Agenda item

The Superintendent introduced the update on the Hampstead Ponds Project, noting the Communication and Engagement Strategy had been revised and that he would welcome the comments of the Committee. He stressed that they key issue was the revised timetable for the project: that it had become clear in mid-April that the initial timetable did not allow for an appropriate level of consultation and therefore the City of London Corporation had worked with Atkins to develop a fresh approach.

He continued by noting that as part of this approach Atkins was currently finalising a Constrained Options Report that would be issued to the Committee later that week. It is intended that Atkins will incorporate in the report comments from the Ponds Project Stakeholder Group to date to enable further discussion at the next workshop of the Stakeholder Group on 13 July, at which the proposed height of the dams will be discussed.

In relation to the height of the dams, the Superintendent noted that the key factor was the ability of the dams to cope with a worst-case scenario storm event. He stated that earthen dams will prevent the need for more heavily engineered structures and that there was an inherent trade-off between the aesthetics of the dams and heavier engineering elsewhere on the Heath: for example, a slightly larger earthen dam in one location would avoid the need for heavily engineered structures elsewhere.

The Superintendent informed the Committee that the ecological and environmental impact of the project would be discussed at the Stakeholder Group workshop on 13 July. He went on to say that preferred options will have been identified by September 2013 and that these would go out for consultation by November 2013. This entire process of the expanded consultation was costing the City of London Corporation a significant amount more money but nonetheless it was felt that this reflected the importance the Corporation placed on ensuring all relevant persons had the opportunity to engage with the project. 

He informed the Committee that in terms of procurement, the process had been restarted and that the current six contractors would be narrowed down to a short list of four. This shortlist would then be shared with stakeholders and representatives of that Group would be given the opportunity to be involved in the appointment of the preferred candidate.

The Superintendent concluded by saying he was aware of the potential for a Judicial Review. He noted that the London Borough of Camden had recently issued a letter of information to residents downstream of the ponds to inform them of the risks associated with the collapse of the dams.

The Committee then discussed the report. In response to a request from Jeremy Wright the Superintendent agreed to circulate a copy of the London Borough of Camden letter.

In response to a request by Susan Rose, the Superintendent said that the baseline risk management report gathered by Atkins would hopefully be available for the Stakeholder workshop.

John Hunt noted that he was concerned over the lack of emphasis to date on the ecological and environmental issues associated with the Ponds Project and that he hoped this was indeed addressed at the Stakeholder workshop on 13 July. He hoped that measures were put in place to mitigate any damage done to the Heath by implementing compensatory works elsewhere. The Superintendent noted that he had discussed the principles of the project with Atkins extensively and that they were aware of the principles of mitigation and compensation.

Referring to the potential for a Judicial Review, Colin Gregory said that he hoped that all parties engaged in dialogue to attempt to achieve a common understanding and avoid a Judicial Review if at all possible.

Jeremy Wright intervened by saying neither party wanted a Judicial Review. He stated that the objective of the Heath and Hampstead Society was to ensure the legal minimum of work was undertaken on the Heath. Given that the management of the Heath was enshrined in law, he stated that the law must be the starting-point when planning the management of the Heath. He continued by expressing regret over the fact the City of London Corporation had not shared its advice from Counsel with the Heath and Hampstead Society. As a result of this he noted that the Society had recently taken its own specialist legal advice and it had subsequently shared a four page summary of this advice with the City of London Corporation. He repeated the Society’s regret that, following this sharing of their legal advice, the Corporation continued to refuse to share its own. He concluded by expressing the hope that the Corporation would meet with the Society to discuss the situation, and that this could be done without prejudice. He finished by saying that the Society would have to consider its position if the Corporation continued to refuse to share its legal advice or meet to discuss the situation.

Richard Sumray added that the Corporation’s communications plan for the Ponds Project included a commitment to openness and transparency, yet this principle did not seem to be in evidence in this particular case. He stated that even if the Corporation did not agree with the Heath and Hampstead Society’s specialist counsel, there was a need to enter into dialogue in order to reach an agreement to avoid Corporation officers’ time being absorbed in matters that detracted from the successful and timely implementation of the Ponds Project. He finished by suggesting that a desire to keep aspects of the project confidential would be potentially damaging to the Corporation in terms of its reputation and perceived ethos.

The Chairman replied by stating that the Corporation and other interested parties shared the same goal and a common objective for the project and its impact, and that to this end the Corporation had employed an independent landscape architect to ensure the project had the minimum impact on the Heath. He noted that the invitation for a formal meeting with the Heath and Hampstead Society had not yet been received but that nevertheless following similar concerns expressed to him at the Committee Walk on Saturday 6 July he would be seeking advice from the City Solicitor, suggesting that a meeting with the Chairman of the Heath and Hampstead Society take place. He noted that the City Solicitor was currently on leave; he would be responding to the Society during the week commencing 15 July. He concluded by saying that all parties no doubt wanted a common position but the position of the Corporation must be recognised: the Corporation was responsible for any loss of life in the event of catastrophic event causing damage to the dams. Therefore the City was doing all it could to proceed with deliberate speed to mitigate this risk.

Jeremy Wright assured the Chairman that the Heath and Hampstead regarded itself as a ‘critical friend’ that hoped for the minimum amount of work necessary to ensure the Ponds Project was completed successfully.

In response to a comment by Susan Nettleton both the Chairman and the Superintendent assured her that environmental objectives would be given due consideration at the Stakeholder workshop on 13 July. Furthermore, the Superintendent committed to meeting with Susan Nettleton regarding the role of Heath Hands in communicating the rationale for the Ponds Project.

Susan Rose noted that other local bodies aside from the Heath and Hampstead Society shared its concerns over the impact of the Ponds Project, but they did not have its level of expertise or resources in communicating this concern. She asked that dialogue take place between the City of London Corporation and local bodies, rather than one body in particular.

Richard Sumray agreed but stated that nevertheless given its role to date they were happy for the Heath and Hampstead Society to take the lead in dialogue over legal issues.

Xohan Duran commented on the need to keep attendees to a minimum to ensure a useful dialogue took place.