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 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 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, 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, in Camberwell, and . 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 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. This was an area with which the GLA could help.

3.15 In his written evidence at section 5.2, Mr Frith had suggested that sites for development should be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. In response to a question about whether nature conservation should be a material consideration in every planning application, Mr Frith stated that the framework had been established by the London Ecology Unit. However, there was a danger that a view would be taken that any sites that did not fall within those categories contained no biodiversity interest. The situation was much more complicated than that, for example, a consortium of people including local residents, London Wildlife Trust, the Creekside Environmental Programme, and Environment Agency had undertaken work to protect biodiversity interests in the face of a housing development in , that the developers had thought held no biodiversity interest. The problem was that often the local authorities did not have the requisite in-house expertise. Planning officers were under great pressure and were likely to believe what they were told by developers’ consultants. On the site at Deptford where black redstarts nested, and a number of organisations, including English Nature had been able to work with the developer on mitigating measures.

3.16 The Chair asked how developments on brownfield and green belt sites could be balanced. Mr Frith advised him that there was often a perception that the countryside was sacrosanct and the divide between green field and brownfield sites had become a dogma, when in fact many green field sites supported very little biodiversity and were like green prairies. Mr Frith stated that biodiversity could be created on new sites, such a car parks by providing soft car parking and soak away systems.

3.17 In response to a question about suggestions to reduce the threats to parks and brownfield sites, Ms Woodifield advised that the Countryside Agency was aware that many Green Belt sites were fragmented and poorly managed. They were often at the bottom of local authorities’ list of priorities. The Planning Policy Guidance required sustainable development on sites and she wished to see a greater involvement of communities incorporated into the planning system rather than laying aside village design statements. The Countryside Agency was about to start work on a new strategy from 1 April 2001, based on the theme of “The Countryside on your Doorstep”. It was hoping to address the issue of everyone having access to attractive green spaces within their local area. The Walking for Health Initiative was also concerned with it.

Creation Schemes and Enhancement

3.18 The Committee asked about examples of good work that the Countryside Agency had undertaken in the Greater London Area. Ms Woodifield referred to the Green Corridors Partnership in West London which had been developed along the A4-M4 corridor as a five

- 4 - year pilot with one year left to run. The Thames Chase Community Forest project was nearly 10 years old and from that it was possible to see a patchwork of open spaces. That project was continually monitored and Ms Woodifield undertook to inform the Committee of any downsides with the project.

3.19 The Committee asked how the Countryside Agency had involved the communities in its projects. Ms Woodified explained that with the Thames Chase project the community had inputted their ideas. However, generally it could be very hard to involve people. The Agency supported other organisations such as such as the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers to undertake community consultation work on their behalf, which might involve the BTCV leafleting every household to reach as broad an audience as possible. In terms of financial support, it tended to grant aid bodies like the British Nature Conservation Volunteers. They had a web site which offered free publications and their partner organisations undertook leafleting.

3.20 In response to a question about how the “Doorstep Greens” could work in London, Ms Woodifield advised that it followed on from the Millennium Green Scheme and the idea was that local people would come forward with ideas for small spaces of open space. Victor Anderson asked if there had been failures in establishing the Millennium Green Scheme and Ms Woodifield advised him that there had been some problems with the application process and land acquisitions. She was hoping that the application process for the new scheme would be easier.

3.21 In response to a question about what role the Countryside Agency would be playing in the development of a greenspace network in the Greater London area, Ms Woodifield stated that it would not be possible to say until the Countryside Agency had undertaken work on its strategy and could decide how it would feed into the policy and she hoped to be able to extend it to the Countryside Agency’s partners.

3.22 Mr Fox explained that Mr Worpole, on behalf of Groundwork, was working on a European Union Interreg programme called "New Urban Landscapes". Threats to existing green spaces was one of the issues that he was investigating, but he was also dealing with the need for people to have access to open space to improve the quality of life of Londoners and looking for opportunities. The Groundwork Federation comprised all of the Groundwork organisations and the London Office. There were 44 Trusts, 7 of which were located in London and they were working in partnership with 11 London Boroughs. He expected that in a few years’ time the Groundwork Trust would be working with 25 London Boroughs.

3.23 Mr Fox explained that his experience led him to believe that there was an absolute inter- dependence between economic and environmental regeneration. There needed to be a holistic approach which looked at the issues of biodiversity and developments together, so that opportunities to develop partnerships across sectors would not be lost. The SRB programme involved building partnerships across the public and private sector with a bottom- up approach, based on local needs. It was necessary to find ways of developing local ownership and pride otherwise the achievements would be lost and the investment would not be sustainable.

3.24 There was an enormous variety of open spaces in London, from Lea Valley to very small local spaces where people lived. Much of the Trust’s work was on housing estates where no thought had been given to the need for space. On every site different considerations had to

- 5 - be given to the composition of the community and how to build up partnerships. That meant building up partnerships not just with the people who were organised but also those who were not. Many people did not speak English as a first language. Once people were engaged in the process they would often start to organise themselves, perhaps into residents’ associations. The ultimate objective was to engage communities in the planning process in a wider sense in London and it was necessary to find ways in which more people could participate.

