Destroying a natural habitat

vulpus vulpus: the urban fox often seen
in the Horizon grounds

Apart from the mature trees that the redevelopment team have deemed redundant, little has been said about the natural habitat that the small but invaluable green spaces of the school provide. Horizon, located across from Butterfield Green has constituted in many ways a 'natural' extension of the former in terms of sustaining the local wildlife. 

two tiny pipistrelles flying next to
the Horizon green area at Prince George Road

Many a spring night passers-by have seen foxes emerging from Butterfield Green and startled by the lights of passing cars run into the safety of the Horizon green area on Wordsworth Road. Or children have marvelled at the tiny frogs hopping near the little abandoned pond by Wordsworth Road. And, of course. the tiny pipistrelle bats dancing in the sky over the ash trees at Prince George Road at dusk every summer and then flying on towards Butterfield Green only to reappear a little later.

Too small, too insignificant? We do not think so. Perhaps their imminent consignment to oblivion is a sign of the times. 

Petition

Rethink the Horizon School plans

 

We are reproducing below the text of an online petition expressing the concern of local people about the proposed development of  the Horizon School.

 

You may have already signed the hardcopy version of the petition. Alternatively, click here for an online version.

 

 

Background:

A plan is proposed by BSF and Hackney Council to demolish Horizon School and replace it with a significantly enlarged school on the existing site. The proposals are at the Planning stage with Hackney Council.

It will mean:
•significant reduction of children's' outdoor play area
•destruction of thirty mature trees, currently covered by a tree preservation order
•a new access road running through the playground, which will exit onto Prince George Road
•a new drop-off point for children and deliveries on Prince George Road
•a significant increase in traffic, resulting in congestion and noise
•loss of parking spaces.

 

Petition:

We, the undersigned, agree that:

1. The proposed destruction of thirty mature trees would be a significant loss of amenity for residents, visitors and users of the school. We believe that the loss of wildlife habitat and environmental diversity will not be mitigated by the planned tree replacement.

2. The increase in motor traffic, including service access via the new internal road, will have a significant and negative impact on traffic congestion, pollution and street safety.

3. The design, proportions and appearance of the planned building and its dominant relationship with existing housing will erode the cohesive visual nature of the area.

A comment from HiP

In response to a number of comments on HiP's position on the Horizon School redevelopment many readers expressed various positions. We reproduce a comment posted by an Anonymous contributor assuming that they represent HiP. We would like to take this opportunity to invite HiP to contribute to this blog. This blog acknowledges the role of HiP in representing parents and carers of children with disabilities and gives particular importance in the opinions of both HiP and the families it represents. 

We believe that readers will be interested to know what changes or reassurances have made their original reservations (of 14 December) redundant as all pertinent information from all possible sources at this moment should inform responses to the consultation.

Anonymous said...

HIP is an INDEPENDENT forum for parents and carers of children with disabilities in Hackney. Can anyone seriously have the audacity (evidenced in several postings) to suggest that this group of parents and trained and experienced carers can be "bought" or coerced at the expense of these children? See several comments and also posted by HiPS and http://www.hiphackney.org.uk/news.html. If there is one thing you can be certain it is that HiP is representing the interests of pupils and their parents and carers in supporting the project.

Timescales

A comment posted by someone using the name 'Civil Servant' on our post "Transparency?" provides clarification on the time available for people to comment on the Horizon planning application. We are reproducing it in its entirety here as we assume that its originator is an officer in the Planning Department. We welcome the fact that there is an ongoing dialogue among stakeholders and the Council however fraught with anxiety and tension. We have no doubt that the Planning Department will conduct a thorough review of the planning application considering the comments of all stakeholders.

We definitely welcome this flexibility. To put our post in context however, the 13-week period had been mentioned in the initial consultation meeting by the BSF team and was not premised on the current timescales and forthcoming planning committee meeting schedules. There was no intention to misinform or alarm on our part but there was definitely a genuine expression of dismay.

