Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I really don't know how many times I need to say this but the decision to build on MOL is not made by Southwark .

They can apply ( as they have done in the past to extend school buildings on the Homestall site ) but it would clearly be silly to apply when the application will be so out of line with the national policy .


http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/open-space-sports-and-recreation-facilities-public-rights-of-way-and-local-green-space/local-green-space-designation/


As I said before James - please do share these many cases where schools have built on MOL . Applications to extend are permitted if there is sufficient space . But this is not the same as building an entire school . Especially since the Homestall MOL is a considerably smaller area than that of the MOL of some of the private schools in Southwark .

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

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

> I really don't know how many times I need to say

> this but the decision to build on MOL is not made

> by Southwark .

> They can apply ( as they have done in the past to

> extend school buildings on the Homestall site )

> but it would clearly be silly to apply when the

> application will be so out of line with the

> national policy .


Could you explain how this primary school in Islington was approved?


http://www.penoyreprasad.com/projects/ashmount-primary-school-crouch-hill-community-park/

'As the site is Metropolitan Open Land, the footprint of the new building did not exceed what had been demolished; no MOL was lost. There is a slight increase in the area of open land available for the park compared to previously; this is possible because the new building does not occupy any more space than the old, although not in exactly the same location, i.e. the "footprint" of the buildings on the site is no greater than before, and some additional land adjoining the park to the south has been added to it. The care taken to minimise the impact of the building operations on the site, both in terms of the wildlife, and protection of the deciduous woodland which is left unharmed, was required by the planning conditions attached to the project by the London Borough of Islington, some of which arose in turn from conditions imposed by the Mayor of London'



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkland_Walk#Crouch_Hill_Park_Project


It is the case that above a certain size (1000 sq m?) discretion doesn't lie with a local council

Anyway, Harris have said they don't want to build on the land at Harris girls, haven't they?

That's all a bit of a red herring.

Fuschia Wrote:

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

> 'As the site is Metropolitan Open Land, the

> footprint of the new building did not exceed what

> had been demolished; no MOL was lost.


The full quote is:

"The free standing Bowlers' Nursery building, which was never visible from the walk, was also demolished. As the site is Metropolitan Open Land, the footprint of the new building did not exceed what had been demolished; no MOL was lost. "


So I guess they are referring to the new Bowlers' Nursery building rather than the new building for the Ashmount school which is the other side of the park walk way.


> It is the case that above a certain size (1000 sq

> m?) discretion doesn't lie with a local council


Yes by the sounds of it any application would need to approved by the Mayors office and reviewed by the Secretary of State - but that is not going to happen if no application is made in the first place.


My point is: regardless of the process if Islington can get approval for a new school building on MOL then so, in principle, could Southwark.


> Anyway, Harris have said they don't want to build

> on the land at Harris girls, haven't they?


Have they? Looking back over the various threads there seems to be conflicting information about this. I guess if they are working on the assumption that can use the hospital site then it isn't surprising that they would say there isn't room at the Girl's School.

The text of the letter from Harris to the parent steering group is copied below. Dated June 2014.


Dear Catherine,


I wanted to write to you direct to clarify our position and thinking on the Dulwich Hospital site.


For context, and as you know, the Department for Education has accepted our application to open a new primary school for Nunhead families. Subject to a building being found, the school will open in September 2015 and aim to provide exceptional education for its children. In doing so, it will follow in the tradition of our primary Free School in Peckham which is highly oversubscribed and was recently judged as ?outstanding? by Ofsted.


In an ideal world, a site in Nunhead would be found and secured by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) which is the government body responsible for finding sites for new schools. While they have not yet located a site, we are very much open to any suitable locations that may come up closer to Nunhead. We will also be working with Southwark to see if they can help to find a site.


Like many prospective primary parents, our preferred outcome would have been to build on the grounds of Harris Girls? Academy ? but this would raise substantial planning issues because the land there is classified as Metropolitan Open Land and given the same level of protection as the green belt. In addition, of course, Southwark is currently asking its secondary schools whether they can expand to help meet some of the expected future shortfall of places.


The EFA has told us that it is considering part of the Dulwich Hospital site for the primary school and advised us that we should keep our options open with regards to this, even though we still hope that a site closer to Nunhead can be found. I wanted to reassure you that we are conscious this is also the site you would like for the new secondary free school in East Dulwich.


If the new primary in Nunhead is built on part of the Dulwich Hospital site, and assuming at least one of the two proposed applications for a new secondary school is granted, we would be very happy if it is decided that a secondary school should be located next to the primary. We have contacted the Haberdashers' Aske's Federation, with whom we have a long established working relationship, and the Charter School to say this and to offer any support we can.


Just to be absolutely clear, we have no intention of creating a new all-through or secondary school in the area and cannot see any reason why two separate schools next door to each other could not thrive as neighbours.


The EFA is still in the process of exploring the options for our site. It is, of course, entirely possible that none of the three possible new schools will be able to use the Dulwich Hospital site. However, given the uncertainty over the past few days, we wanted to make contact with you and set out our position. Whilst we aren?t the decision makers in this process, I hope that I have been able to give you some reassurance and to make clear that we are happy to help raise with the EFA as part of our discussions how a separate secondary school could be fitted there too. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.


