|
|
Post by georgiabanana on Mar 16, 2013 10:38:25 GMT
Hi,
Seems like there are some misconceptions about Church of England schools and their admissions policy.
I am not Church of England but I know if I want my children to attend this new school, the likelihood of them attending is extremely high. I work at a Church of England school and the Admissions Policy generally looks like this:
* Children who are looked after or are vulnerable will be eligible first - therefore it will help those children who need the place most
*Obviously siblings get in
* If you are "practicing" Church of England and have been attending the local church for one year prior to applying for a place, you will be admitted under a church place. If you are of another faith (Christian or any other faith) and also have a letter from your "priest equivalent", you will more than likely get a place.
*lastly on the list is distance. As we are right on their doorstep it is highly likely you will get a place on distance. I obviously don't know how many people attend Holy Trinity church regularly on a Sunday but if it is anything like the school I work in (which is also in Hackney) there will not be 60 children from every year group regularly attending church every week.
The school is proposing to have a 2-form entry place (60 children per year group), therefore the intake should be a broad cross-section of the local community. I, for one, like the idea of my children attending a brand new school which will be Ofsteded soon after opening. Staff will be enthusiastic working in a new school and therefore standards "may" be higher. The school already rates "good" with elements of outstanding "Even though the environment beyond the school can be sometimes turbulent and challenging, pupils make outstanding progress across all stages from very low starting points." (Ofsted Report 26 Jan 2011).
Agreeing with "dionysus1", people forget the opposition to this development we live in and the protests that took place (people chaining themselves to the roof of the old theatre). Whilst I agree that it is unfortunate that some will lose part of their view and sneaky of Barratts to hide that, considering the cost of our service charge, it is no surprise that they operate this way.
Sorry if I have offended anyone, however, I thought the Admissions Policy should be made clearer and we should support our local school.
|
|
bob
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by bob on Mar 16, 2013 13:01:19 GMT
Thank you for clearing that up. This country has a long history and tradition of having faith schools. Long may it continue, despite a few people falling over themselves trying to be PC.
However it seems to me that some will lose more than part of their view. Those that live directly opposite and facing the school will surely lose all of their view. Many more people that live in the Square will lose light coming into their flats. The actual Square itself will lose light also.
Also I am not sure that having a school underneath a block of residential flats is a good idea, either for the pupils or the residents of the flats. The covered playground seems particularly dreadful.
Also, if you are going to bring the old Dalston Theatre into the argument you need to carry out some research on the building. There was absolutely no way that anyone was ever going to restore that building, it was from a completely different era, when Dalston was a completely different area.
Most of the opposition to any change in the area or new buildings in Dalston stems from one person. He would happily see a return to the days (not so long ago) when Dalston was full of drugs dens and squats, Hackney was known as Crackney, and the area was so rough you would never have dared to admit living here.
This person is extremely good at getting publicity for his cause, but is increasingly seen as a joke figure due to his opposition of anything that is not a new council estate or park.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 17, 2013 10:31:57 GMT
I would also like to thank you georgiabanana for making it clear how the admissions system works. This is very different from what I had been told by the folk at the public presentation at the school back before Christmas. If what you say is correct, and I can see no reason at all for you to mislead us (it also sounds a good deal more reasonable), one of my objections has been removed from the list.
For me though, there are still serious issues with this development. As Bob said above, there are the issues of light/view restrictions (the folk in the south facing end of Labyrinth tower will find that the view they paid for will be blocked by a building just 12 metres away: What use will all those balconies be then?), and there will be no outside play area for the children (except an open-sided space between a floor and ceiling of concrete). On top of this add in the issues of access (Roseberry place will become a nightmare, as I mentioned in an earlier post), combining a school with residential properties (I have never seen this before, probably for good reason, and it just does not seem right to me), and 2 more issues I feel very strongly about, and are loosely connected.
