OPEN ALL HOURS - SCHOOL ‘SOCIAL CLUB’ APPLICATION (21st Feb 2021)
The notice below has recently been advertised in local newspapers and posted on some boundary locations of KWS.
At face value it appears that the Harpenden Secondary Education Trust (HSET), which is effectively the Katherine Warington School (KWS) management company, is applying for a Premises Licence which, if granted, would allow it to operate as it pleases up to 11.30pm seven days per week, with extensions to 1.30 am on weekend nights.
The application includes a number of forms of entertainment, including Music, for up 14 hours per day (16 Friday/Saturday).
It also includes provision to supply alcohol from noon (including school days) to 10.30pm weekdays/ 1.30am Fri/Sat.
The application appears totally incompatible with the prime purpose of an Educational establishment, and HSET/KWS has not to our knowledge published its intentions in its Newsletters nor has it advised its neighbours. In practice the external notifications are in the form of site notices – some of which require crossing ‘school’ land to read – and a single press notice in the St Albans District Council (SADC) announcements. If you feel you want to object to this application (make a representation), SADC provides guidance on how it reviews such applications on its website www.stalbans.gov.uk/licences-and-permits The drop-down menus for ‘Alcohol and Entertainment’ and ‘Making Representations’ provide guidance. A key aspect taken into account by the Licencing Authority (SADC) is whether representations come from persons who are genuinely affected by the proposed licence – the guidance indicates this would be considered as someone ‘in the vicinity’ of the premises. It is therefore a requirement to provide name, address and contact details in a representation as the authority will consider relevance as well as whether representations are frivolous or vexatious before agreeing a Hearing.
If you would like to make an objection to this application you can consider the following options and reasons:
Full Rejection Option:
Ask the Council to reject the application completely. Reasons to support this option:
- The application is likely to give rise to significant levels of public nuisance, particularly focused on those living in the vicinity of the premises. Nuisance is likely to arise from noise (the premises are in a valley which focuses and amplifies noise, from event noise, attendees noise, attendee arrival and departure.
- The application poses a significant risk to public safety. The entrance / exit to the school are located on known busy road and addition of traffic crossing lanes is likely to increase accident risk particularly out-of-expected school operating hours (for premises whose purpose is a secondary school), and with heightened risk during darkness (lit and unlit periods). Use of the secondary service car park (to the Sports Centre building) is directly on to a residential road and operating hours are incompatible with neighbour amenity. Parking and general surges in traffic associated with events will add to local road safety issues which were identified during the planning application for the site HCC reference PL/0866/17.
- There is an increased risk of crime, disorder and public safety arising from alcohol consumption accentuated by extended drinking hours at a location which is not served by public transport in evenings and is therefore likely to be encouraging of use of private vehicles and the associated risk of drink-driving.
- The site is a secondary school, regularised alcohol consumption, particularly during the normal operating hours of the school is in direct conflict with the key objective of the Licensing Act 2003 for the protection of children from harm.
- The site is a new build school. Planning permission required the grant of exceptional circumstances to develop the school building on Green Belt land. Permission was only granted for educational use. The planning application made in 2017, granted in 2018, specified hours of use of Mon-Fri 08.30-15.45 i.e. 36.25 Hours per week of education use. The current application seeks to add 76.25 Hours of operation per week, as well as to have both ‘premises’ licence activity and educational activity permissible throughout the entire educational week. With more than treble the possible hours for other use this new activity is clearly dominant and is in conflict with the planning grant. The different use which this constitutes appears commercial and as such planning permission would be unlikely for Green Belt use. In any event the variation in use should first be formally applied for through the planning process.
If you consider that the application is simply excessive then an alternative is to ask the Council to reject it in its current form but indicate that a more limited licence may be appropriate. Think carefully about what you would consider reasonable and specify this carefully, but be prepared that you may eventually consider that it is simply too big a gap to bridge and therefore the Council may be obliged to ask for withdrawal and resubmission of a different proposal. Items to consider are:
- Operating days – do you want the School to use its premises occasionally and be regulated to so. If so you will need to specify what you consider reasonable and why – for example I consider the opportunity to use the premises for commercial entertainment up to 7 days per week to be unreasonable due to likelihood of noise and other public nuisances, but I would consider 1-2 events per month to be reasonable if, say, they were school fund raisers.
- The proposed use of the premises conflicts with educational hours at the school – other uses should be outside these hours – i.e. event traffic should not begin arriving until the school has safely discharged its pupils for the day; commercial events should not extend beyond 23.00 hours due to the school being located in a residential area.
- I do not believe that the school should be granted an alcohol licence as this conflicts with the objective to prevent children from harm and, when the school finally becomes fully operational (in 5 years) it will only have a very small proportion of its population who are over legal drinking age (18).
- The application notice does not indicate scale of events and routine activities. The licence should restrict the maximum number of attendees for all activities to a maximum of (say) 100 as the school has limited parking facilities and all event and other ‘licence’ users should be accommodated within the school grounds as local roads are unsuitable for mass parking/ drop-off / collection as recognised in the planning hearing.
- A noise limit should be specified for both indoor and outdoor activities covered by the application to prevent noise nuisance to local residents; the Licencing Authority should take into account the area acoustics associated with the valley location of the school buildings
The above are not meant to be definitive reasons for objection. Unfortunately the applicants – HSET – have not chosen to discuss or even advise local residents of their intentions. It is impossible therefore to form a view of how they intend applying the licence in practice should it be granted. It is therefore necessary to form your view on the evidence available. The application seeks wide and unconstrained operating guidelines for the School, which could essentially do what it wants when it wants within the terms listed. The school’s recent newsletters make no mention of the application. The schools recently published first year accounts, available at www.kwschool.co.uk/school-legal-documents (choose Financial Statement 2019-20), shows at page 5 one of the KWS objects and aims is “working in partnership with all members of local community” – once again, like with the School’s initial Transport Plan, the school has failed to meet its objective. The document goes on in Reserve Funds section (page 8) to state “[these] funds will continue to build up from self-generated income over the next several years”. This quiet one-liner is the only indication that HSET intends embarking on commercial activities that make sense of the application that subsequently went in.
The keen-eyed readers of this document will notice that the Trust has moved on to a new phase. The document opens by confirming the completion of buildings, and on page 8 (and elsewhere) the expected consequence of that is confirmed – the Trust was gifted the physical asset of the school – valued at £31.2m – which now sits on the Trust’s books.
It is thought unlikely that any further information regarding the licence application will come forward. The closing date for sending objections in to SADC is 8 March 2021. The website offers two methods of submission. Either in writing to the following address:
St Albans Council
St Peters Street
St Albans AL1 3JE
OR by email to:
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS - KWS (14th Oct 2020)
As you may be aware Hertfordshire County Council (Highways) recently wrote to a number of premises in the vicinity of Katharine Warington School outlining their intentions to introduce double yellow lines over a substantial area in Batford, Harpenden East and Lea Valley, Wheathampstead.
HCC has asked for views on their proposals, prior to formalising their process of introduction, but has provided sketchy plans and a very limited time to respond. Their letter recognised that their plans were difficult to read and invited recipients to contact them for more details to enable feedback. With two days remaining and a number of people requesting the clearer plans from HCC, RSRP is not aware of anyone having received a response and a request to local County Councillor for the area – David Williams – to request an extension of the deadline has so far gone unanswered.
A copy of the letter received by residents is included in the downloads’ section and anyone affected is asked to forward comments to firstname.lastname@example.org quoting reference DM/2009/20 or to write to HCC at the address (repeated at foot).
RSRP had hoped to provide constructive comments on the detail of the proposal, but as details have not been provided we can only provide general analysis. A number of concerns have been voiced on social media and most of these are valid. The principal concerns identified to date include:
- • The scale of the measures proposed include substantially more double yellow lines than most other similar proposals, and may be in excess of 2km of lines. This seems unduly excessive.
- • The measures are proposed for both sides of Lower Luton Road and along the undeveloped sides of many surrounding roads (e.g. Common Lane, Marquis Lane) and appear to fulfil the Council’s stated objective which is to free passage for school traffic. The measures stop short of offering any protection to residents and other property owners in the roads around the school and given where proposals stop are likely to encourage school users to use the residential and other roads in the area (Crabtree Lane, Lea Valley Estate, Batford Road, Milford Hill etc). This will have the opposite effect than that sought as it will further congest roads for local occupiers.
- • The measures are proposed as ‘No waiting at any time’ which, in the absence of further information from HCC, implies all day restriction when the measures are to address a school use which peaks for very limited periods in the day (morning drop off and afternoon pick up). Therefore local users will be penalised throughout the day for much longer than the source of the problem.
- • The measures are of absolutely no use to address the true problems which are a totally unrealistic and unenforceable plan for school travel which called for no drop-offs / pick-ups within 800 metres of the school entrance. The school has not yet completed a full year of regular operation with limited numbers, but has already stated it is powerless to enforce the conditions that were part of the grant of school planning permission.
- • The same planning permission was granted on a Council promise of more than half of pupils travelling by public transport – around 650 per day when the school is fully operational. At an average of 40 pupils per bus (after covid) that equates to 16 buses, the majority of which will serve only school pupils. The parking provision on site for buses, with safe unloading, is around 4 vehicles – there is already queuing in ordinary bus stops (two bays in Lower Luton Road) as the school moves into a limited operation with only two of seven years attending.
- • The Council are proposing these measures at a time when they have not yet completed the traffic mitigations required for the school plan – for example the new pedestrian light crossing outside the Amble Inn on Station Road – and therefore cannot have the evidence to judge the adequacy of the proposals they (HCC) put forward at Planning. Similarly the roundabout at the junction of Common Lane and Lower Luton Road has had to be partially rebuilt because it proved impractical. This work has just been completed and it is impractical to have assessed the effectiveness of the latest attempt.
All of the above are reasons to question the wisdom of the Council’s proposal – in practice the proposals are likely to mean pushing more drop-offs and parental vehicles further into residential and working areas and, as the school Head has already commented he is not immune from the abuse of parents when asking for consideration. The other fault is that the proposals fail to address the cause of the problems and simply seek to push them out of sight – the root cause remains what was pointed out by RSRP throughout and magnified by the Council’s planning approach. In the year after opening HCC’s forecasts (of pupil numbers) dropped by over 100 per year and the number of applications received from Harpenden residents (at primary level) has been consistently around 420 per year for all the years expected to move through to secondary over the next 7 years. As a result Harpenden, and more specifically Harpenden North and East, Cllr Williams’ constituency, has 750 places per year of capacity and 300 + per year pupils will have to travel in for secondary schooling. Katharine Warington School will attract a disproportionately higher number of these pupils which in turn will bring vastly higher travel distances than any of the more established schools which exacerbates the issue. For good measure HCC failed to plan for adequate parking on site, which would allow for both bus and car drop away from residential areas, and this has been reinforced by a bar on site entry – HCC has since put up a proposal for an identically sized school in Bishops Stortford with more than twice the provision for vehicles on site. The fault in this situation lies squarely at HCC’s door as they controlled the site choice, the formulation of the plans and the hearing of the planning application, includin submissions from their Highways Department as a statutory consultee that failed to pick up the scale of the traffic problem. You may therefore also wish to recommend that before resorting to draconian traffic measures which will put a burden on local people, HCC first take the whole question of traffic impact back to their Town Planning process to see if any solutions exist that would address the source of the problem and not the symptoms.
Address for postal submissions:
Hertfordshire County Council Traffic Order Services (Development)
Network Strategy and Compliance Group (Highways), First Floor, East Link Corridor, Postal Point
CH0242, County Hall, Pegs Lane Hertford. SG13 8DN
Local County Councillors:
Cllr David Williams (Harpenden North and East); Cllr Theresa Heritage (Harpenden South
and West) and Cllr Annie Brewster (Harpenden Rural – including Wheathampstead and
Redbourn) – email addresses on Hertfordshire.gov.uk
School Travel News - October 2019
With the KWS opening imminent the school got an unexpected opportunity to test its travel planning skill last week. Following a bail-out from the inaugural school trip due to inclement weather, coaches returned the children to the new school mid-morning while parents were simultaneously summoned to come and collect the returning children. Chaos ensued with the local road blocked and even a school coach was trapped on site, giving residents and local road users a premature first taste of the school traffic flows.
The following day a sheepish letter of apology was hand delivered to a limited number of residents in the immediate vicinity. Reprinted below (for those others inconvenienced who might also have expected some form of communication) the letter offers the innovative prospect of a Travel Committee. In the meantime the Headteacher will write to parents telling them that it’s not very neighbourly to clog up local roads in the vicinity of the school.
Unfortunately the ‘Travel Committee’ is not an inspired innovation, it’s been a condition of the Planning Permission for over 18 months. The requirement is for the Headteacher and the Applicant (Herts County Council) to deliver it and have it functioning before the start of school operations. Despite a delay of 12 months (and 3 weeks) to prepare for this, it appears it did not come high enough up the priority list to warrant any attention whatsoever.
We therefore responded to Mr Smith’s letter on Friday 27 September, inviting him to start in a more appropriate manner by properly including residents in the plans for management of traffic flows associated with the school. Our request is published below.
As you will see we have offered to reprint any response from Mr Smith to the points raised.
However we should point out that some activity has already taken place and more details are included at the foot of this article. None of these detract from the need for the school to hold a full residents meeting and we will, of course, afford maximum publicity to such an event should the school wish to undertake it.
Open Letter to Mr Tony Smith, Headteacher KWS 27 September 2019:
Dear Mr Smith
Thank you for your letter of 25 September 2019. There was significant chaos on the day, but equally this was the first taste of the behaviour of the school’s first year community to its neighbours, many thousands of whom had previously expressed grave concerns over the ability to manage traffic flows and, however few in number, enough of your community adopted a callous disregard for others and a level of arrogance that served only to confirm the worst fears of neighbours.
When considering how this situation arose a major contributory factor is that the planning grant had provisions requiring you to have set up and have held meetings of a Travel Plan Liaison Group (see copy from the most recent approval notice issued by the Local Planning Authority below); this is reinforced in the Travel Plan which names you specifically as the responsible person.
However it is clear that you have failed to meet this requirement as no such group is in existence and the whole of your Travel Plan has been formed with the complete exclusion of residents’ input. A review of the Plan, submitted under a separate application (to the LPA) for sign off without public discussion, shows there is in fact no plan for Phase 1 operation of the school in respect how the school plans to handle its flows of staff, pupils and other interested parties during year 1.
In such a situation it is inevitable that no planning results in chaos, and this was clearly not a situation that troubled the School or the Applicant. However the situation is unlikely to improve and before the school has even commenced operations with pupils present the car park is full and today there are staff/visitor cars parked on the road outside the school. On Monday up to 170 pupils will be delivered to the school in addition to staff and visitors. They will be greeted with:
- No apparent plan for how to complete their journey into and out of the school (judging by the performance last Tuesday when a coach delivering children back from the abandoned trip was unable to leave the site due to road being blocked by collecting parents, there is no provision for the new bus services to deliver children onto site)
- Continuing roadworks on the Lower Luton Road – recently extended by another 6 weeks to end October and restricting flows on the Lower Luton Road to single line alternate flows with associated lights on all roads in and around the junction of Common Lane
- Added restriction of no right turn from the service road outside Lea Springs (forcing legitimate exiting traffic onto Common Lane)
- No bus stops in position on Lower Luton Road at junction as planned for school use (previous provision has been removed)
- No bus stops on Common Lane, other than a single temporary stop labelled as serving both directions (as no pavement exists on Southbound side)
And, to add a further hazard, the kerb drops that were to have been installed from the Service road entrance to the school with a short pavement have not been completed meaning no paved exit from the school, presumably obliging pupils to be disgorged directly onto the east side of the road at Common Lane.
Of course I am aware that when questioned about the safe access to the school in the short term after the additional delays to roadworks were declared (Herts Advertiser) you said you saw nothing to prevent the safe opening of the school on 30 September.
Your letter invites two residents to join the “Travel Committee” – with the aim of communicating your intentions and explaining your actions. I think your approach is bizarre – in essence you appear to be asking for residents to accept a plan you denied them input to and then to explain (or do you mean promote) the school’s interests to those most badly affected by it – an analogy would be to ask for a couple of turkeys to promote Christmas.
In reality the first step in this process is to incorporate resident’s concerns in the Travel Plan, and the logical step to do so is for you to call a meeting of residents to explain your plan, how it affects residents, receive questions and points from residents and explain how you would intend to modify your Plan to allay residents’ concerns and protect their amenity and then, and only then, establish the required Liaison Group to monitor ongoing performance.
