Streetlife

Jane,

Elliott are keeping fantastic school sports fields and gym. They are selling excess land. please refer to the headmaster of Elliott's statement to support this.
This has been well documented in the local press and on this site, you must have missed the facts.

No playing fields should be sold to fund development but this poll is misleading in its context. Put yourself in the school's shoes. You are dilapidated, crumbling and in need of cash to move forward. Redeveloping your site provides the much needed cash to do this. I have worked in London schools for 25 years as a PE teacher and advisor and have been through a whole school rebuild. It worked and provided fantastic PE resources in the end. The whole process was traumatic and very emotive for all parties but if the school, Wandsworth council and the school community work together - it should be possible to come to a fantastic solution. Remember, it is what works for the children and the community they come from that counts - listen to them!

No.  They are keeping some but defining the rest as "surplus".  The sell off has been reduced but the land proposed to be sold is not surplus.  It depends on how you define "educational".  The point about Lord Moynihan's comment is that he clearly sees that schools have a role in a) supporting sport and b) improving the health of the nation through sport.  The proposals for Elliott fly in the face of that.
http://saveelliottschool.tumblr.com/aboutthecouncilsplans

Architects Journal: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/docomomo-blasts-council-over-elliott-school-redevelopment-plans/8632626.article

Ian: I don't think think that the poll is misleading (of course!).  The problem in the Elliott situation is that a major part of the building is listed.

The Building Schools for the Future programme might have provided financing for repairs, etc. but Elliott was not given priority by Wandsworth and, therefore, did not benefit.

You say that no playing fields should be sold to fund development, but should they be sold to fund repairs?  However, beautiful a sports hall is, it cannot compensate for a lack of outdoor space, can it?

For the life of me I cannot see why Elliott School buildings deserved listing in the first place but it is shameful that the Council have so failed to properly maintain a listed building over the years that it can now only fund repairs via a sell-off of land.

Leaving that aside, presumably much thought went into establishing the optimum ratio of outdoor to indoor space to provide equally good facilities both in and out for the intended number of pupils in the original design and that ratio should still be valid.

I can see that one might need a more substantial Sports Hall these days than an old-style Gym might provide, but otherwise, I agree with Jane that nothing can compensate for a lack of outdoor space.

Elliott desperately needs a multi-million pound investment to provide the kind of school building and facilities that will allow its pupils to thrive.

Unfortunately there is no magic pot of money available to pay for this.

Our proposals, which do not involve the loss of any sports pitches or playing fields, have the full backing of Elliott's headteacher, governors and local parents and are designed to give local children the 21st century school they deserve.

The land in question is not used by the school for organised team sports. Much of it is hard-standing and some of it is used as a car park. Part of it is occupied by redundant buildings like the caretaker's old cottage. There is some grassed space included, but it is sloped and therefore not suitable for team sports - and not actually used as playing fields by the school.

When the children do play organised team sports like football, rugby, cricket etc they use the sports pitches in nearby Dover House Road - just a few minutes walk away.

All schools in the borough are also able to use the excellent sporting facilities at Barn Elms. This already offers space for rugby, football, cricket and rounders as well as specialist facilities such as archery, athletics, field events, a gym and boathouse for rowing and sailing. It also has artificial surfaces offering tennis, netball and hockey.

Just last week it was announced that Barn Elms is to receive the sand from the Olympic beach volleyball courts so that it can become a regional centre of excellence for this sport.  

If the refurbishment plans for Elliott are approved then the school’s sports facilities would be enhanced and the external space landscaped to provide informal play areas and new sports courts

We believe these plans offer the best chance of keeping the school viable and ensuring it remains the choice of parents in Putney for decades to come.

Thank you Wandsworth for the clarification.

Agree with Ian that this poll is misleading and rather pointless, but rather what we have come to expect from certain quarters with their own agendas.

Wandsworth: would you put a link up to the plans so we can see how different they are from those on the Save Elliott School website?  According to Google earth, the bit to be sold contains at least one pitch and looks as though there is an athletic bit as well.

