Special Meeting of the Parish Council

MINUTES

Special Meeting of the Parish Council

to consider Slinfold, LLP’s proposal for

the Recreational area at Cherry Tree Field

Village Hall, Parish Room

Tuesday 10th September 2013

The meeting commenced at 7.00pm.

1. Attendance and Apologies for Absence

Present:

Councillors C Gibson (Chairman), S Bailey, G Constantine, M Edmonds, P Redmond, G Stenton-Chandler,

Also representatives from the Tennis Club, Football Club and Scout Group and members of the public

Apologies: the Clerk Mary Burroughs, P Youtan and S Ritchie (District Councillors)

2. Declarations of Interest and Notification of Change to Members’ Interests

No Councillors declared an interest or changes noted to members’ interests.

3. Introduction and reasons for calling the meeting

The Chairman (Cllr. Gibson) thanked all present for coming and for previously sharing their responses to Slinfold LLP’s proposals with the Parish Council.

Cllr. Gibson listed three topics that were out of scope for the meeting:

i) The offer by Slinfold LLP of land to residents of Hayes Lane; the offers were a matter for the residents alone

ii) The proposal by Slinfold LLP to gift the Downs Link to WSCC

iii) The proposal to gift the freehold for the Cherry tree site

Cllr. Gibson stated that the aim of the meeting was to achieve agreement on a response to the proposals made by Slinfold LLP. The Parish Council (PC) had looked at the overall proposal and the responses received to the proposal from the Tennis and Football Clubs and the Scout Group. The PC believed that it was necessary to achieve a consensus on behalf of the villageand that only by working together would the three leaseholders obtain not only best value for the sports clubs but also the best possible result for the whole village. There was a strong risk that if a united view could not be achieved the developers would reduce the offer or withdraw it altogether.

Cllr Bailey explained the PCs belief in the importance of negotiating as one group especially as it was not possible for under-leaseholders to negotiate direct with the developer because of legal constraints.

The PC wished to go back to the developers in order to negotiate a better offer that met more of the needs of the PC and clubs. The PC asked that the Tennis and Football clubs gave the PC their agreement to negotiate a settlement on their behalf; a settlement that would take into account the wishes of the various sporting bodies.

3. Representations from clubs, group and members of the public:

Questions and comments were invited, details follow:

The Football Club, the key points noted were:

• Neil Streamer – Club Chairman noted that the developer’s proposal had varied over time. At one point the proposal was that the tennis and football clubs share a new building and the old building be fitted out for the Scouts.
• The main need of the club was for a levelled field. The latest cash offer would not be sufficient to build a new, separate pavilion for the football club. The value of new proposal was therefore not as good as previous offers. Nonetheless the football club were generally happy with what was on offer.
• Marcus Syverson pointed out that the club was unlikely to have sufficient funds to maintain a separate building without some support. Also the club would need fencing for the pitch to FA standards when the club next won promotion in the County League.

The Tennis Club the key points noted were:

• Ian Radford – Chairman. Proposed to discuss the 2nd & 3rd proposals from the developer. The tennis club were looking to achieve what was contained in their submission. The club had spent 25 years sharing with the football club; on occasions there had been some tensions but generally the clubs were able to work around problems. Now the tennis club were looking to achieve a separate clubhouse that was the size of the shared clubhouse plus a veranda. The 1st proposal did not have scouts in the mix and the tennis club had some concerns about impact of having scouts on the site. There were pluses and minuses and the tennis club wanted to get a balance that was beneficial to tennis members. Ian Radford pointed out that tennis was about the sporting environment as well as play, which perhaps was less important to footballers than a level pitch. The view of the tennis club was that the most recent proposal was poor and the £150k a woefully inadequate offer.

Cllr. Gibson reported that Cllr. Youtan had advised the PC were not able to accept cash from developers, all monies were received by the District Council. Therefore development offers should be in terms of buildings, facilities etc. The PC would confirm this with HDC.

