A subscriber on the blog EastSheenMatters responded to a post before Christmas with questions about the education aspects of the Inquiry. One might think that the separate planning applications for the secondary school and for the residential and related units are necessarily interdependent.
The 2011 Planning Brief for the Stag Brewery site, initiated when it became clear that the brewers were selling the site, included a primary school and not a secondary school. The push for a secondary school on the site was initiated in 2015 by a Conservative administration, led at that time by the Council Leader, now Lord True. Predictions were produced by Richmond in 2015 to back up a change of the planning requirements for the site.
The full story remains to be written but it is not far-fetched to think that a Tory Government was happy under a scheme supporting Academies to provide DfE funding in 2017, and open to persuasion that there was a pressing need for a new secondary school. That is now something that central government is reviewing.
The predictions in 2015, 2017 and 2019 produced forecasts that many thought were unrealistic at the time. By 2023/2024 new figures produced by Achieving for Children on behalf of the Council seek to provide continuing justification. They are again a matter of contention and no doubt the Inspector will have a view. He will also have to consider the implications of falling entries in primary schools, which must have consequences for secondary schools over the next few years.
Some think that a secondary school is needed for North Barnes. Two further reasons are put forward in favour of a secondary school, first because children in that area may not get a place at Richmond Park Academy, and secondly because they deserve choice..
In his evidence to the Inquiry James Whelan, Head of Richmond Park Academy, stated that if a parent requests RPA as its top choice, the child will get a place. The Council argument then switches to the entitlement of local parents to a wider choice. That is also a matter of contention which the Inspector will have to consider.
A further argument against a new secondary school is that it would undermine the viability of places and funding for existing schools, especially at sixth form level.
The Council argues that there is no alternative to the proposed secondary school but this is also open to question. There is an alternative Community Plan, supported by community groups and local school leaders. Many local residents feel that this would provide a more balanced solution to the educational, safety and housing needs of the east of the borough.
An alternative scheme was suggested to Richmond Council by Thomson House School. If the Council forecasts proved accurate and a need for secondary school capacity arose beyond that which existing local secondary schools could accommodate, Thomson House could, if they were on the STAG site, expand to include a 600 pupil, four form secondary school from Y7 to Y11 only. Sixth form pupils could then be sent to existing secondary schools to increase their viability.
This scheme would have the additional benefits consistent with the 2011 Planning Brief of significantly improving safety at the Mortlake level crossing, decreasing traffic problems, preserving at least some of the open land at the site, providing a play area for the primary school, and most importantly create space for more affordable homes.
The developer was willing to consider alternative proposals, but the Council has refused to consider any others.
The bottom line problem is that Richmond Council wants a nice new school paid for by central government. They say they could not find the money for any alternative proposal. That of course depends on whether it were to be needed. It also now depends on both the Inspector and the Government.
