Transcript

Good evening, everyone. Thank you. Please all be advised, this meeting will be recorded and posted on the Council's YouTube channel. Can all those speaking ensure you switch your microphone on using the button in the middle before addressing the meeting and remember to switch it off when you finish speaking? First item is apologies for absence. I've had apologies from Councillor Leo Fletcher and Councillor John Fahey is stepping in as deputy in his place. Item number two, urgent business. I have received no urgent business. Item number three, declarations of interest. Does any member have any personal or financial interest to declare on any item or new agenda? Nope. Perfect. And then moving on to the meet of the meeting, which is the call-in for asset review. And so members are considering a call-in of a decision taken by Cabinet on the 26th of November, 2024. We have with us the Vice Chair of Cabinet, Councillor Lacau and the respective portfolio holder, Councillor Rahman, who's a Cabinet member for Planning, Development and Estate Renewal. The procedure I will follow is, firstly, I'm going to ask the signatories to the call-in to address the subcommittee and then I'll ask the Cabinet members to respond and they may call on the assistance of officers if they wish. The signatories to the call-in may then comment on that response. We've had a number of people register to speak to the committee and we're really looking forward to hearing from all of you. Each person who has registered will have two minutes to address the committee. I'm going to ask those who want to speak in relation to the Equestrian Centre to speak first, then those who are speaking in relation to both, and then those speaking in relation to Greengarth. Afterwards, I will ask the Cabinet members if they have any comments on what has been said. Members of the subcommittee can ask questions at any time. We have three options available to us tonight. We can accept the decision, allowing immediate implementation. We can send the decision back to Cabinet with comments for reconsideration. And the call-in subcommittee can also refer the decision to full council if it's deemed contrary to policy or budget frameworks. But our illegal officer has confirmed that this decision does not contradict the budget and policy frameworks, as explained in the report. So we have options one and two available to us this evening. Can I invite the call-ins, the signatories to the call-in to address the subcommittee? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. We've called this decision in after being contacted separately by the Woodlands Farm Trust and the Shrewsbury House Community Association with concerns about the disposal of these two council-owned assets in Shooters Hill Ward. So, respectively, as you've said, the Equestrian Centre and Greengarth next to Shrewsbury House. We've called the decision in, in part, to give these community groups the opportunity to have their say and share their views on the council's plans to dispose of these two assets. And, you know, we're pleased that the gallery is so full and that we've got so many people wanting to exercise their right to have their say. But the reason we've had to do it in this way, through this call-in mechanism, to enable people to have a say, is because the council itself hasn't engaged the community groups in question, nor the wider public, on its plans to dispose of these two really important assets. As the panel has seen in our call-in notice, it's this lack of consultation, this lack of community engagement, that is the primary concern that Councillor Tester and I have raised in the notice. So, on this issue around lack of consultation, over the last two and a half years, the council has put a huge amount of time, a huge amount of work, and a huge amount of taxpayers' money into what it calls community engagement. It's produced a very glossy document called the Our Greenwich Community Engagement Pledge, 43 pages about how the council intends to engage with communities across the borough. There's a community engagement framework, a community engagement values, community engagement principles, community engagement behaviours, a continuous engagement cycle, whatever that is, a community engagement theory of change, a community engagement pledge handbook to help people understand what on earth is going on. To be honest, I find it all a bit impenetrable, but it is all purportedly about achieving Mission 15 in the Our Greenwich Corporate Plan. And that mission says, and I quote, the mission is to ensure that our council is better at listening to communities and communities feel they are heard. And in the case of this decision to dispose of these two assets, communities have not been listened to, and they certainly don't feel they've been heard. And the lack of any consultation in advance of these contentious asset sales, in my view, is in complete contravention of the community engagement pledge that the council has published with great fanfare. It does actually make a mockery of the council's warm words about engaging communities. And to me, it's a further sign that when the council says, when it uses that phrase, community engagement, when it says it's committed to engaging communities, the silent part of the sentence that follows is, as long as it's on our terms, on the subjects we care about as a council, and not on many of the subjects and decisions that local communities want to have a say in. And in this case, you know, it's clear local communities want to have a say in the future of these two sites in Shooters Hill Ward. They shouldn't be denied that opportunity. So turning to the response to the call-in, the council's response in the paperwork for the meeting basically boils down to the central argument that the council is making in response to our notice, which is that the council should only do the bare minimum level of consultation that it is legally required to do, and no more than that. So in the paper at 3.17, the response says, disposal of council-owned property does not automatically require public or community engagement. What the council is saying, in effect, is we will only consult the community on asset sales when the law gives us no other choice, that the council is only going to do that minimum level of consultation required. In the case of the equestrian centre, because part of the site is metropolitan open space, that minimum level of consultation is a statutory consultation as required by section 123.2a of the Local Government Act 1972. In the case of 28 Merriworth Drive, there is no minimum level of consultation, and so the council is not doing any consultation whatsoever. And I think that response to our call-in is deeply unsatisfactory. It's in contradiction to the community engagement pledge. The council should not be looking at the bare minimum that is required. It should be properly engaging our communities. On the specific issues on each site, we're obviously going to hear from residents and the community groups involved on many of these specifics. I'm going to address some of the issues around the equestrian centre, and Councillor Tester, in seconding the call-in, is going to address the issues around 28 Merriworth Drive. So on the equestrian centre, this is supposed to be one of the elements of the Olympic legacy for Greenwich. And I think what we're seeing in the council's plans for its future is a total lack of imagination and a lack of creativity, a lack of vision from the council, and also this unwillingness to be open with the community about the various options for the site. It's been reported on Greenwich Wire that British equestrian, which put in £250,000 of Olympic legacy funding from Sport England 12 years ago, had to involve Sport England to get the council to even agree to meet about this, despite their stake in the site and its past uses as the equestrian centre and potential future uses. British Equestrian have said, we are deeply disappointed by Greenwich Council's decision to dispose of the Greenwich Equestrian Centre, especially without prior engagement with British Equestrian or Sport England. This lack of consultation undermines the value of collaborative working. So the lack of engagement extends beyond the lack of engagement with local community groups, with local residents, but also to these really important stakeholders that were crucial in establishing the equestrian centre in the first place. I think that's really disappointing. The panel will be aware that there is widespread public opposition to the disposal of the equestrian centre site. Two petitions have been handed in to the council with more than 1,400 signatures combined. And many of the residents signing the petition want to see a return to equestrian use to the riding centre at least in part as part of the future of the site. And that's, you know, one option. There are surely lots of different options that could be explored with a bit of imagination, explored together, collaborating with the community on how to utilise this asset to achieve everybody's objectives, the community group's objectives, but also the council's own corporate objectives and political objectives, not least around health and wellbeing in Adler. We challenged in the call-in notice whether the full range of alternative uses within continued council ownership had been fully explored by the council. And the response says that at 4.5, it says all council departments were given the opportunity to comment, but that no council department could identify a need for the property to facilitate the delivery of a key service. So there's been this kind of round robin, you know, the council has asked around internally whether there's any service that could be delivered from the site. Send was considered and rejected, but apart from that, that was it, you know. And I just think that is a really narrow approach to considering future uses of the site. And I think the response is really a confirmation of what we've sort of been concerned about, which is that there hasn't been this full exploration of all the potential uses beyond this very narrow business-as-usual sense from the council. And that includes potential community uses that could be enabled by either a community asset transfer or by an application for asset community value status. So we've argued there should be this full community consultation to the future of the site prior to the disposal decision being taken. And the response tonight, because of the presence of metropolitan open space, the response says that there will be this statutory consultation under section 1232A because of the presence of metropolitan open space. And the response says that that will be the opportunity for residents to object and suggest alternatives. But I think we can all read between the lines of the report. You know, this is the bare minimum that is legally required. It's, in my view, going to be a perfunctory consultation of the kind that we have seen in other contexts with a notice published in a paper with objections that are sent in red as is legally required that they are red and then the decision in all likelihood going ahead anyway. And at 4.3 in the report, it says there is no specific statutory process on how the responses are considered. And that statement, you know, hardly reassures us, hardly reassures residents that this consultation will be a meaningful one. You know, this is a perfunctory affair. And it would surely be better to hold a full consultation with the community up front before this decision is taken rather than this narrow, statutory, perfunctory consultation later after the effect. One major benefit of holding a consultation with the community in advance is that it would give the community and community groups time to develop alternative proposals. So the report rightly says at 4.6, any proposal for a community asset transfer would need to be supported by a robust business case and clear financial modelling. And that's, of course, quite right and true. But that takes time. And I think it's really quite unreasonable of the