Please find below the minutes of a meeting held on Tuesday 2 November 2010 between the Horizon development team and the residents' reps. Although the representatives do not consider these minutes to be an even-handed representation of the meeting, we thought it is important to ensure they are read by as many residents as possible. The text is reproduced unedited including the Council's typos.
Notes
Horizon Resident’s meeting
Tuesday 2 November 2010, 18:30 – 20:30
Horizon School,
Wordsworth Road, London N16 8BZ
Attendees: | Ian Williams (IW), Corporate Director of Finance & Resources, LBH ( Chair) Mike Dodd (MD), BSF Programme Manager LBH Karly Wheaton(KW), LEP Horizon School Project Manager Tim Parker (TP), Transport Planner, Mouchel Andy Gollifer (AG), Gollifer Langston Architects David Kells (DK), Gollifer Langston Architects Local Counsellors: Cllr Louisa Thomson (LT), Stoke Newington Central Ward Cllr Susan Fajana -Thomas (SFT), Stoke Newington Central Ward Residents Representatives: Ali Worthy (AW), Matt McStravick (MM), Alan Kane (AK), Martin Savage (MS), Richard Jeffrey (RJ) |
- Introductions
a) IW introduced the meeting.
b) The objective of the meeting is:
· To present current plans and the latest design developments drawings since last meeting of 7Oct10;
· For residents representatives to express the views of residents on current building plans and for these views to be recorded and considered by the design team.
- Agenda
a) Introductions
b) Update on Proposed Designs
c) Feedback from Residents
d) AOB
- Development in design since last meeting (7Oct10)
a) AG presented the current design strategy and a number of plans and illustrations of how the school might appear. Presentational material included Ground Plan 234-100-D, First Floor 234-101-D and Roof/2nd Floor 234-103-D drafts and sketches 234-517, 518, and 519, illustrating the courtyard and Prince George and Wordsworth Road Elevations. These drawings show changes from those presented at 7Oct10 and sketches prepared to demonstrate elevations which had not been available previously.
b) The design strategy remains that pupils will mainly arrive and depart at a secure central point with buses passing on the through-road from Wordsworth Road and exiting onto Prince George Road. As described at the previous meeting, the through-road doubles as play space outside of times when pupils are dropped off or picked up at the end of the day.
c) Following the last meeting held on 7Oct10, the School again considered requirements for outdoor learning space and operational logistics around arrivals and departures and has revalidated the overall strategy. The residents present expressed dissatisfaction that this remained the case.
d) The School has reappraised the adjacencies presented at the last meeting. This review resulted in Primary spaces being relocated to the east side of the school and Secondary spaces (which can be provided over two floors) being concentrated centrally. Each of Primary and Secondary will have their own separate play space. Primary Spaces have been split to make smaller classrooms that will better meet younger pupil needs and provide suitable space for assessment of Learning Difficulties.
e) The revised design shifts a number of activities towards the west (Wordsworth Road) side of the building. The west entrance will contain administrative functions and a school shop / café to develop pupil life skills and provide an inviting and social place for visiting parents. This also allows better out-of–hours access from Wordsworth Road.
f) Landscaping and green spaces have been further developed with boundary treatments modified to reduce impact to adjacent resident housing on Prince George Road and Palatine Road. This has included positioning the sensory garden as a buffer between the through-road and garden fences/walls of 64 to 84 Prince George Road allowing the through-road to be moved further and shielded by greenery from properties.
g) Architects have also added some flexibility to the design so at least some pupils may be both dropped and picked up at the Wordsworth Road reducing the dependence on a through-road only approach.
h) Residents asked about the distance of the building from Prince George Road. AG confirmed that since the plans presented on 7Sept10, the building had been pulled a further 2m back from Prince George Road. The building is now 4.0m to 4.5m from the outside of current wall / or back (inside) edge of sidewalks (in excess of 6.0m from the road). This gap will be planted with mature trees in front of the building to address the perception of lost greenery and to break up the horizontal impact of the building on the street between terraces. It is an aspiration that the current 2.4m metal fence topping the existing boundary wall could be replaced or removed if the area between the school and the road is designed to be a safe debarkation with the street allowing for a softer interface to the street. The architects are also looking at whether the gap could be sunk to increase passive security to the site and to buttress the perception of boundary with the street.
i) On Wordsworth Road, the building will be set back approximately 4m from the existing school wall whilst maintaining a strong interface with the road. Greater visibility from the school to the street, increased staff presence with a view of the street and improved lighting would result in Wordsworth Road feeling more inhabited than presently.
