# Help save Beckenham Place Park golf course



## jpjeffery (Jan 3, 2015)

Some of you may remember this thread: http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?68785-Beckenham-Place-Park-in-danger-of-closure

Anyway, here goes, Lewisham Council wants to close the golf course in Beckenham Place Park, citing lack of use.

However they're ignoring inconvenient details such as other park users (i.e. non-golfers) like the presence of golfers as it makes them feel safe (because rather than an otherwise 'deserted' space, where a walker might wonder about the motives of someone else in the park, there is a steady stream of golf players who know what they're doing and so effectively exert some authority of safety), and that the lack of attendance figures cited by Lewisham are actually wholly inaccurate.

So please, show your support for the fight against this shallow, box-ticking exercise, and sign the e-petition and pass it on to anyone you know who likes golf (or even anyone who doesn't)

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70912

Thank you in advance, and happy new year.


----------



## NST (Jan 3, 2015)

Signed.


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 3, 2015)

NST said:



			Signed.
		
Click to expand...

Good man!
:whoo::thup::cheers:


----------



## SammmeBee (Jan 3, 2015)

Way too many golf courses round that way.....all the others would benefit from it closing.  Life goes on.....


----------



## LUFC 1972 (Jan 3, 2015)

Played there a few times as relatives nearby, so would be a shame if it was too close, would miss the parrot things that fly about and it is a nice course for a quick round.

So have signed the petition.

Don't know what other courses are around that area, I stay in Herne Hill and have played Dulwich which is nothing special and Aquarius which is IMO the worst course I have played on...so would be a shame if Beckenham closed.


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 3, 2015)

SammmeBee said:



			Way too many golf courses round that way...
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you measure "Way too many" or even "round that way", but of the nearby public - by which I mean not restricted in any way to paid-up club members - courses (of which Beckenham Place Park is one) High Elms is 6 miles away, Addington Court is 7 miles, and Bromley Golf Course (which is a nine-hole course) is 5 miles.

We also believe that Beckenham Place Park is the last 18-hole public golf course in the inner London boroughs.

So, yes there are other courses which aren't very far away for adults with cars, but closing this one would rob local kids of a place to play that's easy to get to, thus further reducing the numbers of golfers in the medium and long term. All this when there are concerns over childhood (and adulthood) obesity, and with golf as an Olympic sport on the horizon.

But one of our (and by "our", I mean the members of Braeside Golf Club, for whom the course is our home) biggest issues is the lack of appropriate consultation being made by the council. They say they've consulted fully with all interested parties, but they didn't consult with us, and I understand there's evidence to suggest that they've ignored significant aspects of the results they did get. Specifically that respondents have said that they DON'T want the golf course to go.

In short, Lewisham council seem to be trying to do what they want to do do, whether the GBP like it or not, and they've tried very hard to create the conditions to justify their actions by failing to maintain or publicize the course, thus slowly reducing the attendance figures, albeit not by nearly as much as they've falsely claimed, and by closing down the once thriving youth academy that used to be sited there.

So, it is, of course, up to you whether to sign the petition or not, but I thought I'd give a little further back story.


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 3, 2015)

Here's a picture showing Beckenham Place Park (marked as A) in the middle of a little otherwise public-golfless desert of despair.


A= Beckenham Place Park
C and F are two of the Addington venues (only one of which is 'public')
D = Shirley Park (not public!)
E = Dulwich (not public!)
G = Bromley Golf Course


----------



## Fish (Jan 3, 2015)

jpjeffery said:



			I'm not sure how you measure "Way too many" or even "round that way", but of the nearby public - by which I mean not restricted in any way to paid-up club members - courses (of which Beckenham Place Park is one) High Elms is 6 miles away, Addington Court is 7 miles, and Bromley Golf Course (which is a nine-hole course) is 5 miles.

We also believe that Beckenham Place Park is the last 18-hole public golf course in the inner London boroughs.

