Jump to content

Recommended Posts

James Barber Wrote:

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

> This is good news for both bids. Hopefully

> different sites for each will be found!


I thought there weren't any other sites? Where might these other sites be? Any thoughts you can share?



> The total site is 28,300m2.

> NHS are suggesting they need 7,000-9,000m2


28.3 - 9 = 19.3


> Secondary school would ideally be 19,500m2


28.3 - 9 - 19.5 = -0.2

That's more than the whole site used up already.



> 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


Does land footprint mean the area taken up by the actual building? Harris Boys ED on that basis has a land footprint of 3,330m2 and doesn't seem overly large for a secondary school. Are you sure you could fit the secondary school on the space you've detailed?


> leaving 16,950m2 for out door space, etc

> and reducing the total space

> required to 18,600m2.


Sorry, I don't understand how it reduces the total space required to 18,600m2. I'm probably being a bit hard of understanding.


19.5 - 2.55 = 16.95, got that bit, but 18.6 - 2.55 = 16.05


Have I misunderstood? Or are you saying the outside space reduces to 16,050m2? I suppose that's enough for two football pitches. If you can get the school that small.


But then you'd like to see a primary built on that as well, correct?


> Primary school would ideally be 3,000m2.


Leaving 13,050m2 playing space for the secondary - this is about the same playing space as Heber has if you combine the playgrounds together.



> I think it perfectly feasible to house all three

> on this site without much imagination.


I think I disagree. But maybe I got all the numbers wrong.


> So the issue is one of whether any of them aren't

> needed or needed on a smaller scale. All will have

> further consultation.


I think you might be literally the only person who thinks this site is suitable for the Nunhead Primary.


> 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.


But perhaps there are other sites available? See point 1.

Maybe if JB could pursuade the secondary school of choice to build up to 6 stories he could get another Harris primary in as well, hell a 10 story secondary and Harris could have their Nunhead, Clapham and Crystal Palace primaries nicely installed on the (Dulwich!) hospital site. Remember (caps intentional) WHAT HARRIS WANTS, HARRIS WILL GET.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I'm surprised by Tessa's letter.

>

>

>

> 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.


No but you could look into it a bit further... Think this is the same forumite that asked about this on the Ivydale to expand thread http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1142659,1442108#msg-1442108 and I was able to give her v accurate info from the school open morning that morning.


I do recall there bring talk of a Harris Nunhead when the original plans for Harris ED were being made, but that way precedes the news that Ivydale was to expand which everyone bar James seems to accept this negates the need for yet a

Harris primary claiming to be for Nunhead from a distance.

Hi P68,

I'm clearly not suggesting tower blocks for schools. But The charter School and Habs have school building the height I've suggested. The same as the comp I went to.


Irony was the council leader did, when we first met him seeking his support, suggested a vertical school much to our shock. He wanted to leave plenty of space for new housing.


Hi boname,

Yes land footprint is the land buildings sit on.

No, Heber school sits on about 2,000m2 in its entirety.

Charter School is around 15,000m2. So the site would be much bigger than the charter or Habs secondary schools with or without sharing the site with a primary school.

Is anyone able to shed any light on what will happen to the existing Hospital buildings ? Does the proposed new health facility replace the existing hospital functions ? From the outside at least it appears that large amounts of the existing building aren't in use.

Hi DB&B,

nor would I but someone else suggested it.


Hi ed_pete,

The NHS Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group - people who decide what will go where - stated at both of the last two Dulwich Community Council meetings they attended they expected a new build and they expected it to be built on the eastern side already cleared.


Haberdashers' Aske's have previously indicated that they'd like to keep as much as possible of the existing building. Having spoken with architects who know the buildings the central chataeu style building is worth preserving which was good to hear. The wings are generally single brick skins and would be very hard to keep. We also get into the daft situation of VAT being charged for changes to existing buildings but zero VAT for new builds. Hopefully this can be avoided via charitable body commissioning the schools and much of the existing fabric can be kept and added to. Hope that makes sense.

James - if the new health facility is intended to go on the cleared ground then why hasn't it been built yet ? Is it a simple case of the funding isn't in place or is there lot more to it ? (I imagine the latter). As regards preserving the existing buildings for the secondary school, personally I'd be against this. A building that was designed and built in the late 19th century as a hospital could only every function optimally as a school at a greater cost of building something specifically designed for the purpose. However I'm sure that there will be strong views on this subject when designs for the schools are commissioned.

