Agenda item

To receive pursuant to Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services detailing two petitions that have been received which meet the criteria (in terms of the number of signatures) for debate at Council.

(Report No.213)

 

Council is being asked to consider these petitions as urgent items given the fact that both petitions were received after the Council agenda had been dispatched and both issues are the subject of live applications under the Asset of Community Value process, with the next ordinary business meeting of the Council not scheduled until mid-July.

Councillor Taylor moved and Councillor Stewart seconded the report of the Director of Finance, Resources and Customer Services (No.213) circulated as a Supplementary Council agenda which detailed two petitions being submitted for consideration by Council as urgent items, under the Petitions Procedure.

 

The Petitions were dealt with in the following order:

 

1.1    Petition: Green Dragon Public House

 

NOTED

 

1.         The background and history of the site on which the Green Dragon Public House had been located.

 

2.      The current use of the building on the site as a discount retail store, which had been converted from the public house under Permitted Development Rights.

 

3.      The Assets of Community Value nomination process, which Members were informed the property was now subject to following an application submitted on 6 March 2015.  The nomination process was governed by set criteria, which included as one element an assessment regarding the strength of local community feeling.  The nomination would be considered by an Evaluation Panel made up of officers with relevant knowledge and professional skills and it was therefore felt reasonable for the petition to be referred on to the Panel for consideration as part of that process.

 

4.      In terms of any further action in relation to the petition, it was not felt appropriate (whilst the application was subject to the live nomination procedure) for the Council to agree anything further outside of that procedure.  Should the property be successful in its nomination as an Asset of Community Value it would lead to a moratorium, in respect of any future disposal of the asset.

 

The Mayor then invited Mike McLean (as lead petitioner) to address the meeting, who highlighted the following issues:

 

·                The petition contained approximately 4,200 signatures which had been gathered in support of protecting the site from redevelopment and its continued use as a public house.

 

·                The long history of the site in terms of its use as a public house and its iconic status as a building at the centre of the local community.

 

·                Although business had declined in recent years it was felt that its use as a public house could generate significant interest, under the right style of management given its location at the heart of the community and good transport links.

 

·                Members of the local community had been disappointed at what they felt to have been the secretive nature of the sale of the site to the current owner, with other companies who specialised in the pub sector having since expressed potential interest in continuing to run the property as a public house.

 

·                Concerns were expressed at the current viability of the property in terms of its use as a “pop up” discount retail store and impact this may have on any future development or use.

 

·                The need to recognise the local community value of the premises and to support, in any way possible, the aims of the petition in safeguarding and protecting its future use as a public house and preventing any other form of development on the site.

 

The Mayor thanked Mr McLean for his presentation, which was then subject to a short debate.  Issues highlighted during the debate included:

 

(a)     the rich heritage and iconic landmark status of the premises and site within Winchmore Hill.

 

(b)     whilst previously a popular destination the need was recognised, given its recent decline, to demonstrate sufficient demand for the premises to remain as a public house and viable business which supporters of the petition felt was possible given the right investment, product and management.

 

(c)     the importance in maintaining community hubs as a place where the local community could congregate and serve as a focus for the local neighbourhood

 

Following this debate members were asked to consider the recommendations in the report and what action they wished to take in response to the petition, with the following actions agreed unanimously, without a vote.

 

AGREED

 

(1)     To note and acknowledge the importance of the issue and strength of community feeling on the issue, highlighted within the Petition.

 

(2)     To note that the property was subject to a live application under the Asset of Community Value procedure and to refer the petition to the Asset of Community Value Nomination Panel for consideration under that process.

 

1.2    Petition & Motion re Former Middlesex University site in Trent Park

 

Councillor J.Charalambous moved and Councillor Neville seconded the following motion, which was also considered alongside the petition submitted on the same matter:

 

“In light of uncertainty over the future ownership of the former Middlesex University campus in Trent Country Park and overwhelming public support for the Save Trent Park Campaign, Enfield Council will take immediate steps to fulfil the requirements of the petition set up by the campaign group , which currently has over 3500 signatures – namely to grant the former Middlesex University campus the status of an Asset of Community Value (as per the application submitted by the Friends of Trent Country Park and Christ Church Cockfosters); amend planning rules to grant permanent public access across the grounds (as enjoyed for decades during Middlesex University’s ownership); actively encourage a long term public use for the listed mansion and grounds which will also promote the important role the Estate played in World War II; and re-evaluate the management and strategic vision of Trent Country Park as a whole.”

