FOI disclosures

The covering email described the disposal as part of a long-term masterplan intended to fund:

• Improvements to existing school accommodation.
• A new all-weather football pitch.
• New changing facilities.
• Improved drainage to an existing playing field.
• Refurbishment of the existing gym and sports hall.
• A new, dedicated sixth-form block.
• Removal of poor-condition mobile classrooms.
• A new street scene and external auditorium.
• New canopies to extend the use of outdoor spaces.
• Improvements to site security, access and safeguarding.

Why it matters

The email records the improvements presented alongside the original application. It provides a starting point for comparing that package with the revised proposals and the conditions attached to the government’s eventual approval.

Source: Application email submitted by TDA on behalf of KEVICC, 23 November 2021; disclosed by the Department for Education under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Link to this entry

It set out the land proposed for sale, the school’s assessment of its future needs, the improvements the proceeds would fund and the anticipated effects on community users.

The land included

The application covered five parcels: A, B, C, E and F1. It stated that the proposed disposals were interdependent and that its site calculations and plans assumed all five would proceed. These are the original proposals, rather than the final approved disposal.

Playing-field provision

The application based its assessment on a proposed school capacity of 1,340 pupils. It reported:

Measure	Area reported in the application
Guideline soft outdoor PE area	52,900 m²
Existing soft outdoor PE area	64,500 m²
Proposed soft outdoor PE area after disposal	43,464 m²

The application acknowledged that the proposed remaining soft outdoor PE area would fall below its stated guideline. It justified this by reference to additional artificial-pitch provision and improvements to the remaining grass pitches.

These are figures reported by the applicant, not independently verified measurements or a statement of current provision.

Community access and replacement facilities

Section 3(c) said the existing all-weather pitch would remain available to community users. It acknowledged that the car park and changing facilities stood on land proposed for disposal, but stated:

“although there will be the loss of the car park and changing facility as mentioned above, these will be re-provided.”

It also said improved and new facilities on the remaining site would include parking and new changing facilities, and stated that community users would not be adversely affected.

Use of the proceeds

The application estimated the proposed improvements would cost approximately £5 million net. Section 5(f) stated that all receipts would be reinvested in the College’s sporting and teaching facilities.

Why it matters

Form B records the assumptions and assurances supporting the original request to sell. It allows comparison with the later changes to the approved land disposal, proposed sporting improvements and conditions governing use of the proceeds. The later changes, including the decision not to proceed with the new all-weather pitch, are documented in separate archive entries.

Source: Form B application, dated 22 November 2021, sections 2(c)–(e), 2(i), 3(c) and 5(f); disclosed by the Department for Education under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Link to this entry

What it records

• The property is freehold land described as being on the south-west side of King Edward VI Grammar School, Totnes.
• Dart Valley Learning Trust was the registered proprietor at the date of the copy, with its registration dated 19 April 2016.
• The register refers to a deed dated 13 April 2015 between Devon County Council and Dart Valley Learning Trust, covering this title and other land.
• Earlier conveyances and deeds record rights affecting the land, including drainage and water-supply rights benefiting neighbouring land.
• The register refers to copies of several underlying deeds held by Land Registry.

Why it matters

The register helps trace the recorded ownership history and identifies deeds relevant to understanding rights affecting the land. It provides references for obtaining those documents, rather than reproducing their full contents.

This is a historical copy, not confirmation of the present registered ownership. It should be read alongside its title plan and the underlying deeds before drawing conclusions about particular rights or restrictions.

Source: HM Land Registry, official copy of title register DN515842, issued 6 July 2021; supplied with the application and disclosed by the Department for Education under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Link to this entry

Why it matters

The disposal parcels labelled A, B, C, E and F1 are application references, rather than Land Registry title numbers. A proposed disposal can comprise part of a registered title. The February 2025 decision describes the application land as including parts of DN670050 and the whole of DN515737. This plan should therefore be read alongside the disposal plans, rather than treated as a map of what was ultimately approved for sale.

The official notes explain that the plan shows the general position of boundaries and that measurements taken from it may not match measurements on the ground.

