Turing House school site?

Just checked the website -
"For 2015 admissions and beyond we expect to split places between the Admissions Point and the school site itself. The split will be determined once we know the school's permanent location, and we will publish full details of that for consultation at the appropriate time."

mary It has a notional admissions point agreed with the LA and DofE just off the Green. Whilst it is foreseen there would be a shift to some places being on distance from the final site, there is no reason why that cannot be set in a way that makes sure it continues to serve the areas of greatest in-borough need.

But isn't that where the admissions point comes in? I thought the plan was to keep that, and split the admissions between that and the school site.

In many ways it sounds like a great location. My big concern about locating it there would be its very close to the borough boundary and the borough could loose lots of the vital places on distance as soon as they get them.
But we'll wait and see. So far I have heard NPL. Fulwell golf course , Gregg's bakery, imperial sports ground now back of Amid a!

Here's the stuff I found on the sixth form block for Christs.

Well if it takes ages, our lot better start getting on with it!

They have ages, they have a temporary site that will be suitable for a few years. The site itself is adjacent to extensive open land on a landscaped golf course, but it is scrubland that is used for nothing but anti social behaviour and access to the golf course and a David Lloyd Health Club which leases the MOL land (and could potentially share complimentary sports facilities), and who have already been granted planning permission for an extension and open air swimming pool on some of that land.

Doubtless there would be a lengthy planning process but that is true for any site for the school, and it is desperately needed. There is absolutely no argument that Richmond needs two new secondary school for a pupil cohort that will have increased by 35% in the next five years. Something has to give somewhere.

@ wannabanan and Ikkenu.

The Islington School "built on Metropolitan Open Land" is Ashmount Primary School, which was moved from its old building on Hornsey Lane a distance of half a mile to the new site at Crouch Hill Park, this just moved the school it did not create any additional provision for the area. It is not a "new school" but a new building.

Getting permission to build on Metropolitan Open Land was extremely difficult. It had to get planning consent from the Islington planning process, AND from the Mayor of London, AND from the Secretary of State for Local Government.

It could only be obtained because:-

1. No Metropolitan Open Land was lost. This was possible because there were two existing buildings on the site, dating back to before it was MOL, both in poor condition - a nursery that was wearing out, and a community centre actually derelict and in very poor repair. The new buildings COULD NOT occupy a "footprint" larger than the old, otherwise the project would have failed at that point.

1. Having passed the first hurdle - the project would not cause the loss of a single square metre of MOL - it then had to demonstrate that it was of exceptional quality, which it did by being the first "carbon zero" primary school in the UK. in fact to make success in the application more likely some extra land adjoining Crouch Hill Park was added to it, so the amount of open land has actually increased slightly over what it was. There were also planning conditions inserted to ensure, for example, that the school building is available for community use outside school hours.

In party political terms the planning application was put forward by a Liberal Democrat Council, with the (then) Labour opposition in support, agreed by a Conservative Mayor of London , Boris Johnston, and further approved by a Labour Secretary of State.

The whole thing took AGES.

The Islington school was rebuilt because the old one was falling to pieces. It wasn't a new school but a council-run one, and Islington was going to use the old site for social housing. But a free school provider wants to take over the old building:

www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/the-middleclass-parents-dream-school-and-a-battle-for-an-asbestosriddled-site-9149092.html

As it is owned by the Council then the problems with publicity increasing the price or awaking sensitivities won't apply. The only thing is that Councillor Samuels who seems to be able to swing a lot of weight in the administration, got behind a campaign by local dogwalkers after the Amida tried to close the gates at night and stood by a Council undertaking that leasing the land (to Amida) would not lead to further development / the land being closed to the public. I hope he recognises that the dogwalkers were focused on the golf course. I am sure everyone would welcome something useful being done for the community with that scrubland, providing there was still access to walk through it to the golf course.

Well let's hope it need not be confidential. It's certainly not now.

But, if it is true, that would be a really good location, right in the hearts of where it is needed, especially for boys. But it would also be good for girls who either don't get into Waldegrave, or actually prefer Turing.

Fingers crossed we can this school open in 2014. It will harm no one. Please sign the petition if you live in the borough! 150 year 6 children out there need you.

I was right about the Islington School.... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashmount_Primary_School. Not ideal, but not surprising when there's so much pressure for land for schools. Councils are going to have to make some difficult decisions. Pretty sure Christs is building its new 6th form block on MOL too.