Therefore I formally invite you to come to the community, organise such a meeting for residents to address the major shortfalls generated by the exclusion of residents, at the earliest possible opportunity. If you have a provisional committee of other attendees they could accompany you in such a meeting and represent the views of their respective stakeholder groups. I would further suggest that the current circulation of your letter, which I understand to be to Common Lane residents only, is superseded by a wider invite to other affected residential areas – namely residents of Mackerye End, Lower Luton Road (including spur by ford), Eastern side of Batford estate (Milford Hill, Tallents Crescent, Finley Road, Holcroft Road, Roundfield Avenue, Southview Road, etc), Batford Road / Gibraltar Lodge; Lea Valley estate, and Marquis Lane and northern end of Crabtree Lane and associated spur roads. It may also be appropriate to include those businesses on Batford Mill estate, some of whom have suffered significant impact as a result of the roadworks.
I note that your Liaison Group includes representation from local councillors – I would suggest that in this context Wheathampstead Parish Council are invited as many of the borders of the school are in their parish. I would further note that careful consideration is given to any role assigned to a County Councillor as the County Council are of course the applicants who have jointly failed with you to make this happen when it should have. I will be sharing this as an open letter on RSRP media and therefore extend the courtesy of publishing any response from you on the same.
David Cairns (Common Lane resident / Chair RSRP)
And the original letter to limited number of local residents:
The recent (last minute) changes:
At the time of writing (afternoon Friday 27 September) the pavement at the service road exit on to Common Lane was unfinished and surrounded by barriers – no work had taken place on it throughout the day, although a final covering of tarmac was apparently all that was required. On Saturday morning a team – we lost count at 11 – turned up along with a lorry of tarmac (not usually produced at weekends) to tarmac the remaining 10 m of pavement (photo). Many will speculate that this would be an expensive exercise with excessive numbers of premium cost labour and materials – or of course it could just have been planned that way (you can form your own opinion because it is unlikely the true cost of this project will be revealed for some time). Nonetheless if it is the case that resident interest has once again embarrassed authorities into safer practice then it is unlikely that many will object to the short term inconvenience even if it is attributable to those paid to have the responsibility to deliver it.
In parallel it would appear that Mr Smith was as good as his word and was indeed issuing advice to parents for Monday morning’s start, including some on travel. Recognising that all the bus stops in the vicinity of Common Lane / Lower Luton Road are out of use he has advised that pupils disembark at the stop on Lower Luton Road adjacent to the path to river footbridge and cross by the pelican crossing – unfortunately the space on the other side will accommodate a very small of pupils before they are obliged to spill onto Batford Road. It also misses the point that plans have directed to use of service bus 357 (formerly 657) which of course serves Common Lane and Batford estate, so does not go the stop advised. The stops in Common Lane have been out of service for a number of months now – the alternative being the temporary stop serving both directions of travel as no pavement exists (see photo).
With a projected 56% of pupils using bus services that’s a significant number to hail a bus from one side of the road then cross to board it on the other.
Of course not all will use buses, those walking / cycling from Lea Valley are likely to find changes to the temporary footpath. Residual tarmac was hastily added on Saturday afternoon in what appears to be a re-routing of the footpath to allow construction of the long term school entrance. This is expected to see the footpath shifted to allow construction of kerbs to allow completion of the link. This will then have to be tarmacked and created as the principal entrance for construction traffic. This was originally scheduled to be in place 6 weeks after construction started, then progressively moved to April, July and missed the Kier target completion date of 26 September, although the revised planning permission requires this by end September.
Perhaps the most ambitious challenge comes from Mr Smith’s reminder of the welcome awaiting parents at the school’s event scheduled for Monday evening – it is accompanied by a copy of the recommended area for school users to abstain from parking in – it’s on the school website – perhaps you can let us know how many parents you spot walking the half mile plus to the school!
Response from Katherine Warrington School
As you may be aware RSRP recently challenged KWS about the lack of preparation for traffic management for the opening of the new school. We have now (2 October) had a response to our open letter, which as promised we are publishing.
Dear Mr Cairns
Thank you for your email. I acknowledge that we will continue to work with our parent body to reduce the impact of our school on the roads and neighbours in the local vicinity.
We do not know if there is more to follow, but will publish further information as it becomes available. In the meantime if you feel you have been adversely affected by the traffic associated with the school please ensure the school are made aware of the circumstances so that they can focus their efforts on impact reduction in the short term. You can also contact local Councillors on any matter which is affecting you as a constituent.
Katherine Warington School – Harpenden’s biggest Con trick?
Developments April 2019
In one of the most flagrant disregards of due process, developers of the Katherine Warington School yesterday (30 April) installed an entirely unplanned and apparently unsanctioned internal access road. The road (pictured) links the “temporary” access adjacent to the Common Lane / Lower Luton Road roundabout to the car park area.
We can only speculate about the intended use and duration of the road but it would appear, from its build, to be designed for use throughout the whole construction period – however it would not be out of character if this was not another cost cutting exercise on the part of the school’s promoters and for the ‘on the cheap’ fix to be adopted as a permanent solution. Residents have already seen the Council back away from the £6m traffic measures its consultants found necessary in 2015 and a planned 20 week archaeological investigation apparently condensed into a couple of weeks’ work.
So what is wrong with this change? Put quite simply it is not in the planning permission or its associated conditions (available to view on the planning pages of www.hertfordshire .gov.uk – search for PL\0866\17 and PL\0930\18). These specify the design of the site and the construction plan – neither has provision for a road parallel to LLR and no new documents were added prior to construction. The road itself cuts across the area for the drainage pond and its outflow which were designed to protect the local area against flood risk, particularly the roads and premises between the corner and the River Lea.
In reality the original plan sequenced tasks so that two of the first required to be completed were the pond and the accesses to Lower Luton Road – the latter so all construction traffic could be routed on and off site to minimise loss of residential amenity and, in not too distant future, to ensure first year pupils were not in conflict with the ongoing construction traffic.
The original plan was significantly amended in early 2018, only to be amended again in December 2018. That amendment included providing 4 months use of the temporary access, originally granted solely for archaeological investigator access, for construction worker access and delivery of earth moving equipment which would remain on site. In parallel the plan called for construction of the LLR accesses to provide for all construction traffic access by April 2019 latest. This has not only failed to occur, but there are no plans for the inevitable traffic restrictions that would be required to make access onto LLR – these would appear (as they did for the Common Lane service entrance works) at least three months in advance on the Herts Highways roadworks notification webpage. They do not – the only conclusion there is no plan to undertake them in the foreseeable future – the simple Common Lane entrance took 3 months to commission and the challenges of the LLR accesses suggest a minimum of twice that time from when work starts.
The absence of commitment to abide by the Planning Conditions led RSRP to contact the Planning Enforcement Officers to ask why they were not enforcing and obliging the developers to adhere to the plan – that question, with supporting evidence, was put to the responsible group – Spatial Planning at HCC – in April. To date no response has been received. We also requested that a local Councillor in a different Council, one with more LPA (Local Planning Authority) experience than HCC, enquire what rules and processes apply when a Planning Authority fails to do its duty – although the Councillor has high functional familiarity with such matters and was contacted at the same time we have yet to receive a response. When we have this feedback we will publish a summary and what action RSRP propose taking.
Other Developments – confirming the previous concerns
Since our last publication Continuing Interest (CI) for secondary has taken. Herts County Council brought KWS into the standard allocation fold and the school has heavily pushed its availability. After one round it had 104 Priority Area applicants, which has now risen to 108 – HCC had advised that there was a demand for 240 Harpenden applicants in this peak demand year. Unfortunately the published statistics mask the areas of pupils – the data, only published in CI reports, suggests the most distant pupils in the priority area will be travelling 14km to the school – over 12 times as far as the most distant similar pupil at SJL. This is not surprising as HCC’s statistic does not cover Harpenden Town or even Harpenden Education Planning Area but the entire St Albans district council area and beyond. RSRP can only estimate the number of Harpenden applicants at this time but suspect it is no more than 80 – about one third of the justification HCC put forward.
The school now has 1.5 forms of ‘out of area’ allocations above that – yes that’s pupils from outside the county and remote county areas. The balance of the allocation, which still falls short of the school’s target and well below HCC prediction despite shipping in numbers from distance, includes a class of pupils who did not choose the school but were simply allocated by HCC. Achieving 56% by sustainable transport when it appears over 50% are in areas without direct public service links is a promise waiting to be broken at the first attempt.
Looking to the future Primary numbers have again come in at their former much lower levels – 417 applicants in Harpenden Town … the town has 517 places for them. RSRP has expressed concerns over the negative effects of this over-provision and the steps taken by some Trusts to counter this and recent developments suggest these are fully justified concerns. >
What can / is being done?
RSRP has continually stated its commitment to representing the interests of local residents affected by bizarre education policy decisions. The commencement of a build of a school does not change the decision of the Council into a correct one. Indeed local papers have carried stories of areas in St Albans apparently suffering similar crises to Harpenden. We have long held views about HCC ability and motivation to make the correct decisions – it remains a problem, and there is a bigger problem in the lack of accountability of the Council. Generally this where you would expect the first line of defence against bad practice (whatever its reason) to be the elected local Council Officers of the relevant Council – in this case the local elected officials have been consistent in their failure to hold their own Council to account. RSRP recently announced that it had taken a raft of problems with HCC to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) with a variety of complaints all with an underlying theme that HCC appears to consider itself unaccountable to anyone. RSRP has had its complaints assessed by the LGO and LGO has advised RSRP that there are grounds for a formal investigation – this week the LGO notified RSRP that the investigation has now begun.
At the outset of this update RSRP highlighted the apparent lack of planning enforcement – of course we should not forget the obvious – this is a project proposed by HCC, with HCC as a developer (who took the lead in planning submission) and the enforcement authority is none than HCC. HCC has previously stated and sought to assure the Courts that the Planning Authority arm of HCC in one wing of County Hall is entirely independent and uninfluenced by Development (Estates) and Education arms in other parts of the same County Hall and receives truly independent advice from all the expert opinions it seeks from other HCC departments. RSRP cannot comment on that approach, but anyone who wants to form their own opinion should simply look at the evidence alongside the Lower Luton Road (or further afield if you like, you should have any difficulty in noticing the site).
The Truth Revealed? Update February 2019
With a couple of months elapsed since the possibility of further archaeology was dismissed, work has clearly begun in earnest on the site of the proposed school. Viewed from any local vantage point (except those used by HCC for planning permission views) the change in landscape is inescapable. Much of the fields are dug-into, creating a quarry-like vista with many of the permanent steep slopes already being formed.
Any archaeology that may have been present when the ultra-quick investigation was undertaken is unlikely ever to be found. Land was worked in daylight and darkness to clear the way for the builders to get on with throwing up the first pre-constructed structures (Archaeological investigation approvals made no provision for further on-going monitoring).
New School Forecasts Confirm Previous Concerns
If it proved impossible to reveal any archaeology, the long wait for School forecasts has eventually ended. Shortly after submitting its own planning application 18 months ago HCC abruptly withdrew both its published schools forecasts and its report on future requirements in the County. A short message appeared explaining that forecasting model had been changed and that it had teething problems – so much so that they couldn't predict beyond 4 years (previously 10 years). However not to worry, HCC were confident that these would be sorted out early in 2018 and a full set would be published. Despite this, they were, of course able to state with confidence they had a long-established planning system that supported their Planning Application documents.
Eventually two years late, HCC feel confident enough to reveal their first full set of school demand forecasts. These show a fall since the planning application submission, equivalent to half a school (down 3.2 Forms of entry in the critical first five years).
Primary school forecasts show a similar pattern suggesting Harpenden has over 100 excess places (details below), which supports the much reduced move through to Secondary in future years. Full details are available by following the links on HCC's School Planning page:
Of course HCC and the Trust had anticipated this situation. When the application for the new school was first submitted in late 2014 it identified that the school could call on 120 pupils per year from Luton and Bedfordshire. Perhaps no surprise that RSRP challenged this when the Trust undertook its required (Section 10) Consultation. Perhaps less surprising is the Trust declined to answer and the DfE didn't pursue the point. Not that the relevant other Education Authorities appeared to condone the provision. Luton was clear it had sufficient and of course, the new secondary school in its area (just up the Lower Luton Road opposite Gypsy Lane) is nearing completion.
Latest HCC Primary School Forecast (Source HCC published Feb 2019, green = surplus)
Planning Condition Changes?
The planning application needed some 50 conditions, including obvious Archaeology and construction programme issues, many due before work could start. The Judicial Review Judge also found that HCC's Planning Officers failed to identify the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Over recent months HCC has been busily submitting/discharging batches of conditions. Most have been out of sight (they are not required to inform the public) and some have seen significant change from the original application.
The construction programme listed access off the Lower Luton Road to protect residential areas and create a safer route for delivery vehicles. That, and early drainage installation (to prevent flood damage from overflow during construction) were among the first to go. Instead access at a much higher risk location was authorised with no apparent priority given to restore original arrangements. Site offices and supporting generators were quickly established directly opposite the Flexicare home. How many other non-neighbour friendly changes will be granted remains to be seen. The brass-neck award however must go to HCC for:
not only ignoring the EIA requirement flagged in the Court Case when they submitted their first conditions discharge application
but justifying doing so on based on the exact same previous work the Court had found at fault.
What can / is being done?
During the saga RSRP raised many points with HCC, escalating a number to formal complaints. Going into the Planning Application process, a number remained unanswered. It has since become clear that HCC had no intention of addressing those matters at all. RSRP has therefore this week submitted a request that the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) investigate HCC's conduct: the matters outlined above, a significant number of un-actioned complaints, apparent bias against local residents and a general lack of accountability. The LGO covers all aspects of local authority behaviour and they have a range of measures they can call on to bring authorities to account. This is now in their hands and we will advise progress in due course.
RSRP remains committed to continuing to represent the interests of local residents. HCC has a legal responsibility as a Planning Authority to ensure any development under its jurisdiction is delivered in accordance with planning conditions – individually you raise any matter of concern with Spatial Planning at County (E: Spatial.Planning@hertfordshire.gov.uk).
End of Year Status (2018)
As 2018 draws to a close the Katharine Warington School development project is, according to its
developers, about to move in to a new phase. Kier, the lead contractor, has advised that works will
start on the construction of the service entrance link from Common Lane in early January.
In the course of the legal proceedings that followed the Planning Application for the School a clear
fault was found with HCC’s Planning in that Officers had failed to identify a need for an EIA
(Environmental Impact Assessment) and failed to ensure that one was carried out. An EIA would
have addressed many aspects, including Noise, Visual Impact, etc. which HCC did not but the Court
focused on the ‘Heritage Assets’ of the site, in particular the Archaeology. As an Applicant HCC, and
agents Vincent & Gorbing, appeared content for the Planning Authority (also HCC) to require a
scheme of archaeological investigation and preservation to be agreed as a Planning Condition.
Planning Conditions allow for subsequent sign off by Officers without the need for any public hearing
– the archaeological conditions were 2 of nearly 50 conditions that were applied to the application.
The relevant conditions (46 & 47) required a further formal scheme of investigation and preservation
for identified archaeology on the site. HCC records suggest the applicants submitted further
schemes in early May 2018, although these were not publicly declared until after all evidence for the
Court case had to be submitted in June. It appears discussions continued until mid-October when a
scheme was signed off by the same County Planning Officers as handled the original application. By
this time County had nominated its own Archaeologist as the independent expert observer and the
investigation scheme, which appeared to have been extended in scope at the last minute, was
declared as a programme lasting approximately 20 weeks by lead Planning Officer.
Preparation for investigation works began at the end of October, by mid-November signs of
Archaeologists in the field were rarer than sightings of a County Councillor in Batford and by end of
November Kier were moving equipment on to site for the next phase. In mid-December Kier fenced
off areas at the top of the site to ‘protect’ Archaeological assets:
There are two fenced off areas – In the foreground is the area in which the burial ground from Saxon
times has been found and to the North of that a farm area of similar significance. The fencing marks
no entry areas for construction traffic until ready to cover as part of preservation conditions and
landscaping. In practice the development calls for a plateau to be created for a sports pitch which
will raise the level immediately beyond the fence by 6 metres (20 ft.) and the preservation calls for
between 1 and 2m of additional soil cover over the areas to be preserved, creating a steep slope to
the site boundary. The preservation order does not include provision for any retaining walls.
The End of the Archaeology?
The ‘preserve in situ’ approach is accepted practice for a range of Archaeology assets. The bigger
question is are these the only relevant assets? Even the Applicants grudgingly accepted the
possibility of further finds (having stated to visitors to their ‘exhibitions’ that there was no
archaeology present) and there is a view that a cemetery usually accompanies a village: the
applicants’ advisors have indicated that such an asset would be more likely to be deeper into a valley
– conveniently pointing to the strip of land the Council didn’t purchase, but equally raising the
possibility of archaeology closer to Lower Luton Road, which may explain the large scrapings further
down the plot.