So, yes there are other courses which aren't very far away for adults with cars, but closing this one would rob local kids of a place to play that's easy to get to, thus further reducing the numbers of golfers in the medium and long term. All this when there are concerns over childhood (and adulthood) obesity, and with golf as an Olympic sport on the horizon.

But one of our (and by "our", I mean the members of Braeside Golf Club, for whom the course is our home) biggest issues is the lack of appropriate consultation being made by the council. They say they've consulted fully with all interested parties, but they didn't consult with us, and I understand there's evidence to suggest that they've ignored significant aspects of the results they did get. Specifically that respondents have said that they DON'T want the golf course to go.

In short, Lewisham council seem to be trying to do what they want to do do, whether the GBP like it or not, and they've tried very hard to create the conditions to justify their actions by failing to maintain or publicize the course, thus slowly reducing the attendance figures, albeit not by nearly as much as they've falsely claimed, and by closing down the once thriving youth academy that used to be sited there.

So, it is, of course, up to you whether to sign the petition or not, but I thought I'd give a little further back story.
		
Click to expand...

This is all well and good in general, but where are your facts & figures to substantiate your views, opinions & observations?  How many kids/juniors play at Beckenham in contrast to the figures put forward by the council, what is your assessment of how many golfers overall play p/day as a true average?

This is coming across as a bit of a personal crusade rather than a practical objection to something that is in your opinion being used to its fullest and is a worthy addition to the community but being closed down, you need to present your facts & figures by comparison not what you believe or think the course should be doing and what the community is losing out on in an ideal scenario or what it as done in past but for various reasons, is no longer doing so!  The council is and has obviously looked well into it and if its not cost effective any more, then its dead, no more, not viable! 

I'm not sure how long you've had the petition going, but with only 244 signatures on it and asking for more from forum members to which some will no doubt sign it for the wrong reasons, it would seem that your local support is somewhat on the thin side, no doubt hence the decision by the council!


----------



## Oddsocks (Jan 3, 2015)

SammmeBee said:



			Way too many golf courses round that way.....all the others would benefit from it closing.  Life goes on.....
		
Click to expand...

Got to say I agree with this, it's been on a steady decline for years..... And feel others that are stronger would gain if it was to go....

Regarding other courses in the area

Members that allow pay and play

Farleigh court
Woldingham 
Park wood
Lulling stone 
Cherry lodge
Godstone

Full on pay and play

High elms (2 courses)
Addington court (3 courses)
Cray valley (2 courses)
Ruxley corner (1 course)
Pedham place
Chelsfield lakes
Bromley 9 hole

All of these are within 20-30 mins drive max, with some only 10-15 mins away.


----------



## Mattyboy (Jan 3, 2015)

Signed - I used to enjoy the junior open there in the early 80's..........With my dyed blonde fringe and 'Frankie Says' cap...............:lol:


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 3, 2015)

Lots of things from Fish and Oddsocks, to respond to, excuse me if I don't quote directly.

I'm not a committee member in my club, so I've not personally seen any figures since Lewisham council brought up a figure of an average of 45 players a day. Even Lewisham council have since admitted this figure was wrong (they were only counting swipes of the pre-paid cards and not pay-and-play rounds which I suspect outnumber the former).

Personal crusade? Well, it is certainly something I feel personally yes. It's my local course, I can get there my public transport (tram then a 10 minute stroll, or a couple of buses if I don't have my trolley), and it's the home course of my club. When anyone's course is under threat of closure I'm pretty sure they would publicise said threat and try to garner support like I am. And I've not started this thread because I'm the only one who feels this way, but because this is how everyone in my club feels about it, though as I've at least implied in my paragraph above, I don't officially represent the club...but then I really don't think I need to be an official to publicise something my club is doing!

The petition itself hasn't been running very long, which goes at least some way to explain the current figure of 268 signatures. I didn't start the petition, I'm just trying to up its profile. That's not a bad thing to do, is it?

