Richmond Borough Schools Chat 6

[BayJay2]

Hello! This is the latest thread in a series originally triggered by Richmond Council's Education White Paper in Feb 2011. We chat about local education policy, the local impact of national policy, local school performance, and admissions-related issues.

Please do join in. There’s a bunch of us who’ve been following the thread for a long time, and we sometimes get a bit forensic, but new contributions are always welcome.

If you have a few hours to spare and want to catch up on 4 years of local education history, then below are the links to the old threads. We have to keep starting new threads because each only hold 1000 posts. The first two run in parallel, as one was started on the national Mumsnet site, and the other locally:

1a) New Secondaries for Richmond Borough? (Feb 11 - Nov 11)
1b) New Secondary schools for Richmond! (Feb 11-Nov 11)

1. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2 (Nov 11-May 12)
2. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 3 (May 12-Nov 12)
3. New Secondary Schools for Richmond 4 (Nov 12-Oct 13)

1. Richmond Borough Schools Chat 5 (Oct 13-Nov 14)
2. Richmond Borough Schools Chat 6 (Nov 14 - ????) : This thread!

BayJay going back to my comment this morning I'm fairly sure that LB Hounslow will want to sell at the right price from what I've heard about their finances, and certainly am not assuming that they will have to be forced, but as it's possible they won't want to sell I was interested to know if holding land for a cemetery "trumps" wanting land for a school in the local authorities' hierarchy of good practice!

Of course there is lots of annoying speculation going on from the point of view of those involved in setting up TH, but from a campaigning point of view it would be no use all these locals waiting until the final site was announced and then trying to campaign against it.

If the Whitton site really was the only option for providing places, it should be used for Whitton residents or those near it. That might be a way of taking in Hampton Academy pupils should some of them transfer to TH and leave a gap. Then all schools could operate on distance - or a majority portion - which would be fairer in my view. It will take a couple of years to see the impact TH has and any consequences.

I don't know the answer to your question LP, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that if the EFA/DfE considered a site to be secure then any major potential issues will have already been discussed with the vendor.

The business of securing a site is a risk management exercise. It's the DfE's call as to when the risks have been sufficiently mitigated to go ahead and sign the funding agreement, and in the past they've been criticized for making that call too soon. However that has led to much greater control and (audit commission) scrutiny, so their processes are becoming more robust all the time (to the frustration of parents, residents and others who want information as early possible).

Like most things in life, it's a balancing act, and the beleaguered civil servants in the middle of it all will never be able to please everyone.

As I said before sympathies for those tasked with the very difficult task of finding a site made worse by previous behaviour of LB Richmond over Clifden. However it's very undemocratic to tie up building on protected green space in secret before telling local residents and councillors so I would be worried for our democracy if there was no opposition. Most people still have little idea of the scale of the school places crisis or the mechanisms at work.

Muminlondon, I do see your logic, but if there's a grand political master plan to deliberately use TH to destabilise TA, then nobody has told TH about it. TH has always been given the strong impression that it needed to be located as far away from TA as possible.

The funding agreement needs a named site presumably? But that could be expressed as an option with a feasibility assessment. Richmond council could have done that and still viewed it as a hypothetical possibility not actual planning approval. But in election purdah money can't actually be committed presumably?

Mum, the funding agreement (and therefore the financial comitment to open the school) was signed before purdah.

grand pollitical master plan to deliberately use TH to destabilise TA

Not a masterplan, not political, not deliberate. And it may not be TA that is more destabilised by TH but HA. HH junior was its traditional feeder. If rolls fell further, better to combine as one school in Whitton. A scenario - mine - but in that case the HA site would seem a better location for TH, nearer Fulwell. If no falling rolls, the KS schools take a lot of Hounslow pupils: so if the Whitton site is leased from Hounslow rather than sold, as an expansion of TA it serves Hounslow residents. Suits both boroughs for planning, suits the taxpayer too.

That scenario would be a contingency if TH didn't get Udney Park.

The thing is, either sites would take years to clear for planning and develop anyway. Is the 2016 admissions split based on temporary or permanent site?

These rumours are in fact true, Lord True (Richmond Council leader) is spear-heading the campaign to build on the Whitton site after withdrawing LBRUT backing for the Imperial College site last year after the story was leaked to the press.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that Lord True has friends that live overlooking UPRPF that are unimpressed by the proposal, money and influence rearing its ugly head.

