There are some notices (presumably planning) that have recently been fixed to posts/barriers adjoining the site. Regret I have not yet had a chance to stop and read them. Will update if I get a chance.

The notices are merely to advise how to object to it becoming a village green - as if! They'd be lynched.

Does that mean we can have a bike meet on it like Gt Bentley :)

Does that mean we can have a bike meet on it like Gt Bentley :)


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Former Wivenhoe Town Councillor, Cyril Liddy, is keen to make local folk aware that applications in support of the village green status can also be made. He has asked me to circulate the following information, as well as make available to download a template of a letter that residents may, or may not, want to use.

Dear Resident,

Village Green Status for the land opposite Millfields School.

In June last year there was a big public meeting at Millfields School. It was clear that any development will be opposed as being bad for the School and bad for Wivenhoe. Some protection is given by its designation as public open space under the Local Development Plan administered by Colchester Borough Council, as local planning authority.

Unfortunately, the Local Development Plan is not set in stone and may be changed. At that meeting I suggested that permanent protection would be secured by registering the land with Essex County Council as a Village Green. Any damage to the land is a criminal offence.

Last year I submitted an application to register the land as a Village Green, with the help of two long standing residents, who swore statutory declarations that the land had been used for games and other leisure pastimes for at least twenty years.

Essex County Council published notice in The Evening Gazette of Thursday 21st July requiring objections to be made to Philip Thomson County Solicitor, Essex Legal Services, New Bridge House, 60-68 New London Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 0PD by 2nd September.

Although the notice states objections, there is absolutely no reason why statements in support of the application should not also be submitted. Concerned residents should contact either the County Solicitor directly or me on cyril.liddy@hotmail.co.uk before the 2nd September 2011. I will quite happily prepare any statements to support the application.

Since the notice was published, many residents have contacted me to say they will support the  application and I will make sure their views are taken into account. If you believe that the land should be preserved as open space for future generations of residents and children, then please read the proforma letter on the reverse side and either copy it or fill it in.  Feel free to adapt it to fit your own knowledge of the land! You can either send it to me or directly to the County Solicitor.

I will keep you informed of developments and please contact me, if you require further information.

Kind regards

Cyril Liddy.

For further information contact Councillor Steve Ford on 824698 or Cyril Liddy on 825276 or cyril.liddy@hotmail.co.uk

I confess to being slightly confused by this latest update from The Gazette [frazzled working day...]

Is the developer proposing to still push on with the plan to build upon the land, and then offer a different plot as an alternative village green? Seems a little rank if this is the case. It sets in place a dangerous precedent where the price of everything becomes a commodity, whereas the community value is lost.

 I hope WTC doesn't rise to the wonga.

Anyway, meeting at the Loveless Hall - where else - 2pm on the 24th September.

What a ridiculous and insulting offer! We already have an attractive green space at the entrance to the estate opposite the school. Why would we want Ms Moody to build houses on it and be palmed off with an alternative one?

Actually, just digesting all of this and the sums proposed are quite incredible. Ms Moody is happy to hand over half a million pounds to buy the land, PLUS the cost of whatever it takes to buy two acres of farmland. Which pretty much tells you about the profit expected on the return of "five to eight homes" - a condition of the very generous offer made by the developer.

Recession? What recession?

A Wivenhoe Town Council press release from Mayor Robert Needham:

Where would the 2 acres come from, The school boundary is, I believe, owned by Ballast Quay Farm and used as a barley field!  It would be interesting to find out where Jenny Moody is going to find 2 acres of land.  I'm pleased Wivenhoe Town Council are against this proposal.

Ditto.

The simple mathematics of land grabbing means that you can't magic the land from out of nowhere. Ms Moody may be acting as though she is offering up a gift to Wivenhoe with this two acre of land for a village green, but what the commercial developer gives in one hand, she takes away with the other.

Thinking of having a wander up the unmade road and having a natter with Charlie ...

Just to put Hedgiebit in the picture. The land which JM Properties propose to gift to WTC in return for relaxing opposition to their proposed development is to the South of Millfileds School and is contained within the triangle formed by the track that runs down to Anglesea Road and the other track that runs across to Sunnymead Farm.

