New Secondary Schools for Richmond 4

[BayJay2]

Welcome. This is the fourth (or perhaps fifth) in a series of threads about Richmond Secondary Schools.

The discussion was originally triggered by Richmond council's publication of its Education White Paper in February 2011. It started with two parallel threads here and here.

In November 2011 the most active of the original two threads reached 1000 messages (the maximum allowed) so we continued the conversation here.

That thread filled up in May 2012, and was continued here.

It's now November 2012, and once again we're at the start of a new thread ....

"many of them will have put it as a second or third choice"
For reference, the application data is in the final table of this report.

Heathclif: the planning officer's report says:

Other matters:

30. The numerous representations received which have commented on the absence of a plan or scheme showing the site development as a whole have been noted and duly considered. It is understood that the overall development of the site is in its very early stages and that this, and the other current applications, are necessary to prepare the current buildings on the Clifden site for the opening of St Richard Reynolds Catholic College next September.

The works proposed as part of this application are only part of
a multi stage development and it is understood that the next stage of the development
will be a master plan for the whole site and to consider its phased progress. This is still in
its very early stages of development and all residents will be invited to have their say on
any future plans for the site in due course.

"I'm sick and tired of the geriatric English in London bleeding us hard-working immigrants dry"
I thought you just said you cherished the elderly?! Aren't you going to tell us where you come from?

retrorobot The sheltered housing run by a Church Trust churchhousingtrust.org.uk/ accommodates vulnerable adults many of whom are recovering from mental health problems. Their objection is as follows "Richmond upon Thames Churches Housing Trust is the owner of Mendip Lodge, 33 Clifden Road. Our propety has been converted into six self contained flats. I write to object to the proposed appliaction. The new canopy/openings and the associated use of the external space as a teaching and play area, which closely adjoins our property, will cause significant noise and consequent disruption to our residents and the tranquility of their homes. The space might well be used for extensive periods of time during the school day which we understand runs from 8.30 am to 3.15 pm. The open space around our propety is valued highly by residents and this proposal will be detrimental to their use and enjoyment of that space."

Chris The main rebuild of the site will probably not happen for five years. Aside from planning the diocese are asking the school to raise a substantial proportion of the costs. In the meantime there is this tranche of development , renovating the existing old buildings behind the school, and presumably another when the school takes over the main building in 2014, which the Planning Officers propose to give permission to in dribs and drabs. Four applications, which it was the intention of the Planning Officer to agree under delegated powers, will be considered on Thursday. Implicit in their report is that this will be done without any consideration of the overall impact on neighbour amenity in spite of the fact that together they will involve substantial building works and demolition and associated traffic. It is only as a result of neighbour objections and the involvement of their Councillors who are supporting them that they are being considered by the Planning Committee.

The whole point of the attractiveness of the site was that the planning issues had been ironed out in the process of developing the plans for the Community College rebuild, which didn't happen, and that there is no change of use.

However these four planning applications and the Planning Officer's recommendation do not respect the outcomes of the previous negotiations with the Community College and the conditions imposed by previous Council Planning Officers on their Planning permission. For whatever reason, and no justification is given, the Planning Officers are not proposing to impose the same conditions in their recommendations for permission for these interim works in terms of traffic (they are reasonable organisational measures to minimise the impact of traffic which shouldn't delay anything if proper planning is in place, planning construction traffic routes so they are spread between the roads, not having vans and lorries arrive and depart after 3 and before 9 when children will be travelling and returning from school - there must be over 100 schoolchildren in the combined approach roads - a traffic management and travel plan)

Whereas the principles were established for the Community College that teaching buildings would be at a certain distance from the only three houses that border the site, to minimise noise ( the rest is bordered by roads), they are proposing that the covered outdoor area for Reception children which will be in use throughout school hours should be directly bordering their party fences, Two houses will be side on to the area so it will run the length of the side of their gardens and a metre from the side windows and it will run along the entire back wall of the shallow garden for the sheltered church trust housing I have already commented on.

It is the opinion of people who are experts on the planning process, and are supporting residents, that in this case an attempt is being made to subvert the process for political reasons.

