St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
OLSPN Planning inquiry
Well, the inquiry opened this morning, and is now adjourned until 16th to 19th March. Very frustrating to have more delays, but it is cautious and therefore sensible. Belt and braces ruling from the Inspector.
-
Jollylolly
- Posts: 114
- Joined: 8 Nov 2015 12:28
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
Please can you remove your posters and ugly masking tape now
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
Of course. Unfortunately I'm not well today, or it would have been gone already. They will gone down tomorrow. Bear in mind that quite a lot of your neighbours are involved in the inquiry process, and welcome information.
-
Jollylolly
- Posts: 114
- Joined: 8 Nov 2015 12:28
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
I think getting info to people in your group is better through email, text, calling or visiting them then. Not on lampposts! You already post leaflets to everyone individually, so I don’t see why you need to fly post.
-
broken_shaman
- Posts: 170
- Joined: 20 Nov 2013 21:08
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
I get most of my information from lamp posts, which are the council's favoured method of advertising planning notices. Presumably this is because it's the best way to get information to people using an area.
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
Just to let people know that I am uploading evidence and updates on the OLSPN planning inquiry onto the SE26.life forum.
I can't work out how to post images here, and my content is quite image heavy, so I don't want to oveoad the STF plumbing. If anyone knows how to copy it across to this forum, that would be brilliant.
I can't work out how to post images here, and my content is quite image heavy, so I don't want to oveoad the STF plumbing. If anyone knows how to copy it across to this forum, that would be brilliant.
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
On Tuesday, 16 March at 10am, the OLSPN planning inquiry opens. It is a virtual Inquiry on MS Teams; you can watch it by emailing Eleanor Morris to ask for the Teams link at teame1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk.
To see the latest positions of both sides, you can see them online by searching Lewisham's planning website for DC/19/111793. The most recent documents are at the top, and the must-read documents are the Rebuttals, with publication dates 9 March and 25 February. Don't bother with the appendices, just the six Rebuttals; James Hughes, Nick Hayhurst, Rule 6, Richard Matthews, Sean McGrath, and Simon Hughes.
I'm quite amused that the Appellants haven't rebutted much at all of the Rule 6 (my) proof of evidence, after the constant accusations of lying flung at me.
To see the latest positions of both sides, you can see them online by searching Lewisham's planning website for DC/19/111793. The most recent documents are at the top, and the must-read documents are the Rebuttals, with publication dates 9 March and 25 February. Don't bother with the appendices, just the six Rebuttals; James Hughes, Nick Hayhurst, Rule 6, Richard Matthews, Sean McGrath, and Simon Hughes.
I'm quite amused that the Appellants haven't rebutted much at all of the Rule 6 (my) proof of evidence, after the constant accusations of lying flung at me.
-
Growsydenham
- Posts: 128
- Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
- Location: sydenham
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
Concerning to read in the Church’s evidence that the school may be forced to close permanently as a result of this.
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
I don’t believe that I am afraid.Growsydenham wrote: 14 Mar 2021 10:34 Concerning to read in the Church’s evidence that the school may be forced to close permanently as a result of this.
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
The Archdiocese is using this claim to blackmail the council, having got themselves in a mess by trying to asset-strip the school’s resources. They sold the Mayow Road site for c. £5.4m, and this should have been spent on the new development. Lewisham also gave them a grant of £4m, when the Archdiocese decided to go solo and do the development themselves. Sadly, they want to spend the Mayow Road profits elsewhere, and have done the build on the cheap. Green Structural Engineering Ltd's website says the build cost was c. £3m. They are highly unlikely to be serious about closing the school, because under the Development Agreement they signed, they are obliged to repay Lewisham 's £4m if they don't use the site as a school for 10 years minimum. They would also lose the new land, on the corner of Fairlawn Park; Lewisham gave it to them free, for the duration of its educational use.
The hot news is that, as you can read in Nick Hayhurst's rebuttal, the Archdiocese has had to admit that their proposed render over the cladding won't work. The manufacturer insists that the cladding needs to be removed and replaced with their carrying board, which makes it almost the same price as the council's preferred concrete cladding panels. Yet again, they simply didn't do their due diligence.
Of the Rebuttals, Nick Hayhurst is a must, Simon Hughes sets out the Archdiocese's view, James Hughes is good, and Rule 6 (mine!) has some important issues.
The hot news is that, as you can read in Nick Hayhurst's rebuttal, the Archdiocese has had to admit that their proposed render over the cladding won't work. The manufacturer insists that the cladding needs to be removed and replaced with their carrying board, which makes it almost the same price as the council's preferred concrete cladding panels. Yet again, they simply didn't do their due diligence.
Of the Rebuttals, Nick Hayhurst is a must, Simon Hughes sets out the Archdiocese's view, James Hughes is good, and Rule 6 (mine!) has some important issues.
