Camberwell Green: A case for restoration.

1. Introduction

1.1. are currently consulting on an £11 million regeneration scheme for town centre. Investment in Camberwell is very welcome, and it is excellent that money has been allocated in these difficult economic times. Some of the proposals will undoubtedly deliver worthwhile improvements.

1.2. Unfortunately, though, with the proposed re-designed , the Council has got it wrong. All three design options are for a completely re-designed park, including permanent removal of the perimeter railings, re-aligned paths and the introduction of modern seating. They take no account of the historical significance of the park or its historic setting. The Green is protected under the Squares Preservation Act 1931 and is also at the centre of a Conservation Area, to safeguard its historic character and appearance.

1.3. The Green opened as a public park in 1859, “handsomely laid out with gravelled walks, flower beds, and grass plats, the whole surrounded by a neat iron railing”. The Green has been enclosed by railings for over 150 years (although the original railings were replaced after the war with modern railings of inappropriate character, the original cast iron piers survive in the southwest corner). Likewise the original path layout has survived almost intact.

1.4. It would be a mistake to try to attempt to impose the tastes and preferences of our own time on the Green with a new, modern design. We are the custodians of this historic space for future generations, and any contemporary design will quickly become dated and incongruous with the surroundings. Such modern interventions to a historic building in the conservation area would be unthinkable; the Green shouldn’t be any different.

1.5. There are some positive elements to the designs, such as extending the green slightly at the north end by reclaiming some of the road, relocating the play area to the north end, planting a line of trees along the western and southern boundaries (a feature of the original planting), removing the toilet block and pedestrianising the road to the east to create a more appropriate space for the farmer’s markets and other events.

1.6. However, plans to completely remove the railings, re-align paths and introduce “innovative” designs should be dropped. Instead, this is an excellent opportunity to restore Camberwell Green to its former glory by restoring the perimeter railings to their original design, returning the paths to gravel and planting of trees and shrubs. An excellent case study is Gordon Square, with very similar dimensions to Camberwell Green and also dating from the 19th century, which was beautifully restored in 2007 (with support from English Heritage’s Campaign for London Squares) with new railings, gravel paths and new planting, whilst also taking into account the need of users and security.

1.7. John Ruskin, Camberwell’s most famous resident, said “the measure of a city’s greatness is to be found in the quality of its public spaces, its parks and squares”. This opportunity should not be missed to create a magnificent centrepiece to Camberwell’s historic town centre that Ruskin would have been proud of, where visitors can enjoy the gardens and understand their historical associations.

2. The need for renovation and the threat of new design

2.1. According to English Heritage’s Campaign for London Squares, “the condition of London’s squares varies widely. Some are well kept, well presented and faithful to their origins. However, there are too many where the loss of railings, changes in surfaces and layout, underground disturbance, traffic intrusion, signs and inadequate maintenance have had a very damaging effect, generating a downward spiral of decline”.

2.2. Over time, like many well-designed parks, Camberwell Green has deteriorated due to a lack of maintenance, vandalism, poor quality repairs, poor new design, poor location of new features, ill- informed planting and the removal of existing features including planting and bedding.

2.3. In 1993, the Garden History Society and the Victorian Society jointly published the report Public Prospects: Historic Urban Parks Under Threat. In it they warn that new design and poor quality repairs are two of the greatest threats facing historic urban parks. The report warns that “works intended to repair or enhance can in fact seriously harm the historic character of a park”.

2.4. The report continues “Many nineteenth and early twentieth century urban parks are seen as having a low historic interest, as being more or less tabulae rasae over which new designs and new uses can be laid. Urban parks are in a kind of heritage limbo at present, with their historic design interest still not adequately weighed against their role as a ‘greenspace’. As a result, landscape architects all too often suggest that the answer to a park’s problems is to redesign it. New landscaping is presented as breathing new life into parks; we read of the need for ‘parks for today’ and the need to give parks a ‘new role’; or for ‘modern designs to interpret and express the taste and preferences of our own time’. While we share many of the concerns expressed by landscape architects, too often they demonstrate a lack of awareness of the historical significance of urban parks…their historical significance lies in an original design carefully tailored to the needs of an urban population seeking peaceful and secure recreation in a high-quality environment.”

2.5. Ken Fieldhouse and Jan Woudstra agree in The Regeneration of Public Parks (2000). “Loss of integrity in today’s parks often results from previous generations of such designers, whose work quickly becomes dated and incongruous with the surroundings. Today’s keen designers, despite their excellent intentions, may then merely be continuing a cycle of ad hoc decisions and community alienation.”

3. History of Camberwell Green

3.1. Camberwell was a rural village until the late 18th century, and Camberwell Fair was held in August on Camberwell Green for the Feast of St Giles, patron saint of Camberwell, from 1279 until 1855 when it was suppressed as a nuisance to the local residents.

