Crystal Palace Local

COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION on the planned management board for Crystal Palace park will be limited to just one person.

Bromley council's executive committee decided on the move at its meeting last night (Wednesday) amid concerns of 'infighting' and local groups 'jockeying for position' being expressed by councillors.

And representation on the stakeholder group could be limited to just three representatives of yet-to-be-named local organisations with the five other places being filled by the wider community - a move which is bound to cause uproar among local groups who miss out. And that could lead to a rush of people from groups which miss out applying for those five places.

Bromley council have already said people applying for positions on the stakeholder group must broadly support the Masterplan for the park.

Addressing the executive, Cllr John Getgood (Lab. Penge and Cator ward) said: "I just see it being slowed down by having too many disparate views round the table and I am worried

"Within the groups in Crystal Palace there'a already an amount of infighting as to who will be and who won't be involved. "If we get a community stakeholder group from themselves, they will appoint a chairman who has an ex-officio role on the board.

"It doesn't matter how many community representatives you put on the board you're going to get that different number of views. "The executive board needs to be more executive".
Discussion within the community should take place within the stakeholder group, said Cllr Getgood.

"It's going to be quite difficult to set up but that doesn't mean we should go ahead and try and set them up. "People with an interest in how the park should go forward should be able to make their representations to the board but not necessarily be part of it.

"This does seem to be the best way forward and to do something positive for the park."
Income from the park should be used for the park and 'ring-fenced' he added. He expressed concern at the inclusion of Capel Manor College on the grounds of conflict of interest on the main board.

Cllr Getgood's views were supported by Bromley's deputy council leader Cllr Colin Smith who highlighted the local Virtual Norwood blog.

"You can already see the tension building up. "Individual groups are jockeying for position" said Cllr Smith, who is portfolio holder for environment.

"It needs to be a doing body not a great debating point among disparate groups trying to get their own point across."

Council leader Cllr Stephen Carr said he was not minded to ignore anyone's views . "That approach has to be shared by individuals as well as groups and there has to be some compromise if we are ever going to get anywhere. "The Mayor of London is going to want to see a board that's pulling together in the best interests of the community.

"Vocal minority groups are not going to help that matter. "We've got to have a common cause and go out and get funding. "It's pointless if people think: 'We're going to get where we want to go'. "There will have to be compromise by all parties."

Marc Hume said the stakeholder group should include three of the 10 organisations listed* along with five representatives of the community they would be seeking to appoint after the posts were advertised.. "It's a bit of a moving feast but that's the closest we've got to it."

Reports to committees were based on officers' views that unless the council took some serious determined action to successfully develop the park going forward  the alternative would lead to the park continuing to decline and any opportunity to secure the necessary investment would be lost.

A not for profit organisation who would be tasked with managing the group would be the best way of securing external funding. In practical terms the tasks of the management board would be to clean up, tidy up and restore the park.

They had the support of the Eden Project, the Greater London Authority, Capel Manor College and "pretty much" of all the local community organisations who have an interest in the park. "The timetable is quite ambitious but we believe it would need to be ambitious."

The executive agreed to reduce the number of community representatives on the board from two to one and increase local ward councillor representation on the board from one to two people.

Earlier. answering questions from Crystal Palace Campaign chairman Ray Sacks, Bromley council leader Cllr Stephen Carr said that if the board was not approved the council would continue to manage the park as well as continuing the existing stakeholder group to explore funding streams.

* The existing Community Stakeholders are: Friends of Crystal Palace Park; Crystal Palace Working Party; Crystal Palace Triangle Planning Group; Crystal Palace Foundation; Crystal Palace Community Association; Crystal Palace Campaign; Crystal Palace Museum Trust;  Norwood Society; Sydenham Society; Dulwich Society; Crystal Palace Chamber of Commerce; Lambethans’ Society; West Beckenham Residents Association and Friends of Penge Parks.

NOTE: The Crystal Palace park management board would be responsible for making recommendations to Bromley council’s executive committee which will determine the future management of the park. This will place an emphasis on:

• Restoring and protecting the park's heritage and infrastructure
• Improving and developing community use and investment in the park
• Recognising the park’s local, regional and national significance
• Determining and securing the park’s importance for the future.
• Board members would all work towards the following aims:
• To examine and agree a legal structure for the future management of Crystal Palace
• park .
• To challenge the Lee Valley Regional Park Act 1966 in collaboration with neighbouring
• boroughs to obtain agreement to reinvest Bromley’s funds into Crystal Palace park.
• To approve and champion capital and revenue projects that improve the usage and
• visitor experience at Crystal Palace park.
• To examine and pioneer different opportunities for investment at Crystal Palace park.
• To work closely with the Mayor of London to:
• Explore a regional status for Crystal Palace park
• Enter into discussions with the National Trust, English Heritage and other industry sectors about the future governance of Crystal Palace park .
• Develop employment and skills opportunities at Crystal Palace park.

The board would be subject to monitoring and evaluation by the London Borough of Bromley.

The recommended membership for the Executive Project Board includes representatives from: Bromley (councillors); Greater London Authority (senior representation); The Eden Project; English Heritage; Capel Manor College; National Sports Centre; ommunity representative and London borough of Bromley project team.