Priority School Building programme

The Council has now confirmed that  they have made no application for funding via the Priority School Building programme.

The programme exists to fund school who are in need of urgent rebuild or repair; as this is claimed to be the main motivation for the Council to rebuild Strathmore, it seems most odd that the Council has not applied.

It's almost as if they had decided in advance that selling school land was what they had decided to do...

Further FOI request turned down

The Council has turned down a further FOI request for the same reasons as given previously, once again begging the question 'what are they trying to hide'. The request asked for

Copies of any development plans, site drawings or concept drawings for new buildings at the Russell School, Petersham.

This has now been formally appealed.

Some answers to questions about School land sale in Petersham

Here are the answers to the questions posed to Robert Henderson at Richmond Council. I am meeting him on Monday - do let me know if you have any other questions you would like asked

Why was the timeline not part of the consultation document (as you wrote in your letter).

The timeline flowchart was drawn up to illustrate how the consultation process, as outlined in the original consultation document, sits within the overall timetable. The flowchart was made available to residents attending the meeting on 24 July 2012 and then posted on the consultation webpage.

  

Why was there no mention of the possibility of the sale of land at The Russell School in the consultation document (yet it is mentioned in the missing timeline)

The consultation document formed part of the informal consultation process and relates principally to the educational provision of pupils at Strathmore School 

Why does the consultation document claim that new buildings are vital to Strathmore improving its OFSTED rating from ‘Good’ to ‘Outstanding’ when the OFSTED report makes no mention of the buildings, and cites a) teaching issues and b) the performance of the governing body at Strathmore as the issues that need changing.#

The Local Authority is of the view that new buildings would enhance the provision at the school and this will lead to better outcomes for pupils.  The previous Ofsted report does point to the buildings restricting the educational opportunities on offer at the school. There are also many recorded maintenance and condition issues regarding access and the fabric of the building that need addressing.

Was it indeed suggested to parents in the 24^th July meeting that rebuilding Strathmore on the current site was a possibility? If so, what has changed?

This matter was addressed at the meeting. Many of the required improvements to suitability and condition cannot be addressed through refurbishment alone and the extent of works that could be completed would cause major disruption to the school. A re-build of the school on the current site would cause even more disruption and likely involve many phases to keep the school open. 

   

Is it true that the Council has already allocated funds from reserves for development work at Grey Court and Clifden? Why has no money from reserves been allocated for The Russell?

There has been an allocation of funding to the development of the sixth form at Grey Court in line with the Council commitment to the development of sixth form provision in all mainstream Secondary Schools/ Academies. There has been an allocation of funding to the new primary School site at Clifden Road as part of the planned expansion of primary school places in this area of the borough.

Can you confirm the valuations that the Council has received on the Strathmore and Russell School land, and also the estimates the council has received for the rebuild

There is no formal valuation on the land and the costs at this stage are at best preliminary. Detailed work will be required to firm all of these numbers. Clear estimates will be given if we go to Statutory Consultation

Why, if the consultation is about the best model of care for the children, have parents been given no evidence either way for the proposed model on which to base their judgement?

The Local Authority holds the view that the proposals offer the best model for meeting the diverse needs of this group of pupils. The proposals are for discrete purpose built facilities that also provide the opportunity for greater inclusion in mainstream activities where this is of benefit to pupils. Although research in this area is limited evidence would suggest that attitudes and careful management of inclusion are key to its success. The proposals meet both the Local Authority’s principles for improvements to special educational provision and the ‘improvement test’ as recommended by the Department for Education. The details of this are outlined in the consultation document.

Could you confirm you are aware of the on line petition against this proposal and that you have noted the numbers signing it? Could you also confirm you are aware that Russell school parents voted against these proposals?

We are aware of both of these. The online petition focuses on the sale of land whereas the Local Authority’s consultation is on the provision for pupils with significant special needs. In reaching any decisions on these proposals the Local Authority will need to consider the views of all stake holders but particularly the views of parents with children at Strathmore School.  

Could you confirm there is no truth to the rumours circulating that Council officials asked Governors not to share aspects of their thinking with the wider school and local community?

Governors were asked to keep financial information confidential based on the issues highlighted above – the estimates were not validated. The Council has tried to achieve a balance of giving information to relevant decision makers and stakeholders at the School to assist them in the decision making process whilst not creating unnecessary anxiety to the public given that all discussions were preliminary and may not proceed. If they do proceed to statutory consultation more concrete information will be presented.

