Showing posts with label lollard street adventure playground. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lollard street adventure playground. Show all posts

Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Un-co-operative Lambeth Council: Friends of Lollard Street Adventure Playground, Kennington found it closed this morning


Playground closed sign taken from https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYbz91aqjVMENYce3h9KFWaShPe3axLQGvRR_cpOPRvi8MzoD_lDiv7Sj61MnoospGx9ok7n-wj7VJlSPa4II0NPID05L4mUZiC4V-kJ2Id8XJ9J3wYd641FHPCx9idlRCIX7kecNoe58/s320/Playground_Closed_by_sullivan1985.jpg
 
I'd just like to draw readers' attention to a letter on Lollard Street Adventure Playground published on the Kennington Association news blog this morning from Anna Tapsell who is both chair of the Kennington Association (KA) and Treasurer of the Friends of Lollard Street Adventure Playground (FOLSAP).
FOLSAP have been working for some time to prevent the closure of Lollard Street Adventure Playground and to think about how it might be run in future, given the reality of Council cuts.

It seems, according to the letter, that the Council agreed at a meeting on June 16th that £45,000 was available to potentially be allocated to a local management group were they to put forward a viable business plan.  FOLSAP report that they did develop a business plan, but were later told at a meeting on 18th August that, contrary to the previous information, £45,000 would not be available to a local management project. 

Clearly the Lollard Street Adventure playground project had to go to tender, but FOLSAP are alleging that their experience with the Council has not been one of co-operation.  Given that our Co-operative council are not appearing terribly co-operative, perhaps constituents of other councils should take heed.  FOLSAP say the process began too late and that councillors/officers have presented mixed and non-transparent messages.  They raise a question as to the "propriety of the tender process"

In Lambeth, the letter asserts, having such playgrounds open is a "safeguarding issue", given that many parents leave their children there in place of after-school care.  Most worryingly, when Ms Tapsell visited the playground this morning, she found:
"just a scrawled ungrammatical note pinned to the gate saying that it would be closed this week. No explanation or other information about when it might be open. Two little boys were there with their table tennis bats. Their parents were back at work."

Additionally, the playground will now, according to the letter, only be open for one session on a weekday!  It won't be open on Saturdays at all.  Back on 7th April, at the KOV meeting, Cllr Harrison re-assured local residents that Lollard Street Adventure Playground would not be closing.   Arguably, one could liken a playground that runs for only one session a week to a closure in everything but name. Moreover, there are still questions to be asked about why it's closed this week, and why no information is available concerning its re-opening.  Indeed, opening the playground for such limited hours is likely to lead to it becoming less popular.  See the case of the Kennington Park Adventure playground in which two playgrounds will merge on to one smaller site to make way for housing, given alleged non-use of the land... where is it?  Ahh, yes, this is what I wrote back in September 2010:
The defence offered (by the architect) in favour of consolidating the [Kennington Park] site was that the One O'Clock club only opens for 3 hours per day for 4 days per week.  The One O'Clock club is apparently "not well used" (at peak times, the architect suggested that 20 children use it)...
Even more worrying, given recent civil unrest near these parts, is Lambeth's failure to understand that adventure playgrounds are a public place off the streets for children and young people to gather.  To fail to allow local organisations any say in the supposedly mutual process of running facilities is distinctly un-co-operative and short changes residents.  Short-term cost cutting of youth services will likely only lead to further social unrest.  A recent report from the Department of Education notes that a quarter of excluded primary school students expelled in 2009-2010 were from Lambeth.  There's no point in having police officers visit primary schools to warn children away from gang life if no alternative facilities are in place for their use and their parents are not at home to supervise on account of being at work.

It would be really good to see whether our MP still has any teeth when it comes to influencing the local authority and working for the good of less-affluent north Lambeth residents.

Friday, 8 April 2011

Black Prince Trust formed to manage SAZ on Lilian Baylis site - KOV meeting April 7th 2011

I'm going to write a brief series of update posts because I've written up KOV (Kennington, Oval, Vauxhall) forum meetings in the past and I don't feel that the detail is necessary when minutes are available.

