The second of the public meetings about the permanent expansion of Dundonald Primary and the knock-on effect on Dundonald Recreation ground was held tonight at St Andrew’s Church on Herbert Road.

Around a hundred people were left hanging around outside the first consultation meeting on 8 June, and so a second meeting was hastily arranged at a different venue.

Tonight’s meeting comprised a statement by the Protect Dundonald Rec campaign, then a presentation from Cllr Peter Walker, cabinet member for education on Merton council, on the need for the borough-wide expansion plans, followed by a discussion of legal issues and the ‘options’ being consulted on, by Tom Proctor, Merton’s manager of contracts and school organisation. Questions and comments were then taken from members of the public.

Protect Dundonald Rec
The spokesperson for the campaign group explained that they were a non-political group, concerned about the loss of green space in a heavily populated area. Their arguments are broadly: (1) the 1893 covenant prevents building on the land; (2) loss of open space (the point being that the existing pavillion is designated open space, whereas a school building is not); and (3) questioning whether the ‘demand’ for primary school places is local. The suggestion was made that part of the problem was that the school admissions prioritised the ‘sibling rule’ over ‘proximity’. They suggested that there were other alternatives to expanding the school – for example, sites where new schools could be opened, or ‘satellite’ buildings could be established.

Cabinet member for education, Cllr Peter Walker
Cllr Walker started by making the point that people living in Herbert Road couldn’t currently get a place for their children in Dundonald School. He asked how many people were there who had young children that they wanted to go to Dundonald school when they were old enough. He was keen to push the argument that school expansion allowed more parents to send their children to good schools.

He said that “no change” was the easier option, but felt that the plans “positively improved the park” and that the pavillion was “ugly and out of date”. Discussing the covenant, he assured us that the Council “will not do anything that breaks the law”. He talked through the figures on birth rates, the number of additional primary school places needed and the schools that were to be expanded across the borough.

He was critical of some of the claims made in the Protect Dundonald Rec group’s literature and was keen to emphasise that he lived near the Recreation ground and was a founder member of the Friends of Dundonald Park.

Merton’s manager of contracts and school organisation, Tom Proctor
Tom Proctor talked through the majority of the slides. He started by pointing out that over half of the schools in the borough will need to expand because of the lack of primary school places. He also pointed out that this is the first stage of the consultation process. The decision would be taken by the September cabinet meeting, with further consultation to follow (including on planning and design, and catchment areas). He explained that the Council do not consider that anyone exists that has the benefit of the covenant, and that could enforce it.

He outlined the three options (links to the drawings can be seen here – option C seems to be the Council’s favoured option) and a chart showing the percentage loss of open space under each of the plans. Benefits of the expansion schemes were listed as better community facilities, a larger children’s playground and an expanded catchment area for the school.

Public questions and comments
The school’s headteacher spoke briefly to say that she felt the recreation ground enhanced the school. Comments and questions followed broad themes. Several parents with young and pre-school children spoke in favour of the expansion plans, supporting Cllr Walker’s assertion that there was local demand to get children into the school (I did notice however, that the first two speakers, parents of older/grown-up children and enthusiastic supporters of the scheme, were Labour party activists – one a former councillor).

A number of people wanted to talk about a free school that has been proposed at the former Wimbledon House School site, hoping to counter the Council’s suggestion that the site isn’t big enough. There were also a number of people who raised the issue of plans for the future. Cllr Walker assured us that plans for expanding secondary schools were in progress. But residents also asked about the size of primary schools and keeping good schools a good size. The Director of Children’s Services said larger schools allowed better career progression for teachers. There was applause for the suggestion that something new needed to be put in place of the covenant to protect the Recreation ground for the future. Vince Harris, chairman of the Wimbledon House Free School campaign group, explained that he felt that new schools were needed on top of expansion of existing schools. I asked about the ‘clarifications’ made to the original drawings that were linked to the consultation documents. Tom Proctor confirmed that the original plans to restrict public access to part of the children’s “public” playground were dropped because of public opposition. This seems a bizarre way to engage with the public as meaning many people will not have been looking at the right version of the document before responding to the consultation.

Anthony Fairclough
Merton Hall Road
22.06.2011