Can you confirm that the council has not commissioned any other studies into potential impacts of developing on the Strathmore/Russell school sites (which would seem somewhat premature given this is an informal initial consultation).

An initial concept was prepared for Governors of Strathmore and The Russell School to give them a sense of the proposal and the range of possible options. This was a confidential work in progress in order to assist Governors in making an in principle decision to move forward. Without the support of Governors the projects would not have progressed.

Can you confirm that in the two days Russell School parents were informed they had to complete the on line consultation document, that the document was down and incapable of taking comment?

We are only aware of the online consultation questionnaire not functioning in the early stages of the consultation period and this was fixed. We are aware that some people had difficulties in filling out the consultation questionnaire and where we were alerted to this a paper version was sent out to the individuals concerned. Website activity shows that individuals were submitting returns until the questionnaire was removed from the webpage at the end of the informal consultation period.    

Why was no meeting arranged for Russell School Parents as it was for Strathmore?

The two public meetings arranged were open to all parents. One was hosted locally at Strathmore School and the other elsewhere in the Borough at Windham Croft Centre. The intention was to provide an opportunity for as many interested parents to attend the meetings. The dates and venues were posted on the consultation webpage, included in the consultation document and sent out to parents via the three schools concerned. Local voluntary groups and charities were also alerted.  

Why were parents not told in writing that land at The Russell school could be sold to developers until after the consultation forms had been returned?

The consultation was principally on the educational provision for children with significant and complex learning difficulties at Strathmore. The potential sale of land on The Russell site relates to the redevelopment of The Russell School buildings.   

Can you confirm that other funding options will be looked at for the development that do not include any sale of school land. Can you also confirm that the Council will not sell the Strathmore land if other funds are found?

Currently the Council is of the view that all funding options have been explored but we will continue to explore external funding options, as appropriate within the timescales. If other funds are identified the Council will consider all available options at the time and consult on those, with a focus on improving outcomes for children and young people.

Council Turn down Freedom of Information request.

Yes, the Council have turned down our first two Freedom of Information requests, saying telling us the answers to our questions - which they admit are available - may 'cause unnecessary distraction and concern'

In other words - there is something they've been discussing they don't want us to learn.

I have appealed the decision and will further appeal to the Information Commissioner if necessary. My appeal note is outlined below the letter from the council.

Adult and Community Services

Deepa Shah

Data Protection & Information Officer

Phone: 020 8891 7554

Email: deepa.shah@richmond.gov.uk

5 November 2012

Our Ref: e13572

Dear Mr Morris,

Re: Request for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Your requests for information which were received on 5 October 2012 has been considered. Please find our response below.

Request 1

I would like to request copies of all council minutes discussing potential sale of land at

1). The Russell School, Petersham

2). Strathmore School, Petersham

I would also like to request copies of any correspondence between Richmond Council and Staff/Governors at the two schools concerning sale of land.

Request 2

A copy of any studies, reports or feasibility analysis commissioned and/or held by the council involving the sale of land at 

1). Strathmore School, Petersham

2). The Russell School, Petersham

Our response:

In accordance with recent Information Commissioner’s Office decisions, I am treating this as an environmental information request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs) and this letter acts as a Public Interest Refusal Notice.

With regard to request 1, information held by the Council comprises one item of correspondence. 

With regard to request 2, information held by the Council comprises a concept study for the Russell and Strathmore Buildings.

We consider the above items to be covered by regulation 12(4)(d) within the EIR.  This exception relates to material in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data. This exemption is subject to the public interest test and we have considered arguments in favour of, and against disclosure below.

While the relevant documents are finished documents, they form part of material which is still in the course of completion.  This is an area where the Council is currently formulating and exploring options and the material is generated as part of an on-going process to reach a particular decision. There are a number of options being considered. These include the possibility of selling Strathmore School and the potential sale of some land within Russell School but these are dependent on the overall options appraisal. All the agreed and realistic options will be presented in full if a decision is made to go to statutory consultation. The statutory consultation will offer a range of options in terms of the provision of education currently at Strathmore School. The decision as to whether or not to go to statutory consultation is imminent once the final options and alternatives have been agreed and clarified by relevant parties.

