Minutes of previous meeting 22nd November 2004
| NORTH AREA PANEL | |||
|
| |||
| Meeting held 22nd November, 2004 at Grenoside Primary School | |||
|
| |||
| PRESENT: | Councillors Trevor Bagshaw (Chair), David Baker, Kathleen Chadwick and Alan Hooper. | ||
|
|
| ||
|
| Representatives of Panel Partners: | ||
|
| Richard Leaning – Academy Services | ||
|
| Bill James – Kier Regional | ||
|
| Colin Fleetwood – Headteacher, Grenoside Primary School | ||
|
|
| ||
|
| City Council Officers: | ||
|
| Penny Pennington – Education Service | ||
|
| Simon Holmesmith – Corporate Contracts Consultancy | ||
|
| Wendy Woodhead – Corporate Contracts Consultancy | ||
|
| Anne Blantern – Area Co-ordinator | ||
|
| Matthew Rush – North Area Support Officer | ||
|
| Jason Dietsch – Committee Secretariat. | ||
|
|
| ||
|
|
| ||
| 20 members of the public, including members of community organisations, attended the meeting. | |||
| ||||
1. | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PANEL | |||
| Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Arthur Dunworth. | |||
|
| |||
2. | UPDATE ON PRIVATE FINANCE INITIATIVE PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR GRENOSIDE | |||
| The Panel received a presentation from Wendy Woodhead, Corporate Contracts Consultancy concerning the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Phase 3 for Grenoside Primary School. A consortium would design, build, finance, operate and maintain school buildings for a 25 year period and the Council’s contracts with the consortium would include building standards, facilities management standards, terms and conditions, restrictions on use and financial deductions for non-performance. After the 25 year period the school would return to Council ownership and management. The consortium consisted of Kier Regional (construction), Caxton Integrated Services (FM Provider), Dexai (Funder) and sub contractors including architects, mechanical and electrical engineers and catering providers. | |||
| The new Primary School would be built on existing school land at the top of Norfolk Hill and would consist of a two storey building built to take advantage of the views with the majority of classrooms and the dining room looking across the valley. Vehicular access to the site would be from Norfolk Hill as would pedestrian access with an additional entrance from the park. | |||
| The site of the new building would be made safe during construction and once the new school had been built the existing school would be secured by fencing and demolished and landscaped to accommodate sports pitches and recreation areas. | |||
| The land on which the Infant School buildings stood would be sold with the net income being used to help fund the project. Although the building was not listed, the existing Infant School buildings were recognised as making a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and the local planning authority’s preference was to maintain the building and incorporate it into any new developments on the site. The proposed timetable for the phase 3 scheme was as follows: | |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Colin Fleetwood, Headteacher, Grenoside Primary School, informed Members of the Panel of how the scheme was progressing from the School’s perspective. He stated that a vision had been produced for the new school which would be referred to at each stage of its development. The new school would seek to provide an inspirational setting for learning, which was both accessible and provided a safe and comfortable environment. In addition, it was hoped that the new school would enable further links to be developed with the local community whilst minimising the management requirements, operating in harmony with the environment and representing a positive addition to the architectural quality of the village. | |||
| Mr Fleetwood stated that the school had worked together with architects to achieve the maximum advantage in terms of the building’s design including a larger school hall, library and ICT suite, music and drama studio, separate dining room and multi purpose rooms for community and School Governors meetings. | |||
| Accessibility to the school was a particular concern as children would need to come to school and go home in safety and that existing problems with pedestrian and traffic movement on Norfolk Hill might be increased. Fifty percent of children came to school by car and with that in mind entrances to the school had been considered. Discussions had been held with the community centre with regards to use of their car park at pick up and drop off times and possible access to the school through the creation of a new path via Grenoside Green although final arrangement had yet been agreed. In conclusion, Mr Fleetwood stated that he was looking forward to completion of the new school buildings and grounds and the opportunities which it might provide for the school. | |||
| The Chair invited comments and questions from those attending the meeting including the representatives of local organisations. | |||
| Dr David Dulieu asked to what extent the view from the corner of Norfolk Hill and Main Street would be maintained once the school buildings were complete. Richard Leaning, Academy Services, stated that maintenance of the view was primary consideration in designing the school and that he considered the view to have been maintained. | |||
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Concern was expressed that several of the access routes currently in use to the school would be closed and this would restrict the number of places available for parents to both drop off and collect their children and in addition it was stated that further work needed to be undertaken on Norfolk Hill, possibly widening of the highway, and that a new access to the school might be built from Main Street. The Chair of Governors added that works to the highway on Norfolk Hill had resulted in a safer environment regarding the movement of children across to the Infant School site adding that there would be a waiting area for parents away from the road as part of the development of the new school. | |||
| Mr Graham Allsopp, a parent at the school, stated that he was involved in working on the Safe Routes to School project and in the development of a travel plan for the school. He emphasised that parents and local people would benefit from a programme of education designed to increase the number of students and parents who walked to school and used buses as an alternative to the car. He added that a school travel plan was likely to be in place as part of any formal planning application. The Chair stated that he would enquire with planning officers in relation to the likely changes to the highway network which were planned as part of the new school. Colin Fleetwood added that pedestrian access to the school would be designed so as to take pedestrians away from the main highway at the earliest opportunity and that further work needed to be done on possible provision of a path linking the community centre car park and the school site together with possible measures to encourage parents to drop off children further away from the school and escort them by foot. Simon Holmesmith, Corporate Contracts Consultancy, confirmed that the highways department were one of the statutory consultees as part of the planning process and would be able to feed in their observations to the Planning Board. The Chair stated that, should people wish to comment on the proposals, they should feed in those comments to Planning Officers prior to the close of the consultation. | |||
