Meeting documents

WHY ARE WE PUBLISHING THIS DOCUMENT?

Background

In December 2000 the Department for Education & Skills (DfES) approved Government funding for a project to replace St John's Catholic Primary School in Bath. St John's is a Voluntary Aided school. The school is currently located on two separate sites at Pulteney Road and at Oldfield Lane. These sites are almost two miles from each other and this makes it harder for the Headteacher and staff to manage the school. The school buildings at both sites also have substantial condition and suitability problems and it was these two issues which caused the DfES to agree that the project should go ahead.

For Bath & North East Somerset Council this was great news as it meant that children whom we are responsible for educating would have access to modern facilities on a single easily managed site. New school buildings at Voluntary Aided schools like St John's are funded entirely by the Government and the Governors of the particular school.

The Council has a responsibility to provide a site for the replacement school and in November 2001 the Education Committee of the Council unanimously agreed that a site at Lymore Avenue was the best site for the replacement school.

It is fair to say that this choice was not welcomed by many people in the area surrounding Lymore Avenue. You may have seen articles and letters in the local press about the situation.

Nevertheless the Governors with the support of the Council continued to develop a design for the new school and a planning application was submitted in October last year.

In December 2003 it was identified that bye-laws protect certain open spaces in the City and it appeared that these bye-laws prevented any development going ahead at Lymore Avenue.

The combination of the need to change bye-laws and some opposition from local residents meant that although the funding was still available we seemed unable to use the Lymore Avenue site and this left the Council and Governors in a very difficult position. Since the beginning of 2004 Council officers and the Governors have been working together to try and find a way through these problems.

We asked our Property Services Division to try and find alternative sites for the school. We also talked to our colleagues in Planning Services and took their advice on the best way forward.

The purpose of this document is to look at the possible sites for the replacement school and to ask for your comments. This will help Councillors decide the best way forward over the next few months. The aim is for the Council Executive to take a final decision in November 2004.

We should say that whichever site is eventually chosen we appreciate that some people will not be happy. However, we need to try and think of what will be most suitable for the children at the school, not just today but for many years to come.

We need a site in Bath, ideally in the south west quarter of the City, as this is where most current children at the school live. The site needs to be of a size which will allow the development of a full range of primary school facilities, including a playing field, to be provided in a single location.

Ideally the site should already be owned by the Council as land values in Bath are very high at present and buying such a large site would cost a great deal. Nevertheless, we also looked at some previously developed sites which are not owned by the Council.

This document presents some sites for comment. We should emphasise that this is not a vote and all comments will be taken into account. In the end Councillors will have a difficult choice to make but this will be easier and better for all concerned if as much information and opinion can be put in front of them.

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

Key Points

Government and Planning Officers advice is that development should take place, where possible, on previously developed or brown field, sites. Green field sites should be avoided and only used if all other possibilities have been exhausted. Only if there are no suitable brown field sites can green field sites in the right general area be considered.

A summary of the exercise we have undertaken is included in this paper.

When looking at any site we have considered, size, ownership, planning restrictions, access, existing use, the location of the site in relation to the areas where children live, and any other relevant factors.

Size

This replacement school will serve a proposed maximum of 315 children. As stated above we need the site to be the right size. We need a site between 1.36 hectares (13,600 square metres) and 1.6 hectares (16,000 square metres) To help give you some idea of what this looks like a full size football pitch is approximately 0.5 hectares (5,000 square metres). These site sizes are in line with DfES guidelines for primary schools.

Ownership

Shortage of land within the City means that development land that is available is very expensive. Ideally, land for the development of the new school would be completely or mostly owned by the Council or the Diocese of Clifton.

Location

With the exception of one site, only sites within and around the south-west area of Bath were examined. This is where the majority of the current children at St John's live.

Planning Restrictions

The existing Bath Local Plan and the latest deposit B&NES Local Plan were used to look at the effect planning restrictions might have on the sites under consideration.

Physical Restrictions

Although a reasonable slope is acceptable for the school site the playing field should be as close as possible to completely level.

Existing/Previous Use

Existing uses have been considered where it might affect the possibility of developing a site. Previous uses that might have led to contamination of the ground have also been considered where known.

