St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

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

Moderator: frenzarin

JGD
Posts: 1018
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup - that's Bellingham Ward which includes Bell Green and is still NOT Sydenham)
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JGD »

A brief enquiry made to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) helpline confirmed that London Borough of Lewisham as the LPA have an obligation to make accessible all documents that the appellant submits in appeal and all associated information including a statement of case (SoC) and draft statement of common ground (SoCG).

It would seem that some documents lag behind as a result of due process and as yet, not all of the submissions have been seen and I am working my way through a substantial number of documents now.

PINS advise that some 5 weeks after the commencement, the LPA submits the main SoCG that they have jointly prepared and agreed with the appellant to PINS. At this point, the LPA sends their SoC to PINS. PINS share the LPA’s SoC with the appellant.

At the 7 week mark, a PINS inspector will hold a conference call with the appellant, the LPA and any party who has been afforded Rule 6 status to
discuss the matters that will be examined during the inquiry and will issue a follow-up note. It also provides an opportunity for the parties to ask any procedural questions.

Some weeks later Proofs of Evidence must be submitted by the appellant, the LPA and Rule 6 parties before the Inquiry starts.

Time aplenty for compromise to be made and reach agreement about moving towards completing construction of the building.

For the mean time and rather interestingly, one document labelled "Appendix 18 olspn - sydenham town forum_asbestos_8 august.pdf" appears in the list of documents presented at this time. The original post can be found here.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19678&p=185038&hilit=OLSPN#p185038

The six page document is an extract from this very site that contains posts made in a thread that appeared between 28 July 2019 and 8 August 2019.

Someone was observing the thread and made a copy dated 8/9/2019 and it is now presented in evidence.

The thread is an observation on the report made by SydSoc to the Sydenham Ward Assembly about events at the Public Meeting held at the School. The SydSoc report to the Ward Assembly contained significant differences between its contents and the actualite of what did happen at the public meeting also chaired by Tom Copley. It led to a subsequent report being made in the form of a Question to Lewisham's Mayor Damien Egan, in which matters deemed to have been resolved at the public meeting, rather curiously, being raised once more. The thread begins this way....
JGD wrote: 28 Jul 2019 15:05 These draft minutes have been published in another place.

It contains some significant inaccuracies on events and commentary made at the recent public meeting at the school.

Whilst there was a small minority of Sydenham Society members present who endeavoured to dominate the proceedings, including one individual who brandished a placard who only reluctantly agreed to its removal when a majority of voices complained that his actions were rude and it prevented them from observing proceedings. SydSoc's presentation was lopsided. It advised the meeting that as a Society, they had not objected to the original design proposal. It moved on then to articulate a current preference for a different materials finish, namely brick, that until that point had never been proposed by the Society or the previous designers Their commentary returned to a previously deployed thread of unsubstantiated criticism that there was danger present on the school ground in that asbestos material had not been removed safely and written reports about it were not submitted on time. That was effectively and conclusively refuted as it was reported to the meeting that HSE had observed the controlled removal of that material and it was confirmed that there was no question of there being any latent contaminants present.

Members of the audience expressed dismay that these unsubstantiated rumours voiced at the meeting by SydSoc had been subject of fly posting in the vicinity of the school. Parents advised that they felt this was causing unnecessary distress in the minds of parents and children and they had made attempts to remove the offending posters.

Local Ward Councillor Tom Copley said
he had chaired the Sydenham Assembly meeting where the reference had been unanimously agreed and he believed the scheme’s critics were not a small minority of the community.
It is regrettable that this assertion that there had been unanimous agreement on the "reference" has been made. At the school meeting the majority who spoke, were critical of SydSoc's interventions that were causing delay. The outcome from the school meeting is evidently and widely at odds with that reported from the Assembly.

it was evident that those of us who were present that there was a majority view, by a considerable margin, that events in the whole matter were seen as being regrettable. However that majority view called for construction of the full scheme now had to be brought to completion soonest. SydSoc were challenged from the floor about about their prolongation of events by introducing new design considerations. All parents who spoke addressed the issue of their children's education being impacted by potential further delay.

