Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think the best thing to do is to go and have a look yourself and make your own mind up if you check the website there are still some open days left in october if i remember rightly. I personally wasn't that impressed with it. The outside space is limited but they get buses to playing fields.
The big green space accross the road is a public space not a school playing field. The park does have allocated sports areas though with pitches and I know that Harris did sponsor some of the work in the park so it might be likely the school may use those facilities. But setting up for PE lesson after PE lesson on the common ground immediately opposite is not an option. It costs a lot of money to maintain grass and pitches.
i thought that schools were allowed to use public spaces if given the ok...h&s etc. seems a bit of a waste if they couldn't use it! i thought that was the whole point...i didnt realise. that's crap, they have no outdoor space...well there's your answer, dont send your kids there, they'll get fat for sure....there's a fish a chip shop down the road too!

Real dilemma. Harris East Dulwich Boys Academy is indeed opposite Peckham Rye Common. Peckham Rye Common needs drainage to ensure its pitches can be used throughout the winter - its often water logged and curreent users have to go elsewhere. Peckham Rye Common also has inadequate changing facilities but no one really wants a massive changing room sports complex built. Across the road Harris Boys has changing rooms a plenty. Harris Boys buses its kids to playing fields elsewhere.


It seems blindingly obvious to me that IF the boys school opened its changing rooms up at the weekend and helped fund drainage it should be allowed to use the football pitches in the week.

When the school was at the planning stages I thought that it had been made clear that there was never an intention that Harris Boys would use PR for sports. Many of us questioned this at the time, pondering how the school would manage with so little land of its own. At any rate, I was certainly under the impression that some kind of assurance had been given by the powers that be that PR would not be used as an extension of the school. Has this changed?


I know there will be arguments both for and against but I would like to put those aside as they were aired before the school was built. All I want to know is has there been a U turn on a promise that was made?

James,


Thanks for your reply.


It does sound as though there will now be attempts to drum up support for the use of PR by the school, on the basis that it is silly not to use land so close by.


This does seem incredibly disingenuous when one of the main objections to the school, at the earliest planning stage, was that it did not have the necessary land/outdoor facilities to service the volume of pupils. As you know, many locals were worried that a later attempt would be made to begin to utilise PR for school sports, despite assurances that this would not happen.


I refer to this post by Muttley on 3/7/08:

I was at the meeting. At times it got quite heated and emotional (at least, among the members of the public).


The whole case seems to be founded on the fact that, in order to be viable, there has to be a five class intake, i.e. 150 per year group. This seems to be the conventional wisdom for schools these days. Personally I find it hard to believe that a school can't offer a great curriculum with just a four class intake, which would have brought the numbers down to under 800. I'd happily trade a more limited curriculum for more space. If you look at the building plan, there is almost NO outdoor space for the boys to play during breaks.


The second fundamental driver for the 950 total was that the school needs a sixth form to provide mentors for younger pupils. I can see the argument for this, though where Year 7s will get to see these sixth formers (other than along crammed corridors) is unclear.


It was reported that Tessa Jowell's own survey had revealed a majority of locals in favour of the school. I'm extremely cynical about this. The only fair way to assess local opinion would have been to hold a representative survey, asking specifically if people were in favour of a school for 950 (with pictures so that they could see what it will be like). I'm not aware of such a survey. Of course East Dulwich parents are in favour of a new school, but I suspect most people will be shocked when they discover the details.


Final point of note: it was clear from the meeting that there will be NO use of Peckham Rye for sport by the school (except perhaps for the odd special case). Boys will be mini-bused to other sports venues, including South Bank University (is that Burbage Road?) and the velodrome. The latter will offer 'exciting' opportunities for bike activities, apparently.


I don't think we've heard the end of this.


Edited to answer Phillyboy's question: This Academy will be linked to the Girls Academy on the other side of Peckham Rye. The sixth form will be joint, so some girls will occasionally go to the boys' site for certain subjects and vice versa.




I note the velodrome is under threat. Since this was quoted as one are the school would be using perhaps Lord Harris could fun the facility?

