Schools' Proposed Relocation Map

Briefing Note for Local Planning Authority - March 2008

Planning Context

Government Green Belt Policy – PPG2

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. (para 1.4)
The purposes of including land in Green Belts [checking unrestricted urban sprawl, preventing neighbouring towns from merging, safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, preserving the setting of historic towns, encouraging recycling of urban land] are of paramount importance to their continued protection, and should take precedence over land use objectives. (para 1.7)
The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead. (para 2.1)
Once the general extent of the Green Belt has been approved it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. If such an alteration is proposed the Secretary of State will wish to be satisfied that the authority has considered opportunities for development within urban areas. (para 2.6)
Where existing local plans are being revised and updated, existing Green Belt boundaries should not be changed unless … other exceptional circumstances exist, which necessitate such revision. (para 2.7)
The general policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. (para 3.1)
The construction of new buildings within a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for the following purposes:

agriculture and forestry
essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation
limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings
limited infilling in existing villages and limited affordable housing
limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites (para 3.4)

ODPM Circular 11/2005 – The Town and Country Planning (Green Belt) Direction 2005

Save for a few specific exceptions, as detailed in para 3.4 of PPG2, the construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate development. (para 3 of the circular)
The effect of the direction is to require local planning authorities to refer any planning application which falls within para 3 of the Direction, and in respect of which the authority does not propose to refuse planning permission, to the Secretary of State at the appropriate regional Government Office… (para 8 of the circular)
If it appears that the application is for inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the authority should than decide whether the development would significantly impact on the openness of the Green Belt. ...The magnitude of impact is likely to be heightened if the Green Belt is narrow, or partly confined by existing (or planned) development, or if it is prominent in the landscape at the development site. Potential impacts will also be greater if the development site is overlooked by or close to residential development … (para 11 of the circular)
In considering the scale of the development, regard should be had to the bulk, form and height of the building or buildings ... For example ... a large single storey warehouse with a total floor space of 1000 square metres or less, may have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt (para 12 of the circular)
Where it will involve intensive on-site activity, large numbers of parked vehicles, considerable transport movements to, from, or around the site … it will have a potentially significant impact on the Green Belt, even if any building constructed is below the floor space threshold in para 3 (a) of the Direction. (para 12 of the circular)
In deciding whether a planning application should be referred to the Secretary of State under para 3(b) of the Direction, an authority should take account of all the above considerations, regardless of the very special circumstances which it may consider exist to justify the grant of planning permission. (para 17 of the circular)
This Direction shall apply to any application for planning permission involving inappropriate development on land allocated as Green Belt in an adopted local plan ... which would involve:

the construction of a building or buildings with a floor space of more than 1000 square metres; or
any other development which, by reason of its scale or nature or location, would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Where a local planning authority does not propose to refuse an application for planning permission to which this Direction applies, that planning authority shall first consult the [First] Secretary of State. (paras 3 and 4 of the Direction)

The East Herts Local Plan Adopted in April 2007

All of which bring into question, in my (the Inspector's) view, the planning wisdom of Policy BIS 24 and of the proposal to remove the [Whittington Way] site from the Green Belt. This is a long established area of protected land, serving well-defined Green Belt functions. While not taking issue with the educational reasons for locating the two schools in this area, I do not accept that it is necessary to remove land from the Green Belt to enable the secondary school needs of the town to be met. The Green Belt designation should remain; the circumstances of educational need, as well as the impact on the Green Belt could be considered in the context of a planning application. After all there are examples of educational establishments within the Green Belt elsewhere in the District, and the Council is able to exercise the level of control necessary in such locations. On the other hand, removal of the site from the Green Belt, to accommodate the identified need, weakens the Council’s position in safeguarding the principle and permanence of the Green Belt. Other pressing needs could just as well prevail on this approach in arguing for further Green Belt releases… My views above lead me to conclude that Policy BIS 24 should be deleted. (paras 11.48.7 and 9 of the Inspector’s conclusions on this issue in her report on the local plan)
Recommendation – Delete Policy BIS24. Modify the Proposals Map by including Site 571 in the Green Belt(paras 11.48.10 and 11 in the Inspector’s report on the local plan)
Recommendation – The Reserve Secondary School Site, Hadham Road, as defined on the Proposals Map, is reserved for residential development as a Phase II site and will only be released for development if sufficient additional secondary school capacity is provided elsewhere in the town (para 11.22.7 of the Inspector’s report on the local plan)
The Inspector’s recommendations have been incorporated in the local plan adopted by EHDC in April 2007.
The local plan makes no provision for any alternative use for the two sites currently occupied by the Boys’ High School and the Herts and Essex School nor for the use of the separate Herts and Essex School playing field site in Beldams Lane. In addition therefore to the use of the Green Belt site in Whittington Way for educational purposes, any alternative use of the three sites which the schools would vacate as a result would also represent major departures from the recently adopted local plan.

