London Assembly Planning and Housing Committee Private/Public Space Investigation Evidence Received Investigation: Private/Public Space Contents Evidence Reference Organisation Page Number Number PPS001 Land Use Consultants 3 PPS002 Potters Fields Trust 4 PPS003 Thorn Hill Bridge Community Gardeners 5 PPS004 British Land Company 12 PPS005 CABE 13 PPS006 Friends of the Parkland Walk 15 PPS007 City of London 21 PPS008 Living Streets 23 PPS009 London Councils 29 PPS010 Okra Landscape Architects 31 PPS011 Sustrans 34 PPS012 Atkins 41 PPS013 The Glass House 43 PPS014 Green Spaces Forum 52 PPS015 Think Place 53 PPS016 Urban Space Management 55 PPS017 UCL Prof Carmona 58 PPS018 London Borough of Bexley 59 PPS019 City of Westminster 61 PPS020 London Forum 65 PPS021 confidential 67 PPS022 London Borough Waltham Forest 69 PPS023 Mayor 74 PPS024 Royal Parks 81 PPS025 BCSC [British Council of Shopping Centres] 83 PPS026 CAE [Centre for Accessible Environments] 86 PPS027 Anna Minton 89 PPS028 British Property Federation 91 PPS029 The Crown Estate 92 PPS030 BTCV 99 PPS031 Legal and General 103 PPS032 London Wildlife Trust 105 PPS033 Ealing Wildlife Network and Brent River and Canal Society 112 PPS034 London Borough Southwark 114 PPS035 London First 118 PPS036 Community Matters 121 PPS037 Guide Dogs association 123 PPS038 Land Securities PLC 131 PPS039 English Heritage 133 PPS040 Natural England 137 PPS041 Crossrail 149 PPS042 Grosvenor 156 PPS043 inmidtown 175 1 (Blank Page) 2 PPS001 Land Use Consultants Sent: 26 October 2010 11:51 To: Alexandra Beer Subject: investigation into management of publicly accsssible space inLondon Dear Alexandra I am replying on behalf of my colleagues … at Land Use Consultants. Thankyou for inviting comments onyour letter 18th oct. We have some general points : a ) We understand that this is a study by the office of the Mayor of London , but suggest that the references to spaces that are used by Londoners it might be more inclusive to think about 'users of Public Spaces in London '. b ) The descriptions of what is meant by Publicly Accessible Space are general . For the purposes of this study we suggest that Residential space may need to be considered distinctly from other public realm. eg the need to provide ' defensible space ' around public housing . c) Applicable to anumber of the questions : what is the space for & what is it intended to provide ? Different types of publicly accessible space provide necessarily different facilities. Similarly - think about the presentation of the space , its appearance & condition - there is often a 'requirement' in project briefs to ensure ' Highest Quality ' . This is an over-used & meaningless phrase - a space should provide the things & experiences appropriate for its location & audience - eg some city green space shouls be wild & unkempt to provide habitat for birds & insects, etc. The Questions : 1. Respect for fellow humans &. beiing able to find, get into & use the space for the purpose intended . 2 . Is the space managed for its users or for the convenience of management ? Is it managed to enhance the Quality of Life or for cost benefit reasons ? 3 . - 4 . BIDs - if used appropriately are a really good tool - unfortunately the original concept developed in the USA has become complicated & relatively difficult to apply. Think about the type of space, what it is to be used for & who is going to look after it . Think about an appropriate 'level' of maintenance - rather than the loose term ' highest quality'. 5 . Focus on what the function of the public space is & consider what it should provide - trying to make ALL public rrealm provide everything waters down the idea of diverse places . Focus is good . 6 . Our experiences show that the more successful outcomes from involving communities happen when the Community is enabled to work with the landowner & their professional advisers . 7 - 8 - We hope this is helpful 3 PPS002 Potters Fields Trust Management of publicly accessible space in London London is justifiably proud of its excellent reputation for public space and particularly green space and to have such areas as the Royal Parks and Hampstead Heath so close to the city centre is a remarkable benefit of our history and London’s development. The tradition of developing and improving those spaces has continued into the 20th century with areas such as Mile End Park and Burgess park both of which came about as a result of WW2 and the need for slum clearance. London has a complex government structure which could lead to a dysfunctional approach to public space. However due to either people power or far sighted political thinking the tradition of quality public space continues both in publicly and privately owned land. A lot of privately owned open land is accessible. This is intentional on the part of the landowners who are either benevolent