Minutes: Green Spaces Investigative Committee 21 March 2001 at 2pm http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/assembly_meetings.htm

Present

Roger Evans (chair) Trevor Phillips (Deputy Chair) Victor Anderson Louise Bloom Samantha Heath

1. Apologies and Announcements

Apologies for absence were received from Brian Coleman.

2. Declarations of Interest

Samantha Heath declared a non-pecuniary interest in discussions relating to as she had been married in the park.

3. Session Two – Sites of Importance for Nature and the Uses and benefits of Green Spaces

3.1 The Chair welcomed Mr Ralph Gaines, Wildlife Trust, Ms Pat Tawn, Public Health Programme, King's Fund, Mr Drew Bennellick, Regional Landscape Architect, English Heritage London, Mr Alan Byrne, Regional Planner, English Heritage London, Mr Michael Wale JP, Honorary Secretary Acton Gardening Association, and Mr Graham Simmonds, Chief Executive, Trees for London to the meeting.

3.2 The Chair explained that the objectives of the scrutiny were to examine:

• The threats faced by the green belt and other open spaces in London and how they could be protected; • The opportunities to develop new open spaces and to enhance existing open spaces; and • The means of identifying and protecting sites of nature conservation importance.

Romney House, Marsham Street, London SW1P 3PY Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk The Committee’s findings would contribute to the Mayor’s Spatial Development and environmental strategies and he hoped that the Committee's report would be produced during July 2001.

3.3 The Committee was looking to learn from the experiences of people who had been working on smaller projects around London. The Chair asked Mr Wale to explain about his experiences with Acton Gardening Association. Mr Wale stated that three years ago the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths had owned twenty three acres of land in East Acton. They sold the lease of land which had been left to them in 1636 to aid the people of Acton. The land had been privatised and all of it had been sold to a health club, the Park Club. Next door Ealing Council had sold their leisure centre to Richard Branson. It cost about £1000 to join the leisure centre or health club. The Park Club had given three months' notice to all the plotholders on the allotments behind the Acton Sports Club. The Acton Gardening Association with the help of Ealing Council had fought to save the allotments but had lost 50 to 60 of them. The Association was now facing its last big battle and the Council Planning Department hoped to give the Association Section 106 protection with a 90 year lease. This would mean that there would be 100 allotments left. Mr Wale had set out the details in his written evidence.

3.4 In response to a question about how the Goldsmith Company had been able to legally divest itself of the land and what had been the mechanism of the legacy that allowed the Association to have the land protected, Mr Wale explained that the last Conservative Government had changed the law relating to charities. Up until that time it had been possible to change the covenant secretly many times and it had not been possible to find out if there had been changes to the covenant. It now had to be done in the public domain. The Association had met with the Goldsmith Company's estate agent. He commented that the Goldsmith Company had had a good reputation in Acton and had been part of the community and he was not sure why they had sold up. They had chosen to leave Acton at a high price and had shown no social conscience. The Chair commented that the Deputy Mayor was very interested in protecting allotments in London which were often treated as cinderella spaces.

3.5 Mr Wale stated that he thought that Section 106 agreements were a good way to protect allotments. There was a huge demand for allotments but generally there was a lack of publicity about them. Birmingham had campaigned to publicise allotments, for example, to increase the uptake amongst women. East Acton Gardening Association had at least 17 nationalities represented on its allotments. There was a wonderful community feeling with women and children involved with the allotments.

3.6 Trevor Phillips commented that East Acton Gardening Association's story was very powerful and he thought that there was a great deal of sympathy for the preservation of allotments and he asked about creating new spaces for allotments. Mr Wale thought that it might be possible to create more allotments. He stated that Acton Gardening Association had approached Ealing Council to take part of a poorly used park land for allotments. He mentioned that allotments next to a park which led to an estate in Trinity Way was hardly used at all and the Council had stated that it wanted the residents in the flats to make greater use of the allotments. He would also welcome an all weather surface that could be used by young people on the estate. Ealing Council were due to receive £50,000 from the Park Club hopefully to provide new allotments.

- 2 - 3.7 In response to a question about whether brownfield sites could be used for allotments and what would have to be done to make them usable, Mr Wale stated that he thought it could be done but that top soil would have to be brought in to cover any hard core. The Committee also asked if it would be possible to create temporary allotment sites. Mr Wale explained that allotments needed continuity because people became very attached to them and it became a part of their lives. It was especially important for people who did not have a garden. He therefore was concerned about what would happen to the allotment users at the end of the temporary period.

