The Romany Scout Site Under Threat From Developer

[RomanyMums]

Dear All , we just wanted to post our call to action from the local Wandsworth & Earlsfield community to help us save The Romany scout site on Lyford Road...Thanks

Save the Romany Scout Site
Join the fight to help us save The Romany Scout site on Lyford Road from being torn down and stop another nail being hammered into the coffin of our community.
The Romany site is under serious threat. Magdalen Park Lawn Tennis Club (the owners) are refusing to renew the Scouts lease/use despite their absolute right for renewal and MPLT plans to sell this amazing community asset land off to a local property developer who wants to build a vast, modern private nursery with on-site parking.
The Romany Scout site has been home to Wandsworth 1st Scouts and guides groups since 1962 . They offer the rare opportunity for our local children & teenagers to be Cubs, Scouts, Adventure Scouts, Girl Guides & Brownies to meet weekly, to camp, orienteer safely outside.
There is a daily community Playgroup run by mums for local mums and toddlers which has been there for 36 years , Wandsworth’s only Twins Group, A Trefoil Club and a Ballroom Dancing Group to name a few.
The Romany is part of Wandsworth & Earlsfield’s heritage - beloved and used by people of every age in our community from a few days old to 80+ years old for the last 50 + years
Anyone who has ever had the pleasure of visiting or using The Romany site are always in awe of this oasis of extensive grounds rich in wildlife from newts , bats, woodpeckers and stag beetles and birds.
Our Children, families and our community will lose a piece of the heart and history of Wandsworth & Earlsfield. Do not let this happen. Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.. For updates on how you can get involved to save this amazing community asset from destruction; Please follow us on twitter, instagram, facebook @savetheromany or email us at [email protected] for updates on our campaign

Thank you... Romany Mums x

I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this - why is there no name change option on local MN anyway?

But, I was there for a party a few weeks ago and was amazed at the state of the place. It's such a big plot in such a prime location but the bit in front of the scout hut looked like a soviet wasteland. Drinks crates and pallets scattered across unmown grass. The area behind that the playgroup use is much nicer but the hut itself has definitely seen better days too.

To be honest I'm surprised it hasn't been redeveloped earlier.

Visiting for a party would not give you any idea of how the site is actually used on a daily basis, un-mown grass at the monemnt is so we don't kill all the newts hiding in the grass during mating season, the pile of pallets are firewoood for the scouts weekly camp fire, the drinks crates are what they sit on around the camp fire or used for building towers / dens by the cubs, great fun... And the "soviet wasteland" is used for camping and practising putting up tents, tug of war, football ,cricket, rounders......we've all seen better days Njork but let's hope the Romany remains as it is for generations of local children to enjoy being free, as my son's have for the past 17 years...regards

That is such a shame. First lots of the One O'clock Clubs close now this. Wandsworth is becoming a victim of its own success. People need to remember that the reason it got so popular with wealthy families was the great facilities around for children. Redeveloping them all is really short sighted.

RomanyMums - is there a petition or similar we can sign? If not you can set up an online one on the Council site ww3.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgePetitionlistDisplay.aspx .Presumably the change would need planning permission so a public show of feeling to the Council might make the tennis club think twice.

Also worth contacting local papers etc... If you need parents to comment on how useful the site is I'm sure lots of people here would do it.

Really sad to hear this. We've been to many lovely parties at the Romany. If there is a petition please post the link and I'll definitely sign.

Do get in touch with Dan Watkins. I know from Streetlife and other social media that Dan Watkins (www.danwatkins.org.uk) is on the case, has spoken to Liza and the Scouts already and met them last weekend to help them with their campaign. So political support is already on its way

This is really terrible news. We have so few green spaces where children can play freely. I hope the tennis club reconsiders. How are they able to do this if the Scouts have a 'right' to renew. Sounds like the are just trying to bully them off the land.

For all who have posted expressing support for keeping the Romany scout hut as it is, there is going to be a public meeting with local MP Sadiq Khan and The Council's head of children's services, Cllr Kathy Tracey to dicuss what can be done to save it. Here are the details.

