Appendix A PARKS BUSINESS PLANNING REVIEW V6.

Transcription

Appendix A
PARKS BUSINESS PLANNING REVIEW
V6.
LAMBETH PARKS
2
Parks remain one of the great enigmas of our time. We all love them, want
them, say we appreciate them, yet most of us don’t use them, or at least,
and this is crucially important, we don’t physically use them on a regular
basis but we certainly like to see them, think about them and to enjoy the
prospect of going there at some time. We see them as we walk, drive or go
by in the bus or train.
We just assume that they just will be there for the fair, the circus, the country
show or the firework display, or for that visit with the children and their new
bikes or to push the new grandchild proudly around.
Add to this the regular users. For others the park is a shortcut to work or
school, a chance for fresh air and dreams before the bus or train to work
and for many of us this is the sole use we make of the park, but its sets our
day off to a special start. For the dogs and their owners it provides the twice
daily walk and a chance to meet friends.
For the child it provides the melting pot for their imaginations, the park is
Sherwood Forrest, or Middle Earth, monsters roam and battles are fought
and won.
For others they become their sporting arenas or the jogging trail to pound.
Many just visit to relax, to walk and enjoy the open spaces, to breathe in the
‘fresh’ air and to play and dream,
and all of this is local and free.
The issue for us all and local government in particular is how to preserve,
maintain and develop these sought after assets at a time of financial and
sustainability challenges.
This Business Planning Review seeks to address these challenges and
provide for a customer driven business planning approach to their solution
3
‘Delivering a parks service that is fit for purpose for 21st century London
living’.
Introduction.
We have of course heard it all before – the problems – the difficulties - the
lack of resources. There are of course two common features of such remarks.
They are applied to almost any local authority service and they are inward
looking. The first is of little consequence, it is expected, it is the second that
does the damage. Inward looking organisations always fail, to have any
chance of success an organisation must look outward to its customers – fail to
understand this and in today’s public sector environment you simply don’t
stand a chance.
We do understand this and our Business Planning Review is built upon this
truth. It looks forward to the delivery of a Parks Service that seeks with a
passion to know what the ever-changing needs of its customers are and how
these can be met in the most cost effective manner. And, importantly we fully
recognise and understand that in an environment where resources are never
going to be easy to come by, we need to be as inventive and open as possible
to new ideas and innovative ways of financing our needs. These ambitions
cannot however be met by money alone, it requires a culture throughout the
organisation that puts the customer first – no easy task - but one that we are
committed to achieve.
This Parks Business Planning Review looks to our future and considers the
directions we will need to take to deliver a first class service that is fit for
purpose for the 21st century. It gives life to our commitment to enriching our
park users experience through the creation of programmes and events and
partnership opportunities that will promote a healthy, active and vibrant
lifestyle for the people of Lambeth.
Office workers play five a side football on a new MUGA, a mother
watches her young children enjoy themselves on a swing, a park ranger stops
for a chat with an elderly couple admiring the new bedding plants ….. just
another day in the park
4
Executive Summary
The history of municipal parks is one of great social visionaries and ,
philanthropists seeking to bring much needed open space to our cities that
enabled all classes of society to be able to mix freely and in particular for the
poor to be able to enjoy the benefits of the open air and countryside denied to
so many of them. Public parks were regarded as essential to the health,
recreation and improved lifestyles of working people and their families. By the
end of the 19th century Britain had pioneered the provision of public parks that
were the envy of the world. At the end of the twentieth century however there
was clear evidence of a long term decline in our public parks and concern with
this led to an enquiry and subsequent Report by the House for Commons
Department of Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee
of Town and Country Parks. This Report generated a plethora of action
including no less that thirteen government initiatives to redress the decline.
The position of parks on both the national and local political agenda has
tended to be low, with funding being prioritised for other essential services, a
problem that has been exacerbated by the fact the provision of parks is not a
statutory service. It is clear that parks infrastructure has declined through lack
of repair and renewal. Local government has tended to evaluate the parks by
referring to maintenance costs rather than acknowledging and campaigning
for the recognition of the wider community benefits associated with parks.
These wider benefits, that include a whole range of social and economic
advantages and in particular health benefits, ought to be part of any
assessment of the value of our parks to the local community.
In reviewing the current state of our parks in Lambeth it is clear that much has
been achieved, not least with those major improvements funded by either one
off payments from within the Council’s resources or by way of grants from
bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund. However there is a risk that such
funding diverts attention away from more needy areas and often adds to the
long term maintenance and infrastructure problems.
An approach built around three key criteria are proposed as a way of moving
forward – financial sustainability, customer focus and devolution and
partnership. The issue of financial sustainability is discussed in some depth
and a policy of earn more, spend more, is consider with a range of options for
income generation. The importance of customer focus is clear, as is that fact
that as a department we know very little about the needs of our users and
non-users and options to address these deficiencies are raised. The twin
issues of devolved management and partnership working are considered at
length and a number of options for moving forward on these important
agendas are listed. Of particular interest is the issue of the increasing the use
of volunteers within our parks. Such a development has the potential to bring
enormous benefits to our parks, the Council and our communities.
Much of the Review has been based upon the experiences of local authorities
here in the UK and overseas and in doing so the Review is able to look to the
real success of others as a guide to what we in Lambeth can achieve.
5
1. History/role of parks
1.1
The origins of the public open spaces in Britain can be traced to the
17th century. Owners of private residencies opened their landscaped
grounds to visitors of all social classes.
1.2
In contrast to these tranquil settings, commercial pleasure gardens first
emerged in London in the 18th century, offering activities as diverse as
water sports, fairground rides, concerts and refreshments. Perhaps the
most famous of these was the Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens the original
site of which is now part of Spring Gardens. The layout of these parks
throughout the period continued to be highly geometric, apparently little
affected by the trend towards naturalism and irregularity, which were
becoming popular in the grounds of country houses.
1.3
The early 19th century saw the emergence of the urban ‘middle class’
park. These facilities were seen as a slice of countryside on the
doorstep of wealthy citizens and admission charges were made in
order to keep them exclusive.
1.4
By the middle of the century, a combination of overcrowding, poor
sanitation and pollution contributed to a low quality of life for the urban
dweller. The reaction to these problems included calls to provide public
open spaces for the urban poor from social reformers, philanthropists
and the newly created public corporations. Public parks were regarded
as essential to the health, recreation and improved lifestyles of working
people and their families. By the end of the 19th century Britain had
pioneered the provision of public parks that were the envy of the world.
1.5
In some areas, civic pride lay behind the creation of intricate bedding
displays, floral clocks, winter gardens and pavilions which acted as
venues for receiving the town’s special guests. The open spaces were
seen as the jewel in the crown of public corporations and resources
supported many skilled horticulturalist and park superintendents.
1.6
In the view of these park visionaries, parks were not ‘amenities’. They
were necessities, providing recreation, inspiration, and essential respite
from the city’s blare and bustle. And the visionaries were particularly
concerned that parks be available to all of a city’s residents, especially
those who did not have the resources to escape to the countryside. For
the generations that followed urban parks have been valued for the
economic, social, environmental and cultural benefits they bring to
communities.
1.7
However the general perception at the turn of the twentieth century was
that open spaces and public parks in Britain had undergone a gentle
decline since the Second World War, a period during which many
facilities lost their railings for the ‘war effort’, and others were
6
temporarily ploughed up for food production. Since then there has been
evidence of some improvements in the state of parks.1
1.8
It is perhaps strange that one hundred and sixty years after the majority
of municipal parks were created; we are now using the same logic and
arguments to justify their retention improvement and expansion. Whilst
very few, if any, responsible citizens would ever dream of advocating
the demise of sanitation and acceptable housing, it seems that society
has been willing to stand by whilst our parks and open spaces have
been neglected and subjected to decline over the last forty years.
1.9
It is inevitable that greater prosperity and mobility since that time
should have given the average citizen a wider choice of leisure pursuit.
The countryside became more accessible, even to Londoners.
1.10
Nevertheless Londoners are still very protective of their parks and open
spaces. This confirms the need for urban dwellers to be near open
spaces, a need which seems to grow rather than diminish with time.
1.11
Almost every town and city has a park, or network of public green
spaces, and these account for around twenty percent of the developed
land area in the UK. They are also a significant feature of our urban
heritage and, where the standards of management are high, are
regarded as an essential component of successful cities around the
world. Parks are often the most highly regarded services provided by a
local authority. It is estimated that 2.5 billion visits to public parks are
made each year by over half of the UK population2.
1.12
Despite this popularity and as noted earlier, public parks and green
spaces in the U K witnessed a period of decline and failed to play their
proper role in contributing to the quality of the urban infrastructure and
the public realm between the end of the second world and the turn of
the century. The “Public Park Assessment” survey published in 2001 by
the former Urban Parks Forum (now Green Space) reported that well
over one third of all publicly managed parks were in a serious state of
decline. Savings from Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) and
Best Value management regimes had not, to any great extent, been reinvested in parks. The contracting-out of grounds maintenance led to
the widespread withdrawal of site-based staff, to the great concern of
local people, as well as to the removal of apprentice training schemes
which were important for developing well-trained and experienced park
managers. There was a perception that certain parks should be
avoided due to increasing levels of vandalism and anti-social behaviour
and that institutional neglect often contributes to these problems.
1
2
Enhancing Urban Green space: National Audit Office 2006
CABE Space, People Need Parks – The Skills Shortage in Parks: Summary or results.
7
1.13
Since then there are signs that the quality of urban green space has
improved. In its report ‘Enhancing Urban Green Space’3 the National
Audit Office reported that in 2005 it had updated the results of the 2000
Public Parks Assessment survey and that 85% of urban authorities
believed that the quality of their parks was stable or improving. This
compares to less that 44% in the earlier survey. In 2000 55% of urban
authorities considered their green spaces were declining in quality, in
the 2005 NAO survey this had fallen to 16%.
1.14
The quality of public green spaces is probably more dependent on the
good stewardship of local authorities than any other type of public
facility. Their neglect is, therefore, an issue of serious concern to
managers and local communities alike, and reflects badly on national
and local governance.
“One very worrying aspect of the decline is the lowering expectations
of both public and local authorities. There is little apparent concern for
the double standards operating between the care of parks and of other
leisure facilities in relation to the condition of changing rooms, toilets,
information, staff presence and catering facilities. The strength of
feeling that is often expressed by the public when an open space is
threatened with development for other use demonstrates the
importance invested in the common wealth of open space. The
piecemeal destruction of it provokes less demonstration.”4
1.15 Many government priorities for sustainable living and cleaner, safer
communities depend on good quality, accessible open spaces, e.g.
inclusivity, health, tackling anti-social behaviour, sporting excellence
and participation, the Olympic games, mitigation of climate change,
better public transport, social cohesion, heritage and the historic
environment, urban renewal and sustainable tourism.
1.16
Many organisations continue to argue for greater attention to be given
to the environmental, economic, social and recreational importance of
public parks. In doing so, they advocate the need for the development
of improved skills and knowledge in this important area of public
provision.
1.17
Public parks and green spaces are an important part of the
environment and urban infrastructure and particularly so for a borough
such as Lambeth. For many reasons parks are still generally in decline
and not achieving the social, economic, recreational or environmental
benefits for which they were intended.
“Public parks are an essential element of local communities. They
encourage strong community identities through social interaction and
3
Enhancing Urban Green Space, National Audit Office, 2006.
Memorandum by Urban Parks Forum Ltd., to the House of Commons Environment Sub-Committee,
1999.
4
8
have the ability to foster public spiritedness. They are one of the few
public services that cut across social, financial, cultural and ethnic
barriers. They epitomise the concept of social inclusion.”5
2. Consequences of decline
2.1
The position of parks on both the national and local political agenda
has tended to be low, with funding being prioritised for other essential
services. It is clear that parks infrastructure has declined through lack
of repair and renewal. Declining resources have been devoted to
routine maintenance and repair and reconstruction have been
postponed. It is easy to see that beyond a certain point, deferring
maintenance simply results in higher capital replacement costs at a
later date.
2.2
Casualties in this scenario have been the traditional features of
bedding, horticultural detail, parks buildings and parks staff. In
combination, their deterioration (and sometimes removal) not only
reduce the actual condition of parks, but also the perceived quality of
care and maintenance.
2.3
Value for money and return on investment calculations are difficult for a
provision which is largely non-income generating and whose benefits
are not easily demonstrated in figures. Local government has tended to
evaluate the parks by referring to maintenance costs rather than
acknowledging and campaigning for the recognition of the wider
community benefits associated with parks.
2.4
Local authority spending allocations take little or no account of a
regions parks provision and needs. Without the necessary finance,
both capital and revenue, the potential of parks can not be realised.
Revenue budgets for parks have been cut in recent years as part of
councils’ economy measures nationwide.
2.5
Related to this is the growing need for parks to generate income
through a variety of means, some of which threaten the fundamental
concept of the public park as being free for all. Nationally the
reductions in spending imposed on parks have not been mirrored by
reductions in the budgets of comparable services.
2.6
In sharp contrast to revenue budgets, there are now far greater
opportunities for capital spending on renewal and development than at
any time in the last 50 years or more. However, they are almost entirely
dependent on bidding for external resources, with a need for
partnership funding which reduces the ability to use the huge
opportunities which are theoretically available. A further problem is that
5
CIWEM’s Evidence to House of Commons Environment Sub-Committee, 1999.
9
externally sourced funding such as the Heritage Lottery Fund tend to
divert attention towards prestige’s projects, possibly to the detriment of
parks in more deprive areas. Such funding, although welcome, rarely
comes with any contribution to ongoing maintenance.
2.7
While the concept of the park as an outdoor leisure centre has gained
many supporters, parks use is very different to that of leisure centres.
This is not to say that we should not strive to provide the same level
and standard of facilities in parks as we do in indoor leisure centres.
However, parks use is free and flexible, accommodating a huge range
of individual interests and initiatives. Parks also offer a much higher
yield on investment when calculating expenditure budgets against user
numbers.
2.8
There is a growing belief in the "Biophillia effect"— which links
environmental quality to social behaviour and suggests that close
contact with nature on a regular or even casual basis reduces stress,
anxiety and aggression. However, this is not a new concept, as
Victorian public parks were specifically created to improve the mind
and health of the common person. This makes the provision of quality
parks and green spaces particularly important in major towns and cities
and especially in areas of social deprivation such as Lambeth where
the stresses of urban life require a balancing influence. Parks are the
pressure valves for the city.
2.9
They also serve the more tangible purpose of facilitating healthier
living. Parks have particular potential for those whose health is
currently poor, including the elderly, who are unlikely or unable to use
formal sports facilities. A gentle stroll in the park or more active
exercise such as cycling, football or jogging are beneficial to health.
Doctors prescribe walking and other regular exercise to their cardio
patients and this is being picked up by parks departments, many of
whom are developing maps for self guided walks, or whose parks
ranger services are receiving basic training in exercise, giving guided
walks and first aid, to take people walking in the park for their health
and well being.
2.10
City parks and open space improve our physical and psychological
health, strengthen our communities, and make our cities and
neighbourhoods more attractive places to live and work.
2.11
Since the late 1990’s there has been increasing recognition by
government and others of the negative effects of the decline and the
multi-faceted value that parks bring to communities. The extent of this
concern can be judged from the number of government led initiatives
since that time. See fig 1., and Appendix 1.
10
fig 1.
3. Our Challenge
3.1
Our challenge in Lambeth is to meet the needs of one of the most
diverse communities in the United Kingdom and against a background
of a financial environment that is in itself challenging.
3.2
Throughout the UK and indeed much of the developed world, the
funding of parks and public open spaces remains a matter of concern.
Although in the last few years many parks have received significant
lottery funding the challenge now is how to ensure the long-term
viability for such parks. A measure of the extent of this concern and the
difficulties facing public authorities was the decision by the Commission
for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) to publish in the
autumn of 2006 ‘Paying for Parks: eight models funding urban green
space.’ 6
3.3
Despite the dramatic loss of resources and quality the England’s parks
suffered at the end of the 20th century, there is now genuine cause for
optimism. Greater priority given to urban green space since the mid –
1990’s, largely from the lottery distributing bodies and the ODPM, has
enabled local authorities and community groups to bring about
refurbishment and renewal of a significant amount of green spaces.
Halfway through the first decade of the 21st century, the situation is
beginning to be turned around. But, although hugely welcomed, much
of this investment has been time-limited capital funding programmes.
6
Paying for parks: eight models funding urban green space. CABE Space, 2006.
11
The intractable problem of how to find sustainable sources of revenue
funding to pay for the appropriate levels of maintenance to sustain
these improvements year after year remains.
3.4
The problem is acerbated by the fact that there is no statutory
requirement for local authorities to provide parks and green spaces;
this means that their provision and maintenance can be an easy area
for savings within the restricted financial environment in which local
authorities operate. Because of this, our park’s budgets have always
been vulnerable as the competitive nature of the local authority funding
process has tended and continues to direct finance towards statutory
services, or towards those that generate revenue. In addition, there is
another reason why parks revenue budgets are relatively easy to
reduce: in the short term, the effects of reducing the green space
budgets are often less noticeable than the effects of reducing the
budgets of other services. One reason for this is that even if a park is
run down and understaffed it is unlikely to be closed. In contrast, a
dilapidated swimming pool might have to be closed for health and
safety reasons, with the risk of a local outcry. The park’s budget is,
therefore, more attractive for budget reductions than other services if
the council is financially constrained.7
3.5
The issues discussed above are of course generic to most local
authority parks departments, (see fig 2) and Lambeth is not an
exception to these trends and problems. What makes Lambeth
different is that few would argue that the needs of our communities are
such as to require a major effort to redress the decline.
3.6
For Lambeth therefore the challenge is clear: to meet the needs of its
communities and to consider what opportunities there are to maximise
income generation to both sustain and improve the parks in order to
meet these needs.
7
Green future: a study of the management of multifunctional greenspace in England, Barber A.
University of Manchester, 2004.
12
fig 2.
4. Lambeth Parks Department - Current position
Current position - Condition and state of parks
4.1
Lambeth has not been immune for the general decline of parks referred
to earlier and in particular our parks continue to suffer from the lack of
infrastructure support to meet its needs. That is not to say however that
there have not been significant improvements to our parks in the last
few years. Is also true is that many of these improvements have been
mainly financed by external agencies and organisations – but even
these welcome investments have been mainly capital projects and
concerns remain for the implications for their long term maintenance.
13
4.2
Improvements in the way our parks are managed have also made a
major contribution to our ambition of both protecting and improving the
important asset our parks represent.
4.3
In order to obtain a clear and unbiased perspective if the state of our
parks and in order to assist the Council in developing its future
strategies for them, the Council in 2003/04 produced The Lambeth
Open Space Strategy. This, together with audited updates, provides
the Council with an independent picture of the current state of its parks.
4.4
The Lambeth Open Spaces Strategy (LOSS) Report was produced for
Lambeth Council by the consultants Scott Wilson, with Lambeth
Planning acting as the lead body for the Council. The LOSS is a key
document to assist the Council, elected members, community partners,
developers and other stakeholders, in identifying not just an overall
strategy and process to manage and develop the borough’s many
different open spaces, but also to help set priorities in investing in open
spaces to meet local and regional needs including:
4.5
•
Policy 3D.11 of the Mayor of London’s ‘London Plan’ states that all
London boroughs should prepare Open Space Strategies to help them
understand the provision of and demand for open spaces, and identify
ways to protect, enhance or create them along with opportunities to
manage them better to both address local needs and to improve their
overall quality.
