Forum Message

Topic: Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators
Posted by: Jaco Nel
Date/Time: 27/09/10 10:51:00

I agree that the remit to preserve should be vigorously upheld and defended and for incremental erosion of this remit to be avoided. Incremental erosion is conceivably the back door by which more severe and onerous pressure on the common could see itself threatened by much more than just a foot and cycle path routing and surfacing.

However, just maintaining the status quo is surely not the intent of preserving the common for posterity.  All improvements is not always bad and if a comprehensive site improvement plan to preserve the intent of the common, as well as improve the natural habitat and ecological diversity, it could increase it’s value and the enjoyment it offers the local residents.  The great success that the Barn-Elms wetland represents is a good example of well managed and successful intervention, especially if you discount the fact that it was a manmade reservoir that was transformed to it’s current beauty and much improved natural and ecological value.  Other examples of successful intervention abound and usually it is increased pressure from user groups that usually forms the spark leading to considered intervention. To say that there is no pressure on the ever popular Commons in Putney is to admit to wearing blinkers.  Increase in use of the tow path and the commons is a pressure in itself and the impact can degrade if not managed.  The diversity of user groups – cyclist, jogger and walkers as well as a range of age groups are evidently from this discussion tread and evidently some conflicts are showing between these user groups. Pressures and user groups evolve and ebb and wane, but eventually, management of these user group concerns and direct pressures on the Common will become essential. Note that I am not saying that the Conservators are not doing so already – their work can and must be applauded and appreciated.  I am saying through, better to plan for intervention for remit gain.  Better to have clear management strategies for and of such intervention and to start with the departure point that community involvement is key to this process.  From the discussion on this and other threads, there is thankfully no shortage of that, and is as it should be. 

Sadly, no plans and or drawings and or details of material choices are linked to the Sustrans article that indicate the intent nor extent of the work proposed that I can see and many of the contributors indicate that they have not seen such a plan as yet either.  That surely is a failure of the applicants of this proposed scheme and it appears that they have not even attempted to engage the community and get their input.  It arouses suspicion if plans are put forward for improvement, even if by a charity, without full disclosure and local resident, community at large and user group engagement. Again a good reason to agree with turning down this application.  If they are truly interested in improvement for longer term gain – start where it matters, with the community.  Instead of applying pressure in the press and web by imploring the Putney Commons Conservators to re-consider, provide plans and management details of the proposal, disclose responsibility of upkeep and maintenance and show how this fit in with the wider management plant of the commons (and make them easily accessible on their website for widest possible perusal and comment). It is therefore right and proper for Sustrans to go back to the drawing board if they think it important enough. 

Equally so, if the community and Conservators of the common feel that there is merit in this proposal and recognise the pressures on the common and the need for structured management AND they need not fund ALL of the planning and implementation cost, then it is right and proper to engage with Sustrans in starting at the beginning.  Begin with impact assessments, ecological surveys, user group input and local residents and rate payer’s involvement and then only, once the correct information has been gathered, draw up plans and designs for public consultation as guided by this information gathered.   That after all is empowerment of and for democracy, ensures widest possible use by various interest groups and safeguards the environment and ultimately the Common – and that to my mind may just also fulfil the remit of the Conservators.


Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
Putney & Wimbledon Conservators20/09/10 14:24:00 Jim Maddan
   Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators20/09/10 17:57:00 Suzanne Taylor
      Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators20/09/10 18:18:00 Vanessa Andrews
         Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators21/09/10 15:45:00 Peter Simpson
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators21/09/10 19:17:00 Vanessa Andrews
   Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators21/09/10 13:44:00 Victoria Richardson
      Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators22/09/10 07:36:00 Catherine Schade
         Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators22/09/10 09:06:00 Jane OCallaghan
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators22/09/10 19:26:00 Bunny Payne
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators23/09/10 13:20:00 Bryony Evens
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators24/09/10 13:36:00 Vic Condon
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators24/09/10 16:54:00 Jonathan Callaway
   Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators24/09/10 17:36:00 John Patrick Archer
      Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators25/09/10 10:45:00 Roland Gilmore
         Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators25/09/10 11:06:00 Jonathan Callaway
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators25/09/10 19:36:00 Roland Gilmore
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators25/09/10 21:11:00 Jonathan Callaway
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 00:32:00 Roland Gilmore
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 00:09:00 Geoffrey Edwards
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 00:56:00 Roland Gilmore
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 01:17:00 Geoffrey Edwards
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 02:31:00 Roland Gilmore
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 10:35:00 Vanessa Andrews
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 12:16:00 Leslie McDonnell
                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 12:41:00 Vanessa Andrews
                                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 13:33:00 Roland Gilmore
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 14:17:00 Paul Smith
                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators26/09/10 14:49:00 Roland Gilmore
   Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators27/09/10 10:51:00 Jaco Nel
   Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators27/09/10 13:37:00 Bryony Evens
      Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators27/09/10 14:19:00 Jonathan Callaway
         Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators27/09/10 16:37:00 Victoria Richardson
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators27/09/10 17:52:00 Bryony Evens
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Putney & Wimbledon Conservators27/09/10 19:05:00 Bunny Payne
                  Putney to Barnes Cycling via Commons28/09/10 09:52:00 Catherine Schade

Forum Home