Forum Topics

HIgh Court Appearance for Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators

High Court agrees to grant Judicial ReviewThe Friends of Putney Common (FofPC) learnt on Friday (12th July 2013) that its application for a Judicial Review challenging the legality of "easement agreements", allowing the building of a private road on Putney Common, has been granted by the High Court. The agreements were signed in secret by the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators (WPCC) and Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC) in February 2012.  John Howell QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, said that the WPCC's assertions that it is legally entitled to provide easements over Putney Common are “arguable”.  A date for the Judicial Review has not yet been fixed.The proposed private road would be for the sole use of luxury flats and a two-form entry primary academy for 420 pupils to be built on the site of the former Putney Hospital, which is entirely surrounded by common land.  The planning application for the development attracted a substantial number of objections from local Putney residents, including over 500 specific complaints about building roads on the Common. The planning application was by Wandsworth Council’s Children’s Services Department to Wandsworth Council acting as Planning Authority, and was granted in October 2012 but subsequently quashed by a High Court order in March 2013. Today, the site has no planning applications pending or valid consents.  The decision by the High Court to allow the case to proceed to a Judicial Review is a major step forward for FofPC who have long argued that the WPCC is acting outside its powers laid down in the 1871 Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act. This Act of Parliament was specifically set up to create and protect the Common and stop encroachment on to it. In submissions to the court, the WPCC (and WBC, as an "interested party") argued that it had the authority to make such easement agreements. The parties also said that the Judicial Review application should be refused because it was “out of time” and “devoid of merit”.Despite these submissions, the High Court have granted the FofPC a Judicial Review including a Protective Costs Order and recognized the claim under the Aarhus Convention.  FofPC spokesman Nicholas Evans, in whose name the Judicial Review application was made, said today:"We are delighted that the High Court has granted a Judicial Review. It is a step forward in our campaign to protect Putney Common from what we believe is unlawful encroachment by the Council. We have an excellent and very experienced legal team and we are looking forward to arguing our case in more detail before the Judge. After 18 months of acrimonious debate with the WPCC and WBC we welcome this opportunity to establish once and for all whether the Conservators can effectively sell rights to parts of the Common and allow the council to build private roads on it.  We are grateful to the many local residents who have supported and helped us to reach this stage.” Notes for Editors1) Friends of Putney Common is a local community group formed by Putney residents to protect Putney Common and the site of Putney Hospital from inappropriate development.2) A planning application was made by Wandsworth Borough Council in February 2012 to build a 2FE Primary Academy School with a restricted roof-top playground and 24 luxury flats on the site of Putney Hospital. The hospital had been closed since 1998. The Council bought the site from the Wandsworth Primary Care Trust for £4.4m. The first application by the Council was declared invalid in May 2012. A further application was submitted in July 2012, which the Planning Application Committee granted permission in October 2012, despite receiving over 800 objections. This permission was quashed in the High Court in March 2013 following a legal challenge by FofPC, as it was unlawful.  (See previous FofPC press releases).3) The Planning Application Number reference is 2012/0758. There is no current planning application or permission relating to the site.  4) FofPC has challenged the need for a new school at the Putney Hospital site following analysis of the background data to school projections. See Press Release ref FofPC PR 10-7-13.5) All legal exchanges between the parties have been posted on the Friends of Putney Common website, as has the notification by John Howell QC, (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) granting FofPC permission for the Judicial Review.

John Cameron ● 4806d0 Comments ● 4806d

What are the Conservators playing at?

