I can confirm too that the Park will be refurbished next year, having recently been involved in discussions relating to this.
However, as for the claim by the Council that they consulted with the Association, they were extremely clear that by the time they asked my opinion, on behalf of the Tooley Street
Tenants & Residents Association, that Southwark Property had already agreed the deal with Sky for use of the coach park (where the crane was located). The Parks department merely sought my views about ameliorating the impact on the park, which is classic bit of 'closing the stable door after the horse has bolted'. The relevant excerpt from the email exchange with the Parks Department is reproduced below, with my question to them first, followed by their reply indicated by the square brackets:
>Please could you also let me know if this your email is to consult
T&RA over the potential use of Potters Field Park
>for this event or if it is simply notification of something that will
>take place because the Council has decided to allow it to take place?
>[It is with the use of the park that I would like your input.
>Permission has already been given for Sky to use the car park but I
>want to make sure that we talk to the correct people about the use
>on the 2 event days.]
By the '2 event days' Southwark meant that they only anticipated a significant number of visitors to the park on the day that Blaine entered and left the box.
I also raised then the question of where the money Southwark received from the event would be spent. Again, the Council's reply is in the square brackets - it was copied to various senior officers and councillors, hence the reference to them 'hearing my thoughts' (I know they're not telepathic!):
>I would have thought - as Cllr Stanton suggested in his earlier email
>- the fee income to the Council will be substantial. Such a sum could
>be used to pay for the preliminary-design public consultation on the
>future design of the park, thereby saving the scarce s.106 funding
>for the works themselves. I would be grateful if you or Cllr Stanton
>could make clear the particular 'pot' into which this income will be
>[Unfortunatley I'm not high enough up the council ladder to make
>those decisions but I'm sure through your email your thoughts are
>As for the restitution fee, I think you should be ensuring that
>sufficient is paid over for proper re-seeding of the grass which will
>inevitably damaged by the additional visitors and vehicles in the
>park - including the cost of properly protecting the re-seeded areas
>while it germinates. I think it would also be advisable to ensure
>that the restitution bond covers potential damage to the trees and
>shrubbery in the park.
>[The reinstatement agreement to be made with Sky will certainly
>include damage to grass, trees and other permenant features of the
I look forward, as I suggested in my earlier post, to a journalist beginning to pursue this on our behalf. They might also want to ask for a copy of the restitution agreement between Sky and the Council.