Campaign group claims Merton Council school expansion is threat to Dundonald Recreation Ground
7:50am Saturday 21st May 2011 in Where I Live By Omar Oakes
Angry: Martha Chateau (9), Anne Dawson, Lorraine Marries, Maureen Sammon and daughter
Residents have launched a campaign group in response to fears the council will build on their much-loved park and children’s playground as part of a primary school expansion plan.
The Dundonald Rec Campaign Group said it formed after not being consulted by Merton Council about an imminent redevelopment of the park’s pavilion to accommodate an extra school class for Dundonald Primary School this September.
The council had told parents last autumn the school would eventually double in size from September 2012, but the plan to include a “bulge” class this September has raised concerns that the park is under threat of being redeveloped.
To aid its attempt to protect the park, the group has revealed a covenant drawn up in 1893 between the council and brothers John and James Innes that states the land would forever be used as a public pleasure ground.
Lorraine Marries, chairman of the group, said: “There is concern the council’s planned expansion of Dundonald School will breach this restrictive covenant and that this will set a dangerous precedent.
“Once the covenant has been breached the protection will be lost forever. This is non-negotiable.”
But Councillor Andrew Judge, the council’s cabinet member for regeneration, said residents would be consulted this month and was concerned the issue was being hijacked by a “political scare campaign” by the Labour administration’s Conservative opponents.
He said: “We haven’t had the chance to consult yet because of the Easter holiday and the royal wedding, but there is no chance any public land will be redeveloped.
"It’s nonsense and there is no evidence to support the idea our efforts to provide more school places will destroy this park.”
What do you think? Leave a comment below, call 020 8722 6335 or email: ooakes@london.newsquest.co.uk.
Get all the latest Wimbledon Guardian news by:
Liking our Facebook page
Following us on Twitter...or click here to receive a daily e-mail news bulletin.
Protect Dundonald Rec says...
10:58am Sat 21 May 11
merton.gov.uk/counci
l/getinvolved/consul
tation/schoolsconsul
tations.htm) Leaflets were delivered to local households on Friday 20 May.
Regrettably Merton Council has failed to send copies of the feasibility drawings. They are available on line: http://www.merton.go
v.uk/council/getinvo
lved/consultation/du
ndonald_school_board
s_web.pdf.
Protect Dundonald Rec (a NON-POLITICAL group of concerned local residents) encourages all local residents to look carefully and critically at the Council's proposals.
The information provided is extremely sketchy. Do raise with the Council any questions/points of clarification that need to be answered in order for informed decisions to be made.
The plans will be on display at Dundonald School on Monday 23 May from 3.30pm until 7.30pm and the architects will be available to answer questions.
The restrictive covenant, and clear intention that the land should be used as a public pleasure ground, has been respected for 118 years.
Interestingly, the Council's consultation documents make NO reference to the restrictive covenant even though a Council document dated 6 December 2010 notes, "It appears likely that this covenant was intended to reflect agreement with the original transferors that the council should maintain the land as a park rather than to confer rights enforceable by adjoining landowners. However, it is possible that there may be local landowners with private law rights to oppose alternative use. Further investigation of this issue will be needed as part of the detailed work on the proposals for Dundonald."
The consultation documents pose many questions. Just a few examples include:
- Why does the consultation paper make no reference at all to the restrictive covenant? Several Council documents expressly refer to the issue.
- The document refers to "making more space available" and "considering the school and park areas more flexibly". Are these euphemisms for redesignating land currently forming part of the Rec to be used primarily for school use, thus reducing public access? Much more detail is required about the specific areas that will be used by the school, the hours when they will be available to the public (including the position during school holidays), the health and safety aspects of combined use, and whether areas used by the school will be physically divided from the rest of the Rec.
- The plan is for the current pavilion will be demolished. Would the hall available for public access during school hours have the same facilities, such as access to kitchen and toilet facilities? What would the access arrangements be outside school hours and during school holidays? Would the "public" hall also be used by the school at any time? How can it be guaranteed that the hall would remain available for public use and not subsequently withdrawn: for example on the basis that it is not being used sufficiently by the public? Has the Council given any consideration to this space being subsumed within the school at a future date? Would the rates charged for using the hall be equivalent to the current rates for the pavilion?
- Will models, elevation drawings or artist's impressions be available, so that local people can appreciate the scale of the proposed build?
- Have more detailed versions of any of the schemes been drawn up by the architects? If so, can these be made publicly available? Why is no detail provided regarding the current school configuration, to allow comparisons to be made? Will there be sufficient space for 210 additional children without using the hall designated for public daytime use?
- There is a statement that the childrens "public playground" would be at least as large as at present. Would it be open to the public at all times? Would it have the same play equipment as the current, recently-upgraded play area? For how long would play spaces be out of commission during any building works?
- Would the larger, dual-use hard court games/tennis court area be open to the public at all times?
- What are the profile details (about whether respondents are parents with a pupil at the school, a member of staff etc) to be used for? Is it intended to "weight" responses in any way? Why is it necessary to identify people "without a direct interest in the school's education" when the Consultation is expressly stated to be on the proposed permanent expansion "and impact on Dundonald Park". There are no equivalent questions about how respondents use the Rec.
We call upon local residents to review the proposals critically and carefully and to consider the potential implications, for the Rec's future, of allowing a breach of the covenant now. Once green space is lost, it is lost forever. More than ever in these economic times, we must be vigilant to protect it.