Rutlish report Appendix 4 Representations in opposition to the proposed partial closure of the gates Email from resident of Windermere Avenue, copied to Councillor John Sargeant, 23 June 2016 Email from a local resident to Councillor Peter Southgate, 18 June 2016 Letter from resident of Wilton Grove and member of Pedestrians Association/Living Streets sent to Councillor Martin Whelton, 30 June 2016 Letter from the John Innes Society, 28 June 2016 Email from member of Merton Croquet Club and resident of Grand Drive, Raynes Park, 8 June 2016 Email from a park user, 28 June 2016 Letter from Merton Croquet Club, 19 July 2016 Letter from resident of Leamington Avenue, 24 July 2016 Letter from Merton Park Ladies Bowls Club, received July 2016 Email received through “GetInvolved” 20 July 2016 Email received from local resident, SW20, 24 July 2016 Page 33 Email from resident of Windermere Avenue, copied to Merton Park ward Councillor John Sargeant, 23 June 2016 Subject: John Innes/ Rutlish School Path Closure Dear Sirs The above consultation is flawed on several counts:- The information given, implies that the path crosses the School Site. This is incorrect as the School crosses the footpath. Several people have said to me that they did not realise the path is on Rutlish property. I would refer you to your own website for the history but in precis you clearly state that the the Park and Recreation Ground, along with the connecting path, was bequeathed to the residents of Merton after his death in 1904. The School was not built until 1958. Much of the original brickwork remains. I know of no reported attacks on Schoolboys in this area and yet you slant your questions in such a way that can only suggest that by disagreeing one cares little for security of the pupils. The School have a Police Constable on site every day. If the School are so concerned about safety surely his experience can be utilised as well as a more visible presence as a deterrent. The Consultation itself is loaded in favour of closure and does not ask for reasons as to why it should not be closed. No alternative is given and yet a footbridge would be simple, non- controversial solution. More expensive to construct but in the long term, with legal expenses, cheaper I hope that you will take these views into account but as the Dundonald Recreation Ground consultation proved, any objections from Residents are futile. Thank you Page 34 Submission by email to Councillor Peter Southgate from a local resident, 18 June 2016 1. It is reasonable to assume that the path running through from the John Inness Recreation Ground towards Mostyn Road to the John Innes Park was established as a public right of way during the time that John Inness created Merton Park before his death in 1904. 2. He left most of the grounds of the Manor House to be converted into a public park for the benefit of the residents of the parishes of Merton and Morden. 3. He left his home, the Manor House, the Manor Farm and its grounds for the establishment of what became The John Innes Horticultural Institution which was founded on the site of in 1910 and left the site in 1945. 4. Rutlish Junior School relocated to this site in 1953 even though the buildings lacked heating and the rest of the school relocated into the new build school off Watery Lane, from Rutlish Road in 1957. 5. As the walls either side of the footpath are original and are inside the Conservation Area it is reasonable to assert that the footpath existed before the school and was used as access by the public as had been envisaged by John Innes. 6. To assert that the footpath creates difficulties for the school to safeguard the students and staff is questionable as there is no evidence offered to prove the reality of this statement. 7. Closing the footpath at 08.00 am and 05.00 pm seems rather excessive as the school day is from 08.30 am until 03.30 pm which will inconvenience all staff and students who arrive or depart outside of these times. 8. As there is no other pedestrian access to the school site, closing said public footpath would deliberately restrict access to the school which would inevitably cause more foot-traffic on already overcrowded and dangerous road ways. 9. The proposal makes no mention of the other schoolchildren who use the path daily to get to their schools, or the commuters and other users who would similarly be required to divert onto these congested roads at this time. 10. Knowingly putting the aforesaid people at unnecessary risk could have serious legal implications should any incidents occur as a direct result of such an action. 11. Rather than securing the area, closing the footpath would restrict emergency access to and egress from the site. 12. It could potentially concentrate large numbers of pupils and staff in a confined area which could be severely disadvantageous in an emergency situation. 13. The idea of closing the path has been tried before when it was decided to install and close a metal gate across the footpath to the gardens when the other gates were shut to stop people using the path at night. This did not work and resulted in the gate remained open as are indeed the other gates to the park and gardens – on the grounds of public safety. 14. The exact timescale over which various works have been done to ‘secure’ and restrict other casual pedestrian access to the school site through what had been open gates – where they existed – etc. is a matter of record and has already caused a greater footfall along the path than before the new buildings were created. 15. There is a danger that closing off a public footpath and thus public access to the public park and playing field during the day by locking both gates on the footpath adjacent to the school would send out entirely the wrong message to the local community and other members of the public in the area as well as being potentially counterproductive. Page 35 16. I am unsure how the staff now patrols the school at break and lunchtime but as they have a duty of care, if the Police are concerned about security then they could patrol the area as they do the local shops at break and lunchtime or have direct CCTV surveillance with face recognition. 17. Unauthorised access or egress to and from the site by the boys will continue to happen even if the all the gates to the park and gardens are closed as they will simply continue to go over the wall at the back of Awkward Road or simply walk through the front or rear access to the school or find some other way. 18. The only secure alternative to closing off the public footpath is to reinstate the plan for a dedicated footbridge from the science block across the footpath to the other site as had been planned when the new buildings were built. 19. I believe that this bridge was not built as the contractor ran out of funds. 20. Such an undertaking today would have to take into account all the work that has been done on the site the exact location of such a bridge would be a matter of consultation and logistics but a covered walkway is viable and gives the school the opportunity to lock its gates to the footpath which will stop undesirables just walking into the school at a stroke. 21. Health and Safety requires that emergency procedures be put in place to cover the safe evacuation of the premises to a safe assembly area, in an emergency. 22. If a fire alarm is set off there can be no option but to vacate the premises by the shortest and safest route available. 23. The same principle applies to emergency evacuation in the event of a potential bomb threat, only in this case the assembly points must be as far away from the buildings as possible. 24. These evacuations may occur by accident, design or be the real thing but evacuation is the key to safety, not locking people in. 25. It is interesting to note the statement to justify the argument states that there have been a series of bomb hoaxes at a number of schools in the borough. 26. It begs the basic Health and Safety question, ‘What is the probable risk?’ 27. How many hoaxes have been found to be real events? 28. Was the bomb squad called out to any of these events? 29. Were the Police deployed? 30. How many other schools have public footpaths running through their grounds? 31. It also begs the question, ‘What would happen if a bomb was placed or thrown into a restricted area from which there was limited opportunity for escape for the victims but nothing to stop the perpetrator escaping?’ 32. The current presumption is that closing the footpath would make the area more secure, I would contend that it could pose a greater threat to life and limb than the status quo. 33. It is proposed that the closure of the footpath Monday to Friday only during term time: what about Saturday and Sundays when the school is in use for other matters such as sport or event in the school? 34. I have restricted mobility; I do not use the park daily but enjoy a stroll when I can.