South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 Examination Matter 7A – Provision of Secondary School Sites (Policy INF12)

Matter 7a Provision of Secondary School Sites (Policy INF12) Growth Villages RPS for Bellway / Clowes

South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 Examination Matter 7a – Provision of Secondary School Sites (Policy INF12)

South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 Examination Session Thursday 27April 2017

Ref 056 - RPS obo Bellway / Clowes

Matter 7a: Provision of Secondary School Sites (Policy INF12)

Q62. Is policy INF12 justified in allocating 2 sites for the provision of a minimum of 800 secondary school places on 10 hectares of land?

Bellway / Clowes raise no objection in principle to the allocation of 2 sites for secondary education provision within Policy INF12. The need for two sites has been identified as required by Derbyshire County Council (the County Council) as local education authority in their Cabinet Report dated 20 September 2016. This report (enclosed as Appendix 1) states that residential developments proposed in the adopted South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 are expected to require a total of 1,898 secondary aged pupils (11-18). As some 8,000 of the 12,618 houses allocated in the SDLPP1 are proposed on the edge of Derby City, there is a clear need, as stated in the report, for new secondary school infrastructure to accommodate housing growth at this location.

The Cabinet Report indicates that there remains considerable uncertainty over the pattern and demand for admissions to a new secondary school. The situation and school capacity requirements are made more complex by the cross boundary context. Some 11,000 new homes are allocated in the recently adopted Core Strategy for Derby City, many of which are to be delivered in and around the southern boundary with South Derbyshire. It is therefore highly likely that housing development within Derby City will also feed into a new secondary school(s) within South Derbyshire.

The County Council Cabinet Report models a scenario whereby some of the additional need (up to 1,500 pupils) is accommodated by the expansion of existing schools in South Derbyshire and Derby City. However, RPS understands that the feasibility of expanding these existing schools, comprising the John Port School in South Derbyshire and the Murray Park School and City of Derby Academy in Derby City has yet to be established. This is acknowledged in the Cabinet Report, which states that the expansion capacity of 1,500 is purely illustrative and there is a possibility that expansions to existing schools will not go ahead. Should this be the case the requirement for new purpose built secondary school infrastructure is likely to be far in excess of 800 places.

Preferred Site

The significant level of housing development and population growth coming forward to the south and west of Derby and the current uncertainty over the demand for school places, future admission arrangements and the expansion capability of existing secondary schools have led the County Council to confirm that two sites are required for new secondary education infrastructure. This is supported by the District Council at Policy INF12.

Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Local Plans to have sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change. Embedding flexibility in Policy INF12 by allocating two sites for secondary education infrastructure is appropriate and consistent with the NPPF. However, RPS contends that further refinement of Policy INF12 is required in order to reflect the clear advice by the County Council in their Cabinet Report that Thulston Fields is the preferred site for a new school. The preference for Thulston Fields is not currently reflected in the drafting of Policy INF12.

It is also evident within the Cabinet Report that in the view of the County Council the site at Lowes Farm should only come forward in the event that Thulston Fields is unable to do so or if it is subsequently revealed that there is insufficient capability to expand existing schools as

Ref 056 - RPS obo Bellway / Clowes

Matter 7a: Provision of Secondary School Sites (Policy INF12) planned. It is therefore appropriate to specify in Policy INF12 that Lowes Farm should be regarded as a reserve site for the provision of secondary education facilities.

The conclusions drawn by the County Council are based on a robust assessment and scoring of different site options. Despite being located within the Green Belt, Thulston Fields scored highest overall against a range of criteria used. This included criteria relating to sustainable development and planning considerations, where the site received a lower score due to its location within the Green Belt. However, should the site be removed from the Green Belt (as is proposed by Bellway / Clowes and discussed below in response to Q.63) the site would have scored even higher.

In relation to meeting education need, it should be noted that Thulston Fields is located in a highly sustainable location in the immediate vicinity of the largest concentration of cross boundary housing growth; this being the strategic allocation at Boulton Moor. This strategic growth will comprise 2,750 dwellings, two new primary schools, a local centre and new public transport links. The new dwellings and primary schools would be located within walking distance of a new secondary school at Thulston Fields. Currently, the nearest secondary school is Chellaston Academy, which is full or exceeding capacity. Chellaston Academy has an admissions policy which reserved the right to exclude new developments and has administered this policy in respect of other new development adjacent to the strategic allocation at Boulton Moor i.e. land at Fellow Land Way, Derby (Planning Application DER/01/13/00082). Furthermore, Thulston Fields is located further away than Lowes Farm from the planned secondary school expansions. The absence of secondary school capacity nearby and the distance of Thulston Fields to planned secondary school expansions mean there is likely to be a particularly acute need for new secondary school provision in the vicinity of the site as housing growth at Boulton Moor is delivered.

The County Council’s assessment of sites was also made against other key criteria relating to property and land acquisition and the presence of any technical constraints. In both these respects the site at Thulston Fields outscored the second best option at Lowes Farm. It should be noted that in addition to potential flood risk concerns, Lowes Farm was previously discounted from consideration by the District Council as a strategic residential allocation due to the absence of a suitable transport mitigation - (p172 of Local Plan Part 2 Sustainability Appraisal: Main Report (Core Ref Doc E.1).

Q63. If justified, would the allocation of the site at Thulston Fields require the release of land from the Green Belt and would this be consistent with national policy on the protection of Green Belt land? If the site were not released from the Green Belt would the delivery of a new school on this site be at risk of inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in the NPPF?

