PROJECT PROPOSAL APRIL 2013 Submitted by: Friends of Victoria Park, Glasgow (FoVP) 25 September, 2014
Contact: Robert Mellish & Richard East Friends of Victoria Park 113 Mitre Rd, G14 9PQ +44 7879 604289 [email protected] / [email protected]
1 Contents
1. Proposal Summary
2. Background to the Blaes Area and current usage
3. Proposal Elements
3.1 Plan Overview
3.2 Community Orchard Proposal
3.3 Victoria Park Alps
3.4 Wild Meadow & Community Garden
4. Land Ownership, Management & Funding
4.1 Land Ownership/Leasing vs. a Community Trust
4.2 Management & Maintenance Roles
4.3 Funding
5. Development Plan
5.1 Process & Timings
5.2 Costing
5.3 Ongoing Management
5.3.1 Community Group Involvement
5.3.2 Proposed LES responsibilities
6. Community Consultations & Community Support
7. Community Orchard Benefits
8. Project Feasibility
Appendix 1 - FoVP Background (description, membership, office bearers)
Appendix 2 - Community Orchard Movement in the UK & Scotland (referenced)
Appendix 3 - Orchard Planting Plans - Cultivars & Species
Appendix 4 – Community Involvement Documents
Appendix 5 – Costing In More Detail
2 1. Proposal Summary
The main points are:
2. A large area of Victoria Park (6.8 acres) is being marketed by Glasgow City Council Land & Environmental Services (LES). About half of this area was formerly blaes football pitches. 3. Friends of Victoria Park (FoVP) are proposing an enhancement of 3.2 acres of this site. The main components of this are: a. A 400 tree orchard planted in the northern segment of the blaes area b. In the remaining half of the blaes area, FoVP is proposing: i. The ‘Victoria Park Alps’, a bicycle recreation area for children & teenagers. ii. A community garden or wild meadow, depending on demand. c. The existing tree and wild meadow areas making up the balance of the land within LES’s marketed ‘red line’ would be retained in its current state (trees and wild meadow). 4. Following initial community consultation and subsequent community events and surveys up to 2014, FoVP has established that there is a high level of community support for their proposals. These have been amended in response to local view as the community consultation process has rolled out. Evidence of community support was reinforced by the results of an extensive consultation exercise undertaken and managed by Bill Kidd MSP in early 2014.
5. FoVP are resolved not to put in a formal bid for the land. Rather, FoVP is submitting an enhanced version of its 2013 proposal already submitted to LES. 6. If given the go-ahead by LES, FoVP would set up a community trust to manage the land in concert with LES rather than taking a direct lease. 7. FoVP would foster community group involvement with the project on a rolling basis. We are targeting between five and ten community organisations to become involved with the project by 2018. Several local schools have already committed to involvement with the project at the earliest opportunity. 8. FoVP would raise funds for the development of the project mainly from external bodies. The project development would take place over 4-5 years. 9. It is proposed that GCC LES would share management of some elements of the orchard, but it is noted that the project is designed to limit demands on council manpower on an ongoing basis.
3 2. Background to the Blaes Area
Victoria Park’s blaes area is located in the park’s north-western corner. It covers approximately 3.2 acres.
Up until the eighties at least, the area was in use as blaes-surfaced football pitches. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that at some time during the early nineties at the latest, the area went out of use for the purpose of sports. This was possibly related to the development of all-weather football pitches at Scotstoun Leisure Centre.
For the last twenty years, at least, the blaes surface itself has been left unused and awaiting a fresh use. However, the area is frequently used by park users for a range of typical leisure activities e.g. dog walking, sunbathing, kite flying, cycle training for young children etc. Increasingly, GCC has used the field for various purposes e.g. accommodating Zippo’s Circus during 2012-4, ad hoc car parking during the Commonwealth Games, Holione festival etc. Further events have been planned including drive in cinema screenings to be held over the Halloween period in 2014. In this respect the area is becoming a de facto events area that has neither been approved or discussed with park users or local residents. It seems unlikely that such a facility should it be submitted for formal planning approval in the context of current established policy would be granted consent.
Approximately ten years ago, the council was keen to have the area converted to a car park to serve Scotstoun Leisure Centre. This proposal was strongly opposed by members of the public living in the immediate vicinity and by Whiteinch Community Council. In the end, these proposals were shelved. More recently, Partick West’s city councillors have reiterated GCC’s intention not to have a car park built in this area.
Following and asset audit of all public parks in 2013, LES resolved to explore marketing the blaes itself and the area surrounding it to potential commercial leaseholders via their agents Ryden in August 2014. The implication of this action is that the Council is willing to privatise an area of established public park in order to raise money from private commercial operators on public green space. The red line area overleaf below defines this marketed area:
4 5 Figure 1. Red-Line Diagram of Marketed Area.
