Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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)

Rather than bashing planning system, where your comments are entirely wrong and misinformed, why don't you instruct a planning consultant to object to any formal planning application. I am certain they'd find you factual arguments rather than those based on morality.


You would be better of finding out who is on the planning committee and who the relevant councillor is and mp, then lobbying them. This application will not be determined by "the planners". In my view, the loss of playing fields at a time that the efa is desperately trying to find/fund sites to support the growing numbers of school places amounts to a material consideration that would have weight.


As for the legal stuff, ill leave that to the lawyers on this forum. Suggest you instruct one them too!

  • 3 weeks later...

Signed - kids need their playing space.


The estate represents private schools with acres of land but cannot leave this tiny plot for the use of this state school?

It is horrid.

If they need the cash so badly I am sure Dulwich College won't miss part of one of its many large fields!

Found this on specialist planning law Solicitor's blog. Certainly sounds like there are reasonable grounds for objection.


http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/how-to-object.html


To summarise, the following are the grounds on which planning permission is most likely to be refused (although this list is not intended to be definitive) :


? Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [*but note that this does not include noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will not be taken into account]

? Unacceptably high density / overdevelopment of the site, especially if it involves loss of garden land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called ?garden grabbing?)

? Visual impact of the development

? Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood

? Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application)

? The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity

? The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners

? [if in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area]

? [if near a Listed Building, adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Building.]

? The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users [but only if there is technical evidence to back up such a claim].

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...