Bellway/ Clowes propose that the allocation of the site at Thulston Fields should elicit the release of the site (or part of the site) from the Green Belt. To not do so could risk the allocation being inconsistent with national policy on the protection of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 83 of the NPPF is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. Whilst it is unfortunate that the need for a secondary school at Thulston Fields was not identified by the County Council during the preparation of the SDLPP1, its adopted policy on Green Belt (Policy S8), does state that ‘Green Belt boundaries will be reviewed through the Local Plan Part 2, to amend any existing anomalies since the adoption of the Green Belt’. In this

Ref 056 - RPS obo Bellway / Clowes

Matter 7a: Provision of Secondary School Sites (Policy INF12) instance it is considered that Part 2 of the Local Plan should be regarded as an entirely appropriate point to amend a Green Belt boundary, if required. Indeed, when preparing Local Plans, the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to work with other authorities and providers to assess the quality and capacity of (education) infrastructure (para.162) and ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion (para.177). Infrastructure and development policies should be planned at the same time (para.177).

It is the judgement of RPS that exceptional circumstances do exist to justify the release of Green Belt land at this location and it is necessary to do so to reliably meet the education infrastructure needs of the District during the early stages of the plan period.

The clear need for at least one new secondary school on the edge of Derby City has been identified by the County Council as local education authority. The site at Thulston Fields has emerged as the preferred site, and this has been ratified by the County Council’s Cabinet following an extensive consultation and assessment exercise. In this instance therefore all other reasonable options have been considered prior to Thulston Fields emerging as the preferred option.

Importantly, the site at Thulston Fields is best placed locationally to meet education needs, is free from technical or environmental constraint and is in the hands of a willing landowner.

In terms of the Green Belt, the site comprises a large, (107ha) contained parcel of land within the urban boundary of the A50 and the A6 strategic highways. The NPPF states that when defining (Green Belt) boundaries, local authorities should use physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent (para.85). It should be noted that the site is the only parcel of land within the inner urban boundary of these strategic roads that is located in the Green Belt. The physical highways provide a clear defensible boundary that safeguards the wider countryside from encroachment. Removing this land (or a proportion of this land) within this defensible barrier would not compromise the relevant purposes of the Green Belt, which in this instance is considered to be to safeguard the wider countryside (beyond the strategic highways) from encroachment.

Indeed, paragraph 85 also advises against including land in the Green Belt which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open. There is a necessity to remove the site (or part of the site) from the Green Belt to accommodate a new secondary school. It is also the case that the site performs a very limited Green Belt purpose insofar as it checks the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas. The land plays no identifiable role in protecting the Nottingham – Derby Green Belt given its location. This was also the conclusion made in the Council’s preferred Growth Strategy for South Derbyshire October 2012, which refers to Thulston Fields and states that ‘any eventual development would be unlikely to prejudice the overall integrity of the Nottingham-Derby Green Belt’ (para.159).

It should also be considered that if a proportion of the site were released, there is a potential to offset some of the impact from the physical development of a new school building by delivering access improvements where currently the land is in private ownership and by delivering new sporting and recreation facilities. Such facilities would be consistent with appropriate uses in the Green Belt, would offer compensatory improvements and would potentially enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 81 of the NPPF.

Ref 056 - RPS obo Bellway / Clowes

Matter 7a: Provision of Secondary School Sites (Policy INF12)

Q.64 Does minor modification M27 materially affect the application of Policy INF12? If so should it be considered as a main modification to the SDLPP2?

Minor modification M27 proposes to include an additional criterion within Policy INF12 to ensure that an assessment of transport impact on the surrounding road network and pedestrian and cycle links is required. Bellway / Clowes are confident that the site at Thulston Fields can be provided with safe and suitable access to support a minimum 800 place secondary school. Furthermore, the site is located where considerable housing development is planned, with associated improvements to pedestrian linkages and the public transport network, including new bus services. Accordingly, development of a secondary school at Thulston Fields will be highly sustainable and accessible by a range of transport modes.

APPENDIX 1: Derbyshire County Council Cabinet Report: Education Planning for Housing Growth in South Derbyshire - 20 September 2016.

“PUBLIC”

Agenda Item No 7 (p)

DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

CABINET

20 September 2016

Report of the Strategic Director for Children’s Services

EDUCATION PLANNING FOR HOUSING GROWTH IN SOUTH DERBYSHIRE - (CHILDREN’S SERVICES)

1. Purpose of Report

To report to Cabinet the outcome of a consultation held in early 2015 on the possible locations for a new secondary school in South Derbyshire; to update Cabinet Members on developments since Cabinet last considered this issue and to seek approval to identify and submit sites for a new secondary school to South Derbyshire District Council for allocation in the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2.

2. Information and Analysis

At its meeting of 10 February 2015, Cabinet received information on the amount of new housing that is proposed in the Derby Housing Market Area (HMA) in the emerging Local Plans under preparation by Derby City, South Derbyshire District and Amber Valley Borough Councils.

South Derbyshire District Council adopted its Local Plan Part 1 in June 2016. Derby City’s Local Plan Part 1 has been through public examination and anticipates adopting its Local Plan by the beginning of 2017. Amber Valley Borough Council withdrew its Draft Local Plan and is preparing a new Local Plan for consultation in early 2017.

