The scheme, passed unanimously by the nine councillors on the planning board, will see the Roman Catholic school move down the hill from its Charlton Road site to open space last used by the former St Austin’s comprehensive school and its successor, Christ The King sixth form college.
The school building was demolished when Christ the King moved to Lewisham in the early 1990s and was replaced with housing, but the playing field remained in church ownership and was left abandoned. The land and Highcombe itself have long been a blackspot for flytipping.
It will enable the school to double its intake to 420 pupils, at a time when primary school places are in high demand. Vehicles will enter via Highcombe – 18 staff parking spaces are being provided – with deliveries using Lime Kiln Close.
The new school could be open as early as September 2016 – a factor in councillors wanting to approve the application now instead of wanting to defer it to iron out issues with those who live near the site.
With a shortage of school places in Greenwich borough, planning chair Mark James said that as community open space can be used for education, “that is the overriding consideration” in the case. Councillors did call for a community garden to be included on the site.
Neighbours are concerned about increased car traffic on adjacent side roads as well as the loss of open space – the 1992 planning agreement for Lime Kiln Drive stated the site was to remain for recreation – with some calling for the school to be rebuilt on its existing site or at the Blackheath Bluecoat site on Old Dover Road. There are also concerns about a “multi-use games area” alongside the school.
Charlton ward councillor Gary Parker led objectors, saying the development would add to the “significant” amount of traffic caused by parents and staff driving to schools in the immediate area. He asked for the application to be deferred.
Martina Keating of the Charlton Central Residents’ Association – whose area doesn’t cover Highcombe – complained the group had not been invited to consultation events. She was also concerned about effects from building the school, adding that piling work at the Sainsbury’s site could be heard from Charlton Village.
Keating said the application had a “rosy view” of car parking – adding that most current Our Lady of Grace staff and pupils came by car. She was also concerned about claims that Victoria Way was a “quiet road” that was suitable for pupils to use to cycle to school, particularly with an increase in traffic caused by new superstore development.
Caroline Love of Charlton Community Gardens pointed out that her group was formed through unsuccessful negotiations with Southwark Diocese to use the land, lamenting the loss of potential for a “community-managed local park”
Local resident Richard Lovegrove, who presented a 100-strong petition from immediate neighbours, said the area would struggle to cope with traffic and branded the scheme a “dangerous, flawed proposal”. Another resident referred to a 1914 covenant on the land which he said meant the owners “must not cause noise or nuisance to neighbours”.
But a father of a child at Our Lady of Grace school, Mark Adams, said there was a “silent majority” in favour of the scheme, claiming most parents there did not drive.
Representatives of the scheme said it was impossible to rebuild the school on its current site due to the listed buildings next to it, and in any case they didn’t own the land there. They added that a scheme to hire out the playing field at “reasonable” rates had failed.
The current site of Our Lady of Grace is not included in the planning application. A previous application covering both sites failed in 2014 because of worries about housing planned for the land where the school sits now.
The Charlton Champion 
I am not involved in the scheme but surely anyone within easy walking distance of the new scheme is entitled to a view, especially when children from the area go to local schools. For that matter anyone with a child wanting to attend (from anywhere in Greenwich) is entitled to a view. What I did find in bad taste was that the individual supporter of the scheme was so disparaging of the views of opponents and was allowed to be so. Whatever side of the argument you are on surely you have to respect the other especially in public.
And you are entitled to your view that I was disparaging (even when given anonymously). I was actually aiming for dismissive rather than disparaging – by suggesting that the claims of the opponents were shown to be wrong in the lengthy reports prepared for the application to be considered.
The above reply is a more eloquent illustration of contempt for the views of others than I could ever have anticipated. So please do not expect an outraged response from me as it is not worth the effort. To treat you with more generosity of spirit than you show to others I can bolster your fragile self esteem by letting you have the last word if you want it. This exchange is over. I thank you and good night.
I’m very grateful for your offer, given you previously expressed surprise that I was allowed to express my view at all. I welcome your change of heart but have nothing further to add. All the best, Mark
This was always going to be tricky. School places are like gold dust, and places at a good one even harder to find. In a way the councillors could do nothing else. But it is a pity that the church had locked the community out of that space for years when it was eager to get in and make something of it and does not seem inclined to let it in much now. I wonder what phase 2 will be like, when the new school is in place? I wonder what will happen to the vacated site? I havemy own suspicions.