Jump to content

Petition re Dulwich Hospital site


samstopit

Recommended Posts

There's a petition doing the rounds asking David Laws MP, Minister of State for Free Schools, not to put a primary school onto the Dulwich Hospital site. There's a lot of support for the Hospital site to be used for a secondary school and a health centre. The proposed primary (Harris Nunhead) would be co-located with the secondary school, meaning the Hospital site would be cramped, with less space for sport and outside space.


Petition here:


https://www.change.org/p/david-laws-mp-don-t-squeeze-two-schools-onto-the-dulwich-hospital-site


Here is a letter from Tessa Jowell MP to David Laws which gives the background:


http://www.tessajowell.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CHAP0101901140379010100413.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A decent health centre is vital, after all this is a hospital site. A necessary public resource should not be squeezed because of the overbearing ambitions of one private concern. Harris is everywhere and getting too powerful, it would seem. I thought Harris were opening a school at the old police station site....how many Harris' are we going to end up with and what happened to choice?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a Harris Primary opening at the old police station site. Based on the amount of signatures collected for that ED school, Harris appears to have convinced the DoE that there was demand from parents in Nunhead for another one there even though no campaign for a Nunhead primary was every conducted by Harris which is a pre-requisite. As there was a need for additional school places at the time in Nunhead, Harris applying to open a Nunhead primary was the only route they had to continue expanding in the area as you need parental support as well as a lack of places for your application to be successful.


However, since their application to the DoE was successful, Harris have been unable to find a location in Nunhead and are now suggesting that a primary school meant to satisfy a shortage in Nunhead should be located in ED (which now actually has a slight surplus of places following to opening of the Harris ED on the police site, Judith Kerr, and the expansion of Bessemer etc).


Worse yet, the need for a new Nunhead primary has been reduced significantly by the expansion of Ivydale.


So now, Harris are pushing to open a school serving Nunhead (which doesn't really need it) in East Dulwich (which certainly doesn't need it) on the hospital site which cannot accommodate it without severely negatively impacting on the facilities needed for the proposed secondary school which is very much needed to deal with the pending shortage of secondary school places in the area.


The entire thing is a travesty.


By the way, the shortage numbers are not my opinion but rather are based on pupil planning analysis from Southwark. Labor Councillors are working to stop this but they need our support to place adequate pressure on the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This petition misses the problem pretty much entirely and risks our desperately needed secondary school applicastions beinf refused.


Southwark Council planning documents state they expect to see Health, new housing and possibly educational use at the Dulwuich Hospital site.

So far, the council have refused to withdraw that document and indicate they intend to change the zoning of Dulwich Hospital to solely health and education.


So the land prices will be based on housing development which would value the non health part around 18,000m2 or the perfect size for a secondary school at over ?60m. Which would mean only a portion would be bought for a new secondary school. Equally Southwark Council have so far refused to re zone 520 Lordship Lane for education use i.e. finding an alternative site for the second local Harris primary school - and where one of the two primary school black holes are for admissions.


Complaining to a minister that an approved scheme for a new free school should be dumped as not enough room for it and an as yet unapproved free school application is asking for the secondary school applications to be refused.


I would urge people to think very clearly what this petition is asking for and from whom it is asking.

Southwark council are responsible for land zoning NOT the governments educaton ministers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"they intend to change the zoning of Dulwich Hospital to solely health and education."

"So the land prices will be based on housing development"


This does not make sense, if existing land is health and used going fwd for health and education why use a housing development calcualtion


Also james how could a petition requesting land to be used for a secondary school hinder an application for said school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harris are not the only fruit - or maybe, for some, they are.


A cursory reading of threads on this forum would suggest that issues to do with high quality local Health Care provision are very much non-trivial in ED, with surgeries inadequate, bad or closing.


The saga of Harris not being able to build their Primary on the police station site in time for the start of a school year (what schools open up for business in January?) do not give a warm feeling.


If you look at the full range of primary and secondary education places available, or already planned and agreed in and around Dulwich (East & West and Village) - crossing both private and state etc, provision, we will become educational central for SE London - do we necessarily want this at the expense of other things, particularly with the much argued absence of open recreation areas for the state provided schools and academies?


How does Dulwich place provision actually compare with Dulwich needs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a significant and pressing need for a secondary school in East Dulwich (council projections bear this out) the hospital site is the only available land. There is no need for a further primary but yet another Harris has received approval. The concern is that an unwanted and uneccesary primary school once approved needs a home and the petition doesn't want that to be on the hospital site.

James your post makes no sense to me, to me it seeks to scaremonger (the petition runs the risk of losing a secondary) without any or any sensible suggestion as to how you reach that conclusion.

I recommend that you read the very many comments on the petition from the people you represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi congusedbyitall,

Currently Southwark Council zoning of the Dulwich Hospital is for health, new housing and piossibly education. So the Dept of Health advisors will value all the non health land for residential housing. That's circa ?6M/1,800m2 at Christmas 2013 land values when 1,800m2 was sold for ?6M for a new primary school when the new Harris primary school had to price match a housing developer to obtain the land.


