Talk:Streatham and Clapham High School
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Massive vandalism
[edit]This page is experiencing massive vandalism (possibly by only one person, User talk:Mary170/User talk:Mary17 and may need some sort of protection. ΨνPsinu 23:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Categories for discussion: nomination of various 'Former pupils' categories
[edit]The 'former pupils' category associated with this school has been nominated for renaming, along with all similar categories. Comments are invited at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Occuli (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Proposed new section: Pupil count planning breach and application to expand
[edit]Given the contested nature of many recent edits on this page, and the WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION concerns about its current content, I thought it best to set this edit out on Talk rather than just plough straight in under WP:BOLD. I will contact the Wikipedia editor who has most recently been involved with the page to let him know about the suggested edit, and wait for a response before taking any further action.
The suggested text is below. It hopefully meets Wikipedia policy as follows:
- WP:V as every statement cites either a recognised news source (the South London Press story linked is currently the top Google result for "Streatham and Clapham High School" under "News"), or Lambeth Council and UK Goverment web pages: in particular, while there is a site marshalling the arguments of objectors at West Streatham Resident, this would appear invalid as a source since it is self-published.
- WP:ROC since the issue will be of interest to pretty much anyone either connected directly with the school, or living near to it.
I would also hope that it is sufficiently neutral in tone - I have attempted to limit it to stating facts rather than, for instance, expressing a view on the merits of the application itself - but welcome suggestions for how the text below might be improved in this respect, or indeed any other.
Thanks, West Streatham Resident (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Pupil count planning breach and application to expand
Since the start of the 2018/19 academic year, the school has been in breach by over 50 pupils of its planning limit of 505: the ultimate resolution of this situation is yet to be decided [1]. In July 2019 the school made a planning application to Lambeth Council to expand to 650 pupils [2]. This application has run into local opposition, with a large number of objections [3].
A final determination of the outcome may be some way off: the Council Planning Application Committee will not consider the application before 15 October 2019 at the earliest [4], and if this results in refusal then any subsequent appeal will move resolution back by several months [5].
Update - having heard back from the editor, I'll make the change - the only difference from the above being improved citations. West Streatham Resident (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/threat-to-streatham-and-clapham-high-school-students-if-school-expansion-plan-is-thrown-out/
- ^ https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/centralDistribution.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=PU0SLPBOHWL00
- ^ https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=PU0SLPBOHWL00
- ^ https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=600
- ^ https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appeals-average-timescales-for-arranging-inquiries-and-hearings#planning-including-listed-building-appeals
Text On Current Breach Of Planning Conditions Restored: A note on verification, relevance and choice of language
[edit]I have restored the text on the current breach of planning conditions on pupil numbers (including the reference to the associated news story), and have added extra references to provide further verification of the details of the planning control breach.
Given the WP:COI issues around this page, I imagine that my restoration may well be contested, so I would like to set out at this point why I believe that:
- The information is not only true, but is verifiable to Wikipedia's standards
- The information is relevant to this page
- The information is set out using appropriate language in that the use of the term "breach" is the way that this state of affairs would ordinarily be described
I hope that the below will provide sufficient grounds to give those concerned pause, rather than their simply attempting to entirely remove or otherwise redact the information again. If this looks like devolving into an edit war, we can try and get a higher-level Wikipedian to mediate - but I thought it might be worth spending some initial time and effort setting out why I believe this edit is justified first.
(Note: I've also edited the description of the community views: "mixed support" is not a good description given that there are more objections than expressions of support, but my original casting gave the impression all views were negative and this was also inaccurate. Hopefully "mixed views" captures things well enough.)
On whether the information is verifiable to Wikipedia's standards
The planning control breach is a matter of public record, not "alleged" (as stated by a recent user in their attempts variously to remove and then alter the section concerned).
This is attested to by the news story referenced in the sentence, which was written by a third party professional news source who contacted both the school and Lambeth Council for comment: https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/threat-to-streatham-and-clapham-high-school-students-if-school-expansion-plan-is-thrown-out/
The facts can also be directly verified from Lambeth Council planning documents, which I have additionally referenced to in the restored sentence:
- The planning condition to cap pupils at 505 is set out here: 14/01361/FUL: Application for 2014 building work: Documents, 14Aug2014 Decision Notice, Condition 33
- The school's own figures on pupil count are set out here: Planning Application 19/02374/VOC (To increase pupil cap from 505 to 650), 02Jul2019 Planning Statement, Section 6.14
Hopefully that establishes we are indeed talking about information that meets Wikipedia standards on verifiability - although the third-party news source alone surely should have been enough to do that.
On whether the information is relevant to this page
I would have thought that a school being in the situation of having more than 50 pupils above planning limits, with the final resolution of the situation potentially in dispute for months to come, was highly relevant to pretty much anyone with even the vaguest interest in the school.
It's clear that not everyone is wildly happy with the information being present on this page: but Wikipedia pages are not supposed to be adverts, they are supposed to hold verified, relevant information - and surely this information qualifies as such.
On whether the use of the term "breach" is accurate and appropriate
Finally, as to whether the use of the term "breach" is appropriate to describe the situation: the UK Govt at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ensuring-effective-enforcement#planning-enforcement--overview says that "A breach of planning control is defined in section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as [...] failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted."
So unless/until the school either reduces its pupil numbers to 505, or gains planning permission of the higher number of pupils that it currently has, it would seem appropriate to describe it as currently in breach of planning conditions.
West Streatham Resident (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Note - have just removed the section in question since the expansion is now approved, which also resolves the breach. Will only revert this if there is some change to the application's status, which appears unlikely.