We take into account the general public interest in the release of this information in order to give the public a fully informed picture of this decision making process, promoting transparency and accountability. 

However, there is also a public interest in protecting the safe ‘thinking’ space within the Council. This is important as it allows officers to get on with the job in hand without having to defend or comment externally on what are only preliminary proposals and may not reflect fully formulated or agreed positions of the Council.  It is important to protect the integrity of the decision making process.  Disclosure of this material at this stage would make it difficult to bring this decision-making process to a conclusion.

The upgrading, re building or re provision of Strathmore School have a number of similar but also variable consequences for Russell School and other Schools and each of the options has different funding implications and the option of aligning to other potential building projects. Careful evaluation of these is necessary before it is agreed that they are, in fact, viable and feasible options, practically, financially and most importantly in delivering high quality educational provision for children with severe learning difficulties, as well as the relevant school populations.

Making all the options available before they have been carefully evaluated would cause unnecessary distraction and concern. This is particularly the case when all viable options will be presented in detail, openly and transparently, within the statutory consultation, for comment and public scrutiny with a clear rationale.

Further public and statutory consultation will also be offered if after the statutory consultation, we proceed to a planning proposal and application, which, in turn, will be agreed by Cabinet.

Taking the above factors into account, I have therefore concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in favour of disclosing the information.

In accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, this letter acts as a Refusal Notice.

You have the right of appeal against the decision.  If you wish to appeal please set out in writing your grounds of appeal and send to:  

Corporate Complaints and Access to Information Manager

Community Engagement & Accountability Team

Adult and Community Services

3rd Floor Civic Centre

44 York Street

Twickenham

TW1 3BZ

E-mail: foi@richmond.gov.uk

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal appeal you may appeal further to the information Commissioner’s Office at:

Wycliffe House 

Water Lane 

Wilmslow 

Cheshire 

SK9 5AF

fax: 01625 524 510

DX  20819

www.ico.gov.uk

My Reply

Dear Mr Shah

Thank you for your letter.

However I do not accept your refusal of my Freedom of Information request. Within your reply, you reveal that information is available, that it is complete, but that because the process is still underway you feel you can turn down the request.

In fact your letter tells us that parents have been asked to respond to consultations with access to incomplete and inaccurate information. For example in your letter you state that one of the options being looked at involves sale of land at the Russell School. In fact, the consultation document parents were asked to respond to makes no mention of sale of land at The Russell, only at Strathmore. There is a certain irony is there not, that your refusal letter of an FOI request reveals more information than the Council was willing to give parents in the first place. There is certainly no public interest defence here. Quite the opposite.

The 'thinking space' argument you make would only apply before the public are consulted. However, your letter revels that the Council now attempted to gain public support for the scheme - consultation documents paint only a positive picture of the scheme - without revealing the full plans being discussed. Hence my FOI request in the first place. The thinking space fell the moment the council launched a consultation on the proposals. If they failed to reveal the full extent of their planning, then again the public interest defence falls in favour of the FOI request, not against it.

I would also question whether the drawing you refer to in Request 2 is the only material available in relation to that request? Have there really been no other studies done  - traffic impact, environment etc - in relation to this project?

Finally - and most importantly - I refer you to the clause you are using to defend your decision in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 - that exemptions can be made if 'the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data'. The material I have requested is, as you acknowledge, complete and therefore the exemption does not apply.

Please take this note as a formal appeal against your decision to turn down my FOI request. I would appreciate it if you could confirm the timing of any decision on that appeal.Should my appeal be turned down, I will of course be referring the matter to the Information Commissioner.

With best wishes

Richard Morris

New Letter from Zac Goldsmith

Zac Goldsmith has responded to a letter from a concerned parent and made the following points:

1. He confirmed there has been 'a lack of clarity' around the project.

2. There are no firm plans to sell land at The Russell, although it does remain an option

3. The council officials are now reviewing additional information and views of parents at local schools (as we knew) before deciding whether to go statutory consultation

Apparently the local councillors have also confirmed that there are also to be a series of community meetings with the Education Department. Which will be quite an event.

CEO and Director of Children's Services Responses

Gillian Norton, CEO of Richmond Council and Nick Whitfield, Director of Children's Services have responded to letters. To be fair, both replies were prompt, though neither really moved things on

In short both have passed these letters on to Robert Henderson, and asked him to respond on behalf of them all.

