BACK AND FRONT GARDENS

REPORT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW COMMITTEE

London Borough of Islington

April 2007

1 FOREWORD FROM THE CHAIR

When it comes to public green space Islington is a “nearly” borough. We nearly have ; we nearly have ; we nearly have Park. Unfortunately, we don’t actually have any of them.

In terms of green space generally, we have five million square metres in Islington. Of that, three million (sixty percent!) is private garden. This has to mean that what Islington people do with and in their gardens could have twice as much effect on our climate and wildlife as what Islington council does with our public green spaces.

Realising this led us to start our scrutiny of how Islington people use their front and back gardens – and what they could do to contribute more to our health, pleasure and climate.

We have looked around Islington at small communal gardens, gardens on estates, playgrounds, and forgotten corners. There are some outstanding examples of how people can make their neighbourhoods better places to share, and for quality as well as quantity we have looked at some of the star turns in the Islington in Bloom competition.

In both the private and the public housing sectors there is an opportunity to set up the garden equivalent of a dating agency. There are gardens without “gardeners” and there are “gardeners” without gardens. We want to see more gardens brought back into use with volunteering schemes using organisations such as Homes for Islington, Time Banks and Groundwork.

A campaign is needed to raise people’s awareness of the issues around gardens, particularly bio-diversity and sustainability.

One of the most worrying factors in private gardens is the use of front gardens for car parking, usually involving concreting over the soil, and the epidemic of patios and decking in back gardens. Luckily, controlled parking schemes have reduced the use of pavement crossovers, thus keeping cars out of front gardens, but decking and patios are still the gardening equivalent of convenience food and we are still puzzling as to how we wean people off them.

Important contributors to the life of our gardens – and our pavements – are trees. These we have not ignored, and we have heard how trees are under threat from climate change, and how different species may take over from our more traditional ones.

Even if we could get every square centimetre of garden back into use, there is another huge untapped source of green space attached to each house and building – the roof! We have looked at the use of green and brown roofs, and are recommending that these are promoted and encouraged.

2 The subject of Back and Front Gardens seems at first sight to be small, parochial and of little real interest, but we have found it to be both fascinating and, we believe, vital to our future well-being. Here is a tremendous challenge for our council, our residents and all the organisations involved to take our recommendations and turn them into what we trust should be a fruitful reality.

I would like to thank all of the contributors to this review, as well as the officers of the democratic services team and the members of the committee especially those who spent time on visits!

Councillor Wally Burgess

3 MEMBERSHIP OF THE SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW COMMITTEE

Councillors: Wally Burgess (Chair) Barbara Smith (Vice Chair) Michael O’Sullivan Anna Berent Lisa Spall Tracy Ismail James Murray Emily Fieran-Reed Katie Dawson

Substitutes: Mouna Hamitouche Kelly Peasnell Gary Doolan Julia Williams Paul Smith Ruth Polling Richard Watts Fiona Dunlop

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The sustainability review committee would like to thank all the groups and individuals who assisted the scrutiny process and helped to shape the recommendations in the report.

OFFICER SUPPORT

Scrutiny & Democratic Services: Gareth Jenkins

Greenspace and Leisure Bob Gilbert

4 THE COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The council should investigate the feasibility of a scheme to match residents wanting gardens to people who do not or are unable to use their gardens and that consideration should be given to the methodology employed by Islington time banks to carry out similar schemes

2. The committee recognises the importance of green and brown roofs, and green walls, given the limited open space in Islington. Accordingly, the committee recommends that: • The council should take a lead and increase the use of green and brown roofs and green walls on their own developments • Planning should increase their targets for the amount of green and brown roofs and green walls in the borough year on year • The proposed sustainable living centre should work with planning and building control to promote advice to developers and residents on environmental building techniques including green and brown roofs and green walls • The council should work to encourage balcony gardens and roof gardens • The council should work to encourage planting in tree pits

3. The committee recognises the problem caused across by people concreting over front gardens to provide parking spaces. Whilst this is not a problem in Islington, the committee recommends that this situation is monitored and prompt action taken if it does become a problem.

4. The committee recommends that the council conduct an audit, including financial implications, of all disused areas of land in the borough and their suitability for adoption as pocket parks/community gardens

5. The committee notes that the council is carrying out a borough-wide survey of garden wildlife in Islington. This should be used as an opportunity to engage with residents regarding back and front gardens and the issues raised in this review. The committee feels that this survey should be repeated annually to allow the council to monitor the state of wildlife in Islington.

