MPFAG Reading Chronicle Article 23/06/2015 – Click to enlarge

UPDATED (25/08/2015): I received a response from MPFAG and reproduce it underneath this initial letter to MPFAG.

Dear MPFAG members,

There were a number of questions that came to mind when I saw that you were offering to take over as trustees of Mapledurham Playing Fields (MPF) from Reading Borough Council (RBC). I have seen this desire repeated several times in our local papers now, however no details have been published with regards to what you would do if you were to become trustees.

I believe that without the support of the majority of the Reading and Mapledurham Parish community it is unlikely that MPFAG will be able to become trustees of the MPF, in that respect, then, isn’t it right and proper that your plans be openly discussed and debated?

Although these questions would apply to any group wishing to take over as MPF trustees, I’d like to pose them directly to you as your group is the only one of which I am aware that has publicly offered to take over the trustee role from RBC.

1. What is the process by which you plan to become trustees and what is the timescale over which you see the process completing?
2. Many people I have spoken to see an enormous latent potential for MPF to become a real hub of our community.  Community groups like Caversham Trents have plans for MPF which could potentially transform how the fields are used and increase the funds brought in to the trust. Assuming that the issue of building a school upon MPF is resolved one way or another, what are your long-term plans for MPF, and how will you fund them?
3. The object of the MPF trust is “the provision and maintenance of a recreation ground for the inhabitants of the Parish of Mapledurham and the Borough of Reading without distinction of political, religious or other opinions.” What does MPFAG interpret the meaning of the word ‘recreation’ to mean? For instance, is there a general type of recreational activity that you would rule out supporting on the field?
4. How do you plan to manage the fields on a practical level? At the moment, the trustees (RBC) have in place a separate Management Committee who are responsible for the day-to-day practicalities of running MPF. This committee consults with various different people who use the field (I dislike the term ‘user groups’ in this context, be that seems to be the accepted term). How would you differ in your approach?
5. How representative are you? Currently, the trustees are from all over Reading, and, albeit theoretically, can be held accountable for their decisions by Reading residents. As trustees, how would you ensure that you fully represent the diverse set of people for whom MPF has been left?
6. How would you handle conflicts of interest? For instance, some people may assume that if some of the trustees live near to the fields, those trustees may seek to minimise, for instance, loud recreational activities – such as outdoor movie screenings, or brass bands playing on the fields, or late night organised fireworks displays. Do you know how you might deal with such conflicts?
7. If we assume for a moment that The Heights Primary does get a permanent home upon some small part of MPF (or even that EFA is forced to build a permanent school on alternative nearby land if it loses legal challenges with regards to MPF), it’s easy to envisage that that the children, parents and staff of The Heights Primary will become one of the single largest user groups, or at least easily the most regular (in terms of both time spent and frequency of use) users of MPF. I have seen some members of the community imply that The Heights school should be be required to pay punitive fees to be able to hire the fields for school activities, whilst others say that the fields are a community resource and that school children should not be charged to use the fields. My own position is that The Heights could use MPF as a learning resource and in exchange the children can help keep MPF clean, tidy and well gardened for instance. A different solution to this issue might be that the school could commit to donating a certain amount to the MPF trust each year in lieu of not having to organise and pay individual booking fees. If you became trustees of MPF, how would you manage the relationship between the trust and the school?
8. How will you take decisions as to what happens at MPF in the future and how will you involve our community in this process?
9. What resources – human, technical and financial – are you able to deliver to the trust? At the moment, RBC handle a number of roles. They manage booking inquiries, they set up and run the bank account for the MPF trust, and – following the brief Conservative & Lib Dem coalition in Reading during which an independent investigation found that Section 106 (S106) monies were not being managed as well as they might be – they offered £100,000 of S106 money towards the refurbishment of the pavilion at MPF. The current trustees, then, offer a level of administrative and financial support which would be the bare minimum level for any new trustees to consider. If MPFAG do become trustees, how do you plan to replace the support which RBC currently offers?
10. Which, if any, external organisations do you want to see getting involved with the MPF trust, and why?

I appreciate that some of these questions might essentially be different ways of asking around the same or closely related issues, however I think it is important that any group wishing to become trustees of MPF are transparent, consistent and accountable for their plans for our fields. The community for whom the trust has been established should be able to constructively discuss your plans in an open way.

In the spirit of transparency I shall update my blog (http://www.jasonmehmet.org.uk) with your response. I believe this is a quick and easy way for MPFAG to get it’s plans into the public domain without having the expense and limitations of printing and posting leaflets. I look forward to your reply and hope that our community can discussion your plans productively.

