People concerned about the future of two local landmarks received a double blow this week, when Enfield Council notified campaigners that they had refused applications to register the Green Dragon in Winchmore Hill and the former university campus and mansion in Trent Park as Assets of Community Value (ACVs).
The campaigners had received wide support from both the general public and councillors from both parties for their efforts to return the Green Dragon to its former use as a pub and to retain public access to the historic mansion and its grounds.
A statement on the Council website says that the decisions were made by appropriate Council Officers based on strict criteria: "Councillors play no part in this decision-making process and the strict criteria by which the decisions have to be made is set out in Government legislation which local authorities must abide by."
Using the Green Dragon in the interest of the local community "not realistic"
In the case of the Green Dragon, the evaluation panel concluded that the application did not meet one of the key criteria laid down by the relevant national legislation: "Step D" of the nomination process requires evidence of "Realism of Future Usage", but according to the Panel "it is not realistic to think that within the next five years there could be non-ancillary use of the building that would further the social well-being or interest of the local community".
The crucial point appears to be the Evaluation Panel's conclusion that the building was lawfully converted into a retail unit before the ACV application was submitted and is thus no longer a pub. Additionally, the Panel seem to have taken at face value the assertion by the new owners that pub use is "no longer viable".
Mike McClean, who set up the Save the Green Dragon campaign, rejects both of these arguments. In particular, he states that the application for ACV status was submitted a week before the Green Dragon reopened as a shop and that he believes that the changes that have been made to the interior are not so drastic as to make it difficult to change the building back to its original purpose.
Mr McClean is also angry that Council officers did not give the campaigners any opportunity to counter the claims made by the property developers.
Although it is not possible to appeal against an ACV nomination decision, Mr McClean says that councillors are looking into using a process called Councillor Call for Action, which involves elected councillors, as opposed to the officers employed by the Council who have run the process up to now.
Rumours that the Green Dragon has been sold to Aldi have been denied by the property firm which owns it, Green Lanes Investments, who told the local press that they are "a long way down the line in discussions to bring in a high-end retailer".
Trent Park's heritage value "not a consideration"
The former university campus in Trent Park was actually the subject of two applications for ACV status, from the Friends of Trent Country Park and from the local parish church, Christchurch Cockfosters. The evaluation panel seems to have given both short shrift. They argue that any recreational use of the campus was ancillary to its primary educational use. Both applicants were anxious to protect heritage value, but under the legislation this is not a valid consideration.
Could the Council have done otherwise?
Some supporters of the two campaigns, not least Conservative candidate David Burrowes, have been quick to blame the Labour group in control of Enfield Council for the failure of the applications, and there has even been talk of a "foregone conclusion" and "large backhanders". However, a more likely explanation is that the council officers genuinely considered that the applications did not make a strong enough case for them to be confident that by recommending registration they would not be exposing the Council to a high risk of facing legal action by the owners of the two properties. This could potentially involve very high legal costs at a time when local council finances have never been so stretched.
If these decisions really were taken without input from elected councillors, then a Councillor Call for Action might make it possible to re-open the case, perhaps calling in a second opinion by taking advice from local government officers from other oouncils
It is unfortunate that the sale of the Green Dragon took place before new legislation came in recently, giving pubs a certain amount of extra protection against demolition or change of use. At the time it was sold a change to retail use could be made without the need to obtain permission.
In the case of Trent Park, if it is true that ACV was not intended for cases of this kind and if the evaluation committee's decision was, from a legal standpont anyway, correct, there is no doubt that the building and grounds are an important part of not just local heritage, but because of its wartime role, it is a national asset. As such, it is to be hoped that campaigning for their protection will be taken up nationally and eventually enjoy the same success as Bletchley Park.
"Give communities the opportunity to influence the future"
Both cases are a reflection of how under current legislation property developers hold most of the trump cards - despite "localism" not only local communities, but also local authorities have very little power to ensure that their localities are developed along the lines that residents wish. One of our local heritage societies - the Southgate District Civic Trust - is among those campaigning for major changes in this respect (see our earlier report Giving communities the opportunity to actively influence the future of their town centres).
Perhaps, then, people's understandable indignation should be directed not at Enfield Council, but at national government for its failure to protect local communities from developers who have little regard for local feelings.