council to expect community groups to be able to turn around that level of detail proposal, you know, really on the head of a pin as part of a perfunctory statutory consultation under section 1.2.3.2a. What we need from the council is a collaborative approach. The council needs to open the doors, invite the Woodlands Farm Trust, other community groups and residents in to get their ideas, work together to support the community to develop proposals if that's what the community chooses to do. And it's particularly important, I think, that the Woodlands Farm Trust is engaged as they haven't been so far given their concerns over the impact of any future development on Woodlands Farm. So, you know, that's our view. The response on the equestrian centre which I'm addressing in my remarks, you know, really changes, does not change my view at all, does not change our view as the councillors have called this in, that this lack of community engagement is in complete contradiction to the community engagement pledge. It would be far better to engage up front with the community, to be collaborative, supportive of our community groups and explore all of the potential future uses before the decision goes ahead. So, just by way of a few questions, if I may, to put to, to kind of share, air with the meeting in the hope they might be answered by the cabinet members or officers. I think it would be helpful given the reporting around this issue if they could clarify the position with regards Sports England, British Equestrian, how those organisations were engaged, as it sounds like they weren't engaged and what the level of dialogue that has been with those organisations and also specifically, you know, what's the implications of the £250,000 funding that they originally provided on the council for this sale. So, that's kind of question one I had. The second question I had was, you know, can they justify why an up-front community consultation over and above the bare legal minimum has been rejected? You know, there hasn't been any rationale or justification given beyond we're not required to do that as a council. I'd like to hear a justification for why that hasn't taken place. And thirdly, I'd invite them to comment directly on the contradiction between the approach that they're taking and the community engagement pledge that the council has published. I'd specifically comment on that contradiction. So, those are the three questions I'd like to ask. Councillor Tester in seconding this will address the issues around 28 drivers, as I've said. So, just before I close, I just wanted to clarify the outcome that we're seeking from the panel. The suggestion we're making to you as a panel is that because nothing in the response has changed our view, these concerns about a lack of engagement, what the outcome we're seeking is that the panel proceeds with option two, which is to send the decision back to the decision maker with a request that no decision is made to dispose of these two really important assets in the community until a full up-front community consultation takes place in a collaborative way. So, I just wanted to clarify that's the outcome we are seeking. And that's it from me, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Hartley. Councillor Tester? Thank you, Chair. So, my main comment regarding the 28 Merrillworth site is that decision made by Cabinet was made without sufficient information given for members to have made this decision fully. This is really in contrast to the response that we've received in 4.1 first lines says in making the decision Cabinet had to read very much information at all. In fact, it's all contained in one document which is just basically an A4 page which gives a site address, some curtilage, and a few figures. It doesn't address several other issues including the Shrewsbury House Community Association have for several years requested to take over management of the Greengarth building and have plans for its use as part of the overall Shrewsbury House site. This is documented and also alluded to in the response that was given to us to the calling but no such information was presented to the Cabinet which was being asked to make a decision on its future. There are also some other bits of information that I've been supplied with. I know members of the Shrewsbury House Community Association are due to speak and are going to cover more broadly but there are some questions about the listed building and whether this part of the site is part of the listed building. Also the fact that 28 Merriworth is actually in a conservation area, the frontage of the building. The proposed community use from the Shrewsbury House Community Association and there's also quite a lot of history around Greengarth and the previous residents of that and questions that they've asked about the usage of the building going forward. So I think this decision should be referred back to the Cabinet to consider but this time with all the relevant information available to the Cabinet members for them to make an informed decision on the future. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Tester. Do members have any questions? Councillor Dfahi? Thank you, Chair and thank you both for the presentation. I'm looking particularly at the report, particularly page 15, paragraph 3.14 which sets out a range of options that the Council in the longer term are likely to consider including freehold sale, sale of a long leasehold interest, a commercial letting, community asset transfer, asset of community value, and a letting on concessionary terms for seven years or more. So do you think or accept that your call in is somewhat premature? Thank you. No, unsurprisingly I don't accept that at all. The decision that we've called in is to dispose of the site and that's the in-principle decision that the cabinet is making. So yes, disposal means a range of things as you said and as the report outlines but this decision is being taken without any of the community engagement that I certainly would expect for a contentious asset disposal that that contentious asset disposal would require. So I understand the question and I know that as you've said there are disposal means of a wide range of things but I don't accept that this is premature because as I've said the community needs time to develop proposals if it chooses to do so. For example, community asset transfer, asset community value. These things can't be turned around on the head of a pin and I think it's only fair that the community is engaged up front and before the cabinet makes a decision. I don't see the rush to do that before engaging the community. This is what we hear so much from the council about engaging communities and it never survives contact with reality it feels to me and I think this is a prime example of that. I hope that answers the question. Thank you. Can I now ask the cabinet members to respond to the call-in? Thank you, Chair. We're finding ourselves in a situation where by the last conservative government left a £22 billion fiscal black hole in the country's finances and because of previous government funding funding for the council has actually been cut by 53% in real terms compared to 2010. Chair, is this relevant to the call-in? Well, it is actually because the reason we are doing this is because of the situation we find ourselves in and in the same way that we've all left allowed people to speak it would be helpful if you afford me the same courtesy. we're now having to do more with less and that means making choices to ensure frontline services are protected. This structural underfunding and spiralling costs fast-rising demand for services from residents in need has meant that we have a strain on the borough budgets and that strain is enormous. To balance the budget we must make almost £34 million in savings. Councils all around London are facing a financial tsunami of slashed income, rising costs, increasing demand for adult and children's social care and ever-growing costs for temporary housing and that's thanks to a lot of the cuts that we've faced. Here in Greenwich we're fixing these foundations whilst protecting residents from cuts to frontline services. Those are our values. Now being financially responsible means making tough decisions and we're taking those difficult decisions now and not kicking them down the line. The fiscal inheritance chair from the previous government has meant that the path to recovery will take time and this is going to take time to rebuild council funding for a while for too long councils have been let down by outdated inefficient funding system which has led to public services being underfunded taxpayers money being spent inefficiently and recent local government financial settlement in itself announced is a small but welcome step forward but we're still going to have to make very difficult decisions and financial choices to ensure that we balance the books and ensure value for money. To remain financially stable and deliver the frontline public services that our residents deserve we have to make the best use of resources and lands that we own. We're ensuring that we are instituting a program of value for money disposals to ensure better value for money for local taxpayers. The recommended disposals mean that we can put more resources into protecting frontline council services that residents need. We're going to have to make $33.7 million in savings to balance the budget and protect these services. Next year we're forecasting a budget gap of another $27 million. Chair, Cabinet considered the cost of running a running service different services and facilities including the business case for repurposing and concluded that there was no reasonable prospect for these coming back into use for council priorities and I restate council priorities. Our obligation is to achieve best consideration for each site. Furthermore, as stated by Finance, these recommendations are in line with assumptions made with the MTFS. Much has been raised about engagement. the process for disposals went to scrutiny in 2023. The custom and practice on transactional decisions has been to go to Cabinet for the decision and to dispose. In terms of the Equestrian Centre, Section 123 of the Local Government Act does provide the framework for disposal of land. This does not negate the fact that prior to any disposal of land we are compelled to comply with Section 123 Subsection 2A with respect to advertising the intention to dispose and neither does it preclude public or community engagement of all interested parties. Therefore, consultation will be undertaken in due course. This was the step before that could happen. I refer members also to community engagement statement by the Council's Corporate Property Officer. It clearly states that there has been some engagement with Shrewsvies House Community Association who canvassed views of the wider community. We have a difficult choice to make. I don't think any Council wants to reduce throughout the family silver here. But we are in very, very challenging situations, Chair. I'm going to pass on to my colleague who is going to be able to explain a little bit of the context of how these decisions came about. Thank you, Councillor Lacau. Councillor Rahman? