St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

The place for serious discussion, announcements and breaking news about Sydenham

Moderator: frenzarin

stuart
Posts: 3315
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 10:13
Location: Lawrie Park
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by stuart »

Just to add to Tredown's comments. We had a great consensus on this (unlike, say, the gasholders). To get a result we need to hold together. There is a very strong case based on facts and probably in law.

Bringing in non-facts, religious prejudices et al is not going to buy you any potential co-operation from the other camp or enforcement by Lewisham. It can strengthen opposition amongst those with some loyalty to the Church and cause splits in our own camp. Indeed these very posts are evidence on that.

So can we please stay cool, collected and forensic?

Stuart

JRW
Posts: 355
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by JRW »

Thanks Stuart.

I appreciate that some people are conflicted over this, but they aren't necessarily the ones whose lives are trashed by this, and have been for several years now. All I did was to post a quotation from their own publication, without a comment from me. The fact that this mission statement rather contrasts with my ongoing experience, and those of my neighbours, makes it a perfectly mild reaction.

Accusing me of religious prejudice is in fact, an assumption based on prejudice, seeing non-catholics as threatening. I am commenting on the behaviour of neighbours, and have absolutely every right to do so. Demanding that all parts of the Catholic church should be immune from criticism in their practical affairs amounts to an unreasonable burden on the rest of us. I treat the church as subject to Caesar's law, same as everybody else. In fact, 'render unto Caesar' is rather embedded in the faith, last time I checked. By criticising the fact that the archdiocese refuses to talk to planners, neighbours and even apparently their own congregation, I am being perfectly reasonable.

The build goes on, I am still being woken by heavy machinery from 6.30 am, and you think this is ok. That is your privilege, and mine is that I shan't stop protesting until decisive action is taken. You know nothing about me or my religion, and I don't appreciate spiteful comments from people who have never checked the plans or documents (yet accuse me of lying about them), haven't attended a meeting, or done anything remotely useful.

Perhaps some of you would like to meet in the Dolphin, where I will be most happy to take you through the mountainous evidence compiled so far. I can justify every single assertion, and every comment. The fact that ill-informed abuse of posters is rife is what poisons this forum. People who hide under an alias are particularly despicable. Say it to my face, and that is fine by me. Name a time, and let's put a face to the alias please.

JRW
Posts: 355
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by JRW »

Pasted from the Sydenham Society E-newsletter.

'A public meeting about the new St Philip Neri school development was held at Sydenham Library on Thursday 19 July. Just over 50 local people attended with six others who were unable to attend sending written questions. The meeting was chaired by local councillor Tom Copley and attended by Viv Evans, Lewisham's interim Head of Planning. There were no representatives from the diocese of Southwark and the head teacher sent his apologies. A member of the board of governors was present.

Annabel McLaren, chair of the Sydenham Society, outlined the concerns of many locals
that the development had been built contrary to granted planning permission. The external materials – cladding, windows and roof – all differed substantially from the approved plans. Viv Evans stated that there had been a large number of deviations and he intended to meet the developer and diocese to discuss these. A representative from the governors reported that they too had objected to the diocese about the changes to the building not being in line with the agreed planning application.

Many neighbours also raised the fact that the developer was starting work significantly before the agreed time and working for longer into the evening and at weekends. Viv Evans will discuss this with the developer.

Viv Evans will raise all of the issues with enforcement and agreed to examine the scheme thoroughly to unearth all of the reported breaches of planning permission.

Another public meeting will be held in September to report on actions the council is taking.'

stuart
Posts: 3315
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 10:13
Location: Lawrie Park
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by stuart »

JRW wrote:Thanks Stuart.
...
The build goes on, I am still being woken by heavy machinery from 6.30 am, and you think this is ok. That is your privilege ....
I think that eloquently makes the point I was trying to make. Look at what you wrote. Do you have any evidence for it? Do you really believe it? Do you think other people would believe it? What does it do to your credibility?

I an sorry, JRW, I thank you for all the work you have done on getting this campaign going. It was invaluable. But you are in danger of losing the people who should be with you (not just me) and making yourself someone the other side can possibly use against us.

Its hot, we can all become a bit bothered. Take time to cool down please.

Stuart

Jollylolly
Posts: 96
Joined: 8 Nov 2015 12:28

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by Jollylolly »

I am very close to the building works on Fairlawn and yes it is pre-8am but more like 745 rather than 630 start up - I feel that’s a bit of an exaggeration.
Just want to add that not ALL Fairlawn residents are against the works. I think cladding is ugly and should be changed but have no problems with the size etc. I respect Julia’s viewpoints but they are not the viewpoints of all neighbours. We shouldn’t bring religion into this, it really has nothing to do with anything (I am of no religion in case anyone is wondering!)