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
I'd be really grateful if anybody who follows the planning inquiry this week could try and take notes, or, if possible, proper minutes. I will take notes, but there will be chunks of it when I can't. Lewisham Council has refused to stream it, or even make an archive recording of the inquiry, presumably because they want to hide the evidence of their incompetence.
It starts tomorrow, Tuesday 16th at 10am,and you can get the link from Eleanor Morris at teame1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk
It starts tomorrow, Tuesday 16th at 10am,and you can get the link from Eleanor Morris at teame1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk
-
JGD
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
- Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (free-transferred to Perry Vale Ward, next to Bell Green; distinct from Sydenham).
- Contact:
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
For Julia (JRW)
Have observed both sessions of the Inquiry this morning (Tuesday).
My version of MS Teams does not permit me to record the session but even if I had the Pro version I would think PINS probably control and retain the right to record, or not, using MS Teams software.
It was observed that the Inspector granted permission, not objected to by either counsel, for the Official Transcripts to be issued to a journalist. If transcripts are not issued to you as a matter of course, why not ask the Inspector to grant that service to you too.
Using a third party piece of software I have a record of the second session, which can be viewed in any multi-media software suite. The first session record was botched as part of the learning curve as to how the software operated. I have re-checked the joining instructions and it appears we are not constrained by any rule that prohibits making a record of events.
Each session is about 1Gb in size - it can be made available to you at an accessible source if you wish to access it.
Drop me a line if that helps and you feel you want to have access.
Have observed both sessions of the Inquiry this morning (Tuesday).
My version of MS Teams does not permit me to record the session but even if I had the Pro version I would think PINS probably control and retain the right to record, or not, using MS Teams software.
It was observed that the Inspector granted permission, not objected to by either counsel, for the Official Transcripts to be issued to a journalist. If transcripts are not issued to you as a matter of course, why not ask the Inspector to grant that service to you too.
Using a third party piece of software I have a record of the second session, which can be viewed in any multi-media software suite. The first session record was botched as part of the learning curve as to how the software operated. I have re-checked the joining instructions and it appears we are not constrained by any rule that prohibits making a record of events.
Each session is about 1Gb in size - it can be made available to you at an accessible source if you wish to access it.
Drop me a line if that helps and you feel you want to have access.
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
Well, we're at the fourth day of this gruelling and gripping inquiry. It is going to overrun, and a fifth day will have to be scheduled. The Inspector is due to do her site visit early next week, and is trying to fix the fifth day in the next couple of weeks. Lots of people have attended, including Grainne Cuffe, the local Democracy reporter from the News Shopper.
It has been a pretty extraordinary show; the QC for the Archdiocese has used an interesting ploy, in being rude and dismissive of not only his opponents, but also the Inspector's authority. He has said to her that he intends to challenge her decisions elsewhere - presumably the High Court.
Yesterday, we had our opportunity to present our case. Cllr Chris Best made a very strong statement about the extent of concern locally about the building, and the councillors' response. I presented our case, Stephanie from the Sydenham Society spoke on a personal basis, and Cllr Alan Hall (Bellingham) spoke for the Home Park aspect.
By far the greatest impact, though, was made by a resident from Explorer House, with live footage of the view from her windows. This made a real impression, and was referred back to several times. Her sensitive comments on the issues of privacy, balanced with design quality, was incredibly important. It has been a huge feeling of relief, being able to have our say, and be heard. There is no doubt that the inquiry is in no doubt about what we have been through.
Today, the Archdiocese continues its case, and is likely to be lively. First up is Simon Hughes, the Director of the Education Commission. His speech at the Mayor and Cabinet meeting was so intemperate, it made a very poor impression. I look forward to his evidence being challenged by Lewisham’s brilliant barrister, which he's unlikely to take well. Then Matthew Ringham the headteacher, and finally Sean McGrath, the Archdiocese's agent.
If you have time, line up the popcorn and settle back for a gripping show, which is deciding our future.
It has been a pretty extraordinary show; the QC for the Archdiocese has used an interesting ploy, in being rude and dismissive of not only his opponents, but also the Inspector's authority. He has said to her that he intends to challenge her decisions elsewhere - presumably the High Court.
Yesterday, we had our opportunity to present our case. Cllr Chris Best made a very strong statement about the extent of concern locally about the building, and the councillors' response. I presented our case, Stephanie from the Sydenham Society spoke on a personal basis, and Cllr Alan Hall (Bellingham) spoke for the Home Park aspect.
By far the greatest impact, though, was made by a resident from Explorer House, with live footage of the view from her windows. This made a real impression, and was referred back to several times. Her sensitive comments on the issues of privacy, balanced with design quality, was incredibly important. It has been a huge feeling of relief, being able to have our say, and be heard. There is no doubt that the inquiry is in no doubt about what we have been through.