Other factors Including Covenants, Cost

Land may be subject to legal restrictions (covenants) which either limit or prevent development or entitling the owner to a share of the development value of the land. As part of the initial site search this was not considered but, where known, it was taken into account when drawing up the final list.

In planning terms, guidance indicates we should not reject a site purely on the ground that it is too expensive.

Consideration of Sites

First we looked at brown field sites in line with Government guidance. Where the continued use of these sites for their current purpose seemed likely, we rejected the site.

Sites not owned by the Council which were empty, or known to be coming on to the market, were included unless the timescale for the availability of these sites was too far in the future to provide a replacement school within reasonable timescales. For example, we rejected the Western Riverside site on this basis.

We also looked at sites which we know are going to be available as a result of school reorganisation. Finally we considered sites on open spaces.

The section below provides details of those sites which it is felt offer the possibility for development and other sites considered and the reasons for their rejection.

Sites considered and on which we are consulting

The sites we have looked at have come from a list of sites owned by the Council and were identified through a wider site search undertaken in the late Spring. A map of each of the sites is attached together with a map showing all four sites and the location of the existing St John's School sites.

Naturally, the Council prefers sites which are educationally beneficial and located close to the homes of the children who we expect to attend but we cannot simply choose a site on this basis. All of the sites below conflict with the existing Bath Local Plan. If we choose any one of these sites we must show that we have exhausted all other options and that these open sites are the last resort. We must be sure that the final choice of site comes from an understanding of the environmental impact rather than just the expression of other preferences.

Using any of these sites is likely to be objected to by Sport England (formerly the Sports Council) as a matter of principle as they have a key role in the protection of playing fields. In all cases we will need to prove that the school development is more important than the current recreation value and that alternative facilities which are equal or better to the site can be provided within a reasonable distance and that are accessible on foot, by bike and by bus and not just private cars.

1. Lymore Avenue Playing Field also known as Brickfields

The site is large enough for a 315 place primary school and is owned by the Council. There is a bye-law affecting part of this land, which, if it applies, may cause difficulties with development/access. Part of the site is also listed in the Local Plan as `Visually Important Open Space'

Whilst the land shown is shown in the current Bath Local Plan as a protected open space, with part designated as a wildlife site, the draft deposit Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan (which will replace it) has allocated part as a "Site for Primary School Purposes". Therefore, it is likely that there will be less planning issues with this site than with others.

An Environmental Impact Assessment will be needed on this site and we need to show why this site has the least impact of the potential sites. An archaeological desktop study may be required.

The playing field is located east of The Hollow and Lansdown View. Access to the site can be obtained through the purchase of adjoining property. It is expected that this can be achieved through agreement. One property has previously been purchased.

All roads around the site are subject to high traffic levels. The site has good access to public transport.

The site is currently used informally as playing fields. The main part of the site was previously used as the playing fields for Oldfield Park Junior School.

This site is less than ½ a mile away from the St Alphege's Annexe.

The site is largely level which is a considerable premium in the Bath area.

2.

The site is large enough for a 315 place primary school. It is owned by the Council.

The site is listed in the Local Plan as Visually Important Open Space. It is also within the City of Bath Conservation Area.

Once again we would need to carry out an environmental impact assessment and possibly also an archaeological desktop study.

There are likely to be highway difficulties, which would need to be managed carefully through any scheme to develop this land.

The site is located north of Englishcombe Lane. There is good access from Englishcombe Lane and an access road already in place, which could be upgraded to provide suitable access for the school. Access may also be possible from the road which services Telford and Somerset House off Moorfields Road. The site is well served by public transport.

This site is less than ½ a mile away from the St John's site at Oldfield Lane.

The land is on a slope, which in places is quite substantial. This makes effective use of the site more difficult and is likely to add cost. There may also be ground water on this site.

The site is immediately adjacent to Moorlands Infant and Junior Schools.

3.

The site is 3.16 hectares, it would, therefore, be possible to accommodate a

315 place school. It is owned by the Council.

The land is listed in the Local Plan as Visually Important Open Space and as land of Recreational Value.

The site is located between, Bradford Road, Midford Road and Southstoke Road. There is good access to this area, however, the site is fronted by homes on Midford Road and Southstoke Road and the best option would be to gain access from Bradford Road. Differences in levels and the high levels of traffic on the Bradford Road will require special attention. The site is well served by public transport.

