St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

[JGD]

As you live in Perry Hill, and growsydenham lives around Mayow, it is of daily importance to neither of you. It's a shame that you don't see that your lengthy posts, and their personal attacks, puts off people from getting involved in a group, that could improve their environment

So you know where I live - I think that's in my profile too. But doesn't stop you publishing my address and the proximity of growsydenham's.

I think you intend it to exemplify why we should not be allowed to engage in this matter. Are you attempting to redefine or introduce new rules that specify proximity and locality whereby only residents of a particular street can participate and specifically only those residents who live been house numbers XXX and YYY? Once more you use the word "shame".

But then SydSoc and you have never been shy about coming down to Perry Hill to act outside your area of benefit and impose Local Listings and engage in Livesey Hall matters - in your inimitable constantly criticising style. How are your personalised and public campaigns being conducted against the CEO's of SGN and Kier going?

As you keep creating such a fuss, I am on the verge of giving up on STF, in which you dominate every topic. SE26.life also allows me to post screenshot and photos, so is much more useful

Me - frequent STF? A lot. Dominate STF? No. Many posters on here are as prolific and more and most have better observations to write about than I do.

Perhaps you have other motives for migrating to SE26. Don't see ANY response there from other posters on matters you raise since August 2020. You do know and you must expect others to respond to your many posts on a range of matters in which you engage. I see no absence of a thick skin adequate enough to deal with some robust views expressed by others and by that, I do mean not just by me. It may be the case that, simply put, you do not like it.

Once more it is noteworthy you add no material facts in your post here.

I am not your judge but the Inspector will be required to adjudicate on the evidence that is placed before the Inquiry itself and in the pre-Inquiry phases. Naturally only evidence submitted that is related to the conduct of the LPA's decisions and processes in planning matters will be deemed acceptable. It is probably the case that rules will require the Inspector to reject the submission of any matters that are not directly related. Even secondary issues may not be permissible and it may be the case that any tertiary issues or even more unrelated matters will be rejected - irrespective of which party makes the submission.

The absence of more details, material and germane to the Inquiry, being posted here (or on ANY local forum) leave a sense that your post of 26 November 2020 has the air of an appeal to drag up matters and make emotional accusations that in fact are ultimately inadmissible to the Inquiry.

You post that you have been granted status as a Rule 6 participant at the Inquiry and with that come responsibilities and obligations. One obligation is to comply with the timetable for submission of evidence, which will lead to pre-Inquiry scrutiny of that evidence along with that submitted by the main parties. It is inferred the submission date is imminent.

You continue to appeal to prospective supporters to join in the campaign - and provide no pointers even as to what principal points you want to see addressed by the Inquiry or why. Some may wonder why there has been no publication - is there a paucity of permissible evidence that will pass through the pre-Inquiry processes unchallenged?

All PINS processes are ultimately open - whatever submissions are made will be published in the public domain, even the stuff that is rejected. The Archdiocese material is out there - you yourself have commented on its contents.

So be open - brave even - publish and be damned. When you make the submission it will be scrutinised and reviewed in pre-Inquiry conference chaired by the Inspector with the principal parties and Rule 6 participants present.

I repeat:

There is one thing that you can be assured about and it is this. My opinion has not moved one iota in that a compromise must be reached. Only two parties can make that compromise - the Archdiocese and the Council. It is my genuine hope that both parties will have already moved on that issue and discussions are taking place and that despite us knowing nothing of those possible actions, that they both understand we wish them every success in reaching an acceptable outcome before the Inquiry starts.

[JRW]

And again,
JGD. Absolutely everybody has a right to comment on all planning applications. You constantly talk about living on Perry Hill on this Forum. That's how I know. Similarly growsydenham.

My point was that this specific trail is alerting immediate neighbours to participate in a group, where they can access full details. The documentation is available for anybody to read online; there is no reason why I should respond to peremptory demands I provide you with my case evidence. It will be available at the inquiry, which is available to all. Were you less rude, I would have shared it with you but you don't seem well motivated in your demands.

[JGD]

Were you less rude, I would have shared it with you but you don't seem well motivated in your demands.

Are you sure your characterisation of my actions as being rudeness is the only criteria stopping you, Julia?