or see a commercial benefit from allowing access or it is covered by s106 arrangements. A good example of this is More London, where there is good access and activities provided on a very well run estate. While they More London tries to control some forms of access such as cycling this is done on the biases of safety and consideration for all users. Much of the privately owned public space in London is maintained, presented and interpreted to a very high standard probably better than publicly owned space, this is for commercial reasons, the lack of “political” interferences and better funding. Potters Fields Park Management Trust is a good example of semi private management of public space. The park belongs to LB Southwark and is leased to a Trust. The Trust is made up of local land owner, local residents groups, the council, GLA and the business improvement district. This board makes it accountable to the local community whilst it operates under a lease and services level agreement with the council. The benefits are the Trust can raise its own funds to maintain the park and can and respond to the needs of an area with a very high footfall. Where as previously the income generated was not ring fenced for the park and the quality of the space suffered due to insufficient maintenance. In the case of Potters Fields Park the funds are raised by holding events, not all of which are enjoyed by all of the people all of the time and there is a need to keep a balance between commercial and community use and open access. The Trust system only works where there is potential to raise funds and or be financially independent. However there may be opportunities through s106 agreements to set up Trusts, with local support. It is likely in the current economic climate that funding for accessible space will be reduced and to mitigate the effects of reduced funding a partnership approach should be adopted as well as encouraging income generation on publicly owned land. This may sometimes cause frustration when areas of parks etc are fenced off for events such as concerts, such as Hyde Park and Kenwood House; however it is far better to have the occasional event and allow quality access the rest of the time. It is often possible to raise funds for open space through such activities as filming which are often not intrusive and take place early in the morning. The result also helps to publicise the location and the city. The financial situations of both Castle Howard in North Yorkshire (Brideshead Revisited) and Lyme Park in Cheshire (Pride and Prejudice) have been transformed by becoming film/TV stars. Private owners of publicly owned accessible space will normally have a vested commercial interest in allowing free public access. There may be some occasions where private owners will act selfishly in not allowing access to public space. However this small minority should not be seen as the norm, most see benefits from allowing access. In my view it would be a mistake to try and legislate. It could cause a backlash and less privately owned public space would be created. The way forward is through cooperation and partnership using the planning process to find positive solutions with land owners and accepting in these difficult times we have to be more creative in our approach to income generation so that we can maintain quality open space in London. Chief Executive Potters Fields Park Management Trust 27 October 2010 4 PPS003 Thorn Hill Bridge Community Gardeners Sent: 01 November 2010 15:28 To: Alexandra Beer Subject: RE: London Assembly - Investigation into the management of public space Hi Alex I am attaching several documents for you to look over at your leisure. The first one is a general display about TBCG They all explain about my group and answer many of the questions posed in pdf. about management of public space. Previously Thornhill Bridge Community Gardeners received a Green Pennant award 2010/2011 (see attached report) Photo at GLA taken last Monday http://www.flickr.com/photos/52558332@N08/5114679573/in/set‐ 72157625115399373/ Thornhill Bridge Community Gardeners received award “RHS It’s Your Neighbourhood” we got Thriving (Level 4), attached is the RHS report, we only missed the top category by 8 points. Link to video about Thornhill Bridge Community Gardeners http://www.vimeo.com/11788323 1. What rights should Londoners have in public space and how can these rights be maintained through the planning and development process? Londoners can form FoG’s or Friends of Groups and join LPGSF to have a say 2. What models are there of managing public space in London and what benefits and disadvantages are there to the different ways of managing public space? Please consult with LBI Greenspace team for models. My group is one the first ones set up in LBI in 2003 but there are many fine examples in our borough 3.