Category: Campaigns

Journalist Leana Pooley describes how local residents and enthusiastic volunteers are working to save a much-loved pocket park – through the power of a good party!

Two years ago, a thin, grassy, brambly scrap of land beside a busy Ealing road was overflowing with enthusiastic volunteer gardeners. Over the course of several autumn days, 10,000 bulbs were planted, overgrowth was hacked back, and paths were mown.

Those of us who live nearby discovered that the work was overseen by Abundance London, an admirable community organisation with charitable aims, which transforms unloved public spaces into pleasure grounds full of flowers, fruit, trees and art.

The long, thin piece of land has a history of precarious moments. It was named Beaconsfield Gardens after the 1970s Beaconsfield housing estate which lies on the other side of the road. Before the red-brick estate was built, the Victorian buildings – mostly terraced houses on either side of the road – were demolished, and the straight road was curved to give the Beaconsfield Estate a car park. This narrowed Beaconsfield Gardens to a wide green road verge. Only 100 yards to the south is Acton Green Common, part of the historic Green in 1642; inevitably the land of Beaconsfield Gardens would have been trampled by the Parliamentarians as they pursued the Royalists northwards.

Since its transformation in 2022, however, Beaconsfield Gardens has bloomed. Early spring sees golden daffodils, blue scylla and forget me knots. In summer the long grasses wave with wildflowers such as ox-eye daisies and purple knapweed. For local residents walking down to do their shopping in Chiswick High Road, it has been a pleasure to step away from the pavement and meander down mown pathways instead.

This spring, however, we received a jolt. A nearby resident noticed a man spraying lines onto the ground of the Gardens. When asked what he was doing, he replied that he was a surveyor marking out a possible site for a tall telecoms aerial and its ugly accompanying metal cabinets.

This was alarming. Planning rules for 5G masts in England, as of April 2022, state that new ground-based mobile masts are permitted without planning permission at heights of up to 30m, or up to 25m in protected areas such as conservation areas and national parks. Regardless of whether planning permission is required, however, operators must obtain agreement from the landowner to build mobile masts on private land, and must notify local planning authorities.

A phone call to a planning officer at Ealing Council revealed that an operator had previously made an application for approval for an aerial on Beaconsfield Gardens, but had been rebuffed. The verdict was that the tall aerial and cabinets would be an eyesore, and out of keeping with the attractive green landscape. The planning officer – who described Beaconsfield Gardens as one of Ealing’s ‘pocket parks’ – said he thought it unlikely that a similar future application would be approved.

However, local residents and Abundance London were not convinced. They felt that the Gardens might still be at risk and decided that a major celebration of the Gardens would alert more people to their existence. Flyers were delivered throughout the neighbouring streets, with promises of free tea and cake and children’s face painting. On a sunny Saturday in March, when the Gardens were cheerful with daffodils, crowds of people turned up; tables loaded with cakes had been laid along the paths and neighbours chatted happily with each other. Throngs of dogs wagged tails at knee-height. Ealing’s MP Rupa Hug came along, as well as Councillor Hitesh Tailor, Mayor of Ealing.

Memories were aired. We heard that, many years ago, a working pony had spent its leisure hours tethered in the Gardens grazing grass. Elderly residents talked about the surrounding neighbourhood of south Acton being called Soapsud Island, the place where West London’s washing was done. In 1900 there were more than 600 laundries in the streets nearby, most of them owned and managed by women – an army of Amazons – who employed other women. The area is no longer a working-class neighbourhood – many residents claim they live in Chiswick rather than Acton – but the shells of laundries remain as rectangular brick buildings slotted into the Victorian terracing.

Afterwards, it was agreed that the day’s celebration of the Gardens had been very successful. Not only had many people walked into the gardens for the first time but they had made friends, basked in the spring sunshine and vowed to return again. All we can hope is that Beaconsfield Gardens will continue to flourish and enjoy the strengthened protection that Abundance London, vigilant neighbours and publicity can provide.

Beaconsfield Gardens is not currently on the Inventory. Inclusion helps protect sites from future development. If you are interested in researching this or any other space for our Inventory, please get in touch at office@londongardenstrust.org

As the Garden Museum launches a campaign to increase the right to sunlight in public gardens and open spaces, LPG Director Helen Monger explains the importance of natural light, and efforts being made to defend it.

