Today we received a letter on behalf of the Secretary of State confirming that she will not be calling in Spurs’ planning application to develop Whitewebbs Park in Enfield. Whilst this is disappointing news, the Mayor of London can still call in the application. Below is our open letter to the Mayor requesting that he does so.
We believe that this application is of significance to the whole of London, and the Mayor’s decision will impact the future of all the capital’s parks and green spaces for years to come. So we encourage other green groups to raise their voices in support of Whitewebbs.
If your organisation would like to add their name to this letter, please leave a comment below or get in touch with us directly: leamarshes@gmail.com
Dear Mayor of London,
We are urgently writing to you regarding the decision by Enfield Council to grant planning permission to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club for the construction of commercial and industrial scale facilities on Whitewebbs Park in the Metropolitan Green Belt. This decision is deeply concerning for all Londoners who enjoy their local green spaces, including those with Metropolitan Open Land, Green Belt and Public Trust designations that should be protected by law for the benefit of the public. Green public spaces enhance the health and well-being of us all. Vast swathes of public land should not be reallocated for exclusive use by elite professional clubs or players.
Tottenham Hotspur Football Club already owns seventeen private pitches and facilities at its existing football academy in Enfield which could easily be shared with its women’s team (for example, Arsenal owns a total of ten shared pitches). These facilities were constructed on Green Belt land north of Myddelton House in the Lee Valley Park.
The Very Special Circumstances case that Enfield Council’s Planning Officer presented recommending the granting of planning permission to Enfield Council’s planning committee was misleading, inadequate and unsound. The Greater London Authority agrees that Very Special Circumstances are also necessary to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and its purposes from developments otherwise considered inappropriate. Whilst the benefits of the application were exaggerated, there was a complete failure to assess the significant adverse and permanent impact upon the openness of this cherished Green Belt site. The massive re-landscaping, earthworks and construction required by the applicants would permanently and adversely alter the park’s historic character.
This is not just a few grass pitches; it is a large-scale industrial construction with significant built form. As well as omitting key visual and landscape impacts, there were also very significant omissions in the planning application relating to ecological impacts, including on protected species.
If it is accepted that such a flawed justification can be used to enable private development of such a large area of currently publicly accessible open space, then it appears that no green and open space in London is safe from privatisation, inappropriate development and irreversible loss. The land in question was purchased by Enfield Council in 1931 for the benefit of the people of Enfield, is held in Public Trust, and should have been protected by a 999 lease ensuring the accessible golf course area would revert to full public use in the event of closure. If the new lease arrangement with THFC was to be signed, the football club would control all access to the park and it would ‘extinguish’ existing legal public rights of access. There are alternative and more suitable sites nearby, for example the extensive, now abandoned, brownfield Sunset Studios site. Private businesses should not take over public land; they ought to acquire private land if they want to extend.
Half of Whitewebbs Park’s naturally rewilded biodiverse grassland and over two hundred trees, including veteran trees (as verified by The Woodland Trust ATI), stand to be lost (and a further 40 transplanted) eliminating habitats for priority species.
London’s Green Belt Review has been ‘accelerated’ in Enfield, risking a rushed process that fails to adequately assess the value of the Green Belt, not just to the borough, but as a vital green lung for London during a climate and ecological emergency. Piecemeal, partial and rushed assessments are inadequate in such circumstances; risking the loss of some of the capital’s most nature-rich sites, contrary to your stated objectives in the London Plan.
The Planning Inspector has expressed doubt that Enfield Council has effectively assessed the site allocations in its Local Plan, including Whitewebbs. In its supporting documentation, criterion 2 of Policy CL4 supports ‘development for sport and recreation’ without mentioning the need to preserve openness or the purposes of the Green Belt. It is premature to grant planning approval to applications within the Green Belt prior to the Inspector examining whether the site allocations are sound and should be located within the Green Belt at all.
In your prior election manifestos, you promised that London’s Metropolitan Open Land and Green Belt were safe, and would only be developed in genuinely ‘exceptional circumstances’. This was a popular message. Before his election as environment secretary Steve Reed stated, “Nature is under threat. Our children and grandchildren deserve to be astounded by the magnificence of our landscapes […] and enjoy our iconic wildlife, just as we can.”
As Londoners based across the city, coming from all walks of life, who value our local green spaces, not just for recreation but for their vital contribution to nature recovery, we agree. There are serious legal and environmental shortcomings in Enfield Council’s handling of this application and associated conservation policies. Should the planning permission for Whitewebbs Park be upheld by the Greater London Authority, a completely detrimental precedent will be set for all parks and green spaces across the capital. The Public Interest Law Centre has even concluded that there will be ‘no real protection in law for public parks’.
Therefore we, the undersigned, request that this application should be refused under article 7 of the Mayor of London Order (2008).
Kind regards,
Guardians of Whitewebbs
Save Lea Marshes
Enfield Community Action
Enfield Roadwatch
Wild Clapham
ReNature London
Edmonton Cycle Club
Friends of Finsbury Park
Sustainable Hackney
Community Planning Alliance Committee
Wyld Edges
Friends of Clapham Common
Friends of the Welsh Harp
Barnet Community Harvesters
Trees for Bermondsey
The PeaceTime Zone
Protect Brockwell Park
London College of Garden Design
Save Wimbledon Park
Whitewebbs, we fully support you and lend our voice to your campaign, which has so many similarities to our own.
Thank you so much. Solidarity Save Wimbledon Park!
I am a individual resident in Enfield, you could put my sign in as well.
Hi William,
Thank you so much for your support! This solidarity letter is for London green groups to sign. We encourage all individuals to write their own objection to the Mayor of London, so he receives as many objections as possible. You can add your comments to the Planning Portal here, just select ‘object’ and write your comments in the box supplied: https://planapps.london.gov.uk/planningapps/24-00987-FUL
Please add The PeaceTime Zone. As a signatory. To this Thank you
Thank you so much for your support!
Please add The PeaceTime Zone. As a signatory. Thank you
Great work Caroline and Save Lea Marshes! We appreciate you very much!!!!!
Thank you so much Sam!
Please add Trees for Bermondsey as a signatory.
You are doing a great job. Thank you.
Thank you so much!
Please can the Friends of Clapham Common be added as a signatory to the open letter. Thank you
Thank you so much Shirley. We’ve added you!
Please can our group be added as a signatory:
Enfield Community Action Group
Thank you so much Khalid. We’ve added your group.
Please add Protect Brockwell Park as a signatory. Brilliant letter and campaign. Keep going!
Thank you so much! Solidarity