 

In jointly presenting the motion and petition, Councillor J.Charalambous highlighted the following issues, as lead petitioner:

 

·                The historic significance of the mansion and grounds, which it was felt were now at risk.

 

·                The need to safeguard and preserve the mansion and grounds long term future, which had also now been identified as a high national priority by English Heritage.

 

·                The cross party support expressed in relation to consideration of the Save Trent Park petition.

 

·                The opportunity identified by the Save Trent Park campaign for the Council to assist in protecting what was regarded as a valuable asset by supporting the actions identified in both the petition and motion and in supporting the future long term public use of the site.  It was felt these actions would also assist in the process of attracting a suitable owner for the site who would work to maintain the property whilst also ensuring public access.

 

Following presentation of the petition and the motion being moved and seconded Councillor Taylor then moved and Councillor Neville seconded the following amendment to the original motion:

 

To delete the wording of the original motion and replace with the following:

 

“Council notes the petition presented to Council on behalf of the Save Trent Park Campaign on Wednesday 25^th March containing over 3700 signatures from members of the public.

 

It highlights concerns over the current state of the heritage assets of the former Middlessex University campus in Trent Country Park, uncertainty over their current and future ownership and requirements for their public use and management.

 

Council further notes the requests contained in the petition:

 

(i)        To grant the former Middlesex University campus site the status of an Asset of Community Value (as per the submitted application which is currently being considered by the Council’s Nomination Panel against the published ACV Evaluation Criteria).

 

(ii)       To grant permanent public access across the grounds.

 

(iii)      The request to actively encourage a long term public use for the listed mansion and grounds

 

(iv)      The request for a re-evaluation of the management and strategic vision of Trent park on a whole

 

Council will:

 

(1)     look for a positive future for the heritage assets at the site that will protect and promote their historic value and involve Members in the decision making process where possible.

 

(2)     establish a Working Group with equal representation from both political parties to consider how best to secure the long term public use and maintenance of the listed mansion and grounds.”

 

In moving the amendment and responding to the petition Councillor Taylor highlighted the following issues:

 

·                The Assets of Community Value nomination process, which Members were informed the property was now subject to following an application submitted earlier in March 2015.  The nomination process was governed by set criteria, which included as one element an assessment regarding the strength of local community feeling.  The nomination would be considered by an Evaluation Panel and it was therefore felt reasonable for the petition to be referred on to the Panel for consideration as part of that process.  It would not be possible for Council to predetermine any decision under the Assets of Community Value procedure.

 

·                The need to recognise that the granting of unfettered public access could also work against the identification of any potential new owner for the site in terms of future use.

 

·                The need to recognise that the Council would not be in a position to financially support any acquisition of the site.  He was however keen for the Council to assist in looking to secure, working on a bi-partisan basis across both political groups, a positive solution that would not only secure, protect and promote the long term future for the heritage assets on the site but also their public use and ongoing maintenance.

 

The comments and approach outlined by the Leader of the Council were supported by Councillor Neville who also highlighted:

 

·                The cross party support for the amended motion and difficulty recognised in having to deal with heritage assets.

 

·                The need, whilst recognising the financial constraints on the Council, to ensure that its responsibilities in relation to safeguarding of the building and enforcement activity were fully applied.

 

·                The opportunity available to harness and bring together support in order to find a viable solution that would protect and safeguard the future long term public use of the assets.

 

Following a debate the amendment to the motion was agreed unanimously, without a vote.

 

The substantive motion (as amended) was then put to the vote with members also asked to consider any further action they wished to take in response to the petition.  The substantive motion was agreed unanimously, without a vote along with the following additional recommendations in relation to the petition:

 

AGREED

 

(1)     To note and acknowledge the importance of the issue and strength of community feeling on the issue, highlighted within the Petition.

 

(2)     To note that the property was subject to a live application under the Asset of Community Value process and to refer the petition to the Asset of Community Value Nomination Panel for consideration under that procedure.