Sydenham Assembly Wednesday 13th June 2018

[JRW]

Come to the Sydenham Assembly at 7pm on Wednesday the 13th June at the Sydenham Centre.
On the agenda: how Lewisham intends to enforce planning breaches at St Philip Neri school, Sydenham. Also, details of the Sydenham Fun Palace events.

[JRW]

For details of the St Philip Neri issues, see the topic strand.

It would be great if people involved in the Fun Palace events could post some information here for us to read. Despite attending the last Assembly, I am not at all sure I know what a Fun Palace actually is!

[Pally]

I'm hoping to come but can't confirm yet

[JRW]

Speak now, or put up with it for life!

Sydenham Assembly
Wednesday 13th June 7-9pm at the Sydenham Centre.

On the agenda:
Ask how Lewisham plans to enforce planning breaches re the exterior appearance of St Philip Neri school redevelopment.

Sydenham Fun Palace events, October 2018

[Growsydenham]

Has the council established there are breaches at this stage?

[JRW]

Yes, Lewisham has acknowledging that there are planning breaches on the St Philip Neri school redevelopment.

Chris Best writes in the new Syd Soc newsletter, on page 4.
"I know a number of residents are concerned with the look of the new Our Lady and At Philip Neri School. The planning department is committed to the original signed-off designs.

Contrary to what may have been conveyed to the school or others via the builders and the employer's agent, the planning department has not signed off any changes to the design. Indeed they have informed the builder that the installed cladding has not (as per the planning conditions) been signed off, as not only have the builders not provided an initial sample for approval, but the cladding is of insufficient quality. Design principles must stand, and the quality of the material needs to be sufficient."

An email response from Simon Chalcraft, the St Philip Neri Planning Enforcement officer, agrees the cladding is a problem, and that the builders need to go through planning and public consultation before acting. He went on to say:
"........ In regards to the height and scale of the building, after visiting the site, we could see no reason to dispute that the dimensions approved have not been adhered to. But the materials remained the main, overall concern."

I think that this doesn't go far enough, as the greatly increased height and bulk of the building will not be ok, even with upgraded cladding.

Each of these statements includes an invitation to the Sydenham Assembly to ask for more information.

[JGD]

"........ In regards to the height and scale of the building, after visiting the site, we could see no reason to dispute that the dimensions approved have not been adhered to. But the materials remained the main, overall concern."
.

Good reply Julia.

The roof line change is clear and evident but I did not know the dimensional aspects were not conformant to the submitted plans. Do you know by how much ?

If the building owners and/or agents and/or builders do not comply with the planner's requirements, the planner's ultimate sanction may be to instruct the removal of the building.

There are many steps where compromise can be achieved between where the situation is now and that ultimate position - and I have never known a public building or school to suffer such sanction.

[Growsydenham]

Wow - thanks for the update. I was not aware of these developments.

[JRW]

Come to the Assembly on Wednesday 13th June 2018. It is going to get lively! Your chance to grill a planner and the councillors on how action against the Monstrosity is to be enforced.

[JRW]

The planners are admitting a 1 metre excess height based on plans, but I believe it is more like 3 metres.Tom Copley our new councillor is pressing them to investigate this further. In planning terms, even 1 metre is a massive breach.

[JRW]

My objection to the Boundaries planning application: please do object yourself online. Difficult to contain yourself to 1,000 characters, and cover all the issues........

"I object strenuously to this application, which bears no relation to the permitted design.

Greatly increased height and bulk; the building now lacks the proportions, articulation and detail of the original. PVC windows set flush, their format, colour and inferior quality materials detract from the visual effect, especially as the existing building has a lower proportion of window in each elevation. They also breach the regulations by opening on the Sydenham Road aspect.

The loss of the approved deep reveals, recessed elements and altered roofline has produced a loss of shadow and articulation to the facades, and created the impression of a giant industrial estate warehouse dropped from the sky.

The Fairlawn wall and gate are aesthetically painful; the paint is strident, and putting 3 metres of shrieking blue fence at the end of small gardens is very intrusive. The gate is unfit for purpose in child protection, leaving the infants playground unscreened. Improvised screening by the school is unlikely to be attractive; using reflective film on the ground floor windows has been unacceptable."

