Forum Topic

MORE housing in Acton - but what about schools?

As you may be aware, there are not enough places in our local schools for the current demand. Our schools are being shoe horned with porta cabins to meet demand - reducing already cramped places to play, eat, assemble etc! Are you aware that the children at Derwentwater have to eat in shifts often complaining they didn't have enough time to finish! There is no space for a new school we are being told - but there is space to redevelop the Oaks to include a FURTHER 124 residential units...are these retirement homes / or for home education only ...as this is only going to add to our problems with school places in central Acton.  Members of the town planning consultancy Maddox & Associates will be on hand to explain the proposals and respond to any questions in Unit 10 in The Oaks, from 10am - 4pm, on Friday 10th and Saturday 11th June - There are some Derwentwater parents planning to attend this meeting on Saturday at 10.30 please join us if you're free. This is one of many proposed developments - Shakespear Rd, Creswick Rd ....What is the council thinking?

ela kemp ● 5581d25 Comments

Maybe the council are thinking not everyone who wants a home has children of school age. i do, or will do soon but you dont solve a problem by withdrawing something else that in this case is at least equally important!Surely you'd be better off being constructive, new schools and new wings is the solution, not less houses! And anyway i think from memory the councils are addressing the problem of the surge in child birth. Its just its taken them unawares a bit-  tho it shouldnt have done, that is another story.

antony obrien ● 5581d

Completely agree about the constructive approach. There needs to be adequate facilities to meet demand, and my argument here is that clearly the borough cannot supply demand for the current housing stock (looking at schools only but I'm sure there must be other issues). If there is space to build houses which cynically I'm sure bring in a fine revenue, what about space to build schools  / or expand existing schools to these ear marked sites?

ela kemp ● 5581d

You may as well use the "it could've been spent on hospitals" argument.  To you schools may be the most important thing but you are 1 person. To a family without a home, id say they'd prioritise differently. And there is plenty of demand for housing, im sure the waiting lists. Anyway its not houses or schools it has to be some of both

antony obrien ● 5581d

Surely you would not want a school on the Oaks site!

Chris Lucy ● 5580d

Personally - no, but it seems the only thing people want to do with any space in Acton is to build more houses, thus adding to the drain on all facilities  - schools , doctors....  I'm am interested to see how the planners propose to address some of this, how this scheme works with the town hall, priory, library and swimming pools regen! - I know I'm asking a lot....logical, joined up thinking is not what Ealing is renowned for!

ela kemp ● 5580d

London didnt become a diverse place by saying its full up. In fact its one of the most sparsely populated capital cities in the world per sq mile. Your perception might be different but i dont like to think if i move somewhere i am a "drain on resources." Anyway you start talking about schools and then its about doctors and town halls. Perhaps you've been reading the Daily Mail too much :)

antony obrien ● 5579d

The Primary School you mentioned wanted to extend, but there is a very strong local lobby against it (NIMBY). Ealing did have plans for an additional secondary school nroth of Greenford roundabout, not sure if BSF's didn't have any affect on it. As part of any sizeable Development Approval, there is somthing call Section 106 - local planning gain (for the benefits of the local communities). Which could mean funding could be allocated for providing local facilities i.e. school, community centre, health centre etc.If you are serious about your local communities and your child's education provision, get involve with your local residents association i.e. Churchfield Community Association or simular. And ensure that education provision is on top of the agenda and fight for Section 106 is directed towards that.

Jim Wong ● 5579d

No real problem, there have been suggestions about new school(s) around North Acton and Park Royal, squeezed in between the new High Speed-2 Rail and the planned new recycling facilities to cope with all the solid waste produced between Richmond and Harrow. My own first school was Acton Wells in School Road, apparently closed because of the pollution in the area. No worry about the lack of drainage (only a problem for anyone downstream towards the Acton Vale treatment plant) and other services in the area.

Chris Bell ● 5578d

I think I remember reading that as part of the Coalition's plans to privatise education, local authorities can't set up schools any more; all new schools have to be academies or free schools.  This isn't exactly localism in action, it strikes me, and it would be interesting to know from Ealing Council how this (plus the budget cuts to LA education to fund free schools/academies) affects planning for the shortfall in primary places in West London.

Thomas Barry ● 5578d

There are plenty of empty buildings around here, both new and old, offices and warehouses, they could even use part of the Palm Toffee / BBC site in Kendal Avenue (but perhaps that is too close to housing around North Acton Playing Fields).

Chris Bell ● 5578d

Lets not stoop to dragging Daily Mail reader accusations into a reasoned forum debate. Currently Acton has 111 more children wanting to start school than there are available places this September, no amount of statistics about London's sparse population is going to change that. If education is a right for everyone..and I believe it is..the council simply have to start planning for the logical conclusions of more housing. Kids of school age...maybe not in every flat, but I'll bet in a development of 140 units there might be one or two who will join the waiting list

Charlie Mawer ● 5573d

Well, in a few years my son will start school. But we can't afford to buy a house in Acton (currently selling our flat) - or in Ealing - as houses are so expensive, so there will be one less child in the borough soon, if that helps!

Laura Wood ● 5573d

i think Charlie, i can mention anything i want to, its a forum, and not one dictated by you. Its an extraodinarily self interested person who thinks they shouldnt build 140 new dwellings because it may add to the queue of children needing a primary school place.The world doesnt work like that as nimbys everywhere find out.

antony obrien ● 5573d

Of course you can say what you like on a forum, and indeed you should because its extraordinarily revealing. When a polite suggestion that local government departments co-ordinate and plan the bigger projects better together and don't work in silos- gets dialled up into nimbyism?? Calm down dear

Charlie Mawer ● 5573d

there you go, telling people what to do again ! extraordinary. may i say i find your tone just a little patronising

antony obrien ● 5573d

Anthony, cities do 'get full up'..... have you visited Delhi or Calcutta recently?