j) AG outlined the proposed treatment of side elevations. He described how the ground level will be defined by brickwork, whereas the upper story would be of very different material and will seek to pick up the vertical rhythm of the street. Bricks for the ground floor may be London Stocks or a similar traditional style brick and the upper floor will be a mix of glass with the probable use of perforated metal or other suitable material to provide screening and prevent overlooking from and into the school.
k) The revised design has shifted the temporary storage and collection of refuse adjacent to the ingress on Wordsworth Road. All waste collection and all deliveries other than of kitchen supplies will take place from Wordsworth Road. Kitchen deliveries will be next to the kitchen on Prince George Road.
l) MM stated that he had witnessed a food delivery at another local school in Hackney with a large (Brakes Brothers) truck parked at that school for at least 30 minutes to deliver and expressed the opinion that deliveries should be moved to Wordsworth Road to avoid congestion on Prince George Road. Delivery durations for the new school would not normally be expected to exceed a few minutes and are not a daily occurrence. It was noted that this sort of issue requires further work on supply and kitchen logistics to inform timings and frequency of food deliveries which would then inform management of delivery vehicles. TP from the LEP will review the desirability and feasibility of taking kitchen deliveries from Wordsworth Road and what if any standards for movement of chilled and other foods apply. Kitchen deliveries will need to be managed to limit the risk of traffic congestion on Prince George Road.
m) There was a discussion of present transport volume and changes that would arise from the new school. TP informed attendees of a review he had conducted of existing and potential future transport arrangements for pupils and staff. LEP estimates which are subject to revalidation when full traffic assessment is prepared suggest on opening of the new school there will be a combined maximum of 6 ‘midi-buses” (this is the current Horizon and Downsview total midi-buses) using the through-road with a seating capacity of 32 pupils. Other vehicles include minibuses/vans (1 each for Horizon and Downsview) and some taxis (3 Horizon and 2 Downsview). These figures have relevance to the current total Horizon and Downsview (presently around 120 pupils combined) but the net effect of the transport strategy and a rising school population towards full capacity will need to be considered. This means that the net effect of an ultimate increase of a further 25% from current to 150 pupils full school capacity will need to be modelled against opportunities to fill the buses more fully (Horizon buses are currently only around 50% filled) by overlapping current Downsview School and Horizon School bus routes. The school’s intention is that all vehicles carrying pupils will use the drive-through road and that Wordsworth Road would only be used by exception for pupil arrivals. The school’s view is that a central drop off area is essential for safety and operational efficiency. The school also believes that whether there is scope for some pupils in vehicles to be diverted to Wordsworth Road is an operational matter on which they would need control to apply discretion to individual pupils requirements. It has been confirmed that staff vehicles will definitely not use the drive-through road. There will be 10 staff parking spaces for the new school which is a reduction from the current 17 Horizon staff spaces, requiring a higher proportion and higher absolute number of staff to use public transportation, bicycles or other means of transport in accordance with the Borough’s transport strategy. (Post Meeting note: Resident representatives have indicated since the meeting that they believe vehicle volumes are higher than TP indicated at the meeting).
n) LT noted that collection of household waste and recycling on Prince George Road needs to be considered in traffic planning, design and operational management. This will ensure that buses either won't clash with the waste/recycling timings or can alternately drive down Prince George Road towards Wordsworth Road on resident waste collection days.
o) The LEP design team conducted a review of turning circles of the midi-buses and how these might inform design of driveways on the site. This work focused on the proposed through-road approach of Wordsworth Road entrance and Prince George Road exit. The review confirmed that a Wordsworth Road only entrance and exit strategy would require accommodation to be increased to three storeys from a maximum of two storeys to deliver requisite play space. The school has also reconfirmed the view that a Wordsworth Road only strategy is unworkable for operational and safety reasons if it could not allow a central drop off point and involved vehicles turning sharply or reversing. A design principle adopted has been that building height should be limited to 2 storeys to allow for Rights of Light and to avoid imposing on properties to the north of the site. Several resident representatives stated they remained unconvinced that the drive-through is an operational necessity.
- Feedback from Residents on Design
a) The residents group expressed the collective view that the modifications since the last design review had not gone far enough to meet their objectives.
b) AW emphasised that one of the main residents’ objections remained the existence of the drive-through road and that this was considered to be a “deal-breaker”. DK disagreed with the suggestion that the designers could have been more creative in developing and assessing alternatives.
c) AG stated that to some degree the use of the drive-through is an operational matter as the building had been designed with sufficient flexibility to allow dropping of at least some pupils at Wordsworth Road which reduces dependency on the drive-through only approach, although it is still anticipated that virtually all pupils will use the through-road. (Post-meeting architects clarification note: This allows flexibility to limit vehicle movements through the court and simultaneous disembarkation to speed overall duration).
