St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

[Big Kev]

For those of us who sat through the OLSPN PINS Planning Inquiry, it may have come as a surprise to observe the attitude of one of the Archdiocese's principal officers, Dr Simon Hughes, to the Inquiry and the Inspector herself. Some may have viewed his behaviour as edging towards being dismissive about design options, alternative solutions and in particular about what he viewed as being the poor quality of the setting of the built environment around the school.

However, it would seem this style of approach by the Archdiocese's Director of Education does not manifest itself solely in matters around OLSPN.

Two reports:

https://inews.co.uk/news/catholic-state ... ed_stories

https://inews.co.uk/news/archbishop-sou ... ch-1507503

The I newspaper carries these reports of how Simon Hughes peremptorily dismissed ‘foundation governors’ of John Fisher School in Croydon.

He did so after dictating a statement to the Head Teacher of the school intended to explain the decision of the Archdiocese to cancel the visit of an Award Winning children's author - who writes for a range of age groups, including books for young adults featuring gay characters. This visit to the school by the author evidently was not acceptable to the Archdiocese who sought to cancel it. Some governors felt the visit should continue as planned originally.

Now, i has obtained the letter sent by Simon Hughes, the director of education at the diocese, informing the governors of their removal.

“It has been brought to my attention that there was an extraordinary governors meeting this morning (Saturday 5 March 2022),” he says. “I understand that this was to consider the very strong recommendation I made to the headteacher to cancel the visit of the author Simon James Green scheduled for 7 March 2022.”

Dr Hughes says that he spoke to the head, Philip McCullagh, “for an hour at least” on 2 March, and “dictated a statement he could use to cancel the event”.

The letter reveals that two of the governors resigned because they backed the diocese in wanting to cancel. “I have accepted their resignations with regret, since they have clearly urged the governing body to accept my recommendation.

It might seem to observers that the Archdiocese has a view that dissenting governors are merely cannon fodder in matters around management of their schools.

For readers who might want to know a little more before forming a view on this one, here's an extract from the author's work. For those not familiar it is a parody of the Lord's Prayer. This was aimed at Key Stage 3:

"Let us pray,
"Our Father, who art the gay boy?
Noah be his name..
"Oh yes, "people have better
things to think about." "He makes Harry come. He
gives him one. On earth as it is in heaven. "And
lead him straight into temptation. Right into a gay
bar. For Noah is a gay boy. Who likes to suck cock.
For ever and ever. He's gay.”

Cheers
Big Kev

[JRW]

Dear Big Kev,
I agree that it's really important to inform yourself before taking a position on things, so I checked it out. These are sentences lifted from a scene in school assembly, where Noah is being taunted by his classmates. The pupils are mocking him, under cover of the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, using phrases they no doubt picked up from ignorant and intolerant adults in their lives. Context is all.

[stuart]

Welcome Big Kev - it's always refreshing to have a new and alternative view. So I hope you don't mind me asking if you have any connection with the Archdiocese of Southwark?

Stuart

[Big Kev]

Welcome Big Kev - it's always refreshing to have a new and alternative view. So I hope you don't mind me asking if you have any connection with the Archdiocese of Southwark?

Stuart

Sure - am a Catholic and live in the Diocese - so yes absolutely.
Take care
BK

[Big Kev]

Dear Big Kev,
I agree that it's really important to inform yourself before taking a position on things, so I checked it out. These are sentences lifted from a scene in school assembly, where Noah is being taunted by his classmates. The pupils are mocking him, under cover of the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, using phrases they no doubt picked up from ignorant and intolerant adults in their lives. Context is all.

Ah - thank you JRW - it’s really great that you’ve gone to the effort. I too found the content shocking when I read it; good to hear I wasn’t alone.

Personally I found the references to “sucking cock” and “making people come” unsuitable for a context involving 12 year old kids. Maybe you and I are just a bit old fashioned!

Hopefully people are able to form their own views based on the context too.

Yours

Kev

[stuart]

Sure - am a Catholic and live in the Diocese - so yes absolutely.
Take care
BK

As a Catholic are you happy with the appearance of the building and the treatment (and cost) to the community and the council by the conduct of your Archdiocesan education officer in rectifying the failure to build to plan?

