Brockwell Park news, festival updates and more...

[Rushy]

FYI, here are the minutes of the Brockwell Park Partnership Board meeting on 28th August 2024

There is another meeting on the 18th - this Wednesday.

The chair said last week that they would ensure that Democratic Services would provide the necessary facilities to broadcast the meeting, record and publish it. They have now said it will not be broadcast and although it will be recorded, the recording will not be of a quality suitable for sharing with the public.

 

[Tulster218]

There is another meeting on the 18th - this Wednesday.

The chair said last week that they would ensure that Democratic Services would provide the necessary facilities to broadcast the meeting, record and publish it. They have now said it will not be broadcast and although it will be recorded, the recording will not be of a quality suitable for sharing with the public.

Ha ha. Most of Lambeth's recorded meetings aren't of a quality suitable for sharing with the public. It doesn't usually stop them

It's a pity because I'm keen to see a bit more of the various personalities behind the park politics. I can't work out for myself if they're all a bit odd, or if they just seem that way because they're frustrated by the system. And I can't find a clear explanation of the relationship between the FoBP, the BPMC, the BPMB, and the Council. Who has the final say?

And Paul McGlone is on the BPMB. Whatever you think about the 'New Town Hall' project, he's no political lightweight. Is he there because he genuinely cares, or is there a less charitable reason?

 

[Rushy]

Ha ha. Most of Lambeth's recorded meetings aren't of a quality suitable for sharing with the public. It doesn't usually stop them

It's a pity because I'm keen to see a bit more of the various personalities behind the park politics. I can't work out for myself if they're all a bit odd, or if they just seem that way because they're frustrated by the system. And I can't find a clear explanation of the relationship between the FoBP, the BPMC, the BPMB, and the Council. Who has the final say?

And Paul McGlone is on the BPMB. Whatever you think about the 'New Town Hall' project, he's no political lightweight. Is he there because he genuinely cares, or is there a less charitable reason?

All good questions. You forgot the BPCP itself!

From their website:

Brockwell Park Community Partners (aka Brockwell Park MAC) is the stakeholder forum for Brockwell Park and the main link with Lambeth Council and its Parks Department, Lambeth Landscapes

When they get together with the council they are called the BPPB (Partnership Board).

It seems to me that the BPCP / BPMAC themselves are not sure of their legal status. So the council gets to pretty much ignore them and behaves as it wishes.

FoBP is a park users group. I'm told that it has the most stakeholder votes in the BPCP* because of the size of its membership. Exactly how it represents its members is a bit of a mystery to me - it seems like a very small active group - but the BPCP has in the past said that their engagement with FoBP means they do not need to engage further with the public. [*Incidentally, a request for a list of voting stakeholder group (not individual) members and their voting allocations was recently refused on the basis that this raised privacy issues!]

Paul McG is the treasurer of the BPCP. The BPCP has a stream of active or ex councillors on the board and indeed its long time chair is an ex councillor. Again, fair question.

 

[Rushy]

I received this message from Friends of Brockwell Park. The way in which Lambeth abuses the park is quite concerning. And the chaotic and incompetent way in which Lambeth operates is worthy of a satirical novel:

- Spend on repairing and improving paths -> let heavy vehicles to smash them up

- Try to make money from festivals -> damage drainage pipes and then spend to fix it

- Spend millions on restoring Brockwell Hall -> ensure that it is unusable during its high season

- Build an air force base -> pay your own air force to bomb it

Spot the odd one out

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: BrockwellPark CommunityPartners <[email protected]>
Subject: Events in Brockwell Park

Message from the Chair of the Brockwell Park Community Partners

It is now clear that the damage to Brockwell Park is so extensive that it will not recover from the damage from Pokemon Go in 2023 and Brockwell Live this year before Brockwell Live begins again in May 2025. Tickets for the 2025 festival are already being promoted online.

Until recently, the BPCP has tried to cooperate with Events and Lambeth to try to mitigate damage to the park and loss of amenity by sports groups and park users but the devastation from major park events in 2023 and 2024 means that this is no longer a useful approach. At one point this year there were no toilet facilities in the park because of damage to underground pipes and drainage; this is an access issue and affects the most vulnerable and is not acceptable.

The ecology of the park is being damaged to a degree from which it cannot recover quickly and this damage is cumulative. Large areas of the greensward are infiltrated by invasive weeds, like plantains and tree roots are being damaged by compression. Small items of litter have been compressed into the soil.

The paths, which were restored to a high standard by the Lottery as part of the landscape restoration (completed in 2011) are now badly damaged by movement of traffic with enormous axle weights. The Lottery did not envisage that these paths would be used like major roads when major events were being set up but the set-up and de-rig vehicles have damaged them badly.