We have a brand new school on what was a deralict old school site, that's got to be a POSITVE thing for the locality and environment. It further provides schooling for local children, Another POSITIVE outcome. It helps with reducing the environmental impact with less travelling needed to school. A further Positive. As the school has green space across the road (the Common and Park), is it not a sensible thing that the school chilren can use it for their sports, again a POSITIVE thing. Why the objection not to allow them to use it. Peckham Rye Commmon is common land, my understanding is as such it can be used by anyone, hence being called "common land".


Thirty plus years ago, I went to a local school on the other side of Peckham. We used Peckham Rye Common for our weekly sports lessons. At least Harris East Dulwich Boys' school is using common sense and to using local facilities.


I fail to see anything negative and much preper seeing a brand new modern building being used to teach local children, rather than an old victorian, burnt out shell of a building. I would have thought the neighbouring residents also prefer the former.

dbboy,


the point about the school, in its current incarnation, being a positive thing all round is moot.


My point is that some debate was aired about the use of PR prior to the school being built, because of local disquiet about that promises were made that use of PR would not be sought by the school. If PR is to be used it needs to be done with the full support of all in the community. As it is feelings are clearly mixed. The concern is that there was always an intention to use PR and certain promises were made to get the planning permissions pushed through with a view to slowly getting the use of PR once the school was built.


I do not feel comfortable with the park being used as an extension of the school. If the school starts to use the park for regular sports sessions then how is that managed in terms of health and safety etc..? If Lord Harris begins to fund areas of the park on a quid pro quo basis then who does the park really belong to and who will have the final say on its use? Right now its common land, I fail to see how that could continue if a school starts to utilise it for regular sports sessions.

James has answered that question though that the school does not and will not be using PR anytime soon.


PR is also managed so that only allocated sports areas can be used, which is the common norh of the cafe and a smaller field behind the childrens playground at present. This year there are two junior pitches on the east side common probably because most of the smaller sports field is out of use because it needed reseeding and repair, and it takes time for the seed to grow. I know this because my Sunday football group play there and were asked to change from our usual location.


There is more demand for pitches than can be accomodated and maintainenece of those pitches costs more than the revenue raised from hiring them. A full sized pitch cost ?47 an hour I think.


So all in all PR would be unable to accomodate the level of use needed from the boys school even if they did pay for the maintenance in turn.

As I've said on this subject before, it would be over the headteacher's dead body if his kids use the park. They are not allowed to use it even to walk home and get detention if their caught.


They use the South bank for field sports, the pulse for swimming as part of the compulsary curriculum and Crystal Palace athletic stadium for competitions. They spend double the amount of time on sports in the compulsary school day than any other state school in the area - so BPaul85 they won't be getting fat as they are not allowed in any of the shops with their school uniform on either.

Gosh, I dont want to get into the debate about the lack of outside space and PR (although very interesting to read). All I can say from visiting the school is, first impression was ok but not much to see. Building is obviously great with lots of new facilities, head seemed more that capable, kids were polite, and class sizes currently small (which is a plus but I am sure will change as new boys come on board). When we visited, whilst the teaching staff were nice and helpful in answering questions, there are so few pupils that it was difficult to get any real feel for the school. It was like a ghost town walking around, we only got to see a few year 7 classes, and it would have been nice to see a few year 8 classes.


No OFSTED yet, no results to latch onto. Bit of a wild card, but we will at least be going back to the open day on saturday to have another look. Parents I met there were mainly of the same opinion but felt it was worth having a second look.


Hope this helps.

Just a quick note. The area directly opposite the school is PR Park, which is council land not common land (ie they choose when to open it and lock the gates at closing time), the area a little way down the hill with no fences or gates is PR common, which is common land.


I hope all the school boys are settling in well to their new school (I think I have now got over the months of my flat vibrating from dawn till dusk when they were digging the foundations!)

All sounds a bit of an over kill by the Head if this is true.


Are the rye and Park not both owned and managed by Southwark Council. Surely they are open to use by EVERYONE in the community? Which includes school children.


BB100 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As I've said on this subject before, it would be

> over the headteacher's dead body if his kids use

> the park. They are not allowed to use it even to

> walk home and get detention if their caught.