JRW
Posts: 355
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by JRW »

Our Lady and St Philip Neri School

Reference:
ENF/18/00139
Property:
Our Lady and St Philip Neri RC Primary School, 208 Sydenham Road, London SE26 5SE
Subject:
Implementation of planning permission DC/18/105610 not in accordance with approved plans for DC/16/096041 in regards to cladding, height and window/door installation

The Planning Department have received allegations that implementation of planning permission DC/16/096041 had not been carried out in accordance with approved plans, in regards to cladding, height and window installation. The information below illustrates what was found upon an officer site visit 24.07.18 undertaken by Planning Officer Georgia McBirney & Enforcement Officer Katherine Biddlecombe where the external elevations were observed and measured. Please note, as the site was currently under construction it was not possible for officers to measure/observe some parts of the building.

Playground Elevation
Materials - The building was constructed without samples being approved. What has been built onsite is not supported by officers.

Windows – Onsite officers observed: additional glazing bars had been installed inside the windows; louvers had been removed from windows; reveals were missing from the windows; panels had been added to the windows. The windows/doors of the nursery had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Building height - Officers could not properly measure the height of this elevation. The approved scheme had a maximum height of 12.12m, but the new plans show that the building will be over 13m in height.

Building Location – The building appeared to be positioned in accordance with the approved plans.

Nursery building – The approved scheme had a maximum height of 3.5m, onsite officers measured the nursery had a maximum height of 4.4m from ground level to the top of the rooflight. The approved scheme showed the nursery set below the first floor level of the main building, onsite officers observed that the nursery was set above the first floor level of the main building.

Canopy - The approved scheme showed a continuous canopy, officers observed three separate canopy’s onsite.

Fairlawn Park (Road Elevation)
Materials - The building was constructed without samples being approved. What has been built onsite is not supported by officers.

Windows – Onsite officers observed: additional glazing bars had been installed inside the windows; louvers had been removed from windows; reveals were missing from the windows; panels had been added to the windows; new doors installed at ground floor.

Height - Officers could not properly measure the height of this elevation. The approved scheme had a maximum height of 12m, but the new plans show that the building will be more than 12.73m in height.

Building Location – The building appeared to be positioned in accordance with the approved plans.

New Structures – A rectangle green storage/power plant was observed by officers at ground floor. This structure was not part of the approved scheme.

Central staircase – The window configuration of the staircase had not been built in accordance with the approved plans.


Sydenham Road (Road Elevation)
Materials - The building was constructed without samples being approved. What has been built onsite is not supported by officers.

Windows – Onsite officers observed: additional glazing bars had been installed inside the windows; louvers had been removed from windows; reveals were missing from the windows; panels had been added to the windows.

Height - Officers could not properly measure the height of this elevation. The approved scheme had a maximum height of 12.02m, but the new plans show that the building will be more than 13.1m in height.

Building Setback -The approved plans show that the building should be set back a minimum of 0.2m to a maximum of 1.7m. Officers observed that the building was not setback from the Sydenham Road street frontage.

Roof - The approved scheme showed a horizontal separation between each pitch of the roof. The built scheme does not include this horizontal gap. Please see the picture below illustrating there was no horizontal separation between the pitch of the roof.


Other Works
Phase 2 was under construction and officers cannot comment whether it had been built in accordance with approved plans. However, some discrepancies were observed in regards to the height of the connecting element of the Sydenham Road street frontage (between the two phases).

JRW
Posts: 355
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by JRW »

Frezarin and admin; I would like to meet you face to face please, as soon as possible. I tried to send you private messages, but my outbox doesn't work reliably. Let me know when and where would be convenient for you please. I will be at the library tomorrow morning, if that is any use.

stuart
Posts: 3315
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 10:13
Location: Lawrie Park
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by stuart »

JRW wrote:I tried to send you private messages, but my outbox doesn't work reliably.
I think you will find it does. Messages stay in the Outbox until they are read by the recipient. That's how you can tell.

HTH,
Stuart

Pally
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2 Aug 2014 05:38
Location: Sydenham

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by Pally »

JRW wrote:Schools are included, and OLSPN is a publicly funded school. If you are correct that they are exempt, that would be a good reason to not comply. What shocked me was that they didn't acknowledge my application, and state their reasons for not sending the information. That is just rude.
Not sending anyone to speak to the community affected, at the request of the planning authority, and not even sending a message or apologies is an interesting stance for a church.
The school is a publicly funded school but that is not the same as the Diocese! If you sent your request to the Diocese then it would not be recieved by or responded to by the school!

Pally
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2 Aug 2014 05:38
Location: Sydenham

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by Pally »

stuart wrote:
JRW wrote:Thanks Stuart.
...
The build goes on, I am still being woken by heavy machinery from 6.30 am, and you think this is ok. That is your privilege ....
I think that eloquently makes the point I was trying to make. Look at what you wrote. Do you have any evidence for it? Do you really believe it? Do you think other people would believe it? What does it do to your credibility?

I an sorry, JRW, I thank you for all the work you have done on getting this campaign going. It was invaluable. But you are in danger of losing the people who should be with you (not just me) and making yourself someone the other side can possibly use against us.

Its hot, we can all become a bit bothered. Take time to cool down please.

Stuart
I think that Stuart is giving wise and fair advice! He previously pointed out that there is a danger of derailing the powerful campaign and I think that is also correct.

