Gillotts School
Consultation on the proposal to sell up to 3.4 hectares (8.5 acres) of land at Gillotts School
Period of consultation: Thursday 1 May to Thursday 12 June 2014
Consultation meeting: Tuesday 3 June, 6pm
The consultation documents form Appendix 1. The minutes of the consultation meeting form Appendix 2.
Consultees
In line with the requirements of the Department for Education document, ‘Advice on the protection of School Playing
Fields and Public Land’, the following were consulted:
 The Headteacher
 The Governing Body
 Parents
 Any group of organisation that uses the playing fields
 Local community (via Henley Standard, Henley Herald, United (residents’ group))
 Harpsden Parish Council
 Henley Town Council
 South Oxfordshire District Council
 Oxfordshire County Council
In addition, the following were sent the consultation documents:
 Staff
 The Headteachers and Chairs of Governors of Gillotts’ five partner primary schools (who were also
asked to distribute to their parents)
 The Henley College
 Hirers
 David Nimmo-Smith (county councillor)
 John Howell (MP)
 Nomad (local charity)
 Henley Educational Trust (local charity)
The consultation documents were available from the school’s website and in hard copy from the school’s
reception.
Outcomes
In total 137 responses were received.
82 were in support of the proposals for the sale of land. 55 were against.
Overall
Number
Percentage
Yes
82
60%
No
55
40%
Those who responded were asked to identify their links to the school.
Link
Number
Parent
43
Staff
26
Governor
7
Community group
2
Local resident
78
Town/district/local authority
4
Other
30
Note that not all respondents identified a link and more than one link could be identified.
Those who ticked Other were primarily ex-parents, ex-pupils or ex-staff.
The responses broken down by group are as follows:
Parent
Number
Percentage
Yes
33
77%
No
10
23%
Staff
Number
Percentage
Yes
23
88%
No
3
12%
Governor Yes
No
Number
7
0
Percentage
100% 0%
Note that the Governing Body unanimously adopted the Masterplan, including the proposal for sale of land, at its meeting
on 25 March 2014.
Community Yes
No
group
Number
1
1
Percentage
50%
50%
Local
Yes
No
resident
Number
37
41
Percentage
47%
53%
Note that of those that responded ‘No’, 18 live in Blandy Road and 5 live in Makins Road
District/ Local
Yes
No
authority
Number
Percentage
4
100%
0
0%
Other
Number
Percentage
Yes
10
33%
No
20
67%
The additional comments received fell into the following broad categories, with the approximate frequency of the
comment noted.
In favour of the sale of land:
Need for better facilities
No other source of funding
School has more land than it needs
Potential for community use
Meet housing need
Set up a community support group
Positive impact on sporting facilities
Frequency
21
9
6
3
2
2
1
Against the sale of the land:
Alternative sources of funding
Negative impact on sporting facilities
Land can only be sold once
Impact of current site on pupil health and well-being
More school places will be needed
Negative impact on local environment/ services
Remaining land not level
Greenfield site
High proportion of school’s land
Greenbelt land
Frequency
24
15
13
12
8
7
4
3
2
2
A more informal consultation was also carried out with the school’s students, through individual and small group
discussion, at lunchtimes and with the Student Union. There were two statements to which to respond
Yes or No. A total of 68 responses was received.
I think the plans for the school’s buildings are good
I think it is worth selling some land to pay for renewing the school’s facilities
Yes
66 (97%)
66 (97%)
No
2 (3%)
1
1- undecided
Appendix 1: Consultation documents
1 May 2014
Dear
Consultation on the proposal to sell up to 3.4 hectares (8.5 acres) of land at Gillotts School
Period of consultation: Thursday 1 May to Thursday 12 June 2014
As you will be aware, work is currently being undertaken to produce a joint Neighbourhood Plan for Henley and
Harpsden. Although the plan addresses where new homes in Henley should be built it also focuses on improving
the local infrastructure, economy and provision of education.
The Gillotts Governing Body has ensured that the school’s interests are properly represented in this process. In
July 2013, we commissioned Gerry Lytle Associates, a firm of architects specialising in the education sector, to
carry out an analysis of the state of the school’s facilities and opportunities for improving them. Their completed
‘masterplan’ was adopted by the Governing Body on 25 March.