6 y 6 5 d 5
B Tennis Court d r 11.4m a 9 W 6 El Sub Sta Tennis Court
5 11.6m
6
6 6
8 8
16.2m
5 5 2 2 1 1 E 92 V I
R
5
5 8 1
1 6 1
D 1 18.6m
1 1
1
D 1 1 N 1
A
L T
S
E
7 W T 7 20.4m 9 S 9
E
W
ÜD
5 A 5
E
8 N 8
5 5 9 E N 9 S D A L R IV E E R
T
9. I
3m M
9 1 9
7
LB 5 7
1
1 10.1m
4 4 8 8 134 120 MI 11 TRE 8 LA 11 NE
.0
9
9 m
6 6
9 9 4
4 106
9
9 3
2 2
9
9 5 0 1 0 9 1 04
LE N 7 N O
X
1 1 8 8 3 3 5
G 5
4
4 A
3 3 2 2 1 R 1
1 1 4 D 4 7
E 7
N 9 LB 9
3 9 1 1 1 S 9 1
E
U
7 7
1 1 9
1 1
2 2 N 1 1
A 2
o o t t
N 2 2 2 2 G LE E G V A A
T 1
1 D
5
5 E
1
1 R 2 2
1
1 14.1m 1
1 O
o o
t
t F
1 1
9 9
9 9
0
S 0
1 1
8 8
1 1 1 1
7 7 E
7
7 X LANE 1 1 ESSE
R E
2 2 S
1
S 1 S
h E E
5 5
1 1 X e B o o t l t
te DR
r IV 1
1 E
5 5
9 12 9 .2 9.3m m 78
3 7 0 1 84 6 E 9 SS EX 67 LA
NE
5 5 8 8 16 H ARKDRIVE NORT ORIA P VICT 66 10.2m
10 10.7m
62
7 7 6 Tree V 58 IC T O 4 R IA P 2 A R K C
O
1 1 R N E R 10 .8m
9.1m
5 2
3 2 a 1 2 Recreation Ground
Trees c Trees 1 2 b 1 2 1 2
Posts 10.6m
h c in s e e it m h o W H
Tennis 88 Bowling Greens and Netball Courts Trees PC Pavilion
9 1 E V I s R e D re D T N A L T S E Trees W 7 1
VI CT OR IA 6.3m P P o A n RK d L AN 1 E 1 NO R TH
Fossil House Putting Green
FS
6.2m
2 2
8 8 8 8 5
5
Trees
3 3
5 5
2 2
6 6
7 2 11.2m Playground
6.4m
2 2
8 8
2 2
5 5
V IC TO 5 R 2 IA
PA
7
7 R 4 4 K D RI
VES
2
2 O 6
6 UT 7 H 2
E
2
N 2
8 A 8 L
E
M
I
6 6 4 L 4
T s 3 E e
1 e Trees
E r
2
5 2
4
R T 4
1 1 2 6
T 6 6.8m S
E
M T 9
2
I 2 2
S 6 6 V L i E cto W r ia © Crown Copyright andE database right 2012 Pa. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023379. N rk A L
L an
M e
1 1 2
2
4
L S 4
8 T o 8 You 3 are not permittedE to copy, sub-license, distribu ute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form E th E R T 7
3 S
1 2 4
4 M
L 1 E 6 y r e g r u S GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND VICTORIA PARK REGENERATION SERVICES 231 GEORGE STREET,GLASGOW G1 1RX Executive Director Richard Brown Glasgow City Council ownership Date: 28/01/2014 Leased to Culture and Sport Glasgow By: JPM GCC Legal Ref. - GCC 824 Ref No: J73667 Scale: 1:2,500
6 Friends of Victoria Park1 (FoVP), in concert with local community organisations and members, now wants to protect and improve the blaes area within the red-line area to improve the amenity of the overall park.
95m 44m
69m 105m 3,036m² 9,975m²
Figure 2. Aerial photo and approximate dimensions of the blaes area.
However, FoVP wants to do this in partnership with LES, for the benefit of the local community, rather than as a private leaseholder. To this end, FoVP is proposing to LES that a Community Asset Trust is set up should this proposal be acceptable. This would be managed by FoVP and other local community groups (e.g. Community Councils). It would act as the project manager and fund raiser for this project.
FoVP have discussed the proposal with the Glasgow City Council Planning Department (case officer Derek Wilson) and are confident that the proposal falls within current policy as determined by City Plan 2 and that it will also be consistent with the policies now being developed for City Plan 3. It is the groups understanding that while City Plan 3 tightens the constraints on the development of established green space this proposal will still be acceptable from a planning perspective.
FoVP have also presented the proposal to officers from LES (Steve Egan and Wayne Travis) and have outlined how the development and management of the orchard is expected to work. The discussion to date has been positive although officers are not in a position to give an undertaking of support given the current, on-going commercial bidding process initiated by their department.
1 For more information on Friends of Victoria Park, please refer to Appendix 1
7 3. Proposal Elements
3.1 Plan Overview
The main elements of the proposed plan are:
• A 400 tree orchard planted in the northern segment of the blaes area • In the remaining half of the blaes area, we are proposing: o The ‘Victoria Park Alps’, a bicycle recreation area for children & teenagers o A community garden or wild meadow depending on further consultation • The trees and wild meadows surrounding the blaes (but within the marketed red line area) would be retained
Orchard
Space For Grassing, Wild Meadow Or Community Flower Beds
‘Scotstoun Alps’ Bike Recreation Area
Figure 3. Plan of proposed development
8 3.2 Orchard Proposal
The key design elements of the proposed orchard are as follows:-
• Approximately 400 trees would be planted in the orchard. These would mainly be apple trees but also pear and soft fruit trees
• There would be a focus on Scottish varieties plus cultivars suitable for the West of Scotland environment (See Appendix 3)
• A community activity area & outdoor classroom would be placed at the orchard’s heart – Delimited by three secure metal containers to be used as storage for various community groups and schools active on the site – These containers would be arrayed to act as a wind break and partially enclosed area for community events and educational sessions – Containers to be sympathetically clad in wood to give them an appealing aspect, similar to those currently installed in the Woodlands Community Garden – Benching would be installed around the community area to be used as seating on clement days
• A range of features to promote bio-diversity – Encircled by ‘natural-style’ hedge (NB this would be trimmed to 1.2 metres to ensure that interior of the orchard was visible at all time). – Traditional/multi-species hedging using native species to create a diverse habitat for wild-life – Wide range of bird-friendly soft fruits in orchard & hedging Grass kept long outside community areas and few paths – Wetland/bog area to extend site’s bio-diversity and incorporate a sustainable drainage system – Lavender at row ends to encourage bee population – Build on strategies to develop natural food-webs in the park e.g. Extension of current bird box and bat box programme – Puddles and wood piles on fringes of the orchard area
• Potential bee-keeping dimension to project in a secure area. This is obviously subject to certainty that security of such a facility can be guaranteed
• Facilities to ensure that Glasgow’s disabled community can make good use of the orchard area – Access (via “Beltane” type kissing gates ) to be “barrier free” – Path surfaces suitable for wheel chair users – Wheel-chair friendly orchard experience area – some trees trained onto low espaliers – Braille information boards – All signs and information boards designed to be maximise legibility
• A range of ways of accessing the site: – 3m wide pedestrian pathway following the route of the current ad hoc diagonal pathway between the park’s ‘double roundabout’ gate and the park’s heart fringing the park – Two pedestrian kissing gate entrances at either end of the path leading from the double roundabout to the park’s heart – Vehicular access (4m wide) via existing car gates on Westland Drive connecting to the orchard’s main entrance. Vehicles will access the orchard via a controlled farm style gate – Surfaced path from orchard’s main gate to area’s heart (community and educational area)
9 – Disabled access provision (path surfacing and width) – All path’s and vehicular access to be surfaced in a way that matches the rustic ambience of the project with use of recycled and low carbon footprint materials where possible.
