We had a successful public meeting via Zoom, sharing what the Friends of West Ham Park know so far, and listening to what people thought of the proposed scheme and discussing potential future uses for the Nursery Site.
Below is the short slide show we opened the meeting with.
Precis of the minutes from the meeting
Roger Jones welcomed everybody to the meeting and thanked for attending.
West Ham Park is a much loved, used and valuable community asset. We believe it needs to be bigger and certainly not smaller!
The City of London have been very secretive about their plans for the nursery site and keeping it away from the people to whom it matters most – ie all of us
Tonight we want to tell you how we believe CoL’s plans are developing and what you/we/all of us can do to react to the public notice they have published.
Jules from FWHP will give us a presentation on the current position. Some of you will have seen some of this before but we believe it is important we all have the same level of understanding, including our understanding of how the proposals are being developed and what we can do about them. Our aim is that the nursery site should become public parkland.
Following the presentation I will open up the meeting to Q&A. The meeting protocols are as follows –
- If you want to ask a question, or seek clarification of a point, please raise your hand (physical or electronic). Please state your name and question and one of us will try and respond.
- If we haven’t got to you, or you need to leave the meeting, please put your question in the ‘chat’ box and we’ll respond after the meeting.
- I expect the meeting to last about an hour.
After the meeting we’ll send an email to everyone who registered, with details of how to respond to Savills.
Jules presented a summary of the situation to date, including the historical dedication of the park and the conditions imposed at the time, and as much as is known of the current situation. He reiterated the fact that CoL have excluded the public from all discussions of their plans, which makes it difficult to give people the answers which they need.
The recent notice published in the press and on the park gates relayed to CoL’s choice of an agent for the project, Savills, and the agent’s obligation to offer at least a 30 day window for people to make representations about the principle of the development. It does not include any specific details. Our aim is to make Savills aware of the local opposition to development and wish for more parkland. It is essential that as many people as possible respond and we ask that everyone sends a personalised email and copies it to CoL and FWHP. We will provide a list of important points to be raised, alongside any personal points. It is important that we do not send one identical letter many times, as these tend to be ignored by the recipient.
The meeting was then opened for Q and A. Answers given by Roger unless otherwise noted.
A number of points had already been raised in the meeting ‘Chat’.
Question –
- Have the City of London already chosen a purchaser/developer/leaseholder for the land? Is it a done deal?
- How many dwellings are proposed for this site? How many floors?
- How many council, social, affordable houses are proposed on this development? Or are they all going to be private for wealthier people?
- How many vehicles are anticipated for residents, and how much car parking space/provision proposed for this area of land? Would it be on the area shown on the plan for the development, or in the surrounding streets?
- What will be the ecological footprint of the proposed dwellings in the park? Have the trustees performed any assessment of the risks to the remainder of the park and surrounding area by allowing the erection of a building on the premises?
- What if West Ham Park needs to establish a nursery on its grounds in the future? The trustees will have sold off this area to a private company so will not be able to do so.
- Does the Charity Commission need to give permission for this disposal of the land for 999 years? As good/bad as a permanent sale.
- How do the trustees reconcile their proposed disposal with their recent statement regarding the crucial importance of West Ham Park to the community, when they were planning the revamp of the playground? It seems to go completely against their comments re our area being one of the most deprived in the country, and our need to keep all green spaces.
- How do the trustees propose to plough back the proceeds of this “lease” into the upkeep and maintenance of the park?
- How much do the trustees expect to receive for their proposed transaction? Straight away and for the duration of the 999 year lease?
- Are there any “connected persons” involved in the proposed disposal of this land?
A – These would be responded to after the meeting. Many of the answers to these points were not known by us.
Q – Given that the park is an important horticultural site, is there scope to design into any scheme a centre that can offer horticultural training for local young people and adults wanting new job skills?
A – These are options that could be assessed if the development proposal does not proceed.
Q – Suggest that the network of local community gardens should be involved.
