Dadadada

James - I would try to avoid linking or drawing comparisons between these two proposals. They are very different proposals by different applicants in different locations, each with their own characteristics and legal considerations.

It is indeed "other open space" (NSP NOS16 Judith Kerr School green space in the Preferred Option - http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/12942/nsp_preferred_option_-_appendix_4_-_open_spaces) but apparently DE is lobbying Southwark very hard to have it designated back to "development land". Even if the open space designation remains, it is little more than a presumption against development unless exceptional circumstances apply. Even if DE are turned down (an outcome which they must be expecting), they will apply to the Planning Inspectorate to challenge the plan and/or the refusal. Anyone else noticed Dulwich Estate shares the same acronym as Death Eaters? Calling all Aurors - speak to your councillor and ask them what they are doing to stop this development.

First Dobbie dies and now this... Regulars of this august forum may recall that the Dulwich Estate has, ever since the Judith Kerr Primary School (a state co-educational and non-selective primary school) was founded in 2013, been drawing-up plans to redevelop the JKPS playing fields for housing. Now DE have taken a different tack - they're trying to relocate the residents of the almhouses from Edward Alleyn House on College Road opposite Dulwich Park into a new block of flats to be developed on the green space and to take all of the school's playing fields. The back of the flats is to be a three-storey wall along the boundary with the school dividing the school from the a large, leafy garden area on the other side - which is to be used exclusively by the flats, not by the children. "The school children can have a small tarmac space and be grateful it" appears to be DE's approach. Shamefully, the Dulwich Estate are trying to pitch the elderly and vulnerable against the children and their parents. Their endgame (of course) has nothing to do with benefit to either the public or the elderly. It is the redevelopment of Edward Alleyn House to fund their private schools, so of course the real fight in Dulwich and Herne Hill is between the wealthy private school beneficiaries of the Dulwich Estate and the rest of us (again). Pollard Thomas Edwards architects (http://pollardthomasedwards.co.uk/) have been commissioned to do the "consultation" on this. Bless them. They may even actually believe DE give two hoots what anyone local people think and that this isn't a whitewash to drive this through planning. As Lord Voldemort says "They never learn. Such a pity." Wands at the ready.

I think the old head was on a temp contract and she decided not to renew although I don't know why. They've just promoted the deputy head to head though so there is some degree of continuity there (http://www.jkps-cfbt.org/jkps-head-school/).

landsberger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't disagree with that, but fairly sure the > lease didn't cover the area you are talking about. Oh, but it does - one lease, one plot with all of the land and buildings. > But they are not actually playing fields. > Southwark Park Primary use Southwark Park as > playing fields - does that impede the Council if > they were to try and dispose of some or all of it > it does not own the land on which its "playing fields" are situated on (if it were a state school, this would be more likely). Tch, tch - you are misinformed. JKPS does own the land under a single lease which expires in 2062 and the playing fields area is enclosed specifically (and exclusively) for the school's own use. Did you think it was a public park? > It's happened elsewhere. As I am sure you are > aware BB98 and 99 do not apply to academies or > free schools. Dearie me, landsberger, do keep up - you're so far behind the times. The applicable building bulletin is BB103 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mainstream-schools-area-guidelines/area-planning-for-maintained-schools) and I quote for your ease of reference: "Building Bulletin 103: Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools? (BB103) sets out simple, non-statutory area guidelines for school buildings (part A) and sites (part b) for all age ranges from 3 to 19. It covers all state schools, including mainstream academies and free schools, except special schools and alternative provision. The document supersedes the area guidelines in Building Bulletins 98 and 99." BOOM! (again) B)

Well done James. Democracy is nothing if not about the people. I think it's time the charity commission amalgamated the Dulwich Estate with another educational charity to avoid conflicting aims between them in the local area. Maybe it could merge with CfBT or Harris, which both operate local schools.

landsberger - I'am afraid you're wrong on several counts: that guidance does apply. JKPS has a demise of the whole space for school use and has a Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 protected lease until 2062 of the entire space (so its tenancy is at least a further 47 years and potentially indefinite). A free school is an academy (look at para 6 of the guidance) and a maintained school. "1. Section 77(1) of the SSFA applies to the disposal of playing fields by...the governing body of a maintained school...where, in the case of both disposals and changes of use, the playing fields are used by a maintained school (including a maintained nursery school) for the purposes of the school; or have been used by a maintained school for the purposes of a school at any time during the preceding 10 years." BOOM! Do you really think the Secretary of State will give consent to reduce the school's useable external space to 2-3 square metres per child? Moreover, should the Dulwich Estate be using its public subsidy as a charitable entity to achieve that aim?

