6th Annual General Meeting: Friends of Moormead (Thursday 20 June 2019)

Introductions by Stephen Alexander (outgoing chair):

Local ward councillors: Geoff Acton, Alex Ehmann; Ben Khosa

Committee members present: Barney King, Nikki Gouldstone, Moir Leslie

Apologies tendered: James Bishop, Harry Jacobs, Mandie Adams-McGuire.

 

Minutes of 5th AGM (27 June 2018) adopted

 

1. Nominations and re-elections

Current members of the committee:

  • Barney King
  • Harry Jacobs (absent)
  • James Bishop (absent)
  • Liza Nischal
  • Mandie Adams McGuire (absent)
  • Moir Leslie
  • Nikki Gouldstone

 

Peter and Rosie Bloom – both stood down from committee

 

Nominations and re-elections for current members of the committee

 

Chair and vice-chair

Will Flower (WF) volunteered to stand for chair of Friends of Moormead as Stephen Alexander (SA) had reached the end of his tenure. Both SA and WF left the room before the vote. SA did not return to the meeting.

 

Voting for chair (by a show of hands)

  • 50 (approximately) for Will Flower as chair, none against (some abstentions)
  • 40 (approximately) for James Bishop as vice-chair, none against (some abstentions

 

Nominations and election of new members of the committee

Members who wished to become members of the committee members were asked to put their names forward together with proposers and seconders.

 

The following persons were proposed as members of committee:

  • Ann Hopkins – Cherry Woods (proposer) Diana Walker (seconder)
  • Graeme Walker – Gariesh Sharma (proposer) Stephanie Mills (seconder)
  • Janey Welbourne – Kate Cox (proposer) Tom Bird (seconder)
  • Kate Cox – Bridget Cridland (proposer) Jenny Parks (seconder)
  • Victor Warner – Katy Flower (proposer) Stephanie Mills (seconder)
  • Will Flower – Nikki Gouldstone (proposer) Janey Welbourne (seconder)

 

They were all elected as members of the committee.

 

The following persons were re-elected onto the committee:

  • Barney King*
  • Harry Jacobs (in absentia)
  • James Bishop (in absentia)
  • Liza Nischal*
  • Mandie Adams McGuire (in absentia)
  • Moir Leslie
  • Nikki Gouldstone

 

(*since the meeting Barney King and Liza Nischal both resigned from the committee)

 

The local ward councillors thanked the outgoing chair for his work.

 

South West London Environment Network (SWLEN)

Colin Cooper (Chief Executive) said SWLEN would continue

  •  Giving support to FOM
  •  Promoting crowd-funding for Moormead Community & Sports Pavilion

 

FOM: new members

The process for local residents joining FOM was discussed

  • It was clarified that attendees could join on the night at the meeting itself by supplying their name and email address
  • This meant new members gave consent to being contacted by FOM

  

2. Moormead Community and Sports Pavilion (MCSP)

Gariesh Sharma (GS), founder of MCSP, gave an update and outline of the next steps for the proposed pavilion design

  • Monday 24 June there will be a feedback session at Orleans Park School.
  • Final changes will be made to the plans
  • 4-6 weeks was required to make the case for a planning application
  • Crowd-funding had raised £2,000 (to date)

 

Re: planning permission

  • Required before seeking revenue from external funders.
  • Pre-planning advice had been received and major problems were not expected with a planning application
  • Planning process will take 6-8 weeks

 

An appeal was made for people to keep donating:

https://swlen.org.uk/projects/lets-restore-moormead-pavilion/

  

3. SLR Architects and 50° North Architects

Leigh Bowen (LB) chief architect, showed designs and described them to everyone in attendance

  • LB indicated that the latest designs had only just been completed and therefore had not available publicly until the night of the AGM
  •  Attendees asked for them to be made available online

https://e-voice.org.uk/mmp/plans/

 

It was noted that SLR Architects and 50° North Architects had given their time for free and thanks was given to LB for his work.

  

4. Moormead Pavilion (Q&As)

a) Cost – why did the proposed design for the new pavilion cost so much did it need to be so elaborate? It was important to be realistic and £500,000 would be prohibitive make it difficult to raise funds. The result could be a return to the drawing board and more delays.

