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!

Better not to have it in Whitton at all, then.
Precisely. If there is a need in Teddington, then that is where the site should be. If there is no site, too bad, can't go ahead. So the 'catchments' will shift, and, most probably people will move.
If a school chooses to open in Whitton, it will compete with other local schools for Whitton residents.

Let's hope they get a Teddington site then as the option of not opening is no longer there. The funding agreement is signed, offers made and staff appointed.
If it is in Whitton, and when it's full, 200+ Whitton kids will have places (if not more) and it will still be an asset to the community. I don't see it as all negative but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

The funding agreement is signed, offers made and staff appointed

Yes. Funny that. Oh well, Whitton aren't just protesting about admissions - there are environmental, safety and traffic issues too.

Well done from me too BayJay. My daughter came home buzzing after the meeting last week and was thrilled to see the signs up tonight. Fingers firmly crossed for a permanent site in Teddington but if not then I'm sure there'll be plenty of time to debate the admissions policy before the school relocates.

I agree that there are big issues with TH being in Whitton, just pointing out that it's not all doom and gloom for Whitton residents if that's what happens.

Jellytoto you are quite right, congrats to all involved.

There might be site going in Kingston - could fix things if planning battles leave you without either option and you're still in temporary accommodation after three years. Chapel St wasn't too popular in Merton.

Hi, Never posted on MN before, and clearly know nowhere near as much as most of you. I'm a Year 5 parent who lives very close to the admissions point of TH. I, and my son, are really excited about this new school. We went and looked around all the local options last year, including the TH meeting. To both of us TH seemed the best fit, especially for a child that loves science and music.
I simply wanted to be able to send him to a secondary that welcomed all. This is what I see the school as being. I'm delighted it's going ahead and can't wait to go and see it in action once open. I would rather it was in Teddington simply as that is a walk from us, rather than a bus ride. But as all other options open to us would involve trains or buses anyway I can't see that as a deal breaker. Seeing the signs up yesterday felt extremely positive!

Nice to hear 33george et al.

I think Whitton is two busses from Teddington. H22 or 110... Unless there's one I'm missing. I think the borough might need a new bus / route to cater for traffic from Teddington to Whitton.

I do wish Turing every success... In another more suitable location in which the school can serve its local community. Or go to Whitton and take a much larger % of Whitton children in the admissions criteria (at least 50%).

The 481 route is direct but it's hourly. There must be reasons for that - the road is very residential, narrows at a bridge just before a roundabout, and new access to the site may be required causing terrible problems for residents. Even 50/50 would require a lot of extra buses at a time when there is a lot of extra traffic. Cycling would mean taking your life into your hands at the A316 roundabout or hauling your bike over the bridge. Yes, in principle it sounds fairer and that it is closer to the original split proposed, but that really isn't the main issue - people feel very strongly about the traffic issues which are unavoidable unless you have 100% distance priority. And most of all, it's Metropolitan Open Land - I think that means it can only be a last resort, but one could argue against development being necessary if it creates surplus places in the area. So ultimately the admissions policy is a distraction.

I've already tried to imagine the school taking over Hampton Academy because I think that will suffer with current/2016 admissions policy as a result of competition. That might become apparent when we see enrolment figures. But UPR or other Teddington site is the only one that makes sense for children in Fulwell or North Teddington.

I'm still a bit puzzled as to why the Clarendon School site in Uxbridge Road is not even being considered as a possibility for a free school. It's owned by Richmond Council already, it's not so near the borough boundary as Hampton Academy, it's on the existing bus routes, and it's going to be free when Clarendon School moves to Richmond College. It's not an enormous site and would need rebuilding and not much room for sports. But it's just down the road from LEH and Hampton who could show how truly community minded they are by allowing use of their sports facilities and it's close to sports pitches in Bushy Park at Hampton Hill gate. Much better spot than that office block in Kingston and in the borough. The main argument against it I can see is that it's quite near Hampton Academy (about half a mile) so allowing it to be there might give a choice to parents who don't want their kids to go to Hampton Academy, although it could keep the Fulwell admissions' point. I can only assume that Council is desperate to flog it for upmarket housing so is not allowing it to be discussed.

Local feedback /anecdote is that Hampton Academy has an improving reputation with residents. The Head is respected and has resisted the more extreme aspects of the Swedish educational model, and been more ready to be flexible to the needs of pupils, something that was mentioned in the OFSTED report. Also mentioned in the OFSTED was that the failure to achieve expected pupil outcomes was largely down to one particular group, traveller girls, within the cohort for whom there are particular cultural issues. You might see more loyalty to the school than we have seen manifested in Whitton.

I also wonder why the site next to the David Lloyd /former Amida has been dropped from consideration. No access issues and that is currently unloved wasteland. I do hope it is not Councillor Samuels keeping his promise to us dog walkers. If he is reading this we are quite happy to walk through nice school grounds / sports fields to get to the pleasant golf course, instead of having to dodge the yoofs smoking strange smelling cigarettes.........

However as far as planning issues like transport, MOL status etc are concerned as Councillor Hodgins has highlighted any potential site is going to have issues, and that is what the Planning process is for. To balance out all the interests. As I have said the Whitton residents would do better to prepare to represent their interests effectively in relation to any future planning application than waste time on Turing bashing.

There is a planning application in at the moment for St RR with a travel plan envisaging 300 additional car journeys per day although they appear not to be able to add up in the narrow residential roads. Already it can be gridlock turning into London Road with queues of up to 20 minutes. So that clearly is not an ideal site either.

