green+spaces+-+The+Friends+of+parks+Forum+-+Forum+minutes+-+8th+Sept+2008


 * Haringey Friends of Parks Forum **
 * __ Minutes of Forum General Meeting: 6th September 2008 __**
 * Present:** Sally Billot //[Chair],// Anne Barwick and Paul Crook (all Friends of Finsbury Park); Ulla Lefmann (Ducketts Common); Joan Curtis (Lordship Rec and Downhills); Quentin Given (The Paddock); Jasper Woodcock (Woodside Park); Michael Johns //[notetaker]// (Queen’s Wood); **//And for part of the meeting://** Paul Ely and Andrew Gill (LB of Haringey Parks Dept).


 * Apologies:** Dave Morris (Lordship Rec); Jane & David Warren (Parkland Walk); Linda Alliston (Coldfall); Ceri Williams (Chestnuts); Matt (Belmont); Adam Coffman (Falkland/Fairfax and Ducketts Common); Kate Franzman (Finsbury Gdns), Joyce Rosser (Priory Gdns)


 * 1. Minutes of last meeting:** agreed subject to amendments proposed and circulated by Dave Morris and subject to addition at end of local report on Woodside Park of “The Forum agreed to support the Friends in their representations”.

SB had written to thank JC for her services as Secretary. Numbers attending Forum meetings had fallen and were now very low. SB would write out to members and remind them of the dates of future meetings and what the Forum had achieved so far. They would be encouraged to attend more regularly in future and asked in a simple questionnaire whether there were any changes, eg of venue or timing, which would make it more likely that they could attend. **Action SB**
 * 2. Matters arising:**

Friends of Finsbury Park had complained to LB of Haringey that they did not consult on important changes and found that Haringey were claiming to have consulted local residents when all they had done was have an informal consultation with the Chair of the Friends. She could not possibly know what all the groups with interests in the park felt and had been subject to criticism as being unrepresentative. The Friends had reviewed their own consultation procedures - they had four meetings a year (likely to increase to 6) and emailed members. They were making clear to local residents and to Haringey what they could and could not do.
 * 3. Consultation Policy**

At the same time they had drafted a policy on what they expected of Haringey. There were few legal requirements on local authorities to consult on matters to do with parks but Haringey’s cabinet had issued a code of consultation which the Friends had drawn on as evidence of good practice. They had also pointed out improvements to the park which had come about as a result of effective consultation.

The policy had been circulated to Friends organisations. They involved giving adequate time for consultation, being clear on what was proposed, who would be affected and what the timescale was. All stakeholders in a park and not just the Friends should be consulted. There should be feedback afterwards.

They felt it would be more sensible for there to be a single policy for consultation for all parks in Haringey and not just one for Finsbury Park. It was agreed that this was a good idea, so long as it supplemented rather than replaced informal discussions. There was a danger when one person became a conduit for all discussions with the council that they became too limited by the constraints on the council and lost the wider vision of what local residents as a whole wanted of the park in an ideal world. The draft policy would be recirculated to member bodies who should review it and bring any comments to the next meeting of the Forum. **Action AB and all Friends Groups**

Ashley Grey, the author of this report, was unable to attend the meeting so it was agreed to leave this item to the next meeting, but it should be a high priority then. It was agreed that it was important to make it clear that it was about giving support for friends’ groups, not placing burdensome requirements on them which, if unmet, would undermine the weight given to their views.
 * 4. Discussion Document on local support, involvement and partnership working in green spaces**

The proposals would return to LB of Haringey’s cabinet on 18 November. It was understood that the Opposition were objecting to the plans. The Friends supported them, so long as the maximum number of staff remained on site. The constabulary had not been visible enough. AG said that, if the policy were approved, it would be his top priority. He saw safety in parks as a product of a partnership between the Metropolitan Police, local staff, nearby residents and volunteer bodies. He too wanted to see more staff on the ground in parks.
 * 5. Park Force**

The Greater London Authority had set up a scheme to grant £400,000 to each of 10 parks in London, with possibly large grants of £1-2million to 1 or 2 parks. The process would be for local boroughs to submit nominations and then the public would be asked to vote for their favourite parks. Haringey would be putting forward Lordship Recreation Ground for both a large and small grant because of the need for match funding for the lottery grant and Woodside Park for a small grant because of the improvements needed to match the proposed move of the civic centre there. If the large scheme were dropped, only Lordship Lane would be put forward. Forum members suggested there was a danger that Haringey were putting forward parks which they wanted money for rather than generally considering what was strategic on a London wide level. They thought Lordship Rec met that test, but doubted whether Woodside Park did.
 * 6. Priority Parks**

The borough were trying to develop an **//Asset Plan//** for their parks which would identify how much needed to be spent in terms of capital, a **//Maintenance Plan//** which would identify maintenance expenditure, and **//Master Plans//** for each park. This would help in identifying priorities for external funding. They would share these with Friends Groups.
 * 7. Plans**

The Secretary of State was understood to be about to write out to councils asking if they wanted to opt into the provisions of this act which provided that councils would consult local communities about how streams of funding could be varied. PE said he did not know the details of this and would consult colleagues and inform the Forum. **Action PE**
 * 8. Sustainable Communities Act 2007**

