Save Judith Kerr Primary School's only playing field from being developed

[legalalien]

Hands up, I trained as a lawyer, so moral arguments hold little sway (hard cases make bad law). It seems to me that the school was probably told that it could use the land as a playing field on a very temporary basis pending the estate sorting out the planning permission for development, but that's not the message that the school has passed on to prospective parents, who are now unsurprisingly severely unimpressed. If that is the case (and I don't know the ins and outs) then I would be pretty angry at the school if I were an existing parent. I know many people think the trustees of the Dulwich estate should act differently on "moral grounds", but tbh trust law is one of the least flexible areas of the law - it isn't warm and fuzzy, and any trustee acting outside the strict terms of the trust could find themselves personally liable for unauthorised expenditure. I know people think of charities as warm and fuzzy but trust law just ain't.

[ianr]

Why wasn't the playing field area included in the successful application for change of use, from B1 (research) to D1, last year? http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=14/AP/1426&system=DC

[Southern comfort]

I have signed as whatever the legal rights or wrongs if there is any possibility of influencing whether this space is not developed that seems worthwhile. I don't think present and future children of the school should be penalised for any error the school made and nor do I see that trustees would be acting against the interests of the beneficiaries and terms of the trust if their hands are tied?

[Vick]

landsberger Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > What about the moral argument?

>

> Morality doesn't come into planning consent,

> sadly. Just cold, hard cash. And Councils have so

> little leeway these days, it's as if there's no

> need for consent at all.

I wasn't suggesting morality comes into the planning decision, I meant what about the moral position of a registered educational charity? I think the Dulwich Estate should reflect on their moral and social obligations, not just their legal nes.

[mikeb]

Perhaps the arguments should be put directly to the trustees of the charity? e.g. the nominee of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

[landsberger]

henryb Wrote:

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

> I don't see how the land being correctly

> registered is denying Dulwich Estate?s legal

> rights in anyway. They can still apply for

> planning permission however it is registered.

>

> Even so as the land is currently being used as a

> playing field and leased by the school I would

> have thought any planning application would have

> to involve Sports England and the Secretary of

> State.

This would apply if it were a permanent arrangement, but it's a short term lease. Guidance here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406552/Advice_on_the_Protection_of_School_Playing_Fields_and_Public_Land_-_November_2014.pdf

page 5

"where a local authority makes playing field land available to an academy via a leasehold agreement, subsections (1) and (3) continue to apply to that land for a period of 10 years since the land was last used by a maintained school (usually

the date on which the school converted to academy status). Beyond 10 years, the protections on public land contained in Schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010 continue to apply"

It's not a local authority school, for one.

[Matsikula]

legalalien, I think you need some informing over the facts.

As a JKPS parent I can assure you that the school was absolutely clear about the status of the field. Moreover it is NOT getting involved in the planning process in any way.

Parents, local residents and other interested parties are perfectly entitled to lobby the council against granting planning permission. There are numerous reasons why the Council should not grant it, not solely relating to the school's use of the field.

As for the trustees, the law allows them to decide that a certain course of action, while it may be financially advantageous, does not 'fit with the ethos of the charity'.

[landsberger]

I think part of the problem seems to be that, in the present Southwark plan (drawn up before the school opened or moved there), the land concerned was identified as an area that could be built on. When the new plan is drawn up this year, naturally people can lobby for this to change.

[Sqiggles]

I agree with landsberger and legalalien.

When the land was leased to the school everyone knew that the field was only available to the school unless and until planning permission was granted. It would be disingenuous for the school to now campaign against planning permission. And surely it was better that the lease was granted to the school on this basis than not at all?

I am all in favour of preserving playing fields, and other green spaces, but we also have a severe housing shortage in London and they are not that many sites like this that could easily built on. it is a difficult balance, but given the background I can see that the LA may well conclude that the lnad is best used for more housing. The playing field policy was intended to prevent schools selling off land they owned, not to force landowners to lease land to schools.

Some of the other points in the petition - traffic issues etc - are all matters that will be considered in the usual way by the LA.

[monica]

Signed, What really angers me, is that Southwark have the highest rate of obesity in School Children, yet they are selling of the green spaces. I know this is down to those money hungry $$$$oles at Dulwich Estates, however Southwark do need to get a grip, at what point, will they see the point of their stupid mindless actions.

