1

St. Matthew’s plan to build a new Junior school on Green Belt

– the case against

Downside & Hatchford Community Group (DHCG)5th October 2011

2

Summary of the case against...The proposed location is on an inappropriate and open Green Belt site, part of which is also in a Conservation Area

Based on a best endeavours face to face survey of every house inDownside and Hatchford, over 70% of the village object to the school’s expansion plans.

Major issues identified with:

Road safety and traffic congestion

Wildlife and the environment

CO2 emissions and lack of sustainability

The St Matthew’s proposed expansion is contrary to Coalition policy on criteria for building new schools (all new schools should be free-schools) and falls foul of the local Elmbridge planning policies

There are other, better options for providing additional school places for Cobham, that offer:

Better value for money for the taxpayer

More convenience for parents (less distance to drive or even walk)

Protects our most valuable asset – Green Belt and the open country

Downside & Hatchford Community GroupLocalism in Action

DHCG has been created to give Downside & Hatchfordvillagers a clear voice.

Existing Cobham-based community organisations represent a broader community – our local views can differ from those of Cobham

In Aug 2011 we did a comprehensive, door to door, survey of Downside & Hatchford

210 residents (over 70%) had strong concerns regarding the proposed new junior school building on Green Belt These statistics are well matched to the September 2011 CCHT survey in which 21 out of 25 Downside members oppose the school expansion plans

In the inaugural DHCG meeting of 50 villagers on 9 Sep 2011, there was a 95% mandate to lobby against the school’s expansion plans

The DHCG represents the majority view of Downside Village

3

4

Why do over 70% of the village oppose the proposed new Junior School location?

Only 7 children from Downside attend the school ~75% of children live in Cobham & Stoke d‘Abernon~ 15% come from other communities

Green-Belt is a vital environmental resourceA school of 200 will dominate a community of 200 householdsA split school site maximises the impact on the villageIncreased noise – in school hours and from out-of-hours school usageSchool-run traffic, road-safety & parking issues double

How does a 38 space car park cope with 200 children when virtually all come by car?

Longer term concerns Once a precedent is given for building on Green Belt, it will be a lot easier for developers....A new school will encourage the building of more houses There will be pressure for further school expansion on this prime Green Belt site (larger car park…)

5

The proposed site -prime, sensitive Green Belt land

Proposed Junior School

Site

Infant School

Site

• Development would be greatly damaging to the openness of the Green Belt

• Part of the site is in the Conservation area of Downside

“Downside Village is unique in being the only remaining rural village in Elmbridge… the village has managed to retain a pleasant rural atmosphere rarely found so close to an urban area …the village merits Conservation Area status.”

Source: Elmbridge Local Plan

6

What the school wants to build on

7

The proposed plan – key factsCreation of a split site school

With the village caught in the middle of this campusWould more than double the number of pupils (86 to 210 pupils)

• Dominated by a large car park of 38 spaces – in full, open view of the approach to the village and from the Conservation Area

Architecture – inappropriate to the predominantly Victorian character of the Conservation area

So why here? – a free field from the Diocese! No full options analysis has been conducted

Source: St Matthew’s pre-planning application

8

Major Road Safety issues• Downside Road has significant hazards

– Fast, rural, bendy 40mph road– Trees, high hedges causing blind spots– Several injury accidents in past few years

• School solution – destroy over 100m of mature hedgerow!…– But the new school entrance would still be on a

40mph road – “too expensive” to reduce to 30mph– Cannot even try to address these hazards without

ruining the rural character of the area and causing major damage to the environment

• Traffic & parking congestion already a serious problem - With over double the number of pupils, this would

become dangerous- A 38 space car park is insufficient for the estimated

100+ vehicles, further burdening the parking issues of local residents

9

A high carbon impact…Only 7 St Matthew’s pupils live in Downside, over 90% travel here by car

This compares with a national average of only 36% of pupils arriving by car !

