Jun 29, 2005 - LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM. COUNCIL ... Street, the nursery wing of Deptford Park School on the other sid
Question
Q
QQ
Time
PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 18 LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM COUNCIL MEETING 29 JUNE 2005 Question asked by: Mr J Hamilton Question Can you confirm that the site known in the list of alternative sites suggested for a new school as Evelyn Street has within it a large parcel of land, around three times the size of the site at Ladywell Leisure Centre, in single ownership: a firm by the name of LAW 2380, whose stated aim on the companies register is "Development and sell real estate". Can you also confirm that the spectre of "possible contamination of the site" raised by your officers as a further reason for rejecting the site is a red herring, since no soil survey has been carried out and any contamination problems discovered while developing other parts of the same site or contiguous sites (the petrol station on the corner of Oxestalls Road and Evelyn Street, the nursery wing of Deptford Park School on the other side of Oxestalls Road, the live/work units on the corner of Oxestalls Road and Grove Street) have not been significant enough to prevent development. Can you also confirm that the site is a mixed area of private housing, public housing, green spaces, office space, retail outlets and a small amount of light industry, and that it is across the road from the Convoy's Wharf site, soon to be developed with around 3500 housing units and an unknown number of secondary age children estimated somewhere between 60 per year group (News International) and 150 per year group (Greater London Authority figure used in Lewisham's Schools Organisation Plan). Can you further confirm that of the 59 children who are leaving Deptford Park Primary School this year only 27 were successful in obtaining a place at Deptford Green, their nearest school, with 1 going to Addey and Stanhope and 1 to Askes, Hatcham. The remaining 30 children had to travel either out of borough or to Crofton, Catford Girls or St Josephs. Evelyn Ward is one of the two most deprived in London and its children deserve a better start in life than being forced to travel long distances.
Given that the grounds given by your officers for rejecting this site last October were unsustainable and that you appear to have been poorly advised, and bearing in mind the delay of 3 years which you were forced to announce on June 8 as a result of interference by Partnership for Schools, will you be prepared to take a fresh look at the Evelyn Street site, and possibly others, in case they can deliver a larger school, sooner and in a more needy area without the need to demolish a recently refurbished and much-used swimming facility in the centre of our borough? Reply The area of land bounded by Evelyn Street, Oxestalls Road, Grove Street and Dragoon Road is allocated in the Council's Unitary Development Plan as a Defined Employment Area. The relevant policy in the plan states that the Council will grant planning permission in such areas for business use, industrial use and storage and distribution uses but will not normally grant planning permission for other uses. The reason for this is that the Council wishes to preserve the remaining employment land in the borough as far as is reasonably practical. Within this broad general allocation, the site on the corner of Oxestalls Road and Grove Street, known as Diploma Works and Crown Wharf, is specifically allocated for employment, hotel or live/work use. The Council had not received any submission in relation to the future use of this overall area of land until 21st June this year. By letter of that date, planning consultants acting on behalf of Law 2380 Ltd T/A Industrial Holdings Fund submitted a proposal to the Council's Planning service for a potential change to the site allocation in connection with the Council's emerging Local Development Framework. The Local Development Framework will, in due course, replace the existing Unitary Development Plan. The submission from the consultants states that their client is in ongoing discussions with landowners to secure all of the available land to bring forward a comprehensive approach to development. They consider that there is a significant opportunity to bring forward a major redevelopment and that a mixed-use development would enable the opportunity of the site to be maximised. The risk of above average contamination was highlighted because of the former uses of this site - the Surrey Canal and adjoining wharfs along with the current waste management uses. This comment was made in the context of there being a likelihood of additional construction costs associated with decontamination works. The main reason for not selecting this site is the fact that it is in multi private ownership and the time that it would take to purchase, especially if compulsory purchase action had to be relied on. 54 pupils at Deptford Park School applied for a place at Deptford Green school. Of these, 30 were offered a place (but subsequently declined the offer), 15 were offered places at schools they had ranked higher and 4 of the 10 unsuccessful applicants have asked to remain on the waiting list. 48 pupils at Deptford Park Primary school applied for a place at Addey & Stanhope. Of these, 1 was offered a place (but subsequently declined the offer), 29 were offered places at a school they had ranked higher and the school holds the remaining 18 names on a waiting list. 29 pupils at Deptford Park Primary applied for a place at Haberdashers Aske’s Hatcham Academy. Of these, 2 were offered places, 11 were offered places at schools they had ranked higher and the school holds the remaining 16 names on a waiting list. The latest data shows that 51 out of 54 pupils in Deptford Park had been offered a school they had listed as a preference. Given the current interest in the development of the Evelyn Street site I am not proposing to reconsider the matter.
