Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Mary Port and Simon Taylor. It was noted that Mary Port would be represented by Nick Bradfield.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 20 January 2014.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 2014 were approved as a correct record subject to the legislation being described as of ‘secondary significance’ (item 4), Ian Hammerson being corrected to Ian Harrison, where appropriate, ‘size of new property’ amended to ‘size of new property, if any’ (item 5.4) and the model farm being attributed to the former Caen Wood Towers (now Athlone House) rather than Kenwood House (item 5.4).

Matters Arising

London Borough of Camden Flood Warning Letter

The Chairman noted that this had been circulated to the Committee.

Hill Garden & Pergola

The Chairman noted that a report on proposals for marriages and civil ceremonies at this venue would now come to the June meeting of the Committee.

Ponds Project Correspondence

In response to a question from Ian Harrison, the Chairman stated that the City of London would be happy to make the correspondence between the City and the Heath and Hampstead Society between December 2013 – March 2014 public, subject to the agreement of the Society.

Planning – Athlone House

Susan Rose noted that an application to list Athlone House had now been submitted.

Storms

The Chairman noted that issues arising from winter storms would be dealt with under item 5c.

Graffiti – Hill Garden Shelter

The Superintendent noted that the City Surveyor’s Department would be inspecting the shelter at the end of April 2014 and would discuss the composition of the render with English Heritage.

Dog Control Orders (DCOs)

The Chairman noted that this issue would likely be submitted to the November 2014 meeting of the Committee. The Director of Open Spaces noted that the Epping Forest & Commons Committee had recently decided to proceed with statutory consultation on implementation of DCOs at Burnham Beeches. Meanwhile the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill was progressing through the House of

To receive the public minutes of the Hampstead Heath Sports Advisory Forum meeting held on 27 January 2014.

The Committee received the minutes of the meeting of the Hampstead Heath Sports Advisory Forum held on 27 January 2014.

The Chairman noted that a report on the 2013 fatality in the Ladies’ Pond would be submitted to the Forum before the Committee in May and the Management Committee in June.

The Committee agreed to consider item 5i ahead of other reports to allow for the City Surveyor to depart the meeting early. It was therefore considered as item 3b.

The City Surveyor introduced a report on proposed bids for the Additional Work Programme 2015/16 (AWP). He noted that these were cyclical works and recent examples included renovations to the tennis courts at Parliament Hill; renovations to the Parliament Hill Changing Rooms. He added that there were plans to renovate the shelter in the Hill Garden, and that planned works to the Belvedere in the Hill Garden had been delayed following the discovery of nesting bats.

            He went on to clarify that the proposed bids for 2015/16 had not yet been approved, and represented an ideal list of works that had varying levels of priority. Proposed works included work on the paddling pool and more work to the Parliament Hill Athletics Track. He concluded by noting that the City Surveyor’s Department worked closely with Hampstead Heath staff in drawing up planned works. He stressed that whilst works were cyclical in character, improvement works could be incorporated into the planned programme. Lastly he noted that all projects were drawn from the overall 20-year maintenance plan for the Heath.

                        Colin Gregory noted that it was difficult to respond to the request to comment on the proposed bids, given the bids before the Committee did not have any indication of their relative priority. For example, the Committee were not sure which of the 2014/15 projects would be proceeding. Moreover, it was difficult to gauge whether the £100k bid for works to the Pergola represented the minimum needed to bring it up to standard, or if more monies were required to do so. The City Surveyor replied that any projects that were not accepted in

The Superintendent of Hampstead Heath to be heard.

Hampstead Heath Ponds Project

The Superintendent noted that the Partnering Contract between the City Corporation, Atkins, Capita and BAM Nuttall Ltd had been signed on 14 March 2014. BAM Nuttall had based their operations in the City of London’s Kenwood Yard, and ground investigations had commenced on 24 March. The locations and dates the ground investigations are being carried out are mapped on the City of London’s website. BAM had given a presentation to the Ponds Project Stakeholder Group (PPSG) on 24 March. Ground investigation work had been completed on the Ladies’ Pond and the Stock Pond, and work had commenced on the Boating Pond. Trial pits would commence on 14 April, and surveys of bird nesting were being carried out to assess likely impact. Locations for bore holes had been changed and in some cases cancelled based upon the likely impact. Seminars would be conducted for the PPSG on 13 April and 10 May, with the 13 April seminar focusing on the upper chains of ponds.

Planning – Water House

The Superintendent noted that a review of the basement impact assessment had been carried out and submitted to Camden, and that the developer had been requested to respond to the assessment’s conclusions before the documents are placed on the website.

