St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

[JGD]

Stuart's synopsis is a precise narrative about the nature of the problem, its root cause and the sequence of events that led to this poor quality outcome.

But Big Kev - the issue from this portion of the thread is a comparison of the behaviours of one of the Archdiocese's principal officers, Simon Hughes, across two separate important sets of events and is NOT a discussion about the schools or the qualities of their respective buildings at this stage.

Simon Hughes used this paraphrased form of words, "the OLSPN building as built looks as good as it possibly can be" at Council meetings, discussions with planning officers and ultimately and very unfortunately for him, in a very patrician and dismissive form, to the lady PINS inspector. None of it with any measure of success that resulted in a positive outcome for the Archdiocese. As has been acknowledged previously you must express your own views, but be assured and understand, none of these bodies nor the community that lives in the vicinity of the school thinks the building is "fantastic". It does not conform to the design approved in planning and thereby, in its current form, is unlawful.

Noticeably and returning to the angst matter, only the Archdiocese elevates the point that the school could need to be demolished and rebuilt as if that sanction is to be immediately imposed. It is an option that could be applied if all else fails. But with genuine commitment to alter the building to achieve conformance with the original consent, any demolition sanction is many steps away in current processes and will only come into play as a last resort, if at all.

Only the Archdiocese on its last comment on its website expresses its "surprise and disappointment" at the several adverse outcomes through the PINS Inquiry and its High Court appeal processes. The Archdiocese is isolated in its expressed views - most other parties see the many judgements and decisions as being balanced and appropriate.

In early threads it is argued that the advice the Archdiocese elected to adopt should in fact have been rejected. Acceptance of advice to deal with the matter in a constantly adversarial fashion across the range of processes and with the numbers of different parties has not served the Archdiocese well.

Matters would have been improved had a more collaborative approach to set corrective actions in motion instigated at a much earlier stage with accrued benefits in the forms of the school being completed sooner and at a lesser cost than is now emerging.

The Archdiocese would have benefitted by freeing itself of the heaped opprobrium it currently is forced to endure because of their own failings.

Poor professional behaviours and misjudgements by the Archdiocese have had disastrous consequences for every party engaged in the OLSPN school construction.

Importantly it should not be forgotten that the design and build contractor, appointed by and supervised by the Archdiocese, executed the construction works in a form that departed from the approved design and in the absence of an Asset Protection function performed with any effectiveness by the Archdiocese, this departure from the approved plans went undetected until late in the process.

[Big Kev]

Stuart's synopsis is a precise narrative about the nature of the problem, its root cause and the sequence of events that led to this poor quality outcome.

But Big Kev - the issue from this portion of the thread is a comparison of the behaviours of one of the Archdiocese's principal officers, Simon Hughes, across two separate important sets of events and is NOT a discussion about the schools or the qualities of their respective buildings at this stage.

Simon Hughes used this paraphrased form of words, "the OLSPN building as built looks as good as it possibly can be" at Council meetings, discussions with planning officers and ultimately and very unfortunately for him, in a very patrician and dismissive form, to the lady PINS inspector. None of it with any measure of success that resulted in a positive outcome for the Archdiocese. As has been acknowledged previously you must express your own views, but be assured and understand, none of these bodies nor the community that lives in the vicinity of the school thinks the building is "fantastic". It does not conform to the design approved in planning and thereby, in its current form, is unlawful.

Noticeably and returning to the angst matter, only the Archdiocese elevates the point that the school could need to be demolished and rebuilt as if that sanction is to be immediately imposed. It is an option that could be applied if all else fails. But with genuine commitment to alter the building to achieve conformance with the original consent, any demolition sanction is many steps away in current processes and will only come into play as a last resort, if at all.

Only the Archdiocese on its last comment on its website expresses its "surprise and disappointment" at the several adverse outcomes through the PINS Inquiry and its High Court appeal processes. The Archdiocese is isolated in its expressed views - most other parties see the many judgements and decisions as being balanced and appropriate.

