MAYOR AND CABINET Date: WEDNESDAY, 26 FEBRUARY 2003 at 6.30 p.m.
Committee Room 2 **Please note time of meeting** Civic Suite Lewisham Town Hall A
London SE6 4RU A
Enquiries to: Mike Brown Telephone: 020-8-314-8824 (direct line) G G
MEMBERS
The Mayor (Steve Bullock) (L) Chair E Councillor Moore (L) Vice-Chair and Deputy Mayor E Councillor Best (L) Cabinet Member for Environment Councillor Donnelly (L) Cabinet Member for Lifelong Learning Councillor Garcha (L) Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion N Councillor Holder (L) Cabinet Member for Social Care & Health N Councillor McGarrigle (L) Cabinet Member for Culture Councillor Whiting (L) Cabinet Member for Resources Councillor Wise (L) Cabinet Member for Housing and Community D Safety D
Members are summoned to attend this meeting
Barry Quirk A A Chief Executive Lewisham Town Hall Catford London SE6 4RU Date: 18 February 2003
The public are welcome to attend our committee meetings, however, occasionally, committees may have to Consider some business in private. Copies of reports can be made available in additional formats on request.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc ORDER OF BUSINESS - PART 1 AGENDA
Item Page No. No.
1 Declarations of Interests 1
2 Exclusion of the Press and Public 1
3 Transport: Parking Works Programme 3
4 Secondary School Strategy - Consultation on New Secondary School 16 and Expansion of Deptford Green
The public are welcome to attend our Committee meetings, however, occasionally committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of reports can be made in additional formats on request. w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
Key Decision Item No. 1
Ward
Contributors CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Class Part 1 Date: 26 FEBRUARY 2003
Members are asked to make any declarations of pecuniary interests or other interests they may have in relation to items on this agenda (if any). Members are reminded to make any declaration at any stage throughout the meeting if it then becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.
MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
Key Decision Item No. 2
Ward
Contributors CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Class Part 1 Date: 26 FEBRUARY 2003
Recommendation
It is recommended that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3, 7 and 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act:-
101 The Future of the Bell Green Shopping Parade plus Residential Upper Part at Nos. 50-84 (even) Bell Green, Sydenham, SE26
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET
Report Title TRANSPORT: PARKING WORKS PROGRAMME
Key Decision YES Item No. 3
Ward All
Contributors EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGENERATION
Class Part 1 Date: 26 FEBRUARY 2003
1. Summary
This report provides an update on the work being undertaken on proposed controlled parking schemes and suggests new guidelines for the consultation process for future schemes.
2. Purpose
To review the progress on existing parking schemes; set out the options in relation to two contentious schemes. To agree new guidelines in relation to consultation/ decision process.
3. Recommendations
It is recommended that:
3.1 the Priority list set out in paragraph (6) be approved as a basis for the works programme for 2003/04;
3.2 where practicable other types of controls other than full scale CPZ's be considered and offered during the consultation process on the possible introduction of parking controls;
3.3 should the overall response to a consultation on the detailed design of a parking scheme fall below 10% the consultation exercise be deemed inconclusive,
3.4 if a response rate of over 10% has been achieved on the detailed design of a scheme, the analysis of the results should indicate a clear mandate weighted at least 55/45. If a clear mandate is not achieved the scheme should not be progressed;
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 3.5 apart from the consultation document, street notices should be placed within the boundary of the proposed area throughout the informal consultation period to ensure both residents and businesses are fully aware that the consultation is being undertaken;
3.6 Aislibie and Lenham roads are added to the Old Road/ Bankwell CPZ. That controls are not introduced in Lampmead, Brightfield, Murillo, Rembrandt and Abernethy roads. In addition, the northern end of Manor, Lane as far as numbers 20-22 and the northern end of Manor Lane Terrace as far as numbers 13-14 be added to the Old Road/ Bankwell CPZ; and
3.7 the proposed Rushey Green East CPZ be implemented with the exception of Thornford Road.
4 Background
4.1 The Parking Plan contains a list of areas (listed in order of priority) to be investigated to see if there is demand for some form of parking control. It is difficult to derive a straightforward data led ranking system for parking, therefore the ranking of areas has been carried out on the basis of qualitative assessments, requests from residents and local knowledge of access and other problems.
4.2 In the past initial consultation in some areas has been carried out sooner rather than later due to external funding being available. However, it is very difficult for residents to form a view as to whether they will want parking controls before an expected problem arises. In particular, investigations into areas prior to the introduction of congestion charging by TfL have proved problematic. These problems stemming from the fact that at the time of consultation, parking problems did not necessarily exist and the likely impact of congestion charging was not yet known.
5. Implementation of Parking Controls
5.1 A substantial amount of work implementing parking controls has been carried out since the Parking Plan was agreed in 2001 and reviewed in January 2003.
5.2 The areas for investigation were selected from information collated on the traffic engineering database. This included requests from residents, businesses, etc.
5.3 It should be noted that the driver for the introduction of parking controls is the safeguarding of resident amenity in respect of ability to park relatively near to their place of residence during the day and permit the adequate servicing of properties for deliveries etc. There is also a beneficial impact on street scene, road safety and the general environment. Parking controls are not however introduced primarily to promote modal shift by car users. Most importantly it should be emphasized that schemes are not introduced to raise income, although all schemes should be self-financing. w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc Schemes are only introduced where there is a majority of people in favour and as such there is a clear mandate for their implementation.
6. The progress on current schemes is as follows: 6.1 Hither Green (West) CPZ
Statutory Consultation period has finished. There were several objections to the scheme. These have been considered and it was agreed to proceed with the scheme. The implementation date is scheduled for March 2003.
6.2 Catford (West) CPZ
Statutory Consultation period finished. No objections received. Decision to Proceed. Implementation date scheduled for March 2003.
6.3 Canadian Ave CPZ
Statutory Consultation finished on 5th February 2003. No objections were received.
6.4 Grove Park CPZ (Extension)
Statutory Consultation period finished. Two new roads have been added to the existing scheme. Implementation date March 2003.
6.5 Hatcham Area CPZ
A consultation on a possible parking scheme is presently being carried out. This will give residents an opportunity to say if they want a parking scheme considered in order to address possible problems as a result of the Congestion Charging Scheme.
6.6 Evelyn Area CPZ
A consultation on a possible parking scheme is presently being carried out. This will give residents an opportunity to say if they would want a parking scheme considered in order to address possible problems as a result of the Congestion Charging Scheme.
6.7 Rushey Green West CPZ
This scheme was introduced in 2001. A review of the scheme has been carried out. Within the scheme better use of some of the available parking could be achieved by allowing more shared use bays. This will w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc provide more parking for visitors and shoppers to the area. Some space (50 permits) could also be made available for hospital staff. The proposed changes should not unduly effect the residential parking benefits of the scheme. The proposed changes will be subject to the statutory consultation process in the next few months.
6.8 Old Road/ Bankwell Road:
6.8.1 A consultation on area traffic calming was carried out in the Manor Lee Ward in 2001. As part of this consultation residents and businesses in the area were asked if they would welcome a Controlled Parking Zone for their area. Most roads in the area voted against the idea of a parking scheme and therefore it was agreed that a scheme should not be implemented in the area. However, in Old Road and Bankwell Road there was a majority of residents in favour of controlled parking and a significant amount of lobbying in favour of a parking scheme was received. It was therefore agreed to carry out a further consultation in these two roads. For this consultation an outline design of a scheme was prepared. A consultation letter/questionnaire together with a plan of the proposals was sent to all the properties in these two roads and on the adjacent section of Lee High Road. A majority of residents responded in favour of the proposed scheme though there was opposition from businesses on Lee High Road. As a result the scheme was implemented and became operational in June 2002.
6.8.2 It is general policy to review new schemes after they have been in operation for 6-12 months. During this initial period of operation a number of requests were received from residents in roads near to Old Road/Bankwell Road for the scheme to be extended into their roads. Therefore as part of the review it was agreed to carry out a fairly wide consultation on the possible extension of the parking scheme.
6.8.3 The public consultation on the possible extension to the Old Road/Bankwell Road CPZ was carried out during November 2002. The consultation consisted of a letter that included an outline plan of a possible scheme and a questionnaire. The results of the consultation are set out in Appendix 1.
6.8.4 From the results it can be seen that there was a fairly mixed response to the consultation with about half in favour of the scheme and half- opposed. On a road by road basis there are quite different results. Old Road and Bankwell are still firmly in favour of the scheme. In fact the w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc support from these two roads has increased since the scheme was first introduced. There is also support for a scheme to the immediate east in Aislibie Road and Lenham Road but opposition from Brightfield Road and Lampmead Road.
