St Matthew's Academy

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:54:07 -0000, "Adam Lea" <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>It was the way it came across in the OP as saying "they've done this, isn't
>it terrible" whereas if one were to get the full story their action wouldn't
>be bad at all.

You have used quotation marks, but it is not a quote.

Whichever way I look at it, the construction then immediate demolition
of a cycle park is bad. The cycle lockers could easily have been
tucked around the back in the car park. I wonder how many parking
spaces it would take to provide 24 cycle lockers...

Rob Morley

In article <plq0t3d31s7r6heaggftbfsj0avn4vasek@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...

> I passed St Matthew's Academy again today and took this photo:
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/stmatts2
> The area where the three mini busses are parked and the green
> containers are located is the site of the old 232 place Sheffield
> stand cycle park. As you can see, it is in a promenent position at
> the front of the building, and is a compound which can be secured
> within the St Matthew's Site.
>
From the photo it doesn't seem that area is easily seen from the
building, so probably not a good place to leave a load of bikes unless
they're in secure lockers.

Nick

Adam Lea wrote:
> "Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:63d5ahF27gq2mU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mark T wrote:
>>> Nick writtificated
>>>
>>>>>> Well I don't know what it is you object to because you won't explain
>>>>>> yourself?
>>>>> I think everyone else can see it. You're making lots of really
>>>>> stupid assumptions then phrasing them as questions. You've even
>>>>> stuck a question mark on the sentance above.
>>>> What stupid assumption[s]?
>>> I've edited some to make their meaning clearer e.g. it's a question that
>>> implies someone thinks that:
>>>
>>> "[Adam doesn't] feel the need to lock your car or bike or front door."
>>>
>> This was not an assumption it was a question. Adam stated that "Nasty
>> Cynicism" motivated posters on this group. Cynicism means to mistrust
>> other peoples motives and actions. Locking a front door is a sign of
>> cynicism in that you distrust the motives of people who call at your
>> house. I put this as a question so that Adam could elaborate on why he
>> thought it nasty to be cynical about the behaviour of a publicly funded
>> organisation while it was not nasty to be cynical about the motives of
>> callers to his house.
>
> Because locking a bike/car/front door is a risk aversion measure since it is
> a fact, not assumption that there exist people in society who wish to
> deprive others of their property (plus it is a requirement of my various
> insurance policies). Cynicism involves making an negative assumption, not
> taking mitigating action based on a factual risk. This, of course does not
> mean that I suspect every person who passes my front door has a view to
> burgling my house.
>

It is a fact not an assumption that principals of educational
establishments sometimes mislead and distort the truth. They have chosen
to work in the public sphere and hence should be open to scrutiny.
Suspecting that something has gone wrong in this case seems to be very a
valid assumption and it seems fair to ask questions.


>> This did make the presumption that Adam did not regard the quite
>> reasonable cynicism of locking ones front door as "nasty".
>>
>> I presumed that when Adam referred to "Nasty Cynicism" he was referring to
>> people doubting the actions and motivations of the agencies involved in
>> the running of St Mathews academy. I have asked him to clarify this issue.
>
> It was the way it came across in the OP as saying "they've done this, isn't
> it terrible" whereas if one were to get the full story their action wouldn't
> be bad at all.
>

So when did we get the full story. You may regard money being spent to
build something one year and ripping it down soon afterwards to be OK.
But I didn't hear this explained, did you?

We haven't heard the full story and this is my objection, if
conversations are held in private we do not hear the full story. We only
hear what Ms Cross decides to reveal.

Did you pick up her denial of responsibility and the transferral of
responsibility to the architect who "did not consult". It appears she
too thinks that something has been messed up, but she didn't quite say
what, did she? I'll give you a hint, other bigger things may have gone
wrong with this build. Strange they are still doing stuff in March when
the school was scheduled to open last September. I wonder if the bike
spaces are just the tip of the iceberg. I mean could it be that the
plans had to be changed for some unspecified reason and the bike spaces
were sacrificed.

I think even after the comments by Ms Cross you are very much still in
the dark about what has gone on.

>> For what it is worth I have never had anyone misuse my often unlocked
>> front door but I have often found Principals of government educational
>> establishments to be dishonest and to deliberately act against clauses in
>> various government acts. So from personal experience I would regard a
>> cynicism in the motivations of educational officials to be more justified
>> and hence less open to categorisation as nasty.
>>
>
> It is probably best not to prematurely judge individuals based on the group
> average.
>

It is best not to do things prematurely by definition. However it is
best to judge any situation based on the information one has available,
which will always be based on partial information and probabilistic
results (group average), the quantum world rules.

However I suspect that you do judge individuals based on the group they
belong to but have a tendency to trust authority figures.

