St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

[JGD]

However I don’t see how and why you think Julia will delay the process.

Interesting that you have used that phrase.

It is fairly certain that nowhere in any of the many posts in this matter has anyone accused Julia of delaying the process.

Nor is it inferred that Julia's activities will cause delay.

Is it your view, then, that you feel Julia's action will cause delay? Do you know something that no-one else knows?

I am sure a compromise will be reached and a resolution reached but to let developers get away with a flagrant disregard of the planning system sends out completely the wrong message. They must be held to account and I applaud Julia for trying to do this.

Whilst it was the original contractor, with a previous history of this type of activity and not a developer who executed these works in such fashion as to be seen flagrantly to flout planning laws and to disregard their responsibilities to their client and all seemingly without compunction, it is the Council that has taken action to ensure they are "held to account". They have rejected belated and retrospective applications submitted to them and issued an Enforcement Notice. All pretty much text book activity, diligently and lawfully undertaken by the Council.

So far it would appear they have utilised every legal instrument at their disposal to police the breach. The Council has published evidence on their website in some significant detail of what they have considered and propose to accept in principle.

A reasonable view that possibly emerges might go this way.

The differences now that exist between what the Council decrees as being reasonably required and what the Archdiocese's consultants would appear to be prepared to correct is not particularly substantial. It would seem that it would not take a huge step to bridge that gap.

The activities required to reach compromise may still be in play. Council Planning Officers, in presentation, have recommended that they continue to maintain channels of communication with the Archdiocese.

What is not clear in the public domain, is how and what is occurring in these channels and if it needs a "push", who will provide it and how. Not infrequently in these situations there is a choreography - in simple terms - one step follows another

Perhaps there is only one public slogan that needs to be writ large, "FINISH BUILDING OLSPN - NOW"

[Growsydenham]

I do hope this latest appeal manages to set aside the divisive language and baseless claims which have been a part of this campaign.

[Sydenham Syd]

I do hope this latest appeal manages to set aside the divisive language and baseless claims which have been a part of this campaign.

Such as?

[JRW]

Do not feed the troll.....

[Growsydenham]

The campaign against this development has claimed that there were improperly managed risks from World War 2 bombs, asbestos and ground contamination, which were putting children at risk, which later shown to be untrue. There has been a poster campaign around the school vicinity using lurid language such as “monstrosity”. An apology had to be issued after it was falsely claimed children were in the school without the correct insurance. These are not justified tactics.

[JRW]

I think you'll find the planning inquiry will rule on the facts. You make strong allegations without actually reading the evidence, and didn't take up my offer to take you through it.

I have documentary evidence, so can back up everything I have said. The developers have no evidence to back any of their statements, having failed to submit the paperwork. I don't know why you are so obsessed with having a go at someone you have never met, but it isn't a good look.

[JGD]

I have documentary evidence, so can back up everything I have said. The developers have no evidence to back any of their statements, having failed to submit the paperwork.

Once more. It was a contractor, not a developer, who did more than just fail to submit one set of paperwork. This entire situation could have been mitigated significantly and the impact of substantial mismanagement lessened substantially if it could have just been sorted out by paperwork.

The asbestos issue was resolved by Planning Officers in answers made at the last public meeting held in the school chaired by the then councillor Tom Copley. A Q&A session raised the matters of the existence of asbestos on site and had its presence been established and had the operation of its removal somehow been mismanaged or presented any risk of contaminant being released unlawfully.

The answer, in an unequivocally firm response, was that the operation had been fully and properly supervised, appropriate notifications had been made in full conformance with the requirements related to the removal of asbestos or asbestos contaminant and that this supervision process had established that there was no evident risk either before or during the removal operation.

It is my recall that there was a counter to the officer's assertion that, perhaps, paperwork had either been submitted late or had never been published. That point appeared moot and went unanswered.

This did not alter in any way what Planning Officers averred. Asbestos was not a danger to anyone on or around the site at any stage.

[Growsydenham]

Do not feed the troll.....

I just ask that people stick to the facts in a neighbourly way. But you are right, the campaign on social media against the school and the church has been another disappointing element of the campaign.

[two]

I get the impression that Lewisham Planing have no clout whatsoever and are regularly held to ransom by developers.

Just think back to the Greyhound saga, which went on for how many years!

I hesitate to suggest any wrong doing but somethings amiss here.

[JRW]

Well, the Archdiocese's statement of case has just arrived, along with Lewisham's. I will have to check whether I am legally allowed to post any quotes, but apparently they think very little of the school's surroundings, and that it lacks the ingredients for a streetscape worthy of note. That's us told!

[JGD]

Well, the Archdiocese's statement of case has just arrived, along with Lewisham's. I will have to check whether I am legally allowed to post any quotes, but apparently they think very little of the school's surroundings, and that it lacks the ingredients for a streetscape worthy of note. That's us told!

To which "they" do you refer, Julia - the Archdiocese or Lewisham?

