Further to the report on this blog of the recent meeting of Richmond Council’s Education and Children’s Service’s Committee at which an idea was put forward about Thomson House School, here are the impressions of one reader, gleaned from the Council’s recording of the event.
The discussion can be seen and heard on the Council website at from minutes 3.45 to 45.
Watching the video of this meeting, it is striking that while Councillor Niki Crookdake has come up with a potential solution to the problem of the location of Thomson House School, none of the other committee members appeared to have any interest in exploring her plan or offering a word of encouragement.
There is no disagreement about the basic question: the location of Thomson House school in Sheen Lane is not ideal. In the words of Councillor Julia Cambridge, who was chairing the meeting: “I appreciate the school’s current split site model is very challenging to manage. Pupils lack outdoor space at one location, and the other location is by a railway crossing.”
Cllr. Crookdake’s idea – for which she is simply asking for a feasibility study – would involve relocating the school to the part of the Stag Brewery site which has already been deemed fit for a secondary school (which probably won’t ever be built) and, ingeniously, would be paid for by offering the Stag developers the chance to turn the existing school buildings into new affordable housing.
The rest of the councillors enjoyed acting like prosecuting barristers. Some raised arcane procedural points. Others competed to highlight details they were “curious” about or to wonder whether Cllr. Crookdake could produce documentary evidence to support this point or that. One even suggested that the problems of the current location are being solved by measures taken to reduce engine idling around the level crossing.
Cllr. Cambridge betrayed an implicit opposition to the plan in her remark to Cllr. Crookdake that “some of the information you have given is subjective and it is, you know, your opinion.”
Councillor Rob O’Carroll was disappointed that the Head Teacher and Chair of the school “couldn’t find the time” to come to the meeting and present their case in person. This gave Cllr. Crookdale a touché moment as she was able to assure him that they had wanted to come. She had requested it from “the monitoring officer and democratic services” but “I was told absolutely not”.
Councillor Michael Wilson was so enjoying interrogating the witness – “Is anybody holding a gun to the head of the head teacher…” – that Councillor Cambridge reminded him that “this is not Crown Court.”
Cllr. Crookdake maintained her temper throughout, concluding with the plea that “this is simply saying ‘can we not investigate this as an option?’,” but revealed her frustration by adding “and what I don’t understand is why there is such pushback against it when the whole premise is …just to improve the operation, the wellbeing and the safety of the pupils at this school. I don’t understand the resistance.”
Cllr. Cambridge pulled the rug from under her late in the session by telling her “this is not the right forum, not where a decision will be taken”, adding in an undertone, “if it indeed ever is.”
She concluded by what she called a “summing up”, which was clearly a prepared speech, rather than a summary of what had been said, some of which Cllr. Crookdake challenged on a couple of counts, which Cllr. Cambridge had the last word in refuting.
It is hard not to conclude that, whatever the merits of her idea, Cllr. Crookdake, who represents the Green Party for Mortlake and Barnes Common, was the only councillor present who was trying to achieve anything constructive. If her opponents had a different tone of voice, implying a willingness to look for positives or alternatives, they could have avoided giving the impression of simply enjoying themselves in trying to kill the plan.
Cllr. Crookdake presenting her proposal
[Contributed by Charles Miller]
