Dulwich Estate to develop housing on school playing fields

[Penguin68]

So, what I see as the story is:-

1. The school moved to the new site, knowing that the adjacent fields could be used by them as long as DE didn't want them, but that this was a 'grace and favour' option.

2. They moved, possibly hoping that DE wouldn't in fact want to use the land, or perhaps encouraged (as Mr Barber has raised), that the council which could change the status of the land, would change that status to education purposes only - I am not sure of the timing of all this, but I assume that it is very possible that their move happened when a different regime was in control of the council.

3. In fact, the gamble that they took (that they would have ad lib use of the land which stood outside their agreement with DE) hasn't paid off, and the Estate does want to use the land which is theirs and isn't (and never was) part of the school.

4. Although there can be arguments about land usage and 'custom and practice', the amount of lapsed time when the school has been using the land (which isn't and never was theirs) for sports purposes is in no way long enough for such an argument to be made.

The title of this thread is misleading - the land was not 'school playing fields' but unused land which the DE allowed the school to use until it was needed, and never formed part of the curtilage of the school.

What must be a concern is if the school made any 'informed' assumptions about either their long term access to the land, or of any possible change of council denomination of the land usage based on third party advice, rather than their own judgement and risk analysis.

[Chief Jeff]

.

[DadOf4]

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.

Last year (as per previous years) it gave 85% of its income to JAGS,Alleyns & Dulwich College.

3 of the best equipped schools in London

The remaining 15% was split between the chapel, the almshouses and a number of state schools

(http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1396133,1396133#msg-1396133)

[zamboo]

Those claiming here that the grassy space to the East of the Judith Kerr Primary school building is not 'part of the school' are in error, or have been misinformed. CfBT Trust (for Judith Kerr Primary School) took over the lease on the entire grounds from Kings College in mid 2013, including the grassy area. The original classification for the whole site was 'Research', and earlier this year the site, excluding the grassy area, was reclassified as 'Educational'. The grassy space is still part of the school, and is still part of the leased site, but with a different classification ('Research').

Dulwich Estate, as mentioned, has an 'option' on this area, which was part of the original deal when the lease was handed over from Kings College. They do not have an automatic right to the land. It is currently part of the school, by lease, and is currently being used by the school.

The CfBT Trust cannot, under contract, obstruct Dulwich Estate's pursuit of developing the land. Under the same clause Dulwich Estate cannot, on the other hand, unreasonably withhold permission for the school to use it.

It is not a 'cut and dried' case of entitlement on either side. However, one thing that needs to be made clear is that the area in question is currently part of Judith Kerr Primary School, and that there is no automatic reversion to Dulwich Estate. It is used as a playground, among several other things, and any claim that it is currently not in use is false.

[Dadadada]

There is inevitably a tension with a charity pursuing commercial objectives to the detriment of other charitable bodies (CfBT is after all a charity as well).

Maybe anyone who is interested could write to the chief executive and trustees of the charity or their nominating bodies (they are all listed on the DE website) and ask them to confirm that they know the school uses the space and explain their rationale as representatives of an educational charity for wanting to take it from the school and develop it as luxury housing instead.

[DaveR]

"It is not a 'cut and dried' case of entitlement on either side. However, one thing that needs to be made clear is that the area in question is currently part of Judith Kerr Primary School, and that there is no automatic reversion to Dulwich Estate."

If the earlier post as to the precise terms of the current lease is correct, then it is cut and dried - the Estate is entitled in the specified circumstances to require that lease to be surrendered and a new lease granted excluding the area currently used as playing fields. It's not a case of reversion, which occurs at the end of a lease.

[Dadadada]

If DE were a commercial entity, it might be the end of a story, but it is a charity with educational purposes with representatives of several private and state schools on its board of trustees - and yes, it can take account of its value and ethos when deciding whether to exercise its option, even if it results in a lower return.

[zamboo]

'If the earlier post as to the precise terms of the current lease is correct, then it is cut and dried - the Estate is entitled in the specified circumstances to require that lease to be surrendered and a new lease granted excluding the area currently used as playing fields. It's not a case of reversion, which occurs at the end of a lease.'

The CfBT only have to surrender the lease if Dulwich Estate is granted planning permission for a residential scheme by Southwark Council. It isn't a case of Dulwich Estate 'requiring the lease to be surrendered'. They do not have an automatic right to use the land. They have the right to apply to use it. If planning permission is granted by Southwark council, then yes the lease will have to be surrendered and a new one will be drawn up. However, as planning permission has not been granted (or an application made), Dulwich Estate are not currently in a position to to require the lease to be surrendered.

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here, but this does not sound 'cut and dried' to me.

[DaveR]

The 'entitlement' is cut and dried in the sense that it is set out in the terms of the lease. Whether or not planning permission is granted is another matter.

[zamboo]

DaveR, I was using the word 'entitlement' in a general, rather than legal sense, and in response to some of the other posts here. The word is not used in the lease itself as a legal term, and indeed we do not have a copy of 'the terms of the lease' here to refer to anyway, aside from the tiny quote already mentioned from the school website, so quibbling over legal semantics is fundamentally pointless.

I think we agree that the only thing Dulwich Estate has a legal right to do at this point is to apply for residential planning permission. As you say, whether or not it is granted is another matter.

The argument for and against their moral entitlement to take this action is quite different, and I think more in line with the original post from Dadadada. There appears to be a number of misconceptions about the situation regarding the school's access to, lease and use of the land in question, which is why I added my post to the topic.

[DulvilleRes]

'Maybe anyone who is interested could write to the chief executive and trustees of the charity or their nominating bodies (they are all listed on the DE website) and ask them to confirm that they know the school uses the space and explain their rationale as representatives of an educational charity for wanting to take it from the school and develop it as luxury housing instead'

I think it is a great idea to write to the Estate, as the rely on a general ' they might do the odd thing wrong, but isn't Dulwich pretty' inertia to push through their various dubious enterprises, so being confronted with objections might give them pause for thought. However, don't expect an answer - they've certainly never got back to me about anything contentious.