Since the February 2015 report, the Adopted South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 has confirmed a revised housing requirement for the District of 12,618 houses between 2011 and 2028, with 8,000 of these being allocated on the edge of Derby City (6,800 of these 8,000 will be delivered within the plan period). This includes a large new strategic allocation on land at Newhouse Farm, Mickleover (see below). A plan showing the location of the main housing developments is provided at Appendix 1.

A number of issues have arisen since the previous consultation which has resulted in a longer period of analysis prior to bringing forward this report than was originally anticipated.

A number of residential developments have recently been granted planning permission, that were not part of the South Derbyshire District Council Local Plan when the original analysis was carried out. 300 dwellings have been granted planning permission at Newhouse Farm (this is part of a larger site allocated for 1,650 dwellings in total, of which 1,450 are expected to be delivered within the plan period). The consequences of these new planning permissions for the Education Strategy have been assessed. Since the previous report, a new secondary free school has been proposed within Derby City. This school is proposed for the city centre, but if approved, there may be impacts on the demand for places across the city and into areas of the county.

There remains a clear need for a new secondary school to accommodate housing growth in South Derbyshire on the edge of Derby City.

Summary of the response to the 2015 consultation

In response to this housing growth, the County Council consulted on a strategy for secondary school provision in South Derbyshire. The consultation proposed expansion of John Port School and identified possible locations for a new secondary school. The consultation was open to the general public and ran from February 2015 to April 2015. A detailed summary of the responses is included at Appendix 2, but the key issues are summarised below.

In total, 39 representations were received in response to the consultation. Responses were received from 30 members of the public, Derby City Council, South Derbyshire District Council, Egginton Parish Council, 1 elected member (Councillor Davison), John Port School, and 4 developers/landowners.

The opportunity to comment via a public consultation was welcomed by most respondents. Respondents agreed with the County Council’s view that there is a clear need for additional secondary school capacity to accommodate planned housing development.

A number of respondents queried the criteria and mechanism for ranking and scoring each of the locations. Some respondents disagreed with the weight given to and assessment of flood risk, land value/acquisition, transport and sustainable development/planning considerations.

The assessment of each location was as objective as possible and based on technical advice from County Council departments. Inevitably, there will be an element of subjectivity when making judgements about the relative merits and impacts of a location. The methodology and criteria have been reviewed for the updated assessment below. 2

Most (though not all) of the Melbourne residents who responded expressed strong support for locating a new school in Melbourne. However, outside of Melbourne, respondents shared the view put forward in the consultation that Melbourne is not particularly well located in relation to the majority of planned housing growth and that Findern, Boulton Moor and Stenson Fields relate better to the planned housing.

A number of additional locations were submitted for consideration by developers and members of the public. These were Newhouse Farm (subsequently withdrawn by the site promoter), Aston on Trent, Weston on Trent and Shardlow and Lowes Farm. In response to the consultation, an updated assessment of all locations (including the new locations put forward for consideration through the consultation) has been undertaken and responses received are referred to below.

Derby City Council, as a neighbouring education authority and key partner in this process responded, highlighting the potential impact a new school could have on existing schools within the city. The City Council expressed support for Boulton Moor as a location, but highlighted the need for a more thorough assessment of transport impacts and mitigation. The City Council’s response outlined plans to expand two Derby City schools:-City of Derby Academy by up to 500 places to accommodate children from the Wragley Way development and up to 500 places at Murray Park to accommodate housing development in the Mickleover area.

The (then) Chair of Governors for John Port School responded positively to the consultation, supporting the locations identified and the assessment criteria and methodology. The Chair’s response reiterated the need for any expansion of the existing school to be funded by financial contributions from developers. Some residents in Etwall responded with concerns about further expansion of John Port School and the impact this could have on local traffic and parking.

Assessment Methodology

Derbyshire County Council has taken an objective, criteria-based approach to assess each of the locations. The locations are assessed and then ranked. The locations are then allocated a score based on their rank from 1-7.

Assessment Scenario

The residential developments that are proposed in the adopted Local Plan provide a total of 9,794 new houses which are expected to produce a total of 1,898 secondary aged pupils (11-18).

In addition to the possible new school locations, some expansions of existing schools have been suggested as part of the consultation. The following expansions may be possible:

School Number of approximate additional places John Port School 500 Murray Park 500 City of Derby 500

The assessment scenario is purely illustrative at this stage. It assumes that the above expansions will go ahead in full. In this case, however, it should be noted that it would also result in a residual number of pupils that would be too small for a viable new school. The table at Appendix 6 shows alternative scenarios with smaller expansions of existing schools resulting in a larger new school. Pupils from housing development within Derby City are not included in the scenarios.

Locations

Aston on Trent, Weston on Trent and Shardlow were suggested by one respondent as a general location to be considered. No specific sites in this location have been promoted by developers, landowners or their agents. These locations have similar characteristics in relation to their suitability for a location of a new secondary school. As a consequence, they have been assessed together.

The promoter of Lowes Farm suggested it could be considered as a specific site at the Chellaston location.

The promoter of Thulston Fields suggested it could be considered as a specific site at the Boulton Moor location.

The promoter of Wragley Way responded to say the site should not be taken forward for a new school. Derby City Council responded with concerns about the potential impact that a new school at this site would have on existing schools within the city. The scores of the Wragley Way location for this element have been revised to reflect these views.

