Danehill Parish Council – Nursery Working Group (v2.3)
This report is undated and does not reference PC meeting in November when it was an agenda item asking for approval to spend £2.5k of Community Support money to apply for outline building permission. It cannot be described as a feasibility study as it fails to provide a sound analysis of the viability of the available options, and is mainly promotional ‘spin’ for the Jubilee Green new building.
Members
Cllr Crabb; Cllr M Garman and Cllr Critchley
Other Consults
CGVH (current trustee chairman); Chelwood Gate Nursery School Committee; Conservators; Ashdown Cricket Club; Danehill CE Primary School; Vicar of All Saints Danehill Church; Wealden Planning Officer North; SALC; Other professional services. CGVH say they were not consulted over this document.
Objective
To present to Full council a feasibility study on the considerations of DHPC providing the Provisions of Nursery services.The objective should be to fully review the options open to the Council which may facilitate the continued provision of nursery services by an independent third party company. DHPC is not running the nursery.
Background
Chelwood Gate Nursery and more recently years, ForestSchool, has been operating from ChelwoodGateVillage hall for nearly 40yrs. In recent years the demands of governing bodies; Ofsted; Charities and the needs of parents for Child Care have changed. There have been many claims regarding Ofsted requirements which have yet to be substantiated by the PC.
Nurseries have historically established themselves in local village halls. In these changing times, demands on how nursery services are to operate and the intent of community village halls management, is starting to force nurseries to find new premises and/or close.This is not a new issue. Village nurseries have always had to work around other organisations in village halls. It has never been cost effective for village nurseries to hire a dedicated building.
Exec Summary
The Nursery Working Group believes that DHPC could provide the Provisions of Nursery Services. Their recommendation is superficial as this study is woefully inadequate. It does not consider all the options in depth and contains no financial evaluation of these options to enable viability to be established.
Limited to the investment necessary for a dedicated Nursery School building and to act as a Landlord to the rentable asset, it is feasible for this Parish Council to build and govern the provision of a Nursery School building.Feasibility is not proven by this report.
Nursery Schools are a key feeder into local primary schools, supporting their long term survival. Good local public education is a key factor for young families to move into a caption area. The loss of a Nursery School would have a long lasting aging effect on this local community. This is opinion and not fact. This report does specify that 60% of children using our nursery school are from East Grinstead and Nutley, so any aging effects on the parish are unlikely, as is the likelihood of the children attending DanehillSchool.
The two key risks identified that may prevent DHPC from providing Nursery Services are:
-Planning:Planning permission that accepts that by vacating a ‘rentable space’ (CGVH),
that the ability to rent that space, has minimal negative impact on the Habitat Regulation.Also the undesirability of another building on Jubilee Green with its adjacency to the forest.
-Time: The ability to agree, commission, build and have approved (Ofsted), by
August 2016.
A third risk is the borrowing of money to build a dedicated nursery that has no guarantee that the nursery will continue over the next 20 years. The rent to the Nursery School of £3.5k p.a. is not even enough to service the loan that will be required for the capital outlay.
The ability to fund this project through debt management (loan) has been calculated at £7,075.00 for the next 20yrs. This Equates to £9.43 a year (Band E) per household, for securing the provisions of a Nursery in our Parish. The total cost of the project is projected to be £141.5K over 20yrs.No business case is included for this or any option. Financial viability is untested. The project has not been accurately costed and is likely to be much higher.It is very unlikely that this project can be delivered for £141.5k.
The building design will be single storey, timber framed, half apex roof approximately 10m x 7m in size. The location for the Nursery has been narrowed two possibilities; Danehill Recreation Grd and Chelwood Gate Jubilee Woodland. Danehill Recreation Ground would seem to be a much better option for any new build by any reasonable assessment. It would also seem that this is the preferred option of the Nursery School and also DanehillPrimary School at the recent Nursery School AGM!
Building is said to be 12.5mx5.47m plus decking in Appendix D. Also space will be needed for treatment plant and soakaway detailed in Appendix E. In Appendix D it does not show any provision for a kitchen area which will be needed for the preparation of food and drink for the pupils, or a staff room/office which we understand would be required.
With this in mind it is likely that the building will need to be even larger and there will be more cost involved
Parking provisions at Danehill Rec Grd would make use of the existing car park, but at Chelwood Gate it would require an agreement with CGVH committee, to permit access for a kiss and drop/pickup service to operate, along with rentable parking spaces for teachers. This supports the financial benefit to the CGVH and the charitable status of the hall towards ‘education’.This agreement should definitely not be considered a given.
