Russell School Parents vote NO to the Proposals

The results of the 'consultation' vote amongst Russell School parents have been announced. Despite the voting slips being accompanied by a covering letter that only described the positive advantages of the scheme and none of the downsides - like land being sold to developers for houses - Parents voted NO to the plans.

The results were:

Opposed: 21
For: 18
No Opinion : 6

While teachers and school governors at the Russell have apparently yes to the scheme, parents have voted no. All parents views expressed have been forwarded to the council.

Governors confirm - selling Russell School land as well as Strathmore is being discussed

In a note home to parents, Russell School Governors confirmed that as part of the plans to rebuild the Russell, finance would be raised by selling Strathmore and possibly the Infant building at The Russell.

While it is disappointing this wasn't made clear in the note to parents that accompanied the consultation, it is good to see that finally it has been acknowledged that Russell School land is 'in play'.

Now we just have to make sure that no land is sold.

Please sign the petition

If you haven't yet, please click on this link and sign the petition against selling school land for development in Petersham.

Every name counts!

Bad news. If the development goes ahead, the Strathmore school will be sold for development

Zac Goldsmith has forwarded a reply to parents who have written to him, that he has received from Robert Henderson.

We will be publishing a line by line rebuttal of his letter, but the key point is he confirms that the only way the development will be funded is by selling the Strathmore site. This is not what one councillor was told last week by a source at the council and we have asked for clarification.

Meantime, here is the response of one parent who has received the note (Sarah Freeman) plus the note itself. I am sure Sarah speaks for many other parents.

I am appalled at this letter from Robert Henderson

1. The council are clearly only considering one option

2. We were told at that meeting in July that the development of Strathmore on Strathmore was being considered - clearly this was never the case

3. Why has the council not considered any other method of funding other than selling Strathmore

4. Clearly the consultation process is a joke - the council have decided to go along this route regardless of parental/residents opinion

The letters from Zac Goldsmith/Robert Henderson

Dear Sarah Freeman,
Following our recent exchange, I asked Robert Henderson and the Head of Education at the Council for clarity, and I have received the following response.
Very best wishes,
Zac Goldsmith



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.

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.

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.

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.

On the basis of this we are now considering going to statutory consultation and at this stage relevant schools including Greycourt, 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.

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.

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.

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. 

• 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.  

• 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 

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.

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.

Regards,

Robert

Robert Henderson
Assistant Director, Education & Early Intervention
T: 020 8891 7562

E: r.henderson@richmond.gov.uk  

Just to be clear - plans are being laid to build on The Russell...

Two of the things that parents, concerned about what's going on at the Russell and Strathmore schools, are told is:

'there are no plans to discuss in terms of long term redevelopment' and

'there are no plans in place to develop on the Russell'

The graphic below is a timeline handed out at the meeting held in July. It clearly states that, should the development go ahead, vacant Russell School land could be available by 2015.

While there may be no formal proposals in place for review, the existence of documents like this makes it clear that someone, somewhere, has a vision of spare land being available at both the Russell and Strathmore schools by 2015.

This is is why parents are so concerned about what we are not being told.

We are also told that, after the public meeting in July, a group of parents were informed verbally that if the full plan goes ahead, Russell School land will be sold to pay for it.

Kathy Barkway

Kathy Barkway, Chair of Governors at The Russell School,  has responded to Tina's letter (Tina's letter is in the post below); we would be happy to post her detailed reply if she will grant permission. Her reply is detailed and gives parents important information

Separately, we also understand Ms Barkway is to put her resignation before the governing body.

A concerned parent writes...

Tina  Bucklow, a concerned parent at The Russell School, has written the following letters and asked for them to be published on the campaign website. We will publish letters from any parent opposed to these plans - we are anxious for everyone to have their say. Please send any material for publication to rnmorrisuk@gmail.com

To the London Borough of Richmond

Robert Henderson

Assistant Director of  Protective and Preventative Services

Review of SEN Provision

Dear Mr Henderson

I would like to raise my objection to the current proposals for the provision of SEN in primary schools primarily for the following reason. I strongly object to the selling off of school land particularly in a site that is surrounded by sites of special scientific interest, land of historical importance and nature reserves. I chose the school specifically for these benefits and I am loathe to see most of my daughter’s primary school educational career spent on or near to a building site. There are no benefits to the children’s education in such an environment. I do not see any benefits to the local area of selling off more land for further development that ultimately puts further strain on our drained resources of health, education, children and adult social care services.