6.8.5 To the west of the existing scheme the results are not as clear-cut. Murillo Road and Lochaber Road were in favour of a scheme. Rembrant Road was opposed. There was an equal response for and against from Abernethy Road. The response from Manor Lane was close with a marginal number against. Manor Lane Terrace was opposed. However, a more detailed analysis of the responses from Manor Lane and Manor Lane Terrace indicated that there was a very definite pattern to the voting with the northern sections of these roads voting in favour of the scheme. Safety concerns were also raised about the section of Manor Lane Terrace and Manor Lane between Old Road and Abernethy Road due to vehicles parking on the bends and junctions.
6.8.6 A number of other comments were made in letters and on the returned forms. A petition signed by 46 local residents and businesses against the scheme was also received. The concerns were as follows:
• Effects on businesses and workers in the area • The costs of business permits (subsequently reduced from £450 to £300) • The scheme is being introduced only to make money • The consultation should not be taking place in light of previous consultations
A significant amount of lobbying against the scheme, particularly from businesses along Lee High Road, has recently been carried out.
6.8.7 It is noted that these roads were previously consulted on a Controlled Parking Zone for their area and voted against a scheme. Concern was expressed that the Council are continuing to carry out consultations until there is a vote in favour of a scheme so that additional funding can be raised. In light of the above it is felt that there needs to be a clear mandate for roads or part of roads to be incorporated into the scheme. There is also a need to keep the enlarged scheme reasonably contiguous for practical reasons.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 6.8.8 That Aislibie Road and Lenham Road are added to the Bankwell CPZ scheme but controls are not introduced in Lampmead, Brightfield Road, Murillo, Rembrandt and Abernethy Roads.
6.8.9 There was a clear vote in favour of the scheme from Lochaber Road and as such it is recommended that this road be included in the parking scheme.
6.9 The replies from Murillo Road, Rembrandt Road and Abernethy Road were mixed. Without a clear mandate from these roads, particularly given the results of the previous consultation, it is recommended that these roads be left out of the proposed scheme.
6.9.1 The response from Manor Lane was close with a marginal number against. Manor Lane Terrace was opposed. However, a more detailed analysis of the responses from Manor Lane and Manor Lane Terrace indicated that there was a definite pattern to the voting with the northern sections of these roads voting strongly in favour of the scheme. There would seem to be three main options for these roads. The first option would be to totally exclude them from the scheme. This could be justified in light of the overall responses from these roads but this would not take into account definite voting pattern in the road. This would also not address the safety concern between Abernethy Road and Old Road.
6.9.2 The second option would be to include the sections of Manor Lane and Manor Lane Terrace between Abernethy Road and Old Road in order to address this safety concern. This could be justified from the responses from these sections of roads (6 for and 1 opposed).
6.9.3 The third option would be to extend the controls about half way down Manor Lane and Manor Lane Terrace. The cut off points for these two roads would be based on the results of the consultation (nos. 13/14 in Manor Lane Terrace and nos. 20/22 in Manor Lane). The results from these sections of road were 17 for and 4 opposed. It is noted that roads in other parking schemes have been spilt, with part being included and other parts being left out of the scheme. On balance, it is recommended that that the final option is progressed.
6.9.4 It should be noted that no funding is available to implement this scheme. Funding will need to be found to enable the Council to carry out a statutory consultation and if necessary the implementation of the scheme. w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 7 Rushey Green (East) CPZ:
7.1 A consultation on a parking scheme for the Rushey Green area was carried out in 2002. Most roads voted in favour of a scheme, though some roads voted against. It was decided that a scheme should be implemented in the roads that voted in favour of the scheme. However, the roads that voted against the scheme were re-consulted to see if they wished to be included in the scheme given the decision to proceed in the rest of the area. There was a mixed response to this consultation with some roads voting for and some against. A petition was received against the scheme. There was also a significant amount of lobbying against the scheme from the area around Hither Green. It was therefore agreed, in consultation with local Ward Members, to omit roads and parts of roads from the scheme. This smaller parking scheme was then subject to the statutory consultation process.
7.2 Over 200 Objections were received to the statutory consultation. Of these 197 have been on a pro forma sheet circulated by the 'free hither green parking group'. The pro forma has been worded in such a way that each legally forms an objection to the Statutory Consultation. It is not unusual for a large number of objections to be received against controlled parking schemes at the Statutory Consultation stage. Of the 206 objections 70 were from residents/businesses outside the proposed scheme.
7.3 The tables in Appendix 2 set out the number of objections compared to the number of people voting for and against the scheme in the public consultation that was carried out. The tables are shown for roads within and outside the proposed parking scheme. From these it can be seen that within the proposed parking scheme there were more people in favour of the parking scheme (244) 68% than the number of objections received (114) 32%. On a road by road basis, there were two roads in which more objections were received than people voting for the scheme. One of these roads, Farley Road, is in the middle of the scheme and it is not advised that this road be left out of the proposed scheme. The other is Thornford Road, which would be fairly straightforward to exclude from the scheme, though it is likely that this road would become saturated with parking if it were to be excluded.
7.4 The reasons for the objections need to be carefully considered. The objections received have been categorized under 6 main headings these are as follows:
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc Reason for Objection Comment Overall Percentage
The scheme will force out No empirical 13% local business evidence to suggest that business would fail due to the implementation of parking controls. In some cases access/deliveries may be improved.
Object to paying or can't A review of current 40% afford to pay parking business permit charges charges has resulted in a reduction from £450 to £300.
Resident permit charges increased to £30.
No parking problem 66% of these 15% objections were from properties outside the proposed scheme.
Restrictive/will stop family Majority of objections 25% friends visiting received were from elderly residents without a car themselves. They genuinely felt that their family/friends would stop visiting. In most cases this could be addressed by issuing a Carer's permit.
Consultation invalid One objection 0.49% received
A Council money making 7% exercise
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc Total 100%
7.5 A decision needs to be made on this scheme given the level of public involvement in consultation. The consultation clearly showed a significant response in favour of the scheme and this should not be lost , simply because of the number of rejections received. In fact, the number of objections received is almost identical to the number that initially voted against scheme. The following options are therefore proposed:
Option 1 That the objections have been considered but, in light of the response to the initial consultation and the comments made in the report, the objections are overruled and the scheme is implemented as advertised.
Option 2 as option 1, but Thornford Road is excluded from the scheme. It is recommended that this option be pursued.
It should be noted that implementation of this scheme would be funded by TfL should a decision to proceed be made.
8. Areas for possible investigation in future
• The areas that are currently identified as meriting investigation as to whether residents are experiencing parking pressure are:
• Lee (around Railway Station)
• Forest Hill (around Railway Station)
• Honor Oak
• Brockley
• DLR Corridor
8.2 Prior to any consultation exercise a survey will be carried out at different times of the day and night to quantify both the level and type of parking in the area. If a parking problem is identified the cause of the parking problem will be established. This will enable the Council to consider what type of scheme(s) will be adequate to address the parking problem. The results of the survey will determine whether an initial consultation exercise should be undertaken.
8.3 If the decision is made to proceed with the initial consultation, a letter will be sent to all residential and business properties within the proposed area, giving general information on parking controls and their associated charges. The purpose of this letter is to ascertain whether or not the respondents are interested in a parking scheme. If a clear view in favour is given then a second consultation document will be hand delivered
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc outlining the proposals together with details of an exhibition, where possible, held locally within the boundary of the scheme.
8.4 Street notices will be placed at each junction of every road within the scheme highlighting the consultation together with relevant contact details. This should ensure that all people with an interest in the scheme have the opportunity to respond to the Council's proposals.
8.5 Congestion charging may change parking patterns. It is suggested that time be allowed for settlement before assessment is made. As a consequence the priority list may be subject to change.
9. The Consultation Process
9.1 A certain amount of criticism has been raised about the consultation process; namely that consultation documents were not received and therefore the decisions to proceed on certain schemes have been flawed. Whilst a lot of work has been done to ensure both residents and businesses are included in the consultation process; leaflets have been hand delivered to all premises within the proposed areas, response rates on some schemes has been disappointing. To ensure response rates improve and eliminate possible bias, street notices will be placed within the boundary of the scheme throughout the consultation process, informing residents and businesses that a consultation is being carried out within the area. These notices will contain relevant information about the proposed scheme together with contact details for further information.
9.2 A response rate of 20% on parking scheme consultation is good in the context of public response to any form of consultation; however response rates of less than 10% should be viewed as inconclusive.
