OLSPN

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

Moderator: frenzarin

Post Reply
JGD
Posts: 574
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup that's Catford)

OLSPN

Post by JGD » 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 ?


DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAYOR AND CABINET
Wednesday, 10 July 2019 at 6.30 pm
PRESENT: Damien Egan (Mayor), Chris Best, Chris Barnham, Paul Bell, Kevin Bonavia,
Joe Dromey, Brenda Dacres, Amanda De Ryk and Jonathan Slater.
ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Tom Copley.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Andre Bourne and Councillor Joani
Reid.

Declaration of Interests
None were made.

Minutes
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on June 26 2019 be
confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Matters Raised by Scrutiny and other Constitutional Bodies

Response to Sydenham Society on Our Lady and St Philip Neri School

The submission that had unanimously been agreed by the Sydenham
Assembly was introduced by Annabel McLaren, the Chair of the Sydenham
Society. She tabled a document setting out the Society’s concerns relating to
the breach of the original planning conditions and called for the drawing up of
a separate legal document which ensures that required works were urgently
completed. She was supported by Julia Webb who agreed that it was
important that a solution was agreed which ensured the school buildings
reached completion. They suggested that the developers preference for re-
cladding of the building with grey pebbledash should be replaced with panels
faced with slips of London stock brick.

The Director of Planning, Emma Talbot introduced the suggested response
report and confirmed a minor material amendment application was likely to be
considered by a Planning Committee in August. She indicated that in parallel
the authority reserved the right to retain an option for enforcement action.

Dr Hughes, Director of Education, responded on behalf of the Education
Commission of the Archdiocese of Southwark. He stated two public meetings
had strongly supported the application and he claimed the views of the
Sydenham Society were not representative of the wider community. He said
legal advice given to him suggested the minor material amendment
application would bring the building back into line with the original application
and that there was no need for a full application. He claimed the original
scheme was as drawn up by the Borough Architects, but Councillor Bell
pointed out the authority did not have an architects section. Dr Hughes
confirmed Home Park was already the school’s main entrance.

Councillor Paul Bell expressed shock at the apparent belligerent stance
adopted by the Commission. He wondered why no apology had been given
when it was clear the building was not in line with the original planning
consent.

Sean McGrath, a Planning consultant for the Education Commission
explained the original consent had not proved buildable and the failure to
identify a safe asbestos free decant option had meant children were on site
during the building process which was a considerable complicating factor. He
said a full apology for the applicant’s failings had been given at a public
meeting in January. He said the Commission were striving to get back to the
original scheme and pointed out London stock bricks had never been
consented with cladding always being intended. In answer to a query from
Councillor Best as to why the cladding promised by architects Pollard Thomas
Edwards had not been delivered, Mr McGrath said the cladding had not been
completed as works had been suspended until the planning situation could be
rectified.

The Director of Planning stated she believed the Commission’s response
misrepresented legitimate community concerns and that in her opinion the
cladding currently visible on site was unacceptable. She acknowledged some
representations supporting the school had been received.

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.

Councillor Chris Best expressed her severe disappointment with the
implementation of the scheme and indicated her support for the views
emanating from the Sydenham Society.

The Mayor concluded by thanking the Sydenham Assembly and the
Sydenham Society for highlighting this case. He hoped the Commission was
hearing the message that their conduct had been unacceptable and their
response to valid criticisms was very disappointing. He urged the Commission
to engage the wider community in the delivery of an acceptable solution

Having considered an officer report, and a presentations by the Sydenham
Society, the Education Commission of the Archdiocese of Southwark, Ward
Councillors and the Director of Planning, the Mayor and Cabinet

RESOLVED that the contents of the response be approved and reported back
to the Sydenham Assembly.

TredownMan
Posts: 156
Joined: 28 Sep 2017 15:38
Location: Sydenham

Re: OLSPN

Post by TredownMan » 28 Jul 2019 17:13

A pattern of behaviour: claiming to speak on behalf of all the community, without basis; sowing wild rumours; hyperbolic language; aggressive campaigning and lobbying - often to get their way on quite minor questions of planning or aesthetics that boil down to little more than personal preferences. Why the council feels the need to defer to this small group time and again is anybody's guess.

Jollylolly
Posts: 87
Joined: 8 Nov 2015 12:28

Re: OLSPN

Post by Jollylolly » 28 Jul 2019 18:52

I was at the public meeting chaired by Tom Copley. I live next to the school. This summer I should have been avoiding dust and noise but instead the site lies dormant. It’s not right that the small number of objectors have such a loud voice and have caused the project to come to a halt. Unfortunately though there are many local residents not connected with school who are in favour (or non-plussed) they have not made themselves heard. I felt the chair of the meeting was quite biased towards objectors. I saw and heard a member of the Syd Soc practically call parents irresponsible for sending their kids to play in absestos-filled land in the mingle-time after the meeting. All vicious rumours.
I report the fly posting every time to Fix my Street. Others should too.

Growsydenham
Posts: 97
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

Re: OLSPN

Post by Growsydenham » 8 Aug 2019 06:29

Despite having been repeatedly and publicly corrected, the false rumours about asbestos were fanned again at council question time on July 24.

Question
Why did Lewisham allow our Lady & St Philip Neri School to move children into a half-finished, unapproved building, lacking proper documentation? The building does not conform to specifications, still is not signed off for build quality, and lacks documentation for asbestos management. Would councillors send their own children to school on this site?

