Return to Agenda

Return to EX8

ITEM EX8 - ANNEX 1

EXECUTIVE – 6 FEBRUARY 2002

KING ALFRED’S COMMUNITY AND SPORTS COLLEGE, WANTAGE

 

Costs and Receipts

  1. The table below summarises the researched options, with an indication of estimated costs:

"High net costs" = higher cost estimate, less low receipt estimate; "Low net costs" = lower costs estimate, less high receipt estimate.

    1. For planning at this stage, it would be advisable to assume the high net costs most likely matches reality.

      2. All cost estimates assume adherence to DfES guidelines on school premises.

      Costs have been calculated on a per pupil basis at this stage. The pupil place multipliers used are DfES ranges (inclusive of 5% area cost uplift): £7,875 - £10,500 (age 11 – 16), and £10,250 - £14,175 (16+). There are a number of variables which in reality determine where in any range the actual figure may lie (site conditions, balance of specialist v. general teaching spaces to be provided, extent of alterations required). The individual secondary schemes within the City Reorganisation have actually varied in cost from £5,500 to £12,500 per place, because of the cost impact of differing variables. DfES ACG allocations are near the lower end of each range.

      Site acquisition costs for any new Grove school, or West site expansion, are not included at this stage, and, it is too early to calculate the extent to which any Section 106 discussions might be of benefit in this respect.

    2. The single biggest factor affecting potential receipts is the proportion of the disposable areas upon which planning permission for residential housing could be secured. Lower estimates assume only currently developed areas would be appropriate for housing development, whereas higher receipts assume the playing fields can also be developed. Reality is likely to favour the low receipt position. No assumption has been made of any development of playing fields on the West school site, if sold, because the fields so affected are designated in the local plan as part of the strategic gap between Wantage and East Challow. Further, no assumption has been made of any playing field sale on the centre site: it is not realistic to assume consent would be forthcoming for development on this land. Thus, it is the value of East site (common to all options) which could vary significantly, depending on development permissions.

  1. The Options

Option

Present Sites

Net Costs

Note

Retained

Surplus

High

Low

(i) Single site new school

Nil

All

£17.32m

£6.16m

(i)

(ii) 11 – 16 school at West site

11 – 16 school in Grove

Sixth form attached to West site

W

E

Centre

£15.65m

£5.83m

(ii)

  1. 11 – 16 school at Centre site

    2. 11 – 16 school in Grove

    Sixth form attached to Centre site

 

Centre

E

W

£11.85m

£2.21m

(iii)

  • Centre as Option (iii)

    • Use West site in lieu of Grove

    Centre

    W

    E

    £ 9.85m

    £1.88m

    (iv)

     

    Note (i): The cost estimates for the single site new school have been based on a total roll of 2350 students (13 f.e and sixth form of 400), the site to be identified. DfES guidelines for the provision of playing fields, hard surfaced areas, informal and social areas, and gross building areas have been used. Land acquisition costs are not included. Looking ahead, this option has the flexibility required (paragraph 4) IF sufficient land is acquired, and if a school of – say – 2500 is acceptable.

    Note (ii): This option involves developing the current west site (capacity c. 600 students) to accommodate an 11 – 16 school of 900 students (6 f.e.), a 7 f.e. school to be created on a site not yet identified in the Grove area, with a sixth form of 400 attached to West site. Site/land acquisitions costs are not included. As noted above, the West site is immediately adjacent to the "Challow Gap", in which it must be assumed development will not be permitted. The viability of this option accordingly depends on the necessary approvals being forthcoming for development of the existing school campus to take higher number of pupils, with the relocation of playing field/recreation areas into the Challow Gap area. As described, this option does not score well on future flexibility, because of the West site development constraint, though this comment may need to be tempered in the light of more detailed planning guidance on just how much development might be permitted on existing OCC land, and on whether it proves possible to relocate recreation land into the "Gap". Provided sufficient land was acquired, it would be possible to provide the area sixth form at the new Grove school, rather than at West site. This would improve future flexibility. Costs would be as reported in the table (i.e. provide 400 place sixth form in Grove in lieu of West).

    Note (iii): Under this model, the present centre site would be developed as a 6 f.e. 11 – 16 unit, with area sixth form attached, with a free-standing 7 f.e. 11 – 16 school on the new site in Grove. It is assumed that centre site development would necessitate taking over the site of the Wantage CE Infants School (immediately adjacent to the centre site), this being surplus to requirements in the near future. The sale of the Infants site has been agreed as a part of the consolidation of the Wantage Church schools onto a single site (Newbury Street). It would be necessary to purchase the site from the trustees by the summer of this year. It is important to note that a more detailed feasibility exercise would be required before confirming the realism of this option. The centre site is one upon which it is virtually impossible to assess in terms of potential capacity based on site area. There is ample recreation space upon which development for school purposes is assumed to be a non-starter and the built area is constrained. This particular option would give a better "spread" of schools (one closely allied to Grove community, the other near the centre of Wantage). Again, land acquisition costs for the new Grove school are not included. Acquisition of the Infants school site is included. As in option (ii), it would be operationally more flexible, within similar costs, to provide the sixth form in the Grove school.

    Note (iv) Centre site developed as in Option (iii).

    West developed as 11 – 16 school in lieu of new Grove school.

    This option is the least flexible of the four considered in this paper, though comments on the Challow Gap need to be recalled.

    Note (v) The Sixth Form and Governance: Options (ii)-(iv) each involves two 11 – 16 "units", and a single area sixth form (of 400). A sixth form of this size may be possible to organise as 2 x 200 (Didcot is an example of where two legally separate sixth forms operate successfully as a joint unit, for the benefit of students). In terms of governance, two schools could operate in direct competition but also the potential now exists for the schools to operate under a single headteacher, and with unified decision making (i.e. close collaboration).

    1. The centre site is owned by trustees. The precise position of the trustees on these questions is not yet clear. If either option (i) or (ii) were to be developed further, clarity would be needed in that disposal of the centre site would be required. Some of the centre buildings there are listed, and estimates of potential capital receipt have assumed these are converted into flats, and that there is no requirement for social housing units. The remainder of the site is assumed to be appropriate for high density residential development with 40% social housing. The sixth form block on the south side of Portway has been assumed to be retained for community use. The sports centre is excluded from the calculations. The land here is leased to OCC and the District Council by the trustees. The centre is subject to a joint use agreement. Any financial and legal implications of the school’s rationalisation leading to the County Council not using this centre have not yet been assessed.

    Return to TOP