9.3 Comments have been made on the consultation documents and the type of scheme(s) offered by the Council. Improvements are made to the consultation documents with every new scheme and these improvements have been implemented via comments from members of the public etc.
9.4 Residents have in some parts of the borough requested that consideration be given to implementing short fixed control periods of up to two hours as an alternative or addition to other measures. The implementation of two-hour restrictions works well, when attempting to eradicate a commuter-parking problem around for example an isolated station. When an area has parking problems caused by a number of other factors e.g. hospitals, shopping centres, then a short parking restriction is insufficient to preserve amenity for residents. These schemes will therefore be put forward where appropriate.
10. Financial Implications w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc It should be noted that new schemes could only be undertaken when funding becomes available.
11. Legal Implications
The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 gives the council extensive powers to provide and regulate parking and to provide all necessary signage including road markings.
12. Crime and Disorder Implications
There are no specific prevention of crime and disorder implications in this report though controlled parking schemes can often improve road safety
13. Equalities Implications
There are no specific equality implications in the report. Though parents with young children are major beneficiaries of controlled parking schemes.
14. Environment Implications
New parking schemes will generally improve the street scheme by reducing the level of on street parking, though there will be some intrusion with additional signs and markings.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short title Date File File Contact Exempt of Document Location Ref Officer Inf.
Report to 8.1.03 Gov. Minute M Brown N/A Mayor & Support Book Cabinet
If there any queries on this report please contact Lesley Brooks, Directorate of Regeneration, extension 72376.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET 26 FEBRUARY 2003 APPENDIX 1 ITEM NO. 3
Road Name Yes No Other Aislibie Road 14 6 0 Abernethy Road 7 7 0 Bankwell Road 3 0 0 Brightfield Roads 22 30 0 Hamlet Close 1 0 0 Lampmead Road 0 14 0 Lee High Road 7 11 1 Lenham Road 14 10 0 Lochaber Road 12 4 0 Manor Lane 14 15 0 Manor Lane Terrace 7 18 0 Murillo Road 19 12 1 Northbrook 0 2 0 Old Road 16 1 0 Rembrant Road 3 8 0 Wolfram Close 1 6 0 Other 2 1 0 Totals 142 145 2
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc MAYOR AND CABINET 26 FEBRUARY 2003 APPENDIX 2 ITEM NO. 3
Roads in the proposed Rushey Green East Parking scheme
Public Consultation Statutory Road Name Agree Disagree Consultation with CPZ with CPZ Objections Aldworth Grove 3 1 0 Campshill Road 2 1 0 Canada Gardens100 Cudham Street 1 0 0 Davenport Road 27 16 26 Farley Road 11 9 23 Fordyce Road422 George Lane 31 16 20 Harvard Road 11 4 1 Honley Road 10 5 10 Laleham Road1573 Lewisham Park 30 2 11 Mount Pleasant Rd 41 7 11 Ringstead Road 31 3 10 Rosenthal Road 22 2 2 Roxley Road 14 2 1 Rushey Green/Lewisham 4 3 3 Thornford Road 3 3 11 Springrice Road866 Sycamore Grove200 Total 271 73 140
Roads outside the parking scheme Public Consultation Statutory Road Name Agree with Disagree Consultation CPZ with CPZ Objections Brownhill Road 2 1 5 Davenport Road 0 13 26 George Lane 0 16 14 Hither Green Lane 1 20 15 Lanier Road 0 1 2 Littlewood 1 5 1 Mountfield Close 0 3 4 Radford Road 4 14 10 Theodore Road 1 7 3 Stainton Road 2 3 3 Other 2 1 8 Total 14 86 91
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc MEETING MAYOR & CABINET ITEM No. REPORT TITLE Secondary Schools Strategy – Consultation on New Secondary School and Expansion of Deptford Green KEY DECISION Yes – To consider the outcomes of consultation for the new secondary school and expansion of places at CONTRIBUTORS Executive Director for Education & Culture Executive Director for Resources & Deputy Chief Executive Executive Director for Regeneration CLASS Agenda Part 1 DATE 26th February 2003
POLICY CONTEXT
1.1 Improving the educational achievement of young people is one of the Council’s top priorities. Lewisham has a strategy to ensure that there is an adequate provision of secondary school places in the Borough. The strategy is intended to provide a strong foundation on which schools may build plans in the continued drive to raise standards of education for all pupils in Lewisham. Individual development strategies include proposals to create a new secondary school and proposals to expand the number of school places at some existing secondary schools in the Borough.
2 SUMMARY & PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
2.1 The purpose of this report is to advise the Mayor & Cabinet on the outcomes of consultation on the proposal to create a new secondary school in Lewisham. It also presents the results of the consultation to expand the number of school places at Deptford Green Secondary School.
2.2 This report presents the outcomes of the two consultation exercises and highlights the key themes coming from the responses received. In consideration of the consultation outcomes, officers have put forward a number of recommendations and detailed the next steps to be taken in the process.
3 RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Mayor and Cabinet:
3.1 Consider the outcomes of the consultation on the proposal to create a new secondary school in Lewisham.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 3.2 Consider the outcomes of the consultation on the proposal to expand the number of school places at Deptford Green Secondary School.
3.3 Agree to the commissioning of detailed work and the development of a feasibility study of the Ladywell Playtower site as the preferred location for the new secondary school for Lewisham, based on the consideration of all options as set out in section 9 of this report.
3.4 Agree to the continuation of work on the identification and acquisition of an appropriate temporary location for the new school.
3.5 Agree to the commissioning of a Traffic Management study to assess the impact of locating the new secondary school in Ladywell.
3.6 Agree that the development of the new secondary school should go ahead with this being, i.) A Community School, run by the Local Education Authority and ii.) Mixed, exploring other potential ways of redressing the imbalance of single sex places within the borough.
3.7 Agree to a follow up report to this Committee on the outcomes of all completed feasibility work.
3.8 Agree to the permanent expansion in the number of places at Deptford Green Secondary School from 208 places to 234, effective from September 2004.
4 BACKGROUND
4.1 It is the Council’s aim to ensure that every school place in Lewisham is a good place. According to projections prepared by the Greater London Authority the demand for secondary school places in Lewisham is expected to increase by over 5% from now until 2007. The increased demand and need for additional places, will be particularly important to the north of the South Circular Road. The report of 20th November 2002 entitled ‘Strategic Review of Secondary Places’ was presented to the Mayor & Cabinet, recommending expansion of school places.
4.2 The report presented on 20th November 2002 put forward specific proposals for the future size of each secondary school (including the proposal to build a new four form entry secondary school) and showed how this might meet the estimated demand for places up to 2006/07.
4.3 In addition, from September 2004, Deptford Green’s sixth form pupils will transfer to the new 6th Form Centre at Wallbutton Road and this will free places at Deptford Green to allow it some expansion. It is currently proposed that the school’s current basic admissions limit of 208, be expanded to 234 which is the maximum that the school’s two sites could accommodate. This would provide
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc additional places that are needed at this heavily oversubscribed school. However, some building adaptations will still be needed to make the accommodation suitable.
4.4 The report presents the results of consultation on these two strategic proposals of the provision of a new secondary school in Lewisham and the expansion of the number of school places at Deptford Green Secondary School. The consultation period for both proposals closed on 31st January 2003.
5 CONSULTATION PROGRAMME
New Secondary School
5.1 To assist people in commenting on the proposal of a new secondary school for Lewisham, a consultation document was produced, explaining in some detail the need for creating a new school. A letter was despatched to all parents/carers of children on roll in the borough, serving as an introduction to the proposal. This also outlined details on the various ways by which a personal copy of the consultation document could be obtained.
5.2 A copy of the consultation document was sent to every member of the governing body of each school in borough. Furthermore, it was also sent to the following individuals, bodies and organisations:
• Chairs of Governors (Primary and Secondary) • Headteachers (Primary and Secondary) • Lewisham Council Members • Lewisham Members of Parliament • Lewisham College • Goldsmiths College • Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham College • Christ the King Sixth Form College • Local Teaching Unions and Professional Associations • Diocesan Authorities • London Boroughs of Southwark, Greenwich and Bromley • The Learning & Skills Council (LSC) • The Department for Education & Skills (DfES)
5.3 Lewisham needs to provide additional secondary school places as part of an overall strategy to improve the quality of the education that it offers secondary school age young people in the Borough. This consultation exercise was designed to capture the views and comments of local parents, the wider education community and other interested parties. This consultation specifically focused its attention on three key questions:
• Is there a need for a new secondary school in the borough?
• If a new school is to be created, then what form should it take, in terms of gender and management structure?
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc • Where should the site for the new school be, from the options available?
