Northbrook Action Group (NAG)

NAG thought this article in the Evening Standard on 14 October was interesting, particularly in regard to the comments on sports facilities. What a fantastic commitment to sporting excellence in the run-up to the Olympics! NAG also idly wonders what “non-standard” procurement by local authorities might refer to…..but we have our suspicions

Brown’s £45bn schools rebuild project delayed

Tim Ross, Education Correspondent
14.10.08

GORDON BROWN’S £45 billion plan to rebuild every secondary school in England is years behind schedule, figures reveal today.

Two thirds of the first projects under the Building Schools for the Future initiative are experiencing delays.

Ministers had promised 200 new or refurbished school buildings by the end of this year, but only 37 will be completed as planned. Government figures obtained by the Conservatives showed schemes in Greenwich were running more than two years behind schedule.

The figures follow concerns that new schools are being built across London without full sporting facilities and fears that the Olympic village development will be hit by the credit crunch. Shadow children’s secretary Michael Gove said: “The Government is failing to deliver on its flagship education project.

“As the building gets more and more behind schedule, the costs are rising all the time. Ed Balls’s department simply doesn’t seem capable of handling large-scale projects like this. It is teachers, parents and children that are missing out as a result.” In Greenwich, rebuilding projects were due to have been completed by next April but this has been put back to September 2011.

Officials blamed the piloting of a “non-standard” procurement model by the local authority.

Ministers put back the original target date of 2015 for completing the programme. But even the revised target of 2020 is in question.

NAG apologises for the hiatus in comms - we had a server problem for a few days, but we haven’t gone away!

NAG is currently talking with our solicitor about a Judicial Review of the decision made at the Strategic Planning Committee on 2 October. There are strict grounds for bringing a case to JR and considerable costs involved. NAG is therefore making sure our research is thorough and justified, since we would not want to waste more taxpayers’ money in the current economic climate.

NAG members also met with the new Headteacher of Northbrook School, Father Richard Peers, along with the MHGUG sub-committee on the use by the school of the gardens. Steve Gough from Lewisham Council was also present. Fr Peers listened carefully to everything that NAG and the User Group had to say about the history of the pupils’ use of MHG and the platform for negotiation of any possible future use. Some key points were:

MHGUG and NAG surmised that the council and school have disingenuously asserted the school’s long and traditional ‘custom and usage’ in order to secure protection in law for continued use of the gardens. The council and the school have ignored any attempts to correct these assertions because they have predicated the new school plan on continued use of the gardens;

Fr Peers stated that the Gardens were a ‘nice to have’ resource, and not a necessity. The school can function as a viable unit without use of the Gardens, but the Gardens are close and accessible and can enhance the curriculum in a number of ways (art, science, as well as PE). Fr Peers also brought a proposed timetable of use by the school. It does not include any use at lunchtime and break times - NAG does not know if this means the school no longer proposes to use the MUGA or tennis courts as these times as well as the proposed PE timetable.

MHGUG sub-committee still expressed concerns about access via the gate in the wall, protection of the integrity and boundaries of the gardens (which were statutorily re-stated in order to secure the lottery grant to refurbish them), the increasing ‘mission creep’ surrounding use of the gardens and the size of the school and affording all schools and user groups in the area the same level of usage and access as Northbrook. Northbook’s timetable still looks ‘heavy’ if access is to be fairly shared between everyone. MHGUG would like to commission some baseline research on all the uses of the gardens, times and frequency of use. This would enable an analysis of ‘capacity’ that can then be shared amongst those that would like to apply for further use and ensure a real balance of uses and users;

MHGUG and NAG said they would also like to see any agreed usage bound by a legal covenant to avoid the situation that we now find ourselves in happening in the future (i.e. an informal agreement for occasional use becoming a formal part of the school’s curriculum and resulting in an onerous timetable of ‘preferential use’); Steve Gough did not know if this was possible;

There was acknowledgement of the previously fruitful relationship between the MHGUG and the Parks Dept at Lewisham Council, and a desire to see this continue and reach an agreeable soltuion. However, MHGUG reflected a degree of distrust, cynicism and a feeling of having been let down over their treatment during the planning process for Northbrook’s rebuild. Many believe that the council will do what they want regardless of any agreement or otherwise;

NAG mentioned we had received an email from Bridget Prentice which asserted that the school, in concert with the Lewisham Council, were searching for additional grounds for the school’s PE timetable. This seemed to come as a surprise to both Fr Peers and Steve Gough, but we would support this aim.

�

One of the first people to congratulate Northbrook School on their planning consent was Bridget Prentice, MP, who had the following to say:

“I welcome this re-development of Northbrook Church of England School as an outstanding educational facility for the people of Lee and the wider community for many years to come.”

Bridget Prentice, MP
Minister of Justice

 NAG thinks that Bridget might need to go back to school herself to learn that “mediocre” is not spelt O-U-T-S-T-A-N-D-I-N-G…..