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Lacau and thank you, panel. And I also like to thank the for the public for being here tonight. I know how much you have to give up to be here in the evening. Having become a dad recently myself, I've learned that giving up evenings in the evenings is a huge sacrifice so thank you for making the sacrifice to be here today. Just wanted to touch on the borough and how Greenwich is a financially responsible council which we have been for many years and over almost a decade and a half of austerity and government cuts we have managed to remain financially stable so we can continue to provide services our residents deserve thus we must make the budget best use of the land and properties that we own. We have been under the same governmental budget constraints and cuts as other authorities however as a result of the council's responsible financial management our residents haven't faced the extensive cuts that others have in the same time period and as my colleague councillor Lacau mentioned we are running under less than half the budget that we had in 2010 this year further cuts are having to be made and we must make savings to ensure core services and sites are not impacted we have 788 sites and although we have a high occupancy rate due to high operating and maintenance cost we are not covering our costs at the moment our priority is to ensure that we get the best possible results and deliver good value our residents and as Councillor Lacalle mentioned it is important to emphasize councils all over London are reckoning with reduced income and the rising costs and demand for adult and children social care as well as temporary accommodation so these are really important core services that we are keeping running this year as we know in order to cover our shortfall and balance our budgets for the current year we have had to fill the bill for just under £14 million and next year we forecast in the budget cap to be at least 27 million so it is a huge service that we have to find and looking at assets in question 341 Shoes Hill or the question center and 28 Meritworth drive they are being considered for disposal on the basis that they are surplus to council requirements to core service requirements it is in fact government policy that local authorities and other public bodies should dispose of surplus land wherever possible generally it is expected that land should be sold for the best consideration reasonably obtainable according to section 123 of local government act 1972 this gives the council the power to dispose of the land held in a manner it wishes provided it achieves the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained and also as councillor Hartley mentioned the council isn't automatically required to carry a public or community engagement it doesn't mean that each asset won't be considered on its own merit it is clear that the council should dispose of surplus land and they should in first instance seek to do so at market value the financial position which this council alongside many other councils face is well documented it is therefore vitally important that the council ensures that it can demonstrate value for money alongside making significant savings the council has a large property portfolio with significant operating and capital or condition costs responsibility for this portfolio sits within the directory of place and growth and as explained in the cabinet report 26 November 2024 the property functions have undertaken a review of the council's property assets with a view to right size in the portfolio thereby reducing the costs associated with poorly utilised assets and those assets that do not support the delivery of key services identification of surplus assets that are not required by council services and their subsequent disposal is not only in line with existing legislation which expects councils to dispose of surplus assets but is also necessary to ensure that the council's portfolio is fit for purpose in turn this process assists the council in meeting the financial challenges through reducing revenue costs and generating capital receipts to support the council's midterm financial strategy and help protect the services from deeper cuts thank you as just a first question from me can you go into a little bit more to the discussions that you have had with stakeholders up to this point there's been mentions of it in the report there's been mentioned tonight that there have been discussions with Shrewsbury House Community Association and others so can you just go in a little bit more detail as to the discussions that have taken place okay I think with Shrewsbury discussions that took place that led to the separation of the actual house to another annex to that and Shrewsbury House then went to a wider community at the time to reach out for things we at that point decided we were going to invest in one of the out building in the main building and so we invested a considerable amount of money to do that however as almost the part of these kind of quid pro quos we needed to we now need to look at this property in separation from the activities of Shrewsbury house we have supported them but it was very clear at the time that this was going to be something that would be coming down further down the road at the time there was no consideration made for what Shrewsbury house could offer at the end of the day whatever it is that the discussions made we would have had to have a reasonable offer for the value of the property and that did not happen and that's why we've considered we've continued with the process I don't know if you want to add anything thank you I don't have too much more to add I think in terms of engagement there has been prior engagement stated back quite a few years now and I understand that Shrewsbury house and the summer house which is also kind of within the same grounds were heavily invested in by the council to bring them up to scratch and also kind of make them kind of operational but in terms of yeah so and in terms of discussions around 20th Merriworth Drive I think those discussions have happened in the past but those discussions didn't end up in a firm offer and I think this is where we had to be any discussions that has been made there has to be a certain level of value consideration for the property being discussed thank you and Pippa did you want to add something there yeah thank you so when the discussions engagement started with the Strasby House Community Association the terms were that the community centre or the association were seeking a long lease at a concessionary and the council officers advised that that wouldn't be possible because it would be in excess of what's known as the seven year threshold and it would constitute a disposal because at first they were looking for a 99 year lease for example so we advised them my officers advised them that it would have to be on best consideration terms and to comply with the section 123 and so in 4.10 of the report it indicates that the terms put forward to the association were not accepted and this matter did not progress and that's why it wasn't reported in the cabinet report because there was nothing to report because nothing had been reached in conclusion of that discussion thank you so I suppose on that to Councillor Hartley's point about giving time to come up to stakeholders to come up with proposals they have had that time they have been engaged beforehand is that your position that's correct yes thank you moving on to Councillor Hartley's other points he did raise three questions that he put to the room and I wondered if the cabinet members would like to address those points the first was on Sports England and British Equestrian and the engagement you've had with those and the implications for the £250,000 the second is why broader consultation has not been done I think you've touched on that but if you wanted to add any more to that please do so and the third is in relation to the community engagement pledge is there any comments you'd like to make on those points so in terms of the engagement with kind of Sports England and Equestrian Society I do want to pass it on to because we have had some valid engagement but I do want to pass it on to my colleague Steve yeah yes evening Steve Donovan interim head of property for the borough so in terms of engagement we did engage with both Sport England and British Equestrian Federation I met with Sport England on the 16th of October we had an hour scheduled a meeting it was there was no Chatham House rules or any requirement for secrecy it was a straightforward discussion to answer any questions that they had largely brought about by the fact that Sport England had been referenced on a number of occasions in various correspondence and in the press but also out of the matter of courtesy regarding Sport England's original £250,000 that's already been referenced this evening and the conditions that surround that one of which is that if there is an intention to dispose of the site one of the conditions is that we do have that Sport England are informed of that and we had a general discussion around that about the direction of travel in terms of that it wouldn't be me as head of property or an officer making a decision there would be recommendations that would go to cabinet and that's led to this calling this evening and I met with Jonathan Cuvay incidentally and Emma Marston with another officer and one of the requests from Sport England was that we would could we meet with British Equestrian Federation and which they'd also been referenced in a lot of the correspondence and also in the press and I agreed on the 31st of October I met a number of senior individuals from the British the BEF on the 31st of October and again were open there was no secrecy or without prejudice or any other expectations of the meeting and again we talked about the direction of travel we talked around animal welfare and we sought some ideas and thoughts around that and so that yeah those were and that was another hours meeting whatever on the 31st of October so that was our engagement with those two organisations thank you and is there anything further the cabinet members want to add on the other two points if you could just remind me of the second question again sorry the second question was why a broader consultation was not done before the decision and do correct me if I'm wrong Councillor Hartley with my notes and the third was if you think there's a contradiction there with the community engagement pledge I'll address the second one I'll come back to Councillor Hartley for the third one if that's okay so in terms of why a prior consultation wasn't done I think it's important to understand this isn't the end of the process it is important to understand we are undergoing a huge asset review at the moment and this falls within one of those assets and it's important to follow the procedure for each item as we go along so in terms of the question centre we understand there is a public consultation that is set to happen and the cabinet decision is not to it's not the final decision it will go to public consultation so it's yet to come so in short the reason we haven't had one yet is because we wanted to kind of because the particular asset was placed on asset review as a wider programme rather than individual asset review so the public consultation is yet to come Thank you Councillor Lacau anything to add? In terms of the contradiction I would say there is none because this is a matter of interpretation and it also depends on various levels yeah you can laugh it's fine Can we be quiet in the public gallery please? One has to determine the level of public consultation it is without it does go without it does go with cost and so in these situations we looked at what was the best possible route forward in all of our disposals and in this situation we knew that there will be a consultation and a full consultation a public consultation as well as stakeholder consultation for the equestrian centre this other site you know we've had the discussions around that and we felt that we are in a position to move forward with it we still have a gap to fill chair you know and the reality is in all of our assets in terms of the council all we have thousands of community groups asking us to be able to use these assets but we've got to actually see and look at how we can fill these gaps they just don't fill themselves and you know in an ideal world if we didn't have those issues then we could have different considerations we're not in that luxurious position thank you councillor one follow-up for me and then I'm going to hand to my panel members you mentioned there that there will be full and stakeholder consultation in due course can you give us a little bit more colour as to what that will look like and how you will take into account responses to the consultation please chair