Thanks Mumsnet for keeping us up to date on this. Will definitely be there on the 3rd.

I think it is amazing how MumsnetWandworthstarted up the local campaigning - I noticed a lot of less well known websites very swiftly got on board after you started to create a buzz. I suspect their motives are rather less altruistic than yours though

We have been contacted by the Save the Romany group via Twitter with an update.

Apparently the page hosting their petition was hacked earlier today so that the link automatically redirects you to a porn site meaning they can't use it for updates at the moment.

Anyway, they tell us that they have discovered that the sale of the site is due to be finalised today (despite the fact that the public meeting to discuss it doesn't take place until tomorrow).

We are not entirely sure what this means, but presumably the negotiations with the Scouts, playgroup and planners will now be taken over by the new owner.

The Magdalen Park Tennis Club has also put forward an updated statement of it's position which you can read here.

Interestingly they say that the developer plans to allow the Scouts and Playgroup to retain use of half the site, whilst using the rest for a new nursery.

The developer interested in the land has also written to local residents today setting out his intentions and you can see what he has to say here

You may already have read by now that the tennis club have agreed to sell the Romany site, which carries with it the restrictive covenant, to the developer Abid David.
Mr David has written to immediate residents in an attempt to placate their fears and has stated that the scout hut and its associated buildings are not under threat and that he wants to retain all existing activities at the Romany.
Indeed he even confirms that he has offered to build a new hut for the scouts and a new playground for the Playhouse Playgroup.
Fantastic I hear you say. So whats the problem?
The problem is that Mr David intends to breach the terms of the restrictive covenant that was put in place to ring fence the site as public open space. The covenant protects the land from any development that is not directly connected to the uses allowed within the covenant- and that is basically sport and recreation. His proposals do not fall within that class of uses.
The covenant was put in place in 1941 with the scouts as existing tenants. IThe original owners even went as far as ensuring that activities on the site would not cause a nuisance to the neighbours. It could not be clearer that this space was not to be developed upon until after the year 2100.
What we understand this developer wants to do is to put 2 private nursery buildings or one large one, on plot B. With car parking spaces. He will need access over plot A to do this. So the scouts will lose part of their land. The play area he is proposing will be very small. The hut will be smaller. In effect, he will be condensing the occupation of the other community groups into a far smaller footprint than ever before.
Also what Ali Adam of the tennis club let slip when she made representations together with a barrister to Wandsworth Council in April this year is that Mr David actaully wants to develop the whole site. In fact Ali Adam even told Wandsworth Council that the tennis club would strenously resist the renewal of the scouts lease, granting them a term of 5 years at most, so that the whole Romany site could be developed. This was news indeed to the scouts but explained why Ali Adam had not responded to their requests to renewed terms.
Quite apart from this also being the polar opposite of what she has been telling tennis club members, this obviously was designed to increase the value of the land. Fettered as it is with an Asset of Community Value listing and the restrictive covenant that also requires any proposals for new buildings to be submitted for planning consent Mr David will now have to play a softly softly game of cat and mouse.

His offer to renew the scouts lease is, on the face of it fantastic news. What a relief! BUT, please be aware that he could upon lease renewal in 15 years time, when the outcry over his 1 or 2 private nursery buildings has died down, simply refuse to renew the scouts lease under one of the few grounds upon which the Landlord is able to object to a lease renewal. Youv'e got it- redevelopment.
So why, you ask yourself, does he not kick them off now? Well, the reason is this. The scouts correctly served notice on the tennis club (their landlords at the time) over a year ago we believe when their 99 year lease was coming to an end that they wished to renew the lease for 15 years - as they were entitled to as protected business tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The tennis club then had 2 months in which to serve a counter notice if they wished to object to the renewal on one of the limited grounds (think, terrible tenant, never pays rent, breaches terms of the lease and redevelopment etc and you will get the gist of the limited grounds for objecting to a protected renewal). But they did not serve notice. There had been no reason to. The tenants were fine. Until Mr David came along that is waving his wallet that is.

So, what can the scouts and all other community users expect in 15 years? Yes, you've guessed it. Eviction notices. Simples.
Bye Bye the Romany. Unless Wandsworth Council decide to uphold the trust that was placed in them to uphold the terms and spirit of the restrictive covenant that is.

