The WTF Consultation Report – In Full.

Download this report as a PDF Document HERE.

The sale of the KEVICC upper Lower Field and Elmhirst Building Report

on the Why This Field? and KEVICC public consultations
July 2022

By Dr Kevin Burchell
Local resident, WTF team member and Research Fellow, University of Birmingham
(on behalf of the Why This Field? public campaign)

Contents

• The one minute read
• Key findings and recommendations
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Findings of the WTF consultation survey
• 3. Evaluation of the KEVICC public consultation
• Appendix 1: The WTF survey
• Appendix 2: Comments from the survey
• Appendix 3: About the author of this report

The one minute read

The articles of the Dart Valley Learning Trust – which owns King Edward VI Community College (KEVICC) and its land, in Totnes, Devon – state that an objective of the trust is to ‘benefit the community’.

Based on a robust set of 588 responses, the Why This Field (WTF) public consultation shows that an overwhelming majority of the townspeople and users of the field (91%) support the Totnes Town Council proposal to develop the upper Lower Field and Elmhirst Building as resources for community benefit.

Meanwhile, the KEVICC public consultation in 2021: had a much broader focus, was written in a way that did not allow people to support the renovations without also supporting the land sale and received only 99 responses. These contexts and flaws mean that the KEVICC consultation has very little value with respect to community opinion about the sale of the upper Lower Field and Elmhirst Building.

The findings and analysis in this report strongly indicate that the KEVICC governors and DVLT trustees have a moral – and, apparently, based on the DVLT articles, a legal – obligation to seek a win-win solution in which the school is able to develop its estate and community benefit is realised (and the community disbenefits of pollution and congestion are avoided).

In addition, the report shows that WTF has a strong mandate to speak on behalf of the town in this matter. The WTF group stands ready to work with the KEVICC governors and DVLT trustees.

Finally, the report suggests that KEVICC should be more open about the limitations of its consultation, in general and with respect to this issue. The KEVICC governors and DVLT trustees have the unique opportunity to make a historically significant contribution to the future of Totnes.

There is much to be gained for the school and the town; however, much could be lost for the town. We urge the governors and trustees to do their utmost to do something wonderful for Totnes, we urge them to so something amazing that will be remembered and commemorated for posterity.

Key findings and recommendations

Introduction to the Key Findings
This expert report is concerned with community and public opinion regarding the sale of the upper part of the King Edward VI Community College (KEVICC) Lower Field and the Elmhirst Building in Totnes, Devon. Totnes Town Council has submitted a bid to buy this land and building. The Why This Field (WTF) supports this bid.

The report has two objectives:
1. To report the findings of the WTF campaign’s public consultation (2022).
2. To present an expert evaluation of the KEVICC public consultation (2021).

Public and community opinion is particularly important in this context because the articles of Dart Valley Learning Trust (DVLT) – which owns KEVICC and the KEVICC land – clearly state that the objects of the Trust are to advance:
1. “The education of the pupils at the schools
2. To advance the education of other members of the community
3. Otherwise to benefit the community”

Bearing in mind these objects, the view of the WTF campaign is that the governors of KEVICC and the trustees of DVLT have a strong moral – and, arguably, legal – responsibility to make every effort to take full account of the views of the Totnes community – as well as the needs of the school – in its decision- making. This might be summed up as a positive win-win outcome, providing benefits for the school and the community, securing a positive place for the school in the history of the town and cementing relationships between the school and the town.

The Why This Field public consultation

Key findings

The results from the WTF public consultation indicate that the community of Totnes is overwhelmingly supportive of the Totnes Town Council (TTC) proposal to buy the land and building as a community resource. Based on the 588 responses that had been received by 24 July 2022, 91% of the
townspeople support the TTC bid. At the same time, the consultation shows minimal public support for a private sale. Just 4% of the respondents support a private sale.

Key recommendations

The people of Totnes and users of the field clearly seek the win-win outcome that is sought by WTF and TTC. It is essential that the KEVICC governors and DVLT trustees immediately respond to these findings by determining how a sale or transfer to TTC can be realised (alongside the financial objectives of the school). It is also essential for the KEVICC governors and trustees to recognise that the WTF group has a mandate to speak for the town on this issue. The WTF groups stands ready to work collaboratively with the governors and trustees on this issue.

