Lgib andrew gill 31.07.15 (final))
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•346 vues
The text here is taken from a presentation I gave to the London Green Infrastructure Stakeholder Conference at City Hall on 31 July 2015 in response to an invitation to speak at the conference by the GLA’s Green Infrastructure Task Force. Debate around protecting and enhancing London’s green spaces has been stimulated recently by a proposal to establish a “National City Park”, a self-funded non administrative umbrella organisation with no statutory or development control powers. It is the author’s view that this is not a viable solution to the existing problems faced by green space in London, although conceivably it may answer a different question i.e. how do we get Londoners better engaged in the debate about green infrastructure and more involved in its management. I do not support a National City Park for London as it will add no new powers to protect green space, duplicate the work of existing organisations and require considerable new funding for parks that are already at breaking point. In this context, this 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 the author will attempt to demonstrate is feasible and may be desirable.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Similaire à Lgib andrew gill 31.07.15 (final))
Similaire à Lgib andrew gill 31.07.15 (final)) (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Lgib andrew gill 31.07.15 (final))
- 1. 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 greenspace@consultant.com
- 2. www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960 Introduction This 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.
- 3. 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
- 4. 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 viable option)
- 5. www.gigl.org.uk Produced by Greenspace Information for Greater London. Map shows best available data July 2015. © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216. GLA Greater London’s Green Infrastructure Map: All Open Space
- 6. www.gigl.org.uk Produced by Greenspace Information for Greater London. Map shows best available data July 2015. © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216. GLA Public Open Space: designated public open Space and other open spaces
- 7. www.gigl.org.uk Produced by Greenspace Information for Greater London. Map shows best available data July 2015. © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216. GLA Public Open Space: with borough boundaries
- 8. www.gigl.org.uk Produced by Greenspace Information for Greater London. Map shows best available data July 2015. © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216. GLA All Open Space: includes public and private spaces
- 9. www.gigl.org.uk Produced by Greenspace Information for Greater London. Map shows best available data July 2015. © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216. GLA Accessible Open Space Accessible Open Space
- 10. And…back to All Open Space www.gigl.org.uk Produced by Greenspace Information for Greater London. Map shows best available data July 2015. © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216. GLA
- 11. Again; Accessible Open Space www.gigl.org.uk Produced by Greenspace Information for Greater London. Map shows best available data July 2015. © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216. GLA Accessible Open Space
- 12. The Future: Accessible Open Space in 2030?
- 13. www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960 The Challenge • The GI plan for London is largely theoretical • London Councils claims a reduction in spend over the past four years, saying that spending on open spaces has fallen by 18 per cent • According to CIPFA the total spend has been remarkably steady since 2011-12 at around £165M • The data show incredible discrepancies • The latest available CIPFA figures 2013-14 show the net cost of London’s parks including capital charges (including the GLA) is £156M. • The total net cost for GI in London (including TRP, CoL, et al) is not easily available, but I estimate it to be £200M+. The major challenge is to protect the GI we have, let alone enhance it
- 14. www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960 Variation in expenditure over a three year period from 2011/12 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Exp 2011_2012 Exp 2012_2013 Exp 2013_2014 Produced by Occam’s Razor Consulting Ltd 2015
- 15. www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960 Variation in expenditure over a three year period from 2011/12 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Exp 2011_2012 Exp 2012_2013 Exp 2013_2014 Produced by Occam’s Razor Consulting Ltd 2015
- 16. www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960 CIPFA Total Open Space Expenditure (including capital charges) 2013/14 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 £166,547,000 £163,420,000 £179,026,000
- 17. www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960 The Challenge (contd) • 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
- 18. 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
- 19. 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
- 20. 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
- 21. 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
- 22. 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
- 23. 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.
- 24. 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?
- 25. www.greenspace-management.com @morse1960 Thank you for listening Any Questions? Andrew Gill greenspace@consultant.com London Green Infrastructure Task Force Stakeholder Forum 31 July 2015
Notes de l'éditeur
- I am speaking today as an independent consultant.
- Please do not shoot me down in flames during my presentation - wait until the end as I have only one parachute!