The promoter of Newhouse Farm responded to suggest it could be considered as a specific site. Planning permission has recently been granted for 300 dwellings at Newhouse Farm and the promoter has advised the County Council that the site is no longer available for a new school. Newhouse Farm has, therefore, been assessed in line with the consultation response, but the scores reflect the latest views of the developer.

The locations that are now being considered are therefore: 4

 Aston on Trent, Weston on Trent and Shardlow  Boulton Moor -Thulston Fields  Findern  Newhouse Farm  Wragley Way  Melbourne  Chellaston - Lowes Farm

Assessment Criteria

The assessment includes criteria covering education, property and land acquisition, flood risk and water management and sustainable development and planning considerations. A summary of the assessment scores is provided on page 8.

Education

One of the education criteria identified in the original consultation was the impact on the rest of the educational system within the area of the new school. A new secondary school clearly has the potential to adversely impact on some existing schools. The rationale for this criterion is that minimising any negative impacts should be scored as an advantage.

Whilst there are many factors that could lead to negative impacts, many of them are hard to predict; two specific issues were identified. The first was proximity of the new secondary school to existing secondary schools. The second was to count the incidences where existing primary schools would be located closer to the new school than they are to the existing secondary school that most of their pupils feed into.

The initial assessment looked at existing secondary schools within 2 miles of the proposed new school. In response to the consultation, Derby City Council indicated that a distance of 3 miles should be used. 3 miles is the statutory ‘walk to school’ distance. This is the distance beyond which Local Authorities are required to provide assistance with transport.

The statutory ‘walk to school’ distance of 3 miles is probably not a good guide to actual patterns of travel to school because very few secondary-aged children will walk that distance to school. Nevertheless, it is clear that the influence of a secondary school can extend well beyond 2 miles. As a consequence, this assessment criterion has been amended to look at existing secondary schools within 3 miles of the potential sites.

Different to the initial assessment, these two criteria have been weighted so that the impact on existing secondary schools carries double weight compared 5

to the impact on existing primary schools. This is because a relatively small number of primary schools were affected and there was very little variation in scores. In addition, the impact on secondary schools is clearly of greater significance given the size and number of schools involved.

Any new secondary school should be large enough to be educationally and financially secure and sustainable. The original consultation did not score this criterion, but did say it would be considered when decisions were taken on when to open the new school. In drawing up detailed proposals, the site will need to be a minimum of 10 hectares to provide sufficient space for a school of at least 800 pupils with room to expand the school if necessary in the future. As the choice of site location does not affect the potential size of the school, this criterion will again not be scored at this stage.

Property and Land Acquisition

The sites have been scored with regards to land value and site availability. Sites that have high residential values will be more expensive to obtain for education purposes, when compared to sites in agricultural use. The scoring also takes into account whether a willing landowner has indicated that the site could be used for a new secondary school.

Flood Risk and Water Management

Sites have been scored based on technical advice provided by the County Council’s Flood Team as the Local Lead Flood Authority, which includes consideration of the Environment Agency’s Flood Zones, as well as risk from surface water flooding.

Flood Zones 3 and 2 indicate areas that are at risk of flooding and together are the extent of the natural floodplain. Flood Zone 1 are areas where flooding from rivers and the sea is very unlikely. It should be noted that the Flood Zones do not allow for any flood defences, channel improvements or other mitigation. Therefore, being located within Flood Zone 3 or 2 is an important consideration in assessing risk, but does not automatically preclude development in that area.

Sustainable Development and Planning Considerations

This criterion assesses the overall sustainability of the site location, including an assessment of how well the new school would relate to the existing community and planned new residential development. It is important that any new school relates well to the communities it serves. Consideration has also been given to statutory designations and planning policy constraints including Green Belt.

Transport and Highways Access

Respondents to the consultation raised concerns regarding highways access, traffic, parking and the impact on the wider strategic network in relation to all of the locations identified. Derby City Council highlighted concerns about highway access to Stenson Fields/Wragley Way and Boulton Moor. Measures to mitigate potential impacts on the strategic road network could be significant, costly and take time to deliver.

A small number of Etwall residents expressed concern about the impact that expanding John Port School would have on local traffic and parking.

A number of respondents queried how a new school at Melbourne would be accessed and raised concerns about the impact on Swarkestone Causeway (a Scheduled Ancient Monument).

Any new school will be an Academy and as a consequence, will develop its own admissions criteria within the admissions code of practice. Whilst the Authority will suggest a sponsor to the Secretary of State for Education, it is the Secretary of State who will appoint a sponsor.

The implications for the highway network will be affected by a number of factors, including the progress of residential developments underway at the time the school opens, the general demographic position at that time – particularly within Derby City and the popularity of the school with parents, which could be affected by the choice of sponsor by the Secretary of State. In addition, there are a number of different options for school expansions which affect the size of the new school and the locations that could be served by it.

This all results in a wide number of potential scenarios with variables that are difficult to predict at this stage. Therefore, a full Transport Assessment will be undertaken as part of any planning application. At that time, detailed proposals, including a sponsor and admissions criteria, will be clearer and it will be possible to carry out a more accurate analysis to identify traffic impact and mitigation.

Consequently, the criteria relating to highway access and strategic transport have been removed from the assessment.

Assessment Results

Appendix 5 provides assessment summaries for each site. The table below summarises the scores.

