• Why 3 sections?
• FAQ A
• What kind of organisation is the BGA?
• What are its rules and how do I obtain a copy?
• Do the rules describe all the workings of the Association and its committee?
• How does a member get elected to the committee?
• Are any ‘portfolios’ currently vacant?
• What portfolios are due for re-election in March 2010, and will the committee members be seeking re-election?
• How is the chairman chosen and elected?
• What power and influence does the BGA have?
• What have BGA’s greatest successes been in influencing events?
• How does the committee reach its views and decisions?
• What can a member do to influence the BGA’s view?
• What should my main avenues of influence be on any matter which concerns LBHF?
• What should my main avenues of influence be on any matter which concerns LBHF?
• What else can I do?
• Does the BGA committee claim to represent its members proportionately?
• Is there a danger that the BGA committee, by virtue of its worthy activities, influences LBHF in a way that is disproportionate to its size and wisdom?
• What should I do if I think the chairman or committee members of the BGA are not doing their job properly?
• What are the types of planning application that the BGA gets involved in?
• Does the BGA get involved in residential applications?
• What other issues has BGA got involved in during recent years?
• FAQ B
• What is the background to the planning of changes to the playground?
• Why were people obtaining signatures for a petition (in mid December) to conserve the Green and protect it from ‘commercial development’. Surely the BGA should be doing this – isn’t that its purpose?
• Is the BGA’s primary aim to conserve the Green in its present form?
• Many parents/carers are concerned about overcrowding in the existing playground and the mix of ages playing in close proximity. The original plan from LBHF put new equipment for older children in a separate but adjacent area. Why has this proposal been withdrawn?
• Surely 11-13 year olds don’t need playgrounds? All they need is kickabout space?
• Does LBHF realise that ‘kids will always vote for Disneyland on Brook Green'?
• Is there a danger that if playground facilities on Brook Green are expanded it will become a ‘destination’ i.e. attracting people from outside the area?
• Is there a danger that the BGA committee, in wishing to help ‘the have-nots’ is ignoring the ‘conservation view’ of many people in Brook Green?
• Did the BGA propose ‘the café’ and does the BGA committee support the idea?
• The BGA appears to have been seduced by the (June 09) offer of government money. Why was this offer not declined? Was the BGA poorly prepared?
• Why did the BGA not object when the programme was accelerated?
• FAQ C

Why 3 sections?

The FAQ has grown due to recent debates.

• Section A refers to general questions about the BGA.
• Section B refers to general issues about Brook Green itself.
• Section C refers to the future of the BGA

FAQ A

What kind of organisation is the BGA?

The BGA is a voluntary organisation founded 40 years ago and is a registered charity. We include schools and businesses among our members and we are therefore more than just a residents’ association.

What are its rules and how do I obtain a copy?

New members are given a copy of the rules on joining. To obtain a further copy please contact the secretary.

Do the rules describe all the workings of the Association and its committee??

The rules – 15 of them - are admirably short and fit onto two sides of A4. The BGA’s workings over the years are determined by custom and the discretion of the committee (as Rule 15 dictates) rather than by application of more detailed rules.

How does a member get elected to the committee?

• By offering themselves for election at the AGM. We are constantly on the look-out for people who are volunteering to help.
• Election to the committee usually follows a period of serving the committee successfully as a co-opted member and learning about our activities and customs, and the election is put to the vote at the AGM.
• A member offers to become a co-opted member by showing interest and ability to carry out a role where extra resources are needed.

Are any ‘portfolios’ currently vacant?

• Traffic, highways and transport.
• Social events secretary. (To organise the lecture series, to revive the barn-dance perhaps or to introduce other events)
• New member recruitment. (This might be combined with social events sec.)
• There is perhaps a role for a licensing and entertainment co-opted member
• A person with good PR skills could get us more press coverage

What portfolios are due for re-election in March 2010, and will the committee members be seeking re-election?

• See our supplementary spring 2010 newsletter
• Some ‘re-shuffling’ of portfolios is being considered

How is the chairman chosen and elected?

• The chairman is elected by the committee from among their number
• He/she typically has had five to ten years’ experience of serving on the committee
• The secretary and treasurer have notable influence

What power and influence does the BGA have?

