Written evidence submitted by Better Archway [PKS 053]
Better Archway is a community group of close to 1000 members in the north of the borough of Islington.
We have been concerned at the loss of greenspace in and around the borough and therefore believe that there needs to be stronger protection of such spaces which were specifically designed to provide green space for the general public.
These parks also offer oases of wildlife which are vital if we are to keep the UK’s ecology in balance. While we appreciate that the current administration does not consider this a priority, we will all suffer if it is neglected and hope therefore that members of the select committee will note this.
Who Uses the Parks
The use of the parks varies widely, depending on their size, location and the nature of facilities provided but includes both individual and organised physical activity including for children of all ages, strolling, walking dogs, meeting friends, picnicking or simply sitting and enjoying the greenery and sound of birds. Smaller spaces simply provide the sight of greenery and wildlife, known to mitigate stress and mental health problems. For this reason small patches of greenery should be afforded the same protection as larger parks.
In addition, and a key point often ignored by planners, those in most need of greenspace are often those least willing or able to travel to find it. They will barely go the distance of two bus stops to do so, which means it is important to provide regularly spaced elements of greenspace. And given the increase in infill housing over existing gardens, the provision of protected public space becomes ever more important.
There is an issue with ‘turf’ control of public spaces in areas where young residents establish their status on the street. However, experienced officers have observed that this is a matter outside the control of administration of parks, and in the parks themselves a hierarchy generally establishes itself.
Contribution to Health and Wellbeing
Personal contacts are a key marker for wellbeing and therefore health. The level of motor traffic on most roads and streets is such as to deter more than cursory socialising on the pavement, but by providing an area for chance encounters with neighbours, away from that traffic, parks intrinsically contribute to wellbeing.
In addition there is considerable research showing the beneficial impact of greenery on mental health and at a time when this appears to be a growing problem, this is a vital resource. This is particularly so in densely inhabited urban areas where greenspace is under threat and mental health is a deeply rooted problem for a significant sector of the population.
The space to carry out sport and other physical activities is also beneficial.
Protection of this space is therefore a cost effective measure to reduce the burden of government spend in other areas.
The Impact of Budget Reductions
We appreciate that many of the bodies running parks have seen a significant reduction in funding. As a result administrators may variously look to sell, develop or use parks for commercial activities.
However, we are also aware that in public bodies over the past decades a culture had taken root which has facilitated spending of doubtful value. We believe therefore there is scope for a different and more effective approach to the handling of budgets in this area.
The cultural change which that requires can be uncomfortable and there is a danger that rather than undergo that upheaval, the decision makers will prefer to seek more cash. This appears to be what is happening current with the increase in commercialisation of parks, to the detriment of the parks themselves, users and the wider neighbourhood. Parks will need protection against that, and measures to prompt responsible and creative management going forward.
Administrative Status of Parks
We are happy for local authorities to continue to be involved in the administration of parks given their remit to represent local residents who may feel less confident about expressing their needs. But we also believe that parks may benefit from the involvement of more expert bodies such as the National Trust or the Wildlife Trust as well as small specialist groups to provide in depth expertise in managing open spaces. If the local administration does need feel able to fund their own officers in the field, perhaps they can be co-opted to partner bodies to ensure that their local expertise is not lost.
Local residential representatives may also be helpful, but this risks polarising the protection with parks in more middle class areas being better protected than others in areas where there is less confidence about participation in public decisions, and sometimes a misconception that the most expensive choice is the best one. (In parks this is often not the case.) The solution to the potential uneven quality of local representation might be to require such representatives to work with a number of parks in a wider area, and for there to be a requirement for equal treatment of those in order to prevent preferential treatment of those in better areas.
How to Support Parks
Rather than seeking additional funding we believe the first priority in running parks will be to assess the current administration and seek to be creative in doing so, looking for example for partnerships with bodies which need access to open space such as training schemes, and non-invasive uses such as projects to help those with mental health issues, or outdoor gym classes run by the local leisure services provider.
Sponsorship of park rangers would be possible, but should be restricted to advertising on the rangers’ jackets and transport, with signage in the park forbidden.
We do not believe that commercialisation should have any major role in the operation of these spaces. The result – as we have experienced in Islington - is significant damage to the park, and detriment to its users and neighbours.
Advantages and disadvantages are of management models
We would oppose privatisation of parks unless in a form which safely prevents commercial exploitation – see above.
Similarly, outsourcing should only be permitted with very strict limits on commercial gain and with very strict requirements on maintenance and administration standards. The same would apply to mutualisation.
However administered, to ensure the benefits of parks, legislation is needed to protect these spaces against financially-driven interventions, with clear physical and time limits on any commercial operations.
There also needs to be a clear ban on the sale of any such space, preventing owners from selling these vital assets simply to meet short term expenses.