PROPERTY APPRAISAL

1. Secondary education in the Wantage area is provided by King Alfred College from a number of sites. Three of these contain the built accommodation and are referred to by the College as Centre Site, West Site and East Site. Some of the land used by King Alfred’s College is owned by local Trustees, as are parts of the adjoining Wantage Infants’ School Site. Accommodation tailored for the Sixth Form is within Centre Site but, due to pressure of numbers, other accommodation on Centre Site is shared by pre and post 16 pupils.
2. The Leisure Centre next to the Centre Site has a Joint Use Agreement between the Vale of White Horse District Council (VoWHDC) and Oxfordshire County Council (OCC). Some physical education curriculum takes place in the Leisure Centre.
3. The Director of Environmental Services has been consulted for a preliminary assessment of the areas of the existing sites where buildings could be developed, extended or modified. These comments are incorporated as relevant in Annexes 7-10. The Director of Environmental Services does not support a single "Green Field" secondary school to serve Wantage and Grove, for strategic and sustainability reasons. He prefers a separate secondary school for each town. Nor does he support any option which retains servicing Grove’s secondary education needs from Wantage.
4. The first Deposit Draft of the VoWHDC Local Plan indicated an objective to make provision for secondary education in Grove as a part of major allocation for development to the west side of Grove.

Centre Site

Description

5. The Centre Site in the centre of Wantage and, for the purposes of the study, includes the sites of the Play Group, Infants’ School, main school and the Sixth Form Centre at Portway. The site does not have playing fields but pupils use easily accessible generous fields opposite. Some of these playing fields are leased in by the County Council. The Centre Site and Infants’ School have Listed Buildings that are used for education. The other buildings on the site include an incoherent mixture of 1960s and 1970s blocks.
6. The Sixth Form Block was designed for the purpose at a time when fewer pupils stayed on into Sixth Form. Consequently, the teaching spaces do not comfortably accommodate the group sizes in the current curriculum and the block is not large enough to offer the range of subjects currently on offer. Although the Sixth Form makes use of other spaces at Centre Site, the range of subjects offered is compromised by the nature and size of the accommodation.

Access

7. Vehicular access to Centre Site is from Portway. Vehicular egress, following the school’s current traffic management system, is via Locks Lane. Large construction vehicles would find the egress difficult to negotiate. An alternative is available – access and egress from Portway using the junction immediately opposite Sixth Form Block. Pedestrian access across the sites negotiates a small change in level using ramps and steps. Pupils have to cross Portway to get to the current Sixth Form Block.
8. There is disabled access to some of the ground floor levels of the existing buildings. As there are no lifts, wheelchair access to the classrooms and resources of the multi storey blocks above ground level is impossible. Steps between the single-storey Sixth Form Block and the Leisure Centre make it unsuitable for wheelchairs. The school currently copes with wheelchair bound pupils by having subjects taught in the ground floor classrooms, although this compromises the resources available.

Condition

9. The Area Building Surveyor has reviewed the condition of the buildings on the Centre Site. The Centre Site has many of the oldest and most costly to maintain buildings. The older Listed buildings have recurring water-tightness problems. The 1970s roadside building has a drainage problem. The Sixth Form Block suffers more than most from vandalism out of school hours. In contrast, the Infants’ School does not have particular maintenance problems.

Educational Development Potential

10. Three of the options explored in the study require the modification of Centre Site accommodation. In each of Options 1, 3 and 4, the current site accommodation is inadequate. There would be a shortage of playing fields at the Centre Site if it were to be a ‘stand-alone’ school. This shortfall may attract DfES and Sport England objection to any planning application and redefinition of school boundaries.
11. The Listed Building on the main site restricts building development in its immediate vicinity. The Director of Environmental Services confirms that the 1970 extension to the original school and chapel is listed because it is attached to the listed buildings. He considers that new buildings in the vicinity of the Listed Building could be acceptable if next to the 1970s block. New build would not be permitted next to the original buildings.
12. The single-storey block housing the Special Needs resources area, the drama studio and the inadequate dining facilities could be demolished and replaced by a two or three storey building with a bigger footprint. Any development would have to be sensitive to the Listed Building.
13. The four-storey general teaching classroom block could be demolished and replaced by a building with a smaller footprint of less than four storeys. The Director of Environmental Services view is that current legislation would probably inhibit such a large building in this location. Any redevelopment would have to protect the surrounding Beech trees and would have to be outside the canopy of any remaining after selected removal of some of the trees.
14. The current open space between the Centre Site and the Infants’ School has strong development potential and could accommodate a two-storey building. Fire access would be required if a hydrant system were not available. The Infants’ School site comprises two main areas – another Listed Building and a 1960s classroom block. The latter could be demolished and replaced with a single-storey block. The Listed Building could not be demolished nor developed with adjoining buildings, and may not be available (see Annex 4, Assumption 11).
15. The Sixth Form Block could be demolished and replaced by a larger two-storey building with a larger footprint. Any new building must not encroach further onto the adjacent open space and must be sensitive to views across the space – in particular to the mass of the adjacent elevation. The road to the Leisure Centre could marginally realigned to release a small additional area for a re-developed Sixth Form block.
16. If the Playgroup lease could be extinguished there would be a further area for a new single-storey building.