5.4 Two public consultation meetings were held to which parents, residents and other interested parties were invited. The Council commissioned the Office for Public Management (OPM) to design, facilitate and report on the two events. These events provided the opportunity for officers from the Education & Culture Directorate to deliver a presentation and then discuss the proposals and respond to any questions. In view of the recommendations from the Life Long Learning Committee of 19th December 2002, these meetings were advertised in the Mercury newspaper during the recent Christmas period and at the beginning of this year. The first meeting was held at Goldsmiths’ College, on 9th January 2003 and the second was convened at the Civic Suite, Lewisham Town Hall on 15th January 2003. Both meetings ran for approximately 2½ hours and were attended by 132 people in total.
5.5 In addition to these public meetings, the Council accepted an invitation from the Year 6 pupils at Edmund Waller Primary School to attend a specially arranged meeting for the purpose of discussing the proposals for secondary education. This meeting was also attended by a selection of Year 6 pupils from the neighbouring schools of Kender, Monson, and Myatt Garden to express their own views. The results from this meeting have also been considered and included as part of the overall consultation exercise.
5.6 A total of 148 written responses were received during the consultation period. Responses were received either from individual residents or from those representing organisations and other interested parties. In summary, the breakdown of the responses received have been categorised and illustrated in the table below:
Table 1 – Total number of written responses categorised
Category Number Percentage Received (%) Individuals 107 73 Head Teachers/School Staff 5 3 School Governing Bodies 9 6 Political Parties and/or representatives 9 6 Church Organisations 15 10 Special Interest Groups 3 2 Total 148 100%
5.7 Submissions were provided from various Ward Councillors and also from the Headteachers and some staff at the following schools in the Borough:
• Crofton Secondary School • Deptford Green Secondary School • John Ball Primary School • Sedgehill Secondary School • St. Joseph’s RC Primary School
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 5.8 In addition, responses to the consultation were also received from the following groups and organisations:
• The governing body of Adamsrill Primary School • The governing body of Baring Primary School • The governing body of Brindishe Primary School • The governing body of Crofton Secondary School • The governing body of Edmund Waller Primary School • The governing body of Holy Trinity Primary School • The governing body of Kender Primary School • The governing body of Lee Manor Primary School • The governing body of St James’ Hatcham Primary School • The Parents & Friends Association (PFA) of Kilmorie Primary School • Local Education Action by Parents (LEAP) • The New School for New Cross Campaign (NSfNCC)
5.9 It should be noted that this consultation did not consider other aspects of the secondary school strategy with regards to proposals to expand the number of school places at Crofton and Forest Hill schools. These are the focus of separate consultation exercises and form part of the Grouped Schools Modernisation (PFI) Project.
5.10 A comprehensive written record of all meetings and the consultation responses has been kept. All minutes and notes of meetings and responses to the consultation are available for scrutiny. The responses were also made available to Members for scrutiny for a week prior to this meeting.
Deptford Green School
5.11 Running concurrently with the new secondary school consultation was a separate consultation exercise, on the proposal to expand the number of secondary school places at Deptford Green. A short consultation document was produced for this exercise, which provided information on the rationale for this proposal and contained a consultation response sheet. This document was sent directly to every parent/carer with children currently attending the school.
5.12 The document was also sent to every member of the Deptford Green School Governing Body. Members of the Governing Body have been aware of this proposal for expansion for some time and have discussed and supported the proposal.
5.13 A public meeting was held on 23rd January 2003 at Deptford Green School. The purpose was to provide an opportunity to parents/carers and any interested parties to discuss the proposal. A small turnout had been anticipated, considering that the proposal to expand the number of school places from 208 to 234 from September 2004 for Year 7 would not affect any pupils currently attending the school. A total of 4 people attended the meeting, none of whom were the parents or carers of children currently attending the school.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 6 CONSULTATION OUTCOMES
New Secondary School - Findings
Overview
6.1 In both consultation meetings and through written responses received during the consultation period, there was near unanimous support to provide a new school in Lewisham. However, some people expressed concerns about the following issues:
• Timing – The construction for the new school was seen as too distant, many believing that it would not meet the current demand for places in the borough. • Temporary premises – Some people believed that opening the school for the first two years in temporary premises would prove difficult and cause anxiety for young children. • Site options – Responses showed a strong body of support, from those who reside in the north west part of the borough and the NSfNCC representatives, that the new school should be opened at the site of the former Telegraph Hill School. Many of these people also suggested that the three site options that were put forward for consultation are not located in the area of the greatest perceived need.
6.2 The overall results from the consultation have been analysed, and a summary of these results is attached at Appendix 1. All responses and minutes are available for scrutiny by contacting the Education Special Projects Team, 2nd Floor, Laurence House.
Is there a need for a new school in Lewisham?
6.3 For those respondents that specifically expressed a view, a total of 97% were in support of the creation of a new secondary school provision in the borough. Several positive effects were highlighted in that the new school could be a significant way of minimising the migration of pupils to other boroughs for their secondary education, and would serve to strengthen local community infrastructure and enhance community cohesion.
6.4 However, some concerns were expressed from a small number. In the main these centred on the Council’s three site proposals for the new school. Some felt that the Council is already in the process of taking important steps to expand the number of school places at existing secondary schools. Depending on where the new school is chosen to be located, this could have a detrimental impact on applications and subsequent intake numbers for those schools in close proximity. In particular these views were expressed by the Headteachers of Crofton Secondary School and Deptford Green Secondary School.
6.5 Timing – There was a recurrent view that the ‘crisis is now’ and a new school is required in the short term. Many responses highlighted the urgency of having expanded provision as quickly as possible. Even the earliest possible option to open in 2005 in temporary premises was generally not perceived as being w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc sufficiently urgent. In this sense, the support for a new school amongst the public rested in what was perceived as unmet current need, rather than anticipated future need.
6.6 Temporary Sites – During the consultation meetings and through written responses the use of a temporary site created some anxiety amongst some people. There were views expressed that the need to provide stability and continuity to children in secondary education, which some felt could not be guaranteed within the current plans. Furthermore, it was suggested that such arrangements could potentially increase the level of emotional trauma experienced by children moving through secondary education.
6.7 Priorities – Views at the consultation meetings were expressed that the Council is giving greater priority to post-16 education, by earmarking the only vacant educational premises in the borough of the site of the former Telegraph Hill School as the location for the new 6th Form Centre.
What form should the new school take?
6.8 The consultation raised two pivotal questions about the likely form of the new secondary school within the borough:
• Should the new school cater for both genders, or focus on increasing single sex places in the borough? • Should the new school be a Local Education Authority Community School?
6.9 Gender – The overriding view at both consultation events and through 89% of written responses where a view was expressed, is that any new school should cater for children of both genders. Some people felt that there is already sufficient single sex provision within the borough and that any new school should focus on providing a more integrated educational experience. These arguments were rooted in a perspective that mixed provision better enabled children of both genders to ‘prepare for life and society’ and that single sex institutions were in danger of unnecessarily ‘cosseting’ young people. Furthermore, it was felt that much educational research had demonstrated that boys do better in a mixed gender learning environment and that therefore any move to increase the number of single sex boys places in the borough would be unjustifiable.
6.10 Type of School – During the consultation events, there was very strong support for a school to be a community school run by the Council over any other type of management model. This view was again supported by a total of 80 (70%) of those who provided a written reply to this question, with voluntary aided structure being the second most popular type of school, with 20 (24%) of the support.
6.11 Two views were central to the support voiced for a community school. Firstly, it was argued that unlike other types of school, a community school would be non- denominational. It was felt that to build a school that supported or promoted a particular creed or faith would contribute to disharmony within the local community. Secondly, the potential for other types of schools to create their own admissions policy and therefore be selective about the kind of young people they
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc admit, meant that there was little support for these models of school management.
6.12 Those that expressed support for a voluntary aided, non-community school predominantly came from the Parochial Church Council of St. Mary’s in Lewisham or from individuals who had expressed an affiliation to the Church. They felt that this type of structure would be better able to ensure pupil discipline and as such are perceived to have a better track record in educational achievement.
6.13 It should also be noted, that during the second consultation event, there was a strongly held view by some people that whatever type of management structure the school is selected to be, there should be a strong culture and ethos for discipline within the school.
6.14 There was also a single detailed response from a parent to the consultation that expressed a preference for the creation of an Islamic School within the Borough.
Where should the new secondary school be located?
6.15 The location of the new school was an issue that generated considerable debate during the consultation meetings and was the basis of most comments from the written representations.