The KEVICC consultation evaluation

Key findings

It is important to note that the KEVICC consultation was broad and therefore tells us little about the specific issue at hand. In addition, the expert evaluation of the KEVICC consultation shows that it was flawed in a number of ways. The most parlous of these is that it merged a multitude of steps and issues into one ‘plan’ and then asked a single question about the ‘plan’.

This meant that respondents could not express support for the renovation of the school without also expressing support for a land sale. This is bad practice. Further, the consultation received a pitiful 99 responses, implying that the quantitative findings should probably be discounted. While 70% supported the consolidated ‘plan’, 70% also expressed concerns about the ‘plan’. The relevant expressed concerns – such as congestion and pollution – are more useful and coincide with those of the WTF group; however, these are irresponsibly dismissed in the KEVICC report as planning issues.

No methodological concerns are mentioned in any of the KEVICC reporting. Instead, the school states on its website, ‘We have been greatly encouraged by the overwhelmingly positive feedback we received to our plans from those who responded’. This analysis suggests that KEVICC has little to be encouraged about with respect to this consultation. In conclusion, although the KEVICC reporting of its consultation does not stray into obvious misrepresentation, it is clearly disingenuous and self-serving in a number of ways.

Key recommendations

It is essential that KEVICC corrects the public record with respect to its irrelevance with respect to the issue of the TTC bid as well its broader flaws in its consultation and their implications regarding opinion within the community. This could be done by sharing this WTF report on its website. In particular, it is important that the school acquaints the Secretary of State for Education with the flaws in its own consultation and the findings in this report.

If KEVICC would like to discuss any changes to this report before doing this, we would be happy to consider this.

Chapter 1: Introduction

The sale of the KEVICC upper Lower Field

King Edward VI Community College (KEVICC), in Totnes, Devon is selling 14 acres of school playing fields, green space, woods and historic buildings for development. The sale is taking place to raise funds for essential and much-needed development of the college estate.

Among the spaces planned for sale are the top 4 acres of the Lower Field and the much-loved – but currently derelict – Elmhirst Building (these lie between the A385 and the River Dart). This open space currently provides space for KEVICC PE lessons, walkers, picnickers, dog walkers, teenagers, families, sports groups and other townspeople. The area also provides access to the River Dart, offering a range of further leisure opportunities.

Totnes Town Council (TTC) has submitted a £2.5 million bid to KEVICC to buy the top part of Lower Field and Elmhirst Building to enhance them as community and leisure facilities for the people of Totnes, KEVICC students and visitors to the town. However, despite the TTC bid being offered at commercial market rates that would allow KEVICC to raise sufficient funds for its plans, the school has now placed these assets on the open market, along with the other land. If the Field is not sold to TTC, it will almost certainly be bought by private developers and the space will be developed for housing (probably largely unaffordable for local people).

Aside from the loss of the enhanced green space and the Elmhirst Building, concerns have also been expressed about the additional congestion and pollution directly outside the school that the latter outcome would entail. This stretch of the A385 is already an air quality management area (AQMA). This means that pollution is already dangerous to health. Further, there are concerns that private development would do nothing to meet the very real need for local housing at the more affordable end of the market.

The Why This Field campaign

The Why this Field? (WTF) campaign has been set up by local people in support of KEVICC’s need to improve its estate and in support of the TTC proposal and bid for the upper part of the Lower Field and Elmhirst Building. WTF seeks a win-win outcome, as does TTC. The objective of the WTF campaign is to save the field for the people of Totnes and for KEVICC to be able to undertake the much-needed development.

WTF is separate to TTC. At the same time, WTF supports TTC’s proposals for the upper Lower Field because it recognises that this is the best way to save the field for the people of Totnes.

You can find out more about this issue and the WTF campaign on the WTF website.

The significance of public opinion

Public and community opinion is particularly important in the context of this land sale because the articles of Dart Valley Learning Trust (DVLT) – which owns KEVICC and the KEVICC land – clearly state that the objects of the Trust are to advance:

1. “The education of the pupils at the schools
2. To advance the education of other members of the community
3. Otherwise to benefit the community“

Bearing in mind these objects, the view of the WTF campaign is that the governors of KEVICC and the trustees of DVLT have a strong moral – and, arguably, legal – responsibility to make every effort to take full account of the views of the Totnes community – as well as the needs of the school – in its decision-making.

Objectives of this report

This report is concerned with Totnes community opinion regarding the sale of the upper part of the KEVICC Lower Field and the Elmhirst Building in Totnes, Devon. The report has two objectives:
1. To report the findings of the Why This Field (WTF) campaign’s public consultation. This was conducted in June and July of 2022.
2. To present an expert evaluation of the KEVICC consultation. This was carried out in June and July of 2021.

