Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Inconsistency and incompetence go hand in hand

Regular readers will recall that the Council was accused of "maladministration" by the Archdiocese of Southwark back in November on the matter of a compulsory purchase order for its Vicarage, and also the Prince Albert pub in Plumstead. The order was so that Plumstead Manor school could expand.

As it transpired the reason for the CPO, so the Council said, was so that the school would have more playing field area for its ever-increasing student faculty. That's the school on Plumstead Common, right on Plumstead Common, and right next door to tennis court facilities, basketball courts etc for those that do not know. The Council argued that those facilities were not sufficient for the school and it needed its own enclosed playing areas.

The reason we're re-hashing this story is because last week, the Cabinet member for Yoof, Jackie Smith, told the full Council that another school in Greenwich, John Roan, benefited from the largest playing fields in the Borough "although they are not on-site". Excuse us for being awkward but if it's good for the goose why is it not good for the gander as well to use the off-site facilities that already exist?

Could it be because the Building Schools for the Future money that is being made available by the Government is time locked with a deadline? Could it be that the Council's enviable competence has meant they have had to rush through a half-baked budget proposal for the Treasury which includes the CPO just to meet that deadline? Surely not?

Labels: , , , , ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our local school has made use of the local park facilities for its sports days etc for the last forty years to my knowledge, also there are frequent sports events held on Winns common by other schools, so why the need to spend money just because its there, when will we ever be rid of this lot and have some common sense restored.

12:54 pm  
Anonymous CllrAWilson said...

At the last council meeting I asked why it was that the opportunity to provide John Roan school with dedicated playing fields on site was being missed.
In short I was told that it was quite acceptable for future generations of children to be loaded onto a coach and driven for 15 mins to get to their playing fields (this of course is at a cost to the school).
To me this means that sport is not at the heart of the school and so is seen as a thing that you must do, as opposed to want to do.
This has in my opinion been a missed opportunity to make the school a better environment for its pupils.
The only reason that I can see for the new school not having playing fields on site is purely that the land value is seen as too high, this I also put to the council administration and they didn't answer that part of my follow up question. So the question is this;
future generations of school pupils not taken as active part in sport as they could vs. a fast buck for the council.
Which one did the council go for. Go on, guess.

5:04 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home