3.2. In 1842 the Green was the inspiration for Felix Mendelssohn's 'Spring Song' when the composer was staying at Denmark Hill, and the original title of the piece was 'Camberwell Green'.

3.3. In 1856 four local dignitaries purchased exclusive rights for holding the fair on the Green from the Lords of the Manor on a 1,000 year lease with an annual rent of one peppercorn. They sold it to Camberwell Vestry in September 1857 and the Green re-opened as a public open space on Tuesday April 26th 1859. It was stipulated by covenant that the Green was to remain 'as an ornamental pleasure ground for public benefit of the inhabitants of the parish of Camberwell'.

3.4. Newspaper reports of the opening of the public park (Fig 1.) describe it as “handsomely laid out with gravelled walks, flower beds, and grass plats, the whole surrounded by a neat iron railing”.

Fig. 1. Contemporary newspaper reports of the opening of Camberwell Green as a public square in 1859. Lloyds weekly London Newspaper May 1st 1859 (left); Liverpool Mercury Friday April 29th 1859 (right).

3.5. Camberwell Green was described in Old and New London: Volume 6 by Edward Walford (1878): “At the western end of Church Street and the southern end of Camberwell Road is an oblong plot of ground, rather over an acre in extent—laid out in grass-plats, planted with trees, shrubs, and flowers, and enclosed with iron railings—rejoicing in the name of Camberwell Park. This spot, formerly known as Camberwell Green, was in bygone times the scene of an annual fair, almost rivalling in riotousness that at Greenwich”.

3.6. Camberwell Green was also described in London Parks and Gardens by Alicia Amherst (1907): “Camberwell has one of the large village greens of South London, and has been made into a satisfactory garden. All the trams seem to meet there, but in spite of the din it is a pleasant garden in which to rest. The 2.5 acres are well laid out, and the clipped lime-trees round the railings are a protection from the street which other places would do well to copy. When the trees are in leaf the garden is partially hidden even from those on the tops of omnibuses. These greens scattered round London help to connect the larger areas, thus forming links in the chain of open spaces which encircles London. These natural recreation grounds are the admiration of all foreigners and a priceless boon to the citizens, ensuring the preservation of green grass and green trees to refresh their fog-dimmed eyes, at no great distance from the throne of city life”.

3.7. In 1931, Camberwell Green became one of 461 London squares given protection under the London Squares Preservation Act 1931.

3.8. Camberwell Green and the surrounding predominantly Victorian buildings and streetscape were designated a Conservation Area in 1981, in order to safeguard their historic character and appearance.

3.9. The Green was previously dominated by elm trees and had a pond in the south; trees on the Green now include London plane, gingko, catalpa, weeping ash, false acacia and is surrounded by modern cast iron railings set between the surviving original cast iron piers. A new children's playground was opened in 1998 (source: London Parks and Gardens Trust website).

4. Consultation Report. The consultation has been used to try to justify the decision to remove the perimeter railings from the Green and re-align the paths. However, this conclusion cannot be justified for the following reasons.

4.1. The consultation report states that 70% of people did not tick either “too many railings” or “not enough railings”. It concludes from this that “opinion on railings was not strong”; in fact the correct conclusion is that 70% of respondents feel that the number of railings are fine as they are (this was not given as an option).

4.2. The report states that “More people thought there were too many railings, compared with those who thought there were not enough”. It takes this as evidence supporting the decision to remove the perimeter railings from the Green. However, it is more likely to refer to the fact that the play area within the Green is currently completely enclosed by railings, so that for a large section of the eastern boundary of the green there are two parallel sets of railings, with wasted space between. In this sense therefore there are “too many railings” and it makes sense for the railings around the play area to be removed, or to use the perimeter railings along one side (Fig 1).

Fig. 1. This is probably what people who ticked “too many railings” were referring to.

4.3. The report states that “Removal of railings should help reduce use of the park by irresponsible owners who cannot control their dogs”. It is not obvious how this conclusion is reached, and no explanation is give. In any case, the report also states that “officers were surprised at the low number of people who stated dogs and dog mess were a problem”. It could be argued that removing perimeter railings from the Green could increase problems from dogs and dog mess as there will be more points where dogs can access the Green. If dog mess were to become a problem, dogs could simply be banned from the Green, as there are more appropriate areas to exercise dogs nearby.

4.4. The report concludes that the Green is well used (by 91% of respondents) and most people thought the path layout was good. It is therefore difficult to see why “better integration with the town centre” is needed by removing railings.

