Sutton council have announced their two favoured sites on which to build one or more secondary schools to meet the demand for local places. In addition to the Sutton Hospital site, the council have responded to my call for an overgrown artificial football pitch at Rosehill to be added to their considerations. Until now their long list of potential sites had been secret and were limited by the fact that private investors had bought up most of the best sites whilst the council parked the issue. As recently as this summer, the council were advertising for a company to take the football pitch on a long lease, whilst looking elsewhere for a school site.
The council’s own figures show that a new school is needed by 2017 with another required by 2020. The primary school place crisis that hit many London boroughs a few years ago was always going to develop into a severe issue at secondary school level. The one predictable constant is that school children get older, so local plans need to allow for such increased demand. The Conservative-led government has given the council around £50m over the last few years which has mainly gone on expanding existing primary and secondary schools but given the constraints of the existing plots of land and the fact that there is a point when schools get too big, the borough has reached a level where only new premises will do.
I am not against a school being built on Sutton Hospital but there are factors that need to be considered. When I surveyed residents around the Belmont area earlier in the year, some 70% of them preferred new healthcare facilities on that site rather than a school or housing. Not everyone will want to live close to a school wherever it is built, so from a strategic borough-wide view, the view of neighbours has to be balanced with those residents slightly further away from the site who need the school places, but it is always the decent thing to ask residents first. Sutton council does not own the site. The NHS will have to declare the site surplus to requirements which is likely to happen sometime in 2015 at the earliest as there are still healthcare services on site. The council will then have to find an estimated £5m to buy the site before any building can take place. Increased use of the site will require transport studies and changes to the road layout including the sloping Chiltern Road/Brighton Road junction.
We’ve been here before. I sat on the Project Board of the last secondary school to be built in the borough, Stanley Park High School. That was built on NHS land, the former Queen Mary’s Hospital for Children. I went into that process naively believing that with the local NHS Trust strapped for cash and the council awash with ‘Building Schools for the Future’ money that the last government wanted spending well ahead of the 2010 election, a deal between two public sector bodies could be struck quickly and efficiently. Not a chance! Protracted negotiations led to legal fees of around £1m – private sector lawyers earning good money from public sector inefficiency. The school opened 18 months late, almost solely as a result of the inability to secure the land. Despite the catchment area of the school meaning that more children would walk to the new school, a new road was built as part of planning conditions which runs south in the opposite direction to the catchment area at a further cost of £1m.
The Rosehill land is not without its challenges. The derelict artificial football pitch has roughly the same footprint as Greenshaw’s main building (so excluding the sixth form block). There is a former pitch and putt area adjacent to the pitch which is not used that could be incorporated into the design. The whole area is Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) which means that the council will have to apply to the Mayor for permission to build. They were happy to do so in order to build an incinerator in Beddington on MOL so we will see how that plays out. No-one wants to see parkland built on if there is an alternative but I can’t think of another option. Therefore access to a school on that site needs to have the minimum effect possible on the green space at the front of the school.
However there are significant advantages to this site. Sutton Common Station is close by and should the tram be extended to Sutton it is due to run past the front of the school, thus providing two new travel options. It is situated close to the area of highest demand for places and is close to Greenshaw, the school that is in pole position to be the sponsor of the new school which will be a Free School. The Sports Village next door to the plot have expressed a keen interest in developing a partnership with the new school for sports.
Feasibility studies will be carried out on both sites and are due to be completed by January 2015 with planning permission being sought in the summer. We have had secrecy up to now from the council so it is crucial that local residents are kepy informed, asked for their opinions and able to influence the decisions that need to be made. I am pleased that we are finally on a path to deliver what our children need, sufficient local school places to ensure that those children currently in year 4 can get an excellent secondary-level education here in Sutton. However I’ve seen these projects stall in the past so I will continue to push for action.
living very close to the proposed Rosehill site for a new school, I am very concerned over this alarming matter for several reasons.I believe we owe our children the ability to have leisure space as well as some where offering an open space, as many within the borough not only live within crowded accommodation but lack space to play.
The obesity of school age children is increasing at an alarming rate and will continue to do so if facilities are not offered let alone reduced.Yes the astro turf is run down and not usable so why not put money into a project to renovate this.
Why build a school so close to Greenshaw and Glenthorne,you say the closeness to Sutton Common station and new tram link will allow pupils easy transport…….from where and why do they need to travel from afar……….build schools in those areas such as Merton,then children go to Merton schools freeing up spaces for Sutton children to attend.
Other places should be considered like the failing Life centre,Woodstock public house,instead of another supermarket,Nonsuch park to provide more high schools in that part of the borough,gas works the intended site for yet another super market and numerous other sites.To say “The derelict artificial football pitch has roughly the same footprint as Greenshaw’s main building” is hard to believe and only means that yes you will build on the former pitch and putt area as well along with a great deal more of the park.
Will there be compensation for those residence who this will greatly affect not only the value of their property but also everyday life in general?I doubt it very much as so far the whole intentions so far have been secretive and only come to light through social media sites.
