|1 - £millions might be saved on the cost of the refurbishment if the contract were put out to formal tender
2 - Land sale is an avoidance of legal responsibility and an unsustainable solution
3 - The size of the playing fields left after sale falls below the minimum recommended by the DfE
4 - The educational benefits derived from outdoor space have been proven by countless academic studies and Government reports
5 - The loss of land will forever blight the architecture of the site and our national heritage
6 - The Secretary of State for Education’s criteria for consent under Section 77 have ‘a general presumption against the need to change the current pattern of school playing field provision by disposal or change of use’. In fact, ‘as a precondition of applying for his consent, the Secretary of State expects applicants to present evidence that they have exhausted other reasonable avenues of funding before resorting to selling playing fields, particularly at operating schools’. This has not happened.
7 - Commercialisation of Elliott’s existing assets will, instead, maintain the school for the long term and better embed it into the local community
8 - A fundraising campaign is a realistic, serious alternative
9 - To delay the decision on land sale now for two years and seek alternative funding whilst refurbishment begins costs less than what has already been risked! Moreover, it is proof that derailing the current plans need not adversely affect the school.
10 - Wandsworth has both the assets and the financial flexibility to pay for the school’s refurbishment itself, if it wanted to
11 - The value of a good state school far outweighs the costs to the council taxpayer
12 - The social cost of poor education is more expensive than funding education directly
13 - No option was ever presented to the people of Wandsworth to pay for the refurbishment of their school
14 - WBC is blankly refusing to engage in constructive dialogue