John Roan School Meeting
OK Folks, indoor language, please...
M asks:
I know that the campaign against the John Roan move recently had a meeting. I've checked their website, and there's no update. Do you have any idea what happened at the meeting and what stage things are at?
The Phantom Replies:
This is one I have deliberately left myself out of, but I bet someone here was there and can help you out. Let's keep this party polite, though, eh...
M asks:
I know that the campaign against the John Roan move recently had a meeting. I've checked their website, and there's no update. Do you have any idea what happened at the meeting and what stage things are at?
The Phantom Replies:
This is one I have deliberately left myself out of, but I bet someone here was there and can help you out. Let's keep this party polite, though, eh...
Labels: Debates
posted by The Greenwich Phantom at
12:24
18 Comments:
Right I can put a few comments about what happened at this meeting, and I have passed on the link to the organizers of the event so hopefully something might pop up from them. Anyway:
Firstly a little bit of background about me:
I am one of the local councillors for Blackheath Westcombe ward, where the John Roan School is currently located, I have been so since May 2006. I am also an ex pupil of John Roan and I have also had the opportunity to discuss the purposed move with a number of my fellow pupils who have expressed concern at the new plans. I was first alerted to what's going on when I saw a model and drawings of the purposed building and saw that there was not any playing fields on site and that the building would be a number of stories high and would have a playground on the roof. This concerned me, whilst I know that John Roan has some fantastic playing fields they are not on site, which naturally means that they are not used as much as they could be. I hoped that any new move would seek to right that wrong, however the new proposals look as though the two buildings of the school are now being squeezed onto a smaller site. Since I have found out about the new plans I have continued to quiz the Cabinet member for Young People and Children's Services about the plans and have had meetings with the John Roan Campaign organizers.
Review:
I turned up just after the main presentation had already started sadly, this due to having a meeting at the town hall which finished at the same time that this one started.
The presentation (of what I saw of it, about half from what I can tell) was informative and I learned a few things which I did not know about the new site, epically the new legislation in relation to the location close to the Gas Holder.
After the presentation a general discussion started, with the John Roan Campaign organizers not acting as chair, so that they could answer questions and therefore not be accused of having a biased chair.
Looking around the audience, which I would say was around 70-100 people, I could see, my old Head Teacher at John Roan, the current Head Teacher, members of the John Roan Foundation and members of the Governors for the School, as well as local residents, parents with children at the school and parents who would be planning on sending their children to the school in the next few years.
As you can imagine there were a lot of differing views from around the audience. However I would say that most of the people there were not overly happy with what the council had offered the John Roan Foundation, the main issues seemed to be:
Location next to Gas Holder
Lack of on-site Playing Fields
Pollution caused by construction, road, tunnel and industrial works nearby
Size of Playgrounds
Consultation and procedure of this whole process
At the end of the discussion the question as to where to go from here was sensibly asked, however there did not appear to be any simple answers to this question. As well as informing as many people as possible about this local issue and asking people to sign petitions the final decision is made by the John Roan Foundation. However it did appear from the discussion that the school, governors and foundation are being presented with a this or not a lot else as there is no plan b for the school by the Council's administration.
I hope that this review has been helpful and if I have missed anything then I apologies.
One of the biggest issues with this must be that there is absolutely no spare capacity on either roads or public transport in the mornings on the peninsula.
This is utterly absurd. Basically, the John Road Foundation are going to have to vote for it then, because otherwise they wont benefit from any investment. This is nothing other than blackmail by the council.
The site is totally unsuitable - I say this not as a parent but as someone who lives on the Peninsula. This isnt the kind of environment that children should be taught in, the school design itself looks monstrous, and as already pointed out, there just isnt the capacity here. The council cant expect to put several large projects on the Peninsula because the infrastructure just wont cope.
The only hope is that the site wont be safe to build on. What was the legislation regarding the gas holder? I thought they couldnt build too close to it? Any clarification on this point would be welcome.
I know there's nothing technically that can be done, as the council doesnt have to consult, but ignoring the concerns of a huge number of people says everything about the Labour party's view of democracy.
