London's Parks and Open Spaces

Appendix 1

LONDON’S PARKS AND OPEN SPACES

JUDY HILLMAN Urban Affairs Consultant and Writer

1. My background. As well as parks, my experience in urban affairs, particularly in London, has included economic regeneration, urban image, tourism, conservation and the impact of information technology and telecommunications on people and places. Before I became an independent consultant and writer, I was on national newspapers for about 18 years, mainly as planning correspondent. Published reports have included A New Look for London for the Royal Fine Art Commission.

So far as parks are concerned, I was a member of the Royal Parks Review Group between 1991 and 1996 and wrote all the reports. Between 1995 and 1999, I was a member of the Heritage Lottery Fund’s Urban Parks Advisory Panel. In the early 1990s, I undertook a report on urban regeneration and parks for the Glasgow Development Agency and produced a background briefing paper on London’s buildings and open spaces for the London First Centre. I am a patron of the Friends of Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill, a new council of management member of the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust and a member of the London Advisory Committee at English Heritage and that committee’s representative on the Thames Landscape Strategy Members Steering Group. I am also a vice-president of the London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies.

2. Unique world asset. London’s major and minor parks and open spaces are crucial to the health and wealth of London. They are hugely varied ranging from the royal and other formal parks through Hampstead Heath and Wimbledon Common to squares, public and private, forests, great houses in park land, cemeteries, a new wetlands, city farms, allotments, sports grounds and, of course, private gardens. The Thames, together with its tributaries and canals, is part of London’s system of open space, in and around which individuals of all ages can relax, play, walk, talk, enjoy and learn to understand the power of the natural (as against the manmade) environment, take exercise, draw, sleep, talk the dog, read, fly kites, feed birds and attend events. The use and enjoyment of public parks and open spaces is only limited by necessary regulations drawn up to ensure they remain a safe, clean escape from the busyness and pressures of everyday life at work and home.

As a capital city, London is unique in having this great resource and image. In a frequently grey and wet climate, green spaces, large and small, with and without trees, help provide a quality of life which attracts and retains investment and residents, international and national as well as local. The parks and open spaces also form part of the visitor package. A day or part of the day out in the park provides a welcome contrast with an otherwise expensive city.

1 Appendix 1

It may be possible to value parks in terms of the economy and physical health. It is more difficult to measure their contribution to the spirit, the inspiration and safety net to people at all stages of their lives through the knowledge that a park is nearby, the sight of the park from a bus, let alone a visit. Central London would, for example, be a very different place if the Georgians had been allowed to continue the development of terraced squares west into Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens.

It is essential to protect this legacy of open space from public and private development. Green areas are too often seen as a soft option. The loss of the odd green finger may seem a small price to pay for all kinds of worthy enterprise. But the removal of even small areas of green space will eventually alter the character and attraction of the city. It is possible that competitive sport may soon become fashionable among young people, encouraged perhaps as an alternative occupation to drugs and crime. It will be difficult to create new playing fields or tennis courts close to home. Public transport is perforce expensive.

3. Protection of Views. London is essentially a low-level city set in a great saucer created by essentially low hills. Within the city, there are a number of hills of which one is often scarcely aware, for example Notting Hill. In many areas, church towers and steeples, which rise above the normal four or five storeys, still contribute variety and interest to the local landscape. This can rarely be claimed for much scattered council housing development of 20 or so storeys built before the collapse of Ronan Point in the late 1960s when questions about their impact on community and family life as well as safety led to a different social housing approach.

The impact of proposals for additional high buildings, mainly offices and expensive housing for sale, on parks and open spaces should be considered as part of the planning process. In immediate terms, they can cast shadow, which may not be welcome for the larger part of the year. At a greater distance, they can intrude to alter the character of the space. Of course, towers cannot be squeezed out of all views. But there are some open spaces, which, because of their illusion of countryside, it would be a pity to spoil. The City’s towers do not impinge on Hampstead Heath or Primrose Hill because they lie at a low level and at a distance. A cluster or scattering of towers around the edge of the heath however would alter its character. Richmond Park, with its 400-year-old oaks, can offer a sense of timeless English countryside, only invaded from some angles by the towers of the (listed) Roehampton Estate. In principle, in such parks and open spaces, it should be possible to set angled guidelines to prevent development rising above the tree line. If, for example, it is decided one day to demolish the Roehampton towers, such a framework could remove the potential for replacement towers. Hyde Park requires similar consideration. It is still an astonishing open space to find at the heart of a capital city, large, sometimes rural, in which visitors can believe they have escaped the city, despite the intrusion of the Hilton and Royal Lancaster Hotels and the Knightsbridge Barracks. But what about the proposals, which include a number of tall skyscrapers, at Paddington? If these go ahead, it could soon be hemmed in. And what about their impact on the basin itself, Little Venice and the Regent’s Canal?