In June 2021, a development application for 8 Albert Embankment, adjacent to the Garden Museum, was turned down at the planning inquiry. The proposed 26-storey luxury flats would have overshadowed Old Paradise Gardens, one of many parks listed on the London Parks & Gardens Inventory. This historic little public park once formed part of the churchyard of St Mary’s Church, in which the Garden Museum is housed today, and was one of the first parish spaces to be converted into a park under the Metropolitan Open Spaces Act of 1881.

The Garden Museum had objected to the application on the basis that the high-rise flats would have plunged the park into 22 hours of shadow, for half the year; but although the application itself was rejected, the Museum’s reasons for objecting were ignored, along with many others. The inquiry found that the proposals were ‘compliant with current guidelines which require two hours of sunshine per day as measured on 21March’. Staff and researchers at the Garden Museum were shocked by the revelation that standards for amenity space were so poor. On 21 March 2022, they launched a campaign to address this issue in planning policy, supported by the LPG.

Why does natural light matter?

Guidance set by the British Research Establishment Trust (BRE) states that, on the Spring Equinox, sunlight must fall on a public garden for a minimum of two hours on at least half of the amenity area. The original intention of this guidance may have been well-meant, but the ‘two-hour rule’ has become a guide for planners across the UK who seek to deliver no more than this basic minimum.

The Garden Museum’s publication, The City that Sold the Sun, articulates the importance of access to quality green spaces with natural light. Professor Sir Sam Everington, a GP in Tower Hamlets, states that half of his patients are deficient in vitamin D, which is produced by the human body as a response to sun exposure. Vitamin D deficiency can lead to a loss of bone density, and at the extreme end of the scale this can lead to rickets and cause bone deformities in children. Tower Hamlets is an area of high deprivation, and is one of the most densely populated areas of the UK; the health impacts of lack of sunlight fall more harshly on already deprived communities.

As well as human concerns, there are real issues with lack of daylight for horticulture and nature more widely. Growers need more than six hours of sunlight per day to grow vegetables, and shaded gardens can support a less diverse range of plants. Lack of sunlight also influences temperature, and therefore insect activity; many major pollinators require a certain temperature before they can become active.

Tall buildings not only shade parks from daylight, but create issues of light pollution at night too. Government guidance on light pollution states that “artificial light provides valuable benefits to society, including through extending opportunities for sport and recreation”, but that it can also “be a source of annoyance to people, harmful to wildlife and undermine enjoyment of the countryside or the night sky” (1).

One rule for us and another for them?

High-rise development brings both lack of sunlight during daytime hours and light pollution at night, yet the current thrust of UK development policy is to deliver a denser urban environment. This naturally leads to proposals aiming to build upwards, but the placement of multi-storey buildings is restricted by efforts to conserve landmark views across the capital. Since 1937, the City of London Corporation has operated a policy known as the ‘St Paul’s Heights’ to protect a number of famous views of the Cathedral. More recently, the London View Management Framework has defined protected views across London’s cityscape; indeed it was because of the view from Primrose Hill that the planning inquiry turned down proposals for 8 Albert Embankment.

Tall buildings not only
shade parks from daylight,
but create issues of light
pollution at night too

Local Authorities, however, must reach stringent targets set by central government and provide necessary housing, and this often leads to the identification of specific areas for tall building development clusters – with a resulting tacit acceptance of loss of access to daylight in these areas. Mathew Frith, Director of Policy and Research at the London Wildlife Trust, points out that clusters of tall buildings also cause additional cooling and disruptive wind-tunnelling effects, which provide a more hostile growing environment and can kill plants through desiccation and windburn.

The introduction to the Government’s Rights to Light (2) research published by the Law Commission in 2015 begins by defending the human need for natural light: Natural light inside buildings is immensely important for comfortable living and working. We like and want natural light in our kitchens, and at our desks; people like to have a window seat and most people thoroughly dislike a windowless room. The amount of natural light that a window lets in depends upon what is outside that window, and particularly upon the proximity of other buildings.

However, the report goes on to prioritise development over this need: The legal system recognises the value of natural light inside buildings, but because available space is finite it has to strike a balance between the importance of light and the importance of the construction of homes and offices, and the provision of jobs, schools and other essentials.

Although these statements relate to natural light in buildings, it is clear that the deprioritisation of natural light is applied to green spaces as well as to dwellings.

Setting new standards

There is limited quantitative evidence to demonstrate the need for access to sunlight; this is the challenge thrown at those campaigning for better protection in the planning process. All the authors of the Garden Museum’s report accept that their evidence is in part anecdotal, but they suggest a precautionary approach on the basis of this evidence. Our environment is too fragile and too important to lose through lack of prior consideration.