The architects have advised that bringing the condition of the school’s facilities up to the standard we would
expect of a 21st Century school will require a major capital injection, beyond what we could expect to obtain
through the current academy capital bidding process. They have identified a potential opportunity to sell up to 3.4
hectares (8.5 acres) of land at the far end of the playing field which could be developed to provide some of the
new homes required by the Neighbourhood Plan. This represents about one quarter of the total area of the
school’s land. They have determined that by using the remaining green space more efficiently, we could do this
while maintaining the school’s sporting provision, and indeed enhancing it through the provision of a full-size
Astroturf pitch.
The proceeds from the sale of the land would be invested in rejuvenation of the school facilities for the benefit of
our students and the local community.
The Governing Body has sought to ensure that this land is included for housing development in the
Neighbourhood Plan. We have also considered in detail how, if the land were to be sold, we could use money
raised to maximum benefit for both the school and the Henley community. Our plans are detailed on the
following pages.
In short, we have identified a potential opportunity to sell part of the school site and invest the proceeds in
ensuring that the school has facilities that the Henley community can be proud of. We are now seeking the views
of all our stakeholders on whether we should proceed with our plans to sell land.
As part of this consultation process, there will be an open meeting at the school on Tuesday 3 June, at 6pm. You
can also respond to the consultation by completing the enclosed response form and returning it to:
Clerk to the Governors, Gillotts School, Gillotts Lane, Henley-on-Thames RG9 1PS, or
consultations@gillotts.oxon.sch.uk
Yours faithfully
David Gorsuch
Chair of Governors, on behalf of the Governing Body of Gillotts School
Consultation on the proposal to sell up to 3.4 hectares of land at Gillotts School
Period of consultation: Thursday 1 May to Thursday 12 June 2014
This form is designed to be filled in hard copy.
Please complete and return to:
Clerk to the Governors, Gillotts School, Gillotts Lane, Henley-on-Thames, RG9 1PS
by 4pm on Thursday 12 June.
Name
Address
Postcode
Link to the school
– please tick as many as apply
Parent
Staff
Governor
Community group
Local resident
Town/district/local authority
Other – please state
I am in support of the proposals for the sale of land at Gillotts School to raise funds to renew the school’s
facilities.
Yes
No
Additional
comments
Two-page flier distributed to familiarise people with the motivations for and implications of the
sale of land - Page 1
Two-page flier distributed to familiarise people with the motivations for and implications of the
sale of land - Page 2
Appendix 2: Minutes of consultation meeting
Minutes of an Open Meeting as part of the Consultation Process surrounding the possible
sale of an area of Gillotts’ land
Tuesday 3 June 2014
6.00 pm in A4
Present were:
David Gorsuch, Chair of
Governors
26 members of the community
Catharine Darnton,
Headteacher
Nick Walden, Governor
Also in attendance:
Mary McWhinnie, Administrator
DG opened the meeting by introducing himself and thanking those present for
coming.
He then made a presentation, as detailed in the attached document, giving the
background to the process and progress to date.
DG then opened the floor for questions. A variety of issues were raised:
Removal of cars from site – where will they go? Cars will be parked behind
the gym area, accessed via a route which was uncovered during the gym
refurbishment programme.
Will building of MUGA (multi use games area) necessitate the removal of
trees on the boundary? Yes, some trees will be removed. However, they are
generally low value trees and sufficient trees will be left to screen the MUGA from
the houses in Blandy Road. Some trees have already been taken down.
Will the value of the plot we intend to sell raise enough money for what
we would like to do? We are advised by Lytle and Associates, a firm of Architects
very experienced in the field of school refurbishments, that the land value is in line
with what we need to achieve most of the plan. We will, of course, seek to
maximise the value.
Have we applied for Academy Funding? Yes, we apply every year, and have
received more money from the Academies Capital Maintenance Fund (ACMF) than
we ever had from OCC. However, it is not realistic that this will continue to be the
case. This year we have applied for £700,000 and have been given £89,000. We are
appealing.