A – Contact has been made with a variety of local groups, and will be maintained.
Q – Did you have to be a local resident to respond, and whether several responses could be sent from a single household.
A – Anyone can respond, and as long as there is only one response per email address they can be from the same household.
Q – What is the best way to stop this development.
A – There is no single way to stop it. We are trying to enlist the help of the Charity Commission as we feel the development does not fit with the charitable status of the park. Local MP Lyn Brown has been very supportive in obtaining replies from the Charity Commission when we had been unable to get a response. We understand that Planning Permission will have to be obtained from Newham BC, so encouraging them to oppose and reject the application is important.
Q – What about involvement of local MPs and councillors, stating that Newham does not have a good record of protecting locally valued amenities, citing City Farm and Stratford Circus as examples. Suggest we join forces with other groups and try to hold Newham to account.
A – Noted. Lyn Brown is supportive, as mentioned. We will continue to press Newham councillors for support. Jules stated that he would be happy to coordinate a campaign.
Q – Suggest a day of action in the park, with leaflets, banners, activities etc to engage park users who might not otherwise respond to the campaign.
A – We may eventually do something like this, but at present FWHP have a good working relationship with the park staff, who are employed by CoL. Without this we would be unable to run our popular public events. We need to be careful not to set the park staff against their employer by being seen to support our opposition to the development.
Jules explained that we have had a lot of advice from CPRE, who have experience in the best time to take such action.
Q – I understood that CoL held the land in trust “for ever”, and suggested that this proposal goes beyond their authority.
A – Jules replied that this has been pointed out to the Charity Commission, which has given very unsatisfactory answers. Lyn Brown MP is pursuing this on our behalf.
Q – Representing the cricket team, could someone from FWHP could go along to their first match of the season on 17th April and explain the situation to those involved.
A – We are happy to arrange this. We are also planning a social get together for all user groups to encourage cooperation and see how we can help each other.
Q – John Whitworth is a local councillor for West Ham Ward. He explained that Newham cannot act until a Planning Application is made, but felt that most Newham councillors were opposed to the development proposal. He explained that councillors who sit on the Planning Committee cannot express an opinion, as they would then be unable to be considered as impartial in assessing any Planning Application. The Planning Committee will have to be guided by the opinion of Newham’s professional Planning Officers as to the legality of rejecting any proposal.
He emphasised that everyone should contact their local councillor and express opposition to any development other than return to public open space. Councillor Whitworth is not currently on the Planning Committee and does not expect big changes after the elections in May.
A – Noted, with thanks for attending this meeting and giving advice.
Q – How we could ensure that our campaign represents the actual profile of our community, and what are the most important points to make when responding to Savills’ notice.
A – FWHP recognise that our organising group is not as diverse as the local community, but attendance at our events certainly is, which is encouraging.
We will email everyone on this call with a list of important points to make in your responses, and stress again that all emails should be personalised rather than all copies of the same letter, which tends to be ignored by the recipient.
Q – Anne Corbett stated that she has just been elected as a Common Councillor of the City of London. She stressed that CoL is well organised and an influential opponent, but thinks there will be concern amongst the Common Councillors about this proposal and the possible damage to CoL’s reputation.
She offered to talk to us separately about the work of CoL and the committees.
A – Accepted with thanks, we will contact her to arrange a meeting. We do not underestimate the power and influence of CoL.
Q – How Savills will deal with our representations, and is it acceptable for community institutions such as Mosques and Gurdwaras to respond on behalf of their group. She offered her film making experience for any future publicity we may need.
A – Charlotte replied that they should read and consider every reply, and report to their client CoL. They should consider the legal and charitable status of the park, which we will stress in our replies. Organisations can reply for their community. Charotte stressed that we need everyone to respond quickly, with copies to CoL and FWHP as already requested, and ideally by 10th April so we have a record of replies before the 16th April deadline. Savills will ignore any late emails.
The offer of help with publicity is gratefully accepted.
Question –
- Whether all income from any development would be guaranteed to be used to benefit the park.
