Dalco Developments could turn Evergreen Field in Wanstead into "vegetable patch"

THE new owner of a treasured green space has vowed to turn it into a "private vegetable patch" if he is denied permission to build homes.

Dalco Developments Ltd bought Evergreen Field in High Street, Wanstead, in May, prompting fresh fears the protected site would be vulnerable to development.

Redbridge Council has said the site, which is in a conservation area, has been designated as an open space and cannot be used for housing.

However, Dalco has drawn up plans for seven houses, two flats and two shops.

Director Dalbir Singh Sanger said he wants to work with the community on the best way to use the land, which has been empty for 15 years, and called for the council to rethink its stance.

He said: "The field is fenced off and isn't benefiting anyone and hasn't done for 15 years. It is a waste of land and we are trying to bring it back to the community.

"What we are saying is lets get our head together and work something out.

"If they don't want what we propose when we put in our application, we will go to appeal.

"If worse comes to worse we will grow our own vegetables there. There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people."

Mr Sanger has consulted with the Wanstead Society, which was formed to challenge development of the site 15 years ago.

It is now canvassing members on a formal response to the plan.

In a letter to members, which refers to the field as the "Emerald in Our Crown", the society's committee wrote: "We would like to see the Evergreen Field put to use as a sports/recreation facility.

"We would also like to see it used for outdoor performances and other events which would maintain and increase the footfall on the high street to make Wanstead a destination of choice.

"None of this is impossible. If we lose it, we lose it forever."

However, Mr Sanger believes development of the land is the best way forward.

He said: "I can't see the problem with a low key development."

"The council needs to rethink what they are talking about. There is no common sense in leaving it empty.

"It is like leaving a broken down car in the street without removing it."

Society spokesman Geoff Horsnell said: "Members think the best way to save it is to put our ideas forward and if the field comes back on the market to buy it.

"I think half of Wanstead will be up in arms over this. It is a very emotive subject.".

Click here to follow the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian on Twitter

Click here to follow the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian on Facebook
 

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:13pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Cornbeefur says...

'Director of the Ilford-based company, Dalbir Singh Sanger, has said he wants to work with the local community and the society to come up with the best way to use the land' and

"If worse comes to worse we will grow our own vegetables there. There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eye sore to local people'


So what he is saying is that he is prepare for a blackmail type stand off?

Seems like a nice bloke-not!
'Director of the Ilford-based company, Dalbir Singh Sanger, has said he wants to work with the local community and the society to come up with the best way to use the land' and "If worse comes to worse we will grow our own vegetables there. There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eye sore to local people' So what he is saying is that he is prepare for a blackmail type stand off? Seems like a nice bloke-not! Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Cornbeefur says...

There was a similar situation in Woodford near the Monkhams a couple of years ago and the Locals applied and were successful in obtaining a 'Village Green' Status for the Land, maybe this could be applied here?
There was a similar situation in Woodford near the Monkhams a couple of years ago and the Locals applied and were successful in obtaining a 'Village Green' Status for the Land, maybe this could be applied here? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Tue 16 Oct 12

spcdust says...

Have to agree with Cornbeefur, very mixed messages from the owner / potential developer.

Personally I haven't got any great objection to an appropriate development on this plot of land, or equally if it is some how purchased by the Community and made into some sort of community based garden or something similar. In it's current state is is just a vacant fenced off piece of land which serves no purpose for anyone and has to be maintained by whoever owns it to what ends?
Have to agree with Cornbeefur, very mixed messages from the owner / potential developer. Personally I haven't got any great objection to an appropriate development on this plot of land, or equally if it is some how purchased by the Community and made into some sort of community based garden or something similar. In it's current state is is just a vacant fenced off piece of land which serves no purpose for anyone and has to be maintained by whoever owns it to what ends? spcdust
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Tue 16 Oct 12

spcdust says...

Actually, thinking about it let him develop it into a vegetable patch.....quite a unique addition to the High Street;-)
Actually, thinking about it let him develop it into a vegetable patch.....quite a unique addition to the High Street;-) spcdust
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Tue 16 Oct 12

telvenerable says...

This simply must not be allowed to happen, the only logical solution is a green space. Mobilise fellow Wansteadonians, let us defeat the foe once again!
This simply must not be allowed to happen, the only logical solution is a green space. Mobilise fellow Wansteadonians, let us defeat the foe once again! telvenerable
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Tue 16 Oct 12

ruby newbie says...

