In a word, Yes!
The Leader of Trafford MBC, Councillor Susan Williams was quoted in the Sale and Altrincham Messenger (26 October 2006) as saying that, although she was against the sale of parkland in principle, the sale would save a beautiful listed building that would otherwise fall down. She went on to say:
"We are talking about a tiny strip of land that will make it viable for someone to use the building for a community use.......It would fall down if we did nothing... .....This provides the best outcome for everyone....There is the least possible land taken from the park - a tiny strip of land...There would also be investment to enhance the park after the sale of Watling Gate".
Well, to take each of the points in turn.
We are talking about a tiny strip of land How would the Councillor know? It was obvious from the Scrutiny Meeting on 25/10/06 that nobody who rubberstamped the decision to sell knew anything about Watling Gate other than it is an embarrassing liability to the Council that needed to be got rid of as soon as possible. Nobody considered how it affected Newton Park at all, so, for her and others' edification, here is a map of Newton Park with the area in question blocked out.
As you can see, slightly more than a narrow strip of land, but, as I keep saying, more important than the size is the location - at a key junction in the park. The gap behind the house is much narrower than it looks because it is bounded by the high hedge of the formal garden. If the Park was a patient on an operating table, and such a vital area was removed, it would, at the least, be severely crippled and might not survive.
On a semantic note - the least possible land taken from the park is no land!
It would fall down if we did nothing True, but this, dear Councillor is not an option. Trafford MBC is under a legal obligation to maintain the building. A duty that the Council has been sadly lacking in! Why should the residents of Timperley be forced to suffer for the incompetence of the officers and Coucillors of Trafford MBC?
That will make it viable for someone to use the building for a community use Nice one Councillor! I notice that you managed to avoid mentioning that the community in question wasn't ours, but a small, select portion of Bowden. Given the cost, the Yoga Centre is going to have to be very expensive to cover costs, never mind make a profit, so you and I, friends, will be the peasants at the gate, putting up with the increased traffic (which, by the way, will pass directly in front of the nursery gates) inconvenience, and nuisance, but barred from taking part.
This provides the best outcome for everyone Which everyone everyone are we talking about: The 400 people who sent in slips opposing the sale, the 100+ people who signed a petition or the 46 people who wrote letters of objection? Are we talking about the children whose play area is being further eroded, or those locals whose quality of life is about to be adversely affected by increased traffic and uncertainty over the future, with the threat of a housing development on their doorstep? No, the everyone in question is Trafford MBC, who rid themselves of an unwanted liability, and the developers, Ellison Marsden, who will have acquired a very valuable asset at a knock down price!
There would also be investment to enhance the park after the sale of Watling Gate What investment? Nobody will commit themselves to an exact amount, but it can't be much since the developer has reduced his original offer by £150,000 and, although the Council won't divulge it on the grounds of confidentiality, I would guess that the original one wasn't much more than £300,000 since the building will require at least £250,000 worth of work. So if for arguments sake we say that there the Council will have £200,000 extra income to play with, officers have made it clear that only money from the sale of the land can come back to the park, not the income from the sale of the house, which means that we can guess that a maximum of £50,000 will come to the park - not enough to buy a decent set of swings and certainly not enough to make up for the loss of land, the nuisance and the uncertainty.
Given the Councillor's clever use of language, I think we also need to get an assurance that the investment in question does not relate to the famous Section 106 funds arising from the overdevelopment of the area, which have nothing to do with Trafford MBC: We will receive them regardless of whether or not Watling Gate is sold.