See also Appendix 1: Results of HFoPF questionnaire on staffing in individual parks. And Appendix 2: Additional comments from local Friends groups:

1. Haringey Friends of Parks Forum - General Background

Haringey Friends of Parks Forum (HFoPF) is the umbrella organisation and network for the thirty local Friends groups of Haringey residents who are active in protecting and improving our parks and open spaces. These have done a huge amount and put in many thousands of hours of volunteer time to develop maintenance and management plans for our parks and green spaces; prevent inappropriate development on the parks; to plant trees, shrubs and flowers, and help create play areas, seating and other facilities; conducting regular walkabouts and producing maintenance updates; and organising activities that encourage local residents to safely use their local open spaces. In some cases these activities have been major events that have attracted thousands of people.

They have all liaised closely with the Council's Parks Service in doing this, and have been key agents in helping to bring in millions of pounds in external funding to improve facilities for local people. They have worked with the Council on achieving Green Flag status for 8 parks and open spaces, the highest number in London.

The Forum itself holds regular well-represented meetings which are supported by the Parks Service, and Parks officers attend them to discuss issues of common concern. At our last meeting, attended by Don Lawson (Head of Parks) and Paul Ely (Parks and Leisure Policy & Development Manager), Don Lawson announced that the Parks Department had just been given the 2007 Better Haringey award for the Best Council Team - he stated that this award was only possible due to the partnership working with Friends groups and the Forum.

The Forum has been effective in putting forward views on common issues to the Council including on planning policies as they affect open spaces, open space standards, and staffing, and in giving support to individual Friends groups when particular threats or opportunities have arisen.

Few London boroughs have such a comprehensive and active network of such Friends groups, and this is a real strength for the people of Haringey. The minutes of Forum meetings can be found on the Council's website:
    http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/community_and_leisure/greenspaces/getting_involved/friendsgroups.htm

2. The Parkforce Review

The Haringey Friends of Parks Forum (HFoPF), supported by the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations, has engaged in extensive lobbying for more effective staffing in our parks and green spaces over the last 2 or 3 years. Indeed, most of the local Friends groups have each done the same regarding their own local green space.

Hence we are very pleased that LBH Recreation Services have responded to this lobbying by conducting a Parkforce Review of Staffing In Parks over the last 12 months. Through a Freedom of Information Act request we have ascertained the following figures for staffing levels.

' Current Workforce 2007
Parks Operation 71
Arboriculture 5
Support Services 9
Parks Constabulary 13
Parks Support 7
Play Fitters 2
Total 107

NB Current Workforce Elements of Recreation will include Business Support 6 and Policy and Development 10, percentages of which will support operational functions for Parks. '

3. Our views

The HFoPF have discussed staffing issues extensively at recent Forum meetings, and in addition have sought the written views of local groups [See a summary of some of the results of our own survey in the Appendix at the end].

In summary, the Haringey Friends of Parks Forum:

a. are pleased the Council has signed up to the national Parkforce Pledge recognising 'the value of having staff on site during daylight hours in every significant park' across Haringey.

b. applaud the hard work and conscientious effort put in by all those employed to work in our parks.

c. believe that the current staffing in parks and open spaces is seriously inadequate, being based generally on patrolling teams rather than an adequate number of dedicated on-site staff. It seems that, with some notable exceptions (especially in those parks where there are depots or dedicated on-site staff) much of work done in most of the parks and open spaces tends towards being 'crisis management' and that the currrent staffing regime is not sustainable.

d. are calling for dedicated on-site staffing by Recreation Services in all substantial parks and open spaces. We are convinced that this is a pre-requisite for effective monitoring, management and caretaking, maintenance, community liaison and general security in such spaces. Such staffing is urgently and desperately needed. Dedicated on-site staffing encourage an invaluable sense of 'ownership' and pride from staff and users alike, and provide a means of on-going 'joined-up' on the ground management and liaison (with the public, various stakeholders and any contractors etc).

e. believe that the Parks Constabulary employed by Recreation Services (involving a very substantial slice of the operational budget, particularly as they are more highly-paid than other staff) are of some, but limited, use in most parks. They are certainly no substitute for dedicated on-site Parks Dept staffing who provide a feeling of security for users whilst at the same time being engaged in a wide range of other essential work. There should be an immediate Review to consider if Parks Constabulary are value for money, and whether some, most or all of the LBH funding for them would be better spent on the on-site staffing everyone agrees is needed. We point out that officers of the Metropolitan Police and the Safer Neighbourhood Teams have a continuing responsibility for any necessary enforcement issues in local parks, just as they have throughout all areas of local neighbourhoods.

f. believe that other incidental activities in parks involving non-Parks Dept staffing (occasional school sports and play workers, cafes, staffed buildings etc) are important, but are no substitute for the dedicated on-site Parks Dept staffing our parks and open spaces need.

g. believe that dedicated on-site staffing is mostly achievable through a re-organisation of existing parks department staffing, accompanied by additional training and upgrading as appropriate.

h. also call, in any event, for greater numbers of operational staffing in the LBH Parks Department.

