3.1 This item had been placed on the agenda as a result of concerns raised by the Evelyn Assembly Coordinating Group.
3.2 The concerns raised were around the basic build of the school and its ability to offer spaces to local children in the foreseeable future, with the cumulative effect of developments in the area meaning that an additional 6,000 homes would be created.
3.3 The process through which the permission for the school’s development had been granted was described. In August 2011, the DfE had undertaken a basic need allocation and an independent survey had been carried out. The Council had then been notified that its bid for funding had been successful, with the governing body responsible for facilities management.
3.4 Margaret pointed out that residents had already made their concerns known and these views had been presented to the Mayor, who had responded. She also highlighted that the Education Department works with other Council departments to plan local provision and that there was an expectation within the Council that queries relating to school places would continue to rise in line with the increasing need for school places over the coming decade.
3.5 Questions following the presentation:
A number of questions were asked and points raised by meeting attendees, including:
Q. Lack of consultation with parents, has the Council considered learning from methods used for consultation and local resident involvement in decision making in other boroughs, e.g. Southwark?
A. Margaret confirmed that her team had undertaken full consultation and had obtained a range of views from a diverse sample of local residents.
Q. Has consideration been given to removing existing children from the site during building works to reduce distractions presented by building works, e.g. could the children be decanted to the vacant site at the back of Grinling Gibbons?
A. With regard to questions relating to decanting pupils to alternative premises, Margaret confirmed that this was not possible but that a construction management plan was being discussed with the school and that heavy works would take place only during school holidays. Traffic management would be organised around Griffin Road with traffic planners and the school was confident that children would not need to cross the road except where there was pedestrian traffic only.
3.6 Residents expressed views regarding Deptford Park not being acceptable for the children to use as outside space, that feedback is not being listened to and that the planning should be put on hold.
3.7 It was suggested that the Council should await the remainder of the S.106 money that is outstanding and use this to contribute to the cost of improved design. This would allow further thought to be given to building the school with options for further expansion in the future as demand continues to increase.
One attendee voiced the opinion that both central government and London Borough of Lewisham have their own agenda and that local people have no voice.
3.8 Margaret also confirmed that, in using public funding, the Council is obliged to justify additional expenditure. She stated that, with regard to planning for further future expansion, incremental improvements can be made over time.
Q. There was a request for examples of how S.106 money has been spent in Evelyn Ward.
A. Margaret cited both the new Linear Park and Marine Wharf. She stated that both these developments are examples of how well documented all Council expenditure is.
Q. There was a query relating to a planning permission granted over 3 years ago to place a hoarding over an area in Deptford Park which has since lapsed. If there is still money available from that site, could it be used for a better design for the school opposite?
A. Margaret explained that the “silver payment” on this was for Crossrail. She confirmed, however, that she would look into whether S.106 was allocated to that development and whether anything could be put towards the school.
3.9 A further observation related to S.106 funding amounting to only £2m and a concern that the land was being under-valued. Margaret explained that the £2m is specific only to community projects and that a further:
• £2m had been allocated to build a cultural centre
• £7m had been allocated to the river bus service
3.10 The Chair of Governors from Francis Drake School was present at the meeting and gave some history relating to the design process. He confirmed that, after significant negotiations, the school had had to arrive at a pragmatic solution in order to achieve the best possible result, including expansion to two form entry.
Q. Several question were asked about levels of engagement between councillors, council officer and residents around the school development issue. Questions included:
· What is your engagement with this consultation?
· How have you been consulted?
· How have councillors interacted with you and your department?
· Have you had regular meetings with the local councillors for evening around this matter
· How did you communicate views?
A. Cllr Michael informed the Assembly that he and Councillor Milne had been the colleagues most concerned with issues around Sir Francis Drake School. They had made representations on behalf of concerned parents and had had numerous conversations, representations and briefings with the Executive Director for Children and Young People, the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, the Head of Education Chris Threlfall and Education Manager Margaret Brightman. He said they appreciated how important the issues are.
3.11 At this stage, it was not possible to continue to minute the meeting as several attendees were speaking at the same time. The meeting ran over and closed with Council officers agreeing to attend a future meeting.