4. The Thames. The Thames, London’s smaller rivers and the canal system, make an important contribution to the capital’s open space. We may not be able to walk on

2 Appendix 1 water but we should be able to walk alongside, as has been included in earlier planning policies, and enjoy the natural elements of air, wind, rain, wildlife, trees and sometimes additional green space. We should also be able to enjoy the wider and longer views than are possible in most city streets. The river provides a scale which can absorb large buildings in its city centre reaches (e.g. Embankment Place and the defence building at Vauxhall Bridge). But here and elsewhere it is important that all proposals should be presented and considered in their wider context including their impact on the river and the community behind. This means contextual drawings and photo montages. Design quality is particularly important. Most councillors and officers feel unable to comment on architectural quality. On such sensitive sites, means should be found of encouraging the appointment by developers of better architects and some indication given of the capacity, heights, access routes to the river, the need to provide good views, not just for future residents, but for passers-by and people who live opposite. The London Advisory Committee of English Heritage has frequently helped improve riverside proposals but its remit is limited. A Thames Development Advisory Panel (on the model of Cardiff Bay) might help - i.e. not just architects but also individuals with other qualifications. There has been talk of a ‘blue ribbon’ zone. ‘Silver ribbon’ might be more apt.

5. Streets. Streets are part of the open space system of the capital and their improvement (e.g. less pavement clutter and pavement widening) as proposed in the Mayor’s draft transport strategy, could improve the quality of daily life. However, that statement of intent will achieve nothing without the cooperation of the boroughs and, perhaps more important, changes to highway and other regulations which dictate what signs go where and at what distance from the road.

6. Conservation plans. It is important that London’s great spaces should have long-term conservation and improvement plans. Landscape evolves slowly and needs an overall vision (often but not necessarily slavishly related to the original design). Plans also need to take account of traffic management, perhaps removal except for access, the role of buildings and other structures, signage and interpretation, the control of dogs, the integration, particularly in a historic landscape, of children’s play and sports, the safety and maintenance of public lavatories, cafes, if viable, education, safety in general, the potential for vandalism. It is possible through the design of hubs and therefore the encouragement of people to encourage a feeling and reality of security. The success of park cafés relates, like resorts, directly to weather. It can help if they are located on the edge where they can attract customers from outside as well as inside parks. Improvement is perforce long term. The Thames Landscape Strategy with its coordinator of projects, including volunteers, could provide a model.

7. Maintenance. Many parks suffer from lack of maintenance and or refurbishment. While the budget of the Royal Parks may seem generous to local authorities, central government has refused to face up to the cost of decades of neglect of items such as paths, roads, walls and railings and there is still an enormous backlog. Some London parks and open spaces have benefited from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Many have not. Local and national politicians in this country have yet to realise how much people care about their local spaces, which then tend to regard almost as personal, if public, territory. They GLA should press government to include parks as an item for statutory spending and encourage the research and dissemination of best

3 Appendix 1 practice including new forms of ownership, management, sponsorship and security, possibly backed up by a forum of borough parks managers and a rolling panel of experts.

8. Volunteers. Friends groups and regular consultation should be encouraged, together with the use of volunteers, possibly using the London Wildlife Trust and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers as examples. Many Londoners want to contribute and have an enjoyable day out with the built-in opportunity to meet like- minded people.

9. Brown land development. There is continual pressure for new housing and higher densities. It is crucial that substantial new parks, open spaces and sports facilities are designed and created as a framework, with plans for their subsequent management. People should not be expected to forego dreams of a more rural lifestyle for urban living without generous well designed and well managed provision of open space.

10. New parks. It would be good if the GLA were to coordinate with a borough or even the Royal Parks possibly including a competition to provide a major new park in east London. In Paris, André Citröen and Bercy provide models of exciting contemporary design combining essential features including a series of outdoor rooms, grass, trees, planting and water. Bercy includes a children’s garden and a public advice centre on gardening including balcony planting in the city. There could be scope for a series of show gardens (possibly run by a trust which could raise money from private as well as public sources and charge for entry) to see what can be done with the traditional rectangular terraced London private garden.

11. Beyond the GLA boundaries. London’s population is rising. Simultaneously travel by car for leisure as well as business purposes is becoming more constrained, expensive and congested. As families and individuals look for open space closer to home, there could be greater pressure on existing London parks and open spaces and on the surrounding green belt. It is important that the open space strategy includes actual and potential accessible open space outside the GLA boundaries. This vision should look in broad terms at the allocation of open space and the built environment over the next 50 years and the necessary local authority cooperation. Just as London depends on commuters for much of its work force, so Londoners will depend on the surrounding countryside for much of its leisure.