I can't give you that now because I don't have that no no no I I'm not sure if the officers will but I would be I I'm not going to sit here and say something I'm not sure of but all I do know and what the cabinet was satisfied with was the fact that that has to go out for consultation thank you councillor Fahey sorry so I'm in relation to the equestrian centre because it's open space so it's not related to the metropolitan it's the fact that it's open space then that's what requires the notice of them to be put in the press and for a minimum of two weeks consultation in order to receive responses and there's no prescribed process for how we do with this but we must make sure that the results of the consultation must be conscientiously taken into account and so we don't typically do that before we get a cabinet decision because that's not what we do in practice we do it once we've got the principle from cabinet and then we follow that with the process which is the statutory process as you refer to so it will be in the press and then all responses will be considered and that's the and then obviously that gets considered internally and then in consultation with legal services and then the outcome of that becomes part of the forward process in terms of consideration on the disposal thank you so just to be absolutely clear the section 123 process you advertise it in the press and public can then make their contributions in response to that notice and that's in respect of the equestrian site because it's open space thank you councillor Fahey thank you chair just to clarify two points three points if I might appreciation to cabinet members for their comments just to clarify really can you confirm the position with regard to paragraph 3.14 whereby a number of options have been highlighted and secondly with regard to paragraph 3.15 and 3.16 where it talks about community asset transfer and assets of community value and looking at 3.16 it talks about the asset use has furthered the social well-being or social interest of the community in the recent past are all of these options on the table to be considered in due course following and during the consultation and my final point to officers can can you confirm the value as to the two properties we're talking about this evening I'll start with as part of being open about the various processes we have laid out all the possible potentials for transfer but whichever way we looked at it it would still need best value regardless of which way we went now in terms of criteria if a building has not been in use for a while and again we can sit down and discuss the detail of what that a while means then there some of these options would not apply and I'll pass it on to Pippa so with you respect in terms of the assets of community value those are governed by the localism act and therefore set in legislation so therefore presumably cabinet would have to work within that framework would you accept that yes so just to clarify if something is going to be nominated as an asset of community value it's on our website and any individual can nominate it through that process and then the council has to consider it within the framework and the criteria that have been set out in the report and so that does remain one of the options but the asset of community value is not at disposal in itself it just enables there to be a period of forward in relation to your second point councillor Fahey I'm afraid I can't confirm what the value is because that would be commercially sensitive and when you take a site any site to the market we don't disclose what we think the indicative value might be because we're trying to test what the market will provide and so that's how you secure your best consideration is what will the market pay for a site and so that's why I'm not able to disclose those indicative values at the moment Councillor Davis Thank you Chair it's great to see so many members of the public here this evening and I think we can see how serious this is to the community and therefore I will get to my questions but it was deeply disappointing to hear Councillor Lacau use her answer to make completely irrelevant political points she mentioned that the Labour Party are taking tough decisions now and not kicking them down the line I can see Councillor Lacau here Councillor Smith Councillor Highland they've had 14 years to sort this council's finances out and they haven't taken it properly let's avoid those and so I think that is a very important point to make that we've got a lot of people here who have not done that Councillor Cavalto I'm making political points Councillor Smith can we move on to the questions please Councillor Davis so my first question is you know we've heard the response from the cabinet member and we've heard the bleak picture painted of the council's finances and we heard a very much non answer of Councillor Farhi's question around whether all options were open for disposal and how can the community engage with the council in good faith when it very much sounds like a decision has already been made that a freehold sale will be done of this site so the reason in point 3.14 of the report that it lists the options for disposal is because that exactly is the list and so we're being very open and transparent about the routes to which a disposal could be made and it's open to anybody in the room or outside of the room to submit an offer as and when the process were to start if it were to start so any option is on the table because you don't know what the market will bring forward until you actually notify and advertise that the property is listed for disposal and so Pippa given that the discussion we've had this evening is around that this is pressing due to the concerns of the council's finances what is the timeline you expect on the sale of both assets so in the original cabinet report so the timeline isn't within the scope of the call in but I will refer back to the original cabinet decision it said that any disposal would be taken forward in consultation with councillor Rahman as the cabinet member and the leader and I haven't yet had that discussion given the call in so it's not a prejudged outcome in terms of what next and so I will do that as and when the decision is taken and then we've heard that there's obviously the statutory consultation that has to take place on the equestrian centre will the council commit to carrying out a consultation on Greengarth as well no and then my final question is that I think this entire situation and could have been avoided by the cabinet engaging with the community early on you know there are so many people here this evening who want to work with the council to find a use for these buildings and instead we've got an event that has created bad feeling between the council and the community two different sections of the community about sites that the community care deeply about and so will if the council will not consider this with this will the council go away and with future asset sales take into consideration the mess that has been made with these asset sales and the ill feeling that has been created within the community and will the council change their approach moving forward that question is outside the scope of the call in I'm afraid Councillor Davies do the signatories to the call in have any comments they would like to make on the responses that they have heard thank you chair I mean look everybody's come here tonight with the best of intentions I'm going to choose my words carefully I'm really disappointed by what we've heard particularly from cabinet members opening as Councillor Davies said with that party political response I don't think that's why residents packed out the gallery tonight why they made up time in their evening as you said to come in here they didn't come came here to talk about and listen to comments and views on the equestrian centre and 28 Meriworth Drive and I thought I think from the cabinet members that was particularly misjudged so I'm very disappointed about that nobody doubts that RBG's finances are under pressure but that was an attempt to distract from the specific issues that we've raised in this calling the specific issues that the community has raised about these two specific disposals and it's a way frankly of trying to dodge the issue and I think it's really unacceptable until the cabinet members were prompted by the panel for which I'm grateful we heard no justification of why the community wasn't engaged over and above that bare minimum legal requirement we heard no defence initially of the contradiction with the community engagement plan when prompted to get to that point in and amongst everything we heard all the responses we heard I detected a nugget of an argument about cost that it would have been too costly to run a community consultation and I think if that's really the only argument the council has for not going beyond the bare minimum I think that's a real false economy because we're talking about the futures of sites that could be of immense value to the council in achieving really the argument that that's a really disappointing one I was a bit astonished to hear the cabinet member eventually address the claim I've made which is that this contradicts the community engagement pledge the cabinet member council said the community engagement pledge was a matter of interpretation and it seems that she may be right residents interpreted the community engagement pledge to mean that they will be engaged and the council interpretation appears to be that they won't Councillor Hartley do you have a question for the cabinet member here I think that's really really disappointing and my question would be chair you know given everything we've heard tonight the most revealing thing we've heard tonight is that two week consultation that statutory consultation on the equestrian centre is going to be what I feared a perfunctory two week turnaround consultation that doesn't give the community enough time to come up with the proposals that they may wish to come up with about the future of these sites so you know my question would be really would the cabinet just think again after listening to what we're about to hear from the community tonight to accept the fact that the council has just got this one wrong and secondly there is a broader implication here for the asset review programme the communications approach to these two asset sales hasn't worked there is going to be future asset sales that are going to be contentious as well I'm sure and could I invite the cabinet to really rethink the whole approach to the way that this has been communicated or not because you know we can't do this every time the council is going to have to live by the community engagement pledge that it is published to such great funfair and actually engage the community when these decisions are made before they're made not in this perfunctory manner thank you chair councillor I find it really interesting that councillor Hartley is talking about community engagement when he's been so critical in full council of any investments or any attempt to put anything in community engagement engagement anyway when I said it's a matter of interpretation what I was saying is that we feel that we have had some discussions with the relevant groups we have had discussions and they've also gone out to reach out to a wider group so in terms of this property we need to make a fiscal decision for the benefit of the wider good if you like and this is going to come up because we have many assets that are actually costing us just to maintain because there's no one they're not in use and so on and so forth and so I think the equestrian centre has been shut for how long so it shut last year yeah so we need to make decisions because all of this every time there's a delay it's costing the council but what happens after that consultation is going to be a matter for the director in consultation with cabinet lead but I do expect that it's going to be a fair consultation thank you I'm now going to move to members to the members of the