At least 23 Trees to be chopped down for Braywick Court School Construction

More details this week...

Initial Thoughts & Questions on the new Proposals

We're still having a good look at the new proposals & will post more thoughts officially here once we've had a chance to discuss fully as a group.

First impressions are that it looks like all the same HUGE issues relating to the Travel Plan, Traffic, Access & Parking remain. [Remember the Highway Development Control recommended the original plans be refused based on its size & those same issues - pupil numbers and the site's location are unchanged in these plans so the situation is the same].

We ARE relieved to see plans to use the Nature Centre & build directly on the Park itself have been shelved (although issues of overdevelopment on the site and impact on the Green Belt in various ways remain), so if the Council, their friends at Bellevue Place Education Trust & the School manage to keep bulldozing this scheme forward at least we managed to prevent them doing that. For now at least...

Just a few common-sense questions that pop up:

What happens in the future when the 'travel plan' (which seems to be pivotal in the plans, despite the key elements remaining unchanged from the first planning application) is forgotten & not enforced, but the damage is already done & the buildings built, and parents dropping off and parking in the Hibbert Road Car park, or on Hibbert Road (and the pavement as they have sometimes before) itself?

How do the developers propose to gain access to the site during all the demolition and construction work, if it goes ahead? How much will this damage & disrupt the formal gardens at Braywick Park & the surrounding area, how will all the heavy machinery access the site?

What was the other permanent site that was investigated and why is that not being considered? Or being made public? (When school representatives were asked this at the exhibition some members of the public were told, and others were not. Is the School and BPET telling prospective parents one thing, and residents another? The same goes for the Councillors taking an interest in the issue. Are we being deliberately misled?)

How many of the parents that signed up their kids to the School in the beginning were told that the original School buildings were "out of date, do not meet modern teaching standard requirements and are inefficient in design and had to be replaced" (rather than simply "will be refurbished" as the official school promotion documents said? Again - deliberately misleading statements. Why should we trust them to stick to travel plan promises in the future, for example?).

If the current buildings are "out of date, do not meet modern teaching standard requirements and are inefficient in design & have to be replaced" then why was the site selected for the school in the first place? Why was this hidden from parents and residents at the start?

What happens in the future when the obviously inadequate playground size (with inadequate punctuation!) leads to an application to expand out and 'lease' more land from the Park? Did they already ask for this before at the very beginning?

Has the council leased additional Public Open Space land to the School/Trust over and above the land leased in July 2014? (The plans show a red line extending out into the Public Open Space by the Nature Centre.)

Is a modern, glass fronted, 2 storey, yellow brick, flat-roofed building in keeping with the local setting? (The area is dominated by red brick buildings, some of which date back to the 1700s & are Grade II listed).

Is this the extent of the 'public consultation'? A leaflet that hardly any local residents have seen?

This is the only document we could find purporting to be the 'public consultation' - at least one giving information about the School. More of a prospectus than a consultation - with biased, weighted questions, and no space to write any detailed responses either.

At least 10 of the households on Hibbert Road (the majority) were NOT sent this (We only got this one at the School's open day in September). Did they even send it out to any other local residents?

Residents on Gas Lane weren't even notified of the 'public consultation' on 8th July showing the proposed plans. Gas lane is just off Hibbert Road opposite the Park very close to where they want to build the new Nature Centre Building. In the middle of the park.

 How do any of these questions give the opportunity to properly gauge local residents' opinions anyway? 

CLICK HERE to find out a few simple things you can do to help!

Approval & Consultation Process? Most local residents NOT consulted.

On 27 March 2014 RBWM Cabinet considered a report about Braywick Court School lease. 

The minutes of that meeting approved the granting of a 125 year lease at peppercorn rent to Bellevue Place Educational Trust in respect of the former Winbury School premises, the Braywick Nature Centre plus public open space between the Nature Centre and the school buildings.

The Cabinet Report notes, inter alia, “....that the school need to increase the number and size of classrooms, have access to a hall, staff parking and pupil drop off areas; the agreed proposal is that instead of building a large extension to incorporate all the school’s needs, the Bellvue Place Educational Trust will build a smaller extension and take over the adjacent Council owned Nature Centre space. The school will apply for planning permission for any extension to the existing building and for the new Nature Centre. Only if planning permission is granted will the lease for the Braywick Nature Centre be entered into.” The report also notes that “....the area of land between the two buildings is currently designated Public Open Space. This will become enclosed and will be for the sole use of the school.”

