| Topic: | What is the point of WPCC | |
| Posted by: | Andy Howard | |
| Date/Time: | 27/11/12 13:18:00 |
| One of the above comments provoked me to ask this question. Everyone talks about the "Conservators" as if their job is "conservation", which is a popular word in modern parlance, with a particular, well-understood meaning. But what was intended in 1871 when the relevant Act of Parliament was passed, long before "conservationists" were even heard of. I look at Wimbledon and Putney Commons and see a severely under-utilised local resource. Some of it is a down-right mess (not just the old hospital site, but much of the land around Putney). There is little effort to improve the utilisation of the land for the public's benefit, recreational or otherwise. As an example - cycling is banned on most of the commons - there are more delineated paths for horses than for bicycles. Why? Bicycles were not properly invented until the late 19th century (there were forerunners such as the velocipede and penny-farthing), so the originators of the 1871 Act cannot really have had a view on them. So why do the conservators have such a prejudice against them. Sorry, that's a bit of a digression, but a relevant one. So are WPCC making a big mistake in seeing their primary role as "conservation"? And are we misleading ourselves by asking them to keep the commons exactly as they are/were, just for the sake of it. Subject to satisfactory controls, would we not be better off with a school, concrete cricket pitch, cycle trails, Go-Ape and various other leisure amenities (dare I say benches) rather than a lot of impenetrable undergrowth and breeding grounds for ducks. After all, the Wetland centre (non-existent in 1871) serves this purpose well enough. |