On that basis, the campaign has called for the GLA to amend its guidance. The following statement has been suggested by the LPG as an amended policy.

All developments should seek to maximize access to natural daylight in public open spaces for the benefit of everyone. In general it is expected that public open spaces should receive a minimum of six hours on at least 50% of the area at the equinox. It is expected that all developments should demonstrate how they will protect:

• daylight for more than two hours on all parts of a children’s playgrounds and other outside sporting facilities such as fitness areas, football pitches etc, to maintain the amenity value; and
• the future sustainability of existing horticultural planting schemes based on an ecological assessment of biodiversity and climate value, in accordance with the Natural Capital Accounting methodology agreed in the Mayor’s London Plan.

There will also be a presumption against supporting a proposal which:
• reduces existing daylight access below the six-hour limit; or
• further reduces access to daylight in a space which already fails this standard.

George Hudson, Green London Curator at the Garden Museum, said: “We are grateful to have the support of London Parks & Gardens in our campaign to protect London’s green spaces from being cast into shadow by new tall buildings. Recently, our campaign has attracted the attention of assembly members at City Hall, and we are in conversation with them. The importance of sunlight is often understated, if not forgotten about completely.”

The LPG will update members on the progress of the campaign, and will continue to support this policy initiative.

1 www.gov.uk/guidance/light-pollution

2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/file/391683/44872 HC 796 Law Commission_356_WEB pdf

Historian and former House of Commons Clerk Dr Dorian Gerhold describes how a deep-dive into the history of Victoria Tower Gardens may have preserved it for the future.

Readers will be aware of the recent High Court ruling quashing the planning permission for the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens (VTG). The ruling was based entirely on the fact that the permission breached the provisions of an Act of 1900. My own involvement in this came about in two ways; I was asked to research the history of the area which now forms the Gardens, and, separately, I had begun to investigate how a beautiful open space in central London could have been chosen for a large government building project.

First the history, which could be traced partly through maps and partly through deeds and lawsuits, almost entirely at the National Archives in Kew. The eastern part of the Gardens was embanked from the Thames just over a century ago, while the western part has a much longer history: in the north it belonged to the medieval Palace of Westminster, forming part of its gardens; in the south it belonged to Westminster Abbey. The Abbey had a water mill there by 1282, and later a slaughterhouse.

In the 16th century the Abbey was dissolved and the Palace ceased to be a royal residence. From about 1590 to 1620 the whole area was sold by the Crown and developed with houses and wharves. By the 1860s it was heavily industrial, with wharves, a flour mill, a cement works and an oil factory. The Lord Great Chamberlain regarded these as a fire threat to the new Palace of Westminster, and under an Act of 1867 those closest to the Palace were acquired by the Crown and cleared, though without much idea of what was to be done with the land – more of that later.

“I had always thought the Gardens a miraculous piece of urban planning, and was mystified that the Government had decided to build on it”

As for the Memorial decision, I had always thought the Gardens a miraculous piece of urban planning, and was mystified that the Government had decided to build on it without any coherent explanation of how and why the site had been chosen. As the campaigners have put it, ‘right idea, wrong place’. I submitted freedom of information requests to the relevant Department and Royal Parks, asking mainly for dates. That gave me my first lesson in FOI, as the Department took seven months to answer, and withheld most of the information. Unfortunately, the Information Commissioner’s Office fails to enforce the time limits for FOI responses. Royal Parks was somewhat more helpful. By the time I received these answers I was in contact with other VTG campaigners, including London Parks and Gardens.

A later FOI request for key passages in the minutes of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, which had recommended the site, was rejected by the Department, the Information Commissioner and the Lower and Upper Information Tribunals. This was mainly on the spurious ground that sites discussed in 2015-16, which in practice were no longer available or had been firmly rejected, might have to be considered again if planning permission was refused, and that disclosure would therefore prejudice decision-making. The Department rejected my most recent request about allowance for optimism bias in the costings by using the exemption that the information was already accessible, and referring me to a parliamentary answer that categorically refused to provide the same information! It is a fine example of the Government’s contempt for the public’s right to information. In general, the FOI Act has been of limited value in the campaign to save VTG.