We believe we have a valuable influence on LBHF at times, but we have little formal power

LBHF consults the BGA on most issues that affect it, and the BGA gives its views

Sometimes our views are ignored, sometimes heeded. We have made no quantitative assessment of our influence. Our reputation for being non-partisan is an important factor

BGA’s input at planning inquiries and hearings on a variety of topics over the last 15 years has usually been successful

We are not the only group which LBHF consults. There are other consultees and ‘checks and balances’ – not least the role of your elected councillors

What have BGA’s greatest successes been in influencing events?

The list is a long and fine one. We are working on summaries of past local issues from our archives for future reference and will put a selection on our website in due course.

How does the committee reach its views and decisions?

In one of several ways:

• The committee may, following discussion at its monthly meeting, reach a unanimous decision, or
• It may reach a majority decision by simple vote of those attending
• On matters that are known to be controversial, all committee members including co-opted members and the secretary and treasurer may be asked for their view
• On one occasion an issue was aired at an AGM with proposers and opposers in debate and a show of hands counted
• The committee may delegate a matter – such as sending a letter to the planners at LBHF - to one committee member, often asking him/her to liaise with one other committee member for acceptance of a draft before it is sent
• Some ‘re-shuffling’ of portfolios is being considered

What can a member do to influence the BGA’s view?

You can talk to any committee member

They may be persuaded of your point of view, and take it forward for you

If not, they may none-the-less be happy to put your view to the committee

You can approach the BGA chairman by telephone or email or arrange a short meeting

What should my main avenues of influence be on any matter which concerns LBHF? (if the BGA is not fighting my cause)?

• If you feel strongly about something, write to or email the relevant department at LBHF, irrespective of the BGA’s views and actions
• If you are able to present your objections and difficulties in the form of facts, reasons and constructive proposals, they will carry greater weight

What else can I do?

• Contact one or more of the elected councillors for the relevant ward. (The BGA has no political affiliation, and forms its views without reference to any political party or lobby group
• Discuss the matter with friends and neighbours to gauge the degree of support for your point of view, and to test the quality and realism of your proposals
• Approach other organisations that may be prepared to promote your view. (On conservation matters for example, the Hammersmith Society has a strong record, and may well oppose change and take a different line from the BGA. Several people belong to both organisations
• Form a lobby group to represent your point of view
• If you consider LBHF is not conducting itself fittingly you can approach the Local Government Ombudsman

Does the BGA committee claim to represent its members proportionately?

• No. About 350 households are members of the BGA and they hold a kaleidoscope of different viewpoints. We seldom conduct a survey or take a show of hands on their views. Committee members act as representatives not as delegates
• A key consideration is that the BGA is not solely a residents’ association, but has schools and businesses as members. It is therefore a community association. We seek solutions that benefit the whole community, not just our members
• Given that most of our members are older rather than younger and comfortably-off rather than in poverty, even if we did conduct frequent surveys our findings might well be unrepresentative of those who live within our boundaries. There might be good reasons to review and adjust them
• We aim to take a balanced, far-sighted and wise view on the local issues that confront us. We aim to have a high quality of debate and discussion. We do not always ‘hit the spot’. We try to understand the varied needs of those who live, work, and study in our square kilometre. We hope our views are treated by LBHF accordingly

Is there a danger that the BGA committee, by virtue of its worthy activities, influences LBHF in a way that is disproportionate to its size and wisdom?

It is up to LBHF to decide what weight should be given to our views..

What should I do if I think the chairman or committee members of the BGA are not doing their job properly?

• It can be raised directly with the chairman, or
• Discuss the matter with other members first and confirm the key facts of the case
• Raise the matter with another committee member and try to establish what duty the BGA has failed to perform
• If the matter does not get dealt with through informal channels, put it in writing

What are the types of planning application that the BGA gets involved in?

Public and commercial sites. Schools. Office and hotel developments. Blocks of flats. Hostels. Entertainment venues. Licensing matters.

Does the BGA get involved in residential applications?

