The Guardian Education Section keeps a watching brief on foul play of various sorts in the education system. So it is not surprising that it was interested by an aspect of the Nishkam School application. You can read the Guardian article here.
The constant uploading of ever more files continues. On Friday 25th September another eight files were added to the submission amounting to an additional 93 pages of materials. The main content concerns traffic and travel plans. The whole exercise is now a case of trying to make up for the inadequacy of the submission, itself a consequence of the total lack of meaningful consultation beforehand, by adding more and more files to try to fend of problems as they are pointed out. And even with this somewhat frenzied activity the major questions remained unanswered and even the traffic issues on which the EFA/Nishkam clearly feel that there are gaps to be plugged still leave a long list of unanswered questions and challenges.
The submission has become a shambles. No one can be expected to keep up with this process of ever more documents being added. That includes residents, councillors and even planners. The latter are hard pressed and each officer is handling a large number of different cases. We doubt that any officer can keep up with this rate of new material added after submission.
It really is time to call a halt on this application and, failing that, to bring it to the Planning Committee as soon as possible with a clear recommendation for refusal.
P.S. All the new files are available on this website from where they can be viewed and/or downloaded a lot more reliably than on the Council’s planning website.
That bad news is that we found that the number of files in the Nishkam application had gone up from 130 to 136!
No one told us. Are we expected to look at the website every day (taking a chance as to whether it is working or not)?
Six of the files are substantial documents (amounting to over 100 pages of text and detailed data tables).
Is this fair that the files for the application should continually increase in this way? They have risen from an initial 72 to the present 136. In other words the number of files has nearly doubled since the application was first validated and a consultation started.
This seems to us like continually moving goal posts. We can’t believe that this is an acceptable procedure. We will discuss this with our ward Councillors and with the planning officers at the first opportunity.
Today (11th September) the Hounslow Chronicle carried the article below.
This article presented arguments about the proposed Nishkam school as a clash between two residents’ groups Keep Osterley Green (KOG) on the one hand and Give Osterley Opportunity (GOO) on the other. In fact there is no such clash because GOO is not a genuine residents’ group but a concoction of Nishkam. Its very poor website was set up by a Nishkam employee (Balraj Singh Burmy). Continue reading How do you Goo?
Nishkam put up some 50+ additional files for its application some days ago on its own website. These have still not appeared on the Council’s planning website (which is still up and down like a yo-yo).
Well, that is not quite true. Two of the documents has appeared but in a really bizarre way.
Nishkam has announced a plan to cut 22 trenches for archaeological purposes. It has agreed this with Historic England. Nishkam has sent a letter to the planners to explain this and also submitted a document from CgMs Consultants explaining the purpose of the investigation and the methods that will be used. Continue reading A strange way to upload documents
One of the active supporters of Keep Osterley Green has a letter in the Hounslow Chronicle this week about the proposed school.
We reported on 30th June
The List of Drawings and Documents has 74 items. There are 63 files on the planning website. Why the disparity? Maybe some files include more than one document but how are residents supposed to sort this out? Just to add to the confusion the CD of submission files that was given to us (after much asking) contains 72 files. We are trying hard to study this submission but it seems that no effort is being spared to make this as difficult as possible.Would it be too much to ask that either the files and the list match one to one or that we have a mapping from the List to the files?
Now we notice, just to add to the confusion there are 75 files listed on the Council planning website. Just how are residents supposed to make sense of documents made available in this way?
Our second Newsletter has been distributed and has already produced a lot of positive feedback.
The Newsletter gave advance notice of a petition for residents who are opposed to the plans to put a school for 1400 children on the Conquest Club site to register their concerns. In the event it was distributed with petitions forms since they were ready and this seemed the most efficient way of dealing with them.
Resident’s are already responding to the request for donations. That’s good because the printing of the Newsletter is expensive and we need to keep up the flow of information. We hope that the next Newsletterm with suggested points for letters of objection, will be ready for distribution next week.