Methodology

WTF consultation

The objective of the WTF public consultation was to understand the levels of community support for the TTC bid and proposal for the field and for a private sale of the field. The WTF consultation followed a quantitative (i.e. numbers based) research design that also allowed respondents to add qualitative (i.e. written) comments. The consultation survey itself was written by the author of the report, with valuable input from other members of the WTF team. The WTF team is aware that the headteacher of KEVICC is concerned about precise expression of which land is at issue. The headteacher will be reassured to read that we clearly specified this in the survey introduction, as shown in Figure 1.

The survey was available in identical online and on-paper forms. The online survey was set-up in SurveyMonkey, which – although a paid licence-service – has the advantage of not allowing multiple submissions from the same device. The paper version can be viewed in Appendix 1. The on-line version can be viewed here (unless you have already completed it). The link to the online survey was distributed via local Facebook groups and in Twitter and Instagram. The on-paper survey was distributed at WTF events, such as picnics and public meetings.

To 24 July 2022, the survey has received 588 responses, 555 online and 33 on paper.

It is important to note that no research methodology is ‘perfect’ and, inevitably, this is true of the methodology in this case. For instance, it could be suggested – as some who are opposed to the TTC plan have – that sampling bias may be present because the survey is more likely to have been
completed by some people than by others. While it is true that some sampling bias can be present in these sorts of circumstances, it is very difficult to ascertain the true nature of this. For instance, it is arguably equally likely that people who are opposed to the TTC bid would be more likely to complete the survey or that people who support TTC would be more likely. In any case, the results from this survey are so overwhelming that it is unlikely that sampling bias has had an in appropriate impact on the compelling narrative that these finding show.

Others who are opposed to the TTC bid have suggested that – at around 6% – the response rate is on the low side among a local population that is in excess of 10,000. This suggestion is without merit. As an experienced evaluator who has carried out numerous analyses of government-funded evaluation surveys, the author can confirm that this represents a reasonably strong response rate in the circumstances. From a statistical perspective, the key point is that, as the population grows the required response rate diminishes. It is also worth reminding readers that the KEVICC public consultation in 2021 received just 99 responses. It is not quite like this, of course, but it could be argued that the findings of the WTF consultation are six times more valid than the KEVICC consultation.

In conclusion, given the circumstances in which this consultation was carried out and the overwhelming nature of the survey results, it is clear that these findings are as robust and reliable as was possible. While some may wish to quibble about the precise percentages, the overall messages from this public consultation are beyond doubt. Crucially, the messages from the WTF consultation are many times more robust and reliable than the KEVICC claims about local community opinion.

KEVICC consultation evaluation

Evaluation of the KEVICC consultation was undertaken using well-established social science methods for the analysis of web-based materials, reports and documents.

Structure of the report

The introductory chapter is followed by two chapters that present – in turn – the results of the WTF public consultation and the expert evaluation of the KEVICC consultation. These chapters are followed by Appendices which show the WTF survey itself, the open text responses to the survey and some information about the author of the report.

Chapter 2:

WTF consultation results

Introduction

As discussed earlier, the objective of the WTF public consultation was simple: it was to understand the levels of community support for the TTC proposals and for a private sale of the upper part of the KEVICC Lower Field and the Elmhirst Building. As shown in Appendix 1, this objective was realised in the survey by asking respondents to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements.

Key findings
The key findings from the survey are shown in Figure 2. With respect to support for the TTC proposal, support is extremely high: 84% of respondents said that they strongly agree with this statement, while a further 7% said that they agree; this amounts to a total of 91% support for the TTC proposal. In stark contrast, Figure 2 also shows that support for a private sale is extremely low: just 1% said that they strongly agreed with this statement, while a further 3% said that they agreed.

It is important to note that these percentages have remained consistent since the first analysis was done on the basis of the first 420 responses. This indicates that it is highly likely that they would remain consistent as more and more people in the town respond. With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the community is overwhelmingly supportive of the TTC bid and proposal.

As shown in Appendix 1, the survey also offered respondents the opportunity to contribute free text or open text responses. These responses are shown in Appendix 2. We also prepared a word cloud from the open text responses, as shown in Figure 3. Appendix 2 and Figure 3 both illustrate the wide range of ways in which local people use and value the green space as well as people’s concerns about loss of the land to development.

