Minutes 13th June 2006

Notes of the meeting 13 June 2006

Attendance
Jane Pickard, Bernie Bullbrook, Richard Moore, Rod Brown, Pat Fisher, Simon Berlyn, Coun David Malone (Knight’s Hill)

Apologies for absence
Anne Orange, Rod Brown

St Luke’s Gardens Update
The crisis which had arisen over the railings to go around St Luke’s Garden dominated the meeting and there was no time for other business. Also, there had been a problem getting out the notice of the meeting, so the meeting was inquorate,
In the chair’s absence, Richard Moore chaired and Jane Pickard took notes.

Richard Moore summed up the history of the St Luke’s Gardens project and said the Area Committee had agreed to fund a restoration project. However, Atkins, the design and consultancy firm which was hired by the council to lead the project, had put a planning application through for the work which had sketches for three foot railings when it was clear to everyone they needed to be higher. If they were to be like the originals, they needed to vary in height between about 1400mm and 1750mm. However, Atkins said that this would put the project way over budget.

The St Luke’s Gardens Steering Group had asked the council and Atkins to halt the project temporarily while there was a debate among key stakeholder groups – the Area Committee, NAG and the church – about what was wanted.

Bernie Bullbrook pointed out that the project would be part of the heritage of Norwood for the next 50 or 60 years. We didn’t want a sub-standard piece of hardware.
Jane Pickard said we should go for the best possible scheme with the money available, but it wasn’t clear yet how much each element would cost.
Pat Fisher said it seemed Atkins and the council officers were now aiming for the right height. She had originally agreed with the idea of a compromise height, after the officers and Atkins had warned that we might not be able to afford railings of the right height and it would require another planning application. But having debated the issues, she had changed her mind and felt we should take time to sort it out.
Simon Berlyn, originally a member of the Steering Group, said the railings would look very strange if they went ahead as planned and the design needed to be carefully considered. The Steering Group should drum up the right level of funding for the right scheme. He had originally suggested the group raised funds for an architect to advise on how to go ahead but he and the group had parted company at that point. The scheme had to be commensurate with the church which was a Grade II listed building.
David Malone said it seemed, from what people were saying, we should be looking at the best scheme possible, getting it costed, and then deciding how to raise the funds.
He asked if the Area Committee should go for complete restoration or the best scheme with the money available.
There was debate about getting up a petition to test opinion, which was rejected. Pat Fisher said many people thought £250,000 was too much to spend on railings.
After further discussion, David Malone said it seemed clear those present wanted to restore the heritage of the site. Also, people wanted a scrutiny process, but didn’t want that to delay the project. He suggested the group put together a list of questions and submitted that to the Area Committee before the meeting, so they could then ask supplementaries. For instance, it would be worth asking how much of the £250,000 was left. Also, NAG could ask the committee to vote on a motion.
But he pointed out that there was no more money available from the council for such projects.
He also supported the idea of a re-application for Heritage Lottery money which had been refused a few years ago.

The meeting agreed:
1. We want the railings to be restored in line with English Heritage recommendations and consultations with the Victorian Society and Georgian Group and the council’s own conservation officer. We call on the council to carry through the restoration of the railings around St Luke’s Gardens as previously agreed by the local community and council at the height of the original railings.
2. We are willing to contribute our background knowledge and understanding to any investigation that might be conducted into the conduct of this contract.