Finally we would like to point out though that, on the basis of independent advice we have obtained, it is advisable that  parents' and residents' representations need to be in reasonably early to allow Hackney Planners to fully take into account stakeholders' representations and incorporate them into their recommendations.

The post is misinformative as there is indeed +13 weeks of time for feedback on the proposals.
Comments posted appear to be alarming a few people unduly.

Planners review a major planning application such as that for Horizon for 13 weeks until deciding whether to approve (or not). Planning regulations stipulate that a minimum 21 days should be allowed for consultations and, given that there are Government targets for turning around planning applications, Hackney planners do adhere to this formal consultation period. Although the formal date for consultation responses (the date planners have communicated) expires on 28Mar11, the scheme will not go to planning committee until the next eligible meeting being, 4May11, so comments on the scheme are considered right up until that date (which is +13 weeks from filing of the application).

There is plenty of time to make comments or objections and plenty of time for any points raised to be considered, and in any case right up to 4 May11. This is welcomed. Please take your time, write what you think, and send it to Hackney Planners who will then be in a position to consider all views.

From the Observer; Sunday 06/03/2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/mar/06/michael-gove-architecture-in-schools

Gove is very much right about one thing, which is that the last government's £55bn Building
Schools for the Future programme, which aimed to rebuild or renew nearly every secondary
school in the country, was a monstrously wasteful and cumbersome process, which often led to
very poorly designed schools. The "creaming off", however, was not being done by architects,
who were, instead, among the first to point out the faults of the programme.

The main beneficiaries were the financial institutions and their advisers who funded the
programme, who will earn handsome returns and bonuses for years to come at the taxpayers'
expense. They are followed by the big construction companies, several of which were fined
in 2008 by the Office of Fair Trading for breach of competition law – ie price-fixing – on a
range of project types. They were, to coin a phrase, creaming off the funds of clients, including
local authorities.

This unfortunate blemish has not impeded the same companies from securing huge education
contracts, and it would be stretching credulity to think that price-fixing never now happens in
school building. …

There are also the lawyers who expensively write and rewrite the byzantine contracts, at hourly
rates several times greater than architects', and project managers, who do less, and less useful
work than architects for a similar total cost. Worst of all was the waste inherent in BSF's
processes: it cost contractors up to £3m to bid for a package of schools. They would expect to
win one in three, meaning that they would want to recover £9m from successful bids just to
cover their bidding costs.

Gove's department is unable to produce the figures on which he makes his assertions, saying
that "detailed data on individual projects was held locally to minimise the regulatory burden on
projects and project reporting". It is, however, possible to find out that architects' fees have been
between 2.5% and 5% of construction cost. If capital costs other than construction are included,
this can drop to well under 2% of the total. If, as happened under BSF, future running costs are
included in the contract, architects' fees become a tiny proportion. Most architects working on
schools will tell you that it pays less well than almost any other kind of work and is sometimes
loss-making. One says that schools work "is threatening to put us out of business".

Planning Application Documents

A copy of the planning application documents can be found at the Coffee Corner (corner of Belgrade and Wordsworth Road). The Planning Department has kindly arranged to leave them there upon the request of a number of local residents, to ensure that people who cannot visit the planning department can have a chance to make an informed decision as to whether they want to consent or object to the planning application.

Watch out for more posts on this.

What you have been saying to us

Over the past few days we received a lot of comments. We decided to dedicate a post to these as they often get lost at the bottom of our posts. Needless to say we welcome contributions from all readers of this blog whatever their opinions and we are committed to publishing them (unless they contain discriminatory or defamatory language). At a time when transparency and democracy are receiving serious blows by bureaucracies we hope to provide a space for debate. 

 

Anonymous said...

I do think that HiP has succumbed to political pressure and is no longer representing honestly and effectively the interests of families like mine. I am really angry about this. My daughter does not deserve this.

5 March 2011 12:17

Anonymous said...