Not an expert on status of submissions here, but generally, documents, submitted in evidence of support of a case being considered by the Planning Inspectorate, are probably deemed to be in the public domain already. Unless of course they are specifically marked as "Embargoed" - which in all probably mean they have sensitive information (commercial, state secret type data etc) present in them and in all probability would not be circulated at all.

It is of course of significant concern to all interested parties.

[JRW]

That is the opinion expressed in the Archdiocese’s statement. I'm being ultra cautious about quoting, because of previous events. As Lewisham also only got the final version a couple of hours ago, I expect it will be uploaded on the planning database in a few days time. I hope everyone reads them, as they have to be quite concise, and I was hooting with laughter reading them. Anyone who attended the Mayor and cabinet meeting will have an idea of the style.

Planning Aid for London has found me a wonderful pro bono adviser, a town planner. So grateful to them, as I don't want to make any mistakes in presenting arguments.

[syd]

That is the opinion expressed in the Archdiocese’s statement. I'm being ultra cautious about quoting, because of previous events. As Lewisham also only got the final version a couple of hours ago, I expect it will be uploaded on the planning database in a few days time. I hope everyone reads them, as they have to be quite concise, and I was hooting with laughter reading them. Anyone who attended the Mayor and cabinet meeting will have an idea of the style.

Planning Aid for London has found me a wonderful pro bono adviser, a town planner. So grateful to them, as I don't want to make any mistakes in presenting arguments.

Outrageous!! The contempt shows this was no accident, I cant wait to read it and let them know exactly what I think in some ungodly way!!

[GLOBAL THINKER]

Hi JRW,
Thanks for all your hard work trying to hold the developers, archdiocese, and Lewisham Council to account for this situation. My question is regarding the Sydenham Society. Other than letting you know they could not afford a barrister to assist you have they offered you any other support? Checking their website, their last update on OLSPN was in July 2019, over a year ago. Are they not actively campaigning on this issue anymore? I am surprised they did not point you in the direction of Planning Aid months ago (I know Prince did in September 2020). Not very neighbourly. My sense is that they have in-depth knowledge of Lewisham Planning and it is weird they have gone quiet on this. Maybe it is time for a Lower Sydenham Society…...

[JRW]

I really can't speak for the Sydenham Society on this, and have no idea what their thinking is, so perhaps you could ask them...?

I was told by a committee member that I had offended them by posting a comment on a local forum. I expressed dissappointment about the lack of a public statement on the Bishopsthorpe Road closure issue.

[GLOBAL THINKER]

I'll do that, thanks.

[Robin Orton]

As someone who likes to keep up with Sydenham affairs, even when I've got little direct interest, I always look at new posts on this thread. I'm afraid however that I can no longer remember what the real issues are.

I wonder whether anyone might have the time and inclination to give us a brief summary of what exactly the wrong(s) that need(s) righting is (are)? Are they primarily aesthetic, that we've been landed with an ugly building? Or are there practical concerns too? I have vague memories of people raising points about parking and blocked pavements? Are there also issues about the safety and welfare of pupils?

Also, it appears that the Sydenham Society (of which I am a member) have misbehaved themselves in some way in this case. What exactly have they done wrong?

[JGD]

The developer requested a full planning inquiry, lasting 4 days. The date is not yet scheduled, but there is a strict deadline of the 1st September 2020 for any new comments to be submitted. That gives you just over a week.

Lewisham has submitted their documents, and seem to have included redacted public comments submitted in 2019 and 2020. I am unsure if this is comprehensive, so you might want to check your previous comments are shown. To see them, go to the Lewisham planning website, and search for case DC/19/111793.

If you have new comments to make, you can submit them to the planning inspectorate at
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk ... 363&CoID=0

It would seem that the deadline had in fact been extended by the Planning Inspectorate in correspondence to Lewisham dated 24 August.

24 August 2020

Dear Planning Services,

Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Appeals by The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark
Site Address: Our Lady & St. Philip Neri Roman Catholic School, 208 Sydenham
Road, LONDON, SE26 5SE

I am writing to let you know that PINS have granted the residents of Fairlawn Park Rule 6
status and they will be accordingly treated as a main party now moving forward.
The statement deadline has been pushed back and the new statement deadline for all
parties is 21st September 2020.
Please ensure the Rule 6 Party is provided with the questionnaire and any supporting
documents.
Yours sincerely

As can be seen the Inspectorate revised the statement deadline and the new statement deadline for all
parties had been set to 21st September 2020.

[JRW]

Hi JGD, the revised timetable was for submission of Statements of Case by the applicant, Lewisham Council, and for me as a rule 6 participant. The last chance for public comments was 1 September.

[JGD]

Transparency is all and these matters are not that confusing really.

Here is the summary from the PINS web-site.



The Appellant is clearly identified as the Archdiocese and not Lewisham Council. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) is stated to be the London Borough of Lewisham.

Appellant/LPA Dates for Final Comment are set as due for 15 October 2020.

This leaves the date set for Interested Parties Comments (which is assumed is everyone else including Rule 6 participants) as 21 September. This alteration was intimated in the PINS letter to Lewisham Council on 24 August 2020.

It is important that all parties, irrespective of their stance, have access to and share accurate information.