LProsser perhaps the Clarendon site would be a good place to expand Hampton Academy in case - in my imagined scenario - Twickenham Academy was the school that had to close due to competition/falling rolls, with existing pupils transferred to HA, requiring at least temporary if not permanent expansion. Again, enrolment figures will worth keeping tabs on.

Interesting to see SRR travel plan although even I can't be bothered to read everything. They think at the moment around 65% of journeys are by bus - but spread over 9 buses, at least. Stands to reason that most secondary pupils make independent journeys where possible. 50% of staff journeys by car - that's pretty good considering all the papers teachers take home for marking. I'm just imagining the rest on public transport or on foot with rucksacks full of books and modelling clay etc. Anyway, if there are any pressures at that spot, it would be horrendous at Heathgate House without even a staff car park, and it was the only option for those in areas of need (Barnes and East Twickenham? Fulwell?). I think it's in a much more dangerous location in terms of junctions, car access, etc. and primary children need to be accompanied to school.

I've just remembered that 'receipts from the Clarendon site' are to fund part of the land purchase of Richmond College though. Whereas maybe the EFA wouldn't be required to purchase the MOL Whitton land from Hounslow - it could just be taken on a 125-year peppercorn lease (or whatever). So maybe that's why I imagined it the other way round. Either way, there's a cost to the council or an environmental cost to Whitton if those were plausible scenarios.

Didn't Richmond originally own the squires site. Shame they gave it away.

The history of the Squires site is murky, to say the least; this from Wikipedia:

. . In April 1981 Richmond borough purchased the freehold (of part of Fulwell Park) from the GLC . . In March 1983 it agreed to sell both the former Slade's Farm golf course site and adjacent Blackmore Farm site for a sum of £300,000 to D. J Squires on a 999-year lease. Squires Garden Centre business was established on the Blackmore Farm site. The disposal was authorised both by the GLC and the Secretary of State for the Environment and the sale concluded in March 1986. Squires immediately reassigned the lease of the golf course to Fulwell Golf Club . .

There was some local disquiet about the price achieved from the sale and complaints were made to the Local government ombudsman. From 1995 the matter was investigated by the District Auditor who issued a Public Interest Report in November 1999 that did not uphold the objections. A subsequent complaint to the Audit Commission against the District Auditor was upheld but a request for a further audit refused in 2002. In response to continued protest, the local authority established a scrutiny task force to investigate the allegations. In 2005 the task force published its report and found no evidence of wrongdoing but commented:

. . Their findings do however give them cause for concern and an understanding of why some members of the public believe that the Council was, at the very least, unprofessional/incompetent, a belief fuelled by a series of apparent coincidences . .

Following publication of the report further documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act threw doubt on the scope of evidence considered by the task force. This resulted in a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office that was upheld however the inquiry’s findings were not materially changed.
……..

mum in London - you are right that flogging the Clarendon site to help pay for the Richmond College site rebuild has been mentioned. However if it was going to be a free school surely the Council could sell it to the EFA? Given it's already a site in educational use it would have far fewer planning issues than trying to build on the Whitton MOL or on the Teddington OOLTI, so there would be a big cost saving on planning and negotiation fees possibly meaning they could pay a bit more. And as it's smaller it might be cheaper? Hounslow Council is under huge financial pressure at the moment so I'm sure they will want to sell the Whitton land for as much as possible and there is no way that they will grant a lease at a peppercorn rent.

The land next to the David Lloyd site may have been dropped because it is right on the borough boundary (as is the Whitton MOL land). The Clarendon site is at least about 800 metres down Uxbridge Road from the boundary.

The land next to the David Lloyd site may have been dropped because it is right on the borough boundary (as is the Whitton MOL land). The Clarendon site is at least about 800 metres down Uxbridge Road from the borough boundary.

The land next to the David Lloyd site may have been dropped because it is right on the borough boundary (as is the Whitton MOL land). The Clarendon site is at least about 800 metres down Uxbridge Road from the borough boundary.

LProsser I'm pretty sure the EFA doesn't need to buy LA-owned land used for statutory age education, it can just take it over/or and require a lease to be granted. That's why a lot of free schools have been controversial on land where a former school was earmarked for housing, special needs or vocational training has been handed over to the new free school. Fairly sure also that Hounslow would get no money either. I would need to google examples of that.

Still a ludicrous situation to have two secondaries situated next to each other with one choosing the admissions point from which it wanted to take pupils. Especially if the consultation has not taken place in synch with the timetable for other schools.

Here are some unhappy Conservatives in Bromley being asked to 'release' recreation land for a free school, for example. I think it's 'gun to head' territory.

Another article here: In effect, if a local authority refuses to hand over a vacant education site – usually for a peppercorn rent on a 125-year lease – the government can "scheme" it into its own ownership.

But 7 days to an election - laws could change.

Well, looks like Bromley Conservatives managed to stand up to the EFA on its recreation ground, leaving the free school in temporary accommodation. And that wasn't even MOL.

www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/11883593.Plans_to_build_school_on_Bromley_park_shelved/

You're forgetting the DfE/EFA's capacity to learn from experience again Muminlondon. Here in Richmond the EFA have been working with the LA on the identification of sites (which everybody agrees are scarce, and which everybody agrees will therefore require difficult decisions in order to cater for the forecast need for school places).