"if you do not give me what i want i will scream and scream and scream",and i do fear that because the land is in the borough of redbridge the firm will get what they want........sad.
"if you do not give me what i want i will scream and scream and scream",and i do fear that because the land is in the borough of redbridge the firm will get what they want........sad. ruby newbie
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Tue 16 Oct 12

nick133 says...

Excellent! I'd love to see a nice vegetable garden there and good on him for promising to deliver. He might struggle to keep on top of the weeding but maybe eyesores don't need too much of that.
Excellent! I'd love to see a nice vegetable garden there and good on him for promising to deliver. He might struggle to keep on top of the weeding but maybe eyesores don't need too much of that. nick133
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Tue 16 Oct 12

nick133 says...

Still, if Redbridge want eyesores they can do no better than appoint someone from Ilford to create one. Last I heard Darfur refused to consider twinning with Redbridge's jewel in the crown because it would give the area a bad name.
Still, if Redbridge want eyesores they can do no better than appoint someone from Ilford to create one. Last I heard Darfur refused to consider twinning with Redbridge's jewel in the crown because it would give the area a bad name. nick133
  • Score: 0

10:27pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Redbridge person says...

Unfortunately one only has to see what hideous eyesores have been allowed in redbridge by careless planning etc, some lovely art deco houses are routinely destroyed by these new comers to the area...they have no idea or taste or style....
Unfortunately one only has to see what hideous eyesores have been allowed in redbridge by careless planning etc, some lovely art deco houses are routinely destroyed by these new comers to the area...they have no idea or taste or style.... Redbridge person
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Tue 16 Oct 12

LakeBreeze says...

Mr. Sanger's remark: "There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people" sounds like a threat at worst, or a rather nasty, spiteful thing to say at best.

I never get the feeling that any of these "developers" care one iota for local interests, concerns, best-use issues, beauty, or, in the cases where an existing structure or building is concerned, historical value.

In every case like this that I've heard of, it seems the owner or developer has what amounts to complete contempt, actually, for the local area and the people who live in it. Witness the guy who tore down -- oops, I mean there was an unfortunate "collapse" -- of the shop property on the High Street. Yes he rebuilt it to a close approximation, but there's still something fishy about that whole affair.

This piece of land is pretty small -- how are SEVEN houses plus flats plus shops going to be crammed into this space?

I think some of us would RATHER it be a vegetable patch.

I don't like Sanger's tone and his disrespect for the council's wishes for no housing here. Yes it would be preferable to put this unused land to some kind of use. But it needs to be something more fully considered than a crowded collected of housing. In this case I'm with the wishes of the Wanstead Society. I hope they can buy the land back from this man.
Mr. Sanger's remark: "There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people" sounds like a threat at worst, or a rather nasty, spiteful thing to say at best. I never get the feeling that any of these "developers" care one iota for local interests, concerns, best-use issues, beauty, or, in the cases where an existing structure or building is concerned, historical value. In every case like this that I've heard of, it seems the owner or developer has what amounts to complete contempt, actually, for the local area and the people who live in it. Witness the guy who tore down -- oops, I mean there was an unfortunate "collapse" -- of the shop property on the High Street. Yes he rebuilt it to a close approximation, but there's still something fishy about that whole affair. This piece of land is pretty small -- how are SEVEN houses plus flats plus shops going to be crammed into this space? I think some of us would RATHER it be a vegetable patch. I don't like Sanger's tone and his disrespect for the council's wishes for no housing here. Yes it would be preferable to put this unused land to some kind of use. But it needs to be something more fully considered than a crowded collected of housing. In this case I'm with the wishes of the Wanstead Society. I hope they can buy the land back from this man. LakeBreeze
  • Score: 0

11:03am Wed 17 Oct 12

Cornbeefur says...

LakeBreeze wrote:
Mr. Sanger's remark: "There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people" sounds like a threat at worst, or a rather nasty, spiteful thing to say at best.

I never get the feeling that any of these "developers" care one iota for local interests, concerns, best-use issues, beauty, or, in the cases where an existing structure or building is concerned, historical value.

In every case like this that I've heard of, it seems the owner or developer has what amounts to complete contempt, actually, for the local area and the people who live in it. Witness the guy who tore down -- oops, I mean there was an unfortunate "collapse" -- of the shop property on the High Street. Yes he rebuilt it to a close approximation, but there's still something fishy about that whole affair.

This piece of land is pretty small -- how are SEVEN houses plus flats plus shops going to be crammed into this space?

I think some of us would RATHER it be a vegetable patch.

