Furzedown Community Network

FURZEDOWN COMMUNITY NETWORK:

NOTE OF PUBLIC MEETING ON GRAVENEY SCHOOL THIRD CAMPUS PROPOSAL

ST PAUL’S CHURCH CHILLERTON ROAD ON TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2014 AT 7.30PM

Chair: Suzanne Ellis (Chair, Furzedown Community Network (FCN))

Other speakers on the platform:

Jonathan Oppenheimer, Chair of Governors, Graveney School

David Tidley, Group Planner (Transportation), Environment and Community Services Department, Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC)

Revd Dr Sue Clarke, Vicar, St Paul’s Church, Welham Road

The meeting was attended by about 140 people.

Apologies were received from Sadiq Khan, MP.

FCN provided to attendees a copy of a leaflet by the Graveney Trust about the development of a third campus in Welham Road, which had recently been circulated to some local addresses. These had been provided for the meeting by Graveney School.

Welcome by Chair

Suzanne Ellis welcomed people to the public meeting, hosted by FCN. FCN had become aware over about the previous six months of plans by Graveney School for the “Third Campus” project, which it appeared could involve the closure to the public of the section of Welham Road which ran by the School site. Among other things, plans on these lines had appeared on the Urban Projects website and had been referred to at open evenings at Graveney. They had also been enlarged and displayed prominently in the foyer of the School. There had been considerable discussion of, and concern at, the possible closure of this section of Welham Road on the Furzedown email chatgroup. FCN had therefore decided to organise a public meeting to discuss the position and to invite Graveney School to present the plans. While FCN’s main activities were to organise community events, the decision to organise this public meeting was within FCN’s remit to facilitate discussion on topics of likely community interest to Furzedown. FCN had approached the School, who had replied welcoming the opportunity to share their proposals and thanking FCN for ‘getting the ball rolling’ on discussion of the proposals. Wandsworth Council were also happy to provide a speaker.

Presentation by Graveney School (Jonathan Oppenheimer, Chair of Governors)

Jonathan Oppenheimer thanked FCN for the opportunity to discuss the School’s intentions with neighbours and the community. It should be noted that as yet there were not specific plans in place, though a number of potential plans - some by Graveney students – had been produced. The general background to the current proposals was the School’s concern over a number of years at the road through the School site (which, though closed to vehicles in the 1970s following a near fatal accident, remained open to pedestrians and cyclists). The road through the site was a matter of considerable concern: a new school would definitely not now be designed with a road running through it. Graveney had earlier sought to address this through plans for Wandsworth’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) initiative (which would have provided substantial resources for School development) but this had not materialised. Concerns about the road still however remained, partly in view of the possibility of an accident, and partly of risks to the security of students - both at Graveney and at Furzedown Primary - from “stranger danger”. There had in fact been a number of possible incidents from strangers although the School had not emphasised them, in order to avoid undue alarm. This risk had also been identified by Ofsted. A further consideration underlying the School’s thinking was that the current tarmac road through the School site was unnecessarily wide for pedestrian access and represented a considerable waste of space. The School’s intention was that better use would be made of the space through the establishment of a secondary Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) resource unit – which Wandsworth needed and which could not be located elsewhere in the borough – and by the provision of space for theatrical and outdoor activities. The School had considered the possibility of allowing limited pedestrian access through the site and had not closed their minds to this.

Implications for Highways and Emergency Services (David Tidley, Group Planner (Transportation) WBC)

David Tidley noted that he represented WBC’s Planning and Highways Authority function. There was not currently a planning proposal for his Department to consider. As and when a specific planning application to close a road was made, WBC would carry out a full assessment of the impact of closure, in relation to WBC planning policies (including eg transport, access to public facilities, trees, drainage, etc) and would follow a defined process for considering the “stopping up” of a road. Planning consent would be needed. Community comments or concerns on the closure of the road should be put forward when an application was made, to feed into the full assessment.