Firstly, I do not believe children should be indoctrinated into religion. I understand that people of faith want their children to believe as they do, but that does not make it right. Bob wrote 'This country has a long history and tradition of having faith schools' which is true, but that does not make that right either. We also had a long history of subjugating women and denying them the vote, invading other countries and adding them to our empire, beating children who misbehaved, shall I go on? We realised this behavior was unacceptable, changed it, and moved on into a better era. Religion should be taught to people who can make an informed choice as to whether they believe it or not: Whether to 'have faith', or not. It should not be taught to the young and impressionable, at least not in the manner it is. If it was taught that some people believe x,y,and z, but there is not a shred of evidence to support it and the reason 99% of them believe it is because they were indoctrinated as children, fine, but that is not the case. If the only way to perpetuate an idea is by indoctrinating children, is it not time to have a re-think?
The next, and perhaps most important point I want to make is this: What is the difference between offering a school if allowed to build a block of 99 flats, and offering a large brown paper bag stuffed with cash if allowed to build a block of 99 flats? Not quite the same thing I admit, but not a million miles apart either. This really is nothing short of a massive, back-handed bribe: Would this development get the green light if the school was not being upgraded and expanded? I think not. With all the extra cash Hackney Council is making through Dalston Square alone (check how much you are paying in council tax and multiply that by the 550 odd new residencies the Square had provided, plus businesses), let alone all the other new developments that are happening/proposed throughout the borough, and I believe the council should be paying for new schools themselves: State-run schools, even privately run ones if you like, just not religious ones. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why aren't we all up in arms about this?
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysus1 on Mar 18, 2013 12:35:39 GMT
I actually went to a church of Ireland primary school. I was though to have strong moral views, to be compassionate towards others and to be nonjudgmental. After all Jesus hung out with lepers and prostitutes!! I was taught about different religions and to be respectful of other belief systems. Unfortunately what it did mean was that many Catholics and Protestants were taught seperately and really never mixed socially unless they went to university. This is the only reason I object to faith schools. Not some ridiculous PC values. One of the doctors I work with went to an Islamic school in tower hamlets and she was pressurised to wear a scarf and having to listen to not very tolerable views of other faiths particularly towards the Jewish community. Off course, I am not saying all Islamic schools are like this. Though I don't think these principles suit a multicultural society like London. With all section of communities being educated together surely has huge benefits especially somewhere like London.
The flaw with many views opposing gentrification that no one points out is that many middle class people like doctors and teachers etc have to live somewhere and of course should be welcome into any community. Though we most not forget that we should be respectful of the communities that lived here before us. The beauty about London compared to say Paris
is there is less geographical ghettoisation. The rich and poor can live side by side. Unfortunately, this does not mean we socialise and shop and drink in the same places. So the mix of shops selling luxury goods and pound shops should be welcomed as everyone in the community should be catered for.
The problem I have with developments like dalston square is that selling most of the flats to overseas buyers inflate house prices meaning we all have to pay more for our mortgages or rents, meaning we all have less money to spend on goods and services so demand in the economy is reduced. The only ones that really benefit is rich overseas investors and of course the developers. Having very high levels of rented accommodation in our square means we have a more transient population which does not help with building communities but I suppose brings a bit more spice to the square as it is ever changing.
Finally to Bob- just because I question some things with flawed capitalism and faith schools- does it make sense that many people in London earn such low wages that they have to be subsidised by tax payers in benefits?. This benefits only the rich by getting cheap labour. This does not make me a PC leftie. I was influenced by what taught at my faith school!!
|
|
anna
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by anna on Mar 18, 2013 14:16:33 GMT
I live in Labyrinth Tower overlooking the school, with two kids, and my son didn't get into Holy Trinity. (I went to a church of Ireland school too, but my kids aren't baptised). I think the proposal in the development is to widen access to the school for non-faith students, which would be great. Anyway - however individuals may feel about faith schools and their funding, that's a national issue which we're not going to solve here.
