Another question for Wandsworth Council.

In the committee paper on this topic is was stated that the proposal would only be partially effective at deterring short term renting and that it is unclear if the change was worth the effort.

I calculate that the change would extend catchment areas for the most popular schools by around 20m if it was 100% effective, but in reality the extension could be zero if people simply plan around the rules (which has just become easier to do as high stamp duty will lead to fewer house sales and more properties available to rent).

Conversely there could be negative consequences for BTC residents:
-The creation of a determined and well supported lobby for affordable housing developments BTC
-A voter backlash from most of Wandsworth (that didn't support the change in the consultation) against BTC (the only area that supported it strongly)
-Pressure on secondary school admissions in a few yeas time. Some families will be discouraged from buying housing they can afford by the threatened loss of a sibling place and will rent within 800m instead. This leaves them free to move next to popular secondary schools for their eldest child

I appreciate that the Council feels the need to act given the strong feeling on this issue, but the proposal may damage rather than serve the interests of the BTC home owners that it is designed to help.

There is no public analysis of the proposal. Could the council do some research into the likely effectiveness of the proposal and its possible consequences and make it available to BTC residents.

Mmh ok it feels like nobody wants to discuss this with me... This thread is in the most viewed ones but people prefer to pontificate on national policies they have no hope of influencing (yes, I am talking about mansion tax ) rather than help amend local rules. Shame, it felt that we had the council’s attention here, so I guess we’ll carry on having tiny school catchments bearing only a slight relation to where the kids attending actually live. Too bad...
Anyway, merry Christmas everyone.

Thank you honeybee for your kind reply, much appreciated.
I have indeed taken this to the council, twice. I agree that people tend to move out rather than in and this is what my proposal (as well as the council's) is trying to discourage. I just believe that mine does it more effectively without hurting people who are not "playing the system" (and providing people who "have to move" with genuine options).
It would make someone think twice before moving to an address 50m from a sought-after school with the intention of moving away straight after the place is secure. And therefore it would make catchments bigger.

Hi Nosybusy

I personally don't feel strongly about your proposal either way and I suspect that the council won't either - the exemption you propose would, in all likelihood, only affect a very small number of people. (I would have thought that most people moving house would move away from a sought after school if they thought they had sibling priority - as house prices would in most cases be cheaper the further out you go.) That's a generalisation of course.

I'd suggest that you put your idea to them when they release the second consultation plan though, as they do seem to have taken everyone's feedback quite seriously and others may find themselves in the same situation as you.

All the best.

Hi all,
Bumping this up as I have had no reply. I have rarely seen this site being short of an opinion, especially about school distance!
My proposal is simple, you move away you lose your sibling priority, you stay put or move to same distance or closer you keep it! So what's wrong with it?
Thoughts would be appreciated.

I've been away (Annabel, it's really hard to access NVN from China! )

But just wanted to thank Wansdworth for coming back to my question, much appreciated.

I think amending the proposed rule so that it does not affect families who admitted their first child before 2016 and then moved home relying in good faith on the then applicable rules is a fair compromise.

Just to make sure i am clear, if you "have to" move you only have to move to an area which is determined by where you got in from in the first place. You don't have to move to the new catchment. So if when your first child got in from 500m away and the catchment is now 200m, if you had to move you just have to be at most 500m away from the school and your second child automatically gets in. You don't have to worry about the tiny new catchment, just about where you got in from in the first place.

I think the council's proposition is better than the current situation however 800m is an arbitrary number which may have an effect for some schools but not for others with tiny catchments.

I wonder what people think about the following rule:
1. if you stayed in the same address your first child got in from or moved closer to the school then siblings automatically get in.
2. if however you moved further away then siblings would have to get in on distance like everybody else.

This stops people from playing the system by moving close to the school for a short period of time and then moving away. But it also avoids people “dropping out of the catchment” after their first child got in if the catchment becomes smaller and they have not moved home. And if they want to move or are “forced to move” they still a relatively large area they can move to and still retain their sibling priority.

It also adapts the rule to the school’s situation rather than choosing a relatively random number like 800m. Schools with larger catchments will have larger areas to move to, schools with smaller catchments smaller ones.

On the other hand the 800m proposed will not stop people moving in close to Belleville (if the school adopts the rule) and to move 700m away straight after their child gets in. The 800m radius includes pretty much the whole of between the commons, a huge area compared to the catchment.

I proposed this in the current consultation, guess the council did not like it (is it a problem of record keeping? maybe they can explain why). I wonder what people think about it as it seems to answer all the commonly voiced objections I have seen and would definitely make the catchments bigger.

I think that this is a very fair solution to the new proposals and for my family, a great relief if it is implemented.

Petal - Yes, as long as the older sibling was attending the school prior to September 2016 the young brother or sister would still get priority.

Obviously if the older child had left the school by the time their younger brother or sister wanted to start attending, then in those circumstances, priority would not be given to the younger sibling.

Hope that clarifies things

Just to confirm - if a family has not moved house or the sibling has started school prior to September 2016 - they will not be affected by this proposal.

I'll chase again.

It's going out in the weekly on Monday as well so I hope we can get some response soon...

thanks for using NVN!

Bump. Annabel, any news?

I think the better view of the release and the consultation wording is that it doesn't apply to siblings of children admitted before 2016 - otherwise what does "not retrospective" mean? And it really depends on where you read the "or" applying to.

However, we don't need a debate, we need clarification.

Over to you, Wandsworth. We await your reply with bated breath.

Having now read the paper I think that it is clearer. The new admissions criteria would now read:

"Brothers and sisters of children on the roll of the school on the date of admission living up to a distance of 800 metres from the school. Children with a brother or sister at the school on the date of admission living over 800 metres from the school will also receive priority under this criterion where the family have not moved since last sibling was offered a place or the last sibling was admitted prior to September 2016."

So I think that this means that any family who moved away from the school prior to September 2006 and already had a child at the school will retain sibling priority.

Obviously I leave it to the council to confirm but that's how I read it. They do have to go through a new consultation about this though, so there's no guarantee that the proposal won't change further I guess.