Please could you not share my e-mail address publicly. It may be possible to do this inadvertently by printing out my e-mail and sharing with your group, or forwarding this e-mail to your membership. Please don’t do this as the address from which this e-mail is sent is not public and I do not wish it to become public. This letter is publicly available here: http://www.jasonmehmet.org.uk/2015/an-open-letter-to-mpfag.

Yours Faithfully

Jason Mehmet

UPDATE (25/08/2015): I received a response from Martin Brommell, Chairman of Mapledurham Playing Fields Action Group, and quote it in full below. The response doesn’t answer any of the questions I ask, it does however reconfirm the singular purpose of MPFAG.

MPFAG think I should ask some of these questions of the current trustees, which is fair. However, I think that the attitude of the existing trustees is plain to see. As trustees of MPF, Reading Borough Council have not provided and do not now appear to have a long-term strategic plan for MPF. They have been content to let the existing Management Committee handle the site as it sees fit. In short, MPF has not been on their radar, until now.

This is a discussion a large section of the community is involved in, and this blog is public, so I’d be astounded if some or all of the trustees have not already seen my questions, so if any of them – or the Management Committee – can provide answers to the above questions I think that would give us all the foundation for some detailed discussions as to the future of MPF, as well as going a long way to dispelling the idea that has taken hold in some quarters that there is a concerted conspiracy to further develop MPF land after The Heights Primary School has been built.

Below is the response from MPFAG:

Dear Jason,

In response to your recent letter to MPFAG, I am happy to respond as follows.

The most important issue MPFAG face as a group is not determining what will happen should the existing Charity trustees either step down or be replaced. Our most significant concern is to examine the actions of the current Charity trustees. Indeed, it is probably safe to assume that Reading Borough Council will remain as trustees for a very considerable period (certainly while the EFA are trying to build a school on the Charity land). Perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to send a version of some of your questions to them?

I am sure you will also understand that we view it prudent to dedicate our resources to more urgent issues than answering your questions. In the meantime, if you want more generic information about the duties and responsibilities of a Charity trustee, you might want to refer to the very helpful and compendious material on the Charity Commission’s website.

Regards

Martin Brommell
Chairman – Mapledurham Playing Fields Action Group

Even though I think MPF is the best site for the school, I do also believe that the site should be protected against further development. Some may say this doesn’t make sense. I disagree.

Further development of the site after a school had been built on it would completely negate the advantages that made the site so attractive. Those who at the moment are seeking to protect MPF from any development whatsoever would naturally find support from all the stakeholders involved with the school were it to be placed on the MPF site.

MPF accounts 2010-2014

One way to save MPF from development would be to ensure it is economically viable independently of RBC as Trustees. A quick glance at the Charity Commission website shows us that the MPF charity is not earning the kind of cash needed to either build or maintain a pavilion.

A central argument of campaigners opposing a school on the playing fields is that they are regularly and extensively used by the community. Having visited the site any number of times over the past years I have of course spotted dog walkers, football players, tennis enthusiasts and joggers, but I’ve never, on a regular basis at least, seen the kind of really bustling activity at MPF that I do frequently see at Albert Road Park, for instance. Except on polling day of course.

That’s not a scientific way of looking at the issue, I agree. So I poked around for information on past and future events.

In looking for the range of activities available at MPF I’ve not been able to locate anywhere a list of activities available to residents. Sure, the Summer Fete is coming up, it’s a big date on the MPF calendar, but what else?

I would suggest that a major stumbling block to self-sufficiency for MPF is the lack of public advertisement of events. There is no timetable to be seen anywhere on the pavilion. The posters on the notice board do not actually detail events happening at the pavilion. There is no website detailing what’s going on.

In short, there is a failure of imagination happening here. There may well be a schedule of events somewhere, but if nobody can find it, it may as well not exist.

Some imagination must also be applied to what ‘recreation’ actually means to the Trust. Yes, tennis courts and football is one interpretation of that aim, and a Summer Fete is a great idea. What else though?

1. How about organising an official fireworks display on bonfire night? Donations could be collected at various entry points. The (newly rebuilt) pavilion could be used to help serve food and drink. It may be possible to have vendors on site selling kids things that flash, small rides, an inflatable castle, and so on.
2. Becoming integrated into already successful events would be a great way to grow attendance at MPF. With that in mind a newly rebuilt pavilion might be able to participate in Caversham Arts Trail by becoming a temporary studio or gallery holding art workshops.
3. Christmas is a key time for one-off experiences. A skating rink on MPF might be one idea to consider, but perhaps some sort of winter-wonderland experience could be devised? If there is a school on the field, it’s not as if kids will not be in the area!

