Ark Pioneer school gets planning permission despite massive local opposition

Artist's impression of the new school (Barnet Times)

Wednesday's Barnet Planning Committee approved the building of a new school on the former Underhill Stadium despite 500 objections to building on the undeveloped Green Belt of the former football ground and opposition from Andrew Dismore, Labour London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden. Around 150 local people attended the Planning Committee.

All six members of the Committee, including the chair, voted for the proposal. Observers commented on the low level of questioning by councillors and their reluctance to engage with objectors. At least two were said to be disparaging towards the improving nearby Totteridge Academy which may well be detrimentally affected by the new school.

Objectors had argued that Totteridge could have been expanded on its current footprint for any increase in secondary pupil numbers as an alternative to building a new school. They felt, in any case, that misleading figures had been given on future need. New housing was mainly one and two bedroomed rather than family three bedroomed and that any bulge in the eight wards surrounding the Green Belt site would peak by 2025 at the latest.  Local children who attend faith primary schools tend to move on to faith secondary schools and a significant number go to private or selective schools. Saracens is opening a new all-through school in Colindale in Graham Park.

All this means that the new school's intake is likely to come from further away and there will be increased traffic congestion as public transport to the site is poor.

Perhaps most galling was that the CEO of Ark was allowed to give a promotional speech extolling the merits of the proposed Ark Pioneer with its controversial methods.

Barnet campaigners against new school on Green Belt land urge attendance at October 25th Planning Committee

Opponents of plans to build an Ark secondary school on Green Belt land in Barnet are urging residents to attend the Planning Committee on October 25th at the Town Hall.

The item appears to have been added late to the meeting agenda and of course occurs during the Autum half-term holiday which may affect attendance.

The plans are now for a secondary rather than an all-through school and officers are recommending approval. If approved it will be subject to Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London and the Secretary of State.

The conclusion to their report LINK states:

-->

.        17.1 The application seeks permission the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a new 6FE secondary school, accommodating up to 1200 pupils. It is acknowledged that the development represents ‘inappropriate development’ on green belt land and as such is only justified if very special circumstances exist. 


.        17.2  Recent appeal decisions from the planning inspectorate have accepted the need for school places can be a very special circumstance which could justify inappropriate development on green belt land. In this case, officers consider that there is an overwhelming and demonstrable need for secondary school places within the borough which is clearly demonstrated within the school places data within this report. The Council’s Education Department have been unequivocal in outlining this need and it is clear that the need for secondary school places is especially pertinent given that it results from an exceptional increase in primary school intake and thus those additional children that will need the secondary school places are already in the school system. 


.        17.3  It is important to note that even if the nearby Totteridge Academy were brought up to full capacity then there would still be an overwhelming need for the secondary school places which this development would deliver. In planning terms, further expansion of TTA would not be sequentially preferable to the current proposals given that such development would entail further green belt encroachment as opposed to the current scheme which represents previously developed land. 


.        17.4  The special circumstances are reinforced by the lack of alternative sites that are available to facilitate development that could meet the identified need. The sequential assessment carried out in support of the application is considered to be robust and clearly demonstrates that all other sites of an appropriate size are unavailable, unsuitable or unviable with regards to providing a secondary school that would meet the identified need. 


.        17.4  The development would not have an unacceptably detrimental impact on the openness of the green belt which is demonstrated by the visual impact assessment submitted by the applicant. The scale and height of the development steps down to integrate with the surrounding development and in this regard it is considered that it would not be visually incongruous within its context. 


.        17.5  Subject to conditions, the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential occupiers in terms of daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, privacy, outlook or noise. 


.        17.6  One of the primary concerns arising from the consultation exercise was the potential for the development to have a detrimental impact on surrounding highway conditions in terms of traffic congestion, traffic safety and parking. In order to mitigate the impact of the development on the surrounding highways, the junctions of the A1000/Underhill and Underhill/Barnet Lane would be remodelled to ease traffic flow. A new right turn lane would be installed at the Underhill/Barnet Lane junction whilst comprehensive remodelling of the A1000/Underhill would allow for two lanes of traffic to travel in each direction which would significantly ease existing capacity problems. The S106 would require a contribution from the applicant towards the cost of the junction works which is commensurate with the level of impact that would arise from the development. The outstanding costs of the junction works would be met by the Council. The junction works would be implemented prior to the occupation of the development. On this basis, it is clear that the proposed highway improvement works would address both existing traffic congestion and the additional traffic impact that would arise from the development. Officers are therefore clearly of the view that there should be no grounds for refusal of the application on highway grounds. 