The conflict of interest is so great that Lord True should have no input whatsoever on the permanent sites location.

"It's interesting that Whitton locals don't seem to feel that their first point of lobbying should be the two local Tory councillors in Heathfield (one of whom lives in Weybridge and one in Strawberry Hill!). Aren't they in the best position to represent residents' concerns to Lord True? People organising campaigns seem to rush to set up petitions on change.org now instead of getting people to write to their councillors."

We have written and tweeted to both Heathfield Councillors, LBRUT, Vince Cable with no response. Every time someone signs our petition an email is sent confirming signature to both Councillors, Lord True, LBRUT, Vince Cable, Councillor Paul Hodgins, plus others. All have received this email over 750 times so far (!!!) This is how change.org works, the petition hosting site.

We did rush to set up the petition because of its urgency, being kept in the dark for months because of the underhand totally unacceptable way that LBRUT went about trying to secure the Whitton site, with no consideration for locals opinions whatsoever.

We have tried to make them talk, believe me !!

Whitton, when things go quiet like that it probably means there's some internal debate, checking of facts etc going on. Also, there's an election purdah, which means gvt agencies like the EFA can't readily put out statements.

Spamming them with change.org mail won't change that.

muminlondon2

"...........The thing is, either sites would take years to clear for planning and develop anyway........"

Turing House state that they want to move into their permanent school within 2-3 years.

www.facebook.com/Whittonagainstturinghouse

Whitton you do not do your cause any good by this constant emotive reference to class divides etc. I was shocked to see it raised in the petition and I am sure it has put many of signing. It is incredibly insulting /patronising /stigmatising /divisive to parents and residents whether they live in Fulwell or Whitton to imply that they conform to some perceived stereotype. It certainly put my back up on behalf of friends who live both sides of the A316.

I gather there are some real issues in regard to traffic and access as well as the fact that the land is MOL. These are issues where the Planning process if it is ever invoked (since that is by no means certain) will give you powerful influence over the decisions on what or if something is built if it is ever invoked. I would advise you, as someone who has had to do that to successfully stop inappropriate local development, to familiarise with that process and understand what leverage you have, and be prepared to negotiate with all parties. I am afraid such boring planning and legal process is far more effective than name calling. If you read the debate on this thread you will see neither site is ideal or situated in the area of greatest school place need but in the case of both sites the building of a school is going to maintain the open character and the community access. The fact remains that there is an urgent need for school places and sites need to be found if children are going to have schools to go to. The Udney Park site is up for auction, nobody can force Imperial either way in it's decision, and the developers seeking to build residential development are the ones with power and influence, economically and politically.

Incidentally what was your stance when a school site was given in Twickenham to a school that only includes 10% of local children? Children are travelling there from Whitton in some numbers, and that schools development neatly and actively avoided any need to consider or include local residents by completely side stepping the Planning process.

The Whitton petition has nothing to do with class or denying the need for a new school in Teddington. it is simply a question of getting the best location for a school that children in Teddington and Fulwell desperately need.

The facts are -

The Th 2016 admissions point is in the centre of Teddington 800m from Udney Park Road.

Udney Park Road is the the catchment area of Th.

Udney sports ground is currently underused for sports and a school sports facility would ensure it is used for sport all year and by the community at weekends.

Udney Park Road is already connected by a number of bus links, close to teddington station which directly connects to fulwell and twickenham, where students will be travelling from.

The site in Teddington will rely on public transport and cycling to transport children to the site....as it should be.

It is completely insane that a site in Whitton, outside the Th catchment area is being considered. You can only speculate as to why this is being considered and the only conclusion is that Lord True has his grubby mits all over this, just as he used tax payer money to build a catholic school on what should have been the Th site.

Parents in Teddington need to sign the Whitton petition as much for themselves than for us. We're all being sold down the river by Lord True.

Think about it and sign the petition...PLEASE!

whittonvillage - just correcting a few of your facts, in the spirit of accuracy ....

"The Th 2016 admissions point is in the centre of Teddington"
No, it's in the ward of Fulwell and Hampton Hill.

"Udney Park Road is the the catchment area of Th"
TH doesn't have a catchment area as such. It has an admissions point, but admissions around that point are unlikely to be circular, not least because of the River Thames and Bushy Park, but also because of the proximity of other schools. The Udney Park Rd area is well served by the very popular Teddington School, and Twickenham has Waldegrave and SRR (which does cater from children from Whitton by the way).

