Agenda item

Members considered the Humanitarian Aid Workers Memorial proposal at Kenwood Estate and the following comments were made:

·         The Chairman welcomed Dr Jeremy Ashbee, Sir John Holmes and Victoria Metcalfe who attended to respond to queries regarding the memorial. 

·         The Chairman noted that HHCC Members were shown the proposed site for the memorial during its Committee walk on Saturday 27 April and drew Member’s attention to the photographs provided in the agenda.

·         Members were advised that the Heath & Hampstead Society were not supportive of the selected site for the memorial on the basis that the 1871 Act advocated for the protection of the Heath and its fringes. It was noted that the Society had not yet spoken with the press regarding the proposed memorial but that a public campaign would follow should the proposal be allowed to progress. 

·         It was noted that the HHCC minutes reflected a negative view of the proposal from numerous societies represented on the Committee which was further illustrated by correspondence received by the Chairman from the Heath & Hampstead Society, Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents Association and London Wildlife Trust.

·         The Chairman was supportive of the worthy cause but voiced concern that agreeing to the memorial could open the Heath up to requests from other equally worthy causes which would be difficult to manage.

·         A Member noted that the Heath was not natural and wild, it was a carefully managed space.

·         It was noted that the Corporation regularly made representations against planning applications near to the Heath and the proximity of the memorial to Heath land raised reservations.

·         A Member did not feel this was an appropriate site as it clearly effected Heath views despite being on Kenwood land and was not viable for transport or footfall.

·         In response to a query regarding revenue, Members were advised that this was not a motivation for the sculpture.

·         Members were advised that the monument was a memorial not only to those that had died in humanitarian crises but was a symbol and celebration of vitality and life. This unique memorial would have significant international significance as a piece of work developed by humanitarians worldwide and it was hoped that add to the attractions of the Heath with minimal impact to the natural habitat.

·         Members questioned why the other sites at Kenwood House were rejected, e.g. Kitchen Gardens which was felt to be a more suitable spot. Members were advised that other locations would be considered but there was a desire for the memorial not to be tucked away. The site was preferred for contemplation, reflection and its views and none of the other options fulfilled this criterion.

·         The Chairman felt that more background would be needed for further discussion, but the current position of the Committee was that the proposed site was inappropriate and not supported.

RECEIVED.