Another wonderful contribution to the petition...

I am writing with regard to Richmond Borough Councils proposal for the redevelopment of Strathmore School and the Russell School and the sale of the redundant site, currently, partially in public consultation. I am a local resident, living on Clifford Road. References: www.richmond.gov.uk/sen_consultation 

I am very concerned that the process of consultation taking place does not allow a fair and thorough public consultation on the full project and its impact on the surrounding community. Please find below the e-mail I have sent to Richmond council which highlights my concerns. 

I attended the consultation meeting on Monday 11th February as I wanted to have the chance to hear all the information before writing. I am concerned that the consultation process is too narrow for a project of this scale. From the online questionnaire and the speakers on Monday night, local residents are at this stage only allowed to comment on whether they would like better provision for the educational needs of children in the borough with learning and in some cases physical disabilities. We would of course all want them to have the best facilities available. The project is far more reaching than this very emotive argument. My concerns are as follows: 
1. The initial consultation last year only consulted the parents of the Strathmore School. The impact of the changes being made are far more long term for the surrounding residents and community than for parents of a pupil who may attend the school for 5-7 years. The sale of the land and rebuilding of the Russell School will change a site in the heart of Petersham village for the local residents long term. Given the importance of this project and impact on the village, I find it divisive that the process is currently only being directed as educational need and that the time frames discussed on Monday night mean that by the time residents are allowed to comment on the sale of the Strathmore land, and a planning brief established, all of the educational need, will have been consulted on and, given the narrow nature of the questions posed by the questionnaires, have been passed in favour of the Council's preferred option. 
2. Although the speakers indicated a long process of looking at all the options for the Strathmore School and its site, none of the background information or findings for the other options (for example keeping the school on this site and updating facilities both at the Strathmore School and the Russell School) are available for viewing by the public. Only one option is really being presented- the option of rebuilding Strathmore facilities on other sites and a total rebuild of the Russell School paid for by the sale of the Strathmore land and a part of the Russell School land. Full details of all options should be available to the public. 3.The case for rebuilding the Russell School seems somewhat fabricated with photos of a basic conditions survey which indicate that a Council as wealthy as Richmond has allowed a local school to fall into disrepair. None of the photos indicated anything more than maintenance work in line with a building of its age. Whilst I understand that essential maintenance work cannot be carried out in term time, a phased approach over school holidays could successfully be undertaken. 
4.With regard to the need for additional classroom/ educational facilities accommodation on the Russell Site. The figure of 1000m2 was being discussed at the meeting. No evidence has been given that the planning department would not grant a suitable extension to the school to allow this additional accommodation. 
5. The Planning Consultant stated that the current format of the Russell School, with three buildings, made management of the School hard. There is no evidence to back this up in Ofsted reports. Given the importance of the site geographically in the Petersham Conservation area and with protected views surrounding it, the option for the school being presented at the meeting was an urban two storey mass not in keeping with the site. The existing low level buildings have a massing and scale suitable for buildings in this location. The Council have not invested enough time in developing the design for the Russell site to allow thorough public comment. 
6. As raised in the point above the Council have not invested enough time in developing the strategies for the Russell School site. The proposal discussed on Monday night to allow traffic to turn onto the Russell site from the Petersham Road shows how little local knowledge the project team have and/or how little time they have invested in developing the strategies surrounding the proposal. The Petersham Road is a main artery from Kingston to Richmond and cars turning onto the Russell site from the Petersham Road would bring this road to a standstill every morning. There is a very real traffic problem at the moment on Meadlands and Clifford Road where parents who are dropping the children off by car park haphazardly all over the estate roads and then zoom off down the narrow one lane strip at 30 miles an hour endangering the lives of all the kids walking to school. This will only get worse with a larger intake of children. Any scheme to redevelop the Russell site should encompass a drop off point on school grounds. 
7. I think the reasons for increasing the intake of children to the Russell School need some further investigation. Part of the problem at the Russell School is that kids are travelling from North Kingston and the top of Richmond Hill to attend. Perhaps the additional school provision needs to be allocated there instead of in a small village like Ham and Petersham which is constrained by inadequate road provision for current traffic. Ham and Petersham has three primary schools, more than sufficient for the children that actually live in these villages. Local kids are missing out on places at the Russell School because, although they live in the catchment and in walking distance of the school, there is no place for them due to the 'siblings rule'. Has the Council looked at making sure that the families applying to the Russell School (and indeed any other school in the village) have lived in Ham and Petersham for a period of a number of years prior to applying for a place and will continue to live in the village for a period of years once a place has been given. 
8. With regard to the sale of the land at the Strathmore site and part of the Russell School land. This was presented at the meeting as the only way of funding the development. Is there any evidence to back this up?. Have other avenues been investigated? It did feel at the meeting that this was established already as a given and that there was no room for debate. All that the speakers would say is that it was a protected site both in terms of its place in the conservation area and the protected views around it and that anyone buying the land would have to deal with the planning constraints of this. The current class of the land is D1. It seems at odds with itself that the council is going to spend a minimum of 6 million pounds moving a D1 function from a D1 assigned pocket of land and then ask the developer, who buys the land to prove that there is no suitable current D1 function? I am gravely concerned that the Council is marking its own homework with regard to this site and that although paperwork will have to be put in place to back it up , the site, once purchased by a developer will get a residential use class. From the Planning Consultant's speech the Council is already minded to consider a development of 20 units? In any other circumstances in terms of scale, massing, location and traffic, such a development on that site would not get planning permission. 
In conclusion therefore I think the council need to pause this current consultation. I believe that, given the scale of the project, all the project proposals should be available for public consultation now. The council need to provide factual evidence of the other options which have been considered to update the educational needs and the conclusions reached, with reasons. The planning briefs for the Russell, Clifden and Greycourt Schools and for the Strathmore land to be sold, need to be established and investigated in terms of scale, massing, traffic management and design, in order that a thorough and fair public consultation encompassing the whole project can take place. I believe that part of this should be established at State level to ensure a fair process.

