A bowls club is suing a £10,000-a-year girls’ prep school after it refused to renew the lease on its clubhouse as elderly members can see pupils getting changed through classroom windows.
Carshalton Beeches Bowling Club is taking action against Seaton House School in Sutton, Surrey at Central London County Court after the school refused to renew the lease on their school-owned clubhouse HQ.
The school claims it cannot renew the lease as ‘safeguarding’ concerns were raised over the presence of bowlers on school property – and is afraid the Department of Education could close it down if these are found to continue.
It followed a report in November 2019 by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) – the private school equivalent of Ofsted – which said the £10,000-a-year school was failing in its ‘safeguarding’ duty towards its pupils because of the presence of the bowlers.
And came after parents at the top independent all-girls prep school complained about players being able to look from their bowling green into classrooms where girls aged between two and 11 get changed for PE classes.
Parents at Seaton House School (pictured bottom) complained about bowls players being able to look from their bowling green (centre) into classrooms where girls aged between 2-11 get changed for PE classes
Head teacher Ruth Darvill (pictured outside court) told Central London County Court that the future of the school is under threat. The school fears the Department for Education could close the school if safeguarding issues are found to continue
Lawyers for the school say the problem lies with members of the bowling club and visiting teams being able to see into classroom windows which face the bowling green.
They are also complaining about the bowling club running a licensed bar on school premises and particularly about daytime drinking during funeral wakes which are held at the clubhouse to give a good ‘send off’ to members who pass away.
The school wants the bowling club out and are refusing to renew the lease on the club’s HQ, which they plan to demolish and rebuild as a school outbuilding.
That’s despite the bowling club having existed on leased land within the school grounds for almost a century, having been established in 1929 – a year before the school itself was founded.
Head teacher Ruth Darvill told Central London County Court that the future of the school is under threat, adding: ‘The continued presence of bowlers on our site would be devastating for our reputation.’
‘If we continue to be in breach of regulations, the Department of Education will take a view about whether we continue operating as a school,’ she told judge David Saunders.
But the club is now suing the school – which was voted Prep School of the Year by the Sunday Times in 2018-19 – seeking to force them to renew their lease.
Club chairman Robert Rumsby told Judge Saunders there was ‘no evidence to support what [the school] are saying,’ adding that it would be a ‘tragedy’ if the club were to be shut.
‘We have been there for 90 years and many of our members have been with us for a lot of that time,’ he said from the witness box.
‘It’s the centre of their sporting and social life and it would be a tragedy if we closed it. We want to keep it for the benefit of the local community.’
The school (pictured) wants the bowling club out and are refusing to renew the lease on the club’s HQ, which they plan to demolish and rebuild as a school outbuilding
Lawyers for the club also emphasised that there have been no specific allegations by anyone at the school of voyeurism against any individual bowler.
Mrs Darvill, giving evidence, told the court that parents are concerned about the bowlers being on site and said that since the ISI report last year: ‘There is now documentary evidence that we fail due to non-compliance and security risk.
‘The continued presence of bowlers on our site would be devastating for our reputation,’ she told the judge.
But she confirmed under questioning from barrister Robert Bowker for the club that, while there some parents had complained, there has been ‘no specific allegation of sexual impropriety directed towards a member of the club or a visitor’ since she took over in September 2019.
Debbie Morrison, the previous headteacher at the school, also confirmed to Mr Bowker ‘that there has been no allegation of sexual impropriety against any specific individual’ during her time in charge of the school.
Mr Rumsby, in the witness box, urged the judge not to heed the worries of the school staff and parents.
‘There is only one classroom which faces the green. You can hardly see through the windows because its dark. It’s up to the teachers to make sure the children are sheltered,’ he said.
The school’s barrister Charles Irvine told him: ‘You make criticisms of what parents complain about…[that] bowlers can see pupils changing.
‘You say the teachers can deal with that….are you aware that the school has no changing rooms?
‘It’s not obstructed glass and there are two classrooms facing the green which can be seen.’
