Sydenham Assembly Wednesday 13th June 2018

[JRW]

As you will see from the documents, if you go on the planning department website, the latest information from the planners is that they haven't been given the information, the material samples, or crucially the safety plans for dealing with contamination such as asbestos on the site. I would be happy to talk you through it when you come to the Assembly tonight, and could show you proof of a valid concern about safety. The point is, as we all know, no one can prove it is unsafe without inspection and total disclosure. The onus is on the developer to submit information and samples, so they can prove it is safe. I am sure that parents would rather be worried for a day, than risk their children's safety.

I think the archdiocese believed it could get away with anything, using the children's education as a shield. Certainly they have been unwilling to talk to anyone, so if they were kept in the dark, they can hardly blame anyone else for that.

[Pally]

The Sydenham Society tweet is shocking. I am sure the school are rightly furious about such inflammatory and I suspect inaccurate statements being put out there ...."no insurance" ...I don't believe that is true, no school would be that stupid, and I would be interested to hear where the Society got their information from!!

[Tim Lund]

Worth looking at this Twitter exchange between SydSoc and one of the school governors, who is also an architectural & environmental designer and masterplanner.

Sydenham Society

@SydenhamSociety

School children put at risk in a building which hasn’t any insurance and not passed building regs. Completely unacceptable situation. Please attend tonight and support our motion for immediate action #Sydenham #se26 #lewishamSydenham Society added,

-------------------------------
Julia Webb

@JRWSE26
Come to the #Sydenham Assembly Wednesday 13th June, 7- 9pm at the Sydenham Centre #SE26. On the agenda: How #Lewisham intends to enforce planning breaches at #stphilipneri school, aka the #Monstrosity.…
8:29 AM - 13 Jun 2018
---------------------------------
Mario Vieira
‏
@maruvi

Replying to @SydenhamSociety
As you know I support your campaign to get the consented scheme built, but I suggest you stay focused on the planning issue. I would hope @SydenhamSociety will be more careful in their use of language in the future.

---------------------------------
Sydenham Society

@SydenhamSociety

Apologies if the information we received was inaccurate. Let’s hear the facts and get this issue moved forward this evening. The project certainly hasn’t been done according to planning which is the main concern.
------------------------

Mario Vieira
‏
@maruvi

Your tweet does not even mention planning even though we know that’s the issue. I think as a community organisation you have a responsibility to post accurate information. Happy to chat about it tonight.

-----------------------------

Sydenham Society
‏
@SydenhamSociety

By building it without proper planning consent is there not an issue with gaining appropriate insurance cover? We were led to believe that to be the case? Let’s hope for better planning consideration going forward. We have a responsibility to raise major local concerns on this.
-----------------------------------------------

Mario Vieira
‏
@maruvi

Replying to @SydenhamSociety
I am very disappointed that @SydenhamSociety would post something that is both inaccurate & inflammatory. The school would never put the children at risk. Their safety and well-being are of utmost importance. Insurance & building control approval is in place. @AnnabelMclaren

https://twitter.com/SydenhamSociety/sta ... 8700782593

Hope one of those involved here can update us on what motion if any was carried last night.

[JRW]

Thank you Tim for your tweet; I was disappointed to not see you at the meeting, so you could have contributed.

I have pasted below an email I have sent to the Syd Soc chair, in response to last night's events.


Hi Annabel,

........ You did absolutely the right thing in apologising, given we had to accept their statements on face value, but now I have had the chance to re check the documentation, I am in orbit.

The Building control database records only one entry for the property, a notification of intent to demolish the old buildings, dated 21 march 2018. Nothing at all relates to the building work itself.

The developer is entitled to apply for approval through the local authority BCB (building control body), or to employ an independent BCB. HOWEVER, there are restrictions on the use of independent BCBs. They are supposed to notify the local authority of their approvals, in an 'official notice'. If they did so at any point, why isn't it publicly available on the database?

Developers are permitted to apply for ‘regularisation’ - retrospective approval for work already carried out without consent - from a local authority BCB only. It is not possible to get an independent body to submit this. You Gov says that with regularisation, 'You might need to make alterations before your BCB can agree the work complies and give you a regularisation certificate. You may have to correct the work or pay a fine if building regulations are not followed'.