The course is certainly run down. And if it was run down because fewer people played then anyone in charge would be right to consider closure, but I think it's the other way around (and I know many of my club-mates feel the same), i.e. it has been allowed to become run down (weeds allowed to grow in bunkers, greens not properly maintained, not-fit-for-purpose winter tee mats) in order to decrease its popularity and thereby justify its closure. I can't prove that. It's conjecture, I know, but we are talking about a place that used to be in the Guinness book of records as the busiest course in Europe, and GM Forum members have written that they have experienced for themselves a long queue of people waiting to tee off.

Anyhoo, I'll see if I can get a committee member to join in with some figures.


----------



## Oddsocks (Jan 3, 2015)

Don't get me wrong losing any course Is a shame, as a kid I can remember queuing for hours to get an afternoon slot, but that was as I say when the course was in half decent nick.  Hopefully it stays for the locals, but foot traffic will be what saves it and not signatures


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 3, 2015)

Fighting to save ones own golf course is laudible, however using across country people to sign a local petition will only make a situation worse if they did decide to save it on the amount of signatures, only to find still not enough people playing to justify it's keeping.
Sadly these are hard times, so if this course does go (just as Austin Lodge did a couple of months back) it won't be the last.


----------



## Oddsocks (Jan 4, 2015)

And Austin was a lot better course!


----------



## Fish (Jan 4, 2015)

Oddsocks said:



			Don't get me wrong losing any course Is a shame, as a kid I can remember queuing for hours to get an afternoon slot, but that was as I say when the course was in half decent nick.  Hopefully it stays for the locals, but foot traffic will be what saves it and not signatures
		
Click to expand...

I agree, losing any course is a shame, just like any business closing, but if its a vibrant course and well supported by the local community, then it shouldn't need the visibility of a national forum and people signatures who are signing out of past sentiment and not a loss to themselves in the present time, it only requires all the positive factual numbers and arguments presented if indeed they all fall in your favour!

It doesn't need a committee member to produce those figures, you are bringing the awareness to here and as such you should have all those to numbers to hand that clearly show and substantiate what you are presenting to us that the councils figures are totally incorrect.  If the numbers from members and pay & play were good enough and bringing in a revenue stream to maintain the course, then that is where your argument truly lies, if the numbers were falling year-on-year then of course the course will suffer, any course would, so without hard fact numbers and not sentiment and conjecture, the argument is wasted on me, but I wish you luck with it.


----------



## C&R (Jan 4, 2015)

Signed


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 5, 2015)

One of my/our major concerns is centred around the perceived vibrancy of the course (as in Lewisham Council's perception).

As I mentioned, they were justifying the course closure based on the figure of 45 golfers a day. If that figure was accurate then I suspect almost any course would find survival impossible and it would be very difficult to justify any argument against its closure.

However, that figure isn't accurate, and Lewisham have admitted so, but they appear to be at the stage of wanting to close the course _no matter how popular or busy it is_. The only time I've ever seen the course quiet is during bad weather, the rest of the time, including midweek and at any month of the year, there has always been a steady stream of players out there, and in the high season it is rare that one can get straight on the 1st tee without having to wait. So it does feel like their justification for the course closure is based on false/inaccurate data.

But then, the essence of the petition is to "..._Guarantee that Lewisham Borough hold consultations with all Park and Course users and also all Local Residents as the said park is predominately bounded by residents of the Borough of Bromley_...". That in itself may not change anything, indeed it may even help Lewisham Council in their aims!

My *personal* (and pessimistic) view is that as Lewisham 'own' the course they will do whatever they like with it. i.e. they don't have the political will to keep it open. Actually I would go a step further and say that the biggest factor is not the lack of political will to keep it open, but the presence of political will to close the course. It's the old "It's my ball!" story.

And so, if they want to close the course, I fear that ultimately they will. Personally, I just want to make sure they do it properly/honestly, rather than what seems to be more of a "We're in charge, we'll do whatever we want..." approach, because honestly, (and yes, I acknowledge this is an emotional reaction!) it just feels to me like they don't like golf.


----------



## sawtooth (Jan 5, 2015)

Signed, and good luck.

I dont get why fellow golf-loving forum members question the motives of someone trying to save his/her golf course. Just sign it or ignore it and consider yourselves lucky that its not your course. It could be next time


----------



## C&R (Jan 5, 2015)

sawtooth said:



			Signed, and good luck.

