Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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?

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?

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

    • Since you’re clearly not experiencing what we are I’m not sure I agree with any of your points. I also asked for anyone else having a similar problem… it’s absolutely fine if you’re not but I’d appreciate less of the “go live your life”. There is no need to comment with that tone, it doesn’t provide us with any help for the matter. Nor is it polite. We’re a very kind family simply not wanting damage and don’t find the actions necessary. It’s been the same driver/delivery for a while and this never used to happen. I wouldn’t post this on the forum if it wasn’t getting so frustrating. Again, the kids and myself have kindly asked for this to stop a few times with no success. We all work hard for our living and would never want (nor are we trying) to rid someone of their livelihood. But similarly, I don’t find it fair. Please feel free to PM me if anyone has any advise or shares the same.  
    • And now we have the worst labour government in many many decades who by moving to your position on the right are ushering in a far right reform government. Well done you.
    • You implied he did a good job in your first paragraph when you said you would have hated to see Corbyn lead the country through Covid - the alternative being Johnson, presumably? With the results we all saw. Unite - you have a problem with unions? Who work hard to see that their members get a fair deal in their workplace? How exactly are these people and groups "all as bad as each other"? In what way? Labour "purging their party of the far-left" has given us a weak prime minister who has apparently deserted any "left" (aka caring for other people and having decent moral principles) leanings he ever had. Which is why people appear to be leaving Labour in droves and voting, or intending to vote, Green or Lib Dem or for an independent Left candidate. Starmer has shot himself in the foot, in my opinion. But what would I know. What worked?! I don't know enough about what you are talking about to comment, but "believing" you know the reason someone did something does not make it true. I don't believe that Corbyn ever got "starstruck" or "forgot about his politics", but if you can provide evidence that those things are true, then fair enough. I don't think you can, though.
    • I think you need to get a grip If it's who I am thinking of, she's a young black girl in her twenties, has braids with bright colours through them and - I suspect - works with her father. It's always the same man behind the wheel and he's older than her, always in the same van, so I'm assuming it's a father-daughter combo which, if it is, I think is rather sweet.  They hustle hard in a job that is poorly paid, has little prospects, is relentless and thankless. The fact that they have stuck it out since the pandemic says a lot about them.  I think she's a lovely girl, who's perhaps a little shy - but she'll smile or chat back if you make the effort with her. And I admire her for sticking with that job for so long. Perhaps she's just one of these people who's naturally a bit clumsy or bashes things, the same way some people are heavy on their feet when they walk. But I wouldn't dream of jeopardising her job because she closes the slams the gate and doesn't 'kiss' the ring doorbell with her fingers.  Perhaps she's being passive aggressive because you are. And perhaps she also wishes she got to spend her time worrying about potential damage to her letterbox or her gate.  As for your gate / letterbox - you're talking about hypotheticals. Has there been any damage? No. Then go and live your life and worry about it when it happens.  (apols we have the wrong person, but some of my points still stand). 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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