Attendees by gabyion


									Crystal Palace Park
Task Group 14th March 2005

Produced by Nigel Westaway & Associates and The Environment Council

If you have any comments or queries regarding this transcription please contact: Name: Sarah Graham Direct Line: 020 7632 0140 E-mail:

The meeting was facilitated by Nigel Westaway & Associates and The Environment Council. This report is a typed transcript of the flipchart record written (in open view of all the participants) during the meeting. To make the record more intelligible, some explanatory notes have since been added by the facilitator. These are shown in bold italics. All other wording is as agreed by participants on the day, apart from minor grammatical corrections and clarifications. Comments recorded are made by individuals and these views are not necessarily shared by other participants.

Any agreements reached by the whole group are boxed like this.
Because the record is inevitably cryptic in places, it is recommended that it should not be used to brief people who did not attend the meeting without a full explanation from a participant.

Rhuari Bennett – The Environment Council Sarah Graham – The Environment Council Norman Edgell – SCASA/LFSR Derek Newman – LDA Nigel Westaway – Independent Facilitator Lee Hosking – Arup Associates Roger Frith – LDA Sharon Baldwin – TCM Upper Norwood Iain Killingbeck – LDA Sue Nagle Peter Austin – Norwood Society Mike Warwick – CPCA Peter Hore – Tessa Jowell MP Office Patrick Brooks – London Borough of Bromley

13:00 Intros & agenda review Membership conditions & purpose Source documents Sports centre options 14:15 BREAK Safety & security Boundary condition (including hilltop) Police/park/private security? CCTV & communications Lighting Open hours/park – NCS coordination Footpaths & access Unauthorised/joyriders 15:45 BREAK Options for park elements Progress review & agenda for next meeting Membership review? Action list/communications externally Dates 17:00 CLOSE

Ground Rules
o No Smoking o Mobiles off o One person speaks at a time o Behave respectfully towards each other o No audio/visual recording in meeting o Stick to agreed objectives o Stick to the agreed agenda o Participants to share responsibility for accuracy of the record o Joint press statement at end, if appropriate Everybody signs up to these Ground Rules, as well as giving Nigel permission and mandate to enforce/encourage them


Page 3 of 8

  Proposal is signed off for new task group process But GLA keen to get young people and ethnic minority groups involved o Architect‟s Association has good links

         CPCA agrees to conditions of membership from last main group But has not formally agreed the conditions at last working group meeting CPCA won‟t “sign up” to the conditions…reluctant to formally have a contract as words “sign up” imply Confidentiality is needed for things like cost information (LDA can‟t release some information until particular date) All information will ultimately be open, it‟s a question of timing, and when it‟s released If people have process concerns then they should be shared in the task group meetings so participants can decide how to handle them If someone isn‟t willing to sign up to the conditions and accept the process, either the representative or the organisation should withdraw e.g. CPCA Everyone else has formally signed up Options: 1. Mike stays in today after signing up to all the conditions 2. Mike is asked to leave today 3. CPCA continue consideration of conditions before continuing in task group 4. Delete confidential information and continue CPCA today verbally agree to all the conditions being suggested by Nigel e-mail will be sent for formal response


Ground Rules and Conditions
Yellow warning - goes after current meeting - happens again goes to orange - happens again goes to red & leaves meeting (come back to later…..)

Sports Options
         English Heritage may be prepared to do a deal, if centre was to be demolished if a good replacement done. Transport would be closer and would open up the park if building was moved All three options bring back N – S link Options aren‟t dependent on LDA having jurisdiction of the park (or Act) Would probably have to spend £30m before anyone would take it on. Options E&F were popular in the consultation as long as other building is demolished. o Need a contingency if this can‟t be done Generally people like the option of building near the stadium – option F o As long as international standards are met. Didn‟t pursue building near the station as it took too much out of the park. Would like a 5 metre board and hydraulic floors would enable diving to take place along with swimming.