In early threads it is argued that the advice the Archdiocese elected to adopt should in fact have been rejected. Acceptance of advice to deal with the matter in a constantly adversarial fashion across the range of processes and with the numbers of different parties has not served the Archdiocese well.

Matters would have been improved had a more collaborative approach to set corrective actions in motion instigated at a much earlier stage with accrued benefits in the forms of the school being completed sooner and at a lesser cost than is now emerging.

The Archdiocese would have benefitted by freeing itself of the heaped opprobrium it currently is forced to endure because of their own failings.

Poor professional behaviours and misjudgements by the Archdiocese have had disastrous consequences for every party engaged in the OLSPN school construction.

Importantly it should not be forgotten that the design and build contractor, appointed by and supervised by the Archdiocese, executed the construction works in a form that departed from the approved design and in the absence of an Asset Protection function performed with any effectiveness by the Archdiocese, this departure from the approved plans went undetected until late in the process.

Thanks JGD - lots of opinions there and they sound heartfelt. Hope you feel better and get some closure and can move onto another project soon.

I’m still really confused though as to why you and Stuart thought the World Book Day thing was at this school; it’s a totally different school. I hope no reputational damage has been done by the conflation on this forum of two issues.

I am quite concerned given the above conflation as to the validity of some of your other claims to be honest; not trying to be inflammatory but sticking to the facts is best in these sorts of things, not mixing and matching different stories across totally different schools. It can cause angst and there are real people involved (kids and parents and others) which shouldn’t be used as cannon-fodder for making debating points.

Would you mind just putting a post out that states that you understand that Neri and Fisher are totally separate schools and that you didn’t mean to sow confusion by mixing things up? And maybe an apology might be a nice gesture.

Take care and good luck with the next venture.

Regards
BK

[JGD]

Thanks JGD - lots of opinions there and they sound heartfelt. Hope you feel better and get some closure and can move onto another project soon.

I’m still really confused though as to why you and Stuart thought the World Book Day thing was at this school; it’s a totally different school. I hope no reputational damage has been done by the conflation on this forum of two issues.

I am quite concerned given the above conflation as to the validity of some of your other claims to be honest; not trying to be inflammatory but sticking to the facts is best in these sorts of things, not mixing and matching different stories across totally different schools. It can cause angst and there are real people involved (kids and parents and others) which shouldn’t be used as cannon-fodder for making debating points.

Thanks for the response Big Kev.

I have no plans to move onto any project in which I suspect you would have any interest - but as every member of the community around the school is aware, the impact on important and real people you refer to are known to us all. The School, the Archdiocese, school staff, parents and carers of pupils, pupils themselves, resident neighbours and local businesses have had to endure this series of failures for too long.

it is to be hoped the Archdiocese will expedite the completion the construction phase of OLSPN school, for that action is in their hands alone.

Your conflation point is a real puzzle.

At no stage have Stuart, JRW or I conflated or confused the two schools. No poster makes that point except you. I'm afraid we collectively recognise that the schools are entirely different establishments, a point that you acknowledge you failed to grasp and then move to somehow transfer your confusion to others.

Repeated references to angst by you and use of the term cannon fodder do not serve your case well. To whom do you ascribe responsibility for this angst and alleged use of children this way? As you can see there are many lawful bodies who have judged the Archdiocese rightly to be in error and ergo responsibility for delays lies with it.

Your comments beg this question. Why did it take you approximately three weeks to find the post dated 10 March and post a belated response on 31 March. Were you directed to the post's presence by someone who felt unable to respond directly?

You began by making a strong attack on the nature of the writings of a cancelled author and then beyond stating you thought his words unacceptable for 12-year-olds, you declined to explain much about what your own words meant. You could not clarify whether you did mean that the author's words were really targeted at Stage Three pupils.

A stage has been reached with the LPA to seek approval for the Archdiocese's plans - let that be concluded rapidly and let the build-phase of the school be completed.

[Big Kev]

Thanks JGD - lots of opinions there and they sound heartfelt. Hope you feel better and get some closure and can move onto another project soon.