Will we get any community funding? 5 Organisations have applied, may be
granted between £50-100,000 each. (Answer from the floor)
Question of why we need £10 million when rebuilding of Townlands
Hospital will only cost £9 million? Actual rebuild cost of Townlands is £16
million. (Answer from the floor)
If land sale is not an option, what will Governing Body do? As the governing
body, it will remain our responsibility to do the best for the school if we are unable
to sell the land. We will take advantage of whatever funding is available to maintain
and improve the school. However, if we cannot sell the land, we will not be able to
make a step change improvement in the quality of the school facilities.
The fact that Gillotts needs updating is not in dispute; the sticking point is the need
to sell the land. It is a trade-off between losing a piece of land that is not much used
and rejuvenating the school for the next few decades.
So what happens then? At the moment we spend a great deal of money every
year on repairs, heating inefficient buildings etc. If we rejuvenate the school, we will
be able to save this money and put it into a proper maintenance programme. In this
way, we will be able to avoid being in this position again.
What is the time frame of the redevelopment if it goes ahead? One to two
years to get started, followed by three years (including four summers) of work.
Sports facilities will be rearranged first.
What are we doing about getting permission from the Secretary of State
(SoS) to sell the land? This six week consultation and meeting are part of the
process. We are hoping that representatives from the Department for Education
will visit towards the end of June. If our application is turned down, we will carry on
as now, prioritising what is essential against what is desirable. Applications clearly
are approved, eg Great Marlow.
Suggestion that some sort of “community support group” should be set
up to win hearts and minds of the people of Henley. Need to be more
vocal (originally Gillotts’ site was almost the least popular site for
redevelopment). Perhaps we should consider undertaking some
fundraising? Some Governors are working on this already, DG prepared to meet
interested parties and discuss further.
Impact on sports facilities a major concern – fitting everything in will be a
tight squeeze. The fact that we do different sports at different times of the year
allows us to accommodate all our requirements on less land. We will still have more
sports area than is recommended for a school our size by the Department for
Education, even without double counting the area of the MUGA. The Head of PE
and whole PE team have been involved with Lytle and Associates throughout the
planning process and are supportive of what we are trying to do.
Should Sport England (SE) be approached now – surely it is vital that we
have their support? The guidance relating to the Application to the Secretary of
State procedure states that Sport England will be consulted by the DfE as part of the
decision making process.
What percentage of the land is being sold? 25%
Has the cost of levelling some of the land been factored in to the
redevelopment plan? Yes.
Concerns raised regarding proximity of MUGA to the school boundary
and the issue of noise/light pollution for residents’ houses backing onto
this area, especially during evenings or school holidays. Lytle Associates are
aware of this and would take steps to alleviate the problem eg by installing lighting
with little spillage.
How many trees will need to be cut down? A topographical survey has been
carried out of the whole site and trees have been identified into separate categories.
The best quality specimens will be kept. The intention would be to maintain as many
“boundary” trees as possible.
Several questions were raised about the number of houses which would be
built on the land if sold, access (via a gap between houses in Blandy Road,
as put forward by the town council) provision of a roundabout. At the
moment, all we are asking for is permission to sell this area of land – we have no idea
who will buy it - all these questions will be answered by them. The developer will
have to make appropriate contributions to Henley under current legislation. With
regard to the Gillotts refurbishment, if it goes ahead, planning applications will be
submitted giving residents the opportunity to address these issues again.
Concerns were raised over how well the open meeting was publicised. As
well as our parents, the Henley Standard, the Henley Herald, the HET, Nomad and,
Barry Wood were all notified. Information was also emailed to our partner primary
schools to pass on to their parents. Unfortunately there are very limited funds in the
school budget available for marketing and publicity. The assertion of lack of
information on the website will be checked. There is no intention to be anything
other than transparent with this process.
Comment was made that the Henley Standard could do more to help
with publicity, as this is a major concern for the people of Henley.
What provision has been made for the future? Might we become a sixth
form school? Probably not, Henley College has 2,000 students and far more scope
to offer a wider choice of provision with which we could not compete.
With regard to what it desirable v essential, what are the costs involved?