We bought a shared ownership place in order to be able to bring up our kids here in Hackney, where we've lived for 10 years. The new block with mean we have to move - all the natural light will go from our main living space, and we'll be faced with a blank wall just metres away from our balcony. No view at all - all our skyline, all our natural light gone.
Just because people protested against Dalston Square, doesn't mean we have no rights to object to this kind of development. It's not NIMBYISM - I'm not against development on the site per se. I just want the design to take into account the effect on people living here already.
|
|
|
|
Post by argayu on Mar 18, 2013 14:43:49 GMT
There is no way hackney will block this project. The only thing they may take into account is if people make suggestions so the building is more tolerable such as things like the aesthetics, school entrance position etc. I agree the task is a difficult one but if we don´t try and we just give up, we certainly stand no chance of this being stopped it. If anyone agrees, even just partially, with this project that´s fine with them. But for those are not very happy with it, it is important to pass the message that in order to get any hope for this project to be review, they should object to it by 1st of April. |
|
|
|
Post by dionysus1 on Mar 18, 2013 15:29:38 GMT
I am in total agreement with you Anna. More schools need to be built along with affordable housing in London. Where do you put them though without knocking existing buildings down etc. London is pretty populated with us immigrants already choosing to live here. I meant no offence to anyone about NIMBYISM. I personally do not want a building full of screaming kids to be honest. I want no-one polluting the area with cars that they may drive in London considering the excellent public transport facilities in the area etc. Though that's the luck of the draw living in London. I used to live in shoreditch with amazing view of the city. Until 7 years later when another building obstructed my view. Then again my building obstructed other people's view when it was built. That has already happened with the building I live in dalston square. That's why I object to NIMBYISM because someone is always nearly affected by new buildings. I am really not trying to be difficult. We all agree more schools and houses need to be built but there is no excuse for the buildings themselves not to be constructed with as much sensitivity to the local community. It unfortunately needs to be a tall building as London is running out of space. So I think efforts need to be utilised on ideas to make the building and the noise and transport issues less of an impact. If this school is for local people, constraints on dropping kids off by car could be made. There is no excuse that nearly all of the parents could walk their kids to school. This could be a condition of enrolling kids to the school. We need creative thinking. If the school objects to this they are being unreasonable not us!!
|
|
bob
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by bob on Mar 18, 2013 17:06:05 GMT
Apparently this building has been in the pipeline for the last 5-6 years. If this is the case then your solicitor should have made you aware of this when they carried out a 'local search' on your behalf. This search is designed to inform you of any impending new buildings in the direct area that may affect you and your property. You pay for this search.
The final block in phase 3 next to Marley house has always been part of the plan from the earliest days of Dalston Square. It just took Barratts longer to aquire it, that's why it was not included on the model. I was certainly told of this by the sales team over 2 years ago.
We can dress this up as we want, faith schools, traffic pollution, loss of light, noise etc etc. In the end it will look like every other argument of this kind, not on our doorstep thank you!
I would think maybe the area to concentrate on is the covered play area idea, that sounds horrible and totally unsuitable for children. That and the fact that the school will probably be used on the evenings and weekends as well, in what is now a heavily congested residential area.
|
|
|
|
Post by argayu on Mar 21, 2013 15:37:48 GMT
Hi there,
As the deadline (31-March) approaches re any final objections to this controversial [to say the least] plan, I wonder whether is there planned any collective objection to that or is it up to each individual.
I am fine to go the solo-way but guess a collective one would be a more effective, sound and numerous.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by argayu on Mar 23, 2013 17:51:38 GMT
Hi again,
I saw a note from DSRA on the lift (the only one currently working on TT/BH :-( ) on this asking for support and stating 15-April as the deadline to object.
Not sure where this date has been taken from, as the letter sent by Hackney Council (signed by Marie Joseph) clearly states is on 1-April:
"Your submission ... must be received by 01 April 2013. Comments received after this date may not be taken into consideration as the planning application may have been decided."
