The presentation of a petition urging Thanet council to reverse a decision to sell the Pierremont Park depot in Broadstairs on the open market and instead consider a transfer to Broadstairs and St Peter’s Council resulted is fractious debate last night (March 26).
The petition, with 2,099 signatures, was presented by Lorraine Williams of the Friends of Pierremont Park who said the area should be used “only for purposes which will benefit the community.”
She added: “After TDC’s own decision to refuse your own planning application for the site, because it can only be accessed via the protected Open Space of the park which raised concerns for safety and waste disposal, the decision to advertise the site on the open market was surprising.
“Officers and councillors have stated that it is their belief that although the council itself turned down planning permission, a determined developer would push to achieve it. How this can be deemed to be a reasonable position we are struggling to comprehend. We think any such developer would need to have an exceptional appetite for risk.”
Ms Williams raised the issue of the land being indentured for use as pleasure grounds and said the group’s position that the depot should be handed to the town council to use for gardening equipment was backed by Kent Gardens Trust.
She added: “We note that Thanet District Council fully supported and implemented the re-greening of the car park at Dalby Square after Kent Gardens Trust had highlighted the covenant laid down by Lord Dalby to the effect that the whole area should be for the people of Cliftonville to use as a pleasure green space. Why would TDC do the opposite in Pierremont Park by refuting the longstanding covenant there. Why should the people of and visitors to Broadstairs be treated more poorly than the people of Cliftonville? “
She also noted that a council officer’s report stated that if the depot were not disposed of it would result in other council owned buildings being without funds for “outstanding repairs or maintenance.”
She said: “The irony of the officer’s report in the agenda packs, insinuating that to fail to sell off the service depot for the park will lead to other council assets deteriorating, when the condition of Pierremont Park has deteriorated so much since this asset has been disused and left to become derelict, is staggering.”
She added: “We propose that TDC should work with the Town Council to agree a deal whereby ownership of the site can be transferred to the Town Council who can then bring in their gardening team and work with community groups, to bring it back into use – as well as gardeners, part of it could be a community events space or hub, providing opportunities for volunteers, and educational opportunities, preserving wildlife, practicing horticulture, selling books or running classes. All the sorts of things that should be happening in a well used, well cared for park, such as our community deserves to have.”
Cllr Barry Manners (Reform) spoke in favour of a below market transfer to the Town Council and argued that despite the statements that TDC could not pass the site to the town council in a community asset transfer because it has a statutory obligation to achieve best value, “the same legal framework explicitly allows disposal at below market value where there is demonstrable social, environmental, or economic benefit.”
He urged that the sale decision be referred back to Cabinet and that independent legal advice to be sought on the scope for a lawful community disposal at undervalue.
He also questioned the £475,000 market value that had been reached for the site despite the lack of road access and development constraints.
Other who spoke in favour of the transfer included Cllr John Davis (Cons) and Cllrs Tricia Austin and Becky Wing (both Green).
However, council leader Rick Everitt (Lab) said the site isn’t a community asset.
He said: “This is a depot. It’s not part of the park. Even in the presentation by the speaker it was referred to as a depot. It’s a depot, it’s not a community asset, it hasn’t had public access for many, many years and there is no legal case to treat Broadstairs Town Council as a special purchaser.
“We can’t hand it over to Broadstairs Town Council. If Broadstairs Town Council wants to buy the depot they have to make a bid in the open process, It has to be an open process, that’s the law.
“I do wonder why some members feel able to come to council and make statements which, if they attended the briefing on Tuesday night, they would know the officers clearly explained to them are not valid.
“They didn’t have an argument with the professional officers, they didn’t have an exchange of views there, they listened to what the officers say and them come to council and say things which completely contradict the advice they received from officers and they do that for the benefit of the public gallery. That’s the only reason they do it.”
He added that the valuation didn’t matter because if no-one paid it and Broadstairs Town Council made a lower offer, then they would ‘win it.’
He added that covenants could only be enforced by the people they benefit and the council did not think there was anyone out there who was a beneficiary.
He raised the council’s planning committee refusal of TDC’s own application for housing on the depot site saying he disagreed with the decision and he thought the Planning Inspectorate would ‘laugh’ at the decision made, adding: “I think it was a political decision that wasn’t made on planning grounds.”
