Meeting documents

1 THE ISSUE

1.1 The Council has been seeking a new site for St John's Catholic Primary School since 2000. Several options have been explored and rejected. A decision is now required on the preferred site for replacement of the school in order to allow a formal offer to be made to the school Governors, enable design of the school and the submission of a planning application.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That all responses to the recent consultation exercises are welcome

2.2 That no further consultation is required.

2.3 That Odd Down Park & Ride is an unsuitable site and is rejected.

2.4 To choose either Odd Down Playing Field or St Alphege's as the preferred site for the school and, if the St Alphege's site is chosen, to

a) determine whether this is to include the Wansdyke Business Centre (WBC) and

b) endorse Officers views regarding the Hillside Hall site (see 4.26)

2.5 To confirm that the Council will meet all costs associated with the preparation of a design up to the point at which a planning application is submitted expected to be no more than £200,000.

3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 The estimated costs of undertaking necessary work in order to allow a planning application to be submitted are £200,000. At its meeting on 3 November 2004 the Executive agreed to meet all costs associated with this phase of work and reiterated this on 12 January 2005. No additional allocation to the Education Service was made to support this work and this will have an inevitable impact on other capital projects in schools

3.2 It will be necessary to undertake works at, and in the environs of, each potential site. The total and elemental costs of work to be completed in order to facilitate development at any site cannot be quantified at this stage. See 3.3 to 3.5

3.3 At Odd Down Playing Field, no purchase costs will be incurred but the costs of replacing and/or improving existing facilities, such as pitches, changing rooms and car parking may need to be met by the Council. This is dependent on the precise location of the school and, at this stage, these costs are unquantifiable.

3.4 At St Alphege's there will be a purchase cost (but also see 3.7). Costs of improving the local road network, improving access to the site and meeting planning conditions related to the setting of the listed building on site and other matters may be incurred. At this stage these costs are unquantifiable. N.B. Should the Wansdyke Business Centre be required then costs in excess of £1 million are anticipated. Further details are in Appendix 7. This appendix contains exempt information.

3.5 At Odd Down Park & Ride no purchase costs would be incurred. Depending on precise location of the school there are likely to be costs incurred in improving the local road network, resolving access problems and reorganising the Park & Ride site. At this stage these costs are unquantifiable.

3.6 In relation to the sites at Odd Down, each site, given its current and potential future uses, has been valued by Property & Legal Services, at £45,000. The Council own both the sites and no purchase costs would be incurred should either of these options be pursued. Whichever site is chosen, the land would need to be appropriated to its new purpose.

3.7 Attention is drawn to the initial and informally expressed view of the Diocese who have stated that, should the Council commit to the acquisition of the WBC then the St Alphege's site would be donated by the Diocese.

3.8 Members are asked to note that the entire costs of constructing, furnishing and equipping the school are met by the Governors who receive a 90% grant from DfES to support the project. The remaining 10% of the cost is raised from the Governors and Diocese.

3.9 In December 2000 a cash limit of £1.665 million in grant aid was set by DfES. Such a sum is now wholly inadequate for the building of a modern primary school and, in situations where schemes such as this have been delayed, it is usual practice for DfES to scrutinise the costs applying at the time of planned construction and, providing the scheme is regarded as value for money, make additional grant available.

3.10 In March 2005 DfES advised that the Council and Diocese should prepare a bid for funding under the Targeted Capital Fund. This bid, prepared by the Diocese and the school, was submitted by the Council on 27 May 2005. The total cost of the project is £5.038 million of which £3.8 million has been sought from DfES. The remaining funding million will be contributed by the Parish, Devolved Capital, the Local Co-ordinated Voluntary Aided Programme and the Governors. An announcement of the outcome of the bid will be made by DfES in September 2005.

3.11 No capital receipts are available from the relocation of the school from its present two sites. The main site of the school at Pulteney Road is owned by La Sainte Union and is leased for the provision of Catholic primary education. The annexe site at St Alphege's in Oldfield Lane is owned by the Diocese and, should the site not be used for education, it will simply revert to its owners. -

4 THE REPORT

4.1 Members are asked to note that Officers have not included information which has been covered in previous reports to the Executive, specifically those of 3 November 2004 and 12 January 2005. These reports have been used as background for the preparation of this report and are publicly available. This report is intended to provide new information.