6. The committee recommends further that this survey, along with the council’s biodiversity action plan for gardens, be used as the starting point for an educational campaign to inform people of the contribution that gardens make to biodiversity, sustainability and regeneration in the borough. This to also address paving over of back gardens.

5 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Overview Committee approved the priority topics for scrutiny at their meeting on the 15th June 2006.

1.2 The Sustainability Review Committee, as part of its work programme agreed to undertake a review into back and front gardens.

2. OBJECTIVES

2.1 To review the economic, environmental and social contribution of front and back gardens to life in the borough and how we can maximise these.

2.2 The objectives of the review were as follows:

To review the planning issues surrounding front and back gardens To review the contribution of front and back gardens to biodiversity in the borough To review other sustainability and environmental impacts of front and back gardens To review the contribution of front and back gardens to regeneration and quality of life in the borough To review approaches to assisting elderly people or people with disabilities in the maintenance of gardens.

3. METHODOLOGY AND TIMETABLING

3.1 Following the agreement of the Scrutiny Initiation Document (SID) officers designed a work programme for the Committee to receive presentations and witness evidence at Sustainability Review Committee meetings and visit a number of organisations and individuals.

6 4. THE COMMITTEE'S FINDINGS

Background

4.1 A 1981 survey estimated that 20 percent of the land surface of Greater London was made up of private gardens, with two thirds of all trees being in private gardens.

4.2 Islington has approximately three million square metres of private gardens, compared to two million square metres of other types of green space. Private gardens make up twenty percent of the land surface of Islington, in accordance with the 1981 survey mentioned above. The 20 percent of the land surface makes a valuable contribution to biodiversity, particularly as Islington has less open space than a number of other boroughs. To reflect this, Islington has a biodiversity action plan for gardens.

4.3 Gardens are under threat from development pressures. The rising property market makes it more viable to develop small pockets of land.

4.4 London-wide, there is an increasing tendency to pave over gardens to provide parking spaces, with 120,000 people applying for this in the last year. Twelve miles sq of gardens in London has been lost for this purpose, an area the equivalent of 22 Hyde Parks. Paving over gardens increases the runoff of water, contributing to flash flooding. Recently, this has resulted in sewage discharge in the Thames. Paving over gardens also decreases the amount of moisture in the soil, increasing the risk of subsidence.

4.5 Greenery in gardens absorbs heat, whereas hard surfaces absorb heat during the day and release it at night, raising nighttime temperatures, and increasing the overall temperature of built up areas, creating ‘heat islands’. Greenery also absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing pollution.

4.6 Well-planted gardens also improve the appearance of urban areas, and can reduce the feeling of being trapped in a city.

4.7 The current trend for minimalist, low maintenance gardens, encouraged by a number of televised makeover programmes, has also reduced the amount of greenery in gardens. Minimalist gardens, formal gardens and gardens with a large expanse of lawn are of less value in terms of biodiversity. The committee feels that it is important to inform people of the problems inherent in paving over gardens, and to publicise the contribution that private gardens make to the biodiversity of the borough.

4.8 Nationally, 43 different species of mammal visit gardens, along with many bird species. One urban garden survey identified 786 species of invertebrate. Ponds are also under-threat. There are 150,000 in private gardens, of which 20,000 provide a home for newts or frogs. Small gardens have an important role to play and if cultivated properly could attract a lot of wildlife.

7 Planning legislation

4.9 Islington Council’s unitary design policy (UDP) contains a number of policies intended to protect gardens. Amongst these, policy R9 states that permission for a change of use from private or public open space will only be given in exceptional circumstances. Policy H9 (iv) states that extensions and additions should not prejudice daylight and sunlight to neighbouring buildings or reduce the garden area to less than an acceptable minimum. The local development framework (LDF) will soon replace Islington’s UDP. Policy CS3 of the LDF is designed to protect garden space from development.

4.10 Balconies and roof terraces are another way of providing open space, and the committee heard that these are viewed favourably unless they caused overlooking. The council is also looking at the use of green and brown roofs, aiming to see one acre of green roofs created annually.

4.11 As highlighted in the introduction to this report, the paving over of front gardens is a huge problem across London. The committee heard that this is not so much of a problem in Islington, where properties often do not have front gardens suitable for conversion to parking spaces.

4.12 Car-free developments meant that land that would have been used to provide car-parking spaces could now be used for landscaping, increasing the green space in the borough. Development schemes converting commercial to residential properties often have outside areas that could be landscaped. S106 planning gain is also used to increase green space in the borough.