When Mr Henderson does reply - it has been over a week since his last correspondence - will alert everyone to the state of play.

UPDATE

Within an hour of posting this, I had a message from Robert Henderson's office confirming I will have a reply by 7 November.

I do think - credit where it's due - that this is good communication.

7th November - a date for the diary

New Social Media Sites

Hi, the campaign now has:

1. A Twitter account - @petershamparent

If you are on Twitter, do pop over and follow.

2. A Facebook Page

Click on this link to see our site and do feel free to post there.

Thanks everyone

The news is - no news

I am sorry to say that having offered to meet me a week ago, there is still no offer of a date for that meeting from Robert Henderson at Richmond Council, nor is there a written response to the questions posed to him. For reference,  the questions we are waiting for answers to are printed below. In addition we are also waiting for answers to our FOI  requests to the council (the first of these are due by November 3rd at the latest - if they haven't arrived by then we will of course notify the Information Commissioner).

We would encourage everyone to write expressing their views to...

Robert Henderson, Assistant Director, Protective and Preventative Services at Richmond Council (r.henderson@richmond.gov.uk)

Nick Whitfield, Director of Children's services (nick.whitfield@richmond.gov.uk)

Gillian Norton, Chief Executive, (g.norton@richmond.gov.uk)

...and let us know what they say.

Questions To Robert Henderson

Why was the timeline not part of the consultation document (as you wrote in your letter). Why was there no mention of the possibility of the sale of land at The Russell School in the consultation document (yet it is mentioned in the missing timeline)

Why does the consultation document claim that new buildings are vital to Strathmore improving its OFSTED rating from ‘Good’ to ‘Outstanding’ when the OFSTED report makes no mention of the buildings, and cites a) teaching issues and b) the performance of the governing body at Strathmore as the issues that need changing.

Was it indeed suggested to parents in the 24^th July meeting that rebuilding Strathmore on the current site was a possibility? If so, what has changed?

Is it true that the Council has already allocated funds from reserves for development work at Grey Court and Clifden? Why has no money from reserves been allocated for The Russell?

Can you confirm the valuations that the Council has received on the Strathmore and Russell School land, and also the estimates the council has received for the rebuild

Why, if the consultation is about the best model of care for the children, have parents been given no evidence either way for the proposed model on which to base their judgement?

Could you confirm you are aware of the on line petition against this proposal and that you have noted the numbers signing it? Could you also confirm you are aware that Russell school parents voted against these proposals?

Could you confirm there is no truth to the rumours circulating that Council officials asked Governors not to share aspects of their thinking with the wider school and local community?

Can you confirm that the council has not commissioned any other studies into potential impacts of developing on the Strathmore/Russell school sites (which would seem somewhat premature given this is an informal initial consultation).

Can you confirm that in the two days Russell School parents were informed they had to complete the on line consultation document, that the document was down and incapable of taking comment?

Why was no meeting arranged for Russell School Parents as it was for Strathmore?

Why were parents not told in writing that land at The Russell school could be sold to developers until after the consultation forms had been returned?

Can you confirm that other funding options will be looked at for the development that do not include any sale of school land. Can you also confirm that the Council will not sell the Strathmore land if other funds are found?

My Response to Robert Henderson's letter

I have responded to Robert Henderson's letter to Zac Goldsmith and asked for some key questions to be answered. The letter and the questions are below.

Mr Henderson responded almost immediately with an offer to meet and I am now awaiting some appointment times from his office. I will of course keep everyone updated with news.

Here's my note

Dear Mr Henderson

Proposals for development at Strathmore School, and The Russell School, Petersham

I am parent with 3 children at The Russell School, Petersham.

It is important upfront to say that I am not against facilities at the two schools being upgraded and modernised. I am however,  firmly, against this being funded by the sale of school land – ‘Brownfield’ or ‘Greenfield’ - especially when it is likely this land will  to be sold to developers for housing.

Zac Goldsmith forwarded on to me your reply to his inquiry about proposed plans at Strathmore School and The Russell School.

I am afraid your reply fails to answer many questions parents are asking, and also fails to alert Mr Goldsmith to many of the issues parents are raising at The Russell School. I hope you don’t mind therefore that I have annotated your reply with some points that I would like to raise and have answers to. Your letter is in blue and italics, my responses in black and italics. For ease, I have listed the questions separately at the end of the letter.

