Comments

• There must be lots of people reading this site with greater professional knowledge of planning but I feel the Planning Committee made a bizarre decision. The entire school was built on Metropolitan Open Land so there is no principle against development, it is just a question of balancing various interests. Drainage and intensification of use both seem reasonable objections. Are there not measures the school could take to meet these objections whilst allowing the astroturf to remain? Limiting use to school hours, for example.

  Simon Lamb on 2007-05-09 06:29:15 +0000

• RE: "...there has been no increase in school pupil numbers" - the members of the Planning Committee should read the Council's own predictions for pupil numbers in St Margarets (www.stmgrts.org.uk/Council_Orleans_Bulge.pdf). Where will the newly formed bulge class at Orleans Infants end up in a three years' time? The Council's answer is that they "are confident that...any children from the cohort who, in three years' time, could not be offered places at St Stephen's could be accommodated at other schools".

  I agree with Simon - this is not a balanced judgement.

  Ben Driver on 2007-05-10 14:39:09 +0000

• The retrospective planning application is # 06/3800/FUL at tinyurl.com/239agk . The objections to the scheme are both numerous [17] and cogent, particularly the 9-page one [April 18] from CGMS Consulting [this is unfortunately unreadable on screen but can be saved and opened as a pdf and printed out]. So it seems very unlikely it would have received consent. It is unfortunate that the School should have gone ahead in this cavalier fashion as if they were above the law. Who advised them to do so, I wonder?

  Chris Squire on 2007-05-10 17:05:22 +0000

• My name is Jenni Sheppard and I have recently moved to Twickenham Riverside. I am a student journalist currently studying at the London School of Journalism, whilst working full time in Central London.

  As part of my journalism studies, I have been given the task of writing two news stories about my local area.

  Today, whilst reading about St Margarets on this website, I discovered your Astroturf problem and went on to read the Council's planning decision. Given this decision and the differing views on the outcome of this application, I would like to write a compelling story about St Mary's Astroturf for my studies.

  In addition, I am meeting with Cllr Trigg next week to discuss another subject and would very much like to raise this issue with him, but would first like to speak to someone involved on the school's side of things.

  I am happy for you to email me on the address below, or if you prefer, you can of course phone me on the number below anytime.

  Looking forward to hearing from you,

  Jenni Sheppard

  Student Journalist

  basement61@gmail.com 077 310 86 318

  Jenni Sheppard on 2007-05-10 23:14:43 +0000

• If I could just clarify Mr Campbell's letter. The first thing I said when making my representation to the Planning Committee was that I was sad that this situation had come to this. I in fact stating the facts and.

  It is normal and sensible practice for anyone contemplating projects like this to seek expert advice on the need for planning permission and planning requirements before arranging to have them carried out, and the Council's planning officers would have been happy to help the school in this regard if they had asked. However, in the event officers were only made aware of the works by neighbours after it had started, and at this stage the planning officers could only warn the school that the works needed planning permission and that if they proceeded they did so at their own risk. Regrettably, the school chose to continue the works despite this warning, and the consequence was that permission was refused retrospectively and enforcement action authorised. Clearly, the Council would much prefer to help the school with planning advice on their projects in advance to avoid this kind of situation occurring, but they were not given the chance to do so on this occasion.

  If the school governors did take independent advice they were clearly not advised very well and if they did not then I can only say that it was not a very wise course of action.

  If the governors had worked more closely with the Planning Authority I am sure that a resolution to this could have been found which would have benefited all stakeholders in and around the school.

  David Trigg

  Councillor for Twickenham Riverside

  Cllr David Trigg on 2007-05-11 10:20:55 +0000

• Whatever advice the school got, it probably won't be able to compete with CGMS Consulting (whose website boasts 83 staff with 67 Qualified Professionals, 21 Directors, 12 Associates, 32 Planners, 20 Archaeologists, 15 Historic Buildings Consultants, 3 Consultants & 16 Support Staff) without support from us all - including the residents whose "18th Century" garages are adjacent to the area in question.

  Ben Driver on 2007-05-11 20:29:57 +0000

• ....and given the residents' apparent zeal to conserve the historic appeal of this "tranquil almost rural" lane, can we now look forward to a reduction in the number of '18th century' vehicles parked on the pavements, around which we parents have to negotiate buggies on the way to and from the 21st century park and playground by the river? Perhaps we should ask the badgers.

  Ben Driver on 2007-05-12 08:49:09 +0000

• Statement from the school: www.st-marys.richmond.sch.uk/Astroturf%20News.htm

  Ed on 2007-05-18 12:38:29 +0000

• Re: St Mary's Astroturf

  I have just read Trigg's letter to this forum. I cannot believe that people so obsessed with process over common sense can manage to get elected. I hope that any parents resident in his ward will take the opportunity to let him know directly that they do not consider his behaviour as supporting their needs as voters.

  I have recently had an exchange of emails with the Chairman of the Planning Committee. I have yet to receive a response to my last mail but it seems increasingly clear that ensuring that our children are provided with the right recreational facilities to enhance their development are well down their list of priorities. I would love to be proved wrong but these people who claim and aspire to represent us must be judged by their actions and not by their words. I thought I would share with anyone who is interested the chain of communication I have so far:-

  "16th June 2007

  Dear Councillor Miller

  Thank you for your very prompt reply.

  I believe that the impression gained that one Councillor seemed to feel that the school deserved to be punished was not from something said at the Committee Meeting but from a conversation subsequent to that.

  Contrary to what you say I think it was very clear that one member in particular had absolutely no sympathy with the school and I learn that he continues to be obstructive and negative. You were indeed meticulous in pointing out your 'quasi judicial status'. But the intentions of the planning officer seemed clear, that he was determined to see his recommendations driven through despite it being made clear that the evidence he presented with regard to the impact on the trees was in question, there was every probability that a drainage scheme could be devised to address those issues etc. It would have bee perfectly feasible I would have thought for the Committee to have deferred the matter for further investigation of these issues.

  Words of support are one thing, but actions speak louder than words and we are not seeing nearly enough supporting action from the Members or the Planning Department. I vote for local and central government representation based on action not words. I believe that Town Planning should be a positive force for improving the circumstances in which we live. Providing better facilities for the school should be part of that and I would expect to see both the Planning Committee and Department falling over backwards to find ways to resolve this in a way which allows these facilities to be retained for current and future generations of pupils. All I am seeing is reasons for prevarication. If that is what we can expect from your administration I imagine that when the opportunity comes to us next time many parents of school children may be questioning whether they have the right representation. I am therefore forwarding this communication to all the parents in my daughter's class and I would urge them if they agree to copy this on to every parent they know in this Borough so that all can see what we are getting from our local politicians.

  Current and former parents and others raised the money to pay for these facilities which frankly should have been provided for in the first place in order to meet government guidelines for open recreation areas, when the school site is clearly big enough to accommodate them. Requiring them to be ripped up again now would be public disgrace.

  Regards

  Peter Hunt

  ----- Original Message ----- From: Cllr Brian Miller To: Peter Hunt ; CABLE, Vincent Cc: Cllr Martin Elengorn ; Cllr David Trigg ; BENNETT, Joan Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:40 PM Subject: RE: St. Mary's School, Astroturf

  Dear Mr Hunt, thank you for sending me a copy of the email exchange.

  I chaired the meeting and cannot recall any Member present making any suggestion that anyone should be punished. It was made clear at the Committee hearing that all Members present had every sympathy with the school but the Committee has to apply, without exception, the Council and Central Government's planning policies and cannot condone clear breaches. I personally underlined this point when speaking to parents and Governors after the case had been heard

  I am sure that colleagues will take up the points you make on the negotiations as I am certain that all concerned will want a positive outcome within the context of the relevant planning policies.

  Yours sincerely

  Brian Miller Chair Planning Committee.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Peter Hunt Sent: 13 June 2007 20:59 To: CABLE, Vincent Cc: Cllr Martin Elengorn; Cllr Brian Miller; Cllr David Trigg; BENNETT, Joan Subject: Re: St. Mary's School, Astroturf

  Dear Vince

  Thank you for your email. I held off replying until I had a further sense of where this issue might be going and as your email seemed to imply that you believed it would be amicably resolved with a positive approach from the Planning Department and Committee. Sadly the feedback I have so far following the recent meeting between the Planning Department and the school does not support your optimism. The indications seem to be that rather then looking for and suggesting solutions the Council is still looking for obstacles.

  Since your email suggested that you had been led to believe that there was likely to be a positive outcome for the school and its current and future pupils I was sure you would wish this to be drawn to your attention.

  I was saddened to hear from one fellow parent that he had gained the impression from a Councillor on the Committee that he felt the school deserved to be punished for having unwittingly bypassed planning procedures. I would hope that this was a misunderstanding and that all agree that nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of the best interests of the current and future generations of children at this school especially as the point has been made that it is under specified in terms of outside recreation areas even with this area of Astroturf.

  Regards

  Peter Hunt

  ----- Original Message -----

  From: CABLE, Vincent

  To: peter.hunt

  Cc: BENNETT, Joan ; cllr.dtrigg@richmond.gov.uk ; Cllr Brian Miller ; Cllr Martin Elengorn

  Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:57 PM

  Subject: St. Mary's School, Astroturf

  Dear Mr Hunt, I have spoken to the Council and the Head to get to the bottom of this issue. I believe that initially the contractors made a mistake in starting work without authorisation and the Governors then allowed the work to continue without securing the necessary planning permission. The Council had no choice but to react as it did; the planning subcommittee agreed unanimously. I don't think there is any value in apportioning blame; everyone concerned was acting in the best interests of the school as they saw it.

  The issue is where we proceed from here. I understand that the school has set in train a meeting with residents and the planning officer and is commissioning advice on how best to make the pitch conform to the planning requirements. The school is hopeful that a satisfactory solution will be found within the six months period given under the enforcement notice. If I could help with this process, I would; but I don't think it is necessary.

  Yours sincerely, Vince Cable

  Peter Hunt on 2007-06-20 20:53:47 +0000

• What is more important than our childrens' education? This is madness. When Richmond Council decided to develop Metropolitan Open Land on Richmond Riverside, where was planning then? Local people opposed that as much as they support Orleans Park School. It seems another example of our elected representative having selective hearing. Why can't our Councillors represent local peoples' views? The interpretation of the Town & Country Planning Act 1991 as amended has sufficient decretion to handle these matters, so why make schools suffer. Support our schools.

  Barry Edwards on 2007-07-13 22:29:11 +0000