If not for me - don't you feel your Status as a Rule 6 participant would be enhanced by sharing the evidence with the community?

Thanks for continuing to keep us updated with the campaign, Julia.

There are some dodgy precedents being set by this development, and people (the Council, the Archdiocese and others) need to be held to account, especially when there’s public money at stake.

Here is a post that congratulates you. For updating very little with hard facts about evidence to be submitted.

Do you, as Mr Beach does, think that the PINS Inquiry is scrutinising mis-use of public funds? We can see you liked his post.

But then we don't know what Mr Beach knows. He is the correspondent from RTW. Sparkling and inventive individual - sock-puppet master. Often mixes up issues about who is responsible for investigating what.

Are there public funds at risk? Will this appear as an item on your evidence list?

[JRW]

I find it a worry, personally, that council members are unaware of the £6.1m endowment, and that officers of C&YP are so determined to keep it secret that even high level members aren't being told. Yes, public money, approved by mayor and cabinet, but the conditions unknown, and signed off by one executive.

As for the rest, see my previous answers. The public information will be available at the inquiry, and I have no intention of falling into traps by disclosing anything prematurely.

All the evidence is out there, so if you are really interested, you can read it yourself and be in a position to nitpick. Please do watch the webcast of last year's Mayor and Cabinet meeting, and you will get a flavour of the accusations being thrown at council and objectors by the Archdiocese.

[JGD]

I find it a worry, personally, that council members are unaware of the £6.1m endowment, and that officers of C&YP are so determined to keep it secret that even high level members aren't being told. Yes, public money, approved by mayor and cabinet, but the conditions unknown, and signed off by one executive.
...
... you can read it yourself and be in a position to nitpick. Please do watch the webcast of last year's Mayor and Cabinet meeting, and you will get a flavour of the accusations being thrown at council and objectors by the Archdiocese.

For the first time, you post details of a report of some grave importance. I can only guess at what C&YP means but if it is accurate that even high level members do not know about this, it raises many questions that are very serious indeed.

In normal circumstances even senior officers at Director level cannot enter into any external agreement without approval from Legal Services within the Council (sometimes augmented by external Counsel and other professional advice). This legal advice would also contain a mandated requirement that the full Council or a Committee, suitably constituted with the requisite delegated authority, approve the details before any contract is executed. I am not at all sure that even an Executive Mayor can make a unilateral decision to enter into contract. Naturally and for reasons of Commercial Discretion the law permits Councils to maintain discretion over the details of a of deal. But generally some elected members will undoubtedly have insight and knowledge of precise details of what contracts the Council has executed and will in all probability some will have voted for the approval of it. And there is a very effective Auditing Committee that monitors such processes but I don't think they nit-pick.

Why waste time meticulously searching for minor, even trivial errors or matters of fact when there are important issues to manage and resolve.

Have you any insight why some members did not know about this? Do you know who they are and how many do not know ? Were they duly elected and in place when the deal was made?

Would there be any valid reason for a councillor not to know - as per say the commercial imperative described above? Although it escapes logic why a land deal tied to development of a school would fit into that category. Were the details subsumed in a larger deal and it is just the finer detail that is not known about?

You know your local councillors and may have posed the question to them. Have they been able to respond ?

Does anyone who may have responded feel that any actions have been undertaken by the Council that break the law? Does anyone hold an opinion that there has been an infraction of Planning Law?

In your closing point - you bring out a view from me that you may think important.

Whilst I hold strongly to a view that the Council has not done much wrong - and indeed has ensured no precedent is set whereby planning infractions go unpoliced and the Archdiocese's failed to pay close enough attention and supervise their appointed agents and contractors adequately, it will be seen that the Contractor set out to construct a school building that did not conform to the approved plans.

The Council did not do that. The Archdiocese did not do that.

But I do feel that the appointment by the Archdiocese of those consultants who made presentation at the last meeting at OLSPN has not served the Archdiocese's cause as well as it might have been hoped by them. Their responses, arguments and rebuttals have been poorly constructed.

There are specific points that the Archdiocese has elected to act upon when they would have been better served to reject the received advice.