The Scout Group the key points noted were:

• Samantha Jozwiak – Chairperson of scouts and a member of the tennis club. The Scouts were approached by Slinfold LLP in May who proposed they relocated to Cherry Tree alongside the tennis & football clubs. The Scouts could be in a position where they were homeless next year and although HDC were committed to propose an alternative, in the Scouts’ view, the proposal made by the developer was ideal. The fact was that the Scout group could not fit into the existing hut and therefore needed to find a new home quickly. Jeremy Aitchison of Slinfold LLP had come up with a draft proposal of a hut, which while an expensive option, would give the Scouts security of tenure and enable them to start proper fund raising and applying for grants.

Cllr. Gibson explained that the PC understood completely the situation the Scouts were in and also the value of the contribution the Scouts made to the village. The PC would support the Scouts in any way possible to obtain alternative accommodation. The PC had added the need for replacement premises for the Scouts to the list of projects to be funded by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and S106 agreements to ensure the Scouts had access to funding from developers. However as the Scouts were not leaseholders at Cherry Tree they had no formal relationship with the PC and the PC would not able to represent them in negotiations with Slinfold LLP.

Members of the Public made the following comments:

Jane Williams – a Hayes Lane residentstated that she would be 100% affected bydevelopment and she could lose garden land if an agreement was not reached with Slinfold LLP. She was a sportsperson and also had experience of dealing with Slinfold LLP and entreated the two sports clubs to come to a collective agreement. If they did not to do so there was a real risk that Slinfold LLP would walk away and residents would be denied the chance to save their gardens.

Jo Sands – Scouts;enquired whether the tennis club would explain their concerns re having the Scouts on the same site and whether the football club had any concerns.

NS - No concerns from football club.

Ian Hayes – Trustee of Slinfold Sports Association – suggested that adding another party would help manage the costs which have been kept down because they were shared. Ideally the clubs should share costs so three separate buildings would add to running costs and three groups with different ideas would not help contain costs. What was needed was to get a big enough facility for everyone and get the best possible deal.

Sam Jozwiakconfirmed that there was no requirement for CRB checks for people sharing the site with the Scouts.

Marcus Syverson stated costs would not be sustainable if the football club had to fund their own building. Other expenses (e.g. FA costs) meant that if the football club had to support a separate building it was likely they would fold.

Cllr. Bailey explained the PC’s position. The PC had no ransom in terms of land or lease; it was possible for a developer to get access to the land behind Hayes Lane without using Cherry Tree Land. The PC believed that the developer had a plan B that might involve either a smaller development or selling the building plot to another developer with whom the PC and clubs would have no relationship. In either event the offers made to date would fall and no-one would get anything. Working collectively the leaseholders ought to be able to improve what is on offer but there would have to be a compromise, as it was unlikely that the developer would offer substantially more.

The leaseholders would need to negotiate as one to improve the offer especially as there was a danger that if the situation was too difficult or expensive the developers would turn their attention to another site that made more money. Without compromise everyone would lose everything.

Cllr. Redmond pointed out that Slinfold LLP was a commercial property developer – not a house builder. It was possible that they would choose to sell the site to another developer and Slinfold might land up with a less acceptable development and the Hayes Lane residents would be the ones who suffered. For example another developer was less likely to allow the residents to buy their gardens. The PC was keen to ensure the best solution was achieved for everyone.

Jane Williams – enjoined the sports associations to work together with the PC otherwise Slinfold LLP could withdraw their offer and the village and residents would get nothing.

Sam Jozwiak (Scouts) and Neil Streamer (football) confirmed that they understood the residents’ needs and would not seek to prejudice as successful an outcome as possible for the village.

Cllr. Gibson requested that the Tennis Club allow the PC to negotiate on their behalf also.

Hilary Sherwin–Smith suggested that it would be far better if football and tennis clubs had their own premises, the tennis had a new clubhouse and the football club used the existing one once it had been refurbished.

Cllr. Bailey listed the principal requirements that the PC had distilled from the discussion and information provided by the two sports clubs.

• The Tennis club to have their own building;
• The Football club to have a levelled football pitch with fencing to FA regulations;
• A shared car park with 41 spaces but in a different location from that proposed; further away from the tennis courts and screened from the courts;
• Work to stabilise the land particularly under the tennis courts;
• The Football club to have use of the existing building once refurbished;
• A contribution to maintenance of courts and football building.