"The sheltered housing run by a Church Trust churchhousingtrust.org.uk/ accommodates vulnerable adults many of whom are recovering from mental health problems. Their objection is as follows "Richmond upon Thames Churches Housing Trust is the owner of Mendip Lodge, 33 Clifden Road. Our propety has been converted into six self contained flats. I write to object to the proposed appliaction. The new canopy/openings and the associated use of the external space as a teaching and play area, which closely adjoins our property, will cause significant noise and consequent disruption to our residents and the tranquility of their homes. The space might well be used for extensive periods of time during the school day which we understand runs from 8.30 am to 3.15 pm. The open space around our propety is valued highly by residents and this proposal will be detrimental to their use and enjoyment of that space."

I am sickened by this sort of objection.

"The open space around our propety is valued highly by residents and this proposal will be detrimental to their use and enjoyment of that space."

The open space isn't owned by the Church Trust. Sure, the Church Trust may like having it as open space but others need to live their lives too. This sort of objection is why people in their 20s and 30s and their families don't have decent sized housing for themselves.

"The space might well be used for extensive periods of time during the school day which we understand runs from 8.30 am to 3.15 pm."

Most people are in work between 8.30 a.m. and 3.15 p.m.!

"The sheltered housing run by a Church Trust churchhousingtrust.org.uk/ accommodates vulnerable adults many of whom are recovering from mental health problems."

What is really sad is that this sort of sheltered housing is exactly the sort of thing that itself encounters spurious objections unrelated to planning but which are motivated by a preference not to have people with mental health problems as neighbours. My house my wife and I live in backs onto a mental health hostel and so many people counseled us against building it for this reason but we said that people with mental health issues should be in the middle of our communities and not marginalised. Yet here the very charity that runs this sheltered housing is objecting to a school. It's disgusting.

Heathclif: The planning officers are professionals and "experts on the planning process". Unless you have evidence to support your statement that "an attempt is being made to subvert the process for political reasons" I would suggest that you refrain from making potentially libelous statements.

Your entire approach is nothing more than the mindless nimbyism that so many English people inflict on the majority of Londoners.

BayJay2: I come from Ireland.

retrobot I always knew that Catholic families would continue to choose established schools, especially the Oratorys, Gunnersburys, Gumleys and Scared Hearts as long as there were places, and there will be for the next five years or so according to your Diocesan Education Officer. Whilst the majority of Catholic families clearly had those other choices, many non Catholic parents in the borough did not have any choices, particularly in areas of Hampton . Whilst some were not unpleasantly surprised to find themselves only offered places at St Richard Reynolds even though it was not a preference, some were very unhappy that there were no places for them in non Catholic Community Schools on this side of the river..

retrorobot

You don't understand the Planning process if you do not think it is subject to political influence, perhaps look at why the decision on the station development is subject to judicial review. I can assure you that the Council's Planning Department are very used to the accusation, and worse. I suggest you watch the webcam of the Planning meeting on Thursday.

The Planning process exists to balance the needs of the developer with the needs of local residents, and their environment as set down by the Planning guidelines and that is always going to be a process that involves negotiation.

The good thing about the Clifden Road site is that that negotiation had taken place with the College. There are no grounds for NIMBY ism, no one is objecting to the school. They are objecting to certain aspects of the schools plans that fail to take into account the interests of neighbours as they are required to do by the Planning guidelines, and as previously agreed and set down as conditions of the previous planning permission. That is what the Planning Committee is meeting to do on Thursday. They are advised by the Planning Officers but are not bound by that advice and can, and frequently do reject it.

By the way Mendip House is a part of the community, no one is any other than welcoming of it's residents.

Heathclif: I have some sympathy with you. However, your argument seems to be that Catholic children should have to travel to secondary school but it is bad that non-Catholic children should have to travel to secondary school, although the distances the non-Catholic children travel would be shorter.

The issue of the site for St RR reminds me of when Bolingbroke Academy was set up in Battersea and the campaign against it that was conducted by Unite, the Socialist Workers Party and others, with the Labour Party sitting on the fence (a bit like the LibDems over St RR).

Unfortunately, these things are zero-sum game and there are winners and losers, just as there were with Bolingbroke Academy. As I said in an earlier post, we now find that Rabbi Jonathan Romain who campaigned so hard against St RR because it would be a faith school has a wife who is active in supporting the opening of a Jewish free school in Wimbledon Park.

I quote: Chair of the Accord Coalition, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE, said ?This decision means opening a school that can discriminate against non-Catholics in its admission policies, whereas the area needs a school open to children of all faiths and none. The Accord Coalition had supported local efforts to provide a more open system of education. Sadly the Council and Diocese have ignored calls from both inside and outside the Borough against opening a school that will judge the children it admits on faith grounds?.