However this raises further questions, particularly when a 20 week programme is not only
completed in a fraction of the allotted time, but is also apparently reported on in sufficient detail to
allow the Council Planning Officer to sign off satisfactory completion of the Investigation work. Of
course there should be a simple way of establishing what’s happening – check the report of the
archaeological investigation ..... as at 10 December, no report of investigations had been published
by HCC. This was the date when HCC first granted itself permission for works directly related to
construction to take place.
Since then HCC has
- Changed its Planning Portal – meaning most records were inaccessible for a few days in
mid-December, eventually access to the Condition application (PL\0929\18) being restored
19 December but with fewer documents declared.
- By 31 December some of the previously published documents had been re-added and a
further document entitled ‘Interim Report of Archaeological Investigations 03 December
2018’ had been added – this is under the now familiar cover of CgMs but in reality this is a
cover for a stark report by another consultancy group – Cotswold Archaeology – who
appear to have undertaken the few days digging on site in early November.
- NO formal sign off notice discharging the conditions has been published (at 31 Dec 18)
It appears HCC don’t just want to bury the Archaeology but are also keen to bury all traces of the
investigation – perhaps in years to come a secret hoard of unpublished reports will be found in
What happens next at the site?
RSRP has continued questioning HCC on how it will manage planning enforcement. In keeping with
HCC response to date the norm appears to be to ignore anything that they do not wish to answer.
Among the more immediate concerns are
• The ‘temporary’ site access on the Lower Luton Road / Common Lane junction. In October
HCC advised this inherently unsafe access was for the sole purpose of allowing archaeological investigation – Kier appear to have set up a site control compound using the
• Despite promises of a project plan identifying what disruption can be expected to local
residents none has been advised and Kier’s communications are effectively limited to telling
residents they are part of the ‘Considerate Contractor’ scheme.
• The original construction plan (presented with the application) called for a number of
activities in the first 4-6 weeks – these include construction of both sets of entrances so that
construction traffic can be largely routed in from Lower Luton Road; construction of the
drainage lagoon in the south west corner and diversion of overhead services in north of site
(across part of archaeological preservation area). No provision has been announced for
these measures and Kier have created the impression they are simply going to adopt the
current entrance and compound which will prevent adequate flood protection and
perpetuate road safety issues at the Common Lane / Lower Luton Road junction.
These points have been raised with HCC Planning as potential enforcement issues over the past 6-8
weeks but no answers have been received.
What can / is being done?
RSRP is committed to continuing to represent the interests of local residents – all the more so given
HCC’s continued total disregard of its residents’ interests. HCC has a legal responsibility as a
Planning Authority to ensure any development under its jurisdiction is delivered in accordance with
planning conditions – individually you raise any matter of concern with Spatial Planning at County (E:
The Judicial Review in summer 2018 was concerned with the handling of the Planning Application
and HCC’s role as a Planning Authority. A number of faults were highlighted during that process and
RSRP is acutely aware that HCC appear to have learnt nothing and remain willing to treat their
residents with contempt by keeping them in the dark.
RSRP is committed to holding HCC to account for its actions and will make further announcements in
the New Year.
Other Education Matters
One of the main considerations in the 4th Harpenden Secondary school saga was the question of who
was able to get allocations to Harpenden’s existing schools. The core case put forward by parents
was one based on lack of guarantee of places for Harpenden pupils. Concern has been repeatedly
expressed about the inequities resulting from people moving, either temporarily or permanently, to
have an application address close to their preferred school.
The Scholars Education Trust – who are the relevant body for Sir John Lawes School – are currently
consulting about a change to their admissions rules. They propose introducing a new rule into their
oversubscription criteria – these are the rules used to decide who is allocated places when there are
more applicants than places. The core element is a proposed new ‘Rule 5’ – under which pupils
attending Harpenden Academy will be classed as a ‘Priority’ primary school and will be allocated
places ahead of pupils in the current rule 5 which is those in the (County) priority area for whom it is
the nearest (qualifying) school.
This would mean that Siblings (rule 3) continue to have greater priority, along with smaller specific
groups including children of staff, but that the Harpenden Academy pupils would have priority over
the majority of potential first time entrants from local resident families. In practice about 90 pupils a
year enter SJL through this rule – with Harpenden Academy having capacity for 60 pupils a year the
remaining number for local pupils could be less than one form of entry. It is highly likely that
parents wishing to get their children into SJL will give serious consideration to switching to
Harpenden Academy prior to secondary application. This would inevitably be open to remoter
pupils, including out of area. In practice HCC’s website suggests Harpenden Academy is 5th distant
primary from SJL – the closest being Manland and Sauncey Wood (both 1 FE schools, although
Sauncey Wood pupils are likely to be split between SJL and KWS as nearest in future), followed by
2FE Crabtree then The Lea.
In practice Harpenden Academy has been the greatest sufferer from the trend of reduced numbers
of applicants at Primary level in the Town recent years – typically running at less than half their
capacity according to School Census data. The School has been operated by Scholars Education
Trust as part of the SJL family since 2016 and clearly one motivation of the Trust will be to increase
financial viability – however with many local schools having space (including some of the
consistently highly patronised local schools) any attempt to grab pupils will likely have one of two
outcomes – increase pressure on other local schools by removing their pupils or bringing in external
pupils with all the incumbent travel sustainability issues and future allocation of secondary places in
the town to others from outside.
In essence this is a recipe for recreating the very problems that led to the calls for KWS and more
besides. If you wish to comment the Trust’s consultation is open until 6th January (1700) at
or you can write to the Admissions Officer at SJL. RSRP
recommend that you consider whether you wish to object to creating this type of priority generally
or if you believe that last minute switching is a concern then suggest the criteria is amended to
include only those pupils who have a full school attendance at the Academy (i.e. 6 years +).
On behalf of the Committee and myself I would like to thank all of those who have followed and
supported us through the journey so far. In particular we have had a taxing year in many senses,
and I am particularly grateful for those who have funded our legal campaign, one which we were
obliged to take against a Council and Councillors that refuse to recognise their accountability to their
constituents. In the course of the year we received support from thousands of people, we saw that
the Council was publicly identified as failing in its duties and individually you will each have views on
how well and how equitably you consider your County Council and representatives have and
continue to represent your interests. It is our intention to continue to bring them to account.
David Cairns, Chairman
UPDATE – SEPTEMBER 2018
The grant of Planning Permission to HCC earlier this year was ‘conditional’, meaning HCC as lead applicant had to undertake further work and make formal submissions (to itself) to discharge these conditions. Some of the 49 conditions must be discharged before work can commence on the site.
HCC began making formal submissions to discharge conditions in June and has 5 such submissions listed by August. The appearance of the Applications on the HCC Planning Portal is similar to full Planning Application, and to keep pace it is recommended that a search of the HCC planning Portal with Harpenden and applications submitted from April 2018 to date as criteria is undertaken. PL/0931/18 relates to the area of the ford.
The Council is not required to formally consult in public on these applications and no ‘public’ decision making process is needed. However it is no surprise that the Council choosing not to advise local residents, either formally or informally through a local County Councillor, has resulted in misconceptions in the media.
Further misconceptions have also been circulating in the media in other aspects of the case. Notwithstanding aspects which RSRP cannot currently comment on due to pending legal matters, RSRP can confirm it made a number of submissions to HCC on site selections and site options including a report in early 2014 which identified three alternatives which had not been considered previously. Following a Freedom of Information request some time later, RSRP learnt that the Council had taken no action on the report. It is RSRP’s understanding that RSRP were not alone in suggesting alternatives to HCC.
The recent discharge applications show HCC do not expect some of the condition decisions to be reached before November 2018. History of HCC’s performance in such matters would indicate extreme optimism is required to have any faith that the site would be ready to receive pupils in September 2019. In late August RSRP wrote to Councillors in all tiers of local government, along with others, to highlight the issues and urge that Councillors lobbied HCC to put in place a contingency plan for September 2019 intake. This included two potential site options, both of which would have capability at providing certainty for those applying for September 2019 secondary transfer, and both which would allow simple transition to any permanent solution when it was ready. Attention was drawn to HCC’s Education Panel – where any initiative would have to be approved – which was scheduled to meet on 21 September. That meeting took place and had no mention of contingency. In practice only a handful of councillors acknowledged, and no other interested party has responded. It is difficult to see that there can now be reassurance in place before close of applications.
RSRP has been advised that its request to Appeal the JR outcome, which related to the proposed remedy for the failing that was found, has been declined. The decision was ratified on 25 September 2018 RSRP understand that this was the last stage in challenging the Planning Decision process, and once status has been confirmed will review its options. Further comment will follow, however as noted above the primary delays not only remain but remain entirely in the Council’s hands.
Review of Outcome of Judicial Review - 12th August
The following document is RSRP’s review of the JR held 10-11 July 2018 with Judgement handed-down on 2 August 2018. It should be noted that, in accordance with procedure, the Claimant (David Cairns, Chair of RSRP), exercised his right to lodge a pre-sealing appeal request. This was considered prior to the hand-down of the judgement and the outcome reflected the Judge’s consideration (and rejection) of this specific appeal.
As a result there was a need to understand the legal options and assess the requirements of these before making any statements. Considerations include further actions and the grounds this could be based on, the likelihood of success and the costs involved. There are also considerations of what other options can be pursued that do not relate to the planning authority functions.
In summary the Judicial Review was requested on April 26, six weeks after the publication of the Decision Notice. The JR was applied for against the Planning Authority function of Hertfordshire County Council (who became the Defendant) and subsequently the Joint Applicants – HCC (Education Department) and Secretary of State for Education (through the DfE agency Education and Skills Funding Agency) were Interested Parties. It was the Government’s Interested Party that applied for the expedited ‘rolled up’ hearing, which was granted by the Court.
The Court Sessions took place over 2 days, dealing first with late admissions to evidence, then an amended wording (requested by Judge) before starting on the main business of the Hearing. There were two parts to the Hearing – the application to have a JR and the JR itself. In practice the Judge did not announce permission to have a JR had been granted during the Sessions, but took all evidence and arguments. The end product was an Order – summarising the outcome and other matters – and a Judgement which is a 31 page document.
In brief the Application was granted on all Grounds (and therefore it was a full JR); the Judge found that on one ground the Claim was correct as there had been a failing on the part of the Council Planning Authority. The other two grounds were dismissed. More details are provided in the accompanying documents, however the salient points were that on the Ground that was upheld the Council were found not have undertaken assessment work based on the nature of the Planning application that should have been done (and that should have been done ahead of the application being accepted) but went on to decide that it was unlikely that the outcome would have been different the Judge would not quash the Planning Application. The other two grounds were dismissed on the basis that the Judge viewed the two matters to be within the remit of ‘planning judgement’ and particularly that the Courts put weight on not interfering with Planning Officer judgement unless there was a clear point of law that had been breached – in essence the Judge accepted the Planning Officer’s right to choose from the evidence before him that which he considered relevant expert opinion. As a result neither argument in the other Grounds was tested by the Court for its accuracy – or the doubt that it may have cast on the accuracy that the Officer chose. This would generally fall under the consideration of irrationality, which is known and has been accepted by the courts as a valid argument but is a high bar to clear.
The Process allows the directly named parties to review the draft decision and raise any points before the decision is sealed and handed-down. In this instance two parties challenged aspects – one on reducing the time available for any Appeal (from standard 21 days to 7 days) and the other challenging the exercise of the Judge’s discretion in not awarding relief for an identified failing. The timing of this type of challenge means it is handled as an Application to Appeal within the JR time frame. The Judge refused the Application (challenging her decision) but granted the request for the greatly reduced Appeal time.
The third document produced by the Court was the Application for Leave to Appeal, which included the Judge’s decision and a brief description and reasons. The formal Appeal process requires an Application to the court of Appeal, and as a result of the Court Order this would need to be lodged with the Court by Thursday 9 August and would, in effect, form a separate legal case.
The documents now produced on the website are as follows:
- Press Releases originally released on 8th and 10th August (posted below)
- A more detailed analysis of the Court Judgement (in the document library on website)
These should be read in conjunction with previous announcement made after release of judgement on 2 August (published previously). As the press release notices explain, as at the 8th August no decision had been made relative to an Appeal. By 10th August sufficient information had been gathered, legal opinion sought and it was decided to make an Application to Appeal. As a result there are some elements of the case that we are unable to discuss and our initial analysis is presented in a manner to reflect this. It is our understanding that the Application will go before the Court authorities for review, and if successful an Appeal Court will then be allocated. Any such date will be determined by a number of factors including availability of the requisite number of Judges.
Proposed 4th Secondary School For Harpenden Area 10th August – What Next?
Thursday 2nd August saw the Hand Down officially summarising the recent Judicial Review (JR) application ruling. This JR followed a recent grant of planning permission by Herts County Council (HCC) for the proposed 4th Harpenden area secondary school. Since Hand Down, the full ruling has been made available through standard court database and document systems with significant work gone into reading and analysing the content. Previous Press Release 180808 refers.
Anyone with any experience of reading, digesting and preparing reports of any nature, and in particular the nuances of court rulings will appreciate the time needed to evaluate and formulate a response. In this case, the expected 21 days Appeal timeframe was shortened to an extremely tight 7 days, following a request by one of the other parties.
Subsequently, Appeal papers were lodged with the courts on 9th August 2018. As required, these were electronically communicated to all parties towards the end of the day. An apparent good-practice recommendation is for no public communication until physical paper delivery - the day after electronic communications, or Friday 10th August.
So what will happen in 2019? The School’s developers originally put forward a hopelessly over-ambitious build plan to support their planning application. Originally saying they could build and open the permanent Sports Hall as temporary classrooms in a mere five months, they then abandoned this unlikely plan within a week of the Planning Decision and deferred opening to September 2019. Following the application for Judicial Review they asked the Court to expedite the JR to enable development, declaring that they actually needed 13 months to deliver the same facility, with the potential for occupancy deferred to January 2020.
In parallel, the same contractor (Kier) commenced work in April 2018 on the sister project - a Croxley Green secondary school on arguably an easier development site. Also targeted for September 2019 opening, Keir have already indicated a likely slip to October. Considerable doubt must therefore exist about whether the same development partners can deliver another complete new school in a much shorter time frame, on a site which still has very many conditions to discharge before development can commence. It’s a high risk strategy from a team that has already demonstrated a willingness to sign up to effectively undeliverable commitments.
The time is now right to put arrangements in place that really can be guaranteed for pupils seeking places in 2019. In 2006, HCC’s own Scrutiny Committee made recommendations for how HCC could and should significantly improve their school place forecasting and delivery. Harpenden, and the lack of granularity, were key mentions at that time. With no apparent evidence that those recommendations were acted on, HCC has, over many years been pursuing what looks to be a single-minded route to secondary school place provision on an unsuitable site. Despite frequent calls for HCC to work on flexible provision options and alternatives, they seem set to continue with no Plan B.
Steps within any Appeal are defined by the courts. Whatever the legal process duration and outcomes they are unlikely to influence the ability to physically build from scratch on such a tricky site in time to address the shortfall that the Council is predicting for 2019.
In order to mitigate build timescale uncertainty, as demonstrated both by the Croxley Green parallel and the recent delayed Katherine Warington opening targets, parents can only hope (and should perhaps be directly asking) that ESFA, Herts County Council and the Trusts have contingency options. Those options should guarantee places to educate all in the area using resources that are available now and can quickly be made fit for purpose.
At least two of those possibilities use existing buildings and facilities. Primary school admissions are down and the government’s school census shows that the Harpenden Academy is below half its published capacity of seven years at two forms of entry. This means it has potential to accommodate up to 6 forms of entry for a single year of pupils on an interim basis. Under the control of a related school trust it has a long history as an education facility over the many years and offers a central easy-access location. Alternatively, the same Harpenden Academy occupied spare space at St Luke’s in Redbourn while waiting for conversion works to be completed at the former Library site and that same space option could be used to meet forecast 2019 secondary pupil shortfalls. By acting now, and putting in place relatively minor fit-out changes, there could be certainty of secondary school place supply to cover 2019/20.
The alternative leads perhaps inevitably to a repeat of the September 2018 entry fiasco. Here, pupils applied to a school before it had even applied for planning permission, only to be followed by an extremely uncertain Allocation day. On that day parents were expected to make choices at a time when HCC were not in a position to publish a Planning Decision, let alone physically deliver a school in an over-ambitions short timescale.
