The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.
For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker and you will be asked to speak before Councillors debate the issue.
Temporary measures during the Coronavirus Pandemic
Due to the Government guidance on measures to reduce the transmission of coronavirus (COVID-19), we will holding meetings in a virtual manner which will be live webcast on our website. Members of the public will still be able to register to speak and ask questions, which will then be read out by the Governance and Democracy Case Manager during Public Question Time and will either be answered by the Chair of the Committee, or the relevant Portfolio Holder, or be followed up with a written response.
Minutes:
Mrs Janet Reed spoke on agenda item 7, Sale of a portion of Galmington Playing Fields land.
Can I request that every member of the Council act in a responsible and empathetic manner regarding Maggie’s Approved Planning Application. One in three of us will unfortunately get cancer in our lifetime, and the assistance of this great charity would help many. It only requires approximately five per cent of Galmington Playing Fields and the benefits definitely outweigh this loss. I do realise there is a covenant on this land and if necessary I believe that this could be changed to protect the remainder of the field. Please think carefully before you vote. Regards Janet Reed.
Mr Andrew Sharman spoke on agenda item 7, Sale of a portion of Galmington Playing Fields land.
On behalf of residents and park communities across the country, we welcome tonight’s discussion on whether or not our park and its restrictive covenant are to be protected.
The trauma of the decision of “in principle” has been inflicted upon our community for nine long years and it is finally within the power of the authority to deliver an early Christmas present to us all by preventing the desecration of our public green spaces.
As you all embark on your deliberations, we remind you that there are two key issues here, both bearing no relation to the noble intent of the property developers that need to be resolved.
The first issue is the environmental precedent set if this council decides that covenants are not to be adhered to.
Andrew Hamilton-Gault had the vision in 1931 to recognise that recreational ground in the town was sparse so set about gifting a lasting legacy that many of us still benefit from today.
If this council proceeds to disregard his express wish and allow this development to proceed, similar protective covenants will fail and across this country developers will exploit the precedent set by this authority.
Given this authority has rightly recognised that we are in a climate and environmental emergency, and that it promised to be “planet positive” does it want the ignominy of being known as the Council that set such an ugly process in motion?
We know that this entire process has been flawed from the off, there has been no formal consultation with residents, promises of a new “playground” proven by the council’s own officers to be false as the monies promised “wouldn’t cover the cost of moving the existing equipment”, and the intransigence of the developer when we sought compromise means that to proceed will be reckless. The result of which is an Under 5s playground that has been left to rot and neglected for over 9 years.
We understand that the Council is acting on legal advice, hidden due to legal privilege, stating “the covenant” is not legally binding, we remind all to proceed with caution as with any legal advice it is not until the matter has been decided by a Judge that we know the true merit of that advice.
Any legal battle will be costly and time consuming for this authority as well as the reputational impacts, so we urge caution as to how much stock is invested in that advice.
We bring to your attention that Bath Rugby, acting on similar legal advice to this council, were told by the High Court Judge that the 1922 covenant was enforceable protecting the recreational ground. They were refused leave to appeal and had to pay the costs of the campaigners.
The second issue rests on public confidence in you, our representatives, and local democracy as well.
This issue has brought many people into contact with local government for the first time, the experience of many has been that the council has not conducted its business in an open and transparent manner, efforts to conceal and frustrate have been extraordinary, and for many it has left a bitter taste in the mouth.
We advise them that, while the machinery is not perfect, democracy exists and tonight is your opportunity to rebuild public confidence in the system.
We have been thankful for the input from councillors of all persuasions in our efforts and for many that strength of respect secured seats at the election.
Far too often, manifesto pledges are not delivered and this affects public confidence in our representatives. Those who do not deliver or mislead communities find that come the next election, their deception is remembered, so this is a vital opportunity for faith to be repaid.
With those two key issues covered, we wish to conclude with this message.
In 2002, their ambition was to turn the fields into a car park - this authority rightly blocked it and we were promised by you “never again”. Less than a decade later, Musgrove Park Hospital said that they had no room to accommodate something they wanteddue to a lack of space.
