| |
Slash and burn policy
• INTERESTING to see that the arguments being used to oppose the refurbishment of Ashmount School are exactly the same as those rolled out to justify demolition of the former Mary Magdalene primary in Liverpool Road: “draughty in winter, too hot in summer” and a recreation ground/conservation strip, respectively, in poor shape (Victory in school’s fight for new home, October 16).
Omitted from public debate in both cases is the perverse incentive that actively encourages demolition and discourages refurbishment: the “builders’ lobby tax” means VAT is payable on refurbishments but not on new-build. In the case of Mary Magdalene, avoiding a hefty VAT payment almost certainly played a part in the decision to demolish the existing primary and build a new one – only yards away, on the site of the neighbourhood Bride Street park.
This slash-and-burn ‘building’ policy is environmentally disastrous. Demolition is not CO2 neutral, nor is felling trees. The run-up to the Copenhagen talks on climate change is a particularly appropriate moment to reverse it.
Attempting to rubbish the condition of Crouch Hill rec echoes the assertion by officers and councillors that not only the Bride Street conservation strip but the trees themselves were in poor condition. That council personnel seem unembarrassed by what amount to failures of stewardship of the public realm doesn’t say much for their much-talked of plans to green the borough.
More than 60 mature trees were felled to make way for an unnecessary new Mary Mag primary. Fifty will be lost unless the Ashmount decision is reversed. It’s to be hoped Secretary of State for Environment Hilary Benn and London Mayor Boris Johnson call in the permission to demolish Ashmount, not only to help reverse the builders’ lobby tax but to protect and promote the capital’s environment.
Councillor Wally Burgess is surely correct: the same arguments about school buildings could probably be made about other primaries in Islington. But the default position in the borough with the least green space of all London local-authority areas must surely be to avoid building on recreational land?
Meg Howarth
Bark to Bark
• YOUR article about the Crouch Hill Project was well headlined as “Victory in school’s fight for new home”. But the project goes much further than this. Apart from being a victory for the children who will get a new school building “fit for the 21st century”, it is also about giving our area a new community centre, a new nursery, a properly housed facility for youth and a revived and cared for public park.
There is a good news story in the making here. A community resource is not just a building. Decisions will have to be made about what activities will be hosted at Crouch Hill, how they will be paid for, and how the community will be involved in the management of the site.
Although we all know that good news is less newsworthy than bad news, I hope the Tribune will continue to follow the story.
In the meantime, anyone who wants to keep in touch with the progress of the project can look at the school website on www.ashmountprimary.co.uk or join an email list by sending an email to CrouchHill-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
David Barry
Chair of governors, Ashmount School |
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
