Meeting documents

1.1 The Council has been seeking a new site for St John's Catholic Primary School for several years. Several options have been explored and abandoned. 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.

The Council Executive is asked to agree :

5.1 No further risk assessment related to the issue and recommendations has been undertaken.

Appendix 1

Response from the Diocese of Clifton

27 June 2005

Mr Bruce Austen

B&NES Council

Riverside

Temple Street

KEYNSHAM

Bristol BS31 1DN

Dear Mr Austen

PROPOSED RE-SITING OF ST JOHN'S SCHOOL AT OLDFIELD LANE

Thank you for the opportunity to reply to your paper 'St John's Catholic Primary School - the Search for a New Site (Site at St Alphege's Church, Oldfield Lane)'. I am writing on behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton to express our views on the proposal. The Diocese has already written expressing its view on the other two sites under consideration at the Park and Ride site at Odd Down and the Odd Down Playing Fields so I will generally confine my comments to the site adjacent to St Alphege's site at Oldfield Lane.

As you will be aware this was originally the governors' preferred site for the new school but it was rejected in favour of a site at Lymore Avenue by the Council. At that stage the Diocesan Trustees had indicated that they would be prepared to 'gift' the land they owned at Oldfield Lane to the Council in the expectation that B&NES would provide any additional land necessary for building the school from their own resources in line with there statutory duty to provide a site. However, there were understandable concerns about the size of the site and its location and the cost to Council of purchasing additional land was considered excessive in light of the fact that officers considered that a perfectly good site was available for the rebuilding of the school at Lymore Avenue. The governors and the Diocese recognised the validity of that position and agreed that the school should move to this site.

As we are all aware problems were encountered at Lymore Avenue site. There was considerable local opposition to the proposal and the existence of a covenant on part of the ground complicated the issue. The site was consequently rejected by the Council after all parties had committed considerable sums of money in professional fees, surveys etc to the project. Councillors were then offered more than 40 possible sites by officers, all but two of which have at this stage been rejected by the Council Executive. In the Diocese's view a number of these sites were suitable for the rebuilding of the school in terms of their position and size. However, for reasons that might be considered 'political' in a non-party sense, the vast majority of these were rejected. This has left us with two sites, one of which (the Park and Ride) is considered unsuitable and unsafe by both the governors of St John's and the Diocese and the other of which has excited extreme hostility from the local community. This latter site at Odd Down Playing Fields, is certainly big enough, suitable in its topography for building a school and, whilst not necessarily best placed in terms of the schools existing clientele, it is at least in the southern half of the City. For this reason both the Diocese and the governors of St John's have indicated that they would agree to the rebuilding of St John's on the site.

When it was made clear to the governors of St John's and to the Diocese that the scale of local opposition to the Odd Down Playing Fields was such that it might be very difficult to approve this site, it was suggested by us that the Council might wish to reconsider the original site at Oldfield Lane. From the outset it was made clear by both parties that, in our view, the land owned by the Diocese on its own would be insufficient for a school of St John's size (even though this had been reduced to 315 from 420). This remains our position since its area is 37% below the minimum size recommended by the DfES. Whilst various options have been considered by Llewellyn Harker, that might in theory squeeze the school into the land owned by the Diocese alone, it is clear to us all that the quality of the educational environment which such solutions might offer would not be what we would wish to offer the children of the school. The shortcomings of a multi-storey solution are only too apparent in the existing Junior School building in Pulteney Road. I have no doubt the governors of St John's will have made you aware of what these are in detail in their reply to you.

The concern of the Diocese is simply this. In view of the fierce opposition to the Odd Down Playing Field, the Executive may be tempted to take what might be termed the 'easy' option and decide to build on the Oldfield Lane site without purchasing the additional land to bring it up to the minimum recommended area for a school of its size. In effect this would mean that, after five years of vacillation, B&NES would have returned to a proposal, rejected at the outset, which had since more than doubled in cost and which offered nothing more to the school than the land already owned by the Diocese to build on. In these circumstances I think it would be wrong for the Council to assume that the Diocesan Trustees would be prepared to gift the land to the Council for this purpose. Quite properly the Diocese would expect to see a 'quid pro quo' solution in which the Diocese gifted its land and that the Council made this up to the minimum recommended size from its own resources. The Council will, after all, be getting for 315 children it has been established to serve, a brand new school for a relatively small investment. The Diocese simply does not believe that, if the Council were seeking to build a community school, it would consider cramming it onto a site that was demonstrably too small. Recent building projects in Radstock and Keynsham demonstrate this.

