Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Matthew Frith (London Wildlife Trust).

There were none.

To agree the public minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 2022.

The Committee considered the minutes of the previous meeting of the Consultative Committee, held on 24 January 2022.

A Member (Friends of Kenwood) suggested that the final sentence in item 12 be corrected to read ‘should not be sited on the Heath’.

RESOLVED, that – the minutes of the Hampstead Heath Consultative Committee held on 24 January 2022 be agreed as a correct record, as corrected.

Matters arising:

A Member (London Council for Sport and Recreation) suggested that the style of minutes should reflect that Members were giving views rather than asking questions. They also requested that the name of the body the Members were representing be included in the minutes, as had been the previous practice.

A Member (Hampstead Rugby Club) raised concerns about the format of the  Wellbeing Forum. They felt that the change from the Sports Forum to the Wellbeing Forum had meant that the Clubs had lost a voice. The Chair said that he did not have specific experience of the Forum, and suggested that the Committee continue to monitor the Forum’s performance.

To receive the draft minutes of the Hampstead Heath, Highgate Wood & Queen's Park Committee meeting held on 9 February and 4 May 2022.

Members noted the draft minutes of the Hampstead Heath, Highgate Wood & Queen's Park Committee meeting held on 4 May 2022.

Matters arising:

A Member (London Council for Sport and Recreation) expressed their concern that any delays to the developments being carried out on the Parliament Hill Athletics Track would risk the loss of the entire 2024 athletics season. They asked if the timetable could be moved forward by a couple of months to allow more flexibility. They also suggested that it would be helpful if the works were seen as cyclical maintenance, or have a reserve fund developed, rather than having it return as a major project each time. Officers replied that this was a valid point to allow for more preventative maintenance, rather than reactive, but there was a limited budget for assets and infrastructure. The Assistant Director said that the upcoming investment in the athletics track would hopefully allow for better resilience in the future. The Member said it could be part of a corporate or sinking fund, and would welcome a report back to the Committee on this topic. In reply, an Officer said that the Gateway 2 Report was going to the Operational Property and Projects Sub Committee for approval on Monday 30 May. This was the final step in drawing down the funds for the project. Once this approved, officers would consult with the City Surveyor’s Department on procuring the design team and reviewing the programme. A Member (Representative of Clubs using facilities on the Heath) said that the Representatives were a distance away from understanding the procurement timetable and programme of works, and that once out to tender contractors might come back with their own preferences. They agreed that it was vital to avoid losing the athletics season and that once there was greater

The Assistant Director to be heard.

Members received a report of the Executive Director, Environment, providing the Assistant Director’s Update.

Night of 10,000 PBs

A Member (London Council for Sport and Recreation) said that the Heath should be considering how to build on this event, particularly with the forthcoming Parliament Hill Athletics Track development. They suggested that further events should look into the possibility of sponsorship.

Constabulary

A Member ((London Council for Sport and Recreation) commented that it was important to make sure that there was a constabulary presence by the boating pond over the summer, as this was a popular spot for illegal swimming and barbecues. An Officer replied that this was being discussed with Heath officers.

Placards

A Member (Highgate Conservation Area Advisory Committee) raised the issue of the number of placards on the Heath, and said that it was important that the vision of the Heath as a piece of countryside in London was not abandoned. They gave the example of signage in the Woman’s Swimming Pond. In reply, the Assistant Director said that signage was due to be included in the Swimming Review, and invited the Member to contact her with other examples of signage on the Heath after the meeting.

RESOLVED: - Members of the Hampstead Heath Consultative Committee

• Receive the report and note the contents
• Provide feedback on the draft Divisional Plan 2022-25 in appendix 1
• Provide feedback on the draft Swimming Annual Review 2021/22

A Member (Highgate Society) said that they were pleased that archaeological interpretations were going to be included, and suggested that the wording could be amended to clarify it. They said that there was a need to produce a full survey of known archaeological monuments across the Heath. They would also like to see a commitment to maintaining long-term ecological commitments. In regards to item 10, they hoped that they would be able to work with others on that item. With regards to item 14, they hoped that visitor engagement would be accompanied by a public information and communication programme.

The Assistant Director said the Natural Environment Department was conducting a wide survey and audit at a divisional level, which would help to develop appropriate plans. With regards to visitor engagement, this would underpin new ways of working for Natural Environment, which was looking to conduct a more strategic approach.

A Member (Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents Association) asked for an update on fundraising. The Assistant Director replied that fundraising was one of a number of focused workstreams for how the Natural Environment department could work strategically.

A Member (Hampstead Conservation Area Advisory Committee) commented that the data set on journeys round the Heath from schools was taken from private schools rather than general schools local to the Heath. For private schools to expand, they need to have proposals for green ways for pupils to get to school. The Chair asked if any further data was expected. In reply, the Assistant Director said that this was the data that had been provided by the London Borough of Camden. She would feed back to Camden on possible further data from other schools, but was not sure on their capacity to provide this.

A Member (Heath & Hampstead Society) expressed their view that the data was inadequate and was biased towards certain schools and socio-economic classes. They felt it should contain further information on all the schools neighbouring the Heath, and consider all the ways in which students travelled across the Heath.

A Member (London Council for Sports and Recreation) said that the scheme was a way to contribute towards the reduction of rush hour traffic.

Comments afterward?

