The question of the need for a 1200 pupil secondary school is central to the outcome of the Stag Brewery planning applications and appears to be one of the main concerns of many local residents. But it is complicated, given that much of this aspect of the case depends on predictions of future admissions. If you are a statistician or have an eye for numbers you can go to documents filed on the Inspectorate website and the livestream of the evidence session on Thursday 14 November but do not expect an analysis here! The main evidence on this came from Dr Geoff Woodhouse on behalf of the Mortlake Brewery Community Group (MBCG) and Mr Henry Kilpin, Achieving for Children Schools Placement Officer, on behalf of the Council.

It is not the only matter relating to the school. Below is a synopsis. For more detail a good place to start is the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) to be found at Documents Submitted During Inquiry – Gateley

Background information

Of eleven secondary schools, eight are in the western half of the borough and three are in the eastern half. All are outside Council control; all are currently rated by Ofsted as good or outstanding. For the purposes of school place planning the Council distinguishes between eastern and west of the river.

The scheme for Livingstone Academy is for the erection of a three-storey secondary school with sixth form, for 1,200 students when full, on the west part of the Stag Brewery Site. It includes a new road network around the main development, and the school will be sited off a new road accessed via Lower Richmond Road. Fifteen car parking spaces will be provided to the front (east) of the school. To the south of the building a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and habitat area are proposed, and a 3G sport pitch with floodlighting to the west (rear) of the school.

The scheme provides associated external works including landscaping, boundary treatment, cycle parking, new access routes and other associated works. A Community Use Agreement (CUA) will secure the use of the facilities by the local community and sports groups out of school hours and in school holidays, which applies to internal and external sporting facilities.

The developers will provide the land for the new school and play / sports facilities, to be transferred to the DfE, which will be responsible for the delivery of the school.

It is agreed that the school is proposed to have six forms of entry for each year group (180 per year) from Year 7 to Year 11 plus a sixth form (of 300 when at full capacity). Should the proposed school be approved, it would open with a phased approach, a Year 7 cohort in the first year; Year 7 and 8 in the second year; and so on. The school would not be full across all year groups for seven years. Mr Kilpin gave evidence that he did not know when the school might open if planning permission was given.

The DfE expects that free schools should have a sixth form minimum of 200 students, either in the institution or through a partnership. All schools in Richmond that have six or fewer forms of entry, have fewer than 200 students in their sixth forms, all of which have been in operation for 10 years.

The MBCG position is that it is not possible for a non-selective secondary school to support a sixth form containing 300 students when that school admits only six forms of entry. The Council view is that once the school is open, the Academy will retain the ability to decrease the size of the sixth form if necessary, following the process set out by the DfE, either as a significant change or a prescribed alteration.

Secondary School Admissions

The trend to move out of the state-funded sector in Richmond at Year 7 has always been more prevalent in the east than the west, but the figures are not differentiated between them.

The Council say that based on local knowledge of school place planning and anecdotal evidence, there are families who move into the independent sector, or have to accept a school that is not one of their original preferences, or an allocated school within what the DfE considers a reasonable distance. This is because they do not consider they will have any chance of finding a place at a preferred school in the east because they are so over-subscribed and already at, or over, capacity. This is an area of major dispute.

MBCG say that an unpublished number of families resident in the east express a preference for a school at which their child has no chance of obtaining a place on account of that schools popularity and distance from where they live and do not also express a preference for a particular school closer to where they live. In this way they lower the chance of their child obtaining a place at that school which is closer to where they live and is unnamed on their application. It appears to be accepted that no children resident in Richmond are currently not in school. No child has remained unplaced at a secondary school in Richmond at the start of the academic year in September.

The Council says that the reduction in unplaced children does not represent a lack of demand for places, rather families are forced to make a decision to send their child to an independent school or a school which is not a preference, or which may or may not be within what the DfE considers a reasonable distance, to ensure they have a school place before the start of the academic year. This is based on years of knowledge and experience of school place planning in Richmond. This again is a matter of contention.

All the large probable housing developments are in the eastern half of the borough: Barnes Hospital; Ham Close; Homebase, East Sheen; Kew Retail Park (subject to confirmation of proposals / timing being brought forward by the developer and planning permission; and Stag Brewery itself.

Size of the proposed school

The DfE have confirmed they are satisfied with the size of the school taking into account ‘it is not unusual for schools in urban locations such as London, to not meet all the requirements…., particularly for soft and hard outdoor PE and soft informal space. The DfE is content that the school site and design are acceptable’. The Council agrees with this.

MBCG say that it is inaccurate for the DfE to describe the school as being in an urban location, such as London. Mortlake is recognised by the Local Plan and Richmond’s Character Areas as sub-urban, not urban.

Alternative proposals to the new school

The Council say that alternative proposals to the new school were considered and discounted as part of a Local Plan public independent examination in 2018. [There is currently a new Local Plan in draft.]

Support for the new school

The DfE are fully supportive of the need for the new school. The GLA also agree the need for the new school. MBCG say that both the DfE and the GLA decisions were based on evidence provided by the Council, which was in turn based on the forecasting method that the MBCG do not agree with and included other anomalies. It is a matter of contention about whether the figures used are up to date.

MBCG say that there is a decline in numbers in our primary schools by 30% during 2015 to 2024, which will result in a decline in the secondary school population from 2027, so that a new school is not required.

The Council has other considerations in mind:

– the need for more choice, but is choice an entitlement and at what cost one might ask, in view of the potential effect on other local schools and concerns about infrastructure and a lack of transport plans;

– existing demand, a matter of contention;

– future pupil yields from developments on small sites, unknown;

– the increase in immigration, Ukraine and Hong Kong already factored in;

– the forthcoming VAT on private schools, unpredictable.

So the bottom line on this aspect of the case is to what extent you should rely on uncertain predictions to engage in such a major construction.

There is another factor which cannot be dismissed. The DfE pays for the new school, assuming funding is not withdrawn. As Mr Kilpin said in evidence, Richmond Council could not afford to build it. If there was to be expansion of, say Richmond Park Academy, it appears that the Council does not have funding for that in its budget. Of course it would not, because it has stuck to its view since 2016 that Livingstone was its saviour.