gmhp letter re parks restructure[1]

8/7/2019 GMHP Letter Re Parks Restructure[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gmhp-letter-re-parks-restructure1 1/3

riends of Geraldine Please

reply to

Mary Harmsworth 157 KenningtonRoad

Park London SE11 6SF

Chairman: M D Johnston, MBE 13 March 2011

Rebecca TowersParks DepartmentSouthwark Council

Dear Rebecca,

Having consulted Friends of Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park I give below their response

to the questions posed in your presentation at the Friends Workshop.

Q1 Will the proposals deliver your priorities Answer: NO quite the reverse – The

Ranger /Gardeners meet effectively GMHP priorities

Q2 What do you like about the proposals Answer : Nothing

Q3 What concerns you about the proposals Answer – detailed below

Q4 Can you foresee any gaps in the service Answer – detailed below

In a Best Value Review of parks in 2002 a Mori poll was conducted for Southwark of park

usage by Southwark Residents. For GMHP the figure of total visits was 1,515,206. In

the intervening years the park has improved to the extent that many more local residents

use the park. Added to the Southwark figure you should add the 1,000,000 national and

international tourists visiting the IWM, rally gathering space, the users of the sportsfacilities, the three schools, the rough sleeps and drinkers so that a figure well in excess of

2.5 million would not be an exaggeration. This figure will certainly rise by an appreciable

amount in Olympic year.

Given that the park ,in an area of dense population largely deprived of open space, is only

5.9 hectares the foot fall and wear and tear is extremely heavy and more than on any other

park in Southwark per acre and comparable to St James Park and more than Hyde Park or

Kensington Gardens. With such intense pressure in a small area, it needs multi-taskers

such as the Ranger/Gardeners, constant care rather than seasonal attention under a contract

overseen by monitoring officers who will not have enforcement powers.

Although classed as a Tier 2 park in any of the more recent documents, at the time of the

Best Value Review, a Labour group amendment to the adoption of the Best Value Review

improvement plan resolved that Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park become a tier 1

specialist park. In view of the international environment of the IWM this should not be

regarded as simply a local park (Tier 2) it is a London Park/tourist attraction primarily,

located in Southwark. Maintenance at a lower level than now will have a negative impact

– the proper upkeep of the park contributes to an appreciation and judgement of our culture

by overseas visitors. Any fall in care will reflect adversely on Southwark Council.

Safe & clean?

The success of the Ranger Gardeners is all too evident keeping and improving the space in

face of the usage. This includes, dealing on a daily basis the with removal of 5 – 10

rough sleepers, their bedding and excrement (who will do this in future). The moving on

of 30 or so vagrants daily waiting for a free meal at the hostel, moving on unsavoury

F



characters from the playground – all done in a polite manner. (Visiting Parks Liaison

Officers who to date have been invisible or visiting heavy handed wardens will not be

adequate for this service) – they don’t have the interpersonal skills and will be shared with

the other tier 2 parks taking a lump out of the £450K budget. It was a point at the Friends’

meeting that the Tier 2 and 3 parks suffer at the expense of the larger parks. Under the

scheme envisaged, given the GMHP needs, the other green spaces in the area will certainly

lose out.

Presence in Parks – Your implied that you were putting people in parks – The

requirement of most Friends Groups is to have “VISIBLE” presence in parks and that is

what the Ranger/Gardeners are. Action needs to be flexible and requirements change from

one minute to the next. On a human level, the presence of Rangers at different times of

the day has contributed immensely to reduction of vandalism and increased security in the

park. Working with the Safer Neighbourhood police, who value their presence, drug

dealing has almost been eliminated through their provision of intelligence and presence.

We used to have cyclist dealers lining up in corners of the park. The odd patrol does not

deal with this kind problem.

Dogs

We recently installed through a Cleaner greener bid, new improved waste and dog bins.

In view of the numbers using the park it would be madness to reduce either . Inadequate

bins will only mean more litter picking and impinge on the budget. As you know we have

been very successful in this park in dealing with dog litter. It is partly due to the visible

presence of the Rangers who speak to dog owners on a friendly basis and eventually

educate them. A mobile gardener/apprentice/technical support officer will not have the

same contact and it is vital for the tourist trade to keep the park clean and tidy.

Quadron contract

For a time there was a grounds maintenance contract for GMHP – it didn’t work and the

Ranger/Gardeners took over. One example of slavish adherence to a contract deadline,

the forsythia hedge was regularly pruned, trimmed immediately before it came into

blossom.

The earlier contract did not include maintenance of the World Garden, the Peace Garden,

the Woodland Copse,the playground, the Orchard, the free play area of the Sports pitches,

the cafe area. Have all these been factored into the £2m contract? Should a contract of

this size go out to tender and is it possible to split up the contract if for instance GMHP

could be serviced separately?

Location of Area Contract and Service Manager and Contract Service Officer Where? If you use the Ranger Base – it will need redecorating and cleaning. The

Rangers do their own cleaning – so that will be an additional cost to the budget.

If the Mobile gardeners (more traffic pollution) need to use the yard – we shall have

excessive vehicle movement – the cobbles will only take 3.5 tons. At the moment the

Ranger ensure there is no excessive vehicular movement in the park – who will monitor

this in future. You need to be out in the park to do this and vehicles are a problem because

of the easy access via Brook Drive

Gaps in Service – Not possible to answer this without job descriptions.

I understood that any cost cutting should be across the board but there do not seem to be

any saving at the higher grades and indeed there is an introduction of a Director so inessence an increase at the higher grades at the expense of effective, value for money

Ranger/Gardeners.



No doubt the plans will be welcomed in the larger parks but it seems at the cost to GMHP.

It is very difficult to see that any saving will be made. Short term gains but long term loss.

If the proposal to remove the Rangers goes ahead – The Friends will find it very difficult

to support the bid for a Green Flag Park

Yours truly,

M D Johnston (Mrs)

Tel: 020 7 735 8714 Fax: 020 7 793 9462 E-mail:[email protected]

gmhp letter re parks restructure[1]

Documents