6.16 Much of the dialogue and correspondence during the consultation process was concerned with the appropriateness of the three sites proposed. All three sites did receive a good level of support as the preferred location for the new school, with the Lewisham Way site being the most popular. However, it should be noted that there was a significant body of support, a total of 45% of written replies, that the site of the former Telegraph Hill School should be considered as an option to locate the new secondary school. This was the view of NSfNCC representatives, and of many individuals who reside in the north west of the borough. However, this was not the same view shared by those individuals who reside in the north east of the borough whose general preference was for the Ladywell options.
6.17 Meeting the greatest need – The dominant opinion of those attending the consultation events was that the ‘real need’ was in the north west of the borough, particularly around the site of the former Telegraph Hill School and that locating the school outside of that area would not adequately cater for the greatest need.
• Access to existing schools
6.18 During the consultation meetings, several views were expressed that children in the north east of the borough already had access to a far greater variety of schools in neighbouring boroughs (such as Greenwich and Bromley) than children in the north west of the borough. Therefore, the need for additional places was said to be greatest in the north west of the borough.
6.19 Furthermore, it was argued that even if a new school was built to allow equal access between those in the north west and the north east, parents in the north
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc east may still choose to send their children to out of borough schools because of their more convenient location and because such schools were more ‘traditional’ learning points for children in that part of Lewisham. However, a number of respondents in the north-east of the borough maintained that they would want their children educated locally and therefore would prefer a Lewisham School.
• Consideration of Social Issues
6.20 Many of those at the meetings suggested that the more disadvantaged nature of the population in the north west of the borough was also seen to justify the argument that the greater need for a new school was in that part of the borough. It was felt that this is the area with the greatest level of deprivation, as evidenced by official statistics.
6.21 Using existing educational infrastructure – It was felt to be more practical and more cost effective to locate the new secondary school on the site of the former Telegraph Hill School. The decision to establish a 6th Form Centre on the site and then spend additional funds developing other premises into a secondary school, were felt to be both time consuming and a waste of finite resources.
6.22 Proximity to established schools – There was a recurrent view that the two proposed sites in Ladywell were unsuitable due to their proximity to Crofton School. In this sense, it was felt that a new school in either of these locations could potentially draw students away from Crofton School. Similar arguments have been presented by Deptford Green School, if the preferred site is the Lewisham Way site of Lewisham College.
6.23 Capacity of local infrastructure in proposed sites – There was some concern that the local infrastructure in the Ladywell area was not equipped to cope with the resulting increase in people and cars using the road network. If the decision was made to use either of these sites, it was suggested that construction plans should include a consideration of how the road network could be revised and improved to cope with the increased volume of traffic.
6.24 The following table provides a summary of the main themes of concern or opposition expressed by individuals and the number and percentages of respondents commenting on each aspect. This table also represents the main themes of issue and concern emerging from the two public consultation meetings in January 2003.
Table 2 – Key Consultation Response Themes
Consultation Theme No. %
Is a New Secondary School Necessary?
Proposal does not take of account of the current need and 35 22% urgency for additional school places Proposal does not adequately address the temporary premises 37 25% arrangements for the new school
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc What form should the new school be?
New provision should be a community school run by the Council 105 80% New provision should be a mixed school 119 88% Where should the new school be located?
Site proposals in Ladywell are inappropriate in terms of proximity 30 20% to Crofton School Site proposals in Ladywell are inappropriate in terms of poor 25 17% traffic management in the area Site proposals in Ladywell are not situated in the area of greatest 61 41% need, which is in the Deptford and New Cross districts The new school should be located at the former ‘Telegraph Hill 67 45% School’ building The new school and the 6th Form Centre should co-exist at the 53% former Telegraph Hill school building in the interim There are concerns about losing leisure facilities should the 43% new school be located on the Ladywell Leisure Centre site
Deptford Green Secondary School
6.25 A total of 14 individual written responses have been received for this consultation exercise, with a total 12 individuals expressing views of full support of the plans for expansion. However, views expressed by the other two responses, although not disagreeing with the proposal, preferred not to indicate a choice on this aspect of the consultation, due to concerns around the basis on which these additional places would be taken. Specific concerns centred around the higher than average proportion of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) admitted to Deptford Green and whether it is specifically intended that Deptford Green School would now provide the service for children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD).
7 CONSIDERATION OF CONSULTATION OUTCOMES
New Secondary School
The Proposal does not take of account of the current need and urgency for additional school places
7.1 The school organisation plan predicts that demand for secondary school places will increase by 5% from now until at least 2007. However, the Council has plans to increase the number of places at some existing schools, which include, Deptford Green, Forest Hill and Northbrook1 schools. This will reduce the deficit. In 2002/3 the school organisation plan predicted a deficit of 97 places. In fact, during this year there were spare places at a number of our secondary schools in the South of the borough.
1 The expansion of Northbrook Secondary School is dependent on the school meeting its improvement targets as expected. w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 7.2 Regardless of site, to open a school before 2005 would be difficult in any case, due to the complex and intricate planning process that will be necessary to get the new school operational. The earliest possible opening of the three available sites would be the Playtower option in 2005, in temporary premises for the first year.
Proposal does not adequately address the temporary location arrangements for the new school
7.3 Officers recognise the concerns from the consultation about the use of a temporary site and will need to carefully consider the pros and cons with parents and potential pupils. It is expected that the catchment for the temporary site would be that of the eventual permanent site and officers would need to consider transport arrangements for pupils carefully. It is possible to make the temporary site a positive experience, as it would provide the opportunity for the new Years 7 & 8 to develop the ethos of the school and have an active involvement in the design of permanent school building. If the decision to go ahead with a new school building were taken, detailed discussions would need to take place with potential parents and pupils to ensure it becomes a positive experience.
The new secondary provision should be a mixed community school run by the Council
7.4 This is the overwhelming view of those who provided a response to this question. A total of 105 (80%) of responses were in favour of a Community School and 119 (89%) of responses indicated a preference for the new school to be mixed over and above any other type of school gender base. This is a view supported by most individuals who responded and also special interest groups like the NSfNCC, who expressed the same view in their submission.
7.5 At present, Lewisham has more places in single sex girls’ schools (528 offered each year) than it has in single sex boys’ schools (347 each year). This means there are more boys than girls in the mixed schools. In addition, some consideration is being given to making St Joseph’s Academy a mixed school leaving Forest Hill as the only boys’ school in the Borough. If this should and the new school is mixed, happen the authority will further need to explore other ways of redressing the imbalance of single sex places within the borough.
Site proposals in Ladywell are inappropriate in terms of proximity to Crofton School
7.6 Crofton is an improving school and has recently received a very good OFSTED report. Plans are in place to continue this improvement and raise standards further. Under the Grouped Schools Modernisation (PFI) Project, the school is expected to be one of the first to be rebuilt by 2006 which will further enhance provision and facilitate continued improvement. The LEA will work closely with all the schools to support new developments and ensure that the new school complements the planned development.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 7.7 The Council is committed to ensuring that every school place in Lewisham is a good place. Continuing to drive up standards across the Borough will help to ensure that any existing school in the proximity of where the new the school will eventually be established will not be adversely affected.
Site proposals in Ladywell are inappropriate in terms of poor traffic management in the area
7.8 The Council recognises that the provision of a new school may impact on the traffic flow of the surrounding area. A Traffic Management study will be commissioned to indicate the impact of siting the new secondary school on the chosen site.
Site proposals in Ladywell are not situated in the area of greatest need, which is in the Deptford and New Cross districts
7.9 The School Organisation plan is projecting an increase in demand for places north of the South Circular. In addition, data as set out in Table 2 below, about the area where parents fail to get their first preference, also adds weighting that the greatest need is across the whole of the north of the Borough. All sites would ensure that the new school would be fully accessible to all those that reside north of the South Circular Road.
7.10 Table 2 - The figures over the last two academic years were: Area Percentage of parents who failed to get their first choice 2000/01 2001/02 The north and north-west 38.9% 32.4% The north-east 43.5% 37.9% The south-east 29.0% 20.6% The south-west 22.7% 11.0%
The new secondary school should be located at the former Telegraph Hill School building or 6th Form and New School could co-exist
7.11 A decision has been taken to use the former site of Telegraph Hill School, as the building for the new 6th Form Centre. Therefore, this site is not an option for the new school and has not been put forward for consideration in this consultation process. The use of the former Telegraph Hill site as the location for the new 6th Form Centre, has been subject to extensive dialogue and consultation with Lewisham secondary schools, the wider education community and local parents and other interested parties over a number of years.