What the Proposal Would Deliver Top

Any argument that there is no available site within the existing built up area of the town large enough for a 3000 student campus may be true but is entirely irrelevant. The two foundation schools are under no compulsion either to expand or move.
The only potentially relevant argument for their relocating on to the Green Belt is that it provides a means of delivering an additional 6 FE (forms of entry of 30 pupils) of secondary school places.
Without the shortfall in places which this scheme aims to meet, the proposed relocation on to Green Belt land would not be entertained for a moment, in view of the clearest possible intentions of Government policy that Green Belt land should not be developed.
If there is a viable alternative way of providing for the shortfall in school places without encroaching on to Green Belt land there would be no exceptional reason for setting aside the protection which should always apply to Green Belt land.

The Shortfall in School Places Top

Bishop's Stortford has a shortfall in secondary school places as a result of past and prospective decisions about the allocation of housing to the town and to neighbouring communities such as Stansted Mountfitchet.
The Audit Commission recommends that there should be a 5 – 10% surplus of places over actual requirements to cater for parental choice. HCC adopts a margin of 7%. (Evidence of the LEA to the EiP of the local plan)
In 2004/05 the capacity in our area (reduced by the 7% margin) was 5489 places. The actual requirement in 2004/05 was for 5663 places – an excess of 174 places, equivalent to 6 FE. (Evidence of the LEA to the EiP of the local plan)
The LEA forecast that the shortfall in places would continue to increase with an absolute shortage of places even with no margin for parental choice by 2008/09. (Post meeting note. The LEA’s evidence also indicated an absolute shortfall of 270 places (9 FE) without allowing for parental choice by 2011/12. Even with the expansion of Birchwood by 3 FE, this means that there will still be an absolute shortfall of 6 FE without parental choice by 2011/2012).
There is therefore a requirement to provide an additional 6 FE for Bishop's Stortford now, even though the schools relocation proposal does not contemplate doing so until 2021.

Viability and School Size Top

The LEA claim that the minimum viable size for a new school is 6 FE (about 1200 pupils in total). Their own evidence to the EiP shows that demand for that number of additional school places already exists in the area.
Arguably, 6 FE ought to be regarded as the maximum viable size of school not the minimum. Hockerill Anglo European College is one of the most successful schools in the country and has just received an outstanding Ofsted report. Its students take the international baccalaureat which requires it to support a broader 6th form curriculum than schools which take A levels. It has only 4 FE, about 750 students, and has resisted calls from the LEA to expand because it believes that the quality of education would suffer.
Lessons from the Front published by the Teach First organisation in November 2007 has the following to say about large schools:
[Economies of scale] is an oft cited but potentially misleading argument... the tendency is for very large organisations such as bureaucracies to find that their size obstructs the delivery of the very outcomes they are created to achieve, as diseconomies of scale begin to emerge. An argument for large schools based purely on cost, then, fails to consider cost-effectiveness, value for money or the cycle of innovation.

A school's capability to implement creative initiatives, or respond to sudden problems, can also be impaired as it gets larger... In many urban complex schools, teachers' time and energy are simply spread too thinly between too many pupils.
There is a growing body of evidence that educational attainment and social behaviour deteriorate in very large schools with the Conservative Party education spokesman claiming (The Guardian 3/Jan/08) that nearly three times as many pupils were excluded from large schools as small ones. The General Secretary of the NUT believes that the optimum size for a secondary school is probably between 800 and 1000 pupils (The Times 3/Jan/08)
Not only is there demand for a viable additional secondary school in Bishop's Stortford but arguably the Herts and Essex and Boys High Schools have now reached their optimum size of 5 FE. A 50% expansion of both schools contemplated by this proposal and co-location on to a single campus seem likely to ruin the quality of education and the high reputations which they currently enjoy.
The argument that oversubscription of both schools shows an unsatisfied demand for single sex education is not proven. It is equally likely that their popularity arises from the results they achieve. In any case, co-location in future would diminish any perceived benefits arising from single sex education.