.        17.7  in terms of parking, a parking survey was submitted as part of the Transport Assessment which assessed the projected impact of the development with regards to parking stress on the surrounding streets. Based on the projected modal split, the parking survey demonstrates that there is adequate existing capacity to accommodate any overspill parking not accommodated for within the on-site car park. Nevertheless, the applicant is committed to enter into a School Travel Plan as part of the S106 which would commit them to meeting car use targets. Should these targets not be met then a further parking review would be triggered which may necessitate a CPZ review which would mitigate any additional impact which may arise. 


.        17.8  Officers consider that the planning obligations sought through the S106 Agreement would mitigate the impacts of development where necessary. 


.        17.9  Having regard to all of the above and making a balanced recommendation, officers consider that the development is acceptable and as such approval of the application is recommended. 


.         

19.0 Recommendation: To approve application ref: 17/4840/FUL subject to the conditions and planning obligations outlined and subject to referral to the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State.

Parents campaigning against Ark Pioneer school in Barnet

From Barnet Parents Defending Education

Ark DID hit the rocks in Barnet last night

 

Vin-dic-tive - Deviant Art

Guest blog by Jenny Brown

The pubic gallery was packed at Hendon Town Hall last night as residents, teachers, school governors and teaching assistants listened to the councillors question and discuss the issues regarding the Education Funding Agency's application for the building of an all-though Ark Pioneer free school on green belt land. LINK

Barnet Planning Committe rejected the planning application for the  Free School proposed by ARK PIONEER.

The EFA/ARK can appeal but the fact that Barnet council turned down the ARK PIONEER application for planning permission has  particular reference to Free Schools in general.

The decision from Barnet shows how important it is to get involved at the planning application stage and to have local councillors working with residents and resident associations.

The proposed site is in a Labour ward with active hard working councillors. Conservative supporters lobbied their councillors  too so the Conservative dominated planning committee was not prepared to pass this over-development so near to other primary and secondary schools that have scope for expansion.

The message from Barnet is that we (parents, residents, governors and teachers) expect the recommendations and legal guidance for outside play space, safety and standards, to apply to Free Schools as they do to other buildings.

This stand from Barnet should be widely shared to empower other areas to defend themselves from Free Schools especially  ARK PIONEER and their low level of education and building design.

Shortage of land for free schools is no excuse for not planning additional housing along with school places and infrastructure.

Last night the EFA /applicant for ARK argued that lack of outside play space was acceptable since in some free schools children play on roof tops. I think this one comment, tipped the balance against the whole project and the public were genuinely shocked.

Need for school places was especially relevant because the proposed site is green belt. The EFA and Tory councillors  tried unsuccessfully to argue that although it is a site on green belt, there are officers, toilets and football stands built in the recent past. Even in leafy Barnet, air quality samples are too high and at the proposed site, Barnet Friends of the Earth  found that it was high at the site.

Residents and councillors were unimpressed by the EFA  offering to purchase roads, widen them and install traffic lights. which would increase air pollution from stationary vehicles at red lights.

Areas with unsound short term arrangements for schools, should let national education organisations such as CASE know.

CASE is aware of these issues for example at Kingston Community School children are in an unsafe building surrounded by main roads with no fire assembly point possible and no plan to get children to safety should there be any type of emergency.  Buildings that are unsafe or unsuitable should not be accepted as schools. CASE would like to hear from anyone in the Kingston area who would like to help this particular school. Please visit the CASE website and consider joining.

Finally just to say that Barnet teachers and governors of local schools are shocked at the EFA's proposal to misuse the education budget by spending on roads, especially at this time.  Although this issue was not raised last night, as not relevant to a planning  committee, nevertheless the waste of money by the  Education Funding Agency is utterly unacceptable especially as the amount is enormous. CASE is working on the figures to be released soon.  Please consider looking for information on CASE. LINK

Barnet Labour Party  LINK published the following statement after the decision LINK

Plans to build an all-through Ark Academy school for up to 1,680 pupils on the Underhill Stadium site have been rejected at Barnet Council's Planning Committee (25 January).

Councillors on the committee ruled that the size and bulk of the school was too big for the site, that traffic and parking resulting from the school would have an unacceptable impact, and that there were no exceptional circumstances to allow the school to be built on greenbelt land.