As a general principle a successful campaign will not be helped by making negative comments that are not directly relevant to the issue being campaigned on, about parties involved, including the School and the Diocese. A statement that the Diocese did not send a representative is fact. A statement that they did not respond to a Freedom of Information request is fact. A comment on their rudeness or a quote from their literature without comment but clearly suggestive of disapproval, is not fact!!

I have explained on a number of occasions on this forum why I use an alias, and I feel it is with good reason. I do not think that negates my comments! I have certainly publicly commented at public meetings on a range of issues; knowing that I am also "Pally" is not relevant!!

JRW
Posts: 355
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by JRW »

Thank you Pally, the point about anonymity was in relation to serious accusations made against me, and was certainly not intended for you. Anyone who participates constructively can use a pseudonym without it being an issue.

I would welcome you and Stuart commenting on the official list of planning breaches, provided by the Lewisham Planning department. Given the number of accusations that I was making everything up, it would be nice for the statement to be acknowledged.

stuart
Posts: 3315
Joined: 21 Sep 2004 10:13
Location: Lawrie Park
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by stuart »

Hi JRW. I thought when we met we were friends on this issue. I hope you found my advice helpful. I am now confused as to whether you continue to regard me as a friend sharing the objective of using the planning laws to mitigate the monstrosity.

All I have tried to do is to continue to offer friendly advice aimed at focusing on the critical aspects of the campaign but it appears that it didn't appear that way to you. I am sorry about that.

If you still have any personal issues with me may I suggest we can, hopefully, resolve them by PM and allow this thread to get back on topic.

Stuart

JRW
Posts: 355
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by JRW »

Dear Stuart,
I am simply trying to bring attention back to Lewisham Planning's own list of planning breaches, which I posted. Given the accusations made on this forum that I have been making stuff up, I don't think that is too much to ask.

Pally
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2 Aug 2014 05:38
Location: Sydenham

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by Pally »

JRW wrote:Thank you Pally, the point about anonymity was in relation to serious accusations made against me, and was certainly not intended for you. Anyone who participates constructively can use a pseudonym without it being an issue.

I would welcome you and Stuart commenting on the official list of planning breaches, provided by the Lewisham Planning department. Given the number of accusations that I was making everything up, it would be nice for the statement to be acknowledged.
Posting the planning breaches list a few times has been helpful. Thankyou. I am not sure that "making things up" has been suggested regarding planning breaches per se (unless I have missed it) but about statements that are not specifically factual, but more subjective.

As I said in my previous post (with examples of facts and "opinions" given) a successful campaign will not be helped by making or implying (and therefore open to interpretation)negative comments about parties involved; that includes personal comments about yourself from others, which you should not have to put up with. Neither should organisations or individuals involved with those organisations have to put up with it either! Sticking to facts makes for less personalisation and more successful campaigning.

I really hope this campaign succeeds

KPR
Posts: 87
Joined: 4 Apr 2016 21:06
Location: Sydenham

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by KPR »

Much as I think the school is an eyesore, and the builders/school authorities taking the mickey, what result can be expected from the planning process? Apart from the cladding and windows, which might feasibly be changed, the rest of the breaches are fundamental - the building is too tall (compared to the plans) and has been built right up to the pavement when it shouldn’t have been. Lewisham aren’t going to make them knock it down and start again are they? It might be asked why the Council has only got onto this now - shouldn’t someone have been monitoring this build as it happened? They refer to the in-progress extension above and say that it doesn’t look like the plans - then why is it still going up? Surely they can impose an order on the builders to stop immediately? Suspect they won’t though for the obvious reason that the school is supposed to open in a month.

Meanwhile, I assume that the Diocese will be making out like bandits by selling the Mayow Road site for housing?

Sydenham
Posts: 283
Joined: 2 Sep 2007 09:08
Location: Wells Park

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by Sydenham »

Lets hope that whatever happens with regards to the building being built that the response of the planning department is one that does not encourage others to flout planning regulations.

I would hope that sufficient penaltes can be imposed or am I being hopelessly naive. It's fundamentally wrong that civic process can be flouted with impunity - I hope that is not the case here (and I will now get off my soapbox).

Pally
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2 Aug 2014 05:38
Location: Sydenham

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by Pally »

Any news on what is happening on this?

JGD
Posts: 895
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup - that's Bellingham Ward and includes Bell Green which is NOT in Sydenham)
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by JGD »

Unconfirmed information:

The original contractor may have been taken over by another business. The circumstances are not known.

There does not appear to have been any substantive progress on the fixing of the cladding to the front elevation. Has worked stopped on site ? Is this as a result of Lewisham Planner's actions ?

Jollylolly
Posts: 96
Joined: 8 Nov 2015 12:28

Re: St Philip Neri Meeting - Thursday 19 July 7pm

Post by Jollylolly »

I really wish the fly posterer would stop. Makes the area look scruffy and now someone has fly tipped under one of the posters. It’s in a part of Fairlawn not usually fly tipped and I can’t help think that making the trees look shabby has made someone think it’s ok to dump stuff.

Post Reply