The current events strategy does not achieve a balance between use of the park for events and use of the park by the public. The damage to the park and the time taken for repairs means that large areas of the park remain unusable long after the events are finished.

We are worried about the lack of transparency about Lambeth’s Events policy. The revised Events Strategy, due to take effect when the current strategy runs out, has never been put before the community and remains in limbo at the moment.

Sadly, no consideration has been given to the planned opening of Brockwell Hall in spring 2025. If the Hall is to pay for itself and recoup the money that Lambeth has invested in it, then it has to be allowed to function freely. Major music events and the Country Show with the associated fencing means that the Hall will not be an attractive venue during the months, May and June, that are most popular for weddings.

Some possible actions that we are considering include calling for a moratorium on major events in the park in 2025, to allow the greensward to recover and for the Hall to be properly assessed.

We would welcome any feedback on this letter.

Important dates:

- Wednesday 18th December at 6pm - meeting of the Brockwell Park Partnership Board meeting in Room 101 at Lambeth Town Hall. This is an agenda-led meeting and members of the public are free to attend but cannot contribute.

- Sunday 26th January 2025 at 11am - general meeting of the stakeholders of the Brockwell Park Community Partners to further discuss park events.

Kind regards,

Ann Kingsbury

Chair of the Brockwell Park Community Partners

The park management board meeting mentioned in the letter was held this evening - between the stakeholder representatives BPCP and the council. I am told that Ann Kingsbury - chair of the BPCP - did not touch on anything from her strongly worded letter. When questioned by a guest as to why not, she apparently said that she had not yet had the opportunity to discuss the contents of the letter with the board. What is the point of the meetings, or the letters, if they are going to avoid dealing with these questions with the council?

 

[Tulster218]

The park management board meeting mentioned in the letter was held this evening - between the stakeholder representatives BPCP and the council. I am told that Ann Kingsbury - chair of the BPCP - did not touch on anything from her strongly worded letter. When questioned by a guest as to why not, she apparently said that she had not yet had the opportunity to discuss the contents of the letter with the board. What is the point of the meetings, or the letters, if they are going to avoid dealing with these questions with the council?

I've met Ann Kingsbury a few times. She seems sincere. Maybe she thinks these meetings are a bit of a pantomime, and that in reality the decisions get made elsewhere.

 

[Rushy]

I've met Ann Kingsbury a few times. She seems sincere. Maybe she thinks these meetings are a bit of a pantomime, and that in reality the decisions get made elsewhere.

I would agree that Ann comes across as sincere. I don't think sincerity is the issue here.

There is nothing panto about the meetings. It's a dry, routine, quarterly business meeting of perhaps 8-10 people from the two parties - the council and BPCP. It is where issues are tabled for discussion and decisions are made and minuted.

Although in principle open to the public to watch, the quarterly meetings are not widely publicised and individuals rarely attend in any number. On this occasion Ann Kingsbury's angry letter circulated to the BPCP mailing list was followed by a reminder in the footer for the next meeting headed IMPORTANT DATE, and reminding recipients that the meetings are open to the public. So the fact that there were more people there than normal was entirely BPCP's choice. The impromptu Q&A at the end of proceedings appears to have been in response to the number who turned up and was not standard procedure.

The formal purpose of the group is to:

a. provide a long-term strategic plan for enhancing the park and its amenity value to all sections of the community;​

b. provide open, transparent and accountable management of Brockwell Park;​

c. ensure management of the park is consistent with the agreed Parks Management Plan;​

d. enhance the role of the community in the management of the Park.​

It could not possibly work if one side feel too "above" the proceedings to contribute fully, as you suggest. But I don't think that's the case anyway.

 

[Not a Vet]

Sounds like she got all her anger out by writing the letter, disgusted of Herne Hill springs to mind. Weird given the option to discuss it with the people concerned but decline to do so.

 

[Tulster218]

I would agree that Ann comes across as sincere. I don't think sincerity is the issue here.

There is nothing panto about the meetings. It's a dry, routine, quarterly business meeting of perhaps 8-10 people from the two parties - the council and BPCP. It is where issues are tabled for discussion and decisions are made and minuted.

Although in principle open to the public to watch, the quarterly meetings are not widely publicised and individuals rarely attend in any number. On this occasion Ann Kingsbury's angry letter circulated to the BPCP mailing list was followed by a reminder in the footer for the next meeting headed IMPORTANT DATE, and reminding recipients that the meetings are open to the public. So the fact that there were more people there than normal was entirely BPCP's choice. The impromptu Q&A at the end of proceedings appears to have been in response to the number who turned up and was not standard procedure.