I don't like Sanger's tone and his disrespect for the council's wishes for no housing here. Yes it would be preferable to put this unused land to some kind of use. But it needs to be something more fully considered than a crowded collected of housing. In this case I'm with the wishes of the Wanstead Society. I hope they can buy the land back from this man.
Why are you referring to the owner of the Chocolate Box with suspicion without a shread of evidence?

He was prosecuted and no evidence was offered so was effectively found not guilty. If you have evidence go to the council fill in a proper complaint form and provide your details, as is required, rather than hide behind a veil of secrecy here. What was fishy?

He has made a fantastic job rescreating what was there.

How many developments have you achieved and undertaken?

Regarding this site, it is a different matter entirely. The Owner is reported to have made effectively idle blackmail threats to cause as much unpleasantness for the neighbourhood.

He has bought the land as a speculative investment which is completely within his rights to do.

What happens now is a matter for the Planning Authority and no doubt the Planning Inspectorate in due course.
[quote][p][bold]LakeBreeze[/bold] wrote: Mr. Sanger's remark: "There are so many things that we can do there which will be an eyesore to local people" sounds like a threat at worst, or a rather nasty, spiteful thing to say at best. I never get the feeling that any of these "developers" care one iota for local interests, concerns, best-use issues, beauty, or, in the cases where an existing structure or building is concerned, historical value. In every case like this that I've heard of, it seems the owner or developer has what amounts to complete contempt, actually, for the local area and the people who live in it. Witness the guy who tore down -- oops, I mean there was an unfortunate "collapse" -- of the shop property on the High Street. Yes he rebuilt it to a close approximation, but there's still something fishy about that whole affair. This piece of land is pretty small -- how are SEVEN houses plus flats plus shops going to be crammed into this space? I think some of us would RATHER it be a vegetable patch. I don't like Sanger's tone and his disrespect for the council's wishes for no housing here. Yes it would be preferable to put this unused land to some kind of use. But it needs to be something more fully considered than a crowded collected of housing. In this case I'm with the wishes of the Wanstead Society. I hope they can buy the land back from this man.[/p][/quote]Why are you referring to the owner of the Chocolate Box with suspicion without a shread of evidence? He was prosecuted and no evidence was offered so was effectively found not guilty. If you have evidence go to the council fill in a proper complaint form and provide your details, as is required, rather than hide behind a veil of secrecy here. What was fishy? He has made a fantastic job rescreating what was there. How many developments have you achieved and undertaken? Regarding this site, it is a different matter entirely. The Owner is reported to have made effectively idle blackmail threats to cause as much unpleasantness for the neighbourhood. He has bought the land as a speculative investment which is completely within his rights to do. What happens now is a matter for the Planning Authority and no doubt the Planning Inspectorate in due course. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

11:08am Wed 17 Oct 12

mdj says...

'Redbridge Council has said the site, which is in a conservation area, has been designated as an open space and cannot be used for housing.'

Not hard to understand: and the price Mr Sanger paid for the plot no doubt reflected that restriction. Developers often win with these threats because Councils cannot risk the costs of losing an appeal. If enough local people make it clear to the Council that they will back it up in the case of any refusal, they should be fine.
'Redbridge Council has said the site, which is in a conservation area, has been designated as an open space and cannot be used for housing.' Not hard to understand: and the price Mr Sanger paid for the plot no doubt reflected that restriction. Developers often win with these threats because Councils cannot risk the costs of losing an appeal. If enough local people make it clear to the Council that they will back it up in the case of any refusal, they should be fine. mdj
  • Score: 0

11:34am Wed 17 Oct 12

Dave mp says...

What a nice man?
What a nice man? Dave mp
  • Score: 0

8:42am Thu 18 Oct 12

JustinMcArdle says...

I understand that Mr Sanger's purchase of the land from Telford Homes includes a clause that should planning permission be granted Telford Homes will receive additional payment(s). It seem an unusual financial proposition to purchase land which cannot be developed with such a provision. Perhaps Mr. Sanger and Telford Homes know something we don't?
I understand that Mr Sanger's purchase of the land from Telford Homes includes a clause that should planning permission be granted Telford Homes will receive additional payment(s). It seem an unusual financial proposition to purchase land which cannot be developed with such a provision. Perhaps Mr. Sanger and Telford Homes know something we don't? JustinMcArdle
  • Score: 0

7:42pm Sun 21 Oct 12

grainne7 says...

Someone from the new owner's company opened the gates with keys and dumped builders rubbish on the site recently. It was left for weeks before finally being removed. Not good for public relations is it?
Someone from the new owner's company opened the gates with keys and dumped builders rubbish on the site recently. It was left for weeks before finally being removed. Not good for public relations is it? grainne7
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree