East Dulwich Police Station

[James Barber]

Hi Meg1001,

You're worng. The Dulwich Hamlet is planning a free school. Do you think they're a big corporate entity?

The Harris Federation have agreed a vision of creating primary schools in East Dulwich that will be in the top 10% for England and Wales for attainment and progression. The two together would make it in the top 5% of primary schools.

And without new primary schools many children will have no school places in the area. I'm incredulous that you think this acceptable or that children should would be able to go shopping but not have a school place.

A school at this site would be the same size as Heber School. Yes I would love new schools with playing fields but we have no such available land in East Dulwich.

'we'. I've been working with the Educational Finance Agency, their agents, Harris Federation, ward councillors, The Dulwich Society and some of the parents who have lent their support for new primary schools.

[bornagain]

Thank you James but you haven't actually answered my question.

You said ?' to apply to Southwark Council for the site to be listed as a community asset under the 2011 Localism Act and *we* be allowed to *buy* it for community use.

My question is who will be buying it? ie stumping up the cash and owning the freehold?

[east_dulwich_ginger]

bornagain,

"we" is the "community". The "community" can form a group (in the losest sense of the term) and can make it known to southwark council that it believes the police station to be an "asset of community value". It is up to the group to put best foot forward and say why this is the case.

Assuming it is listed as an ACV (following a period of consultation) the group then attains the right to buy the asset. However, the brilliance of the Localism Act is that there is no "right to sell" to the group. Of course, should the group stump up enough cash to be able to afford to pay residential development rates on the site, the police and GLA may take the offer. Doubtful though.

In terms of the loss of the community asset - please note that the site is in planning terms sui generis. It is not protected as a community asset. In policy terms there is no protection for the community use.

The S106 obligations which will be payable from the site's development will go to the council and residents of east dulwich should put pressure on the council to spend the money where needed.

The site will be developed for much needed flats. It is too small a school. It is not suitable for a hotel. Retail is possible but subject to passing the impact and needs tests of the NPPF. "need" is not a test. Community/leisure uses are not viable.

hope that clairies a few of the points on here.

[Ted Max]

Yeah Meg, why do you hate children?

And don't forget this: "The Harris Federation have agreed a vision of creating primary schools in East Dulwich that will be in the top 10% for England and Wales for attainment and progression."

That's a nailed-on clincher.

James Barber Wrote:

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

>

> And without new primary schools many children will

> have no school places in the area. I'm incredulous

> that you think this acceptable or that children

> should would be able to go shopping but not have a

> school place.

[Meg1001]

Ted Max Wrote:

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

> Yeah Meg, why do you hate children?

>

> And don't forget this: "The Harris Federation have

> agreed a vision of creating primary schools in

> East Dulwich that will be in the top 10% for

> England and Wales for attainment and

> progression."

>

> That's a nailed-on clincher.

>

> James Barber Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > And without new primary schools many children

> will

> > have no school places in the area. I'm

> incredulous

> > that you think this acceptable or that children

> > should would be able to go shopping but not have

> a

> > school place.

Ha! Ted Max...

James, I am not 'worng'. It's disreputable for James Barber to assign to me view that I think it acceptable for school children not to have a place when my objection was explicitly towards the whole concept of Harris backed 'Free' schools. A school, that in all likelihood, in the future will be turned over to a private for-profit making company. What is wrong with state school? Where is the evidence from Sweden and other countries that 'Free' schools actually raise attainment? When people are offered the choice between a Harris backed free school (which govt is heavily pushing) and a community school which do they prefer? Why does Education Act 2011 state that 'Local Authorities that need to create a new school must in most circumstances seek proposals for an Academy or Free School. They can only propose a traditional community school if no suitable free school or academy proposal is proposed.' Why the coercion if they are so great? And yes, I do find the whole concept of them more insidious then a supermarket.

Also, if the Dulwich Hamlet aren't a big corporation, I wouldn't think they'd have the money to buy the site would you? Unless of course the Harris Federation...

[AbDabs]

Ted Max Wrote:

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

> Yeah Meg, why do you hate children?

A bit unfair perhaps. I worry when the provision of new schools encourages parents to stay in a heavily built up area rather than moving a little further out to where there still are playing fields (or at least a playground) and their children might get to see the light of day. And what happens when those primary school children grow up and need the next stage of their education? Another school wedged into a site too small, and frustrated teenagers spilling out into a community too densely populated to cope with the very natural need for a little freedom that's sometimes destructive. And later those same children will be wanting to leave home and a percentage will expect to stay in the area but won't be able to because there isn't anywhere for them to live.

An old expression is that you 'can't put a quart into a pint pot'. We seem to be trying to do that far too often lately.

[motorbird83]

Don't academies get the money to buy sites from the Department of Education? I don't think you need to have money to start a school, just local support. That's why the schools are still state schools.

[????]

Meg1001 Wrote:

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

> These so called 'Free' schools, which are

> basically corporate (lets learn Business and

> Enterprise kids!) and are essentially backed by

> the boss of Carpetright give me the creeps. We

> would have been better off with a Waitrose, less

> insidious all round.

God forbid we teach kids to be enterprisng and to understand business, what good is that in the modern world...let's fill them with chippy, vague socialism maybe

[James Barber]

Hi Meg101,

The Harris Federation is a charity. It's assets can't be sold to private bodies UNLESS they can prove they are meeting their charitable aims of providing education.

