RBC’s answers

Tilehurst Globe’s Comments on the answers

1.         In what ways are the current Park Lane School buildings inadequate?

(a)      Infants

The main building at The Laurels contains six class spaces. The class areas are 48m2, 31.9m2, 49m2, 37m2, 48.2m2 and 43.1m2. They are all undersized for a maximum recommended class size of 30 children. Central Government recommends a minimum classroom area of 54 square metres (sqm’s), and an upper limit for Reception classrooms of 64sqm’s.   The two modular buildings have classroom areas of 57m2 and 49m2 respectively. 

Recommended sizes are just that – they are not mandatory.

What does upper limit mean? Surely they can be as big as you want?

Which two modular buildings? Surely the building put up in 2003 is not undersize? If so why was cash spent on putting up undersize building?

The computer suite can only accommodate half a class at a time.  Hence, there are staffing implications for the use of this facility.

What is the computer policy for the school? Surely the modern philosophy is to use computers as incidentals/tools not a separate event. Aren’t computer suites an out-of–date concept now?

The hall at The Laurels sometimes has to be used as a classroom in the summer term.

Why? Surely this is a product of having an admission figure of 72. Why not reduce the figure now anyway, regardless of re-building. As argued elsewhere 72 is unsatisfactory.

There is insufficient accommodation for staff.  The staffroom cannot accommodate the whole staff at one time.  At breaktimes some staff have to sit on the floor of the secretary's office.

The oldest part of the Laurels' building needs reroofing.  The steel windows in this building need to be replaced.  The brick work has deteriorated over the years and needs to be repointed.

All buildings need a maintenance program. This is just part of the normal maintenance cycle.

(b)     Juniors

The Junior Department consists of two buildings and a playing field.  These are all on separate sites.

The Junior site is cramped.  There is no kitchen to enable school meals to be cooked on the premises.  They are currently cooked at Upcroft School and transported by taxi.

Would the proposed shool have a kitchen? Is an on-site kitchen the best way to ensure food is well/economically provided?

The playgrounds are too small to accommodate the number of children using them.

We asked for specific information about the size of the play areas and you have not provided the figures.

The main Junior building currently accommodates seven classrooms, a computer suite and a hall.   The classrooms are 46.3m2, 46.2m2, 46.2m2, 47.2m2, 50m2, 50 m2, and 53m2, all below the Government’s recommended space allocation for 30 pupils.  In September 2003, each class in the main Junior building will contain between 34 and 36 children.

There is no water supply in any of the above seven classrooms.

Ongoing improvements and maintenance are necessary for any building. This is not sufficient reason for building a new school; this too would require a maintenance and updating program.

The floors have deteriorated and need to be replaced. 

Most of the roof of this building needs to be replaced.

The classrooms in this building are situated 6 metres from a busy public highway.  When windows which face the road are opened, there is noise pollution and exhaust pollution from passing vehicles.  When the windows are closed, the classrooms become very hot and airless.

Then why don’t you install air conditioning and double glazing.

The accommodation is inflexible.  The classrooms are difficult to furnish and to organise, because of their size, and also because radiator positions make it almost impossible to arrange furniture without blocking a radiator. 

There are stud screens separating two classrooms from the computer suite.  These are not sound proofed and noise filters between rooms.

A recently built art/design and technology room is able to accommodate only half a class at a time.  Hence, there are staffing resource implications if this room is to be used for its intended purpose.

Given the size of the classrooms, it is difficult to have flexible forms of classroom organisation.  There is little space for reading corners, quiet corners etc.

There is no dedicated library room in this building.

There is a library corridor. This is works well and is inviting and well used.

There is no properly defined reception area on the main Junior site.  Security is a problem.  Governors have taken steps to improve security, but it has proved difficult to resolve all of the problems.

If you reduce the year intake to 60 now it is possible that you would not need to use the annex for classrooms.

Two Year 6 classes are accommodated in the Junior Annexe which is situated on the other side of a public road, from the main building. Usually, an additional Year 6 class is accommodated in the modular building on the playground of the main site.  Children accommodated in the Junior Annexe have to cross the public highway at least eight times during the course of a school day.  (This figure rises if these children also have to cross over to do PE in the hall, or to use the computer suite).

