The Council's backup strategy for the John Roan School

Some may remember that the Council is trying to force the school to move from its location by Greenwich Park to filthy toxic piece of waste ground on the Greenwich Peninsula with no local amenities which acts purely as a thoroughfare for us poor sods that have to use the pathetic public transport system to get the hell out of Dodge.

We have just learned that the Council is still trying to play dirty tricks in getting what it wants on this matter. Officially, if you go to the Council now and ask about the John Roan School the line is that the move is not the Council's to decide but the school's and the John Roan Foundation.

Sounds simple and honest doesn't it? Well it would be if we were not dealing with a Council that will use any means to get what it wants and trample over the views of local people. Especially as the John Roan plans are part of the Government's "Building Schools for the Future" scheme and the Council is way behind on its target because of its own incompetence.

Instead we have learned that the Council has now deliberately stalled the process whereby the John Roan Foundation was going to make a decision citing "legal considerations". What might these legal considerations be? Well (and this is the really devious bit), the Council is trying to take legal ownership of the name "The John Roan School".

This way - no matter what happens - the Council will be able to open its new school and close the other. The new school will have no outside space for the kids, and the air quality will be blighted by a deliberately clogged up dual carriageway. The Council can then flog off the land where the old school was to one of its "preferred" developers.

Whilst we're on the subject of outside space, ponder on this little thought for a moment. The Council started compulsory purchase procedures in order to take land that would provide outside space for Plumstead Manor School. Meanwhile, the John Roan is being forced to move by whatever means to a school with no outdoor space other than the roof.

Now take a look at the Governor make-up of the two schools and note the influence of the Council's controlling group in the former but not in the latter. In fact, look at the entire Phase One of the Council "Building Schools for the Future" and see how, with the exception of Plumstead Manor which is getting more playing fields - all the schools seem to be those where the elected officials of the Council have no political stake in the school's redevelopment success.

Council cuts school building budget by £3m

We expect many of our readers will remember the posts we did about the compulsory purchase plans of the Council about a pub and Vicarage in Plumstead. Readers may also recall that the Council later designated the pub it wanted to pull down as a local landmark.

The news now is that the compulsory purchase is very much going ahead so that Plumstead Manor School can expand. However, we've learned that the expansion has been cut by £3 million, meaning they won't be getting a Performing Arts Block anymore.

We're not aware of how much the compulsory purchase is going to be, but we have a funny feeling that it might just be £3 million. What does all this mean? It means that the Council was so incompetent it failed to even consider the budgetary implication of purchasing a pub and Vicarage on its plans.

The result is that the "School for the Future" is not actually going to be sufficient for the future that they've planned. On the plus side this was agreed in an open and democratic Cabinet Committee meeting where a massive three Cabinet members could be arsed to turn up.

Never fear though, poor attendance won't be an issue again. They also agreed at that meeting that future decisions of this sort would be taken by the Glorious Leader, Chris Roberts. They were being paid for part-time jobs, now they getting paid for quite literally doing nothing.

Council labels pub it wants to demolish a local landmark

According to page 52 of the Council's Plumstead Common Conservation document, the Prince Albert Public House is to be added to the protected "local list" of buildings. Is this the same Prince Albert Public House that the Council wants to demolish and has a compulsory purchase order on?

Or perhaps they actually mean the Prince of Wales Pub in Plumstead Common Road, as that is the address they give for it? Even if it is, it's amusing that they've also listed the Prince Albert as a "memorable" building that can be "described as having landmark character".

Incompetence in proof reading? Or just incompetence in calling a place they wish to rip down a landmark? Either way, any purchase should, in our opinion, be halted whilst the Council explains how it can praise somewhere it is planning to get rid of.

We'd like to thank the Plumstead blogger, Sibonetic for bringing this to our attention.

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?

Of course we looked at other options!

Last Tuesday saw the latest instalment in the Plumstead Manor vs Prince Albert pub and vicarage saga as the Tories on the Council called the decision in to something called the ‘Overview and Scrutiny Call-In Sub Committee’ (with names like these you can see why more people don’t get involved in democracy).

The Tories argued that the original decision to compulsory purchase the pub and vicarage was wrong because there was no evidence that the Council officers had seriously considered any other option. The elderly deputy leader of the Tories put forward an alternative plan, which officers said they had considered and dismissed although they had no documentation to this effect and the wording of the CPO brief suggested they hadn’t.

Another one argued that the plan was wrong as it didn’t fit in with any education plan and was only happening as a result of the Council’s inability to plan school places and desperation to get the Private Finance Initiative money before Gordon Brown spends it all elsewhere.

It was also revealed that the reason they are taking the pub and vicarage off their owners is so they can have more playground space in a school which faces Plumstead Common. More power to the bureaucrats we say!

Quote of the night: Labour Cllr and Chair of the Education Scrutiny Committee Danny Thorpe “I don’t think anyone would see this Compulsory Purchase as part of a grand plan.” We couldn’t have put it better ourselves Danny – no plan, no idea and no way forward for the kids of Greenwich!