I dont get why fellow golf-loving forum members question the motives of someone trying to save his/her golf course. Just sign it or ignore it and consider yourselves lucky that its not your course. It could be next time

Click to expand...

Well said


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 5, 2015)

I remember going there with my Uncle in 1980, we queued up for over an hour and gave up in the end, it wasn't until 2006 i finally got a game of golf. 

Gets me wondering what level i could have got to had i played that day 26 years earlier


----------



## delc (Jan 6, 2015)

I've signed the petition. It's not in my area, but there are far too many Local Council courses being closed for housing developments.  Not everybody can afford to join private clubs!  I am now a member of a private club, but like many started playing golf at a muni course many years ago.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 6, 2015)

Fish said:



			This is all well and good in general, but where are your facts & figures to substantiate your views, opinions & observations?  How many kids/juniors play at Beckenham in contrast to the figures put forward by the council, what is your assessment of how many golfers overall play p/day as a true average?

This is coming across as a bit of a personal crusade rather than a practical objection to something that is in your opinion being used to its fullest and is a worthy addition to the community but being closed down, you need to present your facts & figures by comparison not what you believe or think the course should be doing and what the community is losing out on in an ideal scenario or what it as done in past but for various reasons, is no longer doing so!  The council is and has obviously looked well into it and if its not cost effective any more, then its dead, no more, not viable! 

I'm not sure how long you've had the petition going, but with only 244 signatures on it and asking for more from forum members to which some will no doubt sign it for the wrong reasons, it would seem that your local support is somewhat on the thin side, no doubt hence the decision by the council!
		
Click to expand...

But that's the 'long game' approach that Councils (everywhere) take! Identify a facility that they own that serves the particular purpose os a policy - in this case, additional housing. Let it run down over time in such a way that fewer and fewer local people use the facility.Then justify the 'change of use' by the reduction in use of the facility - that their action has directly caused! As for 'consultation'...that's a word that Councils would sooner didn't exist! Or was simply a synonym for 'notification'!


----------



## Rumpokid (Jan 6, 2015)

Is this course run by the council, or by a management company on there behalf..i.e. Glendale?..Will sign your petition by the way.


----------



## CaroleHope4 (Jan 6, 2015)

OK here is my thruppence worth. My name is Carole, I do not play golf, I do use Beckenham Place Park on a daily basis to walk my dog and I know several people who play the golf course regularly i.e. weekly.  I have signed the petition and am actively promoting it. I have been in lengthy email correspondence with Gavin Plaskitt, Lewisham Council, the driver of this scheme, for several months.  So, let's start with some facts 1) Lewisham Council own the park and golf course but subcontract the maintenance out to Glendale.  2) The petition is designed to make Lewisham Council accountable to local residents (both Lewisham and Bromley because the park is right on the boundary) about its plans for the park.  This is as much an issue of democracy as golf and so the location of those that sign the petition is an irrelevance.  3) Lewisham Council have secured a Â£4.9 million pound Heritage Lottery Grant to upgrade the park - this grant does not specify that the golf course should be closed.  4) There is an equivalent area in the rest of the park to that of the golf course for other users.  5) Lewisham Council have decided - and repeat the mantra over and over so that it must be true surely? - that more people would use the park if the golf course is closed and the lottery money used to re-landscape it. One of the new landscape features will be a large lake - no maintenance costs/issues there then?!  6) In order to justify supposed current lack of useage, both by golfers and others, Lewisham Council apparently set up cameras at every entrance to the park (there are nine) for 2 days in August 2013 to record footfall.  These cameras apparently recorded between the times of 10am and 4pm (this is stated in an email to me from Gavin Plaskitt), thus failing to record early morning walkers, joggers, cyclists, golfers etc and ditto for late afternoon, added to which late afternoon/early evening in August there could have been family groups entering the park who would not be recorded.  Plus, how do the cameras accurately record how many people there are in each car that access the two car parks? 7) As jpjeffery has pointed out, Lewisham Council did not count all rounds of golf paid for and I have no idea over what period they counted because they do not say.  8) Lewisham Council have deliberately played down the good public transport links to the park in order to justify a bigger car park - and, funnily enough - the only (apparent) room for a new car park is on part of the existing golf course.  9) As an aside, Oddsocks, Google maps says Godstone is 38 minutes drive in good traffic conditions - from Beckenham Place Park.  People do not live in Beckenham Place Park, they travel from elsewhere, so that will add to the drive time if they are starting out from, for example, Lee SE12 where my brother's Saturday golfing partner at Beckenham Place Park lives.  I do not propose to say much more.  I think jpjeffery and Foxholer have summarised the position in a nutshell.  Consider this, Beckenham Place Park was once the busiest public golf course in the country, maybe even Europe (depending on what source you read.)  Had Lewisham Council ploughed all green fees back into maintenance that may well still be the case.  They did not.  They deliberately run it down long before handing over to Glendale; they want to close the golf course and have been devious and disingenuous in the consulting (ha, ha!) process and data gathering process.  They have decided on their narrative and are going hell for leather to fulfil it no matter what.  There are now 399 signatures.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 6, 2015)

