1

Notes:

•The central dilemma raised by the James Review – can we build good schools cheaply?

•It’s a an old problem...

•And one London has to face up to urgently

2

Notes:

•Births have gone on rising since those forecasts were made

•The forces driving that could have some way to run yet.

•We’ll quickly run out of easy options – expansions and bulge classes.

•The longer this goes on the more we will need permenent solutions and new schools – the next 70,000 places after 2014/15?

•But new schools need Money and Land – Lots of both

3

Notes:

•In context – this is more than four times what the Mayor’s Crossrail Levy will raise

•A challenge even with James Review’s 30% savings – Education budget is falling in real terms

4

Notes:

•In context – 80 hectares is Kings Cross three times over

•Land is an even bigger cost than the buildings.

•In fact land is so big a cost in London that saving 30% of the build costs is not the biggest issue

•Begs the question how relevant the James Review is in London?

•The real cost savings are to be made in saving land.

5

Notes:

•And there are good ways to save land without reducing quality.

•Architects have been experimenting over the last 10 years with a new generation of high density schools. •Multi storey, often with rooftop playgrounds to get around the limitations of lack of outdoor space.

•Here is the 3 Form Entry Winston Way primary school in Ilford, built at high density to make the most of a site that would until recently have been seen as suitable for only two-form of entry.

6

Notes:

•Hammersmith Academy

•4FE secondary and 6th form.

•900 children on around 0.7 hectares

•Oversubscribed on opening – lack of outdoor space is not deterring parents

•But even at these densities it is hard for councils to find the land and money

•Which is why many are working increasingly closely with landowners and developers.

7

Notes:

•One example we have worked on is Charles House on Kensington High Street

•Agreed between St Edward Homes and Kensington & Chelsea as part of a larger development, masterplanned by Squire and Partners

•1FE school planned on an eighth of a hectare, with land provided by the developer.

•Delivering a school for the wider community that would be hard to deliver any other way.

8

Notes:

•Another that’s just opened is the George Carey Primary School

•Built on land provided by the Barking Riverside Ltd.

•We worked with the council and the Barking Riverside Development Partnership from early stages, forecasting population and school demand, through to implementation.

•This school has been delivered before the Barking Riverside housing, as it was needed to meet already growing local demand.

•It’s worth remembering that the demand for new schools in London isn’t actually a result of housebuilding. If development stopped today we would still need those 70,000 places.

•Which means councils may want to use other funding sources (pooled CIL?) to front-load building of a school on land provided by a developer, rather than wait until later in the development.

9

Notes:

•And there are ways that developers can get even more closely involved in school provision.

•Here are two recent schools by Pollard Thomas Edwards, that included housing actually above the school, to fund the new building.

•This one is St Jude & St Paul’s in Islington,

10

Notes:

•And this is St Thomas’ in Kensington.

•Again, these are schemes that would have been difficult to deliver in a conventional way, given constraints on public funding.

•But it has to be a genuine partnership –

•Developers need to learn how schools on-site can add value and unlock potential

•But equally councils need to understand the limits of viability. The investment won’t stack up if new housing has to pay for everything the community might want – health centres, transport, affordable housing...

•We need to make choices.

•We also need to find a way to get this approach to work with the new Community Infrastructure Levy. Land is one of the few things that can be off-set against CIL, but how that land is valued is critical.

•And we need to get all of this right. The huge wave of school building London now needs is not possible without a new acceptance of high density school design, and partnerships with developers.

11

Notes:

•And a reminder that we’ve done a lot of this before.

•In the 25 years after the 2nd World War, London dealt simultaneously with repairing bomb damage, a rise in the school-leaving age, and a baby boom.

•85,000 primary school places were built – at a cost of only around a third of a billion in today’s money (albeit not all of those schools have stood the test of time well!)

12

Notes:

•Go back a bit further, and in the 30 years following the 1870 Education Act, the School Board for London added more than half a million school places in the capital, at a cost of £1.3bn in today’s money.

•At their peak they were opening a school a week!

13

Notes:

•And of course it was done with standardised designs, centralised procurement, high density triple-deck schools, often with playgrounds on the roof because of the difficulty of finding big enough sites.

•There were even some built with apartments above to help fund the school.

•To make the James Review work in London we need a similar vision for our schools now.

•And if that means standardised designs, then we need one that’s relevant to the constraints of London, in the footsteps of Edward Robson 140 years ago. And it may also need some London-wide co-ordination.

14

Notes:

•Let’s hope this new generation of schools also inspires enough to make it into literature in such glowing terms.

15