In effect, the Barley field that you mention.! 

If anyone has a map of the area from JM Properties for their proposal it would be great to have it posted up here.. In the meantime I've cobbled together this from aerial maps. I'm not sure exactly where the boundary lies of the 2 acres of farmland they are proposing taking out of production, but I think this is the triangle of land they must be talking about.

Fantastic work BelleVue! Thanks for sharing this.

What it highlights for me is just how close the proposed building land is to the school. This in turn creates extra infrastructure issues, such as increased traffic in a child friendly area etc.

Oh - and I presume that the residents of the new "five to eight homes" will be guaranteed school entry for any kids that move in? 'Cos that would be like *really* silly to build houses right next door to a local primary school, only to find that it is already over-subscribed...

From Gazette article:

A spokesman for Jenny Moody Developers said: “We are proposing to give
the land, which will be seeded and fenced, to the town council. It is now up to the people of Wivenhoe and the town council to decide what they want to do with this offer.” 

Is it possible for Mayor Robert Needham to add to the WTC press release and explain who owns the 2 acres of productive farmland at present?  The way JM Developers are talking makes it sound like they own it already and we should be grateful for such a generous offer ! It would be good to have as much information as possible  on all this prior to the September 24th meeting.

I had a word with Charlie Bowes yesterday. He's aware of the public meeting and is coming. From what I understand the land is not at present Moody's property, nor is there an binding agreement in place that would make it so.

Thanks Ms Moody but no thanks. We already have a fantastic park at the KGV and a lovely open space in the perfect location at the entrance to Dene Park. We don't want a 'fenced' village green as a compromise for allowing you to destroy another part of the quality of life we chose to live in Wivenhoe to enjoy. We don't want to see productive farmland lost to help you facilitate this. And we most certainly don't want the safety of our children compromised outside their school so you can put up a handful of cookie cutter homes created in the Essex Design Guide style from the recommended bricks, timber, and dull pastel colours from the recommended colour pallet, even if you create them in a delightful mews setting with mock cart lodges.

It's a no-brainer.

Thanks for that Marika - the plot thickens!

Belle Vue, Thanks for the excellent map. It defines the promised land as we understand it. This land is presently in the ownership of farmer Bowes. 

Thanks for the clarification. So, a company based in Maldon is offering to gift to us a bit of land that doesn't belong to them - we'd better copyright this storyline before the Archers get hold of it!

Bellevue, reading between the lines in Marika's comment it does look like negotiations have taken place regarding the purchase of the land. The deal my well not be done yet but half a million quid is lot of money to walk away from.

But it seems that the balance of power rests with WTC, and its stance on the development of the current land by the school. WTC is elected of course to serve the residents of Wivenhoe. I believe that it does this rather well. The public meeting on the 24th seems crucial is putting over to WTC the views on this project, before a decision is taken about the future of this project.

This is an open, public meeting. I think it would also be decent if there was representation from JM Developers present, to listen to the views from local people.

Why would someone from Moody need to be there? We don't want her houses so there isn't really much to discuss with them. In my opinion it is best not to engage with them and instead just send them a firm NO.

Simon:
I was having a look at the average price of arable farmland per acre in Essex. According to a chart on this website, (last updated July 2008) it was £6000.

http://www.findaproperty.com/displaystory.aspx?edid=00&salerent=0&storyid=22316

I don't know what it might be now, but surely not £250,000 per acre!

Are we sure we are interpreting the Gazette article correctly and the £500.000 refers to the farmland purchase price? I see Jason, in an earlier posting, was having trouble getting his head around those figures too.

The figures for me just don't seem to stack up. I can't see how the half a million sweetner / bribe can be recouped on the sale of eight houses, max.

More to this...

Simon:
I was having a look at the average price of arable farmland
per acre in Essex. According to a chart on this website, (last updated
July 2008) it was £6000.

Oops!! Thanks for pointing out my error.

