Frustratingly, I appear to have deleted the copy I once had of the SydSoc constitution, and there is no longer a link to it on the SydSoc website, at least that I can find. When I search on it for 'constitution', all I get is an article entitled "Do we have more in common with Beckenham than we think?". Whatever, I'm sure copies could be supplied, and from memory there are four officers (Chair, vice chair, Secretary & Treasurer), so with 12 other members, allowing a total committee of sixteen before any elections need to be held.Agenda
1. To receive the 2012 Accounts and Auditor’s Report
2. To elect Officers and Members of the Executive Committee
3. To appoint an Auditor
4. Any Other Business
Election of Officers and Members of the Executive Committee
Any member can be nominated for election as an Officer or Member of the Executive Committee. Nominations in writing must be seconded and have the Nominee’s consent. Nominations must be sent to arrive 7 days in advance of the AGM to Annabel McLaren, [postal address removed]; email annabelmclaren@myriadbooks.co.uk. The Society’s Constitution allows for up to 12 members, plus officers. In 2012 there were 7 Executive Committee meetings
I make this point, because there have been several new posters on this Forum expressing an interest in getting more involved with local life, and aside from continuing to use this Forum, I don't think there is any better way for them to do this than becoming active members of the Sydenham Society. Membership, £6.50 annually, is only 0.0016% of the going rate for a two/three bed flat in even Lower Sydenham, so no one should feel excluded. Join up now, go to the AGM, or even get yourself nominated to the Executive committee.
Otherwise, there is a danger that an organisation such as SydSoc, with a membership of over 1,000, and widely presenting itself as the voice of local opinion can be taken over by an unrepresentative or party political clique. I would not say this has happened, but at the last AGM I attended, I recognised local Labour Party members, others from the Conservative Party and even a current propsective UKIP Parliamentary candidate.
As if to illustrate the dangers, immediately below the 2013 AGM notice in that SydSoc newsletter, there is this
I assume with the aim of not being party political, the newsletter editor chose not to mention that the AM being supported here is a Conservative, although this will hardly be a surprise. For more, and a link to download the full report setting out the case for, in effect, privatising the park, follow this link to the GLA Conservatives site.Richard Tracey AM calls for end of “Lee Valley Park Tax”
London Assembly member, Richard Tracey has published a report calling for London borough councils to cease funding the Lee Valley Regional Park over the next five years with a view to making the park self-financing.
The Park, which covers 26 miles from north east London to Essex and Hertfordshire, is part-funded annually by all London’s borough councils under a 1966 Act of Parliament. Last year this sum was £8.9m.
Publishing the report, London’s Hidden Charge: Ending the Lee Valley Tax, Richard Tracey says: “The Lee Valley Park is a fantastic asset and I see no reason why, financially speaking, it cannot stand on its own two feet. Borough councils took over its funding when the GLC was abolished in 1986, but this has become an anachronism with bizarre financial consequences for boroughs across London.”
For example the Park had 376,749 visitors from Waltham Forest in 2011/12 and the council contributed £224,309, making an average cost to the borough per visitor of 60 pence. Similarly there were 523,148 visitors from Enfield which paid £24,000 (or £0.62/head).
In contrast there were 19,979 visitors from Bromley for which the council was charged a levy of £380,000 (or £19.73/head) and 22,082 visitors from Lewisham which paid £250,000 (or £11.85/head).
Richard Tracey adds “Clearly this is an inequitable situation that cannot stand. The arrangement siphons off funds from boroughs where they could be spent locally and council tax payers could reap the benefit, or councils could cut their council tax bill.
"At the same time, this report shows that if the Park raised a little more money from its visitors, made better use of its facilities and explored new local partnerships, this contribution from council tax payers London-wide would no longer be necessary.”
He is therefore calling on the Government to change the law to end these funding arrangements and he recommends that the Lee Valley Park is given five years to become self-financing.
The Sydenham Society has written to Richard Tracey AM to put on record its support for the phasing out of the Lea Valley Tax over the next five years as we consider this levy to be totally disproportionate when considering the estimated visitor numbers from our area during the same period. As pointed out in Richard Tracey’s paper Crystal Palace Park (on English Heritage’s Heritage at Risk 2012 list) is in need of major improvements. Money from the annual Lee Valley Park levy from Bromley Council would go a long way towards funding identified essential capital restoration work.
A copy of the Society’s letter was also sent to Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, Assembly Members Len Duvall and Val Shawcross, Jim Dowd MP, Sir Steve Bullock and local Lewisham councillors. A copy of Richard Tracey’s Report and Sydenham Society’s letter of support was also forwarded to other local amenity societies in south London and we know that many of these, too, have written expressing their concerns about this unfair tax.
I have no ideological objection to private investment in parks, as long as the public good is guaranteed, but the argument presented here is an attack on the principle that tax payers across London should support facilities in one of its poorer parts - a triumph for the idea of Localism over any kind of wider Metropolitan solidarity in much the same spirit as LB Bromley's successful challenge of Ken Livingstone's "Fares Fair" policy in 1981.
If the reasoning of those representing themselves as the voice of local opinion in Sydenham was to help win support for the financing of the LDA proposals for restoring Crystal Palace Park, it would seem singularly ill-judged.
Or do they have more in common with Beckenham than we think?