[first mate]

squiggles,

Little point in new housing if the families contained within them have no schools where children can play. Increase housing and you increase demand for the things most families need, there has to be balance.

[Mugglesworth]

Rather mystified by the legalistic attitude of "A contract is a contract, you know" being taken by some posters. I would imagine that everyone is aware that Dulwich Estates is acting within its legal rights. The reason I signed the petition is dismay that exercising those rights will lead to children being deprived of open space that they currently enjoy and the hope that the greater good might prevail over commercial gain.

[Matsikula]

Squiggles - you might have missed my point earlier that the school is absolutely not campaigning against planning permission. Parents and locals are, as indeed they are entitled to do.

The Dulwich Estate clearly saw the denial of planning permission as a distinct possibility. As I understand it the contract gives them a 5 year window to get permission.

Personally I think the access issue is a massive problem. Apparently the only way they could get vehicle access to the site is by putting an entrance in right after the bend / junction in Half Moon Lane. If you ever use that stretch of road at school run time when the traffic is busiest, you'd see that that is a crazy idea.

[LumpenProle]

Sqiggles Wrote:

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

> I agree with landsberger and legalalien.

>

> When the land was leased to the school everyone

> knew that the field was only available to the

> school unless and until planning permission was

> granted. It would be disingenuous for the school

> to now campaign against planning permission. And

> surely it was better that the lease was granted to

> the school on this basis than not at all?

>

> I am all in favour of preserving playing fields,

> and other green spaces, but we also have a severe

> housing shortage in London and they are not that

> many sites like this that could easily built on.

> it is a difficult balance, but given the

> background I can see that the LA may well conclude

> that the lnad is best used for more housing. The

> playing field policy was intended to prevent

> schools selling off land they owned, not to force

> landowners to lease land to schools.

>

> Some of the other points in the petition - traffic

> issues etc - are all matters that will be

> considered in the usual way by the LA.

Are you employed by DE by any chance?

I think we should know who pays this piper!

I signed. My child goes to the school.

[monica]

First Mate, I assume you have been to the Elephant and Castle recently? The estate sitting there empty for years, while housing crisis was going, then the sale of local authority housing to private landlords, making a quick buck. And where are we yet again, another housing crisis, so sell of green spaces, to create more living spaces. And the eternal cycle of money grabbing councils goes on. And no doubt we will be having this conversation in another 7 years. We need to break this cycle, how??? lets see if someone can come up with something different, without selling off playing fields, we need for our children!!!!

Edited wrong word used

[James Barber]

It's a moral argument. Should a charity who beneficeries are almost totally local private schools screw a state funded school and remove its playing field. Edward Alleyn would turn in his grave that his legacy is reduced to this sordid behaviour.

What the Dulwich Eatate should be doing is seeking to broaden its charitable aims to local Dulwich schools of all types.

[SUT]

Is this appropriate language for a parliamentary candidate?

[Dadadada]

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?

[Dadadada]

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.

[hpsaucey]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> It's a moral argument. Should a charity who

> beneficeries are almost totally local private

> schools screw a state funded school and remove its

> playing field. Edward Alleyn would turn in his

> grave that his legacy is reduced to this sordid

> behaviour.

>

> What the Dulwich Eatate should be doing is seeking

> to broaden its charitable aims to local Dulwich

> schools of all types.

Hear hear! Nicely put and succinct!

[dulwichgooner]

Is JKPS a state school or a state funded free school. I just wondered ?

[tiddles]

hear hear James

[ainash]

Good morning! I am a new parent at JK joining reception this year. During the last political debate in Dulwich, I've asked Helen Hayes whether she would support JK and she promised to help and proposed a plan of action. A practical question - how to follow up on that? I wonder also who is leading the efforts on behalf of the school/parents? I will be happy to help!

[landsberger]

It's a state funded free school. The complicating factor here is that 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).

[landsberger]

Dadadada Wrote:

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

> 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

Including the playing fields ? Isn't this actually a separately concluded lease, as I recall.

>(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.

Don't disagree with that, but fairly sure the lease didn't cover the area you are talking about.

> "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!

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 ?

> 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?

It's happened elsewhere. As I am sure you are aware BB98 and 99 do not apply to academies or free schools.

> Moreover, should the Dulwich Estate be using its

> public subsidy as a charitable entity to achieve

> that aim?

Who knows ?