Agenda item

The Panel received a presentation around the future of parks and the Parks Transformation Plan. The presentation was given by Simon Farrow, Commissioning Manager  Public Realm. The following was noted in discussion of the presentation:

1. Officers commented that the development of a New Parks and GreenSpace Strategy was an ongoing process that would likely take around 12 months, culminating in a Cabinet report. This provided ample opportunity for the panel to get involved in the development of the service offer and officers welcomed the scrutiny panel’s input.
2. The Chair reminded the Panel that at its previous meeting it agreed that it would adopt a three pronged approach in support of this project; site visits, evidence gathering and engagement with stakeholder groups. The Panel agreed that they were happy with, and continued to endorse this approach.
3. In response to a question around timescales for scrutiny involvement in this work, officers advised that they would welcome involvement as-and–when the Panel were able. Officers commented that consultation documents on Finsbury Park were due to go out soon, so the Panel’s involvement would be timely.  Officers also set out that they had put the proposals to Keep Britain Tidy, who were supportive of the collaborative approach taken.
4. Officers set out that there had been no reduction in the budget for Parks in the MTFS agreed in by Cabinet in February. This project gave scrutiny the chance to be part of the conversation of what the future of our parks would look like. One route to achieving this was through an engagement programme that would enable officers of the Council to work with KBT, Friends’ Groups, Members and local communities to help drive the new approach and helping everyone have a positive conversation around what priorities for the service could be, given the fact that budgets were limited. 
5. The Chair agreed that he would discuss dates with the clerk and would agree to set up some evidence gathering session with officers and the Cabinet Member. (Action: Chair).
6. In response to a question around some of the photographic examples used in the presentation and whether they were examples of private-sector partnership arrangements, officers advised that the examples used were just to demonstrate a range of different horticultural spaces in response to Members’ requests for more images at the previous Panel meeting.  This was confirmed by Cllr Blake. 
7. Members present raised concerns about proposals to hold the NFL tailgate event in Bruce Castle Park and questioned why if no decision had been formally taken on the event it was included in a public document. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that no decision to hold this event had been taken and that the NFL had not yet submitted dates for the event, as it was dependent upon the fixture list being finalised.
8. In response to a question around consultation and engagement, the Cabinet Member advised that she had held discussions with Ward Members and was due to meet with stakeholder groups in a couple of weeks’ time. The Cabinet Member outlined that some of the key considerations were; ensuring that the event was safe and was also inclusive to all, the level of impact on the park as well as consideration of the income from the hiring of the park, given that the park was in need of improvements.
9. The Committee sought clarification that money raised through events was ring-fenced for that particular park and suggested that this had some implication for smaller parks who could hold events. In response officers acknowledged that all events income would be ring-fenced to that particular park and also acknowledged the implications for smaller parks and green spaces. It was suggested that this was one reason for thinking through the need for a new approach to parks.
10. Some Members who were in attendance welcomed the Cabinet Member’s reassurance that no decision had been taken on the NFL tailgate. Members outlined that Bruce Castle was a Grade One Listed Building and suggested that restoration of the park following such an event would be very difficult, especially if the event required barriers and fencing to be erected. Members sought assurances around whether organisations such as Historic England had been consulted. In response, officers advised that conversations had been held with the relevant authorities to ascertain what other authorities had done in similar circumstances. Officers reiterated that no decision had been taken on this issue but cautioned that it would be remiss of officers not to undertake some of the exploratory and feasibility work in advance of any decision being taken, as would be done with any significant decision.  All formal steps required would be undertaken when the formal park hire and license applications had been submitted. 
11. Officers and the Cabinet Member reassured the Panel that they were very much aware of the historic significance and value of Bruce Castle. Officers advised that any the proposed event would also require a License as well as planning permission before it could be held.
12. Members suggested that any additional income for Bruce Castle Park needed to be considered strategically, given the need for investment to Bruce Castle itself and the likely unfavourability with which the Heritage Lottery Fund would view any erection of metal railings or damage to the park.
13. In response to a query around the proposed route for Cycle Superhighway 2, the Panel suggested that this could be an agenda item for one of its meetings next year.