Another great contribution on the petition

Some signatories on the petition write some great blog posts - here's one from yesterday.

Strathmore and Russell School are at the heart of Petersham and the Conservation Area – integral to the Petersham Road, core to the view from Petersham Hill, unobtrusive along the boundary with the Avenue that leads towards Ham House, subservient to Ham Lands with low density single storey buildings, providing a corridor of green space between Petersham Road and Ham Lands. School buildings and play areas are unobtrusive and distributed giving a rural primary school setting. Light and noise pollution is distributed across a wide area and again unobtrusive. There is no sense of being overlooked on all boundaries. It supports wildlife that benefits from its extensive green and open space and this rural aspect provides a unique setting for children to enjoy and this was recently recognized by Ofsted. So, as local residents, it is with considerable concern that we find ourselves in the midst of a consultation for and on behalf of the school – providing limited opportunity for the local community to participate and be heard because “their views” are not considered relevant at this time of the consultation. This proposal is unacceptable

The Petition - a clarification

I was asked by a council officer if I would clarify on this blog the role of the petition, and in the spirit of open-ness - and hopefully following last night's residents meeting, more co-operation on both sides - I am happy to do this.

The petition - which continues to grow - is an open petition, which means anyone with an interest in the issue is free to sign it. However, it is aimed primarily at local residents in Ham and Petersham, and parents of pupils at the schools.

I understand some people under the age of 18, and also outside the borough, have signed the petition and I am happy to accept this is the case. I cannot remove these names, partly as I do not know who exactly these are, and also because regardless of that, there is no reason why they shouldn't express a view.

But I would like to clarify that the primary purpose of the petition is to represent local opposition to the sale of school land.

If further clarification is needed, I am happy to oblige.

A local resident writes...

"We have been reading, with interest, your opposition to the plans to redevelop the existing School site with the loss of school land and at the same time increasing numbers at the school itself.

Clearly, the loss of more school land is to be opposed and most people would heartily agree with that, however, the merits of the educational issues we would wish to leave to others more expert and more personally involved.

As local residents of Meadlands Drive we have a major issue with traffic congestion and parking as a result of a similar recent redevelopment at the German School which has vastly increased the amount of traffic flow in this and surrounding roads resulting in us becoming the German School Car Park Extension.

We have been in correspondence with the Council since the end of last year on the subject.

We feel that the proposed development will only exacerbate this problem with increased pupil numbers and the development of residential accommodation and would oppose these plans on this basis alone. Any further increase in vehicular traffic would not only affect local residents but would affect access to the new school and have implications with regard to the safety of children travelling on foot".

If you would like your comments published on the campaign blog, do forward them to parentsinpetersham@gmail.com and we will post them here

A letter from a concerned parent to Nick Whitfield

We have received the following wonderful letter from a concerned local resident and parent at the Russell School. It echoes the feelings of so many local people. We would be happy to publish other letters from local residents and parents from either school.

Dear Mr Whitfield,

 

I would like to reply to the consultation at The Russell School on January 31st 2013. The time allocated for the meeting was 4.30-6pm. This time consisted largely of continuous lectures at the audience which contained very little relevant information to underpin the proposed plan of the changes to the Russell site. The time frame was in stark contrast to the time then given to open questions from the audience. I feel that at best almost all questions put forward by the audience were left unanswered and at worst your replies talked once again at the audience containing little relevance the each question asked. Again filling our precious time with yet more unrelated constructed facts. The reasoning put forward was self-serving and filled with innocuous examples, i.e. other schools, other maintenance issues, other children which had no bearing to the issues now at Russell School. The Council's presentation was ineffective as it lacked any actual supporting concrete evidence. The proposal was put forward as a fait accompli, littered with scaremongering facts chosen to present the proposed plan in it's best light. I was startled by lack of knowledge about the current Russell school, its environment, and the children which attend. I did not recognise this description and felt the Russell School was misrepresented.