[TredownMan]

The gate is unfit for purpose in child protection, leaving the infants playground unscreened.

Is that the rules now? How terribly sad.

[JRW]

I think the kindergarten needs screening from pollution as much as anything. Re the privacy, this particular school has always been quite paranoid about screening, hence planting a couple of dozen russian vine on the fence. I don't know if it is the law, but it is certainly a trend for primary schools, and I really don't want the school to improvise something to make them feel comfortable about security, bio or otherwise!

[TredownMan]

I see a decision was taken to flypost the Conservation Area about this, which is an unfortunate precedent, given the calls for others (such as the gym) to stop doing the same.

[Tim Lund]

From the latest SydSoc eNewsletter:

Sydenham Society motion to the Sydenham Assembly

7pm - 9pm, Wednesday 13 June

Sydenham Centre
44a Sydenham Road
SE26 5QX

Our Lady & St Philip Neri School re-build


The Sydenham Assembly calls for a public meeting to be held well before the start of the school summer holiday to discuss the rebuilding of the school.

The building has not been constructed in accordance with the planning permission granted in 2016, yet it has been occupied by children and staff. It should be re-built strictly in line with the original planning permission even if this means substantial reconstruction.

The public meeting should be held in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (as set out in the Lewisham Development Framework) and all stakeholders (local residents, the school, councillors, the developers and relevant officers from Lewisham Council) should be present.

Seems a bit excessive to me. How will parents whose kids' education is disrupted feel? I'm not sure that this is well judged.

[TredownMan]

I’m sure worried parents would also like the Syd Soc to expand on the claim online today that “School children put at risk in a building which hasn’t any insurance and not passed building regs.” Should they be keeping their children at home if so?

[JRW]

The Syd Soc did not flypost the conservation area. I did this personally, on my own account, and fully intend to remove them all tomorrow. You may have noticed they are tied on, so they can be removed easily. I believe the previous issues raised have been over businesses using semi permanent adverts, and posts for long-past events which are left up indefinitely.

Re the legal position on the school, the council has an opportunity to clarify this point tonight. While it may cause concern, surely it is better to check this status, as the school building has certainly not been signed off, and so should not be occupied. If I had a child there, I would rather know the truth Would you rather it was kept quiet, and say 'fingers crossed it is ok'?

Re the potential disruption to the children's education, this has been in the hands of developers who refused to respond to the planning department over a long period of time. Who have flouted all legal requirements for consultation, compliance, and safety standards. Who didn't want to pay to use the Brent Knoll old site for a decant, despite gaining a lucrative development opportunity by freeing up the infant school site on Mayow Road. The developers have relied on using emotional blackmail to get retrospective planning permission, because of worries about the children's education. I don't think this is an acceptable way to behave, and the school can still decant to Brent Knoll, and education will be delivered well, conveniently close to the infant school. The only disruption will be to the archdiocese finances, which is the predictable result of building without planning permission.

[Sydenham]

Remember this isn't a council school - it is run by a Church - Roman Catholic. Archdiocese of Southwark is the organisation responsible from their website. So the council are only the planners and approvers with some responsibility for safety and compliance.

In my mind the Archdiocese should be subject to the normal rules of planning and take the consequences for any errors. At least they have some funds to mitigate against errors - not a draw on the public purse. Too early at is stage to talk about allowing the school to get away with non compliance because it might affect the children. Just recently Adamsrill students were rehoused up near Kirkdale - did any suffer as a result?

I'm more interested in who made the decision to ignore the approved plans within the organisation and why. Is it clear where the error lay - if a sub-contractor then perhaps professional indemnity insurance will pay for the implications of rehousing the pupils whilst things are resolved - that is if any remedial work is required.

Or was it just cynicism that no one would dare stop them?

Perhaps an invitation should be sent to the boss himself - Archbishop Peter Smith - to explain. Always best to get the head man involved.


But lets not have another Greyhound debacle which took years to resolve.....

[Larky]

Brent Knoll old school on Mayow Road was not in a fit state to be used, which is why the children did not move into it.

[TredownMan]

So is the school actually a safety risk to children? Or is the rumour just being aired? This isn't intended as snarkiness. Just think parents would appreciate urgent clarification on what is actually established and what's just speculation.