3.8 Samantha Heath questioned how people could engage with biodiversity. Many sites were land banked, that is not being used, and the question was whether the owners would release those sites for allotments. She asked if the Gardening Association engaged with other allotment users. Mr Wale advised that within the Ealing area the Gardening Association was a member of the Allotments Association and attended Agenda 21 meetings, which had had a tremendous effect. The Gardening Association did not really work with other boroughs but did try to involve people from elsewhere in the borough.

3.9 In response to a question about how a Greater London Allotment Authority would work, Mr Wale stated that he would like to see one body that to which all London Allotments Associations could belong to provide mutual support.

Heritage Issues

3.10 Victor Anderson asked about the tensions between heritage spaces and green spaces. Mr Bennellick referred to one site that was on the register of parks and gardens which was registered as grade 2*. English Heritage had identified how the historic landscape was at risk and in danger of disappearing, for example, because trees were in a poor condition. They were working with the London Wildlife Trust to see how the site could be managed. It had looked at solutions as to how the site could be managed and it was about to offer a grant to the London Borough of Richmond to develop a comprehensive management plan. There were seventeenth century avenues into which a badger population had moved. The purpose was to ensure that the landscapes remained. The Abney Park Cemetery at Stoke Newington was a historic site with much biodiversity but there was a conflict between protecting tombs and disturbing habitats, for example, ivy on tombs.

3.11 The Committee asked if English Heritage would like to see the measures for protecting heritage sites strengthened. Mr Byrne advised that English Heritage's broad view was that in most policy planning frameworks there was a general imbalance in favour of the natural environment, with a very positive and proactive encouragement given to it, where as there was often a blindness to the importance of heritage issues. He accepted that it was often not easy to achieve but greater support needed to be given to heritage aspects and there should be an equal respect to the needs of both.

3.12 The London Squares Campaign aimed to encourage investment in the Squares and the Committee asked with £200,000 divided between 600 squares whether the campaign had been frustrated by a lack of funding. Mr Bennellick advised that that was a simplistic calculation. There was estimated to be 600 squares in London as compared to 20 in Newcastle or 30 in Bath and they formed a significant green network for the city. The main objective of the campaign was to raise awareness of spaces and it had been successful. The £200,000 was a relatively low grant but English Heritage aimed to pump prime projects, with

- 3 - the objective of drawing in partnership funding. For example, there was a project in Lambeth with a local landowner and others which might be in receipt of Heritage Lottery Funding. English Heritage was also able to offer technical advice and could bring in others as necessary.

3.13 Members asked if the funding could be used for private squares which were not open to the public. Mr Bennellick explained that there was set criteria for grants related to regeneration and public access. was open but was locked. If a square like Woburn Square were to receive funding it would need to be open to the public. English Heritage was also working with London Historic Gardens to secure the opening of private squares on one day of the year and he hoped that there would be 60 in 2001. Where there was no public access there would be no funding. Some squares regarded the inconvenience of public access as more important than receiving funding.

3.14 Members asked how the imbalance between nature and heritage could be addressed. Mr Byrne explained that in its responses to the Unitary Development Plans, English Heritage would address issues of nature and historic conservation and if appropriate it would make reference to the heritage of the site and where it should be given equal weight to other considerations. They would work with owners/developers of sites so that when they undertook enhancements they would take on board the requirement to preserve and enhance the heritage value.

3.15 Victor Anderson referred to Crystal Palace Park and stated that the issue of allowing a "multiplex" cinema development on the site raised issues of whether English Heritage was carrying out its role properly and asked whether as the original architects had withdrawn from the scheme, English Heritage should reconsider its support for it. Mr Byrne explained that the reference in his written evidence was intended to refer to the landscape restoration of the Park landscape. The issue of the development of the Crystal Palace Park site was difficult. English Heritage had come to its view arising from its understanding of the Crystal Palace Act which stated that any building should be in the spirit of the original Crystal Palace. English Heritage had considered that a historical replica of the building was not viable and the development that was presented in terms of the Act was acceptable. Most historic landscapes were subject to evolution over time, for example, the sports area at Crystal Palace. English Heritage had supported the proposals as far as they would reinstate the historical facilities in the park, based on an understanding of the original layout. He undertook to ask the appropriate case officer to respond to Victor Anderson's comments.

