Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Beryl Wrote:

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

> As someone new to the thread - and having read all

> of it - can someone please tell me who is James

> Barber? And how much are Harris paying him?


On 27 February 2014 Beryl Wrote:

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


> I also note that during these threads there have

> been many calls for a public meeting ie. one

> larger than can be accommodated at Mr Barber's

> house. I would support that call now that things

> have progressed - an open meeting for full and

> frank discussion of the issues would surely be

> timely? I know Mr Barber is keen to postpone this

> until after the application but surely the

> application will represent the views of the

> steering group and not necessarily reflect any

> consensus?

Doh! more fool me for thinking that was a genuine question.. tricksy.


edhistory Wrote:

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

> Beryl Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > As someone new to the thread - and having read

> all

> > of it - can someone please tell me who is James

> > Barber? And how much are Harris paying him?

>

> On 27 February 2014 Beryl Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > I also note that during these threads there

> have

> > been many calls for a public meeting ie. one

> > larger than can be accommodated at Mr Barber's

> > house. I would support that call now that

> things

> > have progressed - an open meeting for full and

> > frank discussion of the issues would surely be

> > timely? I know Mr Barber is keen to postpone

> this

> > until after the application but surely the

> > application will represent the views of the

> > steering group and not necessarily reflect any

> > consensus?

Mrs.Lotte,

I do not oppose the new Ivydale. I just think instead of Ivydale providing it via a second site being paid for by Southwark Council taxpayers the free school route should have been followed. It would see the ?4.5M bill being picked up by central government. It would see more choice locally and it wouldn't see Ivydale with 4 forms of entry per year.


Hi LondonMix, mariabate,

The problem isn't a potential primary school but the pricing of the land due to zoning of the site.

Without re zoning we may well see a secondary school with minimal land.

Do you think The DfE is going to spend ?64M on the land we all wish the secondary school to have?


I think everyone is so blinkered about a possible primary school on this site they're ignoring that Southwark Council could zone another site to house any primary school BUT IS REFUSING. That the hospital site being zoned for housing will mean the size of land we all won't for it won't be affordable because Southwark IS REFUSING TO REZONE the site.

'Could' doesn't mean they WILL. We will cross each bridge when we come to it but right now we are making it clear we want a certain amount of Space for a NHS centre plus a Secondary School with grounds . We don't want a Harris primary for Nunhead, everything else is as and when .

James, on the contrary it seems that it is you that is blindly pushing for a second primary school on the site, or at least trying to ensure the land is secured for this in future, using whatever argument you can.


Let go of your very obvious ties to Harris and then we can all focus on ensuring this land is secured for hospital services and a decent secondary school. People do not want another school on that site.


You have not answered whether the new proposed health centre will supply all the services that the hospital used to, nor how many dedicated doctors on site. A really good service is vital for the area, it just all seems lost in the push for a primary school nobody seems to want.

Perhaps one of the labour councillors can come on this site and tell us in greater detail about proposals for the hospital part of the site, how it will be resourced and what services will be offered, perhaps they can also answer


James' assertions about Southwark's alleged refusal to rezone the land. Can someone state what sort of footprint will be available for the proposed secondary school and at what cost for that land?


The public really tire of this being used to score political points so James please resist the urge to spin a reply and let's see if any of your colleagues in other parties can come back with a straight and honest response..


I think after Heygate etc.. If there was even a whiff that much valued community space would be sold off to developers, based on some convenient technical planning/council speak hitch there might well be trouble on streets.

  • Administrator
There's obviously some councillor bashing going on as well some lying and stirring (see Beryl's post). I understand it's a topic close to people's heart but please keep it clean and truthful, and remember you can contact the councillor(s) directly and you can organise a public meeting to speak and discuss this face to face.

" ?4.5M bill being picked up by central government " - it's not picked up by central government ,it's paid for by taxpayers - US .



" Southwark Council could zone another site to house any primary school BUT IS REFUSING. That the hospital site being zoned for housing will mean the size of land we all won't for it won't be affordable because Southwark IS REFUSING TO REZONE the site. "


Are there two issues in this quote ? Another site for a primary if Southwark re zoned it ? Is the reference to East Dulwich Harris Girls on Homestall Rd . Where the head says there's not enough room ? And which is MOL ? Which Southwark can't change .


"Without re zoning we may well see a secondary school with minimal land." - is it being admitted now that this would be a bad thing ?

East Dulwich Harris Boys is on a tiny site ,so small that although specialising in sport students are transported to other sites for this function ,so small that the original planning application suggested that students could have staggered start times to mitigate the crush . All concerns about lack of space were argued away .And it's getting the results - which seems all that matters in this current climate of tick box education .

