Save Grays School

Final email to Roxanne Baldwin (for now! :-))

Announcement No. 7

Dear Roxanne,

As this is the final day of the rather flawed initial consultation period regarding Grays School, please note that, at the time of writing, some 200 people have expressed their opposition to ESCC's attempt to re-classify the 'playing fields' and, subsequently, 'dispose of' the site...191 via the e-petition at www.petitions24.com/save_grays_school (some of who's disparaging comments on ESCC you may wish to read and take on board) and nine on old-fashioned paper (jpeg attached).

Also attached FYI, an approximate representation of the part of the site that would be able to be developed for housing under the terms of the existing restrictive covenants in the land deeds, which ESCC agreed to respect when it acquired the site via compulsory purchase in 1964/5.

These preclude building less than 20 yards from the boundaries North, East and South and 15 yards West. This reduces the developable area to approximately 33% of the overall site though, as the main protected tree (a very substantial Wych Elm) is within this area, it is realistically more like 25% of the overall acreage and would, clearly, necessitate the demolition of the school buildings.

At the end of the day, it beggars belief that a county council, with the 4th worst primary provision in the country, is wasting millions of pounds to provide what they already know will be inadequate primary provision for Meeching and Newhaven whilst seeking to 'dispose of' a perfectly good, viable, purpose-built, multi-million pound educational asset, probably at a knockdown price.

It is, frankly, disgraceful bordering on criminal.

Yours sincerely,

Doug Johnson

Approximate Area Not Effected By Boundary Restrictions

Announcement No. 6

Building in the red area should be restricted by covenants in the land deeds.

Reply to ESCC's Roxanne Baldwin

Announcement No. 5

Dear Roxanne,

Thank you for your acknowledgement of receipt and reply to my submission.

I fully appreciate your first point that, at this time, this is supposedly a consultation about ‘playing fields’ at the site, though, as my submission makes clear, there is substantial confusion in your various texts as to whether we are talking about green/grass/informal areas and/or tarmac/hard areas[1].

Unfortunately, as ever, things are never as simple as that…

For instance, I may wish to suggest that one way to alleviate the already over-crowded facilities at the ‘new’ Harbour Primary school and to provide much-needed, extra, local nursery places would be to re-develop the Grays site as the Harbour nursery school, so that the part of Harbour Primary currently used for that purpose is freed up. Until a decision is made in this respect, I would, consequently, have to adamantly object to any change in their current ‘playing area’ status as they would provide a valuable resource for such a nursery.

Similarly, many signatories to our petition at www.petitions24.com/save_grays_school have suggested the best use for the site would be to create enhanced, local SEN provision. Again, until a decision is made in that respect, we would also have to adamantly object to any change in their current ‘playing area’ status for reasons comparable to the above; etc; etc.

We appear to have a classic chicken and egg situation here.

Until a decision has been made about the future use of the Grays site, neither we nor ESCC can legitimately be asked to comment on the appropriateness of their re-classification.

However, ESCC’s clear determination to proceed with this re-classification suggests that such a decision has, in fact, already been made…albeit implicitly. Indeed, there is no sense in ESCC proceeding with steps that undermine several possible future uses of the site whilst asserting that no decision has been taken about its future use.

So, why not stop this process now, consult widely and publicly about Grays overall future and then, if it is not longer to be a school or similar (with ‘playing areas’), then have them re-classified?

Why the rush unless, of course, you wish to sell them off quickly and cheaply?

Secondly, the confusion over the allocation of any potential monies coming from the disposal of the site continues to grow.

Your consultation posters[2] state: “The sale proceeds attributable from the school playing field (sic) will be used to fund the enhancement facilities at Maintained schools” but what facilities and at which schools? Give us a clue, are they at least in Newhaven?

In contrast, the ESCC Report to the Lead Cabinet Member for Resources states their intension of: “Declaring this land surplus to the Council’s requirements and selling on the open market will generate a significant capital receipt and contribute towards funding of the County Council’s capital programme.” In other words, into the council’s general coffers for any non-operational expenditure of any sort, anywhere in the county.

However, nowhere is there any mention of the proceeds being used, as detailed in Section 77, to: “primarily and effectively…provide or enhance modern sporting facilities…to support the development and improvement of sporting and play provision for the benefit of schools and their local communities, and to provide wider access to these facilities”.

So, once more, those you are asking to consult are not being given the whole set of facts on which to base their consultation. Alternative uses for the site are one consideration but where any derivative proceeds will go and for what purpose is similarly important. And, of course, any such provision must clearly be seen as both enhancing and in addition to any capital funding ESCC might have spent locally (i.e. in Newhaven Meeching) in any event.