TH has been primarily proposed to serve SW Twick, Fulwell, Hampton Hill, North Teddington. It may also attract children from surrounding areas, including central Teddington and Whitton in the short term, but assuming it is succesful then its offer area is likely to shrink over time. More info here. There are certainly Whitton families who have offers this year, as shown by comments online.

"Udney Park Road is already connected by a number of bus links"
Wherever the permanent site is, public transport will need to adapt. However, TfL will cope with that. See here.

"You can only speculate as to why this is being considered"
You can only speculate because no formal statement has been made by the school, the EFA or the LA. The information has come from an unauthorised source, and has been embellished by gossip, so it isn't necessarily 100% reliable and the result is a little messy I'm afraid.

Teddington and Straw Hill/ Fulwell parents ARE signing it. As for class divide, the TH catchment contains families of many different income levels, so the sweeping generalisations are not appropriate.

I'm guilty of making sweeping generalisations brought on by sheer disbelief and quite a it of anger. Rather than get confrontational with fellow residents in Richmond or the talented people that want to create Turing House, it makes more sense to question the people in power who are behind this.

The 2016 admissions point is between Fulwell and Teddington stations. Udney Sports Ground is the only logical option.

Udney Sports Ground is the closest and most convenient place for the school and it will provide the sports facilities required, which will benefit many generations of Teddington residents.

It is illogical to build a school on an inaccessible site. Transport can adapt, but only if you lavish many more millions of £ on new bus routes and cycle lanes across the 316. How many parents will allow their children to cycle to Whitton across the 316? It wouldn't happen in Holland or Scandanavia!

Personally My stance will mean schooling any future children at Twickenham Academy, which some people don't rate and losing the place where I play cricket when selected for Twickenham 3XL.

However, it is the just position to take and residents iin Teddington and Fulwell need to think very carefully about what they being sold.

"Udney Sports Ground is the only logical option"
It's on the open market, so whether 'logical' or not it can only be an option if Imperial sell it to the EFA. If they don't then another option will be needed, won't it?

Would you still be as angry if Udney Park Road didn't exist and you knew your local site was the only option left? Or would you take a softer approach?

Government needs to stick it's hands in it's pockets. Imperial is run by ex head of mi6 who is no slouch, while the council controls what can and what can't be built on the site. They all need to sit down and come up with logical answer. Any issues....CPO it.

The Whitton site could well be the council's bargaining chip to reduce the cost, but sounds more like Lord True is doing his pals a favour. The Teddington society are being unhelpful and supporting the views of the few at the expense of the many.

Udney Sports Ground is the only logical location.

Also why are Knights Frank running the tender? Don't want to be rude, but they don't seem like the type of organisation that negotiates these type of land deals.

In answer to your question, I don't know as it is hypothetical. If Udney didn't exist then one of the next nearest schools to Fulwell and Teddington is Twickenham Academy. So I guess parents would send their kids there.

"In answer to your question, I don't know as it is hypothetical"

Well, forgive me, but you don't seem averse to speculating on other things that are hypothetical, so why not add that one to the list?

"So I guess parents would send their kids there"

Whitton, people already do, in big numbers from SW Twickenham. Many of the boys from Trafalgar certainly go there. Many people believe it was renamed from Whitton School to Twickenham Academy specifically to attract children from Twickenham!

If you read through the entirety of this thread you'll see that there are complex underlying issues related to school choices locally - not least the fact that two of the local comps have a non-mainstream curriculum that isn't to everyone's taste. However, that aside, there's no denying the bulge of children coming through the school system and the urgent need for more secondary places. As it says in LBRuT's school place planning strategy, it was "imperative" that a permanent site was secured for TH. Without that it would not have been approved to enable it to open this September in temporary accommodation.

My boy wants to cycle to school. But i'll never let him cycle across the A316. Likewise, i'll never let him cycle to the other school we have been offered HA, involving crossing the Uxbridge Road. A 1 hour bus journey or 50 min walk for that one.
What we want and need is the Udney Park Road site and a 20-30 min walk. Much safer, no car, or public transport needed. And i believe the school are willing to share sports space with the local sports consortium if the bid is approved. Win Win.