Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posting this in case the two consultation dates are of interest - the first is tomorrow.


Charter School East

REMINDER - PLANNING CONSULATION EVENT THIS WEEK

6th October, United Reform Church East Dulwich Grove, 6pm-9pm

Dear Stakeholder

The DfE approved The Charter School Educational Trust?s proposal to open a new secondary school, The Charter School East Dulwich, in September 2016. We have been working closely with Southwark Council, the Education Funding Agency and architects on initial plans for the school which is proposed to be sited on the current Dulwich Community Hospital site.


We intend to submit a planning application in November 2015 for the first phase of the development, but we are keen to hear local residents' and others? views on the options that have been developed in advance of the application being submitted.


We have arranged for two consultation events to take place on 6th and 17th October at the United Reform Church on East Dulwich Grove, SE22 7RH. The attached leaflet (http://www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk/attachments/download.asp?file=15&type=pdf), also available on our website, provides further background information and details regarding the events. You can also provide comments through our website at www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk.


We recognise that there are a number of local groups, organisations and individuals in the area that take a keen interest in local developments and we are particularly keen to hear your views. We would be delighted if you, or a representative, could attend one of the events, but should that not be possible and you would like further information on the proposed scheme, please reply to this email or alternatively contact us on [email protected] in order that we can make alternative arrangements.


Yours faithfully,

Elizabeth Brown

Chair, The Charter School Educational Trust

www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk @chartereast

Interesting evening looking over the temporary and long-term plans. There's not much point going into detail here, as they'll be putting up pdfs of the presentation on the website tomorrow:

http://www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk


Nice to see that they're intending to keep the 'chateau' and entrance drive intact, but I still have concerns about the impact on local congestion and parking, given that there will be minimal provision for parking. Which is fine for the kids, as they'll all be local and will be encouraged to walk or cycle, but I'll be interested to know what they'll do to minimise the staff's use of private cars.

Just returned from consultation. I am alarmed that there will be next to no parking available on site. They are hoping to discourage people driving to school by putting no parking on site.

Get with the real world, this will mean more people trying to park in the already over full surrounding streets.Causing conflicts, double parking, illegal parking at best and accidents with cars and pedestrians at worst.

They could take the 'green' initiative and insist on staff using public transport. But I suspect they won't... As I mentioned to someone from the Council, if this isn't addressed satisfactorily, I would seriously consider a local CPZ (which I opposed before). The ball is in the school's court.

I would far rather have a big school with more pupils, than a small school with a big car park.


I thought overall the plans were great. If there were any space to spare (which there isn't), I would prefer more sports facilities for the kids rather than car parks etc.

Ugh, not the CPZ thing again? :( However it does seem short sighted in the extreme to plan a health centre and a secondary school with only 10 or so parking places for the whole site. Realistically teachers will drive, visitors to the site will drive, admin staff, cleaners, ill people, doctors, nurses, physio's and on and on. If there's no parking then they will park in our already crowded local streets forcing a CPZ - something the majority of local residents were clear they didn't want.


I am really positive about these proposals on the whole and it will be a delight to see the site finally serving it's intended purpose, but the parking issue MUST be addressed for the proposals to be palatable to local residents.To ignore it will be to create a whole heap of misery for us.

EDG and the immediate area already has JAGS, JAPS, Alleyns, Charter 1, Bessemer Grange, Goose Green Primary and I have probably missed some out. So there is already tonnes of traffic at school time.


BUT... please do not allocate useful school space for a few paltry car parking spaces! As many on this forum know, people are crying out for more decent state secondary provision.


The area has decent buses and two train stations, and most kids will be in walking distance

I don't want more parking spaces! What I don't want is a school crowing about its green credentials when dozens of staff drive to work and park in nearby streets. Of course the kids can walk or cycle - none of them will be more than half a mile away.


Every time someone mentions teaching staff not driving, we get the 'carrying home piles of books' scenario. This is 2015. When my father used to 'bring work home', he had a huge bulging briefcase. When I take work home, I carry a slim laptop. It can't be beyond the wit of the system to come up with a solution that works in every other area of work and society.

Hi silly woman,

NHS have been proposing 100 car parking spaces for the new super health centre. Presume for staff and patients. This does seem an awfully large amount of car parking.


The Charter school is planning for much less parking. I intend to test this idea in two ways. First their current school is about to have a CPZ implemented around it. residents there think the school staff are a major source of their parking stress so when staff can't park on local streets we'll soon see if the school has a problem. The school has a travel plan which will include surveys of how staff and pupils get to school. This will be needed as proof for the temporary site and permanent site to prove their point about so little parking.

I hope they can demonstrate they don't need much car parking. As Sunglasses pointed out earlier - better more space for kids than cars.


Both the NHS and Charter are planning to procure a joint traffic report which will include parking surveys, traffic flows, estimates of impact of the development.


But worth remembering this used to be a very busy full hospital with hundreds of consultation a day, in patients, 24/7 it even had A&E. So the site has had lots of traffic in the past coming and going.