First up were the Sports Action Zone (SAZ).  Brian Dickens came to show a video of what's happening on their site (lots of aerobics and basketball) and testimonies from site users.  He spoke about how SAZ, with the help of Kate Hoey have set up a trust named the Black Prince Trust (incorporated March 14th 2011).  SAZ won the £2 million funding (I wrote about that here) that it needed to be able to set up the trust, lease the land from the Council and use the parts of the former Lilian Baylis as a sporting base.  That's very good news, as it least ensures that much of the site remains for the use of the general public.  The Black Prince Trust will have the job of overseeing the way SAZ makes its mark on the grounds of the former Lilian Baylis school.  Of course, the rest of the school will be put on the open market, but given that everything (including the car park) is listed, I'm not sure buyers will be chomping at the bit.

Kate Hoey noted that she, Cllr Lorna Campbell, Patricia Moberley (former Chairman of Guy's and St Thomas' NHS foundation), Brian Dickens (SAZ) and Ann Bodkin (governor at Ethelred Nursery) have been appointed trustees of the Black Prince Trust.  There might have been some others, but the naming was rather haphazard.  Apparently, there is room for more trustees, but the trust had to be set up in a hurry so there wasn't time to consult.  The other "interested parties" (these weren't named), but I'm guessing maybe the Ethelred Nursery is one such have, according to Kate Hoey, formed themselves into a co-operative.

Anna Tapsell, representing the Friends of Lollard Street adventure playground felt that Lollard Street had been absent from discussions and that they'd not been incorporated into the plan.  She also noted that the future of the playground was precarious under the Council's plan to hand the playground to the voluntary sector.  Whilst Anna acknowledged that SAZ had spoken to somebody on site at Lollard Street, she felt that no discussions had taken place in a more official capacity.  Cllr Mark Harrison responded that Lollard Street won't be closing, but that ownership and management of the plaground would be transferred to the voluntary sector.  Kate Hoey noted that people would be angry if Lollard Street adventure playground closes and noted that whilst there are funding difficulties, these are nothing that "can't be sorted".

So... good news for SAZ... I'm still hoping to hear more from them about what they are offering in terms of being able to advertise their programs to readers here, but they do a fantastic job at supporting local children in fitness and health and encouraging them to further their study and stay of the streets.  Also, the above frank exchange of views seems to answer a previously unasked/unanswered question on Lollard Street Adventure Playground.  It 's not due to close, but it will be moved into the voluntary sector.  Not a bad way to go, as long as the voluntary sector doesn't just turn into privatisation by the back door.  At least it's a way to continue providing services in the wake of Council cuts...

Tuesday, 24 August 2010

Lollard Street Adventure Playground Fun Day Today

I'm not sure that my blog's target audience is parents with young children, but just on the off-chance, the Friends of Lollard Street Adventure Playground (FOLSAP) are holding a fun day today to give everybody a chance to find out more about the adventure playground.  They've invited parents, councillors and officials to demonstrate what takes place at the playground and show how important it is for young people to have a place to play.  It's free and anybody can go.

Lollard St Adventure Playground is opposite the former Lilian Baylis School on Lollard Street and the play day lasts from 12:30 - 16:30.

If you want more info. take a look at the article on the Kennington Association News blog here.

Friday, 6 August 2010

Triangle Adventure Playground vs. Archbishop Tenison School

Cast your mind back to the Parliamentary hustings, held back in April in St Mark's Church and you might remember that the "Triangle" featured briefly in questions to the candidates.  The Triangle is an Adventure Playground that sits just outside of the SE11 border in Ashmole Street.  The site is leased to the Triangle Adventure Playground Association (who are a charitable foundation) by Lambeth Council.  The Triangle is the oldest Adventure Playground to have remained on a consistent site in London, but was founded at a similar time to Lollard Street Adventure playground.  (It's worth noting at this point that residents must keep a close eye on the Lollard site since its future is potentially tied up in the future of the former Lilian Baylis School, and all of our adventure playgrounds are very valuable community resources).