d) The resident representatives did not consider that adjustments made giving affected residents of Prince George Road a green buffer of approximately 6m between back gardens and the through-road were sufficient to alleviate concerns. MM said that although the school clearly wanted an ideal facility, there should be more compromise on this point to ensure planning for the new school was not opposed.
e) Another significant issue is the infilling of the gap between terraced houses on Prince George Road and the perception that this was a loss of green space currently enjoyed by the residents. Scepticism was expressed that pulling the building back to 4.0m from the sidewalk wall, and planting mature trees in the gap would compensate.
f) There is some concern at the loss of parking spaces to Prince George Road. TP confirmed that the Prince George Road exit would require a clear 17m in clear width meaning the loss of 3 car parking spaces on the street. (Post meeting architects note – There are currently 2 spaces on Prince George Road taken up by pavement projections presumably intended to allow for persons crossing the road, which are probably not required. This would allow 2 of the parking spaces to be added, reducing the net loss to 1 space. Feasibility of this approach needs to be tested when the traffic plan is developed further).
g) Although these issues are seen to principally affect residents living on Prince George Road, AW said there had also been objections to the drive-through from residents on Palatine Road who also questioned the approach.
h) A number of suggestions were made :
- First storey facades could be made translucent in places instead of glazed so residents are not overlooked. This comment pertains principally to the north elevation to rear gardens of Palatine Road. AG commented that the majority of the elevation would be opaque with clear glass just in the 2 landing areas. These are circulation spaces so should present less of an overlooking concern.
- The fences along the back garden walls of Palatine Road houses and those on Prince George’s Road would be green weld mesh to reduce impact or an institutional feel from the outside.
- Trees replanted should be mature trees. This already forms part of the architect’s proposals and will be specified in the planning application submitted. (Architects post-meeting clarification note – trees planted at 4-6m would have a with a potential 25 year height of between 8-15m depending on the final species selection. Once species choices are made probable growth curves can be plotted. Prince George Road will benefit from larger plantings to make more of an immediate impact).
- Other Feedback and Clarifications on Planning and Operational Management Requirements
a) LT stated that some resident concerns could be mitigated by conditions being placed on planning approval and operation of the new school. She asked about the sorts of things that might be specified in planning to minimise impact on the community. It was suggested as an example that a planning approval condition might be that gates can only be opened between the current arrival and departure times.
b) MD agreed that this would be a useful and said that a paper or matrix would be prepared over the next few weeks to identify concerns and how these are managed or mitigated by the design proposals, planning process or operational requirements. SFT said that such restrictions or planning conditions would help ensure the school operational process adequately considers residents and that the through-road was used only as is necessary for pupil arrival and departures (which would only occur at reasonable times).
c) MD stated on the subject of the drive-through road that whatever formal restrictions were contemplated, the school would only need to operate the gates a short time each morning and afternoon when pupils are dropped off and again when they are picked up. This was approximately 20 minutes at each side of the day. At all other times, residents would have a fairly quiet school with very few pupils on the external spaces. Many other issues, such as Rights to Light and traffic plans are addressed as a matter of course in the planning process and building codes and other standards of good design must be met for planning approval and enforced during construction. These general planning requirements can be identified in the paper or matrix identifying mitigations described above.
d) AW asked when consultation would again occur on the drive-through approach and other potential options. MD said that meetings with the resident representatives such as the current meeting comprised the main form of consultation. There was a discussion as to whether there was an expectation that there would be another open meeting with local residents similar to that held on 9Sep10 or whether it had been agreed that the best way to convey information and solicit feedback was through meetings with resident representatives. MD said he did not recall the scheduling of a wider meeting having been agreed, but said that if this was the expectation, then it would not be a problem to present design proposals in an open format. It was acknowledged that the justification for design decisions taken should be communicated through whatever forms work best to reach residents. This open meeting will be scheduled to occur in December (date to be agreed) prior to the planning application being submitted.
e) AW asked whether the general design strategy outlined would again be subject to modification. IW said that the drawings presented represent the current plan and the design was being progressed based upon the general strategy outlined.
f) In reference to the houses between 64 to 84 Prince George Road backing onto the school, AW asked IW if he would desire the through-road to be built behind his home. IW said that he did not expect that the proposed design strategy would meet with the every individual resident’s preferences. It was acknowledged that the view of the school grounds is valued by residents. MD said that the school grounds which are quiet and unoccupied for most of the day have come to be viewed as a sort of fenced park by residents. He said he could see how this perception had arisen from availability of a clear view into the school grounds of trees and open space that is unoccupied for most of the day and every evening. This perception of the school ground as a park is for the most part untainted by exposure to the schools inner workings and operational needs. It was confirmed that design of the school is first focused on delivering a working facility to serve the special needs of the school and its pupils. As part of this objective a central drop off was considered by the design team to be the best option for the site and by the school to be absolutely essential for safety and operation. This priority and the scope for compromise has been weighed against the relative impact on the lives and interests of residents, the community and other stakeholders and the design process will continue to manage or mitigate any potential adverse impact. MD confirmed that having considered these issues and available mitigations, the intention of the design team is now to progress a planning submission that features a drive-through from Wordsworth Road to Prince George Road.
