Since 2019, I have written several letters in relation to the plans to build flats on part of West Ham Park. You can read my letters below in full: 

 

 

John Barradell – Town Clerk, City of London Corporation 

5 November 2019 

 

Dear Mr Barradell, 

 

I write to you in relation to the Corporation’s plans for use of the nursery site in the northeast corner of the Grade 2 listed West Ham Park. 

 

I have been contacted by a number of constituents who regularly use the park, many of whom actively support its valuable community functions as volunteers. As you will be aware, there has been considerable public interest and unease within the local community about potential development plans for the former nursery site. 

 

There appears to be a large degree of uncertainty about the directions of travel that the Corporation is considering, and indeed about whether a decision has already been made. I am told that a report by Lambert Smith Hampton has been prepared for the Corporation and that this included options to develop the site for commercial and residential uses rather than maintaining it as part of the park. 

 

Newham’s population density is 9,700 per square km, compared to the London average of 5,590 per square km, and our adult population is projected to increase by 15% from 2016-2026. In addition, Newham has only 8% of green space compared to a London average of 20%. I hope you will therefore understand that the existing parks are vitally important to the local community. 

 

I know you will agree that freely accessible green space is of massive public benefit not only in terms of leisure opportunities but wider health and wellbeing. This is particularly important for areas like Newham, where deprivation is common, public health is generally poor and health inequalities are very high. 

 

I was therefore very disappointed to learn that local residents were deliberately excluded from a portion of the Committee of West Ham Park on 14 October 2019, where decisions around the nursery site plans were discussed. I am told that the Chair also refused to allow public questions to the Committee during the same meeting. 

 

I struggle to see how excluding engaged members of the public can be justified by the Corporation. These are the very people who will be affected by the decisions the Corporation makes regarding the nursery site. I do not believe this way of behaving is compatible with the spirit of the Local Government Act 1972 or with the City’s own Code on accountability and openness. 

 

To allay concerns about the secrecy of the Corporation’s plans within the community, I would be grateful if you would provide me with, and make public, the full minutes of discussions and decisions relating to the nursery site, including the Lambert Smith Hampton report and all other relevant information.  

 

I further believe that you could find a way to ensure that the public are able to attend all portions of West Ham Park Committee meetings where decisions about the nursery site will be discussed or taken, without prejudice to the need to discuss legally privileged information in private. 

 

You will be aware that I will cease to be the Member of Parliament for West Ham as of midnight tonight. However, I believe my constituents deserve an urgent response, and I do not believe it would be right to let this matter lie until the New Year, when I or another candidate will occupy the seat again. 

 

I would therefore be grateful if you would reply to this letter at your earliest convenience, using either my non-Parliamentary email, lyn@lynbrown.org.uk, or my usual House of Commons postal address, where it will be redirected to me as a Parliamentary candidate. 

 

Yours sincerely, 

Ms Lyn Brown  

Member of Parliament for West Ham 

 

John Barradell – Town Clerk, City of London Corporation 

9 December 2020 

 

Dear Mr Barradell,  

I write to you in relation to the Corporation’s plans to develop part of West Ham Park in my constituency.  

I remain seriously concerned about these plans. As I understand it, a significant area in the north-east of the Park, which has until recently been used as a nursery to grow flowers and other plants for the Corporation’s use, may be sold or otherwise used for the creation of housing. This area appears to have been identified as part of the Grade II listing of the Park, and I understand the site previously contained historic kitchen gardens. I am sure you will understand that these plans have attracted opposition from constituents and community organisations, and concern that land which is supposed to serve the people of Newham could be effectively privatised, at a permanent loss to our communities.  

I believe that alternative uses for the nursery site should be considered, and I am aware that several different ideas have been put forward by the Friends of West Ham Park group and others. These include the creation of allotments so that local people can grow their own healthy food, the use of part of the site for a community growing project connected to our excellent foodbank, who are unfortunately busier than ever, or simply incorporating the site back into the parkland itself.  

