St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

[Big Kev]

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.

Hi again
Just to help - I am:

A Catholic
Live in the diocese
An occasional reader of the Tablet (take a look - which has covered the Fisher thing)

Am not:
A QC (although do like a sherry occasionally)
Employee of the diocese (heaven forbid)
Clergy (ditto)
A “Hired gun” !! (I’d respectfully avoid using that given the violent undertones)

Cheers all

Big Kev

[JGD]

Noted.

"Big Kev says there are no formality in links between him and the Archdiocese - almost."

[JRW]

And that living in an Archdiocese which includes the whole of
South London plus Kent and the Medway Towns.... doesn't necessarily make him local in planning terms. Totally irrelevant to the case.

Don't forget, the local planning meeting is tonight at 7pm, at OLSPN school. Hope to see some of you there.

[Holaquease]

Big Kev = Chris B

[JRW]

The OLSPN application goes to the Strategic Planning Committee on 28th April at 7.30pm. You can book a seat at the committee meeting if you email Claudette Minot at committee@lewisham.gov.uk and quote Ref DC/16/096041 planning meeting 28th April. .

I will be available 10am to 4pm at Sydenham Library on this Saturday, 23rd April, to show the plans and material samples. I'm also happy to meet people at their convenience, to share the same material.

[JGD]

The omni-present and seemingly righteous reach of Simon Hughes is harvesting increasing problems and difficulties for his employer, the Archdiocese of Southwark.

As well as his approach, describable at best as being hostile towards residents and those he perceived as not being supportive of his OLSPN debacle, this officer of the Archdiocese has instigated non-transparent actions against a second school under the Archdiocese's purview which has attracted the opprobrium and public criticism of Ofsted. (This is an update to earlier posts in this thread).

Ofsted report that Simon Hughes's decision to suspend the governing body – which voted to back The John Fisher School leaders’ decision not to cancel a visit by Simon James Green to the boys’ secondary - was made unilaterally and without due regard to the published statutory guidance regarding the appointment of Interim Executive Boards (IEBs).

There will be many who have engaged in the dialogue around the Archdiocese's failed project to redevelop OLSPN that will have observed the unjustifiably negative, sharp and behaviourally dysfunctional actions of this officer.

The officer absented himself from the recent public meeting in April 2022 and a member of his staff was left to make apologies for the failures of the Archdiocese in this project. The Archdiocese representative who did attend was unable to make any level of apology that addressed the attacks on the community where the Archdiocese had unjustifiably branded protest as being driven by prejudice and anti-Catholic sentiment. This expressed view could not be more wrong and deserves a full apology from within the Archdiocese and preferably by the author of this calumny.

OLSPN and the community in which it is an integral part is not isolated in having to suffer the consequences of this officer's actions.

Whilst there were concerns raised at the public meeting, it would be reasonably accurate to state that the majority of attendees wished to see the construction phase of the redevelopment being completed as soon as possible.

The decision to cancel a visit by a gay young adult author to a Catholic secondary school has left many pupils and members of staff “unnerved and upset”, Ofsted said.

It carried out a snap inspection of The John Fisher School in Croydon on March 16 after the planned visit by Simon James Green to the boys’ secondary was axed following an intervention by Southwark Archdiocese.

Mr Green had been invited to the school for World Book Day to talk about his novel Noah Can’t Even, which features a gay character.

Southwark Archdiocese said in a statement that “from time to time, materials and events emerge for consideration that fall outside the scope of what is permissible in a Catholic school”.

The Ofsted monitoring report said the decision had “unnerved and upset many in the school community”.

It added: “Some leaders, staff and pupils have been left feeling angry, confused and frustrated. Others are worried about the impression these events might give of the school’s ethos.”

It praised the leadership team, who had fully supported Mr Green’s visit, for “steering the school well through this difficult time”.

It added that “immediate steps must be taken to restore stability to governance, and in turn ensure that leadership is provided with the support and challenge needed to build further on the school’s strong provision for pupils’ personal development”.

The report, addressed to head Phillip McCullagh, said the school is a “caring” community, adding: “Pupils described the school as one where, ‘everyone just fits in’, irrespective of faith, background or sexuality.

“They said that leaders and staff make clear that ‘it is okay to just be you’. Pupils are rightly proud that this is the case.

“Leaders recently invited a well-known, published children’s author to visit the school to talk about his career and the publication process.

