Fake lake; real fatalities.

If only the *only* issue about the fake lake at Beckenham Place Park is the fact that it is phoney!  Lewisham Council and Heritage Lottery Fund spin this fantasy of a restoration, but if it was a restoration surely there would be a water supply to work with?  And why do they have to dig so deep, why will they use a bore and why will it have so much kit associated with it – if it’s a *restoration*?

It’s not a restoration, it’s a high tech construction and will need specialist maintenance and interventions.  This is a summary of the kit:-

 

69A41DFD-0C2B-4563-9476-69AE4DB25BC0

Here we have the lake subcontractor advertising in the park for digger and dumper drivers.

 

012DFF43-4734-40DC-9FFC-F449D5FE3A54

Hold on to my dog, I’ll give it a go. 

0BD70376-3D5A-446A-A284-9102577D25B2

Anyway, work has temporarily ceased on the fake lake.  Maybe they can’t get cheap labour?  Or maybe the contractor awaits payment?  Except that, it seems WW2 asbestos contamination has been found – but weren’t test pits dug prior to work starting?

In any event, there’s already too much spoil for the Temple of Dirt, so Lewisham Council need to come up with another cunning plan to dispose of the lake spoil (other than the expensive one of it being taken off site.)

The amount of spoil has significantly increased because the depth of the lake has increased.  The water diviner appears to have let them down.

Funny that, I thought the occupants of the Ivory Towers knew best?!

The same as we are led to believe that a few warning notices and, what the Beckenham Place Park Project Manager refers to as orangey rubber things is all the safety measures that are required.

Whereas, at Hampstead swimming ponds they have life guards.  And even then there have been fatalities.

Lewisham are promoting wild swimming, yet they are swimming against the tide of expert opinion.  Why would a Chief Inspector of Police and an outdoor rescue specialist be wrong and the clever officers on the Beckenham Place Park project team be right?

E661CE52-2058-44D3-81D2-76919E238F21

 

F4DF65C7-DCBB-4A63-95FD-FB6B99D202EC

And then there is the issue of the outdoor organisation Wide Horizons providing kayaking on the lake.  

Outdoor education is a valuable tool if schools/parents have the budgets to access it.  Wide Horizons is a registered charity in the same way that Eton College is a registered charity.  How many *deprived* kids have they actually provided an outdoor experience to? The 2013/14 set of accounts indicated 39,000 kids had used their services, but of these only 69 benefitted from the Get Out Go Wild programme “aimed at disadvantaged city children.”  For 2014/15 it was 41,000 and up to 227 disadvantaged kids and 2015/16 47,000 and down to 166 disadvantaged kids.  Their 2016/17 accounts are over a month overdue.

BDBAB222-7AE2-4668-BBEB-A0AA8432E5DD

Wide Horizons are crowd funding to fight for survival let alone having the resources to provide kayaks and staff supervision at Beckenham Place Park.  Or maybe Lewisham Council will subsidise them? And yet, Wide Horizons were supposed to be the lynchpin of revenue generation in Heritage Lottery Fund’s thoroughly scrutinised 😂😂😂 whizzy plans for the new shiny regenerated park.

And to whom do Wide Horizons actually provide services in south London? Mainly Greenwich schools and parents who can afford to pay.  Surely they need a lake in Greenwich Park, then? 

Irrespective of any other considerations, Greenwich Council wouldn’t want the responsibility should a tragedy arise.  Maybe they are more sensible than Lewisham Council and listen to the people who really know – rather than the people who think they know best and think they should not be challenged! 

Well, it’s a theory!

By the way, this is the timeline for the lake works:-

DD3DA2E9-9D58-442A-B000-ADA76F7BFA1E

13CECBE0-BF3D-403E-8579-8FA1663EB07B

 

Apparently!

 

 

Advertisements

Bullock’s Folly #5 Temple of Dirt

Seems like Sir Mayor isn’t just keen on the idea of converting Lewisham’s largest public park into a faux 18th Century landscape laid out by a rich gentleman, he now wants to go further back in time and up his game to aspire to the landscape of 16th Century royalty.

Beckenham Place Park is to have its own mound!

The popularity of mounded gardens had died out by Squire John Cator’s time and even the most diligent of local historians won’t find evidence of one having formed part of his 18th Century estate called Beckenham Place.

But then, accuracy isn’t one of Lewisham’s strong points.

Clearly, one must have something like King Henry’s Mound, to be found in Richmond Park; so will the one to be constructed in Beckenham Place Park be called Sir Mayor’s Mound?

7C015A7E-7918-4B60-889F-BC482752EC77

 

Here is the top of King Henry’s Mound, affording fabulous views over the surrounding area towards London.