Can someone explain the thing about Southwark zoning the site? I thought the issue was that the land had a covenant on it saying it had to be used for the health of the people or something. Are these 2 separate issues? And if zoning is the issue how can we pressurise Southwark on this?

ITATM,


Great points and as you so rightly indicate, it is amazing how a completely opposite position to one formerly taken can be used when it suits.


Admin, no councillor bashing simply stating how sick many of us are of spin and obfuscation. I have asked for other councillors to come on simply as a way to get past all the political claptrap and get to the bottom of what is really going on. I am not partisan at all, simply interested in ensuring we have a good secondary school that people and voters want and most of all a decent health centre that delivers what is required.


Anyhow politicians have to have thick skins and get on with it, no-one is forcing use of this forum for debate, though I for one am glad it is being used for this subject.

  • Administrator

There is a difference between councillors and politicians.


Anyway I totally understand you're trying to get through the fluff, I would too, but I'm aiming it at people like Beryl how lie that they are new to the thread and start throwing accusations about individual councillors receiving payments. If they have the evidence to support that then take it to the proper authorities, but please do not use the forum to spurt out accusations of illegal behaviour.

The zoning issue is separate from the topic of this thread.


James is telling the community to drop the point about the Harris primary and focus on what he feels is a more serious threat to the secondary school. He believes the NHS will try to convince residential developers that they will get permission for residential use if they bid on the land, increasing its value so that the EFA can't afford to either buy as much of it or any of it potentially in a bidding war. How serious a threat this is at this point is hard to determine. If it is a serious threat I don't see why the community can't push for only a secondary as well as specific guidance from Southwark that residential planning permission won't be granted. They are two separate issues that don't preclude one another. There is no need to drop the campaign for only a secondary school and health services on the Dulwich Hospital site.


The other point James is trying to make is that Southwark (which is Labour led) is essentially forcing Harris on to the Dulwich Hospital site by refusing to rezone Harris' preferred site which is on the Nunhead border. The land in question is Metropolitan Open Land near Harris's all girls secondary school on the Nunhead / ED border. There are several issues with the claim James is making here:


1. It's irrelevant to the point at hand as there is no need to build a primary school in Dulwich to serve Nunhead given the projected surplus in Bellenden and Dulwich that can already deal with Nunhead overflow. So even if the claim is true, its not a justification for using the Hospital site.


2. Renata has spoken to Harris (as she confirmed earlier on this thread) and there is no active plan to use the site and no plans have been submitted for approval


3. Metropolitan Open Land is the city equivalent of greenbelt land. The threshold to get approval is very high and requires approval from the Mayor amongst others so is not something Southwark has full control over.

Thank you LM for your useful and informative outline of the key points.


I would not be at all surprised if developers were circling and looking for opportunities, that is why it would be helpful, in my view, to get statements from other parties on how they intend to ensure this does not happen.

Hi LondonMix,

Whether you or I agree a Harris primary is needed is pretty immaterial. They have been approved to open a new primary school before two other new proposed primary schools and the EFA will find a site for it. Without Southwark Coumncil zoning another site for a primary school - Habs would like the spare MOL land on the girls school, I would suggest 520 Lordship Lane - the only site in the area is the Dulwich Hospital. We can either ensure an alternative to the Dulwich Hospital site or people can continue to make a fuss - but the EFA don't have a mechanism to un approve this school.


The EFA will also decide whether to approve either or both of the free secondary school applications. They will then need to find a site.


Evidence for the land value if zoned for residential is the ?6M paid for 1,800m2 the former East Dulwich police station Christmas 2013. We're asking for 19,550m2 for a secondary school which cost ?64M. House prices and persumably land values have risen since Christmas 2013 but circa 20%.

NHS Property have, despite knowing we planned to organsie an application for a free secondary school, soft marketed the site to the like of Berkelys and co. They clearly wish to obtain housing land prices.

The current book value of the hospital for community use is ?18M making the secondsary school land price ?12M.

21 October Southwark's Cabinet Committee of councillors are considering the Southwark Plan and IF they chose to ask officers to consider re zoning the hopsital site it would immediately have some weight in the planning process and pricing for this site.

James, you seem to suggest that at the moment, because of the process of approval, a Harris primary would take precedence on the hospital site, should another site not be found, because it cannot be'unapproved'.


As LM suggests, you are mixing separate issues. We can all agree that the hospital site should be secured for health and education purposes, but you seem to make that result dependent on Harris getting a slice of the action.

Surely Harris can pull out if they wanted to especially knowing this isn't Nunhead and we don't want them ?