Comments by organisations on or near Welham Road (Sue Clarke, Vicar of St Paul’s Church, Welham Rd)

Sue Clarke said that, while benefits to the School were welcome, it was important that any plans should not only benefit the School but also take account of the needs and interests of local stakeholders. The relevant section of Welham Road was currently used considerably by pedestrians and cyclists - including churchgoers - as the only level ‘east-west’ route through the southern part of Furzedown. It was of note that only a third of those attending St Paul’s Church were car drivers, and it was likely that this proportion applied to older people in the community more widely. Continued pedestrian access was therefore important. Also, the volume of traffic on Chillerton and Nimrod Roads around the junctions with Welham Road was currently high and dangerous. Closure of the road could add to this and the already high risk of accident, and consideration would need to be given to this.

Questions and comments from the floor

Speaker from Kettering Street said that there was already a general danger from vehicle traffic in the area. Welham Road was the only safe route for pedestrians and cyclists as Southcroft Road was busy and contained traffic calming measures which made it quite scary for cyclists, and it was important that this access was retained. He had ascertained from the police that there was not currently an issue with “stranger danger” to pupils from the existing arrangements.

Speaker from Ribblesdale Road said he was concerned at the reference in the circulated leaflet at the reference to ‘controlled pedestrian access’, and asked who would decide on the control. The reference to ‘control’ appeared arrogant.

Speaker from Pendle Road asked what was the legal basis on which the Council would agree to close a road and hand it to another organisation.

In reply, David Tidley said that there were several pieces of legislation that could be relevant, but that the most likely legislative basis in a case like this would be section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, under which the local authority could agree the “stopping up” of a road in certain circumstances.

The speaker asked if a local community group could take on a road under such legislation. David Tidley said this would not be usual.

Speaker from Pendle Road said that she used Welham Road as a pedestrian and that it was important that pedestrian access for all was retained.

Speaker from Pendle Road said that the current question was complicated by the relationship between the School and the local community. He believed that a school should be at the heart of a local community. He asked whether Graveney considered that they had moved away from or towards the local Furzedown community; what would be the benefit to the community from the intended developments; and who would own the land now comprising the road if transferred to Graveney under these developments.

In reply to these and earlier comments, Jonathan Oppenheimer thought that, if there had been a change in relationship between the School and community recently, it had been towards the community. The School was not separate from the community. 55% of local children of secondary age attended Graveney, and it should be borne in mind that some parents in Furzedown did not place Graveney as first choice. [There has been further discussion on this figure subsequently on the FCN chatgroup.] The community benefited from having a very good local school. The School’s land was held by the Graveney Trust, and the land comprising the road, if transferred, would be held by the Trust. On the suggestion that controlling pedestrian access would be ‘arrogant’, it should be borne in mind that the School was part of the community. If some of the land comprising the road were developed as intended there would be considerable benefits to the community from the facilities developed. He recognised that the question of continued pedestrian access along Welham Road was a potential issue of conflict. However the School did need to take account of the risk of “stranger danger” to pupils. He strongly contested the suggestion that the police had no reports of incidents of concern: there certainly had been a number.

Speaker from Clairview Road asked: firstly, who would decide whether an application for planning permission to close the road would go ahead: would the Council be required to take account of the objections of local residents and were there specific points in the process at which local concerns would have an impact? Secondly, while any improvement to Graveney from the intended changes would certainly be welcome, what benefits would accrue to the community? Would these include a change in Graveney’s admissions policy?

David Tidley said that arrangements for handling planning applications depended on their precise nature. In general, an application to take away rights of access would require separate public consultation. If objections were received the case would in principle be referred to the Mayor of London to decide the case but also consider the possibility of a Public Enquiry; but that latter stage was unlikely in this case.

Jonathan Oppenheimer said there were no plans to change Graveney’s admissions policy: the majority of children of secondary school age in Furzedown attended the School. There would be benefits to the community from the intended developments but he recognised that these needed to be ‘sold’ more clearly. It was in principle intended that the new facilities and spaces which would be developed would be available to the community - there were certainly no plans to exclude people - but it was not possible to be more specific at this stage. The School wanted to make better use of the space currently comprising the tarmac road but did not deny that pedestrians and cyclists had rights. The School had been promised a feasibility study of the new facilities by Wandsworth Council as part of the BSF initiative, but this was still awaited. A feasibility study would be helpful in crystallising plans and identifying what could be provided.