This building is large enough to accommodate two classes of children.  The Individual Needs teacher has a small withdrawal room in this building.  Most of the children in her groups are accommodated on the main site.  She has to spend a significant amount of time collecting children from and returning them to their classrooms.

The fabric of this building is deteriorating.  There is a considerable amount of damp. 

This should be part of an ongoing maintenance program.

The heating system has reached the end of its useful life.

The steel windows need to be replaced.

The Junior Playing Field is situated about 200 metres from the main Junior site, and is accessed via a walk along the pavement of a public highway.  When the ground is sufficiently dry, (usually mid-April to mid-September) it is used by each Year Group in the Junior Department for games lessons.  It is also used at lunchtimes.  The movement of children to and from the field involves a great deal of staff input.  For games lessons with individual classes, at least two members of staff must be involved.

Movement of children between sites requires a risk assessment, an insurance premium paid, sufficient supervision arranged and traffic brought to a halt in Tilehurst Village. 

How often does this situation arise? Why do children need to move between sites? When is traffic brought to a halt, how often and for how long? We don’t believe this is an issue.

2.         Size of school buildings, play areas and classrooms:

(a)        Please give details of the existing and proposed primary school.

Facility

Current

Proposed

(Inc Early Years Facility)

School Classroom Park Lane Floor Area (Whole School)

Blagrave nursery

2302 sqm’s

283 sqm’s

2100 sqm’s

200 sqm’s

Playing Field Area

12500 sqm’s

(Downing Road)

5000 sqm’s

Please give the data requested –ie without the early years –the latter should be given separately

Habitat Areas

5700 sqm’s

You haven’t answered the questions so we are not informed. It would seem that the sizes of the proposed areas are smaller than the existing areas. This does not inspire confidence in the long term planning provision.

Hard Play Area

5000 sqm’s

Total

18000 sqms

(b)       It is stated that the classrooms of Park Lane School are too small for 30 pupils.  Please give details.

Space Type

Existing

Number

Size Range

Recommended Minimum Classroom Sizes

Number too Small %

Junior

Classrooms

10

26 sqm’s

to 55 sqm’s

For a Class of 30, 54sqm’s

14 of 18

77%

As stated in question 1 these are recommended sizes only – they are not mandatory.

The answer, after very close scrutiny is exceptionally misleading. The junior classroom given as 26 sqm is not a classroom at all but a “small withdrawal room” which accordingly should be small. To include this as a classroom obviously produces misleading figures. Therefore the answer is not that 77% of classrooms is too small.

If there are 10 classrooms, how do you arrive at the figures 14 of 18 in column 5?

This sort of reporting does not lead to confidence that your reasoning is based on sound interpretation of the facts.

Infant Classrooms

6

38 to 59 sqm’s

For a Class of 30, 54sqm’s

6 of 6

100%

Reception

Classroom

2

53 sqm’s

63 sqm’s

2 of 2

100%

3.         Integrated Primary School:

(a)        What are the educational reasons for having an integrated primary school rather than separate infant and junior schools?

A shared vision of education for 5-11 year olds is much easier to realise in one school rather than in two schools, however closely they work together.  Continuity and progression are much easier to facilitate in a single school rather than in two separate schools and the dip in performance that occurs in year 3 as children adjust to a new key stage is reduced as children are not also having to adjust to new surroundings and a new form of organisation.  In a primary school, children are in the same establishment for up to seven years.  This provides security and stability.  In particular, children with SEN are able to have stable support.  A larger number of teachers provides a wider range of skills and expertise.

In a primary school, older children can act as role models for younger children.

Also, in a primary school, older children can act as bullies and intimidate younger children. There are impelling reasons for keep young children secure in their early school years.

There are strong financial arguments for having primary schools rather than separate infant and junior schools.  Primary schools are likely to be larger and have economies of scale.  They are also cheaper to staff and resource.

(b)       Why is it not sensible to give parents a choice between an integrated primary school and separate infants and junior schools?

Park Lane School is already an integrated Primary school, and achieves excellent results. Reading Borough Council shares the view held by the Governors and Headteacher that to improve the quality of Education provided by Park Lane Primary school still further, then consolidation onto one site is essential.

We believe that the responses outined in 3a above are telling, and borne out through experience elsewhere.