•
Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) “Planning for Open Space,
Sport and Recreation” (July 2002) recommends that planning
authorities (e.g. Lambeth Council) undertake assessments and audits
of open spaces under their jurisdiction to identify needs for
improvement and to guide the planning and development process so
that open spaces are both better protected and invested in to improve
their quality and meet local need.
Therefore the LOSS is an important document in that as well as
ensuring Lambeth Council meets its obligations to PPG17 and the
London Plan, it provides a document that can be used by officers,
members, landowners and the community to better inform the
continuing development and quality improvement of all open spaces in
Lambeth, not just public ones, but also to retain and where appropriate
improve access to and use of open spaces which are of low quality or
are not meeting local needs. The LOSS is a key mechanism for
Lambeth in identifying where investment in open spaces is most
needed, and for what, and what the long-term benefits of such
investment will be to bring up the overall standard of open space
provision in the borough, as well as at the local level around sites that
require improvement.
14
4.6
The LOSS was completed in September 2004, and was finally adopted
by Lambeth Council, through its Executive, in February 2006. Although
the LOSS is now an ‘official’ and adopted document, it is something
that needs to be regularly reviewed and updated, in that open spaces
are constantly changing and evolving, both in terms of how they are
used by local people, and as investment is made in individual sites
based on both local demand and guided by the original LOSS.
4.7
The 2004 LOSS Report identified a number of sites as ‘priority’ for
improvement in terms of their condition, management and facilities, in
order to address low quality scores or provide quality open spaces in
areas of deprivation. These were sites whose overall quality score was
low, or where there was potential for improvement through increased
investment or better ways of managing and using each site. These low
scoring sites could also be thought of as ‘dragging down’ the overall
LOSS quality score for Lambeth, and where even small improvements
in management or facilities on each site could increase both the sites
own score and that overall for quality open space in the borough.
4.8
These priority sites were reassessed in November 2006 to see if they
had improved, and as a consequence their quality scores had altered in
order to meet the recommendations of the original Strategy report. A
standard qualitative scoring system based on subjective criteria and
following existing Open Space Strategy guidance and standards was
used.
4.9
In 2003/4 over 230 sites across Lambeth were assessed for their open
space quality scores; in many cases sites could be both desktop and
field audited, but with others where they were restricted or private land,
the scoring had to rely on desk based assessments or information
provided by relevant officers or other contacts.
4.10
The original 2004 LOSS report details how site quality scores were
compiled based on a series of indicators or criteria which looked at
issues such as access, maintenance, play and sport provision,
cleanliness or security. To avoid complicating this update report, the
original scoring criteria and scoring system can be found by reading the
2004 Report. (See Appendix 2)
4.11
The 2006 update on the LOSS focused on those sites, all public open
spaces (parks, commons or small public greenspaces), which the 2004
Report had identified as ‘priority’ for Lambeth in terms of addressing
improvements and increased investment. Two other sites were
included on the basis of advice from Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces,
as these are now additional priorities for the Council. A total of 20 sites
were assessed in 2006 (see Table 1).
15
Table 1 shows the overall quality scores of sites audited in 2006, in
comparison with their scores in 2003.
Table 1.
Site
ID
015
020
022
025
026
028
036
037
038
042
043
045
046
050
051
051a
054
060
159
242
Site Name
Quality
Quality
Difference
Score 2003
Score 2006
37%
48%
11%
38%
64%
26%
Hatfields Open Space
Lambeth Walk Doorstep Green
Lambeth High Street Recreation
Ground
Knight's Hill Recreation Ground
Valley Road Playing Fields
Hillside Gardens
Milkwood Community Park
Loughborough Park
Wyck Gardens
Elam Street Open Space
Slade Gardens
Ruskin Park
Mostyn Gardens
Spring Gardens
Kennington Park
Kennington Park Extension
Streatham Vale Park
Olive Morris/ Dan Leno Gardens
Norwood Park
Trinity Gardens
47%
47%
46%
51%
38%
51%
Not Audited
38%
49%
60%
39%
43%
56%
32%
45%
40%
54%
Not Audited
45%
-2%
52%
57%
66%
63%
59%
40% n/a
56%
54%
71%
39%
53%
66%
48%
62%
40%
62%
43% n/a
5%
11%
15%
25%
8%
4.12
The Original Lambeth Open Spaces Strategy identified the need to
improve the quality of many of the open spaces in Lambeth. In order to
establish priorities open spaces were categorised as poor, average or
good quality (see Table 2).
4.13
The Strategy recommended that Lambeth aimed to improve all its
poorest open spaces to enable them to achieve at least an average
rating and as a longer term goal, that Lambeth should aim to double
the number of good quality open spaces in the Borough.
Quality Ratings for Priority Sites – Comparisons Between 2003 and 2006
4.14
Sites were allocated to the Poor, Average or Good Quality categories
as follows:
Quality
Poor
Average
Good
Score Range
(0-29%)
(30-59%)
(60-100%)
16
18%
6%
11%
0%
10%
10%
16%
17%
0%
8%
Table 2 shows the quality category of sites audited in 2006, and whether this
has changed since 2003.
Table 2.
Site
ID
015
020
022
025
026
028
036
037
038
042
043
045
046
050
051
051a
054
060
159
242
Site Name
Quality 2003
Lambeth High Street Recreation Ground
Hillside Gardens
Loughborough Park
Wyck Gardens
Slade Gardens
Ruskin Park
Mostyn Gardens
Spring Gardens
Kennington Park
Streatham Vale Park
Norwood Park
Trinity Gardens
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Not Audited
Average
Average
Good
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Not Audited
Quality 2006
Average
Good
Average
Average
Average
Good
Good
Average
Average
Average
Average
Good
Average
Average
Good
Average
Good
Average
Good
Average
4.15
In 2003 only one of the 18 sites, identified as ‘priority’ for improvement,
scored as ‘Good’ (Ruskin Park, 60%). In 2006, the number of ‘Good’
sites had increased to seven (Lambeth Walk Doorstep Green, Hillside
Gardens, Milkwood Community Park, Ruskin Park, Kennington Park,
Streatham Vale Park, Norwood Park).
4.16
In 2003 the highest scoring site was Ruskin Park at 60%, just on the
borderline between ‘Average’ and ‘Good’; the lowest scoring site was
Kennington Park Extension at 32%, only fractionally above the ‘Poor’‘Average’ borderline.
4.17
In 2006 the highest scoring site was again Ruskin Park, but this time at
71%, an increase of 11% on the 2003 figure; the lowest scoring site
was Mostyn Gardens at 39%, and reflects ‘a no change’ in its condition
or quality on the 2003 data.
4.18
The greatest increases in quality score value between 2003 and 2006
were shown by Lambeth Walk Doorstep Green (+26%) and Milkwood
Community Park (+25%), and reflect the benefits of recent investment
in both sites to upgrade facilities, and improvements in their
management and community use.
17
Overall Site Quality Scores and Ratings – Present Status
Table 3 shows the current quality scores and ratings for all parks, commons
and public greenspaces in Lambeth, whether based on the original 2003/4
surveys or updated in the recent 2006 audit of priority sites.
Table 3.
Site
ID
002
009
015
016
020
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
031
033
034
036
037
038
039
042
043
044
045
046
047
048
049
050
051
051a
054
060
095
114
120
141
145
151
159
Site Name
Archbishop’s Park
Jubilee Gardens
St John’s Churchyard Waterloo
Lambeth High Street Recreation Ground
Streatham Common
The Rookery Streatham
Palace Road Nature Gardens
Hillside Gardens
Agnes Riley Gardens
Holmewood Gardens
Rush Common
Windmill Gardens
St. Matthew’s Church Gardens
Loughborough Park
Wyck Gardens
Max Roach Park
Slade Gardens
Larkhall Park
Ruskin Park
Mostyn Gardens
Myatt’s Fields Park
St. Mark’s Churchyard
Vauxhall Park
Spring Gardens
Kennington Park
Streatham Vale Park
Eardley Road Sidings
St. Paul’s Churchyard Clapham
Pedlar’s Park
Brockwell Park
Clapham Common
Kennington Oval
Norwood Park
18
Current Score
(Year)
59% (2003)
48% (2003)
48% (2006)
49% (2003)
64% (2006)
45% (2006)
43% (2003)
51% (2003)
52% (2006)
57% (2006)
Not Audited
66% (2006)
58% (2003)
61% (2003)
50% (2003)
52% (2003)
57% (2003)
63% (2006)
59% (2006)
44% (2006)
51% (2003)
56% (2006)
54% (2006)
48% (2003)
71% (2006)
39% (2006)
66% (2003)
45% (2003)
51% (2003)
53% (2006)
66% (2006)
48% (2006)
63% (2006)
40% (2006)
Not Audited
52% (2003)
58% (2003)
72%
70%
40% (2003)
62% (2006)
Current
Rating
Average
Average
Average
Average
Good
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
N/A
Good
Average
Good
Average
Average
Average
Good
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Good
Average
Good
Average
Average
Average
Good
Average
Good
Average
N/A
Average
Average
Good
Good
Average
Good
Overall Site Quality Scores and Ratings – Present Status (Cont.)
Site
ID
182
183
187
188
189
190
192
193
194
195
210
212
220
222
233
242
Site Name
St. Mary’s Church Gardens
Albert Embankment Gardens
Kennington Green
Cleaver Square
Claylands Road Open Space
Lansdowne Gardens
Stockwell Memorial Gardens
Coldharbour Lane Open Space
Windrush Square
Grafton Square
Unigate Wood
Knight’s Hill Wood
Lambeth Walk Doorstep Green (Extension)
Tate Gardens
Ufford Street Recreation Ground
Trinity Gardens
Becondale Road Open Space
Dumbarton Court Gardens
Emma Cons Gardens
Kirkstall Gardens
Sherwood Avenue Open Space
Streatham Green
Streatham Memorial Gardens
Current Score
(Year)
45% (2003)
45% (2003)
46% (2003)
34% (2003)
28% (2003)
39% (2003)
46% (2003)
44% (2003)
55% (2003)
58% (2003)
Not Audited
Not Audited
53% (2003)
45% (2003)
48% (2003)
43% (2006)
Not Audited
Not Audited
Not Audited
Not Audited
Not Audited
Not Audited
Not Audited
Current
Rating
Average
Average
Average
Average
Poor
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
N/A
N/A
Average
Average
Average
Average
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.19
The current quality scores for sites audited in 2003 and 2006, show
eleven score at or above 60% and are currently rated as ‘Good’. These
sites are Lambeth Walk Doorstep Green, Hillside Gardens, Holmewood
Gardens, Milkwood Community Park, Ruskin Park, Myatt’s Fields Park,
Kennington Park, Streatham Vale Park, Brockwell Park, Clapham
Common and Norwood Park. This represents a rise from 5 in 2003 to
11 in 2006, and increase of 6 overall.
4.20
Of all sites surveyed, 42 scored between 30% and 59% and are
currently rated as of ‘Average Quality’. However many of these sites
were not resurveyed in 2006, and it may be that some, if not the
majority, have seen their quality scores rise. Therefore this figure
should be treated with some caution. Only one site was classed as
‘Poor’ (Claylands Road), but again recent improvements in
maintenance and cleaning may have raised this score into the
‘Average’ bracket.
4.21
Many ‘Average’ sites are scoring (either in 2003 or 2006) at 50% or
above – eighteen in total, and thus with even small but carefully
targeted improvements in management or facility provision (e.g. play,
19
sport, signage, access), could rise into the ‘Good’ score bracket. Such
sites must also been seen as priority for further improvements and for
re-auditing in 2007 or beyond, to see if they have attained a 60% score
or above.
4.22
Eleven sites were not audited in 2003/4, which is unfortunate as these
were either small squares which have seen major improvements in
their condition, or are nature sites where work has been undertaken to
improve their condition. However, it is hoped these sites will be
surveyed ‘in house’ against independent auditing in 2007, this will
provide them with current scores to complete the table.
4.23
Since the completion of this survey further and substantial
improvements have been made to a number of parks including Spring
Gardens, Pedlars Park and Larkhall Park.
4.24
It should be noted that the auditing and judging methodologies of the
LOSS are somewhat mechanistic and take no account of customer
needs and requirements.
Current position – committed improvements
4.25
As of May 2007 we are committed to the following projects:
Myatts Field Park regeneration - HLF £1.523m. Lambeth LOF
£588,868. CYPS funding £150k. MFPPG fundraising £134K .
Brockwell Park regeneration -Development Phase: Total cost
£313,473 (LBL contribution = £117,000 / HLF contribution = £196,473)
Delivery Phase: Total cost £5,558,586 (LBL contribution = £2,060,624
/ HLF contribution = £3,497,962)
Clapham Common fairground site - £200,000 Lambeth capital
allocation.
Clapham South Toilet Block , renovation and conversion into café and
toilet facilities- £230,000 TESCOs Section 106 Agreement.
Larkhall Park Regeneration Plan (1) Changing Rooms Refurbishment.
£150,000 Urban ll.
Larkhall Park Regeneration Plan (2) Ecology project. WREF : £20,000.
Urban ll: £20,000.
Spring Gardens Regeneration - closure of Tyers Street. £40,000 S106.
Spring Gardens Regeneration - Vauxhall Alternative economy - Fully
refurbished green space, arches, roads and pavements in the Spring
Gardens area. Increased public usage of Spring Gardens. Increase
and improvement in local small businesses. Increase in tourism in
20
Vauxhall Encouragement of further regeneration activity in Vauxhall,
particularly east of the viaduct.
St Luke's Memorial Gardens - Restoration of St Luke's Memorial
Gardens, repair of wall and reinstatement of railings. LOF (£250,000) +
English Heritage (£10,000) + NRF (£3,400) + Community Safety
£10,000 + £3,000 Georgian Group + £392 from Metropolitan Public
Gardens Association. Funding application submitted to English
Heritage for £27,500 to support installation of railings in line with
originals.
Hadfields – park improvements - £50k S106
Kennington Park play area - Biffa £50k; the Marathon Fund £15k, The
Big Lottery £35; Lambeth Charities £12k.
Ufford Street play area – Groundworks £20k
Major improvements to play areas £1million.
5. Current position – Masterplans
5.1
Masterplans usually contain ideas and drawings for the refurbishment
and or regeneration of a park or open space. A feature of the
Masterplan process is extensive consultation with local residents and
park users.
5.2
We currently have completed Masterplans for Clapham Common,
Larkhall Park, Spring Gardens, and Streatham Vale. Vision documents,
often a precursor to a Masterplan, have been completed for Brockwell
Park and Streatham Common.
6. Current position - Management Plans
6.1
It is the ambition of the Department to develop management plans for
each of its parks. The production of such plans is regarded as best
practice by CABE and are a key feature of Towards An Excellent
Service (TAES).8 These plans represent a comprehensive assessment
of the state of a park together with a detailed plan for the work required
to an appropriate/acceptable standard.
6.2
Completion of such plans is time consuming and expensive, but does
provide the Council with the clearest possible picture of the state the
park and the work required to bring it to an acceptable and agreed
standard.
8
Towards An Excellent Service, is a diagnostic self assessment tool designed to enable organisations to
define where they are against a model of best practice.
21
6.3
We currently have management plans for six of our parks. While
presenting a comprehensive picture they do have a number of
weaknesses. Such plans tend to be large and unwieldy and although
the outstanding work is broken down into short, medium and long term,
no robust financial costings are present. (However the department has
a 3 -5 investment plan for each park. See Appendix 3) They have at
least one major fault, there is virtually no data on the needs and
requirement of customers. This gap has the potential to considerably
weaken such plans, not least as far as CAA is concerned.
6.4
Ideally management plans would be the principal guide to the
management of the park – rather obvious given their name – however
the reality tends to be that plans are produced and filed, taken out only
on those occasions when a funding opportunity presents itself in order
to see what short, medium or long term options might be suitable
candidates for funding.
6.5
Even so the value of such plans should not be underestimated. They
provide, together with the Scott Wilson Audit, a comprehensive picture
of the state of our parks. However we need to develop a methodology
for simplifying this data into a manageable and easy to use format that
will encourage staff to readily use it as their main management tool.
The plans need two further pieces of work, ongoing and future work
needs to be costed and each plan should be reviewed and updated
annually.
7. Current position - Strategic Regeneration Initiatives and
Developments
7.1
As noted elsewhere in this Review, Regeneration of parks and open
spaces has been the subject of a number of policy statements and
directives at both national and local levels in recent years. These
statements and directives emphasise the importance of regeneration of
parks and open spaces in the context of the wider regeneration of the
urban environment and improving people’s quality of life. A brief
summary is given below.
7.2
In addition to the plethora of statements on parks and open spaces, the
Living Places report, October 2002 deals not only with parks and public
open space but the whole of the ‘public realm’ and points to the
importance of quality open space for disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
The importance of open space to the character and enjoyment of
London is also highlighted in the London Plan prepared by the Mayor’s
office.
7.3
At a local level the Lambeth Community Strategy includes “creating a
cleaner and greener environment” as one of its six priorities. While the
Community Strategy makes no explicit reference to parks and open
22
spaces it could be expected that parks and open spaces will contribute
to sustainable regeneration, social inclusion and healthier and safer
communities.
7.4
The Lambeth Sports and Recreation Strategy acknowledges the
potential role of parks and open spaces in improving opportunities for
sport and recreation but suggests that due to a lack of investment this
potential is not being fully realised.
7.5
In the Lambeth Open Space Strategy (2004) it is recommended that
policy makers be encouraged to see open space planning as a key
element in regeneration. The report goes on to note that the potential
of Lambeth’s open spaces is not yet fully appreciated by policy makers
and is not at the heart of regeneration in the Borough as urged by the
Urban Green Spaces Task Force. The report recommends that
Lambeth Council give greater consideration in plan and policy
development to the role of quality open spaces in facilitating urban
regeneration, and, agree priorities for capital and revenue spending on
parks and open spaces with a view to countering social deprivation.
7.6
The remit for the regeneration of Lambeth Parks and green spaces is
currently held by the Cultural Development and Sustainability Team
(CDST – the team) within Lambeth’s Environment, Culture and
Community Safety Department. The team comprises four project
officers and one principal project officer and is under the overall
management of the CDST manager.
7.7
Examples of regeneration or regeneration related projects recently
completed by the Team include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
7.8
Other major projects currently underway include:
•
•
7.9
Regeneration of Larkhall Park
Improvements to Spring Gardens
Milkwood Road Park
Regeneration of Clapham Common Bandstand and
surrounding area including the Bandstand café.
Preparation of a masterplan for Clapham Common
Regeneration of Streatham Green
Regeneration of St Luke’s Memorial Gardens
Regeneration of playgrounds
Myatt’s Fields Park regeneration – HLF funded
Brockwell Park regeneration – HLF funded
Funding for the regeneration projects undertaken by the Team comes
from a number of sources. These include: the Heritage Lottery Fund,
the Big Lottery, English Heritage, Urban II, internal Capital Bids,
23
Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and Section 106 funds among others.
7.10
As can be seen from the examples of projects undertaken, the Team
has a track record of considerable success, however there are issues
and constraints with the existing arrangements that are of concern. A
number of these are common to concerns expressed elsewhere in the
Review. Those specific to regeneration and development initiatives are
as follows:
•
Fragmented approach
There is on occasions a lack of coordination between the priorities
of different departments within the division. This results in patchy
and sometimes conflicting regeneration efforts. Regeneration
efforts are also not holistic in nature, rather a series of largely
unrelated interventions.