public who have registered to speak a reminder that everyone who has registered has the opportunity to address the subcommittee for two minutes can I emphasise that you must address the subcommittee not the cabinet members and given the volumes of speakers I am going to be strict on time and please limit your comments to the grounds of the call in we can only make our decision based on the grounds of the call in so please use your two minutes to address those so moving to my speakers list can I start with Dr. Barry Gray please I'm sorry Chair Councillor Rahman sat his hand up I'm so sorry I didn't see you Councillor Rahman just sorry one second sir there's a further comment from the cabinet member one second thank you I won't be very long and I do but yes I just want to say in terms of like what Councillor Hartley had to say I know it took a while to get to the question and I appreciate the question but I think what was not appreciated is actually it's not just that the council is in a tight situation with the budget it's about how responsible the council has been and how responsible it needs to be going forward for our residents that was the point of my statement is to try to set the scene of what we are dealing with here and not necessarily simply looking at individual pictures we need to look at the broader picture as well how we serve our residents and how we use the assets in responsible manner to make sure that we serve our residents and use the right way and what we did at the beginning even council it's not I think it can easily be made into a political statement but I think it's about setting the scene of what we're dealing with the council has dealt with financial crisis and budgetary cuts over 14 15 years and it's done it well compared to other councils because of the way it's been managed and I know my colleagues mentioned they can't defend themselves but what I will say is because of the work they did our predecessors we are here in a better position we don't have a financial black hole in the same way as other councils but we are in a very good position to make these decisions and make these savings still and we're in control still and that's important thank you Dr. Gray thank you many of the points I was going to raise have been raised already so I'd just like to make a couple of corrections the equestrian centre was open to July of last year it was run by North Kent College so it's not actually true to say it's been closed for four years and it's just one of a number of mistakes that have occurred this evening secondly a final decision has been made it says so on the face of the agenda of the cabinet meeting in November of last year it clearly said decision final this is the final decision any statutory consultation that takes place on metropolitan open land at the equestrian centre will be a consultation on a decision that has already been made and I ask you what is the purpose of that right just going on what we want to happen at the equestrian centre site is develop a community hub with full community engagement as the community engagement pledge promises us following the policy framework of the localism act and the community engagement pledge and the core strategy sorry based on a reinvigorated equestrian centre we would seek to expand the education activities at Woodlands Farm set up craft centres farmers markets and would explore with other charities the possibility of using the Edwardian farmhouse as a residential centre for providing farm experience for inner city children from all over the country it's already been done and we're speaking to the charity who is doing that what we want you to do is to help bring this about by recommending to the cabinet that they reconsider well preferably to the to have a whole full council meeting I don't really understand the reasons why you can't do that but I mean no doubt I have read section 4E of the council constitution several times I still don't understand it thank you Dr. Gray we are at time but I do have your written submissions as well and the panel what we want you to do is to recommend to the cabinet that they relook at the decision that they have a proper public engagement and consultation and they have a pause to enable Woodlands Farm Trust and others to formulate a plan and an asset of community value thank you sir thank you my next speaker is Ian Blight as he makes his way to the microphone I would just like to correct the record that Pippa did say that the farm was closed last year I think you might be just misheard but it was clear that it was last year thank you thank you thank you can you hear with respect to the original paper the sporting agreement with Greenwich indicates that they will be due a percentage share of the final disposal receipt in proportion to their 250k contribution as compared with the original cost of the project this sum is significant and not highlighted the options do not consider the continued renting of the two flats in the centre and possibly other rooms that would provide an income of at least 38k per year and negate the cost of holding the property vacant and allow time for engagement and consultation the whole of the equestrian centre is on land designated as metropolitan open land complying with the 2001 London plan policy G3 will remain a condition of any proposed change of use on any part of the land forming the centre this constraint is understated with respect to the Greenwich annual the long-term closure of the equestrian centre is not consistent with mission four that the children and young people can reach their full potential with reference to mission eight and the London plan any revised use is highly unlikely to deliver improved public services for new and existing we are potentially throwing away a unique opportunity the disposal contradicts mission four that voluntary community and socially motivated sectors in Greenwich will be strengthened the disposal contradicts the outcome of mission 15 that states we will communicate and engage in ways that give all residents a voice finally and with reference to the policy framework and the Greenwich community engagement pledge we've heard so much about tonight the criteria for the disposal do not include the option to maintain the equestrian centre services there is therefore a presumption that the disposal of the equestrian centre will affect the council service delivery and hence community consultation needs to be carried out before any decision to dispose of the centre thank you chair thank you our next speaker is Paul Hoek and can I remind the speakers to stick to the ground for the call in because those are the only things we are able to take into account in our decision thank you chair my name is Paul Hoek I'm a trustee of the Woodlands Farms Trust for the immediate neighbours to the equestrian which is based in the London borough of Newham the London borough of Newham is one of the poorest and most diverse boroughs in London Greenwich and to the wider London if all those things are put in place thank you very much sir can I have Margaret Jones next please thank you I'd like to say that I've been a long term member of the borough I was born in the borough of Greenwich I've had the borough of Greenwich close to my heart although I have moved away and come back again I was unhappy at the sale of the equestrian centre of this site the equestrian centre site at the beginning and losing that section of metropolitan land but I became reconciled to that when I saw the good that came from using it as the equestrian centre with vocational skills training it created a legacy for the 2012 Olympics as well it was a success it should have been a success Hadlow College failed not because of the equestrian centre but because of their own mismanagement I go no further in saying that those in Greenwich interested in learning to ride or have any equine training have to go out of the borough it's a fact that the majority of young people wanting to ride are female and there are fewer outdoor activities for girls the Mottingham riding centre is in the borough of Bromley it offers rides and riding lessons to school groups including children with special needs in both Bromley and Lewisham not Greenwich In Greenwich we've lost that opportunity for girls and boys to take part in excellent exercise and earn equine management how much better to revive it than sell it off selling off an Olympic legacy site with stables and facilities built hardly ten years ago as if it's a surplus land is totally misses the opportunity we're losing a valuable asset I was until recently a trustee at Woodlands Farm and I know that small local volunteer bodies like the farm can work can give opportunities can provide services such as school activities for many thousands of children as we do properly managed and linked to the National Correctional when jumping through all those correct hoops they do not necessarily have to be provided by local government Woodlands Farms flourished in Greenwich for nearly 30 years community run and there's also 7 Drew Castle a valuable local asset which wasn't managed to be sold off but managed for the community saved from going out of local control Power and Greenwich is another asset of great value to the community support your own policy on community engagement don't let it disappear into the pocket of the developer thank you very much can I have Nadine Tal Baker now please good evening chair and committee members I represent Save Greenwich Equestrian a community group supported by 1,817 individuals from Greenwich and surrounding boroughs who have signed our petition to save the equestrian center the council's decision to sell the site made without notifying the community or seeking input fails to follow proper process public open space must be protected by transparency and consultation neither of which has occurred here this undermines trust and contradicts the council's own commitments to fairness and inclusion we have received legal counsel regarding this and we can conclude that the council or iron breach of quite a few of its own policies as London pursues a 2040 Olympic bid how will Greenwich Borough be remembered as the borough that upheld its Olympic legacy or as the only borough to abandon it this site holds the potential to inspire future generations while serving as a hub for inclusion and recreation the equestrian centre has served the community as open space for recreation and education if sold protections for public spaces and metropolitan land must be upheld and I know a few speakers have spoken about metropolitan land but let me just inform this committee it's protected under the London plan and it explicitly states that it can only be released under exceptional circumstances financial difficulty does not constitute exceptional circumstances and this has been legal counsel advice I'd also like to remind this council that Stratford Borough has Olympic legacy sites and they haven't sold them they've actually turned it into a community so I'd like to say please pause this decision review the process and engage meaningfully with the community once again I have 1,817 individuals from this borough who have signed the petition thank you very much thank you can I have Jim Eyre now please from the British Equestrian Federation thank chair members my name is Jim Eyre CEO of the British Equestrian Federation thank you and I'll try and avoid repetition but thank you for the comments so far I'm here in my capacity not only as sort of stewardship of the Olympic teams but also encouraging grassroots sports we've heard the centre stands as part of the Olympic legacy with 250k investment of public money as to be a local equine hub and an educational facility to grow horsemanship excellence which unfortunately through mismanagement has fallen into abeyance but we've seen in other boroughs such as Stratford who've embraced the vision to revitalise the Olympic facilities turning them into thriving hubs for sport education and health and actually locally or relatively locally Ebony Horse Club in Lambeth thrives by providing a crucial hub