• Aesthetically pleasing, sensitive and robust furnishings incorporated into the orchard. These would be designed in a unified, signature style and would include: – Farm-style entrance gate – Pedestrian gates – Entrance signs and interpretive information boards for the orchard – Benches in the community activity area and around the site – Wood cladding for the containers – Cabinet-style notice board advertising activities and events within the orchard
Educational and play resources would include:
– Information boards at the park’s two pedestrian entrance detailing, the development, management and orchard layout – Educational trail: This would be a series of small information boards designed to draw young people into the orchard and educate them about all of its facets. There would be a series of small information boards leading from the orchard’s main entrance to the community activity area. Each would provide information about a different aspect of the orchard (history, varieties, wildlife etc.). – A specially designed area dedicated to facilitating natural play and discovery for primary-school aged children – Continuing communication through website and social media
Vehicular Hedge Curved Access Road Wetland To Match 4m width Bog Boundaries Area Path To Park’s Heart 3m Width Potential Apiary
Entrance & Information Board
Wild Hedge Two Metres Thick 420m long 3 Containers (Sympathetically Disguised) For Storage
Community Activity & Vehicular Teaching Access Road Area 4m width 86m² Will Contain Entrance & Wooden Information Benches Board • Figure 4. Details of Community Orchard Proposals
10
3.3 Victoria Park Alps
It has been observed that when the Council has stockpiled blaes and other materials on the pitch area over the years the mounds have been an irresistible magnet for local children on their bikes seeking exhilaration and excitement. This proposal grasps and extends that concept.
The Victoria Park Alps would be a bike recreation space, covering about two thirds of the area south of the bisecting path. This would consist of gentle blaes mounds. Its role would be very similar to the track situated in the Temple. It would be particularly suitable for use on mountain bikes and would cater for children of all ages.
The ’Alps’ or mounds themselves would be constructed using the blaes that will have to be removed from the orchard and community garden area. This also would remove the need to take this material off-site and the cost of transporting it to a landfill area.
3.4 Wild Meadow and Community Garden
The remaining one third of the area to the south of the bisecting path would initially be developed as wild meadow. Once the orchard development was completed, FoVP would seek a sustainable partnership with a local community group to develop this space as a community garden, similar in scope to the successful Woodlands Community Garden in West Princes Street. It is noted that the Council is already committed to creating areas of meadow within Victoria Park and that part of the drive for this approach relates to the reduction in maintenance requirement that a meadow brings.
11 4. Land Ownership, Management & Funding
4.1 Land Ownership/Leasing vs. a Community Trust
Rather than adopting a formal lease resulting from a commercial competitive tendering process. FoVP proposes that the land within the marketed red-line area (including the areas surrounding the blaes) remains under the ownership of Glasgow City Council. It is acknowledged that for the purposes of fundraising from, for example the Lottery, a form of lease or similar arrangement may be required to satisfy the potential funders of the sustainability of the commitment. Should this consideration be central to funding the capital works FoVP would seek to negotiate a licence or lease based on a peppercorn rent for a defined period from the Council. There are precedents for this approach and they are based on public accessibility to projects designed for community use. Such a lease is not considered a commercial arrangement and is not calculated to bolster local authority finances.
Once FoVP’s proposal is accepted by Glasgow City Council, FoVP will set up a community trust to oversee the project, oversee its future and raise funds. In the case of fund raising, FoVP can already cite projects in Central Scotland where a community trust has been able to raise money from such essential funding bodies as the ‘Big Lottery’ with the land on which the respective projects are located remaining under local authority control
It is anticipated that the community trust board would be chaired by FoVP’s convenor but its membership would also include representatives of at least two local community councils, a GCC councillor and representatives of other interested parties such as Dumbarton Road Corridor Environment Trust, local educationalist etc.
Please note that, as per the previous submission of this proposal to LES in the spring of 2013, FoVP remains open to any alternative arrangements to the community trust. We would be happy to explore such alternatives with representatives of Glasgow City Council or, more specifically LES, should any such suggestions be proffered by the local authority.
12
4.2 Management & Maintenance Roles
Provided below is summary of respective management responsibilities and operational requirements in respect of the red-line area. a) The Community Trust’s Role (see section 5 for more details) o Management of the development project through to completion o Management of the site from completion o Facilitation of community group use of the site including storage (see section 3) o Orchard planting, maintenance and harvesting o Raising funds and managing additional future development & improvements not covered in this set-up plan b) Glasgow City Council & Land & Environmental Services o Public liability insurance (as per the rest of the park currently). o Hedge cutting and maintenance twice a year for the hedge around the orchard o Path maintenance o Within the orchard, grass cutting when requested but only for paths through the orchard. o Annual inspection of the site to verify that Health & Safety regulations are being adhered to. o Liaison with the community trust’s management team.
13 4.3 Funding
The proposed community trust managing this project would have many funding options open to it. These include:
4.3.1 Potential Major Funders Identified
These include:
• Big Lottery • Landfill Tax Credit Scheme: Biffa/Viridor etc • Central Scotland Green Network (already funded a community orchard at Ravenscraig Park) • Carbon Capture Fund
4.3.2 Other Funders
• Local sponsorship – Glasgow Warriors, Large Manufacturers • Corporate sponsors – e.g. Tesco (viz Sawmill Development), Weir Pumps, Major Orchard Owners (e.g. Heineken, Cantrell & Cochran) • Independent Trusts: environmental, educational and health promotion interests
The project team will not be seeking any funding from Glasgow City Council beyond existing sources e.g. small grants from Partick West Committee.
14
5. Development & Management Plan
5.1 Process & Timings
5.1.1 Outline Project Development Timings
The proposed development process would follow the following process & timings:
Phase Activity Timing Comments
A Inception Weeks 1‐2
B Feasibility Weeks 3‐4
C Outline Proposals Weeks 5‐12
Sketch Scheme D Weeks 13‐14 Proposals
Interim Review Proposals Weeks 15
E Detailed Proposals Weeks 16‐20
Production F/G Weeks 21 Information
Tender Action & H/J Contract Weeks 22‐23 Preparation
Funding Interim Weeks 24‐36 Applications
K Operations On Site Four Years See section 5.1.2 below
L Completion By 2018/9 See section 5.1.2 below
15 5.1.2 Outline Project Execution Timings
The proposed execution process would take place over a four-year period as detailed below:-
Phase When What
Landscaping, soil importation & physical 1 Year 1, Months 1‐2 infrastructure (roads, fencing, initial holes, sheds)
Plant hedge and first 140 trees. Put in gates, 2 Year 1, Months 3‐4 furniture & information
3 Year 2, First Half Tree planting ‐ 100 trees
4 Year 3, First Half Tree planting – 90 trees
5 Year 4, First Half Tree planting – 90 trees
FoVP have opted to present a phased plating of apple trees over this period of time for two reasons.
• To provide time for different partnership community groups to organise their input • Given that it will take a few years for initial trees to mature and produce measurable amounts of fruit, it helps ensure that there can be purposeful activity in the orchard for groups involved in those first few ‘low crop’ years.
It is anticipated that each year of this plan will commence in the autumn, which will permit the planting of apple trees (which are in the majority) at the optimum (Oct-Dec). Given the current submission date, it is anticipated that the starting point for timings could be September 2015. However this is to a large extent dependent upon the approach and attitude of LES and Glasgow City Council.
16 5.1.2 Project Execution Phases in Detail
These key phases of the project have the following components:
Timing Activity Notes
Phase 1 Year1, Month 1‐2 Scrape (0.3X1000m2) from orchard area Shape & create Scotstoun Alps Construct diagonal path from park gate at double roundabout to park's centre Bound Gravel Path 3m wide Construct vehicular access path from Westland Drive to orchard's entrance Bound Gravel Path 4m wide Construct path from orchard entrance to community area at its heart Bound Gravel Path 4m wide Establish fence line around orchard Posts @ 1.8m centres, line wires with tensioners Put in initial bothy/orchard centre 1 metal container to start with Import soil for orchard area & wild meadow area & spread (also soil for hedge & tree pits) 300ml for general cover+ enough for pits Install wet meadow area Dig tree pits & fill for 140 trees & put in marker posts Pits for trees 700 mm diameter X 600 mm deep Finish paths (after heavy vehicle traffic phase is finished) Phase 2 Year 1, Month 2‐3 Tree planting Phase 1 (140 trees) Plant hedge (450m) ‐ (dig soil pits and insert plant species) 2500 plants @ £3 + £7500 labour = £15000 Plant wet meadow area Install gates (one bespoke farm gate with name of orchard , two self‐closing pedestrian gates) Install bespoke furniture in community area (6 benches) Install two information boards Phase 3 Year 2, First Half Dig pits for 100 trees & putting in markers Purchase 100 Trees for community planting in stages over period Additional development ‐ community area (additional two containers & work on educational areas) Phase 4 Year 3, First Half Dig pits for 90 trees & putting in markers Purchase 90 Trees for community planting in phases in stages over period
Phase 5 Year 4, First Half Dig pits for 90 trees & putting in markers Purchase 90 Trees for community planting in phases in stages over period
5.1.3 Soil Testing
Prior to commencement of this project, FoVP intends to test the blaes and sterile soil under it for contamination. This is because it is occasionally the case that the blaes used for football pitches was contaminated when it was originally extracted from the ground. It is understood that GCC have not tested the blaes and have no record of site contamination. Presumably the Council continues to arrange major events on the blaes on the basis that it is not a threat to health.
The results of the testing will be made available to all concerned and should remedial action be required to overcome any contamination identified a plan for action will be identified in association with GCC and SEPA.
17 5.2 Costing
At this stage of the planning process, FoVP’s professionally costed estimates for execution of this project up to completion, including consultancy, project management and development are 235K. A detailed summary of these proposal costings (for both development and through to completion) can be found in Appendix 5.
5.3 Ongoing Management
The plan has been formulated under the assumption that the land will remain under the management of Glasgow City Council. While FoVP and its associated Community Trust will undertake initial capital fundraising and will also deliver much of the orchard maintenance, it is anticipated that LES would provide a minimal level of facility maintenance as partners to the project.
5.3.1 Community Group Involvement
FoVP intends to foster community involvement in orchard activities (planting, orcharding??? and maintenance and harvesting) from among its own members and also diverse community groups. A summary of our intentions are provided below.
