Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some facts. There's at least one Gym in the video. There IS a playground. The building's internal accomodation exceeds current standards for 900 pupils.


I know some of didn't want a boys school, I know some of us don't trust Harris or Academies in general but its what we've got which is better than nothing. I hope you all take a keen interest , get involved, contribute in anyway you can when it opens.

  • 8 months later...

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> Well, it's almost unveiled. I was surprised by

> how much I like it.

>

> Are the windmills on top decorative or functional?


Apparently its at the end of my road - But I have not seen it.

We have to accept now that the school is here. Many of our friend's children will have to attend it (mainly because they did not get their chosen school). I feel, we should, as a community, accept and support it. Nothing we can say is going to change that up to 900 boys are going to be attending this school so it is up to us all as a community to proud of it and make it the best school it can be.


And, for those who don't want it on their doorstep, if it does succeed, it will certainly increase their house prices!

I really hope it works (and i live very close to it). But i still can't get my head around 900 kids all crammed on that disproportionally small site. Triple the previous amount ... Someone mentioned earlier that the park was out of bounds - so where on earth are they going to play/exercise outside ?

The Academy ?Coop? LMAO.


900 Battery Children cooped up in the Harris Academy.


Dulwich College has playing fields in abundance and the poor sporty kids of South London have the Harris Academy.


Southwark?s brilliant Planning system.



If they had any sense they would compulsory purchase industrial land around Burgess Park reclaim the land for sports fields and build an academy there. No one would miss the industrial units.


But NO let?s squeeze it in next to Peckham rye?


The site of the Harris academy should have been retirement flats freeing up some of the boroughs large housing stock which is occupied by OAPs holding back family housing.



The Southwark PLAN Like many local council plans is a JOKE!


Short sighted and as always falls way short of benefiting the boroughs residents in a humane way.


THE BATTER EDUCATION SYSTEM IS HERE!


No virtual tour required.

e- dealer

The building's internal accomodation exceeds current standards for 900 pupils.

Not doubting the vaiidity of your comment but I would be interested in more details ,have you a link giving current standards ? And some idea of the Academy's internal specification to make a comparison ?

Mmm .I can see it's going to be tricky to track down,especially since the proposed numbers of students went up considerably during the course of the planning .

Of course I realise it will all conform to planning regs - just wondered how it was worked out and how the building meets the requirements.

Well it's (nearly) here now so there it is.


In six or seven years time we'll no doubt be taking a look around - with an open mind.


Doing the rounds of the local primaries recently was an interesting exercise in itself, unearthing as it did a bubbling cauldron of assumption, prejudice and snobbery (ours, that of others). If we learned anything from that, it's that you only know by looking for yourself.

ontheedge,you are ontheball!

Horrific building, it will ruin the enjoyment that we know of Peckham Rye Park - which is a massive shame, it was only this morning I was talking to the gardeners, thanking them for the hard work in making the park such a delight.

Why shouldn't they use the park??? I can see there could be potential problems but surely if there were rules in place then there shouldn't be unmanageable 'problems'.


What sort of image of our youth do we have when we assume that they're going to cause problems. Isn't the park there for everyone to enjoy???

Peckham Rye Park has long been used for school children as a sports facility, When I was at school we used to get a coach there, I don't see why that should be a problem now. It's not as if they're going to let 900 boys out in the park at the same time, unsupervised to do what they like and as someone else said, why should local kids not be allowed to use the park, it's a public space is it not?

It is a great shame it has no outdoor space, but with a desperate need for secondary places in Southwark and little room to build a school especially in ED, it looks like they are trying to make the best of what they have.


Will the boys school not be sharing any of the facilities of the girls school across the park?

I vote for underground sports fields dig the rye concrete it like a basement/car park, then cover it back over with the same turf etc.


Not good for football but ok for track and field sports etc they could be bussed out to the near continent for team sports.


I guess the general thinking was for dart throwing snooker playing weight lifting acrobats with abilities in dance as a sideline.

I was on the planning committee that decided to grant planning permission.

I did ask at the time whether the Academy could be allowed to use the common/park but in exchange allow its changing rooms to be used at the weekend. This would allow all those unsightly shipping containers to be removed.

I was told that the friends of Peckham Rye Park at that time were against such a concept and the applicant didn't want to rock the boat.

Another thing worth adding is that there won't imediately be 900 boys on site, the school is being filled one form per year, the first intake was last September so if/when it opens this September there will only be 2 year groups there, and the school will fill gradually.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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