Finally, ESCC have part-defended their position in various local newspapers recently by stating that: “it was acquired by a compulsory purchase order in 1964” and that: “The land is not subject to restrictive covenants requiring the continued use of the site for educational purposes”.

Well, yes, ESCC did compulsorily purchase the Grays site in 1964. However, this would not appear to allow them to do with it as they please.

In fact, page 3 of the 1965 Deeds of Conveyance would appear to bind them to the original restrictive covenants which are also detailed in the Land Deeds [ESX:287436].

Admittedly, they don't say it has to be used for educational purposes but they do say:
 
1) that only a pair of houses can be built there - the existing caretaker's house presumably being one of them;
2) that any houses built can't have windows or doors overlooking the centre of the site;
3) that any houses built must be 15 to 20 yards away from the outer boundaries (depending on cardinal direction) and;
4) that occupants can't put their smalls out to dry!

...so, if they not only have to conform to this but also have to fit any development around 34 protected trees, how on earth do ESCC think they’ll be able to make ‘a significant capital receipt’ for it if sold for housing?

Whether there's a will or some other agreement regarding its sole use for education or the young people of Newhaven out there, we don't know...we’re still looking....

Yours sincerely,

Doug Johnson

3, Western Road

Newhaven

BN9 9JS

Reply from ESCC's Roxanne Baldwin

Announcement No. 4

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your email, the contents of which I can confirm I have read.

In response to your points raised;

This is not a consultation regarding the selling or disposal of the land. Any use that is not considered under ‘school playing fields used by schools’ has to be declared as a change of use to the Education Secretary of State. The current consultation process is to establish whether any local schools with insufficient playing field space can continue to use the land as school playing fields.

Unfortunately the date is a typo on the notices around the site. The correct date is December 12^th and I apologise for the confusion this has caused.

Local schools are the main focal point of this consultation because of the potential continued use of the site. The consultation is sent out to teachers and governors of local school sites to establish whether a need of the site to remain as a ‘school playing field’. We put out additional adverts advising the consultation process so that any ideas requiring the use as is can be heard.

The section 77 process, as mentioned above, is needed to establish any change of use for the school playing fields. This does not mean the site is being split up or indicate any immediate plans of the future use of the site. This is not a consultation process regarding any future plans or development of this site.

Please find attached a copy of the letters that was hand delivered to The Harbour Primary School on Monday 3^rd November and which was confirmed to had been distributed amongst every pupil for their parents information by The Harbour Primary School.

Please find enclosed a copy of the notice regarding the consultation process which was published in The Sussex Express on Friday 7^th November.

The notice is placed on the fence around the site as part of the requirements of the section 77 process.

There will be future consultations regarding the overall site once a decision has been made to any potential use of the site and this will involve the local residents from the outset.  

Section 77 Consultation -  The Protection of  School Playing Fields and Land for Academies July 2007

The aim of this legislation is that where a school playing field disposal takes place, any proceeds realised are used primarily and effectively to provide or enhance modern sporting facilities. These measures are designed to meet the Government’s intention to support the development and improvement of sporting and play provision for the benefit of schools and their local communities, and to provide wider access to these facilities.  This process governs disposal of school play areas. There are strict guidelines governing this process.

I have taken note of your comments and these will be reviewed once the consultation period has ended.

I hope I have helped clarify some of the questions raised.

Kind regards, Roxanne

Evening Argus

Announcement No. 3

The letter below appeared in The Evening Argus today (Thursday 27/11/14 Page 10) and is on the Argus website at:

theargus.co.uk/opinion/letters

If you haven't already, you might also want to read the full submission I sent to Roxanne Baldwin at ESCC (Announcement No. 1 below).

Finally, apologies for the tardiness of Announcement No. 2, I sent it Tuesday afternoon (25/11/14), as soon as The Sussex Express had been in touch, but it didn't arrive in all our inboxes till Thursday morning...after the event! :-(

“Don't sell off school site

The Grays School site on Western Road, Newhaven is a viable, purpose-built school in the Meeching area with fully-functioning buildings, and grounds containing play areas and 34 protected trees.

Despite this, East Sussex County Council want to declare the land and buildings surplus to requirements. And that “Selling on the open market will generate a significant capital receipt and contribute towards funding of the County Council’s capital programme”.

They want to do it “for the best price reasonably obtainable”.

In other words, they want to bulldoze the site and sell it off for housing as quickly and cheaply as possible, depriving Newhaven of a valuable asset and yet want to put all the proceeds in the general coffers of the council, not back into the local community. They do this at a time when, by their own figures, Newhaven will have a two form primary provision shortfall from 2015 onwards.