It is the recommendation of this working group that Chelwood Gate Jubilee Woodland, would provide the best environment for DHPC to provide Nursery Services.This does not confirm anything except their desire for the new building at Jubilee Green
The Working Groups seeks approval for £2.5K of CSG funds to progress the Outline Planning Application.
The appendices detail the findings of the Working Group.
Appendix A
Time line – GANTT Chart
The critical time line requires DHPC to agree in their November sitting, to submit a planning application.
Appendix B
Pros and Cons
- Jubilee Green Woodland
Pros:
1) Existing Chelwood gate nursery has been on this site for over 40 years.
2) Close proximity to the Jubilee green for forest school.
3) Forest school is the key for attracting parents and children to the nursery.Danehill also has woodland between recreation ground and school. Forest school could still be run from CGVH even if nursery was at Danehill.
4) Traffic will not add to the already congested Danehill school drop off zone Irrelevant .If Danehill Rec is used parents would be dropping off children in the rec car park
5) Utilities in close proximity to proposed build site. Will require connection of electricity and water fromBeaconsfield Road and a septic tank installed and maintained.
6) Unity with the Chelwood gate church extension offering young parents a cafe to meet post drop off. CGMC has yet to obtain planning permission or funding for any extension.
7) Adequate parking Not a given
8) Council owned landLand bought by PC to be used as an open space amenity not a potential building site
9) natural and beautiful settingWill not remain so if large buildings are erected on it.
10) preferred site for the nursery staff Has nothing that Danehill cannot provide with lessenvironmental impact. At the latest Nursery School AGM, Danehill was favoured as the best site.
Cons:
1) Extra cost to plumb utilities (already present at DRG) approx 5k.As well as £20k in Appendix C for connection to main supplies. Septic tank not properly costed, likely to be higher than £5k
2) Arguably further away from the school.Not arguably, it is further away from the school!
3) Building has no financial viability as it will be subsidised by the Parish precept for both its capital build and through the PC providing an annual rent subsidy of £3.5 k to the nursery school.
4) There is no Plan B potential renter should the nursery school decide to close or move to another location. We would be left with a white elephant.
5) The Nursery will not be under contract to maintain services in any new building for any period of time.
6) This sizeable building is planned for a beautiful woodland space meant to be used as a recreational site and will require additional tree felling in the area, unless it is planned for the centre of the football pitch (between the plastic goals on the roadside near to the bus shelter)!
7) Access will be required from Beaconsfield Road to enable utility and building work. This will restrict access to the forest if the track by the side of the church is used.
8) If no car parking or drop-off is built on site, there will be potential congestion in Beaconsfield Road at peak drop-off times.
9). No provision for kitchen or staff facilities in concept drawing, App D or costing for fit out.
- Danehill Recreation Ground
Pros:
1) Close to Danehill school
2) Large playing field
3) Local utilities already in place (approx 5k saving) on the jubilee green. Saving will be greater as it says £20k in Appendix C for Jubilee Green site to be connected to water and electricity.
4) Car parking already in place with easy access and no congestion with Danehill School.
5) Large playing field can be used by the children
6) Proximity to woodland between the playing fields and Danehill School for Forest School. Forest school could still be run from CGVH.
7) Proximity to Danehill Village Hall and Social Club which could provide mothers meeting place/café
8) Good for the environment as the building would not be adjacent to the Forest and not taking up valuable open space in Jubilee Green
9) Upgrading of this facility now reduces the potential liability for repairing or demolishing this virtually unused facility in the future.
10) Any upgraded building could incorporate showers and changing facilities for the possible reforming of the football club, or for any other club/private and become a rentable asset.
Cons:
1)Lack of usable wood land for Forest school.Not so,see pro point 6 above
2) Contributes to traffic issues at school drop of time.No, see pro point 4. The drop off is at the recreation ground and not the school.
3) Lack of local cafe for new community mothers / parents to meet after drop off. No, see pro point 7 above - Danehill Village Hall and Social Club are on the doorstep. There is not a café at CGVH either.
4) Security No more a problem than any other site unless the PC thinks that Danehill is a crime hotspot!
5) Less appealing for parents living in Nutley and EastGrinstead (approx 60%)No more than an extra 2 miles per day. Just as close for local residents. Residents from outside the parish should be only too happy to use a subsidised facility.
- Other Locations Excluded
- Chelwood gate village hall.
1) CGVH does not meet Ofsted regulations in 2016 .But with a small financial outlay it may be able to meet all regulations
2) CGVH committee unwilling to develop the building to meet regulation.CGVH committee have not been formally asked to do so. This could be a quick fix.
3) High rent The Nursery paid circa £4.5k rent to CHVH in 2015. If the PC is willing to subsidise the Nursery by £3.5k p.a. (as they are for a new build on Jubilee Green) then the rent to the Nursery would be only £1k p.a. A great deal for them and no major capital outlay for us. Though we still question the basis on which the PC would subsidise nursery services at all.
