Website re-design

The SWEAT campaign is moving forward. To gain support from the local community SWEAT will be delivering leaflets to 2000 homes in the Southgate and Palmers Green area. The leaflet will highlight the issue that parents in our area are experiencing. This website has been redesigned to match the leaflet campaign.

Please see the leaflet here SWEAT_A5_FLYER. If you support SWEAT and are concerned about the education of our children please sign up on this website and like our Facebook page. This will help us to make a difference.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Website re-design

  1. Emma Fisher

    Hi there. I was wondering whether you had extra leaflets that we could put into local nurseries and pre-schools in the area. My son is at Leading Strings on Bourne Hill and I know that a number of parents live around Fox Lane and will not get into either Hazelwood or Walker Primary.

    Reply
  2. Michael Clary

    I would be happy to sign up to a campaign to provide local schools but your flyer leads me to believe that this may be misinterpreted as support for a school on the Grovelands site so I cannot do so. Could you please provide a mechanism by which people can sign up to the wider purposes of your campaign without necessarily backing that specific proposal? Without that, there is a danger of (a) less support than is really the case for more local schools and (b) artificially inflating support for the Grovelands proposal. The two really need to be decoupled.

    Reply
    1. Jon

      I wonder if the moderators of the site could put polls on the site to assist with this as I’m sure most people acknowledge the need for increased school places but every option put forward will have those for and those against.

      Reply
  3. Wendy Boast

    I’m all for local schools and having had 3 children go through a local primary school I can appreciate the concerns. I’m also a Governor of a local Secondary School. I’d be happy to support your campaign, but for your support of building on the land next to Grovelands Park and your description of the land in your flyer as ‘wasteland’. It is actually an area of land that has been left undisturbed for around 25 years and is now a beautiful meadow surrounded by trees all round. It is peaceful and a haven for insects, wildflowers and is most definitely NOT a wasteland. I would be happy to support you if you were prepared to look for other alternatives for a local primary school rather than building on land which in my view should be incorporated back into the Park. As someone who lives in one of the roads adjoining Grovelands Park I am also fearful of ‘hidden’ Council agendas, such as building housing alongside a new school. We have just had the Council approve blanket licences for the Parks in Enfield despite opposition. So what is to stop them building housing here too?

    Reply
    1. Jon

      I don’t think that just one solution will resolve all the problems regarding a shortage of school places and in a few years time the focus will shift from primary schools to secondary schools and there needs to be a combination of solutions in this area but understandably for every solution put forward (e.g. expansion of Walker, Grovelands Park development) there will always be those in opposition and any campaign has to support something tangible or else it will make no progress.

      Having been brought up in a leafy Surrey village the idea of a primary school sympathetically integrated into a lovely green area sounds fantastic and nostalgia kicks in. Having an opportunity for young children to be educated in a leafy surrounding seems more preferable than passing the problem on and having them educated in surroundings that have little green space.

      Re: your fear of a hidden agenda, I feel that if for whatever reason the land isn’t used for a primary school then it would make it likely that the land would be put to more profitable uses and we’d see housing proposals being put forward. I think having a primary school on the fringes of the park a fantastic opportunity for educating the next generation on the natural world and the importance of green spaces so that they too could take on the baton in looking after the interests if such parks in the future.

      Reply
    2. Tim

      There are 3 concepts, one of the concepts is to build the school on the land that the council already own. This land is adjacent to the tennis courts / rugby pitch (I believe this is the old car park for the tennis and rugby clubs).

      Reply
      1. Wendy Boast

        Earlier in the year residents of Queen Elizabeth’s Drive amonst others were invited to a meeting organised by Bournside Residents Association (or they called themselves something similar to this). The whole aim of this meeting was to tell us about an indoor tennis court proposal, gym and facilities for the Old Ashmoleans rugby club to be built exactly on the land that Tim has outlined above. Present at this meeting were local Councillors, the owner of the local nursery in the park, rugby club members and others. Does this mean that there are two proposed developments for this Council owned land: one a primary school and one sports facilities? Are there proposals for a sports development and a primary school? Why haven’t concepts for the sports development been presented to us? As someone who lives in the road next to where these developments may take place I am concerned at the lack of information available and the effect that alll this development will have on our locality. Let’s hope that the meeting on 25 September will provide further information in a structured way so that residents can find out exactly what is being planned for the area in which they live. The SWEAT leaflet, which led to my post in the first place, seems to indicate that the school may be built on land adjacent to the park, which is the land currently owned by Thames Water and not the land currently owned by the Council. I agree to an extent with Jon that the next thing that will be needed is a secondary school and Gary Barnes was even heard to use the term primary through secondary in his initial concepts meeting. So in years to come there may well be a secondary school on that site too, I don’t doubt that for one minute. However, the Thames Water land is listed as Metropolitan Land and has similar protection as Green Belt land, so obtaining planning permission is likely to be a major obstacle and the destruction of ancient trees to gain access will add to what is bound to be a huge financial undertaking. I still don’t understand why other sites, for example the Minchenden site opposite Southgate College, cannot be considered as alternatives for a primary school or why aren’t we being told what the other options are? We simply haven’t been given all the information and for that reason I don’t trust the Council. We’ve just been through a so called consultation process on licencing in Enfield parks and despite opposition the Council chose to ignore all the points raised, in writing and in person, and agree to licences. So now we are faced with events that can take place any day or evening of the week in our parks. The Council’s consultation processes leave a lot to be desired.

  4. David Weir

    I love the proposals for a school on land adjacent to Grovelands Park. They are absolutely fine and I support them wholly. The fact is that there is a genuine and serious lack of school places in South West Enfield and children are being denied access to local schools. This is unacceptable and understandably the council must do everything that they can to remedy this. Hundreds of local children would benefit from what looks like an amazing new school which, from the plans, seems to respect the use of the adjacent land as a park.

    I think it’s important to remember that Grovelands is a park, an area of land set aside for public use, and not a nature reserve. It is a beautiful park already and I do not see how the addition of an extra square of wasteland would add anything to the park or benefit it’s users. I also do not see how the location of a school adjacent to the park could detract in any way from it’s beauty ( when there is already a large metal container(!) and a pitch and put golf course at the entrance) or it’s use as a recreation area.

    If it comes to a choice between offering hundreds of young people in Enfield the joy of education in a safe and modern school which reflects and respects the parkland next to which it is built versus the addition of an extra area of land to a park which is already suitably large and varied in it’s composition, I would go with the school every time. So, if the choice is young people versus old trees…I’d go with the actual humans and the unlimited potential of children every time.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s