Agenda item

Report of the Superintendent of Hampstead Heath (copy attached).

The Committee considered a report of the Superintendent of Hampstead Heath that presented a Communication Strategy for managing all communications associated with the Flood Management and Water Quality project.

The Water Management Communications Officer made reference to the presentation that Members had received during a recent Consultative Committee visit. The Chairman advised that he had since received a range of comments and advised any further comments should be provided no later than Friday 13 July 2012.

In discussing the Flood and Water Quality Management paper, Richard Sumray suggested that one or more Members of the Consultative Committee should be involved in the tender process.

The Projects Director ran through the timetable for the appointment of the Design Team and advised that the appointment of a Strategic Landscape Architect was currently out to tender. The Strategic Landscape Architect would not be a member of the Design Team, but would provide challenge and influence over the design process, and ensure that designs were as far as possible sympathetic to the overall project vision and objectives.

The Projects Director summarised the required Design Team services and advised that it had not yet been decided whether the appointments should lie with a single or multiple contractors. There were advantages and drawbacks from each. A key issue was that using a single contractor could cost the City more money, but this option also had the potential to reduce costs over the lifetime of the project. A single contractor also had the benefit of allowing a single point of contact for the Design Team and could facilitate a more joined up approach, particularly with the landscape architect and ecologist.

Susan Rose proposed the following amendment to the Water Management Stakeholder Group draft terms of reference:

To inform and assist the Hampstead Heath Consultative Committee:

iii)   by providing views on the construction planning, timetable, logistics, communication strategy and implementation of the Flood Management and Water Quality Project works, particularly the impact on the local community.

Ian Harrison advised that he had believed that the terms of reference had implied the importance of factors that affect the local community, but agreed with Susan Rose that this should be amended to be explicit. Mary Port indicated that she agreed with the proposed amendment.

Susan Rose tabled a document that proposed to incorporate the following into the management plan:

i)     The impact of the proposed works on those local residents and those with access requirements.

ii)    Works impact management would be necessary to address possible loss of amenity, including: noise and dust pollution, disruption of local traffic, deprivation of parking facilities and risk to all users, but especially children and the elderly.

iii)   The use of a works impact management plan, appropriate professional expertise and a works impact management team.

Colin Gregory advised that he believed that the Communications Strategy provided an effective approach to explaining the existing risks, but believed it could better explain what would be done to address them.

Richard Sumray advised that the Communications Strategy should be improved to emphasise that the project would both maintain and improve the existing dams and stressed the need for a proactive, rather than reactive, strategy. He emphasised the importance of explaining why actions were being taken in order to pre-empt any negative feedback.

Helen Payne advised that a project Facebook page could prove useful for updating stakeholders and obtaining feedback. Photographs and illustrations could be used to helps stakeholders visualise what the project hoped to achieve.  

Jeremy Wright advised that the Communications Strategy was an effective framework for moving forward, but emphasised the importance of proactive communications. He also advised that the ongoing conflict between the Hampstead Heath Act 1871 and the Reservoirs Act 1975 should be resolved in public discussions.

The Projects Director advised that Twitter and Facebook would be utilised for the Communications Strategy the project and would be managed by the Water Management Communications Officer. He also emphasised the independence of the Strategic Landscape Architect and advised that there would be opportunities for Members of both the Hampstead Heath Consultative Committee and the Water Management Stakeholder Group to  provide briefing to the appointed person.

The Assistant Director advised that there had recently been a considerable amount of rainfall on the Heath, but there was currently no substantial cause for concern. There had been a minor leak close to the top of a dam on the Men’s Pond directly above Highgate number one, however the water level had recently lowered and the leak had ceased. A specialist was now examining the cause of the leak and action would be taken to fix it.

In response to a question from Michael Hammerson, the Projects Director clarified that it was anticipated that if possible the Strategic Landscape Architect would be involved in the Contractor appointment process.

Alix Mullineaux indicated that she believed that there needed to be better communication with local communities regarding the project, particularly in the Kentish Town area. The Water Management Communications Officer advised that leaflets regarding the project had been delivered to 60,000 local households, which included Kentish Town. Social media and the Chairman’s column in the Ham and High would also be used to disseminate information to the local community.

Ian Harrison advised that the Stakeholder Group would examine why the particular actions that would need to be done were necessary and precisely what the actions would entail. Each of these areas would be scrutinised in order to ensure correct action was taken. He also advised that the Group would discuss any relevant matters that were not mentioned within the terms of reference. He advised that, although it had been suggested that there should be a wider membership within the Group, if the membership were too large it could lose focus. He advised that he believed the Group should initially meet privately, but he recognised that it may be beneficial to meet in public in the future and emphasised the importance of transparency.

BOTH REPORTS RECEIVED</AI6>