Why not think of the children ………you say “I am pleased that we are finally on a path to deliver what our children need, sufficient local school places to ensure that those children currently in year 4 can get an excellent secondary-level education here in Sutton.”what children in Sutton really need is affordable recreation facilities not an expensive sports village available to the more privileged, who will offer partnership to a new school,why wouldn’t they a potential 1000 more memberships.Children in this borough,Benhill estate,need open spaces to play non profit making sport or activities not more concrete they live and see that daily.
Hi Tonia. Thanks for your feedback. Ideally we do want leisure space for our children. The size school that I have in mind would leave plenty. Of course, since it’s not me that’s building it, that might not be what comes forward when a planning application is submitted.
The council is cutting £40m from its budget over the next 5 years so they won’t be coming forward with any plans to spend money on the football pitch even if a school isn’t built there. They will most likely go back to their original idea of putting it out on a long lease for a private company to provide 5-a-side football pitches as a private venture.
The demand for school places is most acute around the north of Sutton but any successful school will attract interest from parents further afield. The better the transport links, the less likely the surrounding area will get congested should some of the school places be taken up by children not living within the immediate vicinity.
I agree that the Life Centre needs an immediate review. However as things currently stand, the council would have to repay a £4m grant to the Big Lottery Fund if the Life Centre closes or has its use changed within the first 20 years of its life. That’s something I raised at the time when I was a local councillor but the Lib Dem administration ignored all warnings. The Woodstock pub isn’t owned by the council so money would have to be found to purchase the site and the land isn’t big enough unfortunately. The vast majority of Nonsuch Park is not in the borough.
I agree with you that the process has been secretive which is why I have tried to make a noise about it in order to smoke out the council’s preferred sites. Whatever is eventually decided, residents need to be made aware now and asked their views now. Not just as part of a statutory consultation before planning is nodded through.
Sutton Sports Village is not a membership organisation. I really don’t care who provides leisure facilities as long as they are good, varied and affordable. The Sports Village, which is on land leased from the council, already gives children from Cheam High access to world class coaching as part of a selective scholarship scheme that has been run there for years and I am sure that with some political will and meaningful dialogue, they can do more to work with a new school as part of a community programme.
Now the two sites are out in the open, I will be pushing for greater involvement of those people most affected, residents like you who live close to the site. Yes, a strategic decision has to be taken to tackle demand across the borough and indeed South London, but that is not reason to ride roughshod over the opinions of local people.
Thank you once again for taking the time to share your views.
There’s no easy solution to this. In truth, nobody wants a huge new secondary school built close their home so any proposed site is going to bring objections.
In addition, many Sutton residents are not directly affected by school place shortages so see even less justification for putting up with the increased traffic and disruption new schools will bring.
It is all very well trying to promote public transport and walking to school but children sometimes have to travel through the borough or from outside the borough to get to the school they are allocated. Not everyone can be given a place at the school closest to their house especially when that school is oversubscribed with far more applicants than spaces. Cheam High’s catchment area most years for example comes in at under one mile so all of the children who live slightly further than that have to travel for school.
Unlike leisure facilities and other community resources, Sutton has a legal duty to find every child a school place and that isn’t going to be possible unless new schools are built. It just isn’t acceptable to leave children in the current Year 4 and below with nowhere to go when the council knows this far in advance that there are insufficient local schools to take them all. It is going to have to be a case of finding the least worst options although I like many other residents am not looking forward to the impact on the local area that this is bound to bring.
Hi Sutton Mum. You are right about travelling distances to school. Not all will come by public transport and the plans need to reflect that. I totally understand and sympathise with residents who don’t want to live close to a school which is one of the main reasons that I am keen to get the discussion started. That way, local people can have their input at an early stage and so genuinely influence decisions rather than just tick a few boxes in a standard consultation when things are too far down the road to change.
I have alarm signals ringing with the proposed site at Rosehill.
Firstly, the proposed site is very near to the by-pass and intense traffic areas. Notably there is also suggestion of trams in the near vicinity. Living near a school, I notice the schoolchildren around bus stops, larking around and running into the side of the road. They are too intent on their friends to take heed of traffic and impatience to cross a road can be frightening, especially if they are in a group or on bikes. There is also the question of breathing troubles brought on by close proximity to a major round-about. It doesn’t affect me as my sons are adult, but I fear for increased density in an already overpopulated area.
Ideally, Sutton Hospital is far better suited to a hospital sight, rather than St.Helier, which although not ideal, would be a preference as a furtherance to Greenshaw School as both could be accessed via Grennell Road. There are also thoughts about the sites on the areas near to Sutton Hospital, but on the opposite side of the main road. I notice a huge site which has been cleared, probably to build accommodation, but there cannot be housing built before the question of where further influx of children are to be schooled. I look forward to your response. Thank you. Paula Hayward.
Hi Paula. Thanks for your email. Are we talking about the same bit of Rosehill? It’s not that close to the roundabout so the traffic up there shouldn’t affect it. The tram will come close. There are always issues around road safety around schools but I would think that having good public transport links would be beneficial rather than a negative. It’s the high population in the immediate area that is driving demand in that part of Sutton so having a school nearby would increase the likelihood of pupils walking rather than having to travel a way to the south of the borough.
In reality I expect the council will look at building schools on both sites anyway as a second school is required according to their predictions by 2020.