St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

[JRW]

Good news I hope. Where do we go from here JRW?

Stuart

The ball is definitely in the Archdiocese's court, as it depends on whether they take this decision to the High Court. Personally, I am sure they will, and this will mean more delays for everybody.

I haven't posted any quotes, as I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to muddy the waters. By my understanding, though, the Archdiocese needs to submit a brand new planning application, as their current one has been rejected by the inspector. That means proper public consultation on new plans, and a full planning committee to consider it. If they have used their appeal time well, that could happen quickly, but if they have not worked on a plan B, then it could take time.

I'm unclear about the legal reasons for the ammendments to the notice, but wonder whether it means drawing a line under the mess, and start afresh with a new application. That way, the nightmare confusion of paperwork in this one doesn't slow the process down. As I said, though, that's just my uneducated guess.

[GLOBAL THINKER]

Trying to squeeze primary and secondary school pupils on this small site so you could sell the land on Mayow road for flats smacks of greed and a lack of consideration the pupils and their wellbeing, the Archdiocese should be ashamed. This along with the debacle of Virgo Fidelis indicates the Archdiocese are in the property development business and no longer interested in education. The parents of these children should be up in arms at this shabby treatment.

As someone who looks at this building daily I’m glad they have lost the appeal, it’s one of the worst buildings I’ve seen or experienced. As a parent and resident I am sad that the children have been subjected to this upheaval. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again Brent Knoll is a beautiful example of a modern school fit for the 21st century and beyond. I hope they have go through planning from the beginning, I would happily support a design like this
https://www.lsiarchitects.co.uk/latest- ... ure-award/

[JRW]

I have gone over the ruling, and my (totally non-expert) observations are, that this is really bad news for the Archdiocese. If you delete from the enforcement notice all the text the Inspector says, they are left with the bald statement that they must make the building conform to the original plans.

They seem to have lost all the concessions that Lewisham has made over the years, because they pushed to have the notice thrown out entirely because it was 'ambiguous'. Any ambiguity has been removed, but it is a poor outcome for them. Is there anyone who actually knows about planning and willing to look at the document? I am very aware of the need to avoid muddying the waters.

[JRW]

Absolutely hilarious to see that @RC_Southwark have just blocked me on twitter. I’d be grateful if any posts they make about the OLSPN situation could be screenshot (or transcribed), and posted here.

Talk about godly behaviour…

[syd-gal]

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/1930 ... dismissed/

[stuart]

Absolutely hilarious to see that @RC_Southwark have just blocked me on twitter.

Get a burner account or use a browser (maybe through a private window). Simples - I've only ever been blocked by one person (guess who). I don't see the point since it can be so easily bypassed.

Bottom line is good people of the Catholic faith must be mightily shocked by the people acting in their name. Wish they could do something about it and ridding our community of this eyesore.

Stuart

[monkeyarms]

Has a carbon assessment of the emissions resulting from the building being knocked down and rebuilt been carried out?
Why not?
How does demolition and rebuild of this building tie into Lewisham's net zero plans?

While I have always thought this building was quite shockingly ugly - and clearly did not measure up to the plans - I am very uneasy about the building being knocked down - from a climate perspective this is an equally shocking waste of resources and energy. Yes, there is an element of schadenfreude - if rebuilding the whole thing wasn't a horrific waste of materials, time, money and resources I'd only be too happy for it to be completely rebuilt. But it is.

It's all very well talking about the aspirations for high design quality and the like for the area - but what about Lewisham's professed climate aspirations? Surely remedial work - the cladding, the appearance, the windows - is preferable to knocking it down? We know that most of the carbon emissions from building come from its construction - base and superstructure. So demolition is a terrible idea in terms of climate cost.
Or is Lewisham's alleged desire to be net zero by 2030 just a joke?

This is partly Lewisham's fault. Building control should have addressed discrepancies much earlier on - during construction. My small flat in Brixton appears to have received more scrutiny from Lambeth building control during a refurb than Lewisham have given this school.

[JRW]

Sadly, despite receiving £4m funding from Lewisham, the Archdiocese elected to use an outside building control company provided by the builders, and Lewisham planning and building control were denied access to the site. 'Demolition' is the ultimate sanction, but isn't necessarily literal. The Archdiocese can put in a new planning application for the school, which radically adapts the current structure into something acceptable.

It was disturbing to hear, in the course of the inquiry, the Archdiocese claim to have NO IDEA how the school is constructed. Having fallen out with the original builders, they claim to have none of the plans or documentation. The building that got planning permission was a modular concrete structure, designed so it could be adapted and reclad to be refreshed if necessary to last for generations. They threw up a metal frame structure, and no plans or details were submitted to Lewisham. At the inquiry, the Archdiocese kept saying they would have to physically explore the building to verify weight-bearing capacity for cladding. Personally, I find this a bit worrying.

Hopefully, when they start removing the cladding and see what they're dealing with, everything will be OK, and with a new design to adapt it approved, 'demolition' need not necessarily be literal. However, having watched the building in progress, and talked to builders living nearby, I fear that it will be a can of worms. It is really sad that the Archdiocese refused to cooperate with Lewisham, and ignored all warnings and orders since early 2018. They had already been warned by an architect on the Board of Governors. The very serious environmental consequences of this fiasco need to be addressed by the Archdiocese, whose reckless conduct has led to this point.

[Gemslow]

could you please tell me where you found your information about the school being primary and secondary ages?

To my knowledge it’s children of the ages 3-11.
The school was split on two sights, with staff and parents haveing to constantly travel between the two sights to teach or collect children of different ages. Not ideal no?

I think rather then people spreading misinformation,maybe they should get facts first.