between the community the council schools and other youth related agencies and charities we know these are challenging times and riding establishments like sports clubs do require energy imagination and emotional investment but led right and led well they can be a beacon of positive engagement critical particularly in urban environments the centre is not just about horses it's about people it provides vital access to allow children from all backgrounds to have the opportunity to experience a unique relationship with a horse and to have the opportunity to broaden their horizons it can be transformative and aspirational these are not just local benefits they're regional opportunities for inclusion recreation employment and even environmental stewardship like pitches and pools it should be part of the council strategy for sports facilities focusing on the need for health and well-being not marginalised because it doesn't fit the norm once this land is lost it's lost for good I would also like to add that the briefing I'd like to add that the briefing document inferred a long consultation with us I think that's slightly disingenuous we did have a meeting we had sought a meeting for quite some time and actually although it was an open meeting the decision was a fate of complete and there wasn't much room for negotiation the decision has clearly been made through an optic of finances without consideration of the social and community value these centres create and it's at direct odds with the success of other boroughs and the tenants of the 2012 Olympic legacy you may have heard the disbelief and disappointment of this decision from the equestrian community throughout the country I would strongly recommend that this decision is considered carefully and reversed and that any future consultation is consultation and there is sufficient opportunity to make the equestrian centre return to the valued community asset it can be thank you sir Paris Paris Buttery please thank you good evening chair committee members my name is Paris I'm here not just as a community supporter and not just as a secretary my whole life has been profoundly impacted by opportunities like this that could be offered at the Greenwich Equestrian Centre for many individuals in our community especially of those of us from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds and I speak from experience places like this are not just a facility they are a lifeline a place like the Greenwich Equestrian Centre could and should be used as an access of opportunity to those who we can help transform lives unlock potential and inspire hope it's not all just about horses it's about people it's about our people our community opportunities and possibilities that people in our community are not even aware about facilities like this provide a safe and supportive environment not everyone wants to go to university I never did I'm dyslexic and I'm a visual learner and I'm all hands on I've ridden my whole life since I was about 12 by giving a rare opportunity the Greenwich Equestrian Centre offers alternative chances to develop skills for young people of a wide variety of a background exploring career opportunities in the equestrian industry without this facility people might not even know opportunities even exist I believe this opportunity is not to be missed and it is even a possible springboard for opportunities for individuals in our community that should be exposed to opportunities within the industry disposing of a centre like this really doesn't just mean losing a building it means closing the door on future opportunities and possibilities on untapped talent that we don't even know is out there we're constantly telling young people to dream big how can we do that if we're not giving people opportunities you know I ask to see the centre as an opportunity I see it as an opportunity to invest in young people we've already done that we've invested money let's continue that thank you sir your time is up but thank you so much thank you now can we hear from Andy Stanley please Madam Chair gentlemen thank you for this opportunity to speak this evening I'm a contract manager with a long history in building infrastructure projects in government and capital sector including London 2012 Games but I'm also a governor at Shoesville College a leader in scouting and an environmentalist I can consider many perspectives on this decision today I'm here though specifically to talk to you on behalf of 10th Royal Elton Scouts who are the scout group for Shoesville over 34 years I have called Shoesville Ward my home and I've witnessed first hand the importance of volunteer led community services that bring people together our group has been serving the community for 86 years providing life skills training and a safe place for thousands of young people to grow develop move and thrive we are the largest community group in the world yet we currently have 150 active young members and an equal number on waiting lists due to severe lack of space the facilities available to us including our regular use of Shrewsbury House can only accommodate around 30 young people at a time which simply limits the benefits that we can offer the community scouting is a programme that offers inclusivity with no gender race or religious restrictions it is a vital part of community life providing regular structured place for young people to belong learn and grow our needs are urgent and without a suitable hall we are unable to serve a community to the extent we should when decisions are made without consultation and without consulting the communities directly affected we risk neglecting the very services that make our neighbourhoods vibrant and safe this is especially pertinent in the wake of recent tragic events in our area which remind us of the risks that we face if we don't provide enough positive outlets for our young people the council's missions include commitments to social housing strengthening voluntary and community sectors creating safe attractive neighbourhoods and reducing life crime yet decisions like the current one risk undermining these disposing of assets that could help deliver these outputs thank you sir you're now out of time but thank you for your contribution I have actually forwarded a written submission to you as well which goes on further thank you thank you can I have Tim Rose please hi there I'll try and keep it very quick I'm Tim Rose long term resident on Shooters Hill and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak I understand the temptations of raising cash for the council's day to day needs by selling surplus assets but in my view the buyers of Greengarth and the equestrian centre are unlikely to want to live in an old house or basically manage horses they're much more likely to want to profit from property development and considering that land is about one third of the cost of any property development yeah then obviously there's significant savings for a developer to make there not all of them would agree but if these sites are valuable for housing and I suspect that's what why aren't Greenwich looking at using some of this land for their own Greenwich build projects the approach would save the expense of looking for land we already own it not everybody will agree with what I'm saying here but that is a potential future use selling assets now is a one time one time win that's it and rebuild if we don't have the land we don't have that as an opportunity so I'm going to cut this really really finely basically my proposals there are probably the thin end of the wedge for many cities or we could even build a hut for the for the scales so there's lots of options we could have if only we'd consult properly thank you thank you very much sir Tom Bell please Tom Bell thank you thank you I'd just like to say I support all of the arguments against these proposals that have been heard tonight against the giving off basically getting rid of this land disposing of this land and I say that as I'm the chair of the Shooters Hill branch of the Labour Party in which these two centres exist and I can assure you and I can assure the council that we are utterly totally opposed to what they are proposing and if the council insists despite all what you've heard tonight to continue with your proposals we will continue to oppose you then as well we don't want this we want to work with everybody for the benefit of the people of this borough but the way that this has been done has been ill thought out and not taken into considerations the feelings of the people who are being trampled on right now and so I want to urge the council to reconsider this there are far better proposals on the table around there are other ways to deal with the financial issues without selling off these prime jewels in our crown that we have as a council and and so I've listened tonight at the arguments to justify what's being done at the moment from the councillors I was bitterly disappointed because I didn't hear a single argument that carried any real weight in fact I felt more like there was a kind of smoke screen being pulled down over my eyes and I don't want to feel that from my council a council that I fully support utterly and so I would support those who are calling for the prevention of the offloading of these assets and that we should go back and try and work together all of us together to work out a better way of dealing with this problem than just by a lot of smoke screen and I have to say a certain amount of sophistry thank you The next set of speakers are focusing primarily on Greengarth I've got Rob Million who is the chair of the Shrewsbury Park Residents Association So in active correspondence with the council in relation to Greengarth despite this and the council's community engagement pledge we were not consulted The association would like to make the following points not included in the cabinet report Shoesbury House and Air Raid Precautions bungalow clearly also by community use Greengarth is locally listed as advised by the council's conservation area character appraisal and area subdivision of plots would not be considered appropriate The land on which the estate is built is subject to planning conditions and detailed restrictive covenants perpetual in nature It is felt that these aspects would have been relevant to the cabinet report In summary we will request that the decision we will intend to community use for this and future generations Thank you Thank you And just to note that we have also got your written submissions and we'll be taking those into account as well Thank you I've got Sally McDougall next please from the Shrewsbury House Community Association I'm speaking as Chair of Trustees of the Shrewsbury House Community Association which has a monthly user base of 5,000 people It's likely that the sale of the 28 Mirworth site will have a negative impact on our ability to provide community services and programs for example through noise disruption and a lack of space for the scouts We should have been consulted The call-in report states that the Shrewsbury House Community Association canvassed the views of the wider community and that we did not agree to the terms proposed in respect to 28 Mirworth Drive This statement is misleading It suggests that the fact we openly undertook consultation with our users and neighbours can now be co-opted into a process of disposal which we were not even aware of The suggestion that we withdrew from discussions with RBG over 28 Mirworth Drive is also misleading In fact as email correspondence confirms in 2019 RBG offered us heads of terms with regard to taking over 28 Mirworth Drive and the only issue in question was the length of the lease on offer We need a long lease to apply for funding for suitable use of the building and grounds The record shows that the Board of Shrewsbury House Community Association never withdrew its interest in 28 Mirworth Drive Similarly the record shows that Royal Borough of Greenwich never told us that the discussions were at an end As recently as the 23rd of July 2024 the Board of Trustees