3.25 In order to engage communities it was necessary to have the people with the right skills and who were able to hear the voices of those people who were not involved with organisations. The Trust did bring in people who were experts in dealing with those types of issues and where language was a barrier it would bring in people who could cross those cultural barriers.

3.26 The Committee asked about best practice in engaging with communities and funding local projects. Mr Fox advised that funding came from different sources, and the Groundwork Trust was expected to identify priorities and bring different expertise and sources of funding together. Funding came from the Single Regeneration Budget, various national schemes run by the Trust, and from local authority main stream programmes. Burgess Park in Southwark was a major open space under the responsibility of the local authority. It had formerly been managed by the GLA and had been created by demolishing houses to create a large open space but there had been no strategic plan to ensure its maintenance. Four to five years ago Groundwork Trust in Southwark had started to tackle the project but its resources were quite small and at the time there was no opportunity to raise major resources. The Trust had created the Friends of Burgess Park to identify the areas that they saw as priorities and to then undertake projects with the communities. An incremental process of small changes over five years had made a difference.

3.27 A pan-London issue was the need to address what was to be done with large open spaces, what they could do for Londoners and what were the opportunities. It was essential to have a London-wide of view of such large open spaces that informed the strategic planning process. Residents near Burgess Park saw it as their local park and had taken ownership. The regeneration of the Aylesbury Estate which was close to the park had also been very important. Access to large parts could be improved by having areas which catered for different needs but it had to be achieved sensitively and productively. Society was constantly changing and parks had to reflect the changing needs of the community and that the process of change had to be recognised.

3.28 In response to a question about whether there were examples from elsewhere of a regional parks forum, Mr Worpole explained that the Groundwork Trust’s work in respect of urban parks was related to issues of urban democracy, citizenship and culture. Every local authority had one or two parks which were accessed by people from other boroughs but those parks were in crisis and required large amounts of money to manage them. Not every issue could be devolved to the community and in the case of regional parks the most successful ones were those that served a socially mixed area and age range. Green spaces needed to embody urban citizenship and reflect the needs of the whole community. He could not think of examples in other cities because other cities were run by a single regional authority. Whereas in London 41 parks had been devolved from the GLC and were now in the hands of 45 different bodies, for example, the Royal Parks Agency and the National Trust. There was an increasing gap between the quality of parks and public expectations. The Greater London Parks Forum (recommended in the issue paper submitted by Mr Worpole and Groundwork)

- 6 - would be very important in disseminating best practice and taking a strategic view on the need to balance tourism with biodiveristy. Parks were in decline because local authorities did not have the money to maintain them and they needed dedicated management.

3.29 The Committee asked if there was a division into leagues of the parks, and Mr Worpole advised that some parks like were unique. There was the possibility that Mile End Park would be established as a trust, so there was a proliferation and fragmentation of the providers. Victor Anderson asked if there were indications of support for the forum and Mr Worpole responded that Lea Valley Park was using a best value group. The forum would give opportunities for frank and open discussions between people who were using the parks and at the current time those opportunities were non-existent.

Use and funding

3.30 The Chair asked how it would be possible to avoid parks becoming green deserts. Mr Worpole responded that a number of parks were too big for their demographic areas and had little ecological value. They could perhaps be made over for woodland development or building development.

3.31 In response to a question as to why funding did not necessarily correlate with good quality parks, Mr Worpole stated that a 1995 study of park life had shown that the Corporation of London was able to spend on one park what the London Borough of Newham was able to spend on 17. Hence, the disparity in funding levels was enormous. The Heritage Lottery Fund had been very useful for providing funding for parks. The Chair explained that in a later session the Committee would be hearing from local authorities about good practices in their parks.

3.32 The Committee commented that Lea Valley Park seemed to receive a large part of local authorities' expenditure on parks. Mr Worpole stated that it was a unique park and its funding was governed by an Act of Parliament so it was unlikely to change. It was an interesting place where biodiversity, recreation and commercial activities all competed with each other. Mr Fox added that it had been conceived as a green lung for London and a resource for the whole of London, although in reality that was not the case. It reflected an attempt to take a strategic view 50 years ago.

3.33 In response to a question about the benefits of bringing business in, Mr Worpole explained that the importance of the Groundwork Trust was that it was able to broker deals. Parks were at the bottom of local authorities’ priorities and indoor leisure facilities dominated leisure services. The GLA could play a useful role in promoting good quality outdoor leisure spaces which were as much value as indoor leisure facilities, if not more so.

3.34 In response to a question about examples of parks which had become run down and were being improved, Ms Hillman advised the Committee to look at parks which had received Heritage Lottery Funding. As part of the funding process, applicants had to first produce restoration plans which also acted as management plans. 145 restoration plans in the United Kingdom, had received £2.2 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund, including £313,000 for 22 London parks. In respect of grants for capital improvements, London had subsequently been awarded £32 million for 34 parks, including Manor House Gardens in . It would also be worth looking at the Royal Parks, especially , which had suffered from neglect over the years, although not to the extent of some local authority parks. Park maintenance involved proper signage and roads, and was not just the green landscape and flower displays. Without

- 7 - long-term maintenance they declined. They had suffered from tremendous under funding as politicians had not realised their complexity and it was easy to not realise that there could be problems with the basic infrastructure of roads, paths, drainage, walls, fences and buildings.