- Ashdown cricket club. It has been confirmed that the Conservators will not permit a change of use and this position is unlikely to change.
1) The trustees of the Ashdown forest have issued confirmation that the pavilion may not be used for anything other than cricket.
2) Access issues
Unable to comment on costs in this appendix as no cost documentation or business plan attached.
All ground work pricing is just a guess.
Appendix C
Pricing
Ground Work
1)Fencing: £24 inc vat per 1.8 metres,
Circa 30 metres: - £400
(installation - £200)
2)Rubber Wet pour surfacing in green 40mm deep: £56 per sq metre (plus VAT)
circa £3.4k (plus VAT) for 60 sq metres
(this price does not allow for cement ground works which can be absorbed into build cost i.e: extended foundation slab).Quote supplied by Billy Bounce.
3)Lighting: 30W LED Fence Light 2500 Lm Flood light £80 per unit.
Circa 6 needed: £500 inc Vat
Fitting costs £500
4)Ground Clearing: Use of Community pay back Scheme and digger
Circa £500
5)Septic Tank: Install will depend on size and soil / access etc – probably in the £3k range. Emptying will cost between £200 to £300 a year plus the soakaway.
6)Utilities: Electricity and Water. Connection of Beaconsfield Road
Circa £10K Electricity and £10K Water
Total: £29180 (inc VAT)
Professional Services
1)Architect£2K
2)Outline Planning Application£500
Total: £2500
Rent/Replacement
Over 20yrs (building life time):
-Nursery Annual Rent / Income£3,500
-DHPC replacement Cost (£70K)£3,500
Why are we charging the nursery less to rent a dedicated building for 5 days per week and for longer hours than they currently pay at CGVH?
Debt Financing
The above would require an annual commitment from DHPC to ensure Nursery provisions in this parish!
1)Build; Services; Works (£100K)£7,075 per year (20yrs)
Appendix D
Concept Drawing
Appendix E
Supporting Material – Waste Management
Cesspit or Cesspool
Is essentially a holding tank. There is no outlet and no intent to treat or discharge the sewage. It is merely collected in the tank then periodically pumped into a lorry for disposal. The tank is generally sized to hold six to eight weeks of sewage and vented to allow gas build-up to escape but is otherwise sealed. Cesspits are banned in Scotland and are considered a last-resort option in the rest of the UK and will almost certainly not be an option for us.
Install will depend on size and soil / access etc – probably in the £3k range. Emptying the cesspit will cost between £2k to £3k a year
Septic Tank
Similar to a cesspit but compartmentalised to allow the separation of solid and liquid waste. Solids are retained in the tank and liquid discharged to a soakaway to be cleaned by percolation through soil. Solids are emptied from the tank in the same way as a cesspit but typically this will only be done once or twice each year. Some questions likely on the potential for pollution
Sewage Treatment Plant
In most models, compressed air blown into the bottom of the tank accelerates the activity of the microorganisms which break down the waste. The tank will have rotating discs which increase the surface area for the microorganisms to work on and speeds up the degradation of solid matter. The liquid discharged is relatively clean and can be emptied into a water course (if there is one, or soakaway if not). The volume of solid matter is significantly reduced, and becomes non-toxic, but still needs pumping into a lorry for disposal.
Treatment plants are more expensive than septic tanks but this is soon recovered in lower running costs and release far fewer pollutants.
Install around £6k but only need emptying every one to three years. Emptying will cost between £100 to £200 a year plus the soakaway (if needed)
Soakaways
Standard
This is a means of allowing water to slowly dissipate through the soil. There are two methods: a pit filled with stone or rubble into which the water is discharged, or a system of interlinked trenches containing a perforated pipe surrounded by shingle. The choice and design will be determined by the amount of space available and by porosity or percolation tests. These tests will establish how quickly water can dissipate and thereby how big the pit, or how long the trench needs to be.
Maybe £2k but dependent on situation
Reed Bed
These allow bacteria, fungi and microorganisms to digest the sewage and clean the water. There are two basic types of reed bed – vertical flow and horizontal flow – and the best system often results from combining the two.
Probably need a reed bed size of 10m2 but it won’t smell and a good ecological solution; providing a good habitat. Maybe £3k but also dependent on situation
Living Soakaway
Very similar to a reed bed and used where a conventional soakaway is difficult or not possible. A living soakaway is a shallow, gravel-filled pit planted with irises, reeds and willows that take up water that is then dissipated to atmosphere.
Conclusion
We probably need a treatment plant and a soakaway (with or without a reed bed). Not likely to get much change out of £10k