The Hadham Road Site Top Map

The Hadham Road site is large enough to provide a 6 FE school without further land acquisition.
The undeveloped site has an area of 8.3 ha. If the land occupied by the Fire Station and associated buildings were added, the site area would rise to 9.65 ha.
The site in Whittington Way which EHDC proposed removing from Green Belt protection was 14.96 ha and was deemed large enough to provide school facilities and playing fields for up to 16 FE in total (all figures come from the East Herts local plan second review documents).
Even if allowance is made for the space saved by sharing some facilities, a site which is 55% (at 8.3 ha) of the area of the proposed Whittington Way site should be more than sufficient to accommodate a school which would have only 37.5% (6 FE) of the co-located schools' capacity.
If additional playing fields or sports facilities were thought to be needed it would no doubt be possible to enter into a partnership agreement with the Bishop's Stortford Rugby Club immediately opposite.
The land take proposed for the Whittington Way site has now been increased to provide for a community facility whose purpose is as yet unspecified. Such a facility would not of itself provide an exceptional justification for removing Green Belt protection. Alternatives would be to enhance the existing facilities at Grange Paddocks, or to reconsider the use of the station goods yard site for something more attractive than flats, now that the preferred developer has pulled out.

Financial Issues Top

It may be argued that the LEA has no budget for a new school at Hadham Road – although it has found a substantial sum to support investigation of the Whittington Way site which will simply be lost to the developers if the scheme does not go ahead.
It is unsurprising that the LEA has no budget for something it is not currently planning to do. The amount it is likely to need immediately is probably no more than it has already committed to Whittington Way.
New schools are usually built under PFI arrangements. The LEA already owns the Hadham Road site and there would thus be no call on the LEA’s capital budget at any time to build a new school there. The revenue costs of the scheme would only be triggered when it is completed and the school is occupied. Thus the only immediate costs would be those of identifying a private sector partner and negotiating the agreement.
In any event, finance is not a planning issue which could be used to justify the removal of Green Belt protection.

Planning Considerations Affecting the Whittington Way Site Top

Green Belt Status Map

The site has Green Belt protection. The proposed development is clearly inappropriate within the meaning of PPG 2. The preceding arguments demonstrate that there is a viable alternative way of meeting Bishop's Stortford’s need for additional school places. There is thus no exceptional reason for overriding Green Belt protection. The Inspector’s report on the local plan concluded that the boundaries of the proposal would be indefensible against plans to develop the rest of the site. The proposed development should not be granted planning permission. If the planning authority is nevertheless minded to do so it should refer the application to the Secretary of State for determination in accordance with ODPM Circular 11/2005.

Access and Traffic Congestion

There are overwhelming access arguments for keeping the foundation schools where they are.

Both are located in residential areas and have the ability to attract a high proportion of pupils from within walking distance.
The High School is on one of the main bus arteries into town. The Herts and Essex School is within easy walking distance of the bus and train stations. Since both schools appear to attract about a quarter of their pupils from Harlow, Sawbridgeworth and Stansted Mountfitchet, (LEA’s evidence to the local plan EiP shows 229 pupils attending the Boys’ High School and 219 pupils attending the Herts and Essex School from these places) accessibility of existing public transport services is very significant.
Current and prospective brownfield developments in the town centre will add another 1000 dwellings within walking distance of the one or both sites.
The separate locations of the two schools mean that traffic congestion problems are dispersed rather than concentrated in one location.
Developing the Hadham Road site will provide the best access for the quadrant of the town and outlying villages which have no state secondary school places. It is also on one of the main existing bus arteries into town.
Developing the existing schools sites for housing will not make traffic congestion go away but will lead to different problems – not least from the occupants trying to get to the relocated schools.

There are equally strong objections on access grounds to relocating the schools to Whittington Way.

Fewer pupils will be within walking distance (Proof of evidence by Mr Thomsett, EHDC to the local plan EiP in response to objections from the Bishop's Stortford Civic Society para 6.25. It also appeared to ignore the town centre developments in its dwellings count).
There is no existing public transport service on Whittington Way other than a minibus service through Thorley Park.
The congestion problems will be concentrated in one place – the road network cannot support a 3000 pupil school run at a single location.
A peak hours town centre to school bus service would not be able to get through the traffic congestion – there is no room for bus lane on the route. It would certainly need to be subsidised – a cost not acknowledged in the outline business case supplied to the local plan EiP. Those depending on such a service will not feel encouraged to participate in out of hours activities.
The interchange penalty for public transport is well known – people who would have to change from one bus to another in the town centre are more likely to do the whole journey by car.
Residents of Thorley Park have only two ways out of the estate by road – on to Great Hadham Road or on to Whittington Way. They would risk being cut off by the school run twice a day.
Using the bypass to access the site will defeat its purpose, which is to be a bypass – not a local distributor road.
Access issues were not addressed in the published version of the Bishop's Stortford Transport Study in spite of the poor accident record of the Thorley Street/Whittington Way junction and the reduced opportunities for walking to school which relocation would create.

