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.
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 24th.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 24th
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?