Sincerely

Joan Curtis
- on behalf of the Haringey Friends of Parks Forum

Supported by Dave Morris
- on behalf of the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations

Appendix 1: Results of HFoPF questionnaire on staffing in individual parks:

Name of Friends groups who responded

Friends of Queen's Wood, N10 [See comments at end]
Friends of Woodside Park, N22
Friends of Priory Park, N8 [Plus see comments at end]
Friends of Chestnuts Park, N15
Friends of Lordship Rec, N17
Friends of Downhills Park, N17
Friends of Down Lane Park, N17 [Plus see comments at end]
Friends of Parkland Walk, N4-N6 [Not all Qs answered - see comments at end]
Friends of Tottenham Marshes, N17 [See comments at end]
Friends of Noel Park, N22 [Plus see comments at end]
Friends of Ivatt Way Green, N15 [See comments at end]
Tree Trust for Haringey [See comments at end]

Q1. Are you satisfied with on-site staffing levels in your park / green space?

a. Litter collection

Very satisfied
Satisfied [Woodside] [Priory]
OK/neutral [Downhills] [Down Lane]
Not satisfied [Chestnuts] [Parkland Walk] [Lordship]
Very unsatisfied [Friends of Noel Park]

b. General everyday maintenance

(i). 'Soft' regular maintenance (of flower beds, grass areas, trees etc)

Very satisfied
Satisfied [Priory] [Downhills]
OK/neutral [Down Lane]
Not satisfied [Chestnuts] [Lordship]
Very unsatisfied [Woodside] [Parkland Walk] [Friends of Noel Park]

(ii). 'Hard' regular maintenance (paths, furniture, fencing, entrances, buildings etc)

Very satisfied
Satisfied [Priory]
OK/neutral
Not satisfied [Chestnuts] [Parkland Walk] [Downhills]
Very unsatisfied [Woodside] [Lordship] [Down Lane] [Friends of Noel Park]

c. Safety and security of park users

Very satisfied
Satisfied
OK/neutral [Woodside] [Lordship]
Not satisfied [Priory] [Chestnuts] [Parkland Walk] [Downhills] [Friends of Noel Park]
Very unsatisfied [Down Lane]

d. General overall management of the park (replacing damaged furniture, caretaking and gate locking, supervision, effective ongoing maintenance action plan and management plan etc)

Very satisfied
Satisfied [Priory - generally] [Downhills]
OK/neutral
Not satisfied [Woodside] [Priory - re:gate locking] [Chestnuts] [Parkland Walk] [Lordship] [Friends of Noel Park]
Very unsatisfied [Down Lane]

e. Ongoing on-site liaison with the Friends group

Very satisfied [Priory] [Lordship]
Satisfied [Woodside] [Chestnuts] [Downhills] [Down Lane]
OK/neutral
Not satisfied [Friends of Noel Park]
Very unsatisfied

Q2. What improvements (if any) would you like to see to the staffing regime in your park or green space?

a. Timing of staff presence in the park

Minimum times necessary:
(i). Times of day [Woodside: 9am - 2pm] [Priory: school opening/closing] [Chestnuts: 10am-3pm] [Lordship: 8am - dusk] [Downhills: Daylight] [Down Lane: 2pm - 8pm] [Friends of Noel Park: at least once a day]
(ii). Days of week [Woodside: 5] [Priory: weekdays + daily patrols] [Chestnuts: 4] [Lordship: 7, but could start a bit later at weekends] [Downhills: 7] [Down Lane: 7]
[Friends of Noel Park: 7]
Optimum:
(i). Times of day [Woodside: 9am - 5pm] [Priory: school opening/closing + lunchhtimes] [Chestnuts: 9am - 5pm] [Lordship: 8am - dusk] [Downhills: Daylight] [Down Lane: whenever open] [Friends of Noel Park: morning, after school and evening]
(ii). Days of week [Woodside: 6] [Priory - weekdays + daily patrols] [Chestnuts: 7] [Lordship: 7, but could start a bit later at weekends] [Downhills: 7] [Down Lane: 7] [Friends of Noel Park: 7]

b. Numbers needed

Minimum staff numbers necessary - Average number daily: [Woodside: 4] [Priory: 2] [Chestnuts: 1] [Lordship: 4 full time equivalent] [Downhills: 4] [Down Lane: 2] [Friends of Noel Park: enough to keep tidy and deter anti-social behaviour]
Optimum staff numbers - Average number daily: [Woodside: 5] [Priory: 3] [Chestnuts: 2] [Lordship: 8, including outreach, playworker and technician] [Downhills: 6] [Down Lane: 3] [Friends of Noel Park: enough to keep tidy and deter anti-social behaviour]

c. Type of on-site staffing required for your park / green space - Average number daily