4.         Number of children in Park Lane:

(a)        When the admission number is reduced to 60 per year, in what ways will the school buildings still be inadequate?

Over a period of time, the overall size of the school will be reduced to 420.  This would mean that fewer classrooms would be required.  However, it would do nothing to change the size of individual classrooms.  Most of the problems outlined in response to questions 1(a) and 1(b) above would still remain. 

(b)       If you are not permitted to reduce the admission number to 60, for example due to objections from other schools, what will happen?

Park Lane would continue to function with a planned admission number of 72 until the official change in number is proposed and approved.

So presumably the proposed new school is dependent on RBC securing an agreement to reduce the intake to 60 children per annum. In which case why can’t you go ahead and do it now and thereby eliminate many of the reported problems with the current Park Lane site.

5.         What opportunities are there for economies of space/staff in the overlap of  function between the Early Years Centre (Edn) and the Clinic (Health)?

There will continue to be a need for appropriate professional staff to be employed within both the health authority and the education authority, since the services provided will be different.  Dedicated space will be needed by both services.

However, there will be increased opportunities for staff collaboration (see also item 6) and for joint projects (eg health promotion activities to parents visiting the site to take/collect their child to/from school or nursery).

Evidence from Government evaluation of similar linked approaches shows that families are also more likely to keep health appointments if they are provided locally rather than from a central point.  One example would be speech and language therapy services for children, which if provided locally would reduce travelling time for families and mean less time away from school for the child.

6.         Are there any other local examples of nursery schools and primary schools on the same site?  Are such nurseries more or less successful than those with separate sites?

We are not aware of any local examples of nursery schools and primary schools on the same site. By providing services on the same site, there are enhanced opportunities for collaboration between staff in the nursery and the school, providing better continuity of provision, including a seamless transfer from one phase of education to another.  Children are likely to settle more quickly into new surroundings if they are already familiar with them.

The Park Lane primary and Blagrave nursery schools have entirely different catchment areas. Therefore these arguments do not apply.

It is not clear that the relationship between Park lane Primary school provision for under 5’s and the separate nursery school has been thought through.

There is evidence which shows that certain types of provision for 3 to 5 year olds results in higher attainment at the start of primary school; in particular that includes the high quality provision found in maintained sector nursery schools.

Why is the size of the nursery school not being increased? There is very limited maintained nursery school provision in Tilehurst, surely this opportunity should be grasped to enlarge .

Evidence also shows that an integrated approach, which ensures the joining up of services such as education, care, family support and health, is a key factor in determining good outcomes for children.

7.         Blagrave Nursery School/Early Years Centre:  Please give details of sizes.

Now

Proposed

Classroom Floor Area

163 m²

155  m²

Why the reduction?

Office, Toilets Plant etc

119 m²

123  m²

VERY WORRYING. Why have you proposed only a marginal increase in size. We are told this Early Years centre will be an improvement. How can this be with about the same space? We thought there would be a dedicated parents room in the new Centre. Currently there is no separate HT office and one combined staff room and office

In what way is the proposed Early Years centre an improvement on the current provision?

PlayingArea - Hard

Not Known

238 m²

Surely you must know.

Where is the allowance for storage for all the outside toys, prams /pushchairs for visiting parents etc

Play area garden

Not Known

122 m²

Is this separate from the Park Lane school area? It needs to be physically separate, little children need their own space

Total

638 m²

It does not seem possible that you do not know the answers for the sizes of the current nursery.

8.         Use of library by schools:

(a)        How many times has the Infants school made use of the library facilities in the past year?

Two reception classes based on the Laurels site visited Tilehurst Library in May 2003.

This is surprising and exceptionally disappointing. In particular since a large part of RBC’s argument for proposing single site facilities is based on the fact that it will provide better interaction between the disciplines. You have had every opportunity to do this with the current Laurels school/library, but have not done so.

There is no confidence that anything will change if all the disciplines/facilities are crushed into a single site.

All classes throughout the school make use of the Schools' Library Service, including the use of the mobile library.  The mobile library visits both Departments twice each year.

This use of Schools library service is irrelevant, and would continue regardless of location of the school.

A number of Park Lane children attend the homework club.

Yes, exactly. They attend even though the library is not on the same site as Park Lane school.