Signed.  Having been born & brought up nearby in Petts Wood and working in Catford, I used Beckenham Place Park a lot; it's a good layout and used to be in fantastic condition, the greens particularly.  It also used to have a really good pro shop run by Bill Woodman.  I really enjoyed it as did plenty of others; the queue for a weekend tee time used to start at about 2 in the morning.  It wouldn't surprise me if the council had run it down as it is prime real estate.

As for the other courses nearby, I'd dispute the suggested driving times to a lot of those courses as one who used to do a number of them.  I'd certainly say that unless something has drastically changed since I vowed never to return to them, golf in the area would be done a better service if Cray Valley & Ruxley were closed down and Beckenham Place Park left open.  

I'd also love to know where the second golf course is at High Elms


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 6, 2015)

Rumpokid said:



			Is this course run by the council, or by a management company on there behalf..i.e. Glendale?..Will sign your petition by the way.
		
Click to expand...

It's run by Glendale. Who, I understand, have done a very good job at other courses such as Kingston, but then I guess they're just doing as they're told by their employer (Lewisham Council).


----------



## Rumpokid (Jan 7, 2015)

jpjeffery said:



			It's run by Glendale. Who, I understand, have done a very good job at other courses such as Kingston, but then I guess they're just doing as they're told by their employer (Lewisham Council).
		
Click to expand...

I have a lot of experience with how Glendale operate.They took over the running from the council of a course i know about 6 years ago.
Council are not their employer.They will have leased the running of the golf course (and operations),  for a period of time.In my experience it is a 20/25 year lease.One of the two, at the course i know.
Here is a few points from my experience with regard to Glendale, and how they work:

1.They run the course i know on a shoestring.Only 3 green staff employed.
2 Before they took over, plans were drawn up for a seperate club house for club members.When they took over, they renaged on this, and gave the club use of an area about 10ft by 6ft, to sign in etc.
3.They made  plans to supposedly improve drainage on 4 holes on the course.This involved basically digging up fairways and  doing it via landfill, to which i believe Glendale would be paid huge sums by the company wanting to dispose of the material.Luckily, council rejected this idea.
4.They double book tee times at weekends at height of season when club comps are on, to cram as many pay and play customers on as possibe.
5.The pro shop (if you can call it that), is not staffed now.Cards for contract holders have to be swiped at the bar, sometimes by the chef, who also acts as barman, all at once.

I could go on, but do not want to hijack your thread.It is not about Glendale, directly.I would look into it a little more deeper, than just blaming the council, as i said, surely Glendale tied into a long term contract to run your course with the council?
Good luck with it all, signed your petition, and i wish more like minded golfers on here would also.