3.16 In terms of the lessons learnt from the Crystal Palace Park case, Mr Byrne stated that it was necessary to take a holistic view of development proposals and their effect on historic landscapes. English Heritage had to take a view on separate but linked packages because of the planning process. English Heritage had two different roles: (i) it was a statutory consultee in terms of the development of listed buildings; and (ii) in terms of historic landscapes it was a statutory consultee and also monitored the undertaking of restoration works on behlaf of the Heritage Lottery Fund.

3.17 In response to a question about how great the pressure was to exploit open green space for revenue producing functions rather than regarding the uses to be solely determined by their character, form, needs of users and the local community, Mr Byrne stated that he recognised that there were pressures to exploit green spaces for commercial reasons. The concerts at Kenwood House and Marble Hill House were important sources of revenue. There were also hospitality arrangements for corporate entertainment and weddings at some smaller English

- 4 - Heritage venues. English Heritage monitored the Heritage Lottery Fund schemes in major urban parks. There was a tension between commercial activities in parks and English Heritage had recently been in negotiation with the London Borough of Wandsworth over the number of activities in Battersea Park. Samantha Heath commented that events drew people into parks that would not normally use them.

3.18 The Committee asked how English Heritage prioritised funding for applicants for the Heritage Lottery Fund and the English Heritage grant scheme. Mr Bennellick responded that he did not have information on the Heritage Lottery Fund and it would be worth the Committee talking to someone from its London office. The English Heritage grant scheme operated only applied to grade 1 and 2* registered landscapes, which meant about 40 parks in London. English Heritage used a proactive approach and would look at the landscape at risks programme and identify parks that were at risk as a priority. Owners would be encouraged to submit an application for a grant.

3.19 In relation to the funding for capital works, Mr Bennellick advised that there was a two-part scheme with 80% of costs for the production of a 10 year restoration management plan which set targets. Once the plan was in place the management of the park could apply for funding for capital works was up to 50% but those works had to be tied in with the management plan.

3.20 The Chair asked English Heritage about their views on the formation of a London Parks Forum and Mr Byrne replied that he had not heard of the proposal. He would need to know more about the forum to assess its role. The Chair advised him that its aim would be to share best practice and Mr Byrne stated that it would be quite an attractive idea. English Heritage had developed its own good practice and had an advisory role on other historic sites. English Heritage generally had good relationships with the London Boroughs, many of which managed parks of historic importance and valued English Heritage's advice.

3.21 The Committee asked if there was a role for the GLA in or the proposed London Parks Forum in helping to build those relationships and Mr Byrne advised that it would always be of benefit to bring partners together. He did not know if the forum would improve the situation because English Heritage's relationship with the boroughs tended to be on a bilateral basis. The Committee asked what the GLA could do to for the protection and management of green spaces and Mr Byrne responded that it would depend on professional view points but well drafted strategic policies for the protection of green spaces would help. The current regional guidance was very good but there were areas that could be improved.

3.22 In response to a question about whether the revenue raised from commercial activities was put towards the upkeep of those parks, Mr Bennellick stated that in respect of Battersea Park, English Heritage had held discussions with the local authority about what happened to the revenue and developing a strategy so that money raised from the park was spent on horticulture around the borough. The money raised from Kenwood House was placed in a central pot and redistributed to English Heritage sites which needed funding.

3.23 The Heritage Lottery Fund was used to fund restoration management plans up to 80% of the cost. It would identify what was significant about the site and would then govern how the site was managed from then on. In response to a question about how much activity played in determining what grant should be made, Mr Bennellick advised that the restoration plan would identify the value of site. It involved public consultation which could involve issues

- 5 - such as the way people felt about the site and the vision of how it might look in the future. Heritage was one of a series of issues.

3.24 Trevor Phillips asked to what extent English Heritage steered site owners towards a form of restoration that would encourage people to use the sites. Mr Bennellick advised that through English Heritage's work on Battersea Park much effort had been put into providing new facilities, such as toilets which were a big issue for urban parks. The Committee asked if English Heritage could supply it with a list of factors that would help to make spaces interesting and accessible taking into account their history and Mr Bennellick undertook to provide that information.

Biodiversity Issues

3.25 The Committee noted that the London Wildlife Trust had a large membership and asked how it interacted with its members. Mr Gaines informed Members that the Trust had started as groups of local activists who had come together to exchange information. There were about 22 groups comprising members and non-members and a person did not need to be a member to be involved with the Trust's activities. There was quite a small team for 60 nature reserves. The Trust dealt with site management issues, responses to planning applications and acted as the local eyes and ears in the boroughs. It ran 600 events per year, 80% of which were run by volunteers.

