CHESHIRE education boss David Cracknell has apologised to a mum whose three-year-old son was denied a place at his nearby school following a county council blunder.

Mr Cracknell wrote to Sarah Smith this week, saying her son Nathan, and seven other children, were refused a place at Oldfield Primary in Vicars Cross, Chester, following a slip-up by the local education authority (LEA).

Mrs Smith, 34, of Lancaster Drive, Vicars Cross, contacted The Chronicle last month after her son was refused a place at Oldfield due to the school being over-subscribed for September.

At the time, she was told the school had room for only 30 reception pupils but this later proved to be incorrect based on an error made at County Hall.

The error arose after governors applied to the LEA to reduce the school's planned admission number from 43 to 30.

The LEA then wrongly told the school to implement the change for September 2004 - despite the fact that the change can only come into effect legally from 2005.

In his letter to Mrs Smith, Mr Cracknell says: 'I am writing to explain to you the confusion over the allocation of places into reception for September 2004 at Oldfield Primary.

'The governors have applied to the authority to reduce the school's planned admission number, the number to which it can offer places in any one year, from 43 to 30.

'This is currently under consideration and the earliest it can apply the revised admission number is from September 2005.

'The school sought advice from the LEA early on in the year concerning how to apply the admissions policy for this coming September and was told, incorrectly by the LEA, to admit up to 30. This was an error as for this year the current planned admission number of 43 still applies for intake into reception for 2004.

'The school offered 30 places on the advice of the LEA and cannot be blamed for the error. As soon as the error was realised the LEA advised the school to offer places up to its planned admission number of 43 which it has done.

'I apologise sincerely for the anguish this has caused some parents and must emphasise that the school was acting on the advice of the LEA.'

Despite the apology, Mrs Smith is angry and will not place her son at Oldfield despite there now being a place for him in September.

'So it all becomes clear! Somebody at County Hall cocked up,' she said.

'I am still very angry over the anguish and upset that has been caused not just to my family but the families of the other seven children initially denied places.

'If somebody at the LEA had done their job properly, Nathan would have been offered a place in the first instance.

'We explained to Nathan he would be leaving Cherry Grove (pre-school) and going to Oldfield, the school his mum went to. When he was refused a place we applied to Cherry Grove and had to tell Nathan he would not after all be going to Oldfield but would be staying at Cherry Grove.

'When he was finally offered a place at Oldfield we did not think it was fair on him or Cherry Grove to change the plans again and we did not take up the offer of the place.'

Mrs Smith added: 'Mr Cracknell's letter hardly seems to me like a sincere apology - the LEA could not even be bothered to personalise the letter.

'I am replying to let Mr Cracknell know what I think of his apology - I was always taught if you could not be bothered to make a proper, sincere apology then it is not worth making one at all.'

Last month, Mrs Smith couldn't understand why she had been knocked back despite living in Vicars Cross all her life and only half-a-mile from the school itself.

Due to a demand for places, Mrs Smith was told that Cheshire's LEA had to implement its strict admissions policy, which meant Nathan was refused as he did not live close enough to Oldfield.