I should also add, that if you're involved in the campaign against the school, then you should try to get the residents on the Peninsula involved.
Many of us would oppose the move, but so far few people around here have any idea that it's even happening.
I have a child who might be attending John Roan in a couple of years, so I went to the public meeting held at The Forum, and then went to a meeting held at John Roan last week, too.
The public meeting was an information-sharing session, mostly covering material already available on the website, but introduced something discovered in the Council's planning application for the new school: the new school will have 1600 pupils, and the Peninsula will eventually supply 1315 of them. That only leaves enough space to take 285 pupils from the existing school. But the existing school has 1200 places. And redevelopments like the New Haddo and the Ferrier have yet to come onstream... and they will surely be adding more pupils to the education requirement in this part of Greenwich.
It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
At the public meeting the Head (Karl Dent) said that while everybody saw the problems with the Peninsula site, the Council had said that if John Roan didn't make the move to the Peninsula then funding for the existing school would be witheld and the existing site would gradually die. [When asked directly by the moderator about this, Mr Dent said that he was very certain that this was not at all like blackmail!]
At last week's school meeting, Mr Burnett (a director of children's services for Greenwich) then stated categorically that funding would not be witheld from the existing school as long as there were pupils there. He said that it was his responsibility ensure that children were educated, regardless of which borough school they attended.
Who to believe?
Another interesting disclosure, this time by the lady from Meridian Delta Limited (the developers of the Peninsula): they had planned for a secondary school of their own, to support the pupils on the Peninsula appearing in their new residential buildings. And their "master plan" called for this to be delivered in 2018. But then the Council approached them about taking on pupils from the existing school... which pushed them to offer up the more spacious 7000 square metre plot.
Not many straight answers from any of the public servants behind this move it would seem.
On balance, it I'd say that there was a clear majority of people at the school meeting were not terribly pleased about the prospect of moving to the site on the Peninsula. And, contrary to what I've heard said before, the teachers at the existing school are not fully behind the move either.
Another interesting new piece of information is that there is another way of Building Schools for the future money that the John Roan could take advantage of. This is not local money but central government money earmarked to rebuild and renovate every secondary school in the country. It might delay the rebuild of the school by an additional year but would mean that a proper plannign brief could be carried out on developing a fantastic school and set of community facilities on the current sites.
As somebody linked to the campaign, it's a bit hard for me to be objective about the public meeting held at the Forum, although I and others were taken aback by some of the misrepresentations made by the headteacher (who claimed that the consultation process had been the best in the borough) and by the 'school champion'. Another bizarre finding that came to light that evening was the confusion over the catchment area, with the deputy chair of governors of the John Roan shouting down a campaign member who read out a statement made about this in the Council's planning application (this is as anonymous has just presented it). But, from the people who had attended the meeting in order to knock down criticism about the move, there was a clear sense that everyone had to get behind the proposed move and campaign to make it as good as possible because it was the best available and if it fell through we would be forfeiting the chance to have a £38 million overhaul of our school.
But most of these claims were overturned in the meeting held at the school by the John Roan governors. Planned as a report back from the governors on recent developments, it was clearly all about the proposed move, and the developers and the architects both made presentations. The developer let on about the school being planned for 2018 and intended to accommodate a much smaller number of pupils (solely from the Peninsula); but, she went on to explain, then the Council arrived and said 'Why not put the John Roan there?' Unwittingly, she clarified an awful lot about the negotiation around the site, which clearly was never meant to house 1,600 pupils so was always going to be guilty of forcing a quart into a pint pot. Mind you, she didn't really manage to explain why, if the developers put such a high value on public secondary education, they'd given it such a sidelined, unattractive location.
