Some proposals have been supported, but there are others you were concerned about, and we have listened to you. We’ve proposed some changes and you still have until the end of this week to have your say.

Tell us what you think by Friday 30 July – send comments to des.waters@southwark.gov.uk

View the proposed amendments set in the final consultation by visiting http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2418/burgess_park_presentation

You supported the bid, now do you support the plans?

Come to the next public meeting and let us know. 20 July: Thurlow lodge from 5pm to 7pm

Re revitalisation. The Friends certainly do not wish to block development. We certainly don’t want to see money thrown away. Yet we also don’t want to see the money wasted on elements that are extremely expensive and offer little in return.
The whole project has been rushed through, with us constantly being told what we are going to get. We haven’t been convinced that real consultation has taken place.
Consultation shouldn’t consist of showing people pretty pictures and saying you can have this or what you’ve got now. It should be about genuinely finding out what peoples aspirations and needs are.

The ‘late stage’ is the realisation after long thought and consideration of the plans that some elements are ill conceived and won’t enhance the park. It is also the fact that Southwark have failed to listen. There is no fear of change or loss of control involved, just the simple fact that we want the money spent wisely.

In consultation with Southwark we have already discovered several elements they themselves have not considered properly and are reconsidering.

For example, why does levelling the small hills by the lake become the only way to create disabled access? This is the reason Southwark have given for their removal. When it was pointed out that although overgrown (lack of maintenance) the hills shield the lake form the prevailing wind, making it a pleasant place to be, this was acknowledged. When suggested that people who live in hilly areas don’t blast away hillsides to create disabled access, but build in appropriate pathways to accommodate this, this was also acknowledged.

Southwark very recently spent over £1M constructing a new playground. Quite how they managed to spend that amount of money on such a poorly designed and implemented space is astonishing.

The thought of this happening again is driving the issues we now raise.

No one is suggesting that no compromise takes place. We have simply argued that the process of change work from the bottom up rather than ‘top down’. Would we rather have functional lighting, adequate rubbish removal, new trees, beautiful wildlife areas, a smart park that works rather than all the money go on fancy entrances, acres of fenced off sports fields, swimming lakes and acres of ornamental gardens.

Re the meeting on the 17th, I’m working that day but I will see if someone else can go, as we would like to reassure you that we are not anti improvement but like all local residents, want the best park we can get.

You mention the Dry Garden and its parlous state – but it is not the only area of formal planting in Burgess Park. For some reason you overlook the World Garden and complex at Chumleigh Gdns. This is actually the only real example of a proper flower garden – and is far and away the most loved and valued part of the park. It is also immaculate and always well-maintained. Where there are showcase beds and borders that are a source of pride (think Peckham Rye Park and Dulwich Park), their maintenance is a priority and a given.

Our members are not naive – we know that £4.5 million is enough to implement only a fraction of the Masterplan. That’s why we too have worked hard to come up with a list of priorities that addresses our residents’ needs (surprise, surprise, our list of essentials mirrors yours: play, safety, maintenance and wildlife). We also know that the Council’s record on upkeep is poor. You only have to look at the public disgrace that is Central Venture to see that. However, via the consultation process, we have forcibly made the point that we don’t want to see wholesale ripping up of Burgess Park only to watch the project grind to a halt, leaving an even worse mess. We have also stressed the need for adequate long-term upkeep and raised various other issues.

What is unfathomable to our members and other local residents, is that groups who have been custodians of the park, who have cried out for more investment, who want to see the best for the park and its users are using blocking tactics. To raise concerns and objections or make suggestions is one thing. To step in at this late stage with a major campaign that has the potential to cause the return of millions of pounds earmarked for us to be returned to Boris is quite another.

It smacks of fear. Fear of change and perhaps even fear of losing control.

Meantime, I repeat our offer of coming to one of our meetings to tell us more about Friends of Burgess Park and the good work you do: next one is at the cafe in Chumleigh Gardens on Saturday 17th July: 10:30 am. Do join us for coffee and a chat.

Having said that, many of the proposed ideas are great, but with limited money, surely we are better off addressing those issues that affect local people directly, ie play, safety, maintenance and wildlife.
Finding a way to get the most out of the money available, to address the problems of the park, to build on what has already been done and to create a park for the future.
This will give us what we need now, and create the foundation for further development when money does come in.

LDA state clearly they want to create a venue that will host Europe’s largest music festivals with a permanent stage to facilitate them also. Such festivals host up to 200,000 people.

LDA propose reshaping the current festival/flat football area to shape it into a natural amphitheatre holding 100,000 people and to flatten the other side of the park to create another events area.

LDA also propose devoting the area of 3 large football pitches to allotments / community growing areas

So when you state the things you do not want in the park this is confusing as these are some of the key proposals in the LDA plans for the park.

I agree that it is not good to have litter in the woodland areas and can not understand why the same standards are not applied to litter in these areas by the Council. But would prefer to see them litter-picked rather than bulldozed.

I asked the local park manager and police liaison people if these could be cleared of litter using community service – they said they were already doing it but think more could be done.

I find your views stating that woodland areas are a blight on the landscape quite a paradoxical concept but everybody has their opinion and we often value different things.
To me it is the ugly tower blocks which are the blot of the landscape and like them to be screened by trees and woodland when in the park.

Having planted many of those trees on community planting days, just like the EQRA planting day with bulbs, I guess I am more likely to really like them!

cheers

The park needs to be landscaped, maintained, have clear line of sight and stop looking like a derelict park in a 3rd world country.

I have no desire to have mega concerts, garden plots or free community food from fruit trees in the park. If we want to regenerate the area and encourage people to consider moving to our area we need to have a park we are proud of and as well maintained as the other large parks in the area not one where most residents fear for their lives if they use it.

The park has huge potential and with funding to deliver – i can’t express strongly enough my support of the LDA proposal! BULLDOZE AWAY!

So we think providing a permanent stage for them and bulldozing existing woodlands between the Old Kent Road and the proposed 100,000 person amphitheatre would therefore not make sense.
It would also mean the polluted traffic and noise from the Old Kent Road would then be visible from the picnic area by the lake, when it currently is not.

The reasons it is popular with tv crews I think is the remaining derelict roads and the nearby tower blocks.

The council has £4.5 million available from a special park grant and the Burgess Park Action Group would like to see them use this to remove the derelict roads, repair the popular play area on Wells Way, repair the lake which is leaking water and improve landscaping rather then bulldozing 20 year old woodlands and meadows.
These mature trees help to obscure some of the more intrusive tower blocks.

The agreed statement that we have put together with 17 other local groups outlining what we would like for the park and what sections of the latest proposed masterplan are disastrous is on our Burgess Park Action Group Facebook page.
thanks Donnachadh

Only two weeks ago an indy crew was filming a motorbike chase scene that wouldn’t have looked out of place in Mad Max or Terminator 2! So do they love Burgess Park because of its ‘beautiful meadows’, or because it looks like a wasteland!!