Not sure about the joint traffic report, James Barber. But Charter School East Dulwich is certainly commissioning one, and I've heard they're going to put up the outline brief on the school website. Very important that the school talks to local residents about how it will discourage teachers from driving in. As everyone has said here, the pupils will all be walking.

Hi Tessmo,

The Charter chair of governors at last Dulwich Community Council said joint traffic study with NHS and Monday night when I met new head, deputy chair governors, Southwark officers and project manager said joint study.

If different studies by each party then more overall spend and risk that gaps between two different studies.


They said 90-95% of current Charter pupils walking or public transport. Risk at new school of 5-10% of pupils being driven/collected which would September 2016 equate to 6-12 cars am and pm expanding to ultimately possible 120 vehicles when school finished. So initially no problem. Bigger risk I suspect is staff driving to/from school.

Has to be said it appears the nearest private schools have much higher proportion of pupils being driven to/from schools. So any work to reduce the Charter East Dulwich pupils being driven needs to be applied in the private school direction as well.


hi Sunglasses,

I can't pretend I'm not chuffed. But huge number of people have worked very hard to get us here and it has been a bumpy if fascinating and stressful ride. Can't wait until late 2020 when new school finally finished (delay due to NHS) and new super health centre in place.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> They said 90-95% of current Charter pupils walking

> or public transport. Risk at new school of 5-10%

> of pupils being driven/collected which would

> September 2016 equate to 6-12 cars am and pm

> expanding to ultimately possible 120 vehicles when

> school finished. So initially no problem. Bigger

> risk I suspect is staff driving to/from school.

> Has to be said it appears the nearest private

> schools have much higher proportion of pupils

> being driven to/from schools. So any work to

> reduce the Charter East Dulwich pupils being

> driven needs to be applied in the private school

> direction as well.


Well, the private schools' intake is entirely different from what will be the Charter School's as they take from far and wide. Apart from pupils with disability issues, there's no excuse for any Charter pupil not walking, cycling or hopping on a bus given that no pupil is likely to live more than half a mile away.


As you suggest, it's the staff who will be the issue when it comes to car use and particularly parking.


Incidentally, pdfs of the full information panels from the consultation are now available here:

http://www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk/_site/data/files/users/2/68364016F0E646B3810036D83AC73AC4.pdf

According to that letter the final handover of land wont be until early 2019...that's ridiculous! The kids start in 2016 so they wont have proper facilities until GCSE's.


Not good enough - really don't understand why the NHS are being so pedantic over this???

Yes, just getting my head round this letter. Sounds like they won't be able to even start building the permanent school till 2019, is that right? At the Charter ED open day recently they stated they expected to be in the permanent buildings by 2018-9, but it sounds like it'll be at least another two years on from that, if not more. How on earth are they going to fit up to four years'-worth of pupils into a handful of portacabins squished into one corner of the site?


Don't want to rain on your parade, James, and yes, well done for getting the ball rolling in the first place, but for those of us with Year 6 children this is actually pretty bad news.

Hi confusedbyitall,

I share your frustration. BUT the initial NE corner site handed over today has sufficient space for temporary classrooms and two permanent blocks that will provide 70% of all final classrooms. So the final land handover although painful shouldn't get in he way of children starting next September having a great school. And the sports hall should open by end of their first year.


Hi redjam,

No. They can start building the permanent classrooms from summer next year when we expect planning permission for the permanent blocks. 70% of the total classroom space required for years 7-13 and all the sports hall space should be in place by September 2017.

And of course we will strive to move the NHS along.

Much of the outdoor space will come after the NHS move out and is mostly about demolishing blocks and building all surface sports facilities - so that can happen very quickly. The final 30% of school classrooms, offices etc. should come from converting and adding to the central Chateau building which will take until 2020/21 but the school wont need that final 30% until after then.

I've asked if that central Chateau work on the above ground floors could be done in parallel to the NHS operating there. It would migrate some of the running costs and risk away from the NHS and in return speed up the works and reduce overall timescales. A win win situation potentially.

Clearly this isn't ideal. It has taken 23 years for the NHS to reach this stage. John Major was PM when they first started working on replacing Dulwich Hospital!

James, you wrote "Risk at new school of 5-10% of pupils being driven/collected which would September 2016 equate to 6-12 cars am and pm expanding to ultimately possible 120 vehicles when school finished. So initially no problem. Bigger risk I suspect is staff driving to/from school."


Initially no problem? Even 6 - 12 cars stopping for 1 minute each between say 8.15am and 8.45am (I've assumed those times) could cause havoc on Melbourne Grove North, which is already a very congested road. Today there has been no end of congestion on the road leading to lots of beeping that started at 8am...and that's just because of the increase in traffic because it's raining!!!

James,


Just to clarify, the NHS will not be handing over the remainder of the land until 2019 (main hospital), is that correct?


Will there be a guarantee/ contract in place to ensure that this is the latest it will happen? 2019 is bad enough, but I'm also concerned how achievable that date is bearing in mind how incredibly slowly the NHS move!


Kate

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...