Arguably perhaps they should have adopted a strategy that took the best of a bad position and resolved to work with the Council to make the best of what has been built to date and mitigate the worst of the architectural mis-steps in an effort to reach the necessary compromise. And as I always say - as soon as was possible.

I will decline to repeat myself further.

[syd]

I find it a worry, personally, that council members are unaware of the £6.1m endowment, and that officers of C&YP are so determined to keep it secret that even high level members aren't being told. Yes, public money, approved by mayor and cabinet, but the conditions unknown, and signed off by one executive.

As for the rest, see my previous answers. The public information will be available at the inquiry, and I have no intention of falling into traps by disclosing anything prematurely.

All the evidence is out there, so if you are really interested, you can read it yourself and be in a position to nitpick. Please do watch the webcast of last year's Mayor and Cabinet meeting, and you will get a flavour of the accusations being thrown at council and objectors by the Archdiocese.

Hey don't go you're doing important work and seems like there is something dodgy going on. And I'm not sure why you're being attacked for requesting that the building be exactly as it is in the plans. This is beginning to feel like the Nandos thread where a few seemed to imply the speak for the whole of Sydenham and Prince received a lot of attacks.

They lost btw

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17141&hilit=Nandos

[JRW]

Thanks, Syd. I would be prepared to compromise on the design, but there is no way of doing it until the Archdiocese decides to open discussions. Our attempts to suggest adaptions have been used by the Archdiocese to claim we are asking for things not in the approved design. Durr. That's because you built a different building.

JGD, the person doing all the talking for the Archdiocese on the M&C webcast is actually Dr Simon Hughes, the Director of the Archdiocese's Education Commission. His highly paid agent was hardly allowed to speak.

[JRW]

In case people haven’t heard about this, the very sad story of the proposed closure of Virgo Fidelis school, Norwood. Also run by the Archdiocese of Southwark’s Education Commission, its buildings owned by the Convent have been declared unfit, and most pupils have already been evacuated to other schools in Croydon and Elephant & Castle. The Education Commission told parents of the September intake to find other schools for them - at 3 weeks notice.

The best coverage is from Inside Croydon. It seems there is a long history of warnings about the state of the buildings, but the Convent /Archdiocese’s Education Commission failed to act until, eventually, Croydon Council took action. Its the same team who brought you the OLSPN problems. Sigh.

https://insidecroydon.com/2020/08/18/24 ... buildings/

https://insidecroydon.com/2020/10/01/no ... o-fidelis/

[JGD]

Our attempts to suggest adaptions have been used by the Archdiocese to claim we are asking for things not in the approved design. Durr. That's because you built a different building.

JGD, the person doing all the talking for the Archdiocese on the M&C webcast is actually Dr Simon Hughes, the Director of the Archdiocese's Education Commission. His highly paid agent was hardly allowed to speak.

Thank you for the update on the identity of the speaker (I have not looked at the video you provided the link for) - was he the same chap who stood up from the floor half-way though the meeting at OLSPN and belatedly identified himself as representing the Archdiocese? It was an odd behaviour - why did he elect not to sit on the podium from the outset?

But my point remains - is he acting on the advice received - you can bet they will have discussed in detail before the meeting - and why has he adopted this posture which I think fails to serve the Archdiocese at all well. I will make time to view the video.

On balance though - at the the meeting SydSoc's Chair led with an ill-judged commentary that first stated they had not objected to the plans during the original application stage and secondly then proposed that a very different form of cladding be affixed to the the exterior of the building. That was most certainly an unexpected change.

This alternative was not received positively at the meeting.

It also had the unintended outcome of providing the consultants with an on-ramp to the position that they have (I feel wrongly utilised but accurately) stated that alternatives were asked for. This of course has NEVER been the Council's position.

Tom Copley, who was Chair at the OLSPN meeting, mis-reported the outcome of that OLSPN meeting to the Sydenham Assembly which led to elected members and the Mayor criticising the Archdiocese and their consultants in an ill-informed fashion that was at best un-representative of the views that emerged from the OLSPN meeting.

I am personally surprised to see that my posts on this narrower matter have been extracted and added to the files held by the Council.

That had an unintended outcome of another type - it set a tone of unhelpful criticism that carried through and was expressed directly to the Archdiocese.