Please bear in mind this (and that 28-March is the last working day before the deadline) as otherwise sending the objections on the first fortnight of April would be worthless.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 24, 2013 7:16:42 GMT
|
|
anna
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by anna on Mar 24, 2013 19:24:21 GMT
Hi all - we have organised a meeting with the local councillors Michelle Gregory and Sophie Linden for this Tuesday 26th March at 6.15pm in the library (basement), for neighbours to voice their concerns about the proposed development. Inigo Wolf, the Chief Exec of the London Diocesan Board of Schools, has agreed to attend as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilybl on Mar 25, 2013 7:36:04 GMT
Hello neighbours. Below are some of the issues to consider in writing your letters:
Holy Trinity multi-storey residential development: Telford Planning application 2013/0457
Issues to Consider in Drafting your Letters
This is not a complete list of issues related to the proposed plans to rebuild Holy Trinity School and build 101 private flats above it. In addition, not all of these issues will resonate with you and your circumstances. The purpose of this document is to collate in one document many of the issues raised in discussions thus far. Hopefully it is of use in preparing your letters. In writing your letter you are encouraged to explain how you personally will be impacted by this development.
Impact on Dalston Square residents in nearby towers
• Severe loss of sunlight/daylight for several flats. If you would like an independent daylight/sunlight assessment, contact Ewa Evans at ewaevans77@gmail.com. She has been in communication with Ian McKenna of the specialist firms Malcolm Hollis.
• Loss of privacy.
Impact on Square – issue for all Dalston Square residents and the wider community
• Potential shadow on the square from the new building;
• Potential worsening of wind tunnel effect in square.
• Noise pollution (from new residents and rooftop playground).
• A further two years of construction.
• Entrance to the school is on Roseberry Place – no planning evident to address increased traffic on the access road to Dalston Square.
• The lack of public park space in the immediate area will be exacerbated by the increased population from the school and flats. The Telford planning application includes the Eastern Curve Garden as part of its provision for outdoor space for older children (also the Dalston Roof Garden), despite the fact that the future of the Eastern Curve Garden is still not secure. The Council threat to turn it into an access point for the proposed new shopping centre in Kingsland Road is very much alive.
Relationship with Dalston Square
• The building effectively joins Dalston Square but is not part of the same management. For example:
• It is unclear who would be responsible for keeping certain laneways clean, safe and secure (i.e. proposed lane between Labyrinth Tower and the school is a potential safety and security concern).
• Without the same builders and management there is no guarantee of the same quality, maintenance and visual symmetry.
The School itself
• Doubling of pedestrian traffic for drop off/pick up.
• The need for more schools in Hackney is well-known, but this school is faith-based and therefore will only serve a specific subset of the community. It will not reflect the diverse character of Hackney. Colvestone, a nearby one-form primary school would be a better candidate for re-build as it would cater to the wider community.
• The design offers little outdoor space for the pupils. They propose a covered space on the roof of the school, with very little greenery or natural surfaces.
Further Issues
• Many of the properties directly impacted by this development have not been moved into yet and the owners therefore might not be aware of this proposal in order to voice their views.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 27, 2013 8:05:56 GMT
As we all know, there was a meeting last night in the C.L.R. James Library between concerned residents, representatives from Telford Homes, the school's head teacher, and a representative from the diocese, chaired by Cllr. Michelle Gregory (Cllr Sophie Linden was also present), where just about every issue and possible objection was raised and addressed (whether satisfactorily or not) by those present. At that meeting I agreed to lock this thread and allow the thread titled 'School Re-Build and New Flats - Issues to Consider', to run instead. This I have done as it is hoped that general discussion regarding the pros and cons of the proposed development have pretty much run their course, and those that wish to object/comment to the council's planning board can use the new thread to organise themselves and their plan of action. Those outside of the objection group who wish to make further comments are of course still free to do so.
|
|