The formal purpose of the group is to:

a. provide a long-term strategic plan for enhancing the park and its amenity value to all sections of the community;​

b. provide open, transparent and accountable management of Brockwell Park;​

c. ensure management of the park is consistent with the agreed Parks Management Plan;​

d. enhance the role of the community in the management of the Park.​

It could not possibly work if one side feel too "above" the proceedings to contribute fully, as you suggest. But I don't think that's the case anyway.

Interesting. Thank you.

I can't find up to date minutes anywhere. These stopped in 2020 Minutes of previous meetings

 

[Rushy]

Interesting. Thank you.

I can't find up to date minutes anywhere. These stopped in 2020 Minutes of previous meetings

They repeatedly claim that their website isn't up to it anymore. They will send a copy but it will usually require multiple requests and occasionally a request for justification. Despite assurances, I've still not been sent the last one although I have now received a copy it from someone else.

 

[Not a Vet]

Noticed that the toilets near the bmx track have finally reopened. They have fixed the broken pipes as well

 

[edcraw]

Anyone know the thinking behind change the Park Run route? Seems more disruptive - admittedly from the Tulse Hill side & perhaps not from the Herne Hill side.

 

[urbanspaceman]

Below are the minutes of the last BPCP meeting. The next General Meeting of the Brockwell Park Community Partners (BPCP) will be on Sunday 26th January at 11.00 am at the Effra Play Centre
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brockwell Park Partnership Board Meeting
18th December 2024
Room 101 Lambeth Town Hall

Present: Cllr Adrian Garden, in the Chair; Kevin Crook, Assistant Director Neighbourhoods; Lara Mifsud-Bonici, Parks Development; Paul Smith, Parks Operations; Derek Hoare, Vice Chair BPCP; Ann Kingsbury, Chair BPCP (and clerk).
In attendance: Peter Ely (BPCP), Susy Hogarth BPCP Biodiversity Lead, Nikiaisha Thompson BPCP.
Apologies were received from Cllr Deepak Sardiwal.
A large number of members of the public were present.

1. Cllr Garden explained that the meeting was not participatory but that members of the public in attendance could speak and ask questions at the discretion of the Chair. There was an immediate demand for a discussion of the email sent by the BPCP Chair to members on the subject of major commercial events in Brockwell Park. Cllr Garden explained that this was not the purpose of the meeting and that this would be dealt with under Park Recovery. A discussion nevertheless ensued which attempted to address some of the issues raised in the BPCP email

2. Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising:
The minutes of the meeting of 28th August were agreed as a correct record.
The response to the recommendations of O&S have been completed and proposals for operational policies now sit with Cllr Donatus Anyanwu and Cllr Fred Cowell. A borough-wide Events strategy was delayed by the legal dispute between Friends of Clapham Common, which is now resolved. An events strategy specific for Brockwell Park is being formulated by Stephen Regulado (Residents and Enabling Services).

In response to a question it was noted that noise monitoring does not take place from the upper floors of local buildings. There was a query about informal monitoring by the community. People were referred to the Vanguardia report on noise at the Brockwell Live series.

It was noted that the St Matthews Project now operated out of Clapham and not Brockwell because of the condition of the greensward. It was unlikely that they would be able to play in Brockwell Park very soon. DH (BPCP) noted that the primary responsibility of the Council in permitting events was not to damage the park. Damage from heavy lorries was all too common and their use in the park was not acceptable. He called on Lambeth to restore the park as soon as possible.

Draft Sports Strategy: this was not yet complete. KC agreed to bring this to the next meeting. Proposals for the Bowling Green included Padel courts; PS agreed to send these to the BPCP.
Susy Hogarth presented an update on progress in developing the area around the bottom pond (attached). LMB reported that a plan for this area would be agreed with BPCP, there would be a water-point fitted to replenish the ponds, and the borehole was to be repaired using PIL (Parks Improvement Levy) money.

PS reported on the experimental reduction in locking parks. There had been a debrief for each of the two phases, which he would present together. It was noted that even if a park was unlocked it would still be technically closed during the time(s) shown on the notices at the gate(s). This issue had been discussed with the Parks Forum.
NT noted that there were still concerns about leaving parks unlocked.

In answer to a query about the proposed cafe in Brockwell Hall, KC replied that all 7 bidders are local.
3. Lighting and Traffic policy
It was agreed to defer this item pending the completion of a report by Lucy Zaman.
4. Park recovery
PS outlined the measures taken to improve the condition of the greensward following the damage from events. Some verti-draining and reseeding had been carried out, but heavy rain had prevented the completion of the plans.