Hi James I agree - this is still a serious and troubling issue - the potential loss of the Judith Kerr school's only playing field to luxury housing would be very detrimental to this new school and the area generally. The Southwark Plan wrongly designates it as a "development site" and DE are lobbying hard to keep it that way. Could we please see some activism in the public interest against the breathtaking arrogance of those who would take the only green play space from a state school to subsidise expensive privately educated children with enormous playing fields? cornishpasty999 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Mr Barber > > I have tried and failed on multiple occasions in > the last few weeks to reach you by both email and > mobile to continue our discussions on Judith Kerr > Primary School. > > Unfortunately you continue to respond to your > constituents on the forum, and yet choose to > ignore my messages. > > I am somewhat exasperated that as a local > resident, I have to contact you through this > public forum but it seems I have no other choice. > > > I would appreciate therefore at the very least an > acknowledgement that you will contact me, or > should I expect a call post election?

I think the inclusion of the site as a development site is based on a historic anomaly. The building was vacant for over 20 years since the James Black Institute ceased to occupy it so it was indeed a development site. Now it has been developed (as a school for 350 children) and Southwark has simply failed to update the site's status in the draft Southwark plan. My heart sinks that a Labour-led council might favour luxury houses over school playgrounds, but I hope they are just playing it by the book to avoid a legal challenge from DE when its status is changed to "school" or tge playgrounds to "open space".

If DE were a commercial entity, it might be the end of a story, but it is a charity with educational purposes with representatives of several private and state schools on its board of trustees - and yes, it can take account of its value and ethos when deciding whether to exercise its option, even if it results in a lower return.

and that's the same Charity Commission whose guidance clearly states: "Consider whether it would be in the interests of the charity to adopt an ethical approach. They might want to avoid investments that conflict in a practical way with the aims of the charity or that might alienate donors or beneficiaries, or they might want to make investments that reflect its values and ethos." and "Trustees of any charity can decide to invest ethically, even if the investment might provide a lower rate of return than an alternative investment. Ethical investment means investing in a way that reflects a charity?s values and ethos and does not run counter to its aims. However, a charity?s trustees must be able to justify why it is in the charity?s best interests to invest in this way. The law permits the following reasons: ? a particular investment conflicts with the aims of the charity; or ? the charity might lose supporters or beneficiaries if it does not invest ethically; or ? there is no significant financial detriment." ...is it? It doesn't have to develop on school playing fields, even if it can and it would be in its beneficiaries' best financial interests to do so. What do the DE's current intentions say about its values and ethos. Alleyns, Dulwich College and JAGS have representatives as trustees. What does it say about their values and ethos and their attitude towards state schools?

There is inevitably a tension with a charity pursuing commercial objectives to the detriment of other charitable bodies (CfBT is after all a charity as well). Maybe anyone who is interested could write to the chief executive and trustees of the charity or their nominating bodies (they are all listed on the DE website) and ask them to confirm that they know the school uses the space and explain their rationale as representatives of an educational charity for wanting to take it from the school and develop it as luxury housing instead.

See what I mean about obfuscation? It IS part of the school and it IS a playing field. Go and have a look if you don't believe me. From the school's website, it looks like it is subject to an option, i.e. it belongs to the school now and the school uses it, but "if the Dulwich Estate obtains planning permission for the development of housing on that part of the school site...the school will be permanently excluded from that part of the site." So, if DE decides to take the land and develop it, the school's only playing field is lost. Why doesn't the Dulwich Estate build housing on Dulwich College Land - they've got loads of playing fields and they surely wouldn't miss one?

I hadn't seen that, but it ties in with what I've heard - that it's down to the DE to decide whether to take the land away from the school (or not). The question is whether they should do so and I think anyone who doesn't have a vested interest would probably say that an educational charity ought not to be taking playing fields from schools to build luxury housing.

stephent - the school definitely uses it - there are even pictures on the website of it being used for the Summer Fair last year. There is no 2m security fence between the school and the playing fields and the school has been open for over a year, so I presume there's been a change of plan.