Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Small may well be beautiful but the number of local parents tearing their hair out over secondary school places is big, and getting bigger. Charter is way over subscribed, more and more are having to look at Lambeth, Lewisham and further afield - the problem is getting worse each year.


In my opinion a secondary school of 950 pupils isn't actually that huge - there were 1200 at mine and schools of a thousand pupils or more are common. Of course more outdoor space would be lovely but the site can't be magically expanded. Why four storeys? Well maybe that's the most efficient use of space.



And despite statements to the contrary I maintain there are loads of Nimby attitudes on display on the forum. Those against the plans seem to have a variety of reasons as to why they are A Bad Thing. Size, the possibility Piermont Green may be concreted over to provide a "drop off point" (?), modern architecture next to Victorian terraces, the lack of outdoor space and the horror that parts of Peckham Rye might actually be used for sports, traffic on Northcross Road (???), someone has even provided a handy cut out and keep worst-case scenario guide as to the dreadful things that might happen....


That is Nimbyism if ever I saw it.


You seem to be saying - we're not Nimbys, we want a school, but it has to be the type of building we like and it has to house the number of pupils we find acceptable (and you can't even seem to agree on that)

The building of a school is never going to be an ongoing collaboration between council and local community in which the latter chip in suggestions for architectural styles, class sizes etc. Nothing would ever get done.


It's a state school which the local community needs and has been campaigning for for years. Its got to be big because of the growing number of local children. Yes it will have an impact on the surrounding area, yes some views will be spoilt and were this a Tescos or a block of flats - the social need for which are practically non-existent - then I would agree with your moans about the consultation process.


It's not, so I don't.

> BigDad Wrote:>

> > Anyway - if its supposed to be a SPORTS

> > academy, where are the SPORTS facilities?



> buggie Wrote:

> I stated in my post that the girls school is a

> sports academy - not aware of the proposed boys

> academy being a sports academy too.



Some facts (which are always useful):

The girls school, Waverley, has

- an indoor 100m swimming pool

- a running track

- flood-lit all-weather sports pitches for tennis, hockey, basketball, football etc

- fitness suite with a modern gym

- indoor full-sized sports hall for indoor football, basketball, badminton etc

- a dance studio


It would be good to know if there are any plans to share these facilities.

Another interesting few statements on the Waverley website:


"Reaching out

Waverley is at the centre of a plan to link Southwark?s secondary schools with their nearby primary schools. We also encourage other local schools, clubs and societies to make use of our superb new sports hall, fitness suite and dance studio. Our superb facilities are also open to the public after school, at weekends and during school holidays.


Sport at Waverley

In recent years more than ?10 million has been invested in our buildings and facilities, including new outdoor courts, a large sports hall, fitness suite and dance suite. We also have our own swimming pool."


There is already the mindset that some facilities should be shared. My secondary school shared facilities with a school across the road from us, even though the other school was a convent girls-only school - this didn't stop them sharing facilities with our mixed-sex school. We even had shared lessons to widen the subjects available to pupils from both schools.

I'm really happy to see a general positive approach to this thread. I can't belive that anyone would have concerns about an old trashed school building being turned into - a school..! Anyone would think they are proposing to put a hostel for pervs, rapists, paedos and the like there from some of the posts. Also - I would love to see kids using the park daily - exercise I hear is rather good for them.

Quite what Macroban has in mind when he / she talks about dissafected ED residents is very interesting. Most seem to draw the line at venting steam on this forum - suggesting we would consider smashing up school facilities that most of our friends / neighbours children go to is to be quite honest - totally ludicrous. Maybe you would consider it - the rest of us wouldn't.

Prat.

I've just copied this from a link on another thread (there's different bits about this topic in 3 different threads!)



"Following the 5th June consultation another leaflet has been dropped to the doors by the usual 4 residents of Upland Rd.

It reads:


Harris Boys Academy

Following the appalling ?consultation? meeting on Tuesday evening we are proposing to meet up to plan how to take our concerns forward.

This is VERY URGENT given the short timescales. Submissions to the planners by 15th June.


The main concern appear to be:

Size of school 900+ boys ( original school size 350 girls )

Traffic ? entrance in Friern Rd ? up to 100 staff.

Size, design, position of building:

- 4 storeys high+

- Right up against the end of our gardens.


Meeting Sunday 10th June

East Dulwich Community Centre

Darrell Road SE22 6pm-7.30pm


Please come along and give your support !"




From this there appears to be a major concern about the impact on immediate residents. E.g. traffic, buildings right up to the end of their gardens. Yes, the impact on the immediate residents has to be considered and there has to be consultation.