The public meeting is at Beatrix Potter School at 7.30 pm on Thursday 3rd July , where you will see members of the tennis club, Wandsworth Borough Council, Sadiq Khan MP, Cllr Kathy Tracey, Mr Abid David, Ali Adam, the Scouts, the Twins Group, Playhouse Playgroup and other community users of the Romany explain their positions.
Please make an effort to attend and help protect this unique community asset.

Thanks for the updates but I'm a bit confused.

What's the current position?

Are the Scouts/playgroup therefore safe for 15 years, just on a different part of the site? If so that's good news, no?

Who has the benefit of the covenant that restricts the use to sport and recreation? Legally it will be up to them to enforce it. Is it the neighbouring properties?

Worth thinking about as I'm sure the developer will soon be trying to cut a deal with them.

Earlier on, I spoke to Mr David who is the new freeholder of the Romany Site. It is actually split into 2 plots - one which has been leased to the Scouts and another which they have been allowed to use since 2007 but not had a lease over. It is this second plot which Mr David would like to develop into a nursery.

He asked me to confirm that he has "absolutely no intention of getting rid of the Scouts" and is keen to work with the Scouts and Playgroup to find a way that the site can accommodate all the existing groups that use it and house the planned new nursery.

So it seems that the Playgroup, Scouts and twins group are safe although they may have a reduced area of the site. What happens on the second part of the site and whether the restrictive covenants affecting it are lifted to allow the building of a nursery will presubambly be the matter of detailed planning scrutiny.

But if you read RomanyMums's post, it sounds as though the Scouts will only be safe for fifteen years and after that Mr David could object to renewing their lease on the basis that he wanted to redevelop the land. And if the restrictive covenants on the other half of the site have been lifted now then it's going to be that much harder to hang onto them for the Scout half of the land in fifteen years.

If Mr David wants to allay suspicions about his long-term intentions for the Scout half of the land then he could grant the Scouts a 100-year lease now, rather than just the 15-year lease he's legally obliged to give them. Bet you anything you like that he doesn't.

Hacking, resignations, accusations and promises...just what is going on with the Romany Scout Hut?

There's been a local campaign to "Save the Romany" a square of land off Lyford Road in Wandsworth that currently houses the Scouts, a much loved Playgroup, a local Twins Group and lots more besides. It's owned by the Magdalen Park Tennis Club but has been leased (in part) to the Scouts for many years.

The campaigners claimed to have seen evidence that the tennis club was planning on selling the land to a developer and evicting them all (indeed, it had already served an eviction notice in respect of part of the site). They mounted a campaign to save the site and launched a petition which has now garnered many signatures and support from politicians of all parties.

Then this week, all hell appeared to break loose. The website hosting the petition was hacked, the tennis club suddenly revealed it had sold the site, the campaigners screamed foul play and the developer finally emerged from the shadows writing to local residents promising that the Scouts and playgroup were safe.

Confused? We were.

Is there really a risk to the continued use of the Romany site by the Scouts and Playgroup or not?

This evening there was a public meeting to discuss the issue so we went along hoping to get to the bottom of things. On the panel were Sadiq Khan MP, the Council's cabinet minister for Children & Education, representatives of the Tennis Club, Scouts and Playgroup. It was chaired by Michael Grade (yes that Michael Grade - he lives on the same road as the site apparently which should give you an idea of how potentially valuable the site could be). Surely they could get to the bottom of it all?

Well, um yes and no...we aren't sure.

The background history of the site is complex and somewhat murky from a legal perspective but there are a few key facts to take on board:

1. The whole site is protected by a covenant (essentially a legally binding promise) which restricts what it can be used for and entirely prohibits any houses being built on the site.

2. Wandsworth Council currently has the benefit of this covenant meaning only they could allow it to be varied and giving them a right to enforce it.

3. The site has been subdivided into two plots - the bit where the Scout hut sits and the area in front of the hut; and then the area behind the hut which includes the Playgroup's playground.

Still with us? Good, but bear with us a bit longer as here is where it gets very muddled...