It is quite clear that a number of sites in the south of Bath already owned by the Council are of sufficient size and suitable topography to rebuild the school. All but one of these has, for whatever reasons, been rejected by the Council. If the Council rejects the last of these at Odd Down Playing Fields then it is the belief of the Diocese, quite reasonably, that the Council Executive should squarely face the financial consequences of seeking to build on land it does not own. If the Executive seeks to pursue the course by which it would seek to build the school on the area owned by the Diocese alone, then it will be opposed by the school and the Diocese of Clifton.

The patience of the St John's School community and the Catholic community in Bath in recent years has been remarkable in the face of the continual delays and about turns. The capital sum promised by the DfES to enable the project to proceed is now longer sufficient and we have been forced, without any guarantees, to bid again to the government for additional support. This project now needs a fair wind in order to come to completion and, without the complete commitment of all the partners in the venture to its success, then it could well founder and a whole school community be deprived of the quality of school buildings which we have all acknowledged they deserve and are entitled to. The Diocese has demonstrated that it will meet its commitment in full and beyond its statutory requirements. We are now looking to Bath and North East Somerset to match this.

Yours sincerely

David Byrne

Co-Director

Appendix 2

Comments of Contaminated Land Officer regarding Wansdyke Business Centre

Following your e-mail dated 15th June 2005 and telephone conversation with Tony Parker, please find my comments regarding potential contamination of land at Wansdyke Business Centre:

The site has had a long history of industrial use. Maps from 1904 show the site to be used as Griffins Engineering works. From 1938 to 1961 a number of different size building occupied the site, all were relatively large and were probably industrial. From 1973 to 1983 ordnance survey maps show the site to be occupied by a large building labelled "Works".

Unfortunately I have no further information on the site. However given its long industrial history and close proximity to a former railway it is likely that the site is contaminated.

As it is proposed to develop the site into a primary school ( a very sensitive use) it is strongly advised that a full site investigation is carried out in order to determine if the site is contaminated, what risks are associated with this contamination and whether the risks can be reduced to an acceptable level.

Please note that at least a phase 1 desk study, site walkover and human health and environmental risk assessment would be required with a planning application.

Appendix 3

Comments from the Governors of Moorlands Junior School

The Governors at Moorlands Junior School have concerns over the proposal to build a new St John's Catholic School on the St Alphege's site, Oldfield Park.

These points need to be taken into consideration:-

We would also like to ask these questions:-

What proportion of children attending the school actually live within walking distance of St Alphege's?

Will there be enough parking on the school site to accommodate all staff and visitor vehicles?

Susan Warby - on behalf of the Governors of Moorlands Junior School.

Appendix 4

Additional comments from Economic Development

The Business Centre site is also covered by Policy ET 1C of the Revised Deposit Draft of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan which has just been subject to a Public Inquiry. Under this policy small employment sites such as the Business Centre are protected unless the importance of the development outweighs the economic development benefits of the site.

There are 19 units on the Business Centre site. All but 2 are occupied. The Wansdyke Business Centre is one of a network of small employment sites within the Bath urban area. A partial survey of these sites by Business West which covered 127 businesses employing 850+ people showed that the majority of businesses wished to stay within the city and that 90% of the employees lived within a 5 mile radius.

Of the companies considering relocation within the City all indicated that there was a shortage of suitable available employment sites.

There are no new industrial sites allocated in Bath and the vacancy rate within the existing stock is less than 1% which is very low. The prospects for being able to relocate companies within the City are extremely limited.

Appendix 5

Response from Allotment Association

Response to formal request for comment on the relocation of St Johns Catholic Primary School, Bath. 15 June 2005.

The Bath and N E Somerset Allotments Association has already made several representations on this issue. We have previously said, and still do:

That we support the desire of the school governors for an all through primary school on a single site.

That we hope this will be achieved as quickly as possible.

That in the search for a suitable site, brownfield land should be favourably considered, even if at extra cost to the council tax payer.

And that we are very concerned that no allotments are lost.