Of the SydSoc presence, only Pat Trembath made any significant and positive impact by providing a precise and accurate narrative about the extents of works for the park entrance that had been approved in the original application, which countered the current designer's assertion of a much lesser scope of works.

Does any one else feel that Mayor Damien Egan's reported thanks to SydSoc are misplaced ?

...
More to follow in due course.
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

Latest news from the Planning Inspectorate:

"the LPA are not required to publish statements but they must be available to view should someone wish to see them."

So, anyone who is interested in reading the statements of case from the Archdiocese and from Lewisham Council, just ask planning@lewisham.gov.uk, and they must send you a copy, or make other arrangements. If they get a few requests they will have to put it online.

Do have a read, as they are hilarious. As a taster..... The Archdiocese's statement says that they ACCEPT the Council's list of planning breaches, but claim they are unimportant.....

"5.35. The Council has identified the following changes proposed by the Appeal Scheme:
1. Alterations to the materials;
2. Alterations to the fenestration pattern;
3. An increase in the height of the building;
4. Alterations to the roof profile;
5. Alterations to the siting of the building;
6. The installation of the UKPN cabinets and planting on the corner of Sydenham Road and Fairlawn Park;
7. The reduction in the number of fins on the Hall building;
8. The installation of an internal ball fence to the playground on the flat roof of the Hall building;
9. The installation of ventilation grilles;
10. Alterations to external lighting;
11. Alterations to the extraction flue;
12. Alterations to the playground canopies;
13. Alterations to the nursery entrance;
14. The installation of an air-conditioning unit near the nursery entrance;
15. Alterations to the brick plinth; and
16. Alterations to the external plant store.

5.36. The Appellant agrees this list and will demonstrate that these changes do not either
individually or cumulatively, give rise to any material harm, will improve the performance and
appearance of the building and should receive planning permission"


About the area, the Archdiocese states:

Ground (a) That planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice.
Materials and Fenestration
5.1. The stated first reason for issuing the Enforcement Notice concerns materials and pattern of fenestration. The notice alleges that it is two elements only “their appearance and quality” that are a cause of concern. It is alleged that these two elements “would results in an incongruent, low quality and poorly detailed building which is harmful to the character and appearance of the local streetscene”.

5.2. The Appellant will demonstrate that there is no distinctive character in the surrounding area that makes the townscape or streetscene particularly sensitive or worthy of note. The site is not located within a conservation area and it is not in the setting of a heritage asset whether designated or not."

I'm rather surprised that they don't consider their own church to be a heritage asset, and the library certainly is.
JGD
Posts: 1018
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup - that's Bellingham Ward which includes Bell Green and is still NOT Sydenham)
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JGD »

Interesting material - all of it.

So if the stuff I'm wading through is not directly related to the submissions as described in my earlier post, there is an awful lot of it.
JRW wrote: 6 Oct 2020 14:48 "the LPA are not required to publish statements but they must be available to view should someone wish to see them."

Interestingly this PINS statement is in conflict with their own published guidelines of what should occur.

But hey-ho - nothing new in the difference between what should happen as published in the guidelines and what actually does happen.

So far I have not found the documents you are referring to - so perhaps an email to the LPA seeking copies may have to be made.

Are these quotes from the Archdiocese's statement of case (SoC) or from a draft statement of common ground (SoCG)?

It seems to agree that there is a list of discrepancies but does not state whether there is "common ground".
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

The quotes are from the Archdiocese's statement of case. They haven't yet agreed with Lewisham on a statement of common ground; the PI told me I wouldn't get to see their drafts in the meanwhile (also not quite the procedure in the guide, but I assume it's a covid concession.) So, we all wait with bated breath, because the Archdiocese have not budged one inch in the whole enforcement process.

