Questions for Site F Meeting on Monday 14 October

Questions for Site F Meeting on Monday 14 October

Questions for Site F meeting on Monday 14 October

Responses by the County Council are in italics below

1.Growth in demand for school places

  • In a 2019 ‘map’ of demand, the majority of pupils appear to be South Ward and North Ward, why has a third secondary school been proposed for East Ward, close to an existing school, but a considerable distance from these children?

The County Council is not aware that a 2019 ‘map of demand’ has been created. We are aware that the majority of existing children going to school in Harpenden Primary Schools live in the South Ward and North Ward. The potential fourth school is proposed in the East Ward as a result of the initial town planning and highway appraisal work undertaken.

  • Is there an analysis of demand for school places 2015-2019 showing number of children by ward? Could this please be provided to HTC?

There is currently no modelling data to show what impact the location of a school on this site would have in the local area. This modelling data will be prepared as part of a town planning application process.

2.Admissions policy for schools

  • What obligations do existing and proposed schools to meet local education provision:
  • Can they opt into their own admissions policy?

All the secondary schools in Harpenden are academies and are therefore responsible for deciding and implementing their own admission arrangements in accordance with the provisions of the School Admissions Code. Sir John Lawes and Roundwood Park Schools have adopted similar arrangements to those determined by the County Council, and use a priority area naming Harpenden, St Albans & surrounding villages established by HCC around 10 years ago.

  • Can they increase/decrease their intake in future?

All admission authorities must determine their “published admission number” (PAN) annually, by 15 April. A school’s admission number is the minimum number that the school will admit into its relevant year group (Year 7 for secondary schools) in the following academic year. For the 2015 academic year, admission authorities must publish their admission number by 15 April 2014 as part of their overall admission arrangements. Admission authorities do not have to consult to increase their PAN but they must consult if they wish to decrease their PAN. Consultation must take place between 1 November and 1 March for a minimum of 8 weeks.

  • Could a school decide to close in future – is this a risk if it controlled the new school?

Any school closure within the county would be subject to consultation.

  • When were discussion opened about sponsorships with existing schools, who has been involved and what is the current status?

All secondary schools in the local area have been aware of the emerging need for secondary school places. County Council officers met with the three existing school in Harpenden in May 2013 to discuss the possibility of submitting a FreeSchool application for a new school.

  • What would be the admissions policy for this new school? Would admissions policies of other schools change?
  • The admission arrangements for the new school will be agreed by school’s admission authority which is the school’s governing body or academy trust
  • Any own admission authority school or academy can propose to change its admissions arrangements. However, to do so requires a minimum of 8 weeks public consultation between 1 November and 1 March, in the year prior to allocation; for example for allocations made in September 2015, consultation must take place between 1 November 2013 and 1 March 2014. All free schools and academies are bound by the Schools Admissions Code which outlines what is, and what is not, acceptable in terms of oversubscription criteria; for example new schools can not introduce selection on the basis of academic ability. Objections to proposed admission arrangements must be made to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA) by 30 June in the relevant year.
  • Existing schools could propose changes to their admission arrangements through the formal consultation process. If challenged by a referral to the OSA, it would be for the schools to justify their proposals in line with the requirements of the Admissions Code to ensure admission arrangements are “fair and transparent”.
  • Schools and academies in Hertfordshire are also required to comply with HertfordshireCounty Council’s scheme of coordination (the overall policy arrangements for allocating places in the county).

