Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yup - I've got the point about secondaries and I'm trying to find out what Southwark's stated position on them is


not sure about "as average pupil numbers fall across Dulwich" tho' - increasing number of primary schools increases supply, so demand spreads across these schoold. But if Harris have more than one of these schools how is that not going to cannablise them? What's in it for them?

Here is the link again in case you can't find it buried in the thread.


http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s45063/Report%20School%20Places%20Strategy%20Update.pdf



Also, Southwark at a meeting earlier this year tabled a motion in support of this particular school as well though I am not sure where you can find the minutes as I followed the outcome on twitter.


Sorry if my posts during my morning commute were incomprehensible. Tessa Jowell's most recent letter provides the most clear and compelling statement on the issues to hand, so its worth reading if you can find it on her website. Tessa and Labour in general are fully supportive of the campaign to prevent the primary school opening on the hospital site.

LondonMix/James B - have any projections for demand for primary places beyond Sept 2016 been done? Isnt it now possible to project out another two years by looking at births to Sept 14?


Also the projected shortfall for secondary place is ugly: 14 classes short by 2020. That's 3 schools!

No idea on further out. I believe Renata has said in the past that after 2016 the existing analysis is that demand stabilizes for primary places based on current analysis but here are the people who are best place to answer your question!


Cabinet Member

Councillor Dora Dixon-Fyle, Cabinet Member for Children?s

Services

Lead Officer Kerry Crichlow, Director of Strategy and Commissioning

Children?s and Adults? Services


I agree, the secondary situation is dire. However, I understand Southwark have already started approaching existing secondaries about their abilities to expand given how few sites there are for new secondary schools.

LondonMix Wrote:

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


> 4. Even if Harris can't find a site in Nunhead

> there are better options in Bellenden to deal with

> the potential shortage than building a primary

> school on the Dulwich Hospital site which is much

> more difficult to access from Nunhead



StraferJack Wrote:

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


> 4 - shrug. I lived next door to that site for

> years. Would be happy for it to be a school. I

> regularly walked from there to Nunhead.- can't see

> a single problem of any note



On this one I want to be with you SJ but I can't. I moved from literally around the corner from my daughter's school to 1.2 miles away (according to google maps). I initially thought I'd walk it every day because I walk all over the place and would easily do that in 20 minutes.


However, throw a young child in early years in to the equation and that soon becomes 30 minutes plus. Expecting a child to do that before they've even started, then again when they're knackered at the end of the day is too much IMO.

Otta Wrote:

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

> However, throw a young child in early years in to

> the equation and that soon becomes 30 minutes

> plus. Expecting a child to do that before they've

> even started, then again when they're knackered at

> the end of the day is too much IMO.


Sling em over your shoulder.

Ignoring the stupid name another primary school wherever it is sited would have distance based admissions and take applicants based that. So very unlikely only people from Nunhead would apply. It would instead affect admissions to other schools. A series of 2D domino's. So the average distance for any new school is likely to be longer to start with until it has a great reputiation and then rapidly shrink.

As we have so many good local schools and distances are so short it's likely it would be offering places to people locally that fall outside admissions but within 2 miles the distance the council works to since 2010 local elections.


Space.

Haberdashers' say they would ideally have 19,550m2 for a 1,150 pupil secondary school. They even state they could reduce teacher parking and go up to 3 or 4 storey building to reduce this footprint - ideally this would be used for more sports facilities.

Primary schools locally have been a minimum of 1,800m2 for 420 pupil primary school.

Hospital site is 28,300m2.

Replacement health facilities stated as needing 7,000-9,000m2 of land and they plan 100+ car parking spaces.


So both schools potentially could fit on the site with both schools having exactly the land they want.

BUT it would be even better if another alternate site for the primary school could be found and Southwark Council are critical for that and so are refusing to act.


Equally the land as zoned will be too expensive for the secondary school - zoned for housing 19,550m2 is valued at ?64M+. Before free schools were possible we built a secondary school (Harris ED Boys) which has 3,500m2 as we couldnt acquirer any hospital land in 2005/6. I'm really keen to don't have so little land.

Again Southwark Council removing the zoning for housing from the Dulwich Hopsital site is critical to avoid this. Again they are refusing to act.

James are still claiming Southwark are blocking Harris from using Metropolitain Open Land to develop the school in Nunhead?