A discussion of these and other points followed:

The PC made it clear that it was their belief that the lessees would get most of their requested items but not all. It would be necessary to compromise to ensure the best outcome for everyone.

Site security

There was a discussion about how security on site could be assured to prevent access and parking by unauthorised persons.

Value

Mark Ponton stated that the Tennis club could not agree the value of the offer. The club had received informal specialist advice that the value of the car park could be as much as £1m.

Cllr Bailey replied that the PC had considered this point and believed that the value of the car park to the developer, given land values in the area and the availability of alternative development plans, was possibly worth more than what the developers had offered in their offer of 3rd September 2013 but not 3 times that value.

Ian Radford stated that the Tennis club requirements should be taken in priority order.

Katie Blunton stated that the Tennis Club would like to retain ability to build 4th court and from the plans it appeared that the balancing pond would need to be moved to allow for a 4th court.

Marcus Syverson and Neal Streamer explained that fencing would be needed around the football pitch to meet FA regulations for spectator control if the team get promoted again. Apart from the need for fencing the Football club were content with the list and funding a separate building could be discussed at a later date.

Scouts

There was a discussion about the later offer by Slinfold LLP to find space for the Scouts on the site. Whilst not objecting outright the Tennis Club were concerned about the effect of the presence of the Scouts on the ambience of the site.

Cllr. Bailey pointed out that the scouts had been added into the mix at a later date. However there was no legal relationship between any lessees and the Scouts and the PC were therefore not in a position to negotiate on behalf of the Scouts.

The PC clarified to those present that the site under discussion was not the whole of Cherry Tree field but only the lower portion up the boundary of the football pitch. The PC believed that the site in question was too small to accommodate the additional building and storage areas needed by the Scouts.

Jo Sands stated that what the Scout Group did was for the benefit of the village. They hadn’t asked to be included but simply wanted scouting for children to stay in the village happily and calmly. At present the group comprised 90 children and 13 adults.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cllr. Gibson suspended standing orders for 10 minutes to enable the groups to discuss options.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ian Radford stated that the Tennis club were happy they would get the proposals described by the PC through the club committee and the PC should negotiate on behalf of all leaseholders in the terms that had been discussed. Some additional points were made including:

• The tennis clubhouse should be easily maintained and of reasonable materials such as hard wood.
• The Tennis Club did not require a large car park, 15 spaces would be sufficient. The balancing pond should be moved to leave space for a fourth court.

The football club stated that they were happy with the proposal and for the PC to negotiate on their behalf. The club would need no more than 25 spaces and generally not at the same time as the tennis club were on the site.

There were additional more minor issues to clarify; the clubs wouldn’t want new leases that were detrimental to leaseholders.

On behalf of the PC Cllr. Redmond agreed, the leases needed to be modernised but the terms would not change materially. All the parties would need to work through who paid for what in terms of car park maintenance etc.

Concern was raised that HDC could put pressure on the PC to build the scout hut on the land as that would save HDC having to allocate or purchase land. Cllr. Gibson explained that it was not possible for HDC to put pressure on the PC but that in any event the PC were committed to supporting the Scouts to obtain a reasonable alternative from HDC.

Ian Newton enquired what would happen if the developer failed to complete the development and left the site unfinished. Cllr. Redmond confirmed that Slinfold LLP would be legally obliged to complete the development.

Cllr. Gibson explained that the development as currently planned would ease the housing situation in the village. HDC and the PC needed to identify plots of land for building in the village and the projected development contributes to the Slinfold quota and provides some much needed affordable units.

The PC also explained that failure to reach a compromise acceptable to the developer would jeopardise the offers of sale of land to the residents of Hayes Lane. If the development was carried out by another company, it was likely that the residents would lose the option to purchase their gardens.

Next steps. Having reached agreement with the Tennis Club and Football Club the PC would arrange to meet with Slinfold LLP. The PC would report back to both clubs as soon as possible after that meeting.

Actions:

Cllr. Edmonds to:

i) write to Slinfold LLP offering a meeting to discuss their offer and

ii) book a venue.

The meeting closed at 20:45