The Strategic Director, Place will submit a report (Document “AJ”) in respect of a request for the sale of a parcel of land at Parkwood Street, Keighley to an adjoining business for an extension of its existing service yard. 

The report explains that the land forms part of Parkwood Recreation Ground, Keighley, a registered charity of which the Council is the sole trustee. The land was conveyed to the Borough of Keighley by virtue of a conveyance by the Duke of Devonshire and the Chatsworth Estate dated 27 September 1928. 

Recommended –

That the sale of the land indicated in Document “AJ” be approved and that the net proceeds be reinvested in the Parkwood Recreation Ground.

(Phil Barker – 01274 432616)

The Strategic Director, Place submitted a report (Document “AJ”) in respect of a request for the sale of a parcel of land at Parkwood Street, Keighley to an adjoining business to facilitate the extension of its existing service yard.

The report explained that the land formed part of Parkwood Recreation Ground, Keighley; a registered charity of which the Council was the sole trustee. The Recreation Ground had been conveyed to the Borough of Keighley by virtue of a conveyance by the Duke of Devonshire and the Chatsworth Estate dated 27 September 1928.

The Strategic Director responded to Members’ questions as follows:

·         A request had been made to the Duke of Devonshire that the requirement for 66% of the sale proceeds to be paid to the Chatsworth House Trust be rescinded but it had been refused.

·         If the Trustees were concerned about the potential use of the land for anything other than parking vehicles then an appropriate covenant could be imposed.

·         The length of time that had passed since the Scout Hut had been located on the land was unknown. The land was now considered to be regenerated.

·         The provision of screening was a condition of the related planning consent but could also be made a condition of sale.

He also reported on the substance of a further letter of objection, received since the publication of his written report.  Members were advised that they should take account of the issues raised in making their decision.

A representative of the objectors made the following comments:

·         The Committee had been offered two options; to agree to the sale of the land or to refuse to sell it.

·         The Committee was being asked to agree to the sale for £5,000 (this being the amount that would be retained by the Charity further to the sale).

·         It was questioned whether the charity would receive the money.

·         What guarantees were there that the money would be spent on Parkwood?

·         Would it not be preferable for the buyer to make ongoing regular payments to compensate for the loss of this land rather than a one-off payment.

·         The reasons given for the sale were that the land had become overgrown, was subject to fly tipping, was unused and therefore unfit for recreational purposes.  The Friends of Parkwood Group (FoP) could remedy this situation; they would reopen the footpaths and the stiles and run events on the site. These could include social and educational events such as bushcraft courses and schools could become involved with local people being consulted on what they would like to see. Seating and signage could also be provided.  The land could be rejuvenated and this would benefit the FoP, local residents and other users of the Recreation Ground.

·         If permission for the sale was refused the FoP could put the land to good use.

The Strategic Director explained that any proceeds from a sale, if approved, would be kept in a dedicated bank account and only used for Parkwood Recreation Ground.  Any expenditure of the funds would be submitted to the Committee for approval.  Officers could work with the FoP to spend the monies in the most appropriate manner.

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, he said that access to the land at the present time was limited; the two stiles and the footpaths were overgrown.

The objector’s representative also responded to questions from Members as follows:

·         No work had been undertaken in this area by the FoP in the past as this was a controversial issue and they had not wished to provoke the potential purchaser.

·         The FoP group had been in existence for approximately four years.  Even in its current state it was considered that the land was valuable; it provided sanctuary for wildlife.

·         He personally guaranteed that the work would be undertaken if permission for the sale was refused.

·         The FoP Group undertook conservation activities throughout the wood but just had not done so in this particular location.

In response to a question about the potential for parked HGVs to be removed from Parkwood Street, the Independent Legal Adviser to the Trustees said that the position in respect of matters outside the boundary of the Recreation Ground was not relevant except for insofar as they had a direct impact on the park.

The applicant spoke briefly in support of the application.  He said that:

·         This was a small strip of land that was currently inaccessible, waterlogged, overgrown and unused.

·         A significant financial offer had been put forward to provide improvements    to the Recreation Ground.

·         The acquisition of this piece of land would not affect the profit made by the Company but would help prevent on street parking and improve safety.

·         The area would act as an off road waiting area for vehicles awaiting MOT tests.

·         The company had the capacity to undertake more work but nowhere to park vehicles.

·         Any repairs were undertaken in the two vehicle workshops.

Further to an additional question, the Strategic Director said that the archive had been checked and there was no record of a sale of land in 1996 (as referred to in the objections) but, in any case, he did not consider this to be relevant in terms of this application.

Members made the following comments:

·         Although minded to support sale of the land it was important to protect amenity.  The Trust had to decide on what was best for Parkwood and  this should not rely on conditions attached to a planning consent. No activities should be permitted on this land that would be detrimental to the use of the Recreation Ground and the remainder of the park should be protected.

·         There was an active ‘Friends’ group and any work should be undertaken in consultation with this organisation.

·         If the money was used to improve other areas of the park the sale, as proposed, was supported.

Further to which it was

Resolved –

That the sale of the parcel of land at Parkwood Street, Keighley, as indicated in Document “AJ”, be approved subject to:

(i)         the implementation of an approved tree planting scheme to screen the parking area and the provision of a new entrance into the woodland from Parkwood Street, at the expense of the purchaser,

(ii)        the imposition of a restrictive covenant that the land is not to be used for any activities that may cause nuisance or be detrimental to the use of the Recreation Ground,

and that the net proceeds be reinvested in the Parkwood Recreation Ground in consultation with the ‘Friends of Parkwood’.

ACTION:       Strategic Director, Place