Finsbury Park Track faces closure

edited May 2011 in Local discussion
Haringey is in the position that it must make cuts in its expenditure over the next several years, and spending on parks and recreation facilities has not escaped the chop. My own particular interest in Finsbury Park is in the running track, although the cuts will also mean a deterioration in groundskeeping generally and litter picking.
An announcement in the the most recent Haringey People suggested that control of the running track would pass outside the council, but that some funding would pass with the control:
"White Hart Lane Community Sports Centre and the Finsbury Park track and gym will be leased to local sport clubs or agencies, while funding will be redirected to the voluntary sector, allowing them to deliver some services"

The email I have just received states otherwise. See below.

Dear Adrian

Thank you for your enquiry regarding Finsbury Park Track & Gym

The Council has formally decided that officers should seek 3rd party interest to operate and manage this facility. The only alternative to this is regretfully closure of the facility. Currently the facility is costing the Council approximately £50K per annum to operate. Given the budgetary cuts the Council has been forced to make (Recreation Services must make a 50% cut to its budget over the next three years) we are therefore looking to lease the facility to a third party at no future cost to the Council.

To specifically answer your questions:

Haringey Council is not proposing to make any funding available to the private/3rd /community sector to operate the facility
There is no readily available money but officers have given advice and put the current stakeholders in touch with HAVCO (Haringey’s umbrella organisation for the voluntary sector) to assist them in their efforts to lever in external funding
We have not yet finalised our criteria but we are looking for a solution we hope will:
Save the council £50K per annum in operating costs
Promote sports development
Protect current stakeholders
Ensure the facility remains available to the community in some form
Current staffing arrangements across the whole of Recreation are subject to restructuring at this time and the full implications of this are not yet known. There is one staff member on site with a permanent contract, other staff members are agency workers
We hope to retain public access as per present. However we recognise that potential tenants may not find this viable and therefore this aspect will probably be a matter for negotiation with the preferred bidder
We will be advertising this opportunity shortly and will update the public throughout the process via Haringey’s website (the Finsbury Park page), customer newsletters and stakeholder meetings

Regards
Andrea Keeble
Sport & Recreation Programme Manager

Recreation Services
3rd Floor
40 Cumberland Rd
N22 7SG

020 8489 5712
0787 015 7940
«1

Comments

  • AliAli
    edited 4:43AM
    Is it being used for anyone for training in the run up and during the Olympics ?
  • AliAli
    edited 4:43AM
    It also seem they are only talking about an operational budget what about capital? I wonder what is happening to the Tennis Courts . I guess there are little in the way of operational costs but I thought some of the nets are locking a bit tatty and need replacing.
  • edited 4:43AM
    I think it would highlight the abject failure of the council if they had to close the facility. I was up there on Easter weekend, when the park was full and the place was locked down. I thought 'what a shame'. £50,000 doesn't sound a lot to me for a facility of this size and potential importance. If the council are committed to a healthy borough - or whatever crap they're peddling in the Haringey 'rag', the track would be a vibrant focal point for the park. They should have local schools, businesses, charities etc queuing round the corner to use it. The entry fees are a real turn off for normal punters. If you had a greater throughput, you could make a profit from associated enterprises - cafe, equipment sales, facilities, sponsorship etc. It occurs to me that there's very little effort on this side of things. It seems to me that the council are using this as a high profile "told-you-so" example of how the cuts are affecting local councils and I thinks that's a disgrace. Imagine how it would look if the track were left decaying in the middle of FP. The council should do everything to avoid this.
  • edited 4:43AM
    In terms of budgets £50k is nothing and keeping a running track open should be near the top of priorities as this is the kind of thing that engages local youths and encourages participation.

    As Sincers says: 'It seems to me that the council are using this as a high profile "told-you-so" example of how the cuts are affecting local councils.'

    The way councils are behaving highlights the failure that runs through many of our local authorities, which is to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

    The attitude of the politicians handing down the cuts does nothing to halt this and the Tory and Lib Dem senior MPs should wake up and smell the coffee and halt this laissez faire rubbish.

    The ideology peddled behind trimming back spending was to stop wasting money on needless things and bloated middle and senior management - not close running tracks and stop picking up litter in parks.

    Perhaps Haringey could keep the running track open by shaving £50k off this £140k salary - it would still be a very highly paid and sought after job.

