The City of London is facing a major battle over its plans to build blocks of flats on a corner of West Ham Park where the plant nursery used to be.

Friends of West Ham Park have pledged to fight the proposal. Chair Roger Jones said they are drawing up plans for “a vocal campaign, bringing together all the affected stakeholders, to fight against this insult to the local community”.

Campaigners claim the park – the biggest in Newham – provided a lifeline during the lockdown, attracting more local people than ever, in what is already “a densely populated area” that can ill afford to lose green space.

In June, the City of London Corporation’s West Ham Park Committee approved plans to begin marketing the site over the summer and to invite developers to submit bids for further consideration.

In a press release the Corporation claimed that alongside the planned housing development, 50 per cent of the site would be reserved for a combination of operational buildings, new parkland and recreational facilities, such as a community café and changing rooms.

The housing element of the scheme is expected to provide “vital funding” for future management and maintenance of the park. They argue it is the most viable way of generating income for the charity while “meeting the need for additional homes in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework”.

However, two elements of the June press release in particular have been described as ‘misleading’ by local resident and park user Richard Stubbs, who has fact-checked the claim by the Corporation that `the vacant plant nursery site is ‘adjoining’ the park and that the glasshouses, unused since 2016, are on a ‘brownfield’ site.

According to Richard Stubbs, the site is not “adjoining” the park, but is within the West Ham Park boundaries, which are shown in a plan of the park held by Historic England and clearly include the proposed area designated for redevelopment.

He also argues that because the site is within the park it cannot be seen as a “brownfield” site. The National Planning Policy Framework excludes “land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments” from being defined as brownfield sites.

The framework also says local authorities should maintain brownfield registers of land suitable for housing. Newham Council maintains such a register and the proposed development site is not listed.

He cites the fact that when the park was originally transferred to the Corporation by the Gurney family in 1874, it was to be held “on trust forever as open public grounds and gardens for the resort and recreation of adults and as playgrounds for children and youth.” The City of London agreed to maintain and preserve the Park for this purpose at its own cost.

The Corporation manages the park through a charity that it controls, though Newham Council does have two representatives on its Committee (Cllr. James Asser and Cllr. Tahmina Rahman).

“It’s hard to understand how building private housing in the park is anything other than a breach of the charity’s objectives. I wonder what the Council has to say about it?” asks Richard Stubbs.

No news is bad news

Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.

The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.

If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.

Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.

Monthly direct debit

Annual direct debit

£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.