I think HiP owes to the parents/carers it is supposed to represent to let them know what has really changed since 14 December and made them support wholeheartedly the plans for New Horizon. Has the Council promised more space, has money been secured for the enhancement of the little space available? And is this money committed firmly or does it represent a mere promise. Another local school had been told that £120,000 of section 106 money was earmarked for it but six years later was told that life was tough and the money was not forthcoming after all. Also, as HiP says that local residents have no grounds to object it owes to them to update them on what it knows.

5 March 2011 15:06

Maria A. said...

As an architect that has worked on many SEN school projects I think the plans posted on your blog are problematic. I cannot understand how the parent/carer community finds these acceptable. Perhaps they need independent/expert advice. see http://www.imagineschooldesign.org/29.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=224&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=28&cHash=d6282413aa or http://www.imagineschooldesign.org/detail.html?&tx_ttnews%5Bswords%5D=pond%20meadow&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=182&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=5&cHash=3b638b3ad2

5 March 2011 15:19

Anonymous said..

If you didn't believe in Santa, perhaps now you should. He certainly visited HiP bearing gifts (council grants?) between 14 December and 2 March. I am not certain if the kids will finally benefit from this. Can we have some honesty and transparency here?

 

Anonymous said...

See http://www.hackney.gov.uk/horizon.htm

24 February 2011 14:54

 

Anonymous said...

This blog post is very misleading, referring as it does to a report from last year. It does not reflect the current position, which is clear from HiP's website, which is that HiP is totally satisfied that the proposals to redevelop Horizon are very much in the best interests of the present and future pupils of the school.

4 March 2011 14:28  

 

Six Spot Burnet said...

Dear Prince George Road residents In the interests of clarity and accuracy we are writing from HiP to let you know that the information you have provided about HiP on your website is inaccurate because it is out of date. Please refer to the most recent correspondence between our chair and one of your fellow residents about this issue (see below) which explains this. As you will see, HiP squarely supports the plans for Horizon school, a position based on in depth consultation with parents of pupils at the school. Please also see the most recent information on our website on this issue. We appreciate that you have not intentionally misrepresented our position. But now you are in possession of all the facts, we would be grateful if you could update your blog to accurately reflect our position and to avoid any misunderstanding. Many thanks HiP (Rosie Graham) EMAIL TEXT Dear xx Thanks for getting in touch. The report you are mentioning is one from last year, which indeed outlines the points for the future lines of enquiry to be carried out by HiP in regard to rebuilding of the Horizon school. In the meantime we have been very active in canvassing opinions of the Horizon school parents, as well as capturing the opinions of the professionals involved in working with children in the school. In the light of the result of these efforts, we are very satisfied that the present proposal for rebuilding of the Horizon school is very much in the best interst of its pupils. There has been a petition submitted to the planning committee saying as much. We are also of the opinion that the Horizon school residents group does not seem to have and valid reasons to object to the planning permission and that by doing so they would be working against the best interests of the most vulnerable members of our society. It would be great if we could work together towards making Hackney more inclusive and tolerant of disability, with our disabled children being educated in better schools and having better future prospects....

4 March 2011 16:43

Anonymous said...

Please see HiP's website ww.hiphackney.org.uk for an up-to-date statement about our views on the school development.

4 March 2011 18:22

Anonymous said...

Last year? The report is barely 3 months old. I an wondering what prompted this about turn and the unequivocal expression of satisfaction by HiP. Council funding? Secret promises? HiP need to come clean.

5 March 2011 11:46

Anonymous said...

It's clear HiP have been panicked by the threat of funding being withdrawn by BSF bullyboy tactics. This whole development has been underhand in the extreme. No proper consultation, just plans presented as a done deal and little chance to being able to contribute any feedback that would lead to a positive change. And HiP do not represent all parents - many of whom are deeply worried about these plans. These politicians just want to give themselves a pat on the back. Their primary concern is NOT our children. Concerned parents must object to ensure that the school suits the needs of their children. The school is old and needs replaced, it just doesn't need done this way and the funding will come anyway. If they don't object it will be too late. I don't want my child corralled and controlled in tight spaces. He loves being outside.