Dulwich Estate to develop housing on school playing fields

[Dadadada]

I hear via the grapevine that Dulwich Estate have instructed architects to design the proposed luxury housing on the Judith Kerr Primary School playing fields. This means that they are gearing-up to apply for planning and to exercise their option to take it off the school. Rather disappointingly, DE are disseminating the misinformation that the school don't use their playing fields. And as we're close to pantomime season, I can only say "oh yes they do!" They use it every school day for playtime and PE! Can anyone - councillors, MPs, good people of Dulwich - convince the Dulwich Estate that as an educational charity it needs to have a chance of heart?

[stephent]

The boundaries of the school are very well laid out and there are no playing fields to speak of, so not quite sure what space they're planning on developing?

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/DocsOnline/Documents/360196_1.pdf

[James Barber]

I have asked Southwark Labour to desingate that space for educational purposes in the new Sotuhwark Plan.

They have not deigned to respond to my numerous requests. They would appear happy with this situation.

[nxjen]

..

[Dadadada]

stephent - the boundaries of the school are the entire site and there are very definitely playing fields within the grounds (albeit not formally laid out sports pitches). The plan to which you linked is part of a planning application for the development of the school building and hard-standing areas only - the red line does not outline the entire site (I am assuming the school didn't need planning permission to mow grass and let children play on it).

DE is trying to obfuscate and misinform that the large grassy areas in the Eastern part of the school site and gardens are not part of the school (which is not true). Another example of the Dulwich Estate failing to rise to the challenge to do the right thing.

[intexasatthe moment]

James "They have not deigned to respond to my numerous requests."

so annoying when people ignore repeated requests ,isn't it ?

[stephent]

The red line designates a 2m high security fence, so I assumed that did set the border of the school site? I haven't seen their contract with the Estate so honestly couldn't say...

[Dadadada]

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.

[stephent]

Yes you're right - I just looked on the school website and saw this, so looks like this housing was always part of the plan...

The grassy area on the Eastern side of the school (comprising the playing field, the ?Secret Garden?, the raised beds and the outdoor classroom) is ?under option? to the school?s landlord, the Dulwich Estate. In very broad outline, under the terms of that option, if the Dulwich Estate obtains planning permission for the development of housing on that part of the school site before 19 December 2018, then the school?s existing lease will be surrendered and a new lease granted of a longer term, but of a site which excludes all of the grassed area (the playing fields on the Eastern part of the site) and the school will be permanently excluded from that part of the site.

[Dadadada]

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.

[Andrew1011]

James, could you be more specific about the space you're referring to? And, is it currently part of the Judith Kerr primary free school and already a playing field?

[James Barber]

Hi Andrew1011,

The land is the space to the east that isn;t yet part of the JKPS but should be.

Dulwich Estate is working to see the land to maximise the profits it makes to maximise the subsidies to the private schools it supports. Morally repugnant.

[Andrew1011]

Hi James,

And the part of my question which you didn't answer, is the land you're referring to already a playing field?

[stephent]

The Dulwich Estate doesn't make any profits (it's a charity), and it supports a church, alms houses and 4 state schools alongside the 3 private.

Surely it's also immoral to sign a lease in full knowledge of the facts (and with clauses that address this), then complain vociferously about about the bits you don't like?

It sounds like the main problem is that the govt isn't funding any of these new free schools (inc the hospital site) with a sufficient amount of money to have any playing fields.

[edhistory]

stephent Wrote:

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

> The Dulwich Estate doesn't make any profits (it's

> a charity), and it supports a church, alms houses

> and 4 state schools alongside the 3 private.

Which are the 4 state schools?

[tiddles]

And the large amount of revenue it takes (if not to call it profit) is given to the private schools - alleys, jags etc.

There was another long thread about this very thing somewhere on the EDF

[stephent]

2 St Olaves schools in southwark and in Orpington, and 2 Central Foundation schools in East London.

[James Barber]

Hi Stephent,

The Dulwich Estate refused to agree the playing fields to be included in any lease for the buildings. Better a school than no school but outrageous perspective on fulfilling the founders intent.

They put a clause in the lease banning the school from talking about this fact. A gagging order.

The majority of its funds subsidise private schools. In this case at the expense of virtually no outdoor space for state school children.

How can you defend any of their behaviour over this?

I can;t imagine any parents of kids at those private schools feeling anything other than queasy about this - hence the gagging order.

[stephent]

If they even refused to consider allowing that space to be included in the lease then I think that's unfair. The school should have been offered the chance to take it. Is there any chance of using the space in The Griffin?

I'm not trying to defend the estate - they certainly don't donate anything to me - but what I disagree with is attacking any instition for simply acting within its remit, especially when acting outside that is legally dubious. The estate does a pretty good job at doing what it's supposed to do - looking after the named beneficiaries.

I still think funding is an issue though - the hospital site is a prize opportunity for a well laid out school, but I doubt we'll end up with much outdoor space there either.

[James Barber]

That is what I understand to have happened.

The DE land is almost all universally in conservation areas. So huge duplication of intent and actions with Southwark Council. Shame they can't end the duplication.

The DE does appear to operate a second Council Tax system with no discernible benefits - because almost all the land is in conservation ares severely limiting what residents etc can do.

I also share your concerns about the Dulwich Hospital site and any school. Southwark Council have just issued a new document where they could have removed their plans for the site from 2005 which include lots of housing. Very fishy.

[stephent]

I agree there do seem a few areas of overlap - if the council paid a 'fair value' to the estate then it would seem that both parties could benefit. As the church has a spot on the board I'd hope DE is acting for genuine long term financial planning reasons rather than an lack of morality though. :)

[Andrew1011]

Hi James,

You appear to have forgotten to answer my question about whether the land you're referring to is already a playing field.

[James Barber]

Hi Andrew1011,

The land being referenced was part of the Kings College Botany centre. The main building has been leased after fierce negotiationsa with the Educational Finance Agency for the JKPS. The remainder of the site - open space - the DE kept back for housing.

So far the Labour cabinet member has refused to denote this land for educational purposes under the new Southwark Plan.

[Andrew1011]

Hi James,

So actually the answer to my question: And, is it currently part of the Judith Kerr Primary Free School and already a playing field?, is clearly no.

Consequently, the title of this thread, 'Dulwich Estate to develop housing on school playing fields', is incorrect and therefore gives a misleading impression that you hadn't attempted to correct.

For the purposes of transparency, is it the case that you were directly involved in persuading the Judith Kerr Primary (bilingual) Free School to come to the site it now occupies?

Either way, as you appear to be advocating on their behalf, could you just clarify for us what the catchment area of the school is; the children on its role and how many of those live in the Dulwich area?

[Dadadada]

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?