g) Mitigations were then discussed. MD said that it was important to put in perspective that the school would only need to operate the through-road for a combined morning and evening duration of less than one hour each day and this would be around 9am and 4pm. At other times the through-road would be play space with a green buffer to the back of Prince George homes. Other mitigations were discussed and some points raised included:
· Directions that buses turn when exiting the Prince George’s Road exit was considered – buses turning right would return to Wordsworth Road, which would be a shorter journey along Prince George Road. TP to assess desirability and discuss the option with Hackney Highways.
· Timing of collection of household waste and recycling on Prince George Road will be considered in traffic planning, design and operational management to avoid blocking of the road.
· Operational process could be enforced to ensure sure that vehicles have their engines turned off where possible to reduce noise and pollution from idling vehicles.
h) A question was raised as to whether the drive through will need to enable fire engine access or whether it will be acceptable that fire services would need to reverse out of the site in the event of an emergency. MD said that the building would be a significant improvement from the current structure and be designed to meet or exceed current fire regulations with non-flammable materials and features such as dry-risers/hydrants. Fire access provided by the drive-through and allowed by proximity to surrounding roads was good and that the need for large fire vehicles to need to reverse to access buildings was not unusual. TP to confirm intended fire route.
i) AW remarked the design contains recesses on the school property which in her view could create a security issue to the street. The intention is to design the building to a high standard of security. As part of the design process, AG and DK are to meet again with the Police and ‘Secure by Design’ Officers to review design proposals and to incorporate Police recommendations.
j) There is speculation by the residents that the new building will generate light pollution. IW informed the LBH have a Carbon Reduction Commitment and this is unlikely to be an issue.
k) There is also concern that the ventilation strategy could cause noise pollution. MD informed that the ventilation strategy for the proposed building is for natural ventilation (as opposed to mechanical) and a high acoustic standard of construction will be a significant improvement on the existing building. (Additional Note: Acoustics are assessed by LEP Mechanical and Electrical Engineers and Acoustician and submitted with the Planning Application Submission in accordance to Approved Document Part E – Resistance to Sound).
l) Resident representatives indicated that they did not want planting to be compromised as a result of budget constraints and would insist that mature trees are replanted. There was a suggestion that as many as 40 trees would be cut down in construction which was disputed. AG confirmed that the tree survey had identified a total 21 trees on the site and the net reduction in trees of which only one or several would remain or be replanted with mature replacements.
m) MS suggested that seating might be placed in front of school boundary on Prince George’s Road to replace a bench that was once there. AG informs this would require increasing height of fencing and may not be desirable given the need to maintain a safe barrier along this edge.
n) AOB
a) Several residents had asked if the new school remained funded under the BSF programme. IW and MD informed attendees of misinformation publicised by press and confirmed that to date there has been no requirement for Hackney to return any allocated for Phase 3 schools. Horizon SEN School remains funded.
b) Local press has erroneously reported that a 40% funding reduction might be applied to Hackney’s Phase 3 schools. At this current time, Hackney Council’s understanding of the facts is that a 40% efficiency saving figure was announced by the government as the maximum reduction in government funding for BSF schools that have not yet had Stage 0 reports approved. In Hackney’s case, the schools in Phase 3 have all moved beyond Stage 0, with Stormont SEN School and Horizon SEN School now in Stage 2 design (RIBA Stage D) so significantly in advance of Stage 0 (feasibility) stage.
o) Next Steps
a) LBH undertook to :
· Provide meeting presentational material for upload or link to the residents’ information site.
· LBH to upload 3D rendered images once produced with annotations.
· The next meeting to be held will be a presentation of scheme prior to planning application submission. This will be an open meeting for all residents to attend. Date in December to be agreed.
· Residents are advised to make comments either through the process described on the Hackney Website http://www.hackney.gov.uk/horizon.htm, or to write to the Planning Application Department.
· LBH to upload document or links onto website on Hackney’s Planning Application Process.
· LBH to prepare a matrix of concerns and mitigations (MD).
· LBH to provide LEP prepared current vehicle movements information collected by TP.
Meeting finished at 8.25pm
