Listening to local opinion

Where does the idea that the Howard Mallett Centre was built on 'stolen' land or on parkland 'borrowed from the residents' come from?
From PACT - an organization campaigning for more parkland in Petersfield - in its interpretation of an exchange between local politicians at the official opening of St Matthew's Piece in 1898. Alderman Redfern had expressed his pleasure at being at the opening to hand over (from the Commons Committee) the piece of ground to the Corporation for the Mayor to 'declare as their (the Corporation's) property'. In his response the Mayor said that it gave him very great pleasure to declare that this St Matthew's Piece was now 'open for the recreation of the inhabitants for ever'.

 

The facts are these. The site was bought by the Corporation (City Council) in 1891 from one Edward Young and opened, after the efforts of both the General Purposes Committee and the Commons Committee, in 1898. Other than the gravel being asphalted over the site continued as a recreation ground until 1964 when the City Council resolved to build the Howard Mallett Centre on part of it. Before the development was completed the site was sold, in 1967, to the County Council. It was the County Council who sold a 125 year lease on their interest in it to the charity Citylife in January 2006.

Why can't the building be demolished and the space put back as it was before the Mallett was built?
St Matthew's Piece was reprovisioned when the land lost to the Mallett (a footprint of around 15,500 sq ft) was replaced with nearly half as much again (c.22,781 sq ft) by the clearance of housing and re-routing of Abbey Walk and Lower York Street. Putting things back as they were is not now practical. It would in any case result in LESS open space, not more. Furthermore, such a use of County Council assets goes against a property strategy which requires full value to be achieved for the benefit of all ratepayers.

We want to Save our Open Space
There won't be any loss of open space. The original 1898 provision at St Matthew's Piece was about 78,500  sq ft. Citylife plans to replace the Mallett building with one which has a footprint about 20% SMALLER than the one it replaces and plans to make all the rest of the land publicly accessible. At over 86,000 sq ft Citylife's plan creates MORE open and accessible space at St Matthew's Piece than before - and that's not counting the extra 30,000+ sq ft of NEW open space in adjacent St Matthew's Gardens.
 
Didn't PACT apply for planning permission to knock the Howard Mallett Centre down?
Yes, mischievous it might be, but not yet illegal to apply for planning permission to knock down somebody else's property. A waste of ratepayers' money certainly: nobody can simply knock down another person's property without their consent. There is no reason why, if needs be, Citylife should not tidy the building up and continue to use it for many years to come. As the planning officer said in his report "Other possible uses for the site are not material... The granting or refusing of permission for this application would not affect the likelihood of permission being granted for any other use... I do not therefore consider that there are any grounds to refuse the application."

Isn't there a dispute over the ownership of some of the land?
Yes, there has been a mix up between the City Council and the County Council about where the boundary lies. The County has been in occupation for almost 40 years, City plans and Land Registry title show where the City thought their land stopped - but, it seems, a discrepancy has been found.  Citylife's planning application will run its course whilst the two sides sort it out. In the event that the County Council does not own all the land that they have leased to Citylife there would be two consequences - a compensating financial adjustment and the possible loss of the Cafe and Rehearsal space currently envisaged (save, of course, if the City Council then decided it wished to make the land available to Citylife in any case).

If you develop the site will the trees be affected?
The magnificent London Planes are protected - the building will be positioned to ensure their root-balls are unaffected.
 
Won't the building be too high?
No, the proposed building will be less than half the height of mature trees alongside the site and the visual impact will be architecturally designed to make the most of the site.

The new building will have a bigger footprint than the Howard Mallett centre.
The proposed footprint will be smaller than the existing footprint.

Will the new centre complement the PACT proposals for the Harvest Way Community Centre?
To the extent that it provides facilities otherwise not available, yes. For instance, following community consultation, the proposed double height rehearsal space will be enlarged to accommodate sports (e.g. Badminton) and to be available for community use.

Will the cafe facilities be available for everyone?
Yes, the cafe area, if allowed to proceed, will be open to the park and for the use of everyone who wants to use it.
 
Will the area between the park and building be landscaped?
Subject to funding and City and County Council approvals the whole area, including the cafe area, will be landscaped for a 'seamless' flow into the park.
 
Will the centre provide any educational resource for schools?
There will be a dedicated facility provisioned for the County Council for teaching and training in schools' entrepreneurship programmes.
                                    
Have young people been involved with the design?
We have held an architecture workshop organized with Parkside School.
 
Are you seeking the views of local residents?
We have been opinion gathering in street surveys, in schools, at the health centre and at two public exhibitions.
 
What happened at the public exhibitions?
We invited feedback on design and materials and there was direct interaction with the architect and planning consultant.