• Not usually
• If an application appears to the committee to be a flagrant breach of planning policy or regulation, the BGA will sometimes write to LBHF expressing this view
• If an application involves a policy matter which is under development or review by LBHF (or by the Mayor of London) we may well make an input. (For example adding basements in 2000 and roof-gardens in 2003)

What other issues has BGA got involved in during recent years?

Aircraft noise, bicycle racks, bicycle routes, bulb planting, bus routes, carol singing, charity donations, the community prize, controlling drunks on the Green, dangerous dogs, evening lectures, fact-finding on fox control, flooding of basements, graffiti, green rubbish collection, licensing matters, the Palais, parking, playground design and management, police liaison, public lavatories,, raising sponsorship eg for the playground, schools liaison, sewers, skips, traffic calming; tree maintenance and planting, and youth club facilities

FAQ B

Some questions about the playground debate that arose in November and December 2009 and the BGA’s role in it These FAQs are dated January 2010

What is the background to the planning of changes to the playground?

• The story has been described in our newsletters and monthly email updates since last summer
• The Government has provided funding under its Playbuilder scheme and LBHF has added an equal amount. The Government money is targeted at 8 – 13 year olds. LBHF is improving play facilities in most or all of the parks in the borough
• The funding is spread over the present financial year and next
• Existing playground facilities on Brook Green are crowded at peak times and many parents, carers and children would like to see play facilities expanded
• Some of those whose houses overlook the Green and others with conservation interests are concerned that the character of the Green might be adversely altered
• LBHF’s early plans for the Playbuilder project were displayed in the library in late November 2009
• Following feedback from users and residents, LBHF immediately withdrew its initial plans. Its revised plans, which were exhibited in the library from 7th to 13th December 2009, put new play features exclusively in the existing playground
• Members are encouraged to look at our spring 2010 newsletter for further background, and for more up-to-date information. LBHF’s website is also informative. See the foot of these FAQs for the link

Why were people obtaining signatures for a petition (in mid December) to conserve the Green and protect it from ‘commercial development’. Surely the BGA should be doing this – isn’t that its purpose?

• Some of the points made in the petition – its general conservation message - were admirable
• Had the Green been under threat from ’commercial development’ we would have striven to oppose it, using our most thoughtful powers of persuasion
• The views of the BGA committee are conveyed in a two page document showing their votes cast on 7th Dec on 30 questions about potential changes in play facilities on the Green. This was part of our formal response to LBHF and was emailed with our December 2009 monthly update to members
• The petition was precipitated by the scheme exhibited in the library from Wednesday 25th November. This scheme was rapidly withdrawn by LBHF. Its replacement (which omits any café and involves no expansion of the playground area) was published and circulated on Friday 4th December. Many of the signatories to the petition may have been unaware that the first plan had been withdrawn, and unaware that a replacement scheme was on display in the library

Is the BGA’s primary aim to conserve the Green in its present form?

No. Rule 2 states that our objective is ‘To preserve and enhance the character of the area whilst seeking improvements in the amenities and facilities available locally and to foster the sense of community among the residents'.

Many parents/carers are concerned about overcrowding in the existing playground and the mix of ages playing in close proximity. The original plan from LBHF put new equipment for older children in a separate but adjacent area. Why has this proposal been withdrawn?

• There was almost universal opposition to expansion of the play area into the western part of Brook Green. It is a fine open green space and must remain so
• There are views that the under-used grassed area south of the tennis courts (ie between the tennis courts and Luxemburg Gardens) might be suitable for play features for the youngest children. Their parents/carers could choose whether they should play there (especially at peak times) or in the main playground
• It appears likely that LBHF will go back to the drawing board and present a second stage scheme for the next financial year which will make use of this area
• Most of the BGA committee want LBHF to work on this basis and believe that the difficulties inherent in such a scheme can be overcome, and the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages. Any such scheme will go through the full consultation process

Surely 11- 13 year olds don’t need playgrounds? All they need is kickabout space?

• There is a clear benefit in providing some separation of areas for younger and older children. The debate seems to turn on what the upper age limit should be and the type of facilities on offer
• There are several ’improved facilities’ which could be provided for 11-13 year olds. Choosing which is the most suitable for Brook Green needs further study
• The kickabout area itself could be improved - the poorly grassed areas must certainly be revived – and there are several opportunities for making the area more interesting and recognising seasonal changes. These need careful consideration
• Temporary attractions (perhaps requiring sponsorship) should be considered

Does LBHF realise that ‘kids will always vote for Disneyland on Brook Green?