Speaker from Nimrod Road, co-chair of the Furzedown Family Centre said he was not personally opposed to the intended developments, since health and safety issues for pupils were important. However there were concerns that the School would be taking something away from the community (access) and not providing anything in return. More generally it did appear that, since becoming an Academy, Graveney was putting less into the community.

Speaker from Beclands Road said he had been involved in the closure of the relevant section of Welham Road to vehicles in the 1970s. It was disappointing that Graveney was claiming to be a community school – there were effectively no events for the community. Graveney could not be trusted in the development of plans for the future, in view of work carried out by the School in summer 2012 on a car park, with no effective notice, which involved the felling of trees and damage to fences of neighbouring houses. It was of concern that the developments now intended, by closing the road, would divide the community in half, and would cause problems for the elderly and others, and add to traffic and already serious parking problems. The intention to control pedestrian access was unfair, particularly since the School was only open for the equivalent of effectively 95 (full) days a year. It was not clear what would be the benefit to the community from the developments.

Speaker from Ribblesdale Road said that, in relation to the School’s concerns about “stranger danger”, she had noticed that the street gate and doors to the School were often left open at times during the day, so adding to potential risk. This suggested the School needed to put its own house in order first.

Speaker from Pretoria Road asked how arrangements for “controlled access” would be developed and defined. Would just one option be identified or would several be put forward for discussion? There should be an option which encouraged cycling, and the School should encourage students to cycle to school.

Jonathan Oppenheimer said that the School certainly did encourage students to cycle. On the development of arrangements for ‘controlled access’, the School wanted to consult widely on its intentions and was open to hearing and considering a range of possible options. The School had no fixed views as to how precisely arrangements should work: but the security of students was important.

Speaker from Kettering Street said that the “tarmac” road was the only safe level route for many people, and good for cyclists as well as a safe place for children to play football and ride their scooters. While an expansion of the School facilities was welcome, it was of concern that this public space and asset, currently available to all, would be lost under the School’s intended developments, and the community effectively cut in two.

External Speaker said he was not a resident of Furzedown but lived close by in Tooting. He was grateful that the meeting had been arranged. He considered that there would be a significant benefit to the local community from the intended developments through the provision of the ASD unit. As a governor of Oak Lodge School he was aware that children with special educational needs were among the most disadvantaged. The provision of the ASD unit would be of benefit to the probably hundreds of parents in Furzedown with children with special educational needs. He agreed that the loss of access to pedestrians and cyclists from the developments needed consideration; but the provision of the ASD unit was an important benefit which had not been highlighted in the discussion so far.

Speaker from Penwortham Road said that he noted that the statement of the School’s intentions did not include the intention, indicated elsewhere, also to acquire part of Furzedown Park: this should be borne in mind. The road and park were currently owned by the Council for the public: if they were transferred to the School, Graveney should make payment of some £8-10m. Under the intended access by pedestrians and cyclists through the School site some gatekeeping would be required, and it was not clear how this would be supervised. There was also a danger that, at some stage in the development, money would run short, and plans for limited access would be dropped: in that case the community would have lost the tarmac road, access by path and also the Park. Work with children with ASD was very important, but did the unit have to be at Graveney?

Jonathan Oppenheimer said there were no other possible locations for the ASD unit, which was why the Council had approached Graveney for it to be located there. In considering the intended developments it should be borne in mind that the description shown in the leaflet were not yet specific plans. Arrangements for controlled access was a difficult issue and as indicated further discussion would be needed. The School’s view was that the tarmac road was unnecessarily wide for pedestrian access. He was not aware of any plans by the School to seek to acquire part of Furzedown Park. [See reference to subsequent clarification below.]

Speaker from Pendle Road said he agreed with previous speakers that Graveney had not engaged sufficiently with the local community, and the opposition now to the intended developments in part reflected this. He suggested the possibility of a Community Trust (which the School would be under) which would oversee the relations between the School and community.

Jonathan Oppenheimer said that the suggestion of a Community Trust on these lines was beyond the agenda of this meeting: the School would not be able to be part of such an arrangement. The School was however certainly open to suggestions as to how best to take forward the intended developments, including any proposals for other activities that could be carried out on the site. Such proposals would best come from the community. He did not recognise the views expressed about the School being insufficiently engaged with the community.