•
No clear means of agreeing priorities
In the absence of a strategic plan priorities and budget allocations
are at risk of being driven by various pressure groups, rather than
on an assessment of needs of identified target groups / areas.
•
Scope of the Team’s remit
There is some confusion over the scope of the Team’s remit. Is the
Team only concerned with parks and green spaces and the facilities
contained in these or should the Team have a broader open space
and public realm mandate? There is also a lack of clarity as to how
the Team should contribute (if at all) towards the delivery of
improvements to the priority sites identified in the Lambeth Open
Spaces Strategy or achieving Green Flag status for some parks.
Others have suggested that all regeneration projects, including
those concerned with sports, should be undertaken within the
CDST.
•
Lottery bids distort parks service
While lottery funds provide an opportunity to access significant
external funding, due to the conditions imposed by the Lottery, the
impact of this is to concentrate funding on a few sites. This is
having the effect of distorting the parks service with Lottery-funded
parks expected to consume a disproportionate percentage of the
parks capital and revenue budgets in future years.
•
The existing budget process does not provide for future
maintenance of regeneration projects
ECCS budgeting as part of the service planning process does not
provide any guarantee that funds will be made available to maintain
24
regenerated facilities in future years. In addition to this, to support
services elsewhere, park budgets are frequently vulnerable to
budget reductions with the result of reducing funds that have
already been committed. The failure to provide adequate funding to
maintain regenerated facilities undermines regeneration efforts.
•
Sustainability of the Team
Although the Team has the potential to be, at least to some extent,
self-funding through income arising from grant sources, this is not
fully exploited.
•
Lambeth does not see a return on investment in regeneration
Although a regenerated park or green space may stimulate wider
urban regeneration and enhance the value of local property and
businesses, LBL does not accrue any direct financial benefit from
this.
•
We currently have no list of detailed and costed outstanding
projects, this should be remedied as soon as possible, perhaps as
part of the costing of management plans.
8. Current position – Finance
Finance
8.1
It is clear that the existing financial arrangements/budget are
insufficient to meet the needs of the parks in terms of dealing with the
cumulative effects of failing to address the infrastructure
deficiencies/maintenance backlog over a considerable number of
years. It is, however, important to recognise that this is a problem
common to the overwhelming, if not all, local authority parks
departments.
8.2
In order to rectify this unsatisfactory situation we need to be able to
estimate what investment is required to both redress this problem and
finance a maintenance regime that will continue to maintain our parks
in a reasonable and acceptable state.
8.3
The conundrum we face is:
• a) deciding what is acceptable, and
• b) we need to know much more about the needs and wants of our
users.
8.4
Having carefully consider the matter it is our view that both are of
critical and mutually supportive importance to us. We cannot delay any
financial assessment of the investment required, but that any such
investment must be based upon a much better understanding of the
25
needs and requirements of our users. In reaching this view we are
doing so in the knowledge that we can, and indeed will, be using a
programme based on the Green Flag standard which offers the
prospect of additional income ; together with assessment based on the
professional advice of our officers as to what is required (management
plans/master plans).
9 Current position- Assets
9.1
There are currently some 100 buildings/properties situated within our
parks. As with other aspects of the parks service there is a backlog of
infrastructure work and our spending to date has not kept pace with
inflation.
9.2
In June 2004 a full condition and DDA compliance survey of all the
buildings and properties was undertaken. This survey indicated that
some £6.4 million work was required. To date some £2 million has
been spent on these assets mainly on work linked with Health and
Safety and DDA compliance.
9.3
These assets currently provide the following annual income:
-
Café rental £88k
Mobiles £18k.
10. Current position - Maintenance Contracts
10.1
There are two main contracts, one for trees £495,303 and one for
ground maintenance £2,747,435.
10.2
These are substantial contracts but although closely monitored, there is
the need for a more effective means of administering any defaults
noted. This is a matter of concern given that a failure on the part of the
contractor to deliver might well result in monies being returned to the
Council. There is also concern about the fulfilment of some of the
service development targets of the ground maintenance contract.
Further concern has been expressed with the difficulties encountered
when new and specialised surfaces and pitches are introduced
requiring a level of maintenance that is outwith the existing contracts.
There is an overwhelming case for the appointment of a contracts
manager to ensure that the Council is obtaining the fullest value from
these contracts.
11. Current position - Events
11.1
Our target income for 2007/08 is £270k and with the exception of then
Royal Parks and Kensington and Chelsea, some four times higher than
26
any other London borough identified in the London Parks
Benchmarking Groups 2007 survey9. It should be noted that the target
income from events has not been achieved for the past few years and
may reflect an unrealistic ambition given the restraints placed upon the
service. (It also appears that the current income projections are based
upon historical data from a year when the Olympic torch went through
the borough resulting in substantial, but ‘one off’ income.)
12. Current position - Overall budgets
12.1
The 2007/08 budget for Lambeth’s parks is £5.9 million an increase of
some 3.87% over the comparable budget for 2004/05 but an actual
decrease given that in the same period the CPI has risen by some
6.5%10. This is a trend that is unlikely to be reversed.
12.2
Given this, two options present themselves
•
•
one: to try and persuade that Council that the ‘value’ of parks
should be recognised in terms of ‘green pounds’ they contribute to
the local economy and this in turn should be reflected in future
expenditure ; and
two: that the Parks Department is allowed to adopt an ‘Earn more,
Spend more’ approach to the financial sustainability of its services.
But whatever the way ahead, a more secure future lies in ensuring
that the department is able to deliver services that are financially
sustainable.
13. Financial Sustainability
13.1
In introducing its report Paying for parks11 CABE states:
‘There is increasing political and public awareness of the value of good
quality parks, play areas and green spaces in improving the quality of
life in England’s towns and cities. The value of public space published
by CABE in 2004, outlined national and international evidence that
made the case for the importance of green spaces. Value was
measured in terms of their economic value; their positive impact on
physical and mental health; benefits for children and young people;
contribution towards reducing crime and anti social behaviour; role in
encouraging cultural, social and community cohesion; and the
significant environmental benefits they can provide. In short, good
quality parks and green spaces add value and deliver benefits across
all these agendas, if properly resourced and managed.’
9
Annual LPBG Benchmarking Survey 2007, London Borough of Haringey, May 2007.
CPI 1 Dataset, Office of National Statistics 15/5/07.
11
Paying for parks, CABE Space, 2006.
10
27
13.2
The capacity of local authorities and therefore individual departments to
continue to function and provide services like parks to our children and
their children is dependent upon how such authorities and departments
manage their financial sustainability.
13. 3 It is perhaps no wonder this has become a challenge given that much
of the debate in Councils, communities, government and media
focuses on annual spending and current service needs. Unless we act
swiftly on long-term policy settings we will hand on to the next
generation assets that are substantially run down. There can be little
doubt if this issue is not addressed now, future taxpayers and Council
Members will be faced with accepting much lower service and
infrastructure standards than we currently enjoy or dramatic increases
in costs.
13.4
An examination of the past few years would appear to show that the
demand by communities for new services, rising service standards and
expectations, government/lottery grants encouraging involvement in
new services, together with and an aversion to debt have all played a
role in where we are today.
Financial Sustainability - A common understanding
13.5
As this review will be the subject of widespread consultation it is
important that we have a common agreement and understanding as to
what is meant by the term financial sustainability.
13.6
What do we mean by “sustainable”?
The word “sustainable” has gained common usage in a variety of areas
in recent years. Primarily however it is in environmental management
that it is most understood. It is in the environmental context we can
easily understand for example that if we use up fossil fuels rapidly, our
reliance on energy will not be sustainable unless alternatives are found
– meaning that at some point (or points) in the future our current
practices will need to change. In general terms we use sustainable to
mean that we can continue our current practices.
13.7
Financial sustainability therefore can be taken to address whether we
can sustain our current practices in financial or economic terms. For
Local Government, financial sustainability poses the question: Can we
continue the sort of revenue and expenditure patterns of recent years
while maintaining the levels of service expected by the community?
13.8
For the general public, financial sustainability is probably thought of as
whether we can afford our current lifestyle - whether we can pay for
rent, food and other expenses with the income we receive each year.
For those of us who own homes or businesses, we may think in longer
28
terms as to whether we will be in a position to repay debts by the time
we retire. This type of thinking is practical for individuals or families
where long-term planning is probably in the order of 15-20 years. Most
of us probably plan on a shorter basis than that.
13.9
What does Financial Sustainability mean for Local Government?
13.10 Applied to Local Government the concepts most people use in their
personal and business lives are useful but need modification. This is
because Councils are perpetual corporations which hold and manage
community wealth and assets through generation after generation.
13.11 Councils provide the legal framework by which communities own
infrastructure and assets and by which they act as a collective. Much
Local Government infrastructure has a life of 30, 50 or in some cases
well over 100 years. While individuals involved in Local Government
may come and go, the Councils continue, like local, regional and
central governments, perpetually.
13.12 Research has repeatedly shown that too many Councils have large
infrastructure maintenance and renewal backlogs and as a result our
communities are enjoying infrastructure which will and is beginning to
deteriorate and will be left for future generations to fix up. Some
commentators consider a deferral of infrastructure renewal and
replacement to be a worse “sin” than borrowing to finance such
renewal/replacement.
13.13 As a result quite different thinking is called for. Leaders, administrators
and communities must not only think about the state of infrastructure
and assets we leave to our children, but to our grandchildren and great
grandchildren. These issues are often referred to as “intergenerational
equity”.
13.14 Another way of describing this is that communities are, under our
stewardship across the borough, living off their assets rather than
paying their way. We are wearing out vital infrastructure and putting off
until the next generation the challenges of renewal while we improve
current service levels.
13.15 In making corrections, we need to ensure however that the next
generation does contribute appropriately to rebuilding infrastructure
they will use. A better balance would see vital infrastructure renewed
with costs shared by future generations while ensuring they are not
paying for current services.
13.16 The only indicator that points more to our long-term position is whether
we have an infrastructure backlog – that is, infrastructure which has not
been maintained or renewed appropriately. This depends on whether
we have been spending enough on maintaining and renewing vital
infrastructure assets like parks and open spaces, and not leaving an
29
unfair burden on future generations to do so. Assessing whether we
have such a backlog requires an assessment of whether past spending
on existing assets has kept pace with their depreciation (loss in value)
over time. For the Parks Service of Lambeth, as with the majority of UK
local authorities, the conclusion is in little doubt, no.
13.17 Without the right level of resources, we cannot deliver on key parts of
our strategy. Whatever policies, whatever challenges, whatever vision
the service has it can only move towards meeting and delivering these
on the basis of sound financial management and as equally important a
financial regime that is sustainable.
13.18 The following Financial Sustainability Plan principles and concepts
provide a useful set of criteria:
•
•
•
The Financial Sustainability Plan quantifies the resources required
to reach a set of goals for improving services to the community.
The Financial Sustainability Plan is not static. The plan will be
reviewed, discussed, and updated annually to reflect changing
conditions and priorities.
The Financial Sustainability Plan focuses on priorities consistently
identified in the Council’s Strategic Priorities.
13.19 The National Audit Office in its recent report ‘Enhancing Urban Green
Space12 also comments on the importance of local authorities having a
common understanding of the costs of their green space and the
essential role this can play in driving up value for money. Their guide to
the key stages to be followed to help achieve this can be found at
Appendix 4.
13.20 We have dealt at length with this matter but it this issue is key factor in
our ability to deliver an effective and efficient service. In the most lay of
lay language the message is simple – stop, go, policies simply damage
our infrastructure, staff moral and public confidence and give rise to an
increase in cynicism for all. A far more positive outlook can be achieved
if we move towards a situation where:
‘the Parks Department’s long term financial performance and position is
sustainable where long-term services and infrastructure levels and
standards are met without unplanned increases in costs or disruptive
cuts to services.’
Financial sustainability - Lambeth
13.21 The major infrastructure problems identified elsewhere in this Review is
mirrored in Lambeth. There simply does not exist any form of long-term
maintenance budget and as a consequence there is no long-term
12
Enhancing Urban Green Space, National Audit Office, 2006.
30
maintenance programme. As a result, maintenance tends to be on the
basis of the minimum necessary. Clearly this is an unsatisfactory state
of affairs.
13.22 This problem is acerbated by the albeit welcome arrival of HLF funding
and S106 monies. While these provides much needed capital
expenditure for improvements to our parks, it rarely, if ever, allows for
the ongoing and often increased maintenance expenditure required –
thus the process becomes a complete denial of sound financial
sustainability.
13.23 However, the problems caused by the lack of a long-term maintenance
strategy/budget are further compounded by the annual financial
reductions imposed upon the service. Such reductions lead to
operational reductions in services and these in turn can lead to
disillusionment amongst both staff and customers. But above all, the
consequences of such a process, in terms of the infrastructure of the
parks, could be said to be a denial of sound financial management,
though yet again Lambeth is not an isolated case:
‘Our analysis is that local government has become too much focused
on the cost of individual services and too little on wider community
benefit. Facilities on which councils spend money but where the benefit
is returned to the community at large, rather than generating income
from paid admissions, may be more difficult to account for and have
less attraction than more recent additions to their leisure portfolio. Too
much attention has been given to reducing maintenance costs rather
than adding value to the parks and open spaces of the urban
environment. This is something unlikely to be remedied by the kind of
performance indicators currently being formulated to promote "Best
Value" that seem to be predicated on cost, not value.’13
13.24 There would appear to be a very strong case for the establishment of
an investment fund to deal with the long term maintenance backlog.
Allocating a percentage of S106 funding may be a way of developing
such an investment fund. The need for such a fund was highlighted in
the evidence by the Landscape Institute to the House of Commons
Environment Sub-Committee, 1999.14
13.25 Research has consistently found that local authorities rarely have
adequate databases of information about green space provision from
which they can make appropriately informed management and funding
decisions – although those with green space strategies tend to have
better data than those without.15 The majority of parks departments do
13
Memorandum by the Urban Parks Forum Ltd to the House of Commons Environment SubCommittee, 1999.
14
Memorandum by the Landscape Institute to the House of Commons Environment Sub-Committee,
1999.
15
Green spaces, better places, final report of the Urban Green Spaces taskforce, Department for
Transport , Local government and the Regions, 2002
31
not have the resources to collect sophisticated information about the
number and profile of users nor to undertake cost-benefit analyses
showing how the social and environmental benefits attributed to urban
green space translate into financial returns. This lack of information has
undermined the ability of managers and politicians to argue the case
for greater investment in green space. It also leaves local authorities
unable to track declining value or identify what resources are required
to halt decline.16 Further, reductions in skilled labour and decreasing
investment in training provision have exacerbated the problem. A
survey published in 2004 found that not one of the authorities taking
part had qualified staff to discharge all five professional functions
thought to be essential to the successful management of
multifunctional green space systems.17
13.26 However this situation need not be a cause for despair, but rather one
of hope and opportunity. Nor will the Council be treading a path in to
the unknown, for the situation Lambeth and many other UK councils
find themselves was also the experience of a number of authorities
both in the UK and overseas that have managed their way to viable
and highly successful parks. See fig 3.
13.27 Lambeth, even with its ongoing financial constraints can point to a real
commitment to bring about improvements to it parks.
16
17
Urban Parks: do you know what you’re getting for your money? CABE Space, 2006.
A study of the management of multifunctional urban green space in England. Barber A, 2004.
32
fig 3
Paley Park, New York. An outdoor room of 15.2m by 30.4m, it has a waterfall-wall,
trees, chairs and paving. 'Few human-made places provoke such unequivocal praise. It
"has become one of Manhattan's treasures, a masterpiece of urbanity and grace.
memorable because it makes no effort to be so'. Yet on many definitions it is not a
'public park': it is too small; it is unimparked; it does not belong to the public; it was not
funded from the public purse. The William S. Paley Foundation provided $1m to build
the park in 1966 and another $700,000 for a reconstruction in 1999. The operating
budget was $225,000 in 1998 and Tate estimates the number of visitors at 500,000.
This puts the cost/visit at 45 cents - a bargain. Central Park, NY, has an endowment
fund of $65m which generates income for maintenance. Prospect Park, NY, in a poor
area, gets 40% of its income from a non-profit alliance and had 24,000 hours of
volunteer labour in 1997.
Bryant Park, NY. Built in 1842, became a symbol of the city's decline in the 1970s and
of its revitalisation in the 1990s. It adjoins New York Public Library and had become
known as 'Needle Park' on account of its typical 'user'. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund
agreed to support the regeneration project. The re-design cost $17.69m. Fences were
restored, moveable chairs provided, the lawn was edged in granite, herbaceous borders
were planted, a programme of events was organised, a Grill and Café established.
Responsibility for the park was transferred to the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation
under a 15-year agreement with the City of New York. The budget was $3.7m in 2000.
User counts, by gender, are done at 1.15 every business day and tabulated alongside
weather conditions. 'User counts are the only form of profit and loss account that exists
in park management’. Homeless people are not turned away if they obey the rules. Tate
concludes: 'It is an object lesson in the patient, persistent and professional application
of sound business principles in the public realm'.
In Paris, Parc de Bercy (FF390 million in 1994), Parc André-Citröen (FF388 million)
and Parc de la Villette were all subject to public and much-debated design
competitions. No such event was held when the André-Citröen designers were
appointed for the Thames Barrier Park in London. Nor is it a well-used space. Usage of
Grant Park on the Chicago waterfront has grown enormously since the annual music
festivals started. Use of Stanley Park in Vancouver has risen from 2 million/year in the
1980s to 7.5 million/year in the 1990s. The Amsterdam Bos Park sometimes attracts
100,000 visitors on a good day - and 50,000 bicycles. Let no one proclaim the death of
the park (or ban cyclists).
Britain can surely learn from the international examples. It is good to focus on
individual parks instead of local authority groupings. One can imagine UK donors
funding parks as they do museums and galleries. It is less easy to envisage a multimillion pound gift to the Leisure Services Department's Parks Sub-committee. Local
management is the key. There is a Polish proverb: 'Under the capitalist system, man
exploits man. Under socialism, the reverse is true'. Parks do not need 'systems'. They
need a rich diversity of ownership, of control, of funding and of response to the
uniqueness of every locality. It will come naturally when parks are run by the people,
for the people, with the people, guided by those with professional skills in design,
management and horticulture.
33
14. Implementing a Strategy of Earn More, Spend More
Flexibility of approach.
14.1
An earn more, spend more strategy is much more than identifying a
range of income generating opportunities. Its success will equally
depend upon delivering a culture within the department that is able to
best respond to the opportunities provided (see also customer focus
section). Crucially, it requires a flexibility of approach in its
management style and operation.
14.2
Bringing about such a culture change is likely to be the most
challenging of tasks, not because of any inherent difficulties from the
staff, but simply because such changes always take time and we will
be operating in many instances in isolation from the culture operating
elsewhere within the Council.
14.3
However the one issue of critical importance to developing an ‘Earn
more, Spend more’ culture will be a willingness on the part of the
Council to be prepared to allow the Parks Department to explore all
legitimate income generating opportunities, particularly in the areas of
sponsorship and concessions.
15. Income Generation - The Opportunities
15.1
It could of course be said that the opportunities for additional income
generation are many and varied and only constrained by our vision and
capability to deliver. We have therefore listed below a range of possible
initiatives that we view as worthy of serious consideration. A number of
these have been successfully undertaken by local authorities both in
the UK and overseas.
