Minutes:
Christine Wildhaber from the council’s Parks Department introduced this item explaining that the site has been derelict for the last ten years. There had been strong local feeling that it should be kept as an open space. In the 2009/2010 round of Cleaner Greener Safer (CGS) funding, the community council allocated £70,000 for the clearance and basic enhancement of the site. There had been some discussion around whether the space should be turned into a community garden, and around how best to get fully funded proposals. Further issues had been safeguarding the security of the site and the adjacent dwellings, access, vegetation and on-going costs including any voluntary sector interest.
Volunteer sector bodies had asked for the site to be cleared as access was difficult. This had now been done. Some funding was left which would be used for fencing on the site’s southern border. Suggestions by the voluntary sector organisations for future uses included: allotments, community food growing, a community orchard, horticultural training, volunteers / environmental skills training, public open days – community events; and tree and plant nursery – biodiversity, community projects.
No decision had been made about the occupancy of the site. The main issues were possible set up costs, the council’s fundraising capacity and sustainable income generation.
Answering questions from councillors, Christine explained that the fallback position would be having the space as a wildlife garden which be a low cost option. However, it was her understanding that some residents had expressed a view that another wildlife garden was not needed. Officers’ priority had been to secure the site, but consultation was to follow. Allotments would be the most expensive option, because extensive works would be needed. She went on to say that the most important thing was secure fencing.
A representative of Friends of Southwark Park thanked officers for the clearing work, and supported the cafe facilities being improved. He urged all those involved to think big, and pursue lottery heritage funding.
There was a discussion about other possible sources of funding, including CGS funding originally allocated to projects which had fallen through, a possible consultation exercise about the site, and about securing the site by repairing the fencing.
A resident expressed the view that the café needed to be enlarged and facilities improved, including the provision of toilet facilities.