OLSPN High Court hearing

[JRW]

The OLSPN School planning enforcement appeal reaches the High Court next week. It will be heard by Mrs Justice Lang DBE in the Planning Court of the Queen's Bench, on Tuesday November 16th. It will be held at the RCJ, and I am not sure whether you can follow it virtually.

CO/2033/2021& CO/2178/2021:
RC Archdiocese of Southwark
v
[1] SSHCLG &
[2] LB Lewisham [M-00952324]

[JRW]

The Archdiocese of Southwark has had its appeal against planning enforcement refused on each of its grounds. When the written notice is published, it will be posted on SE26.life.

[stuart]

Thank you JRW. Another delaying tactic out of the way - but what of the next step? What does the Archdiocese now have to do when? Apologies if you have posted that already but this sad saga is so long running it's hard to rember everything that went wrong ...

Stuart

[JRW]

Tbh, the High Court judge dismissed every one on their grounds, and gave them short shrift, so they'd be very unwise to appeal it. However, I've thought that before, so I did check with a barrister, and it is technically possible for them to try. There is an extremely brief window of opportunity for them to do that, so it wouldn't take long to go through the process.

It's all very sad; it's impossible to be happy about 'winning', when so many people have been betrayed - pupils, parents, staff, and neighbours. Predicting the Archdiocese's next move is difficult, because it seems to be a matter of pride and asserting power, rather than using common sense. I also have no idea what their current enrolment numbers are, which will be crucial.

My pipe dream is that the school becomes an RC academy, and we never have to deal with the Archdiocese Education Commission again. In the real world, though, it seems unlikely. At least the Bell Green Neighbourhood Forum is in place, and will be able to ensure proper public consultation on the plans they must now submit.

[JRW]

Forgot to say, the good news is that, as from now, failure to comply with the order bears criminal sanctions.....

[JGD]

The Archdiocese of Southwark has had its appeal against planning enforcement refused on each of its grounds. When the written notice is published, it will be posted on SE26.life.

Thank you for the update Julia.

Lewisham as the LPA and through its QC at the PINS stage reached out to the school and the Archdiocese and stated that they valued them as partners in delivery of education within the borough. Lewisham underpinned this position by declaring they would not seek reimbursement of costs incurred for the Inquiry from the Archdiocese.

This was an open and transparently genuine offer and once more the Archdiocese declined to co-operate and elected to proceed to the Appeal, to all intents implicitly rejecting Lewisham's efforts of rapprochement and once more they have failed to succeed in any single element of their proposals made at Inquiry and now Appeal.

The community has had enough of this misguided and insular approach from the Archdiocese. An aggressive style of Project Management and Public-Relations-by-Megaphone has failed them at every turn and perhaps, entirely, in a foreseeable fashion. The time has been reached for a judicious approach to be adopted and a ditching of the styles that have weakened the Archdiocese and harmed the community.

If the Archdiocese must alter its course and deploy a moderated response in step with taking corrective measures laid out lawfully for them to follow by Lewisham Planning - it may have to alter the make-up of its property team.

These seemingly uncontrolled measures of negativity, emergent from within the Archdiocese, has so far generated bad advice that has diminished their position and damaged them reputationally.

[GLOBAL THINKER]

I won't say great news, it is a sad situation. BUT does that mean we can expect and high quality award winning design instead? They can use Brent Knoll School as a template.

[JGD]

Official statement: Our Lady and St Philip Neri School (17 November 2021)
Officers of the Archdiocese of Southwark were surprised and disappointed that Mrs Justice Lang DBE yesterday refused permission to appeal the inspector’s refusal of planning permission for Our Lady and St Philip Neri and that she further refused permission to appeal the inspector’s decision upholding and varying the Enforcement Notice that hangs over the school. They do not agree with the rationale behind these decisions, nor the evidence upon which they were based.

The decision to seek permission to appeal the inspector’s decisions was carefully considered by officers of the Diocese having taken legal advice from specialist leading and junior counsel. Clearly, the implications of these decisions need to be worked through, not least, because the Local Authority has served the same Enforcement Notice on its own senior officer – the Head of Valuation -and its position on the matter is not clear.

Officers and advisers to the Diocese were already working with the Local Planning Authority to explore possible solutions for the site and will continue to do so. Our conversations with the Council officers have been positive; we all agree that no-one wants to demolish the school and that the priority is to achieve a planning permission that means that school can continue in the new modern building for many years to come.