If you're against free school providers for some reason then say so but please don't state something that legally can not happen about one of them.

The 2011 act actually makes it easier than the previous Tony Blair education act for local councils to open state schools. It should be even easier but it isn't. Both left and right politicians have been against local councils doing this. So the most realistic route to provide state school places is via the free school/ academy route. Southwark Council now recognises this and is supporting Dulwich Hamlet opening a free school on the old Bellenden School site.

All the funding for these free schools comes from central government.

[Meg1001]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi Meg101,

> The Harris Federation is a charity. It's assets

> can't be sold to private bodies UNLESS they can

> prove they are meeting their charitable aims of

> providing education.

>

- Which is the privatization of the education system by another means. BUPA for example is a company limited by guarantee, it doesn't mean it doesn't behave in exactly the same way as other companies.

If you're against free school providers for some

> reason then say so but please don't state

> something that legally can not happen about one of

> them.

I've stated my opposition clearly already, nor have I said anything that isn't a possibility in the future.

>

> The 2011 act actually makes it easier than the

> previous Tony Blair education act for local

> councils to open state schools. It should be even

> easier but it isn't. Both left and right

> politicians have been against local councils doing

> this.

- Yes, I have said this and I oppose it. I talked specifically about 'Free' schools. - what is your point?

So the most realistic route to provide state

> school places is via the free school/ academy

> route.

It is the route we are coerced into accepting.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/25/education-harris-academies-curriculum

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/09/harris-academy-education-news-in-http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/10/primary-school-parents-row-takeover-academy

Southwark Council now recognises this and

> is supporting Dulwich Hamlet opening a free school

> on the old Bellenden School site.

>

> All the funding for these free schools comes from

> central government.

Then it's a great deal for Harris isn't it?

James I would like an apology from you for comments that you made that clearly and deliberately misrepresented my views and in doing so, impugned my integrity. You should retract them immediately.

[Meg1001]

>

> God forbid we teach kids to be enterprisng and to

> understand business, what good is that in the

> modern world...let's fill them with chippy, vague

> socialism maybe

Because everyone wants a business minded cardiologist or an enterprising teacher, quick to turn a profit, don't they?

[????]

horrid old profit eh, ...pays for teachers, nurses, doctors, roads, hospitals and stuff....we should do away with it

[Meg1001]

???? Wrote:

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

> horrid old profit eh, ...pays for teachers,

> nurses, doctors, roads, hospitals and stuff....we

> should do away with it

There are some things money can't buy. Some problems, which can't be solved by throwing money at them. With a username that's '????' I don't expect you to realise this. I will leave it to others on this forum to make up their own minds on this. Merry Christmas!

You do realise that a private company EXTRACTS profits from the taxpayer though right?

[????]

lol - where to begin with your cluelessness.

Where do 'tax payers' get their income from any ideas? Come on, have a think....

[Meg1001]

And all profits complete their virtuous circle back to their source? Put your thinking cap on and maybe we can have a debate...

[Loz]

Meg1001 Wrote:

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

> You do realise that a private company EXTRACTS

> profits from the taxpayer though right?

Well, yes, but the theory is that private enterprise efficiencies can do the job at less cost to the taxpayer and still turn a profit for the companies involved.

As an extreme example, the government could set up a factory and make its own photocopiers. Or it can buy them cheaper from Xerox, save the taxpayers money and the company still make a healthy profit.

[Meg1001]

Loz Wrote:

>

> Well, yes, but the theory is that private

> enterprise efficiencies can do the job at less

> cost to the taxpayer and still turn a profit for

> the companies involved.

>

> As an extreme example, the government could set up

> a factory and make its own photocopiers. Or it

> can buy them cheaper from Xerox, save the

> taxpayers money and the company still make a

> healthy profit.

Will let Electricity/Gas/Water/Rail/Private Landlords know...

[????]

will let former citizens of the Soviet Union, it's ex-sattelites, and the people of North Korea know......

[adonirum]

Some of the non-sensical drivel written by Meg 1001 on this thread makes me think that (apparently) there might be more brains contained in one of the pork pies on sale in his/her yearned for Waitrose supermarket !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[steveo]

They come in full of hot piss and vinegar.

We've seen it all before

[Louisa]

Perfect compromise - how about a school/waitrose combined. Anything is possible in zone 2 London these days.

Louisa.

[pinecone]

Louisa, been thought of before: (see 4:00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiV4F7HWHRk#t=208

[Meg1001]

Oh the communist satellite states of the Soviet Union! If only I'd come up with such a hyperbolic response!

[Meg1001]

adonirum Wrote:

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

> Some of the non-sensical drivel written by Meg

> 1001 on this thread makes me think that

> (apparently) there might be more brains contained

> in one of the pork pies on sale in his/her yearned

> for Waitrose supermarket !!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!! A well thought out, educated, fact heavy and reasoned response as ever. Nice to know having a pop isn't your only motivation in life!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[motorbird83]

Without waying into the broader debate, its important to clairfy that charities are not businesses. They do not make profits for their owner. To the extent that revenue is higher than expenses, the surplus has to be reinvested into the charity to further its aims. By law, surpluses cannot be distributed to those that manage or established the charity.