Agenda item

Resolved: that the Committee’s views be referred to Mayor and Cabinet as follows –

·         The Committee welcomes the ambitious plans for the future redevelopment the park and it also welcomes the greater opening up of the park to the local community.

·         The Committee requests the financial management plans for the project, including the projections for the annual running costs for the park once the project is complete, be made available for scrutiny.

·         The Committee notes the potential for large overruns on major regeneration schemes and recommends that Mayor and Cabinet seek assurance that there is tight financial management of the project.

·         The Committee expresses concern over the five year wait regarding plans for the long term future of the mansion house. It would welcome the publication of the advice from the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has informed the development of the current approach.

·         The Committee recommends that a management plan for dealing with large crowd events be published and implemented.

·         The Committee believes that that management plans for the park should include the requirement to recoup the cost of staging large events from promoters.

·         The Committee recommends that any plans for events or activities held in the park, for which there will be charges, are priced so that there is a reduced cost for residents of Lewisham.

5.1      Alison Taylor (Project Manager) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·         The redevelopment of Beckenham Place Park was a significant project for the Borough, which would transform South East London’s largest open space.

·         Previously it had not been well used. Usage surveys over the past few years had shown that there were 220k visits a year on average. This was around a quarter of the usage of other large parks (such as Brockwell Park in Lambeth). The intention of the project is to triple visitor numbers to the park.

·         The ambition of the regeneration project was to increase park usage and make it a thriving and well used community asset.

·         The communities of Downham and Bellingham were not currently well served by the park. However, this had recently started to change. The ground staff in the park reported the busiest January they had ever seen. The demographics of park users were also diversifying.

·         The programme for the redevelopment of the park was set out in five themes (as detailed in the report): community; heritage; outdoor activity; nature; relaxation and play.

·         It was intended that the park would become a key asset for the local community.

·         There were future plans for developing the historic buildings in the park, some work had already been carried out to bring them back into use and to safeguard their future.

·         The redevelopment would enable a range of activities to take place, including a possible new range of activities using the lake. There were also options for linking the park with other nearby sites for outdoor activities.

·         Beckenham Place Park was Lewisham’s most important site for nature conservation and the regeneration would lead to the development of new habitats.

·         There would be new playgrounds for children, a BMX track and recreation facilities for adventure, relaxation and play.

·         The creation of the flood alleviation in the scheme would link with the redevelopment of Catford and would protect the local area from the impact of 1 in 100 year alluvial flooding.

·         The project was fully funded. The restoration of the park would cost around £8.4m. The money was from four sources: the majority was from the Heritage Lottery Fund’s parks for people scheme (£5m); the Environment Agency was contributing £1.58m; the Greater London Authority was putting in £600k; the Council was putting in £1.3m - £200k of which was insurance money, £200k was from section 106 and £900k was from the capital programme.

·         The stable block in the park would be turned into a café and an education centre; the gardeners’ cottage would become a volunteer hub; Southend Lodge and gatehouse would be restored to provide a suitable entrance for the new park.

·         A new building would be provided in the eastern part of the park to replace toilet and refreshment facilities that needed to be demolished to make way for the flood alleviation scheme.

·         The Foxgrove, homestead cottages and the mansion sat outside the scope of the current project. They were recognised as important heritage assets and work was taking place to secure their long-term use.

·         The use of the buildings needed to complement the usage of the park and provide a source of income.

·         Short to medium term leases would be explored for the buildings that were not included in the scope of the current restoration project.

5.2      Alison Taylor and Gavin Plaskitt (Senior Programme Manager) responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·         Work had been carried out to explore the long term maintenance costs of the park. The heritage lottery fund required that there be a 10 year management plan as one of the conditions of providing funding.

·         It was anticipated that the cost of maintaining the park would be similar to the historic costs. Because, although there would be new features and facilities that would require maintenance, these were comparable to the relative costs of maintaining a golf course.

·         The plans also took account of the likely future reduction of Council resources. Options would be explored for rental income from the buildings in the park.

·         The intention was to bring forward options for the long term usage of the mansion house after the completion of the current redevelopment project. Officers wanted to develop park audiences (tripling use) and understand how people would use the park before committing a long term use for the mansion house. This followed discussion and advice from the Heritage Lottery Fund trustees, who were supportive of the restoration of the mansion house but cautioned against  pursuing a decision about the use of the building too quickly and before the impact of such substantial investment in the park had been realised.

·         The mansion house would not be committed to long term usage before there was confidence about the audience for potential uses.

·         Limited restoration of key elements had already taken place in the mansion house. There were interim tenants in the building, who ensured that the building was secure and contributing towards the park visitor experience.

·         There was no income over the period of the lease of the mansion house but there was a major saving on security costs (approximately £4000 a week).

·         There had been new volunteers coming forward to support activities and regeneration activities in the park, including tree planting and sports activities.

·         There had been a number of popular events held in the park. The festival of lights was so popular that there were associated issues with parking and transport. Future work would take place to ensure that issues of overcrowding were avoided. The scale of events in the park would have to be built up gradually.

·         All councillors would be added to the mailing list for events in the park.

·         A contingency was built into the project costs for the development.

·         There were options for altering the budget for the redevelopment to reduce costs. Some aspects could be removed from the main budget and bids could be made for grants to fund this work.

·         Work was taking place to encourage the usage of the park by the large number of (approximately 90) schools in the vicinity of the park.

·         The £900k from the capital programme funding being provided by the Council was from the stock transfer in Grove Park.

5.3      In the Committee discussion, the following key points were also noted:

·         The Committee was supportive of the redevelopment and welcomed the increased usage of the park by the community.

·         Officers should publicly highlight the external funding that had been made available for the delivery of the project, in the context of savings to Council budgets.

·         There should be a pricing differential for Lewisham residents and residents of other boroughs for any events or activities being held in the park.

·         Consideration should be given to moving People’s day and the fireworks to the park.

·         The park needed to be open to all users, including cyclists, joggers and dog walkers.

·         Consideration should be given to the provision of recycling and refuse facilities, especially if it was anticipated that there would be large numbers of users.

5.4      Resolved: that the Committee’s views be referred to Mayor and Cabinet as follows –

·         The Committee welcomes the ambitious plans for the future redevelopment the park and it also welcomes the greater opening up of the park to the local community.

·         The Committee requests the financial management plans for the project, including the projections for the annual running costs for the park once the project is complete, be made available for scrutiny.

·         The Committee notes the potential for large overruns on major regeneration schemes and recommends that Mayor and Cabinet seek assurance that there is tight financial management of the project.

·         The Committee expresses concern over the five year wait regarding plans for the long term future of the mansion house. It would welcome the publication of the advice from the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has informed the development of the current approach.

·         The Committee recommends that a management plan for dealing with large crowd events be published and implemented.

·         The Committee believes that that management plans for the park should include the requirement to recoup the cost of staging large events from promoters.

·         The Committee recommends that any plans for events or activities held in the park, for which there will be charges, are priced so that there is a reduced cost for residents of Lewisham.