|
GLA GREEN SPACES INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE A
Response from the Institute of Horticulture 1. The Institute of Horticulture is a professional organisation with more than 2000 members representing all branches of Horticulture. This response has been prepared after consulting members with relevant experience. Comments 2. The GLA's interest in Open Spaces is welcome. Since the abolition of the GLC there has been a lack of strategic planning and co-ordination and the GLA now has an opportunity to remedy this. 3. The main problem facing the effective management of green spaces in London, and in the rest of the country, is the lack of resources, both financial and staff, Much of the problem has arisen because of the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering. This concentrated on achieving the lowest short-term costs. As a result, long-term planning and provision declined and there has been a drastic reduction in the horticultural and land management skills available to local authorities. Use of the 'Best Value' approach will only help if it includes some element of staff training in the calculations so these skills can be regained. The use of contract labour for routine maintenance has also reduced the number of on-site staff with a consequent decline in the quality of the supervision and increase in vandalism. 4. There seems to be no reason for the GLA to be given a statuary role in the planning and management of the Royal Parks and other open spaces but should collaborate with them through bodies such as the Urban Parks Forum. All the local authorities should concentrate on the effective management of their own sites. They need to have a clear understanding of the use they expect to be made of each site, possibly after consultation with the local community, because only then can appropriate management plans be devised. It is unlikely that all interests can be accommodated on each site. A large area of mown grass may not be a diverse ecosystem, but it is good for informal games and recreation.
7. There seems to be some confusion about appropriate time-scales in parts of the Report. Para 2.16 recommends" epidemiological research and also practical recommendations as to how the design, facilities and activities available in parks can be made conducive to good health". Unless these are simply desk studies they could take years to achieve and could divert effort and finance away from immediate problems. Para 3.8 doubts whether 10 years is the right time-scale to monitor changes in biodiversity but gives no reason for these doubts. Surely, the correct time-scale depends on what is being monitored, where and for what reason. 8. The Institute of Horticulture is willing to discuss these issues further if it would be useful to the committee.
|