- How CoL have progressed the proposal this far without giving any details?
- Can the land legally be sold?
- Surely the Charity Commission would have to authorise a change of use? What protection does the park’s Grade 2 listing confer?
A – We are trying to establish whether the secrecy that has surrounded this proposal is legal, along with the answers to the above questions. The process of obtaining information has been frustrating, but we are not giving up.
Q – An opinion was expressed that CoL is undemocratic and stuck in the middle ages. Accepted that they would not want damage to their reputation, which is one of our points for checking the legality if their actions. Suggest we contact all the local schools and teaching unions and urge them to respond to the proposal. We should be ready to mount public protests.
A – Good points, we will alert the local schools. Responding to Savills consultation is the priority, but other protests will be in order once a definite proposal is made public.
Q – Representing a local housing cooperative – agreed that all avenues, including public protest, should be started.
A – Agree, but please everyone do the email to Savills first.
Roger closed the Q and A session, commenting that we now have a long list of actions to consider and contacts to make or reinforce. He apologised to anyone who had been unable to ask their question. He thanked everyone for contributing to such a well-mannered and constructive meeting, and reminded everyone about the importance of making representations to Savills. An email with the details of this will be sent to everyone who registered for the meeting in the next coupe of days.
Suggested content for your letter/email to Savills
Your email to them should be your views but without using inflammatory or abusive language and should include the following points in your own words. Please remember Savills are acting on behalf of the City of London; it would be unreasonable to imply any blame to them concerning the City of London’s actions. The email should be sent to [email protected] and [email protected] by the 10th April and copied to [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
Key points to include in your own words –
1. I object to the City of London Corporation’s proposal to sell the land edged red in their public notice. The land is part of West Ham Park which is listed by Historic England as a Grade II Park. Newham Borough has the least Green Space per resident of any London Borough. West Ham Park is the largest park in the borough and is a vital asset as recognised in its Local Plan (2018-2033). Newham is one of 4 least active boroughs in London. 12.3% of Newham children aged 4-5 and 27.5% aged 10-11 were classified obese in 2012/13. Newham has the fifth highest rate of children in poverty after housing costs of any local authority area, 37.66% of children in West Ham and 37.46% in East Ham live in poverty. The local plan also highlights the large number of homes that are to be built in the borough – 43,000 borough wide, with 4286 units in the Stratford and West Ham area. Therefore, access to quality public green space is a priority for this area if we are to reduce inequality of access to physical activity and help improve people’s wellbeing. Maintaining the current size West Ham Park and increasing the area of public open space is absolute priority. I note the City of London is not proposing to sell any part of any other public open space they manage, and in some cases have bought land to protect and increase their Open Spaces
2. The City of London have promised to keep residents and park users informed of progress with their proposal. The made a statement in the Newham Recorder to say “We are very pleased to be moving forward with this project which will be of great benefit to park users. This is an opportunity to make effective use of previously developed land and we are excited to move onto this next step. We will keep residents and park users fully informed as we progress with this long term project”. The public promises made by the City of London have not been kept by this notice. The information given presumably does not reflect the extent of the trustees’ knowledge of what is proposed for the land. In what way is this keeping residents and beneficiaries fully informed? The notice is unclear and fails to deliver on both the statutory duties of the Trustees and the public promises by the City of London. It reflects the completely opaque manner in which City of London have handled the development of their proposals and the complete lack of any form of public engagement or consultation over what is public land and facilities.
3. As a matter of common sense, the notice should be sufficient to allow the public to make representations effectively. The information regarding what they are doing with the land edged red and blue is completely unclear. Residents can’t tell what will be built on the land or what “improvements” will be made. What does this actually mean for the Park? What is happening to the disposed land and the retained land?
4. The City of London should abandon their proposal to sell the land, the notice should be withdrawn and the City of London should engage with the local community to agree a plan to transform these areas of a Grade II Historic Park, to public parkland.
Thank you again for your support