Archived decisions

Contact: Bob Lloyd-Jones, ext 6364

1. Summary

1.1. This paper reports on the outcomes of consultations agreed by the Executive Member for Education on 6 September 2002. The consultations were designed to discover local views - parents and the Popley community, teachers and governors of John Hunt of Everest School - about the opportunity to provide a replacement building for the school on a new, nearby site. Information about predicted pupil numbers is given in Appendix 1.

1.2. Consultations were held with:

_ Governors and teachers - 19 September 2002

_ Parents - 19 September 2002

_ Popley Forum which is attended by members of the local community - 23 September 2002

Details of these consultations are in Appendix 2.

1.3. In order to make progress to the next step in securing a new school, Members are asked to advise the Executive Member on the issuing of Statutory Notices to progress the relocation of John Hunt of Everest School.

2. Background

2.1. The present John Hunt of Everest School was built in 1970 as part of the development of the Popley area by the Basingstoke Town Development Group with which the County Council was a major partner. The school is operating significantly under capacity, with a school roll circa 400. The buildings are in need of major refurbishment to raise the school to a condition to serve the requirements and developing demands of the national curriculum.

2.2. The new school would be built to accommodate children from Popley and the new housing developments at Popley Fields and North Popley (predicted pupil numbers for Basingstoke are given in Appendix 1). In socio-economic terms the area is one of the most socially deprived in Basingstoke. The children and community of Popley would greatly benefit from having a modern community comprehensive school as the local school. It would improve still further the learning chances of secondary aged children in the area and provide youth and adult education opportunities for the community at large.

2.3. Until completion of a new school, the existing school building would continue to be maintained and would receive investment sufficient to safeguard and properly facilitate teaching and learning for pupils currently in attendance. The provision of a new building would reflect the County Council's responsibility to accommodate learners in modern buildings designed to meet modern teaching and learning requirements. Importantly, it would also help address the County Council's responsibility to support schools in raising standards. A new, purpose-built comprehensive school would demonstrate the County Council's commitment to and support of the Popley community and the new residents to be accommodated in the Popley development plan.

2.4. The new school itself would be built using money generated from the development and regeneration plan for North Basingstoke. The school would be financed from:

_ the capital receipt from the sale of the existing John Hunt of Everest site;

_ a contribution from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council towards the cost of dual use community and leisure facilities;

_ a voluntary contribution agreed with David Wilson Homes, the prospective developers of the adjoining land at North Popley;

_ a capital receipt contribution from the sale of County Council owned land in North Popley.

2.5. The funding elements described in 2.4 would need to be in place before the proposed alterations in respect of John Hunt of Everest School can be determined. In addition, the LEA would need to ensure that it has obtained the necessary consents from the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (control of disposals or changes in use of school playing fields) and paragraph 2, Schedule 8 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (restriction on disposal). The fulfilment of these requirements is to some extent beyond the County Council's control.

3. The consultation: the views, questions and responses given in meeting of parents, and the meeting for governors and teachers held at the school

3.1. Timescale for building a new school: In both meetings at the school, questions were raised about the timescale for building any replacement school, with a view expressed against earlier estimates that the potential completion date had already slipped from September 2005 to September 2006. It was explained that if the school were granted final approval for a replacement building, even a completion date of September 2006 would be dependent upon many other factors related to the major development plans for the area all coming together. In the meantime, it would be important to maintain the enthusiasm of staff and their high expectations associated with having a new school.

3.2. Maintaining the present buildings: Both meetings were concerned about the need to maintain the present buildings in order for children still using the building to be fully supported in their learning. Assurances were given that not only had money already been invested in areas such as the science block, but that the County Council would ensure that the present building would continue to be properly maintained.

3.3. Home to school travel: Concerns were expressed by governors and parents about the increased travel distance the site of the new school would represent for some, particularly in terms of safe travel to school. It was explained that the planners would, as part of their brief, seek solutions for the creation of suitable walking and cycle routes to and from school, taking close account of safety considerations. It was unlikely that anyone in Popley lived sufficiently far away to qualify for free transport.

3.4. Sale of the existing site: Parents, teachers and governors all placed great importance on the need for the release of land from the existing site to be carefully managed, so that:

_ any building activity on newly released land adjacent to the school would not represent a potential safety hazard for children and staff attending the existing school;

_ that the amount of land sold in the first instance still left playing fields sufficient for the needs of the pupils of the school.

