Tonight, two petitions were presented to Cllr Eddie Lavery, Cabinet Member for Community & Environment at London Borough of Hillingdon’s Civic Centre. Watch the recording below.
With 5600 signatures on the Change.org petition and 680 on the LBH ePetition, the Council Chamber was filled with supporters of the Rural Activities Garden Centre. The first petition, from Dominic Craddock, starts at 3min 38sec into the video, with the second from John Scrivens starts at 9min 48sec. Both speakers were followed by hearty applause from the whole room.
The only three empty seats in the Chamber were reserved for the ward councillors Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana, Roy Chamdal and Ekta Gohil.
None of them attended the petition hearing, despite all three of them being in the building – all three spoke at the Planning Committee meeting downstairs just an hour later.
After the two petitions were read out, Cllr Lavery asked the assembled Council Officers if they had any questions. None of them spoke. Cllr Lavery then closes the meeting, got up, and walked down the centre of the Chamber – to a chorus of jeers, boos, and heckling.
Transcript of the first petition, from Dominic Craddock
Before I start I would like thank the Council and Councillor Eddie Lavery for inviting me to this petition hearing. Also like to point out that what I am about to present is very brief. Throughout the presentation I will refer to the Rural Activities Garden Centre as ‘the Centre’ or ‘Centre’
I would like to begin by stating that it is extremely concerning that prior to the proposed closure announcement of the Centre there was no public consultation. Therefore the Council has not fulfilled it statutory and legal obligations.
According to the Local Government Association it is Best Practice that there is an 8 to 12 week consultation process. Although the was not public consultation for the Centre, the Council did conduct a four-week consultation for charging for green waste collection in March 2025.
Council Article
In terms of the Centre’s closure the Council produced an article entitled ‘Council Announces Plan to Improve Horticultural Social Care Services’. This article stated that the Civic Centre Campus will offer a rich and varied learning and development. This is disingenuous to the Centre and is wholly misleading.
Rural Activities Garden Centre
Over 40 years, the Rural Activities Garden Centre’s two acre site has been lovingly created and tended. It includes: a wooded ares, ponds, topiary, a vegetable garden and fruit trees, ornamental planting, and a wood craft workshop, bee hives, poly-tunnels and a garden centre.
The Centre’s environment in terms of learning and development could not be more enriching. The Centre also provides a unique opportunity for local schools, Uxbridge College, and other groups to use the Centre’s facilities.
Council’s New Proposal at the Civic Centre Campus in Uxbridge
In terms of the Council’s new proposal at the Civic Centre only 8 of the 34 people with additional needs will have provision leaving 26 without any. There is no comparison with the current provision at the Rural Activities Garden Centre.
Rural Activities Garden Centre
The Rural Activities Garden Centre had been falsely presented by the Council as a “commercial garden centre” . The Council describes the Centre as unable to compete with other garden centres yet the Centre and is not set up to operate as such.
The Centre’s remit was for it to be run as a social enterprise and NOT AS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS. i.e. the Centre operates for a social and environmental purpose to support and care for people with additional needs.
Withdrawal of Funding from The Centre
Over the years the Centre had faced obstacles and concerns in relation to its funding. The Café at the Centre, which was run by Hillingdon Autistic Care and Support (H.A.C.S.) had its funding withdrawn by the Council without any explanation.
As early as April 2010 there were concerned raised over the Centre’s funding the Council in a letter stated that plans were being developed to “secure a firm financial foundation” for the Centre.
Grants were applied for by the Centre, but it was told to withdraw these. A post was to be created for someone to run and oversee paid courses but this never materialised. In the past when the Council was approached about funding it was met with a wall of silence.
Land Acquisition by the Hillingdon Council
More recently it rumoured that Hillingdon Council have approached Buckinghamshire County Council to buy the 5 acres of Green Belt land it owns at the back of the Centre.
If the Centre was to close and should Buckinghamshire County Council sell the 5-acre Green Belt land the Hillingdon Council would own 7 acres. It is rumoured that it is the intension of the Council to used the land for temporary housing for migrants.
