8/13/2019 South Notts Academy Meeting 10-1-14 Save Radcliffe Pool

1/6

Save Radcliffe Pool ReportFriday 10

thJanuary 2014

From Meeting with SNAs Head and Chair of Board of Governors

Why did there seem to be little communication and such a tighttimescale for change of mind between the November newsletter (quotedbelow under Swimming Pool Developments) and the final designdecision?

Swimming Pool DevelopmentsOne of the considerations we are faced with is the development of the swimmingpool. Since 1973, Radcliffe on Trent Swimming Pool Association (ROTSPA) has

managed the pool and has worked closely with SNA to ensure its use for the localcommunity.

As most people will be aware, swimming pools are incredibly expensive to maintain.Over previous years, both organisations have subsidised the costs in a variety ofways. ROTSPA lease the pool from SNA on a peppercorn rental basis. All incomegenerated from its usage is retained by ROTSPA and reinvested into the pool andyou will have seen the significant refurbishment of the changing rooms over recentyears. SNA maintains the pool and bears the on-going routine running costs (seeright). SNA does not receive any income from the pool, although does have the useof the pool for school swimming. Last year, ROTSPA kindly offered a financialcontribution to the school to help cover some of the costs.

Many local and national circumstances have changed over the years but bothorganisations have worked tirelessly to ensure a high quality facility is maintained.There will be no new swimming pool as part of the new build. We have asked theDfE planning team to keep the existing pool and to explore the possibility of creatingseparate access to the school to facilitate use during the school day. The schoolcannot retain the responsibility for funding the pool moving forwards and sowe have committed to working with other organisations in order to ensure thatthe pool remains open moving into the future.We have agreed with ROTSPAthat current funding arrangements will remain for 12 months whilst we seekalternative management and ownership of the pool.

As soon as we knew that the Education Funding Agency (EFA)the funding arm ofthe DfE which we deal with over the build, - were coming in (in early October, andearlier than the Spring 2014 which we had been expecting), we met with ROTSPA tooutline the process we would be going through. Specifically, we asked if they wantedus to ask the EFA planning team to avoid the pool in drawing up plans for the build.They did, and so we asked the EFA from the outset to proceed on this basis. ThePriority Schools Build Programme, of which we are a part, is a narrowly prescribedprocess which is very much driven by the EFA. At this feasibility stage the EFAsremit is to evaluate the site to try and identify a viable option (see more below) there is no scope at this stage for public consultation; this comes later.We kept parents and the community informed through our newsletters. The

November newsletter was drafted in late October when we were still working onplans which avoided the pool. The final plan was drawn up by the EFA lateNovember (not at our request as we were still focusing on the plans which avoided

8/13/2019 South Notts Academy Meeting 10-1-14 Save Radcliffe Pool

2/6

the pool). When the EFA said in late November/early December that we couldn'tavoid the pool without seriously compromising the build we then spent the nextweeks reviewing everything again to see if any of the other options could be made towork. Once we knew they couldn't we told ROTSPA, on the 20thDecember, beforewe had to confirm to the EFA by the end of December.

SNA felt there was no other option but to let everyone else know on Friday 20 thDecember 2013.

How can you, SNA, decide to demolish the pool when the communityorganised the fund raising and the building work before it opened?

Although the 40k (equivalent to around 500k approx. in todays money) originallyused to build the pool was fund-raised by the community, the decision was made atthat point to hand the building over to the local education authority.