3.Choice of potential site

  • Have potential sponsors imposed any criteria for their involvement that involve choice of potential site? No
  • Has pattern of pupil movements between home and school (identifying likely location of pupils) been used as part of the comparison? If not, why not? No the site selection process is driven by town planning and highway considerations and the requirement to ensure that the selected site can obtain planning permission and thus deliver a new secondary school
  • Has travel distance and time for pupils between home and school been used as part of the comparison? If not, why not? No the site selection process is driven by town planning and highway considerations and the requirement to ensure that the selected site can obtain planning permission and thus deliver a new secondary school
  • There is inconsistency in the analysis, with criteria not being applied consistently across all sites. Given this, will more detail be provided, or updated analysis is provided? We do not consider that there are inconsistencies. The town planning and highways appraisals were high level assessments undertaken in order to sieve and find the sites with potential for a secondary school. Further feasibility work on highways and transport matters will be undertaken to examine the sites in more detail.
  • Site G (St Albans) was not recommended because of the ‘concentration of secondary school provision in close proximity’. Site F would be the third school in East Ward, and is in close proximity to St John Lawes. Site G was not recommended because of the difficulties in achieving a safe and suitable vehicular access to the site. This site along with Sites A, F and G will be the subject of a full transport assessment which will further inform decision-making
  • Site G (Harpenden) was not recommended. Report says ‘would necessitate removal of trees and vegetation which would be unacceptable’. This is also true of Site F, but it is not mentioned. The Stomor Highways and Access Appraisal (2011) for Site G states that access from the Wheathampstead Road would result in the removal of a significant section of trees and hedgerow in order to achieve suitable vision from the new access. The same report says of Site F that an access from Common Lane would appear to be possible, to the north of the junction with Batford Road. In this location the access would be on the outside of a bend therefore maximising vision and there is no hedgerow along this boundary. An access further to the north would result in removal of existing hedgerow. Transport Assessments will be undertaken on all the shortlisted sites and a means of access plan will be prepared as part of this work which will confirm the location of access points on all sites and the precise impacts on vegetation
  • Site G (Harpenden) was not recommended. Report says ‘a significant volume of traffic will be generated which will have an adverse impact on residential amenity’ At Site G cars will come through a residential areas if an access were taken from Croftwell. At Site F cars will turn into Common Lane and into the site. Further work will be undertaken through the TA to determine traffic flows in respect of all three shortlisted sites in further detail. This also true of Site F (Common Lane, Lower Luton Road, Batford Road, Crabtree Lane, Marquis Lane)
  • Site B was rejected as:
  • Visually exposed and prominent – as is Site F Site B was rejected not only because it was visually exposed and prominent. It was rejected because it was disconnected from the urban area and it would not have been possible to locate a building zone close to the urban edge.
  • Remote from existing urban area – no more so than Site F Site F is not remote from the urban area as it adjoins the properties fronting Common Lane. Site B does not adjoin a significant urban edge
  • Vehicular access from Ambrose Lane/Cooters End Lane unlikely to be acceptable – no more so than access via Common Lane in Site FAccess to Site F will be at the bottom of Common Lane close to the Lower Luton Road.
  • Site C was rejected as:
  • In Green Belt and visually exposed – as is Site F. Site C was rejected for the combination of being visually exposed and disconnected from the urban area, not just being visually exposed
  • Not well located to the existing urban area – it is as close to North Harpenden as Site F is to SouthSite C is not adjacent to an urban area. The eastern boundary of Site F abuts the urban area
  • Site D was rejected for six reasons, five of which it shares with Site F (Green Belt; visually exposed; irregular shaped; sloping; rights of way on site) Site D was rejected for six reasons. The combination of irregularity and topography would make this site difficult to develop for a secondary school. The Vincent and Gorbing report makes it clear that it is heavily sloped to the Lower Luton Road on the western part of the site. The Vincent and Gorbing report makes it clear that Site F has a rise in the land. This difference in topography differentiates the two sites. Site D has a public right of way that bisects the site which would need to be diverted to enable school development. Site F does not have any rights of way running across the site. Site F has a right of way adjoining the eastern boundary. There are no requirements for rights of way diversions on Site F. This differentiates the two sites.
  • Site G was rejected for four reasons, all of which it shares with Site F (Green Belt, at Eastern periphery, difficult Vehicular access, not well located to main residential areas) Site G was rejected for highways reasons and accessibility. This will be examined in detail when the transport Assessments are undertaken.
  • Site K was rejected for four reasons, three of which it shares with Site F (Green Belt, adjacent to Landscape Conservation area and visually exposed). The fourth reason is that it is in the Conservation Area. Planning permission has been given to the new Harpenden Free School, which is in the Conservation Area. The Harpenden Free School is a primary school located in the urban area where the principle of built development on the site has been well established. The Harpenden Free School was a change of use application. The impacts of a new secondary school on the Childwickbury Conservation Area are likely to be unacceptable. It is considered that it would not be possible to argue the legal requirement that development for a secondary school in this location would enhance and improve the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed buildings.
  • There appear to be inaccuracies/omissions in the analysis of Site F (see below). Will the comparison be re-analysed given this?
  • Land use is shown as horse grazing, when it is used for farming At the time of the site visit horse grazing was observed on the site. As part of the next stage of feasibility there will be an update on existing uses. Any planning application would need to address the loss of agricultural land as a consideration in the granting of planning consent.
  • There is a hedgerow on the Common Lane boundary which was not identified in the analysis. The Hedgerow is identified in the Stomor report where it states that an access might be achieved without removing the hedgerow. This will be considered in more detail in the Transport Assessment. Any planning application would seek to minimise impact on hedgerows and a detailed landscaping scheme would seek to identify opportunities for enhancing the hedgerow and introducing green buffers where possible
  • The report says the site is somewhat visually enclosed, when it is highly visible, this being accentuated by the slope of the site running down to a river valley. The site is somewhat visually enclosed by the tree belt. A full landscape and visual impact assessment would need to be submitted with any planning application. This would assess the impact of development and advice on any mitigation that might reduce the impact of development.
  • The report does not mention the River Lea, which is close to the school. The report identifies that the site is not within a flood plain. A flood risk assessment would be needed with any planning application
  • The report does not mention a Grade 2 listed building opposite the school, which will be impacted by increased traffic, and which makes it difficult to enlarge the min- roundabout on the Lower Luton Road/Common Lane. The Stomor report does not set out any requirement to enlarge the mini-roundabout on Lower Luton Road/Common Lane. The Transport Assessment will determine whether this remains the case and the feasibility of any proposed changes to the road network would need to be examined carefully. Impacts on any listed buildings would, of course be taken into account.
  • Report says ‘some increase in traffic on the country lanes surrounding the site is inevitable’. In fact there is likely to be considerable increase in traffic on Common Lane (which is a narrow country lane to Kimpton) and Leasey Bridge Lane to Southdown.It is not possible to determine whether the increase will be considerable until a Transport Assessment has been completed.
  • Report does not mention ecological impact. The school will be adjacent to Batford Springs and the River Lea, one of only 180 chalk rivers with a unique ecology which could be damaged by hundreds of school children crossing it daily. A full ecological assessment would need to be submitted with any planning application for a school on Site F or any other site. This assessment will examine the impacts of development not just on the site itself but any area of local importance within the site vicinity. A full impact of development on Batford Springs nature reserve (or any other areas of interest or importance) would be undertaken as part of any planning application.
  • No consideration given to the key role Site F plays in maintaining physical separation between Wheathampstead and Harpenden. The boundary will join the two towns. It is acknowledged that there will be some built development which will fill in part of that gap but playing fields, structural planting can all be used to confirm an assured future for the gap of Green Belt land
  • No analysis of the impact of the three public rights of way running across the site. There is a right of way running adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. There are no public rights of access across the land identified for a secondary school.
  • The report does not mention vehicular access to the site via Crabtree Lane/Marquis Lane which will be used as a dropping off point at Batford Ford. These are relatively narrow streets which are already congested. This will be looked at in detail as part of the Transport Assessment for the site
  • The report does not mention the risks to primary school children in Crabtree School due to greatly increased traffic associated with the school. Safety of pupils in the wider area is of course paramount and will be considered as part of the Transport Assessment.

