Controversial proposals to move John Roan School to Greenwich Peninsula have been dropped by the school, it has been announced.
School governors have instead recommended refurbishing and rebuilding the school on its current sites at Maze Hill and Westcombe Park, and are asking the Council to endorse their decision.
The move had been held up by the need to decommission a gas holder at the peninsula, and with no firm time table in place for this to happen, the school governors undertook a feasibility study to examine whether they could stay at their existing locations.
A statement issued this week by the school says:
The Governors recently commissioned a feasibility study to investigate whether it was possible to rebuild and refurbish the school on its existing sites. Following the completion of this study, the Governors wish to progress this option and have entered discussions with both the Council and Partnerships for Schools. The next step will be to secure formal endorsement from the Council for the new approach, taking into account the impact on the overall schools’ strategy for the Borough.
The proposals were strongly opposed by some, and a John Roan School campaign group was formed in response. Andrew Steed, a member of the campaign, has told Greenwich.co.uk that they are “thrilled to bits” with the Governors’ findings and only “regret that this didn’t happen three years ago”.
Updated – Greenwich Council have responded to the news…
On Monday 2 November, the governors of The John Roan School determined
they no longer wished to take advantage of the opportunity to move into
the new school to be built on the Greenwich Peninsula. This is because
the decommissioning of the gas holder, which is not within the control
of either party, will take longer than originally hopedThe Council’s position throughout has been that it would support the wishes of the Governors of The John Roan School. We will continue to do so. To this end, we will work with the Governing Body and with Partnership for Schools (PfS), the agency which is delivering the Building Schools for the Future programme on behalf of the Government, to try to secure funding for the refurbishment of The John Roan School on its existing sites.
In the meantime, the Council will continue with its plans to build a new secondary school on the Greenwich Peninsula, using the PFI credits already allocated to us by the Government for this site.
Local MP, Nick Raynsford, has issued this statement to Greenwich.co.uk
‘I have been working closely with John Roan School’s Headteacher and Governors to help the school resolve the problem of the current unsatisfactory premises. As it is now clear that an early move to new premises on the Greenwich Peninsula is not possible because of the delay in decommissioning the gasholder, I will be exploring alternative options including the possibility of provision on the school’s two existing sites, with the school, Greenwich Council and Partnerships for Schools – the Government agency which is overseeing the ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme. My overriding concern will be to ensure an outcome which enables the school to continue to improve its educational performance and to meet the needs of young people in Greenwich’.
Gosh, what wonderful news.
That was another mad project that the Greenwich Society supported, apparently for entirely political reasons, gone west.
The Council and our MP always said that they would support the decision of the governing body. But they both seem to offer a funny kind of support.
The Council, in essence, seems set on building a school on the Peninsula with John Roan’s BSF money (i.e. the PFI credits)… but will help the school to “try” and find other money elsewhere. Like that’s going to happen!
Mr Raynsford suggests that having been delayed in its “early move” to the Peninsula, he’ll now start looking at “alternative options” for John Roan. Actually, the governors carried out a feasibility study and have decided to stay put – they haven’t decided to pursue alternative options.
If this is support for John Roan and its governors, I wonder what obstruction would look like?
CarDent clearly doesnt read posts before he comments!
Why do you assume Nick Raynsford is seeking to help the school move from the site? His comment doesnt say that is his aim – so why put words in his mouth.
Is there an election in the offing? Could CarDent be one of Nicks opponents?
One of has problems reading, Jim. Let me help you.
Mr Raynsford says, “I will be exploring alternative options including the possibility of provision on the school’s two existing sites”.
If he’s exploring options, one of which is staying put, then what would another of these multiple options include? I made the great mental leap that another of his options would be to not stay put. Unless, of course, all of his options are for provision on the existing sites. In which case, it would only be one option. Which would make it a decision. Which, strangely enough, IS the governors’ decision.
Perhaps it would have been much more straightforward if Mr Raynsford had simply said that he would support the governing body in their decision? After all, this is what he’s always said he’d do.