St Matthew's Academy

Tom Crispin

On Thursday 28th February 2008, Lewisham's newest secondary school, St
Matthew's Academy, relocated from the east side of St Joseph's Vale
(off Belmont Hill) to new buildings on the west side.

Just outside the main entrance, inside the main fence, was a lovely
bike parking facility, with angled Sheffield stands for an estimated
100 - 200 bicycles.

The school took possession of its new building on Thursday 21st
February, and the first thing they did was rip out the Sheffield
stands, re-tarmac the area, and create extra car parking facilities.

The pupils were never given the chance to use the cycle parking
facility. And this is our money as taxpayers that is being frittered
away.

Ekul Namsob

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> On Thursday 28th February 2008, Lewisham's newest secondary school, St
> Matthew's Academy, relocated from the east side of St Joseph's Vale
> (off Belmont Hill) to new buildings on the west side.
>
> Just outside the main entrance, inside the main fence, was a lovely
> bike parking facility, with angled Sheffield stands for an estimated
> 100 - 200 bicycles.
>
> The school took possession of its new building on Thursday 21st
> February, and the first thing they did was rip out the Sheffield
> stands, re-tarmac the area, and create extra car parking facilities.
>
> The pupils were never given the chance to use the cycle parking
> facility. And this is our money as taxpayers that is being frittered
> away.

That is just one reason why all the major teaching unions are entirely
against Academies. These Academies do not exist to serve taxpayers and
their children but rather to serve shareholders.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

TimHenderson

On 29 Feb, 20:07, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>
> > The school took possession of its new building on Thursday 21st
> > February, and the first thing they did was rip out the Sheffield
> > stands, re-tarmac the area, and create extra car parking facilities.
>

It would be interesting to know what condtions applied in the grant of
planning permission for the new building. Most councils are in favour
of green transport plans and sustainable transport. I wonder if there
was a breach which could be enforced.

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:32:03 -0800 (PST), TimHenderson
<timhenderson@supanet.com> wrote:

>On 29 Feb, 20:07, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul
>Namsob) wrote:
>> Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>
>> > The school took possession of its new building on Thursday 21st
>> > February, and the first thing they did was rip out the Sheffield
>> > stands, re-tarmac the area, and create extra car parking facilities.
>>
>
>It would be interesting to know what condtions applied in the grant of
>planning permission for the new building. Most councils are in favour
>of green transport plans and sustainable transport. I wonder if there
>was a breach which could be enforced.

I am convinced that cycle parking was in the original planning
application.

Here is an annotated Google Earth screen shot of the site. I think I
have the locations of the primary school and girls' school slightly
out.

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/stmatts

james.delap@googlemail.com

On Feb 29, 9:22 pm, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:32:03 -0800 (PST), TimHenderson
>
> <timhender...@supanet.com> wrote:
> >On 29 Feb, 20:07, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul
> >Namsob) wrote:
> >> Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> >> > The school took possession of its new building on Thursday 21st
> >> > February, and the first thing they did was rip out the Sheffield
> >> > stands, re-tarmac the area, and create extra car parking facilities.
>
> >It would be interesting to know what condtions applied in the grant of
> >planning permission for the new building. Most councils are in favour
> >of green transport plans and sustainable transport. I wonder if there
> >was a breach which could be enforced.
>
> I am convinced that cycle parking was in the original planning
> application.
>
> Here is an annotated Google Earth screen shot of the site. I think I
> have the locations of the primary school and girls' school slightly
> out.
>
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/stmatts

it is mentioned in this document:

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonl...1005webapps.pdf

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:35:36 -0800 (PST), james.delap@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On Feb 29, 9:22 pm, Tom Crispin
><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:32:03 -0800 (PST), TimHenderson
>>
>> <timhender...@supanet.com> wrote:
>> >On 29 Feb, 20:07, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul
>> >Namsob) wrote:
>> >> Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>> >> > The school took possession of its new building on Thursday 21st
>> >> > February, and the first thing they did was rip out the Sheffield
>> >> > stands, re-tarmac the area, and create extra car parking facilities.
>>
>> >It would be interesting to know what condtions applied in the grant of
>> >planning permission for the new building. Most councils are in favour
>> >of green transport plans and sustainable transport. I wonder if there
>> >was a breach which could be enforced.
>>
>> I am convinced that cycle parking was in the original planning
>> application.
>>
>> Here is an annotated Google Earth screen shot of the site. I think I
>> have the locations of the primary school and girls' school slightly
>> out.
>>
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/stmatts
>
>it is mentioned in this document:
>
>http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonl...1005webapps.pdf

Very interesting James. I wonder how the council would react to the
news that the first thing St Matthew Acadamy Ltd. did was to rip out
the bike stands, tarmac it over and create extra parking facilities.

