Agenda item

Report of the Superintendent of Hampstead Heath.

The Chairman introduced a report of the Superintendent of Hampstead Heath regarding the Preferred Options and Non-Statutory Consultation on the Hampstead Heath Ponds Project. He noted that the preferred options were the result of over 20 meetings of the Ponds Project Stakeholder Group (PPSG), and that many of the suggestions and critique arising from the PPSG had been incorporated into the preferred options report. He continued by noting that, subject to the committee’s decision, the City of London was now due to embark upon a 12-week period of consultation and information giving on the preferred options and the project was therefore moving into a new phase. He noted that the preferred options remained in outline only, and that detailed design would be the next phase. He concluded by stating that the City of London planned to submit a planning application to the London Borough of Camden in June 2014.

The Superintendent reiterated the Chairman’s comment that the report before the committee was the culmination of a period of 15 months of engagement with the PPSG. He noted that throughout that time the proposals had been narrowed down from broad ‘blue sky’ thinking, to constrained options, through to the current preferred options. He noted that the constrained options report – influenced by the PPSG – had set the design philosophy of the project, including the principle of creating additional storage capacity around the central areas of the two chains of ponds.

He went on to acknowledge that much of the terminology around the project was technical and complex, but that nevertheless the central tenet of the City of London’s approach was to ensure that the dams on the Heath were capable of withstanding the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) in the event of a major storm. He made it clear that the City of London had a statutory duty to ensure the dams were capable of doing so, and that it would be the culpable party in the event of dam failure.

He continued by noting that after the constrained options report had been published it was then a case of examining what trade-offs could be made in the overall design approach to ensure that the impact of works to the dams was kept to a minimum. He stated that the proposed 3m increase at Model Boating Pond had proved unacceptable, which had meant that a 2m increase had been proposed instead, despite this meaning more intervention had to be made on the lower ponds. He noted that the PPSG had considered the Model Boating Pond as the most appropriate location for increased storage of water.

He noted regarding the Hampstead chain of ponds that there would be a loss of either one or two plane trees to make way for the proposed spillway. The number of trees lost would depend on the increase in height of the dam at the Mixed Bathing Pond.

He emphasised that the current options had been made in outline only, and that further detail would be added at the detailed design stage. Similarly he welcomed the level of scrutiny and critique offered to date by the PPSG and noted that data continued to be collected for the purpose of informing the project, including information on topography and trees. He said that it was clear from the report the very considerable amount of engagement and feedback that had been given during the course of the project thus far.

Overall he said that the City of London was proceeding on a course of action based on the advice it had been given on its legal duties under the Reservoirs Act 1975, in conjunction with what it believed to be its qualified duty to maintain the natural aspect of the Heath under the Hampstead Heath Act 1871. He added that the works proposed would ‘future-proof’ the dams, in that it would remove the need to revisit the issue of guarding against dam failure over the medium to long term.

Passive Solution

The Superintendent went on to address observations on the project put forward by members of the PPSG. Firstly, he noted that it had been suggested that dam failure be dealt with using manually-operated valves to release water in the event of a major storm. He stated that this would place City of London staff at an unacceptable level of risk given that the storm events envisaged would see up to 38 tonnes of water a second passing over the dams, and therefore this proposal would not be pursued as an option. Instead the current preferred options represented a passive solution that would allow water to safely pass the dams at as little risk to staff and members of the public as possible.

Early Warning

He added that it had also been suggested that more emphasis be placed on putting in place enhanced early warning measures to counter the threat of a convection storm event. He confirmed that this approach had been discussed with the Meteorological Office, and it had been noted that convection storms such as the 1975 storm on the Heath were difficult to accurately predict. Therefore an early warning system could not be satisfactorily implemented. Moreover, even if a storm was predicted in time this did not resolve the issue of how to manage and deal with its impact on the Heath and communities downstream of the dams.

Planning

He noted that the City of London had been advised by Atkins, the project consultants, in a screening report that the project did not need a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Nevertheless he noted that environmental surveys and other investigations carried out to date had been commensurate with what would be expected of a full EIA. He added that whilst a full EIA may prove too technical for consumption by the general public, it should be possible to produce a simpler assessment.

Information Sharing and Consultation

The Superintendent noted that the upcoming information-giving and consultation exercise would seek to explain the process involved in the project to date. He added that postcards giving information on the project would shortly be despatched to 75,000 local households, and that a temporary public exhibition would be staged at Parliament Hill Yard. The consultation would give people the opportunity to choose their preferred option as well as allowing the opportunity for people to give open-ended comments on the project as a whole. Information boards would be displayed at the sites on the Heath affected, as well as at local tube stations. The entire exercise would be conducted over the next three months.

The Superintendent concluded by stating that the City of London was obliged to act to make the dams safe, and that its approach was underpinned by the principle of spreading the works as widely as possible to lessen their impact on the Heath overall. He noted that the project represented a unique opportunity to transform the Heath for future generations, particularly at sites such as the Model Boating Pond. Finally, he pointed out that the Heath was a dynamic and changing landscape, given for example the quarrying that used to take place on Sandy Heath in the nineteenth century. He argued therefore that the Ponds Project was a once in a lifetime opportunity to improve the Heath provided the City of London was prepared to be brave and bold.

The Chairman outlined the various appendices to the report under consideration and invited the committee to put forward any observations they had.