Aston on Trent / Thulston Wragley Lowes Newhouse Findern Melbourne Weston on Trent / Fields Way Farm Farm Shardlow

Score

1. Education - The strategy should minimise disruption to 63 7 3 6 7 4 the pre-existing education service.

2. Education - Individual communities ideally should not 77 3 7 7 3 3 be split between normal areas of different schools.

3. Property and land 71 5 5 6 2 5 acquisition

4. Flood risk and water 52 7 5 3 6 3 management

5. Sustainable Development 47 1 3 6 6 2 and Planning Considerations

TOTAL SCORE 29 20 23 23 28 24 17

The site assessments clearly identify that the Thulston Fields or Lowes Farm locations are the most appropriate for a new secondary school. Appendix 5 shows the location of the main housing developments and the sites proposed for a new secondary school.

The scenario that forms the basis of the assessment identifies options to expand existing schools to provide up to 1,500 additional places to meet the need for additional places. These school expansions are located to the west and centre of the area of greatest housing growth. The area where there are no proposals to expand existing schools is to the east, particularly the Boulton Moor area. The site at Thulston Fields is well placed to meet this need as around 2,500 additional dwellings are proposed that are located within two miles of this site, the majority of which are within one mile.

It should be noted that Thulston Fields is currently designated as Green Belt, which is a planning policy designation. As part of the SDDC Local Plan the Green Belt was reviewed with no change to this specific site. There is no proposal to review the Green Belt until the next Local Plan. Therefore, any planning application for a school at this site would need to set out the case for exceptional circumstances to justify development within the Green Belt. Because of this policy constraint, it is useful to identify a second site to provide flexibility, should it not be possible to proceed with this site in the Green Belt.

The second highest scoring location is Lowes Farm, which is located to the east of the area. It has fewer developments in its immediate vicinity than Boulton Moor, but it is better placed to accommodate demand from the west and centre if some of the proposed expansions to existing schools cannot be realised.

Alternative Scenarios

It has been noted above that there is considerable uncertainty at this stage over the pattern of admissions to the new school. The nature of the Academy (sponsor to be approved by the Secretary of State for Education), the popularity of neighbouring schools and the overall demand for places at the time that the school opens are all factors. In addition, it may be that schools within the city are able to provide places to cater for pupils generated by new housing developments on the edge of the city - either because they have places available or because they choose to change their admissions arrangements. The new school is likely to be needed before all the housing has been completed.

For this reason, Appendix 6 sets out alternative scenarios for allocations of developments to schools and how the new school could meet the need for places in each scenario.

This scenario testing helpfully demonstrates that the strategy is sufficient to meet potential demand from the new housing and is flexible enough to cope with changes in the event that planned expansions of existing schools are not delivered. It is unlikely, however, to reflect fully where pupils travel from to the new school when it opens. Any planning application will have to address the transport implications with a full Transport Assessment, based on the information available at that time (see comments above).

Conclusion

The conclusion of this analysis is that Thulston Fields is the preferred site for a new school.

As a consequence, it is recommended that Derbyshire County Council seeks a notification of a site in this location.

It is also proposed that a site be notified at Lowes Farm. This was the second best location to emerge from the assessment. This site could provide the location for a new school in the event that a scheme at Thulston Fields should not gain planning approval, or in the event that the extensions to existing schools assumed in the assessment scenario do not go ahead.

3. Financial Considerations

There are no financial implications from this report, but further consideration will be required in due course.

4. Social Value Considerations

The relevance of social value in terms of social, economic and environmental wellbeing has been considered in the preparation of this report. Meeting the current and future educational needs of communities in the best possible way (i.e. sustainable development) is central to the role of the County Council as Local Authority for educational provision in consultation with local planning authorities, which are responsible for preparing and implementing their local plans. Opportunities will be maximised as appropriate through any resulting planning application, procurement and construction process for local businesses, supply chains and labour force to benefit from the building of the new school.

5. Other Considerations

In preparing this report the relevance of the following factors has been considered:- prevention of crime & disorder, equality of opportunity, environmental, health, legal & human rights, human resources, property and transport considerations.

6. Key Decision No

7. Call In

Is it necessary for the call-in period to be waived in respect of the decisions being proposed in the report? No

8. Background Papers

A file is held in the Children’s Services Development section.

9. Recommendation

 That Cabinet notes the feedback from the consultation.

 That Cabinet approves requesting the notification of Boulton Moor/Thulston Fields and Lowes Farm as locations for new secondary schools in the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2.

Jane Parfrement Strategic Director for Children’s Services

Appendix 1

Map showing the location of the main housing allocations

Appendix 2

Consultation on the South Derbyshire Secondary Education Strategy

Summary of Comments

General Points

Overall the consultation and the opportunity to comment were welcomed. Some respondents commented with scepticism that the decision on a preferred location had already been made. Some respondents commented that the consultation and the decision should be part of the South Derbyshire Local Plan process.

There was a general acknowledgment that additional capacity is required and a new school is needed to accommodate planned housing development. One respondent highlighted the importance of timing provision of the new school to ensure that Section 106 funding goes towards the new school strategy, rather than piecemeal obligations to existing schools.

There were some comments regarding the figures and calculations. A number of Melbourne residents feel that the criteria are appropriate but the scoring has been arbitrary and subjective. One respondent questioned the pupil yield assumptions and asked whether the primary and secondary pupil yields had been double counted.