4.5. The report states that “Opinion on the path layout was not strong with 34% not answering, however more people thought the current layout is good, therefore it is likely that only minor improvements to the path layout are proposed.” In fact, some quite major changes to the path layout are proposed, such as “removing the path running from the centre to the south-western corner of the Green”. These changes should be abandoned, and the results of the consultation support the retention of the current, historic path layout.

5. Security

5.1. The Conservation Area Appraisal states that “The Green, containing several mature trees which heighten the sense of enclosure and the space’s significance as a public park, is large enough to provide some mitigation of traffic noise from the road junction. Its railings give sufficient separation to make it feel secure whilst at the same time it has good visibility and surveillance through the railings and from overlooking buildings. These attributes make it a well used recreational amenity space and it provides an important pedestrian route through the centre of Camberwell away from traffic.” The new design should seek to maintain visibility into the Green from surrounding pavements and buildings, but it is not necessary to remove the railings in order to improve security (see Fig. 6).

5.2. In fact, the Camberwell Green Extra Information Document states that “Officers are concerned that people will feel less safe without railings surrounding the Green.”

6. Conservation Area Appraisal and historical context

6.1. These proposals seem to completely ignore the fact that the Green is in the centre of a Conservation Area, designed to safeguard its historic character and appearance, and also ignore the council’s own Conservation Area Appraisal for Camberwell Green.

6.2. The stated purpose of the Camberwell Green Conservation Area Appraisal is to provide “a clear indication of the Borough Council’s approach to its preservation and enhancement. It is intended to assist and guide all those involved in development and change in the area, and will be used by the Council in assessing the design of development proposals.” It should therefore be a key document in guiding the proposals for the changes to the Green.

6.3. The Appraisal states that “Iron railings, although not original, are a feature of Camberwell Green that help to define it as a distinct space from the street environment that surrounds it.” In fact, two original gate- posts do survive from the original 19th century railings, in the southwest corner (Fig. 2) which could be incorporated into new railings designed to harmonise with the predominantly 19th century buildings which surround the Green.

6.4. The Appraisal also states that “the curving facades of the shop buildings, and the railings and trees at the edge of the Green define it as a strong street space.” Removing the railings would have a negative effect on this currently well-defined and historic streetscape.

6.5. The Conservation Area Appraisal states that “Development should preserve or enhance the special interest or historic character or appearance of buildings or areas of historical of architectural significance. Planning proposals that will have an adverse effect on the historic environment will not be permitted.” The current proposals to remove perimeter railings and change the historic path layout do not preserve the historic character or appearance of the Green.

6.6. The Appraisal also states that “Planning permission will be granted for new development provided that the proposals: 1. Respect the context of the Conservation Area, having regard to the content of Conservation Area Appraisals; and 2. Do not involve the loss of existing traditional features of interest which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; and 3. Do not introduce design details or features that are out of character with the area The current proposals do not meet any of these criteria.

6.7. According to People's Parks: The Design and Development of Victorian Parks in Britain by Hazel Conway, “the creation of the municipal park has been seen as a prime example of the Victorian ‘aptitude for reform’ and as an attempt to improve the physical, moral and spiritual condition of the urban dweller. Protected from the realities of its city surroundings by gates and railings, it represented an ideal landscape in which the air was clean, the spirit refreshed by contact with nature and the body was renewed by exercise.” The perimeter railings and the park’s enclosed nature should therefore be considered an important component of the park’s historic character and appearance.

7. Restoration of the original railings

7.1. The current perimeter railings are not original, apart from the pair of gate posts in the southwest corner which probably date from the original park. However, they do replace earlier railings which were probably removed during WW2, and evidence shows that the Green has been enclosed by railings since it opened as a park more than 150 years ago. (Figs 2-5).

Fig. 2. Camberwell Green in c. 1904 (left). Note the gate posts which still survive (right).

Fig. 3. The Green in c. 1904

Fig. 4. The Green c. 1907

Fig. 5. The Green c. 1930. 7.2. According to The regeneration of Public Parks by Ken Fieldhouse and Jan Woudstra, “many railings were removed from public parks in the twentieth century. The most widely cited reason was their use as scrap iron for the war effort, but there was also a philosophical reason in some cases, to liberate enclosed spaces and remove barriers in the pursuit of greater access for all. In many cases the removed railings have been replaced with expedient substitutes that are not of appropriate character…inferior industrialized fencing have been adopted with a resultant loss of character. Restorations of railings are numerous, and often small sections of original railings may survive to serve as a model, or old photographs can offer good evidence. The restoration of lost or damaged railings around a public park should be a priority. As the historic features of public parks are important elements of their character, [railings] should not be overlooked when considering the importance of a place.” This project is an excellent opportunity to replace the current railings, which are of an inappropriate design, with new railings based on the original design. There is plenty of photographic evidence in the council archive.