15.1 Income Generation - Health.
15.1.1 Few can be unaware of the increasing importance that health related
topics have been given in the public sector/government agenda. The
link between an ever growing list of diseases and conditions and the
lack of exercise and a healthy diet is no longer news. Parks have an
obvious role in helping communities to redress this situation
15.1.2 What is perhaps less well known is the positive role that parks and
open spaces can play in helping with a range of disabling illnesses –
including those known to particularly affect our own local and diverse
population. (See health section of Benefits of Parks).
34
15.1.3 The current focus on healthy living provided the opportunity for a more
effective and active relationship to be developed between the Council
and its local health services – the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and the
two major teaching hospitals within the Borough, Guys and St Thomas’
and King’s College.
15.1.4 As a healthier, more active population reduces the strain on the acute
clinical services, potential savings can be identified for local health
providers, primary care trust (PCT’s) and the NHS18. Commentators
suggest that the lack of physical activity in the UK equates to around 23 per cent of NHS annual costs, which translates to around £1-5 billion
per annum at 2004 prices19. Indeed the importance of promoting a
healthily land active population has been recognised and encouraged
in H M Treasury’s independent report, Securing good health for the
whole population20
15.1.5 We will seek to develop an expanded programme of healthy trails
within our parks and commons and will provide appropriate information
for exercises at suitable points on each trail. A number of local
authorities have such schemes and the Parks Trust Milton Keynes last
year made a jointly funded three-year appointment of an officer to
promote healthy activity within their parks.
15.1.6 We will actively seek to explore with Guy’s and St Thomas’ and King’s
College Hospitals for the provision of sports clinics/ events linked to the
activities taking place within our parks and commons.
15.1.7 Both of the hospitals in our Borough are teaching hospitals of world
renown and Kings’ College London, at their Waterloo site, have the
largest bio-medical education campus in Europe. These ought to offer
enormous mutual advantages for these institutions and the Council.
See Fig 4. We will therefore examine what opportunities exist for
research into the benefits than can accrue from the provision of parks
and associated facilities for those within our communities suffering from
a range of illness and conditions that are known to benefit from either a
more active lifestyle or parks or both, for example obesity, asthma and
diabetes.
fig 4.
18
The Green Flag Award Scheme 8 years on, Lewis K. ILAM Seminar 2004
Green cites and why we need them. New Economics Foundation, 2004
20
Securing good health for the whole population. H M Treasury, HMSO 2004
19
35
Lambeth
Lambeth
PCT
King’s
College
Hospital
Public
Benefit
King’s
College
London
Guy’s &
St
Thomas’’
Hospital
15.1.8 Such developments not only offer the prospect of additional income for
the parks but will also deliver the benefits of best practice in terms of
good partnership working as well as high reputational value for the
borough.
15.2 Income Generation – Green Flag – LAA stretch target
15.2.1 Everybody living in Lambeth and those working for Lambeth Council,
would like to see the condition, quality and status of their local parks
and open spaces improve, and for these improvement to be recognised
nationally and by central government, the media and external funders,
elected Members, the Council administration and of course our local
population. As well as being able to argue for, justify and secure
increased inward investment in the management and provision of open
spaces, we also need a way for this achievement to be recognised and
used to encourage and sustain continued quality management and
development of parks and open spaces.
36
15.2.2 The most immediate and obvious scheme that Lambeth Council could
support and commit to in terms of recognising and promoting the
quality management and use of any of its 64 parks, commons and
public greenspaces is the Green Flag Award.
15.2.3 Green Flag Award is the national standard for parks and green spaces
in England and Wales and is a means of recognising and rewarding the
best green spaces in the country. It is also seen as a way of
encouraging others to achieve the same high environmental standards,
creating a benchmark of excellence in recreational greenspaces.
15.2.4 Winning a Green Flag Award brings excellent publicity; the media and
the public are becoming increasingly aware that a site flying a Green
Flag is a high quality green space. All green spaces are different and
this diversity is welcomed in the scheme, so that each site is judged on
its own merits and suitability to the actual community it sits within and
serves. Awards are given on an annual basis and winners must apply
each year to renew their Green Flag status. The Green Flag Criteria
are attached as Appendix 5.
Green Flag Award – The Benefits to Lambeth and Lambeth Parks
Department.
15.2.5 It is now widely accepted across local authorities, as well as by central
government, major funders and environmental or civic amenity groups,
that there are huge benefits resulting from participating in the Green
Flag Award scheme. For Lambeth these include:
i) Promotion/reputation management
The Council, holding award winning green spaces, can use the Green
Flag Award logo on all its stationary, promotional literature, vehicles,
uniforms, and in other appropriate situations for the duration for which
the green space holds the award, enabling the Council to be able to
promote that they are managing open spaces to this national standard.
ii) Best Value & Service Improvement
A Green Flag Award demonstrates to the local community, elected
Members and the press a clear improvement to named parks or
greenspaces holding that Flag and meets the needs of best value for
the Council and community.
The Green Flag Award scheme is included in the local performance
indicators as set up by the Audit Commission, so Lambeth Council is
able to show it is performance managing its greenspaces and its parks
service to the expected standard. The more Flags it secures and holds,
and the more it applies the Green Flag Award criteria to all parks, the
Parks department can demonstrate it is continually improving
performance year on year.
37
iii) Beacon Status
Beacon Councils get noticed and are praised by the government as
examples of good practice. The first winners of Beacon Council status
for green spaces were announced in 2002 - four of them are
also successful Green Flag Award winners, and the number of both
has continued to increase each year.
There is therefore the option for the Council to set itself the target of
obtaining Beacon Council for green spaces – many of the things it does
relating to parks and open spaces already shows good practice and as
innovation. In securing Green Flag Awards Lambeth Council is a better
position to achieve Beacon Status.
iv) Revenue
and Capital Opportunities
Green Flag Award is a powerful lever for obtaining external funding
through improvement grants and a means of maximising revenue
opportunities from within. Many Green Flag Award holding local
authorities use the fact they have parks and greenspaces holding the
Award in any submissions or bids they make – to charities, landfill tax
trusts, central government and to their own administration.
Green Flag Award also helps many parks and greenspace services to
defend their current levels of funding and budgets, and indeed argue
for increases in budget to extend the number of Awards held.
v) Tourism
People frequently visit Award winning parks from afar – more and more
websites catering to tourists are mentioning sites that have Green Flag,
as a visible statement that they are quality sites and cater for the
varying needs of visitors as well as local people. Green Flag Award
makes a clear statement as to the quality of the experience the visitor
can expect and word of mouth, as well as the web, is a very effective
marketing tool.
2012 is the year of the London Olympics – when the predicted and
massive increase in visitors to London takes place in that year,
Lambeth wants to have its fair share, and if they are also using our
parks and open spaces, then we have an ideal opportunity to show off
our best sites – our Green Flag Award sites.
vi) Civic Pride and Reputational Value
Civic pride and reuputational value must never be underestimated.
Previous generations knew it and positively promoted the best of their
parks and green spaces as examples of civic achievement; this is still
relevant today. In terms of local and national reputation, Green Flag
38
Award is priceless – it shows that Lambeth Council and its parks and
open spaces are achieving the highest standards.
Green Flag Award - Lambeth’s Current Status
15.2.6 Lambeth Council currently has one Green Flag Award site – Milkwood
Community Park; it secured Green Flag in June 2006 following a period
of increased investment – both financial and community, turning it from
a bland and featureless open space into a stimulating, colourful and
well provisions community space. This improvement was recognised by
the Green Flag Award judges, who visited the site in May 2006.
Green Flag Awards 2007
15.2.7 For 2007, Lambeth has decided to submit 3 parks for Green Flag
Award: Milkwood Community Park (to retain its existing Green Flag), as
well as Ruskin Park and Vauxhall Park. These latter two sites are
considered, using the Green Flag Award criteria and assessed by
experienced Award judges, to meet the criteria and have a good
chance of securing an Award this year.
Green Flag Awards - Local Area Agreements – Safer and Stronger
Communities
15.2.8 LAA has offers a unique opportunity to obtain some additional support
and investment in parks and open spaces. The Cultural Services LAA
Team and Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces are submitting a bid under
‘Safer Stronger Communities’ to improve service delivery and
performance in the management and provision of parks and open
spaces, based on increasing the number of young people using our
parks.
15.2.9 The target proposes to increase the number of Green Flag Award sites
held by Lambeth Council from 1 to 6 over three financial years (2007 to
2010), and to use this as a measure of improved management and
community use of all of Lambeth’s parks and open spaces, and of
increased performance of Lambeth Council in terms of how it manages
its parks services and meets customer needs. The LAA target will allow
the Council to move from 2 Green Flag Award sites (without the LAA
funding) to 6 sites in three years, a ‘stretch’ of 4 additional sites.
15.2.10
The LAA target will result in a ‘Pump Priming Grant’ (PPG), being given
to the Council to deliver this ‘stretch’ of four additional Green Flag
Award sites, which equates to around £80K over the three year period.
If successful in delivering that ‘stretch’ by the end of the programme,
the Council receives a £580K ‘Reward Grant’ to invest in maintaining
the improved performance and service standards. This reflects a
£660K increase in investment into Lambeth’s parks and greenspaces
to deliver quality improvements and support Lambeth’s Green Flag
39
Award programme and its determination to secure more Awards more
of its quality open spaces.
Green Flag Awards – Financial Implications
15.2.11
Green Flag Award is an annual scheme, in that any site wishing to hold
the Award – even if it already has one – has to be submitted for
assessment each year. This means that the existing Green Flag site
and ones identified as new candidates have to be maintained to the
expected standard, and the Council has to be committed to do this
every year.
15.2.12
Therefore, it makes sound financial sense not to enter into the Green
Flag Award programme unless a local authority is aware of the costs
and implications, and the demands it could place on budgets.
15.2.13
We have undertaken an exercise to calculate the cost of preparing a
site as a candidate for a Green Flag Award. Much of this work has
been based on our experience at Milkwood Community Park. (For full
details of this see Appendix 6.)
15.2.14
From this work we estimate that the cost per site, inclusive of the
application fee is £43,070 per site per hectare, with an additional
income potential of a one off payment of £580,000 in 2010 if which
reach our target of six Green Flag parks. We will also receive an
annual pump priming sum of £30,000 until 2010.
15.2.15
A major consideration however is the fact that there is no specific
budget allocation for Green Flag. If we are serious in our intent to
deliver financial sustainability then our budgeting should take account
of the true cost of delivering this and other objectives.
15.3 Income Generation – allotments
15.3.2 The Council currently has one allotment site containing some thirty
Individual allotments with an annual income of approximately £600.
15.3.3 We have identified a further site for another thirty or so allotments, and
while the additional income generated, circa £600 per annum, is small
the reputational value for the borough is high given the ever increasing
popularity of allotments and their scarcity value.
40
15.4. Income Generation – Events
15.4.1 Events in all of their various forms have the potential to deliver
substantial additional income, particularly if some of the existing
restrictions/policies are removed. These restrictions, identified in the
Events Strategy and listed below, reflect the apparent conflict of
interest between the local residents and such events as well as
legislation passed some forty years ago at a time when events were
very different indeed. However what is clear is that without a
relaxation of some of these, opportunities to maximise income
generation opportunities will be reduced. These restrictions include:
•
Event site clarification
The events service in conjunction with the parks and open space
department will set the size of an event based on the Ministry of Housing
and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation Greater London parks
and open spaces Act 1967 stating the following
(ii) the part of any open spaces set apart or enclosed for the use of persons
listening to or viewing an entertainment (including a band concert, dramatic
performance, cinematograph exhibition or pageant) shall not exceed in any
open space one acre or one-tenth of the open space, whichever is the
greater;
This applies to all fenced events taking place on parks and open
spaces including commons. However the following guidance will be
used for the majority of events.
•
Maximum Square Metres of Events
Category
Maximum Square Metres
Small
Medium
Large
10,000 square meters
Event organisers are required to submit clear and concise footprint
maps of their events to the event service within the required
documentation prior to an event taking place. The event service in
conjunction with the parks service will monitor the size of the event
during event build to ensure the organiser is within their allotted
amount.
41
•
Capacity Table
Facility
Medium
Large
Funfairs
Circus
Council
Clapham Common
Streatham Common
Brockwell Park
Kennington Park
3
3
3
3
4*
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
*One large event in addition to the four will be permitted to use
Clapham Common Southside and is not included in the above table
* Council events are events or activities specifically organised by the
Council for the wider community e.g. Fireworks and Lambeth Country
Show the Council aims to increase the number of events it leads by
2012 as marked out above however this will be done with the life of an
open space taken into consideration.
•
Rest days between events
The event service will aim to provide three clear weekends or 21 days
from the last breakdown day to the first build date for large categorised
events. This applies to all of Lambeth’s green open spaces. Events that
are categorised as medium and small will be allowed to take place
within these 21 days. The event service understands the need for open
spaces to live an independent life and will be mindful of this when
booking small and medium events.
•
Event Times
The expectation is that events on Lambeth’s Parks and Green Open
Spaces will close at 20:00hrs. The events service will assess this on an
event-by-event basis. In certain cases events will be allowed to finish at
21.00 to allow realistic time for crowd dispersal.
15.5 Income generation – events – festivals
15.5.1 Lambeth Borough Council plays host to approximately 150 events per
year21 and is one of the leading London Boroughs for delivery of a
diverse range of community, charity and commercially events. The
Council specifically organises two events per year both of which are
now iconic in their status.
15.5.2 The Lambeth Country Show is the largest free event of its type in
South-East England, combining the attraction of a traditional country
show with the unique character of Brixton and Lambeth. Offering a
huge selection of fairground rides, performance stages, community
stalls and local attractions, the Show attracts up to 100,000 visitors
21
Event year defined as January to end of December, events defined as taking place on Parks and Open
Spaces
42
each year. The Show is organised by an event contractor and Lambeth
Council delivering a unique experience for Lambeth residents and
visitors alike.
15.5.3 The Lambeth Firework Displays are the only simultaneous displays in
London. Audience figures vary per site but the overall attendance is
estimated to be in access of 160,000 per year. The displays are
completely free and audiences enjoy a 25-minute feast of fireworks.
15.5.4 The success of these two events and the focus of the Refreshed
Events Strategy will form a foundation for Lambeth Council to develop
event concepts for the future harnessing the vibrancy of the Borough
both through attracting major national and international events and
development of Council led events.
15.5.5 In order to achieve this ambition then event team has set itself ,
amongst others, the following objectives:
Seek active partnership with Southbank events exploring the
expansion of these events into Lambeth.
Event service to offer technical support to other council departments
to improve overall quality of Lambeth Council led events.
Increase Lambeth Council’s profile with the event venue and event
management industries developing key strategy’s to establish
Lambeth as an industry leader.
Research funding and grant streams to assist with the development
of Lambeth lead events.
Research economic impact of events on the surrounding areas .
Develop cross partnerships external and internal to deliver an
enhanced event service.
Build branding and marketing policies to deliver consistency for
event organisers and event attendees.
15.6 Income generation – events – art festivals
15.6.1 Art festivals or fairs remain relatively uncommon in the UK. The best
known are the Frieze art show held in Regents Park – a mainstream
upmarket contemporary art event – and the Affordable Art show held
each year in Battersea Park – contemporary art within a price range of
£300 - £3000.
15.6.2 Some US cities have held highly successful art festivals based on
individual artist exhibiting with lots of other activities, music,
entertainment and food concessions being available. Many of these
events receive substantial sponsorship. Examples of such art festivals
are those organised by the parks department and local communities in
Minneapolis. See fig 5 & fig 6 and Appendix 7.
43
15.6.3 Given the borough’s increasing links with the arts community, not least
in the north of the borough, the opportunities available for us to start
what might well become an iconic event/s centred on local art festivals
should not only be an excellent source of additional income but also
add considerable to the vibrancy of the local communities where these
event will take place. We will explore the market potential of such
events.
44
fig 5.
POWDERHORN ART FAIR 2007 - POWDERHORN PARK, MINNEAPOLIS
Saturday August 4 - 10am-6pm - Sunday August 5 - 10am-5pm
ABOUT THE POWDERHORN ART FAIR
Welcome…
For two days each summer, white tents dot the landscape around Powderhorn
Park bringing individuals from all over the country together to enjoy an
abundance of creativity and skill that flows through the artists participating in
the Powderhorn Art Fair.
The park, the lake, the surrounding community, and the committed, “behind
the scene” individuals make this a picturesque event; however, the real
beauty of the Powderhorn Art Fair is that the event’s impact is felt throughout
the year and not just on event days.
Proceeds from the Art Fair help fund park programs such as theatre arts, a
computer lab, teen center, music recording studio, pottery studio and team
sports – giving neighborhood residents of all ages a safe environment in
which to play, learn and grow.
As you stroll through the Fair – appreciating the artwork – please take a
moment to reflect on your importance to Powderhorn Park and our
community. We encourage you to take the time to experience the uniqueness
of the Powderhorn Park neighborhood and hope that you will visit us regularly
– whether for one of our many annual events or for a simple walk around the
lake. You are welcome always!
45
fig 6.
An urban, sophisticated oasis of art and culture.
The Loring Park Art Festival is produced by Artists for Artists LLP, an organization of three
experienced artists. The juried festival is a two day event on August 4th and August 5th 2007 in
Loring Park near downtown Minneapolis. The hours are Saturday, 10-6 and Sunday 10-5.
The Festival consists of 140 visual artists displaying their orginial work in 12x12 booths, strolling
musicians, scheduled stage performances, children's activities and food booths. The art work
presented will be from a variety of media including painting, photography, printmaking,
handmade paper, wood, jewelry, sculpture, fiber, mixed media and glass. Within these
categories will be a variety of styles from traditional to abstract in a variety of price ranges with
the goal being "something for everyone."
Loring Park, with its beautiful ponds and formal gardens, makes an idyllic setting for art and
music and the Loring Park Art Festival offers the greater metropolitan community an opportunity
to enjoy this oasis just west of downtown Minneapolis.
46
15.7 Income generation – events – flower/gardening shows
15.7.1 Gardening continues to one of the most popular activities in the UK and
the success of the major gardening shows and television related events
go from strength to strength. Apart from the flower and produce show
and gardening stall at the Lambeth Country Show we are not aware of
any other medium/large commercial events in the borough.
15.7.2 We will investigate the potential for such events and the income
generation opportunities they provide.
15.8 Income generation – events – ice rinks
15.8.1 Two sites for ice rinks are currently under consideration, Albert
Embankment at Spring Gardens (with pink ice to celebrate the Gay
village) and Clapham Common. Income projections are not precise but
we estimate that the combine income to the borough should generate
some £60k in the first year.
15.9 Income generation – events – concessions
15.9.1 The large events in the borough are organised and managed by event
management companies. The contract for the largest of all, the
Lambeth Country Show, comes to an end in December 2007. For this,
and similar future contracts, we will consider the financial benefits to
the borough of having a contractual arrangement whereby we have the
opportunity to enter into a partnership arrangement that will enable the
borough to receive a share/benefit from the income earned from
concessions let by the event organiser.
15.9.2 Another potential source of additional income is the corporate
entertaining market. Clapham Common and the Rookery in particular
lend themselves to such events. We envisage that this market would
be interested for both high summer and in the case of Clapham
Common and its ice rink, the winter as well. We will explore the market
potential of this.