Yes, you need to ask Lewisham, the LPA, to see the statements. They are legally obliged to provide access, but have chosen not to make them available online.
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

So, the arrangements for the OLSPN planning inquiry are announced: it will be an online inquiry, run on MS Teams, on the 9th and 10th February, 2021. More to follow.
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

We finally have a date for the planning inquiry into the OLSPN redevelopment, the 9th and 10th February 2021. Due to COVID-19, it will be a virtual meeting; if you wish, you can follow proceedings live on MS Teams. This is quite straightforward, and many council meetings are being done online now, so it’s worth getting the hang of. Each side has requested that the Inspector should visit the site in person, so they can understand the issues, but that has not yet been confirmed.

The documentation so far (the full information will arrive 4 weeks before the inquiry) is very strange. The Archdiocese admits that the long list of planning breaches are true, but at the same time are arguing that they didn’t have to follow them…(?!) Frankly, as the Council lawyers can’t make sense of it, I’m not even going to try.

The Archdiocese says that they haven’t damaged the character and appearance of the area, because the area isn’t that attractive anyway. Astonishingly rude! I think Fairlawn Park is beautiful. They are claiming that Lewisham has been discriminating against them on religious grounds, and quite a lot of other accusations along those lines.

In addition, these kind of claims are also made in third party comments, supporting the Archdiocese. These include Bishop Patrick Lynch, auxiliary bishop (SE), saying:

" In Our Lady and St Philip Neri Primary School there is a very high percentage of students from BAME communities……. These include many single families on Universal Credit, housed in the area by by the Local Authority. There are, however, a few people in the local community who have reacted negatively to this change in the demographic of the area…." (ie. he thinks we’re racist… ?)

Two parents, one also a governor, imply objections are based in anti-catholic feelings. Most interestingly, a standard letter, copies signed by over 80 parents, says

“… . as a parent, I am very disappointed that the school remains unfinished. It seems to be that the needs of the pupils are being ignored in order to placate one or two vociferous residents who do not want a school near their homes.”

I am sure I could reasonably be described as vociferous, but I love living next to a school, I grew up next to a school, and like hearing kids in the playground. It’s the associated adults I have issues with. I am disturbed that this has been distributed, apparently with the cooperation of the school. I’d be happy to be told this was not distributed by the governors.

In the autumn of 2019, the Archdiocese submitted, as letters of support, a large group of letters from pupils. Having seen copies (redacted for privacy), I discovered that these are actually letters to the Archdiocese, giving their positive and negative views of the new building. A huge proportion of them ask (very politely) for blinds in the classrooms, because glare from the sun made it hard to see projectors and screens, and also made the rooms miserably hot.

I would point out that these problems are the result of the wrong windows being fitted; they were to be deep set, not flush, to cut glare. Ventilation panels should have provided fresh air, while keeping it soundproof to traffic. Many other issues were raised by the pupils, including health and safety concerns, and the general impression is that they were finding the school buildings uncomfortable.

Anyway, please spread the word, and ask anyone who is interested in joining the mailing list, to email fairlawnparkplanning@gmail.com. If you join the mailing list, I can give you access to the main documents.
Growsydenham
Posts: 111
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by Growsydenham »

JRW wrote: 22 Oct 2020 17:49
Two parents, one also a governor, imply objections are based in anti-catholic feelings.
This is I’m sure inaccurate, unfair and a misunderstanding. But it is why the campaigners’ decision to send tweets to the Pope about the school “ignoring temporal authority” and failing “church ethics” were a bad idea; because they risked fuelling such unfortunate impressions.
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

And the Bishop?
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

Poster for the OLSPN planning inquiry, Fairlawn Park area planning group. Sign up for updates.

https://twitter.com/SGasworks/status/13 ... 47105?s=19

More on #OLSPN school's redevelopment at @LewishamCouncil webcast of their Mayor and Cabinet July 2019. Presentations from developers, objectors and planning. Worth watching; a quite gripping 40 minutes.[02:00 - 42:00] #Sydenham #planning #SE26 #inquiry

https://lewisham.public-i.tv/core/porta ... ve/433539l
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

This evening, a public question was debarred fon being considered at the council meeting. This was on the entirely phony grounds that I had already received the answer. The question was:

“Please can you detail capital payments made to the Archdiocese of Southwark’s Education Commission, to deliver the OLSPN school redevelopment? Funding was provided by the Council to the Diocese up front, allowing them to engage contractors, and deliver the scheme.”