Your letter begins…

We have responded to information requests of this nature a number of times and the plans are set out in the consultation document published on the council’s website, accessed via the following link: Consultation - London Borough of Richmond upon Thames <http://www.richmond.gov.uk/sen_consultation>    The published document include a timeline which has been also been distributed to the community.

I do not believe the timeline you mention is contained in the consultation document. A timeline was distributed at the meeting organised by local councillors (not the Council) on July 24^th.This timeline makes reference to the fact that it is a possibility that school land at The Russell may be sold. This is not mentioned at all in the consultation document. Parents were therefore invited to comment on a consultation document that omitted to mention a fairly vital piece of information about The Russell School – and we now learn should have contained a timeline that it apparently didn’t.

The situation to date is that we have just consulted informally on a proposal to deliver services to children and young people with severe learning difficulties through a split site model, either side of the river at primary and secondary. This would include The Russell School, Greycourt School and the Clifden site in Twickenham.  It would mean no longer using the Strathmore School which is not suitable for delivering services to this group.

 If the Strathmore facilities are no longer suitable, then something must indeed be done. However the consultation document you mention states, in relation to Strathmore, that “There is a desire on the schools’ and our part to move the overall effectiveness of the schools from (OFSTED) ‘good’ to ‘outstanding’. Improvements to the buildings and facilities of the schools are critical to achieving this”.

In fact the OFSTED Report on Strathmore School makes no mention of buildings at all. The reasons stated why the school is given a ‘good’ rating and not an ‘outstanding’ rating are related

1) to teaching issues and

2) to the performance of the Governing Body.

Of course, I would reiterate that I would like the SEN facilities in Richmond to be the very best – but when I read the motivation driving the project appears to be factually incorrect, I can’t help but wonder if some other motivation is behind the drive to sell school land.

I note that the consultation document references another study, which apparently states that improving the facilities, is vital in improving the OFSTED rating. This seems odd given OFSTED have other issues with the school. That report was also not made available to parents at the Russell School.

In relation to Strathmore School the plan is to sell the site and use the funding to support the development of key stage one, two, three and four provision at The Russell School, Greycourt School and Clifden site. Strathmore School will remain as a School with a head teacher but be based on these 3 sites with separate and specialist facilities for Strathmore pupils as well as shared areas. The programme is based on a number of current opportunities – the development of Greycourt’s sixth form provision, the building of a combined secondary and primary school on the Clifden site and the expansion primary school places of The Russell School, which will be subject to a separate consultation and which is not dependent on the development of key stage 2 provision for the Strathmore  pupils. This is a major opportunity to provide high class, fit for purpose specialist facilities for the most vulnerable children and remove them from a building clearly unsuitable. There are insufficient Council funds to rebuild the Strathmore School on its current site.  

A few points here. Firstly I understand at the meeting on 24 July, parents were told that rebuilding on Strathmore was still a possibility (the meeting was recorded so this in easily verified). Can you confirm this? If so, is that still the case?

Secondly, I have also been told that in fact the funds to develop Grey Court and Clifden are already set aside from Council Reserves. Again is this correct? If so, why has no money been put aside for The Russell School from Council reserves?

Could you also confirm the any valuations the Council has received on land at both schools, plus any estimates of the rebuild.

The primary ambition of the consultation was not and is not about buildings or property. It is about what the best model is and facilities are best for meeting the needs of this group of children and their families.

This rather begs a question -  why has there been a consultation in which no parent at The Russell School has been given any papers, research or consultation documents that demonstrate this is best for children both with and without SEN? None has been supplied. If this is really what the consultation was about, then this is quite extraordinary. I look forward to hearing from you why we have been asked to give an opinion without being given any evidence either way on which to make a judgement.

On the basis of this we are now considering going to statutory consultation and at this stage relevant schools including Grey Court, The Russell and Strathmore are gauging the views of parents about what is in the best interest of children, especially those currently at Strathmore School, in order to ensure that parents support the changes.

Firstly, despite voting papers at the Russell School being handed out with a one page note painting only a positive picture of the proposed changes, and recommending progressing, parents at The Russell School have voted ‘no’ to these proposals. I hope given what you have written above, that that is therefore an end to any plan.

