Been offered brand new free school or last choice

[Lazymama2]

We're not sure what to do as have been offered a place at a brand new school which is with walking distance but has not been 'fitted out' yet (buildings are there). There is very little concrete info on term dates, start and finish times, curriculum and obviously no past performance on which to base a decision. Also no older kids to look up to. Other school is our last choice and has improved from satisfactory to good. DH does not want Dd to go to this school and would prefer private. I, on the other hand, quite like idea of a brand new school.

Thoughts/ideas anyone?

PS please dont turn this into a debate of state vs. private as I believe every parent does what is best for thier child/family circumstances and im not for/against one or the other.

I passed by the old Ashmount site yesterday, the old building is looking really run down now and no work seems to have started on it at all, but there is a sign on a gate saying it is the entrance for Whitehall Park School and I suppose the temporary classrooms for WPS must be behind that gate.

There was a poster on a tree near the gate announcing a public meeting to protest against a decision to take away the school playground and use it for housing. The protest group say it will leave the school children at Whitehall Park with quite inadequate space - I think they said less than half the recommended amount. Does anyone know anymore about this?

yes Pythag its quite intriguing.

You see the "Ashmount Site Action Group" is now very close to Bellevue Ltd - they have Bellevue representation at their meetings - and they are, it would seem, very angry that the DfE have agreed to split the old Ashmount site with Islington (the original owners) with Whitehall Park School being given half the site and Islington getting the other half to use for Council Housing. ASAG say on their website that islington have

"strong armed the DfE into giving up most of the school playground -leaving the new school with just half the playspace recommended for children in the department's own 2014 deadlines!"

They go on to say

"Of course more housing is needed in London -but does that mean that children should suffer tiny playgrounds when the necessary space is already there?"

And they are calling a public meeting this week to protest about it.

At the SAME time as CURRENT parents of children at the school are being urged to rally behind the cause of "saving their childrens playground" PROSPECTIVE parents for next year when they ask about play space are told there will be plenty of playspace.....

The full notice of the meeting is here, on their web site.

www.asag.org.uk

@ P'PlannedIt

I attended the public consultation for the proposed new school last Thursday and was left with the understanding that no building work can start until it goes through Planning with Islington Council. This is currently in the process of being submitted.

They appear to be going with a complete rebuild so the existing building will have to be demolished first. Going with the standard 8 weeks required for the application to go through, demolition proper looks set for February.

@nl'dad

I think it important not to somehow conflate the 'Ashmount Site Action Group' (ASAG) with Bellevue Place Trust or the WPS itself. They are not related in any formal sense.

I think historically they shared a similar objective, as did others - that of retaining (the whole) Ashmount site for educational use. ASAG are still pursuing this goal, but at every meeting or consultation I have attended recently, representatives of the Bellevue Place Trust and WPS have shown themselves to be both accepting of, and working with the current thinking, that is - the site will be split roughly 50/50 between WPS and LBI. Every recent plan and drawing I have seen of the proposed new school reflects this.

So to suggest that those associated with the new school and ASAG are " now very close" would seem not to be the case, and suggesting they are somewhat muddies the waters for parents trying to choose school places for next September.

In your shoes if accept the free school place as infants is mostly play and in most countries formal education doesn't start till 7 years anyway.

I would also put DS on waiting list for your first and second choice school

@Foxmanaught

Thanks, I suppose because I live in Haringey I did not hear of the public consultation, and I am sorry to have missed it. The reason why I was puzzled no work had started is that I understood the new building was to be ready by September 2015.

Can this really happen now, if they dont start to demolish until February that only leaves eight months to get the work done? The Coleridge School refurbishment of the old TUC college, now Coleridge East took longer than that.

Fox

"Not related in any formal sense"

Well err I never said they were "formally" linked just that they seemed to me to be close, and I based that mostly on things said by ASAG, But you may be better informed.

But the point is simply this:

The official position of WPS is to accept the split and its also true that at the consultation on future building plans run by the Whitehall Park School - which I take it was the one you meant Fox - the 50/50 split was the basis on which they consulted.