A number of our politicians seem able to move in a matter of hours in order to cast blame on others for situations the Council has single-handedly brought about over more than a decade. At the same time, for months they seem unable to talk to and listen to the people they were elected to represent. Arguably it is time to stop wrongly blaming others for HCCs own failure to suggest or deliver alternatives. Instead, perhaps it is time to do something that actually benefits their community, to provide flexible solutions that will be available when needed, solutions that can provide certainty to those being asked to choose their 2019 secondary options by the end of October.
Many people are still wondering just why Herts County Council seems so focussed both on this unsuitable site alone, a rigid attempt to build a school on a dangerously overcrowded road that is arguably about as far from actual need as it is possible to get in the planning area.
Proposed 4th Secondary School For Harpenden Area 8th August – Ruling Update
On Thursday 2nd August in Court 18 at the Royal Courts of London before Mrs Justice Lang, a brief Hand Down summarised the recent ruling regarding into the claim against the grant of planning for the proposed 4th secondary school for the Harpenden Planning area. Since then, the full ruling has been made available through the standard court database and document system.
Significantly the first test, permission for a Judicial Review was granted on all Grounds. The Review found the claim in Ground 1 was justified. The claims in Grounds 2 and 3 were dismissed by the Judge.
In finding against Herts County Council (HCC) Planning Department, it confirmed that HCC had failed to act properly in considering the application. The core of this finding relates to assessing environmental issues and particularly overlooking the site archaeology. These topics had attracted significant interest in the consultation process, particularly for the archaeology, with acknowledged wide significance. Despite this, the Judge went on to use discretion to deem that no different outcome would have occurred had the Council’s Planning Officers acted correctly, and refused relief. The “relief” that had been requested was that the planning application be quashed, in effect requiring the Council to re-run the application assessment correctly, in this case preceding the formal planning application with the environmental assessment they should have done. In refusing relief the Judge effectively declined the option in her discretion to require a matter to be carried out correctly in the public interest.
The core reason for the dismissal of Grounds 2 and 3, which related to Green Belt and Educational Needs, was a standard reason cited in planning cases. The Judge considered whether the actions of the Planning Officer accorded with legal understanding of planning judgement and cited that the Judge would need to find an error in law to question planning judgement. The tests that the Court considers relate to how evidence was presented and taken into account by Officers. This allows the court to apply considerable latitude in viewing which evidence is used or not by Officers in exercising their ‘planning judgement’. Generally, and also in this instance, this leads the judge to consider how a planning Officer uses evidence rather than whether the evidence is correct, or indeed whether an Officer should take particular evidence into account.
Reports in some sources state that an Appeal has been refused, while others say an appeal must be lodged within a set time frame. In practice both statements are true. JR procedure allows for an Appeal within the JR process, prior to the judgement hand-down. In essence this provides an opportunity to address matters within the Judge’s remit if there is cause to question the interpretation of law. In this JR the judge’s exercise of discretion in not requiring the Council to correct its error was questioned. The Judge reviewed the points raised, which were relevant points of law to that aspect, and refused an Appeal within the framework of the JR process. This does not affect the general right of appeal, which would be to the Court of Appeal as a separate body, and is afforded to all in most cases. In this instance, possibly in the knowledge that an Appeal would be expected after the refusal of permission with the JR process, one of the other parties requested that the time to appeal in the standard manner be reduced. The Judge acceded to this request and reduced the standard 21 day limit for lodging an appeal to 7 days. The possibility of an appeal is currently being considered and while it remains the case that an appeal can be requested, RSRP is not in a position to be specific about the content of the judgement.
However, it can be said that there is considerable disappointment in the apparent carte-blanche given to Planning Officers. Particularly, there is arguably a greater need to demonstrate independence and thoroughness when much of the information they choose to rely on comes from their colleagues in other departments within Herts County Council.
It is also disappointing, though not surprising, that in his statement about the ruling, Cllr David Williams remained silent on the failings found against HCC. Even less surprising is that, despite promises many years ago to communicate with his constituents, his statement has notably not been directed to the very audience – East Harpenden residents - he was elected to represent.
Although the JR conclusion has confirmed arguably very significant failings on the Council’s part, it has not provided what many would consider a satisfactory outcome, through either thorough investigation of key issues or by requiring appropriate remedies to correct the Council’s errors. As such it reinforces the view that a Call-in by the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government was the only action likely to have demonstrated a truly independent approach. More information will follow in due course.
Proposed 4th Secondary School For Harpenden Area – Another Milestone
A story that started before 2006 and remained hidden from local residents until September 2013 reached yet another milestone at 10.15am on Thursday 2nd August in Court 18 at the Royal Courts of London before Mrs Justice Lang. Just 15 minutes were allocated to the case labelled ‘CO/1681/2018 The Queen on the application of Cairns v Hertfordshire County Council’ for a brief Hand Down that provided only a limited statement, read out to the court. In practice, the complete (more detailed and complex) ruling will be made public at a later date. Therefore at this time no further comment can be made without both access to the complete verdict text and the time to review it in some detail.
The Hand Down followed a 2-day Judicial Review (JR) Permission Hearing some three weeks earlier in the same Court. The Court had at that time considered first admissibility of some material presented just prior to the session and then moved on to the key questions of whether a JR was to be granted and the JR Hearing itself, as required for a rolled-up hearing. The Court stated it considered the new information to be relevant and allowed that to be formally submitted on the first morning. At that time the Court moved on to hear representations from legal teams representing the Claimant, David Cairns, the Defendant (HCC’s Local Planning Authority) and both Interested Parties (Herts County Council - HCC Education and the Secretary of State for Education – ESFA as the Applicants). The case was brought against the Local Authority Planning function and was contesting how they handled the Planning Application. During the Hearings no comment was made by the Judge as to whether permission for a JR had been formally granted, so the Hand Down is initially the outcome of a permission hearing, which if granted, will then use the same evidence to determine the JR.
The Hand Down Summary read out on 2nd August indicates that the Grant of Planning Permission will be allowed to stand. David Cairns, Right School Right Place and many thousands of residents are understandably deeply disappointed in this result, but are awaiting the full ruling in order to assess implications contained within the detail.
In particular this transcript will determine what further steps are appropriate, necessary or available. This could include formal challenges and RSRP will consider the position within the time specified by the Court where this is appropriate.
The complex implications inherent in the brief initial Hand Down do not as yet offer a clear path ahead for residents or the Council and it will be necessary to study the full ruling in some detail before further comment can be made. The initial understanding of the Hand Down Judgement is that the Court has found failings on the part of the Council, yet has indicated that it is prepared to allow the planning permission to stand despite these acknowledged failings. Clearly a ruling that appears to allow the Council/DfE to build in such an unsuitable location is deeply disappointing for thousands of residents across Harpenden, the villages and further afield. The implications of what could be classed as a ‘hollow victory’ will need to be carefully assessed in the short time available for some responses.
Herts County Council have previously said that they can’t wait to get bulldozers on site. However the ruling, in respect of implications for treatment of the potential archaeology on site, at least offer some hope that the Council will honour and respect the important history present in as yet unknown locations across the site. Perhaps we can hope that the archaeology alone may prove pivotal in finally forcing HCC to build elsewhere.
The Court has specific time frames for such Appeals, and any such appeal would require RSRP to consider its input to that process. Any appeal or further pressure by HCC at this stage, however, would just re-confirm the inequality already inherent within this entire saga to date. Let us hope that HCC see sense, decide to listen to their communities and look for appropriate schooling that benefits its residents on the more equitable basis that RSRP has campaigned for throughout. In that case it is further hoped that HCC move to return the field to farming, as they promised so many years ago.
Inevitably further action will need to be considered to address the wider systemic failings of the Council, but the immediate need is to address the irreparable damage of what many believe to be an ill-informed planning decision.
With so many believing this is a bad decision for Harpenden, Hertfordshire and its people, David Cairns, Chair of Right School Right Place, launched Judicial Review proceedings – the only potential remedy to a grant of planning permission. It was not a decision he took lightly but on top of the actual school build proposal, he wanted to safeguard the interests of all local residents.
In reality HCC’s cynical treatment of its residents saw repeated denial of opportunities for involvement despite Localism requirements and promises of transparency. The Judicial Review was the only remedy available to address Planning decisions and as such addressed the Planning Authority function of the Council, where the outcome of persistent mistreatment of residents materialised.
Many local residents see this as a fight for local identity, with many wondering just why Herts County Council seem so focussed both on this unsuitable site and on overriding local communities. Their attempt to build a school on a dangerously overcrowded road is arguably about as far from actual need as it is possible to get in the planning area.
Further information will follow shortly.
Right School Right Place is a campaign group made up of over 2000 concerned residents and supporters in Batford, Harpenden and Wheathampstead and the wider school planning area who support the need for a new district school but believe that Hertfordshire County Council has proceeded with a rushed and undemocratic decision to develop a school site in Batford. This is despite clear evidence that this site is highly unsuited to this use, resulting in urban sprawl between Harpenden and Wheathampstead and irreparable harm to the Green Belt in this Landscape Conservation Area (33) (designated as conserve and improve by Herts County Council).
Press contacts are:
JR Status (11th July 2018)
In our last update we advised that Day 1 of the legal proceedings had taken place and the balance of arguments, evidence and responses to points raised was expected to be complete by early afternoon of the second day of the scheduled 2 day hearing. In practice the hearing ran through to late afternoon, but did complete within its allotted time.
All matters have now been put the Judge, along with a substantial case file of written evidence from the application and of relevant prior case law. The Judge will now begin consideration of this evidence, along with the submissions made in Court, in private. Once the Judge has completed her deliberations a judgement to address all aspects of the case will be handed down. Court procedure is such that formal public notification of the ‘hand down’ is generally the day before it is scheduled (through the daily lists published by the Royal Courts of Justice which are available to inspect from approx. 2.30 each day on justice.gov.uk) – we will keep watch on this and post notifications when we have the judgement hand down date.
In the interim we remain bound by the limitations on the detail we can openly discuss, and it would not be right to speculate on the possible outcome – as it can only be speculation at this time. We are pleased that David Cairns’ case has allowed the presentation of RSRP concerns to an independent body for the first time over 5 years – much of what fell for consideration in the Court case could have been addressed much earlier, and with much less cost to all parties, but for the belligerent attitude of Herts County Council and the unwillingness of key Councillors to represent the concerns of their residents.
As we have stated previously the JR addresses the immediate question of Planning Permission and as such only seeks to challenge the role of HCC as a Planning Authority. It cannot and does not seek to address the role of HCC as an Education Authority, or in any other general terms, and that is a separate matter which RSRP is addressing. More news will follow shortly.
Once again thanks to those who responded to our funding appeals – there are still substantial cost exposures and we are leaving our appeals open to help address these and other future costs through the avenues listed in earlier bulletins.
JR Status (10th July 2018)
For those following the legal action – Judicial Review – taken out by David Cairns on behalf of RSRP members you will already know that the JR process has reached its due date in Court.
As indicated in earlier bulletins we are limited in the detail we can openly discuss while the case proceeds. This morning the case began, with RSRP knowing an early test would be if the case was rejected at the application stage. In short the day started with some procedural matters and by the end of the afternoon the full case arguments of RSRP had been heard, with the majority of the Defendant’s response being covered.
Tomorrow morning the Hearing resumes in Court 18 of the Royal Courts of Justice with the balance of the Defendant’s arguments to be heard, followed by the remaining legal representations from the Interested Parties (HCC and Secretary of State for Education as applicants). It is anticipated that after the formal response from our barrister, all evidence will have been put to the Court by early afternoon tomorrow, and the matter will then be for the Judge to consider.
At this stage we are not aware of any specific timetable for a verdict, but we would anticipate this will be made available no later than 31st July 2018, the last date of the Court’s term (for routine cases) before the summer recess.
In short the full case is progressing towards its scheduled completion. A further update will be provided shortly.
Funding the Judicial Review - Update
As indicated previously the addition of interested parties, who attended day one with substantial legal and in-house resources, and the granting of an expedited rolled-up hearing has meant higher and more concentrated legal costs.
An appeal has been launched on crowdjustice.com with the aim of helping meet these additional costs. Contributions continue to steadily arrive and today topped £5,000 since the launch a little over 2 weeks ago. RSRP’s other fundraising routes remain available. Our thanks go to those who are helping us this way. You can view progress at
RSRP has sought to address the ill treatment of residents by the Council and believe today’s events are an important step in the campaign hold the Council to account for their actions. Help us to continue this process and help focus the Council on delivering the best service to all its residents, be they seeking the right services in the right places or contesting irrational actions that directly affect them. Support this and our subsequent challenges to deliver accountability.
JR Background (July 2018)
In recent bulletins RSRP has outlined the status of the JR, an overview of reasons that led to the JR application and provided the main representations made by RSRP to the Planning Application. With less than a week to go to the Application Hearing, most of the key arguments and responses are now registered with the Court.
Why a JR?
The JR is the only process by which the grant of a Planning Application can be challenged. It is RSRP’s view that HCC could have addressed concerns long before the Town Planning Application was made, but chose to exclude residents’ voices. The brief chronology of HCC’s refusal to address this is
- 2010/11 – HCC commissioned Vincent & Gorbing to identify potential sites for the provision of Secondary education within St Albans District. This was intended to go into the (then) Local Plan Consultation. It was not produced in time and although HCC advised SADC they would consult separately they did not. The report was buried out of sight and unchallenged in any public arena.
- 2013 – HCC used the report to put forward a case for land acquisition at Batford Farm. The process, once again, was kept out of public view and was only challenged by a last minute, but substantial, public petition organised 24 hours before the sign off by HCC Cabinet. HCC agreed to accept the petition but deemed it too late to delay its decision until the petition had been heard.
- 2013/14 – Following revelations that HCC had also bypassed the usual consultation with other local government bodies, HCC organised exhibitions about its site choice and the next steps. HCC steered these exhibitions away from the locality of the school, despite venues being available. Residents only got to see the exhibitions after RSRP hired a venue and pressured HCC into releasing the displays.
- 2014/15 – HCC commissioned further work, again from Vincent & Gorbing, to review the site selection process for Harpenden, to be informed by work to be undertaken by HCC’s Schools Planning on Education Need. The results were not ready by original target of September and the Trust’s application had to be submitted without a site recommendation. Eventually a large volume of work was produced in early 2015, HCC Committee members were instructed there was no need to review it as it was simply to be passed to DfE. Shortly after HCC cancelled the promised public exhibitions of the new work, declined to take any questions on either their consultant’s work or their own supporting material and referred any talk of consultation to a future Town Planning Application.
- 2015 – DfE publish the Free School applications in which it transpired HCC had offered to acquire land for the school and had included additional demand of 120 pupils per year from Central Beds and Luton to support the Need for the School. DfE referred questions to the Trust’s Academies Act Section 10 Consultation (this was held after submission of the Planning Application and the Trust declined to respond to questions about dependence on out of area demand)
- 2016 – Citing ‘urgent business’ HCC rush through a motion to provide additional capital to support the build of the school in April. Despite regular communications with DfE, HCC said they had an urgent and unexpected request for allocation of County funds to the build which had to be responded to in two weeks, thus preventing review in public. The amount agreed remains confidential, but the urgent decision did not result in any action for 6 months.
In Spring 2017, following the sectioning off of part of the site to leave a strip for apparent housing development in Green Belt, a resident’s petition calling for the site selection to be reviewed was raised and submitted. It was treated as non-urgent in June when, it since transpires, HCC had already initiated the planning application and the petition hearing was deferred to September. In September HCC officers failed to arrange the Hearing and as many of our members had signed the petition RSRP supported two formal complaints into the handling of the petition. These were both upheld as was a further complaint into the underlying officer behaviour that led to the problem.
Many residents will recall the promises of HCC not to purchase the land without planning permission – and to return the land to farming if not used for a school. One promise broken and another looking impossible to fulfil.
In reality HCC’s treatment of its residents has been cynical with repeated denial of opportunity to involve its residents despite its promises of transparency and requirements of Localism. The JR addresses the Planning Authority function of the Council, which in this case is where the outcome of persistent mistreatment of residents materialised and it is the only remedy available to address Planning decisions. Inevitably further action will be need to be considered for the systemic failings of the Council, but the immediate need is to prevent the irreparable damage of an ill-informed planning decision.
Funding the Judicial Review
As indicated in our last bulletin the addition of interested parties and the granting of an expedited rolled-up hearing means that all preparation has to be made in advance. The costs of legal representation have increased and need to be met much quicker than originally thought. As indicated an appeal has been launched on crowdjustice.com with the aim of helping meet the additional costs. Contributions are steadily arriving and RSRP’s other fundraising routes remain available. Our thanks go to those who are helping us this way. You can support and view progress at
Much of the ill treatment of residents by the Council can and will be repeated if the Council are not held to account for their actions. Help us to hold them to account now. Support this challenge.