Prior to last week's meeting at St Alpheges, our committee favoured the following three options:

Relocation onto Western Riverside.

Relocation onto a portion of the Odd Down Playing Fields.

Relocation to Odd Down Park and Ride.

Hence we voted against the proposed move to St Alpheges site.

However, the large consensus from the meeting was that the school would be welcome in this locality, but only if the Wansdyke Business Centre were acquired for school purpose: most likely for demolition and rebuild.

The strong acceptance that a new school would have in this locality that we heard from the meeting, now influences our own thinking. This welcome, and the brownfield nature of most of the site, means that we could conditionally lend our support to the School Governors.

It is very unfortunate that the only greenfield part of the land affected is an allotment site.

However, we did hear that the School Governors would offer school facilities for use by the local community,

Our conditions for this support therefore are these:

1. That we receive adequate explanation why the two official alternative locations are to be rejected, if they are.

2. That a full assessment is also made of the feasibility of other locations or possibilities, as outlined below.

3. That the relevant emerging Local Plan policies are applied to both the Wansdyke Business Centre and the allotment site relocations, such that equivalent suitable alternative accommodation is provided by the developer and that no planning approval is given prior to resolving these issues. It would help if the Allotments Association were to be a consultee in the same way that the Business Community Partnership has been.

In relation to the new Local Plan:

The Inspector has advised us that its Policies already carry considerable material weight, even before her recommendations and Adoption of the Plan.

Policy CF.8 therefore applies to the allotment site. It had been the case that the land had been reserved for possible educational use, but this reservation was removed as an Inquiry change, along with the reservation on the land at Lymore Avenue: so CF.8 now applies.

Suitable replacement land therefore needs to be found within one kilometre walking distance. However, it should serve the same locality, and we therefore put the case to the Inspector that this should be reduced to 400m. We are hopeful that she will recommend this and thus we ask for its new location to be within 400m.

We would like full assessment of each of the following alternatives, or an adequate reason for their rejection:

Relocation onto Western Riverside. We were always told that this would be option too far into the future to consider. However, with the passage of time, the future has now arrived: the planning application is due to be published in the next six months or so.

We have also been told that primary provision must be for a community school, not a Catholic one. But the St Johns governors have repeatedly said they wish to be community-based. Additionally, they will accept non-Catholics of any faith.

If the school at Western Riverside were to be a Catholic school, then all children would be able to be accommodated with the exception of humanists. For these pupils, and for those whose parents are particularly prejudiced against a Catholic education, there would be two non-faith schools within a mile, at Newbridge and at Oldfield at South Twerton. We therefore don't think there is an overwhelming argument in favour of a non-faith school. In fact, other considerations would support our case:

1. A safe route to school could easily be created from Oldfield Park and from other areas of South Bath, by recreating the old bridge over the Lower Bristol Road. The linear park route would then be continuous into Western Riverside, and indeed, into town. Catholic children from South Bath would thus then have a safe route to school along the linear park.

2. Because nobody lives at Western Riverside at present, nobody would be upset, as they would move there knowing that the nearest school would be a Catholic one.

3. Most parents prioritise choosing a good school rather than one that suits their faith. The report of 5 July 2004 to the Council Executive invited Members to recognise (4.10) that all key Stage 2 places in the Parkside Infants School area are within church schools and parents seem happy to choose from these schools regardless of religious considerations when children transfer to a junior school.

If however, these arguments can't be supported, then consideration should be given to the construction of a side-by-side Catholic school and non-faith school at Western Riverside, with 210 places each. A playing field could be shared. Bob Coleman suggested something similar at the meeting, that a school football field at St Alpheges could also be used by the local community.

Failing that, we suggest another option: that a 420 place school is built at Western Riverside, which would house St Martins' Garden Primary school. St Johns could then relocate to Frome Road where there is plenty of space and it would be close enough to St Gregory's for chapel and transport and other facilities to be shared.

So long as all children are offered free transport then all in the St Martins Garden Primary catchment would continue to have a choice of school: Catholic or non-faith. For children from afar, such as from Keynsham, Radstock, or Swainswick, whose parents insist on a Catholic education: then Western Riverside would be about as accessible as anywhere else.

Relocation onto Odd Down Playing Fields.

The promotion of this possibility seems to have been poorly handled. Local residents apparently started to believe that the whole site would be taken, instead of just one playing pitch out of eleven.