Conclusions

The results from the WTF public consultation indicate that the community of Totnes is overwhelmingly supportive of the Totnes Town Council (TTC) proposal to buy the land and building as a community resource. At the same time, the consultation shows minimal public support for a private sale.
The people of Totnes and users of the field clearly seek the win-win outcome that is sought by WTF and TTC. It is essential that the KEVICC governors and DVLT trustees immediately respond to these findings by determining how a sale or transfer to TTC can be realised (alongside the financial objectives of the school). It is also essential for the KEVICC governors and trustees to recognise that the WTF group has a mandate to speak for the town on this issue. The WTF groups stands ready to work collaboratively with the governors and trustees on this issue.

Chapter 3:

KEVICC consultation evaluation

Objectives

The objective in this chapter is to present an expert evaluation of the KEVICC consultation that was carried out in June and July 2021 and its Consultation Report that was published in July 2021.

KEVICC consultation evaluation: Findings

The KEVICC consultation inevitably covered a wide range of issues. In addition, it was conducted before the TTC proposal was part of the issue; therefore, it does not provide us with any useful information about community opinion with respect to this issue.

Further, by any reasonable judgement, the conduct of the 2021 KEVICC public consultation was flawed. In addition, the very low level of responses (just 99) means that the quantitative findings (the percentages) should probably be discounted. It is worth remembering that the WTF consultation
received 588 responses over an identical period in 2022. No mention of these challenges is to be found in KEVICC’s reporting and public statements.

Indeed, KEVICC has made public statements on the basis of these findings that – while not straying into obvious misrepresentation – certainly appear to be disingenuous and self-serving. For instance, theKEVICC consultation website page states, ‘We have been greatly encouraged by the overwhelmingly positive feedback we received to our plans from those who responded’. From an expert perspective, there is little reason for KEVICC to be encouraged by these findings. At the same time, the qualitative responses (to the open responses questions) are more useful because they highlight concerns about the sale of the KEVICC land (see below).

These are the key flaws in the KEVICC consultation:

• 1. The first rule of writing good surveys to ask one question at a time. The KEVICC consultation breaks this fundamental rule by asking only one question about a bundled up ‘plan’ that has many elements within it. Most significantly, it bundles together the private sale of all the land and the improvements to the school as the ‘plan’ and only allows a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer with respect to the ‘plan’. A more sincere consultation would have broken this down into a number of questions. In addition, a robust survey would have allowed gradated levels of agreement or disagreement with elements of the plan as opposed to simplistic ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses.
• 2. Despite a six weeks consultation period, the school managed to obtain only 99 responses. This is pitiful (especially when compared with the almost 600 responses to the WTF consultation). This very low level of response means that the quantitative findings of the consultation have only very limited value and should probably be discounted. In recent weeks, a number of townspeople have commented that they did not complete the KEVICC consultation because of the issues described in #1 and their resulting impression that the consultation was not sincere; a ‘stitch up’ is how one put it.
• 3. If we are to take the quantitative findings seriously, which is not recommended, we note that 70% of 99 people (i.e. around 70 people for a population in excess of 10,000) said that they supported the ‘plan’. However, the same number – 70% of respondents – also said that they have concerns about the ‘plan’. This seemingly contradictory finding is probably a product of the bundling up of issues into the ‘plan’; while people support renovation of the school but they have concerns about the sale of the land (as well as other issues).
• 4. The qualitative data, gathered through open text questions, are more useful. These shows that respondents have concerns about a number of issues related to the sale of the land; loss of the field, more housing, more pollution and congestion, and inadequate provision of services were all mentioned. It is notable that these coincide strongly with the views of the WTF campaign. In irresponsible statements, the KEVICC consultation report goes on to claim that issues such as congestion and pollution will be dealt with at the planning stage

Despite these flaws, the KEVICC consultation report makes no mention of any methodological problems. The report does not even mention or express regret at the very low response rate.

Conclusions

This expert evaluation of the KEVICC consultation shows that it not helpful in understanding community opinion with respect to the TTC proposal and bid. In addition, the consultation was flawed in a number of ways, most particularly in aspects of its design and the level of response. No methodological concerns are mentioned in any of the KEVICC reporting. Instead, the school states on its website, ‘We have been greatly encouraged by the overwhelmingly positive feedback we received to our plans from those who responded’. This analysis suggests that KEVICC has little to be encouraged about with respect to this consultation. In conclusion, although the KEVICC reporting of its consultation does not stray into obvious misrepresentation, it is clearly disingenuous and self-serving in a number of ways.