West Site

Description

17. The buildings at West Site are on the edge of Wantage next to the draft Local Plan’s ‘strategic gap’ between Wantage and East Challow. The playing field is part of the Gap. The eastern part of the site is separated from residential development and allotment gardens by a hedgerow and trees. The southern and western boundaries border agricultural land. The sole vehicular access and egress are on the northern boundary. The site is self-contained and owned by OCC. The buildings on the site were mainly built in the 1960s and 1970s with minor extensions added in more recent years. There is only one two-storey building on the site, the remainder being single-storey.

Access

18. Vehicular access to the School and for staff car parking is via dedicated ‘in’ and ‘out’ gates. Vehicular access to the rest of the site is possible because of the loose knit arrangement of the buildings. There is vehicular access to the west of the site for kitchen and Science resource deliveries to the centre of the site for the Technology Department, and around the eastern perimeter to service the Gym and playing fields. There is good pedestrian access over the site – the levels on the built part of the site being fairly flat. External circulation is required between the various blocks. Disabled ‘wheelchair-bound’ access to all ground floor accommodation is available but the two-storey block does not have a lift for access to the first floor.

Condition

19. The Area Building Surveyor has reviewed the condition of the buildings.

The Site used to suffer damage and maintenance problems but these have been resolved in recent years. The site is regarded by the Surveyor as the easiest to maintain of the three sites.

Educational Development Potential

20. Two of the options in the study require the modification of West Site accommodation. In Options 1 and 4, the current site accommodation is inadequate.
21. There would be a playing field shortage at West Site under both retention options (1 and 4). This shortfall could attract objections from DfES and Sport England to any planning applications. In theory adjacent agricultural land could be acquired to offset the shortfall but this may not be possible. Compulsory purchase of the land would be impeded by the VoWHDC having identified a potential site for a new school in their publication of the draft Local Plan. The legal powers are being researched further.
22. The Director of Environmental Services would not object to rationalisation of the parking and planting at the front of the school. He would not object to this rationalisation if it were accompanied the proposal to build a large Sports Hall on the front of the school (as would be required in pursuit of Options 1 and 4). Such frontage development must avoid removal of the two mature evergreen trees behind the current car park. A third evergreen tree, set back behind the others, may be removed to establish a new frontage building line.
23. Development on the east side of the site would be difficult because of the proximity of the residential development. Two-storey development to the rear of the built area of the site would be acceptable. There is another area of potential development on the west of the site which is currently occupied by a temporary classroom block. Its removal would offer space for a larger footprint single-storey block.

East Site

Description

24. East Site has its own playing fields and is ‘landlocked’ within perimeter residential development except for a street frontage to Springfield Road. Most of the buildings on site were constructed in the 1960s. An Adult Education Centre is accessed from the side of the site. A Youth Centre is also located on the site.

Access

25. The sole vehicular access from Springfield Road has a ‘drop-off’ layout with dedicated ‘in’ and ‘out’ gates. Vehicular access to the rear of the site is not possible without major demolition of school buildings or acquisition of a house not owned by OCC. There is vehicular access to the side of the accommodation to service the Technology Departments. Pedestrian circulation around the school is clear of vehicular circulation routes. These are predominantly external routes. Disabled wheelchair-bound access is available to most of the blocks on site but the two-storey blocks do not have lifts.

Condition

26. The Area Building Surveyor has reviewed building condition. In general, the buildings do not demand greater than average maintenance. Restricted vehicular access to the rear of the site affects the ease of maintenance, and future development potential. The site includes a swimming pool which is not used. Lack of maintenance will create a future liability. The site also includes a number of very poor quality temporary or prefabricated buildings which are heavily used and in need of urgent replacement.

Educational Development Potential

27. Only Option 1 of the four options explored requires use of East Site. Some additional construction and modification of the existing buildings would be required in pursuit of Option 1. The playing field provision is adequate for the requirement associated with Option 1. The buildings, apart from the temporary and prefabricated classrooms, were built in a consistent style – appearing to represent the most coherent architecture of the three sites. There is a small hall and a small gym close to the disused swimming pool, but both are too small for effective use. This area fronts onto Springfield Road. These could be rationalised by extension or selective demolition to ‘tidy’ up the street frontage. The tennis courts to the rear of the site would be lost if new buildings extended onto them.
28. There is no frontage space for a Sports Hall and changing rooms, if required (Option 1 uses the site for Sixth Form work). The Director of Environmental Services thinks that this large block may be built at the rear of the developed part of the site. The public would have to walk through the existing lobby of the school if public access were required. Hard play areas for games/tennis courts would have to be relocated. Some of the temporary/prefabricated classroom blocks could not be rebuilt on the same footprint without inviting residential objection and requiring fireproof construction to meet Building Regulations Approval. The Youth Centre could continue with Option 1.

Greenfield Site

Description

28. The first deposit draft Local Plan published by VoWHDC in November 2002 identifies an area of land west Grove for development and identifies land for a secondary school of unspecified size.

It appears that this allocated land may be sufficient for Options 2 or 3.

Access

29. Although no detailed vehicular access is evident, it is likely that a new school could be designed with a satisfactory vehicular access. Similarly pedestrian routes within the new schools Options 2 or 3 would satisfy all current legislation and the OCC Draft Secondary School Brief. Design of the new buildings would meet current legislation in providing access for people with disabilities. However, the planning view (Annex 8) needs to be considered carefully.
    
    Return to TOP