There is no public transport to the schoolWalking is not a viable option

Average national trip length to school for primary pupils is 1.5 miles. The average for St Matthew’s is2.7 miles, with a maximum of 10.6 miles

Contributes to CO2 emissions

Against government and Elmbridge policy to reduce the impact of the school run

Data Sources: St Matthew’s Traffic Survey 2009, Dept of Transport 2010, DfEE statistics

10

Wildlife, 3 protected species at riskThe proposed new school site is currently a wildlife haven with at least 3 protected species: bats, stag beetles, snakes

And is home to rabbits, badgers, deer, ground nesting birds, foxes and rescued horses

Specimen trees are at riskCurrent plans show the car park encroaching on the root systems of mature oak trees

The school plans would also destroy ~100m of mature hedgerow and trees, and damage a site of historic landscape*

Major damage to the environment*The whole of Downside falls within an area considered a site of Special Historic Landscape Value.

The hedgerow that would be destroyed

11

A poor use of public money

Building a new school (estimated cost: £5m-£7m) on a green field is economic folly at this time of economic challenge

More extensive consultation and planning process in order to secure any Green Belt permissions

A split site is particularly inefficient and costly

There are far cheaper options

12

There are better options…

A number of free school groups are looking to provide alternative primary educational provision sited within Cobham:

Significant advantages over St Matthew’s:The school would be sited in Cobham where most of the potential pupils live…The proposed site is not on a Green Belt siteIt is covered by public transport and many pupils could walk Would cater for all – not just those who can afford a car

Percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals: St Matthew’s = less than 1%, compared with St. Andrews =18%, Royal Kent = 5.3%, average in Surrey = 21%*

An alternative for parents who do not wish to use a CoEschool (all existing state schools in Cobham are sponsored by CoE in some way)Less than half the cost of a new build on Green Belt as the buildings/sites being considered, already exist

* Source – New Schools Network data 2011

13

There are better options… (cont)

Expansion of St Andrew’s in Cobham:

Significant advantages over St Matthew’s

St Andrew’s has already added an additional reception class for 2011, and will add one for 2012 [NB at this time the real shortage of school places is in Reception and Yr 1, not in Junior places]Used to be a much bigger school and has significant space to expandIt has the infrastructure and buildings already in place and good facilitiesSame Ofsted rating as St Matthew’s (2) Surrey County Council admit St Andrew’s could take all the increase needed in the Cobham & Downside area* Far cheaper for the taxpayer

*Also confirmed in the Elmbridge Education Provision Assessment Report – April 2011

14

There is no threat to St Matthew’s

The school has claimed that there will be a severe threat of closure if they don’t expand

At a public meeting, Mark Burton, School Place Planning Manager, SCC stated that there was no threat to St. Matthew’s if the new junior school isn’t built:

There is a shortage of infant places in ElmbridgeSt Matthew’s is a popular school with good Ofsted resultsSCC have over 85 single ‘infant only’ schools in SurreyThe only foreseeable risk would be for it to become a feeder – it is highly unlikely to close

15

The proposed expansion is an opportunistic development that falls foul of many government & local policies

ExamplesGovt policy on building new schools –

The preference in government is for free schools and academiesSchools should meet the needs of their ‘local’ community – the local community here is Downside not Cobham

Elmbridge Core Strategy to 2026States that any new school should be sited next to new housingNo school is included in the Strategy for Cobham or DownsideCommits to reducing CO2 and congestion from the school runRigorous protection of the Green Belt

Elmbridge Education Provision Assessment Report – April 2011

States that the need for additional school places in Elmbridge can be met without building on the Green Belt

16

Green Belt is a huge concern

Robust defence of the Green Belt is what has maintained the character of the local area

Consultation on the Elmbridge 2026 Plan showed there was ‘overwhelming local support to defend the Green Belt’

All of Downside is in the Green Belt, and not recognised as an urban settlement in the Green Belt

The proposed school development in this location has been defined as ‘inappropriate development’ by Surrey County Council

Green Belt legislation states that ‘There is a general presumption against inappropriate development, and such development should not be approved except in Very Special Circumstances’*Source: PPG2 (Green Belts)

17

We believe that Very Special Circumstancesneeded to build on Green Belt, are NOT met

Negative impacts on Downside CommunityDamage to our environment (major loss to Green Belt openness and visual amenity, increased noise etc.)Impact on our Conservation areaLoss of Wildlife, damage to Trees and historic landscapeEncourages the coalescence of the built environment between Cobham and DownsideIncreased congestion and traffic in Cobham and DownsideRoad safety concerns

Only 5% of households in the village would benefit from the school expansion. The school would not offer value for money for taxpayersThere are better options available

18

To conclude

Expand school places in the locations that need them…

And are safe...And are sustainable...And protect the Green Belt...