Written evidence submitted by the Lambeth Parks and Open Spaces Forum [PKS 377]
Lambeth Parks and Open Spaces Forum welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Select Committee. It represents Friends groups and other community bodies formed by users of Lambeth Council’s 64 parks and open spaces. These cover a total of 260 hectares; some such as Brockwell Park are large with a range of facilities; many are simple open spaces only a few hundred square metres in extent.
31 of the 64 have properly constituted Friends or similar groups, with elected officers.
The Forum has attempted here to address the questions in the light of our local experience. However, we believe that this may be replicated in many other parks and areas of the country.
2. Who uses parks and open spaces.
Although individual park volunteer groups/Friends may hold censuses of their users from time to time, to gauge satisfaction or to determine what people use their parks for, no comprehensive survey has been carried out in the Borough. It would not be practical for the Forum to do this, however, in 2015 Lambeth conducted a survey (Culture 2020) of users of cultural services in which 83% of respondents claimed to use parks regularly and frequently, compared to a lower percentage using the Borough’s libraries. The study ‘Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas & Open Spaces’ by the Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions in conjunction with Sheffield University’s Landscape Department in 2002 recorded that local residents will visit an urban park 1.4 times a week on average throughout the year.
The uses made of parks and open spaces varies and if this offers insight into which groups use parks, then the likelihood is that this is the majority of the local population. Large parks can offer fitness equipment for those wishing to improve health in this way and are likely to serve the younger members of the community. Children’s playgrounds are very well used by local families; cafes in parks in the borough are also well used and seem to serve both families, individuals and groups of friends meeting to socialise. Space for formal and informal team games serves young adults, teenagers and small children. Local observation suggests that in fine weather local parks may become space for study. Other users may wish for no more than quiet open space and somewhere to sit; indeed, this may be a favourite occupation of most park users, of all ages.
A survey conducted by the Friends of Kennington Park in 2013 showed that the prime purpose of their users was to relax, whether by physical exercise such as keep fit or jogging, or simply walking or sitting. A poll of some 400 park users by the Friends of Brockwell Park in 2015 came to a similar conclusion, many respondents saying that they most appreciated the open space and feeling closer to nature.
It appears to us that most local people take advantage of their parks for a variety of reasons.
3. The contribution of Parks to the health and well-being of communities
The contribution made by access to park and open spaces is well recognised and cited by many authorities, Public Health England, the Landscape Institute, the Kings Fund, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment are examples.
Lambeth Council has focussed on physical fitness and, in its draft ‘Sports Strategy’ aimed to ensure that every resident had somewhere to take exercise within a short distance of their home. 62% of respondents to Lambeth’s Culture 2020 consultation said they went to the park to take exercise. Turning these aspirations into equipment, sports fields and jogging tracks has moved more slowly, but people still use paths and grassed areas for walking and running in the absence of sports provision by the borough.
No special study has been made of the link between the use of parks and general health, but in a densely populated urban environment such as Lambeth, many residents are flat dwellers and/or have no access to outdoor amenity space. Indeed, current building regulations do not encourage the provision of such space. A developer may be permitted to include balcony space, for instance, in the calculation of outside amenity space, which is in any case, not generous. Parks therefore play a vital role in alleviating the pressures for individuals and families of living in crowded conditions and in that way contribute to both mental and physical health. Importantly, parks are among the very few public spaces in which children, by and large, do not have to negotiate traffic and are free to play in safety, something which, intuitively has to be regarded as a conducive to the wellbeing of children.
Parks offer a freely accessible public space and opportunities for community building. In Lambeth friends of parks groups hold community events, organise sports, volunteering, biodiversity projects, talk and walks and fundraise for improvement. In doing so they set up networks and connections that help to build community and a sense of belonging. For this to continue, it is vital that parks remain public and freely accessible to local community groups.
We believe that the importance of parks to public health and the health of communities, should not be underestimated.
4. The impact of cuts
In recent years Lambeth have steadily reduced their funding for parks. According to their ‘cultural services self-assessment’ (2008), in 2005 Lambeth spent on parks £28 per head of population. This fell to £23 in 2008. The present provision (the 2016/17 budget has yet to be disclosed) is likely to be under £8 per head. Lambeth claimed in 2008 that, despite the cuts, public satisfaction had remained high, however, more recent and more rigorous cuts threaten basic amenities. High maintenance cost facilities such as children’s paddling pools and some public toilets were earmarked for closure in 2015. Some parks which are currently locked at dusk and unlocked in the morning, may no longer be because the risk of damage and anti-social behaviour is seen to be less than the high cost of this service. All these represent a loss to the public of amenity, access and the safety of parks. We are fast approaching, if we have not passed, the point where further cuts would result in irreversible damage to parks and the loss of existing investment.