4. The area including the Scout hut was leased to the Scouts in 1964 and they have been there ever since. The lease has now ended but they have an automatic legal right to renew it.

5. In 2007 the tennis club agreed to let the Scouts use the area where the Playgroup's playground now is. This was a less formal arrangement than a lease with the tennis club having the right to end the arrangement on 3 months' notice. The tennis club say the playground was built on this land without their knowledge or permission. The Scouts and Playgroup say they have e-mails showing the club did know. Whatever the truth without a legal document to demonstrate a clear right for the playground to be there, it's position seems precarious.

Still there? This is the last legal bit we promise...

6. In October 2013, after running into difficulties getting the tennis club to extend their lease, the Scouts successfully applied to have the whole site listed as an "Asset of Community Value'' which means (in theory anyway) that any proposed sale of the site should be delayed by a 6 month period to give the community time to come up with its own bid for the site.

So that's the background... on paper it sounds like the site should be safe doesn't it? Covered by a convenant, an Asset of Community Value listing and a lease, with all that legal jargon to protect it what could possibly be the problem?

Lots, it seems.

First up, the Tennis Club say there's a legal loophole that means land that is occupied doesn't actually qualify for the Asset of Community Value protection. On the strength of this, they've charged ahead (with frankly mystifying haste) and agreed a sale of the land to the developer, Abid David.

Ok, so 1 strike for the Romany then (maybe, probably, depending on what everyone's lawyers say). But it is still covered by the covenant right? That stops its use changing doesn't it?

The tennis club say they were advised the covenant could be varied. Councillor Tracey reassured everyone that only the Council could do this and that it had every intention of enforcing the covenant to protect the land. Yay! Well, um no, maybe not. Because the developer, Avid David, says that what he has planned won't actually be a change of use but an extension of the current use.

Mr David gave a long statement about his vision for the site and commitment to it's continued use by the community. But, let's cut to the chase. What is he planning? He says he wants to build a single storey nursery on the back part of the site (where the playground is at the moment) and pooh-poohs any suspicion that he might have his eyes on the bigger prize of a residential development. Here's the clever bit. A nursery, he says, is not a change of use. It is just an extension of the sites current social and leisure use for children.

Erm, so is that strike 2? Could be. The Councillors and politicians weren't sure if that argument was correct - presumably it would be up to the Council's planning department to decide. It's starting to look a bit iffy for the Scouts and Playgroup though isn't it?

At least there is still the lease. The Scouts have a legal right to renew it so surely their occupation of at least that bit of the site is safe? Surprise, surprise again there's a possible way out. There are certain circumstances which allow a landlord to refuse to renew and one of them is.... redevelopment. Which is presumably why, according to the Scouts, the tennis club has been dodging their requests to get the new lease drawn up for over 2 years.

So if Mr David can clear all the hurdles to get his development through (side-stepping the Asset of Community Value rules, succesfully arguing a nursery isn't a new use and then also obtaining planning permission for the actual nursery buildings) he could theoretically avoid having to give the Scout's a new lease and take over the whole site.

As the conservative parliamentary candidate for Tooting, Dan Watkins, pointed out that all seems so unlikely that there is either a 'degree of madness' here or Mr David knows something everyone else doesn't. It's a hell of a long shot and an expensive one at that, he is paying £300,000 for the site plus an extra £200,000 if he ever gets the nursery through. Previous valuations carried out for the tennis club found the protections on the site so rigorous that they valued it at just a fraction of that, £60,000.

And that is where the panic really starts to creep in. It seems such a long shot that no-one can believe there isn't something afoot.

The tennis club certainly haven't helped matters by pushing the sale through so quickly. They couldn't even wait to consult with their members as their own rules say they should, so have had to make the sale dependant on that consultation. Perhaps, they were eager to take Mr David up on his offer before tonight's meeting revealed the strength of the public and political opposition he would face? Perhaps they hoped to avoid scrutiny altogether? Who knows, but they do not come out of this debacle in a favourable light at all. Especially, when we learn that they were offered £300,000 for the site by a local resident who wanted to secure it for the Scouts but turned it down.