Mention the Triangle to local councillors, and you might receive well-worn looks of despair.  Essentially, Archbisop Tenison School needed space to expand their play facilities.  The school /was/ due to receive money from the Building Future Schools programme which would allow them to provide schooling for an additional 150 boys, and Lambeth Council were left in the slightly awkward position that they would essentially need to sacrifice the Community Playground in order to turn it into a school playground that could be used on an out-of-hours basis by the community.  A shared solution was being sought (as at 15/10/2009) according to this FOI request, but since mention of the site still seems contentious, it would appear that no joint solution has been found.  I've also found that wading through the documentation on the matter is confusing.  The FOI email seems to suggest that Archbishop Tenison needed the space for a car park (Lambeth Council firmly refuted this) and reports from elsewhere seemed to suggest that the site would only be closed temporarily in order to allow the school to complete some building work (which is what seemed to be at issue during the hustings).  I am going to assume, unless somebody says to the contrary, that the plan was to give the Triangle Adventure Playground to Archbishop Tension School, and it is this that the Playground committee are objecting to (particularly since many students at the school are not resident in Lambeth).

At the hustings, Kate Hoey appeared to blame Council Officers / council machinery for some of the decisions taken on the project.  More recently, the South London Press published an article (KA news blog has a copy here) which suggests that Kate Hoey has written to the Council, asking them to "save" the playground.  This is an interesting request, but is perhaps not unachievable, given the recent Lib/Tory pact to abolish the Future for Schools program.  If the Archbishop Tension School can't expand, then there's not really much reason to absorb the playground (as Kate Hoey noted) and she has called for the Council to reconsider their decision to close the Triangle.

What's important to note though, is that Kate Hoey has been campaigning for a shared solution (which does appear on the face of it to be common sense).  Ms Hoey doesn't want to see the Triangle disappear, nor does she want the school to be deprived of extra play space.  But the SLP article notes that,
"a council spokesman said the local authority would still not be renewing the lease when it expires in November."
Now surely anybody can see that that is not a good decision.  The school cannot expand due to the failure of the Building Future Schools program (which is a very bad thing), but the Triangle Adventure Playground cannot continue because the Council are refusing to renew the lease.  Are the Council attempting to de-facto hand the playground to the school, ousting the good work put in on behalf of local children in the 344th (out of 354) most deprived area of child deprivation in the UK?  Yes. Councillor Pete Robbins maintains that Lambeth Council are committed to expanding the school and that more space is needed for classrooms and play space (how they'll do this without any money is unknown).  I'm not sure whether Lambeth Council fund the Triangle at all, but it's quite clear that Lambeth Council will be cutting youth services, which might have something to do with the decision.

It seems to me that this would be a very good opportunity to start practicing all of this Co-operative Council malarky.  I'd have thought that Polly Toynbee (who will sit on the co-op's board), who has always been an advocate for the disenfranchised ought to be concerned about the removal of the playground.  Has anybody written to her?  I wouldn't personally wish to take on a Toynbee-Hoey coalition!  The Triangle are talking about organising a sit-in in November and waiting for forcible removal by bailiffs.  Surely it needn't come to that?  But if it does, perhaps we can arrange for some of the members of the venerable associations, organisations and adventure playgrounds in the area to at least organise a large enough sit-in that the bailiffs have a difficult task on their hands!  If you wish to sign the Triangle Association's petition, you can do so here, but they seem still to be using the misleading information that the site would be turned into a car-park, which from what I can discern is not quite true.

Schools in Lambeth will have to expand, but why not add secondary school places to the borough by using the already existing empty Beaufoy building?  A situation in which schools are having to compete with youth facilities for space is completely unacceptable, and I do wonder whether, perhaps led and arbitrated by Kate Hoey, the Triangle Adventure Playground Association might not be able to meet with the governors of the Archbishop Tension School to come to a mutual arrangement?

Part 2... continued here.

Label Cloud