We recognise that this news may be of concern to staff, parents and pupils and we will update you as soon as we have determined what are the next most appropriate steps.

https://www.rcaoseducation.org.uk/

"Officers of the Archdiocese of Southwark were surprised and disappointed..."?

In their insular expression of disappointment, this "group-think" once more demonstrates the futility of the Archdiocese's stance. It cannot be a surprise to anyone except them - but it is increasingly unrealistic, unnecessary and frustratingly stubborn.

They have clung to a fallacy that they had no responsibility and that everyone else must accept the position as they present it.

The world has moved on.

A contractor whom the Archdiocese selected as part of a process they believed could deliver the job more cheaply did just that and delivered a cheap job. They also departed significantly from the approved design and the Archdiocese made another error - they failed to exercise effective levels of control as most well informed clients would see as being essential in a project of this prestige and value.

Work was allowed to continue to a point where the ongoing departure from the approved design could not be ignored - and the Council intervened - and lawfully so.

The Archdiocese and particularly its Project Management Officers have expressed views harmful to the community and the perceived qualities of the built-environment in the vicinity of the school and sought to persuade the community that this as-built school was as good as could be built and no alternatives exist. They attempted to argue the Archdiocese could not afford the costs of corrective works.

They did not instigate the action taken by the contractor but they did fail to control the activities of that party. A price has to be paid to make the building compliant - no-one expects a demolition - but the price of the Archdiocese's failure could be high and it must be met by them.

It is time to follow the pathway lawfully laid out by the Council and complete the building of a valued school.

Are there any reports in the public domain about putative progress on the Archdiocese's efforts to secure legal remedy - and presumably reimbursement - from the contractor?

[JRW]

At the planning inquiry, the Archdiocese disclosed that they had launched legal proceedings against their contractor, but refused to give any information about the extent, or the progress of this case. They claimed that this legal action was why they had no access to the building regs documents, or the plans and methods used to construct what is actually there. The registered plans are using completely different techniques, and their consultant cheerfully admitted in cross examination (by me!) that they had no information on how the building was constructed. He said that any intervention such as changing the cladding would require a section to be explored physically to establish that it was safe to proceed with adding weight to the structure. Personally, I think that Lewisham should insist on having access to safety paperwork before making any decisions.

If they decide to go to the Appeal court for permission to go to the Supreme Court, the Archdiocese needs to do it within seven days of the High Court judgement. Once this is past, we need to make sure that councillors are aware that we need public consultation upfront, not another stitch up job. Under the "covid" planning process, officers have huge scope to approve plans on their own, and going to a planning committee can be replaced by a one-person rubber stamp by the committee chair. Don't let Lewisham fudge this, just to hide their multiple failings that have got us to this point.

[JGD]

Personally, I think that Lewisham should insist on having access to safety paperwork before making any decisions.

Whilst this aspiration is laudable, it is unlikely to succeed because it appears the contractor is failing in a contractual duty to the Archdiocese to provide ALL as-built drawings, O&M manuals and such documentation as would normally be included in a handback process. The Archdiocese would appear to be seeking remedy in which it might be assumed (although we cannot be certain) the provision of these key documents from the contractor to the Archdiocese would form a critical part. The improbability of a timely provision of such documentation lies there - what is being done, what might be available and when might it be produced by the contractor? Lewisham whilst having an intrinsic need to see these documents it would be extremely difficult to compel the Archdiocese to produce what it does not have. Furthermore Lewisham has virtually no legal remedy that might be applicable to the contractor.

This point should not be allowed to to become a roadblock.

In the corrective and remedial work phase the Archdiocese team will be required to provide technical documentation in support of the efficacy of any proposals the may make.

Once this is past, we need to make sure that councillors are aware that we need public consultation upfront, not another stitch up job.

It is unclear where further public consultation would play a part here.

At the PINS Inquiry an abundance of evidence of what had been discussed and partially agreed between Council and Archdiocese was offered and scrutinised. It could be anticipated it forms the basis still of ongoing negotiations, hopefully positive, between the parties.

Any further public consultation will achieve little and will only prolong what has become an unfeasibly long and protracted period of unnecessary delay.

After all and as many people have articulated, any deferral by the Archdiocese or a failure to comply with lawfully applied orders from the Council will place the Archdiocese at risk of prosecution. There lies the real stick that will ultimately ensure the Archdiocese remains focussed on delivering a compliant and completed school building.

[stone-penge]

Just a thought: If the Archdiocese have no access to the built plans of the existing structure, O&Ms etc how are they able to insure it and , for that matter guarantee the safety of its occupants from issues like fire, water and air quality risks?
Not sure I'd be happy sending my children into that building.