| A comment was made that the footpath linking the community centre with school grounds was a crucial part of the plan and it was essential that funding should be found as part of the wider scheme. | |||
| Concern was also raised at safety on Norfolk Hill during the construction phase particularly in relation to pedestrian safety. The potential for construction of a temporary path into the school grounds from Norfolk Hill was discussed. In relation to the issue of construction traffic during the construction phase Bill James, Kier Regional, stated that his company had a lot of experience in building schools and that it was normal for deliveries of construction materials to be made outside of peak hours for the pick up and drop off of school children. Simon Holmesmith added that the issue of site access would be addressed as part of conditions on any approved planning application as would the general operation of the construction site. The Chair suggested that given concerns about the safety of children the School Governors should set out these points in writing to Planning Officers. | |||
| Bill James, Kier Regional, stated that the developers wished to contain what was dug up from the site in terms of spoil so as to limit problems regarding transportation of this material and in the hope that increased traffic to the site would be minimised. | |||
|
| |||
| Mr David Pepper raised several issues including the location of the school building within the site, the height of the proposed building, the materials to be used and installation of a marker to indicate to local people the envisaged height of the new building. Bill James responded that discussions were being held with the Council’s Planning Officers regarding the materials for the roof building adding that 50% of the building was in fact stone and planners had indicated that they did not wish the building to be one stolid looking construction. With regard to the height of the building he stated that a two storey building been developed partly because the site was not otherwise large enough to achieve everything in accommodation terms that the school required and that recreation areas had been sited in the lower area with changes in level in terms of landscaping kept to a minimum. | |||
| A question was raised concerning the timing and publicity of the consultation to which the Chair responded that he would ascertain details from Planning Officers. | |||
| Further issues were raised concerning parking more generally in Grenoside and strategic concerns concerning traffic flows through the village. The Chair responded that the Area Panel was generally concerned at traffic flows through Grenoside and this would be explored more widely although he cautioned that people could not expect the developers for one site such as the school to provide the answers for all of the wider problems in Grenoside. | |||
| The issue of the Infant School site was raised in terms of associated traffic from any future developments and future use. The Chair responded that informal planning guidance had been issued as to what might be acceptable on that site and which had stated that existing buildings were seen to be an important feature of the area but that any development of the Infant School site would require formal planning permission which would have attached conditions concerning traffic and construction phases. Rev. Mark Carey, St. Mark’s , asked for clarification in terms of the consultation process and whether the Church Council had been informed of proposals, given that the boundary of the school site might become a shared boundary with that of the church. Wendy Woodhead, Corporate Contracts Consultancy responded that a consultation letter should have been sent to the church as part of the planning process. | |||
| Discussion was held concerning the environmental impact of the school and whether alternative materials had been considered. It was stated that a seeded grass roof had been considered in the early phases of design although a grey roof was now favoured. The Chair emphasised that concern should be raised in writing to Planning Officers. He added that plans were available at both Ecclesfield Parish Council offices and at Howden House. | |||
| In response to a question concerning how widely the North Area Panel meeting had been publicised, Colin Fleetwood responded that parents of school children had been advised of the meeting with notification being sent out via pupils. In addition the Chair stated that leaflets had been hand delivered to residents in Grenoside on details of the exhibition the Panel meeting. | |||
| A question was raised concerning the status of the planning application and the Chair responded that given that the code indicated the application was for approval of reserved matters he would be seeking clarification with Planning Officers. | |||
| Richard Godley asked if any hydrological surveys had been done of the area given possible impact on the houses on Weavers Close and Brooke Close and existence of springs and ponds on the site. Bill James responded that extensive site investigations had been carried out and a substantial drainage programme was envisaged. However he acknowledged that specific information on the existence of springs on the site might not have been taken into account. The Chair asked if this matter could be pursued further. | |||
| In response to a question concerning the auction of former Council offices at Grenoside Councillor Hooper stated that a response had been requested concerning the successful bidder for that site. More generally the Chair added that Councillors have requested that a proportion of the revenue from the sale of the former Council offices site be used to fund community facilities in Grenoside. | |||
| The Chair emphasised that any comments on the planning application should be made direct to the Planning Department and offered that other comments be sent to him direct and he would endeavour to progress these through officers. He thanked members of the public and Council Officers together with representatives from Kier Regional and Academy Services for their attendance. | |||
|
| |||
3. | DATE OF NEXT MEETING | |||
| The next meeting of the Area Panel would be held at Stannington on Wednesday 15th December 2004 starting at 4.00pm. | |||