Stuart

[JGD]

Good evening. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean when you say "This was aimed at Key Stage 3:" as in this extract from your post:

For readers who might want to know a little more before forming a view on this one, here's an extract from the author's work. For those not familiar it is a parody of the Lord's Prayer. This was aimed at Key Stage 3:

is it your intent to convey or imply that the tract was intended to be presented to Key Stage 3 pupils by the author in his cancelled talk at the school?

Or is it the case that you disapprove of his tract and on that basis, you feel it would not be appropriate for the author to make any presentation at the school?

Or is there another meaning that you intend to impart?

The press report has this para:

The school’s leadership team voted to go ahead with the visit – a decision subsequently backed by the governing body.

Head Teachers and school leadership team members tend to be highly trained individuals with years of experience gained in their profession as they progress in their careers to these elevated roles. They clearly understood who the author was and the nature of his writings.

Are you making a case that they were mistaken or perhaps were not qualified to make the decision to proceed?

Do you feel that Simon Hughes peremptory dismissal of ‘foundation governors’ of John Fisher School and his over-ruling of the Head Teacher and School Leadership team was justified? You do not say so.

The main point of my post was after all the observably similar and fairly negative behaviours of Simon Hughes throughout the fiasco that has attached itself to the building of OLSPN school and his dismissive attitude towards the PINS Inspector at the Planning Inquiry.

[Big Kev]

Good evening. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean when you say "This was aimed at Key Stage 3:" as in this extract from your post:

For readers who might want to know a little more before forming a view on this one, here's an extract from the author's work. For those not familiar it is a parody of the Lord's Prayer. This was aimed at Key Stage 3:

is it your intent to convey or imply that the tract was intended to be presented to Key Stage 3 pupils by the author in his cancelled talk at the school?

Or is it the case that you disapprove of his tract and on that basis, you feel it would not be appropriate for the author to make any presentation at the school?

Or is there another meaning that you intend to impart?

The press report has this para:

The school’s leadership team voted to go ahead with the visit – a decision subsequently backed by the governing body.

Head Teachers and school leadership team members tend to be highly trained individuals with years of experience gained in their profession as they progress in their careers to these elevated roles. They clearly understood who the author was and the nature of his writings.

Are you making a case that they were mistaken or perhaps were not qualified to make the decision to proceed?

Do you feel that Simon Hughes peremptory dismissal of ‘foundation governors’ of John Fisher School and his over-ruling of the Head Teacher and School Leadership team was justified? You do not say so.

The main point of my post was after all the observably similar and fairly negative behaviours of Simon Hughes throughout the fiasco that has attached itself to the building of OLSPN school and his dismissive attitude towards the PINS Inspector at the Planning Inquiry.

Sorry JDG if I have caused some angst - I was just putting forward my view that “sucking cock” and “making people come” aren’t (in my view) suitable for 12 year olds. Others are of course entitled to their views.

If there are deeper issues at play, or nerves I have touched on that have meant you have spent a long time on a long post (am impressed with all the use of quotes and other bits and pieces by the way!) my apologies.

Yours aye

Big Kev

[Big Kev]

Sure - am a Catholic and live in the Diocese - so yes absolutely.
Take care
BK

As a Catholic are you happy with the appearance of the building and the treatment (and cost) to the community and the council by the conduct of your Archdiocesan education officer in rectifying the failure to build to plan?

Stuart

Hi again Stuart - hope it’s all going well. Best of my knowledge the building there is fine - although I’m not sure what bearing that has on the suitability of books and authors for minors (or vice versa).

AtB

Kev

[JGD]

Absolutely no worries - you have caused no angst - not here at least.

Angst - and the generation of it - has been a useful tool for officers of the Archdiocese in the many layers of dialogue in which they engage - whether that be with the LPA, the residents and businesses who are neighbours of the school and PINS.

Naturally, putting forward your views is entirely acceptable. You refer to “sucking cock” and “making people come” a lot - but do not answer a single question put to you about what you intended to impart about what the author's intentions are or were for the cancelled meeting at the school. I refer you to those questions once more.