The position of ASAG is that the school playground is being "grabbed" for housing by Islington, and this means that the children will be left with wholly inadequate playspace, less than half ASAG say than should be provided under Government guidelines. And they are calling a public meeting tonight.

So, indeed, perhaps, NOT so close then as rather a difference of view here.

I think parents would wish to be aware this argument is happening. I do not agree that making them aware is "muddying the water"

Have WPS got plans drawn up for the new school building yet? Wouldn't it make sense for them to build high, with a roof top playground, like Brecknocks for example? Or maybe that would make it too expensive, building and servicing lifts.

Yes there are proposals on the whitehall park school website and a rooftop play space is part of the plan in addition to ground level play space.

Oh thanks Juniorjones, I'll go and take a look.

@P'PlannedIt

We are on the Haringey side too and even if we were not actively looking at reception school places for next September and therefore researching, looking around schools etc. we were informed independently of the consultation by our local residents association and we saw there were leaflets about it at our nursery etc. Perhaps you were just unlucky in not seeing it? But like I say we are looking out for this stuff.

Regarding building timelines, going on what I gained by speaking with both the architect and representatives of the construction team. They are looking at a 3 week demolition followed by a Spring/Summer build.

So, aside from digging out the footings/foundations which necessarily has to be done on site - a lot of the piling and framework for the building will be precast off site then delivered for construction. This is a remarkably quick process, (aside from their reassurances, I have independent experience of this construction method elsewhere), and a three storey building such as the plans suggest could be achieved in the time proposed. This then leaves a shell to be clad in whatever final surface treatment they propose, typically a combination of glazing, brickwork and/or timber cladding. The required lifespan for these buildings is 100 years plus, so they are not some temporary quick fix. To contextualise - the current Ashmount building is 57 years old.
This all looks to be doable within the allowed timeframe, but, I agree, it is quite tight. Even so, the whole thing does not have to be totally complete. It is only essential in the very early stages that there is enough room for two reception and two year one groups with some communal/auxiliary facilities for both pupils and staff, this, I feel is definitely achievable. The situation with Rutherford House, their 'sister school' in Balham, was very similar when we visited last year - Building in place, but not fully fitted out or furnished but this was rolled out, as required, over the year and everything was then fully finished in February this year.

@nl'dad

Sure, I simply stressed 'no formal' links for emphasis and to scotch the notion that ASAG and those associated with WPS were in cahoots. They never seemed related in any real sense beyond the narrow outcomes of the Ashmount site.

I entirely agree with you that parents (amongst others) need to be made aware of various divisions and arguments. It was not making people aware of the arguments that I took issue with, my objection was I felt you were conflating ASAG and WPS /Bellevue and that act might obfuscate matters.

It seems quite clear to me, and from your last post, now to you also, that WPS/Bellevue Place and ASAG are following separate paths.
I attended the ASAG meeting last night where this was confirmed - the Bellevue Place Education Trust was not supporting or in anyway endorsing the ASAG proposal to retain the whole site for educational use. One can only presume they will be concentrating on making a success of the new school within the proposed 50/50 split site. This at least will provide both schooling & housing, not as much space for either as some would like, but personally I feel it is the most pragmatic solution to what has, so far, been quite a protracted and torturous episode.

Thanks Fox.

So ASAG and Bellevue Ltd not associated then, and whether they were in the past (as ASAG claimed, also in the past) they walk seperate paths now. So water unmuddied on this point. As you were at the ASAG meeting can you say whther they are going ahead with their threat of legal action against the site division?

@Foxmanaught

What you say about the building not being fully finished until say February 2016 sounds quite sensible to me, But I would point out that that is not what Whitehall Park School seem to be telling parents. A neighbour of mine assures me she was told that the new building would be ready for the children in September 2015 and referred me to the web site. So I had a look. This is what is on the website

"We will provide more information on the draft ideas from the architects once we receive them and keep you informed on progress. The contractor is currently working on a detailed project plan for the design and build of the school, but is still working on the assumption that the new building will be handed over in September 2015 ready for the school to move in."

