Croydon (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Croydon residents accuse the council of disguising a sale as a long lease for historic Heathfield House, raising backlash over the future of the heritage site.
Critics claim the council essentially signed the property over to a private owner, but Croydon Mayor Jason Perry has vowed the contentious lease of a beloved local manor house would not result in the grounds being closed to the public.
Although Cllr Perry insists that the historic Heathfield House is not for sale, opponents contend that a 125-year lease would essentially transfer it to a private owner for more than a century.
During the pandemic, SEND instruction was held at Heathfield House, a well-liked location for dog walkers. In more recent times, it has been protected by on-site property guardians.
During a heated full council meeting last week, residents and opposition council members condemned Mayor Perry for rejecting a fully financed, community-led initiative for saving the Grade II-listed property. They also assert that he disregarded several requests for openness and public involvement.
More than 2,400 people have signed a petition urging the council to keep Heathfield House as its own. Protesters claim that the mayor has not responded to their attempts to interact with him.
Speaking at the meeting, Rebecca Atherton, co-director of the local arts charity TURF, said the house has been “left abandoned and unguarded for years,” leading to trespassing and decaying damage. According to her, TURF presented a plan in 2022 to transform it into a free center for care, education, and innovation.
The proposal also included a new home for the Cherry Orchard Garden Centre, which closed under Cllr Perry’s leadership.
“If money is the issue, why turn down offers which are nil cost to the council and have heritage grant funding available?”
Ms Atherton asked.
Rather, the building was secretly leased to a private landlord without any public notice, she claimed.
Instead of actually conserving the heritage monument, the lease is viewed as a means of making money and cutting operating expenses in the face of financial strains because the municipality has neglected the property and grounds for years.
Allowing such a lease, according to opponents, creates a risky precedent for other borough public, historic, and green places, which could result in additional privatization and a loss of community authority.
There is little opportunity for local arts and community organizations to resist the forces of the commercial market because they have been disregarded when they have suggested alternate uses for the public good.
“Decisions are still made behind closed doors by a select few,”
she claimed.
“Heathfield House is not for sale and never has been,”
said Cllr. Perry in defense of his record. He attributed the uncertainty to an incorrect Savills listing, for which he expressed regret and claimed it was promptly taken down after being brought to light.
A Savills advertisement offering a 125-year lease on a “substantial” 12-bedroom property on Coombe Lane caused residents to get alarmed earlier this year. The now-removed listing emphasized a “wonderful location” with wide views and rebuilding opportunities.
The best way to “restore it to its former glory, is to put it back into rightful use,” Cllr. Perry told the chamber; he called the house the “jewel in our crown.”
The leader of the Labour opposition, Stuart King, took issue with Mr. Perry’s management of Croydon’s historical assets. He claimed that six weeks prior, he had written to him to request a list of protected assets that the council would pledge to maintain.
“It is not surprising that he never responded,”
he stated.
Protesters contend that the lease essentially excludes the general public by encompassing the nearby land and even the disabled parking spaces. Despite the fact that a leasehold sale would give a private owner exclusive possession for at least a century, the council even claimed that it was not a sale type, according to Ms. Atherton.
Robert Ward, a local councillor who represents Selsdon and Addington Village, informed the chamber that the house requires significant funding, which the council is unable to provide.
“There is no back pocket where this money can come from,”
he said.
Charles Barber, a resident who attended the meeting, summed up the community’s frustration in an online post:
“By selling the building on a 125-year lease and insisting it’s not a sale, the Mayor is asking us to believe our great-great-grandchildren might one day get it back. That beggars belief.”
Cllr Perry added:
“It is not about neglect, it is about doing the right thing. This is about protecting Heathfield, public access, and the financial future of our borough.”
Despite mounting pressure, Cllr Perry has yet to commit to a full public consultation on the future of Heathfield House.
What are the main arguments against 125-year lease of Heathfield House in Croydon?
A 125-year lease, according to critics, is equivalent to giving the land to a private owner for almost a century, undermining assertions that the council is not selling the structure or the grounds.
With no genuine interaction with the community or investigation of sustainable, community-led alternatives, the council has been charged with exclusion and dishonesty. The public petition draws attention to the opaque procedure that prioritizes commercial interests over the general welfare and the lack of engagement.
According to reports, the lease details offered “significant opportunities for redevelopment,” which sparked concerns that the site’s historic and green character would be jeopardized. The misuse of public resources presents significant ethical and legal issues.
The 125-year lease is seen by the opponents as a covert sale that puts private interests and financial benefit before community involvement, heritage preservation, and public access.