4601FD2C-F367-4631-8BC1-52C658BC6501

 

Here is a plan drawing of Sir Mayor’s mound.

3083B3B3-6E24-4617-B398-D17A6D24BEA2

And guess what the predominant view from that viewing platform will be?  The railway line!  A railway line constructed through the Cator estate in the 19th Century after the Squire’s descendants had tired of the place and let it out to tenants.

Apparently the clearing in which this folly is to be constructed is *under-used* and the:

mounded garden in this area will participate to attract visitors to this part of the park and increase the footfall between the eastern and western sides of Beckenham Place Park.”

Nope. I’ve never used it. Never been through that clearing, don’t know anyone who has. It’s all been an hullicination! 🤔🙄🤪

That phrase “under used” again!  But then, the consultant responsible for this drawing, and who made the planning application, is also the same consultant who produced a Movement and Usage Survey in 2013, at a cost to the council tax payers of £8,000, which was used by Lewisham Council to *prove* the park was underused and needed re-landscaping.

Hmm 🤔

I suppose the top platform of Sir Mayor’s Mound will appeal to train spotters.  Or maybe people keeping a lookout for the visiting occupants of the Ivory Towers of Laurence House.  There again, there will be a view to the fake lake.

Ah, yes, that ever decreasing in size fake lake.  A significantly decreased fake lake from the original drawings because of hydrology problems.  Really?  Who would have thought that?! 🤔🙄

Sir Mayor’s Mound, in fact, is to be created from the spoil from the lake.  How handy was that?  Still, at least the spoil will be accessible for when they have to fill the fake lake in again! 😂😂😂

The reality is that this Temple of Dirt is to be created because it will cost too much to dispose of the spoil off-site.  But how can that be?  Surely the grant from Heritage Lottery Fund covers the full cost of the excavation of the fake lake?  After all, it was the jewel in the application for heritage landscape crown.

One has to wonder whether, despite all the impressive looking suite of application documents and guidelines on their website, the staff and Trustees of Heritage Lottery Fund are fit for purpose.  Seems like they only went through the motions of scrutiny.

Seems like HLF and Lewisham Council project team ran out of fingers when it came to counting the costs.

I think Vivienne has got it about right!

C2DB4905-2A2A-46C3-80BC-5561C0B5D27D.jpeg

 

 

Bullock’s Batty Folly #4

Lewisham Council are a law unto themselves and THEY KNOW BEST!

Apologies for shouting.

They probably get that from Sir Mayor – top down and all that. I am given to understand that Sir Mayor isn’t too fussed about the opinions of many Lewisham residents and he is good at ignoring petitions of thousands of signatures.

So, when the Health and Safety Executive warn Lewisham of a danger posed to the public visiting one of their sites, of course Sir Mayor’s cohorts ignore it.

34859FE4-DEF7-46E4-A799-7FF95BCC419A

Are they bovvered about the £150K fine, £65K costs, bad publicity and avoidable dent in the borough’s finances?

Are they setting themselves up for another accident (perhaps fatal) fine and costs with regard to the fake lake vanity project at Beckenham Place Park?

C129FD4A-91FF-430C-8216-2DC2F52CAA40

The margins of the new fake lake will be shallow, so it will be easy to get out of.  So that’s alright then?!  Is the council (and complicit Heritage Lottery Fund) not aware that it is possible to drown in a bath – a large puddle even?

Then there is the issue of the council’s legal, statutory obligations to bats and bat roosts when planning for such events as felling trees.

This is an email I sent on 23rd January 2018 to the project officer for Beckenham Place Park (a salaried post paid by Lewisham Council whose only responsibility is to oversee the fake lake etc vanity project) – email slightly tailored in layout for this blog.

Begins:-

“Dear Ms Taylor,

Please refer to the screen shots and I suggest that Lewisham Council cannot prove it has not caused an absolute offence as per the screenshot for the Forestry Commission website. I would remind you that development works that may cause killing or injury of bats, or that would result in the damage, loss or disturbance of a bat roost, would require a licence.

1832074A-736A-4FE0-8A96-4CCA4EC8886D.png

I would draw your attention to the following.

1) The final ecological appraisal submitted by LUC dated February 2017 states (page 32, paragraph 5.24) that 18 trees with high bat roost potential are located within the works area of the lake footprint, 13 of which will be felled.

2) Your reply to me dated 21st January 2018 states that a further survey was carried out in Jan/Feb 2017 prior to submission of the final report with no evidence of active roosts. You claim that as tree works commenced in November 2017 i.e. less than a year later, therefore no further reports were required.  See screen shot:-

C8EC304D-A905-4CC0-9232-FE672C910E76

3) But tree works did not begin in the lake footprint in November 2017, did they? They began a few weeks ago. (Please also refer again to the Forestry Commission screenshot “Bat roosts are protected by law even if bats are not present at the time.”).