----------



## Rumpokid (Jan 7, 2015)

CaroleHope4 said:



			OK here is my thruppence worth. My name is Carole, I do not play golf, I do use Beckenham Place Park on a daily basis to walk my dog and I know several people who play the golf course regularly i.e. weekly.  I have signed the petition and am actively promoting it. I have been in lengthy email correspondence with Gavin Plaskitt, Lewisham Council, the driver of this scheme, for several months.  So, let's start with some facts 1) Lewisham Council own the park and golf course but subcontract the maintenance out to Glendale.  2) The petition is designed to make Lewisham Council accountable to local residents (both Lewisham and Bromley because the park is right on the boundary) about its plans for the park.  This is as much an issue of democracy as golf and so the location of those that sign the petition is an irrelevance.  3) Lewisham Council have secured a Â£4.9 million pound Heritage Lottery Grant to upgrade the park - this grant does not specify that the golf course should be closed.  4) There is an equivalent area in the rest of the park to that of the golf course for other users.  5) Lewisham Council have decided - and repeat the mantra over and over so that it must be true surely? - that more people would use the park if the golf course is closed and the lottery money used to re-landscape it. One of the new landscape features will be a large lake - no maintenance costs/issues there then?!  6) In order to justify supposed current lack of useage, both by golfers and others, Lewisham Council apparently set up cameras at every entrance to the park (there are nine) for 2 days in August 2013 to record footfall.  These cameras apparently recorded between the times of 10am and 4pm (this is stated in an email to me from Gavin Plaskitt), thus failing to record early morning walkers, joggers, cyclists, golfers etc and ditto for late afternoon, added to which late afternoon/early evening in August there could have been family groups entering the park who would not be recorded.  Plus, how do the cameras accurately record how many people there are in each car that access the two car parks? 7) As jpjeffery has pointed out, Lewisham Council did not count all rounds of golf paid for and I have no idea over what period they counted because they do not say.  8) Lewisham Council have deliberately played down the good public transport links to the park in order to justify a bigger car park - and, funnily enough - the only (apparent) room for a new car park is on part of the existing golf course.  9) As an aside, Oddsocks, Google maps says Godstone is 38 minutes drive in good traffic conditions - from Beckenham Place Park.  People do not live in Beckenham Place Park, they travel from elsewhere, so that will add to the drive time if they are starting out from, for example, Lee SE12 where my brother's Saturday golfing partner at Beckenham Place Park lives.  I do not propose to say much more.  I think jpjeffery and Foxholer have summarised the position in a nutshell.  Consider this, Beckenham Place Park was once the busiest public golf course in the country, maybe even Europe (depending on what source you read.)  Had Lewisham Council ploughed all green fees back into maintenance that may well still be the case.  They did not.  They deliberately run it down long before handing over to Glendale; they want to close the golf course and have been devious and disingenuous in the consulting (ha, ha!) process and data gathering process.  They have decided on their narrative and are going hell for leather to fulfil it no matter what.  There are now 399 signatures.
		
Click to expand...

Great post Carole, good luck with your fight.


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 7, 2015)

Rumpokid said:



			I have a lot of experience with how Glendale operate.They took over the running from the council of a course i know about 6 years ago.
Council are not their employer.They will have leased the running of the golf course (and operations),  for a period of time.In my experience it is a 20/25 year lease.One of the two, at the course i know.
Here is a few points from my experience with regard to Glendale, and how they work:

1.They run the course i know on a shoestring.Only 3 green staff employed.
2 Before they took over, plans were drawn up for a seperate club house for club members.When they took over, they renaged on this, and gave the club use of an area about 10ft by 6ft, to sign in etc.
3.They made  plans to supposedly improve drainage on 4 holes on the course.This involved basically digging up fairways and  doing it via landfill, to which i believe Glendale would be paid huge sums by the company wanting to dispose of the material.Luckily, council rejected this idea.
4.They double book tee times at weekends at height of season when club comps are on, to cram as many pay and play customers on as possibe.
5.The pro shop (if you can call it that), is not staffed now.Cards for contract holders have to be swiped at the bar, sometimes by the chef, who also acts as barman, all at once.