Meanwhile, Meeching residents already have their children taught in temporary classrooms and use shared toilet facilities at Harbour Primary (much to the dismay of local residents and many parents) to get ESCC through this ‘short-term bulge’ in numbers.

This is complete madness!

It is clear that ESCC has a new plan for education both in Newhaven and throughout the county – by stealth, to close down intimate, caring, primary schools (which are relatively small and, therefore, less efficient) and replace them with new super-primaries (like that currently shoe-horned into the Habour Primary site) or to annexe existing secondary schools (as is happening at Seahaven Academy).

And then, of course, to sell off the former sites for highly profitable housing development.

If you want them to get away with this, forcing you to send your children to ever larger and more distant primaries then do nothing.

If you are concerned that this sets a disastrous precedent call ESCC’s Roxanne Baldwin (01273 336975) before December 5 to express your views directly or join the e-petition at: petitions24.com/ save_grays_school

Doug Johnson, Western Road, Newhaven”

Sussex Express Photoshoot Weds 26/11/14 2pm Outside Grays School

Announcement No. 2

Sussex Express have emailed to say they are currently writing a piece on the sale of the school site for this week's issue and would like to include a photo of any/everyone opposed to this. I have suggested meeting up outside the school at 2pm for 2.15pm tomorrow Weds 26th. If you can make this, that would be great. I'll try to confirm the timings and let you know a.s.a.p. but assume them as correct otherwise. Many thanks. Doug

Consultation Submission Sent To Roxanne Baldwin at ESCC

 Announcement No. 1

Consultation On The Proposed Sale Of

The Grays School Site In Newhaven

Problems With The Consultation Process

1. There is some confusion about the consultation period – the posters on the school fence state: “by 5^th December 2014” whilst the ESCC website states the consultation: “is open…from 24 Oct to 12 Dec 2014”. Which is it?

2. The website, equally confusingly, in its Overview states: “The playing fields (sic) at the former Western Road site of Harbour Primary School, Western Road, Newhaven are now surplus to requirements and we would like to dispose of them.” whilst in the consultation posters it states: “The school site does not have a green playing field area”.

   Meanwhile, in the specifics of the Why We Are Consulting section, it states: “The school hard playing areas at the former Western Road site of Harbour Primary School is no longer needed for school playing area purposes.”

   From aerial photos and even from the plan supplied on the website, it appears that the school has both green (or ‘informal’ areas totaling 4,545m²) and tarmac (or ‘hard playing’ areas totaling 1,164m²)…so, again, on what are we being asked to consult?

3. However, in the Report to the Lead Cabinet Member for Resources, it clearly states the council’s wish to: “Declare the land and buildings comprising the former Grays Infant School, Newhaven surplus to the County Council’s requirements”.

   In other words, the consultation website disingenuously only addresses the future of the playing areas (hard and/or soft?) whilst ESCC clearly want to dispose of the entire site, buildings, facilities, grounds and all, thus the scope of this consultation has been intentionally or unintentionally truncated. So, once more, which is it?

4. Again, the consultation posters create confusion with regard to the proceeds from the sale. They state that: “The sale proceeds attributable from the school playing field (sic) will be used to fund the enhancement facilities at Maintained schools” but what about the proceeds from the buildings, other grounds and facilities?

   Meanwhile, the ESCC report states their intension of: “Declaring this land surplus to the Council’s requirements and selling on the open market will generate a significant capital receipt and contribute towards funding of the County Council’s capital programme.”

   So what will the proceeds from selling off the site lock, stock and barrel actually be used for and what guarantee is there that they’ll be used for the schools and/or people of Newhaven, who would be losing a major asset, yet possibly receiving nothing in recompense?[1]

5. In light of the above, the organisation of this consultation process appears little short of shambolic. What are we being asked to consult on - the buildings, the grounds, the facilities; over what period of time; and where and on what are an as-yet-undefined cut of any possible proceeds going to be spent???

    

It is likely that such a poorly conceived and executed ‘consultation’ will be in breach of that required in Section 77 of the relevant statute and, as such, could be deemed a waste of public funds for which ESCC has a duty of care.

We would suggest that the consultation process be started again - this time setting out clearly what the local community is being consulted about and over what timescale.

It would also benefit the consultation process if the issue, for example, were raised via, say, a letter to current parents at The Harbour Primary School, or were brought to wider public attention via The Sussex Express or Evening Argus rather than via small, surreptitious posters on fences only visible from the Brooks Close cul-de-sac.