According to Mr David there is no mystery. His children and wife attended the playgroup at the Romany. The tennis club would have sold the site anyway - they were stalling the Scout's lease before he came on the scene. His plan's a win-win. He gets a shiny new profit-making day nursery, the Scout's and Playgroup lose around half of their space. Doesn't sound great but then another developer might push for ousting them altogether. To sweeten the deal, he'll relocate the playgroup's Playground and even throw in a nice new shiny building and play equipment for the Scouts. No wait, he'll go even further and give the Scouts as long a lease as they like so they know for sure he is committed to the community. 500 years long enough? All the Scouts and playgroup have to do is vacate the half of the site where the playground is and let him build a road from his nursery to Lyford Road so cars can get to it.

Mr David is obviously gambling that the Scouts will be so relieved that he doesn't plan to pursue the, admittedly very unlikely but technically possibly achievable, route of trying to oust them altogether that they will think a definite lease on a smaller plot is the lesser evil and support his plans. If it comes to that, maybe they will: the Scout's representatives were diplomatic about it at the meeting.

But there is one last hope before the whole issue gets bogged down in a tangle that will no doubt take expensive lawyers a long time to unravel.

The tennis club's sale of the site is not yet set in stone. They have to consult their members and their spokeswoman confirmed that they can pull out of the sale if most of their members oppose it. She said that so far they support the deal (up to £500k for land valued at £60k would be rather compelling wouldn't it?) but there were some clearly disgruntled tennis club members at the meeting. There was even a public resignation from the club by one member disgusted at it's 'greed'.

It's a slim hope because the tennis club seems to be doing all it can to ensure it gets the result it wants. It's 'consultation' isn't very thorough. The club posted an update on its website inviting comments and offering them the chance to chat to committee members on Sunday but we gather that after the meeting some members are calling for a more formal meeting of the club and a vote on the proposal by all members. We really hope they do this and consider the options before them very carefully. If they don't they will be seen as the villain of this piece for some time to come by the community that has enjoyed the Romany site for so many years and which surrounds them.

Magdalen Park Tennis Club members - the ball is in your court!

The tennis club have announced on their website this morning that the Consultation to members Re The imminent sale of The Romany site is now cancelled due to Save The Romany Campaigners planning on picketing outside their tennis club at 10am on Sunday morning when their members were asked to come to that very important consultation
"I'm afraid we would probably have to inform the police of a potential public order concern. We are also worried about security for members arriving and leaving and we suspect that non-members may try and gain access to the clubhouse"

Playgroup Toddlers in buggies, 7 year old Cub Scouts in their uniforms and their parents are hardly going to be a public order concern or be threatening anyone or "invading the club" This is not an Anti Poll Tax Demonstration , their dramatic cancellation is laughable.

MPLTC Letter here bit.ly/1qHWIki
(Tennis members comments on this letter is interesting)

But we shall still be there at 10am Sunday 6th to demonstrate to attending club members the reality of their clubs behaviour and who their clubs committees incomprehensible decision is going to truly affect.

It appears that the Clubs sub committee don't want an open discussion but want to restrict "discussion" to emails.
Following the public meeting, the position would appear to be this:

The tennis club sub committee have accepted an offer of £300k subject to tennis club members approval.
They have declined an offer of £350k from a local philanthropist who wishes to keep the space open with existing use for the wider community- Wandsworth Twins Club, The Playhouse Playgroup, 1st Wandsworth Scouts, dance groups.etc- see list below.

The tennis club have rejected the higher initial bid on the basis that they believe that the developer will be able to develop the Romany.

This will trigger a £200k bonus for them. Clearly they are proposing that the tennis club members support the development of the Romany site and this is apparently what the sub committee members want to happen.

The indication from the highest levels at WBC, is that the strict terms and spirit of the restrictive covenant- to keep the Romany as public open space- will be upheld by the council and any planning will be refused for the private nursery or any other development. But this will require public opposition to the proposals

WBC would not wish to be the first London Council to fall foul of the Localism Act. This would be a National issue (not 3rd page of the local Guardian) and would potentially receive scrutiny from the highest political levels.