Assurances were given on both these counts, with examples given such as at John Hanson School in Andover, where similar situations had been successfully managed in the recent past by the County Council.

3.5. Numbers of children and teacher recruitment: Parents were told that the new school would be built for 750-900 children in the age group 11-16; there would be no sixth form. Parents were reassured that the recruitment of teachers for the school would greatly benefit from:

_ the government programme to increase teacher recruitment;

_ the Key Worker housing programme;

_ the attraction of working in a brand new school.

3.6. The design of the new school: A number of questions and points were made at both meetings about the specification and design of any new school. Particular points were made about:

_ the adequate provision of playing fields - reassurance was given that this would be the case, particularly as the provision would need to be of a standard high enough to meet the joint needs of both school and community;

_ the need for the school to be consulted on the design brief. It was made clear that officers from the Education Department, working with a group of heads from Secondary Heads' Conference, would produce the outline brief. This would then form the basis for consultation with the teachers and governors at the school;

_ the necessity for the design of the school to incorporate future curriculum needs, such as in the area of ICT (Information and Communication Technology). It was explained that if the school wanted specialist school status, it would have to bid in the normal way.

3.7. Catchment areas: Parents in particular voiced concern about catchment areas and for whom the school would be built. Assurances were given that:

_ the school would be built to serve Popley;

_ the school would be large enough (750 places, extendable to 900) to accommodate all Popley children and children wishing to attend from the newly built housing development featured in what is already a part of the school's catchment area;

_ children from Chineham, Sherborne St John and Bramley all would be in the school's catchment area.

3.8. The nursery, the name of the school and yet more housing: Finally, parents asked if:

_ the existing nursery would be accommodated in the school and were advised that it would more likely be placed in the new community centre;

_ the school would change its name and were told that this would be a decision for the governors who, if they wanted to change the name, would normally do so in consultation with the community;

_ more housing would be built to the north of the school and it was explained that there were no proposals or plans to do so.

3.9. Vote: There was a unanimous vote in favour of the replacement school being built.

4. The consultation: the views, questions and responses given in the meeting with the Popley Forum

4.1. At the meeting a number of questions and views were similar to those expressed at the meeting at the school, discussed in paragraph 3 above. A number of additional points were made.

4.2. The cost of replacing the school: A question was asked about the seeming wastage of having to spend £20 million to replace a school which had been used only for some 30 years. It was explained that the existing John Hunt of Everest School would require a significant investment in the fabric, interior and infrastructure to bring it up to current standards, and that remodelling would itself be expensive.

4.3. Financing the new school: A variety of questions were asked about this and they were answered as follows.

_ In answer to how the school would be funded, information was given as in paragraph 2.4 of this paper.

_ When asked about selling part of the existing John Hunt of Everest School site early, officers explained that finance would be needed to forward fund the project to underwrite design fees and fund early enabling works.

_ The Forum wanted to know about the County Council's true commitment to the scheme. It was explained that the very fact that consultations were being conducted demonstrated a commitment to a two-phase process to relocate the school. The next phase would be to issue Statutory Notices. It was further explained that the County Council was of the view that the funding would be forthcoming and that subject to elected member approval, design and development processes would be started.

_ It was asked why it was not possible to maximise the value of the existing site by not building any social housing. It was explained that within the demands and planning constraints placed upon the County Council and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council by central government, a good return on the land was possible as a result of a solution involving the building of a mix of accommodation. 30% of this would be affordable housing made up of housing for rent, shared equity housing and key worker units.

_ A question was asked about new furniture for the school and it was explained that approximately £1 million would be available for this.

4.4. Operating the existing school when the land is released for building: Assurances were given about the early release of land and the steps which would be taken to secure the safety of children - see Appendix 2.

4.5. Safe travel to and from the existing school: A detailed response was given by officers to reassure residents that plans would be put in place to secure for children safe travel to and from school. - see Appendix 2.

4.6. Recruitment of staff: Concerns were raised similar to those raised in the school meetings and reported in paragraph 3.5. A similar reassurance was given.

4.7. A new school for Popley: Some were worried that catchment areas might be changed once the new school had been built, such that Popley children might be disadvantaged. It was explained that the size of the school was arrived at as a result of predicting pupil numbers requiring secondary school places from Popley in particular. The new school would be built for Popley children and would keep, and possibly even expand, its Popley catchment area.