Not only are they refusing to answer, as they have for two years now, but they have been frankly hostile to all questions. When somebody is that reluctant to speak, it draws the eye, and begs the question, what have they got to hide?

In order to improve the school building stock in Lewisham, the Archdiocese applied to consolidate infant and junior schools into new primary schools on single sites. They proposed to consolidate OLSPN and St Winifred’s schools onto single sites as new Primary schools. This would also allow the Archdiocese to sell the two redundant infant school sites for lucrative housing deals.

To enable this plan, in May 2016, The Mayor & Cabinet approved a contribution of £6.1m of capital funding towards these expansion works. “The Archdiocese is responsible for the delivery
of both schemes, subject to the terms of a Development Agreement between the Council and the Archdiocese due to be signed imminently.”

On 22 March, 2017, the Mayor & Cabinet approved a “Land Transfer to The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark for nil consideration for the duration of the lifetime of the school on that site.” This was the land on which the new classroom block was built, the old playground on the corner of Fairlawn Park.

OLSPN Mayow Road was sold for bids in excess of £4m.This means that with half the settlement, plus the money for the old Mayow Road Infants site, the Archdiocese had £7m to spend on the new OLSPN primary school, Sydenham Road. What happened to this budget? Have the pupils been given the school they deserve, using the schools own land and the public money granted for their school rebuild?

To be continued…

In the meanwhile, if you are an immediate neighbour of the school, email Fairlawnparkplanning@gmail.com and sign up for updates on the planning inquiry process. Join in the group of concerned neighbours, who don’t trust Lewisham to see the planning inquiry properly informed. I can represent your concerns at the inquiry, and make sure the pupils get the school they deserve, and a visual improvement for us.
The Clown
Posts: 388
Joined: 8 Apr 2005 14:04
Location: Sydenham

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by The Clown »

Thanks for posting so much detail. I have to confess,I skim read it. I’m happy to support sorting out the eyesore to ensure it meets the original or better design but not entirely clear on how I ( or others ) can help. If you could cut and paste letters that may be useful to send etc. I’d be happy to do that. Unfortunately many have very little time to spend on community matters but get frustrated with ourselves when the community is failed like this.
The school needs to start taking responsibility, they are not following their own faith with these behaviours. They have made a mess of this and should be apologising and campaigning for funds to help sort it out rather than by fighting it.
JGD
Posts: 1018
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup - that's Bellingham Ward which includes Bell Green and is still NOT Sydenham)
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JGD »

JRW wrote: 26 Nov 2020 01:02 On 22 March, 2017, the Mayor & Cabinet approved a “Land Transfer to The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark for nil consideration for the duration of the lifetime of the school on that site.” This was the land on which the new classroom block was built, the old playground on the corner of Fairlawn Park.

OLSPN Mayow Road was sold for bids in excess of £4m.This means that with half the settlement, plus the money for the old Mayow Road Infants site, the Archdiocese had £7m to spend on the new OLSPN primary school, Sydenham Road. What happened to this budget? Have the pupils been given the school they deserve, using the schools own land and the public money granted for their school rebuild?
An excellent point has been made here.

It seems this is evidence that there is a sum of money in excess of £7m present although it is not clear in the post as to why the monies accrued for the sale of the St Winifred’s school site is not included in this total, as described in the post.

It is nether reasonable nor precise to describe this £7m sum, or the sum inclusive of the sale value of the second site, as the "budget" for the school new build however.

This is patently an error.

Undoubtedly, the Archdiocese has these monies but no-one would interpret that as being the estimated cost or budget for the new school.

On balance, it could be argued that the Archdiocese has adequate funds to hand, generated from the deals, to take corrective action and move to complete the works as promptly as is possible, as the community has expressed its desire to see happening. This could be done in a spirit of compromise and would not prevent the Archdiocese pursuing any case in civil law to recover these costs of the remedy from the parties and builders who actually failed in their duty to construct the school in accordance with the plans approved by the council.