The plans for the school have caused controversy and concern amongst residents living near the Underhill Stadium site, many of whom were worried about the size and scale of the school, and the parking and traffic problems it will cause.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had also advised Barnet Council in October that the school's planning application as originally submitted did not comply with the London Plan.

Labour Underhill councillors had organised a public meeting for residents in September so they could hear direct from Ark representatives and Barnet council officers about the plans for the school. Over 150 residents attended, and at the end of the meeting an indicative vote showed an overwhelming majority were opposed to the plans.

Underhill councillor, Paul Edwards, who spoke against the planning application at the committee said:

I am very glad that common sense prevailed at the committee last night.

The committee's ruling reflects the concerns that residents raised at the public meeting we organised four months ago.

Their main concerns include the size and height of the school buildings; the resulting traffic problems that will inevitably paralyse Mays Lane and surrounding roads; and the development of local Green Belt land.

The development is excessively large given its very close proximity to local housing.  It will take more than three times as many pupils as the Totteridge Academy, which has a much larger site and could accommodate further expansion.

The size of the building means the school will undoubtedly invade the privacy of the  homes and gardens surrounding the school – regardless of any of the fine words in this document.

The arrival of more than 120 teaching staff and 1800 pupils every day will exacerbate a traffic problem that has already reached unacceptable levels for local residents. 62 parking spaces is going to lead to increased street parking and will inevitably lead to future calls for a CPZ.

The residents who live in close proximity of this development do not want to see this scale of development in their back gardens, nor would I suggest would any member of the committee.

Will Ark hit the rocks in Barnet? Join protesters on Wednesday Jan 25th

Residents, parents and teachers are  planning to turn out in force at Barnet Planning Committee  at Barnet Town Hall at  7pm on Wednesday when the Education Funding Agency makes an application LINK for the proposed Ark Pioneer School.  The EFA will to attempt to “solve”problems raised  by residents  regarding traffic congestion, high levels of air pollution, little parking for staff, dense development, 7 days a week schooling, transporting children from the other side of the borough and answer claims that the proposed site is not where new housing calls for a large all -through school such as this. The 4-18 school  in Barnet Lane would commence with 90 children admitted to  Reception and 180 to Year 7.

The EFA are proposing to buy up roads around the school and meet the cost of re-modelling them. Those opposed to the plans are asking whether the money could not be better used on existing schools.

It is not only the planning aspects of the school that concern teachers and parents but the proposed teaching method. It will be called Ark Pioneer because it introduces a new system, unlike those at existing Ark schools in Brent. 'Blended learning' through technology is central  to the plans.

In an extended article on the Local Schools Network website LINK Matthew Bennett traces the origin of the concept back to Rocketship Education in the US:

John Danner’s plan for Rocketship was to ‘make something that’s KIPP-like in terms of results’.  The chain copied many features of the KIPP (US Charter Schools) model:  an extended school day and year, a narrowing of the curriculum in order to focus on literacy and maths, and a ‘data-driven’ approach geared to driving up students’ test scores.  In 2012, the young ‘Rocketeers’ had an 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. day.  This was divided into two 100-minute blocks of literacy instruction, one 100-minute block of maths, and a further 100 minutes in the ‘learning lab’.  There was no provision for art, music or PE.  The current curriculum seems to be slightly broader, including science, social studies and art as well as maths and reading.  But science is ‘embedded’ in maths, and social studies and art are ‘embedded’ in literacy instruction.  50 per cent of teachers’ pay is tied to their students’ scores in maths and reading tests.

But more than that teachers and parents are concerned that this model will be used to have lessons delivered by teaching assistants rather than qualified teachers, with children overseen as they work on ipads.   John Danner made it plain that the method was aimed at saving money:

-->

I do think we’re at a time, as a country, where this stuff really fits pretty well with economic crises … when you’re in a situation when you’re gonna be laying people off anyway, how do you make that as good as possible, and one of the ways is to have more of the work happening somewhere other than a classroom, through technology

John Danner, co-founder of Rocketship Education, 2010 (ibid)

Barnet NUT are holding a meeting on Wednesday but will finish in time to get down to Barnet Town Hall.  Jenny Brown, a teacher, resident and parent, as well as member of the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education (CASE), is urging people to join in the protest at Barnet Town Hall:

I think it is vital that people turn up  on Wednesday to apply pressure as part of the challenge to computer learning replacing  teachers. 

Teaching is based on a  pedagogy not rote content. Our profession is being threatened along with creative thinking, well being and the development of each child, young person and teachers of the future.