4.8. Vote: There was a unanimous vote in favour of the replacement school being built.

5. The legal context

5.1 The LEA must follow a statutory process in connection with the proposed alterations to John Hunt of Everest School. The consultation with interested parties, as described above, must be followed by a decision whether or not to publish Statutory Notices setting out the proposed alterations to the school. If the Notices are published, a statutory process is commenced leading to the determination of the proposals. If there is no objection to the Notices, the LEA is empowered to determine the proposals. If there is an objection to the Notices, the proposals fall to be considered by the School Organisation Committee. In either case, statutory time periods apply.

5.2 The School Organisation Committee is unable to approve the proposals subject to the availability of capital, from sales or otherwise, or subject to the necessary consents from the Secretary of State. These must therefore be in place prior to the determination of the proposals.

5.3 Once the proposals are approved by the School Organisation Committee, or determined by the LEA, the LEA is under a statutory duty to implement them. This duty can only be removed by the School Organisation Committee where it is satisfied that it would be unreasonably difficult or circumstances have altered since approval was given so that implementation would be inappropriate. The LEA would first have to bring forward a second proposal, to remove the duty to implement the first proposal.

5.4 Although there is no statutory time period following consultation in which the LEA must decide whether to publish Notices, if there was a significant delay between consultation and publication, the LEA would have to consider whether it would be necessary to consult again.

Recommendation

That the Executive Member, Education be advised that:

_ Approval be given in principle to the publication of Statutory Notices to effect the relocation of John Hunt of Everest School.

_ Authorisation be given to the County Education Officer to obtain the necessary consents from the Secretary of State and to publish the Statutory Notices when the finance and consents have been secured.

Bob Lloyd-Jones, 6364

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB The list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE FILE

SC\OCT211LJgg

APPENDIX 1

PREDICTED PUPIL NUMBERS SEEKING PLACES AT EACH SCHOOL IN BASINGSTOKE

* The normal admission number to the school amounts to four forms of entry as a result of pupil admissions from beyond its linked schools.

APPENDIX 2

CONSULTATION ON THE POSSIBLE RELOCATION OF JOHN HUNT OF EVEREST SCHOOL

1. Consultation with parents, governors and staff

A meeting was held on 19 September 2002 at John Hunt of Everest School to discuss the above.

1.1 Consultation with staff and governors

The meeting was attended by 24 teaching staff, five support staff and six governors. Those attending included Lesley Phillipson, Headteacher and Caroline Griffiths, Chairman of Governors.

Questions/comments raised by staff and governors were as follows:

· The timescale for relocating the school has already slipped from September 2005 to September 2006 and, therefore, it is sometimes difficult to keep the enthusiasm of staff and governors when presented with such a long timescale.


· It is essential that investment continues to be made into the existing school.


· There could be some concern from the community about the relocation of the school away from the existing housing area.


· There may well be concern about the school being some half a mile away from the existing site, meaning it is further to walk and thought needs to be given on making sure there are suitable walking and cycle routes from the existing and new housing to the new school.


· Staff wanted to know what consultation would take place regarding the design of the new school.


· Would there be money for new furniture and equipment?


· If part of the school site is to be sold early for housing development, it is important that any construction that takes place adjacent to the school is managed appropriately with regard to health and safety of staff and pupils.


A vote was taken and all present at the meeting agreed to the relocation of the school. In addition, Lesley Phillipson had obtained four written comments from staff who were unable to attend the meeting; these all approved the relocation of the school as well.

1.2 Consultation with parents

Eleven parents attended this meeting. In addition, there was a Basingstoke and Deane Borough Councillor also in attendance. Comments made were:


· How will the primary schools cope with the additional children that will come from the new housing?


· If schools are to be extended, how will you recruit additional staff in view of the current problems?


· It is important that there are opportunities for residents of Popley to obtain benefit from the new school, namely that children will continue to be able to be educated there.


· Will children from the Chineham area of Basingstoke still come to the new school?


· Will free home-to-school transport be provided?


· How much land will be sold of the existing site? If some is sold, then any development will need to make sure that health and safety issues for staff and pupils using the adjacent existing school are taken into account.


· Concerns were expressed regarding health and safety of the overall development, in terms of new housing, highway improvements etc. as pupils could be walking through a major development/construction area to attend the existing school or the new school. Consideration must be given to providing appropriate walking routes to the school; the use of the existing subways is not appropriate.