Andy: yes I do have an agenda.  It is not personal.  My agenda is that I object to the youth of today and tomorrow being sacrificed by the politicians of today.  Why is that so bad?  What is your agenda, apart from petty minded sniping at me?

I agree with others. There's something predictable about this poll...

Thanks indeed to Wandsworth.

All the best

Ian

Thanks to Jane for bringing politics into it. The Conservative government began the sell-off in the 80s, Labour continued it and now the Coalition are at it again. The cycle continues on all sides I'm afraid. I look at this problem as an educator. Will a rebuild improve the facilities for the children and the community? If the answer is yes and some land has to be sold then I am in favour. That is my opinion and everyone is entitled to that. I did also post that this was very emotive!!!

Stay calm Andy. This is a good place for rational discussions. You have raised the temperature!

I am with the principles that Jane espouses.  As an oarsman who was steered by Colin in the late '70s I attended sessions in the school which was also used by oarsmen aiming for selection and was grateful for the use the school gave to local rowing clubs.
The arguments of Wandsworth C are that "there is no funding and the school needs the structure up graded and the only way to do this is to sell land and lose an asset to raise capital"
That is not true.  Some 700 odd members of my rowing club has over the last 20 years raised just short of £2 million and built first, a new gym and secondly, refurbished the club house.  It was an effort by every single member that did this.
Similarly, if the school were to put in half as much effort as we did with parents and children forming a long term fundraising committee, applying for grants, using the assets to raise funds and defray maintenance costs and using the site as a whole to benefit the community (e.g. rent out land for car parking for example, using the school facilities for conferences and weddings and summer schools, renting out accommodation for Wimbledon, car parking with shuttle buses and special Wimbledon lanes! etc etc) then it could and should keep the assets and use them. Any sale of asset is short sighted and wrong.  Wandsworth Common had a school which properly once the need for the school abated should have been returned as common land - it is now an unsightly, unnecessary {almost} gated community accessed by an expensive new bridge when it could have been returned to be common land and benefit the whole community. Short term benefit to keep the rates down - long term loss.
Lastly, like hospitals, good schools are the products of good teaching and that is not related to the buildings.  OK, the environment really helps but, with determination, you can improve that without selling the family silver.
There ARE other ways of providing a development programme - you just have to be determined and work in the long term.

I think it is narrow minded and negative of Wandsworth council to say 'there is no magic pot of money'. What about seeking a philanthropist with a connection to the borough? This a worthy project and one I'm sure that anyone with the money (and they do exist) would like to be seen to be contributing towards.

And Andy, your mean spirited personal comments are unnecessary, inappropriate, ugly and should not be allowed on forums such as this where people are trying to have a rational debate.

I've noticed in these debates that for certain people, the Council is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Read the Council's post again before getting up on a soapbox about "youth of today being sacrificed". Only redundant land that isn't being used is being sold off. Surely if it's not being used (except as a carpark and to grow weeds) we should make a bit of money from it? And what's so wrong in using that money to give the school the better resources they need? I'm struggling to see what's so bad about it ...

Dear Mungomffit,  Redundant land in the middle of Putney?  Not used? See my post further up and let the school start using it to raise the money needed but keep the family asset owned by the school! Let it earn the money to do the  job
Even if they built on it and rented out houses and kept the asset that would be better than selling it.

yes, actually that is a good point cjdg about making public assets work for us to make money rather than leaving them fallow and then selling them because they are not being used. I agree with you. There must be hundreds of public assets in the borough that are being wasted and could be put to good use to raise money. But I still don't agree with Jane E's rather dramatic view that it sacrifices the youth of today. Perhaps she could channel some of that energy into making these assets work, like you and your rowing club did.

CJDG - I also agree with you. I am sure the all schools could be set up as charitable trusts and use their assets as they wish.
With regard to Elliott though, it is too late. The governing body and council have explored options and they need £millions now to get the facilities to where they need be.