The BGA accepts that results of consultation with children must be treated with great care. But, getting to the meat of the question, LBHF considers that because of the large number of schools nearby and the number of young families in our community, Brook Green needs increased play facilities. We will continue to strive to find ways of providing it in a form which does not harm the character of the Green

Is there a danger that if playground facilities on Brook Green are expanded it will become a ‘destination’ i.e. attracting people from outside the area?

• It is a fair concern. When you build a two-lane motorway there may in a few years be pressure to make it three lanes if it is a national arterial road
• In the case of Brook Green there are bigger competing facilities and open spaces nearby (such as Holland Park, Ravenscourt Park and the Thames) so we think the catchment area will always be small. But the number of schools and families in our square kilometre means that potential demand will exceed the capacity of some of our play facilities at peak times

Is there a danger that the BGA committee, in wishing to help ‘the have-nots’ is ignoring the ‘conservation view’ of many people in Brook Green?

• There have been BGA controversies in the past which involved difficult choices between ‘haves and have-nots’. It appears to us that the playground controversy is primarily a ‘young versus less-young’ controversy, not ‘haves versus have-nots’
• The borough of Hammersmith and Fulham contains some wide extremes of affluence and poverty and the council and all those involved in local affairs need to be sensitive to this
• We are not ignoring the ’conservation view’. We have conveyed it to LBHF, although not as forcibly as some residents. We have encouraged all residents to make their views known to LBHF if they feel that what BGA says and writes does not reflect local needs fittingly

Did the BGA propose ‘the café’ and does the BGA committee support the idea?

• The concept of a café has been discussed by users of the Green for some years
• LBHF worked on ideas for rearranging the area now occupied by the lavatories/tennis hut and maintenance yard. It prepared sketch designs for a café and included this with the first Playbuilder design. However, given the range of views expressed at the public consultation in late November, these plans have been withdrawn for the time being. No further development of designs for this area is expected until after the elections
• The BGA committee voted eight against a café and three for a cafe with one abstention in December 2009
• Note that there are other ways of serving this need
• There is an excellent café by the playground in Ravenscourt Park – a much bigger park and therefore more suitable for a café

The BGA appears to have been seduced by the (June 09) offer of government money. Why was this offer not declined? Was the BGA poorly prepared?

• It is a valid point that one should not automatically accept offers of money
• The immediate past chairman of the BGA two years ago presented to the committee a paper which was essentially a draft ’Vision for Green’ which he had worked on for many months as part of a botany degree which he is pursuing in retirement. His survey showed that parts of the Green are underused and some aspects of the design of the Green are tired and uninspiring. Without reference to any particular type of use, we agreed unanimously as a committee that we should actively seek ways of making it more attractive and interesting - to children particularly
• When the prospect of improving playgrounds arose, our view was that we should seek designs which gave a net benefit – but we did not commit to accepting any particular feature
• The extent of crowding at peak times on the playground, and our awareness that part of the Green is under-used, meant we owed it to parents to ‘give it our best shot’
• From the outset, we made it clear to LBHF that Brook Green has its own unique constraints and that developing acceptable designs would be a challenging process

Why did the BGA not object when the programme was accelerated?

It was unrealistic to say we could not identify acceptable ways of making some improvements to equipment in the 2009/10 financial year. Some people felt there would be merit in bringing out the design issues sooner rather than later.

FAQ C

THE WAY AHEAD
Questions about the council’s latest detailed design for the existing playground and its future plans after the general and local elections will be covered in future BGA newsletters.

• LBHF aims to improve the segregation of ages within the existing playground and provide for some new features which will appeal to older children
• The ‘final approved’ design is available on the LBHF website (see www.lbhf.gov.uk/parks)
• Our primary concern remains congestion and we shall be raising this with LBHF

home | Brook Green | Committee | Forum | Greening | Planning | Policing | Schools | Social | Traffic | Waste/Recycle | Join | About

Privacy Policy | Terms and conditions