Ricmond and Twickenham Times covers the story

Here's link to the Richmond and Twickenham Times coverage of the Councils refusal to listen to Local parents and Residents.

Hundreds petition plans to sell part of Russell School, Richmond

8:00am Saturday 27th July 2013 in News By Amy Dyduch

 

  

 

Almost 800 people feel they have been ignored by the council, which approved plans to sell off part of a school’s land to developers.

As part of a redevelopment of Strathmore School in Ham, the council planned to split the school across three sites to accommodate 46 extra places, increasing from 50 to 96, for children with severe learning difficulties.

The school would be split between St Richard Reynolds Catholic College, Grey Court School and the Russell School – which is seeing its site downsized by a third.

Plans to develop teaching facilities for the special school, which include larger hall spaces, a hydrotherapy pool and improved sensory environments, were approved at a Richmond Council cabinet meeting on July 18.

Despite more than 95 per cent of Strathmore parents agreeing with the proposal when it went to public consultation, there was strong amount of opposition from people living near and parents of children at the Russell School due to the reduction of the school playing field.

Heateacher Samantha Leir supported the plans.

A petition carrying almost 800 signatures was handed in at the council meeting.

Richard Morris, who set up a blog in protest of the plans, said parents had continually expressed their concern as to how the project was funded but were continually ignored.

 He said: “We are absolutely not trying to stop SEN provision. The views of Russell parents have been ignored. It is very frustrating.

“If it had been clear from the outset then you can’t help but think some sort of compromise could have been reached.”

Richmond Council’s deputy leader Councillor Geoffrey Samuel did not have a lot of sympathy to those who had objected the plans.

He said: “We are a compassionate borough and this is the only way of showing that.
“I just hope that those who are objecting to it will see that the compassionate thing to do is to do this.
“Obviously they are losing a little bit of land, but not much on a site that is already very large already.”

Concerns were also raised about the increased traffic in the area.

Coun Samuel said: “If you build anything new there is going to be more traffic – I have some sympathy with that. But some irresponsible people have been stirring this up.”

A planning application will need to be submitted for permission is granted to start the building work.
Headteacher of Strathmore Ivan Pryce said: “Strathmore pupils, families, governors and staff are delighted that children and young people in Richmond with the most sever and complex learning difficulties will have access to the highest quality resources and classrooms they need.”

Local Politicians beginning to move in our direction

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 5^th 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.

Are Richmond Council to fund new development in Richmond - including the SEN provison at Clarendon - with £10m

Haymarket, a large publishing company, put the following story in Media Week (one of their own titles) the other week; as you will see, there is a possibility of Richmond Council funding part of their plans to build a new media centre for the company in Richmond, which will include a potential rebuild of SEN provision on the Clarendon site.

We will be writing to the Council to find out what this means and if the £10m mentioned is new money, and what money may therefore be available in Petersham to prevent the sale of school land.

The story is full of 'possibles' rather than certainties but does suggest that there are some developments afoot...

Haymarket Media Group, the publisher of Media Week and FourFourTwo magazine, is in talks with Richmond upon Thames College about sharing its new UK headquarters in an "education and enterprise" deal.

Kevin Costello: the chief executive of the Haymarket Media Group (photo credit: AOP)

The proposals could see Haymarket working closely with the college, potentially sharing resources and skills. The publisher's target is to move in the next three years.

The college's governing body yesterday agreed to explore the possibility of Haymarket building a new office on the college's Egerton Road site to house the staff currently split between Hammersmith and Teddington offices.

The move would mean that Haymarket would be the largest employer in Richmond upon Thames. It has employed staff in its Teddington office in the borough since 1975.

Haymarket Media Group recently announced plans to relocate all 1,100 of its staff to a new purpose-built office, consistent with its "one company/one culture" plan.

The proposal would form part of the redevelopment of Richmond upon Thames College, which Richmond Council is funding with £10 million.

Kevin Costello, the chief executive of the Haymarket Media Group, said: "Haymarket's relationship with Richmond upon Thames is strong and we are keen to not only retain but strengthen these links.

"Relocating to the college site would create a unique opportunity for young people to move from school to college while experiencing the rewarding opportunities that a company like Haymarket can provide."

If the plans go through, the new development will include a new building and facilities for Richmond College, a new secondary school and a new building for Richmond's Clarendon School for special needs.

Costello said: "The juxtaposition of the college to us presents a range of opportunities for us to explore, both with their existing curriculum and the various roles and skills that we employ within the business."

Haymarket announced last month that it intended to move all its London based staff into one building. The plan is to move the publications currently based in Hammersmith to its building in Teddington before moving to a purpose built site.

Lord True, the leader of Richmond College, said: "This is a potentially pioneering and unique partnership and while there is still a lot to discuss. I do believe that by bringing Haymarket, Richmond College and the two new schools together on one site we will improve the quality of education and employment options for young people around the borough."