From both meetings it's clear that a school is going to be built on the Peninsula in any case, and that the regulations surrounding the Building Schools for the Future programme will be got round somehow or another. But it's equally clear (to me, as a partisan participant/observer, but I think also to the other more neutral people attending) that: the Council is forcing this on the school, the John Roan Foundation and on the governors; they all recognise that this is far from being an ideal situation and that the site is heavily compromised; they have clearly not explored in sufficient depth or with sufficient imagination the possibilities of rebuilding on the existing sites. And the Council should have taken away from that meeting, and the governors too, that there is much more widespread hostility to and concern about the proposed move than they had fondly imagined (as anonymous said, from teacers as well as from parents) and that, if they do succeed in forcing it through, there will be a lot of people voting with their feet.
I shall be voting with my feet. I'm going back to work full-time. My contingency is to save up a private education...... A cop out I know but the council have let down Greenwich!
I've been to one of the campaign meetings, and was keen to get involved and help.
However, I've found it very difficult - there's no email on the website, and no attempt was made to take names at the meeting I attended.
I personally am not against a move - if we get much better secondary education in Greenwich as a result.
I feel very strongly that the current plan is not good enough. I'm not sure if the campaign represents this view as it seemed at the meeting I attended to be all about staying on the current site, and certainly the petition and downloadable letters are worded this way.
There's a great deal of local feeling about this which if the campaign harnessed could get a great deal more support.
Please - if anyone from the campaign reads this - would you put a contact detail on your website?
I do not wish to vote with my feet (or rather, my wallet) but actually the old-fashioned way... and force those (currently) in political power to listen to the strengthen of local feeling on this one!
Equally, I have been trying to get in touch with whoever organises the campaign and have asked the Phantom for the email of whoever is responsible.
I believe you should also be trying to get the residents of the Peninsula behind you; many of us dont want the school to move here, and while our reasons may be different from yours, we share a common purpose, and the more pressure, the better.
Please someone, publish an address, or email mas0282@hotmail.com
The e-mail address for the campaign is: johnroancampaign@b208.co.uk. Sorry not to have published this before, but we've not had a chance to update the site since the campaign started running.
And you're right, too, that our website seems to be (in retrospect) too negative. In fact, our position is not 'stay where we are at all costs'. If a site had been found on the Peninsula that had been selected with the anticipated number of students in mind, and if it had been located in a different, more attractive part of the Peninsula, and if it had been of the size and proportions that we think are dictated by government guidelines on new school building, then I for one would have ended up sending my children there. But that doesn't seem to be an option, and the only thing we have been offered by the Council and governors is a slightly improved version of the site that is under proposal. Yes, we could make the best out of a bad deal, but it would still remain a bad deal.
For myself, that's why reinvestigating the option of rebuilding on the existing site still seems to be the only viable alternative. After all, they're going to build a new school in that site in any case (always were going to, although not until 2018, as the developer let on in the course of the meeting at the John Roan School); so the people who want their kids to go there can send them there. It doesn't mean that the existing sites need to be closed. They'll close only if the John Roan Foundation gives its agreement to the move and, if it doesn't, then, as the Director of Children's Services said in the course of that same meeting, he has a duty of care to all the children in the borough. It would then be up to the Foundation, parents and Council to make sure the school was fully refurbished and ready for the challenge of providing a C21st education.
And Kate's absolutely right: old-fashioned pressure is the only way to do it. At the very best it could secure a superb, new, ample site on the Peninsula for a school that all Greenwich could be proud of; at the midway point, it could lead to two schools in Greenwich competing for the best reputation and the best results (which would mean anonymous didn't need to vote with his/her feet). It's only at the worst that we get one new school on a scraggy site on the Peninsula and a whole community deprived of any adequate secondary school provision. Worth keeping the pressure on to prevent that.
Debaser:
Thanks for responding with an email address. I'll be in touch - I'd like to help.
And Phantom:
Thanks too - this shows your blog really works!
Even if I'm a tad slow off the mark occasionally ;-)
You're right to say that you dont oppose a move totally, but only a move to a site that is substandard.
Sadly, there isnt anywhere else at the Peninsula for the school to go. The land required for a suitable site would be substantial, and the only land of that size away from the gasholder/pollution, etc is already owned by residential developers or earmarked for other projects.