“This visit was a planned part of the curriculum offer. Some of the author’s books feature gay characters and their experiences.”

The report said the archdiocese’s decision to impose an interim executive board after suspending the governing body – which voted to back the school leaders’ decision not to cancel the visit – was “made unilaterally and without due regard to the published statutory guidance regarding the appointment of IEBs”

The Evening Standard report from 27 April 2022:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ofst ... 96533.html

[JRW]

The OLSPN application goes to the Strategic Planning Committee TONIGHT, 28th April at 7.30pm. You can come along without booking a seat apparently, and it would be really good to see some familiar faces there.

As JGD said, everyone at the public meeting wants this project to get moving. We've been begging for some movement for three years now, and nothing happened. Lets make sure that we get a quality, safe school that the current pupils can be proud of, and future pupils will be proud of in 50 years time.

If you cannot come to the Civic Centre in person, you can still watch it streamed online at https://lewisham.public-i.tv/core/porta ... ive/661944

[GLOBAL THINKER]

I watched the stream of this meeting last night. Does this mean if the application was approved last night, the work can start (with conditions)?

[JGD]

In short - yes.

And subject to the Archdiocese complying with conditions which also had a 4-month window in which the works must be started.

From the evening of when the last Public Meeting took place in early April 2022, the architect has completed the materials selection and have altered the specification to be the grey coloured brick cladding for the ground floor.

This change will presumably need to be incorporated within updated tender and specification documents for the new contract.

The Archdiocese team last night stated their firm intent to commence works in July 2022 with significant portions complete before pupils return to school for the new session. This explicitly recognises that remaining works will continue during term-time after pupils return.

That timetable is tight. There is no statement from the Archdiocese about what form of tender they plan to deploy.

If the Project Team has negotiations underway with a preferred contractor and have not yet concluded that phase and actually signed contracts, there is that lead time to build in - however long that takes.

Additionally, there will be a "mobilisation period", after execution of contract, during which any appointed contractor would need to begin to prepare for the delivery phase of the contract and start work. The successful contractor would look to firm up their contract program including establishing delivery times for long-lead time items from suppliers for example.

It is to be hoped that there is a fair wind behind the Project Team's activities - they have a lot to do in the circa 13 weeks up to Thursday 21 July 2022 which is the school's published Summer Term closing date.

[stuart]

According to this report it will look like this. Only a little less hideous imho: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/school-s ... -approved/

Stuart

[GLOBAL THINKER]

It's a shame our local councillors and our neighbours in the Sydenham Society didn't deem this civic building at this end of Sydenham worthy of the efforts they put into rebuilding the Greyhound pub. I heard the comment from the Sydenham Society that this building was described as "pretty". Read that as "not on my doorstep, we don't have to look at it every day, so let's compromise" Wondered why they bothered to get involved. Apparently there has been a school on this site for 148 years, this is a sad legacy.

[JRW]

The Council insisted on holding the committee meeting during pre-election purdah, despite concern from many councillors. Cllr Walsh stated during the hearing that he and other members had a lot of pushback while canvassing. Significant numbers of voters believed the Archdiocese, who told them that objections are a result of racism and anticatholic prejudice. So, on top of condoning the developers' disgraceful behaviour, Lewisham has managed to break electoral law.

Neither the Sydenham Society, nor any one of the Sydenham councillors gave any help at all. When I went to surgeries, I was told that planning would deal with it, and refused to discuss it with me. By approving the two-tone colour scheme at committee, Chris Best abused her position, privileging her own personal taste over that of the people who will have to live with it daily.

Every single article, meeting, or apparent involvement of Sydsoc was them putting their stamp on my effort. They refused to help with appealing the as-built scheme. Annabel refused to let me speak to the committee about the issue, or raise it at Sydsoc AGM. She is close to the local Labour
party, and nominated the Labour candidates for local elections. I didn't know, until Barry said in his speech, that she is also a devout Catholic, which may have brought pressure upon her. Sydsoc's actions have been opaque, and its position hardly democratic. It seems that Sydsoc has degenerated into the Thorpes Residents Association.

The committee even refused to Condition that nursery children shouldn't be using the Fairlawn corner enclosure as a playground. The pollution levels are in the 95th percentile of bad air quality in England, and there is no effective screening for children who breathe the lowest level of air. That's how much the Archdiocese, and the Council, care about the children's welfare.