I could go on, but do not want to hijack your thread.It is not about Glendale, directly.I would look into it a little more deeper, than just blaming the council, as i said, surely Glendale tied into a long term contract to run your course with the council?
Good luck with it all, signed your petition, and i wish more like minded golfers on here would also.
		
Click to expand...

The conjecture (I *think* it's conjecture, maybe it's reality!) is that Lewisham have offered Glendale a lucrative contract to maintain the park after course closure...with the result that Glendale won't (don't?) try very hard to maintain, improve, or promote the course.

As for how they're running things now, they don't seem to pay much attention to tee time bookings, have failed to block book tee times on at least one of our club competition days, don't answer the phone because they say it's not working after they moved out of the pro shop in to the cafÃ© (well get it fixed then!), and have a wholly misleading photo for the bar on the website (I'm told the photo is actually of the bar at Kingston GC - it's certainly a lot nicer than the tired looking and dingy cafÃ© at Beckenham).


----------



## Rumpokid (Jan 7, 2015)

jpjeffery said:



			The conjecture (I *think* it's conjecture, maybe it's reality!) is that Lewisham have offered Glendale a lucrative contract to maintain the park after course closure...with the result that Glendale won't (don't?) try very hard to maintain, improve, or promote the course.

As for how they're running things now, they don't seem to pay much attention to tee time bookings, have failed to block book tee times on at least one of our club competition days, don't answer the phone because they say it's not working after they moved out of the pro shop in to the cafÃ© (well get it fixed then!), and have a wholly misleading photo for the bar on the website (I'm told the photo is actually of the bar at Kingston GC - it's certainly a lot nicer than the tired looking and dingy cafÃ© at Beckenham).
		
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean here..Glendale are a golf course management company, when you say closure, do you mean when the council officially hand it over..?? Thought Glendale want to  manage courses (if you can call it that), not close them....For what it is worth, the course i speak of was better run when under council stewardship, and has gone down hill since Glendale took over..
By the way, dress code is zero here, so you can roll up in Bermuda's and flip flops, if that is what you desire to wear...The pound is king in their eyes..Bunch of penny pinchers, who have no affinity for the good of the game.


----------



## CaroleHope4 (Jan 7, 2015)

Rumpokid said:



			Not sure what you mean here..Glendale are a golf course management company, when you say closure, do you mean when the council officially hand it over..?? Thought Glendale want to  manage courses (if you can call it that), not close them....For what it is worth, the course i speak of was better run when under council stewardship, and has gone down hill since Glendale took over..
By the way, dress code is zero here, so you can roll up in Bermuda's and flip flops, if that is what you desire to wear...The pound is king in their eyes..Bunch of penny pinchers, who have no affinity for the good of the game.
		
Click to expand...

I do not know what the exact relationship between Lewisham Council and Glendale is but the fact of the matter is that Lewisham Council want to close the golf course, relandscape it (loadsamoney I suspect for consultants and landscapers) and sit back and hope (apparently) that more people will use the whole park as a result. I have no idea who will maintain the park once this happens, although I suspect it will be Glendale, and I can only surmise what the situation will be in, say, 5 years time, but I can have a good guess. My money is on at least one development of houses, along the boundary of the park with Beckenham Hill Road. Glendale's apparent sharp practices suits Lewisham Council's agenda to a tee!


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 7, 2015)

CaroleHope4 said:



			I do not know what the exact relationship between Lewisham Council and Glendale is but the fact of the matter is that Lewisham Council want to close the golf course, relandscape it (loadsamoney I suspect for consultants and landscapers) and sit back and hope (apparently) that more people will use the whole park as a result. I have no idea who will maintain the park once this happens, although I suspect it will be Glendale, and I can only surmise what the situation will be in, say, 5 years time, but I can have a good guess. My money is on at least one development of houses, along the boundary of the park with Beckenham Hill Road. Glendale's apparent sharp practices suits Lewisham Council's agenda to a tee!
		
Click to expand...

Glendale are actually a facilities/Estates management company with particular emphasis on Golf Courses. I wouldn't accuse Glendale of sharp practices on that basis alone! I thought I recognised their name though; they manage Tilgate Forest and Richmond Park courses too, along with several non golf facilities.