The urgent repair work would cost approximately £3 million. The core of the
rejuvenation programme would cost about £6 million. What we do beyond this will
be determined by how much money is available. Further refurbishments would
follow a phased programme.
Would it be possible for us to “stand alone” and not be part of the
Neighbourhood Plan? No, planning permission will not be granted to any sites not
in the NP until at least 2027. It is imperative to seize the moment.
DG concluded the meeting by urging those present to respond to the consultations,
(both Gillotts’ and the NP) whatever their views. He offered his email address for
people to make contact directly.
After the meeting, Gillotts’ Facilities Manager, Fiona Damp, led a walk to the bottom
of the field for meeting attendees to view the area of land in question.
Hi. I'm David Gorsuch, Chair of Governors at Gillotts school. With me tonight are Catharine Darnton, Head
teacher at the school and Nick Walden, Community.I am going to present a short introduction to some of the
key issues around the school rejuvenation project and then we will be happy to take your questions and hope to
provide answers.
Slide 1 – Plan showing school estate and area for sale.
As I am sure you are all aware, the Joint Henley and Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan is being prepared. Among
other things, this is intended to include the building of more than 400 new homes in the Henley and Harpsden
area. We have offered a part of our land for inclusion in the plan as a site for residential development. This slide
shows the piece of land. The gross area is 3.4 hectares which is 8.4 acres in old money. It is the part of the
school’s grounds that is furthest from the core of the school and represents about 25% of the school’s land.
Slide 2 – Photos of the trees screening the site
As you can see from these pictures, the site is well screened by mature trees. This is the view across Harpsden
valley…or would be if it weren’t for the trees. At a low density of 25 units per hectare, this site could
accommodate 80 to 85 houses without impacting the screening.
To be clear, we are not looking to sell the land because we are tired of mowing the grass. We are extremely
attached to it and would much prefer to hang on to all of it. However, as governors of Henley’s community
secondary school and so responsible for providing the best possible Teaching and Learning for the young people
of Henley, we feel we have absolutely no option.
Gillotts is a great school. The quality of Teaching and Learning is very high, as evidenced by this year’s GCSE
results which were the best ever and the latest point on a rising trend. However, this success has been achieved
in spite of, not supported by, the school premises. The school was built in the 1960s and has seen little
investment since. Since we became an academy, we have received £110,000 from the Academy Capital
Maintenance Fund just for emergency repairs to keep the school open. We have received a further £500,000
from the fund for essential maintenance of the gym, heaters and roofs. If we do not take action, we see
expenditures of this kind continuing into the indefinite future.
We believe that Gillotts School and the Henley community deserve better. However, to achieve it, the school
requires a major injection of capital. Gillotts was one of five secondary schools put forward by Oxfordshire
County Council for the Building Schools for the Future programme. Unfortunately, that programme fell victim to
a change of government and the financial crisis before we reached the head of the queue. We did not qualify for
re-building under the much smaller successor programme, the Priority School Building Programme. We have
spent years looking for other sources of the money we need and there simply aren’t any.
It is against this background that we are looking to sell a part of our land. Last year, we appointed a firm of
architects to advise us what we could do and what it would cost. They determined that with the amount of
money we believe we could raise from sale of a part of our land, we could rejuvenate the school premises. They
have helped us elaborate on some of the ways the school facilities could be improved. Some of the ‘big ticket’
items are shown on this slide.
We could build a new Creative Technologies Centre, integrating the facilities for Art and Design, Graphics,
Textiles, Food Technology, Resistant Materials and Computing. Today, when the captains of British industry
complain about a lack of skills in people leaving school, they don’t any longer mean woodwork and metalwork.
They mean skills relevant to the way industry functions in the 21st century. IT is not an isolated subject. It is a
vehicle for almost everything that is made or created in the modern economy. We would look to ensure that our
students understand this and to equip them with skills they will need to succeed in the 21st century global
economy.
We would build a new, larger hall with flexible retractable seating, capable of accommodating a full year group,
even if the school expands somewhat. It would provide an inspiring space for performance art as well as room for
exams, parents evenings and assemblies. We would investigate the opportunities for community use and consider
building a still larger hall if that would benefit the community without becoming a drain on the school.