As the project rolls out over its 4-5 year development plan, we intend to involve an increasing number of community groups in the aforementioned orchard activities. By 2018, perhaps five to ten community groups and organisations will be involved in some aspect of the project
The sorts of community organisations we have already targeted and will be targeting in the future include:
• Primary Schools: Whiteinch, St Paul’s & Jordanhill have already signalled their interest in the project. We would like to also involve other primary and secondary schools in our project under the Green Schools initiative • Local community projects. The Dumbarton Road Corridor Environment Trust has already indicated its support for and likelihood of involvement in the project, We also intend to attempt to involve local care and therapeutic organisations close to the park such as Whiteinch Homes (Bield) and the Rainbow Trust • Local youth groups such as the Scouts and the Woodcraft Folk
5.3.1.1 Planting & Maintenance
Although our intention is source development funding, local organisations & local people will be encouraged donate and plant some of trees in the orchard to promote a sense of ownership and commitment to the project that will span generations. In terms of cost this might amount to £20-£25/tree, including £5 for a dog-tag on tree recording the donation.
18 FoVP and the associated community trust for this project will initially set up a sub-group to maintain and prune the first patch of 100 trees.
FoVP will also be raising money to set up orchard maintenance courses for interested parties and community groups to facilitate professional care of the trees. An existing major UK orchard owner with which FoVP already has a relationship (Heineken UK) is a potential source of professional help and funding in respect of this aspect of the project.
5.3.1.2 Harvesting
It is hoped that many community groups can be involved with the harvesting from the orchard. In terms of disposal of produce from the orchard we see three options being developed:
• Invite local charities and community groups to take produce (e.g. Whiteinch Homes, Drug Rehab) • ‘Production groups’ forming around the (jam, juice etc.) to sell produce for reinvestment in the orchard • Developing a relationship with food banks across the central belt of Scotland
5.3.2 Proposed LES responsibilities
It is anticipated that FoVP would enter into a management agreement with LES which would be asked to provide:-
• Grass cutting when requested but only for paths through the orchard. • Annual hedge cutting. In the first few years of the project as the hedge grows, this would not be necessary. However, in due course this would be needed once a year to keep the height of the edge down to 1.2m. This would ensure that the interior was always visible from outside and deter vandalism. Traditional crafts such as hedge laying will be explored as part of the ongoing development of the project.
19 6. Community Consultation & Community Support
During the development phase of this proposal (late 2012 & 2013) and in subsequent project presentations (e.g. April 2014’s community meeting at St Thomas Aquinas school attended by 170 Glasgow residents), FoVP not only consulted with its own members but also with local residents and several community groups.
In the case of the latter group, to date consultation has included the following organisations:
Whiteinch Community Council (public meeting) – Written Support
Jordanhill Community Council (public meeting) – Written Support
Partick Community Council (public meeting) – Verbal Support
Whiteinch Primary School – Verbal Support
St Paul’s Primary School – Written Support
Jordanhill School & Pupils – Written Support
Dumbarton Road Corridor Environment Trust – Written Support
Scotstoun Woodcraft Folk – Written Support
Glasgow Beekeepers Association – Verbal Support
In each case, we organised a formal presentation of an outline version of this document on Powerpoint or paper. Meetings with residents and these community organisations were held for two reasons:
• To establish whether there was sufficient community support for the project • To listen to local opinion and to develop our plans accordingly
FoVP has received strong and positive support for its proposals from all of the organisations listed above. Letters of support from most of them are included in Appendix 4. During the consultation period we also progressively amended our plan to reflect the local opinions and expertise we encountered during this process.
In addition, in a survey organised by Bill Kidd MSP, completed by 734 local residents, there was a marked preference for FoVP’s proposal for a ‘low impact’ community orchard for the area vs. a garden centre or artificial, floodlit football pitches.
If Glasgow Council gives FoVP an ‘agreement in principle’ to proceed with this project, we will continue to communicate and consult with the local community. We intend to extend our presentations to other community groups, schools and community councils to maximise the opportunities for future local participation.
20 7. Community Orchard Benefits
Community orchards are places where varieties of fruit are grown by and for local people. They provide healthy fruit to share as well as a green haven for simple contemplation and enjoyment. Community orchards are also excellent wildlife habitats and carbon sinks. Many community orchards are centres for local festivities (for example based around national Apple Day), as well as more traditional activities
Community Orchards can help to reinforce local distinctiveness and identity as people group together to save vulnerable varieties of apple, pear, cherry, plum and damson orchards. In a similar way to community gardens, community orchards can revive interest in growing and providing a way of sharing knowledge and horticultural skills. They are places where knowledge can be shared so that community members can gain horticultural knowledge to grow. And beyond this, food preservation techniques may also be shared.
In parallel with the growth of community gardens, community orchards are becoming an increasingly popular way of improving the local environment and bringing opportunities and benefits to local people. There is also a strong drive to create community orchards to offset the loss of orchards due to pressure on land from buildings developments and roads. The growth of community orchards can also be attributed to widespread concerns over issues such as food miles, healthy eating and climate change.
In addition, the burgeoning number of community orchards is a more specific reaction to the loss of orchards from the British landscape. Figures show that the acreage of commercial orchards has declined rapidly. In 1970 MAFF recorded 62,200 hectares of orchards in the UK this declined to 46,600 hectares in 1980 and further to 22,400 hectares in 1997. This is a 64 per cent decline in 27 years. The progressive and rapid loss of traditional orchards in the Clyde valley is a good illustration of this national trend.
Community orchards are a great example of the localism and decentralisation agenda working at the grass-roots level. They are places for people to come together and use the open space as a focal point for community activities.
Community Orchards also provide educational opportunities for children and students at all stages of their education. There are good examples of this from England: e.g. the Hunting Hall Community Orchard has set up the Farm Higher Level Stewardship Scheme run by Natural England. Through work in the local school, the scheme has already helped children explore heritage fruit varieties and their historical links.