15.10 Income generation – events – sponsorship
15.10.1
Sponsorship – using sponsorship as a method to access funding from
business for green spaces and parks is used extensively in the USA,
but less so in the UK. However, Lambeth was in the forefront of such
initiatives when in 2001 it raised £100,000 from Evian for Brockwell
Park Lido. The experience from the USA is that business sponsorship
offers a wealth of opportunities for substantial income generation from
branded product sponsorship - from free hot chocolate and doughnuts
47
for those attending ranger tours to complete sponsorship of a park.
Other arrangements have included sports companies being allowed to
advertise actives in a park in return for attracting a particularly hard to
reach group to take part in sports/park activities. For one weekend a
range of companies sponsored Central Park for a winter wonderland
(see fig 7) event that included the park being covered with machine
made snow and snowboarding and skiing events taking place.
Although this took place in a major park there are numerous other
examples of small and local parks benefiting from similar sponsorship
schemes
fig 7
It’s Snowing In Central Park!
Snow guns blanket Central Park in preparation for Saturday's Winter Jam festival
New York City is currently experiencing a lack of snow unseen since the 1970s. So what do enterprising
New Yorkers do when there is no snow? We make our own!
The snowmaking for Saturday’s Winter Jam 2007 began on Monday, continued throughout the day and
night on Tuesday, and is concluding today. The snow guns worked tirelessly to create a two-foot blanket of
snow along Central Park’s dead road. With freezing temperatures expected throughout the week, our winter
wonderland should be here for some time.
Provided by Lake Placid, Gore Mountain and Hunter Mountain, snowmaking is the essential ingredient to
wintry Winter Jam activities such as cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and horse-drawn sleigh rides.
Warm weather for the past two years had prevented snowmaking and forced the cancellation of the festival.
Activities that are not snow-dependant are also on the schedule this year. Snowboarder-acrobat troupe
Flying Ace All-Stars will perform a high-flying trampoline show and talented amateur snowboarders will take
to the rails for the second annual Rail Jam Open. Geffen recording artist Matt White, celebrity DJ Mark
Ronson, and rising hip hop star Jibbs will also perform. There will be an Olympic luge display, ice sculpture
demos, activities for kids, free hot chocolate to warm up, treats for sale at the Winter Greenmarket, and
more.
Winter Jam is free event and is sponsored by Lake Placid, Gore Mountain, and Hunter Mountain, as well as
Backpacker magazine, Naked Juice, Dunkin’ Donuts, Seventeen magazine, a New Line Cinema Release—
The Last Mimzy, the New York Post, NY State Department
48 of Agriculture and Markets and Cabot Cheese.
So get your boots on, bundle up and join us on Saturday in the park!
15.10.2
With the exception of the Evian arrangement, sponsorship, and all of
the opportunities it could provide, is a new area of activity for Lambeth.
It is of course beset with certain sensitivities, but there can be little
doubt that this is an area well worth exploring.
15.11 Income generation – events – Wedding Service
o Clapham Common Bandstand.
o Ruskin Park Bandstand
o Myatts Field Park Bandstand
15.11.1
We consider that there is a potential market in offering the bandstands
at Clapham Common, Ruskin Park and Myatts Field for weddings. We
are currently in the process of registering these bandstands with
Lambeth and Wandsworth Registrars. We estimate that this service will
generate £10k income in its first full year.
15.12 Income generation – sponsorship – parks/services
15.12.1
Sponsorship of complete parks or individual services is another area
rich with potential. It is of course recognised that this is again an issue
of some sensitivity, but is much used and appreciated feature of parks
in the USA where there is certainly as much, if not more, public support
for parks, yet commercial sponsorship is both welcomed and endorsed
as a way of maintaining and improving the public park system.
15.12.2
Examples non event linked sponsorship includes companies that
sponsor a local park maintenance or even regeneration projects such
as the Ernst and Young project with Bryant Park in New York, through
to specific schemes such as the funding by Jamba Juice of playground
assistants. See Fig 8.
15.12.3
What is clear is that such sponsorship is a critical feature of many
parks budgets and is widely made use of. The King County Park
System in Seattle relies on 50% of its total budget for such sponsorship
and has as a resulted in a whole range of sponsorship opportunities.
See Fig 9.
49
fig 8
Jamba Juice is our featured adoption for its generous contribution of two playground
associates for Chelsea Park in Manhattan. Jamba Juice and its commitment to promoting
youth activity with an emphasis on fun made this adoption a perfect fit for both Jamba and
Parks. The playground associates at Chelsea Park will be responsible for providing organized
recreation to neighborhood children throughout the summer months as well as coordinating
such events as the Officer Wilson Memorial Basketball Tournament. Thank you to Jamba
Juice for your dedication to healthy lifestyle and to our parks!
.
50
fig 9
51
15.13 Income generation – sponsorship - advertising hoardings
15.13.1
A small number of our sites, particularly those with depots, and near to
railways or main roads, may offer opportunities for income derived from
allowing advertising hoardings. We will undertake an assessment of
potential sites and consider further the market potential.
15.14 Income generation – sponsorship - litter bins
15.14.1
With some 500 plus litter and dog bins in our parks there is an
undoubted opportunity for sponsorship. Levels of income are likely to
vary from site to site but this has proved a useful source of additional
income for many authorities. We estimate that this has the potential to
generate £20k plus in a full year.
15.15 Income Generation - Special Purpose Funding Vehicles (SPV’s)
15.15.1
Partnerships between public and the private sector can provide
opportunities to develop alternative means of financing parks and
green spaces. Local authorities commonly enter into special purpose
funding vehicles to promote regeneration. Local authorities typically
contribute land to the SPV, which in turn is developed for composite
uses, potentially incorporating high quality green space. Recurrent
revenue requirements associated with the green space could also be
met under the SPV by the bonding of commuted payments drawn from
private planning agreements.
15.15.2
Liverpool City Council established a SPV to regenerate Sefton Park, by
redeveloping the Palm House, a grade 11* listed Victorian glasshouse,
within the park, and Bradford City Council have used SPV’s for a
number of regeneration and environmental projects.
15.15.3
Together with our finance colleagues we investigate the potential of
SPV’s as a method of raising additional income for the regeneration of
out parks.
15.16 Income generation – asset management.
• Concessions
15.16.1
The existing concessions are limited to static and mobile catering
facilities with leases ranging over a number of years.
52
15.16.2
It is considered that there may be opportunities to deliver an increased
financial return to the Council buy offering a borough wide concession
to a major high street operator. This may well offer us a number of
advantages, not only financially, but also in terms of branding and
reputation issues, important when trying to attract sponsorship for
events and other activities.
15.17 Income generation - Volunteering programmes
15.17.1
Volunteering offers us one on the most exciting of all of the
opportunities open to us. In the USA and in some areas of the UK,
volunteers contribute many thousands of hours to their local parks.
Their added value to a parks service can be enormous. The role and
contributions played by volunteer is also discussed in the Devolution
and Partnership section.
15.17.2
The use of volunteers with parks can also be source of income
generation, in particular opening up sources of central government
funding.
15.17.3
Futurebuilders, -a unique government-backed fund offering support and
investment to third sector organisations to deliver public services, has
recently expressed interest in our Green Flag proposals. They are keen
to discuss what possibilities exist to use Lambeth as to pilot a project
using volunteers in park and specifically on our stretched target
schemes that also meet their eligibility criteria.
15.18 Income generation - Training initiatives
15.18.1
An increasing number of local authorities are establishing
training/apprentice schemes within their parks department and in
particular in horticulture.
15.18.3
Opportunities exist for substantial government financial support for
such initiatives where such training/apprenticeship schemes target the
long term unemployed. Futurebuilders, (see above) have experience of
such schemes and as with volunteering have expressed interest in
discussing such an initiative with us. Successfully implementing such a
scheme would also enable to contribute meeting other stretched
targets across the LAA. Such schemes also offer much in term of
reputational value. See fig 10.
53
fig 10.
New York City Parks Department.
Now in its tenth year, the Parks Opportunity Program serves as the nation's largest
transitional employment program -; with over 4000 participants in New York City's parks,
playgrounds and recreation centers. POP participants learn transferable skills in various
fields, including maintenance, security, horticulture, and customer service. They also
receive employment services and career counseling, in preparation for careers in the private
sector. Our 6-month training program is New York City's premier program, and has placed
over 4000 participants into full-time, permanent positions since its inception in 1994.
Parks Opportunity Program
Arsenal West
24 Westimprovement
61st Street, 2nd Floor
Income generation – business
districts – see under
Devolution and Partnership. New York, NY 10023
212.830.7709 (phone)
16 Benefits and value of parks
16.1
This is a key section and its contents are fundamental to any debate
concerning the financing of our parks.
16.2
As indicated elsewhere in this Review, the contribution of parks to the
health, social and economic wellbeing of the borough is probably
greater than any other factor or service the borough provides. What is
also beyond doubt is that this contribution is under-estimated, ignored
or more likely simply not accounted for.
54
16.3
Such contributions include:
Health and well being
Access to green spaces improves people’s quality of life, reducing
stress, encouraging relaxation and providing a sense of freedom.
Accessible green space creates opportunities for relaxation and
exercise, and studies have shown that it increase children’s creative
play, social skills and concentration span. These can also reduce
health care costs.22
Social cohesion
Natural green space can encourage greater social interaction. The
more active use of green space, including streets and communal
places, can help contribute to a liverier public realm. Participation in
the design and stewardship of green spaces can help strengthen
communities.23
Reducing crime and fear of crime
Run-down public spaces, of all types can encourage anti-social
behaviour and add to the fear of crime. In contrast, spaces that are
visibly cared for can be off putting to vandals. A reduction in vandalism
can lead to savings to the local authority repair budget, helping to offset
the cost of better general maintenance. In addition, there is evidence to
suggest that well designed and well maintained open space, in
conjunction with programmes of diversionary activities for young
people, may provide savings police authorities and local businesses, as
level of crime and anti-social behaviour are reduced24,25.
Sports, culture and education
Cultural and sporting activities are crucial to children’s education and
general physical, social and emotional development. arts, sport and
creativity feature strongly within the national curriculum and wider
school activities.26 Increasing community access to culture and leisure
opportunities can also play a vital part in neighbourhood renewal and
make a valuable contribution to greater social inclusion among poorer
22
Jorgenson (2001) Why is it important to encourage nature and wildlife near the home?; RSPB
(2003) Green space and physical activity promotion.
23
English Nature (2004) Nature for People, research report 56; Dunnett N, Swannick C and Wooley H,
Improving urban parks, play areas and open spaces - Research report. Department for Transport Local
Government and the Regions 2002.
24
Urban Green Spaces Taskforce report working group 1: ODPM 2004
25
The value of public spaces: how high quality parks and public spaces create economic, social and
environmental value, CABE Space, 2004.
26
Unlocking the potential of the urban fringe: a consultation. Groundwork and the Countryside Agency
2004
55
communities.27 In this way, green space provision can link in with other
policy initiatives and can offer savings in the areas of educational and
social development.28 Sports and recreational use is also a potential
area for encouraging private sector enterprise.
Improving physical and mental health and well-being
As a healthier, more active population reduces the strain on acute
clinical services, potential savings can be identified for local health
providers, primary care trusts (PCTs) and the NHS.29 Commentators
suggest that lack of physical activity in the UK equates to around 2-3
per cent of NHS annual costs, which translates into around £1.5 billion
per annum, at 2004 prices.30 Indeed, the importance of promoting a
healthy and active population is recognised and encouraged in HM
Treasury’s independent report, Securing good health for the whole
population.31
Biodiversity and natural process
Good quality green spaces in urban areas, both at ground level and as
part of buildings, can bring a wide range of environmental benefits. This
include: significant reductions in air pollution; absorbing carbon dioxide;
providing passive cooling, which moderates the urban heat island
effect, thus reducing the cost of mechanical cooling; ameliorating wind
speeds and humidity; supporting biodiversity; and reducing storm water
run off and flooding32.
Economic Value
Good quality urban green space can generate economic value in itself.
Research published by CABE Space33 suggest that properties within a
defines sphere of influence of good-quality green space command a
premium in terms of sales and rental value. Leading developers also
recognise that it is possible to generate higher values from sales of
new developments if the environmental quality of the communal space
is high. Economists are increasingly developing methodologies for
costing and pricing the benefits of ‘green goods’ and the Treasury can
now legitimately price carbon as part of the economic appraisal of new
developments34 and increasingly we will see the economics of ‘green
goods’ being factored in at an early stage in projects. Work on this is
27
Urban Green Spaces TASKFORCE Working Group 6 resources, department for transport, Local
government and the Regions, 2002.
28
Green Spaces – the secret ingredient, Hawkhead, T., 2004
29
The green flag Award scheme – 8 years on. Lewis K. ILAM Places and the Countryside seminar ,
Birkenhead, 2004.
30
Green cities and why we need them, NEF Pocketbook 9, new Economic Foundation, 2004
31
Securing good health for the whole population. H M Treasury, HMSO, 2004.
32
Urban Green Spaces Taskforce working group 6: resources Department for Transport, Local
33
Does money grow on trees? CABE Space, 2005.
34
The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. H M Treasury, 2003
56
about to commence in Lambeth, though the Strategic Transformation
Team. Such a step is of particular importance to Parks, as this
approach ought to lead to making investments in the ongoing
maintenance of new projects economically more attractive.
Employment and commercial investment
Aside from direct employment in the green space sector itself, and the
impact of higher property values on expenditure and job creation, highquality green space is a factor in attracting commercial investment to
an area.35 Urban green spaces also have huge potential as resources
for the training and education of young people interested in working in
the growing land-based and environmental industries sectors.
17 Communications and reputational management
17.1
Few would doubt the importance of delivering an effective
communication programme for the parks department, and even more
so as part of the need to ensure that we reach the maximum audience
of both users and potential sponsors and concessions for the
developments proposed elsewhere in the Business Planning Review.
17.2
Effective communications can also play a critical role in helping both
the Parks Department and the Council to capitalise upon the all
important issue of reputational management with its potential to deliver
benefits beyond the confines of the parks department.
17.3
We have in the past failed to take advantage of such benefits and we
shall need to ensure that the message of the potential opportunities an
effective communications programme can deliver is strengthened
through all of our staff.
Web site
17.4
An organisations web site is today a key provider of information not
only to our users but also to those companies who might be
considering a sponsorship arrangement with us.
17.5
Compared to many other local authorities, our existing web site for
parks is lacking both in content and style and colour. Many other sites
have both static and interactive maps for each park giving details of the
features and activities that can be found. A number of local authorities
also use their web sites to both receive comments and complaints and
to report back on the action taken. Sheffield Council is a good example
of such a scheme where they have a ‘You said. We did’ web page
giving up top date details of how they have responded to the latest
35
Urban Green Spaces Taskforce working group 6: resources, Department for Transport, local
57
batch of concerns or issues drawn to their attention by members of the
public.
17.6
Given the importance of parks to our local community, and the need to
improve our communications with our users and non-users,
improvements to our web based information is clearly a mater requiring
attention.
18 Implementation – moving forward
The Process
18.1
This is not a Review or Business Plan in which you will see detailed
information on the parks service over the next three years. What is
does show is the process we are now and will continue to implement
over the next three years to delver an outstanding parks service worthy
of four stars.
18.2
In order to achieve and maintain our key objectives of Financial
Sustainability, Customer Focussed Services and improved Devolution
and Partnership working, we will also need to have the assurance that
we have in place the appropriate management and processes – and
ones that can be measured.
18.3
The development of such process will need to include means to
measure excellence and improvements to the service through
consultations with our customers, benchmarking and auditing. The lack
of locally determined and customer driven performance indicators is a
weakness requiring attention.
18.4
We will also need to ensure continuous improvement and to meet the
challenges presented by a service so much in the public domain. In
order to achieve the parks service needs to place itself under regular
review to ensure that its resources are effectively and efficiently
meeting these objectives.
18.5
Published as a pilot last year by CABE Space and the Idea, Towards
an Excellent Service (TAES) provides a performance management
framework for parks and open spaces. Full details of TAES can be
found in Appendix 8., but in summary TAES states of itself:
Summary
You cannot get TAES, or do TAES. You can, however, choose to adopt
the concepts, values, habits, process and practices involved in working
Towards an Excellent Service. This is much more challenging than
merely adopting a scheme or achieving a badge; however it is
significantly more valuable in achieving successful results for your
communities.
58
At the heart of TAES lies self assessment and improvement planning
using the TAES framework. This can bring the following to your
organisation:
• Clear, workable improvement plans, containing breakthrough
improvement projects, which will change the way the organisation
works
• Comprehensive measurement of the present and future health of the
organisation
• Opportunities to improve the intangible elements of the organisation,
particularly synergy, consensus decision making and joint ownership of
continuous improvement
• Enhanced understanding of what excellence means for the
organisation and of the concepts and practices of continuous
improvement
• Enhanced values and habits of continuous improvement.
This will assist in achieving the following outcomes:
• Improved user satisfaction
• Improved staff commitment and satisfaction
• Improved efficiency and effectiveness
• Improvements in the health and well-being of communities through
parks and open spaces
• Improved appearance of our urban environment
• Increased recognition, respect and profile for the publicly funded
parks and open spaces.
Towards an Excellent Service (TAES) is not a product, or a scheme or
even a process; it is a journey of improvement in all aspects of the way
the organisation operates, in order to achieve excellent results. There
is no end to this journey. It is an ongoing process of improvement
because:
• The needs of the community change continually
• Users’ expectations change continuously and because
• There are always ways in which the effectiveness and efficiency of an
organisation or partnership can improve.
The pursuit of excellence underpins success in all organisations (and
individuals). It is essential for publicly funded organisations, because:
It creates the capacity for the organisation to achieve its stated
outcomes and make a difference to people’s lives
It improves staff satisfaction and helps to ensure sustainable jobs with
personal development opportunities
The current external environment in which the publicly funded parks
and open spaces are provided demands continuous improvement and
the TAES self-assessment helps organisations achieve this.
At the heart of this lies the TAES framework, which sets out what it
takes to achieve results in the cultural sector, and a cyclical self assessment and improvement planning process using this framework.
59
A number of other tools, models and standards exist such as EFQM
and Investors in People (IIP), which enable organisations to carry out
self assessment from different perspectives. Some such as Green Flag
Awards and Quest are more facility focused.
It doesn’t matter where you begin the journey or the direction you take;
what matters is that you never arrive.
TAES is not about perfuming the pig: - it is not an initiative designed
just to prove continuous improvement or quality, which is only pursued
because of external pressure. This approach is reflected in the desire
of many organisations to badge chase or to tick the various boxes. It is
clear that many organisations choose the easiest route available to
gain a plaque on the wall, high assessment score or statutory pass.
Whilst the need to meet statutory requirements and perform well in
mandatory and voluntary assessments is completely understandable, it
should not be confused with excellence.
Continuous Improvement
Continuous improvement is an attitude of mind and an integral
approach to how the organisation works, a culture of desire.
TAES involves adopting values and habits of continuous improvement.
The basic concept of continuous improvement for organisations and
individuals is that, in order to achieve desired results, you need to:
• Clearly establish what you are trying to achieve
• Establish what causes success
• Identify your current progress
• Take actions to improve towards your goal on a continuous (ongoing)
basis
• Go back to step one and carry on.
Continuous improvement involves a passion for improvement and for
the following pre-suppositions:
• You, your organisation and its people need to improve continuously
It is always possible to improve
• The need to improve is not a criticism, a weakness, a problem or
somebody’s fault
• The clever people and organisations regularly identify areas for
improvement in an objective, honest and positive way
• You shouldn’t let barriers stop your progress – you can always
overcome these or try something different
• Learning from others is vital if you are to improve.
