Jump to content

Mini Golf in Peckham Rye Park ... are they kidding?


Recommended Posts

Latest news that the faceless-nameless ones at Southwark Parks Management would really rather you didn't know about:


Having utterly failed to reinstate what was once a lively community of older local bowlers at the green in the park, 'senior managers' now intend to privatise that entire section, handing it over to some chancer to knock up a mini-golf course. Price for a round? Somewhere round eight to 12 pounds.


No-one is asking us, the local people and park users, what we think, of course not. Many will see hiving off to private interests as a betrayal in principle, and this particular money-spinning lark as crass and inappropriate. If Southwark really cannot get their act together to re-establish bowling the green should be returned to parkland. Southwark's secret intentions, of course, are exactly the opposite: they have the established goal of handing over major chunks of our park to the Harris Academy corporation. The bowling green is the thin end of a very wide wedge.


Overall, I suggest, Southwark's stewardshp of the Park and Rye remains as dismal as ever. Items: They continue to allow football teams to trash the fields. They refuse to end their ludicrous 'jihad on dogs' and take even modest steps to make these core park-users welcome: why, for example, is there no drinking trough for dogs at the new building at Homestall Rd? Completely outrageous. The chainsaws have been out, day after day; while some tree removals were clearly necessary, it seems that when they want a tree gone - to facility music events for example, or the parking of contractor vehicles - there is no tree in the park so healthy that 'dieback' could not be discovered in it, hohoho-hollow-ho. And without a huge bung from the National Lottery these bozos have not the slightest interest in, you know, actually PLANTING new trees. Rather, careful observers may have detected that a concerted, undeclared effort is underway to attenuate all areas of tree and other vegetation, evidently to allow continuous sightlines through the park from all angles, so as to faciliate policing (in the general sense). This vandalism completely undoes the thought and effort of many past generations to carefully enfold so very many private, beautiful spaces like an intricate puzzle within what is really not a large area. Again, did anyone ask us about this?


And here's the doozy for locals and park lovers ... having concealed with grass-seeding their failure to repair the considerable, serious ground damage caused by last May's appalling (and 'commercially confidential' hoho) 'music event', Southwark is going to do it all over again at the end of this month. Watch and see the mayhem and squalor, the strutting security thugs, the noise-assault, the vegetated areas thick with fecal matter, the damage to the natural fabric of the park ...


Lovely Park and Rye, brilliant space, DESPITE Southwark.

Needs protection from its supposed municipal 'stewards'.

Could be so so so much better ---


Lee Scoresby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree, Southwark are cashing out, not sure what we get back though, also i think for gigs/festivals on the park and evens such as theses which charge huge amounts to attend, and they're exactly Glastonbury Festival. I think Local residents should get free access to these events, they will make money from us still, buying the overpriced drinks and food, since it's our park, our tax keeps these parks in our borough maintained (and to repair the damage, after) ect. It's only fair, we keep it up, they use it for a fun events, they make their ?, we get a 'performance not to forget forever' couldn't do it without a well maintained park! Southwark are a disaster for us, secret like the communists, they need all kicking out, and run by locals who actually care, not pocketing ?packets? under the table, they never share never tell, use all the tricks the lawyers tell them, do their thing and bypass us and keep us out, at all costs!!!! and at our costs SHAME ON YOU, OUR SO CALLED BOROUGH, OF SHAME! Thanks for informing us, it's good to share and good to know, then we can make them think again!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we are in the south of the borough and Tooley St only cares about the North, where the bulk of their support lies. Those in the old Borough of Camberwell can go hang, jointly or severally. They will use (i.e. sell off, alienate) 'our' land to line their coffers in support of the bits of their borough they prefer - we are a cash cow to be raided. It's about time (don't hold your breathes) that the councilors we voted for did something to protect their electorate/ those they represent. But they're part of the same aparat, so I wouldn't expect to hear much from them. No chance of cabinet preferment if they rock the boat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the other way of looking at it is that Southwark are trying to hard to raise revenue to reinvest in parks, despite massive budget cuts from central government.


If an area of park isn't being used for bowling, why not use it for something else that is likely to be popular, and help them restock the coffers. If there is genuine demand for bowling, fair enough... but that seems not to be the case.


I think we are extremely lucky in Southwark, with some of the best (and well maintained) parks in London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great Park Peckham Rye, if it was a 9 hole crazy Golf Course Southwark could ask the local schools each to design and construct s bit of the course as a school project, would be a great way to get local kids involved. Golf is a good game to get all ages/families/friends together, don't think they should be charging too much eg adults ?3 kids go free. Mine would prefer golf to bowling I am sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tortor Wrote:

---------------------------------------------

> Of course the other way of looking at it is that Southwark are trying to hard to raise revenue to reinvest in parks, despite massive budget cuts from central government.


That's incorrect - the money raised is not for the parks or even for essential services - it's to put on more events and build up the events team & pay their salaries, with the aim of making events self financing. In other words, empire building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee Scoresby Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> They refuse to end their ludicrous 'jihad

> on dogs' and take even modest steps to make these

> core park-users welcome


You've got a real flair for the dramatic.