The truth is that there really isn't currently a suitable site for the school on the Peninsula; there was only ever intended to be a much smaller school. Therefore, the only option seems to be rebuilding the existing site (or finding somewhere else), which means that a move to the Peninsula basically needs to be completely opposed. Many of the issues cant be solved without using other land which the council simply doesnt have.
I hope the Campaign is also involving the local press - with so much support behind it, it really should be using the power of the media to shame the way the council are behaving.
As a member of the campaign I am encouraged to read of the support from other members of the community. As I'm sure you're aware: we are running this campaign as amateurs, we have no external funding: no PR budget: no consultants or advisers. However, using our own money, we have bought ads in local papers, and we have engaged local press - though the competition for space is fierce. We have also had coverage on BBC local news - TV and radio. But the most powerful tool we have is word of month.Please, if you support us then sign our petition, and tell others about it. That way we can engage as many people as possible, and keep you informed of our activities. And if you have ideas/skills/resources/time/
inclination etc - come and join us! This issue affects us all, and we would welcome anyone to get involved.
Your readers may already have heard that the governing body of the John Roan met last night (28 February) and voted to move their support ‘in principle’ of the move to the Peninsula to a support ‘in fact’. No doubt the Council, which was represented at the meeting by the customary heavy mob, is already preparing its press statement, but let me just feed you some counter-news.
The governors were given a report from Christine Whatford (be careful to keep the ‘d’ at the end of her name: it’s an easy mistake to make), the acting Director of Children’s Services, which updated governors on the state of play concerning the conditions the governors had laid down in order for their ‘in principle’ agreement to become ‘in fact’. Strangely enough, if there had been movement on some of these publicly stated conditions (and that’s a big ‘if’), none of them had been resolved – not even the gasholder, which the local MP had admitted to being a ‘deal-breaker’.
Despite that, the Council, represented in boring force by its predictable bully boys (all hail, Paul Wheeler!), made it clear to the governing body that, were the move not to go ahead, there was no Plan B for the John Roan. (Let’s just spend a second remembering that the person who coined the expression ‘There is no alternative’ – often abbreviated to TINA – was Margaret Thatcher, a politician clearly more beloved of Greenwich Council than we had thought. They’ve certainly learned more than we’d imagined from her way of operating.) Just in case she hadn’t made this point clearly enough, Ms Whatford stuck around for the governing body debate even though, as an invited speaker, she had no place to be there.
Thus pressured, and with abject support from the chair of governors (a one-time employee of the local MP), the vote was passed 10–5 to support the move of the school to the Peninsula. There wasn’t quite enough time to debate it in full because the deputy chair of governors (David Gardiner) had another meeting to go to, bless him, obviously one that is much more important for a man who is tipped to step into Mr Raynsford’s shoes and whose children were selectively educated (please don’t let him or anyone else query the use of that word ‘selectively’) at Haberdasher’s. In fact – perish the thought – was there ever a possibility that the meeting had been brought forward to the earlier time of 6pm in order to facilitate his attendance at this second meeting? Let’s hope not: that would be to question the integrity of our chair and deputy chair too far, surely.
Argue it as it might, the Council has sold the school, its pupils, staff and stakeholders almost literally down the river. After one of the Council supporters has attempted to put an opposing position to mine, we’ll be able to give you even more worrying news about the Council’s, designers’ and governing body’s complete failure to consult fully on the impact of the noise pollution on the ASD pupils, one of the apparent jewels in the crown of this new design, soon to be exposed as tawdry tat.
Worrying news, indeed Debaser...
So who were these people who voted for it? Where were the parents?
All I know is that four governors have resigned, of whom two are parent governors and two are from the Foundation. If they've resigned, presumably they voted against the move.
Talking about the Foundation (and as someone who is not a Foundation member), it’s particularly shameful the way in which the Council has ridden roughshod over the Foundation's interests, given that the Foundation has served the school so well and so generously over its long history. But then, hey, what does centuries of philanthropic activity for the young people of Greenwich count for when there’s a fast buck to be made out of flogging off the Foundation's property to get the Council out of financial difficulties?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home