We are onto a local scndal here. There are those so opposed to public
money going into public-private partnerships that it may even go
national.

I also note that my estimate of 100 - 200 bike parking spaces was an
underestimate by 32.

Colin Williams

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:33:59 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:


>>
>>it is mentioned in this document:
>>
>>http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/
DB4D7B99-5BE4-4CF6-9AA9-537A62CF17AC/0/071005webapps.pdf
>
> Very interesting James. I wonder how the council would react to the
> news that the first thing St Matthew Acadamy Ltd. did was to rip out the
> bike stands, tarmac it over and create extra parking facilities.
>
> We are onto a local scndal here. There are those so opposed to public
> money going into public-private partnerships that it may even go
> national.
>
> I also note that my estimate of 100 - 200 bike parking spaces was an
> underestimate by 32.


Hello,

Would any contributors to this thread mind if I notify Private Eye about
this? They are always on the lookout for PPP/PFI cockups and also take
an interest in planning and education matters. I'd like to direct them
to this thread if I may.

kind regards,

Colin Williams.

Tom Crispin

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:58:06 -0600, Colin Williams
<usenet@wastedresource.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:33:59 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>it is mentioned in this document:
>>>
>>>http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/
>DB4D7B99-5BE4-4CF6-9AA9-537A62CF17AC/0/071005webapps.pdf
>>
>> Very interesting James. I wonder how the council would react to the
>> news that the first thing St Matthew Acadamy Ltd. did was to rip out the
>> bike stands, tarmac it over and create extra parking facilities.
>>
>> We are onto a local scndal here. There are those so opposed to public
>> money going into public-private partnerships that it may even go
>> national.
>>
>> I also note that my estimate of 100 - 200 bike parking spaces was an
>> underestimate by 32.
>
>
>Hello,
>
>Would any contributors to this thread mind if I notify Private Eye about
>this? They are always on the lookout for PPP/PFI cockups and also take
>an interest in planning and education matters. I'd like to direct them
>to this thread if I may.

No problem at all, I'd considered contacting Private Eye myself.

Colin Williams

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:54:12 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:


>>Hello,
>>
>>Would any contributors to this thread mind if I notify Private Eye about
>>this? They are always on the lookout for PPP/PFI cockups and also take
>>an interest in planning and education matters. I'd like to direct them
>>to this thread if I may.
>
> No problem at all, I'd considered contacting Private Eye myself.

As it happens, I work in a planning consultancy office, albeit in an IT
support role. I had a brief chat with one of the planners who says a
breach might have occurred if there was a stipulation to maintain the
cycle parking facility. Also, the removal of the cycle stands and
creation of car parking spaces is itself likely to require planning
permission. I have emailed a summary to Private Eye; thanks to yourself
and James for posting this and locating the planning document.

mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk

On 3 Mar, 22:02, Colin Williams <use...@wastedresource.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:54:12 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
> >>Hello,
>
> >>Would any contributors to this thread mind if I notify Private Eye about
> >>this? *They are always on the lookout for PPP/PFI cockups and also take
> >>an interest in planning and education matters. *I'd like to direct them
> >>to this thread if I may.
>
> > No problem at all, I'd considered contacting Private Eye myself.
>
> As it happens, I work in a planning consultancy office, albeit in an IT
> support role. *I had a brief chat with one of the planners who says a
> breach might have occurred if there was a stipulation to maintain the
> cycle parking facility. *Also, the removal of the cycle stands and
> creation of car parking spaces is itself likely to require planning
> permission. *I have emailed a summary to Private Eye; thanks to yourself
> and James for posting this and locating the planning document.