4) I would refer you to page 2 of the ecological report and the table summarising the contents of all seven versions of the report. Version 4 refers to final issue following completion of surveys and this was dated November 2016 (and many of the surveys had taken place earlier in the year, as per pages 26 and 70 to 100 of the version 7 report of February 2017). The details in the table relating to versions 5,6 and 7 make no reference to further surveys having been carried out. Please, therefore, supply the new surveys you claim to have been carried out in Jan/Feb 2017 or contact details.

E8CDCE64-9CC7-4333-BAD1-B3360D526B73

5) Turning to the screenshot of Appendix 9 of the ecological report – also set out on page 33 paragraph 5.34 of the main body of the report, the flow chart asks you to consider the level of bat roost potential per tree. If high (and the report already states 13 HBRP trees are to be felled and a further 5 remain) it asks if arboricultural operations are required immediately in the interests of the public. The answer to this is clearly no, there was no danger to the public. If no, the flow chart states “work can only be carried out between late August and early October or between March and April.” Whereas, you have allowed tree felling in the HBRP area in January, even though you claim November – which is also not one of the acceptable months.

088A7F3D-8245-4986-9D1E-1EC9F82410DB.jpeg

6) The flow chart also advises that “work should be conducted in a sensitive manner”. Please advise how the use of large mechanical diggers (of which there are plenty of photographs posted on social media) fit into this scenario?

DE4FC7DD-6B5D-48FE-A380-F45F66D707DE

7) The flow chart says “If bats or roosts are discovered during operations, re-consult the flow chart and follow the advice for a confirmed bat roost presence.” Please advise how the use of mechanical diggers allows for the discovery of bat roosts in an area previously identified as having HBRP?

D2A09A8B-591D-4620-975A-97E1444C7F15

I look forward to your reply.

Carole Hope”

Email ends

And here we have the prospective Labour candidate for Rushey Green who (along with Sir Mayor’s other echo chamber inhabitants of Lewisham Labour) believes the council are *managing* trees in Beckenham Place Park.

496F901A-201A-4D6B-81B7-45E812C439EC

When what they are actually doing is vandalising trees and appearing to break the law with regard to protocols for trees with High Bat Roost Potential.

But Bullock’s Folly will continue apace and eventually the new mayor will have to carry the can.

 

Bullock’s Folly #3

Back in the late 1990s a senior Lewisham Council officer suggested that Beckenham Place Park be renamed Lewisham Country Park. His rationale was that such a change of name, together with some judicious promotion, would attract more visits from Lewisham residents from all over the borough, to supplement those who lived on the border with Beckenham/Bromley and, indeed, a big community from that neighbouring council.

Oh, and the golfers, of course. Let’s not forget the revenue generating public golfers!

However, the Lewisham powers-that-be decided against it.

Nowadays social media is a powerful tool in promoting just about anything. Strangely, one rarely sees posts or comments on Lewisham social media pages about Beckenham Place Park, compared to it having been promoted by Lewisham Council on the Beckenham Appreciation Facebook group (over 4,200 members) and it is intermittently a hot topic for discussion there.

Beckenham Place Park is now undergoing a *regeneration* courtesy of Heritage Lottery Fund’s gravy train. Sir Mayor Bullock of Lewisham has approved the transformation of the public park and sport amenities, originally provided by London County Council in the early 20th Century, into a new landscape to mimic when the the estate was in the private ownership of a rich 18th Century gentleman.

Seems a strange concept to me. Indeed, social media activists are familiar with the term “regeneration”, often scorned as it is all too often a euphemism for gentrification and/or social cleansing. Surely Labour’s *Sir* Mayor wouldn’t allow Beckenham Place Park to become gentrified.

Would he?

According to Lewisham’s application form to HLF, the closure of the public golf course for the regeneration of Beckenham Place Park is supposed to specifically benefit those Lewisham people judged by the Council and HLF to be deprived.

demograph

Yet there doesn’t seem much evidence of that happening.

Indeed, if the users of the mansion house are a microcosm of what is happening in the wider park, it appears that people other than the deprived are the main beneficiaries.

E6D36860-49F0-4B30-91CE-8662F1C6725A

The successful business that leases the Beckenham Place Park mansion is based in Peckham. Businesses renting rooms in the mansion offering mainly fee charging activities are from … erm … Beckenham. Recently a planning application was lodged for a Bromley based private school to open in the mansion. I won’t even talk about the Beckenham tweep running the @BeckenhamPark Twitter account.

As for the parkland, instead of 90 acres out of 240 being used for revenue generating public golf, it has now been reserved for that well known egaltarian sport of mountain bike racing, much loved amongst the deprived people of Lewisham. Are these some of them?