Judicial Review Update (June 2018)
In late April 2018 an application was made for permission to hold a Judicial Review into HCC’s decision to grant planning permission for the Katherine Warington School on land off the Lower Luton Road in Batford. The application was made by David Cairns, Chairman of Right School Right Place (RSRP).
What is a Judicial Review?
A Judicial Review (JR) process typically has two steps – an Application, which is followed by a Hearing. At the application the Judge will listen to outline reasons why a hearing should be granted and if satisfied there is a case to answer grants a Hearing for a later date. The parties involved then have a period to prepare detailed cases. In this case however one of the parties involved has made a further application to the Court for an “expedited” Hearing – this has resulted in an earlier date and what is known as a ‘rolled-up’ Hearing – in which the Application and the Hearing (if granted) follows immediately.
Who is involved?
A JR will generally involve two parties – the Claimant who has made the application and a Defendant – the body that the claim is against. In this case the Defendant is Hertfordshire County Council, but only in their capacity as a Planning Authority. Two other parties have registered as Interested Parties – Hertfordshire County Council again as a co-applicant and the Department for Education through its subsidiary Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) as the other co-applicant. Both HCC factions are entitled to put matters to the Court as are the ESFA; it is the ESFA that requested the expedited hearing. The separate interests of HCC mean that they employ two different sets of legal teams, operating behind what they define as an ‘ethical wall’.
When does the case come to Court?
The Application has been scheduled for Tuesday 10th July 2018; if granted the Hearing will continue that day and into Wednesday 11th July 2018. No specific date is given for the outcome of a Hearing, however the Courts generally would expect to pass a judgement before the end of the ‘Term’, which is 31st July 2018. (The Courts do not resume for routine business until 1st October).
Why was this case urgent?
The ESFA applied to Court for an expedited Hearing on the grounds that the matter needed urgent resolution and could not wait for the ‘normal’ period to elapse. Their argument was that there is an urgent need for the school and that, crucially, they needed to start work by the end of July 2018 in order to be on target for a 2019/20 intake, with the main buildings occupied from January 2020. The Court accepted that argument when it drew up its timetable.
The case for urgency is open to question. When submitting the applicants identified a clear timetable for a five month build of a Sports Hall: March – August 2018, to be ready for 180 entrants in early September 2018. They now require over twice the time and won’t guarantee occupation until January 2020. There are still only 180 pupils planned in first year – the radical difference in timetables casts doubt on whether the original timetable could have been met; the step change in timing throws doubt on argument for urgency. The bigger question is not which version should you believe but should you trust either of them. The ‘sister’ project in Croxley Green began build works in April with the same contractor – Kier; they have already indicated their target occupancy – September 2019 – is likely to be pushed back a few weeks.
How is the case affected by the recent developments?
The main effects have been two fold – with the addition of interested parties the duration of the hearing has increased, and the granting of an expedited rolled-up hearing means that all preparation has to be made in advance. Therefore the costs, which are mainly for legal representation, have both significantly increased and need to be met much quicker than originally thought.
The need to concentrate and fund the main case against the Planning Authority (HCC) was a consideration for not challenging the expedition request. However correct a further challenge would have simply eaten up funds. RSRP are also well aware that after many years of HCC ignoring residents, there is much to be said for not delaying any review. We are also aware that greater certainty will be provided for all interested parties if the matter can be resolved sooner and particularly before the new school transfer season begins in early Autumn.
We are acutely aware that the biggest effect is on the cost of the case. In the course of preparing the application we declared the amount spent prior to submitting the JR application – this already included in excess of £40,000 of legal fees, for the most part in advice and challenges to HCC since the 2013 announcement. We set out to raise the balance to see through what we believe to be a well-founded case, one which could have been resolved on many occasions since the announcement, had HCC wished to engage – it did not, its Local Councillors did not and it does not appear to have any concerns about heaping financial pressure on its residents when they legitimately question its actions.
An extra day in Court is estimated to cost £10-20,000. To help meet this anticipated cost, an appeal has been launched on crowdjustice.com – a service designed for this type of case. The funds raised go directly to the legal representatives and will be used for the case. RSRP continues to operate its other fundraising methods and will continue to pursue holding the Council to account for its many failings. However the immediate need is make sure that Hertfordshire County Council do not get away with their decision to irrevocably destroy Green Belt by simply bludgeoning their way through. The JR is only means by which the grant of planning can be challenged and it has an extremely limited timetable.
We are pleased that in the short time it has been running 60 people have already contributed to the crowdjustice.com appeal. Our thanks go to those who are helping us this way. We are asking you to act now and make sure this Council is held to account on this decision and either support us through the crowdjustice.com appeal or through our other established fundraising routes (see below). The link is provided below. We will continue to post information about the case and how it is progressing through this site and our other media.
RSRP - Planning Application Challenge
Following a review of the representations made to Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) as part of its Planning Application process for the Katherine Warington School, RSRP has concluded that its representations were inadequately considered in that process. It had been hoped that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government would have exercised his right to Call In the application. A Call In would have resulted in a Planning Inquiry and brought the necessary independence to the process. However despite numerous representations from many sources the Secretary of State chose not to exercise this discretionary right.
This left the option of a more direct legal challenge and RSRP considered in detail how points made in their representations were reflected in the material presented to HCC’s Development Control Committee. RSRP were mindful that while the requirement was that the process considered points made, it did not have to agree with them. RSRP found evidence that many points were not considered, and in parallel asked further questions of HCC to attempt to clarify the position. In response HCC has both refuted any suggestion that it failed to present material, or that it had failed to properly represent material in its reports. Further, the inability of HCC to provide information which would have assisted in this assessment, when it would appear that HCC had the same information readily available for some time, was particularly frustrating. Accordingly RSRP took legal advice and has decided to apply for permission to have a Judicial Review into HCC’s decision. The application was submitted a few days ago.
The decision to apply was not taken lightly. RSRP has always maintained a key point is where a school should be located and continues to hold the view that it should be located where it best addresses the local need in the area. RSRP’s concerns in this matter appear to have been reinforced by recent information released by HCC about the Secondary and Primary applications for 2018 admissions.
At Primary level this year’s admissions record 399 applications from residents in Harpenden Town – confirming the trend of reducing numbers and highlighting significant over-capacity in the Town. With a proposed 750 secondary places in the town when this cohort reaches secondary almost 1 in 2 pupils in 4 schools would be travelling into the Town. At Secondary, the second (and final) round of Continuing Interest has seen both non-faith schools extend their numbers. However, SJL – the nearest school in priority area for those to the east of Harpenden, has failed to extend the maximum distance to include any Wheathampstead, Kimpton and the Waldens non-sibling entrants. These are the areas which RSRP has consistently maintained would be under-served by a new school in Harpenden, and they are clearly at the back of the queue when allocations are made.
In other developments HCC appear to have eventually acknowledged failings in respect of the handling of the petition raised in Spring 2017 and signed by many RSRP members – details will shortly be posted as an update on the change.org petition page.
RSRP Planning Representations
During the course of the Planning Application RSRP made a number of representations to Hertfordshire County Council as the Local Planning Authority hearing the Application.
Representations took three forms – initial representations identified errors and omissions in the application and requested these were corrected. There were 6 such letters submitted. The main representations were made in five reports submitted between 16 November 2017 and 24 January 2018 – these have been posted in our document library as pdfs. The initial representation, submitted on 16 November 2017, included copies of the letters submitted previously and updates on actions noted subsequently. This representation was general in nature and covered elements of most key topics, many referred to as pending further information from HCC (as applicant). Subsequent representations were more specific to particular topics, for example 8 December addressed Education Needs.
The third batch of submissions were follow up letters to points not responded to, and procedural questions about the declaration of the last period of consultation.
Further material was submitted to HCC ahead of the Planning Application, specifically when it appeared HCC had declared new information late in the application process. RSRP is currently reviewing the material it submitted in the context of HCC’s assessment of the application – this is, in essence, a check that all valid points of Planning were captured and addressed in the decision process for the application – this is as published by HCC on its web portal, and in the papers associated with the Development Control Committee on 19 February 2018 – these can be accessed via Hertfordshire.gov.uk
Herts County Council Fails Local Residents- Again [19th February 2018]
Despite a history of numerous errors, omissions, inconsistencies and other problems inherent in both the proposal and project, as expected Herts County Council (HCC) approved their own planning application at a special Development Control Panel convened today, 19th February 2018. While a small group of residents may take a measure of relief from the meeting, many more across Hertfordshire are expressing disbelief and dismay. Recognised by HCC as a Green Belt development outside the local plan, the NPPF requires the decision to pass the application to be referred to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, with the expectation of a call-in to ensure the completely independent review that this application so badly needs (and appears to have been missing so far).
Clearly expecting a large number of visitors, parts of County Hall were roped off. Despite the huge amount of local interest, the fact that it was the first working day after half term for the fifth date given for the meeting were perhaps reasons why there were relatively few visitors in the public area. Those visitors able to make the meeting were not allowed in the main entrance, but were ushered into the Council Chamber via the back door and warned not to make any distractions. With 6 hours allocated for the meeting agenda, the Chair opened by saying he hoped to deal with matter in 3 hours and succeeded as none of the key issues that that HCC continue to attempt to bury were really brought to the table with the Panel seemingly reluctant to challenge any aspect outside those the Officer introduced in his overview.
At an unheard-of 130 pages the enormous officers report included over 50 conditions, a vast number that serves to confirm not only the unsuitability of the site, but also the poor level of preparation, engagement and appropriate planning, something that at least 2 of HCCs own departments, St Albans and Wheathampstead criticised the applicants for. Bizarrely the officers identified that the car parking provision was likely to be at least 20 short of the requirement they would expect but the Panel failed to require the developer of the site to provide a more appropriate number. Large numbers of objections were minimised or marginalised, while scant benefits were not only given more space and time in the presentations, but were consistently presented in a manner that removed any veneer of balanced debate. Supporters including local councillors failed to provide accurate, objective, evidence-based information, apparently preferring to denigrate those who expressed concern and gloss over details that clearly showed no need for a school at this Batford location.
Particularly disappointing was the member for North East Harpenden, Cllr David Williams who spoke in support of the proposal. Now Leader of the Council and having chosen not to engage with, listen to or act in any way to support his constituents since his election, he also appeared to resort to personal comments aimed at individual residents in his constituency during his speech. At one point he claimed that 50% bus transport (by potential school pupils) demonstrated a sustainable travel solution. In fact, at some 20 busses/40 journeys out and return, morning and evening, it completely misses the point that a school in a more suitable area of need would take traffic off the roads and allow some 80% pupils to be in easy walking distance, significantly removing the need for busses altogether.
As it stands, because of distances involved, the vast majority of pupils are expected to need to travel by car/bus, with a significant proportion on the Lower Luton Road, known by Herts County Council to be over-capacity. Evidence from existing schools clearly demonstrates school-related traffic problems. A proposed 4-vehicle central queueing lane for vehicles entering the school from the Lower Luton Road was explained to be sufficient to reduce traffic impact. Those who know the road and regularly sit in very long rush-hour queues through Batford will quickly understand that is over-optimistic, as is under-provision of on-site parking as a method of deterring car travel. The traffic scenarios in themselves just serve to confirm that this location is about as far from an appropriate solution as anyone can imagine.
One minor concession appeared to have been made – although some council members still held the view that the Lower Luton Road was safe, a document handed out at the beginning of the meeting stated that bus travel would be increased for Wheathampstead children and that it would be funded by the ESFA – though the promise was for the first seven years only. Traffic discussion served to crystallise just one aspect of this inappropriate proposal. Despite stepping through some elements, sadly at times the supposedly-neutral Spatial Planning department seemed more like a cheerleader for the development.
Speaking for the proposal, local parents organisation Harpenden Parent Group not surprisingly failed to address material planning issues, question the many problems inherent in the plans put forward, or recognise the looming place surplus. In addition to also resorting to derogatory remarks about anyone who tested the suitability of the plans, they also implied they were party to information that might otherwise be regarded as confidential by Herts County Council, including school application figures that are believed not to have been finalised or publicly released yet. The head-elect similarly criticised those who had taken the time to analyse and understand the proposals in great detail. In extolling the virtues of a school that has yet to be developed, supporters failed to demonstrate how a new school, modelled on the existing 3 schools would successfully serve those pupils who are currently less well served in the existing model, the perhaps less academic pupils who struggle today. It all demonstrated a lost opportunity for Harpenden that will continue to fail a certain percentage of our children.
Very early in this whole saga, HCC stated that the appropriate time for discussion of all matters would be at planning and they would not purchase the land until they had planning permission. Since the planning application was launched, however, HCC have continued to claim that it is now too late to test or debate their evidence base and decisions. Last week, HCC confirmed that at some unknown time they changed course on land ownership (apparently without notification or public scrutiny) to acquire the land before planning in order to engineer hearing their own planning application. That alone demonstrates a far from neutral approach, along with a complete lack of respect for the very people they are meant to serve. What are they thinking? The public are more than ever seeing this as a continuing trend.
We look forward to Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government exercising his right to call-in this application because this proposal requires the completely independent review that a call-in would provide. Combining HCC’s resounding lack of engagement and understanding of just how unsuitable this site is with a not unexpected decision from the panel it is safe to say that opposition will continue and steps are in hand.
Update: Another Delay – 5 February 2018
Imminent Planning Hearing - DELAYED
A special meeting of Hertfordshire County Council’s Development Control Committee, set to review the School Planning Application on 8th February has been cancelled. Although not formally announced, the cancellation was first heard of through third party notification via the Harpenden Society.
The reason cited for the delay is officer workload – that the Officer’s report, outlining the material factors and responses for Councillors to review and base their judgement on, has not been finalised. It is anticipated that the report will be ready for publication by 14th February and the meeting to review will be on 22nd February.
Whether all necessary material will be available and presentable by then or whether it gives enough time for those Councillors to thoroughly review is another question altogether.
Another delay will not come as a surprise to many in a project that has been dogged by failed promises for many years. Significant changes and additions to the material presented in the application have occurred as the application progressed, some as late as last week after the now cancelled meeting had been called. However some core elements remain missing, despite being pointed out by RSRP early in the process.
The publication of critical Landscape information, 2½ months after it was received by HCC Planners coupled with the unwillingness to provide a plan to protect the Archaeology on the site question both HCC’s ability to follow procedure in the assessment and their commitment, as an applicant, to follow good practice.
RSRP contend that many of the faults with the Application stem directly from an identified and acknowledged failing in HCC schools planning processes. In 2006, following difficulties with the secondary transfer process in the Harpenden Education Planning Area, HCC held a formal and extensive enquiry (Scrutiny). This concluded that HCC’s forecasting system did not provide sufficient information and recommended that more detailed planning was adopted. HCC accepted this and committed to implement the recommendation (and a number of others from the Scrutiny) but failed to do so. This failure was compounded recently by the commissioning of a “new” forecasting system. In reality it’s more like the old forecasting system, but provided by a new supplier. Not only does the new system fail to address identified shortcomings, but so far it has only produced 4 years planning information where there used to be ten. It has also has required substantial ‘manipulation’ by HCC to produce material to support the application. The new system was signed off by Councillor David Williams in his role as Executive Member responsible for Education.
With the removal of funding from previous (2015) estimates, including removing over £6m for road safety measures, it is little wonder that many local residents think that local politicians are prioritising the Party Line and Profit over the People they were elected to represent. As noted in our previous update you can continue to make representations about the planning application – details of how and topics to consider are on our website.
RSRP Update – 25 January 2018
Planning Hearing Imminent?
It is our understanding that Hertfordshire County Council, the local Planning Authority for the Town Planning Application for the Katherine Warrington School, are moving towards a hearing for the determination of the application. A one-off additional meeting of the Council’s Development Control Committee has been added to the Council’s Calendar for 8 February 2018. No agenda has been published for the meeting but yesterday a note was circulated by Councillor David Williams that this meeting has been called to hear the application.
The schedule published by the applicants – Hertfordshire County Council and The Education and Skills Funding Agency – with the application identified the scheduled Development Control Committee meeting of 20 December 2017 as the target required to meet September 2018 full opening (and partial opening in September 2017). The application missed this and the next scheduled meeting (25 January).
Significant material has been added to the Council’s planning portal in the last week, after the passing of the fifth in a series of consultation closure dates published by the Council, although RSRP are aware that many significant gaps remain in the planning material which were notified to the authority shortly after the application was published.
It is unclear how Council Officers, who are required to be independent when assessing Planning Applications, will respond to significant shortfalls in the information arising from the inability or unwillingness of the applicants to respond when producing their report to Committee Members. The report could theoretically include options to refuse, grant subject to conditions or unconditionally grant permission – anything other than mild conditions would lead to further delays in a project that it has taken the Council and its agents and partners over seven years to bring to this stage.