I’m still really confused though as to why you and Stuart thought the World Book Day thing was at this school; it’s a totally different school. I hope no reputational damage has been done by the conflation on this forum of two issues.

I am quite concerned given the above conflation as to the validity of some of your other claims to be honest; not trying to be inflammatory but sticking to the facts is best in these sorts of things, not mixing and matching different stories across totally different schools. It can cause angst and there are real people involved (kids and parents and others) which shouldn’t be used as cannon-fodder for making debating points.

Thanks for the response Big Kev.

I have no plans to move onto any project in which I suspect you would have any interest - but as every member of the community around the school is aware, the impact on important and real people you refer to are known to us all. The School, the Archdiocese, school staff, parents and carers of pupils, pupils themselves, resident neighbours and local businesses have had to endure this series of failures for too long.

it is to be hoped the Archdiocese will expedite the completion the construction phase of OLSPN school, for that action is in their hands alone.

Your conflation point is a real puzzle.

At no stage have Stuart, JRW or I conflated or confused the two schools. No poster makes that point except you. I'm afraid we collectively recognise that the schools are entirely different establishments, a point that you acknowledge you failed to grasp and then move to somehow transfer your confusion to others.

Repeated references to angst by you and use of the term cannon fodder do not serve your case well. To whom do you ascribe responsibility for this angst and alleged use of children this way? As you can see there are many lawful bodies who have judged the Archdiocese rightly to be in error and ergo responsibility for delays lies with it.

Your comments beg this question. Why did it take you approximately three weeks to find the post dated 10 March and post a belated response on 31 March. Were you directed to the post's presence by someone who felt unable to respond directly?

You began by making a strong attack on the nature of the writings of a cancelled author and then beyond stating you thought his words unacceptable for 12-year-olds, you declined to explain much about what your own words meant. You could not clarify whether you did mean that the author's words were really targeted at Stage Three pupils.

A stage has been reached with the LPA to seek approval for the Archdiocese's plans - let that be concluded rapidly and let the build-phase of the school be completed.

Ah thanks JGD. Not sure I agree with many of the assertions you’ve made there but I do totally agree with the sentiment at the very end.

Been quite a journey - I picked up on the Fisher thing in the Tablet letters page couple of Sundays gone, did some digging around on the web and found myself in Sydenham (not Purley). That’s where the confusion lies. Hope others haven’t been similarly confused; you seem confident they won’t be; am grateful though for you clarifying that point for readers though (Ie that you and the team are aware they are separate schools and didn’t intend to mislead).

As I say - hope all ends sensibly and good luck with the next venture.

Regards and adios
Big Kev

[stone-penge]

Speaking of the Lord's Prayer, has the Archdiocese finally accepted that the planning inspector has not forgiven their trespass yet?

[Big Kev]

Speaking of the Lord's Prayer, has the Archdiocese finally accepted that the planning inspector has not forgiven their trespass yet?

Welcome stone-pence

Look at this Stuart and team! I told you it had caused confusion; although fully accept your explanation that it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to conflate it seems to have had that effect!

Stone-pence: just to confirm help with any confusion caused (and I’ve just been on this journey!) - they aren’t the same school. Neri is Sydenham but the Lord’s Prayer/ books stuff is somewhere else - Purley.

BK

[stuart]

Look at this Stuart and team! I told you it had caused confusion; although fully accept your explanation that it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to conflate it seems to have had that effect!

Stone-pence: just to confirm help with any confusion caused (and I’ve just been on this journey!) - they aren’t the same school. Neri is Sydenham but the Lord’s Prayer/ books stuff is somewhere else - Purley.

BK

Kev,

Nobody has been confused about schools except yourself - so can we please give that one a rest. And I, and I guess everybody else would love to move on. Its three coming on four years since the covers came off OLSPN. It should have been sorted well before now. Why not is the question?