A number of respondents disagreed with the assessment of criterion 5 (land values) with some arguing that all landowners hope for residential land values so each location should score the same and others arguing that land in Melbourne should remain agricultural and should not be treated as having residential land value. One respondent argued that land acquisition could be just as costly as transport mitigation and, therefore, criterion 5 should be double weighted.

7 Respondents were concerned about flood risk and water management and felt that this criterion should be given more weight, with any locations in areas of flood risk immediately ruled out. One respondent (representing Wragley Way) argued that flood risk is assessed through the Local Plan and if sites are suitable for housing they are also suitable for a school and, therefore, it is unnecessary to assess flood risk.

Some respondents felt that it is not clear how criterion 9 has been assessed and which issues have been considered. They felt that it is up to SDDC to assess the sustainability of different locations through the Local Plan.

Findern

In Favour 1 respondent was in favour of locating a new school at Findern. Some respondents living in Etwall have argued that a new school would be preferable to further expansion of John Port School.

Against

A small number of respondents felt that Findern is too far west in relation to proposed new housing. They argued that the Findern location isn’t as well located to proposed housing development as the other locations.

Some respondents have commented that any location with any areas at risk of flooding should be eliminated.

Respondents in favour of Melbourne as a location argued that significant numbers of pupils from within the Melbourne, Aston, Weston and Sale and Davy Primary School normal areas travelling to a new school at Findern would need school buses which would have a high revenue cost implication.

Catchment areas must be reviewed for this process to make sense. Findern School isn’t within Findern Village where most pupils come from. Accessing a school at Stenson Fields or the Findern location from Findern village would be difficult so Findern village should remain within the normal area of John Port School.

Derby City Council argued that a new school in this location would have a detrimental impact on existing schools and felt that consideration should be given to the impact on existing schools within a 3 (not 2) mile radius and the ability of these schools to provide places. Derby City Council stated that existing schools (Murray Park School and the City of Derby Academy) can expand to provide 1,000 places to serve development to the west and south of the City and are of the view that a new school is not needed in this location.

The promoters of New House Farm as an alternative location argued that delivering a new secondary school in this location would impact on the viability and deliverability of housing sites in this location.

Stenson Fields/Wragley Way

In Favour

8 respondents were in favour of this location and argued that it is well located to significant proposed housing development. They argued that this location is most centrally located to all of the housing development proposed around Derby.

A new school at this location would enable children to walk to school and reduce traffic. There is an existing road network and existing bus services in place. One respondent said that a new school here should be subject to traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossings on Wragley Way. Other locations (Melbourne) do not have suitable transport access.

The location has already been assessed for suitability for housing development, including flood risk and ecological impact. It is suitable for housing and is, therefore, also suitable for a school. Other locations at Findern and Melbourne are at risk from flooding.

Against

The promoters of Wragley Way have responded to say that no land is available within the residential development site for a new school. They argued that there are existing schools nearby and more consideration should be given to the potential of existing schools to expand. Expansion of existing schools needs to be subject to capital funding from Section 106 contributions from developers.

Derby City Council argued that a new school in this location would have a detrimental impact on existing schools and felt that consideration should be given to the impact on existing schools within a 3 (not 2) mile radius and the ability of these schools to provide places. Derby City Council state that existing schools (Murray Park School and the City of Derby Academy) can expand to provide 1,000 places to serve development to the west and south of the City and are of the view that a new school is not needed in this location.

3 respondents have highlighted transport difficulties in this area and have argued that significant transport mitigation is required to deliver the proposed new housing. A new secondary school in this location would require additional transport mitigation which would be costly and take time to deliver. If this location is to be pursued, further work including a transport assessment would be needed.

Some respondents have commented that any location with any areas at risk of flooding should be eliminated.

Respondents in favour of Melbourne as a location argued that significant numbers of pupils from within the Melbourne, Aston, Weston and Sale and Davy Primary School normal areas travelling to a new school at Stenson Fields/Wragley Way would need school buses which would have a high revenue cost implication.

The promoters of New House Farm as an alternative location argued that delivering a new secondary school in this location would impact on the viability and deliverability of housing sites.

Boulton Moor

In Favour

6 respondents were in favour of this location and argued that it is well located to significant proposed housing development. A new school in this location would enhance the sustainability of the area for housing. A new school would help to enable further residential development by providing additional education capacity.

A new school at this location would enable children to walk to school and reduce traffic. Other locations (Melbourne) do not have suitable transport access.

Existing schools in the area have limited ability to expand.

If a new school is located at Boulton Moor, the village of Ambaston should be included in the normal area of the new school, rather than Long Eaton School.

Elvaston Castle is located to the east of the A6 and is, therefore, well removed from the Boulton Moor location. It is unclear how much weight has been attached to this as an issue, but it should not be seen as a significant constraint.

There is support for this location from the promoters of the Boulton Moor development, but they argue that the new school should be located at the Thulston Fields site, rather than within the existing proposed Boulton Moor housing scheme.

Against

2 respondents argued that Boulton Moor is located too far from the majority of housing proposed at Stenson Fields and there are no existing public transport services between the two areas.

There are existing schools already near this area which could serve the residential development. Provision of a new school elsewhere would free up capacity at existing schools, such as Noel Baker, which could then serve Boulton Moor.

2 respondents argued that this location is within the Green Belt and should be discounted. Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate very special circumstances and justify Green Belt release, therefore Boulton Moor should be discounted.