So in a reasoned and balanced debate in which a compromise might be made achievable, SydSoc's unfortunate proposal would not have been made but in a position that it has been made, the Consultants should be recommending to their Client that the proposal had no merit, was not viewed as being acceptable to any party and should be discounted in any future discussions.

All parties should step over this and move on, leaving it behind.

Let them get on with finishing the building as soon as is possible.

[JRW]

Hi JGD,

The Sydenham Society position was undoubtedly wise in planning terms; we were advised to demonstrate that we aren't adamant about demolition, and appreciated the disruption to the pupils' education, even though it's absolutely justified, and the only way of delivering the approved design.

As built, there is far, far more cladding on display than the original design; the building has grown, but the windows haven't. This makes the cladding a very much more dominant factor, and changing the pale grey for cladding with thin brick slips would be relatively cost effective. Instead of the consented modular construction, the applicant's used a simple, flat fronted metal framework, which makes adapting to the original design totally impossible. None of this is our fault, and the Appellants chose to pour the concrete slabs and prevent alterations, AFTER they were warned about the breaches.

We were asked by planning to demonstrate that we were up for a negotiation, to help resolve the situation. Sadly, you and other people have seen that in a poor light, but apparently it is legally important. Basically, the Archdiocese needs to start negotiating, because we really would prefer the original design, and that is absolutely impossible to deliver without demolition, and all the disruption to the children's education.

Incidentally, I know for a fact that the Archdiocese knew how badly things were going, from a very early date. In 2017, I personally contacted them to tell them so, and have the emails to prove it.

[JGD]

The Sydenham Society position was undoubtedly wise in planning terms; we were advised to demonstrate that we aren't adamant about demolition, and appreciated the disruption to the pupils' education, even though it's absolutely justified, and the only way of delivering the approved design.

As I lay out a challenge to the Archdiocese in my observations and critique that they should adopt an alternative stance, it is a challenge equally applicable to you and to SydSoc.

It requires that all parties desist from working over the histories and raking up snippets about who said what and to whom and when.

Whilst some of those matters, established only in evidence, will be relevant to the Inspector who will be obliged to make an adjudication one way or another, they do nothing to point a way ahead and to contribute to an outcome where the building of the school is completed.

I do not say that a brick slip façade has no merit. The timing of its proposal was bordering on being incompetent. SydSoc are not and were not party to any meaningful discussions at that time. They had not discussed their proposals or put them into the public domain, or to the school or the Archdiocese.

Given that I attended the meeting convened by SydSoc at the Library (the one before the one at OLSPN) the Chair of SydSoc read out an architect's (unattributed) critique on the failures of design. I cannot say I recall brick slip façades being mooted at that meeting.

It was your announcement that revealed SydSoc did not want to be a party represented at the Inquiry although I cannot quite recall on what grounds they made that decision or if any reasons were published.

So in addition to my asking that parties (Council, Officers and elected members, Archdiocese and their appointed agents and consultants all) desist from fruitless raking over the histories and instead invest and dedicate their efforts to working up a solution, I politely extend that invitation to you and your campaign too.

[JRW]

Thank you for your opinion, JGD, but it isn't down to you. You are not living close enough to be affected, and as I said, I am calling for immediate neighbours to get involved. I don't think it is reasonable for you to insist on controlling other people's issues. If you don't like my posts, you can always ignore them.....

[Growsydenham]

I find it a worry, personally, that council members are unaware of the £6.1m endowment, and that officers of C&YP are so determined to keep it secret that even high level members aren't being told. Yes, public money, approved by mayor and cabinet, but the conditions unknown, and signed off by one executive.

Sounds much like the claims about asbestos, the wartime bombs and the dangerous lack of insurance... throwing out claims based on half-understood documents in the hope any bit of it sticks

[JRW]

Always interesting to hear from you, Growsydenham. Have you actually read a single document about the case? Looked at the officers' report? Watched the webcast of the Mayor and Cabinet meeting? Or are you just happy to make totally unfounded accusations about me? You wouldn't be personally affected by this case, so snide comes easy.

Of course, your) project relies on support from councillors, so I could see why you would want to please them.

