Friends of Newton Park (FONP)

Comments on the above report, arising from a meeting of FONP members.

1.3 The report states that the Council has an obligation to repair the building and, given the estimated cost of its restoration, has clearly been negligent in carrying out this responsibility.

1.7 Friends of Newton Park was actually set up following public meetings held on 4.8.04 and 7.10.04. At the October meeting local residents were invited by the Council to put forward ideas for the future community use of Watling Gate. At this time our assumption was that the building would remain in public ownership. It was proposed by the Friends group that the building could be leased to a Trust or Charity for community benefit but this was rejected by the Council.

3.2 Having accepted the Council’s preference to sell the building, it was again assumed by FONP that no additional Park land would be offered in the sale. The offer of additional land has clearly been made in order to enhance the sale value of the property and FONP has consistently opposed this. ( see ref. 4.3 of the report)

3.4 and 3.5 FONP accept that it would help to provide some protection and security for the building and its users to allow a suitable boundary fence to be installed along the length of the building that runs parallel with Banbury Drive. We consider that a width of 2 metres from the wall would be sufficient for this purpose. This would allow for continued public access between Leys Rd and Rochester Drive without compromising public safety. It concerns us that, although this footpath linkage is referred to in point 5 of the Report recommendations, no map is attached to indicate this option.

Our understanding of Section 106 monies is that this has arisen from local housing developments and is entirely separate from Watling Gate. Though we have asked for details on several occasions we have been unable to obtain anything in writing from the Council to indicate what S106 funds will come to the Park and when. Neither has a specific sum for the benefit of the Park been confirmed resulting from the sale of Watling Gate. At a public meeting of the Friends of Newton Park which was attended by the Marsdens it was accepted that the building could be sold providing that there would be no loss of Park land.

3.7 As Watling Gate is situated in a Park and is therefore already in an ‘appropriate setting’ we consider it unnecessary to allocate Park land to the property, as suggested in the Report.

3.8 and 3.9 The Report states that the Council decided in January 2006 to enter into an exclusivity agreement with Ellison and Marsden for a period of 3 months. Given that this period has passed without an agreement having been concluded, and that the ‘preferred bidder’ has reduced his bid by £150,000 we presume that the Council has the right to invite further bids for the property. We question whether the reduced bid is still higher than other previous bids received, and we are disturbed to read that the reduced bid is, in part, as a result of the withdrawal of ‘several of his intended occupiers’. We had always been led to understand that one business, not several, would run from the premises.

4.1 The maps attached to the Report indicate the proposed land use for property and gardens, with no provision for parking. Does this mean that all vehicles would be required to park on Leys Rd? This issue is not addressed in the Report at all.

4.3 The reference in the Report about ‘speculation’ had arisen because a Ward Member had stated at a public meeting in February 2005 that if the Park land on Leys Rd was to be developed it would have to be for ‘affordable housing’. We acknowledge that the Council may have no such intentions but the statement fuelled concerns that the proposal to cut off the access from Rochester Drive to Leys Rd, thereby isolating that area of the Park, would lead it to become vulnerable to development.

4.4 We respect and sympathise with the views of those residents who oppose business use of Watling Gate. There is great concern that this arrangement could increase pressure on the Council to allow business use of other residential properties on Leys Rd in the future. Also, it was clearly not Colonel Newton’s intention that the building should be used commercially.

4.5 and 4.6 The Report refers to the range of public responses, and later states that the ‘proposed disposal has been subject to extensive public consultation’. However, there is little evidence in the Report Recommendations to indicate that any of the public responses have been taken into account, apart from the possible continuance of a linkage between Rochester Drive and Leys Rd.

5.4 Whilst respecting the views of the Civic Trust and others who wish to see the building preserved it has consistently been the priority of the Friends group to maintain and improve the Park, especially at a time when there are several new housing developments occurring in the area at this time. It is perhaps not surprising that several respondents to the Council proposed demolition of Watling Gate, even though this has never been presented as an option. The importance of leisure and recreational opportunities for our children is considered by the Friends group to be of greater value that ‘bricks and mortar’.

5.5 Whilst appreciating the dilemma that the Council is faced with, we question whether the Management Executive is making a hasty decision which will only lead to further problems in the future.

Dave Eatock, Chair Friends of Newton Park