Source: HM Land Registry, official title plan DN670050, issued 6 July 2021, including its accompanying notes.

Link to this entry

Why it matters

The register describes ownership and recorded rights; the title plan helps locate the land to which those entries relate. They should be used together. The plan is not a current survey, and its boundary markings should not be treated as exact ground measurements.

Source: HM Land Registry, official title plan DN515842, issued 6 July 2021, including its accompanying notes.

Link to this entry

Why it matters

It provides a registered-title reference for comparing the application plans with the government's consent. The title boundary and the boundaries of individual disposal parcels must be distinguished: the title plan alone does not identify every parcel's final sale status.

As the accompanying official notes explain, the plan shows general boundaries and may be distorted in scale.

Source: HM Land Registry, official title plan DN515737, issued 6 July 2021, including its accompanying notes.

Link to this entry

Why it matters

The plan illustrates that the school estate was made up of several different legal interests. School use of a piece of land does not, by itself, tell us whether it was owned freehold or occupied under a lease.

This is a historical application plan. Its key should be read against the individual registers, leases and later transfer documents before drawing conclusions about current ownership or access rights.

Source: Appendix 1a, “Plan of Title Deeds”, supplied with the original application.

Link to this entry

The lease describes laying out the land as a recreation or sports ground for pupils of the Grammar School and the Totnes County School for Girls, with provision concerning pupils of a future adjoining council school.

Relevant extract

Clause 2(g) includes a restriction against permitting the land to be used for:

“any other purpose than as a games or sports field.”

Why it matters

The lease is evidence of the land's historical sporting purpose and the terms on which it was provided to the council. A peppercorn rent is not the same thing as a freehold gift, and these school-use provisions do not themselves establish a general public right of access.

The scan also contains later material, including a memorandum recording a 1983 surrender affecting a strip of land. Present rights cannot be determined from the original lease wording alone: later deeds and current title documents also matter.

Source: Appendix 1a, “Dartington lease (AWP)”, particularly the first and third scanned pages and the later memorandum.

Link to this entry

Why it matters

The plan records the geographical basis of the application. It helps explain the relationship between land proposed for disposal and the sporting land intended to remain.

It should be compared with the later decision plans. The application plan is historical, and labels on different plans are not always identical. They should not be silently relabelled or treated as a current measured survey.

Source: Appendix 1b, “Plans Areas E & F1”.

Link to this entry

Why it matters

This is the application's record of existing sports provision. It provides a starting point for comparing what the school said it had with the facilities shown in its proposed future layout.

The drawing identifies uses, rather than establishing independently measured pitch dimensions or demonstrating that every facility was available throughout the year.

Source: Appendix 1c, “Existing site plan with pitches”.

Link to this entry

Why it matters

The additional pitch was part of the original explanation for how sports provision would be improved following disposal. The later DfE notes record that the trust no longer intended to provide it as proposed. Readers can therefore compare the original layout with the changes described in entries 17 and 18.

The plan is evidence of what was proposed, rather than a commitment that every drawn facility was subsequently built.

Source: Appendix 1c, “Site Plan after proposals”.

Link to this entry

Why it matters

An aerial view helps explain the relationship between the school sites, the main road, buildings and playing fields. It is an illustration, rather than a title plan or a source of exact legal boundaries. The image title alone does not establish that each disposal boundary is clearly visible on the image.

Source: Appendix 1d, supplied with the original disposal application.

Link to this entry

It identified a minimum net capacity of 1,340, including sixth-form places and those larger year groups, compared with a stated existing minimum of 1,552.

Relevant extract

“If we are able to agree this position, we can support the consultation.”

Why it matters

The email helps explain the capacity assumption later used in Form B's land-needs calculations. The quoted support is conditional on agreeing that position; it should not be described as unconditional approval of every aspect of the sale or subsequent changes.

Source: Appendix 2c, redacted local authority correspondence, 14 July 2021.

Link to this entry

The map identifies The Grove and River Dart Academy. Their accompanying responses are described separately in entries 9 and 10.