F709B85B-E387-400A-A894-BE2F4C7E868C

 

I wonder how much revenue last Saturday’s MTB event generated for Lewisham Council – compared to, say, public golf? Enough to repair the tracks across the coveted 18th Century rich gentleman’s parkland?

Or, in the alternative universe inhabited by Lewisham Council and Heritage Lottery Fund, do 21st Century bike tracks complement an 18th Century landscape?

A75B3944-CC4B-498D-8D0A-D15A4F67100C

And do the tracks encourage growth of the twigs … I mean whips … I mean trees?

According to Lewisham’s leaflet available in the mansion house cafe (and statement on their website) “the woodland edge is particularly valuable habitat – providing an important transition zone between the forest and the grassland where many species forage and lay eggs.”

292E282A-430F-4E81-BFC0-CEEBA140C80B

Well, it may not be the egg laying season, but if any species were foraging in that transition zone with MTB cyclists whizzing by they might have experienced their last forage!

The leaflet also refers to ecologically maximising the value of the zone – hmm?  With MTB racers going hell for leather over it?

Yet the council were never interested in maximising the revenue generating golf course, despite many offers of help and constructive suggestions from the golf campaigners.

Do you know, I’m beginning to think Sir Mayor and the Heritage Lottery Frauds have been taken for a ride!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent

Bullock’s Folly 2 #heritageday

It’s #HeritageDay.

Here’s Department for Culture Media and Sport tweeting the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Tourism about it:-

0A05BFF2-B5BA-4100-9CD6-64C58AAD0275

My reply, sorry for the repitition, is that, back in the day, if it wasn’t for London County Council, it is doubtful that Beckenham Place Park would exist in order for Lewisham Council and Heritage Lottery Fund to airbrush LCC from the park’s history.  The early twentieth century social history, and heritage, of the forward thinking London County Council, in creating a public park, together with public golf course, has been usurped in favour of that of a nondescript eighteenth century rich gentleman.

One has to question Lewisham’s motive.  This tweet springs to mind:-

9CB9CBD0-0264-4572-A0C5-0569739DF5D5.png

 

I hope Ruthanne Reid doesn’t mind the screen shot.  It puts me in mind of Lewisham’s “Sir” Labour mayor, Steve Bullock, who is so keen on the estate of a rich eighteenth century gent, in preference to a park and golf course for the hoi-poloi.  One can only assume he hated the heritage public golf course.

Maybe he hated it because he thinks golf is elite?  🤔😂  Way to go then, remove an accessible and diverse public golf course.

Or maybe he hated the golfers – all those white, middle aged middle class men 😂🤔?

Diversity2

Lewisham Council and Heritage Lottery Fund would much rather have *diverse* groups such as these in Beckenham Place Park:-

LC Tweet 2

 

C01EC2C5-5724-441A-85F3-1771B8954A75

Maybe Sir Mayor hated the tens of thousands of pounds of income generated by the golf course? Even though, as yet, there has been little income to replace it and no guarantee it will be equalled let alone increased.

Still, in the whole year since Heritage Lottery Fund confirmed their grant to airbrush the legacy of London County Council in favour of a fake lake project, to replicate John Cator Esquire’s 18th Century parkland, the squirrel sculpture in Beckenham Place Park has had a makeover!

E1EFF523-9CDD-4B85-8B48-00E7C97FA197.jpeg

 

Impressive, eh?  I bet Lewisham residents were really excited to see this in the council’s propaganda publication, Lewisham Life.

What’s not to like about Bullock’s Folly? 😜 #HeritageDay

Bullock’s Folly 1

7D425D38-3D6D-401A-9378-901BECB47EFF

On 19th October 2017 Lewisham Council finally granted itself planning permission to progress Bullock’s Folly and keep the mates of Heritage Lottery Fund gravy train in clover.

Oh, and not forgetting that it will provide the *destination* two-wheel sports venue some of the cycling loving officers and councillors of Lewisham have long coveted.  Except they could have had that anyway without radically changing landscape and closing the golf course.

Then there is the ever decreasing in size fake lake, for which Harry Potter’s wand will be required in order to magic up a water supply.  A fake lake which, despite being substantially smaller than other lakes that support water sports, is being touted as providing a venue for kayaking, canoeing and open water swimming. 🙂

Such is the burning desire to eradicate all traces of the former, heritage public golf course and replace it with new toys desired by the *collective* of mates that, what should be a priority in the park, to correct decades of neglect of the 18th Century Mansion House, has been overlooked.

Still, the good people of Beckenham and Bromley have stepped in to make the most of a bad situation, by taking advantage of short term leases on rooms in the mansion cleaned up and given a makeover by the temporary lease holder from Peckham.