Answer
Matters relating to asbestos fall under the remit of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). There were two areas of asbestos within demolished buildings on the site (in the roof tiles and in the boiler room). Documentation from the HSE demonstrates that the asbestos on site was removed and disposed of safely and should not have had any impact on pupils, staff or residents.
Specifically, staff from within our capital delivery, structural engineering and health and safety teams have all attended the site, and have been confident that the pupils and staff are safe and that appropriate arrangements have been put in place to mitigate and control any risks associated with the building works.

JRW
Posts: 346
Joined: 18 Jun 2015 15:01

Re: OLSPN

Post by JRW » 8 Aug 2019 07:08

Well, that is a bit dishonest, Growsydenham. You have presented that as the complete answer, which I have pasted below for comparison.

A supplementary question brought stronger comments from the Mayor, but for some reason, Lewisham Council doesn't minute supplementaries.

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 54. Priority 4
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM COUNCIL MEETING
24 JULY 2019
Member to reply: Mayor

Question
Why did Lewisham allow Our Lady & St Philip Neri School to move children into a half-finished, unapproved building, lacking proper documentation? The building does not conform to specifications, still is not signed off for build quality, and lacks documentation for asbestos management. Would councillors send their own children to school on this site?

Reply
The Council takes concerns about children’s health and safety extremely seriously and has conducted periodic visits to Our Lady & St Philip Neri School since before the occupation of the new buildings took place. Three different professionals attended the site on at least 20 occasions over the past year to ensure that the buildings are safe for use.

I share residents’ frustration that development on the site has not been carried out in accordance with the approved plans and that a number of planning conditions have not been complied with. The Council has been urging the applicant to rectify these outstanding planning issues and the priority now is to ensure it is up to standards.

Planning permission was granted in October 2016 for a three storey school building including a nursery, a multi-function sports court and a running track. This permission was to allow the amalgamation of Our Lady & St Philip Neri School’s infant and junior schools on the site.

Current Government legislation means that it is not a criminal offence to carry out development without planning permission. It is normal practice to invite a retrospective planning application to formally establish if the unauthorised development is compliant with planning policies and guidance, prior to deciding whether to commence formal enforcement proceedings.

The Planning Enforcement case remains live but the Council has to resolve the issues first through the planning system, as if it were to take enforcement action it has to be able to demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken first. However, it remains an option if the current planning application is unsuccessful or if the outstanding issues are not addressed promptly.

Matters relating to asbestos fall under the remit of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). There were two areas of asbestos within demolished buildings on the site (in the roof tiles and in the boiler room). Documentation from the HSE demonstrates that the asbestos on site was removed and disposed of safely and should not have had any impact on pupils, staff or residents.

Specifically, staff from within our capital delivery, structural engineering and health and safety teams have all attended the site, and have been confident that the pupils and staff are safe and that appropriate arrangements have been put in place to mitigate and control any risks associated with the building works.

JGD
Posts: 574
Joined: 5 Feb 2018 11:39
Location: Perry Hill, SE6 (yup that's Catford)

Re: OLSPN

Post by JGD » 8 Aug 2019 09:22

JRW wrote:
8 Aug 2019 07:08
Well, that is a bit dishonest, Growsydenham. You have presented that as the complete answer, which I have pasted below for comparison.

A supplementary question brought stronger comments from the Mayor, but for some reason, Lewisham Council doesn't minute supplementaries.

PUBLIC QUESTION NO 54. Priority 4
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM COUNCIL MEETING
24 JULY 2019
Member to reply: Mayor

Question
Why did Lewisham allow Our Lady & St Philip Neri School to move children into a half-finished, unapproved building, lacking proper documentation? The building does not conform to specifications, still is not signed off for build quality, and lacks documentation for asbestos management. Would councillors send their own children to school on this site?
Interesting JRW that you choose not to report who posed the supplementary question.

And is so typical of many of your posts you adopt an accusatory tone.

You assert dishonesty on Growsydenham's part and then tell us that Lewisham does not minute supplementaries - so how was Growsydenham to know that the quote he made form the public record had any follow up info attached to it.

So, please do the decent thing and withdraw your accusation. Growsydenham is not guilty.

As to the supplementary question and answer, it adds no information to the debate that was not already in the public domain.

And as to the flogging of the dead horse that there is an alleged and falsely stated asbestos problem, perhaps you can choose to enlighten us all. Were you the person who fly posted in the vicinity of the school and heightened the sense of fear in parents and children?

Perhaps you can explain that if the creation of this sense of fear was not your primary purpose, what was? After all, the council now in two public pronouncements has stated unambiguously that there are no grounds for this false allegation.

carty
Posts: 19
Joined: 21 Mar 2019 18:00

Re: OLSPN

Post by carty » 8 Aug 2019 09:44

Of course she was.

JRW has lead this hate campaign against the school/children and Syd Soc are very silly to have got caught up with her which undermined Syd Soc as well.

Growsydenham
Posts: 97
Joined: 27 Jan 2018 09:23
Location: sydenham

Re: OLSPN

Post by Growsydenham » 8 Aug 2019 18:14

Happy for the whole thing to be posted.
Makes no difference. No matter how upside down or inside out the aesthetic rules ended up being followed, nothing justifies false claims about children and asbestos.

Post Reply