At the termly meeting for new parents, they are encouraged to join the library with their children.

(b)       What activities using the Library are anticipated and would involve junior pupils, beyond the current homework club?

This would depend upon the available facilities, although there would be far greater opportunities for cooperative and collaborative working between the two staffs, were the whole school to be located on the same site

Since the infants make little use at present, it seems unlikely to change much. The answers in this section show that currently minimal use is made of the library. It is not credible that this would increase beyond much if re-location occurred. The usual health and safety/insurance concerns would still be valid.

9.         Library:  What is the anticipated life of the new library?

The brief for the estimated life of any new buildings on The Laurels site will be 50 years.

What will be the source of funding for its replacement in due course. Presumably not from selling off more land, since by that time under current proposals all capital /land will have been sold off. Why cannot this funding source be used now?

Please give details of size etc

Existing

Proposed

Why were these questions not answered? Is it because the proposals are for much reduced facilities in the new library?

m²

m²

Floor Area for public use

Number of Rooms-public use

How many community rooms? How big? Public loos?

10.       Number of Parking Spaces provided

Now

Proposed

Juniors

0

To Be Determined

This is an odd answer. Cars are often seen to be parked on site.

Infants

11

To Be Determined

Nursery

0

To Be Determined

Clinic

xxx

To Be Determined

Library

6

To Be Determined

Police Facility

0

To Be Determined

If it is decided to proceed with the design and construction of a New Primary school then a study called a “ School Travel Plan” will determine the parking needs of a new school. The study investigates the various forms of transport used by staff and pupils to get to school, and ways in which the Governors might influence change.

Clearly a similar study will be necessary to determine the parking requirements for the other existing facilities

The studies would be carried out early in the design process in order to satisfy planning and environmental considerations.

11.       Single/Two/Three storey buildings?

Now

Proposed

Juniors

All single storey

Two storey

Infants

Single and two storey

Two storey

Nursery

Single Storey

Single Storey

Clinic

Single Storey

Two Storey (Located within)

Library

Two Storey

Two Storey (Located within)

Police Facility

Single Storey

Two Storey (Located within)

12.       Public Open Space. Tilehurst is very poorly provided with public open space (recreation grounds etc ) in comparison with the other 14 Reading Wards.

Now

Proposed

If all Blagrave recreation Ground and Downing Rd playing field kept as public open space.

Rank position of Tilehurst Ward for public open space

## out of 15

## out of 15

## out of 15

We do not currently hold this information. However, the work is currently being undertaken by coonsultants on the Council's behalf. The report is due later this year.

IMPORTANT - Shouldn’t these proposals take the consultants’ report into account? IE why can’t you wait until the report is out?

13        Alternative proposals.  There are precedents in Reading in which shells of old buildings have been retained, whilst providing a completely modernised interior.  Is it feasible to re-furbish the junior building, keeping the street frontage or the whole shell?

If the proposal is that the building be refurbished as a school, whilst that might be possible it could not increase the size of the site.  Larger classrooms would be required than there are at present and therefore fewer could be provided.  The playgrounds would still be too small.

Since fewer, larger classrooms are needed surely this would be possible by re-shaping in existing shell.

But you failed to answer Question 2a which would have told us how big the current playgrounds are.

The classrooms would still be approximately 6 metres from a busy public highway.

The noise and pollution problems could be resolved by the installation of air conditioning and doubleglazing.

The Junior Annexe may not be worth refurbishing.  If it could be refurbished, children would still be isolated from the main building and have to cross a public highway on many occasions during the school day.

The Junior playing field would still be separated from the school's other sites.

If the question relates to a housing development , then maintaining the façade may well be an option, but it has not been assessed as part of our proposal to date.

14        Apart from the funding issues what are the problems associated with these alternatives:

(a)        Use the current junior site (preferably refurbishing it) for the Library, Clinic, Police Facility and possibly Blagrave Nursery School.  Use current Infants site, Library, Clinic etc. for New Primary School (60 children per year) (possibly + Nursery).  Retain all Blagrave Recreation Ground.  Make Downing Road playing field into public recreation ground.  Downing Road Annexe to be used for parking to serve library etc. ie do not sell off any public assets.