Elsewhere - at para 14.1 - the Report states that “Braywick Court School has carried out its own consultations with the public. Prior to disposal of the open space RBWM has to advertise the notice of intention to dispose of the land in question in accordance with s123 Local Government Act 1972.” And at 14.2 that “Public consultation will take place on the planning application which will be submitted by the Bellvue Place Educational Trust."

However, most local (i.e. Hibbert Road) residents did not receive the school's consultation document. 1

Residents on Gas Lane were not sent any consultation documents & weren't even notified of the 'public consultation' on 8th July either. 

Gas lane is just off Hibbert Road opposite the Park very close to where they want to build the new Nature Centre Building. In the middle of the park.

The document reads as a prospectus for prospective parents, which appears to have been the thrust of the so called consultation - sent to libraries, media, religious groups etc. Not to local residents. 

We were told in one email exchange2 that only 11 people responded to the whole consultation exercise, and the Head Teacher claims3 that nearly 60% were local residents and that 89% were in support. Does this constitute local consultation?

In short, most local residents believe that consultation was inadequate and that approval was rubber stamped.

RBWM has published notice on 14 August 2014 that it has agreed to a lease to Bellvue Place Educational Trust land adjoining Braywick Nature Centre; the land described in this notice is area C as referred to above. As at 19 August no planning application has been submitted and we are told that the application is expected to be submitted in the Autumn.

Work started in early August on the school buildings and the school is set to open in September with one reception class of 28 pupils.

How can the RBWM Cabinet make a decision, on 27 March, endorsing the lease before the the school has submitted any plans for approval?! 

1 10 Households that we know of have said they did not receive a consultation document.

2 Email dated 25 July from Simon Ward, Finance and Operations Director for BPET
3 Email dated 22 July from Mrs Gemma Donnelly, Head Teacher

CLICK HERE to find out a few simple things you can do to help!

More Parking Concerns

Where will the teachers and other staff park their cars? When the school reaches full size there will be 7 class teachers, along with their teaching assistants plus office staff and catering staff. 

How many cars will this be? We have been told by Simon Ward from Bellevue Educational Trust that there would be 'around 30' members of staff.

Are the teachers going to walk 1/3 mile from the overflow car park by the Rifle Club/Maidenhead Target Shooting Club with all the materials they carry to and from school EVERY DAY? 

The council have already introduced parking restrictions and made 8 spaces 'permit holder only' - before the school has even opened, and when it does in the first year there will only be 28 pupils. 

Is the Borough allowed to simply give this public space to the private use of a free school? Where will everyone else park?

What about deliveries to the school? There will be regular deliveries of supplies for the kitchen as well as all the other materials of books, equipment and supplies. Where will the lorries park & access the site? The public car park?

Where will the waste collection vehicles park to collect the waste? In the road on the dangerous blind bend on Hibbert Road?

When plans were drawn for the new Oldfield School in Bray Road, adequate parking space for all of these requirements was an essential component of the planning application. 

Why should it be acceptable for the plans for Braywick Court School to go ahead without adequate parking provision or, indeed, with the parking provision for this to be taken away from a public amenity car park, which was provided for the use of local residents, and users of Braywick Park?

When planning permission was granted for the new Oldfield School on Bray Road it was only after long deliberation and much scrutiny of the potential traffic and parking issues. 

The planned Braywick Court School will eventually cater for 210 children and their families.  When it was Winbury School this number was at most 90. 

RBWM Council & Bellevue Place Educational trust (who will run the new School) want to take over the existing Nature Centre building in Braywick Park, and build a new building on the park itself - plus a large 2 storey development on the existing school site.

Most of the new school development is on land designated as public open space

Will there be serious consideration of the potential parking and traffic problems, not just on a day-to-day basis but for big school events, sports days, parents' evenings etc?

Even if 7 or 8 parking bays end up reserved for staff, what's to stop other staff members occupying public parking bays all day long? Or parking on Hibbert Road all day long to avoid getting a ticket instead?

Will RBWM have to introduce parking restrictions on Hibbert Road to deal with that? What about residents that need to park outside their houses on Hibbert Road?


CLICK HERE to find out a few simple things you can do to help!

Why the 'Walking Bus' plan will not work. Is it just a PR smokescreen to placate locals' concerns over parking & traffic?

The Headteacher of the school has stated that parents will not be using the car park beside the school. This may be her intention, but she cannot make this commitment on behalf of the parents. She cannot enforce this. Some parents will ignore this and as the school grows in size this will inevitably lead to parking problems.  

As we all know, the car park was not adequate when Winbury was in operation with far fewer children. Hibbert Road and Gas Lane are completely unsuitable for roadside parking for the parents. 

