Ian Williams (IW), Corporate Director of Finance & Resources, LBH ( Chair)
Cllr Rita Krishna (RK), Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, LBH
Cllr Louisa Thompson (LT), Stoke Newington Central Ward
Cllr Susan Fajana (SFJ), Thomas, Stoke Newington Central Ward
Ian Sinclair(IS), BSF Project Director, Navigant, LBH
Mike Dodd (MD), BSF Programme Manager LBH
Rashmika Patel (RP), Phase 3 BSF Project Manager LBH
Kt Khan(KK), Interim Headteacher Horizon School
Pat Quigley(PQ),Horizon School
Marina Thomas (MT), Horizon School
Tim Diggins (TD),Chair of Governors – Horizon School
Karly Wheaton(KW),LEP Phase 3 Asst Project Manager
Andy Gollifer (AG), Gollifer Langston Architects
Ali Worthy(AW), Resident
Matt McStravick, (MM),Resident
James McQuat (JM), Resident
Martin Savage (MS), Resident
Richard Jeffrey (RJ), Resident
1. Introductions
a) IW introduced the meeting as being convened to respond to questions raised by the residents in an email on 21st September 2010.
2. Agenda
a) It was proposed that the email sent by residents on 21st September would be used as an agenda:
b) Below is a copy of the text of the above email.
Dear councillor or officer
Having consulted our residents group following the meeting on 9 September about Horizon school redevelopment, we would like to request a meeting to address our main points of concern and to discuss solutions. This is not an exhaustive list of concerns.
We would like to let you know which aspects of the current plans we will want to discuss, for the sake of clarity and openness:
1) The impact of the proposed arrangement and volume of the combined 'all through' scheme proposed for this site and the infill of the clear space between 64 and 48 Prince George road. The impact this has on those immediately adjacent to this elevation and those opposite, and also the loss of the amenity afforded by the trees and green space to all the residents of the street.
2) The new road, its entrance on Prince George Road and all its implications to the street and the residents. Particularly the impact on those whose houses back onto the proposed road, and the cutting through of a continuous pathway which currently gives safe passage to young children on that side of the road going to and from school, and the increased risk of accidents/injury.
3) The loss of natural light to residents immediately adjacent to the new structure, including those on Palatine Road.
4) The implications for local residents by the increased traffic generated by the higher staffing levels, deliveries to the school and numbers of coaches now required by an expanded school, and additional specialists. Loss of parking, possible changes to traffic flow and additional traffic caused by parents dropping off younger children of the new primary level intake.
5) The impact on the residents during the construction phase and associated road layout changes.
Additionally, we’d like further specific information on the project as a whole including funding sources, timescales and opportunities for further consultation on the current design, planning submission, and building procedures.
Yours sincerely
Ali Worthy James McQuat Matthew McStravick Alan Kane Martin Savage
3. Funding Strategy
a) A query on funding has been sent to PfS by a resident, Marty Slaughter, and PfS will be responding directly to the query in the next few days.
4. Timescales
Further to the 9 th September meeting, an update on the programme and further steps including consultation is as follows:
a) As reported at the 9 th September meeting, the LEP had previously submitted the Stage 1 report to LBH in August which demonstrated that the school can be built on the site to current building specifications for Special Needs pupils within the budget allocated.
b) In late September, LBH instructed the LEP to commence Stage 2 design which involves developing the design for submission for planning approval. The LEP have now appointed a contractor for the scheme and will instruct Right of Light surveys and traffic surveys, amongst others, as part of Stage 2 design.
c) By December, design will have progressed to a point at which a planning application for the new school can be submitted, following which Hackney Town Planners will review the application for between 8 and 13 weeks.
d) The design will continue to develop during this period (Dec 2010 – Feb 2011) with modifications as required to be made for feedback from Town Planners.
e) Financial close is planned for March 2011. At financial close a the full suite of contracts are signed ( Design & Build, Facility Management (FM) and ICT). Planning permission has to be granted before Financial Close can occur.
f) Construction is planned to start in summer 2011 for approximately 18 month duration and programme completion by year end 2012. Decant preparation work will commence earlier (from April 2010) to prepare off site accommodation for construction start. Timing is driven to a large degree by requisite decant opportunities and the need to prepare decant sites in time for summer decants. Summer decant allows a wider timeframe with lower risk in temporarily moving the pupils in comparison to other opportunities.
g) A question was raised concerning the basis of funding and the potential impact of missing the timeframe perhaps by delaying the programme by a number of months. IS explained that funding was virtually all paid by the government from the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme administered by Partnerships for Schools (PfS) and the funding allocated to Hackney and this school is conditional on Hackney delivering the schools on schedule. In the worst case, PfS could withdraw funding from the school as had occurred at a number of other London Boroughs with delayed BSF programmes. If the funding was withdrawn the school would not be rebuilt.
h) A question was raised concerning further opportunities for consultation. IS said there would be more opportunities aside from the normal planning process and would like to agree with the group at the end of the meeting as to the best way to communicate and consult going forward.
5. Possible Amendments to Scheme Design
a) AG informally presented some initial thoughts in sketch form on some possible changes to the design presented on 9 th September. It was emphasized that these are points for discussion and have not been developed in sufficient detail to assess cost or tested for viability.
b) Key suggested changes were;
• Deliveries to school and kitchen and refuse collection occurring from Wordsworth Road as at present rather than from Prince George Road.
• Restricted use of the drive-through access which would be for bus drop-off only morning and afternoon.
• Moving proposed parking and sensory garden in west courtyard to create a six metre buffer between drive - through and garden wall of Prince George Road houses.
• External store or equivalent to be placed against gable wall of No.64. Prince George Road, as an additional buffer and privacy screen between school play space / drive-through and garden fence of house.