3.26 Louise Bloom asked what the response of planning authorities had been to development proposals to sites with wildlife interest. Mr Gaines advised that it depended on each borough and it varied on a case by case basis. Sometimes the Wildlife Trust was encouraged to give a view on a planning application and in other cases it was the reverse situation and the Trust was actively discouraged. Matters had improved slightly but there were still hot spots where developments were going on, for example, along the East Thames corridor and nature conservation issues tended to be way down on the list of priorities. The Committee asked at what point developers had a dialogue with the Trust, and Mr Gaines advised that the Trust was asked for information because developers realised that they had to identify the biodiversity implications on their planning applications. However, it was difficult for the Trust to provide information, as they did not have it all. The GLA held more information. Some developers had recognise the value of biodiversity in regeneration schemes. He hoped that awareness would increase as it was at quite a low level at the current time.

3.27 The Committee asked about where the Trust stood on the issues of green field and brownfield sites. Mr Gaines responded that there was no clear definition of a brownfield site and people interpreted it in different ways. Each case needed to be dealt with on its own merits and each redevelopment scheme had to be properly assessed so that there was a good ecological assessment of what was on the site. There had been quite a poor ecological assessment of the Greenwich Dome site, where non-traditional wildlife habitats were present. The Trust was not anti-regeneration but it did want to see regeneration which provided good quality open space and built on wildlife that was present on the sites.

3.28 In response to a question about whether Railtrack was living up to its responsibilities for nature conservation, Mr Gaines explained that there were tensions within Rail Track's operations. The Trust managed two sites that were owned by Railtrack. Railtrack were part of the London Biodiversity Partnership. Railtrack had an engineering section which did not always take account of biodiversity issues, for example, the section would often consider that

- 6 - railway banks needed to be cleared at a cost of biodiversity. The Trust was pushing for some overall management principles for the land so that Railtrack's land holdings could be monitored and safety requirements be upheld, which would improve those sites for wildlife.

3.29 The Committee noted that private gardens were important for biodiversity and asked if the Trust had investigated how they could be protected on a strategic level. Mr Gaines responded that the London Biodiversity Partnership's Action Plan had highlighted the importance of private gardens and issues relating to the management of those gardens and how they could be managed more sympathetically. It also identified concerns about backland development and the Trust wanted to see a presumption against backland development set out in planning policies, as it had a wide impact on London's biodiversity.

3.30 In terms of what could be contained in Unitary Development Plans in relation to gardens, Mr Gaines thought that they could provide for protection from development, and they would provide advice to people who took part in gardening to show them what they could do. The centre for wildlife gardens in Peckham had proved extremely popular and people wanted more information and advice.

3.31 The Committee asked what success the Trust had had in raising the management of green space on the agenda of green space. Mr Gaines advised that there had been successes but it was not just because of the Trust but a number of other bodies were working with the boroughs in developing examples of good practice. The problem for the boroughs was that they had a number of statutory responsibilities that would always take priority over one spaces, for example, the London Borough of Lewisham was threatening to cut its Nature Conservation Centre. The work of the former London Ecology Unit had been very valuable because it was a source of expertise that the boroughs could draw upon. He was concerned that the service to the boroughs would be lost. Mr Gaines stated that there needed to be local knowledge and all boroughs should have resources locally but there was also a role for strategic advice to be put in a wider context, as boroughs needed advice from a range of sources.

3.32 The Committee asked about examples of good practice, for example, the re-development of Mile End Park. Mr Gaines stated that when the Trust had been formed a number of nature reserves had been saved through local campaigns, for example Sydenham Hill Wood and Gunnersbury Triangle at Chiswick. They had become widely used locally. However, they required resources. The Islington and Sutton Ecology Centres were very good and Battersea Park had a good integration between the nature reserves in the park and other uses. The Trust managed a contract with the London Borough of Wandsworth which meant it could link with other events which were occurring in the Battersea Park.

3.33 Mile End Park was an example of the type of issues that should be looked at. There were not many examples of big schemes or of big new major open spaces being created. The Wetlands Centre at Barn Elms showed that valuable land could be used. It was necessary to identify where major spaces could be created and then to champion them.

