Object to the sale of Mad Bess Cottage and four acres of Green Belt

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to the sale of four acres when, in February, the Council proposed to sell about 0.3 acres. The Council has said the purpose is to give it the option of attaching the field to the cottage to create a larger garden. A larger private garden is not a sufficient reason to take about 3.7 additional acres of public open space and Green Belt out of public ownership, and I have seen no explanation of what has changed since February. I ask that the disposal is limited to the area originally proposed, or that a proper public justification is given for the extra land.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to the proposed transfer of public open space into private ownership. The Council's notices themselves describe the land as public open space. Sale would remove the Council's direct control over its future management, even though public rights of way and existing planning controls would not automatically disappear. I have not seen an adequate explanation of the public benefit of disposing of this additional land, rather than retaining it in public ownership. I ask the Council to reconsider that loss of public control before deciding to sell.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to disposing of this Green Belt land without a clear explanation of how its long-term protection will be secured. The Leader of the Council said at Full Council on 24 September, in the context of the draft London Plan, that ‘once Hillingdon's greenbelt is lost, it is lost forever’. Selling this land does not itself remove its Green Belt planning designation. Nevertheless, I want the Council to explain why public ownership is no longer considered important here and what statutory restrictions and other protections would remain after disposal.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to the disposal without clarity about the restrictions that would protect the land after a sale. The Council says it has no plans to change the land's planning status, and I am not suggesting that any development is proposed. A future owner, like the Council, could apply for planning permission, though Green Belt policy and other applicable controls would still apply. I ask the Council to explain which existing restrictions, including any under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938, would continue after the sale, and whether it is asking the Secretary of State to release the land from any of them. I also ask the Council to consider an enforceable restriction on non-agricultural building as an additional safeguard.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to proceeding without clear evidence that the proposed disposal offers appropriate value for the public. I understand that the cottage was marketed at £1.1 million and subsequently advertised at £895,000, while the area covered by the Council's disposal notices has increased from about 0.3 acres to four acres. I do not know whether the extra land is included in that price or transaction. I ask the Council to explain how it will meet its duty to obtain the best consideration reasonably obtainable, including how the additional land has been valued.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to disposing of the field without first establishing how this would affect the adjoining Ruislip Woods National Nature Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest. Concerns have been raised that the land has a role as an ecological buffer, although its precise status needs confirmation. Changing ownership may affect how the land is managed alongside the reserve. I have not seen a published ecological assessment. I ask the Council to establish and disclose the ecological implications, including whether Natural England has been consulted, and to secure appropriate protections before any sale.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to disposing of land that includes the start of byway R104 without clearly setting out the arrangements for protecting public access. The Definitive Map shows a byway open to all traffic along the beginning of the access drive. A locked Council gate currently permits pedestrians but prevents vehicles. Sale would not by itself extinguish a public right of way, but I am concerned about access and maintenance after ownership changes. I ask the Council to confirm the gate's legal basis, how the byway's rights will be respected, and who would maintain the byway and gate.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I am concerned that disposing of this land could affect lawful public access to the badger hide. I do not know whether the hide is within the four acres or reached across them, so I cannot say that access would be lost. I object to proceeding without resolving that uncertainty. I ask the Council to confirm the hide's location and any existing access arrangements, and to protect lawful access if the proposed sale would affect it.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to proceeding without clarifying exactly what land is to be sold and how the current consultation can affect that decision. I understand that the cottage is listed as sold subject to contract, while the Council is consulting on a disposal covering approximately four acres. I ask whether the cottage and additional land would be sold together or in separate transactions, and whether the same purchaser is involved (I am not asking for a name). Please confirm that the consultation can still affect whether the additional land is disposed of.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to the Council reaching a disposal decision before residents have received the basic information needed to make informed representations. Although the notice and plan are now available online, the plan was not online when the consultation opened. Residents' factual questions about the extent, terms and consequences of the sale have, as far as I am aware, not been fully answered. I ask the Council to provide those answers before 22 October, or extend the deadline to give residents a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object to the lack of clear information about this proposed disposal. The Council's Cabinet Priorities 2026–2030 set out aims of providing clear and accessible information, responding quickly and listening to residents. I ask the Council to put those aims into practice by explaining the additional land disposal and answering factual questions before the consultation closes.

Suggested wording — edit if you wish:

I object because of the example this sale could set for other publicly owned Green Belt and open-space land. I am concerned that transferring approximately four acres to create a larger private garden could encourage similar proposals elsewhere, without a clearly demonstrated public benefit. I ask the Council to consider that wider consequence and the particular circumstances of this land before deciding to proceed.