The site is currently used as detached playing fields for Culverhay School. An agreement also exists with Old Culverhaysians Rugby Club which makes use of the ground. The use of this land would bring Culverhay below the minimum site area for a school of its size. Whilst these are school playing fields their loss to the local population is likely to cause concern.

The site is just over 1 mile away from the St John's site at Oldfield Lane but on the preferred side of Bath.

The site is level, which is a considerable premium in the Bath area.

4. St Gregory's and Odd Down Park and Ride plus adjoining land (Fullers Earth)

A combination of these sites offers some scope for a solution. The Council own St Gregory's Playing Fields. We also own the Park and Ride site, subject to certain restrictions. The new school could either be built on St Gregory's Playing Fields or on the adjoining Park & Ride site. Should St Gregory's Playing Fields be used for the new school alternative provision of playing fields could be made on the Park & Ride and/or the Fullers Earth sites.

St Gregory's Catholic College currently has a playing field of 2.1 hectares and it would, therefore, be possible to accommodate a 315 place primary school on this site. This would, however, bring St Gregory's site well below government guidelines for school site size.

The playing field has no specific designation in the Bath Local Plan, but is shown as Visually Important Open Space and recreational land in the emerging B&NES Local Plan. This together with other planning policies and the certain involvement of Sport England means that if the new school were developed on this site it would need to be demonstrated that the school development was more important than the current use and, as stated above, that suitable alternative provision can be provided for St Gregory's on land at the Park and Ride.

The St Gregory's land is outside but immediately next to the Green Belt, which may give rise to further planning restrictions. It is however well within the existing built area.

The use of this site would almost certainly restrict any further growth of St Gregory's and would reduce the on-site sports facilities.

The Wansdyke also runs along the northern boundary of the site. It is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and needs to be protected. We would have to consult English Heritage on this issue.

The Park and Ride site is designated in the Local Plan for its stated purpose.

It is within the Green Belt and, therefore, development will not usually be allowed unless there are very special circumstances. The absence of suitable alternative sites in Bath could be argued to constitute very special circumstances.

The Park and Ride site is 11.74 hectares. Fullers Earth Site is approximately 4.0 hectares.

The provision of the playing fields in the Green Belt would be likely to be acceptable so long as the only development on the fields was for essential and small scale facilities such as changing rooms.

The site is subject to covenants meaning the Council would have to pay a proportion of the development value to the owner although the development value of this land for a school would be fairly low. These covenants last until October 2008.

Sites Considered and Rejected

5. Clarks CIC Factory Site, Rush Hill.

The site is vacant, large enough for a 315 place primary school and was recently offered for sale. However deadline for bids was 5 July 2004. A planning permission is in place for 130 homes, plus offices and community facilities. School development here would be against the Local Plan policy which requires a `mixed use' scheme. Proposals for a school could be seen as acting against this policy. However, if there were no other suitable site within Bath we could make a case for there to be an exception to this policy.

The site is subject to some variation in levels which restricts the area of land on which a school could be built.

Access to the site is from Rush Hill but improvements to the roads will have to be made to allow development on this site.

The site is approximately 1½ miles from the existing upper school site at Pulteney Road.

The cost of acquiring land at this location of a suitable size is likely to be over £4 million.

Rejected as use of this site for a school would be against the Local Plan and we cannot show that there is no alternative suitable site in the right general area of Bath. Furthermore, the existence of the current planning permission makes purchase of the site extremely difficult to achieve in a reasonable timescale.

6.

The site is, in many ways, similar to the Rush Hill site examined above. The site is large enough for a 315 place primary school. The property is currently available for sale. It differs from Rush Hill in that it is currently in use (by the hospital) but has planning permission for `mixed development'. The land comes with planning permission for the development of 127 homes, and some office accommodation. As with Rush Hill, school development here would go against the Bath Local Plan, the existing planning permission and would lead to a reduction in the numbers of homes and other activities that could be provided on the site.

In the emerging B&NES Local Plan the site is shown as a "General Development Site" with the existing open space (cricket ground) shown as protected open space. This would need to be addressed in any proposals. There are also some listed buildings on the site and maintaining these would be important. The Local Plan requires a mixed use scheme here and proposals for a school could be seen as acting against this policy. Once again, if there were no other suitable site within Bath we could make a case for there to be an exception to this policy.