3.34 Trevor Phillips commented that Mr Gaines had referred to the uneven distribution of spaces in his written evidence and its links to social deprivation, poor air quality and higher crime. He stated, however, that he could think of examples where that was not true, for example, Victoria Park. Open space could sometimes be used for perpetrating certain types of crime. Mr Gaines responded that the identification of the uneven distribution of open space had

- 7 - been undertaken by the former London Ecology Unit and was based on wildlife deficiency. The information was now held by the GLA. In the run up to the GLA's formation the Trust had joined forces with the London Initiative to look at how geographic information could be used to examine the correlation between different factors. It would be valuable work for the GLA to investigate further how strong the links were.

3.35 Crimes could be perpetrated in open spaces; it was a question of how those open spaces were managed. If they were not managed they would fall into disrepair and would attract anti- social uses. The issue was to manage the sites properly and to involve local people in those sites. However, they tended to be the services to which local authorities cut funding first. Trevor Phillips agreed that mapping the correlation between open space and deprivation would be a useful exercise for the GLA to undertake.

3.36 The Committee noted that many trees were within the control of the public sector and asked if Trees for London had documented how many local authorities had completed inventories of trees within their areas and if there was a role for the GLA or another agency in persuading more appropriate management of trees to be undertaken. Mr Simmonds explained that there was a London Tree Officers Association and some boroughs were further ahead than others in producing inventories of their tree stocks. The GLA could play a role in respect of looking at the distribution of green space and tree cover. London needed a map showing where the green spaces and trees were. Trees for London had undertaken some work on tree densities per borough. He did think that there was a correlation between tree density and deprivation and he thought the GLA was best placed to draw that work together.

3.37 There was a wide variety of benefits from trees but that they were often threatened by new developments. In response to a question about what were reasons developers had for departing from the guidelines, Mr Simmonds stated that the utility companies were the worst offenders and he would like to see stiffer penalties when they cut down trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). They often did not adhere to the voluntary guidance on trees and as a result London had lost many of its oldest trees. Much of the evidence was anecdotal. It was more difficult to comment on developers but there had been some high profile cases where trees had been lost. He would like to see Section 106 agreements used to gain tree planting.

3.38 Louise Bloom asked if planning conditions and the application of the British Standard could assist in the protection of trees on development sites and whether they were useful tools for local authorities. Mr Simmonds advised that they would be very useful. His organisation was often contacted with enquiries in respect of TPOs when local authorities were about to cut down trees. Any additional protection of trees would be welcome because the fines for breaching TPOs were very small.

3.39 There had been numerous campaigns to raise the awareness of the importance of trees and Mr Simmonds' evidence suggested that on-going campaigns were required. The Committee asked what the GLA could do to help the campaigns and progress Trees for London's recommendations. Mr Simmonds advised that he had submitted the manifesto of Trees for London to the Mayor and he hoped that he would support it. Darren Johnson had undertaken to support it. It would be launched on 6 April 2001. Many of the organisations had been involved with developing the manifesto but much would depend on the resources available. If the GLA could help with the resources it would be very useful.

- 8 - 3.40 Trees for London's main concern was the unequal distribution of trees and green spaces in London. Often small pockets of land, such as those on housing estates, were over looked because they had little heritage value. Nevertheless they could be used by the community if they were redeveloped.

3.41 There were community forests at Thames Chase Community Forest (located between the East End and outer suburbs) and Woking Chase (located between North London and Hertfordshire). However, people did not want to travel far and wanted open spaces on their doorstep and so Trees for London would encourage the Forestry Commission to take a view on having a community forest, perhaps in inner London, and for funds to be released where they were most needed. Members asked about the proposal to have a new urban forest, perhaps in Greenwich or Hounslow. Mr Simmonds was not familiar with that proposal. He considered that there needed to be flexibility in defining what was meant by an urban forest. It could mean little pockets of spaces with planting that local people could engage with. Through their manifesto, Trees for London hoped to energise organisations and individuals to create an urban forest.

3.42 The Committee asked if some boroughs were too enthusiastic about pruning their trees and Mr Simmonds advised that some boroughs were very poor at tree maintenance and pruned trees right back because of reasons of a lack of resources, for example, Hackney.