In addition you are probably aware that a considerable number of parents have signed the on line petition against these proposals. The petition can be found at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dont-sell-off-school-land-in-petersham/

If parents are in support we will be going into statutory consultation. At this stage detailed plans will be available about how we intend to educate the pupils currently at Strathmore School across the three sites and how this will be funded. The community will have ample opportunity to offer their views at this stage but again this consultation will focus on the needs and outcomes of children and young people and their parents.

Once the outcome of the statutory consultation is known a decision to proceed will need to be made by the Cabinet. Cabinet will make a decision whether or not to proceed and how to fund the project. If the outcome is positive this will lead to a full planning application which again involves statutory consultation.

In this context the community will have lots of opportunities to have their views heard.

Russell parents are opposed to these plans, especially as more and more of the funding details become known. If further consultation is taken, I trust that full details of any sale of school land will be made known.

The issue at the moment is that there is a proportion of the community who are stating that decisions have already been made, which they have not and spreading information which is factually incorrect.

I would be interested in knowing if information on the campaign website is factually incorrect (http://notosellingpetershamschoolland.blogspot.co.uk/ ). If anything on the website is factually incorrect we will gladly issue a correction – but almost everything we have published has been backed up in writing or through recordings. We are trying to avoid publishing ‘hearsay’.

On this point there is a rumour that the Council officials asked Governors not to share aspects of their thinking with the wider school community or local people, especially around. Can you confirm this is incorrect? I will happily publish that fact.

Finally, out of interest, has the council undertaken any other studies into environmental impact, traffic impact, safety issues etc of developing on the site? If so, who have these been shared with?

We have undertaken consultation to date and this has included;
 

·       During June, July and August 2012 (covering a period of seven weeks) the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames started a consultation process on proposals to improve the buildings and facilities of Strathmore School. The proposals outlined plans to create purpose-built facilities co-located with three mainstream schools. The consultation document and on-line survey were available on the Council website from Monday 18 June until Friday 3 August 2012 with paper copies being made available on request from the schools and Civic Centre. 

I will insert another parent’s points here as they put the case against this beautifully

“Although the school made a one sentence reference to the SEN consultation at the end of a printed (not emailed) school newsletter in June, it is apparent that very few parents picked up on this, read the consultation or understood the implications for the Russell school. This became apparent through discussions I have had with other parents and residents who were unaware of the plans to sell land and by the fact that I was one of only two Russell parents who attended the consultation meeting at Strathmore on June 26.

Further in a letter on July 16, two days before the end of term, the school wrote to parents about the SEN consultation. The letter for the first time acknowledged the plans for a ‘new build for the Russell’ and that the governors had only recently been informed of these plans…..

…the letter of July 16 fails to mention the intention to sell the Russell Infants site for housing and it falsely informed parents that the closing date of the consultation was July 18 (i.e. 2 days after the letter) as opposed to the correct date of 3 August. When this error was pointed out, the school failed to send a correction. At this time, the consultation form on the Council website was not working correctly”.

In other words, the main communication from the school gave parents 2 days to respond, when the website was not working anyway.

·       There were public meetings held at two different locations in the Borough – one at Strathmore School on Tuesday 26 June at 7.00pm and the other on Thursday 12 July at 2.00pm at Windham Croft Centre. The dates of these meetings were posted on the Council website and available to parents via school newsletters and notices. There was also a press release placed in the Richmond and Twickenham Times on Friday 20 July giving information about the consultation.

Yet no meeting was arranged for Russell School parents. Presumably this is a tacit admission from the Council that our views were not considered important? Why is this the case?

·       In addition to this a residents’ meeting, arranged by ward councillors from Petersham and Ham, on Tuesday 24 July at 7.30pm at The Russell School was attended by local authority officers. There was considerable community representation which focused on traffic and parking issues as well as what developments would occur if Strathmore and parts of The Russell School were sold. There are no clear answers to these questions but the community were assured that they would be informed and given the opportunity to state their views at the appropriate time 

Yes, councillors arranged a meeting as the council failed to do so. I am told that issues like the potential sale of Russell School land only came out after persistent questioning from parents. Is this correct? Again, there is a recording of this meeting available. Why was the council so reluctant to admit they had discussed selling Russell School land?  That the Russell School land could be sold was confirmed in a letter to parents at the Russell last week for the first time.

As noted, this stage of the consultation has been primarily aimed at parents, staff and governors of the three schools concerned. It should be noted that there were some slight glitches with the on-line survey in the early stages of the consultation which were resolved. However, this may have resulted in some views not being captured so individual schools have decided to consult further with parents to ensure that their views are fully represented.

As mentioned earlier, parents at the Russell have voted no these plans, and in considerably higher numbers have signed the petition against these proposals.

With regard to the sale of land the original document makes it clear that funding of the build will be met by funds from the Council with additional contributions from the sale of the redundant site. On the basis of the consultation this will be reviewed.

I do hope this responds to the concerns you raise. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

I would appreciate answers to my questions. For ease, I have listed them overleaf.

Thanks and best wishes

Richard Morris

My questions:

Why was the timeline not part of the consultation document (as you wrote in your letter). Why was there no mention of the possibility of the sale of land at The Russell School in the consultation document (yet it is mentioned in the missing timeline)

Why does the consultation document claim that new buildings are vital to Strathmore improving its OFSTED rating from ‘Good’ to ‘Outstanding’ when the OFSTED report makes no mention of the buildings, and cites a) teaching issues and b) the performance of the governing body at Strathmore as the issues that need changing.

Was it indeed suggested to parents in the 24^th July meeting that rebuilding Strathmore on the current site was a possibility? If so, what has changed?

Is it true that the Council has already allocated funds from reserves for development work at Grey Court and Clifden? Why has no money from reserves been allocated for The Russell?

Can you confirm the valuations that the Council has received on the Strathmore and Russell School land, and also the estimates the council has received for the rebuild

Why, if the consutlation is about the best model of care for the children, have parents been given no evidence either way for the proposed model on which to base their judgement?

Could you confirm you are aware of the on line petition against this proposal and that you have noted the numbers signing it? Could you also confirm you are aware that Russell school parents voted against these proposals?

Could you confirm there is no truth to the rumours circulating that Council officials asked Governors not to share aspects of their thinking with the wider school and local community?

Can you confirm that the council has not commissioned any other studies into potential impacts of developing on the Strathmore/Russell school sites (which would seem somewhat premature given this is an informal initial consultation).

Can you confirm that in the two days Russell School parents were informed they had to complete the on line consultation document, that the document was down and incapable of taking comment?

Why was no meeting arranged for Russell School Parents as it was for Strathmore?

Why were parents not told in writing that land at The Russell school could be sold to developers until after the consultation forms had been returned?

Can you confirm that other funding options will be looked at for the development that do not include any sale of school land. Can you also confirm that the Council will not sell the Strathmore land if other funds are found?

The Priority School Building Programme

Communication to parents from The Council (and to an extent from Schools) has continually informed parents that  buildings at Strathmore are not up to the needs of the children. A note home from The Russell School to parents last week also asserted that there were serious issues with the quality of buildings there too.

There is a central Government fund, the Priority School Building programme, with money put aside  for exactly this purpose.

We have therefore put in Freedom of Information requests to both The Council and the Department for Education to see if Richmond applied for this money for the two schools.

If the applications were rejected we would be interested in seeing why.

If no applications were made we will be asking why the Council has decided that selling School land is a preferred option to applying for central Government grants aimed at solving exactly the issue stated around the quality of  buildings.

Here's a short extract from Michael Gove, SoS at the Department for Education outlining the money on offer centrally

In addition, last year I invited bids to a new programme from schools in need of urgent repair. 587 schools applied for the programme on the basis of their condition need. Today I can confirm that 261 schools will be rebuilt, or have their condition needs met through the Priority School Building programme (PSBP) and a copy of the list has been placed in the House Libraries. Officials have today written to all schools who applied for the programme to confirm whether their application has been successful. Work will begin immediately and the first schools will be open in 2014.

I recognise that many of the schools that applied to the PSBP and have been unsuccessful will also have significant condition needs. Some of those will have their needs addressed through the other funding we have made available for maintenance. Where that is not the case, I will use the information from the national programme of surveys we are currently conducting to ensure that, subject to funds available in the next spending review period, those schools which need renovation will have their needs addressed as quickly as possible. By next autumn we will have details about the condition of every school in the country. Information on the condition of all schools was last collated centrally in 2005