RSRP has made multiple representations throughout the application process and awaits the report of officers which will be based on a variety of information – published and unpublished. It is not known if the officer report (and any supporting material) will be published on the web portal or as supporting material for the meeting with the agenda. The Planning portal has yet to register the meeting date advised by Councillor Williams.
Spatial Planning Officers at HCC have verbally advised that representations can be made up to the date of any meeting, although it is likely that it will only be possible for officers to comment on last minute points verbally at the meeting. If you consider that new material requires comment, please make your representations now. At this stage RSRP would recommend making representations by e-mail to email@example.com alternatives are via the HCC website – where a series of questions and a 3900 character box is available for comments or by post:
Spatial Planning & Economy Unit
County Hall CHN216
RSRP’s Current Position
RSRP’s position is that having reviewed the evidence presented the underlying criticisms of the scheme are reinforced rather than addressed by the material presented at time of application and the additions since.
We will monitor the Council’s websites for the reports from Spatial Planning Officers and post a notification in our media when this does appear. Once it appears we will review its conclusions and plan our response accordingly. In the meantime we reiterate the core areas for concern below, including where new evidence gives further cause for concern.
Grounds for Objection
There are many causes for concern within the plan. In many instances the information provided in the Planning Application has heightened concerns. Key aspects are:
Green Belt Impact: The application requires release of Green Belt land. There is no Local Plan designation for the site that predetermines release, therefore any release has to meet ‘Very Special Circumstances’, under national planning policy guidelines which presume in favour of Green Belt retention. The Applicant is then required to demonstrate there is such a strong case that considerations outweigh standard Green Belt considerations including full and proper consideration of alternatives. The core objection is therefore this is inappropriate development of Green Belt on basis that better alternatives have not been properly considered.
Traffic and lack of Mitigation: The expected impact of traffic resulting from the school is a significant factor. Concerns have been expressed by a number of statutory consultees including strong reservations form District Town and parish councils. Concerns about the safety of suggested walk and cycle routes for children - effectively along the Lower Luton Road from Wheathampstead – do not appear to have been addressed. Instead the £6.5m identified in 2015 has been removed from HCC’s budget estimates and the application contains instead a series of minor mitigations which in many instances are likely to frustrate motorists and put pedestrians at greater risk.
Visual Impact: The application states it has considered the impact on the area from the worst affected views – it fails to define these areas and is filled with carefully taken obscure photos that ignore high visual impacts. In practice there are no views from the main vistas from Crabtree across the fields, no views from Milford Hill or Batford estate roads that look over the fields and bizarrely the report claims the view from the Lower Luton Road will be screened by retaining the hillside, while the building elevations portray a view from the Lower Luton Road that shows the main building obliterating the entire northern skyline. The development remains one which will create large areas of dug out land, and large areas of raised platform land.
Value for Money and associated risks: The school project was costed at between £53-65m when HCC’s consultants evaluated the project in 2015. This was about £20m more than DfE expect to fund and excluded land costs. In the supporting material the cost estimates have been reduced by between £8-10m – while a large part of this is removal of transport safety mitigation, it is also apparent that the design previously evaluated has been trimmed back – for example the parallel project in Croxley Green promoted by the council has nearly twice the on-site parking provision for same numbers of staff and pupils.
Drainage: Following criticism of the plans the applicants submitted further drainage proposals following the formal end of the consultation – these acknowledge the plans will see periodic overspill of water across the Lower Luton Road towards the ford but claim it is at an acceptable level.
Archaeology: Material published in early January includes a report from HCC’s own Historic built environment department, which highlights that despite their attempts to provide an acceptable preservation of the archaeological interests found in site investigations (interests that were contrary to expectations of the applicants expressed at their exhibitions), the applicants have twice failed to make adequate plans and have since indicated that they do not wish to discuss the preservation requirements further until a planning determination is made. In essence the Applicants appear to have decided to take a chance on conditions being imposed and that there is a greater chance of further mitigating these into lesser conditions during any development. With many nationally acknowledged experts rating preliminary finds as highly significant, and the discovery or archaeological material in nearly half the trial trenches on the site, the apparently cavalier attitude of the developers is both unacceptable in the context of the Archaeology and the development as a whole.
RSRP Update – 8 November
At present the Town Planning Application for the Katherine Warrington School remains open for Consultation. The process is being handled by Hertfordshire County Council, who are also listed as a joint applicant alongside Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). The Agent handling the Application is Vincent & Gorbing Associates.
After many changes, including the removal of Site notices, the current closing date (for public consultation) is 16 November. Representations can be made via the HCC website – where a series of questions and a 3900 character box is available for comments. Alternatively you can make representations by e-mail to
firstname.lastname@example.org or by post:
Spatial Planning & Economy Unit
County Hall CHN216
The online form has some compulsory fields and you are recommended to include details that are requested in these. The key pieces of information are:
Name (title, first name, Surname); Address;
and an indication of one of the following about your representation:
Support the Application / Object to the Application / Have Concerns / No Comment
You have an option to include an email address for acknowledgement / response. At RSRP’s drop-in session in October a number of written entries were completed and these were delivered to HCC by RSRP during the following week. HCC have been acknowledging these forms.
RSRP’s Current Position
RSRP’s approach has continued to be one of reviewing evidence and assessing the requirements. We have continued this approach with the publication of material for the Application – based on our assessments of the wealth of published material, our position remains that the site is a wholly inappropriate site for a school as it does not serve the need on a local basis and as a result is not an appropriate solution. This is compounded by the unacceptable risks placed on local prospective pupils, which have been compounded by a failure to address safe travel mitigation measures for prospective pupils, and the associated adverse impacts on the community both in the immediate vicinity and across the wider area.
It is our view that far better alternatives exist to provide safer and most cost-effective education for pupils and that HCC’s continued delaying in addressing the issues is no reason for accepting a seriously flawed solution. It is seven years since HCC conceived its plan for the site, four years since it announced its intention and over two and a half years since it refused to discuss any aspect of its plan with those affected by it (until Planning).
Grounds for Objection
There are many causes for concern within the plan. In many instances the information provided in the Planning Application has heightened concerns. Key aspects are:
Green Belt Impact: The application requires release of Green Belt land. There is no Local Plan designation for the site that predetermines release, therefore any release has to meet ‘Very Special Circumstances’, for which the guidance comes from national planning policy which presumes in favour of Green Belt retention. The Applicant is then required to demonstrate there is such a strong case that considerations outweigh standard Green Belt. In this instance the case is wholly reliant on HCC’s prediction of long term need for school places – a system that HCC has acknowledged to be at fault in respect of localisation of need (see our submission to SADC for more detail). The VSC requirements include proper consideration of alternatives – HCC excluded the most sensible alternative – locating a school in or near Wheathampstead – in 2010, about the time the sale of the former school premises for housing development was taking place. The choice of the Batford site counters a number of Green Belt criteria, notably coalescence – the joining of two urban developments – and urban sprawl – particularly as HCC chose to not purchase land adjacent to the current developed boundary, requiring buildings to spread further into Green Belt and providing an argument for infill housing on what will become less purposeful green belt land. The core objection is therefore this is inappropriate development of Green Belt on basis that better alternatives have not been properly considered. (See our submission to SADC for more detail on the failings of HCC’s forecasting system).
Traffic and lack of Mitigation: The expected impact of traffic resulting from the school is a significant factor. HCC are responsible for producing supporting arguments for both expected traffic flows and for the mitigation measures to alleviate traffic related problems. In 2015 HCC’s consultants advised a £6.5m spend, which many experts considered minimal to counter expected large flows of traffic along the Lower Luton Road and every other rat-run that is likely to be adopted when the LLR congests. Pinch points were identified, many insurmountable, and this led to concerns about the safety of suggested walk and cycle routes for children - effectively along the Lower Luton Road from Wheathampstead – the alternatives being use of unlit, single track winding lanes to the north of the school or hidden tracks in the Lea Valley. The £6.5m identified in 2015 has been removed from HCC’s budget estimates – the application contains instead a series of minor mitigations which in many instances are likely to frustrate motorists and put pedestrians at greater risk. For example lights at Station Road / Lower Luton Road are planned to be removed and zebra crossing installed on a widened junction. The plan fails to address the use of Lea Valley and Crabtree / Marquis Lanes as drop off zones – other than by adding humps in road, while removing the roundabout at the Common Lane / Lower Luton Road junction is liable to recreate the safety problem the roundabout was first introduced to correct.
The greater problems with traffic however are likely to stem from the failure to address the need to widen the Lower Luton Road between Wheathampstead and Batford, and the failure to accurately predict the flows of school traffic. The school will be the ‘nearest in priority area’ for Wheathampstead, Kimpton, Whitwell yet only 1 in 3 Wheathampstead pupils are expected to attend the school (225 pupils of approx.650 applicants over seven years), raising the question of where are the rest expected to attend? And critically how do they travel. If every school in the area is in Harpenden Town it is estimated that up to 2,000 pupils a day will travel in to the Town as only 60% of applications in the area come Town.
Visual Impact: The application states it has considered the impact on the area from the worst affected views – it does not define these areas and is filled with carefully taken photos of small corners of the fields obscured by garages and house walls, or photos of narrow entrances to footpaths, rather than the views over the fields from the paths. In practice there are no views from the main vistas from Crabtree across the fields, no views from Milford Hill or Batford estate roads that look over the fields and bizarrely the report claims the view from the Lower Luton Road will be screened by retaining the hillside, while the building elevations portray a view from the Lower Luton Road that shows the main building obliterating the entire northern skyline (some 35 m above the level of the Common Lane / Lower Luton Road junction. The development remains one which will create large areas of dug out land, and large areas of raised platform land – notably in the Mackeyre End area where sports pitches require up to 20 ft. increase in the levels – and don’t be under any illusion on lighting – the initial plan may not contain pitch lighting, but Sport England have already called for the hilltop pitches to be illuminated for night time use. In essence this will be a highly visible development with major change in the form of the landscape – a change that is not compatible with former use nor does it blend with surrounds – it will be a stark contrast.
The view coming out of Batford estate from Milford Hill will be dominated by the stark wall of the Sports Hall – estimated to be more than twice the height of the current hedge line and, although proposals suggest retention of the tree line to partially screen this bland feature, HCC have chosen not to purchase that land so have little influence over its future use. The entrance – or entrance and exit to the school - will be situated on the Lower Luton Road – a road that is planned to be widened (on the hill) to provide a third lane for turning in and out, and to create visibility it will necessary to cut away more of the hillside so that the visible impact of the road will be substantially increased.
Value for Money and associated risks: The school project was costed at between £53-65m when HCC’s consultants evaluated the project in 2015. This was about £20m more than DfE expect to fund and excluded land costs. In the supporting material the cost estimates have been reduced by between £8-10m – while a large part of this is removal of transport safety mitigation, it is also apparent that the design previously evaluated did not have large earthworks near Mackerye End and now that a substantial plateau of earth, towering nearly 30m above the main floor of the school has been proposed there is no apparent increase in the retaining wall estimates – the same distance of wall is allowed for and the cost of creating and maintaining the plateaus in a stable and safe manner is a mere £1m. This appears like a further significant cost cutting exercise and begs the question of where else have costs been removed from the project, and at what risk to safety. Initial work undertaken by HCC / ESFA contractors suggested that 111 parking places would be provided (May 2017) – this has been cut to 97, barely enough for the full time staff count, increasing the likelihood of external parking and implicit risk to neighbours and nearby pedestrians and road users. In essence the choice of site is a very expensive one to develop and it appears there is a willingness to cut costs from the start.
In summary there are many areas of challenge – some of these are covered in more detail in RSRP’s submissions to the Section 10 Consultation (which closed in late October) and to SADC who are consultees in the process (see our main page to view or download). Wheathampstead Parish Council, despite not being included as a statutory consultee on a development that is partly in their parish, did complete an assessment in late October – Harpenden Town Council have deferred their consideration to a full Council meeting due 27 November and have sought dispensation for a late submission. St Albans are due to deliberate on the plans in the near future – RSRP think this is also likely to be on 27 November but as yet SADC has not published details of this and the opportunity for public involvement. RSRP recommends that if you feel strongly you continue to raise your objections with your local Town / Parish / District And particularly County Councillor as all such processes have the ability for Councillors to put forward your views. Most of the meetings are open to public attendance, and some are recorded or even broadcast live.At present we understand HCC are targeting the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 20 December to review – though this will not be confirmed until nearer the date. In the meantime RSRP has a number of challenges lodged with HCC concerning aspects of this application and contributory matters – we will update on progress of these and advise on our work to analyse in detail the planning application support material nearer to the closing date. We have raised the difficulty of being able to do so when significant documents are missing from the pack published by HCC and note that there has been a minor move in schedule (from 14 November to 16 November) to accommodate publication of some missing information.
Planning Application Launch – September 2017 (Summary)
Planning Application Overview – Events so far
The Planning Application to build a school on the fields at Batford Farm was finally launched earlier
this week. Worryingly this is already shaping up as the same shambolic way as the Section 10 launch.
What should have happened was a coordinated set of notifications, clear instructions and a full set
of supporting information available simultaneously. Instead Herts County Council placed the first
notification of the application on the Planning Portal of their website late on Tuesday 26 th stating
that consultation opened on 26 th September and would run to 31 st October. Katherine Warington
School followed the next day saying “The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA), in partnership
with the Harpenden Secondary Education Trust (HSET), have submitted plans to Hertfordshire County
Council” – still no supporting information. Two days after launch HCC published supporting
information by then identifying the applicant as both HCC and “Hertfordshire County Council /
Educational Skills Funding Agency”.
At the same time County Councillor David Williams – remember the local councillor who was going
to keep everyone fully informed – circulated a note advising that the closing date for submissions
under the public consultation was 14 th November – closing dates 2, applicants 3. It took until
Saturday before written notifications - part of the legal requirements – began to arrive at properties
in the proximity of the site. No notice has yet been posted on the site perimeter.
The letters appear to confirm 14 th November, although webpage has yet to be updated (RSRP
understands this should happen soon).
The Planning process is generally a well prescribed process. There is no excuse for such a botched
start. Now a substantial document library has now been published the process begins in earnest.
The advisory letter to neighbours identifies three options to view the application and supporting
1. HCC website: www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/planning - follow search for application and enter
2. Make an appointment to view at the offices of Spatial Planning & Economy Unit of HCC –
this of course means a trip to Hertford as the office is at County Hall – call 01992 556266 to
3. Notice indicates that a third option MAY be possible – view the electronic copies at St Albans
District Council – Civic Centre in St Peter’s Street. As this is not confirmed at this stage we
suggest you ring the HCC number above to check what is required to arrange a viewing
The notification suggests any questions be directed to the same number or by email to
Planning – What happens next?
Four years after announcing intent to buy land, and seven years since HCC first drew up plans for the
site, there is finally an open consultation process–and anyone who considers they are potentially
affected by the proposals should take the opportunity to contribute by making representations.
For further guidance please see our full comments in the Downloads section of our website. RSRP
will be reviewing all the new material put forward and comparing it with previous HCC advisory
documents; where necessary expert opinion will be sought. This process will take a number of days
to complete and RSRP will make its analysis known through their website and other channels.
So far RSRP has not seen anything that suggests HCC has addressed the core concerns that have
existed with this proposal from the outset. RSRP has already noted that despite many prior
challenges, which HCC referred to the Planning Application process, HCC has chosen not to formally
advise RSRP of the Planning Application launch, a seemingly different policy to that adopted for
Review – Application and Notifications
Key points from our first review are below. Further details are in the downloads section.
In brief the Application, is, as would be expected, a summary document – it was dated 11 th
September 2017, which suggests HCC registered the submission on 12 th September 2017 as the
summary suggests. This begs the question of what happened in the intervening 2 weeks and if
submitted why the Trust chose not to divulge information at their Section 10 consultation evening.
The applicant status is ambiguous and the majority of the document refers to the supporting
documents – we will review these separately. For the present we would note that vehicle parking is
shown as for providing for 97 cars – not a higher number (111) quoted elsewhere. No provision is
quoted for buses to park on site. No residential units are included in the applications – the excluded
strip of land is not covered, but has been submitted in part to other local authorities for
consideration for housing development.
A notifications list has been produced and appended to the application – this identifies 829
addresses which are ‘local’ to the site and are understood to be expected to receive the notification
letter. The addresses listed appear to cover residences, businesses and other users in these areas:
- The eastern half of Batford (bounded by Pickford Hill and river Lea)
- The western half of Lea Valley estate (bounded by Castle Rise)
- A strip of land bounded by Station Road from Lower Luton Road, to the old railway bridge then along to far end of Marquis Lane (towards the sewage works)
Station Road, Pickford Hill and Castle Rise are among those treated this – so residents of Stephens
Court (former Pinneys site) qualify, residents of Balfour Court opposite (former Jarvis site) do not.
