St Philip Neri school: Archdiocese appeals planning enforcement order

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

Moderator: frenzarin

JGD
Posts: 944
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 »

prince wrote:
12 Sep 2020 07:01
However I don’t see how and why you think Julia will delay the process.
Interesting that you have used that phrase.

It is fairly certain that nowhere in any of the many posts in this matter has anyone accused Julia of delaying the process.

Nor is it inferred that Julia's activities will cause delay.

Is it your view, then, that you feel Julia's action will cause delay? Do you know something that no-one else knows?
prince wrote:
12 Sep 2020 07:01
I am sure a compromise will be reached and a resolution reached but to let developers get away with a flagrant disregard of the planning system sends out completely the wrong message. They must be held to account and I applaud Julia for trying to do this.

Whilst it was the original contractor, with a previous history of this type of activity and not a developer who executed these works in such fashion as to be seen flagrantly to flout planning laws and to disregard their responsibilities to their client and all seemingly without compunction, it is the Council that has taken action to ensure they are "held to account". They have rejected belated and retrospective applications submitted to them and issued an Enforcement Notice. All pretty much text book activity, diligently and lawfully undertaken by the Council.

So far it would appear they have utilised every legal instrument at their disposal to police the breach. The Council has published evidence on their website in some significant detail of what they have considered and propose to accept in principle.

A reasonable view that possibly emerges might go this way.

The differences now that exist between what the Council decrees as being reasonably required and what the Archdiocese's consultants would appear to be prepared to correct is not particularly substantial. It would seem that it would not take a huge step to bridge that gap.

The activities required to reach compromise may still be in play. Council Planning Officers, in presentation, have recommended that they continue to maintain channels of communication with the Archdiocese.

What is not clear in the public domain, is how and what is occurring in these channels and if it needs a "push", who will provide it and how. Not infrequently in these situations there is a choreography - in simple terms - one step follows another

Perhaps there is only one public slogan that needs to be writ large, "FINISH BUILDING OLSPN - NOW"

Growsydenham
Posts: 106
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

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

Post by Growsydenham »

I do hope this latest appeal manages to set aside the divisive language and baseless claims which have been a part of this campaign.

Sydenham Syd
Posts: 255
Joined: 30 May 2014 09:59
Location: Europe, until otherwise instructed

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

Post by Sydenham Syd »

Growsydenham wrote:
14 Sep 2020 14:55
I do hope this latest appeal manages to set aside the divisive language and baseless claims which have been a part of this campaign.
Such as?

JRW
Posts: 371
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

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

Post by JRW »

Do not feed the troll..... :D

Growsydenham
Posts: 106
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

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

Post by Growsydenham »

The campaign against this development has claimed that there were improperly managed risks from World War 2 bombs, asbestos and ground contamination, which were putting children at risk, which later shown to be untrue. There has been a poster campaign around the school vicinity using lurid language such as “monstrosity”. An apology had to be issued after it was falsely claimed children were in the school without the correct insurance. These are not justified tactics.

JRW
Posts: 371
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

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

Post by JRW »

I think you'll find the planning inquiry will rule on the facts. You make strong allegations without actually reading the evidence, and didn't take up my offer to take you through it.

I have documentary evidence, so can back up everything I have said. The developers have no evidence to back any of their statements, having failed to submit the paperwork. I don't know why you are so obsessed with having a go at someone you have never met, but it isn't a good look.

JGD
Posts: 944
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:
14 Sep 2020 19:23
I have documentary evidence, so can back up everything I have said. The developers have no evidence to back any of their statements, having failed to submit the paperwork.
Once more. It was a contractor, not a developer, who did more than just fail to submit one set of paperwork. This entire situation could have been mitigated significantly and the impact of substantial mismanagement lessened substantially if it could have just been sorted out by paperwork.

The asbestos issue was resolved by Planning Officers in answers made at the last public meeting held in the school chaired by the then councillor Tom Copley. A Q&A session raised the matters of the existence of asbestos on site and had its presence been established and had the operation of its removal somehow been mismanaged or presented any risk of contaminant being released unlawfully.

The answer, in an unequivocally firm response, was that the operation had been fully and properly supervised, appropriate notifications had been made in full conformance with the requirements related to the removal of asbestos or asbestos contaminant and that this supervision process had established that there was no evident risk either before or during the removal operation.

It is my recall that there was a counter to the officer's assertion that, perhaps, paperwork had either been submitted late or had never been published. That point appeared moot and went unanswered.

This did not alter in any way what Planning Officers averred. Asbestos was not a danger to anyone on or around the site at any stage.

Growsydenham
Posts: 106
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

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

Post by Growsydenham »

JRW wrote:
14 Sep 2020 17:39
Do not feed the troll..... :D
I just ask that people stick to the facts in a neighbourly way. But you are right, the campaign on social media against the school and the church has been another disappointing element of the campaign.

Post Reply