The intended "walking bus" or "park & stride scheme" from the Rifle Club/Maidenhead Target Shooting Club car park depends on a lot of parental co-operation and some organisation provided by the school. In bad weather some parents will not be happy for their children to walk from the Rifle Club car park and will want to drop them at the car park near the school. 

This scheme is something that the Head is intending but she cannot force the parents to comply. Even if the scheme appears to work well at the beginning when the school is still very small, it will be much more difficult to enforce once the school grows to full size.

Is this 'walking bus' scheme just a PR smokescreen to placate locals' concerns over the parking & traffic problems, so that they can push through planning permission?

It should also be noted that the road leading to the Rifle Club Car Park is only single track, with no space for traffic passing in both directions. Surely this will end up gridlock with the parents of 210 pupils trying to access it at drop off & pick up times? Have the council considered this? Will they have to build a wider new road, taking up space on the Braywick Sports Fields? (There's a rugby pitch right where they would have to do that so good luck..).

The car park adjacent to the Nature Centre is a public car park and should be available for use by other local residents who walk in the park or visit the Nature Centre. If the school encroaches on this car park it will be reducing the ability of local residents to use a local public amenity, and if they are forced to park on Hibbert Road this would be unsafe.

When construction of the enlarged school begins, presumably all the construction traffic for the work will have to use the public car park. This again is extremely disruptive. It will cause noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents and will also take up space in the public car park.

Remember, when the site was Winbury School there were only at most 90 pupils - Braywick Court School has been 'rubber stamped' to eventually have 210. That's almost 2 and a half times as many children. They intend to take over the existing Nature Centre building, build a large 2 storey development on the site, not in keeping with current architecture, on PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND build a big brand new building RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF BRAYWICK PARK.

Not cool.


CLICK HERE to find out a few simple things you can do to help!

Original planned site for the new Nature Centre was smaller & in different position. Negotiation trick?

In the original rough plans for the proposed new Nature Centre it was to the left of the car park, and smaller - not right in the middle of the park as now proposed.

Is this what they are actually aiming for but are asking for something more outrageous as a negotiating technique to get the original plan accepted as a 'concession'?

Building out on this beautiful park to allow the free school to operate at twice the former school's numbers just isn't cool - wherever they decide to TRY TO put the new building.

Is this because the council is desperate for school places because of their own previous planning decisions and allowing overdevelopment in the area?

First rough plans showing area 'H' as location of proposed new building (click to enlarge):

'Expert' photoshop annotation of latest plans for new building, area to left in yellow was original proposed position (click to enlarge):

The NUT Opposes Free Schools

Taken from this article: http://www.teachers.org.uk/freeschools

What Are Free Schools?
The first free schools were opened in 2011. Free Schools are independent schools with state funding. Any "suitable sponsor" can apply to the Secretary of State for Education for approval to open a free school including private businesses, academy chains, parents, teachers, other schools, universities and faith groups. Private schools can also apply to convert to free school status to access state funding. Free schools do not need local authority support to open and, despite the shortage of primary places in many parts of the country, many secondary free schools have been approved to open in areas with surplus places.

Free Schools Can:

• set their own pay and conditions for staff;
• employ teachers without qualified teacher status;
• determine their own admissions arrangements;
• decide upon their own curriculum;
• set the length of terms and school days; and
• operate independently of the local authority and outside the local family of schools.

The NUT & Free Schools

The NUT opposes free schools. We believe it is wrong that state funding should be given to small groups of individuals to run schools that are unaccountable to their local communities. We believe that free schools undermine:

• teachers' professional status and their pay and conditions;
• local authorities’ ability to plan and manage school places;
• common admissions’ arrangements and fuel social segregation;
• fair funding for schools – free schools are getting a disproportionate share of capital and revenue funding for schools at a time when education budgets are being cut; and
• democratic local accountability of schools to their communities

Free Schools – Free For All?

The NUT's case against Free Schools and a set of policy recommendations is set out in the following document:

National Audit Office report on free schools

In December 2013 the National Audit Office published a damning report into the free school programme. You can read the NUT’s summary of the findings here.

FAQs on Free Schools

This is a collection of frequently asked questions on free schools.

Free Schools Approved to Open in 2014 or Beyond
The DfE has announced the list of 102 new free schools approved to open in 2014 and beyond.Click here to see if a free school is planning to open in your area. The document also includes a list of those previously approved to open from 2013 onwards.

Click here for the NUT’s press release accompanying the announcement.

Research Shows Primary School Place Shortages Worsen 
NUT research shows primary school place shortages worsen while resources being wasted on free schools are adding to surplus secondary places – read the full press release

The impact of Free Schools on Neighbouring Schools
NUT research shows that many free schools will have a negative impact on existing local schools. Read more here.