[Growsydenham]

Of course, your) project relies on support from councillors, so I could see why you would want to please them.

How do you mean?

[JRW]

Latest news for the immediate neighbours of OLSPN school.

I have, once again, had posters taken down within hours of my putting them up. They are merely an alert, allowing people to follow the online planning inquiry; it is sad that they were ripped down by someone who wishes to keep you uninformed. Email me on fairlawnparkplanning@gmail.com to keep in touch. Full details available on SE26.life, where I can post images.

The Planning Inspectorate has agreed that anyone who wishes to register as an objector, represented by me, can do so in absolute confidence. Names lodged with the Planning Inquiry can be kept confidential, on request, from both the Archdiocese and Lewisham Council. This has been agreed in light of threats and intimidation directed at me for participating in the process. Anyone who is concerned at possible issues in challenging the school, parish, or council can sign up privately.


The Archdiocese had £7m in the kitty - £3m from Lewisham Council, and £4m plus from the sale of the Mayow Road site. This gives them the money required to bring the site up to an acceptable standard; the council has shown restraint in not asking for their money back, as they are entitled due to multible breaches of the development agreement by the Archdiocese.

The Archdiocese have also fenced off a large section of the site, which lies derelict, further restricting playground space. If you are a parent of OLSPN pupils, ask why the Archdiocese is refusing to spend the school's resources to deliver a quality site for your children. £7m would have produced a quality site, and paid for a full decant so the pupils didn't have to have their education disrupted by learning on a building site.

[JRW]

Joy to the world. On Christmas eve, the responsible Lewishambles officer told me that, due to COVID-19 striking the Archdiocese’s agent, the planning inquiry’s statement of common ground hadn’t been progressed. That means there has been no agreement on how to limit the scope of the inquiry, or to save time by agreeing some things in advance.

Covid is grim, and my sympathies go to anyone who catches it. This does not explain, however, why no progress was made in the last year, and why it has all been left until days before the ultimate deadline. There has been plenty of time, and absolutely no progress made by either the Archdiocese, or the Lewisham team.

[Sideofham]

Joy to the world. On Christmas eve, the responsible Lewishambles officer told me that, due to COVID-19 striking the Archdiocese’s agent, the planning inquiry’s statement of common ground hadn’t been progressed. That means there has been no agreement on how to limit the scope of the inquiry, or to save time by agreeing some things in advance.

Covid is grim, and my sympathies go to anyone who catches it. This does not explain, however, why no progress was made in the last year, and why it has all been left until days before the ultimate deadline. There has been plenty of time, and absolutely no progress made by either the Archdiocese, or the Lewisham team.

Don't give up on this, your tenacity is going to break em in the end and believe me when it does finally break it's gonna be as big, if not bigger than Watergate.

When the film gets made I can see Al Pacino playing the archdiocese, Michael Caine playing the mayor of Lewisham and Julia Roberts playing your goodself.

[JRW]

Well, only two days until the inquiry starts, at 10am on Tuesday, and if anyone wants to listen in, please email Eleanor Morris at teame1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk and ask for the link.

Several of you have wanted to know the schedule: it’s all still to be determined. The Archdiocese is trying to postpone the whole inquiry, but the Inspector has decided to open on Tuesday, and negotiate the legal technicalities then. It will run on all day Tuesday, and probably all day Wednesday.

At that point there will be an adjournment, as the Archdiocese is running so many different arguments that it’s been agreed to need a four day inquiry. The second two days are to be confirmed, some time in March.

Tuesday promises to be a lively event, so do log in for half an hour to get a flavour of it. Would you believe, the Archdiocese and Lewisham only registered the bulk of their evidence in the last week!

[JRW]

Rejoice! Less than 24 hours before the OLSPN planning inquiry opens, the core documents have been uploaded onto the Lewisham planning website. Search for DC/19/111793, and you will find the treasure trove. The top documents are the most recent, so start from there.

I am trying to get Lewisham to webcast the inquiry, so people can catch up at their convenience. E-enquiries have frequent unscheduled breaks, and people can’t necessarily attend at the specific times. If you think it’s a good idea, please email a Councillor now. The planning inspectorate is OK with it, but both Lewisham and the Appellants would have to agree before it was possible.