If the school were to be located in the corner where the changing rooms are, then much of the site is already brownfield, being tarmacked over. Additionally, the School could readily accommodate a superior changing rooms facility for use by the wider community.

Neither have local people had any vision of how the school might look. The St Thomas Moore RC Primary School at Letchworth in Hertfordshire occupies a similar semi-open site at a similar distance from the nearest houses and looks good. A photographic exhibition of this school in its setting could quell many fears that an architectural monster might be imposed.

Any playing field land taken for school use need not be lost for use by the local community: as Bob Coleman has indicated. We are very pleased that the school does now wish to integrate with the local community wherever it goes, which certainly was not the impression we were given ten or even five years ago. We would like to see a fresh attempt to persuade the local residents, by stressing this much more positive view.

Relocation onto Odd Down Park and Ride.

We note that the headmaster of St Gregory's school dismissed this option as 'absurd' and are intrigued to know why, as we are not aware of significant arguments against it other than it is in the green belt.

However, a better place to consider in this vicinity might be the Fullers Earth Works site, being both a brownfield site and a genuine eyesore at present. The great advantages for the children would be its magnificent landscape setting; and facilities such as chapel that can be shared with nearby St Gregorys, using the Public Right of Way plus ensuring that the short stretch along Combe Hay Lane is safe..

If the acquisition of the Wansdyke Business Centre were to cost 'in excess of £1 million', it can be argued that for an additional £2 million or so, the Southern gateway into Bath could be heralded by a building of merit instead of these worthless rotting structures. Considered in the round, this could be money well worth spending, that might have very broad support.

Relocation at St Gregorys.

If the school were to be built on the present St Gregorys playing field, there would be obvious benefits in terms of ability to share facilities. A couple of minutes' safe walk to the east is extensive and flat green belt land that could be converted into the playing field for the secondary school. That land could also be used by the primary school children, and by the local community after school hours as has been suggested for St Alpheges by Bob Coleman.

This option was dismissed as 'ridiculous' by Raymond Friel, but we cannot see any overwhelming case against the idea: playing fields do keep the green belt green. Additionally, local residents might welcome a playing field here, as they know all too well that housing developers are thirsting for this land.

The main objection we would have is the looming presence of the phone mast and the warnings of the government commissioned Stewart Report that advised caution when considering their proximity of schools. However, there is serious talk of moving this mast (refer to Cllr Nigel Roberts' motion to a recent Council meeting).

Pulteney Road.

The great advantage of using this site for the new school is that it is already in the Catholic community's ownership. Maybe it has not previously come into the frame because of the school's former exclusionist attitude. However, now that the headmaster has said that a playing field could be used by the local community after school hours, this option becomes quite attractive.

The land take could be the whole of the present school area; land behind the adjoining buildings to the north, in the same ownership, and sufficient adjoining playing field area from the recreation ground.

There are two snags: problems associated with flood plain developments, and the nearby noise from the traffic. These must both be weighed in.

A temporary home for the junior school could be the newly built one at Western Riverside; or the soon to be vacant Lime Grove school or Summerhill school.

Other possibilities at St Alpheges.

If the school were to occupy the western part of the site, enlarged by the acquisition of the Wansdyke Business Centre, then the allotment site could remain green.

Bob Coleman suggested as a playing field, for use also by the local community.

We think it would be better to remain for horticulture and for wildlife: for use (or appreciation) also by the local community. The advantage would be that, outside school hours, it would serve a different sector of the community than footballers. The activity would be quieter, and thus more appropriate so close to houses. Residential amenity is a valued consideration here. An additional house in the grounds of St Malo, at the bottom of First Avenue, has been refused some years ago on grounds of potential loss of residential amenity. A football field here may be regarded in similar adverse light.

The field at Bloomfield Road is only a short distance east, along the safe route of the linear park. The Lymore Avenue field is not much further away, to the west. Either of these could be better alternative sites for a school playing field.

The concern about healthy lifestyles and better school meals means that school-based allotments or gardens are already being introduced elsewhere, such as at Timsbury's primary school. It would be a great shame to destroy the asset that already exists here, if the playing field could go a short distance away instead: especially since the allotments would otherwise need to be created somewhere else.