@nl'dad

Regarding ASAG/WPS/Bellevue etc. You should of course draw your own conclusions based on your own evidence and experience. I can only offer, should it really need mentioning, my own personal opinions.

The ASAG meeting? Yes there still seemed to be a healthy appetite for legal action, but as I was primarily interested in how this may effect the new school, and having come to the conclusion that any further action on the part of ASAG would have no real detrimental effect on its opening, I left. There were however some scruffy unshaven men in dirty Barbour jackets scribbling into steno pads who may well have been local hacks, but this being North London, its so very hard to tell. Be on the look out for some mention in the local press/free-sheets for sure.

@P'PlannedIt

Just to clarify. I made no mention of Feb 2016 as a finish date for WPS, what I did say was - Rutherford House, in Balham, was finished in Feb this year.

If WPS are giving reassurances for a September 2015 handover, why doubt it until there is evidence to the contrary? I assume this statement on their website is informed by what their architects, builders & engineers are telling them, and they are ultimately in a better position than most to give good council.

FOX

On ASAG and its relationship with Bellevue I dont think we need be far apart in the sense that while ASAG claimed a close connection in the past, and there was also some evidence for this, there is no reason why this might no longer be true and your information (and therefore opinions) be more up to date than mine.

My suspicions that there MIGHT be some kind of continuing relationship, but not one they would wish to either disclose or discuss arises from this consideration.

Over the many years in which ASAG fought to prevent Ashmount School from moving so that the vacated site could not be used for council housing they frequently threatened legal actions both against the Council and individual members of the community who disagreed with them. The main weapon was a threatened application for Judicial Review at various stages of a long, and convoluted decision progress, threats of JRs against Islington. against the Mayor of London and so forth. Each time the threat had the fact of halting the process for three months until the time limit for a JR had expired.

However they never actually did it, they did investigate whether legal aid could be obtained, but under the stricter rules of today there was no pathway available for that. So the assumption was reasonable that what put them off is cost. A JR is VERY expensive.

Now for the first time, soon after they have declared friendship with a company that makes millions of pounds a year in profit, they do appear to have the money to apply for a JR. A JR which if they win would simultaneously get what ASAG want (no council housing) and greatly benefit Bellevue by doubling the size of the site. But given Bellevue's need to maintain a good relationship with the DfE any suggestion that they might be involved in suing the DfE would be one they would wish to avoid...

So you would expect them, to, in public show no connection with ASAG as far as the legal action is concerned. And of course they may, (on the advice of their lawyers?) actually have no connection. With my suspicions of a covert one, groundless...

I was at the meeting in public of the Islington Council Executive last night.

They announced that the ASAG legal action had been heard by a Judge. ASAG lost, and costs were awarded against them. ASAG have now upped the anti by lodging an appeal (more costs!) which will probably be heard before Christmas.

Further to the cost of a Judicial review.

A solicitor friend tells me that the cost to each party of JR is in the region of ten thousand pounds.

Now ASAG were taking the Secretary of State to JR, but chose to have Islington Council added as a party so they had to have a legal team as well.

So ASAG, so far, will have run up three sets of costs. That is in the region of 30 thousand pounds.

Now for the ASAG version of events - a new posting on their web site here:

www.asag.org.uk/

You will see that their version is a bit different from Islington Council's.

Note:

1.They claim that 51 per cent of the site is being taken for housing

1. That this means that Whitehall park School will only have half the playground space a school should have

3.They have the support of Whitehall Park School

@nlondondad

As I understand it ASAG are seeking the funding for any possible Judicial Review from local residents, and if their case is unsuccessful all costs will be exclusively their's - they alone will be responsible for paying both their and any other parties' costs, with no drain on the public purse.

If private individuals decide to pursue this, it is their right to do so, they have been made aware of the risks. If, on the other hand their case is successful it will have been decided so by an impartial judiciary.

So with the above in mind, I find your inferred notion that Bellevue is now somehow meeting the ASAG legal costs, on the quiet, to be both surprising & implausible in equal measure. This would be an extremely reckless act on their part. Is this really what you are suggesting?