Just three ideas, all recreational. Maybe some have been done before, but if they have, I’ve not heard about them and I live close enough to MPF to be the target of any marketing that MPF events should generate.

Events like those above, marketed widely enough – in local media and on social media, as well as traditional leafleting – to attract at least the residents of Mapledurham itself, should be enough to grow the earnings of the charity. Earnings which should be fed directly into a ring-fenced trust account which Reading Borough Council has no access to directly control, but which the Committee of Management may draw upon for use by the Trust itself.

It’s time to start thinking outside of the box.

A new pavilion would massively enhance the attractiveness of MPF and the ability of the Trust to hold events like those listed above. A new school would all but guarantee the profitability of those events.

Firstly, not that it’s any of your business, but no, I do not have a child at The Heights Primary. I will say though that even if I did have a child at the school, free speech is still protected in the UK and it’s certainly not fair to those who do have kids at The Heights Primary to bandy about that fact as if there is a conspiracy or hidden agenda against those who do not want a school built on MPF. Wanting the best possible education for your children is a perfectly rational bias.

Secondly, why now? Why have I waited until now to comment on this? The answer is that I’ve not actually waited until now to comment on this. The difficulty of securing school places for Mapledurham kids has been a hot topic of conversation for years, yes, since even before The Hill Primary thread was created on Reading Forum. I’ve discussed it locally with friends and family a lot over that time.

It is fair to ask why I’ve taken my concerns ‘public’ so to speak. Well, the recent consultation delivered a crystal clear result, but since then all local stakeholders seem to be sat back and waiting for EFA to make a decision.

Why?

Why must we wait for the EFA to make a decision in Whitehall somewhere divorced from this community? There is no guarantee that EFA will choose MPF as a site, even though that is what has been mandated by the consultation. I find that outrageous. And so should every other stakeholder in this issue regardless of where they want the site to be. But not every stakeholder has the authority of being the Council Leader, or the local MP, or the local Councillor, or the lead Councillor for Education in Reading.

Our elected representatives, more than any others at this stage in the game, have the power and connections to at least lobby privately to make sure the decision goes the way the community have mandated. On top of that, if they worked together in a concerted effort, I can’t see how the EFA can deny the community its wishes. I see no evidence of that happening.

Thirdly, I do actually care about protecting our green spaces for generations to come. But this is not an either/or choice. It is possible to apportion some small part of the over 24 acres of MPF to build a new school, and still keep the vast majority of the land within the charitable trust. The school has to go somewhere. Siting it at MPF is simply making the best of a bad situation.

Fourthly, I reject the idea that I need to be a legal expert to comment, and that considered disagreement with others means I’ve been misinformed.

I do know that the governing document of the MPF charity can be amended, and has been in the past. I do know that charities can and do sell and lease land all the time. It’s not really rocket science. The fact that EFA put MPF on their own list of possible sites indicates that they believe there are no legal obstacles to building a school on MPF that cannot be overcome.

I have seen comments to the effect that Reading Borough Council has failed in its duty as Trustees of MPF and that this may have some bearing on the issue. That may be so, clearly RBC itself faces a serious conflict of interest here, and that could be another reason why the Labour-led administration has hidden its head in the sand for so long over this issue. It is not an easy problem to face up to. As Trustee of MPF, RBC is duty bound to protect the fields. But it is also duty bound to support the educational needs of the town.

If the worst comes to the worst, perhaps RBC could serve itself as Trustee of MPF with a Compulsory Purchase Order for that part of MPF which the EFA may (or may not!) decide is appropriate for a school. Compulsory purchase of land held by a charity for the purpose of building a school is not without precedent. Aberdeenshire Council wanted to build a primary school on land owned by the British Heart Foundation. The Compulsory Purchase Order proceedings started in September 2014 and by March 2015 the order was served.

Compared to the glacial speed at which this whole process has been going, that kind of timescale is positively light speed.

In Mapledurham in particular, it seems like there has been a perfect storm of obstacles that have stopped the development of a new school.

For starters, Mapledurham is the smallest ward in Reading, with a single Councillor to represent it. All other wards in Reading have 3 Councillors to fight their corner. Whilst Mapledurham parents have been screaming for years about the need for more school places, having but one voice on Reading Council has not been in our favour.

Then there is the fact that Mapledurham is a safe Conservative seat whilst the Council is held by Labour. Might this partially explain some of the lethargy and lack of leadership that the Council has displayed for years in failing to address the growing educational gap in Mapledurham?