They are and they are open to use but not everything is free. Commercial organisations and sponsored groups pay for use of certain facitlities at the park....like sports facilities. A school I assume would come under that banner, just like the circus. And if nothing else, PR doesn't have anything like the required level of facilities needed to serve the school.

loulou9999 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No OFSTED yet, no results to latch onto. Bit of a

> wild card, but we will at least be going back to

> the open day on saturday to have another look.

> Parents I met there were mainly of the same

> opinion but felt it was worth having a second

> look.


Someone who went to the Head's talk told me 55% of the kids have gone up by 3 levels, so hardly a wild card if true.

I appreciate the moot point is that of whether use of the park is being kinda sneaked in although it does appear to me to have been answered. Having said that when I was a kid in Ashton Under Lyne our games lessons were often running and football in the park near school, with longer distances round the reservoir.

Probably done and dusted elsewhere (point me where if you like) but what's the actual problem if the park is used? If they pay for use of an area then it's down to the council to assign part of that for the maintenance etc I guess.

What's the problem with the school using the park? Its not like there's not enough space over there eh? The people who are winging about it must be on the social anyway - why else would they be concerned with school groups using the park during working hours? What harm can they do its not as if teachers are going to be holding Burger King eating conferences over there and telling children to litter the place with half squeezed packets of ketchup is it? Quite the contrary. If your gonna live in nappy valley folks you gotta get used to the idea that you'll see kids having fun sometime even if it is in your beloved park.


And before anyone comes back with 'oh actually I'm self employed and when I'm not working intensely from my study with PR park views I like to selfishly immerse myself in school child free pastures' - take your easy job and do it in East Dulwich park with your laptop. You'll probably have a more pleasurable afternoon

This is going to be discussed at the next FOPRP meeting I think. We were assured at meetings in the past, that the park would not be used for the school kids. It is a park not a schools playground/playing field.


- what? so it's OK for them to use it as boot camp for fatties? but not for school children? I bet you can't wait to drive to your meeting in your ridiculous 4x4 and discuss how to further infringe under privileged children! oh and by the way there is a circus in the park and not just gypsies before you start harking on about that!

BPAUL85 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is going to be discussed at the next FOPRP

> meeting I think. We were assured at meetings in

> the past, that the park would not be used for the

> school kids. It is a park not a schools

> playground/playing field.

>

> - what? so it's OK for them to use it as boot camp

> for fatties? but not for school children? I bet

> you can't wait to drive to your meeting in your

> ridiculous 4x4 and discuss how to further infringe

> under privileged children! oh and by the way there

> is a circus in the park and not just gypsies

> before you start harking on about that!


I don't own a 4x4 don't presume things about me, you don't know me and I don't want the park flooded with schoolkids, if Harris can afford to do up these academys then he should have the money to build them a play area. I like seeing children out with there parents after school, playing football, using the facilities i.e the skatepark and the adventure playground, but I don't want the park used as a school playground and I don't hark on about things, I have my opinions which I am entitled to, so don't be so rude.

'Flooded' - so dramatic! You make out as if a plague is coming or something. Get real 'Bird they'll be children practicing physical education not an infestation set about ruining your idyllic stroll in the park. There are far greater things to be concerned about than who should enter PR park when you're at work - you do understand you live in London, where greenery is scarce - heaven forbid a park becomes a 'playground' - you're a right old barrel of laughs. Move to the Cotswolds if you want serenity

> I don't own a 4x4 don't presume things about me,

> you don't know me and I don't want the park

> flooded with schoolkids, if Harris can afford to

> do up these academys then he should have the money

> to build them a play area. I like seeing children

> out with there parents after school, playing

> football, using the facilities i.e the skatepark

> and the adventure playground, but I don't want the

> park used as a school playground and I don't hark

> on about things, I have my opinions which I am

> entitled to, so don't be so rude.


I can presume as it's the East Dulwich Forum, not a court of law. Of course you don't have a 4x4 and i don't actually think there is a boot camp for fatties at the park either. I just think the objection to the school using the park is unfair. And of course you can you have your opinion, and in my opinion i wasn't being rude. Have fun at your meeting...they sound riveting! Sorry that was being rude!!

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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