Forum members are ready to seek ways of reducing the impact of the cuts, and to look for ways of encouraging public cooperation in reducing the grounds maintenance burden on the parks’ staff, such as taking litter home and agreeing to reduce mowing of some amenity grassland areas in favour of developing more biodiverse habitats.
Other issues are worth considering. Lambeth’s procurement practices are slow, expensive in staff time and do not deliver outcomes for smaller works in a timely fashion. A cheaper and better service for minor repairs in parks might be obtained by giving delegated authority to lower level staff to employ accredited tradesmen and improving the payment time for bills submitted. Where Friends’ groups are actively involved in the management of parks (below) the protection of public money as the rationale for a complex and time-consuming procedure does not stand up to scrutiny.
Some Friends groups, by their own efforts, have obtained grants independently or in collaboration with Lambeth for improvements by applying to the Lottery, the Environment charities and other sources. Frequently though, as in the case of a landscape restoration by the Heritage Lottery Fund, the cost of maintaining these improvements over a specified period rests with the borough. Even when responsibility for maintenance falls to a voluntary group, as was the case in Brockwell Park where a substantial sum was obtained to plant a native hedge and improve biodiversity, the funders were not willing to designate any part of the grant for the long-term sustainability of the project. Grant funding rarely comes with any long-term support for management or maintenance.
Lambeth have their own £20m programme for capital improvements to the parks. Part of this funding will come from contributions made by developers under Section 106 of the Housing Act or the recently introduced Community Infrastructure Levy. There is however no established link between the assessment and exaction of the funds from developers and Forum members representing parks where it might be spent.
A particular difficulty in seeing where money might be saved or better spent is presented by the problem of making an accurate determination of the cost of running parks. This may be a difficulty experienced in many local authorities. With much of the maintenance of parks being subsumed into more general budgets, such as tree maintenance, robust and detailed financial data has been difficult to obtain. It is nevertheless necessary for judging the value of parks, both locally and nationally and for forward strategic planning.
5. Administrative Status of Parks
Parks in Lambeth are, with a few exceptions owned and administered by the Council. When opinions were sought by the Culture 2020 consultation the report of the survey showed that the vast majority of the public want to enjoy the parks rather than play a part in running them. This is widely seen to be the Council’s job. Nevertheless Friends groups and other volunteer bodies do seek to be more influential in the running of parks and in seeking better value for park users. Real control of park management by Friends groups would require delegated budgets and there is no reasonable prospect of Lambeth being able or willing to hand over budget control or oversight to community groups at present.
However, this view, that park volunteer bodies should have a role in the management of their open space, has recently been strongly endorsed by the Forum members, who wish to see Lambeth running parks, but offering an opportunity for ‘partnership’ with Friends’ groups and –where relevant – other community partners to decide on priorities and any new initiatives. Recent policy developments have proposed a formalised consultation with such groups as a prerequisite for spending a proportion of the money generated by commercial events.
Prior to the Culture 2020 consultation, Lambeth had favoured handing the tasks of running a park to a suitably constituted Friends’ group or third sector body (‘Pioneers’) while retaining ownership and –ill defined – supervisory powers. One small park (2 hectares out of the 260 hectare total) was handed to a Co-operative to manage in February 2015; financial data on how it has fared have only recently become available and it is very early to judge the whether this arrangement will save money or be a long-term sustainable solution. In this case, no third sector body felt able to take on management on the terms offered by the Borough; the current cooperative was put in place by the volunteer bodies associated with that green space. A small number of volunteer groups have expressed an interest in this Pioneer programme but so far only one has actually achieved their aims.
Lambeth admit that the resources and funding devoted to pursuing the Pioneer initiative might be perceived as impacting adversely on the other parks and it remains a concern of the Forum that there should be fairness in the allocation of resources. Generally speaking Forum members wish for an ongoing partnership with the Borough and believe they have an important contribution to make in reflecting the aspirations of users, bringing in volunteers to help with gardening and other tasks, and raising money for improvements. They also wish to be properly consulted in and to contribute to strategic decision-making by Lambeth. In addition, this Forum remains concerned that where there is not a strong local voice, smaller, less well-supported parks, and therefore their communities, will lose out.