wrote to Royal Borough of Greenwich to restate our interest in taking on 28 Mirworth Drive and working with the Council to deliver a list of positive outcomes Royal Borough of Greenwich failed to respond to that request We have since set up a petition currently at over 1,300 signatures to demonstrate the public support for our use of the site which we made public prior to the Council's decision to dispose of the site Thus it is clear that in taking the decision to dispose of 28 Mirworth Drive the process was certainly not fair in that key stakeholders including Shrewsbury House Community Association were not informed it was even taking place and the deficiencies in the reports to Cabinet and this Committee show that it was not based on the best evidence we are asking for a community asset transfer so that we can take over use of the site Thank you Thank you Kate Halpin please Good evening I fully echo the comments that Sally and Rob have made as both a resident and trustee of the Shrewsbury House Community Association and that the responses we've heard tonight have been disingenuous It's just worth noting that nearly 10 years ago Shrewsbury House was on the brink of closure and it's thanks to the tireless work of successive boards our brilliant staff wonderful volunteers and residents that it's moved from surviving to thriving and reaching capacity as we've heard about the number of users As a resident the council generate lots of income from us each year from planning applications which are regularly refused for not meeting the conservation area guidance In raising 28 Mearworth the ground surrounding 28 Mearworth to the ground with none of the requisite planning permissions or heritage assessments it would seem the local authority as they said to us don't consider they need to adhere to that very guidance that was implemented to preserve the character of the area Paragraph 7.1 of the report talks about the council can anticipate capital receipts and positive revenue impact but when asked what that value is we're told that we don't know what the value will be in its commercial inconfidence House prices in our area are suppressed by being part of the conservation area and that's what we accept by being up there any potential buyer or developer will have to invest significant amounts if it's to meet the conservation guidance unless we think the council are just going to run roughshod over that for their purposes as we've heard if we took over the site we could get heritage lottery funding and I'm afraid I've cut this short the tone of the paper and the responses we've heard tonight suggest the council know the cost of everything and the value of nothing the previous actions of this council over recent years lead me to fear interested in culturing property developers and not its residents and community and before too long there'll be very few parts of green which borough left that are green our next fear is that the maintenance and it's not an investment it's overdue maintenance in the roof and surrounding areas of Shrewsbury House are to sell the actual house itself and I fear we will be back here in a couple more years time thank you Liz McDermott please has been said so far on both the equestrian centre and on Neaworth Drive my name is Liz McDermott I'm a volunteer at Shrewsbury House and for 40 years a resident of the Shrewsbury Park Estate during COVID and since then I have managed the gardens at Shrewsbury House drawing up regular action plans to meet the work to be done then allocating tasks to those volunteers available and able to carry out the activities the latter being essential as a number of the volunteers are in a SEND group that's special educational needs and disabilities the benefits of gardening to mental and physical health are well documented and it is totally and it is totally unacceptable that the gardening team who coordinate this service at the house were not consulted regards the plans for Greengarth where there are already plans for a community kitchen garden aimed at supplying the Shrewsbury House cafe with fresh produce through a garden to plate project an activity to be carried out by volunteers from the groups meeting at the house and the surrounding community I was privileged to know Greengarth's last resident Beatrice Horsley Williams whose father was the one time architect for the borough of Woolwich during time spent with her she made it known that it was her dearest wish that on her demise Greengarth would go back to community use in conclusion had Cabinet been fully informed of the use of groups including the gardening team and the extent to which the house serves the community its plans and for the future and its past history additional information were requested and a consultation would have been carried out thank you thank you William Gottmier please Hi I'm an architect who lives in the Royal Borough of Greengarth and be working with the Shrewsbury House just to talk briefly on my experience of matters like this which has largely been from a developer's side in the past working for developers drawing up feasibility studies for projects exactly like Greengarth there are a number of items that seem to be distinctly missing from the council's decisions the first is obviously they were aware that it was in a conservation area but the conservation area 4.5 of the appraisal explicitly states that the Langer State is complete and that any development or something that makes this completely undesirable to a developer secondly the listing of the site it's been speculated about whether or not the building is listed as it's not mentioning it a less attractive site for development and therefore for sale thirdly the deed to the land which I think was briefly mentioned earlier but anyone the whole argument about why you want to dispose of it completely null and void so I information that doesn't seem to have been apparent to the council and another argument for why it should be sent back thanks thank you Priscilla Graham please I've been a resident in Maryworth Drive for 56 years and lived three doors from number 28 or Green Garth and the site is clearly seen from my bedroom window I've seen the site very very little over those many years I've been involved with Shrewsbury House Community Centre in various ways over the 56 years I know that over the past six years there have been negotiations between them and Greenidge for Green Garth to be leased by Shrewsbury House so that it could become a useful asset for the community as a community garden and accessible art therapy centre during 2023-24 the summer house at 28 was renovated and in the summer of 2024 the garden was cleared of most of the mature trees and all of the undergrowth in November 2024 Greenidge dropped a bombshell when a proposal was put to and voted through unopposed by Cabinet that 28 Mereworth Drive should be put up for sale with no background information given or asked for I find it unbelievable that the item went to Cabinet with absolutely no consultation with local residents or Shrewsbury House the site has been an integral part of our estate since Green Garth was built in 1943 and certainly part of my and my family's life as we pass it nearly every time we leave our house concerning the clearing of the trees last summer if myself or any resident on the estate wished to prune even a single tree we have to seek permission from Greenwich in the case of Green Garth virtually every tree was felled leaving the site looking bereft before continuing with any disposal of 28 Mereworth Drive Greenish Council should carry out a meaningful consultation with residents of Shrewsbury Park Estate and with Shrewsbury House Thank you And finally Andy Brockman please Thank you Chair good evening members and fellow residents my name is Andy Brockman I am speaking like my colleague Sally there as a trustee of Shrewsbury House Community Association not as a member of the public I'd also before I start and I will be brief but I'd also draw attention to the written submission that you should all have in front of you and which actually deals in detail with the the few points I'm able to make in the time I've actually got this evening and I should finally add I'm speaking to you also as a professional archaeologist and historian with a particular expertise in World War II some of you might have seen the time team that we did a few years ago which was supported by the Council and we were very grateful for it I'm going to just amplify a few points that Will mentioned a moment ago to do with the listing of Greengarth 28 Merriweith Drive it is a World War II civil defence building that has been repurposed as a house it is not a detached house as the cabinet were told it in terms of curtilage and we'll mention curtilage curtilage listing is a well trusted mechanism that Historic England understands is able to make sense and ensure that complex sites are properly protected sites with different structures that are related to each other can be properly assessed and protected very briefly excuse me under the under the terms of the listed buildings and conservation areas Act 1990 Merriweith Drive is wholly within the curtilage of Shrewsbury House and was before 1st of July 1948 that is proven by 1944 Air Photograph which also shows active paths between what was then ARP control centre Shrewsbury House and Greengarth it was a building that was integrally related to that particular function which is another both of those are conditions for curtilage listing in a wider context the Shrewsbury House curtilage contains a cross section of World War II civil defence buildings and Cold War civil defence buildings and garden features which are carried contiguously across the entire site it's a single site and according to both Historic England and the curtilage plan and the land registry which Will mentioned it is a single site now there's no definition of what 28 Meriworth Drive actually represents and I will just make this final point because it's a critical one 28 Meriworth Drive has no legal definition in the land registry so it may be the cabinet didn't even know what it was actually disposing of because it has no legal identity thank you thank you sir and we do have your we do have your written submission as well that goes into more detail just checking with the panel if they want to ask any questions from the members of the public in particular do you have a question okay moving on to the cabinet members then is there anything that you want to say in response to the submissions that you've heard from the members of the public okay thank you chair I'll start I'm just in response to the last point whilst this property is locally listed it's noted as being within the curtilage of the nationally listed properties the call the call the call in report notes that whether or not a building is listed or in proximity to a listed building does not preclude the recommendation for disposal listed buildings are disposed of at times several comments have been made in the submissions today and you know I appreciate the time people have taken but most of the options that have been given would by definition need some kind of financial input from the council which we would not be in a position to do and that's why we've taken the steps that we've taken some assets closing some assets I also think doesn't negate our ability to provide support for the various missions that we've got we've looked at how we are providing for the community within all our missions and it isn't a matter that if you close this one you're not able to do the work around the missions that we've stated I think the equestrian centre our business is not running an equestrian centre when we've had the excuse me when we had we've had two organisations try to run it and it's not worked there are options as people have stated in other areas in South London but we still have to make prudent decisions we really do my understanding also actually is that the numbers that we're using the equestrian centre from Greenwich was quite low so I would be interested in finding out a little bit more