Respondents in favour of Melbourne as a location argued that significant numbers of pupils from within the Melbourne, Aston, Weston and Sale and Davy Primary School normal areas travelling to a new school at Boulton Moor would need school buses which would have a high revenue cost implication.

Derby City Council stated that there are difficulties with highways access. Further work on transport assessment would be required.

Melbourne

In Favour 14 of the respondents were residents from or near to Melbourne in favour of locating a new school at Melbourne. Their arguments centred on their concerns about future schooling options for Melbourne children and the perceived benefits of Melbourne and the perceived drawbacks of other locations.

There was a strong view expressed that Melbourne pupils should have access to a good local school within walking distance and that there are no existing schools near Melbourne. One respondent felt that a new school would bring added community benefits, such as access to a swimming pool for local people. Respondents expressed concern that if a new school is not located in Melbourne, children in the area (and the community) will be split between other schools. They argued that this is not an issue for the other locations where the community does not yet exist.

Some respondents felt that the number of potential pupils in the Melbourne area has been underestimated. The number of pupils will be higher as a result of speculative housing development. In addition, if older people move into new homes for older people in Aston (approximately 1,200 residents) this will free up new housing for families in the Melbourne area, which will result in more pupils than anticipated by the consultation paper.

Many respondents stated that Melbourne residents would express a preference for a new school in Melbourne over Chellaston and pointed out that Chellaston Academy is no longer rated ‘outstanding’ which may make the school less popular than assumed in the consultation paper. However, lots of respondents were concerned that because of housing development in the area and reduced capacity at Chellaston Academy, children from Melbourne will no longer be able to attend Chellaston Academy. Some respondents expressed a desire to continue to send children to Chellaston Academy and one respondent asked whether a satellite site of Chellaston Academy in Melbourne could be considered as an option. This suggests a continued wish to have the choice to express a preference for Chellaston Academy.

Respondents argued that a new school in Melbourne would reduce the number of pupils travelling from villages in the area to Chellaston Academy, which would reduce the impact of traffic on Swarkestone Causeway. The scoring of criterion 7 was criticised as this is based on a ranking, not relative values. Respondents argued that the difference in travel distances between the different options is not that great and Melbourne is unfairly penalised by the rank score.

There was concern about the level of housing development in Melbourne and a preference for sites to be used for a new school rather than more housing developments.

Against Concern regarding Melbourne was focused on Melbourne’s relative distance from areas of proposed significant housing development. 5 respondents highlighted the transport impact of locating a school at Melbourne and the ability of pupils to access a school in Melbourne.

Some respondents argued that Melbourne is not well located to proposed new development and that children from areas of significant housing development would not be able to access a new school at Melbourne. The road network south of the A50 was seen as too poor to cope with a new school. A new school in Melbourne would mean more children travelling south on 16

Swarkestone Causeway which would have a greater impact than a smaller number of children travelling from Melbourne north towards the City.

Melbourne was also seen as inappropriate because of flood risk south of the A50.

Some Melbourne residents felt that Melbourne does not have the local infrastructure to cope with a new school and the additional impact on traffic and parking. Some local residents also expressed concern that a new school would attract additional residential development which would impact on local services and the community.

Derby City Council argued that a new school in Melbourne would have a detrimental impact on existing schools and felt that consideration should be given to the impact on existing schools within a 3 (not 2) mile radius and the ability of these schools to provide places.

Expansion of John Port

There is acknowledgement from respondents that John Port is due to be at capacity within five years.

Some respondents living in Etwall have argued that a new school would be preferable to further expansion of John Port School. There is concern expressed by Etwall residents that expanding John Port School would impact significantly on Etwall, which already has problems with traffic and parking at school pick up/drop off times. Secondary pupils should be restricted from leaving school during the day as teenagers are intimidating residents and blocking pavements in Etwall.

Respondents living within the John Port normal area have argued that catchment areas must be reviewed for this process to make sense.

If the new school is at Findern, pupils from Repton and Willington could go to the new school to relieve pressure on John Port School.

However, Findern village should remain within the normal area of John Port School.

Children from Hilton, Hatton and Etwall could only logically go to John Port School.

There is concern about the educational benefit of a very large school. One respondent asked for guidance on the optimum size of a school to ensure academic achievement and social and emotional well-being.

One respondent argued that the consultation does not account for the intermodal rail head development on Etwall/Egginton Common which could result in more housing and additional pupils within the John Port normal area.

Alternative locations put forward by respondents:

o Aston on Trent o Weston on Trent o Shardlow o Lowes Farm (Chellaston) o New House Farm

Appendix 3

Site Assessment Summaries

Boulton Moor – Thulston Fields 1. Education - The strategy should minimise disruption to the pre-existing education provision in other schools. a) The number of existing secondary schools within 3 miles of the proposed 3 new site and

b) The number of existing primary schools that are nearer to the proposed location of the new school than they are to their existing normal area school. 2

Rank and score

2 6 2. Education – Individual communities ideally should not be split between normal This site could serve a 7 areas of different schools. distinct community 3. Land Acquisition 7

a) Land value/costs Agricultural, low residential hope value b) Availability of a site and willingness of landowner Site identified, willing landowner 4. Flooding 5

a) Flood Zone Partially in Flood Zone 2 b) Surface Water North east of the site at risk

5. Planning and Sustainability 4

a) Relationship to existing and planned Very well related to communities existing and planned community

Close to Elvaston b) Statutory designations Castle. In Green Belt. 19

Findern 1. Education - The strategy should minimise disruption to the pre-existing education provision in other schools. a) The number of existing secondary schools within 3 miles of the proposed 6 new site and b) The number of existing primary schools that are nearer to the proposed location of the new school than they are to their existing normal area school. 2

Rank and score

5 3 2. Education – Individual communities ideally should not be split between normal A school in this 3 areas of different schools. location would result in a community being split between an existing and a new secondary school.