Page 4 of 8

         

Option F is dependent on security of transport and diving standard being met. Concern expressed over comments made recently by Ken Livingstone saying that centre would be near station, and that they would be attributed to individuals from this group. Have decided to look at options without cost consideration to start with. There were core facilities which were incorporated into options. Do E & F have more conservation issues due to deep excavation. Can take advantage of the current landscape. Can‟t bury the existing sports centre. LDA will continue to run old NSC for short term. Wouldn‟t be refurbished only maintained if new-build was pursued/ Refurbishment would involve closure of NSC for about 2 years. Dry facilities would be improved in a new-build. New-build would be a community facility with regional/national standards.

NSC Options
Do Nothing A B C D E F Leave & close Refurbish Refurbish & swap wet/dry Refurbish with new pool on side Refurbish with new pool between stadium & NSC New build near station New build with station Not Recommended – Loss of provision & cost Not Recommended – Break in provision & cost Not Recommended – Break in provision & cost Not Recommended Not Recommended Don‟t Recommend – cost rev. no advantage over F, loose more park Recommended (most public support) – but: diving provision & security of access Don‟t Recommend – metropolitan open land, splitting sports provision


Page 5 of 8

Safety & Security – Concerns & Issues
Participants were each given three post it notes on which to write a concern or issue, these were then collected up and shared with the whole group.  These concerns apply to the situation as it is at the moment (no development)

 Controlled entry points  Secure boundaries  Secure boundary  Security around whole park  Security for adjoining properties         Good access for all



Lighting Good lighting (vs. light pollution)  On-site „help‟ points (as on underground)


Policing Park „Police‟ Rangers Park police/Rangers Park wardens CCTV (not staff substitute) Mobile park rangers Staff visibility (clothing)

 

Signs towards help Medical facilities

     Lack off  More people would make park self policing

Car parks Good parking/travel Cars/parking



No motorised scooters, etc. Fly-tipping

 

Protection of property Terraces (vandalism)  Deterrent & education  Pop concerts – noise, traffic, environment al?

 Protection of public safety  Terraces (safety)  Stadium access – kiosk (traffic)

Page 6 of 8

  

 

Should boundary be secured and should park be closed at night? Should there be vehicular access at night? Option F would mean that the building would provide a secure boundary. How is the park policed? o Should it be the Met, park police? o Staff can only tackle/detain people if they have the powers to do so o Bromley have introduced dog handlers since March o High visibility staff act as a good deterrent Sympathetic to people who have to enforce our preferences Situation is going to change but we need to make it safe now

Options for Park
 Crime prevention o No areas of shrubs o Understand hotspots o Integrate CCTV & lighting (appropriate levels) o Seating needs to be provided but not to attract people to congregate – needs surveillance o Signage – needs to be information giving and aid wayfinding o Graffiti needs to be removed as soon as it appears o Vehicular access – need to enforce boundaries Haven‟t met with crime/safety so don‟t have statistics of past incidents Will name the areas to make them more easily identifiable. Use these names on park signage Put these diagrams up in the Main Group meeting Jo will make tentative proposals to take to the Main Group o Copies of these maps will be forwarded to this group o The red lines show areas they are not boundaries LDA are taking lease for the sports centre next year Source document is basis for ideas

     

External Communication
  Looked at range of options for: - NSC & Park and considered some pros and cons for these (overall, not in detail) Also considered safety and security issues throughout the park

    7th April am – Task Group 4th May pm – Task Group 14th May – Main Group 31st May pm – Task Group

Next Meeting
    Presentation of overview of park options Finish safety and security Discuss land packages and generate options Thursday, 7th April – 0900 – 1330

Page 7 of 8

Action Update Karen W Circulate NWA proposal Bring consultation copies to next meeting Re-consider pros and cons of NSC options, especially in light of sheet 14 Forward pdf files & map A4 to task group (paper copies to Ken & Norman) via Sarah at The Environment Council Transcribed report & circulate Circulate police figures Who? Derek NW NW LDA Jo (SG) SG Jo When? 23/3/05 7/4/05 7/4/05 16/3/05 23/3/05 7/4/05

Page 8 of 8

To top