Rational for the Lack of Public Consultation and the Withdrawal
To conclude the lack of public consultation did not occur because the Council would be fully aware what the reaction would be to its closure. Furthermore the lack of engagement and transparency by Council, in relation the Centre’s variety of alternative funding streams, is highly questionable
Final Request to the Council: Alternative Social Enterprise Plan
Finally I would request that the London Borough of Hillingdon grant a minimum 18-month period of grace for the Centre to create a social enterprise business plan.
I have also been contacted this morning by Councillor Sital Punja stating that “we need an independent public consultation with equalities impact assessment and a feasibility assessment / scoping on alternative options.”
The Council call it a horticultural social care facility and that in that regard it has been used as an integral part of social care learning as part of the Care Act 2014.
Transcript of the second petition, from John Scrivens
I am here today to present this petition which is to stop the closure of the Rural Activities Garden Centre, an irreplaceable social care resource.
By coincidence, next week is Learning Disability Week which includes the theme “DO YOU SEE ME” which is about those with learning disabilities being seen, heard and valued, something I hope this petition helps with.
The positive impact of the Rural Activities Garden Centre is huge and my wife and I have personal experience of the way it uplifts the spirits of our son, Oliver, who has learning disabilities and mental health problems. He has been doing his supervised voluntary gardening work as part of his social care plan at RAGC for about 10 years.
Like other users of the centre, he gets a great deal of satisfaction from his work there, but of equal importance is the social contact with other volunteers, staff and the wider community that the centre provides.
Some of the public volunteers at RAGC have been there for 30 years or more and I have spoken to a volunteer who remembers building the aviaries and sheds at RAGC in the early days of the centre. There is a real community atmosphere at the centre, it’s like a family, and of course it is the presence of all the gardeners, volunteers and staff together at one place which creates this magical atmosphere.
Furthermore, it is not just the people on social care plans that the Rural Activities Garden Centre supports, it also helps students at a number of schools such as Pield Heath, Colham Manor and Doughy Martyrs, as well as providing employment pathway opportunities for colleges such as Uxbridge and Orchard Hill College. In addition, a GP at the closure meeting on 30th May explained that patients that have been signposted to RAGC benefit by requiring less medical intervention.
The benefits of RAGC are not confined to this borough as its volunteers have worked with other organisations such as Great Ormond Street Hospital, where they helped create roof gardens, and of course RAGC has won a gold medal at a ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY GARDEN SHOW. This can only have enhanced the reputation of the borough.
There is a long history of support for RAGC from senior members of the council, regardless of their political party. Hillingdon’s web site rightly describes RAGC as a “hidden gem”. I have also seen a video and photos of you, Cllr. Lavery, helping promote the work of the centre during your visits with mayors.
Unlike most social care facilities, RAGC is also used by thousands of members of the public each year who come to buy their plants and have a chat. This is one reason why so many residents have such great affection for this centre and have passionately supported the petition contributing to the signatures which now number over 5,500.
The council’s press release on 30th May about the proposed closure explains that the council wants to create AND I QUOTE “a wider and more meaningful range of activities than they currently experience at the garden centre”.
Now, although gardening work and carpentry may not be very meaningful to the council, I can assure them that this amazing work done by volunteers
over the past 40 years is meaningful to the volunteers, their families, the staff at the centre and the public who buy plants and other products resulting from their endeavours. If the council had consulted with us, they would have known this.
Even if you ignore the compassionate need to keep the centre open, it is surely a matter of common sense that destroying the happiness and wellbeing provided by the family-like support at RAGC will exacerbate behavioural and mental health problems of the vulnerable people who benefit from the centre. This will surely require more intensive and expensive social care interventions costing the council far more money in the long run.
According to the Council’s own documentation as stated in a 2019 planning application, the RAGC is an integral part of the delivery of adult learning courses under the terms of the Care Act of 2014. In this instance, surely any signifiicant deviation or closure must be subject to a formal public consultation, with an Equality Impact Assessment as part of the council’s Public Sector Equality Duty and a feasibility assessment on alternative options.
The absence of consultation with those vulnerable adults and their families who would be impacted by the closure of RAGC is unforgiveable bearing in mind the impact this closure would have on the lives of many disabled people.
So on behalf of the petitioners, I will end by calling on the council to withdraw the closure plan now and start a proper public consultation inclusive of those who use the centres, their families and professional carers, before any further decision are made or, even better, withdraw the closure altogether.