Another attempt this time which cynically exploits a cause that many of us care passionately about, many of us have had our lives impacted by this disease, in an attempt to emotionally manipulate us in to acquiescing to their expansion plans.
We request that you see beyond this, as Cllr. Danny Wedderkopp said at the Planning Committee “if this was a tyre factory, we wouldn’t even being entertaining this application”.
Even at that stage of the process it seemed there was no other option, but we remind all tonight that this is no longer the case.
The landscape in 2011 when this “principle” was agreed is hugely different to the one we find ourselves in today. The consequences of climate change and loss of green spaces are starting to bed in and we need to address the decisions that led to these negative impacts, the loss of our park will not be reversible or able to be compensated with money, we cannot buy our way out of every problem we face.
Rebecca Pow MP has wonderfully secured funds of £500 million for Musgrove Park Hospital to redevelop their site for the future, it is now finally possible for this building to be incorporated into their current and future plans within the hospital footprint as desired.
As the charity in question is operated by architects it is not beyond their creative abilities to create a less impactive building that does not destroy forever the peace and tranquillity of our park.
Tonight it is within your power to save our park, to respect and abide by the Covenant that has protected it for future generations, and to agree to support the Hospital in finding a far more suitable home.
We wish you well for your discussions and look forward to hearing the results of your vote.
Mr Gideon Amos spoke on agenda item 7, Sale of a portion of Galmington Playing Fields land.
Chair thank you for this opportunity to make a statement to the Meeting of the Council about the proposed expansion of hospital buildings onto Galmington Playing Fields.
The plans to expand onto the playing field are deeply unsatisfactory. The hospital needs to go back to the drawing board and consider new possibilities such as an underground car park or higher buildings, especially given the very low density of much of the hospital estate, which is bound to be subject to redevelopment in any case in due course.
Even before the pandemic the respected health body the Kings Fund found
Green space has been linked with reduced levels of obesity in children and young people in America (Liu et al 2007). There is also strong evidence that access to open spaces and sports facilities is associated with higher levels of physical activity (Coombes et al 2010; Lee and Maheswaran 2010) and reductions in a number of long-term conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and musculoskeletal conditions (Department of Health 2012).
The proportion of green and open space is linked to self-reported levels of health and mental health (Barton and Pretty 2010) for all ages and socio-economic groups (Maas et al 2006), through improving companionship, sense of identity and belonging (Pinder et al 2009) and happiness (White 2013).
Living in areas with green spaces is associated with significantly less income-related health inequality, (Mitchell and Popham 2008). In greener areas, all-cause mortality rates are only 43 per cent higher for deprived groups, compared to 93 per cent higher in less green areas.
All of us of course support the excellent work of the Hospital Trust and of Maggie’s in supporting patients and their families – particularly given how much we have valued the NHS overt the recent year, and particularly Maggie’s work with cancer patients – there can be few families who haven’t been touched by cancer – my own father passed too early from cancer. So this isn’t a decision about whether or not we have sympathy for those with cancer – we all want to see them supported.
However, given the possibility to do that on the hospital site or at numerous sites beyond the hospital, building on a park, even if only part of park (at this stage – more could follow) cannot be assented to.
I am honoured to be a Vice President of the original Garden Cities Association, now the TCPA, which campaigned for and won the first legislation to control development based on the need for health and green space just over 100 years ago. Was it not for the priority given to healthy living conditions those first planning laws would not have been.
Finally, given that the developers are of course a hospital, you might be tempted to make an exception and allow development on a park as a one off, just this once. Please don’t. My words when I began “The plans to expand onto the playing field are deeply unsatisfactory. The hospital needs to go back to the drawing board and consider new possibilities such as an underground car park or higher buildings” are not just my words, they were also the words of Jeremy Browne the last LibDem MP for Taunton Deane when the hospital last proposed to build on the playing fields. Be warned developers have a habit of coming back time and again to valuable open space until nothing is left.
I hope you will support residents, protect this piece of urban green space and reject the proposal to sell part of the park for development.
The Leader responded to all the statements.