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

    • Well yes.  But only up to a point eu countries have had to spend a LOT of money to accommodate English madness  - and has had to deal with years of incoherent positioning.  It has destabilised the EU as a group - or has at the very least distracted it and consumed bandwidth  which is why Putin was so pro-Brexit. Which enabled other subsequent events - it’s hard to imagine the world as it is now without Brexit.  A stronger EU.  Uk not a mess and in its own after multiple elections and way more prime ministers than 9 years could possibly allow   a stronger united front 
    • I have mail delivered for a Ms L Missen, would like to give it to them.
    • I might be able to help - text me and I will send you some details 07972 368 261
    • Yeah but I suppose the issue is that Brexit/Truss moment destabilised our economy and Trump's Truss moment is destabilising every economy globally and rocking the very foundation of global trading. Our stupid moments were just our stupid moments - Trump's stupid moment is everyone's stupid moment. The fact that people have been getting out of gold as well as stocks speaks volumes - gold is normally the safe-haven investors head for but lots are just cashing out completely.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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