All organisations have strengths and all have areas where
improvement is necessary. The acceptance of this, without fear of
failure, is vital for every organisation.
18.6
We consider that we should implement the TAES process without
delay. The London Borough of Camden, who have already adopted this
process, have kindly offered their help and advice to us to start the
process.
60
18.7
Meanwhile we have identified in Appendix A., the process that we will
need to implement to meet the new initiatives referred to throughout
this Review
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”
Aristotle
61
19 Some current issues and concerns
19.1
Our vision is to deliver customer focused services and we will therefore
need to put in place such mechanisms that will enable us, on a regular
basis, to know what our users/customers really want and to know why
other choose not to use our parks.
19.2
This approach may well be on some concern to the existing Friends
Groups and MACS. While there can be little doubt as to the
commitment to their parks by these groups, the groups themselves
recognise that they are unrepresentative of the totality of users of
parks and their influence may well result in the provisions of services
and improvements that are not in the best interest of a parks service
that seeks to be customer driven.
19.3
Clearly no organisation would wish to dampen the enthusiasm of those
who seek to promote and protect their parks, but equally no
organisation can allow such individuals or groups to have an influence
that is unrepresentative of either the community as a whole or of users
in particular. This is not to say that there are not examples of such
friends groups who can evidence outstanding and positive
contributions to a parks ongoing success.
19.4
As part of this Review we have looked at a number of models of
Friends groups /organisations that meet a set of criteria that are
admiral. Details of these are given in Appendix 9.
19.5
An issue of particular concern is the matter of income generated from
various activities within the parks yet not retained by the parks for
ongoing maintenance and service improvement. Income generation is
by necessity going to be a key driver for an improved service. What is
clear is that well motivated staff and the various Friends of Parks
Groups will need to receive at least some indication that the initiatives
taken by the department to generate additional income is in some part
invested in the parks and cultural services.
19.6
Why are not all of the boroughs public green-spaces and playgrounds
managed by the Parks Department? There may be opportunities for
revenue savings but further consideration should be given to this issue.
19.7
The role and operation of the Sports and Recreation Team is an issue
requiring some attention. There are both service and revenue benefits
that could be achieved in the activities of this team were more closely
integrated with the other sections within Cultural Services. There
remain a number of questions and issues outstanding. These include:
o Does not the existing arrangement lead to conflicts of
interests and policies between parks and sports?
62
o Does the existence of a separate project management
function in the sports department result in unnecessary
duplication of resources. (see also Strategic
Regeneration and Development section)
Paddling Pools – as an example of a number of issues that need attention.
19.8
There are currently eight paddling pools in the Borough, all are
extremely popular with parents and children. However, in common with
so much of the department’s infrastructure, these pools need
investment.
19.9
The need for action on paddling pools has long been recognised by the
department and during the annual budget process bids to convert pools
to modern water play areas have been submitted for at least the last
three years. Each bid was in the region of £1million.
19.10 The existing situation is clearly untenable and good management
practice would suggest that the following course of action is required:
1. A condition/function survey of all paddling pools.
2. Assessment of the suitability of the site for conversion to a water
play facility.
3. Consultation and survey of users and potential users.
4. Outline infrastructure requirements – toilets, café and other
support.
5. Develop costed proposal including ongoing maintenance.
6. Investigate potential for sponsorship of facilities.
19.11 Such a course of action will enable the department to have a scheme/s
prepared and costed on an invest to save basis and that may well
present opportunities for sponsorship. Such scheme/s will offer a range
of benefits including a reduction in the use of water and a healthier and
safer environment for its users.
19.12 Alternatively the Council could decide to develop a policy of ‘managed
closure’ – to gradually close or reduce the number these facilities.
19.13 However the key issue is the need to make a decision given these
facilities are at the end of their serviceable life.
20 Customer Focus
63
20.1
Rule one: Know thy customer. When you have tried everything else, go
back to Rule one.
20.2
No matter what else we consider this will be our main driver, and is
amongst the first and most important questions asked by the Audit
Commission in their CPA Key Lines of Enquiry:
KLOE 2.1 Are the needs of the citizens and users at the heart of the
design and delivery of the service now and in the future?
KLOE 2.2 Is the service accessible, responsive and based on a robust
understanding of local need?
KLOE 2.3 Are service standards clear and comprehensive and have
users been involved in setting them where appropriate?
KLOE 2.4 Are appropriate arrangements for consulting, engaging and
communicating with users and non-users?
20.3
TAES states that implementing the process will deliver:
- Improved user satisfaction.
20.4
It is beyond any reasonable doubt that we no very little about our
customers/users and in particular what they require from our parks.
20.5
We don’t know who they are, how old they are, their gender, ethnicity,
how often they use the parks – in fact we no almost nothing
whatsoever about them.
20.6
Nor do we know how many people use our parks or when, or why.
Without this critical data not only do we not have any information to
determine the kind of services we should be providing, but given the
key objective of Earn More, Send More, information on our users is
likely to be one of the first question any potential business sponsor is
going to ask.
20.7
All too often we rely on guesswork or “we have talked to quite a few
people”, “we all know what people want from parks”. What in reality is
little more that guessing simply won’t do and is a high risk strategy
indeed. ‘We know best’ has no place if for no other reason than, we
don’t.
20.8
If we are to deliver first class customer focussed services then we
urgently need to put in place processes that will enable us to regularly
obtain data from our customers – something that is also a key
requirement for any authority with ambitions to increase its star rating.
64
20.9
But this alone will not deliver a more customer focussed service,
fundamental to that objective is the need to develop a can do customer
driven culture within the department and one that is driven from the top.
20.10 For Lambeth however there is one further and critical reason why we
need to know much more about our users and indeed current nonusers.
20.11 A, if not THE, key factor in enabling local authorities to achieve
excellence is the need to know a great deal about their customers.
20.12 Financial sustainability and improved partnership and devolved
management will need to be built on a firm foundation of an
understanding of the needs and requirements of our customers.
20.13 We will therefore need to develop the processes and systems that will
enable us to effectively capture this critical data, and we will need to
undertake this on a regular cycle in order to assure ourselves that we
understand and are able to respond, within the resources available, to
the changing needs of our customers.
20.14 In developing such systems we will need to ensure that we have the
capacity to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. We will also
need to establish systems that both enable and encourage our front
line staff to record comments from users.
20.15 This data will also be of particular importance to our sponsorship
initiatives inasmuch as we will be able to provide potential
sponsors/companies with information of the number and types of
visitors to our parks.
20.16 To be successful at this is going to mean far more that merely
undertaking surveys or encouraging complaints. Developing a
customer focussed service is so much more.
20.17 A customer-focused organisation does not evolve overnight — the
organisation must understand and be willing to make a long-term
commitment to customer-focused initiatives. But in order to justify the
investment and get the needed support across the organisation, we
must be able to demonstrate “quick wins” as early in the process as
possible.
20.18 Complaint discovery is an avenue that often can produce a quick-win to
justify the investment to the organisational sceptics. The consistency
and commitment of the management team to building sustainable
customer relationships will be measured over years, not multiple
quarters, but the earlier that tangible results can be demonstrated, the
better.
65
20.19 Without exception customer focused/driven organisations have an
absolute commitment to ensuring that they both know and have the
capacity and culture to deliver services and standards based on the
needs of their customers. This commitment is not confined to its
external customers, internal customers are equally critical to making
the delivery of customer focussed service a success.
20.20 Nor are these issues for the Council alone. The image our customers
have of us is determined by a number of factors, not least the actions
of the staff of our contractors. They must be our partners in our move
towards delivering customer focussed service.
20.21 There are of course a variety of methodologies and approaches to
finding out what our customers/users and equally if not more important,
non users want from the parks service.
20.22 An increasing number of authorities are members of GreenSTAT
website is an online database that gives local residents the opportunity
to comment on the quality of their local parks and how well they feel
they are being managed and maintained. It also provides the councils
and organisations who manage these parks with feedback about the
people that visit them and how they might be able to improve these
vital open spaces.
20.23 GreenSTAT is developed by 'GreenSpace', a national charity dedicated
to promoting better planning, design, management and use of the UK's
public parks. (Further details on GreenSTAT can be found in Appendix
10.)
Positive role of Complaints
20.24 Concern must be expressed at an apparent conflict with and lack of
understanding by the Audit Commission of the importance of
complaints and responding to customers needs even when these may
be at conflict with other measures deemed important by the Audit
Commission. By way of example we note in a number of CPA reports
that a reduction in complaints is seen as a good thing, the opposite of
what is consider best practice by industry, where the need to
encourage complaints is regarded as a pre- requite to a full
understanding of customer needs and requirements.
20.25 By encouraging complaints we will be able to obtain what most
commentators accept is the most cost effective market research and in
turn have the opportunity to use the information either as in indicator of
where further survey/focus group work may be required or as a
strategy to develop the service.
20.26 The keys to a successful complaints service are two-fold. One, is the
need to respond quickly to the complainant; and two, is the need for an
effective mechanism to record all complaints in order that they can be
66
tracked and any patterns ascertained. As can be seen from fig 11, the
biggest problem facing most organisations is that only some four
percent of justified complaints ever reach senior management – usually
in writing or email. The next forty-six percent tend to be verbal and
importantly not record, while the remaining fifty percent just don’t
bother to complain at all. The problem with this is that an organisation
simply has no chance to act on these complaints as it knows nothing
about them. The first they tend to know is as result of the negative
word of mouth that the complaints have been spreading around and
this can be immensely damaging.
fig 11.
21 Workforce Development
21.1
The ultimate success of the Parks Service in whatever form will
depend upon the knowledge and skills of its staff and the culture in
which they operate. The developmental needs of the workforce will of
course depend upon the outcome of the Review, but it is highly unlikely
that the service will be able to achieve the ambitions of the Council and
indeed itself, let alone its customers, if a number of new and additional
skills/knowledge are not acquired.
21.2
In considering the key issues highlighted by the Review the following
areas suggest themselves as candidates for urgent attention:
•
•
Understanding what being a customer led service means
Understanding the positive role of complaints
67
•
•
•
•
•
Delivering a blame free culture
Understanding customer satisfaction data
Research methodologies for customer/non customer surveys
Partnership working
Overcoming silo thinking/working
22 Devolution and Partnership
22.1
The process of reaching out to and engaging with local communities
and relevant user groups is widely accepted as being one of the
cornerstones of effective and sustainable management of urban green
space.
22.2
The Council have recently adopted a four-stage model of community
engagement, which encompasses the following, inform, consult,
involve and devolve.
22.3
Progression from involved, to devolved management relies on the
creation of more formal structures which will support greater power
sharing by stakeholders and define their relationship with the Council.
22.4
There is no single blueprint for devolved management of local authority
parks, structures are more likely to evolve in response to local
opportunities and issues rather follow a rigid template. While Trusts are
emerging as a preferred option for devolution these vary greatly in
structure and in the involvement of the Councils concerned.
22.5
The common mechanism for devolved management is an independent
or semi-independent board, whose members hold a range of skills and
interests relevant to the strategic management issues of the park. The
board may include Council officers and members, local businesses and
community representatives. These Community representatives should
have access to support and training which will enable their participation
in technical, legal and financial decisions such as procurement and
recruitment.
22.6
Consideration also needs to be given to the financial implications of
devolved management; the scope of services being procured, whether
the Council will fund devolved management.
22.7
There are a variety of models of devolved management.
1.Park Partnerships
68
Partnerships operate within the structure of a trust but are managed by
the Council with a board which may include Friends of the Park,
Council Members and officers, local businesses, safer
neighbourhoods, and funding partners.
The Council retain final decision making powers and responsibility for
maintenance, however it can be anticipated that the partnership might,
in the longer term, move towards a more devolved form of
management.
This structure can be applied either to a specific site or the service as a
whole and is often used to deliver large scale park regeneration
projects.
The role of the partnership board would be to create an integrated
approach to management and to allow stakeholders to become actively
involved in management decisions
Parks Partnerships - Financial
The partnership should manage a devolved budget for the park which
is flexible enough to allow service changes. This budget may be
formed from site income and maintenance budgets, or from creating a
new budget allocation.
The board would also require support from Council Member and Officer
time, and training resources.
2. Trusts
A Parks Trust represents a fully devolved management organisation
and leases the park in its entirety including all buildings and assets.
The board of Trustees takes responsibility for management and may
employ professional staff.
2.1 Grant funded Trusts
Where a park does not contain assets capable of generating income,
the Trust becomes dependant on grant support and fundraising to meet
basic maintenance costs. This dependence on short term funding
creates risks to the sustainability of the Trust.
Funding is obtained from a number of sources including direct Council
grants, S 106 agreements, charities and project funds.
Trusts -Financial
The Council may be tied into a high risk funding commitment.
69
The Council may inherit a backlog of investment if the park reverts to
their management.
2.2 Development Trusts
Development Trusts, (Development Trusts Association) aims for
financial sustainability. “They cultivate enterprise and build assets.
They secure community prosperity - creating wealth in communities
and keeping it there.”
The lengths of leases are often long to create a strong business case.
Development Trusts operate on the principals of a social enterprise
and tend to diversify activities outside of traditional park maintenance.
Development Trusts - Financial
The transfer of all income generating assets for the period of the lease
agreement. Savings may be made from maintenance costs.
4. The Parks Trust Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes Parks Trust manages the whole green space service,
rather than being based within a single park. The Trust funds the parks
service through management of an asset portfolio, which creates an
income of £3 million p.a.
The Parks Trust Milton Keynes - Financial
The success is dependant on generating sufficient income to meet the
service costs. It is likely that T.U.P.E would apply if an authority
transferred all of its parks to such a Trust.
The following section is part of a dissertation completed by Alistair
Johnstone who is a project officer in the Cultural Development and
Sustainability Team.
Urban Parks Trusts36
Summary
Although Parks trusts have existed since the 1970’s, there is no single model
for how a community led Parks Trust should operate. As a result a variety of
hybrid organisations and approaches have emerged around the Trust
management of Urban green space.
36
Urban Parks Trusts, Alistair Johnstone, 2006
70
Questions exist around how Trusts are funded, how effectively they can
deliver the services they adopt and whether they can help develop the future
of Urban Parks as a beneficial community resource. Of fundamental
importance is the relationship between the Trust and the Local Authority as
the landowner.
The key points, which define the success of the (Urban) Parks Trust, are
based on their sustainability, especially the financial strategies of the different
models; and their relationship with the local community.
The range of Public Park Trusts currently in existence ranges from small
community Parks groups based around one site, dependant on either public
or private finance, to the larger business development trusts, such as Milton
Keynes & Westway, who hold a portfolio of commercial investments allowing
them to be financially self supporting but who manage green spaces as part of
a wider concern.
Although there are few consistent examples within the U.K some basic
models and guiding principles can be identified.
Comparisons are made with reference to four distinct themes:
a. Financial stability.
e.g. How are Parks trusts financed and can they all become financially
self -supporting?
b. Added value.
e.g. Do trusts offer greater social benefits through working closely with
communities?
c. Partnership working.
e.g. Where should a Trust look for support?
d. Innovation.
e.g. Do Parks trusts offer unique opportunities for the regeneration of
urban green spaces?
Within this study the following trusts have been selected to providing a cross
section:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Milton Keynes Parks Trust, Milton Keynes.
Waterloo Millennium Green Trust, London
Westway Development Trust, London
Mile End Park partnership, London
Hoxton Trust, London
Horniman Museum, London
Exhibition and Brandling Park, Newcastle.
These Parks trusts are divided into four distinct models:
71
i)
The Development Trust.
This type of organisation manages green space as part of a wider remit and
does not exist solely for Parks management, although it may form a significant
part of their activity. A Development Trust holds a portfolio of assets, which
provide a revenue income supporting their diverse interests, which may
include (commercial) business management, training and grant schemes.
A Development Trust will usually hold membership of the Development Trusts
Association.
Case Study 1: Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes Parks Trust was created by Milton Keynes Development
Corporation in 1992 and manages 4500 acres of the cities amenity green
space on a 999 year lease. The Trust acquired the freehold to
commercial properties now valued in excess of £25 million and
providing over £3 million per annum in income, which fully supports
their green space management.
Their primary objective is to “provide, maintain and equip parks…for the
benefit of the inhabitants”
Their secondary objectives are based on providing Environmental
education and active recreation.
Case Study 2: Bromley by Bow
Bromley by Bow Centre began by acquiring a derelict urban park from Tower
Hamlets Council. The park had become “a derelict mass of concrete scrub
and broken glass” Woodcock, Sparks & Mayo (2002). Unable to progress
dialogue with the local community due to “deep felt public mistrust”, the
Council sold the park to the Trust for a token sum. An initial £0.5 million grant
from the Health Authority allowed the Trust to build a health centre and
housing for the disabled on part of the site. These physical assets generated
income and the money was reinvested in the park to create a therapeutic
community garden and allotments.
ii)
Partnership Trusts.
72
A Partnership Trust operates as an extension of the Local Authority with a
partly independent board, which will include an influencing number of Council
officers on the Board of Trustees. The budget may be protected through
covenant, for the provision and maintenance of the Trust’s green space.
Variations will exist in the scope of the board’s powers to make decisions. The
Partnership model succeeded in delivering the regeneration of Mile End Park
and is effective in engaging community involvement without the perceived
risks of complete delegation of management responsibilities.
Neither of the case studies have completed developing their Trust, but their
statements of intent are accepted as the methodology the Trust will follow.
Case Study 1: Mile End Park
By the mid 1980’s the derelict condition of Mile End Park was symptomatic of
the deprivation of London’s East end.
Tower Hamlets formed a community partnership to steer the regeneration of
the Park and brought a number of private enterprise groups together to deliver
the communities vision.
Developing the project involved engaging a wide section East London’s
residents and the process can be viewed as a best practice example of
community engagement.
The partnership identified the need for “financial sustainability” and created a
robust business plan for a Park Trust, with income generated from
commercial franchises and rents as well as covenanting the Council’s
maintenance budget to the park. Since securing £12.5 million and undergoing
development the Park has undergone changes in management personnel and
problems with maintenance standards have been reported. Although the
Partnership is still in operation, at this time it is unclear whether there is an
intention to develop it further.
Case Study 2: Newcastle Exhibition and Brandling Park
The Board of 9 Trustees includes two Council officers with voting rights and
has employed a community worker to develop projects. This Trust is a
successful example of a new Local Authority approach to Parks management
where resources are allocated to developing the capacity of community
groups, involving them in public based projects without the Council either
transferring all control or the frequently onerous administration and statutory
obligations. Newcastle Council retains the responsibility for grounds
maintenance.
Through the Trust approach projects based on food growing and community
arts have successfully attracted lottery based funding.
The Trust has not yet negotiated a lease on their Park but has established a
mutually supportive relationship with Newcastle Council.
iii)
The small independent Trust.
73
A small independent Trust exists with fully delegated powers and financial
responsibility. It is often dependant on grants to support its operation and can
also rely, at least partially, on volunteers to deliver grounds maintenance
services. Without secure long term financial support, this presents the most
vulnerable model, although some successes have been achieved such as
Bank Side Open Space Trust (BOST) in Southwark, London where the Local
Authority are evaluating the possibilities of investing in widening the scope of
the Trusts work.
Case Study: Waterloo (Millennium) Green Trust.
WGT typically acquired a derelict local park from Lambeth Council in 2000
and was granted a 999 year lease. Development was funded by the
Countryside Agency and lottery sources and the Local Authority provided free
grounds maintenance for 18 months after the site was completed. When
maintenance support was withdrawn the Trust formed a successful
partnership with a local charity working with Waterloo’s large homeless
population who now carry out grounds maintenance for the Trust.