If you feel it would be helpful to share this letter with the other local families in your campaign, please feel free to do so.


Yours sincerely

Chris Randall Director New Developments

A good letter and the last comment about Harris' lack of contact with Southwark re DHC site really does give a sense of the cosy relationship between Harris and the Coalition.


I also wonder about their seeming intactability on the it's either the hospital site or MOL land. If the need is North of the borough then why not look in that direction?

I'm surprised by Tessa's letter.


The Chief executive of Southwark after consulting with the relevant director and Southwark Labour I assume issued a letter January 2013 saying they would bend planning rules and allow a planning application for a Harris primary school on the Dulwich Hospital site. Normally a site has to have one planning application.

If anyopne is interested I'll dig it out and post it here.


Then I receive an email from a worried parent 100m from Ivydale who has been told by Southwark Council officials that in 2016 even with a new Ivydale school that due to siblings policy they stand little chance of getting into Ivydale. They were also told they should consider applying for school some of which are further than the Dulwich Hospital site from where they live.

This is the same Southwark Council telling everyone their is no need for another primary school in Nunhead. and that the Dulwich Hospital site is too far away from Nunhead.

You could not make this up.

My point is more that there seems to be an overwhelming view that what ED needs is a good secondary school with adequate space. It is felt that inclusion of another, primary school will compromise the quality of the secondary.


The arguments in favour of the Harris Primary seem to be that they were first out of the traps and built their case on the basis of need in Nunhead, not ED, but without access to a suitable site in the catchment area they used to make their case. Casting around for a suitable site they alighted on DCH land and with the apparent support of the EFA staked their claim.


Therefore a school may be built on a prime site in East Dulwich to provide schooling for an alleged shortfall of primary places in Nunhead while compromising/jeopardising the future of a desperately needed secondary school in East Dulwich itself. This is madness surely?

first mate Wrote:

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

> My point is more that there seems to be an

> overwhelming view that what ED needs is a good

> secondary school with adequate space. It is felt

> that inclusion of another, primary school will

> compromise the quality of the secondary.

>

> The arguments in favour of the Harris Primary seem

> to be that they were first out of the traps and

> built their case on the basis of need in Nunhead,

> not ED, but without access to a suitable site in

> the catchment area they used to make their case.

> Casting around for a suitable site they alighted

> on DCH land and with the apparent support of the

> EFA staked their claim.

>

> Therefore a school may be built on a prime site in

> East Dulwich to provide schooling for an alleged

> shortfall of primary places in Nunhead while

> compromising/jeopardising the future of a

> desperately needed secondary school in East

> Dulwich itself. This is madness surely?


I absolutely agree.

A bit of good news this morning - the Haberdashers Federation has heard that they are through to the next stage with the Department of Education and will begin meetings with DfE in January.


The Habs application is to open a highly regarded, non-faith, co-ed secondary school to open in September 2016. Everything is on track for this goal.


Final decision from DfE should be made in mid-March 2015.

Could you say where? I have signed the forms supporting the bid, but now I can't see how the school will be an option for my daughter. She'd need a place in Sept 2017 - but the school will then still be some years away from being able to move out of temporary accommodation.

Habs are already in conversation with the local authority and their own surveyors about where they could put temporary accommodation for the school. There are a number of possible local, relevant options. If approved they would also have the full support and resources of the EFA to come up with and finance a solution that minimises the impact on pupils from Sept 16 onwards.


Habs have an in-house project team with proven expertise in designing, building and delivering temporary school accommodation which is fit for the purpose of delivering an excellent education from day one. They have previously leased and used high-end modular units to create a mini campus, as well as reconfiguring their existing school estate and other premises. They are confident that if approved they will have a school ready for 2016.


I'm afraid I can't give more details than this at the moment but admissions for the new school would of course relate to the school's permanent site, not the temporary location if that were to be different.

samstopit Wrote:

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

> A bit of good news this morning - the Haberdashers

> Federation has heard that they are through to the

> next stage with the Department of Education and

> will begin meetings with DfE in January.


Ditto the Charter School's proposal it seems:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1442312

This is good news for both bids. Hopefully different sites for each will be found!


The total site is 28,300m2.

NHS are suggesting they need 7,000-9,000m2 for their future needs but that this includes 100 car parking spaces. Hopefully something more sensible around parking can be agreed and they can build to end of the scale.


Secondary school would ideally be 19,500m2 (as per Habs) - 10,045m2 of floor space so a ground and 3 storey building rather than 2 storey would have a land foot print of 2,550m2 leaving 16,950m2 for out door space, etc and reducing the total space required to 18,600m2.

Primary school would ideally be 3,000m2. 2,072m2 of floor space - 700m2 of land.


This would leave a gap both allowing for secondary schoo, primary school and new health facilities of 300m2.


I think it perfectly feasible to house all three on this site without much imagination.


So the issue is one of whether any of them aren't needed or needed on a smaller scale. All will have further consultation.

My biggest fear is that any change of government will see the health facilities go back onto the slower burner for another 20 years of delay scuppering any new school on the site.

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

    • 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.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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