A Member (Hampstead Rugby Club) commented that they were pleased to see from the paper that the team had been reaching out to groups who might not normally use the facilities, and praised the staff for the job they were doing.

A Member (London Council for Sport and Recreation) asked if the income from 2021/22 covered the costs, when compared to the budget, and commented that swimming would always require a subsidy. In reply, an Officer said that the subsidy had decreased by 5% from the previous year, and that this exceeded the expectations in the budget.

A Member (Hampstead Garden Suburb Resident’s Association) asked if the aim of ensuring that all customers pay for swimming had been successful. An Officer replied that they had introduced methods to encourage payment.

The Chair commented that, although the developer’s had withdrawn the application, it seemed that development on the site was still likely, and said that it was important for the Committee to continue to monitor the impact potential development could have. A Member (Heath & Hampstead Society) said that the development was one of the largest proposed adjacent to the Heath for some time, and provided a chance to enhance the impact of the Heath’s biodiversity on the local community.

A Member (Friends of Kenwood) expressed their hope that the wording for the Summer Biodiversity Interpretation Board had been agreed. They also asked for further clarification on the information on grazing livestock, as she was not aware of any plans to introduce grazing livestock at Kenwood. A Member (Heath & Hampstead Society) replied to say that they were responsible for the statements, along with English Heritage. With regards to grazing, trialling had been carried out on Hampstead Heath using sheep, and there were plans to repeat this. Longhorn cattle were not being used, but were included on the Board to highlight historic methods.

Report of the Executive Director, Environment

Members received a report of the Executive Director, Environment relative to the proposed sustainable management at Golder’s Hill Park Zoo.

A Member (Heath & Hampstead Society) said that the direction being taken by the Zoo was a good one, as was a strong case for a zoo focused on British wildlife rather than putting wild animals in cages. They said that they hoped that the report author could make it clear that, during the transitional period, the Zoo had a duty of care to the exotic animals in its collection. An Officer replied that as part of the Licences Act, the Zoo was required to have an ethics committee. This committee meets twice a year and its members have substantial experience. All decisions on stock management go through the committee.

A Member (Hampstead Rugby Club) asked if there were any plans on concessions. An Officer replied that the prices had been set but that there was a volunteering programme open to everyone.

RESOLVED, that – Members of the Hampstead Heath Consultative Committee provide feedback on the preferred option and ancillary plans to include the change of use of the Butterfly House and the income generation options.

Executive Director, Environment.

Members received a report of the Executive Director, Environment, relative to the Assistant Director’s update on the hosting of weddings and civil ceremonies on Hampstead Heath.

A Member (South End Green Association) expressed concern about the number of weddings to be organised, as they did not want to see the pergola frequently closed to accommodate these. They requested that officers return to the Committee to update on the planned numbers. In reply, an Officer said that the main issues would be keeping the capacity and frequency of events in balance.

A Member (Friends of Kenwood) asked for further information on the costs of weddings and the revenue they brought in, and for clarification on the maximum capacity for weddings. An officer confirmed that capacity was capped at 100 guests. With regards to the financial elements, the fees and charges is information in the public realm, and ranges depending on the type of wedding. With regards to revenue, this was commercially sensitive information and so the Officer did not provide an update.

A Member (Hampstead Conservation Area Advisory Committee) suggested that thought should be put in to creative ways to increase revenue when the contracts were put out for procurement.

RESOLVED, that - Members provide feedback in relation to the proposal set out in para 12 of the report.

Heath Hands Representative to be heard.

Members received an update from Heath Hands.

A Member (London Council for Sport and Recreation) congratulated the officer and said that Heath Hands were doing superb work, in particular on their Health and Wellbeing agenda.

A Member (Highgate Society) referred to the mention in the Assistant Director’s update report of the research conducted by the University of Exeter which listed the Heath in the top four most valuable recreation sites in the Country, and said that this should be given further publicity.

In reply to a question from a Member (Hampstead Rugby Club), an Officer said that they were aware of continuing issues with night fishing and they were working with all parties to ensure that the behaviours don’t continue.

The Assistant Director provided Members with an update on dog licences. Members heard that the scheme introduced in 2020 had set a cap of 70 licences. 89 applications had been received, and there was an issue with a possible appeal on how the cap had been identified. The appeal process is complicated, and the Assistant Director said they would prepare a paper for review by the Committee. They said that that the information provided by licences could be used to ensure there was a proactive approach to mitigating the impact of dog walkers on sensitive areas of the Heath.

A Member (Heath & Hampstead Society) asked if all the received applications would now be accepted, as this might make it harder to potentially reduce numbers in future. They felt it would be appropriate to apply a precautionary principle under further information was available. Another Member (Weston) said that the main issue with dog numbers was the amount of faeces that resulted from their presence on the heath. The Assistant Director said that since the introduction of charging for licences, there had been a reduction in the level of dog faeces on the Heath.

Two Members (representing the London Council for Sport and Recreation and the Hampstead Garden Suburb Resident’s Association) requested further information on the criteria for the setting the cap at 70 licences.

-       5 September 2022

-       7 November 2022

The Chair commented that he felt that the hybrid method of holding meetings was valuable, but that he would continue to think on the best manner of holding them.

The Chair announced that it was Simon Taylor’s last meeting as a representative of Hampstead Rugby Club, having participated in the Committee for nine years. The Chair and the Committee thanked Simon for his contributions. Simon Taylor thanked fellow members for all they brought to the Committee.