The attractions of the Hadham Road site for a new 6 FE school are in many ways the obverse of the objections to the Whittington Way site. In particular

Traffic congestion caused by the school run would be dispersed and would of course be much less
The site would serve the quadrant of the town in which no state secondary school places are provided.
If the ASR’s should be developed, as the local plan contemplates, the site would be within walking distance of them. The Whittington Way site by contrast would be so remote that ASR residents would forced to access the schools by car using the bypass.

School travel plans should be required in support of the relocation proposals. They would need to show how they meet the transport objectives of the local plan which are to

Support the development of integrated transport
Reduce the rate of growth in private motor traffic
Locate development in areas where fewer and shorter journeys can be made
Minimise traffic generated by new development
Prioritise the provision of modes of transport other than car

It is difficult to see how the Whittington Way proposal could support any of these objectives. If the schools have developed travel plans their starting point should be to identify the transport mode which their pupils use to get to school at present and the mode they would use if the schools relocated. (If this is thought to be an insufficient representation of the behaviour of the future school population, a similar analysis could be done of the likely intentions of parents at feeder schools). Simply mitigating the adverse impacts of relocation if these are seen to be worse than the schools remaining where they are would not be an adequate way of meeting the local plan’s objectives.

Noise Top

The Whittington Way site is close to (in practice sometimes underneath) one of the main take off and landing flight paths for Stansted Airport. Even if the planners do not regard this as a safety issue, the constant noise disturbance makes this an unsuitable site for educational facilities or residential development.

The issues involved are:

Current ambient noise levels are dominated by aircraft noise
Current ambient noise levels are close to BB93 limits and in some instances exceed them or are counter to related safeguards
NATS airspace change proposals planned for 2009 will move the Buzad NPR departure route closer to the site causing a deterioration of the noise climate and over flying of the site.
If Generation 1 application were approved, aircraft movements would increase by about one third and a disproportionate number (53%) would operate during normal school hours causing further deterioration of the noise climate
If Generation 2 planning application were approved in the declared Option A segregated mode, this will mean that communities will be over flown to the south west of the existing runway for both take offs and landings. This will be very close to the site and cause still further deterioration of the noise climate.
Any one of the developments listed above will mean that the Whittington Way site would no longer meet BB93 maximum noise level requirements.

Housing Top

The Hadham Road site may only be used for housing if the demand for school places in Bishop's Stortford is being met elsewhere.
The three sites (including the Beldams Lane playing field) which the schools propose to vacate are not zoned for housing in the local plan and their suitability for this purpose, including their impact on traffic congestion, has not been assessed.
Development of the Beldams Lane site will exacerbate the congestion problems of the Haymeads Lane/Dunmow Road junction for which Herts Highways have been unable to produce a satisfactory redesign, following the withdrawal of their objection to the redevelopment of the Herts and Essex hospital site.
Both the existing school sites adjoin serious traffic congestion points.
The four sites together can be expected to provide at least 1000 dwellings which would otherwise be dispersed across the whole of East Herts.
In addition, the proportional catchment based distribution of any unmet housing need will mean that having received an additional 1000 houses, Bishop's Stortford will receive a correspondingly higher proportion of any balance to be met to achieve East Herts’ overall housing allocation.
Bishop's Stortford has received a disproportionately large share of East Herts’ housing allocations in the past and, taking account of allocations already in the local plan cannot absorb the further increment of housing which schools relocation would generate.

Conclusions Top

The relocation site is protected Green Belt.
The LEA own a suitable site to meet the additional demand for school places.
A school on that site would be viable.
There is no exceptional reason for removing Green Belt protection.
Whittington Way is an unsuitable site for a 3000 pupil campus from the points of view of access, traffic congestion and noise.
Bishop's Stortford cannot absorb the additional housing planned for the vacated sites.
Any planning application for the schools to relocate to Whittington Way should be refused.

BSCF
March 2008