You could not be clearer about your view that the words aren’t suitable for 12 year olds.

There are many harsh realities in life that children should not be exposed to prematurely and certainly not before they can fully understand the language and have capacity to process what it means. That's why we value teachers and the work that invaluable governors do in their support of schools.

As you acknowledge, there are deeper issues at play around the mismanagement of the construction of OLSPN school.

i cannot think which body, School, Archdiocese, school staff, parents and carers of pupils or pupils themselves whose nerves may have been touched most sharply by this failure of management.

[Big Kev]

Absolutely no worries - you have caused no angst - not here at least.

Angst - and the generation of it - has been a useful tool for officers of the Archdiocese in the many layers of dialogue in which they engage - whether that be with the LPA, the residents and businesses who are neighbours of the school and PINS.

Naturally, putting forward your views is entirely acceptable. You refer to “sucking cock” and “making people come” a lot - but do not answer a single question put to you about what you intended to impart about what the author's intentions are or were for the cancelled meeting at the school. I refer you to those questions once more.

You could not be clearer about your view that the words aren’t suitable for 12 year olds.

There are many harsh realities in life that children should not be exposed to prematurely and certainly not before they can fully understand the language and have capacity to process what it means. That's why we value teachers and the work that invaluable governors do in their support of schools.

As you acknowledge, there are deeper issues at play around the mismanagement of the construction of OLSPN school.

i cannot think which body, School, Archdiocese, school staff, parents and carers of pupils or pupils themselves whose nerves may have been touched most sharply by this failure of management.

Aww - thanks JGD.

Sorry if I’ve not answered your questions. I’m not interested in second-guessing or putting myself in the mind of the author/speaker. I’m merely saying that, in my opinion, those themes are not appropriate matter for 12 year old. It doesn’t matter what the motives are I don’t think. Anyway, as ever, people are entitled to hold other points of view on these matters; I just happen to think these things aren’t for the kiddies, that’s all.

I’ve not been on this forum before - but I think the school with the (in my view) unsuitable reading material is different from the school where you have the beef with the building project thing. When I came on here and read through I thought at first they were the same school; apologies!

Take care and all the very best

Kev

[stuart]

[
Hi again Stuart - hope it’s all going well. Best of my knowledge the building there is fine - although I’m not sure what bearing that has on the suitability of books and authors for minors (or vice versa).
Kev

You are, of course, entitled to your view of the school's appearance but if you have followed this thread you will see the community, the Sydenham Society, local councillors, the council, the inspectorates and the judiciary see it differently. Some expressions run close to obscenities. You have to accept it is, so far, only you and the Archdiocese that see it any other way.

I think you miss the point of JGD's report of the Director of Education's interventions elsewhere. The point was his overruling of both the professional and governing view of how to deal with inappropriate sexual and obscene language. I, and presumably you, didn't have that in our day but if you have children or grandchildren in our area you know you don't have a choice but to find a way of handling it.

Whether this author's visit would have helped or hindered is not something you or I can judge from the outside. It is for the professionals (teachers) and governing body to take a view and be trusted to make the best choice. As a former church school governor I know how vital it is to both support and hold the professionals to account on a day to day basis - something no Director of Education or OFSTED can do - plus be a bridge to the local community.

To arrogantly and summarily fire them for doing their job, as reported, may be legal but would appear to be the same autocratic and contempt for the very community he is supposed to serve. That's the issue here - instead of quickly acknowledging the faults and co-operating with everyone to sort it would have probably meant the time and cost to all of us would have got it sorted by now.

As I said earlier I pity the good local priests who rightly preach christian virtues while seeing it trashed by their diocesan masters. Please, please just go see the school again, check back at what the diocese proposed to build and tell us something didn't go badly wrong.

Stuart

[Big Kev]

[quote="Big Kev" post_id=194372 time=<a href="tel:1649015974">1649015974</a> user_id=14673]
[
Hi again Stuart - hope it’s all going well. Best of my knowledge the building there is fine - although I’m not sure what bearing that has on the suitability of books and authors for minors (or vice versa).
Kev

You are, of course, entitled to your view of the school's appearance but if you have followed this thread you will see the community, the Sydenham Society, local councillors, the council, the inspectorates and the judiciary see it differently. Some expressions run close to obscenities. You have to accept it is, so far, only you and the Archdiocese that see it any other way.