What happened then?The land passed to the school when it was given Foundation status. When theschool became an Academy in 2011 ownership of the land then passed from theschool to the Academy Trust. SNA understands the importance of the pool to thecommunity. Since the pool was built in 1973 the school has financially supported thepool in the form of paying annual running costs of heating, lighting and caretaking(including chemicals etc). Originally the County Council made some contributioneach year (15,000 I believe): that ceased and latterly the school has borne allrunning costs (except that, as of last year ROTSPA contributes 6,000 per annum).Our estimate of the annual running costs to the school are 60,000 per year, andvery probably the figure is in fact higher. In addition the school has shared the cost ofcapital expenditure with ROTSPA on things such as major refurbishments, poolcovers etc. This is a huge commitment from the school, which has been going on formany years and is still continuing. There is no other pool locally which is supportedby a school in this way - the Rushcliffe pools are funded by the Borough Council andrun by Parkwood on a semi-commercial basis, and the local schools just pay for thetime they hire the pool for school use.

How was the decision reached to knock down the pool?It is important to stress how much effort SNA put into working with the EducationFunding Agency (the arm of the DfE which we have to work with to implement thebuild) to explore all options for siting the new build before this one was arrived at.There are two aspects to this: firstly where the new build would go and secondly

what is included in it.

As far as the location of the build, our instructions to the EFA were to find an optionwhich left the pool intact, and so from September to late November they worked onthree possible sites and two detailed plans which avoided the pool. By the end ofNovember it was becoming clear that other possible sites wouldn't work (the detailedreasons why each option did or didn't work are in the paper which we gave toROTSPA and which is easily accessible on their website) *. The EFA came to us withtwo plans which did partly cover the pool. We then spent the first 3 weeks ofDecember reviewing all previous options again to see if we had missed anything,before we had to give the EFA our agreement to their plan by the end of December.

* One design which went over the all weather pitch would mean paying the FootballFoundation back 500k, and the location had other problems. Another design went

8/13/2019 South Notts Academy Meeting 10-1-14 Save Radcliffe Pool

3/6

over the science block which would mean 600k of temporary science classrooms.Re-locating the humanities block would have meant 500k additional costs whichwould come off the rebuild and it would seriously affect students education to dowithout that block for the 18 months that the build would take place. We would havehad to do without English, Humanities, the kitchen, dining room, boiler house andICT infrastructure.

Why arent pools included in the funding?It is worth looking at how the funding for the build is made available. Under theGovernment's Priority Schools Build Programme of which we are a part the EFA'srole is to determine a 'viable build' i.e. one that meets the requirements of an 11 - 18school of the size needed and which falls within their cost parameters. The schoolnever actually gets any money - just a build. What we are permitted is determined bycentrally used software i.e. how many classrooms, what sports facilities etc. The EFAbuild models do not include a swimming pool - so to opt for a pool, or to choose abuild option which was more costly because of building round the pool, would meansacrificing an (essential) part of the build designed directly for students' education.

The EFA's remit is to find the most efficient build that delivers what is needededucationally (as they see it). The school in that sense has very little decision makingpower. The problem with two of the plans which avoided the pool was that theycovered parts of the school which we couldn't do without during the build: we wouldhave needed to spend 500,000 to 600,000 on temporary classrooms (which wouldhave been taken off our build funding) and the students' education would have beenseriously disrupted.

How could a Sports College not have a pool?Sports college status is no longer relevant in that we receive no extra funding forsporting activities.

What happens next?The next stage is procurement, when the EFA's chosen contractor will work with usto look at detailed plans, which could conceivably result in a different solution if thecontractors can find one which meets the EFA's educational and cost parameters.There will be a consultation process with the public and it should go to planning inJune/July. We still want to engage with the public in case a solution can be found.Residents will have the chance to comment on the planning application throughRushcliffe Borough Councils website.

Have you investigated how much a new pool would cost?This is not something weve investigated.As we have said, the EFA build model

does not include a pool. In terms of SNA otherwise funding a pool, with all the will inthe world there is no spare money and, even if there were, schools' fundingagreements state they must use their funding for educational purposes; the buildingof a pool would simply not be proportionate. Some people have asked if sales ofspare land after the build would generate funds. There are no plans to sell any of theunused parts of the sitethere wont be any very large spaces for a start, but whatthere is is anticipated to be kept as green space for school and/or community use ifthere is interest eg Scouts are a possibility. This question also needs to beconsidered in the context of how a new pool would afford to run day to day.