· Will the new school have a sixth form?


· Will the school keep its current name?


· It is important that investment continues to be made into the existing school for the pupils who will continue to receive their education for the next four years at this establishment.


· The school will move away from the existing centre of Popley and therefore the routes to school for pupils will need to be given suitable consideration.


· The school not only serves Popley but also Sherborne St John and Bramley. Have these numbers been taken into account in the decision regarding the size of the new school?


· Does the fact that the school will be relocated to what is currently an area of Green Belt enable, in future, opportunities for more housing to be provided in the area between the north of Popley and Sherborne St John?


· Has the fact that the potential for specialist school status been taken into account in the design of the new school?


· There is currently a nursery on the school site. What will happen to this in the future if the school relocates?


· Will there be sufficient playing fields provided for the new school?


A vote was taken and all parents present agreed to the relocation of the new school.

2. Consultation with the Popley community

A meeting was held with the Popley Forum on 23 September 2002. The meeting was attended by 46 Popley residents, three of whom were Basingstoke and Deane Borough Councillors, one of whom also being a Hampshire County Councillor.

Questions/comments raised by residents were as follows:

· Why spend £20 million-plus replacing a school that has been up only 30 years? A criminal waste of money given that many buildings last longer than this.

Notwithstanding the obvious education case for doing so, remodelling of the existing building is not regarded as the best or most a cost-effective strategy in the long term. The existing buildings are system-built and although they could be refurbished, they would never be state-of-the-art like a new building.


· How will the cost of building the school be funded?

From sale proceeds from the existing school site, contributions from the two land owners at North Popley (i.e. David Wilson Homes) and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council towards the community provision.


· Why sell part of the existing school site early?

To forward fund the project/underwrite design fees and early enabling works.


· Is the County Council committed to delivering the school?

Yes, its preparedness to do so is reflected by undertaking this consultation which is the first part of a two stage legal process towards relocation of the school. Hampshire County Council believes that all the required funding is now in place to allow us to have the confidence to proceed with the consultation process.


· Why not maximise the value of the existing school site by having no social housing?

The County Council is keen to adopt, wherever possible, appropriate planning policies to avoid setting an unwanted precedent that could compromise the Borough Council as local planning authority. In this context, one option explored was to reduce or have no affordable housing on the site to maximise land value. However, this was not practicable but it is possible to achieve good site value by having a mixture of housing for rent, shared equity and key worker units.


· How has furniture and equipment been factored into the new school provision - will it be an after-thought for which insufficient funds will be available? What guarantee is there that equipment will be new?

Firstly, that a substantial element of the school cost relates to furniture and equipment (c. £1m). This will continue as has been the practice at the recently opened John Hanson School, Andover where virtually everything has been new. Of course, in the meantime the existing John Hunt of Everest School will continue to operate which will necessitate the purchase of items before the relocation takes place. Care will be taken to ensure that non-disposable items are purchased with a probable re-use of some in the new school.


· In relation to proposed first phase release of land for sale at the John Hunt of Everest site, how would the interface between the continued operating school and construction traffic be managed?

The proposed first phase would be in the north east part of the site and away from the main teaching spaces. Access to this land would be achieved through a separate new point of access from Popley Way. Similar examples exist elsewhere in Hampshire where the situation has been managed effectively. The health and safety issues for pupils and staff would be of paramount importance.


· Safe movements to the new school whilst construction is ongoing and when the new development area is completed.

Likely that the first areas to come forward for development in North Popley would be the Triangle area which includes the site for the proposed school. This would reduce the risk to pupils once the new school opens. Movements to the school would change by a need to cross Popley Way - the latter would be traffic calmed to reduce speeds and would introduce new points to cross. A school transport plan would also be needed as part of the detailed planning application for the new school.


· How will the County Council guarantee there will be staff to teach at the new larger school, given the current recruitment difficulties?

The beacon effect of a new school would encourage a better response from the teaching profession. Part of the problem is also being able to afford to live in areas like Basingstoke - the key worker housing provision on the John Hunt of Everest site and the wider county strategy was cited as one mechanism to attract staff as well as an incentive strategy.


· Can the County Council confirm that the new school will serve all residents in Popley? A repeat of the circumstance as in south west Basingstoke would be undesirable.

The new school would be built as a school for Popley. The accommodation at the school would rely on Popley pupils to make it fully operational. The school could be thought of as `the new Popley comprehensive school'.