PROPOSALS FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN TILEHURST VILLAGE
Responses to questions raised by the Tilehurst Globe group.
The original questions put by Tilehurst Globe to RBC are the
numbered items
The answers provided by RBC are listed in the left hand
column.
Tilehurst Globe’s response to these answers is in the right
hand column.
Summary of our views:
We feel that for the most part the RBC response is poor.
The arguments as provided in RBCs answers are obviously inconsistent from one
answer to another and patently misleading in many cases. It does not provide
confidence that this proposal has been thought through with any thoroughness.
We are of the opinion that the majority of local public oppose RBC’s project in its current form. It cannot be
justified and should not be pursued.
In particular we are concerned that the RBC questionnaire that forms the
central part of the public “consultation” exercise was extremely biased and
will produce misleading answers. The questionnaire was not easily or widely
available (see also further comment in item 16).
It is also clear from the
responses provided by RBC that this scheme is driven by Park Lane School. Our
questions about the library and Early Years etc. went unanswered or we were given skimpy information.
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. |