Agenda item

David Munley spoke on behalf of Mayfield Community Trust. He advised that he supported Option 2 to award the future management of the Mayfield Grove land to the Mayfields Community Trust. He referred to the Section 106 agreement which identified the land both as a public open space and a single entity and objected to options 1 and 4 which proposed to split the land. He also objected to Option 3 on the basis that it removes community involvement.

Gordon Campbell-Thomas spoke further to a written report he had submitted (available with the online agenda). He referred to the formation and success of the Friends of St Nicholas Fields which had also started out as a new group with no formal experience of land management. He referred to his past involvement with YNET and advised that in his opinion the current membership of YNET does not reflect the involvement and wishes of the local or even the wider community. He urged the Cabinet Member to choose a community orientated organisation to manage the land.

Margaret Silcock spoke as a local resident. She advised that she had lived in the area for a number of years and had seen the land decline. She had joined Chase Residents Association in order to do something about the land. She stated that she supported option 2 as the only reasonable option on the table.

John Parkinson spoke as a local resident. He advised that his home overlooks the land. Although a member of Chase Residents Association he was speaking in his own right. He reluctantly supported Option 1 and believed that outsourcing supported localism.

Richard Bevan spoke in support of YNET and the pond bailiffs. He advised that group members had a wealth of knowledge on fishery management. Meetings are held regularly to discuss issues such as weather conditions and how the pond may be affected and the environment agency is notified of any issues. He stated that as a group things are going well and YNET have put a lot of hard work in to the land.

Anne Leggett spoke as Chair of the Chase Residents Association and as one of the 3 residents who discovered the presence of a notifiable weed and consequently that the section 106 agreement had not been enacted. Despite the efforts by residents over the last 4 years an agreement had still not been reached and the loser is the environment. She advised that 320 homes adjacent to the land and many other users who deserve an agreement to be reached. She urged support for Option 2 for the Mayfield Community Trust to be given a trial period for a new beginning for the land.

Barry Potter spoke as Chairman of YNET and advised he had close involvement with the Mayfield Grove site for the last 20 years. He advised that the Localism issue assumes residents should be the group to manage the site but YNET has strong support also. He stated that he found it difficult to support any of the options.

Robert Dick spoke as the Trustee Director of YNET. He referred to the Decision Session meeting held in September at which the Cabinet Member had suggested further discussions to take place between YNET and MCT to see if an agreement could be reached. He felt that this process had had the opposite effect and had instead put the organisations up against each other. He supported option 3.

Councillor Semlyen spoke as Ward Member. She advised that she had been involved in the issue for the past 2 years but was aware of the long history of problems. She asked the Cabinet Member to end the controversy and pick  a group to manage the land, preferably the residents association. She asked that the land be kept as a whole,  as it was given as a whole, and advised that she supported Option 2.

Councillor Reid spoke as Ward Member. She referred to her written comments (published online) and stressed that Option 1 is the worst option and isn’t practical. She advised that she agreed with Councillor Semlyen and felt Option 2 was the best option.