Summary of our alternative suggestions:

Western Riverside:

B7 420-place Catholic School

B7 210-place Catholic school alongside 210-place non-faith school

B7 420-place relocated non-faith St Martins Garden Primary; St Johns to move to Frome Road.

Odd Down Playing Fields

Odd Down Park and Ride

Fullers Earth Works site

St Gregory's Playing Field with its relocation to the nearby green belt land.

Pulteney Road along with some recreation ground land.

St Alphege's

Playing field to occupy land at either Bloomfield Road open space or Lymore Avenue open space: stressing in each case that the field can be used also by local residents outside school hours. This would avoid having to relocate the allotment site.

We would not support the Local Authority's proposal that the school be built at St Alphege's without the use of the Wansdyke Business Centre land.

Appendix 6

A further response from a member of the public

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to express my view about the relocation of the above school.

I fully support the Governor's view that St Alphege's is the ideal location

for the new school, BUT ONLY IF IT INCLUDES THE WANSDYKE BUSINESS CENTRE.

My reasons for this opinion are as follows:

1. It is essential for the children's well being that they have ample space

to run around in. I know that there are state of the art schools in inner

cities on multiple levels, but we live in a city surrounded by countryside

and so this should not be necessary. Local resident's have also expressed

concern over the height of the school opposite their homes and I agree with

them entirely. We need a single story school with a grass playing field.

There are also discipline issues with trying to squeeze the school in to a

small space, as highlighted by Mr Coleman at the meeting on 9th June.

2. If the school were to leave the area, businesses in Moorland Road would

undoubtably close. They have confirmed that their busiest 2 hours are at

the start and end of the school day. I'm sure any resident would agree that

the local shops are more important to them than the business centre and so

this shows that the school would offer greater potential benefit to the

community.

3. The suggestion that the council might not wish to, or be able to, afford

the centre is, frankly, obscene in light of the vast amounts being spent on

the Spa. Surely the council does not think a swimming pool for tourists is

more important than the future education of our children?

4. Although many parents will have to drive to the school, this does not

mean that we will all drive to the front gates. Many of us already park

further away and then walk along the linear path to school in the mornings,

plus many of us car share (I live in Combe Down and do both).

5. Many resident's supported the school being sited at St Alphege's at the

meeting on 9th June (only 6 against and that was over the possibility of a

multiple level building opposite their homes) and even the Hillside Hall

association offered to give up their hall for us to use the land. Would it

still be possible to make use of this land without the business centre?

Surely that would provide an ideal way in to the school to take the pressure

off the residential roads at the current entrance?

6. In the Chronicle, there was an article about the current businesses at

the centre and all they said was that it would be 'difficult' for them to

find alternative premises. None of them said that they would be forced to

close and that there would be job losses and none of them bothered to attend

the meeting on 9th June, so they are obviously not as concerned as the

council apparently is. There are many places around Bath that they could

go, including the new developments at the old Clarke's factory and the

Riverside. Alternatively, you could provide a new business park at the Odd

Down park and Ride, which would be far more appropriate than relocating a

primary school there!

In conclusion, I reiterate that I am in full agreement with the Governors of

the school that they should reject the site if it is offered without the

Wansdyke Business Centre land. I would rather there was a further delay,

than accept a completely inappropriate site that is well below the

government 's minimum guidelines, even if it means that my 6 year old son

does not get the benefit of it. After all, this school is for future

generations of Bath, not just for a quick fix to satisfy the current people

involved. I very much feel that the Council is hoping to get out of

providing us with any land, to avoid spending any money and take the easiest

option with the least opposition. You are obligated to provide us with a

site and so to offer us land that the church already owns 2 years after the

pupil numbers reduced 315 is simply outrageous.

I hope that good sense will prevail and that, at the meeting on 29th June

'05, the right decision is made to offer us the St Alphege site including

the Wansdyke Business Centre land. The Council should be ashamed of what it

has achieved so far and this is their opportunity to put things right.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Delia Lee

41, Midford Road

Combe Down

Bath

BA2 5RW

Appendix 7

Comments from Early Years Team

Foundation Stage children need to have space for a separate fenced off area with a door directly out from their classroom - this would be easier to ensure in a single storey school. The ideal situation would enable all children to experience different types of play surfaces - not purely an all weather surface. This should be a last resort.