    <a href="http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=jobs.item&jobid=7328">£140k Director of Place & Sustainability</a>

    And if doing so stopped the usual local authority merry go-round 'high level candidates' from applying that may be a good thing - I'm sure there are plenty of very competent and enthusiastic people out there who could do it for £90k not £140k.
  • AliAli
    edited 4:43AM
    But is this not an example of The Big Society ie get a charity or the voluntary sector to run it ?
  • IanIan
    edited 4:43AM
    If they had leased part of the park out to the football power league people that would would help pay for the upkeep of the park, the track and the children's' playground. Many on this site were part of the short-sighted campaign to stop that revenue coming in and I fear for what has become a great communal facility slowly going backwards as money is tight. At least one person here said they would rather a mess that nobody uses than a company using the park (though people don't seem to have the same qualms with the boathouse or the café ...). I don't agree, and if Haringey can resurrect that plan I would urge them to do so.
  • R&JR&J
    edited 4:43AM
    I'm still getting over the fact that Haringey is still a Labour run borough.

    As said there are alternatives to closing it.

    When I was a youngster they used to hold events there some weekends. Is this still the case?

    Have to admit I've not been in the Park since I've moved back to the area but it would be a shame if these facilities were to close.
  • edited 4:43AM
    I tend to agree Ian. I read the consultation report on the 5-a-side plan and couldn't help thinking that its far easier to object to something if it interrupts your way of life - even if that means getting rid of a crappy bit of tarmac - than it is to support something with no evidence of benefit, simply because it doesn't exist yet. I can't say I would be a 5-a-side user myself, but the "global" evidence suggest a massive growth in the sport, so it would seem obvious that this would have multiple benefits to the council. Some objections were from users whose activities could easily have been provided for by the new centre, the council just need to make that a condition of the project. After all, 10 pitches is a large space, you just need to make 4 or 6 of them as courts. I can't see how inviting private interests would relinquish control of the land in either case, but I can't help thinking that a council who can't run its parks efficiently, regardless of the economy of the day, is not a well run council.
  • edited 4:43AM
    As I said at the time, I'm with Ian on the 5 a side plan. But on the running track (and that whole complex) I have to say I've never been inside it and have always seen it as a rather closed off and isolated part of the park. Who actually uses it? The reference in the council email to "public access" surprised me because it seems to me a very un-public bit of the park. I think there's a gym in there but I don't remember it being mentioned whenever anyone starts a gym thread here. None of this is to disagree with concerns above about closure/ transfer, but I just wonder what the status quo is offering before worrying about what change would bring.
  • edited 4:43AM
    Sorry I haven't noticed the responses to my post - does this site do email notifications?
    To respond to some of the points:
    The track may have been locked down at Easter because the staff take Bank Holidays - at present it cannot be open and unattended, so this was just one or two days. But it does give a clue as to the bleak nature of the place if it closed down permanently.
    As for regular use, there is a lot:
    London Heathside Athletic Club http://www.londonheathside.org.uk/home_news.htm use the track at least three times a week for training, on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and on Sunday during the day - these sessions provide training for a whole range of athletes, from about 10 years of age upwards, through to UK competitors.
    The London Blitz http://www.londonblitz.com/index.php American Football Club uses the pitch in the centre of the track both for training and for matches. I saw a match starting last time I jogged through taht way - two full teams with substitutes all in full gear is quite a sight. The club seems to have an active youth section judging by the picture on the webiste which has been taken in the middle of the track.
    Loads of other groups use the track as well - when I go training I see boxers and martial arts groups practising. The gym is generally full of muscular young men - I think it is cheaper than some commercial gyms.


    The un-public appearance of the track arises from the 6ft fence around it. This is a recent addition as the old much lower fence was damaged allowing vandals easy access both to mess with sandpit covers and so on, and for petty thieves to enter and pilfer from kit bags and so on while events are taking place. The gate allows staff to monitor users and to collect fees.

    I agree that £50,000 seems a small amount in the context of the borough's overal expenditure. Its even less than the savings thay are making on old folks' lunches.

    I'd also make the following points:
    Parks generally - part of the spectacle of the recent Royal Wedding was the greenery so close and the crowds in Hyde and Green Parks - parks generally are an important part of London and should be maintained

    Athletics - this is the year before the London Olympics - part of the legacy should not be a derelict and abandoned track and clubhouse in Finsbury Park

    Obesity - has been described as an epidemic - training and exercise should surely be made more available not less

    Youth Services - on training nights - most of the athletes are aged from about 11 up to early 20s - under the supervision of older, wiser heads - rather like a youth club

    Public Safety - presumably if the track does not find a new keeper, then the gates will be locked and the doors and windows boarded up, almost like an invitation to graffitists, squatters, vandals and delinquents

    Public Access - one of the options the council is considering is allowing a tenant to take the track and close it to the public

    Appearances - the track is a big part of the Park - if it is abandoned and becomes a blight, then the whole ambience of the park will change