Harris doesn't HAVE to build on the Dulwich hospital site if they don't want to or am I being naive in thinking Harris has the option to reject the site or to refuse to build another school given that they are not needed ?

As I understand it, NHS Property has an obligation to seek out the best options for land disposal (subject to it not being required for health purposes). According to a National Audit Office report, the chair of NHS Property Services? Audit and Governance Committee, said:


?We are clear that it is our role to reduce the operating costs of the NHS estate and to release land for much-needed local housing wherever possible and practical and we look forward to getting on with that task.?

http://www.property.nhs.uk/national-audit-office-report-shows-first-year-progress/


And if the land is worth far more because it can be sold for housing, then that benefits the public purse. Which might be unfortunate from the point of view of putting a school(s) on the site, but that's not NHS Property's business. Robbing DfE to pay NHS?

Hi James,


It is actually part of the guidelines regarding free schools not to locate new schools in areas where it would create surpluses. So just because Harris cannot find a viablie site in Nunhead in no-way suggests they should get the Dulwich hospital site. In fact, the guidelines suggest quite the opposite given the existing projected surplus in the Dulwich area and this isn't my opinion but rather the official legal framework.


Without this legal framework the free school system is nothing but chaos.


I think you would be better served pushing to find a site in Nunhead rather than burdening the Dulwich area with a primary school the community neither needs nor wants that compromises the much needed and much desired secondary school.

The Dfe/EFA approved the Harris free school consdiering allthe factors they have to. Two further primary schools have been approved/agreed since. So on places/surplus the argument is over whether people like that or not.

The only way alternatives site for the Harris primary school is for Southwark to do something which they are refusing to do... so far.


Hi BNG,

Exactly. If the zoning of the dulwich Hospital says housing then NHS Property will move heaven and earth to seel land for housing. Southwark Council can stop that by changing the zoning. So far Southwark have refused to change the zoning.


Both issues require Southwark to change zoning. Petitioning anyone else wont change one iota of this situation but it does give the illusion of action.

Response from Harriet Harmans Office -


Dear all,


Thank you for contacting Harriet with your concerns about the future use of the Dulwich Hospital site.


Harriet has asked me to let you know that she has noted your concerns about having a new primary school on this site, and your strong support for a secondary school.


A number of people have contacted Harriet whose children are currently in primary schools in Camberwell and Peckham, and who are strongly in favour of having a new secondary school on this site to serve the Nunhead/Dulwich area.


I?d like to reassure you that Harriet is fully aware of this issue, and to let you know that she will shortly be meeting with the two groups that have submitted applications to build a new secondary school on the site (Haberdashers Aske and Charter).


I will keep you updated. In the meantime, please don?t hesitate to contact Harriet again on this or any other issue.


Best wishes,

James-- why don't you post the Harris application here for transparency.


The DfE could not have approved a school to be created in East Dulwich based on the current situation and Harris's own statements on the matter are clear the school was approved for Nunhead by the DfE.


I would like to see on what basis in the application you believe the DfE have sanctioned the opening of a school in the Dulwich area.


Do you agree to share the information (which will likely become public via a FOI request in due course)? Otherwise, I find your contention impossible to believe based on the information known to date.

I'm not at all clear about the validity of the zoning for housing issue, but it is something that James has consistently raised over a long period and no-one from the Labour group, at councillor, or MP level has addressed - one for Helen Hayes (prospective Tess replacement)? Tessa? Renata?


If they think this is a red-herring I'd like to hear why. If not, I'd like to hear ideas from them about how to progress.

James, are you saying that Harris gets part of the site, if available, simply because they were first past the post on process, irregardless of real merit or popular support/ need?


Indin't think NHS property are stealing land, if I have understood, everything they do is in the gift of the Sec of State for Health. The remit for NHS Property clearly states that any land not used/ required for health should be sold for housing, that is a govt decision is it not?

Thinking on, If there is a clear, govt directed remit for use of 'surplas' NHS land, I do not see how LA directives could necessarily override that. The LA housing zone element really does seem to be a red herring, unless some wise soul can shed further light on this, unlike the former police station this land is wholly owned by the NHS, we are not comparing like with like.

The original application approved for Nunhead was already via a very unorthodox (if not illegal) application of the rules. No, to try to stretch that to a mandate to open a primary school in Dulwich is awful.


James, Harris is an education charity. Whatever, ego is involved in this battle, they need to step back and look at their original mission statement and see common sense and withdraw their interest on the hospital site.


One thing I respect about Habs is that they refuse to open a school unless they have both community support and broadbased political support. Why can't Harris behave the same way? Why battle the community in such a fashion?

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...