My personal opinion is that provision of education is more important than, for example, worries re increased traffic. Yes the latter does need to be considered. However, in making any decisions about the school, I would like to see the most relevant influencing factor to be what is in the best interests of the children's education. We need more school places, in schools which will work and have a good chance of success, and there has to be a long-term view re educational needs.


Schools expanding on their sites is not a new thing. I went to a Victorian school that doubled its size by extensions in the 60's, 70's and 90's. The land belongs to the local authority and it is not unusual for them to built bigger schools on existing sites. Increased traffic to the area around the school has always been a long-term possibility. That's my view, but there still has to be consultation and a look at any other viable options.


Let's take a positive view on this. Its a new school which the area needs!! Let's come up with some suggestions that can be discussed with the Harris Federation. Rather than just saying 'there's no outside space', let's ask 'will they share Waverely's great sports facilities just up the road?'

Ok, I know I've a few posts on this subject but I read through lots of info last night and it made interesting reading!


On the Edge campaign website, one resident talks about having a smaller school site so that there is room for an on-site car park. That speaks for itself.


During any consultation, as well as considering the impact on local residents, we need to look at the impact on the whole local community and its need for a viable school.

Ko Wrote:

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

> Some facts (which are always useful):

> The girls school, Waverley, has

> - an indoor 100m swimming pool

> - a running track

> - flood-lit all-weather sports pitches for tennis,

> hockey, basketball, football etc

> - fitness suite with a modern gym

> - indoor full-sized sports hall for indoor

> football, basketball, badminton etc

> - a dance studio

>

> It would be good to know if there are any plans to

> share these facilities.



Sorry Ko - I think your facts are wrong - there is no swimming pool at Waverley school - certainly not an enormous 100m one. (Olympic size pools are 50m as is the Crystal Palace pool).


Indeed I think the sports facilities at Waverley are very poor. Fitness facilities perhaps - sports facilities no. They compare badly to the facilities at some of the local private schools. So the idea of the boys' school benefitting from excellent facilities does not hold water. A bit like the non-existent swimming pool.

From what I've heard (not that Harris is being forthcoming and sharing their plans with the community - heavens forbid) -


There is not a plan to share facilities - some of the sixth form teachers may be shared between the sites but that appears to be all. Given that the head of the girls school voted no to it becoming co-ed, it seems to back this up If they didn't want it to be co-ed, why would they allow boys to come and have classes there - would they segregate them out?)


And what of the future - in 5 years time is it really any good having an academy thats not working? Given the commotion in the community, why are Harris not more forthcoming? They are not attending the residents meeting on Sunday which would be an opportunity for them to impress on everyone with their detailed plans as to how this would work.

I'll start by declaring an interest - I do live near the proposed school, but not close enough that it'll be looming over my back yard.


Cuthbert Dibble misrepresents the position of the people he is accusing of being "Nimbys". I don't buy Macroban's slippery slope scenario and certainly everyone I've spoken to (as the-e-dealer points out) is either actively in favour of a school or at the least sees it as a far better option than a Tescos or more flats.


The problem here is that Harris have not just developed their plans without making the effort to speak to their neighbours but are now actively refusing to get involved in any discussion even at this late stage - the latest news is that they've declined to come along to this afternoon's meeting to discuss their plans with locals and councillors. Anyone who actually went along to their information evening on June 5th will know that their representatives were simply taking a "that's how it's going to be" line.


If we presume that people have some right to express an interest in how their local area is developed then surely it's not unreasonable to ask for answers to questions like:


- What is the reason for having 2 sixth forms, 1 at each site? If Harris were to honour their original committment (made to local parents) to have 1 sixth form on the larger Homestall Rd site then the number of places required at the new site would be c. 750. Bingo! A 20% reduction with knock on benefits for the size of building required.


- What steps will Harris take to manage the traffic impact? The proposals presented on the 5th would embarass a GCSE student let along professional consultants such as those hired by Harris. The Planning rules can impose requirements on a developer but it wouldn't have been especially difficult for Harris to make some sensible suggestions before the application goes to Planning committee.


- Is it really necessary to demolish the existing building? Other South London developments have managed to incorporate the original buildings in creative ways.


None of this is an attempt to get in the way of what will be an important contribution to the local community. It's simply a request for Harris to take their responsibilities as a good neighbour seriously and make the effort to engage in a discussion. If I needed to do that to replace a garden fence, I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect someone building a major development to do the same.

Can I suggest that those people who are unhappy with the Harris academy people for withholding information should complain to the CEO? Sometimes causing embarassment can work wonders. In the alternative you could always complain to LBS and make clear that you will take this up with the Ombudsman and the Secretary of State.