ECE6E160-5109-4B25-BB8D-51615CC0E869

Just as well they have, but I’m not too sure whether this cross borough development was part of Sir Mayor’s cunning plan for the park.

Oh, the irony of this-

5520466D-AC10-421B-8D1E-B4B7E3F15A32

The Public Accounts Select Committee recommends that Mayor and Cabinet task officers on how to “generate income through the use of its existing assets and resources.”  In this case it is regarding procurement, but I wrote to the PASC in 2015 querying the dodgy golf contract and suggesting they look into maximising income from the council’s wonderful asset, the public golf course.

Here is the reply I received:-

E4E02FA5-07F0-4741-B431-88B72AD7A7C9

He didn’t. Or if he did start to make enquiries he was encouraged not to.  Sir Mayor’s dream of getting a one-off £5M grant from Heritage Lottery Fund (which will be quickly spent, 20% has already gone on consultants and Lewisham also have to find extra millions) was too big a carrot.  Any common sense thinking about long term revenue generation, based on a proven model, to maximise the wonderful sporting asset was abandoned.

Instead of a jewel in the sporting crown, it’s a bit like a case of Gollum’s obsession with a shiny ring – ”my precious”!

England Golf objected to the plans on the grounds that there “is significant demand in Lewisham for golf and the proposals involve the loss of the only golf course in the borough.”  

OK, so we know Sir Mayor and co are not *bovvered* about golf, but the fact that Sport England objected to the loss of golf and other traditional sport in Beckenham Place Park cut no ice.  Irrespective of the narrow statutory rules, Sport England maintained a non-statutory objection.

02690DB7-D2A4-4A31-B494-7C80BD29CC4E

Despite this and a multitude of other objectors and objections, some based on National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan, the planning officer recommended that Bullock’s Folly be authorised.  There was, of course, a convenient “get out of jail” card:-

2FF45B40-12DB-492E-B49B-6A665A706565

The impartial councillors of Planning Committee A duly voted it through, including:-

1) André Bourne, one of my ward councillors, who has replied seven times to emails I have sent him since June 2015, raising important issues about Beckenham Place Park.  His replies ranged from a polite thank you and acknowledgement to unfulfilled promises to look into my concerns and report back.  Then there was this pass the buck gem:-

B8000484-CBF9-4BA1-8B80-F82B168871BC

 

André is very well aware that it is only possible to ask one supplementary question for each originally submitted question.  He also knew from my email that each originally submitted question raised several more questions to the replies given.  So, how was I supposed to obtain comprehensive replies?  Very disingenuous – typical Lewisham Council.

But, hey, he did refer me to Cllr Rachel Onikosi.  Yeah, right – like Lewisham Councillors are renowned for responding to queries from people who are not in their ward.  And the less said about Rachel’s collusion, the better … for now.

But aren’t councillors supposed to look into queries/concerns/issues/complaints and generally try to help members of their own ward?  Would you not think André would have raised my concerns with Rachel?

2) James J Walsh. Impartial?  Hmm.  Eh

2F54DC39-5596-46E9-9BAD-18F3381DA299

Funny, I read *somewhere* that you are never far from a green space in Lewisham 🙂

B80D5CE2-4C72-45E1-9426-4A5DFAA2E9D5

And Lewisham Council’s map doesn’t even show all of Lewisham or extend as far as Beckenham Place Park!

3) Jacq Paschoud was in attendance at the planning Drop-In session at the Green Man on 25th January 2017.  Many of the 40 people who attended would have heard her eulogising about the new scheme for the park.

I wonder if there will be any declarations of interest recorded in the minutes when they are published?  For example, does a cyclist voting for a scheme to replace golf with cycling count?

So, Bullock’s Folly of an ever decreasing fake lake is to go ahead.  Maybe it will end up small enough so that these observations, by an engineer who knows something about water movements, will be overcome and we can float some rubber ducks on it instead? :-

3280A4EC-A084-408A-A37E-3B317A4A991E

Bullock’s Folly, eh?

 

2D4F24BD-653D-4EC5-A01E-8766E1B2BF3B

Sounding Off!

Here’s one of the new whizzy things you can do in Beckenham Place Park that replaces a combination of healthy public golf and usual park activities in the other 150 acres.

IMG_1743

Erm, well actually, it’s one of only two new things that you can do any time on the parkland (the other is BMX in the east of the park).

So, in the west of the park you can now walk across the former golf course gawping at your phone with head phones stuck in your ear.  And, of course, the app won’t take you to the east of the park.  Can’t think why.

Tralaa!  Its the Beckenham Place Park Soundwalk map.  Download the app and let’s begin!

