Plans to sell the Greenwich Equestrian Centre were given the green light by a panel of councillors on Wednesday after a challenge to the decision led to a party political row.
Last month Greenwich Council’s cabinet approved a proposal to sell the centre on Shooters Hill, as well as a house next to the nearby Shrewsbury House community centre to help fix a £33 million budget deficit.
The original decision, made in less than a minute and without discussion, angered both former users of the equestrian centre, which closed last July, and the community centre, which had hoped to take on the house, known locally as Green Garth, for its own use.
One speaker at the scrutiny call-in meeting, held in front of a packed public gallery, voiced fears that even Shrewsbury House itself could be next for disposal as the cash-strapped council scrambles for funds, with another £27 million needed to balance the books next year.
The equestrian centre was built by the council in 2013 and opened by Princess Anne as an Olympic legacy project. It followedGreenwich Park’s hosting of equestrian events during London 2012. The centre was run by Kent-based Hadlow College, which went bust in 2019, after which North Kent College took over. North Kent pulled out of the site last year without giving a reason.
Green Garth is a former air-raid wardens’ base in the grounds of Shrewsbury House, a community centre that was used as a civil defence centre in the Second World War. The building was later converted into a bungalow, but had been empty since its last tenant died in 2016.
‘Makes a mockery of engagement’
Matt Hartley, the Conservative opposition leader, called in the decision to be heard by a scrutiny panel of three councillors. He wanted the cabinet to look again at the decision and start a full consultation on the future of both sites.
Hartley said the decision to sell the properties, which was carried out without telling neighbours and community groups, “made a mockery of the council’s warm words about engaging communities”, pointing to its 40-page community engagement framework.
“It would be far better to engage upfront with the community and explore all of the potential future uses before the decision goes ahead,” he said.
But two of the panel – Labour councillors John Fahy and Lauren Dingsdale – said residents would be able to have their say on the sale of the equestrian centre when a two-week formal consultation starts, which has to be held because the sale involves protected open land. There is no such consultation for Green Garth, leaving community groups to bid against property developers.
The third member of the panel, Conservative councillor Charlie Davis, supported sending the decision back, saying that residents had ideas for the future use of both sites and they should be taken into account before a decision to sell was made.
There was acrimony in the meeting as Labour cabinet members Averil Lekau and Majid Rahman said they had been forced to sell because of cuts by the previous Conservative government. In response, Davis criticised the council’s past handling of its finances, to which a former council leader, Denise Hyland, shouted “shame”.
‘Prime jewels in our crown’
Lekau, the council’s deputy leader, said that “being responsible meant making tough decisions”.
“Councils all around London are facing a financial tsunami of slashed income, rising costs, an increasing demand for adult and children’s social care, and ever-growing costs for temporary housing,” she said.
“And that’s thanks to a lot of the cuts that we faced here in Greenwich. We are fixing these foundations whilst protecting residents from cuts to frontline services.”
Even though the equestrian centre was built with council funds just 12 years ago and bore its branding, Lekau said: “Our business is not running an equestrian centre. We’ve had two organisations try to run it and it’s not worked. There are other options in south London. We still have to make prudent decisions. We really do.”
But the most vehement criticism of the two sales came from Tom Bell, the chair of the Shooters Hill branch Labour party, who accused the council of hiding behind a “smokescreen”.
“I can assure the council that we are utterly, totally opposed to what they are proposing,” he said.
“If the council insists on continuing with its proposals, we will continue to oppose you then as well.
“There are far better proposals on the table and there are other ways to deal with the financial issues without selling off these prime jewels in our crown.”
‘Abandoning’ Olympic legacy
Barry Gray, the chair of the Woodlands Farm Trust, said he wanted to work with others to reopen the equestrian centre and use it to expand activities at the farm and host craft centres and farmers’ markets, using the Edwardian house on the site as a residential centre for inner-city children to provide farm experience.
He dismissed the notion that the formal consultation on the equestrian centre sale would be genuine. “It will be a consultation on a decision that has already been made,” he said. “And I ask you, what is the purpose of that?
Tao Baker, of the Save Greenwich Equestrian Centre group, reminded the panel that London was considering a bid for the 2040 Olympics and added: “Will Greenwich be remembered as the borough that upheld its Olympic legacy or as the only borough to abandon it? This site holds the potential to inspire future generations while serving as a hub for inclusion and recreation.”