Every decision so far by independent inspectors and judges has pointed in only one direction. At the start I think everyone had sympathy for a under resourced organisation trying to curtail costs. But it is inarguable that it ended badly. The responsibility for both the cause and resolution lay with the Archdiocese. Its failure to sort it and the egregious way it has treated all who have tried to compromise with it was a surprise. In those years my view of the organisation has shifted. It would not be good if our experience was just bad luck on one or two misjudgements.

If it isn't an isolated issue and there really are arrogant and authoritarian attempts by an individual to force his view on others here and elsewhere then it is a more serious systemic issue. I hope I'm wrong but if I was a Catholic I would be questioning to check what has been said here and elsewhere holds water. And if it does - take action. In the end, I guess, it's up to the Bishop.

Is he fully aware of what is being done in his name?

Stuart

[Big Kev]

Look at this Stuart and team! I told you it had caused confusion; although fully accept your explanation that it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to conflate it seems to have had that effect!

Stone-pence: just to confirm help with any confusion caused (and I’ve just been on this journey!) - they aren’t the same school. Neri is Sydenham but the Lord’s Prayer/ books stuff is somewhere else - Purley.

BK

Kev,

Nobody has been confused about schools except yourself - so can we please give that one a rest. And I, and I guess everybody else would love to move on. Its three coming on four years since the covers came off OLSPN. It should have been sorted well before now. Why not is the question?

Every decision so far by independent inspectors and judges has pointed in only one direction. At the start I think everyone had sympathy for a under resourced organisation trying to curtail costs. But it is inarguable that it ended badly. The responsibility for both the cause and resolution lay with the Archdiocese. Its failure to sort it and the egregious way it has treated all who have tried to compromise with it was a surprise. In those years my view of the organisation has shifted. It would not be good if our experience was just bad luck on one or two misjudgements. After all the church doesn't have a monopoly on forgiveness and redemption.

If it isn't an isolated issue and there really are arrogant and authoritarian attempts by an individual to force his view on others here and elsewhere then it is a more serious systemic issue. I hope I'm wrong but if I was a Catholic I would be questioning to check what has been said here and elsewhere holds water. And if it does - take action. In the end, I guess, it's up to the Bishop.

Is he fully aware of what is being done in his name?

Stuart

Hi Stuart and team

Stone-penge definitely seemed confused (apologies for getting name wrong Stone btw on my previous message).

I think it is because there were references to the Purley situation on a forum called “Sydenham Town” (and Purley isn’t in Sydenham of course) so I hope we can all be forgiven for being confused. But you’ve said it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to mislead even if that seems to have been the outcome, and of course I accept that. An apology for readers would be even more welcome.

In terms of “arrogant and authoritarian attempts” I think you are referring to the Holy Father; there are of course lots of myths and legends about the power of Popes but honestly, he really can’t be involved in this.

Thanks and take care

Big Kev

[stuart]

Hi Stuart and team

BTW we are not a team. You won't have to look far to see us hammers and tongs with each other. It's just the OLSPN debacle that has us independently speaking with one voice.

There may be a message there.

Stuart

[Big Kev]

Hi Stuart and team

BTW we are not a team. You won't have to look far to see us hammers and tongs with each other. It's just the OLSPN debacle that has us independently speaking with one voice.

There may be a message there.

Stuart

Thanks very much Stuart - by “team” I was referring to posters/ readers generally on here in a collegiate kind of way. Hopefully no hammer and tongs!!

Who are you referring to as not being part of your team? Confused again! Sorry

Kind regards

Kev

[stuart]

Who are you referring to as not being part of your team?

Me

[Big Kev]

Who are you referring to as not being part of your team?

Me

In an earlier post:
“At no stage have Stuart, JRW or I……” (from a post by JDG)

Has there been a bust up along the way….the others seem to think you are all on the same side.

Hope it’s all ok - please don’t fall out over this.

Take care all - enjoy the rest of the week

Kev

[stuart]

Sorry to be a bit thick Kev, what exactly is the point you are making?

Stuart

[stone-penge]

I think people here should stop giving' Big Kev' his daily bread.