D2551407-3760-4DA2-A51A-DACD358E9D80[1]

The friendly voice hopes we have an “enjoyable experience and remember to watch where you are going!”  Pretty much sums up the pretentious clap-trap that is a park walk driven by a mobile phone app.

LC Tweet Sound walk

Here is that group of diverse peeps testing the app.  Diverse? Eh

LC Tweet 2

These groups look more diverse to me.

 

IMG_2103

 

Anyway, after engaging the first arrow on the map we hear the interviewer asking someone their name and I recognise that voice – it’s Lin, a long standing local resident, park user and non-golfer who campaigned for retention of the golf course. But then, suddenly, Lin is cut off and Roger is speaking instead.

I can’t think why!

How interesting is Roger, though!  He said he first discovered the park on 2 July 2016 and during that walk he realized how unbelievably beautiful it is.

Think about it folks.

The golf course was not closed until end of October 2016, that’s almost four calendar months after Roger discovered and fell in love with BPP.  But, but … Lewishambles said golf was a barrier to discovery of, and use of, the park, yet here is Roger eulogizing about how he found and was enthralled by it before the golf course closed.

I am sure Roger will correct me if I am wrong, but he sounds Afro-Caribbean.  Yet Lewisham closed the golf course used by a diverse community in order to … uhm, attract more diverse users.  Yet here’s Roger rocking up in the park prior to closure of golf.

How strange.  A bit like that strange golf contract Lewisham had with Glendale.  Have I mentioned that before?  th[2]

Engage arrow two and Roger contributes again, loving the ancient trees and pointing out that every mature tree feeds a family of four with oxygen.  I’m sure that must be true of mature trees in general, not just the ancient ones, so I wonder what Roger thinks about Lewishambles’ plans to fell mature trees just to create a different vista?

Also known as a vanity project.

There are other voices now: appreciation of the bluebell woods and the variety of animals and birds to be found all over the park.  People remembering such things as scrumping and foraging in the park, a colony of rabbits back in the 1960s and someone else loves the egrets and kingfishers still to be found on the river.  Yet, despite having this wonderful water habitat running through BPP (plus a large pond), Lewishambles insist on creating a fake lake and in doing so will be destroying another kind of ecological habitat.

Still, it all helps to obliterate that pesky golf course, seemingly so hated by Sir Mayor.

‘old on a minute me ‘earties, wots all this?  Eh

A lady says there was always somewhere new to explore in the park.  How can that be?  The clever Lewishambles officer told Heritage Lottery Fund that the golf course was a barrier to use!  Sorry, I already said that – and if you tell a lie enough times then it must be true.  Mustn’t it?

Arrow three and memories of the golf course!  All positive, with the exception of one lady remembering that back in the day (the 1960s I believe) her golf partner was from the West Indies and nobody else spoke to him.  Such a shame that no one thought to bring some context to that statement because by the time the golf course closed mixed heritage groups of golfers were a common scene.

J

The young interviewer was asked at one point if he played golf and he said he tried it but he was no good.  This brought the response that at BPP you didn’t need to be any good.

That’s the whole point of an accessible public golf course.

Anyway, the lady of advanced years (stands to reason she must be if she was playing golf as an adult in the 1960s) now thinks she likes the park without a golf course (I suppose she doesn’t play any more – had her fun, lets deny others!)  Adding the pearl of wisdom that it’s “quite a big park, over 200 acres.”

Why do supporters of closure of the golf course never see the irony of that fact?

Arrow four was about hand tree carvings in the woods.

Moving to arrow five and memories of the Estonian Day event held at the Foxgrove Club in the grounds of BPP.  The social club that the mean-spirited Lewisham Council officers forced to close in order to ….?

IMG_3178

Answers on a post card please?

Here’s Frank, the former resident steward of the Foxgrove Club.

IMG_3158

He lost his home and job when spiteful Lewisham Council closed the club down, because their plans for it are ….?

Anyway, the Estonian Day, remembered on the sound walk as being organised by Frank with the local Estonian community, was great fun, offering an insight into a different culture, with national flags, dress, food, music  and dancing.  Someone thought Frank organized one every year.  But then the clever Lewisham Officers closed the club because it is now going to be ….?

 

Foxgrove rubbish

And it’s obvious, innit, that we can’t have any unapproved, golf loving people (Frank played the course too) organizing cultural events on Lewisham’s property!  That’s only for them to decide.

Arrow six and a discussion of the outdoors as being therapy – “God’s Cathedral”.  I wonder how many of the sound walkers were getting that elevated sense of place gawping at their phones and fiddling with their ear pieces?

LC Tweet 2

Arrow seven and lots of childhood memories.  People talking about playing with their friends over the park and the tobogganing in winter was fab!  Surely not?  How can that be?  The clever Lewisham Officer told Heritage Lottery Fund the park was little known.