I think you miss the point of JGD's report of the Director of Education's interventions elsewhere. The point was his overruling of both the professional and governing view of how to deal with inappropriate sexual and obscene language. I, and presumably you, didn't have that in our day but if you have children or grandchildren in our area you know you don't have a choice but to find a way of handling it.

Whether this author's visit would have helped or hindered is not something you or I can judge from the outside. It is for the professionals (teachers) and governing body to take a view and be trusted to make the best choice. As a former church school governor I know how vital it is to both support and hold the professionals to account on a day to day basis - something no Director of Education or OFSTED can do - plus be a bridge to the local community.

To arrogantly and summarily fire them for doing their job, as reported, may be legal but would appear to be the same autocratic and contempt for the very community he is supposed to serve. That's the issue here - instead of quickly acknowledging the faults and co-operating with everyone to sort it would have probably meant the time and cost to all of us would have got it sorted by now.

As I said earlier I pity the good local priests who rightly preach christian virtues while seeing it trashed by their diocesan masters. Please, please just go see the school again, check back at what the diocese proposed to build and tell us something didn't go badly wrong.

Stuart
[/quote]

Oh hi Stuart.

Which school are you talking about ? I was commenting on the Fisher school and pointing out the content of the author’s work. I think there’s some confusion on your part, because the school with the building thing is different from the school with the problematic author? Sorry if I’ve misunderstood, but you wouldn’t want readers to get confused about which school is which.

Yours
BK

[stuart]

Oh hi Stuart.

Which school are you talking about ? I was commenting on the Fisher school and pointing out the content of the author’s work. I think there’s some confusion on your part, because the school with the building thing is different from the school with the problematic author? Sorry if I’ve misunderstood, but you wouldn’t want readers to get confused about which school is which.

Yours
BK

There's a clue in the thread title. But here it is in real life (actually it looks worse than even this photo):



The multiple discussions here and elsewhere over the past three years is probably too extensive and complicated to read again. Hence:

TL:DR

The governors were promised a sleek modern building and these industrial sheds were delivered instead. Nothing like it. The governors could do nothing though at least some of them were as shocked as the rest of us. The Education Directorate just rolled over them as well as everybody else.

To save money having got planning permission the Archdiocese had put the project in the hands of 'managed build' that basically subcontracted the whole project to a builder who built something else on the cheap and concealed it from the Planning Authority (and presumably the Archdiocese). When the scaffolding came down everyone assumed it was unfinished - just the internal skin. But that was it. Memorably decribed in a previous thread as 'The Monstrosity'.

The contract between the Archdiocese and the builder didn't offer a means of restitution. Actually that would have meant demolition and starting again. The alternative is, frankly, to put some lipstick on the pig.

But even that was too much for the Archdiocese who has fought the community, the council, the inspectorate and the High Courtt. Lewisham (and that means us as taxpayers) has had to stump up considerable cost, resources and time (QCs don't come cheap) to try and force the Archdiocese to own up to their responsibilities. The current Education Directorate have obfuscated, delayed and been extremely aggressive - which has come as quite a shock to all from what is supposed to be a christian organisation.

So do go look at the building in Sydenham Road (next to St Philip Neri Church) and decide for yourself, Go tomorrow night and you can probably see the original plan at the OSPLN meeting and be brought up to date on the current mitigation proposals.

Stuart

[Big Kev]

Oh hi Stuart.

Which school are you talking about ? I was commenting on the Fisher school and pointing out the content of the author’s work. I think there’s some confusion on your part, because the school with the building thing is different from the school with the problematic author? Sorry if I’ve misunderstood, but you wouldn’t want readers to get confused about which school is which.

Yours
BK

There's a clue in the thread title. But here it is in real life (actually it looks worse than even this photo):



The multiple discussions here and elsewhere over the past three years is probably too extensive and complicated to read again. Hence:

TL:DR

The governors were promised a sleek modern building and these industrial sheds were delivered instead. Nothing like it. The governors could do nothing though at least some of them were as shocked as the rest of us. The Education Directorate just rolled over them as well as everybody else.