So their demands for apologies are out of order. If such documentation exists, it is not correctly filed and publicly available. They are complaining that we made an incorrect statement, when there is absolutely no evidence to back them up, and they had refused to respond to our requests for information. Show us the paperwork, or give us an apology please. The public record shows that the correct documents are not available, and we concluded from that that they had not been filed. They are now saying they had them all the time, and just didn't feel obliged to tell us they existed.

We need this thrashed out before the public meeting, and I suggest that we take Damien Egan up on his offer of a stakeholders meeting asap. The school governor's belittling and insulting behaviour in speaking to us last night says it all, and I think we need everyone to put their cards on the table.

[KEVD]

Morning,

Couldn't make the meeting in the end last night. So does the school have insurance?

Regards

[Sydenham]

Just as with home insurance - its one thing to pay for insurance - it's another thing to be paid for any claim. For example home contents insurance often comes with the requirement that correct locks and alarms are fitted and used.

So easy to say 'I have insurance' but a very different matter to being confident and knowledgeable whether all the requirements are met for the insurance policy to pay out when you want it to.

I would imagine that buildings and public liability insurance or whatever insurance a school has to have is given on the basis that all regulations have been complied with.

(I'm not from the insurance industry so happy to stand corrected on this)

[Tim Lund]

But if you listen to the recording from Radio Sydenham, 1:11, you'll hear Mario Vieira explaining that they had an independent assessor issue a certificate on the building safety, which is why Annabel subsequently apologised, and promised to remove the offending tweet - although to date it is still up there. Given such a certificate, if the school's insurance didn't pay up, I assume the independent assessor's would.

[JayB]

I think this is getting a little out of hand. It is one thing to say that the planning regulations have not been complied with and that the building is not as specified in the submitted plans, a fact which must be addressed. It is quite another to engage in rumour -mongering about safety, saying the school does not have insurance or that children in playgrounds need to be "screened" from view, which they certainly do not.Pop your child in a burka anyone? These assertions are incorrect and serve only to detract from the case at hand whilst aggravating parents, the school, the diocese and pretty much anyone who has to listen to them. Might it be better to get these parties on board to address the issue rather than citing spurious arguments?

[JGD]

Removed by author.

[JayB]

What? This is about the school, nothing to do with Grenfell at all.By drawing any implied parallel you are scaremongering. People need to focus on the question, not pontificating about other issues. That's how this debate got off track in the first place.

[JGD]

Removed by author

[Jollylolly]

I think the rhetoric and actions of this debate is getting out of hand. As a Fairlawn resident I witnessed parents and children who go to Philip Neri reading the posters someone had pinned to the trees. Some were visibly put out that their new school had been described as a “monstrosity”. And “act now or put up with it for life” also a bit much. Remember children can read and stuff like this doesn’t do much for harmony in the community. I think a debate with the council, school and church should be had, but people should keep professional and tone the scaremongering down.

[Pally]

I have pasted below an email I have sent to the Syd Soc chair, in response to last night's events.


Hi Annabel,

........ You did absolutely the right thing in apologising, given we had to accept their statements on face value, but now I have had the chance to re check the documentation, I am in orbit.

………….
So their demands for apologies are out of order. If such documentation exists, it is not correctly filed and publicly available. They are complaining that we made an incorrect statement, when there is absolutely no evidence to back them up, and they had refused to respond to our requests for information. Show us the paperwork, or give us an apology please. The public record shows that the correct documents are not available, and we concluded from that that they had not been filed. They are now saying they had them all the time, and just didn't feel obliged to tell us they existed.

We need this thrashed out before the public meeting, and I suggest that we take Damien Egan up on his offer of a stakeholders meeting asap. The school governor's belittling and insulting behaviour in speaking to us last night says it all, and I think we need everyone to put their cards on the table.

If governors were "belittling and insulting" (which is not particularly helpful!) I suspect it was in response to inflammatory statements about insurance stuck on a public forum referring to a school looking after several hundred young children! Frankly the tweet by the Sydenham Society was shocking and acutely unhelpful to the campaign about the building! I think there are issues with the building but I cannot support the style of campaigning that is turning the school as an organisation and the people working there, into a pariah within the community. I suspect that other thinking people will also withdraw their support if this continues!

