Save Judith Kerr Primary School's only playing field from being developed

[Dadadada]

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)

[clockworkorange]

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!

[BlueOrchid]

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!

[henryb]

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].