7.12 The 6th Form centre will act as a catalyst for school improvement across all of our secondary schools. It will provide a clear progression route for the schools involved and will play a key part in raising standards through the development of the borough’s 14-19 strategy.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 7.13 The suggestion of co-locating the 6th Form Centre and the new school would in the first instance be difficult given the different demands of the respective clientele. Also, feasibility work carried out as part of the 14-19 strategy indicates that the building would be of insufficient size to accommodate additional numbers of people, over and above those projected for the 6th Form Centre.
There are concerns about losing leisure facilities should the new school be located at Ladywell Leisure Centre
7.14 There is a plan for a new Leisure Centre to be built on land currently forming part of the Sundermead Estate, fronting Loampit Vale. This land will become available when the new Sundermead Estate is completed, allowing continuity of leisure provision in the Town Centre. The earliest potential date for relocation is likely to be 2008.
Deptford Green Secondary School
Concerns about the impact on Deptford Green in view of possible SEN and EBD provision in the Borough
7.15 The strategic proposal to increase the number of secondary school places is not intended for this purpose. Changes that are taking place with the borough’s SEN and EBD provisions are not directly linked to the strategy to expand the number of school places at main stream secondary schools.
8 THE SITE OPTIONS
The aspect of the consultation that attracted the most debate was where the new school should be located. This section of the report sets out the current position in relation to all three of the proposed site options. It highlights the important issues of availability, ownership, planning, development, costs and risks, all of which will be key to the successful delivery of the preferred site to locate the new secondary school. These issues are set out in summary in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 provides a plan of each site location.
8.1 Lewisham College - Breakspear Campus (Lewisham Way) Ownership
8.1.1 The site is in the freehold ownership of Lewisham College and comprises four parts: the Tresillian building, the car park and Lea House all with a frontage to Lewisham Way, and Breakspear building behind Tresillian on Breakspear Road.
Availability
8.1.2 Since the report of 20th November further discussions have taken place with Lewisham College and further clarity has been gained about their proposals. Lewisham College is currently developing a comprehensive new accommodation strategy. As part of this strategy they have a preference to relocate a significant w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc part of the activity currently on the Breakspear's campus to Lewisham town centre. The college is now in active negotiations with the strategic consultants (Chestertons) working with the London Development Agency and other stakeholders (including the Council) on the specific requirements in the town centre and the nature of the land deal. The availability of the site is entirely dependent on the college relocating to the town centre and although all parties have a desire for the relocation to succeed the processes are likely to take a minimum of twelve months before the relocation plans are finalised.
Planning Issues
8.1.3 The site is currently in educational use and there are therefore no planning reasons why the site cannot be used for a secondary school. One of the buildings on the campus – Lea House – is listed. It is currently in educational use, but would be difficult to upgrade to meet access requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act. The most straight forward planning option for Lea House would be a residential conversion.
8.1.4 The Council and the LDA are shortly to commission a masterplan/urban design framework for the wider Lewisham town centre area, incorporating this site. Layout, design and massing for this site can be included in this study. Any planning application or site purchase negotiations could run concurrently with this work.
8.1.5 If the site were not required for a school, the most likely acceptable alternative use would be housing, including 35% affordable housing.
Development Issues
8.1.6 The redevelopment of the town centre is to be undertaken by a commercial partner through a joint venture agreement with the LDA. Other landowners in the town centre - including the Council and Transport for London - will be required to transfer their landholdings to the LDA and the detailed terms of these are currently being negotiated. A joint venture partner is to be sought - through competitive selection using OJEC procedures - during the summer and autumn of 2003. Once selected, the partners (LDA plus commercial partner) will finalise the detail of the redevelopment scheme including the terms by which end users (including the college) will benefit. The college is fully tied into this process and their requirements/interest will form part of the development brief that is being prepared by Chestertons to market the whole town centre opportunity to the private commercial sector.
8.1.7 The timetable for the development of the town centre cannot be speeded up as this is already a complex partnership - there are too many parties, and too many legal and commercial considerations. However, the college, the Council and the LDA are all keen to see the college relocated in the town centre and everything is being done to secure delivery as quickly as possible.
8.1.8 It is now clear that the College would need to move into new provision in the town centre before relinquishing the Lewisham Way site. This is a constraining factor. While timescales on the town centre are not yet certain, a best-case estimate for the college moving into new provision in the town centre is September 2007. This
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc allows for securing a development partner (December 2003); completing CPO and land transactions (March 2005); undertaking infrastructure works to release the site (September 2006) and constructing the college (September 2007). The school could then be available to open from September 2009 on this site as its permanent location, or in 2007 at suitable temporary premises.
Site Costs/Acquisitions
8.1.9 The value of the Breakspear campus is a key issue for the college in its relocation to the town centre. In essence, in order to build in the town centre they need to realise residential values for the Breakspear campus site - assuming a high-density residential development. The site will only become available if the college can relocate and this seems unlikely to happen unless residential values apply. Residential values are generally higher than educational values and the Council would be in the position of purchasing at the higher value to secure the site only to revert to educational use.
8.1.10 One significant factor is that the college is both willing and able to sell to the Council off market. It should be noted that the college is not dependent on the Council - it will pursue the relocation option even if the Council does not seek to buy the site for continued educational purposes.
Risks
8.1.11 A major risk is that the Council may not be able to afford to pay residential values for the site. Also this is the most costly site. On current estimations there is a significant funding gap for this option which the Council would have difficulty in bridging.
8.1.12 A further risk is that the negotiations over the college's relocation to the town centre will take time. Plans in relation to this will not be known for a minimum of twelve months.
8.2 Ladywell Leisure Centre
Ownership
8.2.1 The site is in the freehold ownership of the Council. Part of the site, is occupied by the Lewisham Opportunity Pre School. The leisure centre is currently the subject of an investment/management contract with CCL, which has a further three and a half years to run.
Availability
8.2.2 The leisure centre was shut in August 2002 for health & safety purposes and the Council is now in the process of undertaking the necessary work to have the leisure centre re-opened by December 2003. The site could be available when a new pool opens in the town centre. The school could be available on this site by 2010 as its permanent location, or in 2008 at suitable temporary premises. It is a possibility that
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc the school could be open on this site earlier if a decision were not made to reopen the Leisure centre. Such a decision would be inconsistent with our leisure strategy, and leave residents with a paucity of provision in the borough. It would however negate the need for capital investment to re-open the leisure centre.
Planning Issues
8.2.3 The site is currently in community use. There are no significant barriers to its use for educational purposes. Access by road and public transport is good. There are no listed buildings.
8.2.4 The Council and the LDA are shortly to commission a masterplan/urban design framework for the wider Lewisham town centre area, incorporating this site. Layout, design and massing for this site can be included in this study. Any planning application or detailed design work could run concurrently with this work.
8.2.5 If the site were not used for a school, the most likely acceptable use would be housing, including 35% affordable housing.
Development Issues
8.2.6 There are no significant development/regeneration issues.
Site Costs/Acquisitions
8.2.7 Since the site is already in the ownership of the Council, there are no site or acquisition costs. Temporary or permanent alternative accommodation will need to be found for the Lewisham Opportunity Pre School. The Council will forego a potential future receipt for the site for housing.
Risks
8.2.8 The only significant risk attached to this site concerns the relocation of the pool to Sundermead. This is being pursued as part of the redevelopment of the Sundermead estate, and the reprovision of the pool is dependent upon residential land values for the frontage site being high, and the attractiveness of the town centre as a residential location being improved by the progress of the town centre wider regeneration strategy. This is currently progressing well, but there are market sensitivities beyond the Council's control. Some of the public sector funding for the replacement pool is time limited, linked to the disposal of Aragon Tower in Deptford.
8.3 Ladywell Playtower
Ownership
8.3.1 Ownership of the site is complicated. The majority of the site is owned by the Council, incorporating the Playtower, the Mortuary and the Coroner's Court. Discussions are underway to relocate the mortuary and the Coroners Court. The Ladywell Gymnastics Club currently occupies the Playtower, they are scheduled to relocate to the BeCorp facility in Bellingham at the end of this year.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 8.3.2 A further part of the site is owned by the Metropolitan Police. They are relocating to the new Lewisham Police Station at the end of this year. They will then sell the site on the open market.
Availability
8.3.3 The complex ownership as set out above means that site assembly would be required for this site. Negotiations are well advanced in respect of the mortuary and the coroner’s court, and officers in Regeneration are confident that these will be concluded, and the properties vacated, by the end of the calendar year, subject to ongoing co-operation of the Lewisham Hospital Trust and the Coronor.
8.3.4 Negotiations have not yet begun with the Police. The key issue will be land values and the ability/willingness of the Police to sell the site off market. If all negotiations run smoothly it is possible for a new school to be ready on this site by 2006 and in temporary provision by 2005.