Didn't Renata confirm Harris had no plans to use that land which is part of one of their schools (after speaking with the Head) and isn't this decision ultimately made by the Mayor of London?


Also, in the official literature hasn't Habs stated they need the full site to provide the facilities presented to the community as part of the official consultation?

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > However, throw a young child in early years in

> to

> > the equation and that soon becomes 30 minutes

> > plus. Expecting a child to do that before

> they've

> > even started, then again when they're knackered

> at

> > the end of the day is too much IMO.

>

> Sling em over your shoulder.



You have no idea how close to the mark you are. My daughter is now 5.5 and still wants to go everywhere on my shoulders. My lower back is caving!

Sites in central London for new secondary schools are few and far between. Starting off with a 'generous' amount of land for the secondary gives the school options for the next 20 years, including if relevant building another / more school. Every school I know has expanded in some way over the years.


Just because right now we can't quite identify where else to put a (much smaller primary school), we shouldn't build a sub-standard secondary school.


James - isn't the point about "price of land" independent of whether there is also a primary school on the site? I mean ?65m is ludicrous to start with. This is just a transfer of public sector assets from the [LEA] school sector to the [local health board] health sector - can't someone in central government intervene?

James said:


As we have so many good local schools and

> distances are so short it's likely it would be

> offering places to people locally that fall

> outside admissions but within 2 miles



But the basis of a free school approval is supposed to be that there are not sufficient high quality spaces available, and the signatures in support are supposed to be from families in commuting distance.


If the parents who signed up wanted a school in Nunhead, I don't understand how their support can just be switched to a school 2 miles away.

Exactly Fuschia. This is a violation of the legal framework surround the entire process and I understand Tessa has raised this point specifically with David Law.


Moreover, a school in Nunhead is only needed if its assumed that primary age pupils should not be expected to commute long distances which is reasonable for all the reasons Otta and others have highlighted.


If we take for granted that primary age pupils must commute as there is no alternative, then there is already supply in Bellenden and Dulwich to deal with the Nunhead shortage and no additional new school is needed in Dulwich.


You can't say there is a shortage in Nunhead to justify building a school in Dulwich when there is already spare capacity in Dulwich in Peckham Rye. Its illogical and doesn't add up.

Hi Otta,

Children on shoulders is fun for no more than 5 mins. So we used to have a policy when we led the council of fidning schools, unless thefamily chose a specific religious or other specialist choice, within 1 mile of the home. Nationally the limit is 2 miles which Southwark now follow.


Hi Londonmix,

Yes, the Harris Federation would like to build their school on the Harris ED Girls School. No, Renata confirmed with the head teacher of the Harris ED Girls school not the Harris Federation. But it is classed as Metropolitan Open Land. Even using it to temporarily house the Harri ED primary school while the permanent school is built was amazingly contraversial at the planning committee. It was really embarassing to see councillors lambast the applicant for officers errors and delays. Weirdly private schools in Southwark get to build on MOL. Perhaps they have the stomach to fight Southwark whereas Harris have preferred so far not to. I personally believe they would win any planning appeal if they applied to permanently build there and were refused.

I've signed the petition.

It was the Head of Harris Girl's ED I spoke to, a while ago now. She said there was no free/surplus space on the site. It is a sports specialty school. Part of the site which was used for sports was used to temporarily house their 6th form while the 6th form block was being built. A member of staff told me that after that part of their grounds was used for this it would take some work to get it back into shape for sports use and it's this area that has been used for the temporary siting of the Harris ED Free Primary until 2016. this date is significant as I believe the Harris Free School Nunhead is due to open in September 2015. The timeline for the temporary location for Harris ED means that the pupils wouldn't be on the former Police Station site until after the Nunhead school would be due to open, so it would be challenging to use it for Harris Nunhead even temporary basis. I believe the letter I saw from Harris said they would have liked to put it on the Harris Girl's site, but it's not possible as it's metropolitan open land, so I don't believe that Harris have pushed for this location themselves, also it would be 4 minutes walk to the Ivydale, Stuart Road site (by my walking speed).


There is demand for primary school places further north in the Borough, so I think if I was in Harris's shoes I would set up a primary school in a location where there is a predicted need for more primary places within Southwark. I am flabbergasted that the Harris Nunhead application appears to have been piggybacked on the signatures of parents in the southern parts of East Dulwich which were already used for the support for the application for Harris ED.