8/13/2019 South Notts Academy Meeting 10-1-14 Save Radcliffe Pool

4/6

Are you concerned about the impact this would have on numbers ofchildren learning to swim and whether they are more/less likely to reachKey Stage 2 curriculum standards by the time they reach SNA age?A representative from SaveRadPool noted that fewer children may have privatelessons so by the time they reach junior age, when swimming is compulsory as part

of the curriculum, they may be at a lower level than currently. This would mean aharder job for Junior School who will have to pay out more money to transport theirchildren to other pools and with higher Key Stage 2 standards (now 50m) childrenare likely to be at a lower level when they reach SNA.

We would be concerned but dont believe swimming will be affected at any of theschools. The Infants dont currently offer swimming. The Junior School uses the poolfor 1 hour per week for two terms of the year. The Government is currently givingadditional PE funding (at least 9,000 a year) to primary schools, which can be usedfor transport to nearby pools. SNA currently uses the pool for 5 hours per week fortwo terms. Whilst we change the curriculum from time to time for a number ofreasons we dont anticipate stopping the swimming we offer.

Assuming SNA would have to bus their students to Bingham/Cotgrave hadthey investigated whether there was space at those pools?SNA hadnt checkedwhether there were spaces but were confident that local poolswould have space to accommodate them and the Junior School.

Could the community help to pay for any of the extra costs to ensure adifferent location?There will be such a short turnaround, with building work likely to commence inSeptember 2014, that it would seem unlikely the community could raise i.e. minimum500k in the next few months whilst the build goes through planning processes. Thisalso raises questions about whether the building is in the right place for the future.This point was raised at the meeting held by the PCC (see below). ROTSPArepresentatives at that meeting acknowledged that it would not be feasible to getfunding commitments in place by that time. If the build was to be moved slightly onthe preferred site, this still raised questions about how the builders could build insuch close proximity, and how the pool would have separate daytime access if it wasso close to the school (see below).

How long can you ensure safe use of the pool before building workcommences?The EFA are working to a timetable of building works starting in September 2014.They havent told us anything yet about when that would mean demolition work

would start but we are anticipating everything on the site staying as it is until theSummer Term. We told ROTSPA this at our December meeting as they would needto plan ahead. It may be that the timetable will slip slightly. SNA had alreadyconfirmed to ROTSPA in October that we would continue paying running costs untilDecember 2014, and confirmed in December that, if ROTSPA wanted, we wouldcontinue to fund the pool for public sessions until the pool closed, as long as it wassafe to do so. Once we hear anything more on timings we will let ROTSPA know.ROTSPA has given notice to those who hire the pool that hiring will stop at thesummer holidays but may continue to keep the public sessions open for as long aspossible in the autumn term.

8/13/2019 South Notts Academy Meeting 10-1-14 Save Radcliffe Pool

5/6

Given the building work only goes over the changing rooms andreception area, could you keep the pool intact?This would be unlikely but not impossible, we would have to discuss this again duringthe next stage of planning. There is a very small gap between the new build andwhere the pool currently lies, however, this is near where the main entrance will be

and the boiler room so there are a couple of issues with this. One, there would needto be a large enough gap to gain access to the boiler rooms and, two, there aresafeguarding issues around the entrance point: if we were going to try to manage tohave separate daytime access for the pool (which it would need to maximizerevenues for the pool) this would be difficult from a safeguarding viewpoint. Ideallywe would have part of the site with school access and the rest of the site withcommunity access, including during the day.Also, we dont think the builders wouldmanage physically to carry out the build works in a space between the Humanitiesblock and the pool.