General park keepers* (if any): [Woodside: 1] [Priory: 1 - on-site all day] [Chestnuts: 2] [Lordship: 4 - 8] [Downhills: 1] [Down Lane: 3] [Friends of Noel Park: 1 for part of day]
Gardeners (if any): [Woodside: 2] [Priory: 1] [Downhills: 4] [Friends of Noel Park: 1 for part of day]
Cleansing (if any): [Woodside: 2] [Priory: 1] [Downhills: 2] [Friends of Noel Park: 1 for part of day]
Parks Constabulary (if any):[Woodside: 2] [Priory: 2] [Downhills: 2] [Friends of Noel Park: 1 at key times]

• Note: 'park-keepers' would be staff with a general range of responsibilites including eg. gardening, cleansing, community-liaison, security, maintenance..

Appendix 2: Additional comments from local Friends groups:

Comments from Friends of Priory Park

This is a very important issue for us, particularly in relation to security. What we require is on an-site permanent prescence of a park-keeper to deter anti-social behaviour of (usually) young people and certain dog-owners (of the pit-bull variety) who use the park for training. Also, to make sure that the park is locked at night to prevent drunks and druggies using the park for social gatherings (difficult because the perimeter fence is inadequately high). In general we are satisfied with the other issues raised in your questionnaire.

Comments from Friends of Noel Park

Type of on-site staffing required for your park / green space:

General park keepers - YES, one dedicated person for at least part of the day
Gardeners - YES, but Noel Park is currently low-maintenance as it has no flower beds, so they would only need to be there occasionally
Cleansing - YES, needed constantly every day because we only have 2 litter bins and one dog waste bin so much of the rubbish ends up on the ground. Of
course this might improve if we could get some replacement bins installed . . .
Parks Constabulary - YES, every day particularly in the evening and after school when anti-social behaviour increases.

Comments from Friends of Queen's Wood

There are no on-site staff and there have been none for some 20 years.
This means that routine maintenance and ecological management is done by
volunteer labour - ourselves and BTCV. Off-site staff deal with the litter
bins and respond to needs for action, such as coping with major dumping,
that is beyond our capacity. We sometimes have difficulties with the
clearance of the bins, which needs continual monitoring.

There is a management plan for the ecological management of the Wood which
we and BTCV in cooperation with staff. there is no plan for amenity management.

It would be useful to have some park keeper type presence in the Wood,
particularly at weekends when the Wood is busiest. An easily identifiable
person could monitor conditions, answer queries and generally reassure. the
Wood does need physical maintenance - picking up litter, drainage problems,
cutting back invasive growth, repairs to the paths and so on. If there was
permanent on site staffing that could deal with this, it would mean that
ratepayers did not have to do it voluntarily.

Comments from the Tree Trust for Haringey

The Tree Trust has an interest in all the borough's parks and open spaces,
wherever trees are involved. The Trust is associated with Belmont Rec. and
Lordship Rec. in particular because of shared plantings and events,
especially Belmont Rec. Obviously these Friends Groups will speak for
themselves, but it should be recorded that in West Green Ward the Safer
Neighbourhood Team are focusing in particular on personal safety and
antisocial behaviour in the three local parks. These are issues which have
been highlighted in recent surveys of local residents and the absence of any
designated park staff has contributed to the fear expressed in these surveys
although actual incidents are few and far between.

Comments from the Friends of Parkland Walk

The Parkland Walk has suffered from having very little maintenance over the years, but major improvements to the infrastructure are now being planned. This will still leave the issues of general 'soft' maintenance of it as a Nature Reserve unresolved, as well as future 'hard' maintenance of the improved infrastructure.

As a 'new' group we have not yet set up on-site meetings. (Q1e).

We cannot specify numbers for staff required. However, it is certainly inadequate now. Greatly improved security and small scale maintenance (litter removal, repairs etc) are needed on a regular/daily basis. Larger-scale maintenance probably requires gangs, but not daily.

Comments from Friends of Tottenham Marshes

Our area is managed completely by Lee Valley Park Authority so I don’t think Friends of Tottenham Marshes can be very helpful on this. Sorry about it.

Comments from Friends of Down Lane Park

Would like 3 general park-keepers, to include community development aiming for greater use of park facilities - promoting use by different age groups, events, leagues etc.

Comments from Friends of Ivatt Way Green, N15

Friends of Ivatt Way Green don't expect staffing - just the grass cut every couple of months from March to November (leaving a 3-4m wide patch along the tops to let wild flowers etc grow) and the litter that comes down from Belmont Road cleaned, say, once a year. A sign saying Ivatt Way Green would be nice along with a reminder for dog owners to pick up