OPTION 2

1. Option 2 is the new school option: the wish of the Governing Body. Under this option, all present sites would be surplus to requirements, and a new school with spaces for 2400/2500 pupils would be created, probably on the airfield. It should be noted that the cost of this project is based on DfES space recommendations within its design bulletins: if Members are minded to explore this opinion further, it will be necessary to cross-check the compatibility of the Governors’ vision with DfES recommendations.
2. The cost quoted includes land acquisition, and is a net cost allowing for site disposals also. Section 106 developer contributions are included.
3. A project such as this (i.e. new build on a good site) would be regarded as low risk in development terms. However, the OCC planning officers at present do not support the scheme, for strategic and sustainability reasons.
4. Net cost of this option is estimated as £21,041,000.

In educational terms, this may be regarded as the strongest of the four options, provided due attention is given in design and organisational terms to the issue of overall school size. However, it goes without saying that opinions vary greatly over the merits of this proposal. That is not to say some of the more extreme statements should be taken seriously, or for that matter dismissed. The size of the new school (after c. 20 years) is larger than anything in Oxfordshire, but the opportunity would be there from the start of the project to minimise any potential adverse effects of size through careful design and internal organisation. This type of development is generally suited to PFI funding. One option for consideration at a later stage may be to transfer the existing sites (with a strong query over trustee owned areas) to the PFI partner to onward sell at his risk.

The early 1980’s Wantage structure comprised three self-managed schools. One motive for the then reorganisation (i.e. the creation of a single entity – King Alfred’s) was the perception of a corrosive competition between the three schools. It is difficult to say whether competition, in any future context (i.e. Option 2 (1 school); Option 3 (2 schools)), would be corrosive, and so negative, or provide a performance stimulus.

The present revenue split-site funding support within fair funding would cease.

Return to TOP