That would price sufficent land for a secondsty school at the hospital sites at ?65M. That is a higher land value than any UK school has taken place. This is more critical than any other factor.


The petition is saying don't support two schools on the site. One of those school is approved waiting fora site to be agreed. The other has been submitted and not approved. One way of resolving this is to reject the application for a new secndary school. It's clear the advise given so far to the ministers hasn;t always taken everything you and I would expect into account.


Hi P68,

When we asked every local provider about whether they would be interested in working with us to create new local schools in 2011 they were the only fruit in town - schools such as The Charter School head at that time were clear they weren't interested.

I entirely agree our GP's are wanting. Which wis why after 20 years of messing around we've been pushing for the Dulwich Hospital site to be resolved. It presents a great opportunity to fix things.

if you look at council officers reports, which have underestimated local need it will be tight with all the planned schools. Our state schools locally, with the exception now of Kingsdale, serve very small areas. So yes, we need more schools and the places they bring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tessa Jowell has just posted on the family room thread thanking for all the correspondence on this. She will be passing it all on to David Laws.


Nearly 300 signatures on the petition.


James - I would second mrs lotte's point. Listen to your constituents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second Ms Lotte and Samstopit.


Suggesting that this petition be stopped is inappropriate. Nothing about the petition undermines the secondary school application and your suggestion that it does is totally unreasonable.


The zoning issue may be relevant but it does not in anyway mitigate the need for this petition to proctect the site for the secondary school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless Southwark Council amend their zoning of the hospital site we won't have either schools on the site or if we do they'll have tiny footprints and have to be very tall to make way for housing that is zoned for the site.

We have 250+ local families supporting primary schools and 750+ secondary schools. We need both.


The petition is effectively asking to cancel a junior school - as Southwark hasn't zoned any other land for educational use. The minister has no mechanism for this. But does have a mechanism to not approve a new free school application.

So yes I listen to residents but if I see a car crash coming I won't remain silent to say I told you so afterwards.

I've also had professional advice saying both schools could fit there but not ideal as it would mean less car parking for teachers and going up an extra storey for buildings. Things I'd like to avoid - especially when it's in Southwark Councils gift to avoid this.


Hence why the I think this is the wrong petition to help get the best local schools possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never worked out why Harris gave a working name for a second Harris East Dulwich primary school Nunhead.I suspect this is because they have a Peckham and also now an East Dulwich primary schools and tried to find a distnctive name.


We know that a significant number of supporting parents live in Peckham Rye/Ivydale area - and another very large grouping from around 520 Lordship Lane area. When leading the council Lib Dems tried finding school places within a 1 miles radius but the national goal has always been 2 miles.


250+ was the support we gained for two primary schools. We always said we were going for two as the predicted gap was 215-235 reception children from the wider Dulwich area and we needed another two new schools on top of the Judith Kerr and some domino impacts from dulwich Woods, Bessemer and Belham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, you have previously stated that the hospital land would not be allocated to any school ahead of the secondary school application being finished. This is a matter of record in your previous posting history.


The application is therefore asking the DfE when the time comes and the secondary application has already been approved not to allocate any space to the primary school.


Habs themselves have come out and said that sharing is not viable if full facilities are to be maintained.


The is no rational argument for the Harris Nunhead to be located on that site and if you were being honest in your previous posts on the Family Room thread, there is absolutely no reason the petition as it currently reads should endanger the secondary school application.


James, why are you determined to convince your consituents to accept a Harris Nunhead Primary on the Dulwich Hospital despite the impact it will have on the facilities available to the secondary school and the surplus of primary school places already available in Dulwich following the new openings and expansions? Can you disclose if Harris make any financial contributions to you or your party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James that most recent post is very dishonest. On other posts in the family room you clearly state that Harris were looking to open up a primary school in Nunhead and that there was need in Nunhead that justified this. Harris themselves sent a letter that was posted on the forum stating exactly that as well.


As you very well know there is no need for another primary school in the Dulwich area and there was never a campaign for two ED primaries. You are really pushing the bounds of personal integrity and what you are saying can very easily be disproven so you should be very careful as lots of people have been following these developments for months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi LondonMix,

I don't believe the hospital land will be allocated to a primary school before a secondary school is refused or approved. But it is in officials heads. This is partly why I've not been chasing my Right to Contest in case it speeds up the wrong allocation.


But assuming one or both secondary free school application are approved, two problems arise.

First the land is zoned for housing so will be ridiculously expensive (?3,333/m2 as per former East Duwlich Police station) and only a small proportion of the site will be afforded for each secondary school. This would encourage a repeated of Harris East Dulwich Boys Academy higher density when we actually have the space for more land for a secondary school. So our ideal secondary school would need 19,550m2 and that would cost land alone while zoned for housing ?65M+.

Two. Every forecast by Southwark Council on pupil numbers have been wrong to varying degrees for decade. Until a few months ago they were crystal clear we did not and should not have a new East Dulwich secondary school. So I disagree - we do need a second Harris primary school. BUT Southwark could zone 520 Lordship Lane for educational use and we'd have no clash.


I have always said we wanted two primary schools. Their is even a thread on the forum about the second one.

