News, comment and features

There's an update on this story on the Enfield Dispatch website.

more rubbish, bunch of chancers costing tax payers 10s of 1000s defending their vein selfish claims.

Darren, that's not an argument, just an unsupported attack on the campaigners with no supporting evidence or argument. If you want to post on this website you need to set out the reasons why you think this is the case. Any further posts like this will get you banned.

What's wrong? Do you think defending this action will not cost the Council any money? The anti-LTN campaign cost £50-100k for the Council to defend.

They are people chancing their arm. SOGL were as confident - LOST. OC were as confident - LOST. All claimed they had legal opinions confirming they were right. They all lost. Nothing changed but tax payers lost money as the losers did not repay the council in full.

I can understand anyone being annoyed about ratepayers picking up legal bills they have no interest in, but the judge would always have the option of loading the costs onto the other party, if justified. Having the right to go to law seems to be a much more important democratic principle to be protected.
I also see danger in mixing up different cases, each inevitably having their own merits; each should stand or fall as viable, or not, on their own.
In this case, and admittedly having only briefly read what is available via PGC, it does seem the council are handing over a huge chunk of – rather attractive –publicly accessible land, most of which will be subject to owner-centric restrictions, where they they will state no ultimate use, yet (we) seem to be receiving little more than next-to-nothing in compensation. If it smells like a bad secret deal, then best let the light in. And consider, any opportunity loss to ratepayers is financially no worse than ratepayers actually picking up legal fees, and in this case may just be many times larger.

Except it doesn't work like that. Aarhus Convention (from memory) severely restricts what public bodies can recover even when awarded full costs like they did with the failed SOGL and OC cases. So all tax payers lose for a minority's vanity project.

It's not mixing cases to show an obvious precedent. People acting emotionally that don't know what they are talking about and refuse to take unbiased or contrary advice taking their personal missions to Court and losing - because they never actually had a case in the first place.

As for bad secret deal - there was a full open tender process led by one of the worlds foremost land agency practices, Knight Frank, so that's an absurd suggestion reeking of nothing but bitterness. The real bad deal was the £100k pa tax payers were paying to support the failed golf course (which was NOT public access and only half of which is now being converted to private/no access).

So much to unpack in this last post. Let’s take matters in the order presented.
“Aarhus Convention”: I have no idea but am aware that our Deputy Council leader at the time of (one of) the SOGL / OC cases desired full payment of the council’s legal fees; while the last planned incinerator legal case, brought by a north London resident, was withdrawn when the NLWA would not agree to cap their fees for her to meet should she lose. Both suggest things may well be discretionary, on at least one participant. Useful if someone who knows can clarify the position for everyone.
“A minority’s vanity project”. Is a view.
At this point I will add I have nor have had any links to any Whitewebbs campaign; nor supported by way of resource, funding, signature or any other means. I did however find the area hugely attractive when walking it last year.
“Obvious precedent”. Precedents can be hugely useful but they can’t be picked and chosen to suit. A different local campaigner took HMG to court in a link to our local waste management industry. As a result, earlier this month HMG announced plans to reform the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, driving in the principle that the polluter pays. Vanity project some might say, but one with enormous future implications. Lets position it as a counter scenario precedent.
“People don’t know what they are talking about”, is again a view. Rarely do I find things are black and white and the strength comes from exploring the grey. It’s pretty much why diversified organisations have been shown to be more effective – no one know s everything. As an example, I know one local resident who, through a raft of relevant skills and experiences, has previously been called upon to act as an expert witness in landscape matter court hearings in this sort of space. They know what they are talking about, are called upon to do exactly that, and they believe there to be a case.
“Secret deals”. A few years back there was a public consultation on a local matter. After some detailed, diligent work it was finally revealed sitting behind it all was, yes, a secret deal, contractually signed as being exactly that. So don’t believe such things can’t happen - official paperwork says it can and has and locally. Hence no “absurd suggestion” there. Sadly, a process being led by a respectable name does not guarantee the underlying is snowy white. I give you KMPG / Carillion as but one example.
“Reeking of nothing but bitterness”. That could make a wonderful T shirt logo, although I’m not sure who would be wearing it with the intended shot missing me by a million miles.
I’m not a supporter of golf and could make no case why funds should be spent on golf rather than basketball, skateboarding or any one of the spectrum of sports. However, the benefits – mental and physical – of sports, and indeed outdoor walking generally, are by now well documented, so to invest public resource in sports generally looks solid to me, and I suspect will be part of a NHS pivot to preventative medicine at some stage.
On the ex-golf course itself, I found 100% of that land was now accessible as I wandered. That, as well as the woodland nearby, which was always accessible. Thus, depending on when and where you draw your baseline different percentages of what might be lost to the public emerge. Both are right, it depends how you describe your percentage.
Of course, Spurs / our council could simply outline their overall plans for the site. Surely that would be a whole lot easier?
It all makes me wonder if I should spend some time and understand this one in detail.

So much to unpack in your post so let's work our way through...

1. Aarhus - you don't know about it or its implications but seek to dismiss it anyway based on little more than rumour. SOGL had full costs awarded against them and I know the woman behind that campaign (who was also involved in OC) has said she paid some of them but it is unclear whether the Council ever recovered its costs in full. There is also no evidence the Council recovered it's costs on OC either despite them losing on every argument. So it is a legitimate concern until proven otherwise (NB: none of the fundraising campaigns have ever gone back asking for more money to repay a costs bill....)

2. Minority's vanity project - minority is indisputable. There are circa 350,000 people living in this Borough. Neither SOGL, nor OC nor FoWW have ever shown more than 1% support for their campaigns.

3. People always THINK they know what they are talking about but it simply isn't true. And no amount of feelings changes that. OC were CERTAIN they were in the right. SOGL were CERTAIN (despite their lawyers telling them not). FoWW are CERTAIN.... yet they still need to propagate myths about the scale of disposal, the performance of the golf centre and whether land is being "sold" in order to stoke fear to garner support for their cause.

4. Secret deals. Your claim you prove it. You can't and the claim remains absurd given there was plenty of transparency over the process.

5. We had 6 public golf courses in the Borough from memory. Now 5. So why £100k best spent subsidising a minority participation event? It is not a robust argument whatsoever.

6. Access. What you could access before you can access now. If you've only been since the golf course was closed then that is misrepresentative of what's being done. If on the other hand you are saying you were happy ambling a round a golf course in the middle of the day risking your skull being cracked open by an errant ball then I'd challenge the truth in that statement. The rest is going to remain just as accessible. More so in fact given only 50% of the golf course is having access removed.

7. Plans are all available on line.

It’s interesting to have a name (Aarhus Convention) for positions I had heard about, so thanks for that, as for the rest I’ll be leaving it, but will hang on to the “reeking of nothing but bitterness”, for many a reason. I’d suggest you read the postings with a little more care and perhaps reflect on the legal system as a core strand of our democracy.

And now we can add the ULEZ legal challenge to the list of ignorant vanity projects that cost the tax payer 10s of 1000s to follow through with.......