3. Land Acquisition 1 a) Land value/costs High residential hope value b) Availability of a site and willingness of landowner No site identified 4. Flooding 2

a) Flood Zone Partially in Flood Zone 3 to the east b) Surface Water Part of area at risk. Historical incidence of surface water flooding. 5. Planning and Sustainability 7 a) Relationship to existing and planned Relates to existing communities and planned community b) Statutory designations None 20

Melbourne 1. Education - The strategy should minimise disruption to the pre-existing education provision in other schools. a) The number of existing secondary schools within 3 miles of the proposed 1 new site and b) The number of existing primary schools that are nearer to the proposed location of the new school than they are to their existing normal area school. 1

Rank and score

1 7 2. Education – Individual communities ideally should not be split between normal A school in this 3 areas of different schools. location would result in a community being split between an existing and a new secondary school. 3. Land Acquisition 5 a) Land value/costs Agricultural, medium residential hope value

b) Availability of a site and willingness of No site landowner 4. Flooding 7 a) Flood zone Flood Zone 1

b) Surface water Part of area at risk 5. Planning and Sustainability 1 a) Relationship to existing and planned Relates only to small communities village community b) Statutory designations Access via Swarkestone Causeway (Scheduled Ancient Monument)

Wragley Way 1. Education - The strategy should minimise disruption to the pre-existing education provision in other schools. a) The number of existing secondary schools within 3 miles of the proposed 6 3 new site and b) The number of existing primary schools that are nearer to the proposed location of the new school than they are to their existing normal area school. 2

Rank and score

5 3 2. Education – Individual communities ideally should not be split between This site could serve a 7 normal areas of different schools. distinct community 3. Land Acquisition 5 a) Land value/costs Residential medium value b) Availability of a site and willingness of landowner Site identified, landowner not willing 4. Flooding 5 a) Flood Zone Partially in Flood Zone 2

b) Surface Water Site at risk, three watercourses on site

5. Planning and Sustainability 3 a) Relationship to existing and planned Relates to existing and communities planned community

Regionally Significant b) Statutory designations Geological Site

Stenson Fields – Lowes Farm 1. Education - The strategy should minimise disruption to the pre-existing education provision in other schools. a) The number of existing secondary schools within 3 miles of the proposed 4 new site and b) The number of existing primary schools that are nearer to the proposed location 1 of the new school than they are to their existing normal area school.

Rank and score 2 6 2. Education – Individual communities ideally should not be split between normal This site could serve a 7 areas of different schools. distinct community 3. Land Acquisition 6 a) Land value/costs Residential medium value b) Availability of a site and willingness of landowner Site identified 4. Flooding 3 a) Flood Zone Partially in Zone 3

b) Surface Water Site at risk to the north and east 5. Planning and Sustainability 6 a) Relationship to existing and planned Relates to planned communities community b) Statutory designations None

Newhouse Farm 1. Education - The strategy should minimise disruption to the pre-existing education provision in other schools. a) The number of existing secondary schools within 3 miles of the proposed 5 new site and b) The number of existing primary schools that are nearer to the proposed location of the new school than they are to their 23

existing normal area school. 3

Rank and score

7 1 2. Education – Individual communities ideally should not be split between normal A school in this 3 areas of different schools. location would result in a community being split between an existing and a new secondary school 3. Land Acquisition 2 a) Land value/costs Residential high value

b) Availability of a site and willingness of Site identified, owner landowner not willing 4. Flooding 6 a) Flood Zone Zone 1

b) Surface Water Part of site at risk 5. Planning and Sustainability 6 a) Relationship to existing and planned Relates to planned communities community b) Statutory designations None

Aston, Weston and Shardlow 1. Education - The strategy should minimise disruption to the pre-existing education provision in other schools. a) The number of existing secondary schools within 3 miles of the proposed

new site and 4 b) The number of existing primary schools that are nearer to the proposed location of the new school than they are to their existing normal area school. 3

Rank and score

4 4 2. Education – Individual communities ideally should not be split between normal A school in this areas of different schools. location would result in a community being split between an existing and a new secondary school 3. Land Acquisition 5 a) Land value/costs Agricultural, medium hope value b) Availability of a site and willingness of landowner No site identified 4. Flooding 3 a) Flood Zone Partially in Zone 3

b) Surface Water Part of area at risk 5. Planning and Sustainability 2 a) Relationship to existing and planned .Relates only to small communities village communities

None b) Statutory designations

Appendix 4

Alternative Scenarios

A number of different school expansions and allocations of pupils from proposed residential developments to schools are possible. Five of these have been modelled and are summarised below.

Scenario John Port Smaller City of Derby Murray Park Resulting expands by expansion Academy expands by approximate approximately of John expands by approximately size of new 500 places Port of 160 approximately 500 places school places 500 places 1 X X X 500 2 X X 800 3 X X X 800 4 X X 1200 5 X X 1300

Appendix 5

Location of the sites proposed for a new secondary school.