Those associated with setting up the Whitehall Park School entered into a Funding Agreement with the EDA within the Department for Education. This was no doubt a fairly comprehensive contract, which now signed and agreed, is binding. Any such contract would almost certainly contain a clause, or even several varying clauses to the effect that - You do not subsequently take the Department for Education to court over those agreed terms.

Even if such a clause did not exist it would be extraordinarily shortsighted with a foolhardiness bordering on stupidity that one would contemplate such an act. Especially if, as you yourself have mentioned, you ever wanted to work with the DfE on opening up more schools in the future.

It is also very important to stress that the overall nature of the Judicial Review concerns itself with ASAG challenging the DfE's decision on the change of use of land.
Specifically the 51% of the total Ashmount site being changed from educational use to residential use.

In no way is the Judicial Review asking, requesting or demanding, or any such like, that the Department for Education is to somehow give the land over to Whitehall Park School. Should ASAG's challenge be successful there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever, nor even any implication that this will necessarily benefit WPS in anyway. In light of this I feel your claim that it would "benefit Bellevue by doubling the size of the site" to be fallacious.
I think we all now know what can happen when we make assumptions about the future use of land and what we can or can't do with it.

In any case WPS seem to have totally committed themselves already to the compromised split and it looks to me like they are trying to make the best school they can on the 49% of the site allocated to them. They would have presumably already assigned their budget towards the design and construction costs of a new school building to be ready for a September 2015 handover based on that 49% split.

@All

The whole ASAG Judicial Review thing is undoubtably interesting. But seeing as it will have little or no effect on any actual existent school it seems at best a sideshow, parallel to the primary concern of this thread which is choosing a place for reception aged children for next September, a concern which I feel it is in danger of being distracted from.

So, on that note - we shall be visiting WPS this Friday to see how it runs on a day to day level. I shall be happy to post our findings for any interested parent who can't manage a visit. Also it would be really useful if any current parents/carers could please give us their views, nearly one term in, on how it's all going? Thanks.

As to who is actually paying for the legal action well, all I have, by the nature of the thing is conjecture. If Bellevue were to be supporting ASAG in anyway, as you point out they would be mad to do it in a way that was detectable. Maybe ASAG really have raised 35,000 pounds from contributions by their neighbours. I wonnt argue the point.

However I do find it surprising that you seem to feel that the size of the playground is not a relevant issue for parents who may be choosing the school, and uninterested (it seems) in exploring the very real disagreement between Islington Council and ASAG on the size of the site. The assertion that Whitehall Park School are in favour of ASAG's stance, is made by ASAG on their website.....

www.asag.org.uk

@n'ldad

Yes, I do believe the size of a playground is an overall relevant concern. Yet in the end a compromise has been reached and that is the true reality of the situation. I have spoken with the design team during the consultation period and they are confident that they have created as much play space as possible, and it will be sufficient through incorporating the roof as an additional outdoor space. As parents choosing schools ourselves, where possible we are considering everything to the nth degree, and think what they will be able to create is a decent, workable solution.

The claim on ASAG's site is that WPS "would like the whole space for the school", that is hardly a controversial comment, find me a school that does not want more space. It is not the same as saying they favour ASAG's stance, nor, by implication that they favour the Judicial Review.

Here it is important to re-emphasise the point. The Judicial Review is challenging the Secretary of States decision to change the 51% of the site from educational to residential use. Even if the JR is successful it does not mean WPS will get the land, it just means the land stays in educational use. It will not be 'handed over' to anybody. All that will happen is no housing will be built on that land, and a stalemate will occur. Whatever else happens the new WPS will still be built on the other 49%. The JR, successful or otherwise will not change this. It will not necessarily result in more playground or more anything. Just further disagreement between LBI & ASAG; a disagreement that already has a long history and still may have an equally long future. Who knows?

In the mean time we have to consider reception places in the here and now and we must make that decision on the best evidence we can get in that same here and now, and not base our decisions, where possible, on unknowable outcomes or, as I'm sure you will appreciate - on conjecture.

@foxmonaught and anyone else thinking about Whitehall Park for next year.
I would be very happy to share my thoughts about how things are going one term in.

