REPORT BACK SESSION 14/11/07

THE FIRST PLAN FOR THE SITE

The report back on the Community Action Day took place tonight at Parsons Mead. This is a quick interim report on the main points. A large number of people were in attendance including representatives of the press.

After a summary of what had gone on at the Community Day the first attempt at a plan for the site was presented. Essentially there is more open space on the site in the new plan than is currently on the site as designated open space, however some of it has been moved around. Taking the Eastern end of the site the playing fields from the boundary up to the line of trees is retained as playing fields and has a sports pavilion built on it on the Ottways Lane side. A band of open space is retained across the back of the site (the A24 side) that links to a second public open space that encompasses the original house (that is retained and refurbished as some sort of community facility) and the mulberry tree that Samuel Pepys sat under. In addition another band of land up to 7 metres deep is retained as green space/foot path along the full length of the Ottways Lane side of the site. There will be a single vehicular entrance through the historic entry to the site. The two housing blocks (one abutting Bramley close) the other between the old house and the line of trees flanking the playing field will provide 150 dwellings made up of 90 houses, 18 flats and 42 affordable housing units. Buildings will be a mix of 2 and 3 stories, with traditional sloping roof design. Housing density is around 30 properties per hactare which is in line with the government's minimum recommended housing density.

During the course of the coming weekend the whole handout presented at the end of the meeting by the architects will be scanned and put onto the website.

COMMUNITY PLANNING DAY
3RD NOVEMBER 2007

The long awaited Community Planning Day took place in the Junior Hall at Parsons Mead on Saturday 3rd November. Over 180 local residents, ex parents, ex pupils and ex staff along with representatives of the Ashtead Residents Association and many local Councillors took part along with members of John Thompson and Partners the architects and Oracle Homes the developers. No plans were presented since part of the process of developing any plan is the community consultation process that took place on this day. Everyone had a chance to air their concerns about the site and also to give their vision for the future of the site. A group of young people had a separate planning workshop at which they expressed their own ideas for the site. After the morning session where concerns and aspirations were expressed there was a brief break for lunch followed by a number of concurrent planning workshops covering areas such as a Community Audit (the community facilities previously provided by the school and the current and future requirements of the village), a Green Session (landscaping, drainage, tree protection, carbon footprint), a Transport Session (concentrated mainly on traffic congestion in Ottways Lane and the surrounding area), a site Development Session (aimed at identifying what buildings might be kept and the possible layout for the site) and a Neighbours Session (the sites immediate neighbours had their chance to air their concerns and expectations). The architects and developers are looking at providing community open space and facilities at the site, this includes keeping a space equivalents to the sports fields on the site. There was a ground swell of opinion in favour of trying to retain the Sports Hall and Junior School Building (although probably as a medical facility rather than an educational one). There was also talk of trying to reopen some facilities in advance of any building work to provide a home for some of the organisations that were forced to close following the closure of the school. The afternoon session over ran considerably but there were still alot of people there at the end of the process. A significant number of people decided to stay all day.

COURT CASE IS LOST

The court case brought by one parent against the Trust reached court today (Thursday 18th October). Unfortunately the judge found in favour of the trust on all counts. This was a case regarding the contractual obligation for parents to give a terms notice if withdrawing their son or daughter from the school whereas no similar obligation was upon the school. The judge upheld the Trust's contention that it was a one way contract and that the school had no requirement to reciprocate. He also upheld the schools contention that there was no disruption in teaching between the announcement of the closure and the end of term. A claim for uniform was rejected, the defence claimed that all the required uniform could have been bought second hand. The plaintiff was not allowed to use the governors minutes to demonstrate some inconsistencies in how the closure came about, but the judge said in his judgement that he had read the minutes and that he was of the opinion that the governors had acted in good faith.

In addition to finding for the Trust the judge ordered that the plaintiff pay the defence costs of £8,400. The defence argued that they had had to fight the case because had they lost there would have been a large number of other parents trying to make similar claims.

Editor's note - This case was brought by one family acting on their own, the Parsons Mead Action Group has had no funds to assist in this claim. (see Actions for You re our bank details).

As the defeated plaintiff said "Still, we live to fight another day. Battle is still on with the Charity Commission."

VIEWPOINT

Is the end in sight for the Parsons Mead Action Group. Despite our best efforts we have not managed to change the outcome of the Parsons Mead closure in July 2006. It is becoming increasingly evident that there is little stomach among our constituents to continue to pursue the struggle to find out what exactly went on. The development of the Parsons Mead site is probably better off in the hands of the Ashtead Residents Association. The only avenues of influence that remain to us are through our relationship with the Architects and Developers and through the ongoing complaint against the Charity Commissioners through the Information Commissioner on the basis of a freedom of information act claim. We'd be interested in your thoughts about what you want to be done next. Click here to go to the survey