If I had a concern about a school or any other public operation I would
want to get my facts straight before approaching a figure in authority.
I would do this for two reasons; firstly to check my worries were not
fanciful and hence a waste of time and second to make sure I had enough
facts so that I could not be easily brushed off with superficial answers
and misdirection. I certainly would not accuse someone checking up on a
public organisation as a "Nasty Cynic". I would say that democracy
cannot work without such people.

One way I like to check my facts is to post to Usenet which after all
isn't much different from discussing a matter with a few friends. I
would imagine Ms Cross only entered into the discussion because she was
Googling for references to her institution, perhaps this discussion
touched a nerve.

Nick

Adam Lea wrote:

>> So exactly what was the Nasty Cynicism you referred too?
>
> The negative implication in the original post that the cycle stands were
> ripped out purely to create extra car parking spaces (thus implying the
> academy had a pro-car, anti-cycle stance) without verifying the reasons
> first (which is why the principal felt it necessary to clarify the
> situation).
>
>
I think it is negative to build and then almost immediately destroy,
clearly the original build was a waste of resources.

This is clearly a valid question why was it done, the principal didn't
clarify the situation. Why were the cycle stands built in the first
place if they were inappropriate?

Ian Smith

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
>
> The demolition of the original, brand new, cycle parking facility
> appears to be a breach of the planning permission,

You keep saying this, but planning permission does not imply
obligation unless there is a specific condition. That is, you can
obtain permission to build three buildings X Y Z, and there's not any
obligation that you _do_ build X, Y, Z - unless there are specific
conditions, you could build nothing at all, or just build X and Y.
Further, there's nothing to stop you building X Y and Z and then
demolishing Z (though you would need another permission to demolish Z,
it would not be a breach of the original permission).

So it's only if there was a condition saying that n bicycle rack
spaces be maintained at location such-and-such that this would have
been a breach. I had not seen such, but I stopped reading the thread
when it turned into a slanging match in the middle. I might be
re-doing something already done, therefore.

I've then ploughed through Lewisham's planning records. They have
a relatively complete online system, but it is sloooooooowwwwwwww.

You need to start at:
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/lewi.../acolnetcgi.exe

You want advanced search, then I've done the hard bit by finding
application numbers, which you can put into the search to see the
details. Searching for location 'academy' or applicant 'Matthew' in
ward Blackheath is also productive.

I think the first / key application is DC/04/57340/X, which is for
demolition of this and that and construction of a new academy "...
together with associated landscaping and playing fields, provision of
232 bicycle and 42 car parking spaces ..."

There is a condition which refers to the cycle spaces:

"25) The development hereby permitted shall include secure parking
provision for cycles, in accordance with details shown on the
submitted drawings. Such provision shall be provided before the
buildings hereby permitted are occupied and retained permanently
thereafter."

So, removing the spaces shown on the approved drawings would breach
that condition and thereby the permission. Note that the condition is
not specific to any old cycle spaces, nor even any old 232 spaces, it
is specifically as detailed on eth drawings. I think that this will
actually be the drawings as permitted, which might have changes since
as first submitted. Sadly, the drawings are not available online.

For interest, the reason for the condition was "In order to ensure
adequate provision for cycle parking and to comply with Policies TRN
14 Cycle Parking and TRN 15 Provision for Cyclists and Walkers in the
adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004)."

However, it's not necessarily that straightforward - a subsequent
permission may vary the condition.

There are various logged subsequent applications which are satisfying
conditions of the first (eg DC/05/60812/FT, DC/05/60813/FT,
DC/05/60814/FT).

I found one variation of the conditions - DC/05/61166/X - but it does
not affect the cycle parking.

So, it looks to me that yes, it is a breach of the planning
permission. It's possible there's a variation or deletion of the
condition that I didn't find, but having found some such, I'd expect
to have found the others (if they exist). Maybe the head will advise
the permission which deleted or revised the condition?

Caveat: I am not a planning system professional, though I do have some
exposure to the processes. None of this should be taken as
constituting advice.

> "Nasty cynicism" was not my intent. Drawing attention to a
> scandalous waste of public money, by the construction and immediate
> demolition of a cycle park, was my intent.

As scandals with public money go, it's pretty small, however.

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

Ian Smith

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 13:00:47 +0000, Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I think it is negative to build and then almost immediately
> destroy, clearly the original build was a waste of resources.
>
> This is clearly a valid question why was it done, the principal didn't
> clarify the situation. Why were the cycle stands built in the first
> place if they were inappropriate?

Because it was a condition of the planning permission that they be
built before the building was occupied.

The council could possibly have inspected at some point before
occupancy to check they were there, so they had to be built. Whoever
decided to take them out was probably counting on no-one checking up
whether it would be allowed (or simply assumed it would not be
disallowed).

The negative implication seems somewhat justified - at least in so
far as it seems it is _not_ permitted to rip them out.

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

Ian Smith

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Adam Lea <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It was the way it came across in the OP as saying "they've done
> this, isn't it terrible" whereas if one were to get the full story
> their action wouldn't be bad at all.

Are you saying it's not "bad at all" to be in breach of the permission
granted to construct the premises? I would consider that to be at
least somewhat bad, though I know some people think the planning
permission system should be entirely abolished (I find driving into
Heathrow Airport sufficient argument against that opinion,
incidently).

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

Tom Crispin

On 08 Mar 2008 13:37:15 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:

>Caveat: I am not a planning system professional, though I do have some
>exposure to the processes. None of this should be taken as
>constituting advice.

Once again, Usenet comes up trumps in finding someone who can explain,
in layman's terms, how a process works. Thanks for your research,
Ian.

Tom Crispin

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 03:11:58 -0000, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>In article <plq0t3d31s7r6heaggftbfsj0avn4vasek@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>
>> I passed St Matthew's Academy again today and took this photo:
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/stmatts2
>> The area where the three mini busses are parked and the green
>> containers are located is the site of the old 232 place Sheffield
>> stand cycle park. As you can see, it is in a promenent position at
>> the front of the building, and is a compound which can be secured
>> within the St Matthew's Site.
>>
>From the photo it doesn't seem that area is easily seen from the
>building, so probably not a good place to leave a load of bikes unless
>they're in secure lockers.

I visited the school today.

The demolished cycle park is in full view of the main hall, reception
area and canteen, i.e. tucked away at the front of the building.

22 of the relocated Sheffield stands make a barrier between the car
park and the walkway - other Sheffield stands are in stacks. At
7.55am there was one bike locked to the stands between the walkway and
car park, at 8.30am there were five. The bike lockers are not yet in
use, according to the security guard.

Nick

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 03:11:58 -0000, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <plq0t3d31s7r6heaggftbfsj0avn4vasek@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>> kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>>
>>> I passed St Matthew's Academy again today and took this photo:
>>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/stmatts2
>>> The area where the three mini busses are parked and the green
>>> containers are located is the site of the old 232 place Sheffield
>>> stand cycle park. As you can see, it is in a promenent position at
>>> the front of the building, and is a compound which can be secured
>>> within the St Matthew's Site.
>>>
>>From the photo it doesn't seem that area is easily seen from the
>> building, so probably not a good place to leave a load of bikes unless
>> they're in secure lockers.
>
> I visited the school today.
>
> The demolished cycle park is in full view of the main hall, reception
> area and canteen, i.e. tucked away at the front of the building.
>
> 22 of the relocated Sheffield stands make a barrier between the car
> park and the walkway - other Sheffield stands are in stacks. At
> 7.55am there was one bike locked to the stands between the walkway and
> car park, at 8.30am there were five. The bike lockers are not yet in
> use, according to the security guard.

I heard on the grapevine that the school was designed and built for the
wrong number of pupils. i.e. the existing capacity of the schools it was
replacing rather than the number of places the LEA had budgeted for. I
assume it was planned in the wake of the Hatcham Wood/Telegraph Hill
fiasco and was expected to take extra capacity.

So I guess they had to expand the school at the last minute and the bike
stands were just sacrificed for the greater good.

Tom Crispin

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:23:13 +0000, Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 03:11:58 -0000, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <plq0t3d31s7r6heaggftbfsj0avn4vasek@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>>> kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says...
>>>
>>>> I passed St Matthew's Academy again today and took this photo:
>>>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/stmatts2
>>>> The area where the three mini busses are parked and the green
>>>> containers are located is the site of the old 232 place Sheffield
>>>> stand cycle park. As you can see, it is in a promenent position at
>>>> the front of the building, and is a compound which can be secured
>>>> within the St Matthew's Site.
>>>>
>>>From the photo it doesn't seem that area is easily seen from the
>>> building, so probably not a good place to leave a load of bikes unless
>>> they're in secure lockers.
>>
>> I visited the school today.
>>
>> The demolished cycle park is in full view of the main hall, reception
>> area and canteen, i.e. tucked away at the front of the building.
>>
>> 22 of the relocated Sheffield stands make a barrier between the car
>> park and the walkway - other Sheffield stands are in stacks. At
>> 7.55am there was one bike locked to the stands between the walkway and
>> car park, at 8.30am there were five. The bike lockers are not yet in
>> use, according to the security guard.
>
>I heard on the grapevine that the school was designed and built for the
>wrong number of pupils. i.e. the existing capacity of the schools it was
>replacing rather than the number of places the LEA had budgeted for. I
>assume it was planned in the wake of the Hatcham Wood/Telegraph Hill
>fiasco and was expected to take extra capacity.
>
>So I guess they had to expand the school at the last minute and the bike
>stands were just sacrificed for the greater good.

I was surprised to learn that the integrated primary school is
doubling its predecessor's capacity from 30 per year group to 60 per
year group.