Today, the Archdiocese continues its case, and is likely to be lively. First up is Simon Hughes, the Director of the Education Commission. His speech at the Mayor and Cabinet meeting was so intemperate, it made a very poor impression. I look forward to his evidence being challenged by Lewisham’s brilliant barrister, which he's unlikely to take well. Then Matthew Ringham the headteacher, and finally Sean McGrath, the Archdiocese's agent.
If you have time, line up the popcorn and settle back for a gripping show, which is deciding our future.
-
JGD
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
- Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (free-transferred to Perry Vale Ward, next to Bell Green; distinct from Sydenham).
- Contact:
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
Today (Friday), the Planning Inquiry has not completed taking evidence and at least one more day and possibly two will be required to complete that phase, the first of which has been set for next Thursday 25 March.
The parties and the Planning Inspector have arranged to make a site visit on Tuesday.
Any outcome and the final report on the Inspector's decision will obviously be later than was hoped.
Perhaps the most interesting outcome from today's (Friday's) business was that Lewisham's counsel stated its intent not to apply for costs from the Appellant.
Lewisham's counsel expressed the view that the Council holds that the relationship between the Council and the Archdiocese is a critically important one in the joint delivery of education services within Lewisham and that both parties must return to making sincere efforts in good faith to restore a mutually trusted working association between the parties in their joint endeavours to deliver these services.
Irrespective of the Inspector's final decision.
The parties and the Planning Inspector have arranged to make a site visit on Tuesday.
Any outcome and the final report on the Inspector's decision will obviously be later than was hoped.
Perhaps the most interesting outcome from today's (Friday's) business was that Lewisham's counsel stated its intent not to apply for costs from the Appellant.
Lewisham's counsel expressed the view that the Council holds that the relationship between the Council and the Archdiocese is a critically important one in the joint delivery of education services within Lewisham and that both parties must return to making sincere efforts in good faith to restore a mutually trusted working association between the parties in their joint endeavours to deliver these services.
Irrespective of the Inspector's final decision.
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
The Planning Inspector made a site visit to OLSPN yesterday, and walked around, looking at views of it from different vantage points.
Tomorrow, the inquiry resumes for its fifth day sitting, with the evidence of Sean McGrath, planning agent for the Archdiocese of Southwark. It may be necessary to extend for a sixth day, as there is a lot to get through before the inquiry concludes.
Tomorrow, the inquiry resumes for its fifth day sitting, with the evidence of Sean McGrath, planning agent for the Archdiocese of Southwark. It may be necessary to extend for a sixth day, as there is a lot to get through before the inquiry concludes.
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
The Planning Inspector has dismissed both appeals by the Archdiocese of Southwark, against enforcement by Lewisham Council. The full report is available on the Lewisham planning website, search for DC/19/111793.
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
Good news I hope. Where do we go from here JRW?
Stuart
Stuart
-
JGD
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
- Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (free-transferred to Perry Vale Ward, next to Bell Green; distinct from Sydenham).
- Contact:
Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order
Good that a decision has been reached and timely too. The Decision is dated 12 May 2021.
Checked PINS site only yesterday and there was no date set for a decision to be delivered.
It is noted that both appeals are dismissed and specifically:
For Appeal B the Summary of Decision: Notice varied, appeal dismissed and planning permission
refused
The "Notice Varied" element will take some deciphering.
There are two timeframes specified. The Inspector appears to have adjudged that 21 months is reasonable and proportionate taking into account all the circumstances including the harm being caused by the development and the public interest in the notice being complied with expeditiously as well as the best interests of the children. It will also allow sufficient time for a further application to be made, determined and commenced should the appellant wish to pursue a different scheme.
There is a second statement of the ‘Time for Compliance’ may have been set for "...Nine (9) months after the date this notice takes effect’"
Whether this means that work must be complete in 21 months or 9 months timeframe, or if it has a different meaning, will need further reading and examination.
An application for costs is to be decided separately although Lewisham as LPA had asserted that it would not seek costs from the Archdiocese for reasons that have been reported earlier in the thread.
Checked PINS site only yesterday and there was no date set for a decision to be delivered.
It is noted that both appeals are dismissed and specifically:
For Appeal B the Summary of Decision: Notice varied, appeal dismissed and planning permission
refused
The "Notice Varied" element will take some deciphering.
There are two timeframes specified. The Inspector appears to have adjudged that 21 months is reasonable and proportionate taking into account all the circumstances including the harm being caused by the development and the public interest in the notice being complied with expeditiously as well as the best interests of the children. It will also allow sufficient time for a further application to be made, determined and commenced should the appellant wish to pursue a different scheme.
There is a second statement of the ‘Time for Compliance’ may have been set for "...Nine (9) months after the date this notice takes effect’"
Whether this means that work must be complete in 21 months or 9 months timeframe, or if it has a different meaning, will need further reading and examination.
An application for costs is to be decided separately although Lewisham as LPA had asserted that it would not seek costs from the Archdiocese for reasons that have been reported earlier in the thread.