So, if you believe that the developer will not receive planning consent and the tennis club members still vote for the proposal to develop the Romany, they will effectively be losing £50k.

What was said at the public meeting is that a vote to support the developer is a vote against the community of young parents and children in the area. This will alienate both the tennis club and tennis club members from the community.

To support the developer and not the community is a massive miscalculation by the sub committee.

It would also be a good idea if tennis club members could find out for themselves what the true uses of the Romany site are and who benefits from it.

At present they have a picture of Nimby neighbours and money grabbing scouts who are unwilling to pay a market rent and who are pocketing rent from sub-tenants -the phrase "stealing money from the tennis club" has been used in some more emotive exchanges.

The representations made by the tennis club to WBC when attempting to get the Asset of Community Value restriction lifted (to ease the way for development of the whole site) Please read these as they totally undermine the picture presented to the tennis club membership to date.
(We acquired this document under the freedom of information act and have attached it to this update- )

By the way, the publishing of this report was the first indication that the scouts had that the tennis club were actually opposing their lease renewal. Prior to this they had received sporadic responses and a bizarre request to discuss the renewal of their lease with the developer (who as yet is still not their landlord).

The scouts have properly served notice to renew their lease and the tennis club have failed to challenge any of the proposed terms within the required statutory time period. Effectively the club are fettered with having to grant a renewal on the same terms as before- save at a market rent which the scouts have offered. By selling to the developer, he will now be left with this task.

So, we must ensure that tennis club members are not unduly influenced by mis-information and are properly informed as to recent events and who actually uses the site and invite them to explore the users themselves and to make up their own minds about whether the wider community actually uses the site and should continue to use it.

The tennis club bought the Romany site for a song in the 1970's - as it already had the scouts on a long lease on half the plot and the restrictive covenant prevented use and any development over the whole plot.

The numbers of people who use the site weekly is difficult to quantify. However most are non profit charities. eg Scouts 180, Twins Club 420, Playhouse Playgroup 200, dance groups 40, childrens weekend party venue 1000's.

The developers proposals would put a stop to this..

This was confirmed by Ali Adam when she told WBC that the tennis club were in consultations with the developer and that the whole site was to be redeveloped and that the scouts lease renewal would be "strenuously resisted". At most the tennis club would be given a 5 year term - to allow full development of the site. Her representations make interesting reading and expose the clubs (?) eagerness to pave the way for eviction of existing charitable and community users and for development of the site -again, see attached ACV report from WBC and compare with postings on MPLTC website.

The scout hut was built in the 1960's. It is a basic concrete panel, bolt together construction with virtually no insulation. Heating bills alone are horrendous but without substantial investment there is little that can be done save to upgrade to more efficient heaters, secondary glazing etc New drains have been installed, the toilets modernised, a baby changing area installed, the buildings have been rewired, new energy efficient lighting installed, new flooring; the Explorers hut has been modernised but the kitchen area, well it needs total replacement. It haemorrhages money.

But investment in the buildings is only part of the picture. There are running costs associated with scouting- regular outings, equipment, training etc. The scouts have been diligent with their finances.

Consequently, other community groups have been allowed to use the facilities at nominal rents- rents that do not even cover heating costs alone, let alone dilapidations. Investment has been made where it is required but many projects have been put on hold with the uncertainty created by the tennis clubs deliberate delaying tactics (read- refusal) to renew the scouts lease.

So, please take a few minutes to get the real facts.

To be fair to the developer, he did appear to be shocked by the response he received at the public meeting. Has he been duped by the Tennis club into making an offer without all the facts? Is that why the conditional deal was signed in such an unseemly and some suggest, an obscene haste immediately before the public meeting- when there was a risk of dirty laundry being aired

Here is a full list of current weekly Romany Site users website links;
www.1stwandsworthscouts.org.uk/
www.playhouseplaygroup.org/
www.wandsworthtwinsclub.org.uk/
www.trefoilguild.co.uk/
deborahjayneschoolofdance.co.uk/
www.singandsign.com/classes/clas ... aynes-park
artyparty.co.uk/about.htm

We are still fighting on despite the club committing to selling to a local developer . The club have been "consulting" their members via email on the sale . The local community have now put forward a bid to the tennis club under a CIC , which equals the developers offer , but without the extra offer of 200k in the place of obtaining planning permission that the developer has offered . We are forming a CIC community interest company which if our offer is accepted will secure the Romany site for future generations of Wandsworth children forever . Here is a very enlightening post by a tennis club member and a staunch supporter of the Save The Romany . He has researched the whole issue thoroughly . I would like to share it here ..