A: Costs had not been drilled down/finalised yet because the proposal is a first estimate and a revised estimate will be published before the planning application is made.

 

b) Location – why did the new building need to be so close to residential properties?

A: To comply with Metropolitan Open Land regulations a new pavilion would have to be in the same place as the existing building.

 

c) Toilet access – would they be accessible 24 hours a day?

A: No, only during café opening hours

 

d) Materials – glass looked good but could be easily vandalised – what precautions would be taken?

A: The design was still in the iterative, developmental design phase. Materials including glass would be as robust as they needed to be.

 

e) Purpose and lifespan – what were the short, medium and long-term objectives of the building and how could it help reduce anti-social behaviour?

A: A new pavilion would – in the medium term – better serve the community.  MCSP has been liaising with Age UK to understand how a new pavilion could benefit the elderly part of our community. It is also in contact with Orleans Park School, the Department of Education and local disability charities.

 

f) Safer Neighbourhood Team – Community police officers are looking for community bases and expressed an interest in using a refurbished pavilion on Moormead Park

 

g) Changing rooms – why were they not included in the design

A: Under 10s don’t require changing/shower facilities. Kneller Gardens changing room showers are unused, and are only now used as a storeroom. The new pavilion on Moormead Park is not intended to cater for adult sports.

 

h) Cost parameters – how are these set out for a new building?

A: In the short-term the goal is to support activities as they currently are. The target audience is people within 20 minutes walking distance.

 

i) Current plans – where are they published (online) and what kind of consultation has there been with the community?

A: Some individuals had seen the plans, including some FOM committee members, but FOM had not shared/communicated this more widely to its membership.

 

k) Summary from Cllr Acton

A survey for a new pavilion was carried out three years ago.

  •  After a tendering process, the Moormead Community & Sports Pavilion (MCSP) scheme was chosen.
  •  LBRuT brief – the design must fit the footprint, include a café, toilets, storage
  •  First scheme presented was ruled too overbearing and had been changed.
  •  LBRuT agreed to pay for the pre-planning advice.
  •  Cllr Acton liked the design but stated it had taken too long to progress.
  •  Parks department were no longer supporting it as a preferred scheme.
  •  MCSP needed to get into planning urgently to move it forward

 

The new chair pledged that communication to members would improve. Members of Friends of Moormead and the local community needed to access the information more easily.

 

l) Supplier tendering process – if LBRuT approve the proposal would they hold an open tendering process or only invite tenders from their own suppliers?

A. Normal EU procurement rules will apply for contractors

 

m) Planning process – following the application LBRuT would have to determine whether they could support it financially

 

n) Consultation with local residents – this process needed to improve

It was up to MCSP and FOM to get behind the project and determine what was realistically affordable.

 

o) Support for the proposed design – attendees were asked by a show of hands if they supported this proposal for this design?

  •  25 approved (approximately)
  •  5 against/concerned
  •  (some abstentions)

 

p) Why the existing derelict building for so long – since LBRuT own the site why had nothing been done for 20-30 years to the existing pavilion?

A. If the existing building had been knocked down without a planned replacement, it would not have been be possible to build a replacement as it is Metropolitan Open Land. The existing building had been kept on to allow for the possibility of a replacement.

 

q) Other bidders – whether any other proposals had been put forward

A: There was no other bidder at present but LBRuT was looking at alternative routes forward. The parks department are conducting a feasibility study.

 

r) Planning rejection – what if planning rejects the proposal

A: May need an alternative structure. There was no plan B at present.

 

s) Reassurances from LBRuT – could they give reassurances that everything will be done to aid the development rather than stand in the way of development?

A: Getting through planning and having a sustainable business case was key.

 

5. Summing up

The new chair gave thanks to:

  •  All local residents who had joined FOM and attended the meeting
  •  Barney King and Nikki Gouldstone for taking the minutes
  •  The local ward councillors
  •  The architect Leigh Bowen for his designs
  •  Moormead Community & Sports Pavilion and Gariesh Sharma – for all his pro-bono work so far
  • Stephen Alexander and Mandie Adams-McGuire for their work and time as chair and vice-chair