Mr Pennington,

Thank you for your response to my email to the Chief Executive

You argue that Watling Gate needs to have land around it and that the preferred bidder is taking the 'minimum' amount of public land. I repeat that I feel the sale was conducted on the wrong premise. You asked the bidders to put forward their land requirements rather than telling them what land was available. Naturally they are all going to ask for additional land. It is no real comfort that the preferred bidder has requested the least (not minimum!) amount of land.

It should be noted that since the building passed into public ownership it never had any land associated with it on the side parallel to Banbury Drive so you should have specified this land wasn't available for sale.

You then point to the security issue as an excuse for selling the land. The land is 29 feet across at its narrowest point and, therefore, wide enough to have a viable public access route and not some unsafe alley as you imply. Other options that could have been considered, include giving no land or just a few feet on that side to Watling Gate. A wall can be erected and/or windows can be barred on the ground floor.

This building is supposed to be sold as a business and not some luxury home that requires privacy and personal space around all its boundaries. There are plenty of properties (most of central London, for example) where much grander houses have no such space and are lived in and used with no problems. The council seems to think that a large house should have a large garden regardless of the rights of the local community that morally own that land.

We are not well endowed with public land in this part of Trafford so you should be fighting to retain land rather than giving it away to facilitate the sale of a redundant property.

You also commented that you had consulted with the Friends group. You neglected to say that Friends of Newton Park strongly objected to the sale of additional land to the Watling Gate purchasers. It seems to me that you have let a handful of entrepreneurs shape the future of Watling Gate rather than the local community.

You close by saying ‘this solution offers both the best from a local crime prevention position and the best future use of the property for local residents.’

Well I think the crime prevention argument is flawed. It is alarm systems and locks on windows that deter crime and not alienating the local community.  As to the ‘best future use of the property for local residents’, the only local residents that will benefit from the sale of Watling Gate are the new owners. Circumstances quickly change, and I doubt Yoga and Pilates classes will last very long before the house reverts to a private residence again.

I remain dissatisfied with the way the Council have handled this issue and will continue to object to your plans.