Zaytsev Posted December 6, 2006 Author Share Posted December 6, 2006 Excellent news! I'm delighted that bglodge has been able to scotch these unfounded rumours about Richmond Park allegedly being sold off. There was a recent similar rumour on SF that the council was going to stop Fright Night. Again, totally unfounded. I don't know how these rumours begin? I wonder if the Mods could now alter the title of this thread to more accurately reflect the true position of Richmond Park - which most definitely isn't going to be sold off. I don't think they are unfounded, as I have stated I have seen the document that clearly states 'proposal for disposal'. The petition organiser is, to my knowledge, quite active as regards the local community and has campaigned for the upkeep of the park. I will try and get a copy of the said document and post it online so people can make up their own minds as to whether the rumours are 'totally unfounded'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridget at W Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Its been going on for a while - what about Castle Dyke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROUTE66 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 To stop any future problems. Get it classed as a village green. You can stilll do this. 30 affidavits should be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrobbo Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I don't think they are unfounded, as I have stated I have seen the document that clearly states 'proposal for disposal'. The petition organiser is, to my knowledge, quite active as regards the local community and has campaigned for the upkeep of the park. I will try and get a copy of the said document and post it online so people can make up their own minds as to whether the rumours are 'totally unfounded'. I was at the council meeting this afternoon when a petition was presented to the council regarding the future of Richmond Park. Cllr Bryan Lodge (bglodge) responded to the petitioner, and confirmed that there was no intention by the council to sell off Richmond Park. This is now a matter of public record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted December 7, 2006 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 I was at the council meeting this afternoon when a petition was presented to the council regarding the future of Richmond Park. Cllr Bryan Lodge (bglodge) responded to the petitioner, and confirmed that there was no intention by the council to sell off Richmond Park. This is now a matter of public record. Thanks for the info redrobbo, I believe the person presenting the petition was the same chap who called on Monday evening seeking signatures. Was anything mentioned as regards the document he presented to me which intimated the 'proposed disposal', where did this originate? Thanks Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bglodge Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Thanks Was anything mentioned as regards the document he presented to me which intimated the 'proposed disposal', where did this originate? I've now found out where this document originated from. Whilst officers from Parks were looking to 'tidy up' all the packets of land that make up Richmond Park into one single parcel that will be held in trust, they consulted with solicitors within the Council. A note was placed with the deeds to ensure that legal advice was sought before any steps were taken to dispose of the land, and that the Charities Commission would also need to be consulted. This was done for the future, as a means to ensure proper procedures were followed and prevent a problem similar to that of Graves Park a few years ago. It seems that this is is the origin of the misunderstanding. To compound the problem, the 'copy' that was circulated amongst members of the public was not a photocopy but a transcript of the original. Having seen both copies, I was surprised that there were some errors in the transcript along with some omissions. I'm pleased that this came to the meeting of Council yesterday as it allowed me to state quite clearly that there are no plans to sell off the park. It also allowed me to meet the petitioners and have a chat about the park. I've offered to meet the friends group that they have formed and am looking forward to meeting them in the new year. Many thanks to forum members for raising this and for the many views expressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted December 7, 2006 Author Share Posted December 7, 2006 Bryan, Thank you for your update, I am sure you have put many people's minds at rest. I hope as a consequence the improvement of the park will attract as much enthusiasm as this issue has. I would also like to say that this is just the type of issue that the Forum helps to resolve. Regards Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camz Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Gary, I am wanting to reply to you but my message keeps deleting. camz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camz Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Gary. The Memo was obtained by the use of the Freedom of the Information Act " and was amongst the deeds to Richmond Park: Dated 23rd August 2006from Solicitor to Parks and Liesure. Statements "Ask your collegues not to sell the land without first checking with me" and Before any action is taken to dispose of land ,enquiries must be made with the charity commission". This memo was dismissed by Cllr Lodge as a standard memo. Having viewed a copy of the oringal memo and the transcript the only differance is the omittion of ie and Y from Jayne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camz Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Gary, This question was asked after the presentation of the petition. At the inaugural meeting of the "Friends of Richmond Park" held on Wednesday 29th November. A council spokesperson (green space) proposed that the only way forward to fund improvements in Richmond Park would to be to sell part of the park which would release 106 monies. Cllr Lodge stated that was incorrect and should not have been said. This question along with the response will be in the minutes. Sorry about the couple of spelling mistakes in earlier reply. Camz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.