Hi ed_Pete,

The delay in NHS buildings going up is truly bizarre. We've tried pushing, we've organisation surveys. But NHS Property has to be one of the most backward public bodies going. It has been 22 years now of procastination.

I fear they may be stalling into the 2015 elections and then start a new cycle of thinking, consultations, etc.


I agree most of the hospital building would not be fit for purpose - and as single brick walls expensive to made fit for modern purposes. BUT the centra Chataeu has a large hall on the first floor and two wings. It would make a great focus for a new school and give it instant gravitas from day one. But we're a long way from detailed designs.

  • 4 weeks later...

I disagree entirely that there is no need for another primary school. Those above, such as @Dulwichborn&bred should go to www.findaschool.info and understand the anxiety that the tiny catchment areas are causing us up at the top of Underhill Road. Based on the accurate results of this website, us lucky people who live in a beautiful area have had our luck shot down as our property has never been in an area where it is close enough to a schoool


With the birth rate in SE22 rising, the clamour for school places is only going to get worse, so revisit your comment and understand that the borderline area next to Lewisham and along Dulwich Common certainly needs another school.

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> But isn't it the case that other expansions are

> already planned that more than fulfill any

> anticipated shortfall in Southwark in relation to

> primary places?


Are you referring to the Ivydale expansion? The current black hole of primary provision extends all the way to Forest Hill Rd. To cover that Ivydale's catchment area would need to be 1300m. In 2013 the catchment area was 600m with a 3 class in-take. I can't see how the school will cover 4 times the area with one extra class.


What are the plans for the area at the top of Underhill Road? As I understand it none of the schools around there are expanding. I don't think Horniman can take any more bulge classes.

I worked in the Dulwich Hospital site until about 8 years ago when we were moved to a building in Camberwell. A new team were due to move in our vacated rooms (previously a ward) but were delayed for over a year as the structure was unsafe and the floor was about to collapse, I would say that apart from the ground floor, the rest of the building would need serious money to bring it up to safety standards of a school
The new Harris primary has eased the Goodrich catchment quite a bit, plus of course adding its own places to the mix. Horniman is heavily rumoured to be bulging this year. We live not far from you and are pretty confident of a school place, after years when this was not the case.

henryb Wrote:

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


> > But isn't it the case that other expansions are

>

> Are you referring to the Ivydale expansion? The

> current black hole of primary provision extends

> all the way to Forest Hill Rd. To cover that

> Ivydale's catchment area would need to be 1300m.

> In 2013 the catchment area was 600m with a 3 class

> in-take. I can't see how the school will cover 4

> times the area with one extra class.

>

I'm basing that on the data from Southwark cited in Tessa Jowell's recent letter


http://www.tessajowell.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CHAP0101901140379010100413.pdf - which includes Ivydale expansion and the new Harris on LL. Your argument about knock on effects if a futher Harris is opened at the hospital site (very far away from the black hole) work in the same way when applied to the already planned for additional places that take primary provision beyond what is required - which is to say, it should (and I realise, of course, that all of these stats are based on projections) ease the black hole problem up your neck of the woods.

According to Southwark 2014 Goodrich catchment was 500m and Ivydale 386m. That is still quite a gap.


Don't get me wrong I think the priority should be a secondary school for the site and it should have enough space. However if there is room for primary school as well it shouldn't be dismissed as the current situation of bulging already crowded schools and letting the catholic church take the slack doesn't seem very satisfactory to me. There is on-going population growth in London - demands on schools is only going to increase.

Surely Dulwich Woods Primary (prev langbourne) is as close to the Underhill Rd/top of LL black spot, and is (or at least v recently was) undersubscribed & so counters the argument for another primary at the other end of ED. It's had lots of investment in recent years & have friends whose kids attend and sing its praises.

Hi buggie,

It is great that Dulwich Woods Primary (aka Langnourne) is expanding from one form entry per year to two.


All the advice I've had from Southwark School Improvement Managers and other experts in the field is that they believe two form entry primary schools are the optimum in terms of schools results, performance and experience for pupils.


This school is lagging behind other local primary schools in its SAT results and this will make some families reticent to use it. It also isn't a very easy school to reach from SE22. It's either a very long circuitous walk, several buses or driving. So practically it is much essier for families from this admissions black hole to access other schools or Dulwich Hospital by public transport.


But with all the population forecasts for London - rising from current 8million residents to 10million. It is hard to imagine us having a surplus of school places even with the new schools in flgiht. If anything I fear further capacity problems.

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...