The Funding, which sustains the Trust, is a mixture of delegated local 106
planning gains and grants from other charities achieving £300,000 per annum.
However, these are fixed term funds and as yet the Trust has not secured any
stable long term funding and has no built assets, which can generate a
revenue stream.
Despite this the Trust has local support in an area, which is attracting
regeneration and commercial development funding.
One potential starting point would be to negotiate a partnership with the Local
Authority to return the maintenance savings made by the Council to the Trust.
Case Study: Hoxton Trust.
Hoxton Trust manages I hectare, divided into 3 small parks. It also runs a
community legal advice service and an NVQ horticultural training scheme.
This diversity of interests is typical of an urban Parks Trust and all functions of
the Trust can be seen to benefit and support the more deprived within the
local area.
Hoxton have also secured income from a partial let of their building and
although their income is £120,000 per annum they have a financially stable
income source which is supplemented by grants and through delivering
environmental projects associated with their training scheme. They estimate
that the annual value of their volunteer’s contribution is in the region of
£75,000, an estimate which may be accepted as match funding for grants.
The only area of potential weakness is that Hoxton operate on a short life
lease from Hoxton Council and this may affect the chance of attracting long
term capital investment.
iv)
The Private Trust
74
Although not operating within the realm of public services, the private Trust
exists as a comparator for public Trusts and operates wholly on a business
footing. Their organisation potentially provides guidance in adapting public
sector facilities towards achieving financial independence since their
continued existence is dependant on private enterprise.
Case Study: Horniman Museum.
The museum has 16.5 acres of gardens and grounds and is in receipt of an
annual grant from the Department of Culture Media and Sport of £3.5 million.
Admissions and commercial activities achieve a further £100,000.
The grant funding is regulated by a number of performance indicators set by
DCMS in relation to the museums work. For this reason exhibitions have
strong cultural themes and attract visitors from across London. Horniman
Museum is promoted as an educational resource and was acquired by the
Trust from the Inner London Education Authority in the late 1980’s.
The Mayor of London’s office nominates up to 4 members on the board of 12,
the rest are stakeholders with professional skills in the areas relevant to the
museums activities.
Although the local community are not represented on the board of Trustees,
the museum has an active relationship with its friends group who hold plant
sales, fund raise and give their time to work in the Museum and gardens.
The Museum carries out customer surveys and in 2002 gained 13.5 million
from the Heritage Lottery Fund after carrying out a public consultation
exercise to guide development.
Organisational Factors
Charity status and the Limited Company.
“Groups with Charitable Status tend to have higher incomes and make
greater numbers of applications to funding streams.
A number of funding bodies require the applicant to be registered as a
charity or apply through a charitable organisation.
Charities promote an organised and stable image to potential funders.
The process of applying for charitable status will involve the group justifying
its aims and objectives as well as highlighting those people who will benefit
from the work of the group ” (Ockenden & Moore 2003).
Becoming a Charity suggests that an organisation exists, at least in part, for
philanthropic reasons. The Charity commission require audited accounts and
a registered Charity has a strong starting point from which to apply for
external funding, often from other charities.
75
Establishing a Trust as a Limited company enables it to recover Value Added
Tax.
Registration with Entrust is required to access landfill credit funding streams
and the applicant becomes a designated Environmental body whose
constitution states that it exists for “Environmental improvement”.
The Board of Trustees.
A board are empowered to make decisions over the activities and finances of
the Trust require skills, which will allow them to make informed decisions.
Where the land is inherited from a Council, professional Council Officers
would have previously carried out these duties as part of their role within the
Authority and it is reasonable to assume that they would have demonstrated
competence and had access to related expertise when necessary.
Although Trusts board works on a voluntary, expenses only basis, it is
essential that the board contains members with professional skills in relevant
disciplines.
•
Milton Keynes board of Trustees contains members of The
Royal Forestry Society, the Oxon Wildlife Trust, The Milton
Keynes Sports Council as well as individual from the local
business community.
•
Westway Trust includes local Councillors who can represent
their constituent’s needs.
•
Waterloo Millennium Greens board is composed wholly of local
residents who will ensure that a local focus is high on the Trusts
agenda.
•
Tower Hamlets have successfully brought the East London
Business Alliance into their Mile End Park partnership.
If stakeholders can be viewed as: professionals who have a vested interest,
then appointing stakeholders as Trustees can bring professional skills to the
Trust. Professional propriety and behaviours will need to be defined within a
constitution and the make up of a Board should allow for some element of
independent scrutiny of decisions.
Volunteer involvement and the value of partnerships.
Within the HM Treasury review of the community sector, participants voiced
their concern over the risks of using volunteers and the potentially transitory
nature of volunteer labour. The Voluntary Community Sector “mustn’t use
volunteers where it should be using paid staff” (HM Treasury, 2002)
The theme of Green space regeneration linked to community health and well
being is common amongst the survey group:
76
o Westway have created links with an over sixties group who operate
from the Trusts greenhouse facilities and provide Horticultural training
to Equal people a local Mental health Charity.
o Newcastle are creating their community food project to revive food
growing skills,
o Hoxton provide a free legal advisory service.
o Training and environmental education take place in some form at all of
the Trusts surveyed. At its simplest volunteers and partnership may
involve a Friends group helping with planting or fundraising such as at
Hornimans Museum but Trusts appear to have responded to the value
of involving the local community in activities including simple
maintenance, which in itself can help develop skills.
In this sense it can be suggested that for Parks Trusts added value comes
from a community who both deliver and benefit from the partnership.
Asset ownership and management.
In the case of the small independent trust, such as Waterloo, the only assets
the Trust has acquired is the parkland itself and as a result is dependent on
individual capital grants or short life revenue streams, including a 106
planning gain from the London Eye due to expire in 2006.
Development Trusts such as Milton Keynes and Westway have secured
millions of pounds worth of built assets, which provide a stable income stream
to support their green space activities.
The assets owned by these Development trusts generate income from
commercial and private rents which are reinvested in other activities such as
green space management or as with Westway redistributed as profits through
a community grant scheme which targets investment in local small
businesses.
Hoxton have a small number of commercial properties, which generate profits
but their income is appropriate for the1 acre Park they manage.
Conclusions
Financial stability:
In securing long - term stability for Public Parks Trusts, it is apparent that
some basic conditions need to be met.
As with any enterprise, finance is a key consideration. Public Parks Trusts
within the survey group operate a number of variations on income generation.
However there are two basic approaches:
1. Securing a devolved local authority budget, which is protected by
covenant or legal contract and matches the length of the lease on the
77
green space. Where a landowner proposes restrictive conditions linked
to the budget, it may be more advantageous for a Trust to accept
funding in kind, whereby the Local authority continues to provide a
basic level of grounds maintenance, allowing the Trust to develop
projects, which increase the benefits of the Park above those achieved
by basic maintenance.
Another option suggested by Sarah Moore of Green Space, is that a
Local authority could provide the maintenance budget as a lump sum
every 10 years allowing even greater flexibility and the possibility of
investment (Personal conversation, 2005).
Within this approach a good relationship with the landowner is
necessary and may justify the inclusion of a Council officer on the
board of Trustees.
The Trust is free to pursue external funding to develop high quality
projects.
Each Trusts objectives will differ according to neighbourhood priorities,
but each will have to consider whether spending money on grass
cutting is the best use of its hard earned budget.
2. The second source of secure income is demonstrated in the examples
where a Trust has acquired a substantial portfolio of property, which
generates regular income. The two most successful examples in the
survey group, Milton Keynes and Westway, each have the freehold on
property assets worth millions and have achieved the status of
development Trusts, and a position of such financial stability as to be
able to issue grants and support to their communities rather than
chasing grants and funding to supplement their income.
Despite this Hoxton Trust offers a good model of a Trust operating on
a small scale, with limited land and assets it manages an income
adequate for stability while able to contribute to the development of a
sustainable community. In this case the Trust operates independently
of the landowner although without the benefit of the financial safety net
offered by a partnership with the Local Authority.
Sustainable communities.
It has been demonstrated that urban green spaces have a role in urban
renewal and that “the more imaginative attempts to break from the cycle of
decline have been community-based “(Greenhalgh & Worpole, 1998 p41).
Parks Trusts have created examples of innovation by discarding the
traditional approach. Community greenhouses run by an over sixties group or
a mental health charity; food growing projects run with local schools;
At Bromley by Bow, the Park has become a therapeutic tool for the medical
practice built in the grounds; these are examples of the possibilities for urban
78
Parks that a community can achieve when recognising and conceiving
solutions to local issues of deprivation.
There is however a limit to the capacity of community groups, as there are
limits to the uses many urban green spaces can support. Greenhalgh and
Worpole(1998) have rationally advocated a “ ‘mixed portfolio’ of local open
space” “including community gardens and allotments alongside some parks
which are directly owned and managed” by the Local Authority (People, Parks
and cities 1996).
Many Urban Parks will still be a case for Local Authority management
where perhaps the size restricts its potential uses or its location provides
no obvious social benefits from community involvement in its
management.37
General Principals for the Urban Parks Trust:
9. 1. Financing the Trust.
A Trust inheriting a Local Authority Park needs to make the case that its
purpose is to bring added value to the service and should not allow itself to be
a mechanism for Council cost cutting.
A Trust should pursue a supportive partnership with the Local Authority or
land owner.
Establishing the Trust as a Charity and Limited company will increase
financial stability and the Trusts ability to bid for grant funding.
Securing property assets can provide a secure source of income but Trusts
will need to be confident of their ability to manage such assets for profit and a
robust business case is necessary.
A Parks Trust should expect to achieve income from a number of individual
sources.
9. 2. Land Tenure.
Short term leases are prohibitive and indicate a lack of stability and
commitment from the land owner. Funders will be resistant to investing in a
short term project.
9. 3. The Board of Trustees.
The board of trustees will typically consist of fifteen members. These will
include people such as community leaders, professional experts with skills
and knowledge relating to the trusts activities, and in some cases Council
37
People, Parks and Cities, Greenhalgh and Worpole, 1998.
79
officers. A Trust may be led by a Director or Chief Executive who holds the
casting vote on the board.
9. 4. What the Trust offers.
The purpose of the Trust may be obvious from the start as Trusts are often
conceived as a vehicle for responding to local issues. The strength of a Trust
is that its activities are usually concentrated on improving the quality of life of
its community.
For this reason forming partnerships with other voluntary sector groups helps
the Trust to become the focus for a number of self governing groups working
together on a common purpose.
Community projects will also attract funding which can pay for additional staff,
potentially employed from the local community.
The Trust may form partnerships not obviously associated with a Park,
however some common projects include:
Accredited horticultural training.
Food growing with schools.
Organised sport and healthy living activities.
The activities of the trust should take account of the local cultural identity and
may target specific socially excluded groups in its activities.
A Trust will be accessible and accountable through regular public forums and
should consider employing a community worker.
End of A Johnstone paper.
-----------------------------------23 Potential impact of Strong & Prosperous Communities and Lambeth
Communities First Programme
23.1
It is clearly appropriate that any consideration of devolved and
partnership arrangements should take account of other initiative being
undertake by the Borough and the impact these may have upon the
parks service. Two initiatives are of particular importance:
•
•
Strong and Prosperous Communities, and;
The Communities First Programme.
Strong & Prosperous Communities
23.2
The concept of the ‘double-devolution’ agenda can be paraphrased as,
central government devolving powers to local government on the
80
proviso that local government devolves powers to its neighbourhoods
and communities.
23.3
What constitutes ‘devolvement’ within a borough, or indeed a locality
depends greatly upon local cultures, history and politics. In many
boroughs the devolution agenda is well advanced and in others it is
not. One of the key aspirations driving the Strong & Prosperous
Communities agenda is the idea that communities and neighbourhoods
will be provided with increased opportunities to take on management,
or ownership of local facilities.
The Communities First Programme
23.4
The Lambeth Communities First Programme is the Council’s response
to the Strong & Prosperous Communities agenda. The programme is
being developed around six key themes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Community Engagement
Role of Ward Councillors
Area Working
Neighbourhood Working
Third Sector development, and
Skills & Behaviours.
23.5 In the context of the Parks Business Planning Review, the Strong &
Prosperous Communities and Communities First Programme the following
issues need to be considered:
1. Engagement
The Council have recently adopted a four-stage model of community
engagement, which encompasses the following, inform, consult, involve
and devolve. The department will need to consider how far up the scale of
community engagement it wishes to go. For example are they prepared to
devolve management to a community/social enterprise?
2. Skills and Behaviours
A department can have resources and policies in place, but it won’t make
a jot of difference if it does not have the officers with the appropriate skills
and behaviours to work within a neighbourhood setting.
24 Devolution and Partnership – options for Lambeth
81
24.1
Any number of the above options for devolved management or a
partnership arrangements are attractive and worthy of serious
consideration.
24.2
Lambeth does however not present fertile ground for a widespread use
of such opportunities, at least not in the short term..
24.3
For the majority of the borough there does not appear to be either
sources for financial support, including from the Council, or the
business infrastructure that is necessary to fund and provide continuing
support for such schemes. It is also a fact that many of our friends
Groups do not have a track record of substantial fundraising or of
generating the kind of volunteer support that would be required to
sustain a Trust or partnership arrangement.
24.4
However, there are a number of parks and open spaces that present
as possible candidates for devolved management of one form or
another.
24.5
In considering these we have used a criteria based upon, the size,
viability and representative nature of the Friends Group, its current
financial base and future income generating potential, together with a
judgement as to the groups likely acceptance of such a responsibility.
24.6
In moving forward with any such proposal (as indeed with the
increased use of volunteers) the potential for revenue savings may be
mitigated against by the existing maintenance contract.
Devolution and Partnership – options for Lambeth – BIDS AND NIDS
24.7
In a number of countries, funding from local taxes can be directed
specifically towards the management and provision of green space. In
the USA this is a common source of additional funding for parks with
local taxpayers consistently voting for such a levy for parks and green
spaces. Similar schemes have also been effective in Australia.
24.8
As an alternative to taxes levied across the whole area that is
administered by a local authority, levies on property owners in business
improvement district (BID) schemes have been used in the USA over
the last 20 years or so to fund green spaces in specific
neighbourhoods.
24.9
BID schemes are tax initiatives introduced as a means to combat
declining commercial and business activity in inner-city areas and
improve the business environment. Under the schemes, local authority
funding is complemented by a self-imposed levy on local property
owners who have voted to accept it. BIDs not only generally protect the
82
quality of the public urban realm but can also provide better security,
cleaning and maintenance.38
24.10 The legislative framework required to operate BID schemes in the UK
is now in place.39 This enables local businesses to vote for a levy on
their rates bill to provide investments in the local trading environment.
In 2004, 22 pilot BID schemes were introduced across England and
Wales to fund a range of activities including security, street cleansing,
environmental improvements, marketing and promotions, and lobbying
for support for small businesses. Following the pilot initiatives, a
number of BIDs are being implemented. BID levies approved in
Kingston-upon-Thames, see Fig 12, for instance, demonstrate a
willingness to invest in local amenity and environmental improvements
from both the local authority and local businesses.
24.11 While funding for the public realm in the UK’s BID schemes is largely
directed towards general improvements such as street cleaning and
litter and graffiti removal, in time direct funding might go towards green
spaces. Whether this happens will depend heavily on the extent to
which businesses link their commercial interests with the quality of
local green spaces. Some local authorities in the USA have applied
taxation structures based on neighbourhood assessments. In response
to the voters’ opposition to raising property taxes, maintenance
assessment districts have been introduced that allow neighbourhoods
to choose how much they want to spend on parks and other community
spaces.
24.12 The recent UK policy document, Citizen engagement and public
services, may lead to opportunities for local areas to raise additional
taxation.40 It is proposed that neighbourhood improvement districts
(NIDs) could raise additional revenue through the council tax in a
particular area for the provision of additional services, either by the
council itself or by other organisations. This could include revenue to
finance additional green space services, a new park warden or a
neighbourhood manager for the local area. NIDs are, however, only at
policy proposal stage and it is still unclear whether local authorities will
adopt them and, more specifically, apply them to green spaces.
24.13 We consider that we have a project that could well be a candidate for a
successful BID scheme.
24.14 Spring Gardens at Vauxhall has Urban Framework41 (Masterplan) that
has received universal support from the local community, including
38
Paying for parks, CABE Space. 2006.
Local Government Bill (part 4), introduced into parliament in November 2002. the BID regulations
came into force in 2004.
40
Citizen engagement and public services: why neighbourhoods matter, Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister 2005.
41
Spring Gardens Vauxhall, an Urban Framework, DHDSA, 2006
39
83
importantly the local business community. This Framework contains
proposals not only for the park but also for the retail and business
areas that transverse part of the parks northern area.
24.15 Significantly, this retail area is nationally recognised as a gay village.
The parks department considers that there is enormous potential for
developing this feature of the retail and business environment in the
area of Spring Gardens as the driver for the regeneration of the park
and its environs.
24.16 Given the commitment of the local community and their representative
organisations, together with that of the business community and in
particular the Vauxhall Gay business Forum, we are of the considered
view that this whole project could well succeed both as a Business
Improvement District and possibly as a Trust.
84
fig 12.
85
fig 13.
25 Community Involvement
25.1
It is clear that the existing arrangements for involving the community in
the decision making processes for the management of our parks does
not and will not deliver customer focussed services.
25.2
An examination of the membership and function of the majority of the
Friends Groups within the Borough shows that they are at risk of being
perceived by the wider community as being unrepresentative of the
local residents and the users of the parks.
25.3
The result of this state of affairs is that considerable officer time and
attention is given to these groups and their leading members, yet in
responding to them and their views and opinions there can be little
doubt that we are at risk of undertaking new initiatives or maintenance
activities that may not reflect what the views and or requirements of a
more wider group of users.
86
25.4
Nor is their any incentive within the existing arrangements to
encourage Friends Groups to increase their membership to better
reflect the local community and users, or indeed to meet the Council’s
objectives in terms of equality and diversity.
25.5
There can be little doubt as to the interest Friends of Groups have for
their parks. However, it is also of note that, with noticeable exceptions,
some of these groups contribute little in the way of positive help and
involvement in the improvement and ongoing maintenance of the parks
they are associated with - yet they have a voice and influence that far
exceeds this reality. This is in stark contrast to many Friends Groups
elsewhere.
25.6
The existing arrangements with the borough also result in a rather
narrow view of community involvement. There is for instance little
evidence to suggest that local businesses, schools, sports or faith
organisations have been encouraged to take an active role either as
part of Friends Groups or more generally.
25.7
A number of local authorities have faced similar issues with some of
their Friends Groups. One approach to redress the imbalance has
been to set out a model constitution for Groups who wish to be
recognised by the local council. Such groups are required to make
every effort to ensure that their membership reflects the local
community and users of the park including in terms of age and ethnicity
and to agree to undertake an agreed number of voluntary activities
(under the direction of the parks staff) to benefit their park each year.
In return, the council by recognising such groups will make officers
available to attend quarterly meetings and the AGM of the groups.
(We have now had an opportunity to consult with the Parks Forum on
these issues and a framework based upon Lambeth’s Communities
First programme of Devolve, Involve, Consult and Inform, has now
been developed. Details of this can be found as an addendum on
pages 102-103.)
25.8
However there are numerous examples of some outstanding and
inspirational contributions that can and are being made by Friends of
Parks Groups and volunteers that serve as the strongest possible
indicator of the need for a radical change in approach by the Council.