Apparently, Rabbi Romain's wife doesn't think that Wimbledon Park needs a school open to all faiths and none.

As I said, I have no time for your nimbyism.

Sorry Chris, I hope it is clear that local Councillors are supporting the residents , not the current planning applications.

'Many of those families will have older siblings attending state Catholic secondaries outside of Richmond and would often prefer to have younger siblings attend the same schools as their older siblings'

That's true, but aren't the most popular Catholic schools single sex? That's apart from St Mark's, but it takes fewer children from Richmond.

There are two other Catholic mixed secondaries which have recently been rated 'good' by Ofsted: St Paul's in Sunbury (previously satisfactory) and St John Bosco in Wandsworth, due to have significantly more capacity. Perhaps their increased popularity will affect out of borough demand for St RR or create more competition.

muminlondon2: I'm not sure that I see your point: older sister already at Sacred Heart, then younger sister is almost sure of admission and makes sense to go there.

Re single sex vs mixed secondary schools, I think different parents have different preferences - often based not the thinking that one is better than the other but that one is better than the other for the particular child in question. As I'm sure you're aware, there have been a number of single sex schools in the independent sector that have gone mixed, initially for sixth form but now often all the way through. Bishop Thomas Grant, which is a mixed Catholic school in Streatham has improved a lot in the past three years under a dynamic principal and is now attracting pupils who would previously have gone to alternative Catholic single sex schools.

Incidentally, as I mention Bishop Thomas Grant, I would point out that there are lots of Catholic secondary schools in that part of south London. Look at this map:
www.croydoncatholics.org.uk/index_files/Page471.htm
And of course all of them are oversubscribed.

St RR will be oversubscribed in coming years as well.

retrorobot I have lots of Catholic friends and my DDs have lots of Catholic friends. I know they are only too happy for their DCs to travel to the Catholic Schools of choice, often with many of their primary school friends. That is a lot different to having to travel to a school you have not chosen that does not serve your community.

I repeat, a NIMBY would object to the school. I don't object to the school, and even if I did there would be no process available to me to object to the school, because there has been one there since it was our local community school. I object to the admissions arrangements that exclude children who live in our community and I object to the school showing absolutely no consideration for the community and it's closest neighbours, or the agreements that were already in place, in developing it's current plans. The planning guidelines do say that you should consult with your neighbours to avoid this sort of escalation in the planning process. Are we supposed to just roll over and let anyone do as they please, regardless even of the due process?

Heathclif: Get over yourself. Your attitude exemplifies the nimbyist and entitlement mentality that is ruining this country. You define your community in terms of narrow geographical proximity - nimbyism. What about the wider community - everyone in Richmond-upon-Thames, or everyone in London?

As I said in an earlier post, this is a zero sum game. Some people are lucky and live beside an outstanding school. Other people are unlucky and live in a "black hole" for schools and struggle to get their children into any proximate one. I want my children to be educated in a school where the focus in history isn't just Elizabeth I, Winston Churchill, World War II and other English jingoist but in a school where my children will also be taught of the great evils that England has wrought over the years. I want my children to be educated in a European cultural tradition that values Dante, Moliere, Cevantes and Yeates and isn't obsessed with Shakespeare. I want my children to understand Christianity because frankly without it so much of western history, art and literature is incomprehensible. I want my children to have Catholic moral teaching as a counterweight to societal selfishness and capitalistic consumerism.

You are like so many English. You want us to adapt. You want us to show you consideration, but what consideration do you show us? You talk of "agreements already in place" but they were not agreements that we were party to. This is a typical English nimbyist mentality - expecting immigrants to conform but never meeting us halfway.

retrobot the fact that ultimately my community is global is the reason I am up at this time just about to catch someone before they go into a lecture! I will even be speaking in a different language because I am involved in the study of a culture I was once an immigrant in myself. I really don't think that actively seeking the fair application of the planning process amounts to chauvenism.

"You are like so many English. You want us to adapt. ... This is a typical English nimbyist mentality - expecting immigrants to conform but never meeting us halfway."

Retrorobot. I think (hope) that the majority of local Catholics would distance themselves from your anti-English views. Certainly if your line of argument had been the main one used to justify the establishment of St. RR, I don't think the process would have got very far. Perhaps you could try putting your views to the planning committee to see what they make of them?