Access is from Frome Road and Midford Road but road improvements will be needed to allow development on this site. There are good links with public transport.

The site is approximately 1½ miles from the existing site at Pulteney Road.

The cost of acquiring land at this location of a suitable size is likely to be over £4 million.

The Council owns a site next door (Rosemary Lodge), measuring 0.25 hectares. This is currently vacant and for sale.

Rejected as use of this site for a school would be against the Local Plan and we cannot show that there is no alternative suitable site in the right general area of Bath. Furthermore, the existence of the current planning permission makes purchase of the site extremely difficult to achieve in a reasonable timescale.

7.

The school has closed but is now part of Summerfield School. The site is still in use but will be vacant once the new special school at Frome Road is finished.

Taken together with the adjoining allotments, the site measures 1.1 hectares. This is not large enough to provide the right size site for the school.

Given that the site is of insufficient size, other issues such as the use of statutory allotments, its location next to the main Bath to London rail link, in the Bath City Conservation Area with difficult access through the existing entrance on to Lime Grove Gardens are not relevant.

Rejected as this site is not suitable for a 315 place primary school.

8.

Currently used as a school, this is a very large site, more than large enough for a 315 place primary school. The land is owned by the Council, subject to certain covenants.

The property was originally a mansion set in its own landscaped grounds and is understood to be listed. The property has not been much extended, with the canteen and hall being a separate annexe on the same site. There are some temporary buildings.

Given the importance of the building any large scale extension or indeed demolition is not really acceptable. The property is on a prominent hillside.

The land slopes over its area, with covenants which prevent the development of the most level land at the top of the site.

Archery Fields which forms part of the site is also covered by covenants which prevent its development.

The site has existing road access which would appear to be sufficient to serve a new school. However, the area is not well served by public transport.

The site is not in an area within easy reach of the main areas to be served by the school. It would be very close to another Roman Catholic School (St Mary's) in Bath which serves this area.

The property is earmarked for disposal following its closure, when the new special school at Frome Road is opened. The sale of the property constitutes a very important part of the funding for the new special school and use of this site would require a significant sum to be found from other sources to fund the new special school.

Rejected as the location is so far distant from the principal areas to be served as to be impractical.

9.

Currently the annexe to St John's Catholic Primary School the site measures 0.28 hectares. The Diocese also owns the adjoining Church and Presbytery the area of which is approximately 0.31 hectares.

A further area of land presently used as allotments is owned by the Diocese, measuring approximately 0.58 hectares. Total land available that is within direct Diocesan control, therefore, totals 1.17 hectares which is below the minimum size we need.

The only way the site could be further expanded would be by buying the adjoining Business Centre from the owners, an investment company. We expect this to cost in the region of £1 million. This could provide a further 0.32 hectares. This adds up to 1.49 hectares which is acceptable. In addition the council owns Hillside Hall, which is on the other side of the Linear Park. The Hall is leased by the Council to the Management Committee. The area of this site is 0.13 hectares bringing the whole site to the ideal size of 1.62 hectares.

The site (excluding the Business Centre) is shown in the Local Plan as a Site for Primary School Purposes which means obtaining planning permission would probably be easier. However, if the Business Centre was included in the plan for the replacement school, the loss of the Centre would fall foul of the Joint Replacement Structure Plan. We would have to prove that the Business Centre site was no longer required for economic development or local employment and that the alternative use (i.e. a school) offers greater potential benefits to the community. The provision of a school could be seen as a community benefit.

The Church, Hall and presbytery are centrally located within the site. It is unlikely that the demolition of the church buildings would be considered and if the presbytery were to be demolished it would need to be replaced on the site. Whilst these buildings would support the use of the site by a Catholic school, the area on which they stand cannot really be considered part of the school. The buildings would also separate the school from its playing field. The area of useable land within the Diocese's control may therefore be as little as 0.86 hectares - a less than two-thirds of the minimum site size.

If the Business Centre were obtained it would also mean a potential loss of jobs as businesses may not be able to relocate.

Rejected as it would not be reasonable to demolish the Business Centre in view of the probable loss of jobs and opportunities for economic development through the creation of new small local businesses.