Green Party

For almost a decade now, the saga of a new secondary school for Lewisham has rumbled on. If the makers of the Carry On series were looking for a tragi-comic subject to revive that old format then Lewisham's new school plans would be ideal.

The story began back in 2001. When confronted with the problem of a failing secondary school at Telegraph Hill, the Labour-run council decided to close it down and demolish it. Surprise, surprise, when the school was closed down there was then a shortage of secondary school places. Few disputed that the school was not performing well but closing it down and deliberately creating a shortage of places must count as one of the most monumentally stupid decisions in the history of local government. A strong community campaign rapidly took off and, under pressure from this, Labour did a U-turn and went into the 2002 local elections promising a new school.

The search for a site, however, proved somewhat more complicated. The original site chosen, at Ladywell Playtower and the old police station next door, fell through. The Labour Mayor, Steve Bullock, then made the unbelievable decision to knock down Ladywell Leisure Centre and build a school on that site. This would have left central Lewisham without a swimming pool for several years and opposition councillors and the local community were furious. We campaigned hard to call for a rethink and urged the Mayor to consider alternatives. One of the alternative sites that opposition councillors urged the Mayor to look at was the Lewisham Bridge Primary school site, on the basis that this was large enough to accommodate both primary and secondary school provision. For two years the Mayor refused to budge and stuck doggedly to the Ladywell Leisure Centre site, even after Labour had lost a swathe of council seats in the 2006 elections. However, given Labour had lost their overall majority we opposition councillors (now the majority) re-presented our motion urging the Mayor to examine alternative sites and save the swimming pool - and this time we were successful. Independent consultants were brought in and recommended Lewisham Bridge Primary school as the site for the new school. The Mayor accepted this. Opposition councillors, the New School Campaign and the Save Ladywell Pool campaign were overjoyed. The leisure centre was saved and a new school was finally set to happen.

It is therefore why I find it curious that the Socialist Party councillors are now campaigning so vociferously against Lewisham Bridge as the site for the new school. As opposition councillors we worked together on joint motions urging the Mayor to consider Lewisham Bridge as a site for a new school. Before the 2006 local elections Socialist Party councillors joined myself, other opposition councillors and local campaigners in a photo opportunity outside Lewisham Bridge Primary - urging the Mayor to make this the site for the new secondary school, not Ladywell Leisure Centre. I would be the first to admit that Lewisham Bridge may not be the perfect site for a new school. But, as the last decade has shown, finding a site has never been easy. The choice was not between Lewisham Bridge and the perfect site. The choice was between the Ladywell Leisure Centre site and the Lewisham Bridge site and the right choice has been made. That is why all councillors unanimously passed the following motion at full council in 2006.

"This Council wholeheartedly endorses the decision by Mayor and Cabinet to select Lewisham Bridge as its preferred site for the new school to create an all-through 3-16 integrated school. This Council therefore agrees to work constructively with Mayor and Cabinet to minimise the risks associated with this project and overcome any potential obstacles in order to ensure the new school is delivered by the target date of 2010.

This Council also wishes to congratulate the long-standing and vigorous campaign run by the Save Ladywell Campaign and The School for New Cross/Local Education by Parents groups. In particular this council commends the significant roles played by both Max Calo and former Councillor Helen Le Fevre".

Normally, I am in favour of protecting old buildings and preserving our heritage but I do think English Heritage's recent decision to list Lewisham Bridge Primary School is a mistake. We have already spent almost a decade trying to find a site for new secondary school provision in Lewisham. If we cannot have Lewisham Bridge as a site for a new all-through school we could be waiting many more years for the new secondary school places that are desperately needed.

Like others I am dismayed that the Government blocked plans to make the new school a local authority-run school. It will therefore be run as a federation with the long-running Prendergast but at least it won't be one of those awful academies and at least Prendergast conforms to the borough's admissions policy. While I fully expect a future Green government to ensure every publicly funded school anywhere in the country is taken into local authority control, as my Green colleague Cllr Sue Luxton has already explained  we cannot just sit back and wait for this to happen. We need to ensure this new school is built. We have waited far, far too long.

Write a comment

• Required fields are marked with *.