Debbie Morrison, the previous headteacher at the school, told the court ‘that there has been no allegation of sexual impropriety against any specific individual’ during her time in charge of the school (she is pictured outside Central London County Court)
The barrister also went on to criticise the club for running a bar selling alcohol on school grounds.
‘Having a licensed bar is incompatible with school premises. You regularly have pre-match drinks before afternoon matches,’ he said.
Mr Rumsby told him: ‘It is not usually open in school hours. People playing matches at that time might have a cup of tea or if they did have a drink they wouldn’t bring it down to the green. The bar isn’t usually open until evening.’
The barrister then focused his criticism on daytime drinking during wakes held at the club HQ for recently deceased members, saying: ‘The clubhouse also hold funeral wakes, which take place during school hours when the bar is open.’
‘If one of our members dies we usually give them a send off in the club house,’ Mr Rumsby admitted, adding, ‘but those occasions are pretty rare.’
In documents supporting their claim, the club explain that they are applying to the court under the Landlord and Tenant Act for the grant of a new business tenancy.
Notice to terminate their current lease was served in August 2017 to take effect in April 2018, along with a message ‘stating that the school would oppose a claim to the court for a new tenancy.’
The club say they are legally entitled to a new tenancy, partly because the school led them to believe they would be moving to a new pavilion on school grounds after the demolition of the Senior House Building where they are currently based, and they have spent money preparing for that move.
‘The claimant has operated from the clubhouse since 1929,’ lawyers for the club say, claiming that at a meeting in 2015 to discuss the proposed redevelopment, the school’s governors had provided an assurance that ‘the club was very much a part of the school’s development plans.’
The school would not have won planning permission for redevelopment of the Senior House Building had they told the council they were planning to evict the bowlers, says the club.
And chair of the school governors, Judith Ann Evans, had written to parents to say they were proposing to the local council that the club ‘is housed in a new purpose built pavilion on the opposite of the bowling green.’
‘In all the circumstances, it was and is unconscionable for the school to oppose the grant of a new tenancy or oppose the grant of a new tenancy on terms which are the same or substantially the same term as the current tenancy,’ say the club.
Judith Ann Evans, chair of governors at the school, (pictured outside London County Court) had written to parents to say they were proposing to the local council that the club ‘is housed in a new purpose built pavilion on the opposite of the bowling green’
In written submissions to the court, Mr Bowker called the school’s concerns about safeguarding ‘a distraction,’ adding: ‘The club and school have co-existed for decades.’
He also claims that, even if the bowlers were evicted, the school could not afford to carry out the multi-million pound redevelopment of the Senior House Building.
But in their defence to the action, the school’s lawyers says it will be able to obtain funding for the development once it has possession of the clubhouse.
‘The club is not entitled to the grant of a new tenancy,’ the defence continues.
Of the proposed move to the new pavilion, the school says: ‘It is admitted the school was willing to grant a tenancy in respect of the pavilion if the parties were able to reach an agreement as to the terms on which the club would occupy it…and the times during which the club was entitled to use the pavilion, in particular, bearing in mind the defendants need to safeguard its students at all times.’
The school’s alternative case if they fail in their bid to deny the bowlers a new tenancy is that the £9,500 a year rent the club now pay should be upped to £17,000 and the bowlers should be banned from using the premises before 6pm on weekdays, when the schoolgirls are on site.
The ISI regulatory compliance inspection report on the school last November noted: ‘The school has identified safeguarding risks associated with the use of the premises by a local bowling club…although measures to reduce this risk are in place, further measures are currently being pursued.
‘However, at the time of the inspection, the risks identified had not been satisfactorily addressed. As a result, appropriate safeguarding arrangements are not fully implemented.
‘The school must ensure that the safeguarding risks associated with the use of the school premises by a local bowling club are fully resolved.
‘The school must implement measures to reduce all risks associated with the school premises by a local bowling club which have been identified through its strategic risk assessment.’