I'm Monica Cross - the Principal of st Matthew Academy - and I'm
staggered that all these inaccurate assumptions being made about us!!
Why did no-one simply e-mail or phone and ask why the cycle hoops had
disappeared from their original site? The site and the hoops were
decided , without consultation, by the architect who was solely
concerned that the facility he had to provide under planning would
match the style of his building - not that it was appropriate for our
cyclists! The original site was tucked away at the front of the
building - without any weather protection or security from damage &
interference from students, squirrels, (with whom we are overrun), or
bird droppings. We are very keen on our green travel plan and very
concerned to increase the number of cyclists. We have - at our own,
not inconsiderable expense, re-sited a large number of the hoops to
line the small car park. This is a deliberate visual reminder to
drivers of the alternative, healthy meands of transport and also
serves as a visual model to our younger students who can see the
cycles constantly. The original cycle site has been re-surfaced - with
a better surface and is waiting for the installation of individual,
lockable, 'bike-away' cycle lockers which are due on 17th March. These
have been requested by staff, whose cycling numbers have already
doubled. The area is, in the meantime, being used to only temporarily
to park our school mini-buses - which have their own allocated parking
bay - which we will access once the predecessor primary building is
demolished. St Matthew Academy replaces 2 failed predecessor schools -
a boys secondary and a primary. Not a single student from these
schools cycled to school - having moved into our new building only
last week - we already have 3 cycling students and are working on more
- including the exopense as soon as the weather improves - of
providing cycle training for interested students and the proposal to
form a cycling club in the summer term.
The assumption by some that the Academy has been paid for by a PFI
arrangement is wrong. The Academy's sponsor is the RC Archdiocese of
Southwark whose schools it has replaced. The capital for the buildings
comes from them and directly from the DCSF. The major teaching unions
are not all entirely against Academies - and their objections are not
that these schools "exist... to serve shareholders". Their objections
were almost entirely based on the freedom of Academies to pay more
than the national payscales for staf and to have different hours and
conditions. Academies were created to provide an alternative for the
children at the bottom of the heap!! The Academy is serving the
deprived areas of Lewisham and Greenwich. Half our students receive
free school meals, well over half are from families below the poverty
line. 43% of our students have special educational needs. We are far
from elitist! Towards the end of May we are having a Community Open
Evening - please try and suspend your prejudices and actually come and
see for yourselves what we are about.
Monica - MCR@stmatthewacademy.co.uk

james.delap@googlemail.com

On Mar 4, 8:53 am, m...@stmatthewacademy.co.uk wrote:
> On 3 Mar, 22:02, Colin Williams <use...@wastedresource.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:54:12 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > >>Hello,
>
> > >>Would any contributors to this thread mind if I notify Private Eye about
> > >>this? They are always on the lookout for PPP/PFI cockups and also take
> > >>an interest in planning and education matters. I'd like to direct them
> > >>to this thread if I may.
>
> > > No problem at all, I'd considered contacting Private Eye myself.
>
> > As it happens, I work in a planning consultancy office, albeit in an IT
> > support role. I had a brief chat with one of the planners who says a
> > breach might have occurred if there was a stipulation to maintain the
> > cycle parking facility. Also, the removal of the cycle stands and
> > creation of car parking spaces is itself likely to require planning
> > permission. I have emailed a summary to Private Eye; thanks to yourself
> > and James for posting this and locating the planning document.
>
> I'm Monica Cross - the Principal of st Matthew Academy -

Thanks Monica, for taking the time to reply and clarifying the
situation. Good luck with the new school

best wishes
james

Nick

mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk wrote:
> We have - at our own,
> not inconsiderable expense, re-sited a large number of the hoops to
> line the small car park.

You paid for it yourself? or are you talking about my tax payer's money!

A bit of a sore point with me as the secondary schools in Lewisham and
Greenwich are so appalling I have to send my children to private school.


> The Academy is serving the
> deprived areas of Lewisham and Greenwich. Half our students receive
> free school meals, well over half are from families below the poverty
> line. 43% of our students have special educational needs.

Deprived areas like Blackheath, right! But of course the local middle
class wont send their kids to your school, will they?

> We are far
> from elitist! Towards the end of May we are having a Community Open
> Evening - please try and suspend your prejudices and actually come and
> see for yourselves what we are about.

Been there, seen it, done it. I don't know anything about you personally
but I very much doubt you are anything apart from hot air.

Does Frankie still pressure her staff into sending their kids to local
schools?

Colin Williams

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:53:31 -0800, mcr wrote:


> I'm Monica Cross - the Principal of st Matthew Academy - and I'm
> staggered that all these inaccurate assumptions being made about us!!

Thanks for posting your response to this. In the interests of fairness,
I have forwarded it to Private Eye and I trust that they will speak to
you should they be interested in the story. I'm not sure that the school
hasn't breached planning rules though.

Kind Regards,

Colin Williams.

Ian Smith

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk <> wrote:

> The original site was tucked away at the front of the building

Eh? As opposed to prominently on show round the back?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|