Two important points arise from the post.

It adds no merit to this matter to describe the council as failing to respond or make accusations that they evade answering questions.

As can be seen in the quote from the post, Council records show what decisions were made about the Mayor & Cabinet approved a contribution of £6.1m of capital funding and a Land Transfer to the Archdiocese.

What purpose do any new questions have? Is it necessary that a copy of the cheque or a copy of the Deed of Transfer is seen as some form of evidence?

It is hardly appropriate or helpful to maintain a background of insubstantial and unsubstantiated allegations around the Council's activities.

As indeed can be seen in the post, the Council has answered the question previously. The poster found the details in Council records.
JRW wrote: 26 Nov 2020 01:02 “Please can you detail capital payments made to the Archdiocese of Southwark’s Education Commission, to deliver the OLSPN school redevelopment? Funding was provided by the Council to the Diocese up front, allowing them to engage contractors, and deliver the scheme.”

Not only are they refusing to answer, as they have for two years now, but they have been frankly hostile to all questions. When somebody is that reluctant to speak, it draws the eye, and begs the question, what have they got to hide?

....

To enable this plan, in May 2016, The Mayor & Cabinet approved a contribution of £6.1m of capital funding towards these expansion works. “The Archdiocese is responsible for the delivery
of both schemes, subject to the terms of a Development Agreement between the Council and the Archdiocese due to be signed imminently.”
Is the pursuance of these matters, in someway, to add evidence that is to be to placed before the PINs Inquiry?

If this is the case, it is unclear what additional factual detail around these transactions by the Council can be laid before the Inquiry that will help it reach a decision.
Growsydenham
Posts: 111
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by Growsydenham »

Indeed JGD. The council has to answer to 300,000 people and runs on an increasingly threadbare budget. Of course it should be honest and transparent. But it cannot spend endless resources placating those who like to see scandal and conspiracy around every corner.
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

Hi JGD,

The point of seeking the information is not to bring it up at the inquiry, but to have it available for rebuttal of the Archdiocese's agents, should they repeat their inaccurate version of events. They have claimed that the design was the responsibility of the council. They have claimed that they didn't have enough money to do the building properly.

The sum of the settlement wasn't straightforward to find, as it was part of a confidential report. I located the figure cited in a later document. The vital part I'm seeking is the agreement, containing the conditions binding both parties. It is not unreasonable to check the strings attached to the public money granted.

In order to counter false claims at inquiry, I need to have evidence. To quote it, it must be submitted to the inquiry library a month before the hearing, ie in the new year. If it isn't in the library it can't be referred to, and might as well not exist. My purpose is to stop time being wasted on frivolous claims, as all parties will know the actual facts are in evidence.

I don't know what you think, but I don't know which is the scarier prospect, that the Council are concealing evidence, or, as it appears, they have forgotten it exists. It is certainly news to senior councillors.
JGD
Posts: 1018
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup - that's Bellingham Ward which includes Bell Green and is still NOT Sydenham)
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JGD »

Julia

Like a lot of watchers of progress on this case it is difficult to define what is thought of the observations you make .

You describe very little of what is actually happening and what actions you have undertaken to bridge any differences that may exist in the community where it is located and that this school serves. That of course is your prerogative.

It has the effect of adding to the confusion about how the community views your actions.

Let us examine two of your posts made in recent days.

Of the council you make this comment:
JRW wrote: 26 Nov 2020 01:02 This evening, a public question was debarred fon being considered at the council meeting. This was on the entirely phony grounds that I had already received the answer. The question was:

“Please can you detail capital payments made to the Archdiocese of Southwark’s Education Commission, to deliver the OLSPN school redevelopment? Funding was provided by the Council to the Diocese up front, allowing them to engage contractors, and deliver the scheme.”

Not only are they refusing to answer, as they have for two years now, but they have been frankly hostile to all questions. When somebody is that reluctant to speak, it draws the eye, and begs the question, what have they got to hide?