It's unfortunate that if you disagree with certain posters on this site they insult you and then cry foul (or is it wolf) if the insult is returned.

No-one is advocating selling school sports fields but if little used land can be better utilised to reduce the tax burden, especially in form of council tax which tends to hit the poorest most, then great.

There's an article in the times on page 4 today (aug 9th) which refers to the sale of land at Elliot school. According to the paper 'final approval must still be given by mr gove'.

So despite what some of you are saying it is obviously not a done deal. So let's all write to mr gove and remind him about the governments policy on 'sustainability' and 'legacy'.

Mr Gove is a prat. He scrapped the school sport co-ordinator scheme that was providing a sporting legacy for all state school pupils. Do you really think he gives a toss about anything to do with raising standards and achievement for state pupils? His favourite 'sport' at school was Dungeons and Dragons!!!

How very strange I can't leave a message on Wandsworth councils account is this all linked to them I wonder ?

Funnily enough, I left a message here the day before yesterday and it hasn't appeared - perhaps WBC thought it too long & boring.  I'll try part of it again:

Cllr Ravi Govindia's s Foreword to the 2010/11 Accounts under the General Reserve heading states:-

"The Council originally budgeted for £10.0 million in its General Fund balance. By the end of the
year, this reserve had risen to £30.7 million. The outturn in 2009/10 was £4.9 million better than
expected when calculating the Council Tax for 2010/11. General revenue budgets were reduced by
£3.2 million during the year, but were then underspent by £2.3 million."

In addition to the unexpectedly high General Fund Reserves of £30.7, the Council had £115.9m of "Earmarked" General Fund Reserves at 31.3.11 - I would like to know for what purposes they are earmarked.

So, there was an unexpected £20m added to Reserves at 31.3.11. I don't know how many millions WBC means by "multi-million" pound development, but might not this serendipitous £20m go a long way towards funding the Elliott redevelopment without any selling of family silver?

1. have also had same problem of posting a comment. it's accepted by the site  and then disappears..............
2. yes I find it strange that Council says it wants to encourage sport and activity for children but cannot see that they want to do this with their 'reserves'.
3. I agree if land not used then lets do something to make funds for other educational purposes from it but,
4. not to reduce local taxes! I feel strongly that the last thing Wandsworth needs is a further decrease in the Council tax. It is the lowest in the land. i would rather we paid a little more so there is a greater @reserve@ to spend on what community wants. People who don't work although healthy/not disabled/ have self inflicted abuse problems (poor?) dont need any further assistance to cop out from contributing to the services for the community

You can post on WBCs own web site

I agree with you Sylvia, but just got a couple of comments:

I'm not an expert on what the Council is doing to support children doing sport... just know that my kids are at WBC state primaries and I can't complain about the amount of sport they do or the school's focus on the pupils being active. The school ground is typically Victorian -i.e. huge compared to the local private primaries (more fool them). Still not massive, but the school manages it really well and despite the number of kids doing sport it doesn't feel crowded. There is also stuff during these holidays like free swimming at the local leisure centres and sport club for £10 per day at our school. 

I think a big part of why our tax is cheaper is because the council is very, well, efficient. It's not because it's trying to run our area on a thread. I'm saying this as a former resident of Lambeth and Camden - both Labour run - and neither could get even the basic things right, i.e. it was like being in a Kafka novel to even get a parking suspension. Inefficiency = higher tax. And no, Jane E / Socialist Workers Party/ non-parent, efficiency does not mean shafting the state sector, state school kids etc. 
 
I'm now really keen to get a list of the WBC properties/other assets and find out what's happening with them. If they are not being used then let's bloody well use them/make some money out of them to pay for extra sport etc.

Totally agree with your last point too Syv ... let's use our reserves to pay for things that are positive and wanted, but not to pay for all the able-bodied/minded people who should get off their McDonalds bums and work to support themselves.