Why it matters

The map records the geographical exercise supporting the application. It should be read with the schools' responses and Form B, rather than treated as a complete assessment of every local organisation's need for sports land.

Source: Appendix 3b, “Schools within specified radius”.

Link to this entry

The document said that existing site-area data had not been supplied to the College, despite being requested. It recorded the school's response as:

“do not have a need for additional playing fields”.

Why it matters

This records the response relied on in assessing another school's need for the land at the time. It does not establish that The Grove had excess playing fields, and it should not be presented as a statement about its current requirements.

Source: Appendix 3b, “The Grove”; filed with a filename beginning “8”, but listed as item 9 in the disclosure schedule.

Link to this entry

Relevant extract

“We believe that the KEVICC surplus land could meet this need and we would welcome a conversation relating to the potential availability of land that you plan to dispose of.”

Why it matters

The response shows that another educational use was being explored when the application was submitted. It provides context for the later proposal to transfer E and F1 to Devon County Council and the subsequent decision to seek an alternative site.

The response expresses interest; it does not establish that planning permission was available or that a transfer had been agreed.

Source: Appendix 3b, “River Dart Academy”; filed with a filename beginning “8”, but listed as item 10 in the disclosure schedule.

Link to this entry

It is important to distinguish this supplied version from any separate signed agreement subsequently made with South Hams District Council.

What this version envisages

• Community participation, including groups with low participation rates, and affordable access.
• A marketing strategy prepared, implemented and reviewed annually.
• A management committee established within three months, including school, council, community and club representation.
• Accessible booking arrangements for casual and block bookings.
• Provision of amenities and maintenance of the facilities.
• Use of surplus income towards a maintenance/renewal fund, priority-group participation and sports equipment.
• Committee meetings at least three times annually and regular reporting.

Parking provision

Schedule 2, paragraph 5.1 states:

“50 car parking spaces shall be available to park for community users”.

Why it matters

This is the community-use material submitted as part of the disposal case. It identifies the arrangements represented to DfE and provides a basis for comparing the application with the separately executed agreement and actual provision.

The wording of an unsigned, partly uncompleted copy should not be presented on its own as proof of an enforceable obligation or a breach. In particular, provisions in a different signed agreement must not be attributed to this version.

Source: Appendix 3c, “Area G Community User Agreement”, especially clauses 3, 6–9 and Schedules 2–3.

Link to this entry

It also acknowledged that the level of receipts would determine what could be delivered, so not every improvement described was guaranteed to be affordable.

Retained land and community management

The paper described retaining F2 and G for playing-field use, while acknowledging that the retained area would still be surplus to the College's requirements. It invited discussion of management by local community groups.

It also stated:

“Developments elsewhere may trigger a need to relocate some car parking and changing facilities to this location to facilitate its use as a community asset.”

Why it matters

This is the proposition on which public views were sought. It documents both the benefits promoted and the qualifications attached to them. The retained-land wording is relevant to questions about community management and the space that might be needed for replacement ancillary facilities.

The possibility of relocation is not a confirmed layout or planning permission, and the invitation to discuss community management is not itself a transfer agreement.

Source: Appendix 4a, “KEVICCs Consultation Document”, particularly the introductory qualifications and discussion of Areas F1, F2 and G, including printed pages 10–11.

Link to this entry

Its parking description specifies seven minibus spaces and 57 relocated car-parking spaces for school, public and club use outside school hours and at weekends. The following numbered item concerns a new changing facility with direct access to an all-weather pitch.

Why it matters

The appendix helps explain the facilities originally envisaged on the main school site. The 57-space proposal must not be confused with the separate 50-space provision in the community-use document, or presented as a settled design for parking on F2.

Source: Appendix 4a, “KEVICCs Consultation Document Appendix”, numbered descriptions 1–7, particularly items 6 and 7.

Link to this entry

The FAQ also described the intention to continue community use of the existing hockey all-weather pitch and ancillary facilities, and to explore management of the pitch and retained grass area.

Relevant extract

“The more likely scenario is that we enter into an agreement with the purchaser on a proposal they have put forward that is conditional on them receiving planning approval for their idea”.

Why it matters

The FAQ records how the sale and planning sequence were explained to consultees. It is evidence of the approach envisaged in 2021, rather than confirmation of the terms of a current buyer agreement.

Source: Appendix 4a, “Consultation FAQ”, particularly the answers on the college seeking planning permission and the future of the hockey pitch.

Link to this entry

Result reported	Figure
Total responses	99
“Yes” responses to question 3	76 (77%, rounded)
“No” responses to question 3	23 (23%, rounded)
Respondents reported as having concerns	71%

Question 3 asked:

“Do you agree with the school’s aspirations and the benefits of consolidating the College operations on to one site?”

Why it matters

The wording matters when interpreting the reported support. Agreement with the school's aspirations and consolidation should not automatically be described as unconditional approval of every land sale or later change in investment priorities.

The report itself records concerns about the loss of green space, development, traffic, parking and the future of the existing all-weather pitch. Supporting the school's aims and expressing concerns were not mutually exclusive positions.

These are the report's results; they are not a measure of the views of every resident. Any criticism of how the consultation was interpreted should be identified as FoLF's analysis.

Source: Appendix 4b, “KEVICCs Consultation Report”, July 2021, especially printed pages 3–6.

Link to this entry

The stated purpose was to inform the trust's disposal strategy. It describes the sites and considers matters including planning, tenure, site constraints and valuation methodology.

Comparing the later figures

The February 2025 DfE decision records the original application's land value as £3.265 million. The June 2025 panel replies separately report an agent's range of £6.6 million to £9.25 million, explicitly distinguishing that estimate from a formal valuation.

Those figures concern proposals involving several parcels. Neither should be described without qualification as a valuation of E and F1 alone. The earlier and later parcel packages differ, including the later retention of C, so the headline totals are not a like-for-like comparison.

Why it matters

The report provides the historical valuation background against which later estimates and sale conditions can be examined. An old valuation is not a current sale price. Comparisons need to account for the land included, assumptions, date and planning position.

The report includes a publication restriction. We therefore describe its scope here and use the separately disclosed DfE records for the headline figures above, rather than reproducing the report or its photographs.

Sources: Appendix 5b, Vickery Holman valuation report, 2 November 2021, instruction and contents sections; the February 2025 decision letter (entry 19); June 2025 panel replies, question 2 (entry 18).

Link to this entry

Relevant extract

Item 7 describes:

“New changing facility for public and club use with direct access into AWP”.

Why it matters

The drawing records how the original facilities were envisaged spatially. It can be compared with Form B and the later explanation of changed priorities.

Although the disclosure schedule referred to a costed programme and masterplan, the separately supplied file here is a spatial drawing. It should not be described as a complete costed programme merely because that was the category requested.

Source: Appendix 5d, “KEVICC Masterplan — Spatial Plans”, proposed spatial masterplan drawing with March 2021 revision information, including numbered item 7.

Link to this entry

Relevant extract

“After consideration of the information provided by the applicant, the Panel was content to recommend approval.”

Why it matters

This is the panel's recommendation at that stage, rather than the Secretary of State's final consent or planning permission for development. It predates both the February 2025 decision and the subsequent changes to the land and investment proposals.

The short letter does not set out detailed deliberations; it should not be used to infer that any particular later change was considered and approved in 2022.

Source: “Chair Letter KESCC”, School Playing Fields Advisory Panel recommendation, 17 June 2022.

Link to this entry

Planning position reported by DfE

The note says the local planning authority indicated in March 2025 that permission would not be granted for rebuilding River Dart Academy on the KEVICC land. DfE took planning advice and concluded that an appeal against a negative decision was unlikely to succeed. The note is a departmental account of that advice; it is not itself a planning refusal notice or the underlying advice.

Changes to the improvements

The note records that the proposed new all-weather pitch and sixth-form block would not proceed as originally envisaged. It describes other work as already funded, potentially needed before sale proceeds arrived, or no longer relevant. It records the trust's expectation that proceeds might take a further five to six years to be realised, owing to planning complexity.

Relevant extract

“The school will not be providing a new all weather pitch”.