• Small court created at east end of building adjacent to the extension of No.48 Prince George Road. Offset addresses potential light and lateral view concerns for No.48.
• Prince George Road frontage to be set back by approximately 2 metres behind house building lines. This affords a four to five metre margin from the new school building to the back of pavement line that can accommodate larger trees than those now planted on the pavement. These trees would be on the school grounds and subject to any planning requirements can be of superior species that would be less invasive of building foundations than Ash. Tulip, Turkish Hazel and Hornbeam were tentatively suggested. This would require the modification of some of the internal layout of the school and would, for example, mean that the school hall would need to be moved to near the school entrance on Wordsworth Road.
• This four metre margin between the school and the pavement at Prince George Road might also be lowered and together with the building would be a secure border by design reducing the need for the high metal fence that currently tops the existing wall allowing for a softer interface to the street. The space could alternatively be sunken and developed as a potential play or calming space (although this seems a less workable approach given proximity to the road).
c) AG confirmed that the intention is that the building’s roof parapet height should approximately align with the eaves line of the adjacent houses.
d) Several of the above changes imply modest reductions in footprint and therefore Gross Floor Area (GFA). The Design Team will be held to a design that meets the PfS funded 4924 m2 GFA whilst meeting that required by current building bulletin (BB102). It is proposed that this be accommodated by incorporating an approximately 200 m2 plant and storage basement to compensate. The scope for redesigning other parts of the building below ground level are constrained by budget and the need to keep these accessible and supervised.
6. General Design Discussion
a) A general discussion with feedback on the proposed design changes from 9th September was held. Other comments which will need to be considered in further design included those classified in groupings below. These were around size and impact of the building, drive through behind Prince George Road houses, management of traffic and other issues or requests in the approach in consultation and further consultation approach.
b) Size and impact of the Building
• A number of residents have expressed their opinion the school had not allowed for sufficient external play space. IS pointed out that the usable external play space on the proposed design is approximately equal to the current useable external space. KK has emphasised that the school has problems in supervising and using large open spaces and that the proposed arrangements of smaller contained areas are preferable for educational, operational and safety reasons.
• There is the perception that the building is too large and too densely built for the site. This is a matter necessary for planning approval. Design needs to interface with the street and neighbouring houses in as unobtrusive a manner as possible and a number of potential solutions should evolve over the coming weeks such as reducing the need for the large fences that currently surround the site whilst maintaining security.
• There was concern that size of building would cause significant loss of light. AG said that this was being taken into account in design proposals and needed to be compliant with current regulations to receive planning approval. A Rights of Light survey would be conducted as part of stage 2 design. MD said that this would be made available to residents.
c) Drive-through behind Prince George Road Houses
• The drive-through approach behind a number of Prince George Road houses remains a significant concern. The residents asked if options that included drop off and pick up activity being confined to Wordsworth Road could be developed and reviewed. It was explained that a number of options had already been considered and rejected due to other unacceptable impacts these options produced such as having to build up to the floors which was unacceptable for both school management and impact on neighbours. However, it was agreed that architects will review the viability of a number of potential alternative designs and report on the pros and cons of a number of options and potential mitigations.
d) Management of traffic
• Residents emphasised that despite the low apparent levels, traffic is a serious problem because the streets are so narrow. Friction between residents and other drivers occurs regularly and the concern remains that bus traffic and a larger school with more teachers/carers will aggravate these issues.
• The project’s transport consultant had already carried out consultation with the Borough’s Highways Department who were overall supportive of the drive-through approach. A full traffic survey is required to validate the approach and to fully assess the impact of the enlarged school and this is a requirement for planning application.
• There was the suggestion from residents that, in tandem with project, general improvements might be made to Wordsworth Road which is underused and felt to be “risky” for parking cars. This will be discussed with Highways but would not normally be considered within the remit of the school programme except insofar as it impacts potential use of the road by the school and related traffics issues.
e) Other Matters of Design Discussed
• It was acknowledged that amendments suggested represented improvements to the original scheme and that residents’ interests were being considered. There was some disagreement about whether these were fundamental or incremental in nature and the to degree to which limits to changes are constrained by the site.
• The potential use of Butterfield Green for play space for the school was suggested by residents. This had been discounted owing to control and safety issues early in design, but will be reviewed again.
• On the issue of what the physical boundary would look like, residents were informed that it was likely to be a low wall with a safety fence above it. Any party wall issues will be resolved during the process by the LEP Party Wall consultant.
f) Visualisations were requested using 3D CAD software, specifically the proposal for the Prince George Road elevation to enable residents to better assess external appearance and building impact.
g) Residents enquired of the best way to contact and consult with other departments in the council. Rashmika Patel will act as principle contact and requests can be sent via email to BSF@Hackney.gov.uk where they can be logged for response.
7. Impact of Construction
a) Residents raised the issue of disruption during construction, especially as a large number work from home. IS stated that the contractor, McLaren Construction, are part of the ‘Considerate Constructors’ scheme. They have experience of working on a constrained and encroached site in Hackney. There is monitoring of contractors that takes place to ensure they comply with the regulations. Standard working hours are 8am to 6pm on Monday to Friday and 8am to 12pm on Saturdays as required by Planning.
b) MD said that details of the scheme and requirements would be provided to residents.
8. Next Steps
a) The notes of the meeting will be circulated to the group.
b) Copies of sketches shown at the meeting together with the further 3D visualisation will be circulated on the website.
c) A further consultation meeting to be scheduled week commencing 25 October 2010. The date, size and format of the meeting will be confirmed. Since the meeting is at half term, school could not guarantee its presence at this point but will endeavour to follow up any points arising upon their return.
Meeting finished at 8.15pm
