Discussion in 'Brixton' started by bimble, Dec 3, 2015.
New thread because it deserves one.. info to follow very soon.
My littlun had many a happy afternoon charging around that place. Redvelopment for "luxury" flats?
Basically yes, how did you guess, but not yet a done deal.
Twats. There are redevelopments that I can't really argue about - crap old buildings being made into homes, but playgrounds and community spaces like this, its criminal.
From what I remember of the last consultation about the LJ Masterplan there were no definite plans for the Adventure playground. That is its still be consulted on.
Its something on our table we thought should be kept.
As far as I know the LJ Masterplan is not yet finished. So would be interested to know if bimble as new info on this site.
I'm actually surprised that Lambeth haven't tried "regenerating" the adventure playground on Greenleaf Close (on Tulse Hill estate). In fact that whole strip from the Tulse Hill entrance.
Not sure to what extent they are all in danger of 'regeneration' but definitely got the impression that all of Lambeth's adventure playgrounds are being looked at closely, because funding cuts.
Cllr Jane Pickard (cabinet member for Children & Families) who was at Gordon Grove meeting, said she was visiting them all and collecting data.
The thing with Gordon Grove is that its 'regeneration' in one way or another is already part of the LJ Masterplan, and so it's further along down the route to being replaced by flats than most.
Sorry for the delay in putting info here - just want to make sure I get stuff right before posting.
Not the first time Lambeth has "reviewed" their adventure playgrounds, either. I'm fairly sure we lost a couple of littl'uns in the '90s to funding cuts and rising property prices.
"Regeneration", for the council, is a very convenient term that,as with Humpty-Dumpty, means whatever they say it means. In Lambeth's case, given the paucity of banked land, it does invariably mean "flogged for development though. We're going to see more and more encroachment on socially useful but publicly-owned resources - it'd be unavoidable even if our local authority wasn't so economically-inept, morally-corrupt and poorly-resourced.
Yes. The document about the playground from the masterplan is a complete triumph in terms of doublespeak. To regenerate something in this context actually means.. make it completely stop existing.
Pretty much what it means for Cressingham Gardens estate. They may give what's built in its' place the same name, but it won't be the same place.
Of course. They're not planning to name it Brockwell Quarter?
Actually, one of the companies tendering for the masterplanning gig for Cressingham spoke of re-branding the estate as some kind of quarter. Mind you, this was the same bunch of arsenuggets who assumed that the mounds at the back of the estate were developable land (they're not, they're part of the Brockwell Park conservation area), and that they can develop a "feature" green boulevard through the estate to the park (even though this would use up developable land, and mean that any development would have to go higher).
Just had a first look through the 'stage 2 consultation report' here Loughborough Junction Masterplan | Lambeth Council
Please, anyone who was at that consultation tell me whether your table did what the report says "many tables" did:
ie) the consultation report says that there was a lot of support for the idea of replacing the adventure playground with flats, and making a new (tiny) playground inside the park opposite instead.
It does not mention 'improving' the adventure playground as an option at all.
There were 4 options presented to us at that consultation. 2 of them involved totally replacing the adventure playground with flats, 2 didn't.
The report now only talks about "replacing" it with some little crap thing in the park.
I don't know - I'm just asking: CH1 critical1 Gramsci concerned1 teuchter & anyone else who may have been there..
Please confirm if your table did come the conclusion above, supported the idea of getting rid of the adventure playground on Gordon Grove and replacing it with flats, by favouriting one of the options on the plan which showed 5 storey flats replacing it. Mine didn't.
There is no mention of any objections to this idea in the consultation report.
I didn't attend any of those consultation meetings. Haven't check the dates, but they all had clashes for me. I wasn't formally boycotting or anything.
In any event it does seem more logical to me to repair and maintain the existing adventure playground and let the agrotherapists at LJAG continue their good work on Elam park space. Why ruin two good projects in order to shoehorn in yet more crappy undersized flats - affordable or otherwise?
Weell.. because transforming the playground (council owned land) into 5 storey private development flats = money for the council.
