Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Surveyor.

Councillors M Vizard and N Vizard attended the meeting having given notice under Standing Order 44 to speak on this item.

The City Surveyor presented the report, which followed a request by Exeter Homes Trust Ltd, to purchase an area of Bull Meadow Park at the end of Temple Road to enable the redevelopment of the existing scheme of 12 almshouses, to provide 31 almshouses. The land to be purchased was shown in the circulated report, which also showed the location of Bull Meadow Park, detail of the proposed turning head and its location within Bull Meadow Park. There were no strategic or operational reasons for retaining the land and that the proposed use was acceptable to both Planning and Parks teams.

The City Surveyor explained that disposal of non-strategic land were normally delegated to him in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer. The intention was to build a public highway turning head, which had been considered to be the best option to support the re-development of the almshouses site. A provisional agreement had been reached with Exeter Homes Trust, subject to planning consent.

However, due to the high volume of interest from local residents, following the advertisement to sell the land, the level of objections and notably a petition received, it was his view that the decision on the principle of disposal required Member consideration at the Place Scrutiny for decision by Executive Committee.

Councillor Speaking Under Standing Order 44

Councillor N Vizard commented that there had been an unprecedented opposition to the sale of the land, but expressed her thanks to the City Surveyor for opening up the decision to Members. She requested Members of the Place Scrutiny Committee to not support the request for Exeter City Council to sell the land at Bull Meadow Park.

There had been an overwhelming public objection and she emphasised the importance for Members to acknowledge the opposition from local residents, stakeholders and community leaders to refuse the sale. She noted that the report could be misleading, as it did not show the open space and the area designated by the zip wire, which had reduced the area of green space available for multi-use sports and community activities.

Councillor N Vizard explained that the area was a vital community open space, which needed to be retained and was not a small area of land to be disposed of, which would have a cruel impact on the community, which was already concerned about other land in the area, with no indication of resolution. The area was used by local residents and visitors for various community activities such as dog walking, ball sports and picnics.

There had been an unprecedented negative community response to the notification to sell the land, with additional responses mentioned in the report, and another 400 signatures provided in a paper petition. She stated that Members must weigh up the merits of the retention of public open green spaces against the development of the almshouses. The developers architect had confirmed that the situation was not an either or situation, and had alternative options available, with this option being the preferred option. An alternative, would be to access the site from Fairpark Road, had been discounted by Exeter Homes Trust and Planning Officers. The Waste Collection Manager had also commented that the turning head would be a useful improvement, and would be beneficial for park visitors. Requests had been received from local residents to not sell the land and there was no record of accidents in the area.

It was known that the Council had to save money, however Council receipts were not substantial enough to ignore the passionate opposition and pleas of the local community. She emphasised that it was acceptable for the Council to say no, not to the whole development, just to the loss of the park land. There were other concerns about the disruption from construction vehicles during the development period and the potential safety hazards, which she highlighted as a planning consideration, but felt was an opportune time to comment on it.

Councillor N Vizard summarised that it was possible for the development to go ahead without the loss of the park land. The report suggested that there were only two options, either the Council sold the land and the development went ahead or that it did not sell and the development could not go ahead, which wasn’t the case. The developer’s architects had stated that there were alternative options available, with this option being more cost effective. It was not City Council policy to sell assets to save developers money, regardless of the benefit of the development. Delivery and service vehicles could access through the wider and more accessible Fairpark Road, which would be a better option.

The proposal to sell the land was against the collective wishes of the local community, who used the land for various community activities.

Councillor Speaking Under Standing Order 44

Councillor M Vizard stated that the arguments were concerned with the loss of part of the field at Bull Meadow, the unprecedented number of objections from residents, there being no significant financial gain to the Council and there being alternative options available. He stated that for a Council to sell off any public park land, there should be exceptional reasoning, which was not the case. There was an opportunity for Members to support their local community and requested Members of the Committee to not support the recommendation.

In response to questions from Members, the City Surveyor explained that Bull Meadow was a park rather than a playing field and that disposal was not a matter for Sport England consideration.

Members discussed the disposal of the land and representations received, commenting that: the principle when the Council disposed of land, was that something needed to be given back; there would be an increase to the volume of traffic to the area; there were alternative options available to maintain the development of almshouses, without losing the land; Members had a responsibility to listen to the view of local residents.

Place Scrutiny Committee requested, subject to planning consent, that Executive not support the disposal of the area of land at Bull Meadow Park.