[JGD]

That is an exceptionally clear point.

However, we have no certain knowledge of what was or was not passed to the School at the time the decision was first made by the School to take up occupancy of those portions of the building that were complete.

I was commenting on the contractual obligation to hand over ALL necessary documentation.

It is entirely probable that whilst the Archdiocese has asserted it does not have the as-built drawings, it may have originally anticipated, not unreasonably and in good faith, that those would be forthcoming from the Contractor at a later stage.

The Headteacher and School Governors probably had the good sense to ensure that had at least the O&M manuals and other documents, key to the safe operation and management of the school were available to them. There never has been any issue over whether the Headteacher or School Governors have acted in any way other than with complete integrity and have fully recognised and discharged their obligation to create a safe environment for their staff and pupils.

If it has been interpreted that my earlier post inferred that they had failed in this regard, I would find that regrettable.

[GLOBAL THINKER]

If they decide to go to the Appeal court for permission to go to the Supreme Court, the Archdiocese needs to do it within seven days of the High Court judgement.

Any news now that the 7 days has passed?

[JRW]

I checked with the Lewisham Legal officer, and they have not seen any paperwork about an appeal yet. However, I'm not getting excited yet because a) the Archdiocese doesn't always copy other parties in as required and b) they might be able to try and argue for an extension...

I was supposed to get an update on Monday, but the person I was to zoom with got rushed into hospital. Pretty good excuse, as excuses go!

[GLOBAL THINKER]

Is there any news on what is happening with OLSPN? Can't find any up to date info online.

[JGD]

Information in the public domain regarding progress appears to be virtually non-existent after the passing of the legal deadlines set for the Archdiocese to appeal the decision made by the Appeal Court to the Supreme Court in late 2021.

It may take further scrutiny of the LPA planning system to establish whether updated applications have been made by the Archdiocese to seek approval for proposals that will result in works being re-commenced on the building and the development being restored to a state of compliance with the original planning approval.

For those who pass the school regularly, it can be observed that for those parts of the building where installation of external cladding remain incomplete and the (normally hidden) insulation boards are thus exposed to wind and weather, the joints and seals are showing evidence of failure.

The extent and scope of the latent damage cannot be determined by observation alone. By the nature of the function of these forms of insulation, their specified make-up is not designed to perform as a weatherproof covering, What can be observed clearly is the degree to which deterioration is accelerating caused directly by the absence of a functional external cladding.

It can be foreseen that a failure of this insulation material will lead to water penetration into the structure and this in turn may lead to water ingress into parts of the school itself. A regular programme of inspection as part of an overall monitoring regime will have become essential to ensure the acceleration of deterioration does not reach a point where there is an integral failure of the insulation material leading to a possible collapse or a falling of that insulation material from the building.

All grist to the mill to be considered in any essential proposal to make the envelope of the building complete and resistant to wind and weather at least in the interim.

It is noted that the Archdiocese web-site contains no further statement on what decisions it has made regarding how it proposes to move forward after it published its "surprise and regret" commentary that followed the failure at the Appeal Court.

[JGD]

Scrutiny of Lewisham's Planning Portal has this application DC/22/125634 in furtherance of the original application DC/16/096041:

Planning – Planning Application Documents

DC/22/125634 | An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1900 (as amended) for the variation of Conditions 2 (Approved Plans), 8 (External Materials) and 14 (Travel Plan) in connection with a planning permission dated 7th October 2016 DC/16/096041 (as amended) at Our Lady and St Philip Neri Primary School, 208 Sydenham Road SE26 proposing: removal of existing cladding and the installation of terracotta exterior building cladding, installation of a brick plinth, installation of window reveals and window frame colouration, roof profile alterations, removal of associated grills and vents and replacement with air bricks, landscaping improvements and travel planning details. | OUR LADY AND ST PHILIP NERI RC PRIMARY SCHOOL, 208 SYDENHAM ROAD, LONDON, SE26 5SE

Lewisham has issued letters to interested parties and it contains details of a Public Meeting to take place on 6th April 2022 at 7:00pm in OLSPN School, 208 Sydenham Road, Sydenham SE26 5SE.

The letter specifies that all members of the public may attend the meeting to hear a presentation from the developer (sic ?). The meeting is for information and discussion and no decision will be taken.

Technical Stuff that can be seen on the Planning portal at https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/. Enter DC/22/125634 in the Search Field.

So, without commentary or critique and absent the Council's response, Sean McGrath of the Archdiocese's agents, WSP, in extracts from a cover letter with the application, describes the architect's, Cowans, proposals thus:

...

