Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Director of Law and Governance detailing a petition received about Whitewebbs Park. 

(Report No. 220)

Members are asked to note that the Petition has been submitted under the Council’s Petition scheme and, in accordance with the scheme, has been referred for debate at Council as it contains more than the required 3,124 signatures.

Under the terms of the Petition Scheme the petition organiser will be given 5 minutes to present the petition at the Council meeting.  Council will then have the opportunity to discuss the petition for a maximum period of 15 minutes.

The Council will then need to decide how to respond to the petition.  In doing this, Council may decide to take the action requested, not take the action (for reasons given during the debate) or to commission further investigation. 

Where the issue is one on which the Council Executive are required to make the final decision, the Council will decide whether to make recommendations to inform that decision.

The Lead Petitioner Sean Wilkinson spoke for 5 minutes in support of the petition on Whitewebbs Park.  He raised the following points: 

·         Leases and freehold purchase were used in the past by the rich and powerful to enclose the land of Enfield Chase.  The poor received nothing. However, in 1931 an enlightened Council purchased Whitewebbs Park as public open space for the people of Enfield. 

·         Whitewebbs is a beautiful park with a small café, many attractive footpaths and a public golf course.  It makes a huge contribution to people’s mental and physical wellbeing.

·         The ancient woodland with its magnificent trees cleans the air, helps flood prevention and to combat climate change. 

·         Although it is poorly served by public transport, there is free parking which makes it very accessible.

·         There is an abundance of plant and animal life, lots of biodiversity. 

·         Any development that involves construction, earth-working and landscaping would be a denial of the Council’s commitment to climate reform. 

·         There was concern that the potential for dealing with 200,000 cubic metres of imported material has not been retracted from the tender documents. 

·         The suggestion that the golf course was losing money could be applied to any of the Council’s leisure facilities.  It was felt that accounts can be twisted to show anything. 

·         The golf course needed quality preparation, the right facilities and adequate parking. 

·         There has been a policy of secrecy around this issue, minimal publicity, misleading and contradictory statements. 

·         The initial commitment to require the current level of public access across the park has been changed to rights of way, but there were none in the park. 

·         Any community consultation had been done by the community, who had consulted with 120 park users at a public meeting and had put together a petition signed by over 3,500 people. 

·         A Council committee and councillors had been misled by officers. 

·         The secrecy had generated a great deal of mistrust. 

·         The Council had only organised a question and answer session with the preferred bidder.  There was no longer any stakeholder involvement. 

·         Councillors were custodians not owners of the park and they had a responsibility to guard it for the people of Enfield, not to sell it off to the rich and powerful

·         The petitioners wanted their children and grandchildren to have a beautiful natural park, to enhance the environment, defend the climate, for the Council to think anew and put an end to these proposals. 

In response, Councillor Caliskan, Leader of the Council thanked the petitioner and the residents who had come to attend the meeting.  She made the following points: 

·         She agreed that the park was absolutely beautiful.

·         The Council had owned the freehold since 1931 and there were no restrictive covenants. 

·         The golf course had been opened in 1932 so there was a long history of sport on the site.  However, over the past 5 years the golf course had has lost money, over £960,000.  This money was needed to deliver other vital services such as adult social care and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6