4.2 However, Officers consider that It is worthwhile summarising a number of key points.

a) The OFSTED inspection of July 2000 concluded "The accommodation is poor and is having a negative effect on children's learning".

b) The condition of the buildings on both sites is a concern. Outstanding essential planned maintenance works totalling approximately £50,000 are required.

c) The principal suitability issues (those which have an impact on curriculum delivery or management) at the school are; the school is located on two sites with the administrative functions and the Headteacher based at Pulteney Road. This site has undersized classrooms, in a multi-storey building, no access for wheelchair users, undersized library, IT suite and staffroom, remote toilets. IT provision in classrooms is inadequate. Oldfield Lane site comprises 3 separate temporary buildings without covered links; a shared community hall used for PE, dining and assemblies but with no fixed PE equipment, a poor condition floor and poor condition toilet facilities.

d) The educational outcomes for children at St John's are very good. Results for Key Stage 2 Level 4 in 2004 were English 100% (LEA average 81%) and Maths 88% (LEA average 80%).

e) The Governors and the Council have worked together to reduce the level of unfilled places. The school no longer falls within the category of schools having 25% or more unfilled places, a state of affairs requiring explanation to DfES on an annual basis.

f) The Executive agreed on 7 April 2004 that the Council supports "efforts.. to relocate the school on a single site" and that the "replacement on a single site...is essential...to ensure that pupils are taught in satisfactory buildings with access to all necessary and desirable educational facilities and that the replacement school should offer no more than 315 places".

g) On 3 November 2004 Officers were instructed to bring to the Executive at the earliest possible date a preliminary review of 3 sites, Odd Down Playing Field, land at the Odd Down Park and Ride and Glasshouse Playing Field.

h) On 12 January 2005 the Executive agreed to withdraw Glasshouse Playing Field from consideration on the basis that the impact of any development at this site would be excessive.

4.3 Since 12 January a further consultation process regarding the two Odd Down sites has been undertaken across a wide area of south Bath. Approximately 3600 homes and businesses were sent a copy of a consultation paper. Other relevant organisations were also circulated with a copy of this document.

4.4 Public meetings were held at St Philip's CofE VC Primary School and at St Martin's Garden Primary School on 28 February and 2 March respectively. The meetings were facilitated by an external consultant in order to ensure that local residents and other interested parties understood that the consultation process was objective and not controlled by the Council. A report of those meetings is attached as Appendix 2.

4.5 A meeting with Governors and parents / carers of pupils at St John's was held on 8 March. At this meeting the Council was asked to revisit the possibility of relocating the school to the St Alphege's site, a course of action that had been rejected in 2001. Officers and elected Members attending this meeting had some sympathy for this view.

4.6 The rationale for this was that the planned size of school is now somewhat smaller, and this might make St Alphege's a viable option, there is also increased pressure on the Council and the Governors to bring forward a site in a reasonable timescale and, finally, that St Alphege's was a natural site given that part of the school is already in situ and the presence of a church on the site will be advantageous in maintaining and developing the Catholic ethos of the school. This latter point was made by the Governors in 2001.

4.7 In April 2005, with the agreement of the Executive Member and Leader of the Council, Officers asked Llewellyn Harker Architects (LHA) to undertake an option appraisal for the St Alphege's site alone in order to establish if a 315 place school could be accommodated on the site. The feasibility report did not attempt to answer questions of functionality.

4.8 Similar work on the two Odd Down sites has not been undertaken as whatever other difficulties these sites present there is no doubt that a school can be physically accommodated on the site. No options which incorporate the Business Centre have been developed for the same reason.

4.9 The outcome of the assessment of St Alphege's is attached at Appendix 3. Four options are presented. In summary, it is possible to construct a school for 315 pupils on the St Alphege's site although it would be necessary to create a multi-storey building with a grass playing pitch or alternatively provide a single storey school with an all-weather pitch rather than a grass playing field.

4.10 Design options 1, 2 and 3 offer variations of split-level, two-storey or three storey buildings. In all of these options it would be necessary to move the children to alternative accommodation in temporary buildings elsewhere on the site whilst development took place. This would represent an additional cost to DfES and Governors.

4.11 Option 4 offers the possibility of a single-storey building, which is desirable for primary aged children, with the playing field being an all-weather surface rather than a grass pitch. This is achieved by the "double counting" of the area of the all weather pitch as is permitted under the School Premises Regulations 1999.

