R99 - - - page 3 of 5
environmental
facilitation e-mail:
nwestaway@compuserve.com
NIGEL
WESTAWAY
& Associates
and conflict resolution
Record of the Main
Group Meeting
Saturday 14th May 2005
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
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.
|
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.
Nigel Westaway Independent
Facilitator Rhuari Bennett Independent
Facilitator Sarah Graham The Environment
Council Jen Anderson Independent
Facilitator Schia Mitchell Independent
Facilitator Derek Newman LDA John Greatrex PCPCP Lee Hosking Arup Associates Alan Freeman West Beckenham Residents
Association Nick Goy Local Resident Pat Palmer CPDT Joyce Bellamy Metropolitan Public
Gardens Association M Warwick Member of Public, Local
Resident Jo Gibbons J & L
Gibbons Richard Francis Roger Frith LDA John Canvin C P Councillor Leo Held Norwood Society Peter Austin Norwood Society Fred Emery C P Campaign Sue Nagle Triangle
Traders Melvyn Harrison Crystal Palace
Foundation G Wood LFOSR Norman Edgell LFSR/SCASA L. B. Ballcombe Local Resident Sue Wardryan(?) Friends of Crystal Palace
Park Iain
Killingbeck LDA Jim Williams Karen Moran Green Party Rosemarie
Falaiye CPCA John Bellcly(?) CPCA Malcom Woods English
Heritage Ray Hall Crystal Palace Charitable
Trust Ruth Locke Sydenham
Society Kevin Marriott Crystal Palace
Renaissance John Marsh MEB People &
Places Ray Sacks Crystal Palace
Campaign Theresa
Connoily Friends of the Earth,
Southwark Vivien Day Crystal Palace
Campaign Rachel Ward Boycott UCI
Group Paul Hudson CPCA Katriona
Ogilvy-Webb Boycott UCI/Local
Resident John Payne CPCA Suzanne Elkin CPP Action
Group Patrick Brooks Nigel Hawkins Sharon Baldwin Town Centre
Manager Alan & Barbara
Thomas Residents Kathleen Tower Longton Avenue Residents
Association Emma Blagg Sydenham
Society Noel Winter ASA Audrey Hammond CPCA Joseph Figueira Martha
Ward-Figueira Virginia James Bromley Forum of older
people Julia Heard Abdel Ouhla Young Persons for
Wildlife Doreen Heath Lambethans'
Society Adrian Hill Dulwich Society Ian Payne CB Croydon
(Cllr.) David Mackay East Dulwich
Society Seneka Weeraman Resident Jim & Stephanie
Lodge Southwark Friends of the
Earth Pat Trembath Sydenham
Society RJ & HJ
Jarrett Sydenham Society, Friends
of Mayor Park Philip Goddard Norwood Society Craig
Richardson Friends of CPP Andrew Simpson Friends of CPP Irene
Baker-Hunt Resident Anthony Kendall RUHCH Christian
Ministries Eilena
Rushbrook Mee Ling Ng Tessa Jowell's
Office Julia Farr Sydenham
Society Janet Clifford
Map Of Crystal Palace with locations of Main Group Participants
Darren Johnson
Gareth Compton
Alan Munday
Jacqui Lait
Gary Wasniewski
- Update Main Group members on
latest developments re park & National Sports Centre (NSC)
- Update MG members on the work of the Task Group
- Agree a way forward
The following agenda was agreed by the meeting.
09.30 Introduction, agenda
etc. Task Group
report NSC Update Park options: 11.00 BREAK Options assessment
(continued) 12.00 LUNCH Options
assessment Way forward 14.30 CLOSE
The group is working to the following ground rules, agreed at previous meetings:
* However, most here in this meeting feel we should build upon the consultation results, rather than re-examine the process *
The LDA introduced the idea of the glazed escarpment - an earth sheltered structure that could be built into the top terrace.