In a separate post you remark on the Archdiocese and raise questions about the possibility of the Council not acting openly:
JRW wrote: 26 Nov 2020 20:24 The point of seeking the information is not to bring it up at the inquiry, but to have it available for rebuttal of the Archdiocese's agents, should they repeat their inaccurate version of events. They have claimed that the design was the responsibility of the council. They have claimed that they didn't have enough money to do the building properly.
...
In order to counter false claims at inquiry, I need to have evidence. To quote it, it must be submitted to the inquiry library a month before the hearing, ie in the new year. If it isn't in the library it can't be referred to, and might as well not exist. My purpose is to stop time being wasted on frivolous claims, as all parties will know the actual facts are in evidence.

I don't know what you think, but I don't know which is the scarier prospect, that the Council are concealing evidence, or, as it appears, they have forgotten it exists. It is certainly news to senior councillors.
In your comments you ascribe motives to both parties, described as phony, as hostile, as reluctant, as inaccurate, as engaging in concealment but not necessarily in equal measure.

It is not clear whether it is intended to blight both parties with such negative commentary. However the posts present no information on any positive progress made by your campaign.

It leaves no impression that the community can interpret about what it has set as its objectives.

It is not enough to say, along with possibly everyone else, that is is essential that the building of the school is completed soonest.

It does not help to say that you wish to prevent time wasting and the making of frivolous claims - that is a role and duty cast for the Inspector in formal actions to be taken in processes in advance of the start of the Inquiry and then during the Inquiry itself.

It would help greatly if it could be described what outcomes you want to see from the Inquiry in, at least some, meaningful detail.

It needs sufficient granularity to provide an understanding of what elements of the construction would have to be modified and or be completed to meet any criteria that you would judge to be acceptable or indeed classify as a success in any adjudication.

There is one thing that you can be assured about and it is this. My opinion has not moved one iota in that a compromise must be reached. Only two parties can make that compromise - the Archdiocese and the Council. It is my genuine hope that both parties will have already moved on that issue and discussions are taking place and that despite us knowing nothing of those possible actions, that they both understand we wish them every success in reaching an acceptable outcome before the Inquiry starts.
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

JGD,
I cannot believe that you are offended by my criticising the council. I have a democratic right to lodge a public question. The officers debarred it, on false grounds. Exactly why do I need to apologise for, in criticising that my democratic rights are breached? They have both the legal duty, and their declared policy, saying that data should be publicly available. They withhold it.

Its a shame that your contributions are not focused on the case in hand, but rather on trying to put me down. The Archdiocese have submitted some of your efforts on this forum as evidence, so presumably they feel it supports their case. I hope you feel that your need to criticise everything I do is important enough to risk the community being landed with the school as it is.
Jollylolly
Posts: 100
Joined: 8 Nov 2015 12:28

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by Jollylolly »

Jrw - I don’t see any evidence of JGD being offended. Whenever someone questions your activity you seem to consider it as an attack on you rather than your views. You can’t expect to go into this unchallenged.

I have previously also asked what you specifically would like to happen with the school and never received a satisfactory answer. Do you want it taken down?

When you mention the community, as I’ve said before, you do not speak for all of Fairlawn Park and surrounds and yes it’s important that people know this. Once more, you have flypostered all the trees on Fairlawn, you rarely take them down once events etc have finished- other residents including myself have had to do this for you.
JGD
Posts: 1018
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup - that's Bellingham Ward which includes Bell Green and is still NOT Sydenham)
Contact:

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JGD »

JRW wrote: 26 Nov 2020 23:22 I cannot believe that you are offended by my criticising the council.
I am not offended.

If you view my observation about you ascribing negativity to both the Council and the School as only being critical of your actions and not the real point that was in the post, perhaps others may see your stance as being wilfully blind to what should be obvious to you. And that was a request to help, by articulating more case details. I certainly made no suggestion or request that you make an apology. Is that something that you feel perhaps or is in your mind?
JRW wrote: 26 Nov 2020 23:22 Its a shame that your contributions are not focused on the case in hand
The response in your post appears not to add material or explain your views as I request in my post.

