I have said, repeatedly, right from the start, that it was possible to rebuild on site. And you could do so meeting minimum statutory standards.Alison Connelly wrote: The PHS study, produced by consultants Atkins, in 2003 gives little detail of the current building condition. It focuses on offering 2 options to provide a low rise school which could meet current standards, on the existing site (one of the options includes an all weather pitch). No doubt they have taken into account site size, current standards and so on in preparing their report. I accept that this route presents decant issues, and that sporting facilities would not all be provided on site, but these are issues which could be considered, and possible overcome, if there was a will to do so. So let the council at least offer that scrutiny and not dismiss it out of hand.
But building to the minimum statutory standards means you’ll be building to crap standards.
When I’m working on a school design I don’t dig out the ’67 Schools and Premises Act and work to it. I work to a brief shaped by a wide group of professional and client views on what’s currently required, not what politicians deemed the absolute minimum necessary 40 years ago. I use it as a reference but no more.
In the same way I use BB82 as a reference but not as a standard. It’s a document produced in the mid 90’s that was derived from an analysis of existing schools. An analysis of what worked well and what didn’t. And the guidelines it issued exceeded the statutory minimum.
But even those are out of date. There’s been a wave of school building then, reflecting different concerns and priorities, that mean the guidelines from only a decade ago are themselves out of date. They’re too small.
I’ve already gone through those guidelines in detail. Even by those, out of date , recommendations the site is fundamentally too small. Not too small to actually sustain a school, but too small to sustain a school to desirable standards.
Yes you could rebuild on the existing site but, and I admit this is only an appeal to authority, in my professional opinion it’d be hugely difficult, hugely expensive, and likely to be unsatisfactory in the end result.
And the phrase “decant issuesâ€
We both said that it seemed an attractive proposition and I know Lawrence Marshall has also suggested it as a site. There are obvious drawbacks e.g. position on edge of catchment, cost of site purchase and relocation of Bus Depot (to Freightliner Terminal?) and I don't think there would be enough room for St John's as well which means additional costs in trying to find an additional site for it or ignoring it altogether, which isn't good news, but why do you think it is so clearly a non starter?