Someone said he was always over BPP with friends!  Sometimes up to mischief and avoiding the park keepers.  Anyone remember them?  Will the whizzy new park have park keepers?  Nope!  But it’s got a community engagement officer!  LOL!

Laughing

Arrow 8 and going back further in time with tales of Second World War connections.  Italian Prisoners of War were housed in the park and local kids threw snowballs at them, which were returned in kind.

Arrow 9 and a lost dog story of Ye Olde London Towne – I mean Beckenham Place Park. All good reminisces must feature a lost pooch!  After a week of being missing Max’s owners found him being walked in the park by a golfer, who had looked after him.  He said “I could tell he was a really loved dog.”

Funny that, because we used to have a really loved viable, accessible and inclusive public golf course until interfering busy-bodies decided they knew best.

Not forgetting vested interests, of course.

Still, the clever Lewisham Council officer will get a gold star from Sir Mayor and I’m sure a park sound walk app will look good on his CV.

th[2]

 

 

 

 

 

Planning for Heritage Lottery Farce?

It is nearly 9 months since Heritage Lottery Fund made the announcement of a grant to Lewisham Council in respect of a spurious heritage scheme to change the landscape and use of Beckenham Place Park.

It is also nearly 10 months since Lewisham Council applied for planning permission.

Considering Lewisham Council have to apply to themselves for planning permission (marking their own homework) it seems to be taking an awfully long time for the decision to be made.

And in the meantime very little work could be carried out.  Indeed, one assumes that HLF may not even be able to release any money?  Oh, hold on a moment:-

BPP planning permission

Taking a lot for granted methinks!

Ha,ha – *Progress* Report Forms.  Nul Points! 🙂

Could it be that both Lewisham Regeneration Department officers and the heritage lottery gravy train did not pay any attention to planning laws and to local policy documents like the Lewisham and London plans?

Did they just assume that Lewisham marking Lewisham’s homework would be waved through?  That planning laws and policy plans could just be ignored because such rules don’t apply to the council when it suits them?

Unfortunately for Lewisham’s Regeneration Department and Heritage Lottery Fund there were objectors who looked closely at planning policies and law and lodged valid objections, rather than wailing “we don’t like it!”

Campaigners against the blatant social engineering scheme for Beckenham Place Park have long thought that Lewisham’s Regeneration Department appear to be a rogue department.  However, it would appear Lewisham’s Planning Department is not!

I wonder what is the grant expiry date?  The standard terms of the HLF grant says that the grantee must achieve the approved purposes and make the grant draw down by the expiry date.  No doubt HLF will give Lewisham an extension – and another, and another, and another – considering they granted multiple extensions during the Phase 1 development stage.

You would think that would have set alarm bells ringing.

They are going to have to go great guns to achieve the original project completion date of March 2018, as per the first round application form!

App.JPG

Proverbial in a brewery anyone?  🙂

Do Heritage Lottery Fund really do scrutiny outside of making sure the appropriate boxes are ticked?  You only need to read my previous blogs to be doubtful.  In addition, you can read this report (its actual content and also reading between the lines) by the Independent Complaint Review Service to realise HLF talk the talk but, when it suits them, do not walk the walk:-

https://www.hlf.org.uk/file/21441/download?token=kMtrUios2HZ_RpSNtYH2YnmbHXcRAd8RMSH7J9q8uf8

Here is part of the biography of Angela (one of the HLF Trustees, you can look her up on the website – she’s a Doctor – of the PhD kind):-

Angela

“Given her financial background she is always keen to assess the long term sustainability of projects.”  So, her (and her colleagues) assessment of the long term sustainability of Beckenham Place Park is based on an assertion that the council is committed to long term financial maintenance.

That’s it.  There’s no evidence in the report to suggest former golf income will be matched, let alone exceeded, and the maintenance costs for the new park scheme will remain the same, given that the largest cost driver is staff and staff numbers have not reduced.

Dr Angela’s financial background obviously did not include local government and the fact that budgets are always under pressure and are set on an annual basis.  Local Authority budgets do not cover the minimum 10 year sustainability period HLF (apparently) require.  Also, that the political make up of LAs is subject to change and a new administration may not follow through on woolly promises made by a previous administration.

Dr Angela was one of the Trustees present at the meeting in London on 13 December 2016 when the award of £4.9M was confirmed to Lewisham Council for BPP (not that it was ever a done deal or anything).  The meeting commenced at 9.30am but the minutes do not record what time it closed.  Let’s be generous and say they worked through to 5.30pm with breaks only totalling one hour.  That’s seven hours to consider 38 items of business.