Written parliamentary answers have proved more useful, mainly for eliciting basic factual information, They operate on a much faster timetable – days rather than months and years – and can be followed up. The snag is that, unlike FOI requests, you need to find a Member of Parliament willing to table them for you. It also helps to know the rules for questions, of which the most important is that you must be seeking information or pressing for action, not requesting opinions or making an argument. Here I had the advantage of having spent four years as a House of Commons Clerk in the Table Office, which ensures that the rules for questions are observed but also helps MPs to get around them. I had learnt that questioners needed to be persistent in following up inadequate answers, and this time I found that the formulation ‘for what reason the answer did not provide the information requested about X’ was unexpectedly productive. Note the neutral wording; even the word ‘why’ is frowned on!

One particularly useful answer included a copy of the letter sent by Lord Feldman in 2015 in which VTG was first suggested to a government minister as a possible location. Another provided the wording of the fateful recommendation of 2016, revealing that it was more tentative – ‘in principle’ than had been disclosed. But the most valuable result of the parliamentary answers was that it became possible to compile a chronology of the decision-making. This sounds dull, but it revealed a deeply flawed process. There had been a professional site search, but at the same time several members of the Foundation independently investigated the possibility of using VTG. The professional searchers reported on 11 January 2016, VTG was sprung on the Foundation’s members on 13 January and immediately agreed ‘in principle’, and the Prime Minister announced the intended location on 27 January. The timescale alone showed that there was no due diligence. A consequence of revealing this was that at the planning inquiry the Foundation’s co-chairs were forced to justify the way the decision had been taken, memorably describing it as a ‘moment of genius’, and to defend the fact that the chosen site did not meet the specification.

Among the most important information about any public open space is how it came into being and what conditions were imposed on its use at the time. The Government failed to investigate this, and so did I at first. There were no covenants in the land register, and the manner in which VTG had been created was obscure. Eventually I examined a file of papers at London Metropolitan Archives relating to the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 that provided the answers. The controversy over what to do with the land acquired under the 1867 Act had been resolved when the newspaper seller W.H. Smith offered £1000 for it to be converted into a public garden, now the northern part of VTG. Parliament had provided the remaining £2400 and the garden opened in 1881. Importantly, the Government had promised Smith that the land would be maintained as an open space.

In 1898 a private consortium sought an Act to acquire and develop a large area around Millbank and to rebuild the wharves on what is part of VTG. This was rejected by the House of Commons, partly because it did not turn the land by the river into an open space. London County Council stepped in with its own proposal, which would widen Millbank and also extend the existing open space, but it needed some financial help from the Government, together with a small corner of VTG for its chosen alignment of Millbank. The crucial document in the file was a letter from the First Commissioner of Works, the registered owner of VTG, stating that, because of the promise made to Smith, the condition for giving up part of the existing garden was that the land between the widened Millbank and the river become and remain an open space, and that this must be written into the Bill. He also insisted that the new land be transferred by the LCC to him, so that the enlarged Gardens could be managed as a whole.

Next I had to find a copy of the 1900 Act, which did indeed say that the new land should be ‘laid out and maintained… for use as a garden open to the public and as an integral part of the existing Victoria Tower Garden’. This was a far more emphatic result than I had hoped for. When London government was reorganised in 1965 and most of the 1900 Act was repealed, the section relating to VTG was kept, indicating its continuing effect.

Bizarrely, when the 1900 Act was brought to the Government’s attention, it insisted that the Act did not affect its plan to build on a great part of the new land. It claimed that the provisions of the Act had been fully implemented, that the First Commissioner of Works had been trusted with the future of the land, and that his successor (a government department) could therefore do what it wished with it.

For the judicial review, I went back to the LCC’s proceedings of 1899-1900, which are in large printed volumes with indexes, copied all the relevant committee reports and presented them, together with relevant proceedings of Parliament and Westminster’s local government, as evidence. They made abundantly clear that creating a permanent open space that was not to be built on was central to the negotiations at the time.

The words of an Act usually have to be interpreted as they stand, without considering what its promoters intended. Nevertheless, having concluded that the words in the Act meant exactly what they said, and therefore that the proposed building was unlawful, the judge quoted extensively from the proceedings of 1899-1900 to provide confirmation of her conclusion.

The Government has been refused leave to appeal, but could seek to repeal what remains of the 1900 Act. The future of VTG remains uncertain. But the case shows the value of historical research in campaigning to prevent the destruction of a public open space.