" The sub-committee have been diligent and working very hard to make sure that members are fully informed. Members are now simply being asked to comment on the sale to the developer.

Some facts and thoughts.

Scouts lease renewal and Asset of Community Value
The sub-committee have been telling us about the existing Tenants of the Romany site in their “Information to Members”. Compare that against what has been revealed by the report obtained following a Freedom of Information request - specifically the representations made by the tennis club (Aly Adam and a barrister) in April this year to Wandsworth Borough Council in seeking (unsuccessfully) to have the Asset of Community Value designation for the Romany site removed.
The sub-committee have told members repeatedly that:-

• the lease renewal negotiations were progressing with the scouts.
• The tennis club had every intention of renewing the scouts lease for a further 15 years.
• There is no truth in the rumour that the developer wanted to develop the whole site.
• There is no truth in the claims that the scouts would be evicted from the Romany site.
• The scouts were delaying renewal.
• The scouts were refusing to talk to the developer who was offering to build them a bright new shiny clubhouse. Their future was guaranteed.
• The scouts were not paying any rent to the tennis club.
• The scouts were sub-letting the site out to others and the tennis club were making no money from this.

Compare this to the representations made by a member of the sub-committee to the council :-

• the tennis club did not want to renew the scouts lease.
• the club/developer wanted to develop the whole site.
• the tennis club would strenuously resist the renewal of the scouts lease should they take the matter to court, granting them 5 years at most

So, the cat is out of the bag. The tennis club/developer intends to develop the whole site, kick off the scouts and the tennis club we now know, intends to sell the whole site to the developer.
Otherwise MPLTC could have sold half the site to him.

It appears that what the scouts stated at the public meeting- that the tennis club were the ones using delaying tactics- was in fact true. The WBC report confirms that the sub-committee actually had no intention of renewing the scouts lease. This naturally brings into serious doubt what the developer is saying now.

Playground
The sub-committee member told the council that the playground built on part of the site had been built without landlords consent or knowledge. We now know that this is also not true and that a number of emails exist that clearly show that the original reason behind the scouts using the other half of the Romany site, was to build this playground for the playgroup. Also it is clear that the scouts were given “carte blanche” by a member of the sub-committee for them to do whatever they wanted on the site and so landlords consent was not even required. This is in writing.

[b]Restrictive Covenant[/b]
The Romany is protected by a Deed of Covenant dated 23rd January 1941 entered into between the Trustees of Magdalen College (MPLTC Landlords), Holloway Properties Ltd and London County Council (passed to Wandsworth Borough Council -who are now the Trustees) which contains restrictions intended to preserve the site as "private open space" until 2100. Further it restricts the building of any structures save those associated with the limited uses including sport, rest or recreation or as ornamental gardens or pleasure grounds ordinarily open to the public on payment of a charge.
[b]The intention and spirit of the Deed is clear – it protects the open space against development such as that now being proposed by the developer.
[/b]
Effectively MPLTC are encouraging and sponsoring the development even though they are aware of the site being on WBC’s list of Assets of Community Value and that the Trustees of Magdalen College, our own landlords, crafted the restrictive covenant to keep it as private open space.

It has not been mentioned that the tennis club have also profited from letting plot B out to the scouts. MPLTC have saved on paying insurance premiums and have not had to spend a few thousand pounds every few years to keep the vegetation down. The scouts took on this responsibility.

Clearly the sub-committee must have known all along that all the existing tenants on the site would be evicted. But this is not what they have told members? In fact members have been told the opposite.

So it appears that the club members are being asked to give the nod to the sale with many conflicting statements and facts being bandied about.