He added: “The challenge for this council is that we do have a multi-million pound repair bill for our assets just to keep them watertight and it’s our job to make sure that we do that and the fact is we have always used money from assets in one area to spend in another. That happens in every council in the country and it happens in Thanet.”
Cllr Marc Rattigan (Reform) said other sites, such as the Granville, had been transferred as community assets and so wondered whether there could be other options for the park depot
Cllr Will Scobie (Lab) said the campaign group’s ‘hyperbole’ had suggested the park was up for sale and believed this may have driven signatures. He said people may not understand how such decisions are made.
He added: “It is concreted over, it’s a number of old buildings leaning to, I understand due to its location how this could be useful for the park in the future but, as Cllr Everitt said, describing this as a vital piece of community asset, I’d be confused about.”
Cllr Whitehead (Lab) also accused opposition members of ‘either completely (forgetting) all of the information’ from officer briefings or ‘more likely, deliberately avoiding acknowledging that they know exactly what they are talking about…and they are making out a situation to be very very different.”
She added that any social value had to be financially demonstrated as something that directly links to a TDC function and said to not mention that was “the worst type of politicking” and “completely misleading.”
Talking of the depot she said: “This is not something cherished that has been fought for for years, this was completely abandoned, with no interest whatsoever, until pretty much the point it went on to the disposal list. It’s 70% concrete, it is not a biodiversity sanctuary.”
She went on to criticise the petition as being put forward with a claim the council was “ planning to build on the park,” provoking a disagreement from the public gallery.
A recommendation that the issue be sent to a Cabinet meeting was voted down. Instead it was voted to ‘acknowledge’ the petition.
Broadstairs and St Peter’s Town Council are understood to be due to put in a bid to buy the depot site ‘imminently.’
The Friends of Pierremont Park say they are considering lodging a formal complaint about some of the comments made during the meeting and also about the process which meant all those who are also Broadstairs Town Councillors had to leave the chamber during the debate due to the possible conflict of interest.
god bless the brown envelope ?
TDC Labour group are very sad but this proves very damaging when they have the power.
The covenant beneficiaries, as I understand, are the public so to say there are none is sadly stupid.
To put the plot on the market indicates knowledge that any buyer would want to create something that would generate income for them.
I asked the land agents dealing with this and they were very clear with me, they want to “attract developers”. The invited me look at the plot and asked what kind of buildings was I considering.
However, when I asked about the access (a path not a road) for transporting building materials and for residents in a new build they went very quiet.
The land agents act for TDC. TDC Officers act according to Coucillor instructions. So when Red Leader and Cllr Whitehead accuse other members of being disingenuous or willful I suggest they are pots calling the kettle black.
Surely the ”depot” forms part of the curtilage of Pierremont Park and is covered by the covenant applicable to all that land ?
Surely the ”depot” forms part of the land formerly utilised by Broadstairs and St Peters Urban District Council as its Parks and Gardens Department for the upkeep and maintenance of Pierremont Park ?
Therefore its use has always been for the benefit of the public.
The proposed sale to a developer is the thin edge of the wedge. A developer is just that. Any use of the land will not be as a public benefit but as some form of commercial or profit making activity. If the land is developed for any private or commercial benefit then that breaches the intention of the covenant. It additionally creates a precedent for further encroachment into the Pierremont land.
I read with interest the comment regarding Councillors who ‘come to council and say things which completely contradict the advice they received from officers and they do that for the benefit of the public gallery. That’s the only reason they do it.’ Surely the role of an elected Councillor is to scrutinise and ask questions on behalf of the electorate? It rather sounds as if Cllr. Everitt was just hoping to rubber-stamp this quick disposal of what is, after all, land belonging to the local people. The very fact that a petition has been raised by concerned locals show that they, at least, view this land as an asset and TDC should strain every sinew to keep this area for potential community use, as there is clearly a desire for it to be used as such.
Labour has led the council near to bankrupcy. They’re desperate for cash and rattled with fear by local pushback. If there officer advisors are infallible that means all their previous distastrous decisions were preplanned, calculated and deliberate.
What if we put in a bid for Depot of Culture?