A bit more on this from Frances Leate, who is covering this story for the Gazette: She tells me:-

"I understand the £500,000 was the price quoted for the Elmstead land...this is how much Elmstead were hoping to sell it for." She added, re. the 2 acres of farmland..."I think they (the developers) have a provisional agreement from the farmer that they can buy it but they will only buy the land from Elmstead council if they are granted planning permission anyway....so all dependant on that I believe.I think all these things will be fully explained at the public meeting."

I would have serious concerns about the accessibility of the substitute space - Ballast Quay Road is basically an unlit track and this "village green" has no other direct access from the Bowes Road/Claremont Road direction.

As far as I know, Petworth Close gives no permitted access.

This would make the whole area impractical and possibly dangerous particularly for children.

Lets be honest , this would not be a village green, just an unused grassed area on the edge of fields and would have no amenity value whatsoever.

Unless the developer is also proposing upgrading Ballast Quay Road into a proper maintained through road then really there is no sense in this.  I think this is unlikely!

There are already spaces around, eg at the bottom of Milford Close which have been left by developers in the past but which by their nature in location are of no real benefit to the community at large.

The space opposite Millfiels is used by local residents and children - to give this up would spoil the area for no real gain other than to the developer.

In my opinion it should be left alone for use as through the past 25+ years. The only thing that might be sensible would, for safety,  be a decent bus stop/laybay on Rectory Hill.

Lets be honest , this would not be a village green, just an unused
grassed area on the edge of fields and would have no amenity value
whatsoever.

Exactly.

A more up to date report, than what I posted above, on arable farmland prices in the East Anglia region.
This is from April 2011

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRICES HIT RECORD HIGH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/18/agricultural-land-prices-increase

Quote: - Supply is tightest in East Anglia, where the number of acres for sale was less than half of that for the same time last year, said Savills. "This pushed up average values by 5% to £6,553 per acre, but where competition was strongest values achieved highs of £8,500 per acre for prime arable land in the region."

Of course we have no idea what Jenny Moody Properties might be willing to pay to buy the 2 acres of farmland. But even with these record farmland prices I would imagine the profits from cramming up to  8 houses onto the 0.65 acre site would absorb the cost of buying the farmland easily enough. So can we seriously consider her offer to Wivenhoe of 2 acres of farmland as a gift?

To everyone out there
Please make sure as many as possible attend the meeting on September 24th. That should give Jenny Moody Homes a clear message from the people of Wivenhoe. The town council is against this proposal and they need the residents backing and opinion to reenforce the message.
See you at the meeting !

I'm sure councillor Cyril Liddy will be explaining to us in some detail the legal position on village green staus at the meeting on Sept 24th.

Worth noting though....The law on Village/Town Greens changed on the 6th April 2007. Campaigners for village greens and lawyers representing property developers have different views on how positive or negative the changes were.

A briefing on village greens from the Campaign for Planning Sanity had this concerning paragraph:-

"The law on Village/Town Greens changed on the 6th April 2007,...Some aspects of the new changes are for the better, others are for the worst, the most important negative aspect is to allow for the de-registration of village greens on an application by a developer where planning permission has been granted."
(  http://www.planningsanity.co.uk/forums/vg/vilgrn1.htm )

The campaign also warned:-

"... there will in most cases be an objection from the landowner who will attempt every conceivable way of wriggling out of the land being registered, particularly if the land (as is most often the case) is up for development. Therefore residents have to be prepared to fight hard. "

However, those of us who want the 0.65 acres of land opposite Millfields School to gain village green status,  can take heart from the conclusions of this Property Law Journal briefing:

"Village greens already pose a significant headache for developers. The implementation of s15 (part of the changes to the law made in 2007) will only make that situation worse. Developers and landowners should, as a matter of some urgency, audit their land and should take expert advice as soon as possible. It will be a brave developer who erects fencing or takes other unilateral action after 6 April 2007 without first taking advice on a case-by-case basis (and many may come to regret having erected fencing, or prevented use prior to that date, due to s15(4)).The costs of defending an application can be high, as it is rarely possible to negotiate or find a commercial resolution to village green applications. There may however be more subtle steps that landowners or developers can take to strengthen their position, that do not involve fencing and that protect their position without inviting an application." http://www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk/content/view/10288/1113/

Maybe Jenny Moody Properties think the offering of the 2 acres of farmland as an alternative village green site is one such subtle step. If they do then I have to say the subtlety is lost on me!