25.9
Some concern has been expressed with the role of the Management
Advisory Committees (MAC’s). While some work well, the membership
of at least one appears to duplicate that of the local Friends Group. The
MACS suffer from an additional problem inasmuch that their very title
implies that its members are in involved in the day-to-day management
of the parks and open spaces within their remit. It would appear
appropriate to review the function and effectiveness of the MAC’s.
87
Community involvement elsewhere – friends and volunteers
25.10 The United States provided a vast catalogue of outstanding examples
of the positive role the friends groups, local businesses and
volunteering can play in supporting their local parks.
25.11 Many of these groups operate in inner city urban areas and have a
membership and volunteer force that is across all age ranges and are
inclusive of the diversity of their local neighbourhoods – crucially
important characteristics that are rare here in inner city areas of the
UK.
25.12 Many of these groups play a critical role in the maintenance and
provision of services to their parks and some have been so successful
as to now have full time members of staff to run and co-ordinate their
volunteer programmes. Almost without exception these groups take no
financial aid from the local councils running the parks. Their work is
either wholly volunteer of they receive sponsorship or raise their own
funds locally.
25.13 The activities they operate range from cleaning days and litter removal
to major planting and pruning programmes to extensive educational
programmes.
25.14 In addition to friends groups some local cities rely to a considerable
extent on volunteers for much of the maintenance and development
work within their parks, the City of Sacramento for instance list its
volunteer days each week - all starting at 6am! See fig 14.
25.15 An example of what can be achieved is a friends group in the Bronx,
New York. The Friends of Van Cortlandt Park is a non-profit
organization committed to the enhancement of Van Cortlandt Park as a
unique resource. In partnership with the NYC Department of Parks
and Recreation, they raise funds for the restoration and maintenance of
the park and its natural, cultural, recreational, and historical resources.
The Friends’ provide educational and recreational programs, and
promote broad- based community coalition in order to enhance the
quality of life for future generations.
25.16 The Friends of Van Cortlandt Park was formed in 1992 as concerned
Bronx citizens responded to the devastating budget cuts affecting all
New York City Parks, Van Cortlandt in particular.
25.17 The Friends flagship project was the Teen Park Employment Programhiring teens from the Bronx to work and learn in Van Cortlandt Park
during the summers. Since its inception this program has accomplished
its goal: providing teens with a valuable paid work and educational
experience while contributing to overall improved conditions in the
park. In 1996, the Friends teamed up with the Riverdale
88
Neighbourhood House to develop a year round Environmental
Internship program where teens work every Friday and alternating
Saturdays in the park to learn about local environmental issues and to
gain a sense of park stewardship. See fig15., to see what these
programmes have achieved for three young teenagers. The Friends
now employ three full time staff.
25.18 Like many such groups they also have extensive volunteering
programmes, see Fig 16.
25.19 In Australia the state of Victoria alone has more the one hundred
“Friends of Parks” groups with thousands of members a well as
additional volunteers who participate in community group park related
activities. An estimated 100,000 hours is contributed annually to
Victoria parks through such voluntary work.
25.20 Yet such encouraging examples are not confined to the USA and
Australia, similar schemes involving the extensive use of volunteers are
to be found here in the U K.
25.21 The Parks Trust Milton Keynes has an extensive volunteering
programme ranging across ah whole range of activities – even
including 26 volunteer photographers/filmmakers and writers for their
publications and websites. See fig 17.
25.22 The activities undertaken encompass nearly all of the maintenance and
development requirements of the parks, and these take place both
during the week and at weekends. Examples of the work undertaken
includes:
iv)
reed cutting; scrub bashing; coppicing; hedge laying; tool
and depot maintenance; meadow maintenance; building a
sand martin bank.
25.23 They also use volunteers for their events, from stewarding to dressing
up as ghosts and werewolves for a Halloween walk.
25.24 Training days and social events are regularly held, see fig 18 and a
newsletter “The Volunteers Forum” (see Appendix 11.) is published
four times a year.
25.25 The Trust has only one Friends Group that was established in 2005 as
a pilot. The group has gone from strength to strength, endorsing the
Trust commitment to such groups as a means of attracting a wider
range of grants and sponsorship and a chance for local people to really
get involved in maintaining and improving their local park. Some idea of
this particular groups approach can perhaps be gleaned from one of
their autumn fundraising initiatives, a raffle with a VW Bettle Cabriolet
as a first prize with half the income going to fund new play equipment
in their park.
89
25.26 Somewhat nearer home, in Southwark, the Friends of Southwark Park
contribute thousands of hours per annum of volunteer time. See fig 19
26 Moving Forwards
26.1
On a whole series of fronts Lambeth Parks Department needs to be
able to move forward in terms of its community involvement initiatives.
It is clear that the existing arrangements are less than satisfactory and
in terms of being able to respond to the needs of our uses, could well
be said to be leading to a negative effect. In terms of our commitment
to inclusiveness and celebrating our diverse community, them it might
argued that the existing arrangements are do little to help us in the
delivery of such a commitment.
26.2
We therefore need to develop a mechanism whereby we can build
upon the undoubted commitment to parks that many members of the
Friends Groups have, but that will encourage all age groups and every
section of our communities to take part.
26.3
Comment is increasingly being made about the need to recognise and
build social capital within our public services and in particular, parks.
Given the ever-increasing interest in our environment, there has
probably never been a better time to take advantage of this interest to
develop a new relationship management system with our users. And
one that has readily identifiable benefits for our users and ourselves.
26.4
It is generally accepted that sustainable communities exist where the
three capitals, economic, environmental and social co-exist and are in
balance. It is well recognised that parks and open spaces are major
contributors to the environmental capital of a society. We have earlier
underlined the fact, albeit often unrecognised, that parks can and do
contribute to a communities economic capital. But can parks contribute
to the social capital?
26.5
Social capital is defined as “the processes between people which
establishes networks, norms, social trust and facilitate co-ordination
and co-operation for mutual benefit”.42 We can therefore increase
social capital by “working together voluntarily in egalitarian
organisations”43 Given this, Parks can clearly help to deliver
considerable social capital.
26.6
In an earlier section of this Review we have made reference to the
extensive health benefits that are to be derived from our parks. In
addition the wealth of research into such benefits, other research into
health determinants, including contact with natural environments,
42
43
Cox E, Boyer Lecture, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1995.
Cox E, Boyer Lecture, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 1995.
90
appear to emerge in anecdotal evidence that suggest that engagement
in civic environmentalism (through volunteers and groups such as
Friends of Parks) has spin-off health benefits and increased social
capital. This link is supported by further research44 that defines the
components of well-being as including, inter alia, making a positive
contribution to human society.
26.7
It is likely therefore that members of groups, and in our case, Friends of
Parks groups, involved in civic environmentalism will receive a number
of health and well being benefits from their volunteer work within the
parks, including: a sense of achievement and ownership, the
opportunity to learn from and socialise with other members of the
community and thus enhancing both social and human capital.
26.8
The findings of a study in Australia suggest that park volunteers not
only work to restore the environment, but in the process they
experience improved physical health as a result of increased physical
activity, improved mental health through for time spent in a natural
environment, and an increased level of social connectedness and trust
through interacting with others.45
26.9
It could be argued therefore that a way forward for us would be to
develop a strategy of seeking to dramatically increasing the
opportunities for volunteers within our parks thorough a policy of
encouraging civic environmentalism.
26.10 Such a policy immediately broadens the appeal of our parks, away
from what might be considered a narrow and less than inclusive
current Friends of the Parks approach, to one that offer a wider
environmental appeal.
26.11 In order to implement such a proposal there would be a need an officer
with responsibility for the co-ordination of the volunteers, given the
potential for a very large number of volunteers coming forward.
26.12 Such an approach could also be linked to the new LAA requirements
and thus be seen as part of our overall commitment to the LAA, rather
than being seen as a criticism of individual friends groups.
26.13 Whatever approach is adopted, moving forward on an agenda that
provides the opportunity to capture the imagination, commitment and
community involvement that the use of volunteers has to offer, must be
an exciting prospect.
44
45
Furnass, 1996.
Senoir J., Townsend M., 2005, Healthy Parks, Healthy People
91
fig 14.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Volunteer Program
The City of Sacramento welcomes volunteers to help provide
services and programs to its citizens. The City is committed to
maintaining a close relationship between the community volunteers and the City
government. The volunteer program provides a broad source of expertise, talent, and
manpower for City programs as well as an avenue for citizens to participate in their
local government. The citizens also benefit by gaining a greater understanding and
appreciation for their local government while strengthening the community's bond.
Volunteers provide assistance with animal care, gardening, tours, arts and crafts, child
development, special events and much more. Some departments can utilize
volunteers as young as 12, while others require the volunteer to be at least 18.
Parks Volunteer Program
City Parks welcomes individuals, families, and groups to participate in one day, short
term, and ongoing volunteer stewardship activities in our parks, trails, and nature
areas. We have a wide variety of activities for the outdoor enthusiast, including youth
and other special populations. Volunteers under age 18 need adult supervision. We
provide training, tools and supplies. Donations are also accepted from interested
individuals or groups and we have on-going need for work gloves, tools, and
landscaping supplies. Group activities can be scheduled during our regular parks
hours, 6am to 2:30pm, Monday through Friday, and on occasional Saturdays or
Sundays.
92
fig 15.
Friends of Van Cortlandt Park . Success Stories
Over the years, the Friends have worked with some great young people during our
various programs. One of the great benefits of being involved with these programs is
to watch our participants grow and develop into mature, responsible adults who
understand the importance of preserving this wonderful park. Below is a highlight of
just a few of our various “Success Stories”. There are many more success stories that
will be continually added to this page.
Hello, my name is Enyiekere Enyiema. I am the Outreach Program Assistant of the
Friends of Van Cortlandt Park. Before I got to where I am at now, I had to start as an
intern working for the Friends of Van Cortlandt Park. Six years ago, I entered the
Friends’ program through Summer Youth Employment (SYEP). My first summer
working in the park I realized that I enjoyed working in the park, learning about some
of the different types of trees, animals and insects in the park. While attending high
school I thought of myself as being lucky enough to be in a program like this. I was
able to meet new people and work along side some of my peers in trying to improve
and beautify the park. Three years into the program, I was given the opportunity to
come back as a supervisor. I found that coming back in that position would give me
a chance to share my experience with some of the future interns, so that they would
feel more comfortable knowing that their supervisor shares the same sense of what
they are here to accomplish during the program.
93
Hello, my name is Julissa Pichardo. I have participated in the Friends of Van
Cortlandt Park Year Round Internship Program for the last three years. I started the
internship as a sophomore attending Riverdale/Kingsbridge Academy MS/HS 141.
The three years I have worked with the Friends of Van Cortlant Park have been full of
learning, inspiration, fun, challenges, laughter and much more. It was all these things
even when I had to work rain or shine, winter or summer, and shovel many piles of
horse manure. As interns, students work in the park or at the compost site to clear
them of invasive shrubs, restored native plants back into the park, and established new
sites to plant in. Aside from our responsibilities to the park we had a responsibility to
the community. So to do this we had volunteer days and workshops with younger
students and children to teach them about the environment and ways they can help to
preserve it.
Now looking back as a graduate of 141, I am astounded by everything I have done
completed; academically and personally. The next step forward is College. In the Fall
I will be entering Rutgers University as a freshman. Although this is a great
opportunity and look forward to it with much excitement I am currently making plans
to transfer to my ideal school. This college is the SUNY School of Environmental
Science and Forestry ((ESF) located in Syracuse New York. ESF is dedicated to
protecting, improving, and preserving the environment. Just as the Friends of Van
Cortlandt Park are dedicated to “Protecting and Preserving Van Cortlandt Park for all
to enjoy”. So it’s thanks to the Friends that I am so eager to join the ESF learning
community.
It is this personal attention and commitment to its activities and interns that has made
the Friends of Van Cortlandt Park the amazing organization it is.
94
My name is James E. Burgos and I am 16 years old, homeschooled, and in the 11th
grade. I have been a part of the Friends of Van Cortlandt for four years and I’ve had
a lot of success and fun working in this program. I first got involved with FVCP when
I was eleven years old doing the Junior Naturalist program. It was an awesome
experience and it opened my eyes to a whole new part of life. I got the chance to
explore the environment and learn basic things about City parks that fascinated me. I
also met some great friends that continued with the internship and we have since
stayed close throughout high school.
During my experience at FVCP I have accomplished things that have helped me
prevail to the next level, so much that people are in awe when hearing about my
achievements. I’ve worked with children teaching them about composting, park and
trail maintenance, given speeches to crowds of over 50 people and I’ve travelled to
different parks and wildlife exhibits and learned environmental science. At age 14,
while working for the Trees For Neighbourhood Trees I became one of the youngest
tree pruners to receive a certified license in NYC. I've also had the privilege of being
a part of the environmental and social events in Van Cortlandt Park such as
Halloween Fest, Earth Day and Volunteer Days, which in my opinion are the best
events in New York City!
My experiences during my three years as an intern have allowed me to branch out into
other areas of interest, many doors which were opened to me due to FVCP. During
the past summer I worked for the Bronx Zoo in the Camel Barn giving Camel rides
and tending to the retired zoo animals. This fall, I am currently doing a six week
training course with the New York Aquarium to certify me as a Docent. This is the
next step in obtaining experience as a teacher of environmental and marine science. I
will be teaching aquarium guests about the different species of mammals at the
aquarium. My plans for the distant future include teaching children and one day
starting my own Whale Watching business. I hope to study Marine Biology in college
and am working towards applying to the University of North Carolina at Wilmington
and the University of Hawaii in Manoa or Hilo. Thanks to the Friends of Van
Cortlandt and their commitment to young people. They are helping to shape future
success!!!!!!!!
95
fig 16.
Friends of Van Cortlandt Park.
Upcoming Events for 2007
Friends’ Spring 2007 Volunteer Events
John Muir Volunteer Days- Sat. May 12th from 10am to
1pm- Join us as we continue to work on the John Muir Nature Trail. Volunteers are
needed to remove invasive plants and help plant native trees and shrubs. Meet at the Riding
Stables. Enter the park at Broadway and Mosholu Ave.
Southeast Forest Project Volunteer Days- Sat., May
5th, May 19th and June 2nd from 10am-1pm- Help to
improve an unhealthy section of the forest along the new Croton Extension Trail. We will be
pulling invasive weeds and planting native plants. Meet at the Southwest Corner of the
Shandler Recreation Area parking lot. Enter the park off of Jerome Avenue, south of East 233rd
St. May 5th is the borough-wide Team Up to Clean Up Day, May 19th is It’s My Parks
Day and June 2nd is National Trails Day. Our work in the Southeast Forest is being
sponsored by the Timberland Company!!!
96
fig 17.
Volunteering with the Parks Trust
We have a wide range of activities, which we hope you would find fulfilling, rewarding, and
worthwhile. If you have any queries about volunteering or would like to know more about getting
involved our volunteer coordinator who will be happy to help you. Please contact them on 01908
233600 or send a mail to the Volunteer Co-ordinator
Rover Ranger: By becoming a Rover Ranger you can help us keep an eye on a
park you use regularly, for instance while walking the dog...
Patrolling volunteer: Patrolling volunteers help us to make sure that all our parks
remain safe and enjoyable to use. This is a great way to take regular exercise and get to know
your parks better...
including helping
more....
Events volunteer: Help make our events program a success in numerous ways
with setting up, running childrens activities, helping with guided walks, and
Volunteer ranger: Give your countryside career a boost by becoming a volunteer
ranger. Gain valuable experience in events, practical work, education and more...
97
Cricket Steward: Help with the running of our county class cricket ground at
Campbell Park, this role includes stewarding, helping the groundsmen, and marshalling duties...
Photographic volunteer: Build your portfolio and see your pictures in print by
joining our growing team of photographic volunteers...
Conservation working parties: Learn new skills, meet people, take healthy
exercise, and do your bit for wildlife at our working parties...
98
fig 18.
99
fig 19.
CV Friends of Southwark Park
100
Addendum
Community Involvement
The capacity building of friends of parks groups enabling them to have a
greater stake in the deliver of local parks and open spaces in Lambeth is a
key project within the Lambeth Communities First Programme.
The Communities First programme sets out a capacity building framework or
ladder for friends of groups. This framework enables friends of groups to
determine their own level of engagement, which will remain a matter of self
determination. The purpose of the framework is to set out the balance of
responsibilities between the Council and Friends of Groups.
A draft constitution will be prepared and made available through the Councils
website as part of a resource pack for friends of groups. This draft constitution
will act as the minimum standard for friends of groups at the inform stage of
their development. Individual friends of group may develop beyond this daft
constitution.
The framework has been developed following a workshop session with Friend
of Park Groups, facilitated by the Assistant Director of Area Services,
Regeneration and Housing Department.
Level of
Capacity
Devolve:
Assets have been
transferred from
the council and
managed directly
by the Friends of
Group.
Involve:
The Friends of
Group is working
alongside the
council
developing
What is required of the
Group
- 10 year business plan.
- Mixture of sustainable
income streams.
- Management system health
check.
- Financial and community
benefit assessment.
- Capacity to sustain
responsibility for all public
liabilities.
- Constituted in accordance
with charity and company
law.
- Community engagement
plan.
- Attendance at Lambeth
Parks and Open Spaces
Forum.
- Constituted in accordance
with charitable law.
- Friends of group has
fundraising plan linked to
management plan.
- Community engagement
101
What the Council will do
- Enter into negotiations for
10 year service level
agreement
- Withdraw direct
management of the asset
and establish a
commissioned relationship
between council and
friends of group.
- Provide member and officer
link to friends of group.
- Opportunity to make
application to a capacity
building fund to support
development.
- The management plan will
be developed in
partnership with the friends
of group and jointly agreed.
- Provide member and officer
link to friends of group
proposals and
helping to attract
investment.
Consult:
The Friends of
Group is assisting
the Council to
determine options
for the park.
-
-
-
Inform:
The Friends of
Group receives
information and
feeds back any
comments and
observations on
an ad-hoc basis.
plan.
Attendance at Lambeth
Parks and Open Spaces
Forum.
Basic constitution in place
Auditable activities in terms
of group meeting, election
of officers, leaflets, annual
general meeting open to
the public, etc.
Invitation to attend
Lambeth Parks and Open
Spaces Forum.
- Basic constitution.
- May attend meetings of
Lambeth Parks and Open
Spaces Forum.
application for a capacity
development.
- Officer commitment to
attend at least a quarterly
meeting of the Friends of
Group.
- Annual walkabout with
Friends of Group.
- The sharing of the draft
management plan with
Friends of group prior to
council adoption.
development.
- To keep friends of group
informed of developments
to the park via meeting, as
and when required.
- Make management plan
available to the Friends of
Group and seek feedback
within an agreed timescale.
- Kept informed of meetings
of the Lambeth Parks and
Open Spaces Forum.
development.
The Lambeth Communities First programme proposes the development of a
Active Communities and Neighbourhood Fund for community led initiatives,
like friends of groups, to apply for resources to assistant them with their
capacity building requirements. The aim is to bring this fund on line during the
2008-09 financial year.
102

Appendix A PARKS BUSINESS PLANNING REVIEW V6.

Transcription

Similar documents

Baguio City - unescap.org

Free!!! - Arlingtonva

November 2015

to the registration form.

Adventure Parks in Malaysia | Lost World of Tambun

City of Chelsea Presentation