about why we would be in this position and I can't see in realistic terms how we could be justifying saying that we're going to pass over assets without the proper consideration because we are asked of that all around the borough from all sorts of voluntary sector organisations and community groups it's just not a luxury we can afford this is not the only group that groups that are concerned about an asset within their community we're facing these difficult choices right across the borough chair and so it's really unfortunate that we've come to where we are but we have to make those decisions Thank you Councillor yeah I'll just try to follow the comments there's a lot of you know thank you for sharing your comments by the way and in terms of some of things that were mentioned I Olympic Park it was the London Lakes Development Corporation that was able to build out all the developments in order to sustain the space as it was so again there's a financial implication to maintaining something like that and that's not what we are going to do but what we are trying to do is trying to be financially responsible and it's not by putting something on the dispositive it hasn't been sold yet it's been considered to be sold and it's open for everyone to bid and it could be in all forms and all the options have been listed within the document so it's not keeping anyone out but it's making sure that we get the best value for the space for the land and in favour of our residents across the borough and yes a question centre is a great luxury to have and we you know and if someone has a great plan with this plan come forward and do put your bid forward no one's been excluded from this but we don't want to make special recommendations you know special measures for anyone specifically which would undervalue the land so we want a good strong robust plan that comes forward we will consider that and just going to look in at 28 the mayor's drive i think everyone made a very good um uh kind of um comments about the conservation space i think what we have to look at is this is on the disposal it hasn't been sold yet it's too open for anyone to bid on this land um unfortunately and the discussion with um kind of uh kind of uh shrewsbury house kind of didn't go anywhere it hadn't ended necessarily but it didn't go anywhere but the it anything beyond a certain amount of years it has to go on uh is it regarded as disposal it has to be on the disposal list and it has to go through certain measures um so in terms of the time requested it has it would have to go on the market as a um um um it wants to get a fair price um but in terms of the conservation space yes you're right anyone that wants to build there would be bound by those um planning regulations and the fact that it's listed that's the fact that is in a conservation space they'll have to factor those in for any kind of development or non-development there's no we haven't made assumption what's going to happen there yet we've just listed it because we want to get the best value for this space and it's open to everyone to apply so no one has been excluded yet i think that's important um so and yes your comments about conservation space it stands and and we all agree it's not going to be easy for anyone to do anything and that's a good thing because it means the space has to be used in line with preserving the area thank you quickly chair if i may um putting anything on the disposal list still would have whoever is bidding whoever is bidding um and wanting to do anything with that site would have to go for the um proper planning procedures and within that there would also be consultation that's um there and people would be able to make um fair representations at that board and you know people have this has happened time and time again as one of our um speakers said today um we do have there's that planning consideration so all the issues about listing or conserve uh conservation area will be covered in whoever else is making a bid in what they're doing we can't preempt that so you know that wouldn't be for us to say thank you sorry there's no more comments from the public at this point thank you i'm now going to ask um i'm now going to ask the signatories to the call in if they have any final comments before handing back to the cabinet members for any response to that and then the committee will make the decision thank you thank you chair um and i guess um you know i want to say thank you to all the residents who have come here tonight to have their say this is why we we called this decision in to give people the opportunity to do that i think we've heard tonight just a taste of what the council would hear if it ran the community consultation that we've proposed the upfront consultation before this decision is taken and you know we've heard so many ideas tonight from the community for both of these sites of potential future uses um so all i'd really add is to urge the cabinet members to really just show some humility tonight um i respect both of these cabinet members they work hard they've got very difficult jobs it's important to put that on the record i think they would earn so much respect in this room and outside of it if they just showed the humility after everything we've heard tonight to say okay the council's got this one wrong and we're going to pause we're not going to take a decision until we've run a full uh consultation with the community up front i think they'd earn so much respect if they did that so that's that's what i'd say and to facilitate that i'd again urge the panel and to make a recommendation to send it back to to cabinet so that they can hopefully do that thank you thank you are there any final comments from the cabinet members before we make our decision councillor farhi would you like to start thank you chair um uh again uh appreciation to everybody who's turned up to the meeting and the important contributions uh that they have made having read the report and um had the opportunity of asking some questions of uh those involved in the process uh it seems to me that um putting it in in terms that the cabinet have come to a decision uh about a list of disposals including the two uh that are before us this evening and in making that decision um the report before us this evening uh particularly around uh paragraphs 3.14 5 and 6 uh sets out uh that a consultation will take place uh there are options set out uh in paragraph 3.15 uh as to the potential options available to those who want to seek to address the important considerations that the public have made this evening uh about the importance of communities and ensuring uh that we build a stronger community uh by the assets we have and so therefore i think um on on balance it seems to me that the cabinet in making that decision uh provides an opportunity for consultation uh to take place um those involved this evening here and um the wider public will have an opportunity to provide some proposals as to how they want to uh seek to address the issues of retaining those buildings and i think that's that's very positive and some suggestions around the room uh have been made and no doubt uh cabinet uh will take those into consideration but i think it is important that in looking at the issue about consultation uh my final point is consultation has to be meaningful and respect for everybody involved thank you thank you councillor davis do you have any thoughts you'd like to share thank you chair and thank you to all the residents and members of the community who came along and i think made their views very clear this evening um i i think that they've made some very powerful points um and i actually bring the temperature down of the meeting i think it is understandable that the cabinet members do have difficult jobs but i think that the council has tried to set out a structure through which it does its community engagement and i just can't see how these decisions follow a structure that is quite noble in terms of bringing the community with them and making decisions and and i can't see how that has been done and we've heard from from people like like jim and barry speaking about the equestrian center and how community groups want to get involved in the future of that site and we've heard from the shrewsbury house community association about how they want to get involved with the future of that site and they want to make it so that the community can use that site um and and so in my mind i really think that engagement should be taking place first because from the discussion we've had this evening um i just don't see that that engagement and discussion is going to take place if we push through with this i think i would disagree with you there slightly councillor davis i totally agree in the need for meaningful consultation to councillor farhi's point but i think this is very much the first stage the decision's being made to dispose the prep processes were followed for the disposal in paragraph 3.14 there's lots of options and there are opportunities for consultation at various points and i think um councillor can make a very good point that following any of the types of disposals which could include a community asset transfer and it is open for that proposal to be made for shrewsbury's house for example that when disposals are made whatever happens to those sites goes to consultation as well as part of the planning process there are various points at which consultation can happen and having the consultation at this point sending it back to consider consultation at this point i don't think makes a huge amount of sense when there's plenty of plenty of places to have that consultation what i would say is everybody in this room has made such valid and impassioned arguments i know the cabinet members will take that into account this is this is part of this is part of the public discussion and part of the democracy around it this calling itself frank respectfully i disagree if we're doing the consultation of planning that you know that you've let the balfour throughout before it's far too late to be doing the consultation at planning stage and using that and i think especially for residents the decision is on disposal though it's not on the future use of the site at the moment the decision is disposal this is what we've just said about consultation you've just said about consultation chair and frankly the cabinet member has given the opposite of assurances on consultation when it comes to green guff she would not give an assurance that there would be further consultation tonight and so i really can't in good faith and put my name to the the cap proceeding uh without referring it back to the cabinet member ultimately you know there's three people here but i i can't in good faith not send this back to the cabinet member in my mind thank you just just confirming the procedure that um with legal counsel um councillor farhi what would your decision be in terms of referring the decision back or allowing the decision to stand allow the decision to stand bearing in mind that the process is clear as set out on the agenda and cabinet has a duty not only respect uh of the discussion this evening but in terms of the localism act and in all relevant legislation uh that the cabinet will do its duty in relation to following that due process thank you councillor davis uh thank you chair for the reasons i've sort of made clear earlier and my choice would be option two to refer the decision to the cabinet for reconsideration together with the subcommittee's comments relating to the calling reasons and the alternative decision thank you and i'm afraid my decision will be to accept the decision and allow immediate implementation um when we accept the decision we don't give official recommendations but i would urge the cabinet members to take into account what you've heard tonight with when engaging with interested groups with regards to the disposal and any submissions that are made with response to consultations to be meaningfully taken into account in subsequent decisions thank you very much for your time

Transcript