As you will know, Newham has the lowest proportion of open public space per person in London, and, while we have no shortage of residents who are keen to volunteer and play a role in community life, we need more opportunities for local people to do so.  

I believe that however the nursery site is used, ownership should remain in the hands of those who have a charitable or community purpose, and the site should be used in a way that increases rather than decreases the health and resilience of our local communities.  

I know there is disagreement within the Management Committee about these plans, and I understand there is also opposition from the Gurney family, who originally donated the site to the Corporation to benefit the people of Newham.  

I have written to the Chair of the Charity Commission to ask them to look at this, and I have no doubt that they will take it seriously. I believe that it is time for the Corporation to reconsider these plans, and I hope you will do so.  

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Please keep well and stay safe.  

Yours sincerely,  

Ms Lyn Brown  

Member of Parliament for West Ham 

 

 

Baroness Stowell of Beeston MBE – Chair, Charity Commission 

9 December 2020  

 

Dear Baroness Stowell,  

I write to you in relation to plans by the City of London Corporation to develop part of West Ham Park in my constituency.  

My understanding is that the Park site was transferred to the Corporation by the previous owners the Gurney family on the charitable basis that it would become a public park in 1874. The area that is threatened with redevelopment, in the north-east corner of the park, has been used by the Corporation for many years as a nursery to grow flowers and other plants for their own use. The nursery area stands on the site of the historic kitchen garden, and is Grade 2 listed as an integral part of West Ham Park. 

Late last year, I unfortunately had to intervene to ensure that these plans would be considered transparently and made available to constituents who are seriously concerned about the loss of charitable and community assets. I understand that several members of the Park’s charitable management Committee are strongly opposed to the development of the nursery site, including representatives of local community organisations and those of the Gurney family who originally donated the site to the Corporation to benefit the people of Newham.  

I believe that alternative uses for the nursery site should be considered, and I am aware that several different ideas have been put forward by the Friends of West Ham Park group and others. These include the creation of allotments so that local people can grow their own healthy food, the use of part of the site for a community growing project connected to our excellent foodbank, who are unfortunately busier than ever, or simply incorporating the site back into the parkland itself.  

Newham has the lowest proportion of open public space per person in London, and, while we have no shortage of residents who are keen to volunteer and play a role in community life, we need more opportunities for local people to do so.  

I believe that however the nursery site is used, ownership should remain in the hands of those who have a charitable or community purpose, and the site should be used in a way that increases rather than decreases the health and resilience of our local communities.  

I am told that a request for permission to change the use of this part of the Park, as a charitable asset, and/or to sell land for development, may be received by the Charity Commission in the near future, if it has not already been made. I would be very grateful for any information you might have about the current status of Corporation’s development plans, if permission from the Commission might be necessary for those plans to continue, and how the Commission would be minded to respond to such a request.  

I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this should you feel it necessary, and I hope to hear from you at your earliest convenience.  

Yours sincerely,  

Ms Lyn Brown  

Member of Parliament for West Ham  

 

CC: Helen Stephenson CBE, Chief Executive Officer, Charity Commission 

 

 

Ms Tracy Howarth Assistant Director – Regulatory Services Charity Commission for England & Wales 

24 March 2021 

 

Dear Ms Howarth,  

Thank you for your letter of 18 December 2020 in relation to plans by the City of London Corporation to develop part of Grade 2 listed West Ham Park in my constituency.  

In your letter, you helpfully summarised the overall position of the Charity Commission, making clear that this matter is technically complex, involving charity and trust law. You kindly offered to provide more technical detail if this was required. I write to request those further details on behalf of my constituents, who have raised concerns about the basis for the position the Commission has reached.  

In particular, my constituents do not understand why the Commission has identified two separate Trusts, relating to different areas of the Park, with entirely different charitable purposes attached to them. They have not been able to identify a basis for this in the publicly available documents surrounding the original bequest of the land for the Park, the historic Grade 2 listing documents, or elsewhere.  

Therefore, I would be grateful if you could provide full details and copies of all documents, correspondence, and advice that might be necessary to enable an understanding of the process and decision-making process that was undertaken by the Commission.  

