Judith Kerr Primary School: the Deathly Hallows of the Dulwich Estate

[Dadadada]

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.

[LD929]

I thought southwark preferred option was to designate that space as an "open space" that couldn't be developed on (NSP NOS16): http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4346/new_southwark_plan_preferred_option

DE is absolutely shameful.

[Earl Aelfheah]

LD929 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DE is absolutely shameful.

^this

[Dadadada]

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.

[James Barber]

I'd be truly agog if they gain planning permission.

I was approached by the almshouses charity as were all local councillors about this. I made it clear that I doubt any sane councillor would want to grant permission for a few almshouses over 300+ children having proper outdoor space.

What will perhaps raise the DE hopes is if the Dulwich Hamlet Football Club are given permission to build a new ground on Metropolitan Open Land. MOL has a higher preservation station than Borough Open Land.

[taper]

Come off it James. Linking this situation with Dulwich Hamlet is fighting very dirty. This issue is about a school playground. Dulwich Hamlet is about the future health of a much loved local community asset over the sanctity of a derelict astro-turf pitch.

[BrandNewGuy]

No it isn't taper. We have had no evidence that this is the only possible option for a secure future for the club. It's about building 155 flats on land which currently has a covenant binding it for sport and recreational use. And MOL is MOL whether you like it or not.

[taper]

My point is about James usurping this thread in his antipathy towards the Dulwich Hamlet development. On the thread created to discuss that development, he has made claims against the club's supporters which he has failed to back up with any evidence.

Aren't you a little perturbed at the tactics being used to oppose the development?

[BrandNewGuy]

No. I'm happy to use my own arguments, thank you. There have been exaggerations and misleading comments from those both for and against, but I'm not sure I'd grace them with the word 'tactics'.

[taper]

Well "MOL is MOL" is an impressive addition to the armoury. Doesn't quite top "3G pitches cause cancer" or Hadley arranging the Stonewall and FC Assyria games for PR purposes though.

[Loz]

James has a point, though - what use are these designations if they can be ignored at the first hurdle?

[BrandNewGuy]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well "MOL is MOL" is an impressive addition to the

> armoury. Doesn't quite top "3G pitches cause

> cancer" or Hadley arranging the Stonewall and FC

> Assyria games for PR purposes though.

With regards to MOL, you can try to point out dereliction and rubbish (both of which have occurred under DHFC's ownership), but that doesn't weaken the designation.

And I've never suggested either of the other things.

[taper]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> James has a point, though - what use are these

> designations if they can be ignored at the first

> hurdle?

No, he doesn't. The issues are entirely different. There is no proposal to build housing on Greendale.

[BrandNewGuy]

But there is a proposal to build on Green Dale.

[Loz]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > James has a point, though - what use are these

> > designations if they can be ignored at the

> first

> > hurdle?

>

> No, he doesn't. The issues are entirely

> different. There is no proposal to build housing

> on Greendale.

But there is a proposal to build. Which is what MOL designation is supposed to prevent. The fact that you support one but not the other is, legally, irrelevant.

[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.

[milk76]

No they are not different. We as a society designate certain areas as non development spaces. We may do this for differing reasons in each case but the principle is the same. There will be some who will want to erode this protection in certain spaces and for their own reasons. It might be a property developer for profit, a charity to maximise it's donations or even taper who has decided that he wants to back moving his football club.

The principle remains the same, as James Barber says. Erode the protection to one space and erode the protection for others. Set the precedent and you have opened the floodgates.

Dulwich Estates should not be able to destroy the School field and Hadley should not be able to turn two pitches and a green space into one pitch and profit.

[taper]

The designations are different and the proposed builds are different. The attempt to link them is bogus. The thin end of the wedge aa argument asinine. Modest sized and low impact in Football grounds have already been built on MOL in London

[Loz]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The designations are different and the proposed builds are different. The attempt to link them is

> bogus. The thin end of the wedge aa argument asinine. Modest sized and low impact in Football

> grounds have already been built on MOL in London

Reallly? Which ones?

MOL policy closely follows the Green Belt policy, which say that some development is allowed, such as "provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it".

I really don't think you can call a closed off private stadium "preserving the openness of the Green Belt". An open-access football playing area like Hackney Marshes would be a different matter.

[James Barber]

I've received the attache invite - which clearly I've bluntly refused - to heart about their proposals for this.

Please see attached copy of invite.

They also holding a public exhibition Wednesday 8 June 4-7.30pm & Saturday 11 june 2-4pm at The Herne Hill Methodist Church Hall.