The erstwhile Barrington Lodge will be online soon. They'll have council tax coming out of their ears!
My table did not support this.
Council argument is that the Youth centre is out of date. ( Didnt look in bad condition when I saw it.) But I would like to see a surveyors report on the building before just accepting the Council view.
The only way for Council to raise funds to be invested in area for community benefit is to flog off the family silver, so to speak.
All seems short termist to me. So what happens 20 years down the line when new money is needed for ongoing refurbishment etc?
I oppose selling off Council land like this. Once its gone its gone.
"there was a discussion on its placement in Elam Open Spaces"
What actually happened was that the officers suggested that this was a good idea. That is they led the discussion.
Its when consultation takes this form that I question whether its good idea to attend these events. The report phrasing makes it appear that the discussion was a neutral process. When in fact one has to be careful not to be carried along by it all. Council set the agenda.
Subtly at consultation meetings they encourage those attending to see it from there point of view.
That is not imo the position those residents who attend need to take. Its not our role to back up the Council.
Myself and bimble were at a day-time meeting there before I went down with the lurgy.
Meeting seemed informal to the point of not organised. Matt Parr turned up as I was leaving, so not sure what his feeling on this were.
I think what people need to bear in mind is that when the council flog off small sites they are almost always end up as Lexadon luxury rental flats.
So any development would certainly a case of selling off the family silver - definitely no social housing or indeed any other social benefit - unless you believe in creating "mixed communities" by gentrification!
CORRECTION - we were at a meeting at the Adventure Playground, not Marcus Lipton Centre
Relevant article from the Spectator (of all places) about a similar fight in Newcastle:
Save our green! The local battle which exposed the war against Britain's green space | Coffee House
Went to the meeting last night about the Adventure Playground. It was constructive meeting. Plan is to get it open for summer. Someone offered to write business plan.
As it's been closed for while a new condition survey is needed. To see how much money is needed to get it in working order.
Helen Hayes MP turned up. Which is a good sign.
Next meeting is 11th April. Will keep posters updated.
Main thing imo is to get the Adventure Playground in use.
Sorry i was away for both recent meetings, back now and have emailed to see if I can help regarding fundraising.
Just received the update from LJAG :Save the Grove APG - progress reprt
I think the idea of getting the playground open at least for a few weeks this Summer is excellent - get it back in use, even without a long term plan in place. It is too easy for them to claim that it won't be missed whilst it's left locked and deserted as it is now.
This thing here - the Council's 'inspection report' on the condition of thew playground. It is seriously disheartening.
Lambeth's Inspection Report
The opening sentence:
"The Grove Adventure Playground has been closed down and the site is planned for development. This inspection was to ascertain whether the playground structures are suitable for being transferred to other adventure playgrounds and also to give advice on other health and safety matters which may be apparent."
That's as clear as you can get that lambeth has no intention at all of allowing the playground to re-open. Which does not mean its impossible, just that it will be hard.
Yes the place needs work but it was full of children having fun a few months ago.
This is the playground by the way (pics from after the place was locked last summer)
Its bordered behind by a huge scrap metal yard and on the left by the railway line. The council has not said yet what amount of money they expect to be able to sell the plot to developers for.
Shouldn't Lambeth be given these closed up adventure playcgrounds to GLL rather than libraries?
Adventure play would appear to be closer to GLL's core expertise.
BTW demo at Carnegie 1 pm Sat April 1st - one year anniversary of closure. Apparently fancy dress is encouraged.
An annoying thing about this report is that a decision to redevelop the site appears to be already taken.
When at the LJ Neighbourhood Planning Forums we kept on being told no decision has been made.
A case of making a decision and trying to get the consultation to fit.
Yep. And as you know, the attempt to make the consultation fit went as far as 'mistakenly' saying that people had declared themselves in favour (of replacing the playground with flats) when in fact they had not.
Next meeting on this is tomorrow evening (11th April). if anyone can make it that would be great.
I was putting together a crew to squat the place and reopen it but they sussed me and installed guardians.
Separate names with a comma.