OPTION 1

1. This option involves remodeling the existing building stock to provide two 11-16 units, with a separate Sixth form. This option is different from that reported in 2001, or 2002, in that it places the Sixth Form (approx. 400 students) on the smallest of the three present sites (i.e. the East site), thereby developing the present Centre and West sites for approx. 1000 pupils age 11-16, in each case.
2. Significant adaptations would be needed to the East site, to make it suitable for sixth form accommodation.
3. To enable the West site to develop to take approx. 400 additional students, it would be necessary for the present site to be developed, with sports facilities relocated (subject to the necessary land acquisition) in the adjacent "Challow Gap" (see Annex 5, Paras. 20-22).
4. On Centre site, the assumption is made that the immediately adjacent Infants’ School (surplus to requirements in the near future) would be secured to permit King Alfred’s development. Selective demolitions would create sufficient footprint space for the accommodation required.
5. Net costs: c. £12,639,000.

The continuation of education on three sites would be the major negative point against this option: the net cost is a high sum to pay for what would amount to an undesirable educational outcome. Whilst operationally some of the difficulties of the present structure would be avoided, the cost of so doing would not represent a sound investment, or good value for money in the longer term. No capital receipts would be forthcoming. This could compromise the PFI bidding mechanism and have implications for the affordability gap. Further, the "culture" of PFI would normally seek to replace premises of mediocre quality (many of the existing premises of King Alfred’s may be described as such), rather than refurbish. Whole life costs (25 years +) of refurbishment would not be attractive. A project such as this might be regarded as high risk given the complications of the inheritance, and the difficulties of bringing accommodation up to modern standards. Section 106 financial support may be difficult to secure.

Growth post 2021 would be difficult to provide for, as two at least of the sites would be fully developed, given the site space available. Long term revenue support through split site funding would be required.

Return to TOP