Between 2002 and 2006, CPUG worked across many of the issues that would continue to shape our role in Clissold Park: representing park users, pressing for investment, discussing facilities and management with Hackney Council, organising activities and contributing to plans for the future of Clissold House and the park.

The surviving records show an established user group holding public meetings, raising concerns with the Council and working with park staff and local organisations.

Plans to restore Clissold House and the wider park were already developing during this period. Progress was not straightforward, but CPUG continued to argue for investment and for park users to have a meaningful role in shaping the proposals.

Representing park users

Public meetings were already an established part of CPUG’s work when the surviving records begin in 2002.

They provided a forum where people could raise concerns about the park and hear from park staff, Council officers and other organisations.

Issues discussed during these years included funding, children’s facilities, the animal enclosure, trees, the café, vehicles, entrances, policing, ranger services and the condition and future of Clissold House.

In 2003, we provided a crèche at one of our meetings to make it easier for parents of young children to attend.

This representative role was central to CPUG’s work. We did not manage the park, but sought to ensure that people using it could raise issues with those responsible for its management.

Campaigning for investment in Clissold Park and House

The condition and future of Clissold House and the wider park were already major concerns.

In 2002, CPUG contributed comments to proposals for an earlier restoration bid. We wanted the future of the House and park to be considered together and park users to be involved in decisions about them.

That attempt to secure funding did not lead to the restoration, and the process would continue through several further stages.

When new Council leadership revived restoration planning in 2005, CPUG became involved through the Project Reference Group.

This gave us a continuing role in discussions as proposals for what would eventually become the major restoration of Clissold Park and House began to develop.

Challenging decisions and asking for accountability

CPUG also challenged decisions where we believed park users had not been adequately involved.

In April 2004, we questioned why the group had not been consulted about a restoration bid that had subsequently been withdrawn.

We also pressed for clearer information about the ranger service and brought police and ranger representatives into discussions about safety and management in the park.

Police subsequently confirmed a commitment to mounted patrols following discussion at a CPUG meeting, although the surviving records do not establish how those patrols were subsequently delivered.

These discussions were part of our wider role in providing a public forum where decisions about the park could be questioned and explained.

Trees and the park environment

Trees and planting were already recurring subjects in CPUG’s work.

In 2004, we helped bring together a review of the park’s trees involving park staff and tree specialists.

The park manager subsequently reported that the joint meeting had led to a review of planting and maintenance planning.

We continued discussing tree management in later meetings, including during 2006 as proposals for the restoration developed.

This concern with the park’s natural environment would continue through later CPUG work on planting, wildlife, biodiversity and Nature Recovery.

Children, play and summer activities

Facilities and activities for children were another continuing concern.

In 2002, we pressed for secure funding for the animal enclosure and paddling pool and continued to raise questions about children’s provision in subsequent years.

CPUG volunteers also helped organise activities in the park.

A programme of summer activities began in 2003 and continued in later years. In 2004, we organised summer activities and a Big Draw event with the park team.

By 2006, however, the records also show the demands this placed on a volunteer organisation. After several years of organising Summer Fun activities, we discussed whether CPUG had enough volunteer capacity to continue doing so.

The café and Clissold House

The café was another recurring issue.

In 2002, CPUG used a survey of park users to help shape the brief for café provision.

A café subsequently returned to Clissold House under a short-term lease. The surviving records do not establish that CPUG alone secured its return, but they show that we were actively representing park users’ views about what the café should provide.

We continued to raise questions about café standards and provision during the following years.

These discussions were also connected to a wider question that became increasingly important as restoration plans developed: how Clissold House should function as a public building serving people using the park.

Working with Stoke Newington School on the bandstand

During 2005 and 2006, CPUG worked with Stoke Newington School on proposals for a bandstand in the park.

The project involved design work, fundraising and an event, with CPUG members supporting liaison between the school and the park.

Progress proved difficult. By July 2006, the proposed bandstand had planning permission but still required structural redesign and further funding.

The project was not completed during this period, but it provides an example of CPUG working with young people and another local organisation to explore new facilities and activities for the park.

Restoration plans return

By 2005, plans for a major restoration of Clissold Park and House had returned to the agenda.

CPUG was represented on the Project Reference Group as the proposals developed.

Progress was interrupted in 2006 while a proposal to use Clissold House as a fire museum was considered. We challenged the suspension of the restoration bid and continued to argue for the restoration of the House and park.

When work on the bid resumed, CPUG provided detailed feedback on the first-stage proposals.

Our concerns included access, children’s facilities, trees, management and the future use of Clissold House.

We also pressed for a coherent approach to managing the House and park rather than treating them as separate projects.

Access, vehicles and everyday management

Alongside larger questions about investment and restoration, CPUG continued to deal with the everyday experience of using the park.

Vehicle access and movement through the park were recurring concerns, as were entrances and safety.

We raised these issues with park management and continued to discuss how access for necessary vehicles could be balanced with the needs of people walking, playing and spending time in the park.

The records from these years show how CPUG’s work moved continually between long-term questions about the future of Clissold Park and practical issues affecting people using it each day.

Developing CPUG

CPUG itself continued to develop during this period.

Kate Last’s work developing the group’s website was acknowledged in 2002, providing another way to communicate with park users beyond public meetings.

In 2005, Isabelle Gore rebuilt the website.

There were also changes in how the group organised its work. Yvonne Hill succeeded Penny Crick as secretary in November 2005.

At the November 2006 AGM, newsletter, postal, email and other secretarial responsibilities were divided and three vice-chairs were elected.

These changes reflected both the range of CPUG’s activities and a recurring challenge for a volunteer organisation: distributing the work needed to keep the group active.

Towards the restoration

By the end of 2006, the major restoration of Clissold Park and House had still not been secured.

The surviving records nevertheless show how much of the groundwork for CPUG’s later involvement was already in place.

We had contributed to successive restoration discussions, challenged delays, participated in the Project Reference Group and pressed for proposals that considered how people actually used the park.

At the same time, we continued to provide a forum for park users, organise activities, raise concerns about facilities and management and work with park staff and local organisations.

During 2007–2011, the restoration would become an even greater focus of our work as the proposals moved through consultation, a successful funding bid and eventually into construction.