The 38 items of business included short routine stuff like approving minutes of the previous meeting.  Other items were:-

  • 5 Presentations on: Parks Overview, Programme Evaluation, Re-thinking Parks, Parks for People HLF Overview and decision making protocol.
  • Starting with the Chair and then the CEO, six other reports followed covering routine HLF business.
  • Memorial Fund report.
  • 9 First Round Parks for People applications were considered (7 approved, 2 rejected).
  • 5 Second Round Parks for People applications, all accepted including BPP (I can’t find any 2nd round applications on other meeting minutes that were rejected).
  • 5 other funding applications were considered, 3 awarded, 2 rejected, including the rejection of funding for repairs to First World War battleship HMS President.  That application did not tick enough boxes, concentrating as it did on aiming to repair and make safe the ship!  Maybe if a circus was to perform on it, it may have got the dosh!

Here is the link:-

https://www.hlf.org.uk/board-decisions-and-minutes-december-2016

My, my – didn’t they get through a lot!  Mind you, I expect Dr Angela and her twelve colleagues had studied all the applications in detail before the meeting (BPP has 40 documents associated with its planning application, many of which also formed the submission to Heritage Lottery Fund.)

But then, they probably just relied on the Grant Officer’s Case Paper – the same officer whose Case Paper for the First Round application was criticised by the Independent Complaint Review Service.

Oh!  And by the way, the clever Lewisham Regeneration Officer has just had an application for an events licence for Beckenham Place Park turned down.  Her council colleagues told her to go away and think again.

What a farce.

Mayoral material

Not about Beckenham Place Park!

This is Paul.

Oh. Now. I was going to insert a photo here of Paul, but as I don’t own the photo and he seems a bit litigatious to me, I thought better of it.

Paul Maslin is one of five Lewisham councillors hoping to secure the local Labour Party nomination to run for mayor in 2018, after *Sir* Mayor bows out.

Hooray! The bowing out bit I mean 😉.

I have seen the opinion expressed on Twitter that Paul M is not a serious candidate, that he is engaging at present on social media to divert any adverse attention away from Damien, another mayoral candidate. I couldn’t comment.

Damien Egan is a member of Sir Mayor’s cabinet, as is Paul Maslin, and unfortunately the cosy club (with the honourable exception of Joe Dromey) is tainted in some people’s opinion in originally voting for a Compulsory Purchase Order for land that has been leased long term by Millwall Football Club. Other properties are also affected. To be fair, Damien is passionate about social and affordable housing, not that there is a lot of social housing provision in the scheme covered by the CPO, as sussed out by Joe:-

IMG_0121

No social housing and only 12% *affordable* housing, as per Lewisham Council minutes 7 September 2016.

Then there are three candidates who are not members of the cosy club. I like the sound of Paul Bell’s commitment to abolishing the mayor and cabinet system, although it is like a turkey voting for Christmas! Then there is Millwall’s preferred candidate, Alan Hall, who went out on a limb to challenge the CPO. Not that my opinion counts because I don’t get a vote, not being a Labour member, but if I did it might go to Brenda Dacres for Girl Power! In addition to which this is what she said at the September 2016 council meeting:-

IMG_0120

Anyway, back to Paul Maslin, who has kept himself entertained recently by trying to justify the CPO and also, should it not go ahead, he thinks it only fair that the developer be compensated.

IMG_0124

Hmm 🤔😳

Then there is this gem:-

IMG_0116

 

This is a definition of entrepreneur:-

IMG_0123

Guarantee of profit? Nope! “… taking on financial risks in the hope of profit”.

Paul M implies there is some sort of contract because the Council have been working with the Developer and granted planning consent (not actual planning permission prior to start of build).

IMG_0112

Therefore if, ultimately, it doesn’t work out for the developer because … umm, erm … due diligence has taken place … they should be compensated!

You have to laugh:-

IMG_0111

So, according to Paul, anyone who wants to build in Lewisham just needs to lodge a planning application when they are ready to build and go through a process of refinement, detail and minor changes? 😂😂😂

Erm …

How does this , from Mayor and Cabinet meeting 17th February 2016, fit with Paul M’s argument?

IMG_0122

It is under no obligation to do so!”

I’m not going into the background of the developer, Renewal. I know they have no track record of large developments and that’s not a problem for Paul M:-

IMG_0117

Seems, though, that there are entrepreneurs …. and entrepreneurs! Here’s one Lewisham aren’t so keen on, apparently.

IMG_0119

I also don’t know much about off shore trusts; Renewal are backed by such a financial arrangement. It all sounds very Tory to me so I’m surprised Labour Lewisham thinks they are good eggs!

Someone on Twitter described the Renewal proposals as a speculative private development for minimal public benefit which, in terms of the scant affordable housing included and the possible loss of Millwall FC to the borough, sounds about right.

Paul M would no doubt disagree!