[TredownMan]

The gentleman in question did appear to be quite hurt, and I think most of us would be to be put in that situation. The use of these tactics to fuel what is - let’s be honest - a planning dispute is unneighbourly.

[stuart]

I agree - having met Mario and heard his views on the development and the developers I would have thought people wishing to succeed in getting something done would best see him as a potential ally rather than an adversary.

Politics has changed into a more belligerant style fuelled by unsubstantiated accusations which are designed to create an equally belligerant response which the other side can then use to justify its own aggression. What's gone wrong with charm offensives?

When I have a problem and need to call customer services. However angry I am - the person best able to fix it is at the other end. They know how to work the system - the task is to get them on your side - not abuse or embarrass them.

I'm afraid the reason I withdrew from trying to do something in Sydenham was just this style of petty politicking. I know plenty more able than I who have also walked away in disgust. That's probably why Penge & Forest Hill have prospered better than Sydenham despite all our advantages. We need to say, stop, enough. Let's work together instead. I really hope some lessons can be learned here.

It is the building that is a monstrosity. Not the people having to try and make it work.

Stuart

[Pally]

I agree Stuart as do a few others evidently! I really hope that work on addressing building issues can continue without demonising members of our community ! I made a similar point earlier. Also the point raised by Jolly is very pertinent re the children who can read the fliers!!!

[JRW]

This has been going on for years now, and St Philip Neri's immediate neighbours have been through a lot. Demonising works both ways, and the school has never stated their own position on the development, and then claim to be misrepresented because we are not telepathic. The documents are not available, as they have not been correctly filed as legally required. We are then traduced because conclusions were drawn from this, after the refusal of all parties to respond to queries on the point. Concerns raised in good faith are being painted as aggressive, when the truth of the evidence has not yet been considered.

We all want the children to have the best school possible, and would have been thrilled to campaign with the school, but they were not interested. Mario wants to make this about the school being upset, but the fact is that he promised to keep the community updated, but then refused to answer or even acknowledge any queries. I am sorry that parents are worried, but a vast amount of evidence has been compiled, and yet the council and developers won't publicly state what they acknowledge in private. During the elections, routine work has been sidelined, as they all rushed to campaign. We need this to be sorted properly, and the status of the legally required paperwork to be clarified. It is is in the public interest, and is in the interest of the children and their parents, that we get this right.

[Pally]

This has been going on for years now, and St Philip Neri's immediate neighbours have been through a lot. Demonising works both ways, and the school has never stated their own position on the development, and then claim to be misrepresented because we are not telepathic. The documents are not available, as they have not been correctly filed as legally required. We are then traduced because conclusions were drawn from this, after the refusal of all parties to respond to queries on the point. Concerns raised in good faith are being painted as aggressive, when the truth of the evidence has not yet been considered.

We all want the children to have the best school possible, and would have been thrilled to campaign with the school, but they were not interested. Mario wants to make this about the school being upset, but the fact is that he promised to keep the community updated, but then refused to answer or even acknowledge any queries. I am sorry that parents are worried, but a vast amount of evidence has been compiled, and yet the council and developers won't publicly state what they acknowledge in private. During the elections, routine work has been sidelined, as they all rushed to campaign. We need this to be sorted properly, and the status of the legally required paperwork to be clarified. It is is in the public interest, and is in the interest of the children and their parents, that we get this right.

Frankly a school would be very very unwise to get involved in "campaigning" as opposed to working with the contractors/council/diocese regarding any issues! Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, public/private acknowledgements, updating or not updating .....that still does not justify making a statement about a school not having insurance ....there may not have been the specific evidence to show insurance is in place but I assume there is no specific evidence that it is not in place either, as you say that "conclusions were drawn!!"

Frankly trying to justify that extremely unfortunate Sydenham Society tweet is doing neither the Sydenham Society nor the campaign regarding the building any favours atall ...in fact it just makes the Sydenham Society look worse!! (It is disappointing that the tweet remains on line!!) And whatever the perceived behaviours of those involved, including school personnel/governors, airing all that on a public forum as this is, also does the building campaign no favours at all!

I suggest that the focus returns to the building campaign and that in future there is some measure in statements made from conclusions drawn!!!

[TredownMan]

An absurd but illuminating episode. I feel sorry for the planners who have to wade through this stuff week-in week-out.