Minutes:
3. Sir Francis Drake - Basic School Build Plan
Margaret Brightman, Education Manager,
London Borough of Lewisham
3.1 This item had been placed on the agenda as a result of concerns raised by the Evelyn Assembly Coordinating Group.
3.2 The concerns raised were around the basic build of the school and its ability to offer spaces to local children in the foreseeable future, with the cumulative effect of developments in the area meaning that an additional 6,000 homes would be created.
3.3 The process through which the permission for the school’s development had been granted was described. In August 2011, the DfE had undertaken a basic need allocation and an independent survey had been carried out. The Council had then been notified that its bid for funding had been successful, with the governing body responsible for facilities management.
3.4 Margaret pointed out that residents had already made their concerns known and these views had been presented to the Mayor, who had responded. She also highlighted that the Education Department works with other Council departments to plan local provision and that there was an expectation within the Council that queries relating to school places would continue to rise in line with the increasing need for school places over the coming decade.
3.5 Questions following the presentation:
A number of questions were asked and points raised by meeting attendees, including:
Q. Lack of consultation with parents, has the Council considered learning from methods used for consultation and local resident involvement in decision making in other boroughs, e.g. Southwark?
A. Margaret confirmed that her team had undertaken full consultation and had obtained a range of views from a diverse sample of local residents.
Q. Has consideration been given to removing existing children from the site during building works to reduce distractions presented by building works, e.g. could the children be decanted to the vacant site at the back of Grinling Gibbons?
A. With regard to questions relating to decanting pupils to alternative premises, Margaret confirmed that this was not possible but that a construction management plan was being discussed with the school and that heavy works would take place only during school holidays. Traffic management would be organised around Griffin Road with traffic planners and the school was confident that children would not need to cross the road except where there was pedestrian traffic only.
3.6 Residents expressed views regarding Deptford Park not being acceptable for the children to use as outside space, that feedback is not being listened to and that the planning should be put on hold.
3.7 It was suggested that the Council should await the remainder of the S.106 money that is outstanding and use this to contribute to the cost of improved design. This would allow further thought to be given to building the school with options for further expansion in the future as demand continues to increase.
One attendee voiced the opinion that both central government and London Borough of Lewisham have their own agenda and that local people have no voice.
3.8 Margaret also confirmed that, in using public funding, the Council is obliged to justify additional expenditure. She stated that, with regard to planning for further future expansion, incremental improvements can be made over time.
Q. There was a request for examples of how S.106 money has been spent in Evelyn Ward.
A. Margaret cited both the new Linear Park and Marine Wharf. She stated that both these developments are examples of how well documented all Council expenditure is.
Q. There was a query relating to a planning permission granted over 3 years ago to place a hoarding over an area in Deptford Park which has since lapsed. If there is still money available from that site, could it be used for a better design for the school opposite?
A. Margaret explained that the “silver payment” on this was for Crossrail. She confirmed, however, that she would look into whether S.106 was allocated to that development and whether anything could be put towards the school.
3.9 A further observation related to S.106 funding amounting to only £2m and a concern that the land was being under-valued. Margaret explained that the £2m is specific only to community projects and that a further:
• £2m had been allocated to build a cultural centre
• £7m had been allocated to the river bus service
3.10 The Chair of Governors from Francis Drake School was present at the meeting and gave some history relating to the design process. He confirmed that, after significant negotiations, the school had had to arrive at a pragmatic solution in order to achieve the best possible result, including expansion to two form entry.
Q. Several question were asked about levels of engagement between councillors, council officer and residents around the school development issue. Questions included:
· What is your engagement with this consultation?
· How have you been consulted?
· How have councillors interacted with you and your department?
· Have you had regular meetings with the local councillors for evening around this matter
· How did you communicate views?
A. Cllr Michael informed the Assembly that he and Councillor Milne had been the colleagues most concerned with issues around Sir Francis Drake School. They had made representations on behalf of concerned parents and had had numerous conversations, representations and briefings with the Executive Director for Children and Young People, the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, the Head of Education Chris Threlfall and Education Manager Margaret Brightman. He said they appreciated how important the issues are.
3.11 At this stage, it was not possible to continue to minute the meeting as several attendees were speaking at the same time. The meeting ran over and closed with Council officers agreeing to attend a future meeting.