The Strategic Planning Committee met on 2 October to consider the Northbrook School’s planning application. The meeting took 3 hours to decide (the longest ever apparently) in favour of the applicants. Lee Manor Society, Chair of the Manor House Gardens User Group and NAG each lobbied, and were given, a speaking slot.

Regretfully, in summing up the committee strayed into non-planning territory, clearly basing their decision on the management and leadership of the proposed school and resting on political affiliations rather than focusing, as is the committee’s statutory responsibility, strictly on the legality of planning issues.

This is a disappointing - if predictable - outcome, which will result, sadly, in a mediocre school building that is not even currently fit-for-purpose, let alone fit for the future.

Many, many thanks go to Cllr Brian Robson who gave a polished and impassioned speech on behalf of Lee Green residents; many thanks to all those that came to the meeting to offer support; thanks to the wider support from all the community in pursuit of a better outcome for all; and huge and special thanks to Michael, Paul, Laurence, Michelle, Rosalyn, Pat and Annette for all their hard work and dedication in pulling together a superb critique of the proposal and for lobbying so hard with so many.

As many readers of this blog will be aware, NAG has been writing to the Mayor of Lewisham, Sir Steve Bullock, for some time requesting that he communicate with us over various decisions and plans in relation to the redevelopment of Northbrook School. He has, even following a request by MP Bridget Prentice, failed to do so on every occasion. We therefore  found it amusing (and yes, a little bit gratifying) that Sir Steve had the following to say on the listing of Louise House in Forest Hill by English Heritage [a building Lewisham Council would like to pull down in favour building a new swimming pool]:

“I now come to the listing of Louise House.  Let me be clear that I consider the decision by English Heritage to list this building to be misguided.  I cannot comment on the way in which they reached the decision, as they did not have to (sic) courtesy to speak to me about it at any point.” 

NAG wonders if this experience will cause any degree of self-reflection, but won’t be holding our breaths…..

The number of objections to the Northbrook application submitted to Lewisham Council, by either petition or letter, is 801, a colossal figure. We are convinced that this figure would be considerably higher had Lewisham Council chosen to consult as it should and engage with local people over the project, rather than letting NAG do its job for them. Thanks to everyone that took the time to write in. We of course hope that this will be enough to convince the Strategic Planning Committee to suggest a re-think of the proposal.

Unfortunately Lewisham has insinuated in its report to the Committee that the reason the number of objections is so high is that somehow NAG managed to convince many people outside of what they describe as ‘the immediate area’ (no details on what this means) to write in to object. Let me assure you and importantly them that virtually all objections came from families that live less than a mile from the school. Those outide of this area that objected are all regular Manor House Gardens users that care passionately, and are concerned, for the future of the Gardens.

We have copied the following extract from Councillor Bentley’s blog (view the unabridged version by following the link to the bottom right of this page):

“[There's] been a lot of speculation about where I stand on this issue, and I now feel it is important to make my position clear.

Until today I’ve been opposed to Northbrook’s planning application. To me it was too big a building on too small a site, and I felt the Council should have been looking to acquire the land at Leegate and build the school there. I was struggling to find examples of other schools with similarly constrained sites in order to reassure myself that a site with restricted exterior space could work. I also wanted to be reassured that the senior management and staff could make it work too . . . I [have] met with the new Head, Richard Peers who . . . convinced me that under his leadership Northbrook can make the proposed building work. I’m now 100% behind this application.
With regard to the design, I personally like modern buildings but I realise they are not to everyone’s taste. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the design but I think the architect’s been really rather clever and has managed to fit a lot into the available space . . . It has to be remembered that even if Northbrook was just rebuilt to take the existing number of students it would have to be physically bigger than the old school as this was just far too small. And, I understand the logic that if you’re going to have to build bigger anyway it makes sense to also increase the number of pupils you’re building for, so a broader curriculum can be offered. I personally feel this is a modest increase and hasn’t caused the building to be disproportionately larger than it would have been if the student intake hadn’t been increased.

In conclusion, with all my concerns now answered, and reassured there’s a team in place at Northbrook who can make this work I’m now 100% behind this application.”

�

Lewisham Planning Dept have now sent us their report to be put before the Planning Committee. Please click the link below to view.

NAG has received two responses from the Mayor.

First, in response to the question on LBL appointing a barrister to review the Northbrook proposal:

This is a matter which should be dealt with by Council Officials. I have therefore forwarded this email to the appropriate officer.

Second, in response to our question regarding the Northbrook application being placed with the Strategic Committee, which fails to represent the political make-up of the Borough including as it does Cabinet members chosen by the Mayor:

Issues relating to the propriety of decision making and appropriateness or otherwise of the participation of individual councillors in any decision are not within my powers as mayor to address.  I have therefore forwarded your email to the Chief Executive and Senior Legal officer of the Council.