bglodge Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Cllr Lodge stated that was incorrect and should not have been said. Actually, what I said was that during a visit to Richmond Park, amongst others, by senior managers from Parks and Countryside, discussions took place about the lack of investment within Richmond Park. Officers discussed how extra investment could be secured for the park and it was mentioned that the disposal of some land could release funds (as in all good meetings, brainstorming releases a number of suggestions; some good, some not so good. That's the nature of brainstorming) This was discounted and was not considered to be a realistic option. I stated that if this was overheard by another officer, then this could be the source of the comment made at the inaugural friends meeting. As I stated in Council, in response to the petition and to the two questioners, the City Council have no intention to sell off Richmond Park and never have. The fact that we are trying to draw together all seven packets of land into one single parcel, held in trust, demonstrates just that. There has been a misunderstanding; although not of my making, I apologise for the misunderstanding caused. I stated publicly that there were no plans to sell off the Park and I stand by that. As previously stated, I am more than happy to attend a meeting of the friends group, an offer I made to the petitioner and in response to the questions raised from the gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camz Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 bglodge, So very pleased that you have stated that there are No plans to sell land in areas know as Richmond Park. Regarding the transcript your copy or say a copy from the groups meeting held on Wednesday 29th November (Cllr have a copy). I can obtain a copy of the original memo and perhaps we can compare them. Having viewed both copies I can confirm the only differance is the omission of a IE and a Y from Jayne. The petition was presented by private caring citizen's and not by a friends group. Camz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camz Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 bglodge, Personally I think your attendance at the next meeting of the friends group would bring about the closure of all these misunderstandings and forge the way forward with the task ahead of raising funds to totally regenerate Richmond Park, which has been so badly neglected . The park does not have one single item of recreational facilities! Lets put all our efforts into forging the way forward for Richmond Park. Camz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamboozled Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 bglodge, Personally I think your attendance at the next meeting of the friends group would bring about the closure of all these misunderstandings and forge the way forward with the task ahead of raising funds to totally regenerate Richmond Park, which has been so badly neglected . The park does not have one single item of recreational facalities! Lets put all our efforts into forging the way forward for Richmond Park. Camz Four of us have now scrutinised a copy of the original document containing memos from the deeds of Richmond Park and compared them with the transcript which was passed around at the meeting of the Friends of Richmond Park. The minor differences were: Original document, 2nd paragraph: The park is made up of a number of parcels of land purchased/gifted Transcript: The park is made up of a number of parcels of land purchased OR gifted. 3rd paragraph is correct: Letter to David Howarth from John Derricott, Solicitor: Please note the above and ask your colleagues not to sell the land without first checking with me. I will put a note in the deed packets. Can you see if a flag can be added to the GIS system to note that the respective parcels of land are charitable. Original, 4th paragraph, ... and both have the 1930’s charity stamp (ie enrolled on the register). Transcript: …and both have the 1930’s stamp that is enrolled on the register. Original, last paragraph: I have instructions about registration. Check with JAYNE about costs. As you are aware, being charitable does not prevent sale but Commission approval would be required and any subsequent money would form a capital endowment. Transcript: I have instructions about registration and check with Jane about costs. As you are aware, being charitable does not prevent sale but Commission approval would be required and any subsequent money would form a capital endowment. None of these minor discrepancies alter the actual context of the script. Is someone trying to make the members of the community who are concerned with Richmond Park look as if they have got the wrong end of the stick? What we would really like to know is which parts of the park they have decided to register as Richmond Park and which parcels they have decided not to register, thus allowing them to be sold for development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camz Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Good Points Bomboozled!! This shows that there is still concern's regarding Areas Known as Richmond Park. Camz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Copy a map of the area. Outline the areas of concern to you. Do not give them any name (such as 'Richmond Park'). Ask for confirmation as to whether there are, or have ever been, any proposals, plans or suggestions etc. from any council officer, contractor, representative or councillor or other to sell off any of the land within the marked boundary. Ask, also, if there have ever been any such proposals, plans or suggestions, what decisions have subsequently been taken about them. Ask, also, what measures are in place to ensure that future sale will not be attempted. I think that your questions have been answered, but asking them in this form should remove any risk of ambiguity and put your minds at rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted December 9, 2006 Author Share Posted December 9, 2006 Copy a map of the area. Outline the areas of concern to you. Do not give them any name (such as 'Richmond Park'). Ask for confirmation as to whether there are, or have ever been, any proposals, plans or suggestions etc. from any council officer, contractor, representative or councillor or other to sell off any of the land within the marked boundary. Ask, also, if there have ever been any such proposals, plans or suggestions, what decisions have subsequently been taken about them. Ask, also, what measures are in place to ensure that future sale will not be attempted. I think that your questions have been answered, but asking them in this form should remove any risk of ambiguity and put your minds at rest. Excellent proposal cgksheff, until this is put in writing and on the record, that Richmond Park is never to be sold off, I think we have reason to be suspicious. 'As you are aware, being charitable does not prevent sale ' This line makes me very sceptical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camz Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 MISUNDERSTANDINGS? ERRORS? COINCIDENCES? Is there an hidden agenda regarding housing development IN THE AREAS KNOWN AS RICHMOND PARK? What are the actual boundries of Richmond Park? Would you like to be involved or offer support to the "Friends of Richmond Park" group, in its aim to raise funds to regenerate Richmond Park? without the expense of selling off irreplaceable Green Space Land..... The next meeting of "Friends of Richmond Park": Wednesday 24th January 2007 at 7pm. St. Catherine's Church Hall, Corner of Richmond Rd & Hastilar Rd South, Opposite "Fishponds". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 Have you invited your local Councillors? Have you invited the Head of Planning? Have you invited Jan Wilson? Are you familiar with the play around with words such as : no plans no proposals no investigations no reports no inquiries No maps etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camz Posted December 29, 2006 Share Posted December 29, 2006 Have you invited your local Councillors? Have you invited the Head of Planning? Have you invited Jan Wilson? Are you familiar with the play around with words such as : no plans no proposals no investigations no reports no inquiries No maps etc. Don't you think its obvious that we have been given the run around! Who do you think arranged the venues? (Local Cllrs). Local Cllrs: Who are not aware or any plans for building and yet can attend the same meeting, REF: Camz Post Date 08-12-06. MISUNDERSTANDINGS? ERRORS? COINCIDENCES? There are SEVERAL.. I am informed that Cabinet Member Cllr B. Lodge has been invited to the next meeting, but this is awaiting confirmation.... Cllr Lodge has stated in his post "That he is more than happy to attend a friends group meeting". IT IS TIME FOR STRAIGHT TALKING... STRAIGHT ANSWERS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.