Planning Issues
8.3.5 This is the most complex site in terms of planning. Part of the Police Station and the Coroners Court are listed buildings - incorporating these into a new school development will be challenging. The whole site is next to the St Mary's Conservation area and St Mary's Church is one of the oldest buildings in the borough. Any adjacent development will need to be very sensitive. A full site specification for a secondary school in this location has not yet been carried out. The planning restrictions related to development in a conservation area (height, massing etc) might have the effect of extending the footprint of the site required, necessitating the identification/acquisition of adjacent land parcels.
8.3.6 The Council and the LDA are shortly to commission a masterplan/urban design framework for the wider Lewisham town centre area, incorporating this site. Layout, design and massing for this site can be included in this study. This work should be completed during the course of this calendar year. Any planning application could run concurrently with this work.
8.3.7 If the site is not used for a school, the most likely acceptable use would be housing, including 35% affordable housing.
Development/Regeneration Issues
8.3.8 There are no significant regeneration or development issues as the site is not affected by any other plans at the present time.
Site Costs/Acquisitions
8.3.9 The costs of acquiring those parts of the site not in the ownership of the Council will be driven by the value of the potential development of the land for housing.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc Risks
8.3.10 The key risk is whether the Police will work with the Council to sell the site off market. If detailed design work for the school means that additional land may also be required to facilitate development, the site assembly will be a lengthier and more costly exercise.
8.3.11 A second risk will be that an acceptable solution to the listing/conservation issues cannot be found. It should be recognised that where the Council itself is the developer of listed buildings, formal planning responsibility lies with GoL advised by English Heritage, not the Council.
Availability
8.3.12 Table 3 provides an illustration of the various properties on this site.
Table 3 – Ladywell Playtower Site
Ownership Building Comments
Council Playtower Currently used by the Ladywell Gymnastics Club who are scheduled to move to their new premises towards the end of this year. Mortuary Discussions currently underway with Lewisham Hospital to have a shared facility within the hospital site. Coroners Court Discussions are also underway to relocate this facility.
Police Ladywell Police This police station will close at the end of Station this year when the new police station in the Town Centre opens. The Metropolitan Police’s current plan is to then sell it on the open market.
9 CONCLUSIONS
9.1 The consultation has highlighted many issues that will need to be addressed during the development of the new school. All of the three proposed sites received some support with the site of Breakspear being the most popular. Timing and urgency emerged as key factors for many respondents. Attached at Appendix 2 is a summary of the risks associated with each site.
9.2 There are advantages with the location of all sites. However the main disadvantage with the site of Ladywell leisure centre and Ladywell Playtower is the proximity to Crofton. Crofton school will however be rebuilt as part of the schools PFI project by 2006 and there are plans in place to improve this school as set out under section 7.4 which will manage this risk.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 9.3 Breakspear site – This site is the most popular site from the consultation responses. However, there was considerable concern about the timescales of this options, with respondents wanting a new provision available before 2007. In addition, section 8 of this report shows this site to have considerable risks. The school could not be delivered until 2007 at the earliest on temporary accommodation and the costs associated with acquisition and building on this site are the highest and there would still be a considerable funding gap even after taking account a further allocation secured from the DfES.
9.4 Ladywell Leisure Centre site – This and the Playtower site did gain some level of support as the preferred location from the consultation responses. But from the site considerations the Leisure Centre site would be the site which would have the new school built in the longest time span with the new school opening in temporary premises in 2008 at the earliest. The costs associated with delivering this site based on the limited feasibility work so far carried out, would be the cheapest (although in a similar range to that of delivering the Playtower option).
9.5 Playtower site – This site if assembly goes smoothly can potentially be delivered the quickest, by 2005 on a temporary site. The costs of delivering this option from the feasibility so far undertaken are not dissimilar to those for the delivery of the Ladywell site. However, there are risks to the delivery of this option in relation to the site assembly and planning applications and the 2006 date for opening on this site may not be achievable. The use of the temporary site could however, be extended to two years providing an additional year to assemble the site.
9.6 In considering all factors, including consultation responses, the key factor in the decision for the site is the urgent need for places. Table 11 of the School Organisation Plan predicts a steady deficit of places between now and 2007/8 based on enhanced GLA estimates. The earliest date for a new school in temporary accommodation is 2005 for the Playtower option. The Lewisham Way site could provide a school in 2007 and Ladywell leisure centre site by 2008 (both in temporary accommodation for the first two years).
9.7 Another significant factor is the funding for the site. Since the report of 20th November the Council has secured further basic needs funding from the DfES. Funding available for the new school now totals £14.16m. There would still be a significant funding gap based on the estimated costs for the Lewisham Way (Breakspear) site. There is also a funding gap for the Ladywell Leisure Centre and Playtower sites but these are significantly lower than for the Lewisham Way site.
9.8 On weighing up the site and cost considerations and the consultation responses – It is recommended, that on balance, the Breakspear site should be discarded from further consideration on the basis of the timeframe involved, the costs and funding gap associated with the delivery of this option.
9.9 This leaves the Ladywell leisure centre and Playtower sites as potential sites for the new school. However, the potential timescales for the delivery of the
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc Ladywell option are much longer than those associated with the Playtower. As a key factor in the decision is the urgency of places then on balance, it is recommended that, the Playtower site should be pursued and further work commissioned on this site with a report being brought to Committee on the outcome of the feasibility work.
10 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
10.1 There were some direct costs incurred in carrying out the various elements of the consultation programme, principally the commissioning of Office for Public Management (OPM) to design, facilitate and report on the two new school public consultation events and the design and printing of the consultation documents. A revenue budget of £20k has been set aside to cover these costs.
10.2 There will be costs associated with further feasibility and negotiations for site acquisition and a budget of £50k will be set aside in 2003/4 to meet these costs.
10.3 The cost of the expanding Deptford Green school and creating the new school would need to be financed from the capital programme. The cost for expansion of Deptford Green is estimated to be in the region of £300k.
10.4 The Council has secured basic needs funding of £14.46m for the provision of additional secondary school places. £300k will be required to finance the expansion at Deptford Green school. This leaves £14.16m, which could be used to finance the new school. If the Playtower option is pursued as the favoured option there will be a funding gap of £4.39m. Further ways of supplementing existing resources for the scheme are being investigated.
10.5 There are also financial implications associated with the re-opening of Ladywell leisure Centre for December 2003, which should be considered in the round should a decision be taken on the siting of the new school. The cost of keeping the centre open until the new Leisure facility can be reprovided on the Sundermead site is estimated at £1.76m.
11 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
11.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 safeguards the rights of children in the Borough to educational provision, which the Council is empowered to provide in compliance with its duties under domestic legislation.
11.2 Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 obliges each Education Authority to ensure that there are sufficient primary and secondary schools available for its area (i.e. the London Borough of Lewisham). It follows that those schools must be sufficient in number to provide for all pupils in that area, the opportunity of appropriate education.
11.3 The legal obligation is to ensure that places are available for that area. Some of the places might be provided in schools in other Boroughs but it would be
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc Lewisham’s obligation to ensure that those places were available to Lewisham pupils.
11.4 Though the legal position remains that the Authority may meet its obligation by relying on sufficient places in neighbouring Boroughs, the aim of the proposals in this report is to ensure that the places in Lewisham are of such a standard, number and accessibility that most parents would not wish to send their children out of the Borough for their secondary education.
11.5 Members have to be satisfied that there will be available provision to meet the educational needs of current pupils for whom Lewisham is responsible.
11.6 Current legislative provision for the establishment of new schools is contained in section 28 of and Schedule 6 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and relevant Regulations. Section 28 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 stipulates that if a Local Education Authority proposes to establish a new community school, it must publish proposals. That Section also requires an Authority, before publishing proposals, to consult such persons as seem appropriate, having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
11.7 That guidance is set out in Circular 9/99 which advises as follows:
“The Secretary of State considers that those bringing forward proposals should consult all interested parties. In doing so they should allow adequate time and provide sufficient information, for those being consulted to form a considered view on the matters on which they are being consulted, and should make clear how their views should be made known. Those bringing forward proposals should be able to demonstrate how they have taken into account the views expressed during the consultations in reaching any subsequent decision as to the publication of proposals. Where, in the course of consultation, a new option emerges which the proposers wish to consider, it will probably be appropriate to consult afresh on this option before proceeding to publish proposals.