It is essential that KEVICC corrects the public record with respect to the flaws in its consultation and their implications regarding opinion within the community. This could be done by sharing this WTF report on its website. In particular, it is important that the school acquaints the Secretary of State for Education with the flaws in its own consultation and the findings in this WTF report. If KEVICC would like to discuss any changes to this report before doing this, we would be happy to consider this.

---

Appendix 1:

The WTF Printed Survey

Appendix 2:

Text Comments from the WTF Survey

Grew up in swallowfields, we played in that lovely field

Picnics, collecting daughter from school , safe place for her to meet friends.

My children are at Totnes Progressive School and we often use the field after school.

I start my run from the field

As someone who values the great importance of green spaces for community use.

Many of my family members still use lower field.

My home is on Swallowfields and this will directly affect me.

I am a resident of Totnes who relishes the beauty of the town and the green spaces that remain. I take pleasure in the fact that the children of KEVICC go to school surrounded by green space around their school buildings, and have access to such a wonderful natural resource for relaxation and play, across the busy road from their school. Imagine their walk to school without this there – just more buildings, traffic, noise, pollution. These children need succour as they start, experience and end their day – not endless bricks, mortar, cars, fumes, commerce.

We use it for picnics & community meets

I also enjoy seeing a variety of people using the space, particularly large drops of young people in the summer. How great is our that they have a safe and pleasant place to be rather than hanging out I the streets! I think they identify with this space having used it throughout their school years.

It’s on my running/dog walk route

I picnic on the lower field often

Interested as it was an Elmhirst gift to the school

I am involved with a number of community projects and the Elmhirst Buildings would make a wonderful space for expansion of existing and creation of new projects for the benefit of the people of Totnes.

I live very close to the field and walk across it frequently on my way to the river and access for all path to Dartington. The green space, hedges and bird/ wildlife are dear to me, and I dread the noise, damage and disruption that a commercial building site would bring

Generally interested in preserving and improving amenities for the local population, as well as proper social housing, if any housing is to be built.

Just want to keep the green space

Many of us play basketball on the basketball court

I work right next to the field

Totnes Ultimate frisbee team

Local resident, grew up next to the field and used it many times

I was brought up in Dartington. It is absolutely terrible to think the fields would be built on, the Elmhurst’s would turn in their graves

I live in Dartside and Supported SOFA ( Save Our Field Association) years ago.

My family swims and has done recreational activities for years from the lower field

Our youth group TRAYE often walk around this area and play games.

I cycle past frequently and sometimes picnic or sunbathe there

I am just a resident of Totnes that opposes more loss of green space.

I appreciate the open space

I believe in green space for all

Used to use lower field, have many friends who still do.

Enjoy the space.

Psychotherapist who recognises the value to mental health and emotional wellbeing gained from open and green spaces operating as separation spaces in urban planning I am a frequent visitor to Totnes and wearied by the gradual destruction of all that the Elmshirsts achieved.

I use the river path daily, so walk past the area often.

I am a Swallowfields resident and will be affected by increased parking in our road if the field is developed

Strong supporter of retaining the site for TTC ownership.

It would be awful for Totnes and the people of Totnes for houses to be built on the field.

We need lots of green space to enjoy for our well-being and socially say hello to people we meet on our walks.

Lower field is the last level site suitable for sports facilities and community recreation with the increased population demand will only increase. Other towns/cities have recreation space which is protected, why not Totnes.

I’m a regular visitor to Swallowfields to see family and friends, my grandchildren also enjoy the river and playing sports on the field.

we need to keep the field for the community. We don’t need a concrete jungle.

I strongly oppose the sale of the field to private developers

Appendix 3:

About the author of the report

Dr Kevin Burchell is a resident of Follaton, a member of the WTF team and a Research Fellow at University of Birmingham. Since getting his PhD in 2005 (London School of Economics), Dr Burchell has accumulated 17 years of experience as a social science researcher and evaluator, with particular expertise in conducting attitudinal research through surveys.

Dr Burchell has undertaken research and evaluation on projects funded/run by the Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Business, Energy, Industrial Strategy, Defra, Nesta, Devon County Council, Environment Agency, Wellcome Trust and Joseph Rowntree Foundation. On a no charge basis, Dr Burchell has also carried out research and evaluations for local third sector and community organisations, such as Lifeworks, Totnes Climate Hub and now the WTF campaign.
You can find out more about Dr Burchell’s work here