Large sections of Crabtree lane and roads leading off Crabtree and towards Station Road with direct
views to the site – are NOT included.
Given one of the greatest concerns with the development is traffic it is bizarre that in roads including
Castle Rise, Station Road and Pickford Hill HCC appear to consider the traffic effect will be less
depending on which side of the road you live! We could not find Batford Memorial Hall and
associated Scout HQ listed, despite the premises being in the middle of the zone.
Consultations Update – September 2017
STOP PRESS (27 September 2017):
As this article went for publication, notice of a Planning Application appeared on Herts
County Council’s website. It appeared late in the day (Tuesday 26 September).
As expected it confirms HCC is the Planning Authority that the Application has been made
to. It also confirms suspicions that the applicant is also HCC. This is contrary to many
other statements that the applicant would be the ESFA (Education Skills and Funding
Agency – previously EFA) as advised by HCC when it published a suite of reports it had
commissioned in 2015. It also declares that the Consultation started on 26 September.
Perhaps most remarkably, it has a ‘valid date’ of 12 th September and, to date, it is a
Consultation with no supporting documents to review as none have been published on the
HCC Planning Portal as of this morning (27 September). Similarly no notices have been
placed on or around the site, nor have neighbours received formal communication relating
to an Application (both requirements of such a process).
It is no surprise that HCC appear to be redefining new lows in how to disregard their
residents. RSRP will continue to monitor, analyse and report on how to challenge a
process that can only be described as wrong – in every aspect.
Last week saw HSET stage a ‘drop in’ session as part of the Section 10 Consultation process required
under the Academies Act to gain funding approval for the Katherine Warington School. Perhaps not
surprising that following the fiasco with distribution of leaflets and letters, many of the visitors were
less than impressed when they arrived, and, from reports received, learnt little from the event.
The Trust acknowledged difficulties with distribution and extended its deadline for responses to
October 25 th . However some immediate neighbours to the proposed school had not received any
formal communication when the consultation evening was held and were only able to attend
because RSRP and others had done the Trust’s job and informed them. We understand that further
leafleting has now taken place to those who have advised the Trust that they were omitted, but we
are still receiving reports of failing to communicate.
For those who did attend the greatest frustration was a complete lack of further information on how
the School would impact the community. One of the greatest concerns was transport for both
potential distant pupils and for residents in the locality. At the previous event when the Trust and its
partners (including HCC) tried to tell the community about the emerging plans, there was a big gap
in the Transport work. The information boards said the work was still to be done. HCC went further,
stating that the basis for that work – a Needs Assessment to be produced by HCC – did not exist and
that the previous one (issued alongside the Vincent & Gorbing reports in 2015) was now out of date.
So, despite no idea of where children would come from for the school (and its sister schools in the
Town) the Trust clearly feels able to ask for public approval in any event. Questions to various
people officiating on the night suggested that all pupils would be encouraged to walk or cycle to the
school, some officials going as far as to suggest there would be no buses.
The reality of the situation was best summed up by a comment from one Trust member who stated
that the Travel Plan will be submitted with the Planning Application and will, like the choice of site,
be largely HCC’s responsibility. That means that in this Section 10 consultation you are being asked
to either to recommend approval or rejection of a funding agreement – without full knowledge of
what is being asked for. Having seen the material presented at the consultation event RSRP is
therefore formally asking the Trust for more information. We are asking about the content of the
Trust’s proposals, the impact on the Community, and how the Trust proposes to account for the
gaps in the Consultation process. We are asking for specific information from the Trust via a short
series of questions, requesting responses that we will publish to enable completion/submission of
forms before the extended deadline. (Questions will be published on RSRP website shortly).
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the Consultation evening was the number of questions that
were referred to an imminent Planning Application. It is understood that despite having published
no further information on the many issues raised in the July events, the school’s promoters – ESFA
(DfE), HCC and the Trust – are to make a Planning Application by the end of September. At time of
writing (25 September), neither SADC nor HCC Planning Portals were showing any applications for
the site, nor have any legally required notices been posted on the site. However, it is likely that
these will appear shortly if there is to be any sort of chance of meeting the aspiration to have some
pupils on site by September 2018. When an application is made it will, of course, have to go through
the regulation processes of going out to consultation. For a development of this scale, this is
expected to be significantly longer than the usual minimum 21 days given for public comments. The
same guidelines will apply whether it is HCC who will hear what is, in effect, their own application or
whether, like the majority of new build Academies, it is the District Council (in this instance St
Albans) who hear the application. What is known is that HCC have placed a notice on the gate
(warning not to trespass on the land) stating they now own the land. Enquiries (via public domain
Freedom of Information Request) confirm that HCC purchased the land on 25 August 2017 –
seemingly forgetting their pledges not to purchase without Planning Consent.
RSRP has a substantial portfolio of evidence to mount a robust challenge to any planning application
for this site. Until an application is published, it is inappropriate to identify specific areas of
challenge, as the content and supporting material for the application is unknown. RSRP regret that
HCC have chosen to lock residents out and ignore their concerns, and that in doing so, HCC have
repeatedly turned down opportunities to consider better solutions (to the problem of ensuring
provision of school places where they are truly needed). What is apparent is that HCC are prepared
to go to considerable length to push this matter, and that will oblige anyone with legitimate grounds
to challenge to do so in a professional manner. There is, of course, a price tag for engaging
professional advisors, therefore now is the time to help RSRP with funding to make sure that the
best case is presented/the best solution emerges. RSRP website has details of how this can be done
or contact any of our Committee members.
RSRP will continue to post material on this site and through its facebook pages to keep people
informed on developments and how residents can challenge.
School Development - What's in store? - September 2017
In this update RSRP has included comments on
- the current position
- the recent pre-Planning exhibitions (held in July),
- other developments relating to the site
- the Section 10 Consultation,
- School Applications and Admissions,
- Planning Application, and
- Next steps
Plans to develop a fourth secondary school are now moving into a critical phase. Having adopted the name Katherine Warington School, the Trust behind the project are now moving into the first of the legally required consultations needed to gain approval to build and open a new school.
This first requirement is for the Trust to hold a Consultation as specified in Section 10 of the Academies Act. Responses to a Section 10 consultation are used by the Secretary of State for Education to give approval, or otherwise, to each new Free School project. It follows a series of events in July 2017 organised by the school promoters, aimed at giving insight to preparations for submission of a Planning Application. The promoters have said they intend to submit a Planning Application in Autumn this year and like any Planning Application, it also requires a formal public consultation (separate from any Section 10 Consultation).
Opening has already been deferred by agreement for one year. With Applications for pupil entry in September 2018 now open, the Trust cannot afford to delay and RSRP understands a Planning Application is likely to be made soon, possibly later this month. Expected key dates are as follows:
Monday 4 September Section 10 Academies Act Consultation opens
Monday 18 September ‘Meet the Trust’ event at Rothamsted (Section 10)
Est. late September Planning Application submission
Sept/Oct Planning Application Consultation *
Saturday 14 October Prospective Parents ‘Open Day’
Monday 16 October Section 10 Consultation closes
31 October 2017 2018 Application process (standard schedule) closes
Late 2017/early 2018 Planning Application Hearing*
Note (*) – the Planning Application process will depend on a number of factors: these include the Authority who receives the Application, the scale of application, etc. In practice there is generally a minimum of 21 days public consultation; the hearing date will be determined by scheduled meeting dates for the Authority and amount of work required for Officers to undertake expected consultation and assessments.
Exhibitions – what they contained
The exhibitions in July were billed as outlining the work to date on the preparation of a planning application. The content reinforced RSRP’s initial view that the exhibitions were premature as insufficient work had been done in respect of impact on the local community.
During the course of the 4 sessions, exhibitors, who came from all partners in the school build – EFA, Kier (lead contractor), HSET (the Trust) and HCC (Hertfordshire County Council) struggled to provide much insight into key topics, more often than not outlining work to be done. No long range views for landscape impact were provided, but it was explained that the intention was to retain all material on site – in essence digging out large areas of the slopes to create large flat areas in higher zones for sports pitches. The Contractors advised that the temporary accommodation – to be provided through adaptation of the proposed sports hall as classrooms for the initial intake – would be contained in a sectioned area that would allow earthworks to take place in parallel, with construction traffic using the proposed Lower Luton Road access during the main construction period. This would see a significant amount of movement of earth from the site of the main building, past the sports hall to proposed sports pitches at the northern end of the site.
Traffic and transport concerns were amplified by the lack of available information. Having declared that a transport assessment was yet to be undertaken (see previous RSRP article), HCC Officers at the exhibitions confirmed that the source information from which a transport assessment would be made had not been prepared. Previous information, prepared at the time of the 2015 Vincent & Gorbing site assessment reports, was considered to be ‘out of date’ and a revised Needs Assessment was to be prepared for the Transport Assessment.
In the meantime, planners have worked ‘blind’ with no knowledge of pupils’ origin, yet had:
- prepared an assessment of bus and car parking spaces,
- made proposals for separate entrance/exit on the blind hill section of Lower Luton Road
- planned removal of the roundabout (on current junction)
- proposed realignment of Lower Luton Road to create bus stop and access to a light-controlled crossing part-way up the (blind) hill.
No mitigation schemes were planned anywhere else: i.e. no change at Station Road/Lower Luton Road junction, no measures for Lower Luton Road pinch points between Batford and Wheathampstead, no mitigation for the likely cut-throughs, rat runs and drop-off areas. Many comments were made about likely impact at a number of locations, amplifying previously made comments, but it is unlikely that further information will be available until the Planning Application.
Some concerns remain about the exhibition organisation. Selectively leafleted to local residents as an Exhibition, without reference to the site, attendees may have been surprised to learn that they were part of public consultation. In RSRP’s view the events drew feedback but do not constitute consultation because feedback organisation was not on an open and equal basis to all interested parties. More importantly, the events openly declared that the work (that was being ‘consulted’ upon) had not, at that time, been undertaken yet.
The Exhibitions timing corresponded to further works commencing in the fields. At first sight these seemed more intrusive, but exhibitors were able to confirm these were investigative works relating to site Archaeology. These works continued beyond the exhibition timetable.
Archaeological Review is generally required in respect of major developments. Contractors will typically organise a variety of surveys. This usually includes random trench digging/examination, looking for evidence of items of archaeological interest. In the case of the Batford site, the exhibitors advised they were expecting specialist investigators to dig 75 initial trenches, randomly chosen, across the site. RSRP understands this is not untypical for this size of site. Further excavation would occur if there were findings warranting more investigation. However in the case of the Batford site there were previously registered reports (Herts Historical and Environmental Records) indicating evidence of significant archaeological potential. These came from surveys undertaken in 2015, followed up in 2016 and widely reported in local press.
There are duties on developers to have regard to archaeology on any site being developed – RSRP understands that these are, in the first instance, to check for potential and, if found, treat according to archaeological importance. For most sites this would mean care taken not to destroy in first instance, then to investigate, document and preserve according to importance. The level of preservation could range from ensuring that the archaeology is not disturbed by development and remains in situ, through removal and preservation elsewhere to, in very exceptional circumstances, safeguarding in situ. Developers generally seek to investigate and act on the archaeological aspect ahead of formal development as finding archaeology during the course of construction usually slows processes considerably.
Given the recent investigation, and other related archaeological discoveries in the vicinity, a number of exhibition visitors asked about the steps being taken, particularly in the areas already highlighted with potential. Surprisingly, no response identified any special investigation measures being taken in the areas where recent studies had highlighted potential. In practice responses ranged from the dismissive (with senior representatives of the project stating there was ‘no archaeology’ on site), through to promises of a report that would be damning of previous work and, perhaps most bizarre, a put-down from a senior trust member to the effect that the previous work was only that of a PhD student. That last comment was not what would be expected from the head of an educational institute that presumably seeks to promote academic excellence.
All the comments about Archaeology were made when the investigations had only just begun. Perhaps investigations were simply being talked down, perhaps over zealously, because they represented a consideration that they (Trust/Kier/EFA/HCC) didn’t want to make. Ironically, at the end of August, investigative archaeologists have returned to site and a statement issued by Herts County Council indicates this return is because of significant finds. This suggests that the Trust and promoters were more than hasty in their earlier conclusions and that there is confirmatory evidence for the previous 2015/2016 independent work.
The exhibition materials were published, as advertised, for a set period after the exhibitions concluded and those materials have now been removed from the school’s website.
In late August, in line with admissions policies published earlier, the school published an Application form for pupils wishing to enter the school from September 2018.
At the beginning of September 2017, Herts County Council’s school place forecasts were unchanged. These were published last summer, based on Schools Census information from January 2016 and continue to show a rapid decline in demand after 2022. RSRP’s analysis of school numbers were based these are the reports, along with allocation data for September 2017 (see earlier articles on this website).
Section 10 Consultation
The Section 10 consultation launches 4 September and runs for 6 weeks. Details are scheduled to be published on the school website (www.kwschool.co.uk), but it is known that a ‘public meeting’ to discuss the Trust’s proposals is planned by the Trust on Monday 18th September at Plaza, Rothamsted Research Centre from 4pm to 8pm. The format, and ticketing arrangements, if any, are unknown at this stage.
A small number of residents have received a direct mailshot about this consultation including a copy of the response form. The form suggests that an online version will be available for completion. In its printed form the obligatory consultation question is Q5 asking whether the Trust and the Secretary of State for Education should enter into a funding agreement. This is the required question and is presented as a Yes or No option.
At first viewing there is no option of submitting a qualified answer so RSRP are advising that if you intend responding you should first review the published back up information (when it becomes available), attend the Rothamsted meeting to clarify any points you are unsure of and/or send any questions you may have to the email address suggested to get clarification before responding.
If you have ANY doubts that cannot be resolved prior to the deadline, RSRP is currently recommending that you respond with a ‘No’ response and use the Comments section to identify your outstanding concerns – this is because the layout suggests that responses will only be counted as ‘yes or no’ to the key question.
RSRP will review the material supplied by the Trust and will analyse and comment further once more is known.
The Trust has indicated that it intends operating the school with a first intake in September 2018. In order to do so the Trust needs to have an application process in place and running in parallel with the standard admissions for the same academic year. As there is no guarantee of places being available, the Trust cannot use the standard application process so there is a separate application form which is supplementary to the standard 4 choices available on the County scheme.
In practice HCC Admissions are administering the scheme and it is RSRP understanding that parents who apply through both schemes may receive two offers. RSRP respects individual parents’ choice on school application but would recommend that prospective applicants undertake visits to ALL schools of interest and use these visits to address concerns they have about every school. We particularly recommend visiting the KW open day which is scheduled for Saturday 14th October (closing date for all applications is 31 October). We suggest that if genuinely interested you ask
- how the school will be organised in its first year,
- what facilities will be in use and
- what other work will be going on ‘around’ the temporary accommodation to prepare the school for the following year.
We also suggest that you get a clear understanding of arrangements should the school’s temporary facilities not be ready for September 2018 start. RSRP understand the schedule is very tight and it is unlikely that a planning application will have been heard by October 31, or that construction work will have started by 1 March 2018 (Allocation day) even if Planning is successful at first application. This is simply a consequence of the scale of the works and the time required for such projects.
As with any choice we would not recommend including an application to a school unless you wish, or at least are prepared for, your child to attend the school from September 2018.
The Trust has indicated that a Planning Application should be submitted in Autumn 2017. This is an obligatory process and brings with it a formal consultation process and an examination process. The nature and timing of elements of the process will vary with individual circumstances, but it is RSRP’s current understanding that the planning application will be submitted to Hertfordshire County Council and not to St Albans District Council. St Albans is the Local Planning Authority and would generally hear applications, however some types of application may go to County under certain conditions. Both parties are governed by the same legal conditions when considering Planning and therefore should treat any objections under the same rules.
The process requires more formal notification, such as Press notices, posted planning notices and mailing to directly affected neighbours. However the response time is potentially shorter than (say) a Section 10 consultation. Previous similar Free School projects have held their section 10 and taken feedback through to the Planning application. It is unlikely that there will be sufficient time to do this for Katherine Warington School. It is not known if any further events will be held either before or alongside a Planning Application to enable questions, or capture input from interested parties.
RSRP will analyse material that is put into the public domain and continue to provide relevant evidence-based work for residents and stakeholders to consider. In the immediate future we will follow developments with both Section 10 and any Town Planning Application. We will continue to question any aspect that has material bearing on this case, and seek to hold those in public office or spending public money accountable.