To save money having got planning permission the Archdiocese had put the project in the hands of 'managed build' that basically subcontracted the whole project to a builder who built something else on the cheap and concealed it from the Planning Authority (and presumably the Archdiocese). When the scaffolding came down everyone assumed it was unfinished - just the internal skin. But that was it. Memorably decribed in a previous thread as 'The Monstrosity'.

The contract between the Archdiocese and the builder didn't offer a means of restitution. Actually that would have meant demolition and starting again. The alternative is, frankly, to put some lipstick on the pig.

But even that was too much for the Archdiocese who has fought the community, the council, the inspectorate and the High Courtt. Lewisham (and that means us as taxpayers) has had to stump up considerable cost, resources and time (QCs don't come cheap) to try and force the Archdiocese to own up to their responsibilities. The current Education Directorate have obfuscated, delayed and been extremely aggressive - which has come as quite a shock to all from what is supposed to be a christian organisation.

So do go look at the building in Sydenham Road (next to St Philip Neri Church) and decide for yourself, Go tomorrow night and you can probably see the original plan at the OSPLN meeting and be brought up to date on the current mitigation proposals.

Stuart

Hi again Stuart

Agree the clue is in the title - seems we’re all confused; posting about one school in a thread about another one! Anyway - I have it clear now: Neri is the one with the planning fuss and Fisher is the one with adult content author invited to World Book Day for year 8.

Had a very quick look through your posting (am running between things, La Vida loca and all that!) and thanks very much for summarising.

Is the photo you posted here a CGI image of the original planned build? Have to say it looks fanastic. What does the actual building look like?

Cheers now

Kev

[stuart]

Is the photo you posted here a CGI image of the original planned build? Have to say it looks fanastic. What does the actual building look like?

Cheers now

Kev

Stuart

[Big Kev]

Is the photo you posted here a CGI image of the original planned build? Have to say it looks fanastic. What does the actual building look like?

Cheers now

Kev

Stuart

Thanks Stuart - am Confused! Sorry - this is an actual photo and the other one was from a CGI image of what was approved at planning - is that right? [They look the same?]
Thanks
BK

[stuart]

Thanks Stuart - am Confused! Sorry - this is an actual photo and the other one was from a CGI image of what was approved at planning - is that right? [They look the same?]
Thanks
BK

No they are both images of what we have got directly fronting the road from Bell Green into Sydenham. You can also find it on Streetmap here: https://goo.gl/maps/JuAtCa1H1LBLKUPcA

I can't find an image of what was approved atm. But I guess it will be on show tomorrow. Apart from the aesthetics the issues include the cladding, the windows, the height, the vents. I could go on. But do go and take a look and decide for yourself.

Stuart

[Big Kev]

Thanks Stuart - am Confused! Sorry - this is an actual photo and the other one was from a CGI image of what was approved at planning - is that right? [They look the same?]
Thanks
BK

No they are both images of what we have got directly fronting the road from Bell Green into Sydenham. You can also find it on Streetmap here: https://goo.gl/maps/JuAtCa1H1LBLKUPcA

I can't find an image of what was approved atm. But I guess it will be on show tomorrow. Apart from the aesthetics the issues include the cladding, the windows, the height, the vents. I could go on. But do go and take a look and decide for yourself.

Stuart

Thanks again Stuart. Are you sure that first one you posted isn’t a a CGI drawing done as part of the original planning - it looks great! I’m sure all can be very happy with something as nice as that (even if, unfortunately, some bits weren’t quite done to plan).

But the actual building is quite different you say?

Kind regards
Kev

[stuart]

Thanks again Stuart. Are you sure that first one you posted isn’t a a CGI drawing done as part of the original planning - it looks great! I’m sure all can be very happy with something as nice as that (even if, unfortunately, some bits weren’t quite done to plan).

But the actual building is quite different you say?

Kind regards
Kev

We may have different view on 'fantastic' but of you want CGI here are four shots of a previous (failed) attempt at mitigation of the current build and the attached hall. The context can be found in this thread: https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19398



Stuart