, but we have successes with them, and that could disappear.

"We are taking in 122 pupils this year, a rise of 22, on the back of a closure notice! We are the only high school in East Bury. We don't need a new school, or major refurbishment in the next five to ten years. If we were a failing school, a poorly led school, an unpopular one, or our building was in decay, I could understand it. So what is this about? It's about money. The population least able to defend itself, the people in East ward, are the ones who would have paid that price, and that's totally unacceptable."