3.35 Samantha Heath commented that her experience of the Heritage Lottery Fund was that it was quite constrained in what it could provide, for example, it could not necessarily be used to provide enhanced play facilities for children, and it did not reach out to the community. Ms Hillman agreed that it should cater for people’s needs today, some of which had changed. The Heritage Lottery Fund money basically been awarded for restoration rather than conservation which could allow for modern additions to the heritage context. In response to a question about how effective that funding was, Ms Hillman advised that it was highly welcomed as the first major funding for parks for many years. However, there needed to be other sources of funding for non-heritage parks which did not fall within the scheme. Unless politicians thought that it was an important issue for the electorate money was unlikely to be made available. The Thames Gateway should include parks and open spaces as a key part of the development. In new developments in London parks should be an important trigger for economic and social regeneration.

3.36 Mr Fox stated that in the last few years the issue of parks had risen up the agenda. Green spaces had risen to the top of the political agenda because of issues around health, crime and disorder and differences between generations. The New Opportunities Fund was potentially very important and the GLA could have an impact on shaping its policy development. Although it was possible to find funding for capital works, it was also necessary to find money for long- term maintenance.

3.37 Mr Frith referred to the Heritage Lottery Fund and small grants scheme piloted in London and North West Britain in 2000 and explained that he had applied for received funding for a scheme called “Chalking Up London's Downs" which would be looking at chalk downs on the edge of London. It involved a partnership between the London Boroughs of Bromley, Sutton and Croydon, the Corporation of London, English Nature, the London Wildlife Trust, and the Downlands Countryside Management Project. Its purpose was to look at opportunities and raise awareness. It was based in the area south of the boroughs of Bromley, Croydon and Sutton and included two areas of significant socio-economic deprivation at New Addington and the Roundshaw Estates. It was hoped that the project would make efforts to involve and bring on board people's concerns and interests. There had been opportunities for friends groups, the Groundwork Trust and the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers to become involved. English Nature had a grant scheme for Local Nature Reserves which was funded by the New Opportunities Fund. English Nature was one of the umbrella provider bodies that would distribute the New Opportunities Fund monies for the sustainable communities and green spaces initiative in England. The scheme would provide just under £6 million over the next five years. There would be money for community liaison officers for possibly up to six years. Much of the funding was targeted at those wards identified by the DETR as being "deprived". English Nature was encouraging the local authorities to work together provide the staff resource to promote and encourage communities to take ownership of it.

3.38 In response to a question about how the Countryside Agency had helped with funding, Ms Woodifield stated that the Millennium Green scheme had covered the London area. The Local Heritage Initiative Scheme was a small grant scheme and it would run for another ten years. It also had a ten-year programme for country parks and was hoping to set up some steering groups and to produce a best practice blue print.

- 8 - Access

3.39 The Chair asked that given the importance of countryside access near to centres of population how could people find where to go, and in response Ms Woodifield advised that the Countryside Agency's new theme was a "Wider Welcome". The Agency needed to deliver access to the countryside and rights of way, and it would be running pilots to see the most appropriate way of achieving that. The mapping process would be mainly a desktop exercise any outdoor checks would be constrained because of the foot-and-mouth crisis. It would be offering grants towards the cost of projects such as improving access for people with disabilities and ethnic minorities.

3.40 In response to a question about the reaction of local authorities to English Nature's standards of accessible natural green space, Mr Frith explained that the model had been produced by his predecessor who had undertaken the work with University College London. It had not been given an emphasis over the last few years. The proposals had been taken on board by Brighton and Hove and Coventry Councils and discussions were going on about taking the standards forward. The proposals related to a broad definition of green space. He had found that local authorities had taken on board the ideas but then were unsure how to implement the policies on the ground. English Nature was considering undertaking a mapping exercise to see how feasible the standards were. It would be necessary to provide pragmatic tools for planners to deliver accessible green space on the ground. People might know where green spaces were but those spaces were not always accessible. English Nature would be allocating time and money to bring the project forward. Mr Frith undertook to give more information to the Committee.

3.41 Members asked if there was too much access to parks, for example, events in parks, because of the need to raise funds. Ms Hillman responded that the Royal Parks Review Group had been established because of the pressure , particularly on Hyde Park for major events and also for an indoor riding arena. The Review Group had tried to draw up a framework for holding events which covered such matters as a share in all the profits, as well as an immediate restoration of the landscape after damage caused by the crowds, vehicles and the erection of the stage, portable toilets and kiosks, which could cause damage to a park. Events should be for the benefit of the park and limited to a few times per year, as they could lead to difficulties with local residents and park users who could not use a large area of the park for a period of tiem before and after the event. If possible events should be staged that were in keeping with the park. The question was what could be done for parks to make money that did not compromise their character. The Committee commented that there was a need to balance events so that people from different backgrounds would attend them.

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

4 Close of Meeting

4.28 The meeting ended at 11.59am

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

- 9 - 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

- 10 -