My son loves it, we love it and the kids are making amazing progress so bottom line is we are very happy. Feel free to send me a private mail with any particular areas you would like to hear about.

FOX

I think we need not either of us expend further energy on the JR issue: The hearing is scheduled for 17 December so after that date we should know what the outcome is, and whether it has any practical effect on the issues parents take into account when choosing a school.

However I am intrigued by your view that we should accept WPS giving reassurances for a September 2015 completion. You say "why doubt it until there is evidence to the contrary"

Can I just ask what will count as evidence to the contrary?

If I were a parent I would want to see their current project plan.

"I have just had an email from someone I know who lives in Islington and I thought I would pass it on:-

Any parents interested in applying to Whitehall Park School in Islington and interested in finding out more about the Ashmount Site Action Groups various criticisms of the plan for the old Ashmount site, including their core claim that:

'The play space for the children will be half the recommended size in the Government’s own guidelines'

or about the court hearing of a legal action being taken against the Secretary of State for Education by the Ashmount site Action group, or you just want to drop in and give your views, will be welcome at:_

84 Whitehall Park

7 December 2014, between 10.30 and 12.30 "

It does seem to me FOX that anyone considering this school would want to make up their own mind regarding the playground issue, and this event looks like a good chance to get a proper understanding of the ASAG point of view. Its particularly interesting as they have always been, so I understand, supporters of Whitehall Park School. And they seem to be spending a lot of money in support of their point of view.

@P'PlannedIt

It would perhaps have been a little more likely for anyone to get a proper understanding of the issues involved through attending this event if this information was posted before it actually happened. Never mind though, this subject has been detailed recently up-thread.

Two quick points:

• Any claims made by ASAG about percentages of play space 'lost' were made well before WPS had even issued concept drawings for the new building so the percentage of play space available at that time was unknowable, therefore any claim was, at best, guesswork

• The raison d'être for ASAG is the retention of the whole Ashmount site for educational use. They support WPS principally because of it being a school. They would I am sure, be equally supportive of almost any other conceivable project, provided it was a school or educational establishment.

Finally, of course - people should be allowed to make up their own mind on these matters, nobody could reasonably disagree with that. This should be assisted through the provision of accurate and relevant information wherever possible, seeing as the fraught decisions, that some of us are currently undertaking, will effect our children's development and future well being, it is only fair and right that we make every effort to provide the best information we can in this respect.

@n'dad

The JR was never an issue for me in the sense that it will not, in my opinion, have any adverse effect on the opening of the new school building for WPS. But yes, lets leave it, at least until after the hearing on the 17th Dec.

I will only refer to it here partly by way of an attempt to answer your question "…what will count as evidence to the contrary?"

After the 17th Dec we shall have some clear evidence as to how a specific situation (application for JR) is progressing or otherwise. Different and differing groups of people will be anticipating various outcomes in accordance with their beliefs and expectations. At least some of these people on the 17th Dec will inevitably be provided with 'evidence to the contrary' - that is, it will then be clear to them that things will not be going the way they initially thought they would.

As far as the completion date for the new WPS building goes we have been given a handover date of September 2015. Now, this date has been given by parties associated with the school and one could well make the argument that they will give a more optimistic account than those who oppose WPS. But, the claim is also made by design and construction professionals who are making an informed statement that will be based on solid evidence derived from professional acumen and past experience of similar situations.

So far, this is the evidence we have. A claim for a completion date has been made. What we are currently without is any evidence to the contrary, that is - no contrary or counter claim has been made from an equally informed, demonstrable position. This may well come, but as yet I see none being offered. A key word here of course is 'evidence' not improbable speculation, conjecture, innuendo etc.

It hardly needs saying, but I am not for one minute suggesting we passively accept any claims made and I would also consider it a given that any prospective parents should examine all the plans, furthermore they should ring the school, visit the school and importantly ask questions, raise any doubts they have and consider the answers given, carefully. This is the only way we can form any practical body of evidence on which to make as informed a decision as possible.

So with that In mind, and also because I said I would report back on our visit to WPS for the benefit of anybody interested I will try and put up a brief outline later on when I get the chance…