RSRP is increasingly concerned following the exhibitions and the collective effort the school’s promoters (EFA, HSET and HCC, along with their Contractors) to dismiss the presence of archaeology before their investigations had even begun. This replicates HCC approach when presenting the initial case. It suggests that the same ethos has been adopted by the Trust, who appear to be undertaking all the processing of the Section 10 Consultation responses.
School unveils outline Plans – Comments invited - July 2017
After a long wait, the potential secondary school proposer HSET (the Trust) has started to reveal plans for a potential Batford Farm development. In practice HSET is one of the school promotion group. Other members are ESFA (Education & Skills Funding Agency, successor to EFA) and Hertfordshire County Council (HCC). HCC’s role seems to have progressively changed from no involvement, to land provider, to (now) full development partner.
With limited notice, leaflets advertising exhibitions began to be delivered in late June. Exhibitions began on Monday 10 th July with more scheduled for Thursday 13 th (Batford Memorial Hall), Wednesday 19 th (Wheathampstead Memorial Hall) and Thursday 20 th (Redbourn Village Hall). Each event runs from 3.00pm to 8.30pm. Exhibition material was initially to be made available on the Trust’s website for one week after the final exhibition. This now appears to be extended to 2 weeks (to 3 rd August).
If you attend – and we encourage you to do so – you will receive a questionnaire that, like the website, advises you that you are part of a consultation.
So what is being asked? Two formal consultations are due under the Academies Act and Planning Regulations.This exercise is neither of these. When questioned, the Trust stated is seeking views which will be used as part of a Statement of Community Involvement to accompany a formal Planning Application. This Planning Application is expected to be lodged in September this year with Hertfordshire County Council (who has just openly declared their direct interest above) as Planning Authority.
The Exhibition subject is the emerging school (now called the Katherine Warington School) plans. It is meant to summarise work done so far and outline remaining work ahead of a Planning Application. Clearly a lot of effort has gone into what the school should contain for education purposes and you can live with a bit of PR gloss on the history. However, from the third (of 9) exhibition boards you find that much of the work is, at best, formative.
Board 3 identifies Kier Construction as the lead contractor, responsible for staging the exhibitions. From Board 3, the displays cover every aspect of how the potential development will affect the local and wider community. The areas with limited or no information include Green Belt impact; heritage impact, flood and surface water impact, landscape impact, visual impact and perhaps most critically traffic and transport impact.
On traffic and transport, a later display board says a TA (transport assessment) will take place, with scope agreed with Hertfordshire County Council (again) and a School Travel Plan will be submitted with the final application. Meanwhile, without any indication of where pupils will come from (see RSRP’s recent article for indications of this) there are only site plans to indicate the thought process so far. Those plans show separate entrance/exit, both directly from the Lower Luton Road (on the slope east of the Common Lane roundabout). A 79-space car park is expected to provide all parking including drop off.
Alignment of Lower Luton Road at the Common Lane junction appears to have changed, removing the roundabout. The road line appears to be moved towards the Farm fields to allow a footpath/cycle path to be established on the south side. There is a new pedestrian crossing part way up the hill. No information is available about any other changes in the surrounding area e.g. other Lower Luton Road pinch points, improved pathways from Wheathampstead, Station Road bridge, etc.
RSRP’s initial view is that seeking views and public opinion at this stage is premature. Work undertaken so far is insufficient for local residents to draw conclusions. It is pointless when no tangible proposals are on the table. The same applies to landscape where visitors are left to discover that large sections of the fields would be dug out and transported to make highly visible plateaus for sports pitches. These plateaus are so much higher than the base level that they require winding hillside paths to reach them. There are no visualisations of the transformed landscape that could help residents assess the impact on their perspective of the area. If you want to express any concerns, you should visit the exhibitions
The questionnaire: When you visit you will be given a questionnaire which has three main sections for written comments. Q1 starts with “if you support ... what do you like about the emerging plans”, Q2 “ if you have any concerns or do not support...” while Q3 asks for any ideas to improve. None of these addresses the lack of work undertaken in key areas affecting residents.
Your answer on any aspect you think is good may lead to your opinion being counted as supporting the school at HCC’s choice of site. You may wish to qualify your answer (by clearly stating that aspects you like do not mean you support every aspect or the site choice). You can put more comments in the ‘Any other comments’ box on the back of the questionnaire. If you do not consider sufficient work has been done on any aspect of the exhibited work please make this point and state that you consider this exercise cannot be taken as a consultation as it does not contain sufficient information to consult on.
You may also care to ask about or comment on the lack of consultation on the site choice/location and how it serves the communities in the area
RSRP will analyse material that is put into the public domain and continue to provide relevant evidence-based work for residents to consider. Our latest analysis of school place demand (now based on over a decade of data) is available both on our web site and Facebook, along with our latest newsletter. For those who have noticed activity in the fields this week we understand this is a blanket archaeological assessment being undertaken as part of site analysis (again not available for the exhibitions). We are not aware if it will include any focus on previously identified areas of potential archaeological interest.
Demand for School Places – Exploding the Myth [May 2017]
At the heart of the case for a new secondary school in Harpenden has been the assertion that there is a huge gap between places in Harpenden and need in Harpenden. The LEA - Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) - has forecast a period of rapid growth peaking at a projected need of 820 places per year, before settling permanently at 5 forms of entry more than the capacity of the existing 3 secondary schools (1). Capacity of the existing schools (Sir John Lawes, St Georges and Roundwood Park) is 572 and, in effect, HCC expect a minimum of 720 as the base going forward.
Four years of admissions have occurred since HCC brought its proposals for land acquisition forward and 10 years of admissions data is now published on HCC’s website(4). Data published includes accurate figures of how many applications are received by Town or Parish of residence – both for secondary and for junior, who become the core of secondary applications seven years later. Applications from Harpenden Town residents for the past decade have seen some increases, but these are moderate – an average of 10% higher in the second five year period (2013-17) compared to previous five years (2008-12). The average number of applicants from 2013 to 2017 was 422 per year from Harpenden Town – 150 (five forms of entry) less than the places available.
In practice applicants covers any applicant applying to HCC for a place – this includes those who apply for (and get) places in the two single sex schools in the ‘Priority Area’ – both of which (STAGS and Veralum) are located in St Albans. Similarly the figure includes those applying to HCC but ultimately taking a place in a private sector school. HCC do not publish figures showing where the allocations to each school reside, but via Freedom of Information requests made about data presented by HCC to a meeting in Harpenden in February 2016, RSRP learnt that following all iterations of the allocation process in 2015, the total number of Harpenden Town residents taking up places at the three secondary schools was 398 – a little under 70% of the available places.
HCC’s latest forecasts (2) identify a maximum demand in 2019 for which the Harpenden Town element is expected to be 455 (3), more than 120 places below the current provision. Going forward the applications for Primary places indicate what can be expected – in the chart below 2013 Primary School applicants are compared to 2012 and so on. As 2012 intake will form the basis of the 2019 Secondary transfers, the changes reflect the expected change going forward. In the chart the comparison is between Harpenden applications and the overall applications across the County – which are significantly different.
In practice 2017 saw the second substantial fall in Primary School applications in succession and the final two years (taken from HCC forecasts) show a continuation of this dramatic reduction. Essentially there is only one conclusion from this:
There is not, never has been, nor is there forecast to be more secondary applicants than current places in Harpenden Town
However the difficulties experienced by some parents in getting places in the three secondary schools were not imagined – HCC adopted an approach to school place planning and allocation many years ago that failed to give proper weight and balance to pupils who live outside Harpenden. HCC School Planning is organised by 22 Planning Areas across the County – one of these (Area 11) is the Harpenden Schools Planning Area, sometimes referred to the Harpenden Education Planning Area by HCC. It is effectively a horseshoe shaped area with Harpenden Town occupying the central section and areas to the East and West of the Town, both of which stretch northwards. Each of the outlying districts has one large village area – Whethampstead to the East and Redbourn to the West and further outlying areas with smaller villages and hamlets – Kimpton and Whitwell in ‘The Waldens’ to the North East, Flamstead and Markyate to the North West in ‘Hemel Rural North’. The recognised travel routes from each of the outlying areas to Harpenden lead through or close by the larger villages in the respective areas. While the sub areas are considered on a stand-alone basis for Primary School place planning, since the closure of secondary schools in both Wheathampstead and Redbourn, all area demand has been directed towards Harpenden. While the idea of concentrating the residual demand in the centre of an area may have some merit when the residual demand is small, it becomes illogical when there are large numbers of pupils expected to travel in on a daily basis – by the mid-2000s there were in excess of one third of pupils travelling in to Harpenden’s three schools, and as numbers rose the village requirements rose above 200 per annum and in HCC’s forecast for the new school over 320 pupils per annum were expected from outside Harpenden Town.
In practice the allocation rules have been highly influential in the fortunes of applicants for school places in Harpenden. Going into the build to the peak, places for children in the villages began to reduce as the underlying deciding factor in success of an application was distance from the school. St Georges originally ‘reserved’ places for qualifying applicants (Faith grounds) for pupils from the villages – however these were initially cut back to 20% (about half the proportion in the planning area) and then, in 2017, to a pure ‘distance from school’ criterion. The effect is not immediate as the rules do not affect Siblings, one of the two largest groups of applicants, in the same way. Generally Sibling entries – where a child qualifies for a place on the basis of an elder sibling attending the school – are amongst the top half of allocations. However the distance factor affects the next category of applicants and here distant applicants are progressively less successful – this has the effect of removing eldest children from these areas and thereby reducing the sibling numbers from the same areas in the years that follow. The situation has been aggravated by the success of Harpenden’s schools – making them attractive to applicants from outside the Planning Area and in turn opening up places to further Siblings. As the number pressures grew, the restriction on available places for local residents was greater than the numbers would have suggested, but ‘first-time’ applicants from out of area would be the first to fail to secure places and as the rings of exclusion progressively tightened, Harpenden Town applicants would be expected to achieve higher success levels with applications. This appears to be borne out in the measures of success used by HCC for allocations – % of applicants receiving a “ranked” or “non-ranked” allocation (ranked being one of the four choices a parent can make when applying for a secondary transfer).
Note: * Ranked figures exclude ring-fenced temporary places at Sandringham
Ring fenced places were initially introduced in 2015 for Wheathampstead residents, following 80% success in the largest of the villages. Under the scheme HCC asked Sandringham School to advance its plans for expansion and make 25 of the new places available to Wheathampstead applicants. This was repeated in 2016 and for 2017 HCC asked for the scheme to be extended by a further 30 places, split 15 for Wheathampstead and 15 for Harpenden Town. Other areas, such as Kimpton with substantially lower success rates were not included in the extended offer. Harpenden applicants were offered 8 of the available 15 places on Allocation Day, after continuing Interest rounds 4 places (0.9% of Harpenden applications) remain allocated to Harpenden pupils. With similar disproportionate success rates in previous years it is clear that:
The burden of any shortfalls in school places is borne by children in the Villages outside Harpenden and particularly to the East of the town in Wheathampstead, Kimpton and The Waldens
A key factor in the significantly poorer success rates for Village pupils in attaining allocations to Harpenden Town schools is the distance – the three schools operate under two slightly different sets of rules – St Georges, located slightly to the east of central Harpenden, draws pupils from the whole town, while the two standard Co-educational schools effectively give preference on the basis of the nearest to place of residence. This has the effect of creating a dividing line through the town, however it is not an equal division and Sir John Lawes is the nearest co-educational secondary school for a greater proportion of homes. The most obvious effect of this is that Roundwood Park is the ‘nearest’ such school for Redbourn and is generally able to accommodate applicants from Redbourn. The distance effect has been known to kick in for more distant applicants in Flamstead and Markyate to the west of Harpenden.
Under the current allocation rules a new village applicant looking to Harpenden’s three secondary schools will find they are further down the queue for places than all Harpenden residents for two of the three schools, and for the remaining school they will be behind a significant proportion of the Town’s applicants – more for eastern villages than western in the Harpenden Schools Planning Area. Adding a fourth school in Harpenden Town will exaggerate this effect as village applicants will be further down the queue for three of four schools and still be behind some Town residents for places at their ‘nearest’ school.
Is there sufficient demand in any of the villages for a school? Application data published by HCC indicates applications for Primary school places from residents of Wheathampstead has averaged over 100 for the past 5 years, while Kimpton and The Waldens – the villages furthest east of Harpenden – typically have 45-50 applicants. In essence the villages to the east of Harpenden Town produce around 5 Forms of Entry for senior transfer each year – sufficient for a sustainable secondary school located where the majority of the demand is – Wheathampstead. The villages to the west provide 120-130 applicants, but the physical location of the current co-educational schools is such that a significant number of pupils secure places at Roundwood Park on a regular basis (but are still behind all Harpenden residents for places at the other schools), therefore while each area would justify a local secondary school in the largest local village, the case for Wheathampstead is the stronger. With HCC’s plans exclusively limited to Harpenden Town pupils from villages to the east of the town will effectively be directed to the new proposed school but in doing so will form the overwhelming majority of attendees at the new school, involving longer travel with all its incumbent problems. However of greater concern is that as the total demand falls away – per HCC’s latest published forecasts – there will be significant excess capacity in the Town which is likely to result in one of the following:
· Short term recruitment of pupils from much further afield – from other HCC areas and out of County – with further travel issues in the short term and potential loss of places in future to siblings from remote pupils.
· Capacity reduction – managed reduction at all schools to maintain capacity for subsequent expansion
· Capacity reduction – removal of block of capacity on permanent basis.
Any of the above will have a detrimental effect on the position of applicants in the villages as all will result in some squeezing of capacity and, once again, the village applicants will be the first to experience any detrimental effect. The current HCC forecasts suggest an extended bulge in demand for around 5 years, on this basis there are grounds that establishing a school, possibly smaller than the HCC core model, located in the eastern Villages to serve the village needs would produce a sustainable solution that also addressed the inherent inequalities in the current allocation process.
Demand in Wheathampstead and The Waldens exists and is sufficient to make a school in the immediate locality justifiable and sustainable.
Throughout the formulation of plans for a potential new school HCC has referred to demand in the Planning Area as demand for Harpenden as though all demand was in the Town – to the point that groups briefed by HCC were talking of hundreds of Harpenden children being bussed across the county for schooling. This is, and always has been, a myth. In practice far from exporting pupils, Harpenden has for many years drawn pupils in – up to 40% of Secondary school pupils in the town travel in and far from addressing a localised shortage, HCC’s plans would lead to approximately 2 places for every Harpenden Town resident pupil if progressed. Perhaps more surprising is that Primary places in the Town, where expected pupil travel distances are lower, are also subject to excess provision – with 421 ‘Town’ applications for 2017, the available places number 517 – 22% more than local demand. However this year 468 allocations were made on Allocation Day and the extra capacity is split fairly evenly between out of Town applicants and spare capacity. Previously there have been well documented difficulties in getting places at the more popular schools, which, given there has been historic provision beyond the immediate local needs, suggest that the same demand profiles and the knock-on effects of Sibling preferences have been the main cause of local placement difficulties. However as indicated in HCC forecasts the demand is set to plummet in the coming years, further alleviating local concerns but potentially opening up to the next wave of more distant applicants.
In summary HCC, and other interest groups, have been happy for picture to be painted of massive permanent shortages of school places in Harpenden, which can only be addressed by continually increasing the number of places in the Town. However the direct consequence of this approach has been to create a level of over provision that has had catastrophic effects on both local and distant pupils, in turn sparking hysteria about subsequent ability to secure places. The knee jerk solutions proposed and implemented have served to accentuate problems and failed to address inherent inequalities in the allocation process. It is time
· to properly recognise the nature of need and align the provision of places to need
· to plan to sensibly meet the future fluctuations in demand in an even-handed manner
· to provide more equality of access to all pupils, by facilitating schools that allow continuity of entry
· to manage the full estate of education property to make best use of public funds
and this starts by dispelling the myth that for each school year there are over 700 pupils in Harpenden – there are 400-450 in Harpenden and the remaining 250-300 are in villages round Harpenden.
1 Minutes HCC Cabinet 13 September 2013 (Item 8 - Reasons for Decision)
2 HCC website ‘School Planning’ page (links to forecasts – Summer 2016-17 at time of writing – are in section headed ‘How we decide how many school places we need’
3 HCC estimated demand based on Primary School place occupancy in its Forecast of Pupil Places for Transport Appraisals (available on HCC website in New Schools section) produced in association with Site reports in February 2015 (managed by Vincent & Gorbing as commissioned by HCC) – the methodology used has been applied to current peak estimate. (Note – definitions were postcode based and include some areas outside Harpenden Town within Harpenden count)
4 HCC website ‘School Admissions – previous years’ statistics’ page (multiple reports available by year of entry)