Aly Adam told the public meeting that the money raised from the sale will go towards buying the freehold of the site. Is this the justification for selling to the developer and not to the Community Interest Company or to the private philanthropist or other private individual – all of whom wished to keep the Romany site for community use.

Why does the tennis club need to buy the freehold of the existing site? I thought it was because the clubs own rents were increasing?

MPLTC's landlords for the majority of the site are Magdalen College Oxford. One of the members of the college’s Governing Body is a local resident, a staunch supporter of charities and of the 1st Wandsworth Scouts and Playhouse Playgroup. He is appalled that the tennis club sub-committee are supporting the development of the Romany site and the effective eviction of the scouts, Playhouse Playgroup, twins club (all of them charities) and other community users from the Romany site and a proposed development of the site that conflicts with the restrictive covenant that the Trustees of Magdalen College drafted to protect it as open space.

Is it a good idea to upset MPLTC's landlords whose constitution repeatedly mentions support for educational establishments and charities- bearing in mind that the developer is according to our own sub-committee, going to evict charities and educational concerns? And what about their restrictive covenant?

It appears that what the sub-committee have decided upon and encourage and what they are now asking you to agree to, is totally contrary to the ethos and ideology of Magdalen College, our landlords.

PLANNING
Consider also the limited advice to members regarding the chances of the developer achieving planning approval. We are being told that the deal with the developer is the best deal financially for the club as it promises a further £200,000.00 when the developer gets planning consent.

This statement assumes a lot. It assumes that planning consent will actually be forthcoming. If the scouts refuse to allow access over plot A on to plot B for the developer to get his Trojan Horse in there, then either the developer will not develop the site for 15 years or he will need to start eviction proceedings to get that access. Then he will have the whole plot to develop – which apparently the sub-committee knew about back in April.

So now we can understand why the developer’s proposal may have to include the eviction of the scouts from plot A in order to develop plot B. Wandsworth Council know this also as our own sub-committee told them so in April.

In recommending this offer to members- no sorry, in agreeing a deal with the developer and then asking club members to agree to it on the basis of the information given, the sub-committee are clearly of the belief that planning consent will be granted, that the restrictive covenant will be set aside or varied, that the Asset of Community Value designation is irrelevant and that the future of the various community groups and charities are not of members concern and that members should not be concerned about the clubs standing in the local community. Are they right?

Consider the chances of Wandsworth Council granting planning consent to the developer when they are the Trustees of the Covenant and when they have already rejected the tennis clubs appeal to have the Asset of Community Value listing removed. Is this not a clear indication that they are opposed to any development?

Councillor Kathy Tracey has stated outright that planning consent will not be granted. This is very unusual for a local councillor to say this. Just read the local Wandsworth Guardian. Front page.

If planning consent is refused, then all the tennis club will get is £300k and a hostile local community. But there is an alternative- to sell to the philanthropist. The tennis club still get the £300k and the community keep the Romany. But members are not being offered this alternative.

Putting emotion and community issues aside it all comes down to what you think the chances are of the developer getting planning permission. Do not assume that the sub-committee know all the answers.

Should members be accepting the developers offer when it appears that the competing offer from the “philanthropist” could, after all, be the best offer in all the circumstances?

To sell to the developer is perhaps, politically naïve and will inevitably alienate the tennis club from the community and potentially the tennis clubs own landlords.

Why are members not being given the chance to consider competing offers?
The club must hold an EGM to discuss this to clear the air and enable the right decision to be reached

Without knowing the detail, admittedly, I fail to see how the CIC bid you are talking about equals the one from the developer. You say that the developer will pay the tennis club £300,0000 plus £200,000 or more depending if and on the planning consent he gets. The CiC is only offering to the match the first part of that. Given that the developer is, er, a developer and probably has some expectation of getting planning consent (easier than it was since its been under the watchful eye of that nice Mr Pickles) the tennis club stands to get considerably more. Or at least has the chance of it. The CIC bid makes no such offer and so is by definition lower. Let's not kid anyone. The CIC bid is lower. Perhaps the CIC would be in a stronger position to sway the support of the tennis club members if they could come up with something genuinely comparable.