Indeed! Lots of us have written to Dr Daniel Moynihan (who heads up Harris) and to our MPs and Councillors. The meeting which Harris have decided not to attend has been arranged by the Labour Councillors in Peckham and Nunhead as an opportunity to discuss the planning issues. It's a shame that Harris don't think that it's worth attending as the local community are really keen to work through the issues with them and ensure that the final proposals work and are the best compromise (acknowledging that the school is needed and is bound to have some impact).


If the school is delayed this won't be because the local residents want to stop it happening, it will be because Harris are refusing to engage with the community.

Regarding the Planning Application which went in last Friday 22nd to Southwark, we need the following issues discussed:


The original Expression of Interest in March 2006 called for two federated academies with 750 pupils on each site ( ie 750 boys on Lower Site on Peckham Rye and 750 Girls on Upper Site on Homestall Rd) + a 6th Form on the Upper Site.


It also pointed out the the lower site was 1.85 hectares and the upper site 5.96


Yet by the time the Planning Application went in, the proposal had changed to a 6th Form now split on two sites.


We need Harris and the architects to explain how this will work - before when the 6th Form was planned to be only on the larger site, it was still a tight squeeze, and possible unfair to the boys to cram so many on the smaller site, while the girls enjoyed much more spacious surroundings.


The current situation which adds half the 6th form to the Lower Site places even more pressure on a small area.


We really need more information from Harris and Southwark about how this Planning Application will work

"Cuthbert Dibble misrepresents the position of the people he is accusing of being "Nimbys" "


No I don't. I was reacting to what had been written here and giving examples of the variety of reasons put forward as to why the plans should be opposed, so wide ranging they struck me as examples of - yes you've guessed it.


Rob, the fact that you don't go along with Macroban's slippery slope scenario doesn't mean he didn't post it and that it wasn't part of the "anti" position on this thread.


I totally agree however that it is lame for Harris not to come along to the meeting and to put forward their views on such an important topic. They cetainly should have done so and have probably made the whole situation worse.


I can sense a boycott of Carpet Right is in the offing.

trinity Wrote:


> Sorry Ko - I think your facts are wrong - there is

> no swimming pool at Waverley school - certainly

> not an enormous 100m one. (Olympic size pools are

> 50m as is the Crystal Palace pool).

>

> Indeed I think the sports facilities at Waverley

> are very poor. Fitness facilities perhaps - sports

> facilities no. They compare badly to the

> facilities at some of the local private schools.

> So the idea of the boys' school benefitting from

> excellent facilities does not hold water. A bit

> like the non-existent swimming pool.



Thanks for the info Trinity. I've been getting mine from Waverley's website and from speaking to the school directly. Is this not true? Seriously, I would like to know! :-S


I'm not sure if we can compare state school facilities with facilities at local private schools, but that's just my opinion.


I rang the school and they said they have got a swimming pool and they are currently refurbishing it. The website also says this and states it is a 100 metre pool and it looks quite large on the plan of the school. Maybe they got the size wrong on the website??


The Dec 05 Ofsted report states, "The school offers an exceptionally wide range of sports activities to other schools and organisations. The school takes full advantage of opportunities to gain external funding. Students benefit from good sources, particularly the sports facilities."


The website says, amongst other things:


"All students take part in at least two hours of physical activity each week ? from swimming and basketball to athletics, dance and gymnastics. In recent years more than ?10 million has been invested in our buildings and facilities, including new outdoor courts, a large sports hall, fitness suite and dance suite. We also have our own swimming pool."


"Sports colleges aim to raise standards of achievement in physical education and sport for all their students, leading to whole school improvement. They are focal points for promoting excellence in physical education and community sport, extending links between different schools, sports bodies and communities, and spreading good practice across a region."


"Our superb facilities could be just what you need, including a 200-seater sports hall, dance studio and outdoor tennis courts."


"Join our gym: As well as a state-of-the-art technogym, we offer a range of exercise classes, yoga, aerobics and pilates. And you can also book our brand new sports hall for badminton, five-a-side football, volleyball or basketball. Our 25 station technogym includes resistance machines and the latest cardiovascular equipment."


"Sport and fitness play a key part of school life and we offer a wide and balanced range of activities. From year 9 students make choices about their sport and fitness activities and we also offer many extra-curricular clubs including basketball, football, trampolining, athletics and rounders."


Website has a tour and you can click on the icons of the plan for more info on the facilities: http://www.hrsgraphics.com/hrs-waverley/tour.html#


Any info people could provide on this would be good.

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...