As JGD said, they are under legal direction to start work in July. My prediction is they'll start them, do a little bit, then halt, having got out of their legal jeopardy. They simply haven't got things prepared in time, and won't be able to get going efficiently. They don't even have the technical details pinned down.

This is going to drag on for years yet, because Lewisham bottled it when faced with electoral consequences of the Archdiocese's slander and libel

[JGD]

London Borough of Lewisham formally issued confirmation dated 10 May 2022 to the applicants that an application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1900 (as amended) for OUR LADY AND ST PHILIP NERI RC PRIMARY SCHOOL, 208 SYDENHAM ROAD, LONDON, SE26 5SE has been approved.

Thank you to Stuart for inserting the graphic image of the new finishes.

Key matters from the Decision Letter are shown in these extracts and I apologise in advance for the length of the post (the formal letter is 11 pages long):

1. FULL PLANNING PERMISSION TIME LIMIT

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than four months beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.

Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4. REVISED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN

No development shall commence on site until such time as a Revised Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall cover:-
(a) Dust mitigation measures.
(b) The location and operation of plant and wheel washing facilities
(c) Details of best practical measures to be employed to mitigate noise and vibration arising out of the construction process
(d) Details of construction traffic movements including cumulative impacts which shall demonstrate the following:-
(i) Rationalise travel and traffic routes to and from the site.
(ii) Provide full details of the number and time of construction vehicle trips to the site with the intention and aim of reducing the impact of construction relates activity.
(iii) Measures to deal with safe pedestrian movement.
(e) Security Management (to minimise risks to unauthorised personnel).
(f) Details of the training of site operatives to follow the Construction Management Plan requirements and any Environmental Management Plan requirements (delete reference to Environmental Management Plan requirements if not relevant).

6. PLANT NOISE

The rating level of the noise emitted from fixed plant on the site shall be 5dB below the existing background level at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at the façade of any noise sensitive property. The measurements and assessments shall be made according to BS4142:2014.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and the area generally and to comply with DM Policy 26 Noise and vibration of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).

8. MATERIALS

(a) The development shall be constructed in those materials as set out in Section 13.0 of the Design and Access Statement (prepared by Cowan Architects, dated April 2022) and Lechler – Lechsys- LS143 (29143) Acryl 2K and in full accordance with the following plans: [not listed in this extract]

11. REVISED SOFT LANDSCAPING

(a) Within 6 months of the date of this decision, a revised scheme of soft landscaping (including details of any trees or hedges to be retained and proposed plant numbers, species, location and size of trees and tree pits) and details of the management and maintenance of the landscaping for a period of five years shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to construction of the above ground works.
(b) All planting, seeding or turfing shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development, in accordance with the approved scheme under part (a). Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species

20. WINDOWS MAINTENANCE PLAN

(a) A window maintenance plan for the re-spraying of the windows shall be submitted to Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the completion of the works to the building.
(b) The windows shall be maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance plan in perpetuity,

21. WINDOW SPRAY

(a) Following completion of the window spray hereby approved, written confirmation from the manufacturer that the application of the product has been completed in accordance with the approved manufacturer’s specification shall be submitted in writing to and for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The windows shall be maintained in the accordance with window spray approved.
(b) In the event that the applicant is unable to provide the manufacture’s confirmation required by part (a), within six months of the completion of the window treatments, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) setting out details of a reapplication of the window treatment to the manufacture’s specification shall be submitted in writing to and for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The reapplication shall be in accordance with the approved RAP and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the design is delivered in accordance with the details submitted and assessed so that the development achieves the necessary high standard and detailing in accordance with Policies 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and Development Management Local Plan (November 2014) DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character.

Link to the Planning Portal and application and Decision Letter:

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online ... APR_113556

[Big Kev]

Hi Team

Long time no speak!

I have had it pointed out to me that the Southwark Diocese financial report for last year (2021) is overdue. I had a look on the public record and it is 12 days overdue in fact.

Does anyone know if that sort of thing is normal?

Cheers

BK

[Big Kev]

Afternoon all
How’s the project doing - assume all sorted now?

All my best

Big.Kev

[PHDR]

Drove past the school today, I must say it looks lovely in brick

[syd]

Drove past the school today, I must say it looks lovely in brick

That’s great news, another forum success!! Congrats to everyone who made the monstrosity a distant memory