Forum topic: Whitewebbs - Time For a U Turn

“Enfield Labour Council gave a sweet heart deal to Tottenham Hotspur FC to destroy Whitewebbs park and replace an open green space with a training ground.”Part of a no-confidence motion tabled for Council this month.

 No financial sense, adequate provision already held by Spurs and the total destruction of green belt land currently available to residents 365 /24/7 for wellness purposes. What’s to like?

 Here’s a bad business case that risks staining Enfield council with a running sore for years and years. One east Midland council has more appropriate plans for a near equivalent scenario – deciding to be resident-centric and forward looking.

Enfield Conservatives, if elected, plan to rip up the proposed lease. The current administration should save them the trouble and do so right now.

 

Last month I said, “Enfield Conservatives, if elected, plan to rip up the proposed lease. The current administration should save them the trouble and do so right now.”  Since then, we’ve heard that the owners of the nearby Spurs linked Toby Carvery have been issued with an eviction order linked to the felling of the Whitewebbs Oak and now the news that the High Court has granted permission for the Guardians of Whitewebbs to challenge Enfield Council’s granting of planning permission for a second Spurs training ground on green belt land.  

The Guardians will be permitted to argue in Court that: 

1. Enfield Council breached Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the transparency of planning committee meetings and misled the planning committee on the issue of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). 

2. The Officer’s Report misinterpreted and/or misapplied DMD Policy 84 on new development within Areas of Special Character. 

3. The Council misinterpreted and/or misapplied DMD Policy 44 on conserving and enhancing heritage assets.

4. The Council erred in its consideration of impacts on the openness of the Green Belt.  The Judge rejected one of the grounds - relating to bias and predetermination – but new evidence has since been submitted to Court to support a renewal of this ground.  

Enfield’s (ie our ratepayers’) financial case is to receive no money for five years and then several tens of thousands pa for a couple of decades thereafter for the loss of irreplaceable 365/24/7 available public realm. So, pay tens of thousands in lawyers fees now to defend such an unwarranted decision for a future relative pittance, or simply rip up the deal and walk away from the impending court case and its costs pre-election. Interesting to see if our council now does the sensible thing.

Clueless