A more successful use of our only meeting may have been to have an actual discussion in how future school provision can be provided in our borough for our children. To dress up the council proposal as a "moral obligation" hides the real actual story which is the selling of school land. The only "moral obligation" would have been to have presented a fair, open, honest, straightforward, and factual consultation. Instead of the actual continuous lecture, merging into a continuous statement of bluster, irrelevant talk full of unconnected reasoning put forward to suit the council's proposal.

I understand there is an economic need based on the financial shortfall in Richmond Council. As this is a pure funding issue there no evidence or educational argument to support this proposal. Ofsted has also offered no evidence that Russell is shortchanging its' children due to its state of repair and dependence on its outdoor space. Had we have seen relevant feasibility studies that brought the council to the current solution or indeed any other viable alternatives we would have the possibility to believe the alternative would be the best outcome for our children, the Starthmore children and the Richmond borough children needing future educational provision.The proposal lacked clarity and was based on facts cherry picked to show the Russell School can only survive by selling land, yet none of the other sites for the schools integration are required to do so. I heard a pointless lecture rather than an effective consultation. Were our concerns acknowledged and discussed or indeed sufficient answers given I may have drawn a different conclusion towards the council's proposal.

It may provide future dry space under non-leaking roofs, but in doing so you take away the opportunity for our children to enjoy the outdoors and learning in an open green environment which the current government immensely supports. The new school will have less outside space for the children to play and learn even before it doubles it size. Currently, the school has separate paying areas for the Nursery, Infants and Junior pupils. The proposed smaller site can reduce this opportunity. Our children would inherit the problems other schools are having to struggle with far too many children in an inclosed space - as currently experienced at Fern Hill, Latchmere and Marshgate. I chose the Russell School based on its separate and open play areas, the Russell also currently has two Halls for each part of the school to use age appropriately. It is not the academic space per square metre that make it right for the children.

Sadly,only one view, one consultation with only a yes or no outcome was put forward.The council does not recognise that we as parents, teachers, carers, residents are very happy to share our school in any form it takes with any child that lives in Richmond. The only issue I have is that it relies on selling school land and reducing its current footprint. I fail to see the "moral obligation" the council has in sell off school land in order to double the intake on a smaller plot.

 

200 more Homes leafletted in Ham and Petersham

Over the next 24 hours 200 more local homes will have been leafletted by the campaign. If you can help us deliver leaflets, especially this weekend ahead of the Residents Meeting on Monday (6pm at Ham Youth Centre) then please let us know by e mailing us at parentsinpetersham@gmail.com

Ham and Petersham Association to discuss plans THIS FRIDAY

The Ham and Petersham Association are to hold an ad hoc committee meeting this Friday to discuss the plans and agree a response.

Please contact them at chair@hamandpetersham.com to tell them why you are opposed to these plans

One Year left to stop them building on The Russell. Tell them NO, before it’s too late.

 Last week it was announced by the council that they have revised the timetable for the development. We now have just a year to stop the Bulldozers moving onto The Russell and Strathmore schools

Planning brief Consultation: June-Oct 2103

Pre Planning: Nov/Dec 13

Statutory Planning Jan/Feb 14

Planning permission: March 2014

New Build available: Sept 2015

Obviously this doesn't take into account any legal delays such as judicial reviews.

Please object to these plans by ticking strongly disagree and 'No' on the council feedback form and signing the petition against these plans

The Russell School Meeting

Great to see so many people at the meeting with the Council where the plans were outlined to parents teachers and governors of The Russell school. Their plan is:

1. Sell Strathmore and all of The Russell Infants area to developers

2. Bulldoze all existing building and build one large new ('more efficient' ) building in the centre of the site.

3. The  combined new school will have a smaller overall footprint than the current Russell school does, and also less play areas for the children (despite parents being told by the school last October saying that they had been told by The Council that  'there was a clear assurance that greenfield space, playground space or environmental areas would not be diminished'. This is no longer the case)

4. There will also be an additional 120 children put into The Russell in 4 classes.

So more children in less space

It was also made plain that should The Russell School reject the plans, the existing school buildings would not be rebuilt (despite being described as not fit for purpose in the meeting) and we were a very likely candidate to be 'named' by The Council as having an extra class entry anyway, which would  involve 'plonking a portacabin on the playground'. This was described as the worst of both worlds - though the Head of Childrens Services was at pains to make clear this was not a threat, just a likely scenario. 

I don't think I am misrepresenting the plan but if some feel I am, do please send me your views which I will circulate on the e mail list.

Under questionning, Nick Whitfield acknowledged that the Council hadn't applied for central government funding (through the Priority School Building programme) principally because they were told they would only get one application succesfully through and the Kew school that got it in our borough was in a far worse state than The Russell. This seemed rather at odds with his earlier 'not fit for purpose' comments about The Russell. In fact the advice the council has been given appears to be wrong. 58 seperate local authorities got multliple applications through via the PSB system in 2012, including in London: Brent (2), Bromley (2) Camden (2) Greenwich (5) Harrow (8), Hillingdon (3) Lambeth (5)  and Newham (2). 

Many other parents also raised the issues of the disruption to children at the school while this continues. This is clearly of major concern to many parents.