The mini golf may be a bit too expensive for my liking, but I'll probably wander by and see how it looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a great idea.


Funnily enough, my partner was thinking of setting up a crazy/mini golf course in the area - he was thinking of the location of the old lido, but he's now thinking of the bowling green space (nothing has been done about it - it's just blue sky thinking from his perspective).


It would be ideal for families, and could bring a lot of business to the area.


As said above, there would be ways of getting local community involved i.e. kids designing parts of it.


CE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of monetising parks, i'll briefly hijack this thread to point out that the consultation period for charging for the use of Southwark park carparks ends today, 13th May.


Please add your comments in support, or reject the proposal as you see fit.

Relevant links included in the following thread: https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,2011302,page=4


Thanks all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love this park with all my heart .if you want to go bowling go bowling . Its there fir you . Although the fact that no one uses it means not many people give a shit about biwling -..turn it into a crazy golf course with a nice cafe . Lee s .. you dont half ham it up sometimes with your language
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it gets people out and about and active, brilliant


Far too expensive though - there's a difference between raising funds and making money


It should be community driven, not profit driven (ie priority being a resource the community can afford to use and not designed to be expensive to increase profit of the organisers)


I would want to know how much the organisers make and how much goes to Southwark....and of the money that goes to Southwark, how much gets re-invested in the parks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don't think there is much in the way of pride about running that store; I think there used to be and not so long ago. It's messy - the fruit and veg section never looks attractive.  Contrast with Lidl and Morrisons that in my experience (and I appreciate others may have had a different one) always looks much better stocked and attractively presented.  They don't seem to stock stuff that I would expect a store of that size to have - I looked for pudding rice the other week and couldn't find any and nor could the staff working there.  Is it that unusual  ? Doesn't anyone make rice pudding ? I guess not.  You have weight certain fruit and veg - I'm OK with that - but why, on a Saturday when it's going to be busy, not ensure that the scales  are all stocked with plenty of labels rather than there only be one working by 10am ? And don't get me started on so-called "Nectar prices"... It's got a dominant position and it's a cash-cow that the management don't seem to care about.  
    • Can someone please explain who "Clean Air Dulwich" are? 
    • FredMarsh, I sympathise with you. I suspect the coral fencing at the entrance is to prevent people legging it out of store with unpaid for goods in hand. It does feel a bit like herding cattle as you describe it. Perhaps the reduction in customers is a response to this and the lack of previously available services.  I find self check out is quicker if I do it myself and since the new self service points have been installed the screens work much better as they are as of today still newish. The old ones were "knackered" and continued to regularly fail.  I had to buy some whisky as a present for someone yesterday, the Sainsbury staff took it away, removed the security tags and returned it, so that all went simply.  Unfortunately the days of what was the original Sainsburys in Peckham and Forest Hill are long gone, as are many of the old shops I remember from the mid 70's, i.e. Kennedy's. The world continually changes and as we get older we have to keep up.  I saw something really sad in Peckham yesterday, a very, very old woman walking down Hanover Park by Primark on the corner with Rye Lane, bent almost half over, pushing her own four wheel trolley along, taking her time.  Made me  realise how lucky I am.   Yes, checking the receipt to make sure Nectar has been applied is always worth doing. Ditto Tesco Old Kent Road this week were what the label of the stack of fruit said one price and even with the Tesco card, the price at checkout was different, that resulted in photo's and it still being checked by Customer Service...... As for "Sainsburys always being horrible", I have to disagree with you on that. 
    • One Dulwich   Campaign Update | 3 May Parliament debates LTNs – please fill in the questionnaire by 6 May Parliament will debate two petitions – “Carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” and “Exempt Blue Badge drivers from Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” – at 4.30 pm on Monday 20 May in the Grand Committee Room above Westminster Hall. Please fill in this short questionnaire about your experience of the Dulwich LTNs, as your comments will help to inform the debate. The deadline for this is very soon – 10am on Monday 6 May. We have written to our MP Helen Hayes, pointing out that her constituents represent the second highest number of those who requested both petitions, and asking her to take part in the debate in order to represent the two-thirds majority of people living and working in Dulwich who asked for the Dulwich LTNs to be reconsidered. Because these petitions are directed at Parliament, not Southwark Council, we hope that Helen Hayes will speak up for her constituents on this occasion. You might want to encourage her to take part by emailing her at [email protected]. We have also reminded her that a group of Blue Badge holders have petitioned the Leader of Southwark Council to be allowed through the Dulwich Village junction because of the daily difficulties, distress and – in some cases – severe pain suffered by disabled and other vulnerable car-dependent constituents who are now forced to take long and circuitous detours in stop-start traffic along boundary roads. You can watch the debate – and, we hope, our MP representing our interests – on Parliament tv, or you can attend in person. Thank you for your support. The One Dulwich Team  SUPPORT ONE DULWICH 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...