What’s new?

Planning

On 30 August 2007, the planning board met to review the planning proposals for the relocation of the John Roan to the Peninsula. There had been 65 letters of objections  and only 2 in support, one of which, from the Governing Body, was qualified by the five conditions listed in the letter from the chair of governors on this website.

The Council did, of course, approve the plans but in a bizarre twist did so on the following basis:

·         That the proposal had, in fact, nothing to do with the relocation of the John Roan school and that therefore all planning issues associated with the relocation were not to be considered

·         That the suitability of providing a school with insufficient play areas and association space was, in fact, not a planning issue but one to be resolved by the Department for Children, Schools and Families

·         That, even though they did not have the data they deemed essential on noise pollution, air quality and the resolution of the gasholder, they could still approve the planning application

·         That, when offered the option to defer the decision until they had the necessary information, the acting chair declined, saying that they had discussed this for an hour and that the prospect of any further discussion was too much for him to consider

·         That the chair of the Planning Board and the leader of the Council both withdrew from the meeting, claiming conflicts of interest because of their involvement with the John Roan School and the Building Schools for the Future programme – despite the fact that the meeting had been told that the application had nothing to do with the rebuilding of the John Roan School as part of the current BSF programme!

The proposal now has to go to the Mayor of London’s Office and to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The results of this application are great for the campaign:

·         The Foundation has now stated that the playing fields cannot be included in the planning submission, if the submission is not in the name of the John Roan School – which means that the plans are more likely to be thrown out at the next stage.

·         Given this, and the fact that its other conditions are from being met, the governing body is under even more pressure to vote against the move.

·         The chair of governors, as part of her presentation to the meeting, stated that the current proposals were, effectively, not fit for purpose.

·         We believe that we have a solid basis for a judicial review of the planning process.

If we can delay these plans until the end of December, then John Roan falls out of this first wave of funding and we can start working towards getting the John Roan school rebuilt on the basis of what it needs and deserves rather than of what will satisfy the political and financial expediency of the Council.

 

On 5 May 2007, the Council submitted a planning application on behalf of the school, in which they stated that ‘Originally the new school was to be developed to meet the needs of the surrounding new residential areas on the Greenwich Peninsula, and as such it was programmed that the school would be developed as the surrounding residential areas were populated. It is now proposed that the new John Roan School will be brought forward earlier. This will result in pupils travelling to the school from the catchment of the current site in Maze Hill. As the area around the new school is developed and the new residents move in, the new John Roan School will gradually change its catchment area to the local vicinity.’ The detail of this statement is now disputed but what is not under question is that the Council changed the original purpose of the school (which was to serve the community on the Peninsula), brought forward the planned building of the school and recognised that it would result in fewer places for children from the existing catchment area.

Governing body

On 31 May, the John Roan Campaign wrote to the chair of governors at the John Roan School, in an attempt to clarify the position of the governors on the proposed move. Click here for copies of the campaign’s letter, and for the reply from the chair of governors.

On 27 June, the governing body of the John Roan School held a public meeting to feed back recent developments to parents and other stakeholders, and to give an account of the current position with the proposed relocation. The headteacher gave a presentation on the plans for improving the school’s academic performance, and representatives of the developers and architects gave presentations about the proposed new site. One of the pieces of information to emerge was that a school had always been planned on the Peninsula, but that the intention had been to open it in 2018, when the Peninsula community would have developed a student population large enough to require a secondary school. Clearly, the Council co-opted this proposed school for its own purposes, at the same time bringing the building forward by nine years. A large number of concerns were expressed, which the Director of Children’s Services (Paul Burnett), the chair of governors, and others involved in the move attempted – we think, by no means successfully – to allay.

The governing body was one of two stakeholders to write to the Council in support of the planning application.  For more details see key players.

The John Roan Campaign

From February, when the John Roan Campaign was set up, we have lobbied newspapers, broadcasting media, the DfES, to draw their attention to the Council’s plans. We have met local and national government representatives, members of the governing body and John Roan Foundation, distributed leaflets and set up this website, with a petition that has secured well over 500 signatories.

On 14 June, the John Roan Campaign held a public meeting to air its concerns about the proposed move. The meeting was attended by about 50 people, some supporting the move, some challenging it, others not yet sure. The original purpose of the meeting, which was to plot the next course of action, was not achieved, since the discussion over-ran the time available.

Tell a friend

Tell a Friend

 

This site has been created by concerned parents, residents and other members of the community.