4.Major issues with site

  • Will an analysis of journeys associated with the school be provided? Will it show:
  • Total predicted movements to and from the school, by type of movement (car, public transport, cycle, walking)? Yes – this will be completed for all three shortlisted sites (A,F and G) as part of the Transport Assessments
  • Movements on the major routes to the site (both current and predicted), by type of movement:
  • Common Lane?
  • Batford Road?
  • Milford Hill?
  • Lower Luton Road (North and South)?
  • Leasey Bridge Lane?
  • Crabtree Lane?
  • Station Road?
  • Westfield Road?

Yes to all of the above – the surrounding road network and traffic implications for development on all three shortlisted sites will be examined in further detail

  • Will a traffic analysis and modelling exercise be undertaken for the Lower Luton Road (North and South), which shows both existing traffic volumes at key hours and the estimated impact of growth in traffic due to the school, the development at Leacroft, the proposed development at the Lower Lea Valley? and the growth in traffic associated with the Airport? At what levels of traffic does the school become impractical?The County Council is currently discussing the brief for further transport work with Highway Consultants. This will be a point of discussion with them on that commission.
  • Will a traffic analysis (both current and predicted) and modelling exercise be carried out at the Station Road/Lower Luton Road junction? The County Council is currently discussing the brief for further transport work with Highway Consultants. This will be a point of discussion with them on that commission.
  • Will a traffic analysis be carried out to assess the impact of traffic on Crabtree Lane/Marquis Lane and the associated safety risks to Crabtree School pupils? The County Council is currently discussing the brief for further transport work with Highway Consultants. This will be a point of discussion with them on that commission.
  • What are the forecasts of likely parking requirement associated with the school, particularly staff and 6th Form parking? This will be examined as part of the Transport Assessment. The County Council’s highway consultants have experience in primary and secondary school expansion. They will examine parking requirements as part of a Transport Assessment.
  • What proposals are there to manage the likely parking issues associated with the school, in:
  • Common Lane
  • Batford Road and other roads off Common Lane
  • Crabtree Lane, Marquis Lane and roads around this area

These matters will also be addressed in the Transport Assessments

Top View