The Secretary of State considers that the interested parties who should be consulted include:
• Any school which is the subject of proposals (head, staff, governors and parents). • Any LEA likely to be affected by the proposals, including in particular neighbouring LEAs where there may be a significant cross-border movement of pupils. • Other schools in the area, including schools in an adjoining LEA that may be affected by the proposals, whether community, foundation, voluntary or community special schools. • Parents and teachers in the area who may be affected by the proposals, including those living in or who have children attending, a school in the area of an adjoining LEA. • The appropriate diocesan authorities (in the case of Lewisham schools the C of E Southwark Diocesan Board of Education and the RC Archdiocese of Southwark Commission for Schools and Colleges). • Any other interested party.”
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc 11.8 If, after the outcome of consultations, the Mayor were to decide to pursue one of the options proposed, public notices would need to be issued in accordance with detailed procedure laid down in Schedule 6 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and supplemented by Schedule 2 to the Education (School Organisation Proposals) (England) Regulations 1999. The public notice would need to include amongst other information, the proposed site for the new school, whether it is to be a community, voluntary or foundation school, whether it is to be single sex or mixed, and its size.
11.9 Once published there would then be a period of two months for any person to make objections to the proposals. If there were objections, which had not been withdrawn in writing during the two-month objection period, the proposal would need to be considered by the Lewisham School Organisation Committee. If there were no sustained objections, the LEA would have to determine whether to implement them.
11.10 Once the relevant provisions contained the Education Act 2002 and accompanying Regulations come into force this will result in significant changes to school organisation procedures. The Department for Education and Skills is currently consulting on draft Regulations and it is intended that these will come into force on 1st June 2003.
11.11 The new Act requires an Authority that wishes to open a new secondary school, first to invite other interested parties to put forward proposals. Only after it has invited and received such proposals may an Authority make its own proposals. At present, proposals by an LEA to open a new community or foundation secondary school are processed through the requirements of Section 28 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 and are decided through the arrangements for local decision making through the School Organisation Committee. The new consultation arrangements (whose details still need to be clarified by regulations), require the School Organisation Committee to comment on the various options put forward and to pass these to the Secretary of State who will then make the final decision.
11.12 The 2002 Act makes some changes to the legal requirements for proposals to expand or reduce existing schools. The most significant of these is that whilst the power to make proposals still rests with the LEA (for community schools) or with governors (for voluntary schools) the two month objection period will now allow comments of any kind, and not just objections, to be made.
11.13 Section 176 of the 2002 Education Act includes a duty on LEAs to have regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State about consultations with pupils in connection with the taking of decisions affecting them. The guidance, which has still to be published, has to provide for a pupil’s views to be considered in the light of its age and understanding. It is already the policy of the Authority to include pupils in the consultations. Until the appropriate regulations have been published and are in force, the details of the new consultation arrangements will not be known.
11.14 In deciding whether to agree the recommendations the Mayor must be satisfied that to do so is a reasonable exercise of his discretion on a consideration of all
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc relevant matters and disregarding irrelevancies. The Mayor must carefully weigh the pros and cons of each option set out in this report.
12 EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
12.1 It is essential that children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to find places at good secondary schools within a reasonable distance from their homes. The Authority presents proposals to ensure that there should be sufficient high quality secondary school places for all Lewisham residents who seek one and that appropriate and effective resources are made available to all schools to provide all pupils with the best possible education.
12.2 However, the Authority is aware that some groups have been traditionally excluded from the education system and specific action will be taken to ensure social inclusion when deciding the location and organisation of the new school. Particular attention will be paid to the potential adverse impacts on the grounds of race, gender and disability in the following key areas:
• Location and transport; • Admissions; • Design and build and accessibility; • Curriculum.
12.3 Impact and risk assessments will be carried out in the above substantive areas to ensure that the new school is fully comprehensive and accessible within the given parameters of need and spend.
13 CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS
13.1 The strategies in this report are aimed at the raising of standards in Lewisham secondary schools which is an essential part of the agenda to combat crime by improving the life and employment opportunities of the Borough’s young people.
14 HUMAN RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
14.1 There are no human resources implications arising directly from this report.
15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
15.1 The creation of additional secondary school places will involve the provision of new accommodation. The new secondary school would be provided permanently in totally new premises.
15.2 The building work for the new secondary school and any adaptations to Deptford Green would need to take account of the recommendations of ‘Creative Lewisham’ which seeks to provide a high standard of design of new municipal
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc buildings. This should help to raise the morale of staff and pupils and thereby assist in the drive to raise standards.
16 BACKGROUND PAPERS
Short title of document Date of Location Reference Contact document Officer Lewisham School December 2nd Floor N/A Trish Costello Organisational Plan 4th edition 2002 Laurence House Strategic Review of 20th Nov 2002 Governance N/A Mike Brown Secondary Places Support Report to Executive 3rd April 2002 2nd Floor N/A Trish Costello Committee Laurence House Deptford Green Secondary February 2002 2nd Floor N/A Trish Costello School – Development Plan Laurence House
For more information about this report, please contact Janet Senior, Head of Resources, Education & Culture Directorate on 020 8314 8554 or Selwyn Thompson, Assistant Strategic Finance Consultant, Resources Directorate on 020 8314 6932.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc APPENDIX 1: Summarised analysis of consultation results
Question 1 – Is a new secondary school necessary? – A total of 141 responses indicated a preference to this question. Of this total 136 (96%) are in favour of a new school and 5 (4%) are against the proposal.
160
140 136
120
100 Yes 80 No 60
40 Number of responses
20 5 0 Response
Question 2 – Which of the three sites do you prefer? – A total of 117 responses indicated a preference to this question. Of this total 37 (32%) prefer the Ladywell Leisure Centre, 60 (51%) prefer the Lewisham Way site of Lewisham College and 20 (17%) prefer the Ladywell Playtower.
70 60 60
50
40 37 Ladyw ell LC Lew isham Way 30 Ladyw ell Playtow er 20 20
Number of Responses 10
0 Site location
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc Question 3 – Do you have a preference for the type of school? – A total of 131 responses indicated a preference to this question. Of this total 105 (80%) prefer a Community School, 4 (3%) prefer a Foundation School, 20 (15%) prefer a Voluntary Aided School and 2 (2%) prefer a City Academy School.
120 105 100
80 Community Foundation 60 Voluntary Aided City Academy 40
Number of responses 20 20
4 2 0 Type of school management
140
120 119
100
80 Mix ed Boys only 60 Girls only
40 Number of responses
20 13 4 0 Type of School - Gender
Question 4 – What gender should the new school cater for? – A total of 136 responses indicated a preference to this question. Of this total, 119 (88%) prefer a mixed school, 13 (10%) prefer a boys’ only school, and 4 (2%) prefer a girls’ only school.
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc APPENDIX 2 New Secondary School for Lewisham – Summary Appraisal of Each Site Option
Lewisham Way site Ladywell Leisure Centre Ladywell Playtower Ownership Advantages Advantages Advantages and • • • Availability There are no advantages of Entire site is owned by Lewisham Most of this site is owned by the ownership – in part accommodates the Council Lewisham Opportunity Pre School) Disadvantages • School could open at the earliest • Site could be made available on this site in 2006, as permanent • Complex, high level and intricate immediately (2005 in suitable temporary location negotiations to be held with various for one year) bodies to determine relocating the Disadvantages College • School could only open at the Disadvantages earliest on this site in 2010, as • School could only open at the • High level and intricate permanent (2008 in suitable earliest on this site in 2009, as negotiations to be held with the temporary location for two years) permanent (2007 in suitable temporary Metropolitan Police for the purchase location for two years) of the Police Station.
Location and Advantages Advantages Advantages Design • Currently accommodates an • Central and to the north of the • Central location and good existing educational establishment and South Circular Road, with good bus transport links with that part of would therefore be a good shape and and rail transport links borough to the north of the South size for a new school Circular Road • Close to the sports facilities at • Reasonable distance from any Ladywell Fields • Close to the sports facilities at existing secondary school Ladywell Fields Disadvantages • Good transport links with that part of Disadvantages • the borough to the north of the South Close proximity to Crofton School • Close proximity to Crofton School w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc APPENDIX 2 Circular Road • Site poses the most significant Disadvantages design considerations. However, any proposed design will be in • Not near any existing sports facilities keeping with the Ladywell Conservation area Risks and • Site poses the most significant risk and • Site owned by the Council, short • Time taken to deliver this options Costs cost as the College’s willingness to term obligations under CCL contact could be extended should the issues relocate is subject to detailed discussion around planning, design and site • ands confirmation Cost of relocating Lewisham assembly prove difficult Opportunity Pre School • Timing of any move could be longer • than anticipated and not within the Timing for relocating the leisure time-scale suggested provision is dependent upon various construction factors
w:\comms web team\web\ongoing_work\myr_cab_ag_26feb03.doc