Report from two Task Group Members
Task Group
Presentation The one thing that was
abundantly clear from the consultation was that actually
people's expectations for their park were really quite
basic. Rather than huge expensive visionary concepts and
ideas, people really just wanted a safe, attractive, well
managed park with basic amenities and adequate activities
for children and teenagers. We found an element of
disappointment that under its present management, facilities
such as the zoo and the farm had been removed with no sign
of any replacement activities and there was a fairly
universal wish to keep the heritage aspects which had given
the park its name. As for the top site some wanted
commercial development and some didn't. It possibly
surprised some that people were not as adverse to
development as it may have previously seemed. The strong
caveat being that the local area and its people benefited
from it rather than suffered from it. As you have heard we used
the consultation as our primary source of information.
Having studied it carefully we are fairly confident that we
now have a comprehensive list of people's options,
suggestions, hopes and aspirations for the park. In order to do this we
split the park up into eight sections. We used postits to
display all the suggestions that people had made. When we
were confident that we had covered all the options resulting
from the consultation data, we then checked to see if we
could think of anything had been missed. This process has enabled
us to put in front of you today a cornucopia of options and
ideas for your consideration. Obviously we can't say if they
are possible or indeed viable and clearly we may not be able
to or in fact want to achieve all of them. It is a park and
some people may be cautious about putting too much into a
park but Crystal Palace Park is a large area, often
underused. You may feel that introducing a few well designed
facilities would entice more people, of all ages to use the
park and enjoy the peace, quiet and nature so often missing
in their lives. It's all a question of
balance and hopefully here today we can begin to get that
balance right.
Crystal Palace Park and National
Sports Centre - Task Group Update The result of the London
Olympic Games bid will be known by July. The London
Development Agency who will be responsible for the lease of
the National Sports Centre from March 2006 has made a
commitment to bring the sports facilities up to 21" century
standards. They are due to present a Planning Brief (or
framework) for the future of the whole park and Sports
Centre to Bromley Council in September. Speed is therefore
quite clearly of the essence. At the last main group
meeting Nigel outlined his desire to cut the size of the
strategic working group down to a small task group size.
This group was to use the information gathered at the park
consultation event to outline all the suggested options for
the park. These options are being presented to the Main
Group to consider today. In the future the Task Group will
look at these options from a financial standpoint
considering deficit funding and viability in an effort to
find a "best fit" solution for the park and National Sports
Centre. The Task Group will then work to refine the issues
which will be put to you all at a further main group meeting
before the presentation of the planning framework in
September A full public consultation
will be held for two weeks in the autumn. This time it is
intended to hold the consultation at least two venues within
the park. A further Main Group
meeting will take place after this to consider the results
of this second public consultation. All members of the task
group have committed to work together in an impartial and
focussed manner. Obviously there are differing views within
the group. We have however used the results of the September
2004 public consultation report as our primary source of
information. We have carefully studied all the data in order
to achieve a comprehensive set of options that meet as wide
a range of needs as possible. At times the LDA and the
relevant consultants felt that we would benefit from seeing
sensitive information or data. At these times they asked us
to agree to a certain degree of confidentiality. This has
not happened often. We feel that we have been very thorough
and have recorded as many options as possible. However if
anyone here feels that something has been missed then please
tell us.
The facilitator introduced the list of draft options for the park, displayed on the meeting room walls. These were drawn up by the Task Group, with the intention of reflecting the full range of views expressed in the September '04 consultation. These were grouped in sections for different areas of the park, plus one list of "whole park" options. Participants were also given the same list on A4 for ease of reference.
After some discussion of the list of options, each participant was also given 40 green and 10 red sticky dots. They were asked to stick their green dots next to the options, which they most liked, and their red ones next to the options~ which they felt, they could not live with. They were also asked to put no more than one dot next to any option. Additional comments could also be left on post-it notes under each section.
The results are shown below [next page, Ed.].
Top of Page: Meeting reports Index; Next Page (Opinion Results); Previous Page (Covering Letter);
16/6/05 Last Updated
16/6/05;22/6/05(map & reports);23/6/05(navigation)