We need to do far more than this.
Firstly, it should be clear in the plan that these schools should be well away from traffic pollution so that air quality can be good. Secondly, they require open spaces and should be pinnacle examples of good insulation while providing excellent ventilation and heating.
Option 1 is rejected. Yes, the current schools need to be protected. But making schools bigger does not make them better. If anything, it makes the education provision worse. Yes, there is greater diversification but crowding, overuse, anonymising schools making children into numbers rather than known individuals is not the solution.
We are aware that demand exists already - schools have been asked to expand with portacabins - temporary permanent expansions providing subquality provision.
Option 2 – possible not a rejection but not the solution
We should be identifying the spaces and setting a high cost to developers to pay for the provision of schools to the quality we require in the place we want so that we are meeting all demands for community infrastructure by protecting existing school and healthcare sites through our specific allocation in the plan that allows for their managed expansion to meet changing demand for services – NOT dependent on a site allocated by a developer.
Option 3 rejected
A case can be made for using school sites for multiple use. But these come with a safeguarding warning. Seats and toilets designed for children do not meet the needs of adults and adults should not be allowed to mix freely with children. To pose the idea of “co-located and integrated community buildings” is disingenuous at best and at worst dangerous! That said the developers should be paying a high price to ensure our children do not become disadvantaged both to prevent overbuilding – dare I say it ghettoization- and to ensure proper facilities are paid for.
“Requiring new developments to deliver new community infrastructure on-site” comes with a risk and a warning. Developers can downsize to avoid a threshold and place infrastructure where it is neither appropriate in type or location. The Council/community should be deciding where and when these builds take place so that there is “sufficient demand to sustain them” and appropriate funding from developers for their creation.
Finally point 4 “making school facilities available for public hire” is disingenuous for a number of reasons. Firstly, schools do allow parts of their facilities to be hired already. Secondly, any new school would on completion be an academy and controlled by a trust which in turn would both run the school and the facilities – not the Council. Thirdly, for safeguarding purposes there would be a limited access by the public to the facilities. Fourthly, the facilities would be first and foremost a school so any dual use would not and could not interfere with the central need – that of education.

So Option 2 has to be selected but it MUST be modified to be a co-operative local trust – these do exist and can be replicated. The sites have to be multiple school occupancy, sharing facilities where appropriate. Community use could be within the administration areas but further thought could go into the vocational provision so that small business apprentices can have vocational training. Further a kitchen supplying school meals could provide for meals for a day centre as well as the public. A community school would easily fit with senior citizen care and adult evening education.