You make my point for me. If you are intent upon attributing shame - that is where it lies.

Posters on many occasions has asked you politely to not express yourself in such ways where it seems you cast negativity constantly on the personnel and organisations with whom you are in contention. It has been suggested to you that you focus your argument on the issues and cease criticising the personnel involved or their organisations. Let the facts around the issue make your argument - that approach will have a greater likelihood of success in any case that has real merit.

Posters have made direct and unapologetic rebuttals of your assertions of wrong-doings on the part of anyone or any body in that same group.

Others have been critical of the consistency of these types of assertions made by you - and across more than this OLSPN matter.

But not this day.

I repeat:
JGD wrote: 26 Nov 2020 22:37 It does not help to say that you wish to prevent time wasting and the making of frivolous claims - that is a role and duty cast for the Inspector in formal actions to be taken in processes in advance of the start of the Inquiry and then during the Inquiry itself.

It would help greatly if it could be described what outcomes you want to see from the Inquiry in, at least some, meaningful detail.

It needs sufficient granularity to provide an understanding of what elements of the construction would have to be modified and or be completed to meet any criteria that you would judge to be acceptable or indeed classify as a success in any adjudication.
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

JGD,
This trail is to alert the immediate neighbours of OLSPN that I can provide full information to them on request. I don't need your approval, and gaining it would involve giving the Archdiocese an advantage. As you live in Perry Hill, and growsydenham lives around Mayow, it is of daily importance to neither of you. It's a shame that you don't see that your lengthy posts, and their personal attacks, puts off people from getting involved in a group, that could improve their environment

As you keep creating such a fuss, I am on the verge of giving up on STF, in which you dominate every topic. SE26.life also allows me to post screenshot and photos, so is much more useful anyway. So, neighbours, come on over to SE26.life and hear all about it. If you are an immediate neighbour of OLSPN, email Fairlawnparkplanning@gmail.com, and you can get as much detail as you wish.
JRW
Posts: 399
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

Post by JRW »

I have previously also asked what you specifically would like to happen with the school and never received a satisfactory answer. Do you want it taken down?

When you mention the community, as I’ve said before, you do not speak for all of Fairlawn Park and surrounds and yes it’s important that people know this. Once more, you have flypostered all the trees on Fairlawn, you rarely take them down once events etc have finished- other residents including myself have had to do this for you.
Hi jollylolly,
In answer to your two points:
1. It has been made impossible to make positive suggestions publicly, because the Archdiocese instantly jumps up says you are asking for something that wasn't in the original design. That is because you are trying to find compromises to adapt the existing structure to make it visually acceptable. This has happened repeatedly, so I am waiting for an opportunity to contribute them officially, at a point that the Archdiocese is willing to negotiate. It is incredibly frustrating, but there is absolutely no negotiations happening. The Archdiocese didn't even submit a proper 'comments' on either Lewisham's or my statement of case. I'd be happy to discuss possibilities with you off the forum, within the FP group, or individually.

2. I have at no point claimed to speak for everybody in FP. I have to give the objectors group a name, and had no wish to misrepresent our position by calling us objectors to the OLSPN development. Every single person wants to have the school redeveloped to give the pupils the school they deserve. Unfortunately the evidence the Archdiocese themselves submitted includes a huge number of problems with the building, raised by the children themselves in letters to the Archdiocese.

3. I have always taken my posters down promptly: if I missed one or two I apologise, but some have been put up by other people, who may not have tipped me off about them. I have put up posters this week, which were almost all taken down within 12 hours. I think that is pretty unfair, and doesn't reflect well on the people responsible, who have prevented other people getting the information. I notice that nobody bothers about lost dog /cat posters, which are left up years after the pets are retrieved. It makes me question whether I'll bother to alert people to the upcoming parking bans.

I appreciate that parents of pupils are anxious about the situation, but I would have thought they might ask why the £7m that the Archdiocese had available hasn't been used to do a good job, and why a large chunk of land is fenced off derelict, when it could be some badly needed playground space.
Post Reply