We would do a tranche of work to make the school work better. The ad hoc way it has evolved means that
there are things that impede Teaching and Learning. Examples include the layout of the science labs, the scattering
across the site of classrooms for the same subject and the concentration of offices for the Leadership Team in the
Mansion Block. We would like to move to a more logical layout and key to this is building a handful of additional
classrooms. Then we can have a Humanities area, a Science area and so on. These things sound small but together
can make a huge difference to the running of the school.
We would also look to improve the school’s sports provision. One of the principles adopted by the Governing
Body in considering the sale of land is that ‘implementation of the plan will not, taken as a whole, materially
reduce the quality of the school’s sporting provision’. Our architects have worked out that, by taking advantage of
the fact that we do different sports at different times of the year, we can provide the same sporting provision on
less land. As part of the rejuvenation, we would also look to create a multi-use games area or all-weather pitch –
and anyone who remembers the early months of this year will be able to see why that is a good idea. So although
the plan would involve reducing the total amount of land owned by the school, it would actually give us better
sporting provision than we have today.
So, to sum up, we have a plan for the school that is transformational, not merely maintenance and that will cost
an amount of money of the same order as we can expect to make from sale of a parcel of land.
I now want to address some of the reasons people have identified why we should not sell the land.
Before we could sell, we would need the permission of the Secretary of State for Education and this is not a
formality. The Secretary of State does indeed push back on the idea of schools selling land to finance
improvement of school buildings. However, we are in a much stronger position than most schools trying to do
this because we have so much land. By a combination of good luck and some fancy footwork, as part of the
process of becoming an Academy, we became owners of 33 acres. As a result, we would be able to sell 8.4 acres,
still satisfy the Department for Education’s requirement in terms of sports land for a school our size AND end up
with better sports facilities than we started with. We see this as a win-win-win situation…and we hope and
expect that the Secretary of State will see it the same way!
Then, there is the question of whether there are other options for raising the money. We can only sell the land
once…is there really no other way? There are two possibilities that people have suggested.
The first is government funding. Have we really looked hard enough? Is there a pot somewhere that we could tap
into?
We are confident that we have accessed everything that is available. As I mentioned earlier, the primary source of
funding for academies is the Academy Capital Maintenance Fund and we have taken full advantage of it. As I also
mentioned earlier, we have pursued available ‘school re-build’ opportunities. We are confident that we have
looked for and tried to access all the sources of government funding that are available. If anyone is aware of a
source that we might have overlooked, we would be delighted to hear about it. However, as far as we can see,
the money is just not there.
The second possibility is fund raising. The problem here is that it is extremely difficult to generate the kind of
amount of money we would be looking for.
Imagine for a moment that we can rent at least one part of the school’s infrastructure for two hours every
weekday evening and eight hours each weekend at a rate of £100 per hour. I have to say that based on my
knowledge of other schools, what sports clubs are willing and able to pay and the number of potential users in the
Henley area, this is very ambitious but let's run with it for the moment. That will generate a gross income of
almost £100,000 per year. There will of course be some costs associated with making the facilities available but
let's ignore those for the moment. If we could put all of that money towards the rejuvenation project, it would
take us 100 years to raise the money we are looking for. £100,000 is a fabulous amount of money and we could
certainly put it to good use but it is not going to let us rejuvenate the school.
People have also noted that there are many wealthy individuals and corporations in the Henley area which is of
course true. Could one of them be persuaded to make a multi-million pound donation to the school? My
experience, unfortunately, is that if you lined up the people already approaching these individuals for money, the
queue would stretch from here to Reading. It sounds like a lovely idea but its not going to happen.
So, to sum up, the members of the governing body do NOT want to sell a part of Gillotts land. We worked hard
to become owner of it and we are attached to every square foot. However, our responsibility is to provide the
best possible Teaching, Learning and Sporting facilities for the young people of Henley. We believe we have an
opportunity to trade some little used land for qualitatively better school buildings that will improve teaching,
learning and sport for generations of students. It will be painful but we believe we are morally obliged to pursue
it.