4.12 DfES guidance is as follows ""Where available land for a new school is limited, the disadvantages of a restricted site may need to be weighed against the merits of a particular location. If the site area is below the recommended area range, a shortage of space can be offset to some extent by the provision of more hard surface area, that can be used for both PE and recreation. Where sufficient land is not available to meet the statutory area requirements for team game playing fields, hard porous or synthetic pitches should be considered".

4.13 The feasibility report contains the following paragraph which Officers consider to be of critical importance and worth repeating, "If no suitable alternative site is available this statement (at 4.11) suggests that the lack of overall space on the site may not deter support from the DfES for a school in this location but this should be tested by early liaison with the DfES to establish their position".

4.14 Initial discussion with DfES has taken place and, in principle, the Department will consider a site which is undersized even by a significant margin given that the city of Bath is an urban area and that sites adequate in size and available for development are far from abundant. DfES approval to the overall scheme is required in order to release any funding that may be awarded under the Targeted Capital Fund (see 3.10).

4.15 The Diocese have informally stated that, if the St Alphege's site is offered without the additional area of the WBC being included then the Diocese will require payment for the use of the St Alphege's site. Members are reminded that after purchasing land for a voluntary aided school it is necessary for a local education authority to then transfer that land to the trustees who are, in this case, the Diocese of Clifton. However, should the WBC be acquired then the St Alphege's site will be `gifted' to the Council in order to provide a satisfactory site.

4.16 It should be noted that the Governors of St John's have stated in a recent letter (24 May) that the St Alphege's site including the WBC is their favoured option and have formally expressed their strong opposition to simply being offered the St Alphege's site alone.

4.17 The Governors have submitted an educational / functional assessment of the St Alphege's site. This is attached as Appendix 4.

4.18 If the St Alphege's site alone is to be selected and the Wansdyke Business Centre is not acquired then Members are asked to consider whether any of the design solutions developed by LHA represent an acceptable solution.

4.19 Alternatively, Members are invited to consider whether the acquisition of the Wansdyke Business Centre should be pursued in order to allow a single-storey building, with all appropriate and suitably sized facilities, to be provided including a grass playing field.

4.20 If the Wansdyke Business Centre is to be acquired Members are asked to acknowledge the consequences for the businesses currently in occupation, the potentially lengthy timescale for relocating businesses where this is possible, and the overarching planning considerations regarding economic development. Policy 30 of the Joint Replacement Structure Plan specifically protects employment sites except where other development can be regarded as having greater community benefit and the site is no longer needed for local employment or economic development.

4.21 Members are also asked to note that Policy ET1 D of the Revised Deposit Local Plan states (all emphasis added) that "development for alternative uses of land or buildings in existing or, if vacant, last used for employment uses (as defined in the Local Plan), or committed for such uses, will not be permitted unless:

4.22 Acquiring the WBC has financial implications and these are referred to elsewhere (see 3.4, 3.7 and in the exempt Appendix 6.

4.23 A public meeting was held on June 9 2005 at St Alphege's Church Hall. The meeting was attended by approximately 250 people and, in the view of Officers, was very positive about the potential relocation of the entire school to the St Alphege's plus WBC site and there was a large majority in favour of this option. A smaller number believed that the St Alphege's site should be used regardless of its size. A very small number of people objected to the relocation of the school to this site. A summary of the meeting is included at Appendix 2.

4.24 Some members of the audience pointed out the regenerative effect of locating the entire school at St Alphege's as it would mean that families stayed in the area or moved into the area redressing a changed balance in the composition of the community.

4.25 In the course of the meeting an offer was made by a representative of the Hillside Hall Management Committee to allow their premises and site to be considered as an extension to the school site. The Hillside Hall is owned by the Council but leased to the Management Committee. It lies behind St Alphege's on a small area of land. The Hall site is separated from St Alphege's by the Linear Park and this would need to be bridged by an aerial footway or crossed by a footpath possibly driven through the railway embankment which forms the boundary to St Alphege's.

4.26 Initial views of have been sought from LHA. They comment as follows "We note the possibility of an aerial walkway and community building on land to the rear and think this will be difficult to achieve as the bank is somewhere between 4 and 7 metres high, at a steep gradient and is heavily planted with mature trees. Any extensive alterations to this would affect the setting of the existing listed building (the Church, designed by leading ecclesiastical architect Gilbert-Scott) and on the ecology of the Linear Park. It would require agreement to the removal of a number of mature trees."