The applicant is committed to finding an agreeable solution to complete the school and in July
2021, began discussions with Council officers to find such a suitable solution.
Initial ideas were presented to officers in December 2021. A pre-application application meeting
was held on the 19 January 2022, and advice was given in a letter dated the 31 January 2022.
The officers stated that positive progress has been made and officers supported the use of a
natural red terracotta cladding, stating it was ‘high quality’. This cladding is proposed to clad
Phase I of the building. In addition, The Council’s officers welcomed the proposed treatment of the
flue pipes and lighting. The Council suggested a unified brick base across Phase I and II and this
has been adopted into the current proposals. Officers also supported the introduction of a rooftop
parapet, the retention of the UKPN boxes and use of external plant rooms as storage. Officers
welcomed the reduction of surplus ventilation grilles along the Sydenham Road elevation.

...

Overview

Cowans’ design has sought to ensure that the quality and appearance of the materials to be used
and the detailing will enhance the character and appearance of the local area.
Whilst reflecting the design intent of the original design, they have sought to move away from
providing an austere ‘grey box’ to add colour and depth, create interest and reflect the joy of
learning for children.
The changes introduced will work to reduce the bulk and mass of the building and help it to sit
more appropriately within the streetscape.
The natural red terracotta cladding on the upper floors is a more heavyweight material and will add
visual interest. The panel joints have depth and will allow shadowing to visually exacerbate the
gap between panels and provide articulation to the elevation. The joints on the upper floors will be
readily evident in street-level mid-range views and when seen in wider townscape context. The
joint lines will align with the window openings and contribute to the symmetry and composition of
the elevation and break down the mass of the building.
The use of different colours and materials between the base plinth and the upper floor classrooms,
assists in breaking down the overall mass of the building. The brick at ground floor will provide a
resilient finish at street level. The brick will help the proportions of the elevations and will make the
school appear grounded without the upper floors appearing ‘top heavy’.
The ‘iron grey’ terracotta ridged panel that separates the ‘three terraced houses’ element will
create recessed gable gaps.
Changing the colour of all the existing white polyester powder coated (PPC) windows to a darker
colour and introducing matching coloured window reveals will also give greater depth to the
windows.
The current cladding proposals, which introduce different colours and materials between first and
second floors, reduces the impact of the unsymmetrical arrangement on the ground floor, as the
ground floor plinth will be read separately from the storeys above.
The proposed terracotta cladding system comprising two different colours and finishes in two
different planes, will provide more depth to the elevations. Therefore, the significance of the
windows in breaking down the mass of the building when viewed from Sydenham Road is
diminished. The building will be further articulated by the new fin arrangement and introduction of a
new low wall planter in front of Phase II.
The proposals will realign the lighting on the Sydenham Road, Fairlawn Park and the playground
elevations. The fixed ventilation grilles will be replaced with air brick tiles so reducing their
prominence.
Along the Fairlawn Park elevation, the roof will be recessed and new ‘pointed apex’ coping to the
three gables on Phase I and a continuous copping to the new parapet will also be installed.
A parapet with hidden gutter will be introduced, with downpipes hidden in the setback curtain wall
recess. This will help to reduce the appearance of ‘clutter’ but allow easy access for the
maintenance of the downpipes.
These changes will help to reduce the appearance of ‘clutter’ on the elevations.
Retaining and treating the existing windows will prevent enormous disruption to the School
because it means that children will not have to move elsewhere to allow internal works to be
undertaken. It is also more environmentally sustainable. This is a vital consideration at a time of
Climate Emergency and will accord with paragraph 11 of the NPPF, section H1 and R2 of National
Design Guidance, Development Management Policy 1, and the Town Centre Local Plan Policy
LTCO which sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
By proposing the highest quality of design and materials and ensuring the building doesn’t appear
overly prominent and large against the local context, so that it will fit in with the street scene and
not cause any material harm to the character and appearance of the area, the proposals will
accord with sections I1, I2 and I3 of the National Design Guidance, and policies D4 and D5 of the
London Plan, Core Strategy Policy 15, Development Management Policy 22 and 30 and Policy
LTC18 of the Town Centre Local Plan.

Conclusion

The current proposals seek to complete the school quickly, with certainty and with minimal
disruption to the pupils enrolled at the school.
The Diocese and Cowan Architects have worked collaboratively with the Council to agree a
suitable solution to ensure the delivery of a high-quality building that has a positive impact on the
character of the area and will make pupils and parents proud of their School.