Agenda item

Superintendent's Update

Report of the Superintendent of Hampstead Heath.

 

Minutes:

Members considered the Superintendent’s update report and the following points were made.

 

Management Plan Engagement

 

·         The Superintendent noted that the engagement exercise finished that evening and that 1,200 responses had been received to date. Once the exercise finished, an analysis of responses from the workshops, pop-up stands, online submissions and the further 17 July meeting of the Hampstead Heath Consultative Committee would be carried out.

 

Cycling

 

·         The Superintendent noted that the Highgate Wood and Conservation Manager had been tasked with developing the specification for the shared use paths for cyclists and pedestrians. A working group of stakeholders would be formed to consider proposals and would hold its first meeting in September 2017.

Cafes

 

·         The Superintendent noted that the Lido Café was performing well under its new operators and had served around 2,800 swimmers the previous Sunday. In response to a question, he replied that there had been a couple of incidents at the Lido facility that had required the involvement of the Hampstead Heath Constabulary but none that had required the involvement of the Metropolitan Police.

 

Eruv

 

·         The Superintendent noted that he would welcome the views of Members on the proposed Eruv. He noted that the applicant had liaised with The London Borough of Haringey and was confident that the wires could be deployed along street lamps. Overall no new infrastructure was needed on the Heath in the Haringey area to support the deployment of an Eruv – it would simply join the boundary wall at the Kenwood Nursery. It would require one 4 metre pole in the Camden area. Members supported the proposal and raised no objections.

 

Planning

 

·         The Superintendent noted that he and representatives from the Heath & Hampstead Society would be meeting Camden Planning Officers regarding the Jack Straws Castle application during the week commencing 26 June 2017.

 

·         The Superintendent noted that the London Borough of Barnet had acknowledged the City’s objection to the Golders Green Station Planning Brief, and that Barnet accepted the number of objections received meant the Brief would require a number of revisions.

 

·         A Member noted that a fresh application had been submitted for 42 Hampstead Lane.

 

·         In response to a question the Superintendent replied that he had visited the Water House and the new applicant was willing to listen to the City’s concerns. The Superintendent emphasised that priorities for the City were the Construction Management Plan and the affect construction traffic would have on trees and public access along Millfield Lane. A Member (London Council for Sport and Recreation) suggested the applicants approach to dealing with the new Water House planning application could be used as an exemplar for developers proposing works adjacent to the Heath.

 

Hampstead Heath Ponds Project

 

·         In response to a question, the Superintendent replied that the archaeological report had been due in May 2017, and so he would contact the Museum of London Archaeological Service to request that it be made available as soon as possible.

 

·         The Superintendent noted that the project had won the Institute of Civil Engineers London Civil Engineering Award for Community Benefit in May 2017.

 

Oak Processionary Moth

 

·         The Superintendent noted that Heath staff continued to discover nests on the Heath and Members would be updated further on a regular basis. Nests situated in busy areas of the Heath would be fenced off.

 

Drones

 

Members discussed a tabled version of proposed guidance regarding the use of drones on the Heath.

 

·         Two members noted that the guidance simply stated the law, not the policy of the City of London Corporation regarding the use of drones on the Heath. It was noted that English Heritage had adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding drones on their sites.

 

·         The Superintendent noted that the use of drones was governed in law by Air Navigation Orders (ANOs). The Royal Parks manage drone flying through Park Regulations. Many bodies that had banned drones had no ability to enforce those bans using ANOs.

 

·         The Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager noted that his team had dealt with c. 30 drone incidents during the period April 2016-March 2017. Drone incidents were ultimately enforced by the Metropolitan Police on behalf of the Civil Aviation Authority.

 

·         In response to a question, the Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager noted that the policing of drones under anti-nuisance byelaws had been considered by judged unworkable in practice.

 

·         The Superintendent confirmed that the guidance dealt with the issue of commercial filming using drones.

 

·         A Member suggested that the guidance should explicitly reference guidance from the Civil Aviation Authority.

 

·         The Superintendent confirmed that it would be possible to apply for an additional byelaw in relation to Model Aircraft and Drones and this should be considered in the future.

 

·         The Superintendent noted that the comments of Members would be factored into the guidance and once the Management Committee have had the opportunity to consider the guidance, the document will be made public and reviewed after 12 months. Regular updates would be provided to Members in the meantime.

Supporting documents: