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