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.

[b]Scouts lease renewal and Asset of Community Value[/b]
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 :-

•[b] 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
[/b]
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.
[b]Otherwise MPLTC could have sold half the site to him.[/b]

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. [b]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. [/b]

[b]Playground[/b]
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][b]Restrictive Covenant[/b][/b]
The Romany is protected by a Deed of Covenant dated 23rd January 1941 entered into between the [b]Trustees of Magdalen College (MPLTC Landlords)[/b], 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][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][/b]
[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.[/b]

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.

[b]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? [/b]

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.

[b]PLANNING [/b]
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 [b]when the developer gets planning consent. [/b]

This statement assumes a lot. [b]It assumes that planning consent will actually be forthcoming. [/b]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.

[b]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. [/b]

[b]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.[/b] 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?

[b]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.[/b]

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 [b]what you think the chances are of the developer getting planning permission. [/b]Do not assume that the sub-committee know all the answers.

[b]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? [/b]

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.

[b]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.[/b]

As someone who's followed the debate from afar, the behaviour of the committee managing the sale has been disgraceful. I would think the members should be furious with them.

But, Aly, everyone's aware of the facts - it's just we put different constructions upon those facts than you do. And, let's face it, you pre-empted public debate by signing the contract with Mr David 20 minutes before the public meeting; then by cancelling a meeting with - possibly dissenting - tennis club members last Sunday on spurious 'public order' grounds. You refuse to hold an EGM at the tennis club where you might be bound by an MPLTC members' vote - why is this? Will you hold one?

As a local resident I have been following The Save the Romany campaign since I had a petition offered to me following church one Sunday. I was concerned when I read the petition but unlike a lot of people around me I didn't sign it, I just needed a bit more information. I left the public meeting on Thursday feeling deeply uncomfortable, and it isn't due to the obvious issue of re-development.

I am certainly not expecting this post to be popular but I do genuinely believe that it is the unsaid belief of some quiet local residents which leads me nicely on to my first point...

Debate is important, essential in fact. We live in a country where we are blessed with democracy and freedom of speech. The debate on this issue is one of the sanctity of community spaces and heated it certainly is. Debate has two, three, four sides, however, in the case of The Romany I think only one is being heard, why, because it is becoming so incredibly aggressive. The passion of the people has at times pushed into rude and often very aggressive attacks on anyone that doesn't tow the party line ('The Romany and everything in it is being destroyed by a nasty developer/Tennis Club)'. In doing my due diligence I asked some questions on social media of the campaign people, the response was very aggressive insinuating I was in some-way involved and certainly shouldn't be asking questions. On Thursday night one very hot-headed resident asked where the tennis club members that support of the purchase were. Well, I can tell you there is no way that any supporters would have 'fessed up in that meeting considering anger and aggression was pouring out of the walls. When a lady sitting next to me asked her seated neighbour to respect Mr David's right to speak instead of heckle and she was told 'to shut her face'. It is this animosity that has forced me to anonymously post on here rather than publically voice my concerns.

Which leads me onto my second point - 'the truth' and 'the facts'. Much of The Romany campaign has been based on the devastating loss of the Scout Hut, Playgroup, playground and all the groups that use the space (which I agree would be devastating if that is really the case). So imagine my relief (and that of my neighbours) when Mr David released his letter denying that he ever wanted to evict the Scouts or anyone else. Yes, he wants to build a nursery (phew, I had assumed it was flats) but everything else gets to stay along with some much needed investment. Plus he is actually local, in fact I know of him and his family, not the scary greedy developer I'd assumed, or the campaign had led me to believe, no Tesco's here. But immediately Mr David is branded a liar. Why? Assuming all developers are liars is not acceptable to me. When the petition webpage was 'hacked' the campaign inferred online that Mr David/Tennis Club was playing dirty tricks campaign - an accusation that was unfair totally unfounded. When did society become so suspicious? In fact all the evidence points to the contrary. Local, check. Dad with family that uses the playgroup, check. Runs family mental health and elderly care business, check. Mr David even went on to offer the Scouts a 150 year lease subject to some access across the land - again phew. So why is much of the campaign STILL being founded on the loss of all the groups and children's activities? This campaign is about a plot of land that brings together the community but it seems the same community have made their minds up about a family within said community and that friendship is dispensable.

'Change' is hard but it does have to happen as long it isn't to the detriment of our society and its values. I genuinely don't believe that is the case in this matter. I think we should see this as an opportunity. If Mr David wants to improve the community let's offer him our ideas, what else do we need, how can we make the plot of land work harder for us and for more people. At the moment the playgroup is massively oversubscribed and if I am honest has a real feeling on exclusivity - how can we expand it and can we make it more regular using some of Mr David's new facilities? Can Mr David's mental health business help expand the work with post-natal depression?

Whether the community gets to buy the land is still yet to be seen, the Tennis Club is now coming under an awful lot of pressure on the sale of the land and Mr David has a lot of hurdles to jump (Covenants etc) just yet even before making any planning applications - which I assume will require another public consultation anyway.

Whatever the outcome all I ask is that facts really are facts, complete transparency from all parties, no slinging of mud and the debate is with grace, dignity and respect.