Thank you again for your reply. I look forward to reading your response soon.  

Yours sincerely,  

Ms Lyn Brown  

Member of Parliament for West Ham  

 

CC: Ian Karet, Interim Chair, Charity Commission Helen Stephenson CBE, Chief Executive Officer, Charity Commission 

 

 

Ms Tracy Howarth Assistant Director – Regulatory Services Charity Commission for England & Wales 

26 October 2021  

 

Dear Ms Howarth,  

Thank you for your letter of 14 April 2021 in relation to plans by the City of London Corporation to develop part of Grade 2 listed West Ham Park in my constituency. 

In your letter, you helpfully provided more technical detail of the complex issues involving charity and trust law relating to this development, including providing supporting documentation, which I have passed onto my constituents. This information has greatly helped our grasp of the situation, and I thought it would be helpful to set out my present understanding before setting out a few further issues and questions for the Commission.  

The area of the park which is being proposed for development is governed by two different trusts for two different areas within the larger area of the proposed development.  

A small proportion of the area concerned is governed by the Indenture dated 1874 and is already developed into residential housing, which I believe was originally to be used for housing for park staff but is now rented out to third parties. I understand that this area was first developed for residential use around the time of the founding of the park in the late 19th century.  

However, the vast majority of the proposed development is governed instead by a 1981 Scheme with the conditions of use of the site defined as:  

“2. The land numbered 2 in the said schedule and belonging to the Charity shall henceforth be appropriated and used as land whereon the Trustee of the Charity may effect developments, as in its discretion it considers would enhance the enjoyment of the Park belonging to the Charity by the beneficiaries thereof, such as nurseries and glasshouses.”  

In my view, it is clear from this language and the context that the 1981 Scheme’s intention was to regularise the legal status of a large area of previously open parkland which had, irregularly, started to be used as a plant nursery site containing plant beds and greenhouses to supply the City of London Corporation with plants, predominantly for other sites.  

Specific language was used to exemplify the types of development which would be allowed, and I note that the functional connection between greenhouses and nurseries on the one hand, and the park as enjoyed by its beneficiaries, is a close one. I find the Charity Commission’s interpretation that this language extends, without amendment, to allowing high rise blocks of residential flats to be built on a Grade 2 listed park somewhat outlandish, and I suspect it might be open to challenge.  

The Commission has said it favours the view that the 1981 Scheme countenances the possibility of a development which could only be said to ‘enhance the enjoyment of the Park’ in an extremely indirect and obscure way, by generating income that might then be used to provide some unspecified enhancement in future.  

At present, as you know, the City of London Corporation funds almost the entire income of the Park. This raises the prospect that future funding could be cut by the Corporation, with the excuse that it will be ‘offset’ by any money raised from these proposed developments. If this occurred, it would not, in my view, represent an ‘enhancement’ to the enjoyment of the Park in any meaningful sense. Has the Commission received any binding commitments from the City of London Corporation that future funding will not be cut in this way, and therefore that if any additional income were generated from development, the entirety of this will be retained for the benefit of West Ham Park?  

Finally, it appears that the 1981 Scheme also covers another large area, which is currently open parkland and not, to my knowledge, being considered for any form of private development at this time. The Commission’s interpretation of the 1981 Scheme appears to open that large additional area for development in future. Can you confirm whether this implication has been properly considered?  

There is now a public, vocal and growing campaign forming against the plan to build a private development on a London park. I understand this campaign has growing support from relevant stakeholders including, local and national media, local political representatives, leading national conservation organisations, local residents as well as members of the Charity who are not appointed by the City of London Corporation. 

On this basis, I would ask you to set out if there is scope for the Commission to reconsider its interpretation of this question. I look forward to reading your response soon.  

Yours sincerely,  

Ms Lyn Brown  

Member of Parliament for West Ham  

 

CC: Ian Karet, Chair, Charity Commission Helen Stephenson CBE, Chief Executive Officer, Charity Commission