www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960 The Case for a London Green Infrastructure Board Andrew Gill C Hort FCIHort President of the Chartered Institute of Horticulture Trustee London Parks & Greenspaces Forum Greenspace Management Limited [email protected]
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
The Case for a London Green Infrastructure Board
Andrew Gill C Hort FCIHortPresident of the Chartered Institute of Horticulture
IntroductionThis presentation is intended to stimulate discussion about a potential option for the governance and management of London’s green spaces: a London Green Infrastructure Board. This model has been conceived independently of other parks and green space bodies but refined through informal discussion with peers and practitioners in the sector. This is not a proposal – it is the presentation of a concept in order to simulate discussion about a model of governance and management which I will attempt to demonstrate is feasible and may be desirable.
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
This is a concept, a suggested approach to GI oversight for discussion, not a research based proposal
• The context for this suggested approach• The scale of the challenge• The opportunity• The concept of a London GI Infrastructure Board• How it might be implemented• Some of the obvious barriers to such a scheme
My presentation covers
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
The Context• 60% of Greater London is open land (see maps)• London has a huge diversity of green spaces, owned and
managed by over 40 public authorities and agencies• Drastic budget cuts to green space maintenance and
management budgets• Growing alarm among professionals, stakeholders and
informed users • HLF predicts serious decline and a return to derelict spaces as
in the 1980s and 90s• Maintenance of GI is being increasingly
outsourced/transferred/abandoned• Huge pressure on space to generate income (events the only
• Whatever the actual cost, it is clear that the fragmentation of ownership and management of GI results in a huge duplication of effort at several levels;
• political oversight• executive management• senior and middle management (although fewer Heads of Parks) • service providers (DLO and contractors)
• London's population: 10m by early 2020s and 11m by 2050 (a 37% increase since 2011) - where are these people going to live?
• The real risk is the piecemeal selling off of parts of parks• My contention is that if we don't act now to protect GI, in 10-15
years we will wish we had
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
The Opportunity
• There is widespread acceptance of the health and wellbeing benefits of access to GI
• Anecdotally, many professionals in the sector believe that the time has come for concerted action to protect GI
• Some of the existing management models are themselves being questioned e.g. TRP, LVRPA
• GI has huge capacity to reduce flood risk and improve air quality
• There may be a real opportunity for the Mayor to show leadership on this issue
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
The Concept• A Green Infrastructure Board for London (LGIB) not dissimilar
to the London Waste and Recycling Authority• The LGIB would co-ordinate investment in and oversee the
management of green space within the GLA area above the size of 60 ha (Metropolitan & Regional parks)
• I would include under the LGIB the green space currently managed by:• London Boroughs• Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (within GLA boundary)• The Queen Elizabeth Park (ultimately)• Local authority housing land not demised to a RSL• The GLA (Transport for London, etc)• The Corporation of London• The Royal Parks
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
The Concept (contd)
• I do not propose to include green space;• managed by government departments e.g.
Environment Agency• already managed by the third sector e.g. Alexandra
Palace Park, Highgate Cemetery• demised to housing associations• already demised to a former agency e.g. Canal &
River Trust• managed by Network Rail
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
The Concept (contd)
• Other concepts (or proposals) for “reimagining” GI in London
are available!• I shall not comment on those beyond highlighting what my
concept does that the above does not;• It would not be “self-funding” although it would save
money• It would be a charity (e.g. a CIO) with statutory powers, like
the Canal & River Trust, RSPCA, RNLI,• It would have some land use planning duties
• It would have a suite of tools, incentives and powers to influence management to ensure the networks meets strategic objectives as a well as local needs
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
The Benefits• Reduced costs by removal of duplication of effort:
• one (admittedly large) Board• one Chief Executive, Operations Director, etc.• one function for procurement, marketing, etc.
• It would attract top calibre management • The London Green Grid or other GI strategy could be
implemented• Hugely increased influence and advocacy for GI• Game changing purchasing and procurement • It would retain capital receipts from sale or lease of land and
invest it in infrastructure improvements e.g. SUDS• It could be the recipient of endowments and philanthropic
donations• It would require that every borough, or group of• boroughs, had a small GI team
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
Implementation• The LGIB would be enacted via Act of Parliament • The land would be demised to LGIB under a long lease, a
licence to occupy or licence to operate • Ownership of land would NOT be transferred (too costly and
controversial)• Funding would come from a precept on every resident of
London (replacing the LVRPA precept) plus an investment vehicle
• Disposal of land would be approved by the LGIB IAW the London Green Grid and Local Plans – receipts would be invested in the service
• Maintenance budgets would be set for each participatory authority based on the mean of their past 5 years’ spend.
www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960
Problems Foreseen
• Lack of political support • Time – understanding the implications of the LGIB,
councils will sell off land and/or transfer management as quickly as they can
• Money – unless consensus among the main players can be achieved, legal challenges could prove very expensive and time consuming
• Impetus – a more strategic approach has been attractive for some time, so why has it not happened yet?