Of relevance to all the above of course is the Government's draft National Planning Policy Framework which is much in the news today.

The Government is being severely criticised by the likes of the National Trust and Campaign to Protect Rural England, and congratulated by groups such as the Housing Federation and the British Chamber of Commerce.

And the publication of the draft National Planning Policy Framework coincides with the launch of a review into the legislation surrounding village greens. The NPPF looks to introduce a new "local green space designation".

DEFRA have a page on it titled:-"Reform of town and village greens registration system"
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/07/25/village-greens-registration-reform/

And there is a consultation period which invites interested parties to submit their views on the proposals by 17 October 2011

Interestingly when the legislation on village green status was first bought in over 45 years ago, few village green applications were submitted. However in recent years, the number of village green applications made has jumped to 200 a year, and Wivenhoe's application is one of them.

You'd think it would be fairly easy to find out how many applications for village green status are succesful each year. But apparently not. You have to apply for the release of such data under the Freedom of Information act. That's at least the experience of a resident in East Sussex (see below). Of course we don't know how valid each of these cases were, but I wonder what the success rate in Essex is. The only way of finding out it seems is to apply for a FoI request,

FOI Request ref 2008 / 372 / Village green applications

How many Village Green applications have been submitted to East Sussex County Council since the
law changed?

Five

How many have been granted Village Green status?

None

What are the locations of the successful Village Greens?

Not applicable

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/village_green_applications?unfold=1#incoming-7723

Actually, re. the above posting...I've made it sound more secretive than it actually is. I am told that "you shouldn't actually have to do anything special to go through a Freedom Of Information process or even mention the FOI Act. The Act requires all requests for information to the appropriate bodies to be treated as FOI requests. In particular they should tell you about your right to appeal against non-disclosure under the Act, even if you never mentioned it. That said, it certainly doesn't harm to say 'FOI' just to let them know you're watching."

OK - here is the Essex County Council Legal Services on "Demystifying Commons and Village Greens"
http://www.essexlegalservices.gov.uk/newsitem-49

Please note : - "wandering and sitting" are two of the activities they define as useful for gaining village green status, but "walking/biking/riding in a defined line" aren't. So a quick visit up there after the pub should do it !

Just wanted to clear up one point that was left in the comments section of the original Gazette article (see the link in Jason's first posting on this thread)

The comment was made by someone calling themselves "land defender" , and they were trying to say that Wivenhoe's application for village green status would "fall at the first hurdle". This was their argument...

land defender says... 
1:46pm Sat 30 Jul 11
If this land was given to the Council as open space for the public, it will not qualify for TVG status (Town and Village Green status). Use by the public must be WITHOUT PERMISSION for purposes of TVG applications. If people have been using the land WITH permission from the owner (now Essex County Council) the village green application will fail at the first hurdle. Anyway, this is a mis-use of the TVG legislation - it was never designed to be used as a vehicle for people to oppose development.

I believe the argument is false. What he/she says about permissive use is true of the old legislation but the 2006 Act changed that.  So Wivenhoe's application wouldn't "fall at the first hurdle", on that count at least.

The devil's in the detail....of the coalition Government's draft National Planning Policy Framework, as George Monbiot explains in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/sep/08/planning-reforms-mockery

Worth a read in relation to the Dene park proposals...

Quote - The document maintains that neighbourhood plans, drawn up by ordinary
folk, "give communities direct power to plan the areas in which they
live." They will be able to "develop a shared vision for their
neighbourhood".But read on, and you soon discover that
these powers can be used only one way: to commission development, but
not to prevent it.

Bump - 'cos this is tomorrow.

Plenty of interest in this public meeting, the mayor played to a full house. I think Jason is beavering away on a substantial piece right now probably, so I'm not going to steal his thunder. But it was rather revealing to hear the detail of the negotiations as between Wivenhoe and Elmstead Market. If I were a resident of EM I might want to challenge the legality of their Council being prepared to give away such a substantial amount of money to its neighbour. So I'm just wondering how reliable that 'deal' can be anyway...should that ever become a live issue.