With regard to the publicly available resources regarding the consultation, there is no available information regarding any pre-consultation meetings, any cost analyses, or feasibility assessments, any impact assessments or health and safety assessments. The only resource I can locate is in relation to the SEN Taskforce set up which in no way discussed the proposal to sell off school land. It only spoke about the need to rebuild the Strathmore and Clarendon site in the context of all SEN provision and resources. It is unclear to me at what point the rebuilding of Strathmore and Clarendon was not the preferred option. In which case where is the option appraisal that determines what are the best options and where are the needs analyses to support this.

Nevertheless we were asked, in the informal consultation to respond to the proposal without sufficient information available to us. In particular, although reference was made to the selling off of school land, we were not asked to specifically respond to a question about this. In my opinion I feel this will later lend itself to judicial review.  To further confuse matters the council continues to insist upon calling the Strathmore and Clarendon sites the same names as if nothing is going to change. The informal consultation process was very badly advertised and took place in one of the busiest moments of the school calendar as any parent would know. It also took place through the school holidays. No wonder your response was poor.  These matters appear to me to be deliberately misleading the parents and the public.

In relation to the Russell School’s handling of this matter.  I have been told on a number of occasions by varying members of the governing body that they cannot divulge information about the council’s proposals regarding the review of the SEN provision.  I find this situation a disgrace as a parent of the Russell School, that our governing body could not, in their role have asked for our opinion on the proposals at the pre-consultation stage.  I find it abhorrent that the Council would deem that this is not a matter to consult interested parents about, not just parents of SEN children their views thereby making the process and the proposal more divisive than it need be.  I have been shocked at the ineptitude of our chair of the governing body, Kathy Barkway who appears to have wholeheartedly supported the Council’s plan without recourse to parents of the Russell school or indeed to members of her governing body it appears. She is ominous by her absence and most parents don’t know what she looks like. I accept she gives up her own time to the school but it is nonsense to have a chair who cannot spare her time. I will be calling for her resignation forthwith

I would further like to add that parents of the Russell welcome children with SEN just as many of our parents have children with SEN; however without our involvement in proposals at an earlier opportunity we cannot begin to develop a service that supports all children. 

Yours sincerely

Mrs Tina Bucklow

To Kathy Barkway, Chair of Governors

Dear Mrs Barkway,

I attach the letter I have sent to Mr Robert Henderson and copied to councillors and interested parties about the Council’s proposals regarding SEN provision which I have copied to you. I am calling for your resignation on the basis of your apparent dogged support for this proposal without any recourse to the parents of the Russell School. I have continually heard that the governing body are unable to talk about this subject openly, which I have informed Mr Henderson I find abhorrent.

I am very concerned that, at the point when I was making decisions about my child’s primary education I was completely unaware of these proposals. To my knowledge there were no pre-consultation meetings to include parents of the Russell in the design of these proposals or indeed any meetings held whatsoever, regarding the proposals for parents of the Russell school, including those parents of reception age children who knew nothing about these plans.

It appears from the outset that you have no regard to the effect upon either primary or SEN children being educated on or near a building site. I am unclear how this can be conducive to anyone’s education or wellbeing let alone primary school age and SEN children.

 I reiterate that this is not a matter of primary school age integration with SEN children this already occurs and is one of the special things about the school. A school which has many parents with SEN children, indeed I am one who has benefitted from SEN support.

These proposals have given parents a great deal of concern and distress owing to our lack of inclusion in the design of the proposals. This must be addressed at once. However your dogged determination to continue to support the proposals leads me to the conclusion that you are not the best placed chair to proceed in this post and I request your resignation.

Mrs Tina Bucklow

Funding: Still to be decided.

One of our local councillors has let me know that upon inquiry, The Head of Children's Services at Richmond has confirmed to them that it has not been decided how any new development for SEN Key Stage 2 at The Russell School site will be funded.

This is probably good news. The consultation document at Richmond Council twice states that the work will be funded from the sale of the the current Strathmore site (which as we know would almost certainly result in housing). It now seems there is a debate as to whether it should come from Council Reserves, sale of the site or a combination of both.

Of course, even if the development were to be funded from reserves, we would still want to confirm what the fate of the Strathmore site would be. Perhaps the new school buildings could be built there, leaving the footprint of the combined schools the same? I certainly would see this as desirable.

However the new school is funded we would wish the footprint of the combined schools to remain the same as for the two schools. 

NO SALE OF SCHOOL LAND

Have you signed our petition yet?

Please Please Please click on this link and take a moment to sign our petition.