As well as publishing MediaWeek.co.uk and FourFourTwo, Haymarket Media Group publishes Campaign, Autocar and Stuff

Good news to share

As you may know, last Thursday the government announced an additional £10bn of funding for school buildings and improvements in England.

The Council have confirmed they are actively seeking clarification whether they are eligible to apply for this funding, and both Zac Goldsmith and local councillors (amongst others) have confirmed they are encouraging the Council to apply.

There seems general agreement that this would be a preferred source of funding to selling any land - which would be a huge move forward.

We will update news on this as soon as we have any.

Strathmore Parents and ex staff object to the plans

Many Strathmore parents and ex staff also object to these plans - here are two great comments put up on the Campaign on line petition; please do feel free to add your names on to the list by clicking this link....

I have worked at Strathmore for at least 17 years (retired last year) and agree with everything he says. It is a wonderful site for the School and a very happy place for all. I find it horrendous that it is going to be split up. These children need a safe, happy continuous school life where they can develope at their own pace in an environment that is predictable. The grounds are peaceful and quite private, essential for managing unpredictable behaviour with dignity and safety, A move to different sites will upset, delay progress and is NOT to the benefit of either Strathmore School or the others.

I am a parent of a child at Strathmore, I am totally opposed to this scheme. If you have ever been to Strathmore, or looked at the website, you would see what an amazing school it is; the students are in total ownership and live in equality with each other in a wonderful family atmosphere. Why would we want this school split over 3 sites, miles apart? Why would these children want to be 'included' into a mainstream school with a more stressful noise level and having to fight for timetabled access to the hall etc? Why should their wonderful school location be sold off to developers? I want to see Strathmore rebuilt on it's existing site and existing schemes of visits and collaborations with the children of the Russell School continue. Putting Strathmore students in mainstream schools looks 'p.c' on paper but it will not be the best option for the Strathmore students themselves.

Thank you

Thank you Everyone who sent in a response objecting to the proposals and/or signed the petition.

The campaign goes on of course so please do still write to councillors, and sign the petition if you haven't already - it continues to grow and now stands at 331 on line, plus several hundred more on paper. we will continue to update the Council on the petition every few days.

Last Day to Object

Today we sent in the petition to the council which when submitted on paper stood at 461 signatures. We will send in a final version tomorrow which now stands at over 500 - a wonderful testament to the strength of local opposition to the plans to sell Strathmore and Russell school land to developers.

Here's a wonderful quote from a Strathmore parent from the petition.

 I am a parent of a child at Strathmore, I am totally opposed to this scheme. If you have ever been to Strathmore, or looked at the website, you would see what an amazing school it is; the students are in total ownership and live in equality with each other in a wonderful family atmosphere. Why would we want this school split over 3 sites, miles apart? Why would these children want to be 'included' into a mainstream school with a more stressful noise level and having to fight for timetabled access to the hall etc? Why should their wonderful school location be sold off to developers? I want to see Strathmore rebuilt on it's existing site and existing schemes of visits and collaborations with the children of the Russell School continue. Putting Strathmore students in mainstream schools looks 'p.c' on paper but it will not be the best option for the Strathmore students themselves.


Please do still sign the petition if you haven't already and of course there's till time to write to the council at buildingdevelopment@richmond.gov.uk saying you object to these plans - cut off is tomorrow

Thanks everyone

Ham Fayre

We'd love it if you would sign our petition by clicking this link but if you would prefer to sign a paper copy there will be people collecting signatures at Ham Fayre tomorrow, and from 0730 there will be a copy of the petition to sign at El Bistro on Ham Parade.

Thanks to everyone who has been leafletting this week and putting up posters - a wonderful effort.

How to object

A few folk have asked how to object to the plans to sell off Strathmore and a large chunk of The Russell School to developers.

There is no right or wrong answer at this stage. You just need to send an e mail to the council at buildingdevelopment@richmond.gov.uk saying you object to the plans and then list your reasons. The note can be as long or as short as you need.

But PLEASE send it in by 14 June.

It would also be brilliant if you could e mail parentsinpetersham@gmail.com to let us know you have sent in an objection so we can track how many objections have been delivered.

many thanks all

New Leaflets and Posters

Parents are leafletting and putting up posters all round Petersham to try and get the Council to listen. If you can deliver leaflets or posters  please e mail parentsinpetersham@gmail.com and we will get posters and leaflets to you.

Thanks

Letter published in the Richmond and Twickenham Times from a local parent

What do you do when a consultation does not give you the answer you want? In the case of Richmond Council, the answer appears to be you ignore the result and pretend you never asked the question in the first place. Plans to redevelop Strathmore Special School involve selling the school's land and a third of the land at the adjacent Russell School for development and then rebuilding both schools on the smaller site whilst doubling the intake at the Russell. This will transform the character of the school and the local area. Not surprisingly many people oppose these plans. The consultation asked 3 questions including whether people supported the specific plans for the Russell. Yet when the results were published last week there was no mention of the third question  although I can have an educated guess what the answer was.