7.3. According to the English Heritage’s Campaign for London Squares, “the primary objective of the campaign is to encourage all those responsible for the management and maintenance of these spaces to bring forward positive measures for their co-ordinated improvement, in particular for the reinstatement of the railings since they are such a vital component of the public realm.”

7.4. Ken Fieldhouse and Jan Woudstra in The Regeneration of Public Parks offer the following advice for restoring railings around a public park. “The design of railings to be renewed should be carefully considered so that they are sympathetic to the character of the park. Designs should include more formal considerations such as the height and proportion of the railings; the length between regular vertical stanchions or standards; and, most importantly, the gradient or slope of the intended site and how it relates to the general layout, as well as details of the ornamental elements such as finials or supporting brackets, and the shape and design of the base or bottom rail. A careful study should be carried out before any changes to previously existing railings are entertained. Modern railings, which are available in standardized sections, of varying lengths and heights, in many cases are not appropriate to the historic setting of public parks. These are made of mild steel and the horizontal members at the bottom and top are of rectangular section while the vertical members are often round or circular in section. Stanchions or standards between the bays are often simple industrial U-shaped sections of mild steel, which in many settings would not be historically correct, especially around the perimeter of parks where ornamental railings would have been used. One major problem with modern replacement railings, and an important factor to consider when restoring railings, is the appropriate thickness of the individual members of iron or mild steel. Sections of contemporary manufactured railings are often too slight and do not have the same visual weight as historical examples. This is crucial to the historic character of the railings and poor reproductions are usually easily identified.”

8. Paths

8.1. When Camberwell Green opened in 1859, it was “handsomely laid out with gravelled walks”. According to The regeneration of Public Parks by Ken Fieldhouse and Jan Woudstra “Once common, traditional materials such as walks of gravel have disappeared in most public parks…most parks now use the low- maintainance solution of tarmac, which can be swept easily and can carry vehicles. Tarmac certainly does not have the aesthetically pleasing colour and texture of its predecessor”. This project is an excellent opportunity to restore the paths back to gravel. Paths surfaced with ornamental self-binding gravel would be both aesthetically pleasing, historically accurate and practical and low-maintenance.

8.2. The report Public Prospects: Historic Urban Parks Under Threat gives an example of the “threat from new designs” of parks where “straight short-cut desire-line paths across lawns have been tarmacked, and then further defined with planting or furniture such as seats or litter bins. As a result, the characteristic path-system of many nineteenth century parks have been overlain with straight lines.”

8.3. Evidence from historical maps Figs 6-8) shows that the current layout of paths reflects the original, historical layout to a remarkable extent. It would be a mistake to destroy this historical layout now by re- aligning paths, especially as there is no need to do so. The current layout should be maintained, or this original layout further restored.

Fig. 6. Path layout in Camberwell Green, 1896.

Fig. 7. Path layout in Camberwell Green, 1936-1952

Fig. 8. Path layout in Camberwell Green, 2012 9. Restoration of Camberwell Green – a case study.

9.1. In the new design the Conservation Area Appraisal should be respected and it would be a mistake to introduce a contemporary design and contemporary street furniture into this historic setting. The Extra Information document draws a comparison with Potters Fields Park. This modern park, originally created on derelict land in the 1980s, is a poor choice of inspiration for the historic Camberwell Green which has existed as an enclosed public park for over 150 years.

9.2. A better example would be Gordon Square, also laid out in the 19th century, which is virtually the same size and shape as Camberwell Green (Fig. 6). and which was refurbished in 2007. Improvements included replacing the 1950s fencing with vertical bar railings to once again match the surrounding 19th century houses (the original 19th century railings were removed in WWII) as well as restoring the gravel paths and planting of trees, shrubs and roses (Fig. 8).

Fig. 6. Gordon Square in Bloomsbury is a very similar size and shape to Camberwell Green.

9.3. The new railings and planting were design to block out views of the road and traffic from the Square, whilst enhancing views into the square from the surrounding pavements and buildings to maintain security (Fig. 7). They were also designed to be sympathetic to the conservation area (Fig. 8). The result is a well-used urban green space which is a safe and attractive retreat from the surrounding urban area and which respects its historic setting (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7. Restoration of Gordon Square by Land Use Consultants for University of London, 2007.

Fig. 8. Gordon Square 2007 and Camberwell Green, 1907. 10. References

Conway, H. (1991) People's Parks: The Design and Development of Victorian Parks in Britain.

English Heritage, (2000). Campaign for London Squares.

Fieldhouse, K. and Woudstra, J. (2000). The Regeneration of Public Parks.

Garden History Society and Victorian Society (1993). Public Prospects: Historic Urban Parks Under Threat.