A member stated that the Heath & Hampstead Society (H&HS) was committed to fighting unwarranted changes to the Heath – indeed that this was the reason for the Society’s formation at the turn of the last century – and that whilst it welcomed recent changes to the Heath it could not support the preferred options as it believed these were based on incorrect legal advice. He said that the Society could not understand why the City of London would not work with the H&HS’s legal team to reconcile their differences, much like what had been achieved when health and safety measures for swimmers on the Heath were considered. Furthermore he added that the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) was flawed in that it referred to an inability to predict major flooding – despite acknowledging that the area downstream of the dams would be flooded up to six hours before the dams were at risk of collapse – a situation which in itself meant there would be plenty of warning of dam failure for local communities.

The Principal Legal Assistant noted that the differences in legal opinion between the City of London Corporation and the H&HS were significant and that it was unlikely these would be resolved by further attempts to reconcile the two positions.

A member noted that it was all very well having warning of dam failure but this did not deal with the issue of how to respond appropriately to major storm events.

The Superintendent took the opportunity to comment on the QRA, noting that it was not a required document, it had no legal status, nor was it part of the design process. It had been produced at the request of the H&HS. The purpose of the document was to make comparisons and predictions based on baseline data, and it was now being used incorrectly as a means to comment on the design process.

A member noted that the H&HS had wanted the QRA in order to help it understand the nature of the problem in question. Nevertheless the quality of information within the document was problematic, including the fact that figures within it did not even make sense.

The Chairman noted that the reason for the Ponds Project was to ensure the dams would not fail. The Superintendent added that the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) had changed the threshold for what constituted high risk reservoirs and dams down to the requirement to prevent even one loss of life in the event of failure.

A member commented that the differences between the City of London and the H&HS were obvious and that the possibility for a judicial review was very real. She queried if it were possible therefore for this to be pre-empted in any way.

Another member commented that the City of London was following legal advice, and that if a person or organisation wished to challenge that advice, it was their responsibility to do so. If they were to challenge it, he urged them to challenge it as quickly as possible to save the City of London both time and money. He queried whether the City of London was confident that the FWMA would be enacted in the way that was anticipated. Lastly, he asked whether a planning pre-application meeting had taken place with the London Borough of Camden to establish precisely what they required as part of the planning application.

The Superintendent replied that no information on the implementation of the FWMA had been made available, but that it was likely its second phase would focus on chains of ponds. He stated that the works carried out on the dams needed to achieve final sign-off by the panel engineer and he would only do so if he was entirely confident that the work carried out was fully compliant with legislation.

The Principal Legal Assistant confirmed that the legal advice was essentially to follow the expert technical advice, and that the particular circumstances at the Heath did not justify departure from national guidelines on appropriate safety standards. Regarding the member’s query about measures that could pre-empt the risk of a judicial review, he confirmed that a judicial review application was the appropriate process if the H&HS wished to challenge national guidelines, and whether the City of London’s approach to the project was lawful. In response to comments about the FWMA, he clarified that this had already been enacted but was coming into force in stages.

A member commented that he agreed with the Superintendent that it would not be acceptable to put staff at risk on the dams themselves during storm events, and that it was important to recognise the City of London’s wider duty of care to users of the Heath and its surrounding communities. He recalled that when the Ponds Project had been discussed at the Audit & Risk Management Committee in 2011 he had asked whether the speed of travel of the project would guarantee that the City of London had satisfactorily met its legal obligations, and that he had been informed at that stage that it would. He recorded his thanks to the Chairman, the Superintendent, and the staff involved in the project to date for their efforts. He felt that the proposed information-giving and consultation process seemed sensible, and noted that overall the committee had to be guided by the panel engineer. He emphasised that we all had the best interests of the Heath at heart.

In response to a question from a member regarding the level of expertise and support from the London Borough of Camden, the Superintendent replied that the City of London had held a pre-application meeting with Camden and that there was an opportunity for public meetings to be facilitated by Camden officers. He concluded by saying that the project screening report would be assessed by Camden later in the week.

Deputy Alex Deane and Dennis Cotgrove left at this point.

A member noted that she was the ward councillor for Highgate, which would be one of the affected areas in the event of flooding and dam failure, and therefore she was aware that there was a lot of local support for the project. She noted that Camden had held ward meetings in both Highgate and Gospel Oak, and that there remained more that other organisations such as Thames Water could do to ensure local drainage could cope effectively with the risk of flooding. Furthermore she noted that Camden was scheduled to spend a significant amount of money on regenerating Gospel Oak and that the Ponds Project was welcome, given the protection it would afford to the local area.

The Superintendent noted that early on in the project process, officers from Camden had been invited to present to the PPSG in order to clarify the different issues involved in dam failure and flood alleviation. He noted that the project would achieve a higher level of safeguarding than was currently the case. He added that it was not possible to discharge water from the Heath into local sewers from major flooding events, and that he had always been concerned by the Highgate Chain of ponds in particular given they had been prone to overtopping and as a result of the project their level of protection would be improved from 1/100 year storms to 1/1000 year storms.

A member commented that he was supportive of the consultation methodology and added that the proposed All-Member Visit to the Heath in January 2014 should be treated as part of the wider consultation process, with input perhaps from the Public Relations Office. This would be so that the entire Court would be as informed of the issues as possible.

RESOLVED, that –

·         Members receive the views of the Hampstead Heath Ponds Project Stakeholder Group and Consultative Committee as set out in the report and various appendices (principally 1 and 4);

·         Members receive the report of the Strategic Landscape Architect on Stakeholder engagement to date;

·         Members approve the Hampstead Heath Ponds Project Preferred Options Report as the basis for undertaking the non-statutory consultation (November 2013 – February 2014);

·         Members approve the consultation methodology for the non-statutory consultation period to receive the views of the wider public on the Preferred Options for the Hampstead Heath Ponds Project.