pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
pgc all green working and signpost with lettering new colour 2
facebook icon twitter icon

Share this article share on facebook share on twitter

Friends of Whitewebbs Park say that the land shown here is "part of the area intended for astroturfing/plastic reinforced pitches"

The Labour MPs for Enfield North and Enfield Southgate and the Enfield Society have written to Enfield Council and issued public statements about the controversy over the proposed leasing of the former golf course at Whitewebbs to Tottenham Hotspur. Though none of them has expressed opposition to the lease in principle, they all wish to see greater assurances about future public access to the land.

As reported in Enfield Dispatch, Enfield North MP Feryal Clark's letter is notably critical of the council, saying that she has “lost confidence in the council’s ability to involve local residents in its plans” and completely shares the "anger and frustration of residents who feel like their voices have been ignored".

The Dispatch also quotes reassurances by the council about the preconditions that will have to be met before it will lease out the land.

Southgate MP Bambos Charalambous's letter, published on the Friends of Whitewebbs Park website, contains no overt criticism of the council but says that the future leaseholder should undertake a "full and comprehensive consultation with residents and visitors to the area to ensure its future is decided by those who will be visiting the green space". He writes that:

My constituents are concerned that the lease of Whitewebbs Park will divide the land between publicly accessible, commercial enterprise and private land. In doing so, green belt land will be destroyed and naturally occurring rewilding overwritten for leaseholder targets.

A summary of the Enfield Society's position on the Whitewebbs controversy was included in an email newsletter sent to members this week:

The Society has looked carefully at the Whitewebbs situation since it became clear that the Council wanted to dispose of the land through a 25-year lease. We appreciate the Council's financial situation and can see it likely to lead to disposal of the land in some form, assuming the Council has the legal right to enter into an agreement. Under such circumstances the proposal from Spurs seems to us to be an acceptable option.

However, we do have a number of reservations about the proposal and the Council's approach to the Lease. We do not understand, nor support, the inclusion of the wooded area to the West. We see no value in this to Spurs. We also wish to see a number of critical safeguards included in the terms of any Lease. We have set these points out in a letter of objection which was lodged with the Council during the recent Lease consultation period and the letter can be found on our website.

On its website the Society has published a longer statement of its views on the proposed lease.

Log in to comment