21 8. Project Feasibility
In assessing this proposal, FoVP would like Glasgow City Council and their agent Ryden to take into account the following:
8.1 Community Benefit
The specific benefits of community orchards are outlined in detail in Section 7. However, in evaluating FoVP’s proposal, Glasgow Council should also take into account the benefits from accruing from the other elements of the project. This includes the ‘Victoria Park Alps’ and the wild meadow areas in the remaining parts of the site.
In accounting terms, a triple-bottom line accounting exercise would demonstrate a positive monetary value to the community/council in terms of generating true profit from this project. The key elements of such an accounting exercise would include:
• Environmental ROI: o Impact of the orchard as a perpetual carbon sink o Limited intrusive development on the site (e.g. use of the blaes surface in the VP Alps) vs transporting it off site o Sympathetic to the park environment in terms of the activity generated and existing management objectives for public green spaces • Social ROI o Educational impact (e.g. Scotland’s Green Education Programme for schools) o Community cohesion benefits (e.g. new groups set up in response to the opportunities afforded by the initiative) o Park visiting hours (as a differentiated element of the park’s amenity) o Contributions of foodstuffs to local charities during harvest time. • Financial ROI o Reduction in manpower hours the council would spend devoted to the site o Fund raising by FoVP injecting fresh capital investment into the park o Revenue generated from the orchard’s produce by community cohesion projects, which would be reinvested back into the orchard facility
• Health
o Knowledge of food production, preparation and consumption of fresh produce is acknowledged to have health befits. Moderate exercise resulting from toiling in the nursery will also bring health benefits
While no fully-costed triple bottom-line auditing exercise has yet been carried out to evaluate FoVP’s proposal, the committee would be keen to support and assist LES in this respect should they want to complete one.
22 8.2 Fit with Planning Policy, Planning Restrictions & Scottish Law
After detail discussion with development management planners at the City Council FoVP understands that commercial development of the blaes pitches is contrary to the policies of City Plan 2. In addition, our understanding is that the coming City Plan 3 further tightens up the policies protecting public green-space/parks, including Victoria Park.
Commercial development of a significant area of the park would also be contrary to the policies expressed in the “Glasgow and Clyde Valley Regional Plan”. Indeed, FoVP’s recent communication with Glasgow City Council’s planning department suggests that most built, commercial development would not be compliant with the city’s current planning policy. The development of a commercial business or, say, a private fenced artificial and floodlit football pitch on the site would be in clear breach of this.
Finally, FoVP’s careful examination of Scottish law suggests that irrespective of Glasgow City Councils own designation of the blaes area, this (and all areas of the park) remains Common Good land. There is an ongoing discussion into the legality of Glasgow City Council’s attempt to dispose of this site.
“From the evidence I have seen, this park, which was acquired by the Town Council of Partick in 1887, appears to be inalienable common good land. A lease for a period of around 10 years or more would constitute a “disposal” for the purposes of Section 75(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and thus require the approval of the Courts before it could be executed”.
“The law relating to common good is in serious need of modernisation. If this land in Victoria Park is indeed inalienable common good land then the City Council will be acting unlawfully if it attempts to lease it out on a lengthy lease”.
Andy Wightman 22. September 2014
The established planning context reduces the scope for either commercial development of the land or its fenced enclosure for the exclusive use of a specific group (e.g. a sports club).
FoVP is confident is that its proposal not only fits well the with the city’s development plans but also with both current planning policies and the strictures of Scottish law. This project, unlike alternative suggestions currently mooted by LES in Ryden’s marketing documentation, would not to be impeded by any oppositional public actions in respect of all or any of these factors. This is a long term, sustainable, environmentally friendly and community involvement based project.
8.3 FoVP Competence
Key points about FoVP’s sustainability and competence to initiate this project include the following o FoVP is an established group that has been running since 2009. It remains a highly active and locally well-known community group with widespread support in the environs
23 surrounding Victoria Park. Unlike, many similar groups it has a regular paid-up membership who pay a subscription of £5 per annum. o It has achieved and participated in many successful activities in the park including maintenance and investment projects. In fact, it has been publically cited by LES managers as one of the ‘most successful Friends groups in Glasgow’. o Its managing committee offers a wide range of appropriate professional skills landscape design, project management, marketing, community work, media & communications planning and civil engineering. o Several management committee members have participated in the group for the full five years since its inception. The committee as a whole remains committed to continue to develop the amenity of the park to the local community’s benefit o In addition, some of FoVP’s management committee are recently retired professionals and are able to offer their service to the group and this project pro bono. o FoVP has invested substantial time in liaison with community groups, community councils as well as Glasgow City officials to achieve it aims. Over the last two years, such liaison activities have been used to promote this project. This energy could be fruitfully directed towards the execution of this project.
Additional information about FoVP and its committee can be found in Appendix 1
8.4 Community Support
FoVP has been highly active in building community support for this project over a two year period. The proposal enjoys excellent levels of support amongst local groups and a large array local/democratic organisations around the park. Section 6 provides details of this.
8.5 Capital Funding
As detailed in Section 4, the setting up of a community trust to manage the project with the land staying under the ownership of Glasgow City Council will permit the project’s managers to raise funds from several sources.
8.6 Sustainability of the Project beyond the Development Phase
Key points are: o FoVP’s existence over five years, its paid membership and impressive project list demonstrate its sustainability as a voluntary organisation over the time-period envisioned for this project and its extension into the future. o Collectively, the committee has a broad professional experience to draw from (see above) and an even broader professional network. Our work to build FoVP into the strong voluntary group it is today has, furthermore, enhanced our capability to build the
24 necessary management team and community groups to make this project a durable success into the long-term. o FoVP is aware that the project’s success depends on achieving involvement from several local groups, particularly schools and local community organisations such as DRCET and Glasgow Bee Keepers. In addition, FoVP intends to build new community groups to ensure that the sustained maintenance of the orchard can be achieved. o A minimal level of LES manpower is required over the year to support the orchard and the ‘Alps’ (see Section 5). The remaining wild meadows will require very little if any intervention or work by the council, reducing the manpower requirements within the red- line area in total. Appendix 1 - FoVP Background
Friends of Victoria Park (FoVP) is a west Glasgow group set up protect and develop this valuable and popular community asset. We were established in 2009 so that local people could influence and contribute to the future development and vision of the park and have since been working closely with Glasgow City Council, to protect, conserve and develop the park’s amenities, history, heritage and wildlife.