Baker said she had sought legal advice which had said that London planning rules stated that the land could only be sold under “exceptional circumstances”. She added: “Financial difficulty does not constitute exceptional circumstances.”
Parris Buttery, a former user of the centre, said: “For many individuals in our community, especially those of us from minority and disadvantaged backgrounds, places like this are not just a facility. They are a lifeline.
“Disposing of a centre like this doesn’t just mean losing a building. It means closing the door on future opportunities and possibilities for untapped talent. We’re constantly telling young people to dream big. How can we do that if we’re not giving people opportunities?”
Jim Eyre, the chief executive of British Equestrian, the sport’s governing body, said the centre had closed due to “mismanagement” but could be an asset to the borough once again.
“Led right and led well, they can be a beacon of positive engagement, critical, particularly in urban environments,” he said. “The centre’s not just about horses, it’s about people. It provides vital access to allow children from all backgrounds to have the opportunity to experience a unique relationship with the horse and to have the opportunity to broaden their horizons. It could be transformative and aspirational.”
He said that the council’s claims it had consulted with British Equestrian were “disingenuous”, saying that it appeared that a decision had already been made when the two bodies discussed the issue.
‘Misleading’ claims about Green Garth
Sally Macdougal, speaking for the Shrewsbury House Community Association, also criticised the council’s claims, this time over Green Garth. The association had been in talks with the council over taking on Green Garth, which has been empty since 2016, but officers refused to give the group a long lease, which it would need to apply for grants. It found out the news of the site’s planned sale when The Greenwich Wire reported it last month.
“The report suggests that the fact we openly undertook consultation with our users and neighbours can now be co-opted into a process of disposal which we were not even aware of,” Macdougal said.
“The suggestion that we withdrew from discussions is also misleading,” she said. “Greenwich never told us that the discussions were at an end. “As recently as July 23rd, the board of trustees wrote to the Royal Borough of Greenwich to restate our interest.
“We are asking for a community asset transfer so that we can take over the use of the site.”
Kate Halpin, a trustee of the centre, said: “The tone of the [meeting] paper and the responses we’ve heard tonight suggest the council knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
“Our next fear is that [the council] will sell the actual house itself. And I fear we will be back here in a couple of years’ time.”
A volunteer at Shrewsbury House, Liz McDermott, said that she knew Beatrice Horsley-Williams, the last resident of Green Garth and the daughter of the chief architect for the old Woolwich Council, who died in 2016.
“She made it known that it was her dearest wish that on her demise, Green Garth would go back to community use,” she said.
Anger at end of meeting
But neither Dingsdale or Fahy were moved by the residents’ arguments. Fahy, who represents Kidbrooke Park, claimed that the original decision that the sites should be sold “provides an opportunity for consultation to take place”, although that would not be the case with Green Garth.
Dingsdale, who represents Eltham Town & Avery Hill and chaired the meeting, went as far as to claim that residents could have their say at planning meetings – even though they would take place after a disposal had been agreed. Davis, who represents the same ward, pointed out that this would be “far too late”.
“Frankly, the cabinet member has given the opposite of assurances on consultation when it comes to Green Garth,” he said. “She would not give an assurance there would be further consultation tonight. So I really can’t in good faith put my name to this proceeding without referring it back to the cabinet member.”
There was anger at the end of the meeting, with one woman shouting “I’m looking forward to voting against you” at the councillors. The next elections are in May next year.
The Greenwich Wire understands from several sources that Labour councillors have been banned from speaking out against the proposals: Shooters Hill councillors Ivis Williams and Raja Zeeshan attended the meeting but did not speak.
And while the council’s cabinet passed the proposals in less than 60 seconds last month, all the cabinet members – except council leader Anthony Okereke – attended the two-hour meeting, with some looking unhappy about being there.
Afterwards, Mcdougal told The Greenwich Wire she felt “very, very disappointed”.
“I feel it’s really disingenuous to ask us to bid against private developers when the council has made it very clear that the motivation for disposing of Green Garth is financial issues,” she said. “Obviously a community is not in a position to compete on those grounds. It’s really disappointing and a missed opportunity for the council.”
Follow The Greenwich Wire on Bluesky, Facebook, LinkedIn or Threads. You can also sign up for WhatsApp alerts – or subscribe to our emails through the blue box above.
Comments are closed.