Agenda item

The reasons for the call-in are:-

·         To consider concerns over an inconsistent policy regarding green space across the borough, review the differences between Coniston Gardens and Elms Gardens in terms of the nature of requests from local residents. 

·         To consider concerns regarding why no review undertaken to determine whether the site was still required for decanting of Barham Park Estate and to what extent.

·         To consider further why the alternative allotment site at Vale Farm was not considered suitable but a site in Gladstone Park was considered acceptable.

·         Review implications of selling off green space in an area of public open space deficiencies as stated in report, even if not used for affordable housing.

·         Consider over development of site and possibility of sensible split between part development and part retention as green space.

·         Consider why Notting Hill Housing Trust did not pursue the Harrow Road petrol station site available a long time ago.

The Executive report is attached.  The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

The reasons for call-in were:-

·         To consider concerns over an inconsistent policy regarding green space across the borough, review the differences between Coniston Gardens and Elms Gardens in terms of the nature of requests from local residents. 

·         To consider concerns regarding why no review undertaken to determine whether the site was still required for decanting of Barham Park Estate and to what extent.

·         To consider further why the alternative allotment site at Vale Farm was not considered suitable but a site in Gladstone Park was considered acceptable.

·         Review implications of selling off green space in an area of public open space deficiencies as stated in report, even if not used for affordable housing.

·         Consider over development of site and possibility of sensible split between part development and part retention as green space.

·         Consider why Notting Hill Housing Trust did not pursue the Harrow Road petrol station site available a long time ago.

Councillor Crane (Lead Member for Regeneration and Economic Development) introduced the report and stated that the site had formerly been used for allotments, however it had since fallen out of use and the Executive had approved de-designation of the site for re-use to provide decant accommodation for the Barham Park Estate redevelopment in April 2009.  He advised that an alternative allotment site had been identified at Gladstone Park. 

Councillor Daly was then invited to address the committee to represent the views of local residents as their ward councillor.  Councillor Daly stated that the site had been designated as a wildlife site, the only one in Sudbury ward.  Residents were displeased that the site was to be developed and it was felt that incorrect information had been given to the Secretary of State who had approved the council’s request to de-designate the land as it had failed to disclose that the land was a wildlife site.  Councillor Daly commented that there was little evidence of consultation with residents over the proposals, apart from the Allotments Forum.  She suggested that residents had been misled over future plans for the site and was awaiting a response from the Borough Solicitor in respect of queries over the proposals.   Concern was expressed that if the intended purchases of the site, Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) were unable to do so, the site would be put for sale on the open market and she claimed that this also had not been specified to the Secretary of State.  Councillor Daly stressed that the de-designation had only approved housing use and the site would only be able to accommodate a relatively small number of units in any case.  She suggested that the empty cottages on the edge of Barham Park could be used to accommodate housing.  Councillor Daly also suggested that the proposals would harm the local economy. 

With the approval of the Chair, Kenneth Koranteng, a local resident,addressed the committee.  Kenneth Koranteng expressed concern about the proposals to use the site to decant residents from Barham Park Estate, stating that London Wildlife had described the site as an important area for nature and conservation.  He felt that it had been wrong to describe the site as derelict and he questioned the legalities of changing the use of the site.  Kenneth Koranteng stated that there had not been a formal process of informing residents of the proposals which he felt were more suited for brown field sites.  He stressed that this was one of the few open spaces in Sudbury ward and that it was appreciated by local residents and should be retained.

With the approval of the Chair, Steve Bennett, a local resident, addressed the committee.  Steve Bennett stated that no members of the Allotments Forum lived near the site and that the matter was presently at stage three of the council’s complaints procedure.  He expressed disappointment that the Executive had agreed the proposals on 15 November despite the residents’ opposing views being well known.   Steve Bennett felt that the council’s submission to the Secretary of State that the land was derelict and there had been no interest in re-commencing allotments on the site was incorrect.

Councillor Mashari enquired whether residents were more concerned about the loss of the allotments or wildlife, whether the site was a conservation area, when had the site last been used for allotments and had residents suggested any initiatives as to how the site could be used.  In reply, Steve Bennett confirmed that there was a council link to a website that had declared the site an area of importance for nature conservation.  The allotment owners had been evicted around four to five years ago, however up until then the site had been used regularly and residents were concerned at both the loss of the allotments and the wildlife centre.