As far as I’m concerned it dosnt matter what the building looks like, it’s the love and dedication that the children receive on inside that matters. Not everyone and everything in this world is beautiful you learn to appreciate what matters over beauty.

In a world where you can be anything don’t be so judgmental, or cause unnecessary upset.

While I agree the planning may not be up to speck the negatively that is being spread has a massive impact on a lot of people. We’re supposed to be a community that helps and supports. but all I’m hearing is anger and hate.

Also to all the people that are fuling the misinformation, you should be ashamed of yourselfs.

[JRW]

Hi gemslow, welcome to the forum. I am sure that Global Thinker simply misspoke, as we all know it is an infant and a junior school that have been brought together onto the one site, with the other sold.

Sadly, as the Inspector's report shows, the real source of misinformation has been the Archdiocese; when put on oath at the inquiry, their stories changed completely. They simply haven't been honest with the parents, or with the parish. This is made much worse because of the accusations they have made about other people, all without foundation.

To move forward, we need to work together an arrange for a decant to The Bridge, which would give the pupils a great environment while the school building is sorted out.

[GLOBAL THINKER]

Thanks for pointing out my error regarding primary and secondary. Happy to stand corrected, JRW is right, I should have said infant and junior.

[Growsydenham]

Absolutely hilarious to see that @RC_Southwark have just blocked me on twitter. I’d be grateful if any posts they make about the OLSPN situation could be screenshot (or transcribed), and posted here.

Talk about godly behaviour…

An unnecessary remark.

[JRW]

Absolutely hilarious to see that @RC_Southwark have just blocked me on twitter. I’d be grateful if any posts they make about the OLSPN situation could be screenshot (or transcribed), and posted here.

Talk about godly behaviour…

An unnecessary remark.

Um, what is wrong about saying I've been blocked? It's funny because it's a bit childish.

[stuart]

May I, for once, come to the defence of JRW. I have been critical in the past of her approach to the good people on the governing body. People we should be charming to do the right thing. But the Archdiocese is a different kettle of fish.

I think it fair to expose their betrayal of their Christian duty of being fair, caring and a duty to serve the whole community they operate in. Instead they give us this eyesore, walk away from compromise and then expect us to pay for their belligerence. And then resorting to petty blocking to suppress criticism.

Ungodly is a good metaphor.

Stuart

[JRW]

May I, for once, come to the defence of JRW.

Consider me startled.....

[JRW]

The Inspector has issued their judgement on costs, and it is available online. The Archdiocese’s application for costs has been refused.
The Inspector judged that:

9. I do not find that the Council’s behaviour in refusing the s73 application or in serving the notice was unreasonable. Evidence was presented during the inquiry regarding the harm caused by the existing development and regarding the proposed s73 scheme which led to the dismissal of that appeal, which whilst not the end of the matter, is indicative of the fact that the Council’s decisions were reasonable. Irrespective of the earlier discussions with officers, and following the withdrawal of the second reason for refusal, the harm caused by the development and the proposed development was material. The Council, with the final decision taken by committee, acted within its powers and I do not find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated in relation to the full award of costs.

10. I have not seen any evidence to indicate that the Council deliberately tried to undermine the applicant’s case by introducing the alternative scheme at the proof of evidence stage, and I accept the Council’s submission that they did so as an attempt to show how the notice could be complied with, and more generally how the building could be completed in accordance with the development plan. I consider that the Council was trying to be constructive and was not behaving unreasonably in the circumstances.

11. The inquiry was adjourned and rebuttal evidence was required, specifically regarding the newly proposed scheme. However, the evidence of the Council’s architect did not only address the new scheme and the applicant would have needed to address the other elements (regarding the s73 Scheme, the building as currently built and the Original Permission) in any event. In addition, not all of the rebuttal evidence submitted by the applicant related solely to the new scheme.

12. I have had regard to the costs decision submitted by the applicant, and whilst this relates to a cost order against an appellant in a s78 planning appeal case, it does have some relevance in respect of the reasonableness of behaviour in trying to evolve a materially different scheme during the course of an appeal. I ultimately found that the notice could not be varied to include the Council’s new scheme because it would cause injustice but this in itself is not sufficient to show that the Council acted in an unreasonable manner, and in the absence of any other factors, I do not find this to be the case.

13. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been demonstrated.

[JRW]

Oh Lord.

The Archdiocese of Southwark is now refusing to accept the Planning Inspector’s ruling, and plan to challenge it.

‘The archdiocese said it would work with the school and independent experts and legal advisors “to consider the appropriate responses including a legal challenge”. It would also try to work with Lewisham to achieve an agreed solution.’

Yet again, this means more delay, uncertainty and stress for parents, and no improvement in the pupils’ environment. No attempt to explore the nearby decant option at The Bridge. The pupils welfare seems to score far below personal and corporate pride.

Parents need to question the Archdiocese’s actions, and not simply accept their narrative. Are they doing their best for your child?

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk ... pplication

[Sydenham]

Well if the development is to be demolished and rebuilt then could this be an opportunity to raise money through a raffle? The winner gets the chance to strike the first blow or otherwise start the dismantling.

I'd willingly pay something for a chance to remove this blot from the Lower Sydenham landscape.

[stuart]

More delay, more expense to the Archdiocese and us. What's been spent and still to spent must be considerably more than was 'saved' by the original cost cutting which resulted in this abomination or to have fixed it promptly when concerns were first raised.

Clearly the church has no regards for the community, the planning system or their responsibilities to provide a godly environment for children. It's this insistence that the institution is impervious to the rights of others that has damaged the church's reputation in other ways. It's as if they never learn. I feel sorry for the poor priests who have to carry the burden of this disgraceful behaviour.

Stuart

[Sydenham]

Hear hear