Friends’ response to the Ecological Masterplan
From: Stephen Waley-Cohen
Sent: 04 March 2020 19:16
To: Ben Shakespeare, Land Use Consultants
Subject: Ecological Survey; formal response from the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs Committee
Dear Ben,
This is the formal (off-line because we think your format is too simplistic to allow us to respond as we would wish) response from the Committee of the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs. We may wish to add further points in the coming days as some of our Committee are away.
Overall we are concerned that there appears to be an element of ‘there’s money available, let’s spend it’; the most important single factor for the Scrubs is sufficient financial and human resources for maintenance; the suggestion that a sum might be set aside for ten years’ maintenance of the proposed improvements is not at all enough. Much of the present Scrubs, if more properly maintained, would achieve much greater ecological benefit and enable many species to prosper. Proper control of brambles, proper management of the ‘wilderness’ area, proper management and maintenance of paths – thereby encouraging people to avoid walking elsewhere other than on open land; all these would have much greater benefit than most of the proposed ‘improvements’.
The official designation of Wormwood Scrubs is that it is ‘more wild than tamed’. This should be the unchangeable basis for all proposals, and many of those in this masterplan absolutely do not meet this test.
We are also concerned that the expansion of formal sports pitches on the open space in the eastern part of the Scrubs will restrict the spring and summer use by very large numbers supporting London Sports weekend baseball activities. It will also potentially eliminate the possible use for commercially attractive open space short-term events, required to enable the charity’s finances to remain stable and sustainable. Some expenditure on drainage of this entire area might be beneficial in improving the sports pitches. Proper management of the users of sports pitches is also required (an on-going cost, not an up-front one-off) to prevent the users, whether authorised or unauthorised, from leaving behind quantities of plastic bottles and other litter.
Planting of trees both to the left and right of the central copse will block views from the NW corner of scrubs at the confluence of paths from where you can see views out to East London, including the London Eye and the Shard. Will most likely block the sunset views that currently people can enjoy from the eastern boundary. In general we do not favour planting of trees on any currently open areas. It is well recognised that open grassland areas provide better carbon absorption than trees.
We do not favour the pond. It represents an unacceptable ‘parkification’ of the Scrubs and the bridge is wholly inappropriate to a ‘more wild than tamed’ area. The pond will attract rubbish and debris, and therefore rats. It will also represent a potential hazard for children, accompanied or unaccompanied. We oppose the pond.
The avenue of trees - the view from SE entrance into the Scrubs would be significantly adversely affected once the trees have grown. The open skies are to be enjoyed, and, again, the focus should be on ‘more wild than tamed’. We also worry about the potential muddying of the track between such trees, or the use of some hard surface again greatly detracting. This carving up of the Scrubs is not a good idea.
Signage should be simpler and maybe more discreet. It should be about the provision of information. The proposed totem poles are a wholly inappropriate Disneyfication of the Scrubs.
Currently the model aircraft people use the area to the north of the central copse for ‘runaway’ and are permitted to fly their aircraft over the ‘wilderness’ scrub to its west. We are not sure if the proposals will carve out another space for them, but strongly feel that the present provision is sufficient and appropriate.
The proposed creation of more wetland in the south east copse (known as Martin Bell’s Wood) is not supported. We recognise that parts of this copse is wet, but much of it is hard surface, and following the recent clearing of undergrowth is an attractive amenity which should not be ‘wetted’ and therefore removed from walkability.
Paths - whilst they do need to be better maintained, the proposed paths will be much too prominent in the self-binding gravel or ‘hoggin'. There are other materials which can help maintain the grassy path, such as the generous use of wood chippings ahead of anticipated wet seasons.
Best wishes
Sir Stephen Waley-Cohen
Chairman, Friends of the Scrubs