It seems the voices of local parents and residents opposed to the sale of land at the Strathmore and Russell Schools are being heard by local politicians (from numerous parties), and we are now gathering support.
Firstly, this week's Richmond and Twickenham Times contains a letter from The local Green Party, and we have been sent a copy and asked to publicise it on the campaign website - which we are very happy to do!
-->
Dear Sir
It was right for Sir David Williams, Lib Dem Councillor, to
highlight the lack of public involvement in the consultation on relocating Strathmore
School, even though he supports the proposal. (RTT article 5th July)
The seeming lack of transparency and the reluctance to provide information or
consider other options has fostered a feeling of mistrust amongst local
residents and parents. There will be differing opinions about the advantages or
otherwise of the service model being proposed for SEN provision, but the feeling
is that the process is being driven by financial concerns, not service improvements.
The proposal to demolish Strathmore School and sell the site,
along with part of Russell School land, for housing development in order to fund
proposed changes in special needs provision, appears to be a quick fix solution
for which the next generation will have to pay. Whilst it is recognised that
the demand for school places in the borough is still increasing, albeit more
slowly, surely it is short sighted
to meet this need by cramming pupils into smaller and smaller spaces, with
reduced recreational areas and green space and, at the same time, dispose of a prime site for potential
future educational needs. In
particular, the proposed sale of land at Russell School continues a trend of
selling off school play areas to developers and goes against the Coalition’s
policy of protecting playing fields and spaces. We would also question whether a full environmental impact
assessment and road safety assessment has been completed on the affects of
building more housing in an area
already subjected to heavy
congestion on a narrow but main road.
The development of closer links between special and
mainstream education, the encouragement of a more inclusive relationship and
more investment in SEN provision, are, I’m sure, widely supported. But this
proposal has ignored other options, alienated local residents and restricts our
ability to respond to the educational needs of the future.
Yours faithfully
Monica Saunders
Richmond and Twickenham Green Party
The article referred to in the first line is reprinted below, from last week Richmond and Twickenham Times, featuring the views of Sir David Williams (of the Lib Dems) and also Paul Hodgins (of the Conservatives).
Special educational needs plans 'in doubt'
8:00am Friday 5th July 2013 in News
Concerned: Sir David Williams
The lack of public involvement over the future of school sites for children with special educational needs may have scuppered Richmond Council’s plans, Liberal Democrats warned.
The council hopes to move services currently available at Strathmore School in Ham to new facilities at Russell Primary School, Grey Court and St Richard Reynolds Catholic College in Twickenham.
The move would free up part of the Russell site and the Strathmore site, which may be sold to help fund the project.
Councillor Sir David Williams raised the issue at a council meeting on Tuesday, July 2, and said the potential sale of land had sparked controversy and resulted in petitions with several hundred signatures.
He said: “No consideration was given to consult the public about the sale of land.
“This is sensitive. The traffic generation and the environmental consideration should have been put to the public.”
Coun Williams said the education provision was uncontroversial but could now be in jeopardy because of the “secretive way” the plans developed, with a lack of consultation of residents.
He said: “The intention was very credible to provide a much better system of education for those pupils at Strathmore School.
“I really do ask the council and ask the cabinet member that is responsible for this why they have allowed the situation to deter in this way when what we are at risk of doing is in jeopardy simply because we have not attempted to involve the public.”
Cabinet member for schools Councillor Paul Hodgins said there was consultation on the proposals, although some was informal.
He said the council had needed to put forward a solution to provide modern facilities and extra capacity for children with special educational needs.
He said: “By and large the education proposals have been well supported. I understand the controversial element is the sale of the land.
“It is a good proposal, a practical proposal to deliver facilities for special education children that they need.
“We are listening to residents and we are continuing to go on.
Finally, Zac Goldsmith of the Conservatives has been writing to residents and has said
"Whilst I support the broad aims of the proposals, I am concerned by the number of complaints I have received about the consultation process and the wider principle of selling school land. I have therefore requested a public meeting with council officers to help settle these issues."
The general view from local politicians seems to be that while the aims of the proposed scheme - to provide better facilities for local school children , especially SEN children, are welcome and positive, the concerns of local residents about how the scheme is to be funded - selling school land - has not been taken into account. We would concur with this view. We would welcome better school facilities, but funding it by selling land and then putting a much bigger school on a small site seems quite wrong.
