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. |