Add to this that the Education Funding Authority (EFA) has been secretive to say the least. Their reasoning for ‘limited consultation‘ with the local authority when buying the High Ridge site was so as not to get caught in a competitive bidding war in the open market. This approach may be appropriate in many other communities, however, when the local authority actually owns or controls some of the potential sites for the school, this is a ridiculous state of affairs.

If it had not been just taken as gospel that MPF was not available – perhaps if residents had been consulted first? – could Reading Borough Council have privately come to an agreement with EFA in order to achieve a fair market value for the land?

Even now, though the community voted fairly and transparently during the consultation for where they want The Heights Primary to be situated, that is still no guarantee that the EFA will pursue the Mapledurham Playing Fields option. Following the publication of the results of the consultation it would be nice to know the position of our elected representatives.

Cllr Isobel Ballsden – Mapledurham’s only Councillor – is in an understandably difficult position. She is now under pressure to argue against allowing The Heights Primary to be developed on MPF, but also to support the overwhelming wishes of the community she serves.

Cllr Ballsden has said that she supports both The Heights Primary and MPF, however she has stated categorical opposition to a school sited on MPF. Specifically that “the school should not be delivered at the expense of MPF“), and, if this public Google group is to be believed, she has told a great many people that  “…my children are too old to benefit from attending The Heights.  My family however will benefit when Mapledurham Pavilion is regenerated.”

Statements like this might make residents wonder how much of an open mind Cllr Ballsden is keeping on this issue. As part of the Planning Applications Committee she could potentially halt the school in its tracks. Can she really have her cake and eat it, so to speak? It’s difficult to ascertain Cllr Ballsden’s current position on this matter. Does she support the wishes of the majority of residents, or does she still think that a school should not be built on MPF?

Furthermore, will Rob Wilson MP, who rightly pledged not to rule out or even express an opinion on any site – but who perhaps forget this commitment to impartiality when he attended the Save Albert Road Park fun day – now lobby EFA privately and campaign publicly to get the school built where the majority of Reading residents have said they want it built?

For all these reasons, I’ve despaired at how democracy and genuine community opinion seems to have been disregarded when it comes to building a new school in Reading.

But we are where we are.

The education portfolio within Labour-run Reading Council has passed to former Mayor, Tony Jones. This might well bring a fresh perspective and it’s my hope that Cllr Jones will set aside party politics and help Mapledurham residents achieve their aims.

It’s clear that the Council hold no objections in principle to selling off part of MPF. The Council resolved in 2003 to sell part of MPF in order to raise money for replacing the Pavilion. Some of the Councillors who took that decision in 2003 are still serving on the council now, including the current Leader of the Council, Cllr Jo Lovelock – who ironically was Lead Councillor for Education between 1996-2004.

Given that the majority response from the whole of Reading is supportive of building a school on MPF land, as the ultimate Trustee of MPF the Labour-run Council should be working with EFA.  The proceeds made from a sale of part of MPF coupled with the funds already earmarked for the Mapledurham pavilion would be a great head-start towards either refurbishing the existing pavilion or building a new one. High Ridge was worth £875,000 in 2012 that kind of money would pay for outstanding new facilities at MPF.

Not everybody has a vision of sharing part of MPF to build a new school. There may well be legal obstacles to be overcome. Given the strength of community feeling this would have no doubt been the case whatever the outcome of the vote. To site the school on MPF may take more time, energy, and money than other options, the end result, however, will be a no-compromise modern school fit for purpose for decades to come. Reading residents knew this, and voted for MPF regardless.

I would hope that if all our elected officials – from ward, to Council, to national level – worked together towards the common purpose of supporting the wishes of the overwhelming majority of residents, all legal issues could be resolved far quicker. It’s not fair on residents  to on the one hand claim ‘leadership’ of this issue, but then to clam up when a mandate is delivered to build the school on MPF. Passing the buck to EFA is not leadership. Actually fighting to support the Reading community is.

Awkward catchment arrangements that place primary school kids many miles away from home and at schools not built to hold that many additional children can only last so long. The ‘bulge years‘ that Caversham schools have been asked to endure were never meant to be a long term solution, but the complete dearth of real leadership from our elected community representatives at all levels of democracy, along with an opaque EFA has done nothing but exacerbate the situation.

Our community deserves better than to be treated like this.

We all know the situation is not perfect. The mandate is to build the school on part of MPF. The EFA has the funding and the capacity to help deliver the school. Now is the time for elected representatives, at every level and of all political stripes to show the coordinated leadership needed to face down all the coming challenges and to actually deliver a new school to be proud of.