Green roofs

4.13 Extensive planting within cities is now widely recognised as a way of improving air quality, offsetting the urban heat island effect (the difference in temperature between urban areas and the surrounding countryside) and delaying water run off, reducing the risk of flash floods.

4.14 In a built up area such as central London, where open space is relatively scarce, green roofs offer a pragmatic means of introducing planted areas into the urban environment.

4.15 According to livingroofs.org.uk, a website set up to promote green roofs, an area 28 times the size of has the potential to be retro-fitted with green roofs across London. In Tokyo, there are proposals to fit green roofs (sometimes with trees planted on the roof) on all new high-rise buildings to offset climate change.

Gardens and sustainability

4.16 The council’s biodiversity action plan identifies gardens as a key habitat. Although most gardens are small, they form a mosaic of habitat across the borough. The committee heard that the council needed more information on the wildlife and makeup of the private gardens in the borough. The committee

8 feels that a borough-wide survey of public wildlife would be a good way of engaging with the public.

4.17 The council works closely with Islington Gardeners to promote wildlife friendly gardens, notably at the ecology centre, Freightliners Farm and Culpepper Street.

4.18 The council works to promote peat-free compost and the use of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified timber, and also does a lot of work to promote water conservation.

4.19 The council has strong policies in place to protect gardens. However, private gardens can be converted to low maintenance, hard-landscaped areas without planning permission. The committee feels that more needed to be done to publicise the positive contribution that private gardens make to the borough.

Community gardens in Islington

4.20 There is a huge demand for gardens in Islington. The council has about 35 allotment plots spread over three sites, with a current waiting list of over 300. To try and meet this demand, the council is encouraging the use of community gardens. Community gardens allow a number of people to use the same plot of land. A park in Mildmay has recently been converted into a community garden.

4.21 At Penn Road Gardens, the residents association have taken over the horticultural contract, and do an excellent job of maintaining the gardens.

Islington/London in bloom

4.22 The council runs Islington in Bloom as a way of encouraging people to make the most of their gardens. There had been approximately 70 entries this year. There are a number of high quality gardens in the borough, with some of the best located on estates.

4.23 Islington received a silver gilt award at London in bloom, putting the borough on the same level as Kensington and Chelsea.

Time banks

4.24 The time banking system, where people swap skills in an organised fashion, with one hour equal to one time credit, was first devised in the 1980’s. Time banking in the UK started in 1998. According to Time Banks UK, the national umbrella charity linking and supporting time banks across the country, there are 76 active time banks and 42 developing time banks in the UK. There are currently five active time banks in Islington, along with a number of less formal arrangements, such as residents on an estate buying and sharing decorating equipment and materials.

9 4.25 From their inception, time banks were intended to grow social capital and revive the core economy of family, neighbourhood and community.

4.26 The committee heard from Kaaren Morris who had set up the Upper Street time bank. Upper Street time banks had carried out volunteer work on a number of gardens. The first piece of work was on a garden on St Mary’s estate. This estate was owned by a housing association, but residents maintained their own gardens. With Groundwork providing tools and advice, and the housing association and Groundwork funding some of the planting. About 18 volunteers worked on the garden of a resident with severe disabilities. Time banks centrally record people’s time credits, and in this case the resident was able to assist another time bank user.

4.27 As the time bank has limited resources, residents who could not look after their gardens were prioritised. Maintaining the gardens after the initial planting could be problematic.

4.28 The committee were keen to explore ways in which residents who did not make use of their gardens were able to allow others to look after them, and feels that the time bank system might offer a way of doing this on an unofficial basis. Any formalised arrangements could be problematic – a change of tenancy in the middle of an agreement could result in arguments about continuing the arrangement, whereas encouraging tenants to get involved on a volunteer basis could be more successful.

4.29 Homes for Islington (HfI) tenancy conditions state that gardens needed to be kept clean and tidy; HfI needed to look at how to enforce this. A volunteer scheme could be one way of addressing this issue.

Trees

4.30 In Islington, the council’s Greenspace and Leisure Division manages all trees on public land. Trees in gardens are covered by planning legislation.

4.31 Trees in cities are under pressure from a number of factors. Pollution levels have a negative effect, as does climate change. Many pests and diseases used to be killed off by colder winter weather; higher winter temperatures allowed existing pests and diseases to spread more rapidly, and also meant that trees face new pests and diseases. Higher temperatures could also mean that in about 20 years some trees would be in a continuous growing cycle, instead of shedding leaves in winter. The effects of this are not known.

