New Build Update (December 2013) As we move towards the end of the feasibility stage, we would like to take this opportunity to update you in terms of the build process so far. At this point, all the external elements including access arrangements, parking and other space have not been discussed in any great detail. During this stage, the priority has been around where the actual new building will be situated. There were three potential sites that have been extensively evaluated and two have been subsequently deemed unsuitable by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) for the following reasons: No.1 = Floodlit 3G pitch - deemed unsuitable due to: Increased external costs due to the distance from the main entrance to the site. There would be a minimum £500k claw back to the Football Foundation. A new like for like facility would have to be provided for which there is no funding. Planning restrictions would need to be considered. South Nottinghamshire No. No.2 No.3 Not to scale
Transcript
New Build Update (December 2013)
As we move towards the end of the feasibility stage, we would like to take this opportunity to update you in terms of the build process so far.
At this point, all the external elements including access arrangements, parking and other space have not been discussed in any great detail. During this stage, the priority has been around where the actual new building will be situated.
There were three potential sites that have been extensively evaluated and two have been subsequently deemed unsuitable by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) for the following reasons:
No.1 = Floodlit 3G pitch - deemed unsuitable due to:
Increased external costs due to the distance from the main entrance to the site. There would be a minimum £500k claw back to the Football Foundation. A new like for like facility would have to be provided for which there is no funding. Planning
restrictions would need to be considered. Informal feedback from the planning authority (RBC) has suggested that this was not a viable
option due to proximity issues and use of space on the site. The pitch would be out of operation for 18 months and would be a significant loss to the
community and to the Academy There would also be a significant loss of essential revenue for the Academy while the pitch
was not in operation.
No.2 = Lower School Year area – deemed unsuitable due to:
The Lower School year area, Sixth Form block and Music classrooms would need to be demolished and classrooms moved.
South Nottinghamshire Academy
No.1uth
No.2uth
No.3uth
Not to scale
This would mean that there would need to be significant investment in mobile classrooms for the period of the build. The Education Funding Agency (EFA) would not fund this unless there was no suitable alternative.
Costs would be incurred to decant existing facilities. The proximity to residential properties would prove difficult from a planning perspective. The topography is difficult with land prone to flooding. Access rights and routes would be compromised due to the public right of way between the
Infants school and Glebe Lane. Construction access would be poor and would have a negative effect on the operation of
the Academy for a minimum 18 month period.
No.3 = Near A52 - therefore, it has been agreed that the most suitable site for the new building is the area which currently sites the theatre and some classrooms adjacent to the A52.
Having made this decision, the Academy has worked with the planners to develop four possible build designs on this part of the site knowing that we will lose the theatre and some classrooms in
the short term.
To assist with our decision making, the Academy was driven by the following key principles:
The educational needs of the current and future students have to be our number one priority.
The Academy would prefer a 2-storey build option in terms of education principles, operation and management requirements.
The Academy is committed to supporting the community but this has to be cost neutral, and not detrimental to students’ educational experience.
Option A (2 storey build) was deemed unsuitable as the impact on the school was unmanageable due to the additional loss of the existing three-storey block (English, Humanities, Kitchen, Dining room, Boiler House, ICT infrastructure).
Option B (3 storey build) could be managed but this would mean the provision of five specialist temporary Science Labs and associated utilities. This would prove extremely costly (circa £600,000) and would mean that this funding would need to be recovered from other elements of the build project. The EFA would not fund this if there is a suitable alternative.
Option C (3 storey build) could be managed from an educational perspective as there are no additional loss of classrooms. However, because of the size of the build, the Academy would be left with a new 2-court sportshall which would not be fit for future usage. In this option, the swimming pool would be demolished.
Taking this into account, a ‘preferred’ model Option C+ is now being taken to the planning authority. In essence, this design is the same as Option C but is only two storeys.
This decision was based on the following considerations:
Planners have suggested this site as a preference.
Minimal impact on existing school community. No temporary accommodation (and cost) is needed. Two storey building meets the Academy educational model Avoids topography issues relating to flooding. Will provide a civic presence to the A52 (as suggested as positive by the planning authority). It provides the least negative impact to the educational function of the Academy compared
to different options. It retains a four court sportshall. Provides a manageable construction access opportunity. ‘Buildability’ is better than other options. It provides the Academy with future expansion opportunities. It allows for community usage across the rest of the school site.
If the planning application for Option C+ is successful then, with regret, this will mean that the swimming pool will be demolished once the building work gets underway in (September 2014) can we add approximate date). Whilst we set out to try and ensure that the swimming pool could remain intact, despite the best efforts of ourselves and the planning team, this has not been possible. Given all of the constraints outlined above, prioritising the retention of the pool would mean that the new build itself would be compromised as well as the educational viability of the site during the 18 month build. Underpinning all of our work have been the two key priorities set out above, therefore:
this is a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity for our community to have a fantastic fit for purpose new school building. The nature of the building and its position on the site were our first priority in all of our decision making; and
the build itself will take up to 18 months. We have to minimise the impact of the build on the educational experience of the students. They only get one chance at secondary education and we set out to ensure that there would be no detrimental impact on their experience or opportunities.
We are still committed to working with the community to make the best possible use of the buildings and land for community use. To that end we have:
worked closely with the Radcliffe Scout Group and Radcliffe Pre-School Playgroup to explore potential opportunities for the use of our site in the future;
agreed with the planning team that the sportshall will retain four courts and continue to available for community use as it is now; and
arranged for a representative from Rushcliffe Borough Council to meet with ourselves, the Parish Council and Radcliffe On Trent Swimming Pool Association to explore the implications and opportunities within the community as a whole arising from the decisions outline above. RBC have agreed and we will be looking to convene a meeting in the new year.
If you have any questions or comments about any of the detail set out in this document then please don’t hesitate to contact the Academy using the email address [email protected]