And once we started receving support from families I said we have two primary school admissions holes - one around Homestall Road and the other effectively around 520 Lordship Lane. Ideally the second Harris primary school would be either built on the Harris East Dulwich Girls Academy site or 520 Lordship Lane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Well worth signing up to become a "supporter" as they send their updates and often shed light on things the council and their supporters would rather didn't get too much attention! https://www.onedulwich.uk/get-involved
    • Spot on...and they rant against "anonymous" groups like One Dulwich and then post missives from "anonymous" lobby groups like Clean Air Dulwich without any sense of hypocrisy or irony...
    • The original council proposals for the area around the Dulwich cross roads were made well before Covid - and were rejected then by locals. The council used the Covid legislation to push through the LTNs when opposition was not allowed. LTNs, as experiments were some good (reduced traffic in areas which did not push traffic elsewhere and which did meet the needs of residents - typically in places very well served by public transport and where the topology (absence e.g. of hills) allowed wide use of cycling and walking - not as it happens a good description of the Dulwich (inc ED, WD and ND) areas.)  Dulwich never met Southwark's own description of ideal LTN areas, but did happen to match Southwark Councillor ambitions dating way back. One Dulwich has been clear, I believe that it is anti this LTN but not, necessarily all LTNs per se. But as it is One Dulwich is has not stated views about LTNs in general. In the main those prepared to make a view known, in Dulwich, have not supported the Council's LTN ambitions locally - whilst some, living in the LTN area, have gained personal benefit. But it would appear not even a majority of those living in the LTN area have supported the LTN. And certainly not those living immediately outside the area where traffic has worsened. As a resident of Underhill, a remaining access route to the South Circular, I can confirm that I am suffering increased traffic and blockages in rush hours whilst living some way away from the LTN. All this - 'I want to name the guilty parties' -' is One Dulwich a secret fascists cabal whose only interest is being anti-Labour?' conspiracy theorising is frankly irrelevant - whoever they are they seem to represent feelings of a majority of actual residents either in the LTNs, or in parts of Dulwich impacted by the LTNs. And I'm beginning to find these 'Answer me this...' tirades frankly irritating.
    • Ok here goes.....   Since day 1 of the LTNs the emergency services have been very clear - blocked roads increase response times. Southwark councillors were more than aware of this from the beginning of the LTN debacle during Covid because, when the council were going LTN mad and were trying to carpet bomb them everywhere they had suggested one for Peckham Rye and had initiated a consultation. As usual they took glowing endorsements of their proposal to close parts of Peckham Rye from the cycle lobby but got negative feedback from TFL and the emergency services due to the disruption their physical closure barriers were going to have - the emergency services made their preference clear that they do not like physical barriers. Needless to say Southwark ignored that emergency service input and pushed ahead with their plans only to cancel them when the realised LTNs were turning residents against them.   Now the video below (from March 2021) is interesting from a couple of perspectives: 1) Clearly LAS were making their feelings on permanent closures very clear to Southwark - please scroll to 1 hour 4 minutes to hear from them - 51 of the 170 delays caused by LTNs in London were in Southwark - yet it took over a year for emergency vehicles to be given access and, if I remember correctly FOIs showed that LAS had been writing to Dale Foden and the council alerting them to the delays. So why the delay and why is there a constant narrative from local lobby groups that the junction has to be closed to ALL traffic (including emergency vehicles) and why the new designs return to a partial full closure of the junction - most rational and pragmatic people can surely see that the compromise installed in 2022 to allow emergency vehicle access was the most sensible approach.   The council put the desires of local lobby groups ahead of the emergency services...which is madness...and then that leads us to point 2)....   2) Notice the presence of Jeremy Leach on the call - not a councillor but the Co-Optee of the council's environmental scrutiny committee and he is constantly pushing the councillors to do more to deal with traffic issues and reduce traffic. I suspect he is deemed one of the "expert" voices the council was turning to for guidance at this period. But, much like the activist researchers the council turned to Jeremy is very much an "activist expert" and was chair of the London Living Streets, co-founder of Action Vision Zero and part of Southwark Cyclists - so you can see why if the council was taking guidance and direction from him how they may have not been making decisions in the public interest. Clearly someone has convinced the council that the junction needs to be closed to all vehicles as there cannot be any other explanation for why they held out for so long (that created increased response times) - remember they are wasting another £1.5m to close one arm of the roads permanently again - honestly if someone wants to enlighten me to a part of this story I am missing then feel free but to me it looks like something very odd has been going on at the DV junction and the council is ignoring the majority and listening to the few...   https://lrscconference.org.uk/index.php/agenda-speakers/jeremy-leach-co-founder-action-vision-zero/     No it was 64% of the total who lived in the consultation area - 57% when the council looked at all the respondents to the consultation.   3,162 (64%) wanted it returned to its original state 823 (17%) wanted it retained as was 422 (8%) wanted a different measure installed 564 (11%) wanted the measure, but modify/ enhance it with other features   So back then the 11% got their wish!   In every consultation in relation to the DV junction there has been overwhelming rejection of the council's plans by local residents - yet they carry-on wasting our money on it regardless - just who are they trying to placate?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...