- London Councils suggest that Boroughs may soon be unable to support park volunteers and community groups sufficiently to prevent a slide towards privately-run parks in the capital by the end of the decade. HLF’s Drew Bennelick has also indicated that the nature of funding applications is changing, with fewer requests for capital funding and more requests to help friends' groups, improve income generation and boost sustainability. London has a huge diversity of green spaces, owned and managed by over 40 organisations, most of which have no imperative to join up their spaces
- Greater London’s Green Infrastructure. Map shows designated public open spaces, other open spaces (both accessible and non-accessible) and private gardens. Open space is defined as land which has amenity value, or potential amenity value. It is not necessarily green space. We’ve calculated that roughly 60% of Greater London is open (i.e. undeveloped) land. 39% of this is land that has an amenity value or potential amenity value (open space). The rest of the open land is domestic gardens (24%), of which 14% has been calculated to be vegetated. 2.5% of Greater London’s area is blue space, such as rivers, canals and reservoirs.
- Public Open Space. Map shows designated public open space and other open spaces.
- Public Open Space, with borough boundaries.
- Open Space. This map shows all surveyed open space in Greater London. It includes both public, and private spaces.
- Accessible Open Spaces. This map displays all open spaces that have been deemed as accessible to the public. It shows designated Public Open Spaces, and additional open spaces surveyed as freely accessible – which GIGL displays on their online data portal iGiGL.
- GIGL have asked me to mention that these superb graphics remind us of the importance of maintaining and keeping up to date the database of GI in London.
- This doesn’t look much different but I have indiscriminately removed about 5% from across the city. By 2050 we will probably need another 9000ha to accommodate population growth.
- The GI plan for London is largely theoretical - nice to have but there is no consistent and coherent investment in delivery: not to reinvent the wheel, but there are so many players on this field. London Councils claims a reduction in spend over the past four years, saying that London boroughs’ spending on open spaces, allowing for inflation, has fallen by 18 per cent – with a drop of more than 10 per cent in 2014/15 alone. Yet according to the Culture, Sport and Recreation statistics actuals published by CIPFA, the total spend has been remarkably steady since 2011-12 at around £165M (graphic2) But the data show incredible discrepancies between single authority’s returns of up to 150% year on year and significant variation across the city (graphic 3) The latest available CIPFA figures 2013-14 show the net cost of London’s parks including capital charges (including the GLA) is £156M. The total net cost for GI in London (including TPA, CoL, et al) is not easily available, but I estimate it to be £200M+.
- From Occams Razor Consulting. This analysis is based on the CULTURE, SPORT AND RECREATION STATISTICS 2013-14 ACTUALS published by CIPFA The returns seem to indicate a total spend across London’s 34 authorities (including the GLA) of £179 million. Income generated amounts to some £48 million. Bromley tops the table for spending at over £11 million and also generates more income than anyone else at £5.7 million. Greenwich’s income represents over 50% of its expenditure. By contrast Westminster’s income represents only 2% of its expenditure. A third factor contributing to the bottom line is the capital charges element. This amounts to some £25 milion. The net cost of London’s parks including capital charges is £156 million.
- Huge discrepancies year-on-year by some authorities in open space spending no names here but they are in alphabetical order and you can see them on the handouts. One borough increased its spending by a factor of 4, a few doubled it, some cut it in half.
- The total spend on open space (according to CIPFA) appears to be increasing. How does this sit with the assertion that the spend is decreasing? Either London Councils are looking at different figures for public expenditure or CIPFA has it wrong. You should draw your own conclusions.
- The Guardian newspapers Public Leaders Network concludes that it’s unlikely that entire parks will be sold off and the real risk is the piecemeal selling off of part of parks. I agree and have been predicting this for some time.
- I suggest the creation of 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 that is currently under public ownership above the size of 60 ha (Metropolitan & Regional parks): smaller spaces might be devolved to neighbourhood communities. To be clear, 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
- I should say that 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 . Debate around protecting and enhancing London’s green spaces has been stimulated recently by a proposal to establish a “National City Park”, a self-funded non administrative umbrella organisation with no statutory or development control powers. It is the author’s view that this is not a viable solution to the existing problems faced by green space in London, although conceivably it may answer a different question i.e. how do we get Londoners better engaged in the debate about green infrastructure and more involved in its management. I do not support a National City Park for London as it will add no new powers to protect green space, duplicate the work of existing organisations and require considerable new funding for parks that are already at breaking point.
- 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 power (as the old London County Council (later GLC) acted to establish many of today’s parks (eg, Hainault Country Park) It would retain capital receipts from sale or lease of land and invest it in infrastructure improvements 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 (employed by the authority but funded by the LGIB)
- • The LGIB would be enacted via Act of Parliament (referencing pre-existing relevant acts e.g. Corporation of London, Royal Parks, LVRPA, et al). • The land would be demised to LGIB under a long lease, a licence to occupy or licence to operate • Ownership 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 to accrue funds from receipts, endowments and philanthropic donations • 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.