If it's owned by the council, would it still need to be kept confidential? It seems to be spreading pretty rapidly - 3 people have said it to me now.

That would be a great location, would be good to know more about it, anyone got any other details on the Hampton site?

Is that the bit behind Amida? I heard that too. There's definitely a school in Islington that was built on MOL. I think they said that it was the only site available and managed to get it through.

I'm hearing rumours that a permanent site possibility is the open land on Uxbridge Road near Twickenham Golf Course. It's designated as Metropolitan Open Land and owned by the LA. This would have some significant planning issues but in principle could be used for Turing House. Sounds like a decent option...

Turing has lots of great plans. And plenty of parents signed up to them. Even if you don't want your children to go to Turing it may help you child get into the school you do want by relieve a bit of the overcrowding.

We applied to Turing, didn't get in. But still I would like to see Touring open this year because:

1. This best for the children who do want to go there
2. Pulling the approval so very late in the day is plain unfair and so far unjustified
3. The RET has a proven track record
4. A schools location is somewhat important but less important than some other factors which Turing is well on top of (engineering, science, music focus, enthusiastic and overwhelming support from the community, etc.)

The alternatives for the children who don't get into one of the good senior schools in the area are indeed going to leave them at a significant disadvantage for their next step in education. I won't name names. But do have a look round the OFSTED reports and league tables.

I cannot think of a single benefit to the children of not allowing Turing to open.

Again, we didn't get in. But, still, I want to see them open for the sake of those who be able to go there in 2014.

Yes, well, in the circumstances local people have put pragmatism, and children, and community, over politics, put their heads together and got on with creating a school that is much wanted and needed, and which will be popular with parents, while trying to keep as many people as possible happy. It hasn't been easy, but, until this latest issue with the deferral, it has been very successful.

Bayjay, I was talking about the pre-commissioning era.

Hello
We are a group of parents who are campaigning for the opening of Turing House School in Sept 2014. There are lots of views and thoughts about this school, Free Schools, Academies etc. For us it is just about the school that we were promised, opening in September this year. We would welcome your support. Sign our petition: www.richmond.gov.uk/received_petitions.

They will get some services from AET and some from the LA.

I thought RPA had to buy its services through AET's central services company so it may not have the choice of going for whatever the council offers? Academies finances have been under the spotlight recently:

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10567498/Academies-paying-millions-to-businesses-linked-to-their-directors.html

Nenny, you're a little out of date. Richmond has been a commissioning council for quite some time, with its school services (including admissions, SEN services, etc) being bought in by schools via a Service Catalogue. It is in the process of going further, with the creation of Achieving for Children, a joint social enterprise with Kingston Borough.

Maintained schools and academies, and free schools can, and do, purchase services from the council in this way.

Academies, including free schools, have the freedom to purchase services elsewhere if they want to.

Richmond is trailblazing on this, and may end up selling services to schools in neighbouring boroughs too.

at the suggestion that the LA creams money for wasteful bureaucracy from maintained schools. Have you been swallowing Gove's propaganda? As a primary school governor I see no evidence of that; but I have seen considerable economies of scale in terms of central provision of things like SEN support, or I did before the cuts took effect. If every school in the area becomes an academy all of that is likely to disappear and, as all the evidence is that academies don't want to put their hands in their pockets for that sort of thing, the most vulnerable pupils will be adversely affected - as is already happening in other areas.

What is interesting is that the admissions process is still being run by the council, and the academies are all presumably paying for that. If the council has any sense, it is pricing this at a profit-making rate. What is the point of just adding an extra layer of bureaucracy?

The DfE has had to release figures showing that it has had to pay millions to various private businesses in relation to the academies programme, for instance for legal advice from private firms charging in the region of 400 an hour. How is that not creaming money from the system?

Waldegrave, Orleans and The Green School were doing an excellent job long before they became academies.

I agree that this entire mess is another reason why I would never sign up to a school which is not already up and running.

What concerns me most about this is that peoples trust has been abused here. What will happen when the "go ahead" is announced next year for Turing or other free schools? Can parents really sign up to a school in confidence, or might the powers that be just stop it dead in it's tracks when the doors are due to open.

I would like to understand what information could have possibly come to light for this decision to be made after the offers went out? Th eonly thing I can think of is that the borough/lea would have had time to guage which schools were going to be full.

I would be interested to know what people who had offers for Turing are going to have to do now?

Take a Waldegrave place? A Teddington place? Go private? Settle for a school they don't want. Move.