The current plan was put together in 2002-04. It had not received much impetus from the council and had become focussed on a few areas and a few species. The issue had much higher visibility now with the government adding biodiversity to the list of national indicators and with Haringey aspiring to be London’s greenest borough. The plan was being revisited under Ian Holt and would be put to the Council in March. It was hoped it would be put responsibilities on all public owners of land and utilities to improve biodiversity.
 * 9. Biodiversity Action Plan**


 * 10. Park Bye-laws**

The Council had 183 parks and open spaces but only 17 had bye-laws in force. This had not given rise to many problems in practice but was unsatisfactory, especially once more bodies were involved in enforcement under the Parkforce proposals. The Home Office would no longer allow authorities to write their own bye-laws but model bye-laws had been prepared by the Department of Communities and Local Government, which Haringey proposed to adopt. They could be found on the DCLG website.

Bye-laws could only cover those matters not covered by national statute and additional matters could not be added to the model. However, sections of the model could be disapplied to particular parks, eg, the bye-law against cycling would be disapplied where there were public cycle paths.


 * 11. Woodside Park developments**

The Friends of Woodside Park and the Forum were concerned about the impact of the proposals to move the Civic Centre to Woodside House. There appeared to be an assumption that the park would be an adjunct for the buildings rather than a park to meet the needs of local residents.

They were concerned that the proposals for car parking would encroach on the open space. At present 34 parking spaces were proposed, the same as existed at present, but the Friends and Forum feared this number would be increased as 34 would not be enough for full council meetings or large weddings. In any case, the proposed new building would cover the existing parking area so any parking spaces would encroach on existing parkland.

Secondly, there had been discussions earlier in the year about developing the bowling green for new sporting facilities as there were no other sporting facilities in the park. There was no sign of these ideas in the new plans for the park.

Thirdly, the Friends wanted to know what would happen to the Woodside Neighbourhood Office.

Fourthly, the Friends were concerned about the impact of the building works on the park and how these would be managed.

The Friends were pleased to be invited to a meeting with the Council Leader and other senior members and staff to discuss their representations. They had, however, been surprised that the Parks Department had not been invited.

The Parks Department representatives said the Neighbourhood Office would move to temporary accommodation in the vicinity and would hopefully move back eventually. They noted the concerns of the Friends which were supported by the rest of the Forum. They confirmed that they had not been invited to the meeting with the Council Leader and said they would make strong representations to be involved in future. The Friends had been invited to a meeting with the architects and would ask whether the Parks Department would be invited. **Action PE /JW**


 * 12. LOCAL REPORTS**

There were a number of broken and vandalised items and a litter problem There were also some trees which needed trimming to improve the lighting. **Action AG**
 * Ducketts Common**

A lottery bid for a new café had been turned down. The council had offered to move a prefabricated NHS clinic building onto the site. The Friends welcomed getting a new building but it would be an eyesore and they were not sure whether it was best to try to give it some temporary cladding or to wait and seek a more permanent solution.
 * Downhills**

Local residents were working very hard to help raise the match funding which was needed to ensure the £4m Lottery Grant. There would be a huge festival co-ordinated by the Friends on Sept 8th including a Tottenham Flower and Produce Show. There was also a new Tottenham food co-operative opening in Broadwater Farm. All this had been initiated as a result of the groups involved in the Park Users Forum. There would be a commemoration ceremony in November for people killed in by direct hit on a war time air-raid shelter there. Thames Water had left a mess behind after work in the park. **Action - PE**
 * Lordship Rec**

The monthly Working Groups continued and had cleared the paddling pool which some time they hoped to use more constructively. At last Thames Water had started to investigate some of the drainage problems in the woods. There would be a bird walk on 24 September following a survey of the bird species found in the wood.
 * Queen’s Wood**

The Friends wanted to know what the knock on effects of the developments in Tottenham Hale would be on the Paddock. **Action PE to find out and report back**
 * The Paddock**

Despite the rain, there had been a successful picnic in the park with about 150 people attending. There had been damage to wire netting near the child play area. **Action PE**
 * Woodside Park**

The café had put in a planning application to extend, building up to the highest point of the existing building. The Friends had objected but were not clear whether the Parks Department were aware of the proposal. AG said they were not and the Forum agreed that it was vitally important that the planning department always told the Parks Department of any applications within or next to parks. This had been promised before but was not happening. **Action AG to pursue both the general point and the specific application**

Finsbury Park had been featured in Time Out as one of the best 10 parks in London.
 * Finsbury Park**

There had been an article in the Hornsey Journal about the damage made by dogs removing bark from trees in the park. 20 were having to be cut down. There was no easy solution. A notice could be put up and smaller trees could be protected by tree guards, but large trees were also being affected. It was suggested that an alternative approach might be to create a play space for dogs where there would be things they could bite. **Action AG to consider options and come back to next Forum**

It was understood there had been a s106 agreement when Homebase had been given planning permission, but the Friends had seen no sign of anything being delivered under the agreement. PE said that Haringey had adopted new standards for open space which should trigger a requirement for open space in any new development over a certain size but it did need policing. **Action PE to ask Ian Holt to look into the position.**


 * Next Meeting 10am Saturday 1st November at Bruce Castle**