Three days after the first hole was dug Richmond Council has advertised the roadworks. See below.
And note the estimated completion date. That’s the whole [sic] of next week.
Sheen Lane, East Sheen multi-way temporary traffic signals outside 32 for Cadent Gas utility works. Estimated completion date 13/02/2026. Contact: Cadent Gas 08000 159 057.
Community BlueScapes is a partnership between London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Barnes Common Limited and WWT. They are working together for people and nature.
EastSheenMatters advertised this competition in November 2025 inviting young people to submit entries for a nature art competition. The winners have now been announced and you can see them below.
It is interesting to read the commentary with the old photos in the previous posting and link it with the impact of the roadworks on Sheen Lane.
Following his appearance last Wednesday at https://childlawobserver10.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=4732&action=edit Daniel did a bit of reseaarch.
Credit to the Twickenham Tribune.
There’s a hole in the road on the station side of St. Leonard’s Road. Three way traffice light control.
Unannounced. No people in it of course at 330pm today.
Add twenty minutes at the level crossing and you have mayhem.
Best avoid.
THAT WAS WEDNESDAY. BELOW IS TODAY
930am NB No start date, no end date, no-one in the hole.
3pm Friday,
Does anyone care?
There’s a hole in the road on the station side of St. Leonard’s Road. Three way traffice light control.
Unannounced. No people in it of course at 330pm today.
Add twenty minutes at the level crossing and you have mayhem.
Best avoid.
The first concert of the All Saints Concert Series #23 will be on Saturday, 7 March at 7:00pm.
The concert will feature YCAT Grand Prize winning pianist, Amiri Harewood performing music by Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich and Bach.
Tickets are £17 and available at All Saints Church on Sunday mornings or at Eventbrite –
All Saints Concert.
Tickets will be available on the door on the night. Students and children are free.
Given that there has been criticism, implied or specific, of the conduct of Richmond Council Elected Councillors and Officers on EastSheenMatters, it seems opportune to revisit the standards which apply to everyone holding public office.
Interestingly the Government launched a newly named Ethics and Integrity Commission in October 2025, which effectively restated the Nolan Principles (established in 1995) and more recently known as the Seven Principles of Public Life. Local discussion suggests they have been forgotten, perhaps in an international wave of false facts and misreporting! Presumably someone in government thought there needed to be a reminder.
The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in the Civil Service, local government, the police, courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and in the health, education, social and care services. All public office-holders are both servants of the public and stewards of public resources. The principles also apply to all those in other sectors delivering public services.
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
Holders of public office should be truthful.
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
Various aspects of conduct of the local authority give rise to doubt whether the principles of objectivity and openness have been adhered to in relation to
i) the Stag Brewery development, in particular the failure to investigate the false letters posted in support of the planning applications; SEE
ii) the termination of the Pensford Field lease, where secret meetings were held; SEE
iii) the Livingstone Academy and the decision of the Council Leader, the Chair of the Education Committee and the local MP, all of whom signed a (still undisclosed) letter to the Department for Education which was contrary to the evidence. SEE
https://childlawobserver10.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=4757&action=edit
Continue readingYou might think that having posted a notice on the Council website that a letter had been written to the Department for Education asking for reconsideration of them being ‘minded’ to decide not to continue funding Livingstone Academy at the Stag Brewery, Councillors and Officers would be prepared for questions.
But nothing was said at the recent Council meeting. And when a question was asked at the Education Committee meeting on Thursday about why the letter had been written to the DfE given that it was reported that there was ‘a loss of 355 pupils across the Estate’, Officers and the Committee Chair, Cllr Cambridge, seemed ill-prepared.
Two Officers both said they had no answer, but they were happy to come back with it outside of the meeting. Cllr. Cambridge said that she noted the question and ‘we will get the relevant person to give a written answer’.
The exchange on the Council website is worth watching for the attempted prevarication! See: Agenda for Education and Children’s Services Committee on Thursday, 29 January 2026, 7.00 pm – London Borough of Richmond upon Thames See discussion at 40.35 to 40.55.
Cllr Cambridge was eventually driven to admit: ‘[It] is a joint letter that has gone out from Sarah Olney the MP, Gareth Roberts as the leader of the council and myself in response to the email letter which said that they [the DfE] are mindful [sic] not to allow the funding.
One remarkable feature is that Sarah Olney has become involved, when she has made no public statement about the Stag Brewery development in over two years. On what information did she base her decision to sign the letter to the DfE?
Recent education reports have confirmed that pupil numbers have continued to fall and there is no evidence that this trend is likely to reverse in the foreseeable future. This further reinforces the view that a new secondary school is not required.
The largest drop in secondary pupils on the Richmond side of the borough – 19 – is forecast at Richmond Park Academy (RPA), the school closest to the STAG site. During the Inquiry, RPA confirmed it would be delighted to expand, by at least 1 additional class of 30 pupils. It has not done so because there was not sufficient demand for places. In 2026, RPA received congratulations from Bridget Phillipson, Education Minister, on the excellent outcomes for disadvantaged pupils at the end of the 24/25 academic year, placing it among one of the very best schools nationally. So it is clear that the loss of pupils was not in any way related to performance.
A report to the Education Committee on Thursday acknowledged that ‘as lower primary school numbers move through to secondary school, there will be less pressure on secondary school places and more vacancies in year 7’. So it is clear that the statement issued on 23 January 2026: “that the Department for Education’s decision [sic] to axe the Livingstone Academy West London risks worsening pressure on secondary school places in the east of the borough” is simply untrue. It is equally clear that the decision to write the letter was one taken solely by the Leader of the Council, the Chair of the Education Committee and our local MP. And it was done without discussion or advice from Officers and contrary to recent thinking emanating from Achieving for Children.
We have to ask again what games the Council Leadership are playing. Is it simply engaged in denial or self-justification? Or a determination to pass political blame onto central Government? Or the acquisition of central Government money? Or a nice-looking riverside school as a monument to this Council’s autocratic rule?
 | Whelan, J on Egyptians late for School |
 | Andrew Wilson on Egyptians late for School |
 | Andrew Wilson on Death in Richmond Park |
 | Paul on Death in Richmond Park |
 | Charles Miller on Forest takes over from Lime in… |