Problems With The Proposed Sale

1. According to the council document School Organisation and Place Planning In East Sussex 2013-14 (page 25), Newhaven will have a two form primary provision shortfall from 2015 and for the ‘longer term’.

   In addition to this, there are plans to develop in excess of 1500 houses in the short to medium term in Newhaven that will swell the potential student population by an unspecifiable but clearly substantial number.

   Both of these will combine to place significant additional pressures on school provision here where, for example, we already have students being taught in ‘temporary’ classrooms at the ‘new’ Harbour Primary school and sharing toilet facilities.

2. In the face of this forthcoming pressure, ESCC’s plan to sell off a multi-million pound, purpose-built school with existing and fully functioning buildings, grounds and facilities is at best short-sighted.

   If it proceeds in the sell-off of these assets, when they or similar will clearly be needed in the not-so-distant future, and the council is then forced to provide new facilities, probably at a substantially greater cost, then they will, again, have failed in their fiduciary duty to make appropriate provision whilst spending public money wisely.

3. A considerable number of local residents and parents believe that the land on which Grays is built was bequeathed for educational purposes and/or for the benefit of the young people of Newhaven, possibly by a Dr Brook and/or a Mrs Gray, though documentary evidence for this, in terms of a will, etc., is not publicly available.[2]

   Despite this, ESCC intends not only to flog off the entire site ‘for the best price reasonably obtainable’ but, to add insult to injury, the money raised will not go to improve general school provision in Newhaven; nor to provide ‘permanent’ classrooms and enhanced toilet facilities for Harbour Primary; nor to provide a single extra nursery place here; nor any local, social or other youth facilities; but will, in fact, go straight into the general coffers of the county council’s ‘capital programme’.

4. ESCC probably believe that the two acre site on which Grays currently stands could be used to provide land for about 20 to 40 houses, depending on size, style and amenities, (adding still further to the pressure on school places in this area) and that this makes the land very valuable not only in financial terms but also in line with the plan to build over 1500 houses.

   Unfortunately, current restrictive covenants on the land deeds [Title Number: ESX287436] would appear to prevent any more than a couple of houses being built there and, consequently, it will not be as valuable as the council might have thought it would be unless, with the unlikely agreement of all adjoining property owners, ESCC attempts to get these covenants extinguished or varied. This casts still further fiduciary doubts on the wisdom of disposing of this site.

5. Further limiting the possible financial value of this asset, there are some 34 protected trees, including a substantial Wych Elm and seven Corsican Pines, on the site [Tree Preservation Order (No. 6) 2003 Ref: 3852:508]. This would be of particular concern if the site were intended to be sold for potential housing development.

   Indeed, any subsequent development of this site would undoubtedly impact on these trees and, as they and the green ‘informal’ areas on the site (i.e. the ‘playing fields’) are inextricably linked, it is in their and the wider public interest that they and the land on which they stand remain in public ownership.

It is clear that ESCC has a new plan for education both in Newhaven and throughout the county – by stealth, to close down intimate, caring, local primary schools (which are relatively small and, therefore, less efficient) and replace them with ‘new’ super-primaries (like that currently shoe-horned into the Habour Primary site) or to annexe existing secondary schools (as is happening at Seahaven Academy); so savings can be made not only in terms of scale but also in terms of duplicated heating, resources, management, office and ancillary staff, etc. And then, of course, to sell off the former sites for highly profitable housing development.

The Grays School site sell-off is merely a trail-blazer for this process.

Consequently, we strongly object to the attempt to dispose of this site and to any steps to those ends, such as seeking permission for ‘playing field’ reassignment from the Secretary of State.

We believe ESCC should call off their attempt to dispose of the former Grays School site and promote the use of its buildings, grounds and facilities for educational purposes and/or for the benefit of the young people of Newhaven.

An e-petition to this effect has been set up at:

www.petitions24.com/save_grays_school

At the time of submission, some 169 people had signed and/or commented on this, purely by word of mouth, with a further eight signatories on paper (attached). I would suggest you visit the petition site to monitor current and forthcoming numbers and the comments signatories leave behind.

Doug Johnson

3, Western Road

Newhaven

BN9 9JS

Share this petition

Help this petition to reach more signatures.

How to promote a petition?

• Share the petition on your Facebook wall and in groups related to the topic of your petition.
• Contact your friends
  1. Write a message where you explain why you have signed this petition, since people are more likely to sign it if they understand how important the topic is.
  2. Copy and paste the web address of the petition into your message.
  3. Send the message using email, SMS, Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Skype, Instagram and LinkedIn.