Keep up with latest developments

Latest Developments

Martin Baker, an independent documentary maker, has completed Part 2 of his film on the Battle for Pensford Field. We have not commissioned this and he is independent of us so the film reflects his views. However, it is is factually correct and we are very grateful to him for all his hard work in highlighting the Council’s disregard for local democracy, the law, its constitution, policies and procedures.

The film is critical of some local organisations, such as Kew Society, who have not provided robust support to us. We do understand why some organisations have found it difficult to support us in public, for example where funded by the Council or they have other priorities. Our view remains that all of us should care about whether the Council follows democratic processes and we know that many of you also care deeply.

However, we are very grateful to Sarah Olney, MP for Richmond Park who wrote a letter to the Leader, Gareth Roberts, in early December which concludes by saying “The Council’s reputation has been severely damaged by this debacle” and calls on the Leader to try to establish if there is a middle ground that offers a solution for all parties. We are also grateful to certain members of the Liberal Democrats in Kew Ward who have been incredibly supportive.

It is understood Sarah Olney has not yet received a reply. However, we have been invited to a meeting with the Leader on 7 February and we will see what results from that.

On Tuesday 28 January, we asked some questions of the Council but only one of our four questions was permitted. Here is a link to the webcast (Public Questions) It is completely opaque as to when the Council made its decision to terminate our lease so we asked if Sir Mark Rowley, the Chair of Dose of Nature had misrepresented the position in an email dated 14 March to the Leader of the Council, Gareth Roberts, when he thanked him for his willingness to terminate our lease. The Leader did admit that Sir Mark’s recollection and his recollection of the meeting’s conclusions were perhaps not identical but said no undertaking was given during the March meeting.

A second question that was submitted to the Leader was when the decision was made, who by and were there any papers. “Democratic Services” replied to the effect that it does not lend itself to a question for the Leader and was therefore rejected. So the Leader says he did not make the decision in March 2024 but it appears he is not prepared to say when it was made and who by.

Why does this matter? Well, when the decision was made is relevant to the fact we were not told until 5 September 2024 and that apparently the urgency was such that there was no time for consultation. It is also relevant to the question of whether it was a Key Decision at the time it was made that should have had approval by a Committee under the Council’s Constitution. It should not have been made before an Equality Impact Needs Assessment was made on 4 July 2024.

Whatever happened to the other two questions we submitted? We asked why the Leader considered the decision did not impact on two or more wards given 25% of our friends live outside Kew Ward and also why it was not considered contentious because both of these were assertions made at the last meeting by the Leader without explanation. Both of these are grounds for making it a Key Decision. Apparently this was regarded as a repeat of a previous question and the second was rejected on the basis that it was “offensive, defamatory or frivolous”.

Another supporter asked a question about how the Leader might have handled things differently with hindsight, again something arising from a previous response by the Leader who said it could have been handled better. Apparently, no one is allowed to question a previous answer and this was also labelled "offensive, defamatory or frivolous.”

We still await a response to a Freedom of Information request dated 4 November - on the 31 December, we were told it was too costly to respond and when we resubmitted the question with reduced scope, the 20 day time limit started running again and the revised deadline is 31 January 2025.

Sorry for the length of this saga. We leave you to draw your own conclusions and will keep you posted.