• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Minutes: Green Spaces Investigative Committee 14 March 2001 at 10am http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/assembly_meetings.htm Present Roger Evans (chair) Victor Anderson Samantha Heath 1. Apologies and Announcements Apologies for absence were received from Louise Bloom, Brian Coleman and Trevor Phillips (Deputy Chair). 2. Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest from Assembly Members or staff. 3. Session One – Creation and Enhancement of Green Spaces 3.1 The Chair welcomed Ms Judy Hillman, Independent Consultant, Mr Ken Worpole, Independent Consultant, Mr Clive Fox, Groundwork Regional Office for London and South East England, Mr Matthew Frith, English Nature, and Ms Valerie Woodifield, Countryside Agency, 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. The Committee’s findings would contribute to the Mayor’s Spatial Development and environmental strategies. Romney House, Marsham Street, London SW1P 3PY Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Threats and Protection 3.3 In section one of her written evidence Ms Hillman had emphasised the need to protect parks and open spaces. In response to a question about what the threats were, Ms Hillman explained that one of the main threats was underground services, and their protuberances, such as ventilation shafts which encroached on areas of open space. Roads were also a threat and strips of land were sometimes taken from parks for road widening, such as in Hyde Park and for Green Park tube station. Parks were often seen as the “soft” option and they were not sufficiently protected. Another threat was that parks had to make an income and there was often pressure to build a shop or larger restaurant. She considered that it was better to place restaurants on the edge of parks. Parks worked well in good weather but their viability like seaside resorts was dependent on the weather. If more people could be encouraged to use them their viability would be more assured. 3.4 Facilities such as covered tennis courts could also encroach upon the green space of parks. Examples included Beckenham Park Place and Lambeth. Such facilities could be located elsewhere. At Dulwich there was the threat of housing. Sometimes concerts took place in parks and their temporary structures could cause damage and they could be held elsewhere. When held in parks they could interfere with the tranquillity that some people might seek in those parks for longer than the actual event. For example, Clapham Common was used for events, and the funds raised might not be allocated to the upkeep of the Common. 3.5 It was also important to measure the impact of high buildings on parks and the potential incursion of the city on the rural illusion of some parts of parks. Playing fields were also threatened and it was possible that opportunities for young people to play sport in the future would be lost. The Thames was also under threat from development, for example, the idea of an inhabited bridge had been mentioned. There needed to be measures to state that the Thames and parks should not be seen as potential development sites. 3.6 Samantha Heath commented that the more people that used a park the better it would be, and a café or basket ball court would serve a very useful purpose if it brought people into the park who would not otherwise use it. It was necessary to recognise that parks should not just be for dog walkers. Ms Hillman agreed that parks could create hubs of activity but it became questionable if it actually remained a park if many buildings were erected in it. People tended to look on parks as their own territory. 3.7 The issue of tall buildings was not restricted to central London, for example, a proposal at Hounslow had resulted in the intrusion of riverside and park views. Ms Hillman added that the stretch of land and river from Kew to Richmond was a great asset. The adopted Thames Landscape Strategy involved a 100-year programme to improve the quality of landscape and buildings and to open up the area. It was a potential world heritage site, which could be a good facility for tourism in London. In response to a question about what provision the Spatial Development Policy should make in respect of parks and tall buildings, Ms Hillman advised that particularly in the case of a rural park, montages should be produced to assess the impact of proposals. 3.8 The Chair asked what was the response of planning authorities to the threats to parks. Ms Hillman advised that they found it very difficult to refuse permission for public utility developments in parks, but in relation to each proposal there should be an environmental impact assessment undertaken, alternatives should be explored and full compensation paid - 2 - for any loss of open space. It would make the parties concerned think harder. It might also be worth holding a one-day public inquiry to consider such proposals. 3.9 Mr Frith agreed that threats to parks were from the encroachment of roads. There was also an issue of management, for example, a heathland without management would become a woodland. Heathland was very important in the national perspective. Another major threat was to brownfield sites. A large number of sites could be classified as brownfield. Over 200 of them had been identified as having a nature conservation interest. Mr Frith himself had managed one such site which was very important to visitors, but because of its previous use it would be classified as brownfield. Such sites needed to be valued. Some formal parks were also brownfield sites, for example, Burgess Park in Camberwell, and Crystal Palace Park. The thrust of the development at Crystal Palace Park was that it was a brownfield site and that fact had been used by the developers as a reason for developing on the site. 3.10 The Chair asked what advice Mr Frith would give in relation to the over simplistic divide between brownfield and green field sites. Mr Frith responded that in his previous work he had submitted evidence to the Urban Task Force, as also had English Nature. However, the Urban Task Force’s report gave very little evidence that biodiversity issues had been considered. The report underpinning the Urban White Paper only mentioned wild life once and made no mention of Biodiversity Action Plans. The Urban White Paper tended to reinforce the urban and rural divide and was very disappointing. He questioned why there was not one sustainable development plan for the United Kingdom. 3.11 Lord Rogers had advocated the future regeneration of large parts of London but Mr Frith wanted to see much greater account being taken of the ecological aspects of brownfield sites. In 1996 the London Ecology Unit had developed a framework for sites of major conservation interest. However, a number of sites had not been assessed and would not have had their nature conservation analysed. A number of boroughs had not been surveyed for 10-12 years. He urged that brownfield sites be looked at in terms of strategic importance as some of them were very important habitats for protected species. 3.12 In response to a question about whether any brownfield sites had been inappropriately classified, Mr Frith stated that the Greenwich Millennium peninsula was very important for the black redstart and skylark. The London Wildlife Trust had pointed that out but no consideration had been given to it, and instead the ecological considerations were put to one side. 3.13 Samantha Heath considered that one difficulty was that the people who tended to live near to woodland and parks tended to be from the wealthier parts of the community and asked how other people could be encouraged to use those facilities. In London density was an important issue, with the need to build more homes and she asked how they could be created in a way which was more fruitful for biodiversity. Mr Frith advised that sites which had been protected were not just in more affluent areas, for example, there was a woodland site near the Sydenham Hill Estate. English Nature recognised that there had to be more development in London. It was necessary to take a pragmatic approach, to ensure that what was developed was good for people but also did not have a detrimental environmental impact, for example, through thermal efficiency and sustainable urban drainage. It was necessary to take an innovative approach to buildings. Greenwich sustainable village used sustainable development principles, as did the BedZed development at Beddington, near Carshalton. - 3 - They were pathfinder projects which combined relatively dense development with significant improvements to biodiversity on the footprint of the site. 3.14 In response to a question about examples of where organisations had been resourced to facilitate and encourage local participation in green space management, Mr Frith stated that there were a number of that kind of projects around the country. The London Wildlife Trust was undertaking work in areas of open space deprivation. In Lambeth there was a project which was engaging with a range of communities to facilitate their interest, show what else was available and increase knowledge. Organisations like English Nature were reaching out to various communities in London. However, it was hard work and many people in that field did not have the necessary skills to do it well.

Load more

  10

Copy Link