Planning – Archway Tower

The Superintendent noted that he had met with the developer, Essential Living, to discuss the proposed conversion of Archway Tower from office to residential use. Proposals included the profile of the building to be set back, and aerials to be removed. The application would be considered by the Islington Planning Committee on 23 April, and the City of London had asked to be consulted on the eventual palette used for the façade of the building.

Planning – Athlone House

The Superintendent noted that the applicant

Steve Evison of Resources for Change introduced the report on the recent Ponds Project Information Giving and Non-Statutory Consultation Exercise, noting the exercise’s two key elements of sharing information to raise awareness of the project alongside consulting members of the public on their preferred option for the dams.

            Mr Evison noted that overall the achievements of the exercise had been comprehensive, with 4,000 persons having been contacted face-to-face on the Heath, and a further 800 persons contacted face-to-face at off-site stands such as that at Hampstead tube station. A further readership of 120,000 persons had been reached through local media and information cards had been delivered to 79,000 households. Furthermore, stakeholders had been proactively contacted by email and a series of guided walks had been offered on the Heath itself.

            Commenting on the information stands in particular, he noted that substantive face-to-face comments were more common at the stand located on the Heath itself, rather than those located off-site due to the fact persons at tube stations tended to prefer collecting hardcopy information rather than stopping to express an opinion. He added that for the number of persons that had been made aware of the project, the number of consultation responses received was relatively low. He noted that it was important to keep in mind that those with strong negative opinions were arguably more likely to express an opinion, with a significant number of persons who lacked a strong opinion or felt that the issue had been dealt with through the design process to date being less likely to engage with the consultation.

            He continued by noting that a reasonable number of persons were totally opposed to the project, and based their opposition on legal, engineering and data-quality grounds. Some persons suggested alternative design solutions, e.g. concentrating works  at either

The Committee discussed a report of the Director of Open Spaces regarding a STEM and Policy Education Programme.

Richard Sumray noted that he was supportive of the idea and felt that it was excellent, no matter what one’s personal opinion of the Ponds Project might be. John Hunt agreed, and suggested that the programme perhaps include a theme on conflict resolution. Jeremy Wright concurred and suggested that the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) be contacted to see if they wished to contribute to the programme in some way. The Ponds Project and Management Support Officer agreed and noted that the City of London was pursuing in-house contacts with the ICE.

Jeremy Wright noted that, if the programme proceeded, both sides of the argument should be presented fairly and equally to the children in question. Michael Hammerson noted that the ecological and archaeological impact of the project on the Heath should also feature in the programme. Richard Sumray suggested that young people also be asked to contribute to the development of the education programme.

            In response to a question from Gaye Henson, the Ponds Project and Management Support Officer replied that the City of London was not aware of any peer examples of such a project. In response to a further question from Susan Nettleton, she confirmed that the schools immediately adjacent to the Heath would be among those contacted regarding the programme.

The Conservation and Trees Manager introduced a report on Tree Management during 2013. He outlined issues dealt with in the report, including evaluation of tree and woodland resources, the arboricultural skills resource across the North London Open Spaces, the growing threat of tree disease and impact on workload, recent storm damage and extreme weather events, and the impact of the Ponds Project on adjacent trees.

            Colin Gregory welcomed the report and paid tribute to the dedication, skills and expertise of the Tree Team, and further welcomed the fact that succession planning was being carried out to ensure these skills were kept. He posed two questions regarding the difference between the iTree software package versus the Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees (CAVAT) package; and over what thought was being put into replacement trees in the event of severe tree loss due to disease.

            In response the Conservation and Trees Manager replied that replacement planting of elm had been conducted over the past few years to counter the effect of Dutch Elm Disease, and that a replacement programme of Wild Service Trees was also being implemented, mainly around hedgerows. Regarding planning for the event of a major outbreak of tree disease, he noted that current advice in the event of an outbreak of Ash Dieback was to leave trees in situ to avoid spreading the disease further by removing them.

He added that the iTree and CAVAT systems were distinct but complimentary – whilst the iTree system had been developed in the USA, CAVAT was a system designed by the London Tree Officers Association to secure political awareness of the value of trees. They would therefore likely be used in conjunction with one another.

In response to a comment from Jeremy Wright regarding the replacement of trees with species more likely

The Committee discussed a report of the Superintendent of Hampstead Heath. In response to a comment from Jeremy Wright that he had seen no evidence of effort by the Bowling Club to increase their membership despite this being a requirement set out in the agreement, the Operational Services Manager replied that the club were actively recruiting. Ian Harrison agreed, noting that both the Bowls and the Croquet Clubs were taking their obligations seriously. He expressed his appreciation for the support of the City of London in helping secure the partnership management of the Bowling Green.