4.27 Officers take the view that the distance between Hillside Hall and the main St Alphege's site is such that the school would effectively remain as a split site and this is not acceptable on educational grounds.

4.28 Development Control colleagues have commented informally on the possibility of incorporating Hillside Hall and this can be summarised by saying that, whilst it is not impossible to develop an elevated walkway or a footpath through the embankment, across the Linear Park, it would be extremely difficult to achieve a design which did not have an adverse impact on the (Linear) Park which is a protected wildlife site and open space.

4.29 LHA and Nicholas Pearson Associates have undertaken work examining conditions and other relevant issues at the sites at Odd Down Park & Ride and Odd Down Playing Field. The outcome of this work is attached as Appendix 5 and is available in Members rooms and at the public inspection points. In summary, this concludes that both these sites represent possible locations for the replacement school but come with a number of issues particularly in relation to the conflict with the Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan.

4.30 In addition, works will need to be undertaken at the Council's expense in order to facilitate development at any of the sites. No serious analysis of the works required at Oldfield Lane has been undertaken although works to the local road network and access arrangements may be required and planning conditions related to the protection of the setting of the listed building on the site may increase costs.

4.31 Furthermore, should the Council wish to obtain the Wansdyke Business Centre, which adjoins the St Alphege's site, in order to allow a single-storey school to be provided complete with a grass playing field, these costs are estimated at in excess of £1 million. This includes costs associated with the possible closure of businesses at the Centre. Costs of relocating businesses, should this be possible, cannot be quantified at this stage. A letter has been received signed by 16 businesses occupying the Business Centre objecting to the potential to include the WBC in the area of land required for St John's school. The letter stresses the contribution the businesses make to the local community and the potential for loss of employment and costs of relocation.

4.32 No detailed work has taken place regarding the works required at Odd Down Playing Field but these, amongst other things, may include improvements to the local road network, improvements to access, refurbishment or rebuilding of changing rooms at the site and improvements to on-site car parking. The latter two items would act in support of the continued use of the remaining site as a sports field.

4.33 Finally, the nature of works required at the Odd Down Park & Ride vary depending on the design solution and the chosen location. Nevertheless, improvements to the road network, the access, and some reorganisation of the existing Park & Ride facilities seem likely.

4.34 Of critical importance is the fact that the proximity of a school at the Park & Ride site will create noise and pollution impacts on the children and other users of a school. The site is also located in the Green Belt and although a case can possibly be made for there being special circumstances the length of time involved in obtaining planning permission for a school at this location is a determining factor in the recommendation to reject this site (see 2.3).

4.35 LHA have prepared sketch plans showing potential locations on each of the Odd Down sites. Members will, of course be aware, that without the expenditure of significant sums nothing more than initial ideas can be presented but it is hoped that this may assist Members in the decision-making process.

4.36 Each site has been assessed against the same criteria. A matrix format has been adopted in order to assist Members in seeing the totality. This is attached as Appendix 1.

5 RISK MANAGEMENT

6 RATIONALE

6.1 The enormous response in writing and through attendance at public meetings means that the Council now has the views of sufficient people and organisations to assist with decision-making.

6.2 Several internal and external exercises have failed to identify sites which are more suitable for this development.

6.3 Odd Down Park & Ride is unsuitable for the reasons set out at 4.34

6.4 Both St Alphege's, St Alphege's plus the WBC, and Odd Down Playing Field represent, to varying degrees, suitable sites for the school.

6.5 The Council has a statutory duty to provide a site. Any further delay beyond the extremely lengthy period of time from the approval, in principle, by central Government of the replacement of the school to the present day might be regarded as a failure to meet this statutory duty.

6.6 Some expenditure on works will be necessary in order to assist with the obtaining of planning permission. Discovery of the full and precise extent of these costs cannot reasonably be undertaken until a preferred site is chosen.

7 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

7.1 None.

8 CONSULTATION

8.1 All consultation has been undertaken on a voluntary basis. Consultation has taken place with the public across a very wide area of south Bath. In addition, parents/carers of children at the school have been consulted at each stage in the process. The Diocese of Clifton has also been consulted. Documents have been distributed to homes and businesses and public meetings held.