Our group is currently made up of local people with a wide range of backgrounds and interests who are keen to explore the potential for new activities to revitalise the park, meet the needs of local people and their vision for the park. Currently, we have about 250 members but also hold a contact list of a further 200 members living in the area for emailing on the subject of park events.
FoVP’s members are highly active in the park. Recent events that we have initiated or have been strongly associated with include:-
• Several park clean-ups including a pond clean up on one occasion
• Restoration awareness & fund raising e.g. Victoria Park’s gate refurbishment, pond bridges restoration, Oswald Clock refurbishment
• Park events e.g. the hugely successful 125th Anniversary event and Commonwealth Connections celebrations which were attended by thousands of local people.
• Plantings & bio-diversity activities e.g. bird box programme and pond’s soft edges
• Organising local meetings on issues of concern about the park. e.g. 170 Glasgow residents attended our 2014 meeting at St Thomas Aquinas School on the subject of the future of the blaes
• Communicating to members about developments in the park and FoVP activities. We issue a regular newsletter and run a professionally created & managed website
• A regular weekly weeding group during the summer to support LES’s maintenance tasks in the park
25 • Focus of community consultation about the park’s development for GCC/LES e.g. amphitheatre replacement for derelict crazy golf area.
• Initiating and fostering park development projects e.g. Community Orchard Project
• Regular liaison with and support for LES on park management issues
26 FoVP’s culture and management priorities are rooted in the local community.
Our committee is democratically appointed by and ratified annually by our paid-up members’ AGM (End April/Early May), which also appoints our management committee.
The current members of FoVP’s committee include
Robert Mellish Convenor, Membership, Marketing (Consumer & Corporate) Richard East Vice-Convenor, Bio-diversity, technical/ design advice Stuart Maclean Hon Secretary, Jordanhill Liaison Dr Stephen Biagi Treasurer, Whiteinch Liaison Maisie McCrae Fund Raising, Partick West Liaison, Park Management Liaison Cathie Russell Communications & PR Michael Herrigan Scotstoun Liaison
The project outlined in this document is being led by: Robert Mellish, 113 Mitre Road, G14 9PQ, +44 7879 604289, [email protected] Richard East, [email protected]
More information about FoVP can be found on our website: www.fovp-glasgow.co.uk
27 Appendix 2 – The Community Orchard Movement in the UK & Scotland
Orchards in the UK & Scotland
Orchards were once widespread throughout the British Isles - apple varieties hail from north of Inverness to the edge of Cornwall. Until recently every farm, country house and suburban garden had its own collection of fruit trees. Pressure on land for new houses and roads and the importation of cheap fruit from abroad has caused the loss of many of these small orchards. Orchards in villages and on the edge of towns are prime targets for development.
The acreage of commercial orchards has declined rapidly too. In 1970 MAFF recorded 62,200 hectares of orchards in the UK this declined to 46,600 hectares in 1980 and further to 22,400 hectares in 1997. This is a 64% decline in 27 years.
The main commercial fruit growing areas were, and still are Kent, Somerset, Devon, and Cambridgeshire. Essex, Herefordshire and Worcestershire. But fruit was grown extensively in other areas too. In Scotland areas such as the Carse of Gowrie and the Clyde Valley were important fruit growing districts. One need only look at Blaeu’s 1654 map of the Clyde valley to understand the economic importance that orchards once had in the West of Scotland. Illustrations on this document suggest that apples were once a key form of agricultural output in rural Lanarkshire.
In fact, at one time, every farm and large garden would have had its own orchard of mixed fruit trees for domestic use, farm labourers often being paid partly in cider. Orchards, with their tall 'standard' trees were important landscape features. Standard cider apples were usually spaced at 35 feet, majestic cherry trees were grown at 48 feet, and Perry pears over 60 feet apart, sometimes intercropped with grain crops.
Wild and cultivated fruit trees such as damsons, plums, cherry plums and crab apples were commonly grown in the hedgerows as linear orchards for additional crops and as wind breaks. Local preferences led to particular patterns developing such as damson hedges in Shropshire and Kent, cherry-plum in Oxfordshire and bullace in Essex.
What Are Community Orchards?
Community Orchards offer a way of saving vulnerable old orchards and opportunities to plant new ones. They provide places for quiet contemplation or local festivities and a reservoir of local varieties of fruit and a refuge for wild life.
An orchard is a collection of fruit trees – mixing fruit trees with other kinds of trees profoundly changes and diminishes the feeling of ‘orchardness’. Traditional orchards – with tall standard trees, planted among grass full of wild flowers – constitute places of tranquillity, places where you can find continuity in the landscape.
28
Community Orchards should be open and accessible at all times. They may be owned or leased for or by the community (or held by agreement) by a community group, parish council, or by a local authority or voluntary body. As well as enjoying the place, local people can share the harvest or profit from its sale, taking responsibility for any work in the orchard.
Because their prime purpose is not the production of fruit, one has the opportunity to think creatively about what these orchards can and should be like.
In Wild Fruits, the 19th-century naturalist Henry David Thoreau celebrated the special feel of rambling orchards. He described how he loved ‘to go through the old orchards of ungrafted apple trees, at whatever season of the year – so irregularly planted: sometimes two trees standing close together; the rows so devious that you would think that they not only had grown while the owner was sleeping, but had been set out by him in a somnambulic state. The rows of grafted fruit will never tempt me to wander amid them like these.’ Most of us prefer rambling old orchards – the ones with trees at all angles, even drunkenly on their sides – to the manicured and regimented ones. In 1790, a single perry pear at Holme Lacy, on the banks of the River Wye, covered a third of a hectare (three quarters of an acre) and produced 5-7 tonnes of fruit. It dropped its limbs, which rooted to produce new trees, and so spread outwards. This is the way that some fruit trees would propagate themselves, if left alone. They seldom are.