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 7, 2015)

Rumpokid said:



			Not sure what you mean here..Glendale are a golf course management company, when you say closure, do you mean when the council officially hand it over..?? Thought Glendale want to  manage courses (if you can call it that), not close them....For what it is worth, the course i speak of was better run when under council stewardship, and has gone down hill since Glendale took over..
By the way, dress code is zero here, so you can roll up in Bermuda's and flip flops, if that is what you desire to wear...The pound is king in their eyes..Bunch of penny pinchers, who have no affinity for the good of the game.
		
Click to expand...

As others have pretty much said, Glendale might be publicly known (at least to you and me and other golfers) as a golf course management company, they do more open space management besides.


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 7, 2015)

http://www.glendale-services.co.uk/


----------



## jpjeffery (Jan 14, 2015)

Just a quick update on the e-petition signatures count; it's now at 1,166.

And yes, I freely admit this is a shameless *bump* to re-publicise the campaign!


----------



## jpjeffery (Mar 10, 2015)

Come on folks, if Sir Nick Faldo is on our side...


http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/lewisham/11843752.Protest_over_Lewisham_Council_plans_to_axe_inner_London_s_only_public_golf_course/


----------



## Dan2501 (Mar 11, 2015)

Signed! :thup:


----------



## jpjeffery (Mar 11, 2015)

Dan2501 said:



			Signed! :thup:
		
Click to expand...

Fanks, man!


----------



## Dando (Mar 11, 2015)

I played BPGC on Sunday. I teed off at 7.15am on a glorious sunny morning. the course was in decent condition and some work had been done on the boxes since my last visit in October. however rakes in the bunkers would have been nice and 2 greens were missing their flags!!!!
I cannot fathom out how on earth LBL can say with a straight face that the course isn't used that much, as whilst drinking a coffee after my round there were about 15 -20 golfers waiting to tee off and the course was packed with 4 balls. 
I love this place as I had my 1 and only 20 minute lesson here and it was the course played my first 18 holes on.


----------



## jpjeffery (Mar 11, 2015)

Dando said:



			I played BPGC on Sunday. I teed off at 7.15am on a glorious sunny morning. the course was in decent condition and some work had been done on the boxes since my last visit in October. however rakes in the bunkers would have been nice and 2 greens were missing their flags!!!!
I cannot fathom out how on earth LBL can say with a straight face that the course isn't used that much, as whilst drinking a coffee after my round there were about 15 -20 golfers waiting to tee off and the course was packed with 4 balls. 
I love this place as I had my 1 and only 20 minute lesson here and it was the course played my first 18 holes on.
		
Click to expand...

This Sunday we (Braeside Golf Club) are hosting a 'Keep The Beckenham 18 Open', come on down, Dando!


----------



## Dando (Mar 11, 2015)

I saw the flyers and would love to come down but not only is it mothers day but its also my daughters 16th so I have other things to do. I hope you get a good turn out


----------



## jpjeffery (Mar 11, 2015)

Yes, the Mothers Day aspect will hit the numbers, I fear.

Still, I'm glad you saw the (my!) flyers. Don't they look great?
;-)


----------



## jpjeffery (Feb 19, 2016)

From Lewisham Council:


Decision details
The Future of Beckenham Place Park

Find out more about this issue
Decision status: For Determination

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: No

Decision:

Having considered an officer report, two tabled addendums, written representations from the Save the 18 campaign and a presentation by the Cabinet Member for the Public Realm, Councillor Rachel Onikosi, the Mayor agreed that:

(1) the continuation of work on the restoration of Beckenham Place Park be approved, and that this will include:

a) Public consultation about park design and facilities.

b) On-going design work and accompanying technical work by consultants, to be funded by the HLF grant.

c) Submission of a phase 2 bid to the HLF for approval of the detailed plans

*(2) the closure of the existing golf course by 31st December 2016 be approved.*

Publication date: 18/02/2016


----------