Lively old meeting.

The outcome I felt was never in any doubt, although some useful and interesting issues were added to the Millfields situation.

In the end, the residents of Wivenhoe voted unanimously YES on these two questions:

This meeting of the residents of Wivenhoe objects to the offer put forward by JMP to WTC.

Wivenhoe residents support WTC in representing them

Bloggage.

Excellent summing up of this afternoon's meeting over on Jason's Onion Blog. One thing that is puzzling me was this point that Jason highlights;-

"To help ease the collective conscience (yeah, right…) of WTC, Elmstead
Parish Council is also offering up two acres of nearby farmland as a “gift” [geddin!] to the residents of Wivenhoe."

So who is actually wanting to buy this land to "gift" to us? Is it Jenny Moody Properties or Elmstead Parish Council? Grateful if anyone can clear this bit of the puzzle up as I must admit I'm confused !

It wasn't spelled out in so many words but I gathered that it's JM who will pay for the land to be gifted but that Elmstead Market will be the purchasers/owners of it.

That would make sense of the sums we heard done today as set out in a letter from the chairman of EM Council the mayor referred to: £350k sale price of the building plot;
EM needs £100k to acquire the gift land and for other costs (presumably to pay for the lifting of the existing covenant amongst others), leaving the £250k which is then to be split between EM and Wiv
That's what I understood

Thanks for the explanation Marika - let's hope all these questons are merely academic after today's vote.

Thanks to everybody for an interesting an conclusive meeting yesterday. The turnout was encouraging and Wivenhoe Town Council now has an excellent qualification to represent the views of townsfolk.

Roger, one certainly does hope that this explanation will be academic. But just to be helpful and informative, here is a reiteration of Elmstead's offer.: "In summary, the offer is 50% of the nett proceeds from the sale of the Dene Park area, plus the gift of an alternative 2 acre space. The nett proceeds from the sale of Dene Park area, after legal and professional fees and the payment to Taylor Wimpey for the release of the Covenant is expected to be around £350,000. However, the acquisition of the 2 acres offered as compensation for the loss of the green area will cost £100,000 plus legal costs so, after this is deducted, the nett proceeds would be reduced to £250,000. This would be shared 50/50 between Elmstead and Wivenhoe so Wivenhoe would receive £125,000."  

I like the idea of initiating some informal picnic gatherings on the green (maybe on a rota basis?)

I've edited the audio from the meeting - more than an hour and a half to get through. I think that it is representative. There wasn't a single resident speaking in favour of property being developed on the land.

Excellent audio record Jason - thanks.

This is from the minutes of the Elmstead Parish Council Meeting held on 21st April 2011. (Dene Park was also listed as an agenda item for the council meetings held in May, June, and July but there is no record on their website of what, if anything, was discussed. There was no EPC meeting in August.)
This will be old news to our own council, but others might like a read. If nothing else it suggests to me that the offer of farmland as a sweetner to Wivenhoe was a last throw of the dice.

21.  Dene Park

Cllr Gooch explained that selling the land for building is now
looking very unlikely and the future of Dene Park will need to be
discussed when the new Council starts its term. Strutt and Parker are
seeking confirmation from Jenny Moody whether or not they intend to
pursue the scheme. If not, they will be asked to relinquish their
option.
Having done so, EPC will be at liberty to deal with the land as they wish

Cllr Gooch suggested that EPC lease the Dene Park area to Wivenhoe
Town Council for a sum to be agreed; £100 per year was suggested, on the
condition that WTC undertake the grass cutting and maintenance for this
area.   He also suggested that a break clause should be included on any
lease.

ELMSTEAD PARISH COUNCIL

Community Centre, School Road, Elmstead Market, CO7 7ET

AGENDA FOR THE MEETING TO BE HELD ON

THURSDAY 6TH OCTOBER

Commencing at 7.30pmAgenda item 6

Dene Park – Update following the public meeting held in Wivenhoe