This proposal would run contrary to the vision of having integrated public services on a single site.  There may not be sufficient land on the Laurels' site and the vacated Library, Nursery School, Clinic and Police Facility, to allow the building of a primary school for 420 pupils, with the necessary recreation facilities. 

This vision must not blinker decision-makers to reality. The site is too small to hold all the proposed facilities. It is not sensible to sacrifice a well-used park, and make inadequate provison in the pursuit of a vision when the site is unsuitable.

Although excluded by the question, funding would be the main issue.  Without the disposal of some existing assets, the scheme could not be implemented.

Yes funding must be found. This is a major scheme involving the future of a long-neglected local centre. It is not sensible to skimp, the provision must work for more than one century. Once the land is sold-off it is gone forever.

It would be an exceptionally poor decision if approval were given to second rate plans/proposals that are not the best interest of the whole local community. If funding is not available for a good solution, then it would be better to leave things as is until appropriate funding is available.

(b)       Retain buildings in roughly the same locations, but change the status of schools so that there are separate Junior and Infant Schools.  Refurbish junior building shell, rebuild Infants, Nursery, Library, Clinic, police hut.  Again keep Blagrave Recreation Ground as public open space, use Downing Road playing field as currently.  Take Downing Road Annexe and school hut out of use. ie only selling off Downing Road Annexe.

At the heart of the proposal lies the strong belief amongst the school Staff and Governors that there are real benefits to be had from integrating the Infant and Junior school elements of Park Lane Primary School in a single complex, on one site. 

Refurbishing the main Junior building would still leave a number of unresolved issues.  See alternative proposals section above.

15.       Funding:  Berkshire County Council has been criticised for lack of forward planning and not making provision for the future.

(a)        How certain is RBC that it is now wise to sell these public assets (buildings and land)?  Is there likely to be any future call for public facilities in this local centre?

The focus of this proposal is that there should be provision for Tilehurst which meets the future needs in a way that existing facilities cannot.  In order to fund these proposals some disposal of out-of-date facilities is required.  Our assessment is that this is an appropriate use of current resource as an investment for future improvements.

Park Lane school may be out of date but is a much loved building of character which could be refurbished for public use as and early years centre/library/clinic for example.

The playing field is an open space which the consultative report will doubtless consider to be of strategic importance in a poorly provided area.

Open spaces cannot be out-of date.

(b)       Please list the estimated capital receipts from different sources for the proposed scheme.

When the three sites were considered in January 2003, the combined value was estimated to be £4.2 million. There are however various factors which will affect that estimate. They include the number and type of dwellings a developer would be permitted to build on the sites, and the need the Council has of the agreed sum to fund the main ‘Laurels’ development.

16.       Questionnaire.  How should one reply to the RBC questionnaire if one agrees that the school should be united on one site, but disagrees with the Council's proposals, believing that a) there should be no loss of public building space in a local centre and b) that there should be no loss of open space in this poorly provided ward?

It is important that people holding a view about the proposals are able to express it. The consultation response slip allows for people to state their views in the section headed ‘Do you have any other comments which you would wish to be considered’. If there is insufficient space on the return slip we will be happy to receive more comprehensive responses on separate sheets of paper.

Finally, but of immense importance, we understand that if the public is unhappy with the proposals RBC will not proceed (at least with the proposals in their current form).

The mechanism for obtaining the public view is seriously flawed.

A number of meetings were arranged that were not genuine consultation sessions, but more question and answer sessions. The reports of these meeting have not yet been made public. So the public cannot judge whether the RBC reports genuinely reflect the nature of the meetings.

The proposals are still not widely known about or understood even by people living close to the centre of Tilehurst Village.

The principal method of collecting the public’s views seems to have been limited to a highly contentious and much criticised questionnaire.

It was quite difficult to obtain a copy of the questionnaire.

The Yes/No tick boxes to the questions were attempting to oversimplify a complex subject matter. Real answers were therefore discouraged. There was a comment box under each of the questions but the space available for answers seemed to have been designed to discourage dissent to the correct Yes answer.

There was no publicity that the questionnaire was available on the RBC web site. Even if it was submitted here, there was a flaw in the design such that you had to fill in answers where you may have wanted to give no answer.

RBC should not draft slanted questionnaires if they do not want a cynical electorate.