Health Issues

3.43 Trevor Phillips asked if there was any scientific evidence of the neighbourhood health benefits of green space. Ms Tawn advised that the King's Fund had funded Bradford Women's Healthy Gardening project and the feedback had been that all the women felt healthier. Most people agreed that the pleasure from growing fresh produce and mixing socially with others had health benefits. Ms Tawn had personal experience of a gardening project for older people. Older people in cities could suffer from loneliness and she had one member who had told her that the project had saved her life. Projects such as that gave people a focus and enabled people to make friends. Hence, she thought there were definitely health benefits even if there was not the scientific evidence to prove it. Trevor Phillips referred to evidence from the Netherlands that indicated that people's health improved when they had a view of a garden. The health benefits appeared to result from being able to do something with the open space in some way even if a person could not directly access it.

3.44 The Committee referred to issues raised by the conference "Poisoned Earth, Poisoned Mind" in respect of green spaces such as the inadequate provision and poor maintenance of them. The NSPCC had noted the need to improve children's safety and in response to a question about what measures the King's Fund considered were necessary to improve the safety of young people, Ms Tawn stated that in her personal view parks patrols could improve safety. She recognised that it would be expensive but suggested that it could possibly be done across borough boundaries. A telephone number where people could phone in the case of incidents would also be useful. Owing to under-funding and under-manning, the Police had difficulty responding to incidences of graffiti and vandalism. The more publicity there was about crimes the more difficult it would be to perpetrate them.

3.45 The Committee also discussed how parks could be managed, for example, cutting back foliage so that people would felt more comfortable about using them. Mr Gaines explained that in nature reserves access issues were important and establishing good visibility and sight lines. A

- 9 - visitors' survey had been undertaken on 13 sites which had received Heritage Lottery Fund grants. The survey included people who lived by but who did not use the parks to find out why. There were also environmental clubs for children to encourage them to use open spaces. He suggested that friends groups could help in securing local involvement and a friendly presence on the sites. It would be a good idea to have best practice to address safety issues. Mr Simmonds added that he thought that it was critical to involve people in the creation of the site and then they would feel it belonged to them.

3.46 The Committee noted that London had a transient population. In response to a question about how the involvement of people was maintained once a community garden had been established, and how people who had not been involved with it originally could become involved, Ms Tawn stated that those projects needed champions. She explained that her own project had arisen from an idea at a meeting and she had agreed to lead it. She had called a meeting for everyone who lived in her local area and about 40 people had attended. The suggestion for the garden had been almost unanimous. A garden management committee had then been established to decide how to proceed. She had sought a grant from her local authority's community fund to start the project and had approached the Conservation Volunteers to see if they would be involved in the project. They had agreed and carried out much of the work. She had also applied for funding from other sources. The project benefited from the energy that new people brought. She did not see it as a problem.

3.47 The Chair referred to the Fund's concern about the loss of publicly owned green space, particularly school playing fields and allotments for development. Government Guidance was provided in PPG3 Housing and PPG 17 Sport and Recreation and asked if those measures were adequate of if they needed strengthening. Ms Tawn stated that she thought that more severe financial penalties were required for those local authorities which breached the guidelines and possibly the production of an annual league table of how well each borough was doing on that issue. Mr Wale thought that the London Playing Fields Association should be informed about developments more quickly than it had been in the past. It was difficult for local people to find their way through local government processes. Mr Gaines agreed that in his experience local people found the whole planning process extremely complex and opaque. Sometimes people found out about developments on small patches of open space at the last moment.

3.48 Mr Byrne did not disagree with what had been said or the thrust of policies reflected in Unitary Development Plans to aim for a better open space provision but he considered that a better understanding was required of the purpose of open spaces. There were different views as to whether they should be used for quiet contemplation or open air concerts.

3.49 Trevor Phillips referred to the upkeep of cemeteries and mentioned that some were locked when they did not to be. Mr Byrne commented that is was a very topical issue with the Government. In London there was a huge amount of public interest in the issue. English Heritage was reviewing its register of sites to ensure that special cemeteries were registered. Friends groups were also very concerned. Often the problems were the result of the of the management of the site by the local authority, for example, at Hampstead Cemetery the burial plan that the local authority was operating was causing problems and English Heritage was trying to resolve the conflicts.

3.50 The Chair thanked all the witnesses for attending the meeting.

- 10 - 4 Close of Meeting

The meeting ended at 4pm.

Chair: ………………………………… Date: …………………………….

Enquiries: Teresa Young Committee Co-ordinator Committee Services RmA127 Romney House Marsham Street London SW1P 3PY

Tel: 020 7983 4399 Email: [email protected] Fax: 020 7983 4420 Minicom: 020 7983 4458

Website: www.london.gov.uk

- 11 -