6. AOB
AK apologised that due to a clerical error, people had come to the meeting expecting it to be wholly about events. She proposed that the BPCP and the Friends of Brockwell Park could cooperate in calling a public meeting about events.

 

[colacubes]

Anyone know the thinking behind change the Park Run route? Seems more disruptive - admittedly from the Tulse Hill side & perhaps not from the Herne Hill side.

Oh has it moved?

 

[Rushy]

Below are the minutes of the last BPCP meeting. The next General Meeting of the Brockwell Park Community Partners (BPCP) will be on Sunday 26th January at 11.00 am at the Effra Play Centre
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brockwell Park Partnership Board Meeting
18th December 2024
Room 101 Lambeth Town Hall

Present: Cllr Adrian Garden, in the Chair; Kevin Crook, Assistant Director Neighbourhoods; Lara Mifsud-Bonici, Parks Development; Paul Smith, Parks Operations; Derek Hoare, Vice Chair BPCP; Ann Kingsbury, Chair BPCP (and clerk).
In attendance: Peter Ely (BPCP), Susy Hogarth BPCP Biodiversity Lead, Nikiaisha Thompson BPCP.
Apologies were received from Cllr Deepak Sardiwal.
A large number of members of the public were present.

1. Cllr Garden explained that the meeting was not participatory but that members of the public in attendance could speak and ask questions at the discretion of the Chair. There was an immediate demand for a discussion of the email sent by the BPCP Chair to members on the subject of major commercial events in Brockwell Park. Cllr Garden explained that this was not the purpose of the meeting and that this would be dealt with under Park Recovery. A discussion nevertheless ensued which attempted to address some of the issues raised in the BPCP email

2. Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising:
The minutes of the meeting of 28th August were agreed as a correct record.
The response to the recommendations of O&S have been completed and proposals for operational policies now sit with Cllr Donatus Anyanwu and Cllr Fred Cowell. A borough-wide Events strategy was delayed by the legal dispute between Friends of Clapham Common, which is now resolved. An events strategy specific for Brockwell Park is being formulated by Stephen Regulado (Residents and Enabling Services).

In response to a question it was noted that noise monitoring does not take place from the upper floors of local buildings. There was a query about informal monitoring by the community. People were referred to the Vanguardia report on noise at the Brockwell Live series.

It was noted that the St Matthews Project now operated out of Clapham and not Brockwell because of the condition of the greensward. It was unlikely that they would be able to play in Brockwell Park very soon. DH (BPCP) noted that the primary responsibility of the Council in permitting events was not to damage the park. Damage from heavy lorries was all too common and their use in the park was not acceptable. He called on Lambeth to restore the park as soon as possible.

Draft Sports Strategy: this was not yet complete. KC agreed to bring this to the next meeting. Proposals for the Bowling Green included Padel courts; PS agreed to send these to the BPCP.
Susy Hogarth presented an update on progress in developing the area around the bottom pond (attached). LMB reported that a plan for this area would be agreed with BPCP, there would be a water-point fitted to replenish the ponds, and the borehole was to be repaired using PIL (Parks Improvement Levy) money.

PS reported on the experimental reduction in locking parks. There had been a debrief for each of the two phases, which he would present together. It was noted that even if a park was unlocked it would still be technically closed during the time(s) shown on the notices at the gate(s). This issue had been discussed with the Parks Forum.
NT noted that there were still concerns about leaving parks unlocked.

In answer to a query about the proposed cafe in Brockwell Hall, KC replied that all 7 bidders are local.
3. Lighting and Traffic policy
It was agreed to defer this item pending the completion of a report by Lucy Zaman.
4. Park recovery
PS outlined the measures taken to improve the condition of the greensward following the damage from events. Some verti-draining and reseeding had been carried out, but heavy rain had prevented the completion of the plans.

6. AOB
AK apologised that due to a clerical error, people had come to the meeting expecting it to be wholly about events. She proposed that the BPCP and the Friends of Brockwell Park could cooperate in calling a public meeting about events.

Sorry to nit pick - that's the last BPPB meeting (meeting of BPCP together with council). The latest executive meeting of the BPCP was last night (according to the chair of BPPB they don't publish the minutes for these meetings).

No one expected the December meeting to be wholly about events I don't think. They just expected that AK would be raising with the council the concerns which she had outlined in the strongly worded letter to the membership and mailing list. As for cooperating with FOBP on a public meeting instead (point 6. AOB) they appear to have cooled on that idea too.