    <img src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/GFUsPCK74DtXkQ4q1b4XvGyDTOD5MEXcEfPW*mDlxwAa-DRuTb2gbPJ6L*VXqCVybwxxrouDYP2wMEEQOUeidt-GeqafWKdi/fptracklayers.gif" width="427" class="align-full" /></a></p>
    <p> </p>
  • edited 4:43AM
    I was not aware there was any free public access to the running track. I used to go jogging there, but stopped when at some point the council announced you would have to pay to use it - if you were caught by the attendant you were liable to be charged a fiver just to run round and round. Does that not still apply then?
  • edited 4:43AM
    Ive never been asked for money. Heathside members train for free on training days. Maybe its the inability of the staff to collect fees that means it costs £50k p.s. to run
  • edited 4:43AM
    Is that a lake flashing on that map? Now there's an idea.
  • edited 4:43AM
    I'm afraid I'm guilty of a few sneaky early morning jumps over the fence and runs round the track. I would have been happy to pay, but there was no one there so early. The sports field in the centre of the track is used by American football, right? But not very often. I guess using that space also as a paid football facility and improving the gym could generate more revenue. Not to mention if they based sports classes from there, such as the military fitness and Park Run that take place in FP. And you could add tennis, basketball, etc. I reckon it's just another case of mis-management. If you grouped all the sporting activities that take place in the park under one body that could manage the revenue across the park, you would have the cash for the up keep, without raising costs greatly for the user. I think it is a big society case. Set up a non-profit to run the thing.
  • DKLDKL
    edited 4:43AM
    I have read not long ago that some councils are charging money for usage of public space (park). Personal trainers, dog walker, group runners have to pay yearly fee.
  • edited 4:43AM
    here is a petition to <http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgEPetitionLogon.aspx?RPID=1258315>; signing this petition will at least get these cuts discussed rather than just actioned without public consultation.
  • edited 4:43AM
  • edited 4:43AM
    nice one Sincers. It needs 2,000 signatures for it to be taken to a public debate and it's currently on around 550. Please pass it on the park shouldn't be allowed to be go into a unfit state as it will bring down the whole area.
  • AliAli
    edited 4:43AM
    I don’t like the contents of this or the language used . Here are some highlights. It is about all Parks Services “Deletion of MPS Safer Parks Team” or Deletion of Parkforce Stewards(impact Upon hygiene capacity/activity), this is a particular insensitive way to talk about the people involved. Revision and renegotiation of BTCV Grant Agreement (50% cut). That means a reduction of work on places like Parkland Walk. Revenue generation mentions developing the Finsbury Park 5 a side so that hasn’t gone away 33% reduction in site litter bin collections/picking from 300 visits to 200 per week across 92 sites
  • edited 4:43AM
    it probably has such a low count of signatures because the website keeps crashing! at least on me.....
  • edited 4:43AM
    Apparently I was signature #545.
  • edited 4:43AM
    Margolada - maybe because so many people are trying to sign it! but most likely not... give it another go :)
  • AliAli
    edited 4:43AM
    I don't think it is working as I came up with no 545 as well. Puit the wife in and that also came up with 545 Nice way of avoiding a debate !
  • gemgem
    edited 4:43AM
    You can check <a href="http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgEpetitionSignatureList.aspx?PageNo=1&ShowAll=1&Id=13&Type=0&RPID=1259957">here</a> if your signing was successful. It is on 546 now, so it seems to be working for some...
  • JTJT
    edited 4:43AM
    With all these cuts, the council have been put in an imposible position by central government. Huge front-loaded reductions in their grant, and a settlement that means they can't even put up council tax (which I would willingly pay more of to protect services). Blame Cameron and Osbourne (and Clegg and Lynne bleeding Featherstone!)
  • edited 4:43AM
    err, no. This facility has been there a lot longer than many of the bloated resources Haringey have enjoyed for a decade and a half. A reduction in costs should not result in its closure so casually. Bin their piece of crap, propaganda-peddling Magazine first. That will cost them at least twice as much as the £50k costs that they're talking about to run the track. This is totally unacceptable and Haringey residents should do everything in their power to stop it. I couldn't give a fig if a couple of people loose their job over this. The track is a facility is for the use of 225,000 people who live in the borough, NOT for the council to close on a whim.
  • edited 4:43AM
    petition site should be working now... I emailed them yesterday... Dear Matt, We have had some problems with the site, which is externally hosted. This is being looked into and will hopefully be resolved any time now. Thanks for letting us know Kind regards Ian Christie Feedback and Information Manager, Haringey Council Tel: 020 8489 2557
  • edited 4:43AM
    ooooh, managed to sign it, but the process could have been easier. 550 people signed it by today.
  • AliAli
    edited 4:43AM
    It seems to be intermitent it toom me three attempts to actually get onto the list. Suupose it keeps the numbers down so you don't get to the "k required
Sign In or Register to comment.