6. How new and existing parks can best be supported.
There is no panacea, since continued downward pressure on public funding is likely. Some have canvassed the possibility of imposing a statutory duty on local authorities to maintain parks and open spaces; such a duty exists for libraries. By itself, it seems unlikely that this duty would be enough to protect parks. The statutory duty towards libraries is general, referring to the service as a whole. As such, it would not prevent closure of individual public libraries, sale of these premises or their being handed over to be run by third parties. It is the issue of funding which is critical.
7. Alternative funding and the scope for revenue generation
The £20m capital investment programme mentioned above is based on the premise that Friends groups will help to raise £9m of this from outside sources. Some Friends groups have by their own efforts raised outside funding from the lottery, the heritage lottery fund and others. New playgrounds for example, appeal to a range of funders. Friends groups are likely to put the major effort needed to secure funding into projects which their members see as enjoying high priority and at present there is no local mechanism for assessing the general usefulness of any project. In addition, the greatest pressure on local authority finances is on revenue spending; funding bodies do not often make a contribution towards these costs (see above, 4)
Fundraising and grant applications require skills that are not necessarily going to be available in volunteer bodies and training and/or assistance by the local authority might save much time. Lambeth have offered to appoint two fundraisers to help volunteer groups with this task, but how this will be managed has not yet been made clear.
Augmenting general revenue is an issue where views are divided. 59% of respondents to questions about additional funding for parks were in support of more commercial events to generate funds (State of Public Parks 2016, Heritage Lottery Fund). Lambeth has adopted an ‘Events Strategy ‘ aimed at attracting major commercial events to those large parks capable of hosting them, and using part of the resulting profits to improve all parks. Our experience with this policy has not been happy. So far as we are able to determine, through members’ enquiries, this programme does not earn a profit; the operation runs at a small loss. Very little of the earnings is available to support parks. However, higher permitted noise levels, the impact of large commercial events on communities and park users and reduced opportunities to challenge any decision to hold a major event has brought about strong local opposition. The Forum is currently in discussion with Lambeth Cabinet members to try to improve this position and to permit park groups and users to have a greater say in the development of the policy. In Lambeth this is managed by the Events team; we believe that in other boroughs, such events are managed by their parks department. This is something that the Forum has yet to take a view on.
Other revenue earning opportunities, such as increasing the rents of cafes and other park building need to be weighed against the loss of amenity if this policy led to closures, as has happened in the past. Other options such as licences for fitness training or professional dog-walking however, depend on a reliable form of enforcement. This in itself is an additional call on funds.
The scope for seeking commercial sponsorship has not been explored locally. Successful sports clubs may be willing to give practical help in donating materials or services.
8. Advantages and disadvantages of other management models.
The Heritage Lottery Fund has established that the community trust model is successful in promoting the wellbeing of parks. However, it is our experience that locally very few park groups or other community organisations have any appetite for the development of community trusts to run parks. In a consultation carried out in Brockwell Park, most stakeholders took the view that parks should continue to be managed by the local authority. It is clear that where local authorities have a strategy for parks and a corporate commitment to them, then parks fare better and are likely to be improving (State of Public Parks 2016, Heritage Lottery Fund). It appears that the majority park groups in Lambeth see the value of retaining parks as a public good and believe that local authority stewardship will maintain public access in the long term.
In contrast to their treatment of public Libraries, Lambeth explicitly ruled out, in their Culture 2020 consultation, reducing the number of parks and open spaces by sale or transfer, with conditions, to the private sector, although this practice is increasing throughout the country.
For many years Lambeth Council, in common with many other local authorities, employed a contractor to deliver grounds maintenance but Lambeth brought grounds maintenance back in house from 1 April 2016. It is too early to assess whether this will be a successful approach and result in better value for money. Since the staff were transferred with the service, the test will be of Lambeth’s senior management capacity.
9. Conclusion
The Forum is a proactive body; its members reflect the needs and wishes of users of their parks, and seek to work closely with the council and its officers. They and the volunteers they attract to help with parks are a fluid force and Friends groups are dependent on the subscriptions and donations from their member, as well as the commitment of a core of members. The goodwill and enthusiasm which leads people to give up their time and money to supporting their park should not be taken for granted. It could easily be lost through disaffection.
October 2016