            Nick Bradfield noted that the parking arrangements on page 163 should be amended to Monday to Friday between 10.00am-12.00pm.

            The Chairman thanked Richard Sumray for his role in helping secure the partnership management plan.

The Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager introduced a report of the Superintendent of Hampstead Heath on the work of the Constabulary during 2013.

            In response to a question from Richard Sumray, he confirmed that individuals caught attempting to carry knives on the Heath and attempting to access facilities such as the Lido would have the weapon confiscated before being excluded.

            In response to concerns expressed by John Weston regarding the potential reduction in police dogs, the Superintendent reiterated that deployment of dogs would be based on data and experience of trouble spots.

            In response to a query from Jeremy Wright, the Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager said that poor dog control on the Heath was often due to individual dogs rather than groups of dogs being exercised by commercial dog walkers.

In response to a query from Colin Gregory over what the proposed action plan for dog control would involve, the Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager replied that it would seek to improve engagement with dog walkers and commercial dog walkers. For example the Constabulary were aware around 30-40 commercial dog walkers used the Heath and therefore it would be useful to engage with them and work with them to ensure the Heath was used responsibly.

In response to a query from John Hunt, the Superintendent replied that the City of London was investigating whether to license commercial dog walkers.

In response to a question from Susan Rose, the Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager replied that the increase in reported dog incidents was due to improved reporting processes.

In response to a question from Michael Hammerson, the Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager replied that metal detecting was not a problem on the Heath.

The Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager introduced a report of the Superintendent of Hampstead Heath on public sex environment (PSE) outreach work carried out during 2013.

            In response to a question from Colin Gregory, he replied that litter remained a problem but that it was often concentrated in specific areas that, in liaison with frontline staff, could be cleared quickly. The Superintendent replied that there was an associated issue of drug abuse which he has asked the Terrence Higgins Trust to help address within their outreach programme.

            In response to a question from Jeremy Wright, the Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager replied that there had been some increase in the geographic area of the PSE, but no increase in the number of persons involved.

            Helen Payne commented that she often walked her dog each morning across the area in question and that there had been a noticeable increase in litter in recent years, and therefore she wished to express her thanks to the efficient litter-pickers.

            The Constabulary and Queen’s Park Manager endorsed the excellent work being done by the small and dedicated team responsible for this area, and the Committee went on to endorse the continuation of the partnership work with the Terrence Higgins Trust during 2014.

The Chairman introduced a report of the Superintendent of Hampstead Heath regarding the temporary installation of artwork at Parliament Hill Fields.

            Ellin Stein commented that, whilst she had liked the Writer and the Visitor, this proposal was poor by comparison and that Jake and Dinos Chapman had run out of creative steam a long time ago.

            John Hunt felt that it was a fantastic proposal but expressed concern that the location would affect neighbouring trees. The Operational Services Manager replied that it would not, and that the location had been selected in liaison with the Hampstead Heath Ecologist. 

            Colin Gregory noted that he was in favour of the proposal.

            Jeremy Wright reported that the proposal had been discussed at great length by the Heath & Hampstead Society (HHS). He noted that the HHS was supportive of appropriate artwork on the Heath in the right place and for the right period of time. In considering if the proposal was artistically appropriate, the HHS was of the majority view that it was ugly and not child-friendly. It would be more suited to the more municipal surroundings of Golders Hill Park. Its proposed location on Parliament Hill Fields was on the cusp of where the more municipal part of the Heath gave way to its natural aspect, and that it would be better sited on the southern slopes, nearer the athletic track. Moreover, a one year installation was unacceptable and a six-month installation would be more appropriate.

            Susan Nettleton noted that people had managed to climb over the 9-metre tall Writer, and therefore were likely to climb over the much smaller proposal under consideration. The metal looked sharp and dangerous.

            Helen Payne commented that the pieces would be vulnerable to graffiti. Jeremy Wright agreed, noting that the pieces were corten steel, which is designed

The Superintendent of Hampstead Heath introduced a report on education and play activities on the Heath. In response to a question from John Hunt he confirmed that Wild About Hampstead Heath remained a partnership project led by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

            Richard Sumray commented that, in keeping with many of the reports before the committee, it would be useful if the information they contained be communicated more widely to the general public.

            Jeremy Wright expressed his congratulations to the Hampstead Heath Education Service for the quality of their work.

There were no questions.

There was no other business.

The next meeting will be held on Monday 2 June at 7.00pm in the Parliament Hill Conference Room, Parliament Hill Staff Yard, NW5 1QR.

The next meeting will be held on Monday 2 June 2014 in the Parliament Hill Conference Room, Parliament Hill Fields, Hampstead Heath, NW5 1QR at 7.00pm.