Also, you've re-raised the Jonathan Romain issue, but you said in one of your earlier posts "I said that it looks like hypocrisy, not that it is hypocrisy". I think when you throw things like this into an unrelated argument about planning, like a metaphoric punch below the belt, it further undermines your points. The issues over planning are completely separate from the issues over the school's admissions. Heathcliff might have an interest in both, but I don't suppose the Church Housing Trust does, and presumably neither do the local (conservative) councillors who are supporting the residents.

The application data shows that Waldegrave has half the numbers of siblings of Orleans Park, Teddington, Grey Court, etc. because it's single sex.

I'm sure StRR will fill up next year when it is easier for parents to visit, meet the head (if they haven't visited Christ's) and other teachers and form an impression of the school. But in terms of its curriculum, as a VA school it will have to follow the national curriculum (so whatever Michael Gove decides re Shakespeare etc). The academies theoretically have more freedom but will probably follow the NC. All Richmond's good and outstanding schools offer excellent opportunities in MFL so I'm sure it will want to keep up this standard.

bayjay Yes I should have made it clear that the issues are entirely seperate and just as the Inclusive Schools campaign had supporters of all ethnicities and religious views, including Irish and Catholic, as well as varied views on the faith school issue, sometimes even disagreeing with their partners, so those who are concerned with the Planning issue are also a varied group, many of whom supported the setting up of the school with priority for Catholic children if oversubscribed. Nor is there any evidence that the staff or governors of the school have consciously set out to ignore the concerns of residents . It may well be that they were simply neglected as a result of they many different stresses and strains caused by the communication of the different priorities of staff and governors who are not full time, architects , builders and planners. It is not uncommon when these sorts of issues arise. The religion and ethnicity of those involved is completely irrelevant though.

Grey Court's outstanding Ofsted report is now online (high standard in languages observed in lessons along with e.g. English, Maths and History). The RTT also ran a report yesterday online.

Do the Maths Tackling the shortage of school places in London is a report from London Councils:

. . Based upon our analysis of recent Department for Education (DfE) data releases, it is predicted that there will be a shortfall of 118,000 primary and secondary school places by 2016. This equates to 42 per cent of the national shortfall.

Currently, the majority of the shortfall is within primary schools and London boroughs have worked hard to expand and create extra places. However, as the population growth moves through the school system there will be a growing pressure put upon secondary schools. So while London has 39 per cent of the shortfall in primary places; London has a staggering 52 per cent of the national shortfall in the secondary phase.

The accompanying letter states:

. . in the next few years we face a tremendous challenge to meet the demand on secondary school places with London representing a staggering 52% share of the national demand, . .

The report has no references, no detailed forecasts and no breakdown of their forecasts by borough. It is also poorly written. However it was the lead story in yesterday?s Evening Standard.

Interesting to look at the 2013 offer data RISC requested from the council.

The number of out of borough offers is virtually identical to 2007 (see 2007 admissions forum report).

2007 offers: 479 out of borough, 1117 (70%) in-borough, 157 allocated
2013 offers: 485 out of borough, 1252 (72%) in-borough, 98 allocated

A comparison of the figures shows that the link policy was not effective in reserving places for Richmond residents but dropping it:

• has not affected Teddington at all
• has reduced the number from Hounslow taking up Twickenham places
• has probably made no difference at Grey Court because pupils at linked North Kingston schools would have had priority over unlinked Richmond schools but an advantage on distance over linked Richmond schools.

Christ's catchment has widened a little too. Compared with 2007 there are 75 fewer places at the academies, 15 more at Teddington and 180 more in the CofE/Catholic schools. All schools have improved since 2007 so fewer places have been allocated by the LA.

I am amused by the idea of Sir RR becoming a bastion of European thought, the study of "the great evil England has wrought over the years" but also combining this with Catholic moral teaching.If this is really what the parents wanted they should have set up a free school rather than signing up for the only secondary school in the Borough that will be forced to teach the Michael Gove 1066-2000 what made Britain great curriculum. Good luck with that retrorobot (curious name by the way) - I wonder why you thought keeping out non-Catholics would help with this intellectual tradition.

I hope the concerns of residents with regard to the planning issues get addressed adequately tonight - it is obviously far from ideal to be opening a school before the adult education centre has moved out and highlights again why rushing into this when the places are not needed this year is daft.