I would encourage people to attend and give them a piece of your mind - whether for or against turning schools playing fields into housing.

[taper]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> taper Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The designations are different and the proposed

> builds are different. The attempt to link them is

> > bogus. The thin end of the wedge aa argument

> asinine. Modest sized and low impact in Football

> > grounds have already been built on MOL in

> London

>

> Reallly? Which ones?

>

> MOL policy closely follows the Green Belt policy,

> which say that some development is allowed, such

> as "provision of appropriate facilities for

> outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for

> cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness

> of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the

> purposes of including land within it".

>

> I really don't think you can call a closed off

> private stadium "preserving the openness of the

> Green Belt". An open-access football playing area

> like Hackney Marshes would be a different matter.

Bingo, I think that describes the new stadium proposal well. Moot though I agree. Let's see what Southwark make of it. Thamesmead fc, tooting and mitchams, qpr all have built similar on mol. This will be an asset for the community, well beyond what's currently there

[BrandNewGuy]

But you'll recall with Tooting and Mitcham, for instance, that there was already significant development there, unlike on Green Dale. From the planning committee's report:

"7.6 The development that has been undertaken on the land has already significantly altered its open character, which, despite its continued status as Metropolitan Land, has taken on a far more ?urbanized? character than was previously the case."

So why was it eventually approved by the Secretary of State?

"7.4 The Secretary of State approved the existing use and built development in 1997 subject to conditions and a Section 106 Obligation (ref 96/P0574). In reaching this decision, the Secretary of State placed considerable weight on the fact that if the development did not proceed the club was likely to close, which would be a significant

loss to the community. It was considered that the provision of the stadium went well beyond what was essential to outdoor sport or recreation and accordingly could not reasonably be considered as an appropriate use within MOL. Despite this it was decided that the benefits that were gained by the development in this instance outweighed the harm to the MOL."

Which is precisely why Hadley and DHFC are concentrating entirely on the completely unproved idea that DHFC would go under unless the application goes ahead. And that is what we were told with the 2003 Homebase application too, incidentally.

[Abe_froeman]

If the council are too gutless to turn this down just because they're obliged to approve another development that may or may not impact some people involved with the council, then the electorate should dismiss those councillors they feel are responsible at the first opportunity.

[taper]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But you'll recall with Tooting and Mitcham, for

> instance, that there was already significant

> development there, unlike on Green Dale. From the

> planning committee's report:

> "7.6 The development that has been undertaken on

> the land has already significantly altered its

> open character, which, despite its continued

> status as Metropolitan Land, has taken on a far

> more ?urbanized? character than was previously the

> case."

>

> So why was it eventually approved by the Secretary

> of State?

> "7.4 The Secretary of State approved the

> existing use and built development in 1997 subject

> to conditions and a Section 106 Obligation (ref

> 96/P0574). In reaching this decision, the

> Secretary of State placed considerable weight on

> the fact that if the development did not proceed

> the club was likely to close, which would be a

> significant

> loss to the community. It was considered that the

> provision of the stadium went well beyond what was

> essential to outdoor sport or recreation and

> accordingly could not reasonably be considered as

> an appropriate use within MOL. Despite this it was

> decided that the benefits that were gained by the

> development in this instance outweighed the harm

> to the MOL."

>

> Which is precisely why Hadley and DHFC are

> concentrating entirely on the completely unproved

> idea that DHFC would go under unless the

> application goes ahead. And that is what we were

> told with the 2003 Homebase application too,

> incidentally.

I know very little of that case, so thanks: that's interesting. Interesting that the SofS took into account the situation facing the club. Nothing I have heard suggests DH are in anything less of a parlous situation if this doesn't go ahead. Hadley pulled them about of a financial abyss a few years ago of course. There are other parallels there too. Greendale has been developed over the years: the astro-turf pitch, the tennis courts, the current and previous stadium on its flank, which alters the openness. Indeed the banking on Greendale is the remnants of the pre-1930s DH stadium. The Tooting stadium is pretty large, way more intrusive than what's planned for DH. I think the elements of the Dulwich Hamlet stadium to be built on MOL are 250cm high.

highIt will be for Southwark to balance the various arguments. All signs are at present they'll reject. Peter John seemed implacably opposed even when the proposal was nascent.

[Loz]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the council are too gutless to turn this down just because they're obliged to approve another

> development that may or may not impact some people involved with the council, then the electorate

> should dismiss those councillors they feel are responsible at the first opportunity.

The bravery (or otherwise) of the council is irrelevant. If they set a precedent and then go against it they will find themselves being overruled, either by the Secretary of State or the courts.