Name:
Email:
Website:
Subject:
Comment: *

Help prevent spam - enter security code above:
 

First | Previous | Showing comments 33 to 35 of 35

Linda Foreman
Posts: 35

lewisham bridge primary school
Reply #3 on : Wed May 06, 2009, 21:20:56

---

Lewisham Bridge Primary School campus is not large enough to effectively deal with the complex and wide-ranging needs of children from 3years to 16years.The project will not meet the increasing need for primary school places.It is doubtful whether the project will meet the demand for secondary school places.The case for this project is not convincing.The need for more secondary school places does not justify the closure of a popular and improving community primary school.With the anticipated increase in population with Loampit Vale regeneration and Lewisham Gateway the need for primary school places means that Lewiaham Bridge Primary School would be well placed to cater for this increase.I cannot stress enough that the campus is too small and cannot meet the diverse needs of 3 year olds through to 16 year olds.

rp
Posts: 35

Re: New school for Lewisham – the story continues
Reply #2 on : Sun April 26, 2009, 23:53:40

---

I'm also wondering, with the Greens in Lewisham very noticeably reluctant to give an opinion on a blog why they are mounting blogs in the first place? They have little appetite for a continuing discussion and you can rest assured that any response to the previous lengthy comment, if any, will be bland in the extreme. Time to get off the fence Greens!

Robert
Posts: 35

New school for Lewisham
Reply #1 on : Sun April 26, 2009, 19:13:17

---

Sue, Darren and the rest of the Green Party
You are giving out misinformation – let me correct a few points
1. In 2007 a meeting of parents at Lewisham Bridge Primary School – which Sue Luxton was at – voted unanimously against a 3-16 school on the site and for keeping Lewisham Bridge as a 2 form entry primary school. That happened AFTER the Council agreeing to the site in principle. I find it curious that the Greens are campaigning so vigorously FOR demolishing the school in the face of such a clear expression of what people actually want. Why didn’t you stop and think again then?
2. I have no idea what the Socialist Party’s view on the school is and neither have you. All I know is that in putting forward a Council motion to halt the decant and bussing of the children they are concerned – as are the local Lib Dems, and as you should be - that the Council was decanting children and bussing them to New Cross – potentially damaging the outcome of SATS and banding tests - BEFORE the school had planning permission and BEFORE there was any chance of getting planning permission.
3. You fail to mention that it is not just the historic building on the site that it is a problem – there are still outstanding issues of contamination, groundwater flooding and the water supply – not to mention the fact that, because the site is so small government guidelines on standards for school building are freely flouted.
4. You fail to mention that while the Council has faffed about with a completely unworkable 3-16 site and so reducing primary school places, Lewisham’s own figures now show that there is a shortfall of hundreds of primary school places in the borough. Returning Lewisham Bridge t0 a 2 form entry will help to alleviate that pressure. In 2006 perhaps the pressure on primary school places was not so obvious – now it is , so it’s time to re-think.
5. The listing of Lewisham Bridge was done on the basis of something you don't seem too keen on – the facts. At a recent meeting of the Local History Society, English Heritage showed they had a very serious and informed approach. In the case of Lewisham Bridge the reasons are clear and glowing – this is a building with a pioneering approach to school design which emerged just before the First World War. The design shows new-found concern about taking children’s health into account (hence the way the classrooms are lit and ventilated), and an emerging interest in child-centred education. Are you or Steve Bullock or Sue Luxton or Dean Walton or all the other people declaring that the listing is a ‘mistake’ experts in London’s architectural history? If so, I would suggest that you have been gravely remiss in not pointing out years ago that the school is an architectural gem and a real asset for the area.
6. Finally, the Greens. You see, what this is all about is a battle over resources. Your position is that a secondary school at Lewisham Bridge is the best that can be got – but that is only the case if you don’t challenge the way resources are distributed. For example, there are umpteen supermarkets with vast car parks all over the borough – none of which are likely to be listed! Any one of these would make a splendid site for new schools with plenty of space for playgrounds. AND reducing the number of supermarkets might revive the high street and reduce the use of cars. Now that sort of thinking is what I would call ‘Green’.
Up until last year it might have seemed plausible to say that the money isn’t there – we now know there is billions available for the right people. Therefore, it seems to me that the Greens are terribly timid and not up to the challenge and so go along with quick fixes at the expense of long-term solutions.

First | Previous | Showing comments 33 to 35 of 35