Enfield Clubhouse

It was part of the original change of use approval that the premises would return to residential use after 5 years. No appeal, no change, unequivocal.

When I was an OT in forensic psychiatry we tried to move a fantastically successful farm unit run by people who had never really engaged with anything much before. We were thwarted by the assumption of local people that everyone was an axe murderer or likely to rape all the local kids. It was a very negative experience for everyone who felt stigmatised and literally excluded from ever trying to do something meaningful in their lives. It was a lose lose situation. I feel for all the staff and service users at Enfield. We didn't have Twitter and FB then but maybe we should all speak out about this. Good Luck!

This stuff is so important.

Independent [mental] health charities are and will become increasingly important as more and more cuts are made to the NHS which are manifesting in direct cuts to a lot of psychiatric services - Especially the group and/or rehabilitation services: talking therapies and such.

Even without the cuts, places like these provide a unique opportunity for a personalised and community-based approach to recovery.

It saddens me firstly that some people don't appear to see the value of such an establishment and instead see it as some kind of threat to to individuals and the community.

I've seen first hand how mental health issues are misunderstood and worse the damage that it causes people. This misunderstanding and resultant prejudice is really what it seems to come down to. Propagated by the media and historic social prejudice we find ourselves in a position where people are actually demonstrating against the continuation of a service which _helps_ people!?

It's not selfish. It's not harmful. It's not even loud.

Furthermore I am disappointed by the dishonest (and simply not true) accusations thrown towards you purely to achieve this ... Goal?

They say that their kids aren't safe. If there are people in the area suffering from mental illness wouldn't they rather these people were receiving treatment? They've been given the chance repeatedly to see the work that you do.

I really hope that your appeal goes well or that, if it comes to, you can find another place.

If there's anything I can do, don't hesitate to ask!

Neil, I would think that there are several issues here. The original council permission. As you know the original plans did not go as expected. The 'Clubhouse' has now applied through the system for an extension & I assume you amongst others have objected. Just as you are also entitled to.
Another issue is the conduct of objectors at the council meeting. It seems that there is a lock them up in the asylum attitude amongst some. Hopefully an ignorant minority. A bit like burning witches at the stake.
I can assure you that the people at the 'Clubhouse' are not dangerous. Most are friendly and approachable particularly, when you bother to get to know them. All you have to do is treat them with respect. Just like you like to be.
How many of the locals are aware that the Clubhouse members have helped out neighbours with gardening and even pruning overhanging trees.

The people that complained embody everything wrong in today's world with their petty, selfish, 'nimby' attitudes. Enfield Clubhouse is an amazing place, one where the most vulnerable amongst us can go to learn new skills, socialise with others and build up their confidence - thereby improving their mental health and making them feel a part of the community. This sort of wonderful project needs *more* support *more* funding and *more* praise.

It is disgusting that Enfield Council bowed to a handful of selfish residents. I suspect that councils are looking for any excuse to slash funding, and close down our much needed services, and so hateful 'campaigns' like these will be used to justify why valuable - and moreover *essential* - services simply 'must' come to an end.

Much support to Enfield Clubhouse and your members in these difficult times. It is in these times that we find out who cares about themselves, and who cares about those around them. Let's just hope that these people do not consider themselves charitable people in any way, as they are most certainly not.

In response to Neil's apparent concern about the families on the waiting list:

1) Enfield Clubhouse is one property on Ridge Avenue, not a private estate. Turning it over to the housing market will make next-to-zero difference to the housing waiting list.

2) The Clubhouse has made clear the reasons for its inability to find other premises - the funding for expansion into a non-residential property was not forthcoming. There is no good reason why, given the suitability of these premises, the Clubhouse should have been compelled to seek new premises.

3) It's disingenuous to say that the council didn't bow to a handful of residents. The 'handful of residents' were a) a group of wealthy and influential voters, b) encouraged and amplified in their campaign by local councillors, such as Cllr. Denise Headley, and by Andy Love MP. The decision taken by council on 24th June was in light of their vocal 'concerns'. The official justification for refusing to extend permission to (viz. keeping a residential property off the market, and detracting from the residential 'character' of the surrounding area) specifically alludes to the 'concerns' of residents. It may not be that Nimby residents alone caused this, but their vocal campaign was certainly a very useful pretext for any other agenda with respect to this abode that the councillors had. The less said about the claim that "that's not how planning works", the better: if you're such an expert on planning, how come you know nothing about how this decision was taken?

4) The decision of the council did not merely ratify a decision taken five years ago. That is rubbish. As was made clear in the minutes of the meeting, the councillors had the werewithal to either grant permanent planning permission, or to extend planning permission for a further temporary period. It chose, on the basis of reasoning outlined above, not to do so.

The claim that there was no choice here, that it was about housing waiting lists, or that Nimbyism had nothing to do with it, is utter nonsense.