4.32 Residents also want to remove trees close to properties for a number of reasons – loss of light, leaves blocking gutters, trees interfering with satellite TV reception. The committee heard that Islington Council has a strong tree policy, and used this to protect trees in the public realm. The council also insists on a high level of proof for insurance claims relating to trees.

4.33 The main problem associated with urban trees is subsidence. Tree roots do not directly cause this. Subsidence arises when clay soil expands and

10 contracts as it loses water. Tree roots can increase the amount of water removed from soil. Awareness and fear of subsidence is on the increase. Surveys on properties often recommend that nearby trees are pruned or removed. The committee heard that less than half a percent of trees in built up areas cause subsidence.

4.34 Climate change also contributes to increased subsidence. Soil is getting drier, and the change in rainfall patterns makes flash floods more likely, meaning that soil does not hydrate properly. This increases cyclical movement of soil.

4.35 The committee heard that Islington was experimenting with the planting of trees more suited to a warmer climate, and that recently olive trees had been planted in Islington for the first time.

4,36 Trees provide shade for properties, which would be increasingly important as temperatures increase.

4.37 Tree canopies are designed to allow water to run off to the edge of the tree roots. Where trees are pruned, changing the radius of the canopy, tree water falls at a different point on the root system and is not absorbed as effectively.

4.38 The council can use tree protection orders (TPOs) to protect trees. However, there are a lot of conditions governing their use. If a tree is not visible from a public place, it is adjudged to have no amenity value, so a lot of significant trees in Islington are not protected in this way.

4.39 Trees in conservation areas are also protected. Permission is needed to work on these trees, and the council can then put a TPO in place if necessary. The council could be sued if a tree with a TPO caused damage to a property. Until four years ago, the council could waive this, but this was no longer the case, making this a more pressing issue for local authorities.

4.40 Some London Plane trees live for more than 350 years, longer than the life span for many buildings. The committee heard that this could be used to argue that developments should be built around trees, rather than the other way round.

Forgotten corners

4.41 The committee heard that the council’s Greenspace and Leisure Division adopts small parcels of land where it could to bring them into public use. These areas of land are covered by the existing parks budget. The committee visited a diverse range of sites across the borough, ranging from small areas such as a planted verge by Archway Bridge to larger community gardens, and were able to witness the positive impact on the environment that even very small planted areas can have. The committee feels that the council should look at all disused land in the borough to see if it was suitable for use as pocket parks/community gardens.

11 APPENDICES TO THE REPORT

APPENDIX A - SCRUTINY REVIEW INITIATION DOCUMENT

APPENDIX B- WITNESSES AND ORGANISATIONS CONSULTED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY REVIEW

12 APPENDIX A Scrutiny Review Initiation Document

SCRUTINY REVIEW INITIATION DOCUMENT (SID) Review: Front and Back Gardens

Scrutiny Review Committee: Sustainability

Director leading the Review:

Lead Officer: Bob Gilbert

Objectives of the Review: To review the economic, environmental and social contribution of front and back gardens to life in the Borough and how we can maximise these.

Objectives of the review: • To review the planning issues surrounding front and back gardens • To review the contribution of front and back gardens to biodiversity in the Borough • To review other sustainability and environmental impacts of front and back gardens • To review the contribution of front and back gardens to regeneration and quality of life in the Borough • To review approaches to assisting elderly people or people with disabilities in the maintenance of gardens.

How is the review to be carried out.

1. Documentary submissions • UDP/Local Area Framework • Islington Biodiversity Action Plan (Andrew Bedford) • Sustainability Action Plan • Islington Tree Policy • Reports from relevant organisations

13

2. Witness Evidence • Council Planning Officers • Council Greenspace Officers (Nature Conservation Team, Tree Section) • Council Head of Sustainability • Homes for Islington and registered social landlords – communal areas on estates, people without own garden • Islington Gardeners • Representatives of organisations undertaking projects with elderly or disabled landlords • Private landlords through the landlords forum

Additional Information:

Programme

Key output: To be submitted to committee on: 1. Scrutiny Initiation Document 24 July 2006 2. Timetable 3. Interim Report 4. Final Report

This SID has been approved by the Overview/Review Committee.

Signed: Date: Chair

14 APPENDIX B

WITNESSES AND ORGANISATIONS CONSULTED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY REVIEW

JAKE TIBBETS (LBI)

KAAREN MORRIS (LBI)

ABENA ASANTE (HFI)

ANDREW BEDFORD (LBI)

BOB GILBERT (LBI)

MAXINE HOLDSWORTH (LBI)

15