Name and Address Supplied

Petition - still time to sign

The petition against these proposals now has over 200 signatures but there's still time to sign. Follow this link where you can electronically sign the petition against these plans. Every name counts!

The Campaign Goes on

As you may have heard,the Council has ignored the myriad of objections from local people and the vote of Russell School parents against the scheme, and proceeded to formal consultation.

The local community can now write with their objections to the proposals, and we will be posting some of these objections on this blog. Please forward anything you would like posted to parentsinpetersham@gmail.com

Here is the first, from Ian Neal

                                                                                                                                                                                    May 10 2013

Formal objection to the proposal to develop the Strathmore Special School

As a local resident and parent of a child at the Russell and Grey Court, I wish to object to the proposal for the Strathmore Special School in the strongest possible terms on the grounds that

·       Insufficient evidence has been provided on the different choices and their relative merits that were considered during the development of this proposal: For example, which other sites were considered; the relative merits and costs of developing Strathmore on a single site versus a multiple site provision; the different methods of financing the development that were considered, etc.

·       Misleading and insufficient information and publicity on the proposals during both the informal and formal consultations which meant that many local residents or parents were unaware of the developments, their true nature and the impact it will have on the Russell School and local residents. The Ham and Petersham Society were not informed or consulted. The lack of publicity and awareness of the proposal is clearly demonstrated by the fact that only 14 people attended the informal consultation meetings, whilst over 100 attended the Russell School meeting

·       Insufficient evidence that the borough requires 96 special school places. Enrolment data over a 3 year period demonstrates very little.

·       The significant negative impacts of the development on local traffic congestion and parking including traffic generated as a result of selling land for residential development and doubling the student intake at the Russell

·       The significant negative impacts of the development on the amount of play space and unique character of the Russell School as a result of selling a third of the land, doubling the Russell School intake and incorporating Strathmore at the Russell.

·       Deliberate efforts to keep the true nature of the development from Russell School parents and governors until the last possible moment, including instructions to staff not to mention the development to parents and governors and governors only being informed during the informal consultation and even then without any specific details of was planned. There is a recording of the meeting for local residents called by local councillors. At this meeting current governors (and parents) are clearly heard expressing this view and their outrage at the lack of transparency and honesty. Similarly at the Russell School meeting on 31 January a recording was made and similar views were expressed. A clear, overwhelming majority of views at both meetings were critical of the proposal or challenging the lack of information provided.

·       Extremely misleading and prejudiced communications by Nick Whitfield throughout including the information in this proposal document.

·       In 7a of the proposal only the meeting on Feb 11 is mentioned when actually 4 meetings were held. In 7b, the presentation and FAQs document are provided as evidence of minutes, yet these in no way accurately communicate the true nature of these meetings and the views expressed at them as can easily be demonstrated by listening to the recordings made. These recordings can be shared by audio file is required.

·       The details of land sales at the Russell were only placed on the council website after it was apparent that the plans were placed on the internet by opponents of plans to sell Russell land and one week into the consultation process. The FAQs document in no way accurately and impartially communicates the questions raised and the views that were expressed

·       The formal consultation offered no opportunity to express viewpoints so those people opposed to the proposal had no opportunity to explain why, which rather limits the point of a consultation.

·       The formal consultation had 3 questions, yet the council website currently only mentions two

“The second deciding factor is in connection with the outcomes from the formal consultation. The responses to the two primary questions, namely do you agree or disagree with the proposal to invest further in SEN in Richmond schools and do you agree or disagree with the proposals to move Strathmore School to a multi site school, both resulted in more than 50% of respondents indicating that they were in agreement.”

The fact that a narrow majority (51%) agreed with the proposal to move Strathmore School to a multi-school site, in no way shows that a majority of people are in favour of the specific proposal for developing the Russell School and in particular the contentious proposal to sell land at the Russell to developers for housing (which will impact local residents) whilst doubling the entry at the Russell.

It is strongly suspected that the results of the third consultation plus an honest communication of the views sent to the council on this matter would show a clear and overwhelming majority opposed to the specific plans for the Russell School.  This is partly based on the support of 209 local residents who have signed an online petition that opposes plans to sell land at the Russell. This is despite the petition receiving only minimal publicity. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dont-sell-off-school-land-in-petersham/signatures

The comments of some of these signatories far more accurately communicates the reasons why people oppose this proposal than is stated in 7c.

I therefore formally request the results for the third question and if it does show a majority against the specific Russell School plans, an explanation as to why these results were not included in 7c ‘The Summary of the Formal Proposal’.

There are elements of the proposal I support. However based on the facts laid out above I oppose the proposal and wish to formally complain about the professional conduct of Nick Whitfield in relation to his management of this fundamentally flawed consultation process and his intentionally misleading representation of the results in this proposal document,

Sincerely

Ian Neal

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