Why it matters

This is a key account of the changes between the original application and the revised consent. It also explains the proposed flexibility to spend elsewhere in the trust if suitable projects at KEVICC were not available.

Source: “KEVICC Panel Update Note May 2025”, including its update on the proposals. The June queries document identifies the earlier note as provided to the panel on 19 June 2025; the May date is the supplied filename, not a separately verified issue date.

Link to this entry

Question	Substance of the disclosed reply
How much land would be disposed of?	DfE reported 54,015 m² overall, including 32,215 m² classified as playing-field land, with C excluded.
What receipt was expected?	The agent advised £6.6 million–£9.25 million. DfE explicitly described this as not a formal valuation and referred to the original £3.265 million figure.
Had original works been checked?	Officials had not conducted a site visit to establish the extent of completed work; they relied on the comments supplied about the works.
Could proceeds go outside Devon?	DfE said this was possible in theory, while expecting the disposing school to be prioritised. The trust's schools were described as all in Devon at that time.
Had community use changed?	The trust had not told officials about changes; DfE also acknowledged regular correspondence from community members and councillors.

Relevant extract

“Although this is not a formal valuation, it is not felt cost effective to commission a valuation at this time”.

Why it matters

The replies show the questions raised and the evidence officials said they relied on. The agent's estimate should not be presented as a current RICS valuation. Likewise, the absence of changes reported by the trust is not a finding that community use had remained unchanged.

The figures in the table are departmental statements, not measurements or valuations independently verified by FoLF. The document does not by itself establish whether the panel accepted every reply or asked further questions later.

Source: “KEVICC Panel Updated Note (inc Panel queries) June 2025”, questions 1–5 and Appendix 1.

Link to this entry

Conditions on sale and investment

The letter required market value or above, supported by valuations obtained no more than six months before disposal. It restricted reinvestment to any or all of the listed capital projects at KEVICC: an additional all-weather pitch, changing facilities, drainage, gym/sports-hall refurbishment, a dedicated sixth-form block and external-environment improvements.

Relevant extract

“the capital receipt from the disposal will be reinvested by the trust in any or all of the following capital projects at the school”.

Why it matters

This records the original approved route and spending framework before the October changes. The words “any or all” matter: the condition did not require every listed project to be delivered.

Status: Superseded by the decision dated 29 October 2025. Retained here as part of the decision history.

Source: DfE letter, reference LT-4109, 10 February 2025, conditions (a)–(c) and the paragraphs concerning E and F1.

Link to this entry

Use of the proceeds

The revised consent required capital replacement and refurbishment at KEVICC to be agreed with DfE officials when proceeds were realised. It prioritised new changing facilities, improved drainage to the western playing fields and gym/sports-hall refurbishment, to the extent these projects were still required.

It also stated:

“In the event there are no suitable projects at the school at the time the proceeds are realised, officials may agree to the proceeds being used for capital projects at other schools within the trust.”

Why it matters

The letter changed both the disposal package and the spending framework. It did not give an unrestricted right to spend elsewhere: the condition identifies the absence of suitable KEVICC projects and agreement by officials.

The October valuation condition required an up-to-date Red Book valuation within six months of sale. That particular condition was amended in March 2026; the remainder of the October letter was left in place.

Source: DfE letter, reference LT-4109, 29 October 2025, including condition (b).

Link to this entry

The replacement condition

“a) that the sale price is no less than the estimated market value of the land confirmed by an up to date red book valuation, or RICS qualified surveyor’s letter (if appropriate), dated within 6 months of the sale date; and”

RICS is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Why it matters

The condition still requires the sale price to meet or exceed an up-to-date estimate of market value. It adds a surveyor's letter as an alternative where appropriate; it does not remove the valuation requirement, permit any price, or substitute a building-condition survey.

The October wording referred to estimated “open market value”; the replacement refers to estimated “market value”. The letter does not explain what practical significance, if any, was intended by that wording change. It should not be presented on its own as evidence that a lower valuation was authorised.

Source: DfE letter, reference LT-4109, 13 March 2026, replacement condition (a).

Link to this entry