Potentially large areas of land in Petersham could be turned into housing if these plans go ahead, and the combined footprints of two great local schools made considerably smaller.

Please help us stop this happening.

Zac's on the case...

Latest correspondence from Zac, received this morning (Saturday).

Dear Richard,
I agree there is a lack of clarity about what the project entails. I have requested a full update and explanation from the Planning Department and from the Education Spokesman, and once I have it, I will ensure you receive a copy.
Best wishes,
Zac

I think Zac is absolutely right to say there is a lack of clarity. There are are at least 2 separate schemes being discussed, one seemingly a fully formulated proposal, the other an ill conceived piece of kite flying. Even on the 'full'  plan, I wonder if full due process has not been followed, and certainly communication has been confused and innaccurate.

Parents deserve to know exactly what is proposed, what is not proposed and what they are being asked to comment on, so they can formulate an accurate view based on the facts.

This campaign is Independent

In  response to some rumours circulating, it's probably worth saying that this campaign is not motivated by any political party affiliations, and members of any party are welcome to help clear this mess up. Further, we imagine most parents involved are not members of any local party.

We shall not be posting anything that takes a party political standpoint. We absolutely want this to be about the issues, not local politics. We are also lobbying all local elected representatives of all parties.

It's also worth saying that we are sure everyone involved in both sides of this debate has the best interests of all the children at heart, both at Strathmore and The Russell. The issue is how best to deliver the best education and care for all the children involved.

Thought it was important to make both these things clear.

Freedom of Information Requests

The following two FOI requests have been sent to the Council. they have been sent separately as the council can turn down a request which is uneconomic to fulfil - filing them separately affords them less opportunity to make this argument.

Request One

Dear Sir/Madam

Under the Freedom of Information act I would like to request the following:

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

I would like this information sent by email to this address. If any documents are too large to e mail I would like them send to my home address:

I understand within the FOI Act I should receive your response within 20 working days

Many thanks and best wishes

Request Two

Dear Sir/Madam
Under the Freedom of Information Act:
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.

I would like this information sent by email. If the material is too large to send electronically I would like it sent to me at:

I understand under the FOI Act that I will receive the information within 20 working days
Your sincerely

Response from Zac

I have had a further response from Zac Goldsmith, after my second letter. It is fairly short but he has taken up inquiries. I have further replied to him - both notes are below.

Dear Richard,
Without knowing all the details, and before the key decisions have even been made, clearly I won’t be opposing anything. However I have asked the Council and the Education spokesman to provide more information.

Yours sincerely,
Zac Goldsmith

Dear Zac

Thank you for coming back to me. I would appreciate any other observations you are able to make once you have received more information.

There seems abject confusion over all this. For example, I have been told, in writing, that no land will be sold to fund stage one of the development (rebuilding SEN provison at The Russell School) and that it will funded by Council Reserves. Yet the consultation document on the Richmond Website on which parents have been asked to comment clearly states:

"The cost of the rebuild would be met by funding from the Council with addition contributions from the sale of the redundant site".
and also
"Through the sale of the current Strathmore site and demolition of the current buildings, we would be able to release significant funds"
With these conflicting pieces of information, it is little wonder that parents are confused and angry.
I would also be interested in your views on the consultation document (http://www.richmond.gov.uk/sen_consultation_secondary_june_2012.pdf) . Are you supportive or opposed to the sale of Strathmore school land as the document suggests? I appreciate you do not wish to comment on unwritten proposals but this document is there so interested parties can do exactly that.
Yours sincerely

Update

Just to let everyone know, I have been in detailed e mail exchanges with one of our ward councillors.

I am hoping to get permission to give details of recent, positive, developments and will post here as and when that permission is given. But I think it would be fair to say that our voice has been heard and our concerns understood; that communication from officials at Richmond Council about what is going on has been very poor; and that moves are certainly afoot to give clarity on what has been proposed, what has not been proposed, and what local councillors will not support.

I will post details as soon as I can. But I am feeling cheered.

Well - some good news. Nothing is definite

I have been asked to clarify an aspect of what was said at the meeting held on the 24 July in the school, which I am happy to do.

I am told that during questioning, it emerged that funding the potential development by selling Russell School land would be a possibility that could be looked at - but is only one option.

I am happy to make it clear that selling Russell School land is not a fait accompli if the long term redevelopment goes ahead, and there may be other funding options. I will attempt to get some detail on what these may be

Needless to say, our opposition to selling any school land, at Strathmore or The Russell, to fund any development remains. We need lots more detail on what is proposed.