What do they say about feeding pigeons and trolls?

[Big Kev]

I think people here should stop giving' Big Kev' his daily bread.

What do they say about feeding pigeons and trolls?

Hi Stone-Penge
Apologies - I was just trying my best to clear up the confusion about which school was which; but have seen reference to “daily bread” which is the Lord’s Prayer /book/author thing, not the building issue.

So just to be clear one last time: this thread is about the new school building at Sydenham (the book /author thing is a different school.

I was concerned at the time that confusion has been caused by the mixing up of the issues on here and it seems I was right.

Stuart and colleagues - anything you can do to put this right I think is helpful before things potentially get a bit out of hand.

Have a great day all

BK

[JGD]

I think people here should stop giving' Big Kev' his daily bread.

What do they say about feeding pigeons and trolls?

Agreed.

Both in attitude and opinion, the poster's expressions and their tone are the only posts that seek to sow seeds of doubt.

We have seen this approach of endeavouring to sow angst, division, plain contrariness and self-justification from one Simon Hughes of Archdiocese infamy. Entirely to the detriment of the Archdiocese.

The poster alludes to living within the Archdiocese. When asked to describe any engagement or link with the Archdiocese on the poster's part, no answer is forthcoming and the poster remains silent and declines to clarify if any such connections exist. At no point in the thread has the poster chosen to be transparent and answer direct questions about the meaning of parts of his posts. He inexplicably stands on grounds that he cannot place himself in a position to answer points raised about his statements. The poster offers no evidence to support his statements and claims that he cannot for reasons that, in themselves, are less than transparent.

The posters efforts to turn any statement round from other posters to have a converse meaning to what the other poster stated, has become nothing more than an obfuscating narrative.

This is a transparent and open forum; posters have the right to free expression and to have their views rebutted too.

Our newly joined poster answered Stuart's enquiry about connections to the Archdiocese thus, "Sure - am a Catholic and live in the Diocese - so yes absolutely.". Chose to reveal little detail. When asked why he waited three weeks to respond to the post about Simon Hughes peremptory dismissal of governors at John Fisher School, the poster asserted he had been searching on the matter of Fisher school. Since that point, he has manifestly obfuscated on what he tries to assert is confusion created here on our forum.

Not so. There is no confusion. The common link is the problem of the similarity in the activities of one Simon Hughes, observed across two disparate matters.

As Simon Hughes's appointed QC and hired gun at the PINS Inquiry, explicitly and openly threatened the Inspector with the words, "We have made notes", as have we - the conduct and views of the poster are noted.

The appointed QC's statements to the Inspector did not help the Archdiocese's case either. They lost on every single point at both the Inquiry and the High Court Appeal, despite "making notes". The Archdiocese expended significant sums of money and caused our local authority to expend our monies in the case.

Simon Hughes had to explain to the Archdiocese why the selected course of action conducted with some aggression, failed to move the matter of the construction phase of OLSPN one inch closer to closure and the building's completion.

The lack of transparency on links to the Archdiocese does not make sense given the directness of his first post - and if, on that issue there is an error and there is no link - let the poster say so.

[stuart]

In deference to the rock of SE20 I shall enter purdah until we can discuss what the Archdiocese is bringing to the party at tonight's meeting. I'm high on monoclonal antibodies atm so I might risk attending in the hope that most folks will be acting responsibly in relation to covid transmission.

Stuart

[JGD]

I'm breaking out a new mask for this important event.

Not sure there is advantage beyond the good practice of wearing one in pandemic times.

Trouble is masks tend to make us all look like bank robbers.

[stuart]

Trouble is JGD I have an unrelated terrible cough. While I am currently the least likely to spread covid - it won't sound like it!

As for your other point. What banks are left to rob? Even the Lloyds job had to be rushed:
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/sydenham ... tines-day/

Stuart

[JGD]

I was going to add that punchline to my post.

But I though it polite to leave the door open for others.

Delivered by you with aplomb and good timing.