We need another secondary in the ED area to cope with the increased numbers of 11 year olds from 2016 onwards. I don't want to see the facilities of a new secondary compromised due to Harris Nunhead being squeezed onto this site. A local health care centre for local people is also necessary, an adequate space also needs to be allocated to this too. A pie cut into too many pieces is not the best solution for local residents.

Renata

Renata - I totally agree.


Renata Hamvas Wrote:

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

> I've signed the petition.

> It was the Head of Harris Girl's ED I spoke to, a

> while ago now. She said there was no free/surplus

> space on the site. It is a sports specialty

> school. Part of the site which was used for sports

> was used to temporarily house their 6th form while

> the 6th form block was being built. A member of

> staff told me that after that part of their

> grounds was used for this it would take some work

> to get it back into shape for sports use and it's

> this area that has been used for the temporary

> siting of the Harris ED Free Primary until 2016.

> this date is significant as I believe the Harris

> Free School Nunhead is due to open in September

> 2015. The timeline for the temporary location for

> Harris ED means that the pupils wouldn't be on the

> former Police Station site until after the Nunhead

> school would be due to open, so it would be

> challenging to use it for Harris Nunhead even

> temporary basis. I believe the letter I saw from

> Harris said they would have liked to put it on the

> Harris Girl's site, but it's not possible as it's

> metropolitan open land, so I don't believe that

> Harris have pushed for this location themselves,

> also it would be 4 minutes walk to the Ivydale,

> Stuart Road site (by my walking speed).

>

> There is demand for primary school places further

> north in the Borough, so I think if I was in

> Harris's shoes I would set up a primary school in

> a location where there is a predicted need for

> more primary places within Southwark. I am

> flabbergasted that the Harris Nunhead application

> appears to have been piggybacked on the signatures

> of parents in the southern parts of East Dulwich

> which were already used for the support for the

> application for Harris ED.

>

> We need another secondary in the ED area to cope

> with the increased numbers of 11 year olds from

> 2016 onwards. I don't want to see the facilities

> of a new secondary compromised due to Harris

> Nunhead being squeezed onto this site. A local

> health care centre for local people is also

> necessary, an adequate space also needs to be

> allocated to this too. A pie cut into too many

> pieces is not the best solution for local

> residents.

> Renata

I was one of those that signed for a new primary in the area but no way did I want TWO Harris primary schools . If I had known that my signature would have been abused in this way I would never have lent my support just as I hope my support for a new secondary isn't used to start opening up a secondary school for say Forest Hill within Dulwich just because I signed a petition for what I assume to be one secondary on the hospital site .


Renata,I am in total agreement with you .

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

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

> I was one of those that signed for a new primary

> in the area but no way did I want TWO Harris

> primary schools . If I had known that my signature

> would have been abused in this way


The free school application must be supported by the leaflets that supporters were shown before they signed up, and their addresses plotted on a map to show how close they are to the proposed new school.


I just can't see how that can have happened in the case of Harris Nunhead

11 months to fully clear the site for building works (if it does have an underlying asbestos or other contamination problem) and build a working school is pushing it somewhat, even assuming all permissions had been granted, which they haven't. Unless they are planning to open in portacabins this is not, as has been stated above, achievable. If they do plan to open in portacabins, with what justification? With so much on the site there would be a real need to have a fully integrated plan, showing how each establishment (primary, secondary, health centre) would work with each other. Those take time to agree.


This has all the feel of a Tesco style land grab by Harris - tieing up as much land as they can in SE London either for posible future use or to keep competitors out.


It's not Nunhead, nor is it conveniant for Nunhead, particularly with issues of access for Primary children; it's not needed (as regards primary school places) at least as far as current forecasts apparently have it and it will place unneccessary pressures on co-sited establishments (there is, I believe, an issue regarding secondary places locally).


The arguments about the name are spurious - the justifciation for it (so far as there is one) is predicated on Nunhead need - whatever they call it, it is justified (and I use that word quite wrongly) as a primary for Nunhead.

As far as I know though, free school applications don't name a site - it is for the EFA to find a site for a proposed new school. In the case of the two secondary bids, obviously there's just one site that would work - but neither bidder can lay claim to it and I'm not sure it could have been mentioned in any concrete terms as part of the proposal.

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

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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