Campaigners will 'have recourse to legal action if necessary' to defend public recreational rights at Whitewebbs

Sean Wilkinson from the Friends of Whitewebbs Park has provided some comments and additional information:

Hi Basil

This page might help with some of your questions: https://whitewebbspark.org.uk/spurs-enic-want-150-acres-of-whitewebbs-park-for-2-million-over-25years/

It is worth enlarging the indicative map to look at the exact boundaries - even to side of the path they are drawn on.

1. Spurs will control all the entrances to the park and parking areas.

2. Areas 3 and 1 remain under Council control.

3. While public access will be retained (for the time being) for area 2 it is far from clear what will be the situation around the Lake. The boundary includes the path from the North Lodge Gate to the back entrance of Whitewebbs House. The boundary then switches to the other side of the path through the wood for areas 3 and 1 making that the responsibility of the Council to maintain.

4. The woodland in the East is Archers Wood which is leased to Capel Manor, now used for the Beaver.

5. The small patch of land between the existing Spurs ground and the Golf Course is supposed to be developed as a nature reserve - a Spurs promise of long standing but with no delivery.

6. You are correct about area 3, this has been rewilding / renaturing at an increasingly fast rate. I have asked Marcus Harvey for a management plan which will involve drainage maintenance and an ecological balance.

7. Spurs say that they want to restore area 2 as 19th Century Parkland. After just over a year since golf course maintenance ceased that is precisely what it looks like. I would urge people to remember that 19th Century parkland implies private land not a public space. I suspect that they will allow cattle grazing in the area thereby discouraging the public from using it.

8. The Spurs brochure is very carefully worded. The pictures of footpaths look great (they are from NSW) but there is obligation on Spurs part to provide them. There are no significant footpaths in the Spurs area and certainly no rights of way. Any improvements to footpaths and other facilities in the Council retained areas will have to be paid fro from the money paid to the Council. The much vaunted "premium" of £500,000 is made up of 5 years advance rental plus £125,000 real premium. This will just about cover year to year maintenance. Bringing some footpaths and bridleways up to the standards indicated will easily eat up the £500,000 with nothing left for annual maintenance.

9. The only part of the bridleway that Spurs commit to improving is the length along the northern boundary of their proposed playing fields. The North South sections of the bridleway are public rights of way and it is far from clear as to who will be responsible for repairs.

10 . The map and the plan to control the entrances suggest to me that the plan is for Spurs to buy up the lease on Whitewebbs House (for corporate hospitality / hotel use) hence the boundary incorporating the North Lodge entrance and path to the house rear entrance. Public access will be controlled by parking restrictions and charges and by deterrence factors in area 2. The provision of public facilities are "subject to planning permission" and may not happen. My belief is that, within ten years, this will be the Spurs private estate

The Council and Spurs used COVID as an excuse for avoiding the promised provision of a public meeting where questions could be asked. Mark Bradbury said that all such matters could be dealt with at the Planning Application stage - not true. Enfield did not respond to my suggestion that such a meeting could be held in the Spring of this year when COVID restrictions were eased.

Sorry that this is so long but I hope that it clarifies a few points.

I hope this won't just be another misinformation campaign by FoWW, again, following on from the rubbish that came out during the initial sale.

As a council tax payer the "unlawful" claim fills me with dread too. As is speaks to another misguided attempt to take a process to Court to try over-turn it for largely selfish reasons. This will cost tax payers either way - FoWW win and we go back to having to waste £100k pa subsidising a golf course (1 of several in the Borough) that nobody uses, lose and the Council will have spent 10s of 1000s of tax payer pounds defending a vexatious and meritless claim.