Links
Click to read the text of the response to the Green Dragon application|closed|blue|title-active=Click here to close this section
Green Dragon Pub – ACV/SPS/0006 – Save the Green Dragon Pub
A nomination was received on the 6 March 2015 from the “Save the Green Dragon” unincorporated organisation. In addition, a petition, with over 4000 signatures, supporting a campaign to save the Green Dragon Pub was received and considered at Full Council on the 25 March 2015. The petition was forwarded to the Evaluation Panel.
The asset in question is in private ownership and is located in Winchmore Hill. It was formerly used as a pub, which is the actual use that the nominator is applying to have listed as an Asset of Community Value. The nominator states that the Green Dragon Pub has been in existence for nearly 300 years and has been the focal point for the local community in Winchmore Hill.
The pub ceased to operate end January 2015, and the freeholder has converted the pub into a retail unit. This conversion is regarded to be lawful as it was undertaken using General Development Permitted Rights. The freeholder has indicated in correspondence that they intend bringing forward a mixed use scheme, that will include retail and housing. The freeholder also suggests that the pub use was no longer viable.
The Panel has reviewed the nominator’s application and has decided that the nomination is “unsuccessful”. While the application passed Steps A, B and C, the application failed in the final assessment step; that is Step D – Realism of Future Usage. Here the panel considered that following the lawful conversion of the pub to a retail unit, the requirements of Section 88(2)(b) are not met, namely that it is not realistic to think that within the next five years there could be non-ancillary use of the building that would further the social well-being or interest of the local community.
The evaluation panel also noted that while the nominator was eligible, it did not provide evidence of its unincorporated status other than a declaratory statement. In addition, in Step C, the nominator’s supporting evidence was generally considered weak.
Click to read the text of the response to the Trent Park application|closed|blue|title-active=Click here to close this section
Trent Park Campus: ACV/SPS/0005 – Friends of Trent Country Park (1)
A nomination was received on the 4th March from the Friends of Trent Country Park, which is a voluntary group with over 100 signed members. A petition with over 3700 signatures was also received and considered by Council on the 25 March 2015. The petition was forwarded to the Nominations Panel.
The asset in question that the nominator is seeking to nominate includes the former Middlesex University Campus which is located in Trent Park. The asset is in private ownership, but there are a few properties that are in Council ownership but these are residential. The area encompasses c. 50 acres, and amongst others includes the Mansion, Wisteria Walk, The Orangery, The swimming pool, the stable block and the daffodil lawn. In the applicant’s justification the following matters are stated:
- “Communal inheritance value”
- Public amenity
- Heritage asset
- Stakeholder position and Development Statement 2012.
Within the boundary of the nominated property there are residencies which cannot be assets of community value.
The panel considered what use the nominator sought to protect and this is not clear in the application. It appears that what the applicant is concerned with is the heritage value and access to the assets and not the actual (or in recent past) use per se, which furthers the social wellbeing of the community.
Based on the legislation the nominator’s desire to preserve the heritage value is not a consideration in an application for an ACV. Similarly, access to the campus is not a use for the purposes of the legislation.
As a result the application does not fulfil the requirements of the legislation and consequently the nomination is “unsuccessful”.
Trent Park Campus: ACV/SPS/0004 – Christ Church Cockfosters (2)
A nomination was received on the 4th March from the Christ Church Cockfosters, which is local parish church, and hence a charity for the purposes of the criteria set by the ACV legislation.
The asset being nominated is The Campus at Trent Park in Cockfosters Ward. This is primarily in private ownership, with some properties (residential) in Council ownership. This has however not been identified in the application. Within the boundary of the nominated property there are residencies which cannot be assets of community value. The nominator’s reasons for thinking that the property is an Asset of Community Value include:
- “Communal inheritance value”
- Public amenity
- Heritage asset
- Stakeholder position and Development Statement 2012.
In its application, the nominator states that the “local community considers the Campus buildings, landscape and cultural amenities to be an essential part of their community lifestyle, bestowing character and purpose to Trent Park”. However, the Panel considers that the actual use (or use in recent past) of the campus is for Educational purposes, and the recreational use described by the nominator can be considered to be ancillary. The nominator, indeed, points this out in the application under Question 6.
It appears that what the applicant is concerned with is the protection of the heritage value of the asset and access to features within the nominated area and not the actual (or in recent past) use per se, which furthers the social wellbeing of the community.
Based on the legislation the nominator’s desire to preserve the heritage value is not a consideration in an application for an ACV.
As a result the application does not fulfil the requirements of the legislation and consequently the nomination is “unsuccessful”.