Many of the 45,000 households who pay the WPCC levy for the upkeep and conservation of the Commons live in Wimbledon. Quite a few of them do not - they are nearer to Putney Common or are in Putney Parish.But I'm sure we can all agree wherever we live that the body of Trustees set up originally by an Act of Parliament in 1871 have done a pretty good job of looking after this important open space. So why have I, and a local community group called 'Friends of Putney Common' (www.friendsofputneycommon.org) resorted to applying to the High Court for a judicial review of the Conservators recent actions to sell rights to Wandsworth Borough Council allowing them to build roads and paths on Putney Common? Because we believe this is in direct contravention to the 1871 Act and is clearly unlawful.Some key questions which might prompt you to look further into this unfortunate situation are given below. Full details can be seen on the website I mentioned above.1) The Conservators knew when they signed an agreement in July 2010 to build roads on Putney Common to facilitate a new health clinic on the old Putney Hospital site, that the plans for the clinic had already been cancelled by the WPHT board in September 2009. Why did they go ahead anyway? Were they in cahoots with the Council?2) They may claim that they would be "reclaiming" land from the Hospital for the Common. But this was land already designated in the 1871 Act as Common. They didn't need to take this action to reclaim it. Was it just the £250,000 "access fee" that tempted them?3) When the Council announced that it would buy the site and build flats and a huge primary school for 420 pupils, did they ask local residents for their views? They did not. They went ahead and signed another agreement, this time with an "access fee" of £350,000. All done in secret.4) When they were sent two legal opinions by Barristers briefed by Friends of Putney Common showing that their actions were "ultra vires" (beyond their statutory powers) why did they still push ahead?5) Why are they fighting to hold on to their promised money and not protecting our common?6) Why does this also matter to residents of Wimbledon who do not live near Putney Common? Because the Conservators claim that they can grant "easements" to build roads not necessary to protect the common, to facilitate development. In clear contravention of the 1871 Act. Next time they act in this high-handed and secret manner, it may well be a chunk of Wimbledon Common in their sights, and not just Putney Common.NickWebsite: www.friendsofputneycommon.orgTwitter @FofPCEmail: info@friendsofputneycommon.org

Nicholas Evans ● 4882d0 Comments ● 4882d

24hour Spinning® Marathon charity event - Fulham

Hello, Starfish Greathearts Foundation are hosting a 24hour Spinning® Marathon fundraiser event on the 8th-9th of March 2013, from 6pm-6pm! This event consists of teams of up to 10 members cycling around the clock in a relaxed and friendly environment, kindly provided for by Pedal Studios on Fulham high-street. Snacks and drinks are provided! So, how does it work?- Hour long classes will run back to back throughout the 24hour event.- In your team you will need to work out how long each person will Spin® for (as the classes are an hour each, participants will need to do at least one hour).- All teams will be asked to submit a schedule prior to the event.- There will be a chill out zone so you are welcome to stay and cheer on your team members when you're not Spinning®, or just come along for your slot.- Your instructor will guide you on a virtual tour (over mountains, down hill etc), however throughout the session you will have control of the resistance on your bike.- The challenge is about hours on the bike, you will not be cycling a certain distance.- Enter a team of any size (up to 10 people).- Or get in touch as an individual if you wish to join a team.- Each team is asked to raise £500. Take on this challenge and raise money for Starfish to help children affected by HIV/AIDS in southern Africa. The Starfish Greathearts Foundation is an international developmental charity whose goals are to empower communities in southern Africa, and to deliver professional and sustainable services to children affected by poverty and the HIV/AIDS pandemic.For more information visit our Starfish homepage: http://www.starfishcharity.org

Hester Enthoven ● 4952d0 Comments ● 4952d

Thumbs down to Timpson in Wimbledon !

Thumbs down to TIMPSON of Wimbledon !  Do not bother spending money on a lifetime battery guarantee in here.  I did, on 23.10.2009 at 13.12 hrs for a watch I treasure, I paid the extra and was promised I would never have to pay for another watch battery at that shop.  I was given a printed receipt stating, “Lifetime battery”.   Made tatty and fragile over the years, I have nonetheless retained my receipt.  Yesterday was the first day I needed to avail myself of my “lifetime battery”.  The young lad in the shop told me that I should have been given a card, the receipt I had been supplied with wasn’t enough.  I explained that was all I was given.  He told me twice that I couldn’t have purchased the original battery at that shop.  He was reassured by myself and my partner who was with me on the day of purchase, that I had.  He insisted that I had not, and told me that the till receipts they issued looked different than that I was showing him.  I told him yes, perhaps they’d changed them over the years.  He waved his badge at me and told me he’d been there since 2006 and it was not from them (which it was), and that I would have to pay another £17+ for another “lifetime battery”.  After many years of being loyal to that particular Timpson, neither of us will ever enter it again.  I do not wish to have it implied by a youngster that I am lying about where I purchased a battery, nor do I wish to hand that same shop yet more money for the same service that I had purchased and which had been guaranteed years earlier. So, thumbs down Timpson.  Customer care today, dreadful, it's put us off for good !  Be warned, all.

Jacqui Murray ● 4954d0 Comments ● 4954d