What are you willing to offer the community?What we may be able to offer is spare land (we would anticipate at no financial gain

to the school, so for a nominal rent for example) - the school is extremely keen forcommunity groups to be present on the site. We don't know yet exactly what and howmuch land will be available after the build: it is likely that there wont in fact be anylarge tranches, but there are no plans to do anything else with the land (except leaveit as green space on the site for general school or community use).

Are you willing to work more closely with the community?Prior to this Autumn we had had a number of community meetings, and we had afurther one in the Autumn as well as the meetings with ROTSPA.

In December, Andrew George, SNA Principal, and Deborah asked to meet theBorough Council to talk about the pool: RBC agreed to hold a meeting in Januarywith ROTSPA and the Parish Council to look at future support the RBC might be ableto give. The Parish Council would like this to go ahead and so we are setting thatmeeting up. ROTSPA asked that the PC represent them in that meeting.

There was then a meeting last week set up by the Parish Council to look at thebuild/pool position. Deborah Giles, Chair of Governors, was at that and it was agreedSNA would work with the PC and keep them informed of developments. Werecommend that you do the same because the Parish Council is facilitating thecommunitys discussions around the pool and land use, and its involvement in plansgoing forwards. They are holding an open meeting in early February 2014 to discussthe pool and leisure facilities in general, date to be confirmed in due course.

Parish Council InvolvementThere was a meeting on Wednesday 8thJanuary 2014 facilitated by the ParishCouncil. It was acknowledged that there may be options for seeking to continue tohave a pool in the village but there are huge questions over how this would be run: itis generally accepted that it would have to be run in part at least as a commercialventure and ROTSPA were candid in acknowledging they could not run such acommercial venture as they do not have the expertise.

How can we ensure better communication and collaboration in thefuture?SNA are happy to answer more questions, perhaps collated and sent into school in

batches or if individuals wish to approach them direct. SNA are able to liaise with theBorough Council as well as the Parish Council, who can work on our behalf towards

8/13/2019 South Notts Academy Meeting 10-1-14 Save Radcliffe Pool

6/6

the best solution for leisure facilities in our village. SNA recommend the ParishCouncil as a good focus for our views and would work with us through them goingforward.

SNA recognises that communication with the community is extremely important. Thishas been a huge decision and it is absolutely fair that we should explain it. We haveaimed to communicate with ROTSPA, and with the community as a whole throughour newsletters, and through dialogue with the local councils to ensure that everyonereceives the same message. We have answered a number of individual emails andhad a number of meetings with concerned community members. Please contact us ifyou would like to come in and talk to us about the build and plans.

Transcript of Andrew Georges BBC Radio Nottinghaminterview: Thursday 9thJanuary 2014

When the government abandoned the building schools for the future programmethey replaced it with the priority schools building programme and we were luckyenough to be identified. This isnt an expansion to the school, its a complete rebuildand a new build. We started working with the DfE appointed team of planners andexperts in October and we set out in that process absolutely to avoid the demolitionof the swimming pool from the very beginning. We were tasked with that planningteam of coming up with a viable option for the site and nature of the building.Unfortunately after an exhaustive process of exploring all of the opportunities everyother site that we looked at for the building would have seriously compromised theeducation of the students who would be here for the 18 months of the build or for thequality of facilities moving forward into the future which is why we arrived at thisviable option.

Way of moving it around?We started off that process thinking that ourselves, ittended to be far more complex than we originally envisaged. Its a huge site butactually the vast majority of the site is taken up by long sprawling buildings. TheSchool was originally build for around 1500 students; the vast majority of it is on onelevel so takes up most of the site. We looked at one position where we would havehad to take out all of the science classrooms, it would have meant re-locating 172lessons a week during that period but also would have incurred a significant cost inreplacing those classrooms during that period with science mobile classrooms. Theexpenditure for that, as you can imagine that the DfE work on a tight cost envelope,any expenditure for that which we estimate would have cost 250k would have beentaken out of the amount that would have be spent on the rebuild which would havecompromised the quality of what we would get. We looked at another option whichwould have meant loosing the humanities.