Community Orchards offer great potential in both town and country. They can work in housing estates, industrial estates, hospitals and schools. They can enliven the curriculum, improve our diet, and even speed the recovery of the ill and infirm.
The success of a Community Orchard lies in the strength of local commitment to it. Local people are the key to running it and deciding how it is used. These orchards do not have economic fruit production as their raison d’être, yet they might just pay for themselves, with income generated through the sale of fruit and other produce – everything from wild flower seeds to mistletoe. In the longer term, fruit wood, as well as coppiced hazel, could generate healthy returns.
Wild life may benefit too. The natural bounty of traditional orchards, with standard trees skirted by hedges and unimproved grassland, is increasingly celebrated by national agencies and local enthusiasts alike.
Community Orchards in the UK & Scotland
The main driving force behind community orchards is an organisation called Common Ground. Since 1992 when Common Ground initiated the idea of Community Orchards, several hundred have been established throughout the country.
29 Although the community orchard movement has not been as active in Scotland as other parts of Great Britain, some momentum is beginning to build. In the past few years, the Commonwealth Orchard has been involved in planting over 150 school orchards and dozens of community orchards amounting to thousands of trees. Today, there are community orchards in such diverse place as Ravenscraig in Lanarkshire, Tarbert in Argyllshire and Portobello in Edinburgh.
In the Glasgow itself, there are two fairly new (but small) Community Orchards. These are located in Queens Park and in Rouken Glen park.
30 Appendix 3 - Orchard Planting Plans - Cultivars & Species
Apple Varieties No. of Trees
Scientific Name: Malus domestica Target Rootstock: M26
Scottish Apple Varieties
Beauty of Moray 24 Bloody Plougman 24 Galloway Pippin 24 James Grieve 24 Scottish Bridget 24 Tower of Glamis 24
Other Scotland-Friendly Varieties
Discovery 24 Jonagold 24 Katy 24 Red Falstaff 24 Rosemary Russet 24 Sunset 24 Worcester Pearmain 24
Other Fruit/Biodioversity Trees
Pear - Conference (Rootstock: Quince A ) Pyrus communis 18 Plum - Victoria (Rootstock: St Julien A) Prunus domestica 18 Damson - Farleigh (Rootstock: St Julien A) Prunus domestica 18 Cherry - Lapins/Cherokee (Rootstock: Colt) Prunus avium 18 Bird Cherry Prunus padus 18 Crab (for pollination & education) Malus sylvestris 18
Total Number of Trees 420 Apple Trees 312 Other Trees 108
31 Proposed Wild Hedge Plants
Hedging Plants
Mainstream % of Plants No. of Plants Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna 30% 756 Blackthorn Prunus spinosa 5% 126 Dog Rose Rosa canina 5% 126 Field Maple Acer campestre 5% 126 Goat Willow Salix caprea 5% 126 Hazel Corylus avellana 5% 126 Holly Ilex aquifolium 5% 126 Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenium 5% 126 Scotch Rose Rosa spinosissima 5% 126 Wild Rose Rosa rugosa 5% 126
Soft Fruit
Blackberry Rubus fruticosus 5% 126 Black Currant Ribes nigrum 5% 126 Quince Cydonia oblonga 5% 126 Raspberry Rubus idaeus 5% 126 Red Currant Ribes sativum 5% 126
Total Number of Hedging Plants 100% 2520
32 Appendix 4 – Community Involvement Documents
33
7 December 2012
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I am writing to express my support and the support of Jordanhill School for the ‘Friends of Victoria Park’ and in particular the project to develop a community orchard.
I have met with Mr Mellish who is co-managing the project and have intimated our interest in working with the project team. We see great benefit for the school and the children from involvement in the process and eventually in the use of the orchard as an outdoor classroom. Jordanhill School views outdoor education as a priority and have an active, on-going ECO working party linking with our whole school Health and Wellbeing programme. The orchard would provide us with an excellent resource and provide us with a vehicle for high quality community involvement.
I would be happy to provide any further information that may be of assistance.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Irene Matier Head Teacher Primary
34
54 Victoria Park Drive South Whiteinch Glasgow G14 9QR Tel: 01415765795 Email: [email protected]
Robert Mellish Friends of Victoria Park 113 Mitre Road Jordanhill Glasgow G14 9PQ 4th December 2012
Dear Robert
Proposed Community Orchard – Victoria Park
Thank you for your presentation to Whiteinch Community Council last week on your proposals for a Community Orchard to be sited on the Blaes Pitches within Victoria Park. Whiteinch Community Council has discussed this and is very excited about the whole idea and offers you their full support.
Should you require any help or additional information from us please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Yours sincerely
Maisie McCrae Chair Whiteinch Community Counci
35
Jordanhill Community Council Honorary Secretary: W. Stuart McLean 45 Munro Road, Glasgow G13 1SH Telephone; 0141 954 9895 21 April 2013
Robert Mellish, 113 Mitre Road, Glasgow G14 9PQ
Dear Robert,
Friends of Victoria Park Community Orchard Proposals
Thank you for attending our monthly meeting on Monday 3 December and giving members a very interesting report on the project to create a community orchard in Victoria Park.
The handout was helpful in explaining the location and extent of the proposal and members agreed that I should write to you expressing our support for the scheme.
We look forward to being kept up to date on progress and we wish FOVP every success in their attempts to obtain the necessary funding and permissions.
Yours sincerely,
W. Stuart McLean.
36
37 Appendix 5 – Detail On Costings
38
39
40