Dee Cook ● 5573d

try reading this: may change your view, may not, people dont always rely on factual evidence to form views...So You Think You Know About Britain? ISBN: 9781849013918..and as far as i know London isnt Delhi or Calcutta so not really understanding your point.and i cant quite see the issue, a person says stop building houses as our schools are full up. another person, me, questions that argument as self interested and illogical. whats not to understand?

antony obrien ● 5573d

Gents both have your valid opinions and views, lets not get in to personal attacks, lets get back to the main points which are:Are you for or against local development to include additional benefits for the local communities?If so what type of benefits (Money, schools, community centre etc.)?Additionally are you for Derwenwater PS to expand or not in order to cope with the local "demand"?

Jim Wong ● 5573d

Perhaps you have an interest in the building industry?  Perhaps everything is interlinked and needs an element of planning by those who administer the law on such things (social engineering they call it) in order to ensure that London does not return to the Victorian age when 5 families would share one toilet and thus peeded/shat in the streets instead - and school classroom sizes were 40-50 so kids didn't bother to go to school.There were 42 kids in my first schoolroom - the men coming back from the war did their bit to ensure the population increased rapidly!  And the government at that time did not anticipate that would happen!!  Result = portacabins in the playground.Encouraging more single people will, in say 10 years result in an increase in population size, which will require more schools/hospitals/etc.  Stop encouraging more people by providing more homes will help prevent this.  To say more people will leave is very unlikely in today's financial climate.  Where will they go?  Not everyone can retire to some cosy property in France/Spain.We need to make sure that the existing population is all 'sorted' before encouraging an expansion of London's population.All good business of course for builders and Tesco if the population does expand!  And a constant supply of cheap labour for others.It is about having a balance - which I see is tipping over and about to cause mega problems, especially in the National Health service and in our schools. 

Dee Cook ● 5573d

I am not sure the facts wholly support you as it is pretty clear the London population is not decreasing, especially in attracting still both UK and foreign nationals to work here versus other parts of UK.In addition the UK population per 2001 census showed for the first time there were more over 60 year olds living in UK versus under 16s, which is not too surprising given longer lifes and reduced domestic birth rates. So longer term planning for schools is not that easy an exercise, especially with "mobile migrants" (both UK and non-UK origin) moving in and out of London.I think Chris "hit the nail on the head" for me around these issues, which is for housing we need to be better at using existing houses and living accommodation, instead of more new council built estates. Having lived many years ago in the Hackney area, the waste of available surplus accommodation by that borough because it would not return run down houses to the private sector (including housing trusts) for improvement and rehabitation was verging on the criminal. Hopefully Ealing is not also heading that way?The money for me would be best spent on "improving education for all" (which includes more local school places where needed, though not necessarily "trophy" academies). This is because given the demographics of the UK (subject to 2011 census affirming trends) we will definitely need a better educated youth to enter the future workplace alongside a middle aged population that will work longer. All the evidence is that current state schooling is not delivering that basic need if some of the recent Evening Standard articles are to be believed.

Joe Conneely ● 5572d

just seen that the latest episode of Ealing Comedy appears to tackle this very issue.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBGXhZS2oLg

Charlie Mawer ● 5572d

no, no interest in the building industry. dont work in it, never would and the less houses built the more mine goes up in value so in fact quite the reverse. i do have a 2yr old who we'll struggle to place in a school in 2 /3 years but i dont believe the earth turns round me and it irks me when people call London full up..especially when its said after they are already in! 20 years ago the phrase "we're full up" was the mantra of the far right. what happened?

antony obrien ● 5572d

I think the point is balance.  Obviously the council has a duty to provide housing. It also has a duty to provide services for residents.  What irks me is that developments are permitted which in no way fulfill social housing obligations (£1m+ houses opposite St Vincents, anyone?) on sites that could provide locations for small schools (ditto - a primary wing for St Vincents instead?). You can puts flats in lots of places that aren't suitable for a school (what about redeveloping that horrible derelict stuff above the parade by the Windmill pub?) but sites that ARE suitable for a school (the Park House block on the corner by Springfield Park - a brown field site - for example) are used to build new flats.

Jo-Anne Pugh ● 5572d

"All the evidence is that current state schooling is not delivering that basic need if some of the recent Evening Standard articles are to be believed"What changed to make the Evening Standard believable, by the way?What's notable in these arguments is that people aren't describing the current situation (clue: councils aren't building housing, private developers are, with increasingly less control able to be exerted by democratic bodies and thus the communities they represent).  Added to that it's *more* difficult to provide schools due to the psychological hatred of 'planning' exhibited by the wingnuts running the DfE, who prefer an unproven adhoc order-out-of-chaos approach that in my opinion has an extremely high likelihood of failing to provide capacity where it's needed in time.Broadly speaking, don't blame the council for not acting when they're being unless there's something they could have done but didn't."it is pretty clear the London population is not decreasing"Who on earth thinks that?  Up 10% since the low point in the 1980s, I believe.

Thomas Barry ● 5571d

Thomas, I did not follow all the recent Standard articles on the subject but there did seem enough evidence given to support their case of decreasing literacy levels in school children in London by the time of entry to secondary schools. I assume your comment is just a general observation on the newspaper rather than the specifics of that case?On your main point, the issue for me is not building houses versus schools but the quality of the education - I think the gift of good teaching and investing in it, is what gets lost in the overall debate. Planning consents and the DfE should not be used as an excuse to stop local councils pursuing that as their prime objective.

Joe Conneely ● 5571d