In response to concerns raised by Councillor Daly and local residents, Councillor Crane acknowledged the issues that had been raised, however he advised that approval to de-designate the site had been made by the previous Administration in April 2009.  The decisions made at the November 2010 Executive meeting were concerned with identifying who the site would be sold to and the council’s view was that there were no legal issues with regard to selling the site.  With regard to decanting of Barham Park Estate, Councillor Crane advised that phase two involved housing 64 people, of which 16 had already been allocated, and 66 people for phase three, of which ten had presently been allocated.  A further 60 had requested accommodation off-site and 26 had been placed so far.  Councillor Crane reminded Members of the council’s responsibility towards both Barham Park Estate residents and to address the major housing shortage in the borough, including homeless families.  If the site was not used for housing, it would exacerbate this problem.  Councillor Crane advised that Gladstone Park had been identified as the alternative allotment site as there was a greater demand in that part of the borough for allotments than Sudbury.

Members then discussed this item.  Councillor H B Patel expressed concerns that information had been misrepresented with regard to de-designating the land and he felt that if councillors were not aware of this that the matter should be referred back to the Executive.  He felt that residents in Sudbury had clearly demonstrated that there was demand for allotments in the area and he questioned why it was proposed to build housing on a green site.  Councillor H B Patel also felt that in the event of NHHT not being able to purchase the site, putting the land for sale on the open market would not resolve the situation.  Councillor Mashari sought further comments as to whether the site was derelict and presently served no useful purpose.  Councillor Mistry sought further clarification with regard to the complaint lodged to the council in respect of the de-designation of the site.

Councillor Lorber referred to a site at Coniston Gardens that the Executive had decided to retain and asked what factors had influenced the decision to dispose of Elms Gardens as both sites shared many similarities.  He commented that the council had identified as early as 2001 that the site was no longer suitable for allotment use and that the Executive in April 2009 had merely been asked to endorse the de-designation of the site and the Secretary of State had already approved the de-designation prior to the Executive meeting.  He felt the full history of the site should be assessed and seen in context before any final decision was made on the future of the site.  Councillor Lorber commented that the alternative allotment site was not in Gladstone Park, but on land of the old Gladstone Park School and that the site was surrounded by housing and landlocked, making it difficult to access.  In addition, the alternative site was not near any convenient bus routes and this would encourage car use which was against council policy.  Councillor Lorber mentioned that there was demand for allotments in Sudbury with a waiting list of 76 people and he enquired what the reasons were for identifying the alternative allotment site. With regard to disposing of the land, he sought views on how confident the council was that NHHT would be capable of purchasing the land, especially in view that NHHT had recently withdrawn from acquiring another site in the Sudbury ward and because an alternative proposal that the site be put for sale on the open market in the event of NHHT not acquiring the site had also been put forward.

In reply, Councillor Crane stated that originally a decision had been made by the Executive of the previous administration to dispose of the Coniston Gardens Scout Hut site.  However, he felt that the school and the local community had made a strong enough case for the site to be retained for community use and so the current Executive had reversed the decision to dispose of the site.  Councillor Crane stated that the alternative allotments site was connected to Gladstone Park.  He acknowledged that there was some demand for allotments in Sudbury and that this was an issue that could be looked at, however demand in the south of the borough was particularly strong and the Secretary of State had requested that a suitable alternative allotment site be identified.  Councillor Crane stressed that the main issue decided by the Executive at the 15 November meeting was to authorise sale of the site to NHHT to provide 15 flats for residents over 50 years of age, ten two-storey houses and two three-storey houses and this would represent a significant contribution to Brent’s housing needs, whilst also not using other valuable housing stock whilst decanting Barham Park Estate.  Councillor Crane advised that there was no current plan to put the site on sale to the open market and it was not necessarily the case that this would occur even in the event of NHHT not acquiring the site and other options may be considered.  He stated that although he was not fully familiar with the history of the Elms Gardens site, he understood the site had been out of use for around eight years.

Arnold Meagher (Legal Adviser) confirmed that a complaint lodged to the council in respect of the de-designation of the site was now at stage three of council’s complaints process and the council reply to the complaint was due to be issued shortly.

Councillor Lorber felt there were a number of outstanding issues that merited further investigation concerning the history of the Elms Gardens, including the circumstances concerning its de-designation and the information that was used to come to this decision.  Members then agreed to a recommendation suggested by Councillor Lorber that because of concerns raised by residents, the Executive be requested to suspend disposal of the site in order to resolve the outstanding issues.

RESOLVED:-

(i)         that upon considering the report from the Director Regeneration and Major Projects and the Director of Housing and Community Care, the decisions made by the Executive be noted; and

(ii)        that in view of the concerns raised by residents, the Executive be requested to suspend the disposal of the site in order to resolve the outstanding issues.