Further information
The history of the site, VTG itself and the decision on the Memorial is set out in Dorian’s book Victoria Tower Gardens, available from the Thorney Island Society – £15 including postage.

The Court of Appeal has today, 21 July, refused ministers permission to try to overturn The High Court’s ruling that building the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (HMLC) in a park protected in perpetuity for public enjoyment would be unlawful. 

The legal dispute arises from the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust’s campaign to protect all London parks from development, while supporting a Holocaust Memorial and a learning centre in a fitting venue.  

The case centred on the 2019 decision of former Housing Minister Chris Pincher MP (suspended Con) to grant planning permission to build the centre in Victoria Tower Gardens next to Parliament, despite objections from some members of the Jewish community, Holocaust survivors, the local authority, campaigners, cross party Peers, a former Archbishop of Canterbury and a historic obligation in law to preserve this park for public enjoyment.  

In a case brought by the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust (the Trust), the High Court over turned Mr Pincher’s permission on the grounds of this legal protection in April. Since then, concerns about the scheme, including the lack of work to find a suitable alternative site, have been raised by the National Audit Office spending watchdog.  

The Trust and campaigners including the Thorney Island Society and ‘Save Victoria Tower Gardens’ support a fitting Holocaust Memorial, education and a Learning centre. But they have described the current plan in a small, protected park as ‘the right idea in the wrong place’, especially considering the scope for other sites to do a fitting education centre justice.    

A spokesperson for the Trust said: 

“We share widespread dismay that in deciding to build on a protected park, the government pursued this noble cause via an illegal path. Had a more suitable site been chosen, a Holocaust education centre would already be doing its essential work. City parks are not a blank canvass waiting for development but greenspaces protected for public enjoyment so we sincerely hope that revised plans for a memorial near to Parliament can co-exist with a substantial education centre in a more suitable setting.”    

Media contact: Helen Monger (Director) via office@londongardenstrust.org 

More on Victoria Tower Gardens

The High Court today, 08/04/22, found in favour of a small charity’s campaign to protect Westminster’s Victoria Tower Gardens public park from development.   

In February Mrs Justice Thornton heard the claim of London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust [The Trust] against the Government’s decision to grant planning permission for the UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to Parliament [the decision]. Today Mrs Justice Thornton found that the claim succeeds on the grounds that the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 [the 1900 Act] imposes statutory protection of the park; 

“The appropriate remedy is to quash the decision, so as to enable further consideration of the implications of the 1900 Act.   It is an Act of Parliament which specifically regulates Victoria Tower Gardens and specifies that the land must be retained for use as a public garden.“

Planning permission had been granted following a 2020 Planning Inquiry which heard detailed opposition to the proposed scheme from the Trust, the Save Victoria Tower Gardens campaign, Westminster City Council, and The Thorney Island Society. 

Although supportive of Holocaust Memorial and Learning, the Trust joins many prominent people, including those from the Jewish community, who raised concerns about the Government’s plan. The Save Victoria Tower Gardens campaign believe that this proposal is the right idea in the wrong place, and with the Trust, hopes that the High Court’s decision will lead to a new approach and protection for historic landscapes.    

Helen Monger, Director of The Trust said: “This is major boost for the protection of London parks at a time when they’ve never been more valued by the public.  

The High Court has given the government a welcome chance to reflect and re-consider the best site for a fitting Holocaust Memorial which the UK deserves, without tearing up historic protections for our parks.”   

Lucy Peck from the Save VTG campaign said: “We are pleased that planning permission for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens has been quashed. We have argued for many years that the Government was pursuing the right idea in the wrong place. Today’s judgement sends a strong message about the protection of public parks.” 

Richard Buxton, Trust Solicitor said: “This judgment reflects what Parliament intended in 1900, when Victoria Tower Gardens was seen as something that should be “kept as a garden for the use of the public for ever.” No Government can ride roughshod over Acts of Parliament, and we trust that the Government will see the good sense of their forebears and revise their unlawful plans for this protected site. “

The Court did not support the Trust’s appeal on the grounds of the heritage setting nor comment on the matter of possible alternative sites.   Ends.

Notes to editors 

• London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust is a small charity with a big mission to champion London’s historic parks, gardens, squares and green spaces for the benefit of everyone. More details: https://londongardenstrust.org/about/
  
• The Court’s full decision (and press notice) are attached. The appeal was heard 22-23/02/22
  
   
• The attached briefing provides background, a summary of the appeal, and the many grounds on which the proposed development has raised concerns.