To authorise the commissioning of a feasibility study by (or through) Herefordshire Council Property Services for the rebuild of Peterchurch Primary School on its existing site.

This will enable the commissioning of a feasibility study to Royal Institute of British Architect (RIBA) Stage 2 (concept design) by (or through) Herefordshire Council Property Services for the rebuild of Peterchurch Primary School on its existing site and to delegate authority to the Director of Education to commission further design work to RIBA Stages 3 (developed design) and 4 (technical design).

Following provision being made in the capital programme to replace Peterchurch Primary School discussions have been held with interested parties including the primary school, Fairfield High School, local parish council and ward member to identify the most suitable site for the new building. There is now local consensus that it would be most appropriate to seek to rebuild on the current site. The consultation identified some highways and transportation improvements needed to improve traffic flows and access to the Fairfield High School site; these will form the subject of a separate decision.

This report is seeking approval to undertake detailed feasibility work for the rebuilding of Peterchurch Primary School on its existing site, including provision of permanent accommodation for the onsite charitable pre-school and refurbishment of the building housing the school swimming pool and progress all other activity necessary to inform a final decision.

That:

(a)        the director for children and families be authorised to commission feasibility work and take all other steps necessary to inform a further decision on the replacement of Peterchurch primary school and associated on-site facilities on its current site, and determination of the most appropriate route to procurement, within a budget of not more than £180k.

1.          The problems with the condition and suitability of Peterchurch Primary School have been recognised for some years.  Three options were identified for consideration: 1. Do nothing; 2. Rebuild on another location adjacent to Fairfield High School; or 3. Rebuild on the current site.

2.          Do nothing: this option is not recommended.  The current buildings of Peterchurch primary school are in poor condition.  They are not suitable for the provision of a modern learning environment for primary age children.  The buildings range from the small original Victorian school and school master’s house, to a former community hall with an asbestos roof.  The internal rooms are not the size or shape that would be recommended for a modern primary school.  The school and the council currently bear substantial costs in maintaining the building.  The school is visually unattractive and not in keeping with the village of Peterchurch and the Golden Valley, which is generally regarded as an attractive tourist destination.

3.          Rebuild on another location – agricultural land to the north of Fairfield High School: this option was thoroughly investigated and has been rejected.  The case for such a relocation was that it could create a ‘campus’ with some services shared between the primary and secondary school.  It would also be an opportunity to address the poor access to Fairfield High School – currently along minor country lanes without pedestrian footways, which can be heavily used by large agricultural vehicles and machinery as well as by cars, school buses and commercial vehicles.  There are flood risks associated with the River Dore which runs between the main road and Fairfield.  Fairfield itself, an academy, has substantial issues with its site and buildings in terms of their condition and suitability.  This option has been rejected because: i) it is not supported by the governing body and headteacher of Peterchurch Primary School; ii) it is not supported by Peterchurch Parish Council; iii) Fairfield High School does not actively support the ‘campus’ proposal, although it remains very keen to see major improvements to its own site, buildings and access, and iv) it is likely to be substantially more expensive to deliver.  Given the lack of stakeholder enthusiasm for the proposal and its greater costs, it is recommended this option is not taken forward.

4.          The recommended option is the third option: to rebuild on the current site.  An analysis of the relative estimated costs of the three options is set out below: