Consultation on the draft Green Spaces and Playing Pitch & Outdoor Sports
Strategies (2012 - 2026) closed on 21 Feb 2012
Response submitted by Dr Judith Webb on 19 02 2012
Part 1: Draft Green Spaces Strategy
In the light of projected climate change a key aim of the strategy should be to drastically
reduce the use of water in parks. Never mind water-retaining pellets, go for NO irrigation - do
away with all hanging baskets and bedding plants. Replace all these with borders of
drought-tolerant perennial plants and shrubs. These should not be frost-sensitive
mediterranean species, as it seems that very cold winters (e.g. 2010-2011) seem likely.
All shrubs should have plenty of flowers providing nectar and pollen for insects and NOT
evergreen conifers or other evergreens without such flowers useful to insects - certainly not
useless groundcover types like periwinkle for example. This strategy will provide massive
savings in use of fuel, staff time and compost and also enhance biodiversity.
Planting of trees should take account of species that will do better in warmer, drier, summers
predicted with climate change. Priority should be given to planting of native species of tree
that are exceptionally beneficial to native wildlife such as small leaved and large leaved
limes which have flowers providing pollen and nectar to insects like bees, thus supporting
declining species. Limes thrive in warmer conditions and are possibly resistant to tree
diseases such as Phytophthora ramorum (sudden oak death). Do not plant tree species
found to be susceptible to tree diseases (e.g. alders) and no horse chestnuts because of the
micromoth and fungal/bacterial tree disease susceptibility. Whilst trees are essential to
reduce the urban heat island effect in a warmer city, care should be taken not to plant trees
in areas of high native flower diversity like haymeadows. Biodiversity surveys before tree
planting are essential.
Where cutting regimes can be reduced to save costs might be in low public usage areas on
site margins. Convert these to biodiverse hay meadow requiring a cut and collect only twice
a year in August and October. Thus improve carbon footprint by reducing fuel use and
reduce staff time. The document mentions more cutting piles - I feel that there are few areas
where leaving cuttings in piles will actually work in reducing costs and benefitting
biodiversity. Cuttings from spring and early summer will be high in N and P therefore rot to
an unattractive soggy mess which is visually unappealing and may produce damaging
leachate. Cuttings (hay?) produced from later in the year will have less nutrients, but in a dry
summer will be an arson risk, thus frying any invertebrates that may have colonised them.
My experience is that grass cutting piles left in a park (Milham Ford) actually encourage the public to bring in garden waste and dump it there which is a negative thing. A similar comment applies to hedge cuttings being left in piles - the risk is that they actually do attract invertebrates and small mammals/reptiles which then are killed in subsequent arson events.
I agree that, whilst promoting greater usage of parks may be a good thing for people, some
areas may be sensitive to over-use and wildlife/biodiversity may not cope with heavy
trampling/disturbance. This applies more to the Nature Parks and not the formal parks. For
example the areas of woodland near the car park on the plain at Shotover are now so
heavily trampled that bluebells have disappeared and there is just bare earth where there
used to be diverse woodland flora. Also if promoting greater use of parks and green spaces
means a greater amount of dog walking, then that could be very damaging to the ecology of
low nutrient areas by greater input of N and P from dog faeces and urine. Advice should be
sought before such promotion and the sensitive wildlife considered in planning the increased
human/dog use.
On the theme of dogs' excrement, there should be many more dog bins and notices in green
spaces that are not formal parks. At the moment there seems to be only a requirement for
bins in parks, possibly because of health and safety issues around Toxocara worms in areas
children may play, but it is the wilder areas classified as 'countryside' on the maps that are in
dire need of bins to reduce dog faecal nutrient input to reduce damage to flora as discussed
above. Diverse flowery meadows and low nutrient grassland will not remain in good,
biodiverse quality without such bin provision and strong encouragement of dog owners to
pick up and use them. If the wilder green spaces are going to be something to be proud of
in this city, they need to be treated with greater respect by the dog owners and this requires
more enforcement by the council.
Two Green Space city sites of major concern to me regarding dog pollution and other issues
are the Lye Valley and Port Meadow. Neither are in good state biologically and cannot be
considered 'World class'. Grazing issues on Port Meadow need to be resolved. Currently
Port Meadow is far too weedy due to over-grazing in the winter months and this needs
urgent attention.
Parks need to be healthy and attractive places for people. Bearing this in mind the upwelling
of raw sewage in some parks in the past (Florence Park in 2007, Headington Hill park in
2006 are ones I know of) is deplorable will not help in your aim of 'World Class Parks' - far
from it. The costs of cleanup of sewage spills need to be considered, because with the
system as it stands (old sewage system, no extensive upgrade) spills will keep happening.
Sewage systems get over loaded after rainstorms due to road surface water entering the
sewer systems. More and more road surface water gets into the sewers as housing
development is allowed all over the city. Reduction in rain infiltration to the soil happens
as impermeable surfaces spread, causing more rainwater to run off the land. Housing
development without due regard to the consequences at a distance from the site (i.e. a park
nearby) is the cause.
The other consequence of increased development and rain water run off is increased flashflooding
in water courses receiving road surface run-off. This can cause devastating erosion,
for example flash-flooding in the Lye and Boundary Brooks is already causing erosion which is seriously damaging the SSSI Fen in the Lye Valley LNR (one of the best 'countryside' green spaces within the city) - no chance of a 'world class' site with this happening. With climate change (by 2080 predictions are of 20-30% increased rainfall in the winter months as
heavier, more intense downpours) this already bad situation will get worse. Any short term
solutions to these problems discussed will be very expensive and unlikely to work long term.
Of course the other effect of this flash flooding is inundation of people's properties further
down the Boundary Brook beyond the LNR.
These last points prompt me to say the whole city urgently needs a Strategic Drainage
Plan (see 'Urban Flooding', Parliamentary Office of Science and technology Post Note N
289, July 2007) to consider water infrastructure, drainage improvement and land planning
strategies to promote a sustainable drainage system.
Green Flag awards. Whilst these seem a good idea, and are a good focus for local volunteer
effort and engagement,they actually make parks a lot more costly to maintain to keep to the
the standards. I see that Liverpool Council has pulled out of maintaining its 17 Green Flag sites
for this reason. My view is that parks can still be very good for wildlife without this award. Is
this desire for Green Flag status actually about doing good, or just about appearing to be
doing good for wildlife?
Increasing the amount of volunteers and the work of Friends Groups associated with Parks and Green Spaces may seem like a good way of cutting costs whilst getting sites cared for
and enhanced, but in fact volunteers sometimes (whilst full of enthusiasm) quite often have
little expert ecological knowledge and need council staff support and guidance. Helpers to
litter pick will probably be fine, but more specialist volunteer work in wilder natural areas may
produce problems if under-supervised. The more volunteers, the more expert council staff
time needs to be allocated to their guidance. It is deeply regrettable that staff cuts have
meant the loss in the last few years of council staff with long term service, expert knowledge
and vast experience in management of parks and green spaces. Remaining council staff
have now far too much to do to ensure quality delivery of aims and sufficient liaison with
volunteers in local groups, considering the very large number of parks and green spaces
that are now involved and for which staff are responsible. Volunteer work forces may
be good and dependable, but equally they might not be. They are not a reliable and
predictable resource that will substitute for skilled council employees.
The whole attitude of the Draft Green Spaces Strategy with its 6 Aims seems to be that the Parks and Green Spaces of Oxford are solely for people. This is not my view at all. Yes, Formal Parks, large and small, are focussed on the needs of the public using them but the
Green Spaces in Oxford City include sites of LWS, SSSI and SAC standard with the jewels
in the crown being Port Meadow and the Oxford Meadows SAC, Shotover and Brasenose
Woods and the Lye Valley Fen SSSIs. This strategy recognises the NERC Act 2006
biodiversity duty on the Council but there seems little real feeling that these sites are of
national and international importance for their wildlife FIRST and the care and protection of
this wildlife is as much the responsibility of Oxford City Council as the needs of the public
using and enjoying these sites. I would like to see this shift of emphasis reflected in the final
Green Spaces Strategy Aims.
Part 2: Playing Pitch & Outdoor Sports Strategies
Dr Webb did not submit comments on this part of the consultation
Strategies (2012 - 2026) closed on 21 Feb 2012
Response submitted by Dr Judith Webb on 19 02 2012
Part 1: Draft Green Spaces Strategy
In the light of projected climate change a key aim of the strategy should be to drastically
reduce the use of water in parks. Never mind water-retaining pellets, go for NO irrigation - do
away with all hanging baskets and bedding plants. Replace all these with borders of
drought-tolerant perennial plants and shrubs. These should not be frost-sensitive
mediterranean species, as it seems that very cold winters (e.g. 2010-2011) seem likely.
All shrubs should have plenty of flowers providing nectar and pollen for insects and NOT
evergreen conifers or other evergreens without such flowers useful to insects - certainly not
useless groundcover types like periwinkle for example. This strategy will provide massive
savings in use of fuel, staff time and compost and also enhance biodiversity.
Planting of trees should take account of species that will do better in warmer, drier, summers
predicted with climate change. Priority should be given to planting of native species of tree
that are exceptionally beneficial to native wildlife such as small leaved and large leaved
limes which have flowers providing pollen and nectar to insects like bees, thus supporting
declining species. Limes thrive in warmer conditions and are possibly resistant to tree
diseases such as Phytophthora ramorum (sudden oak death). Do not plant tree species
found to be susceptible to tree diseases (e.g. alders) and no horse chestnuts because of the
micromoth and fungal/bacterial tree disease susceptibility. Whilst trees are essential to
reduce the urban heat island effect in a warmer city, care should be taken not to plant trees
in areas of high native flower diversity like haymeadows. Biodiversity surveys before tree
planting are essential.
Where cutting regimes can be reduced to save costs might be in low public usage areas on
site margins. Convert these to biodiverse hay meadow requiring a cut and collect only twice
a year in August and October. Thus improve carbon footprint by reducing fuel use and
reduce staff time. The document mentions more cutting piles - I feel that there are few areas
where leaving cuttings in piles will actually work in reducing costs and benefitting
biodiversity. Cuttings from spring and early summer will be high in N and P therefore rot to
an unattractive soggy mess which is visually unappealing and may produce damaging
leachate. Cuttings (hay?) produced from later in the year will have less nutrients, but in a dry
summer will be an arson risk, thus frying any invertebrates that may have colonised them.
My experience is that grass cutting piles left in a park (Milham Ford) actually encourage the public to bring in garden waste and dump it there which is a negative thing. A similar comment applies to hedge cuttings being left in piles - the risk is that they actually do attract invertebrates and small mammals/reptiles which then are killed in subsequent arson events.
I agree that, whilst promoting greater usage of parks may be a good thing for people, some
areas may be sensitive to over-use and wildlife/biodiversity may not cope with heavy
trampling/disturbance. This applies more to the Nature Parks and not the formal parks. For
example the areas of woodland near the car park on the plain at Shotover are now so
heavily trampled that bluebells have disappeared and there is just bare earth where there
used to be diverse woodland flora. Also if promoting greater use of parks and green spaces
means a greater amount of dog walking, then that could be very damaging to the ecology of
low nutrient areas by greater input of N and P from dog faeces and urine. Advice should be
sought before such promotion and the sensitive wildlife considered in planning the increased
human/dog use.
On the theme of dogs' excrement, there should be many more dog bins and notices in green
spaces that are not formal parks. At the moment there seems to be only a requirement for
bins in parks, possibly because of health and safety issues around Toxocara worms in areas
children may play, but it is the wilder areas classified as 'countryside' on the maps that are in
dire need of bins to reduce dog faecal nutrient input to reduce damage to flora as discussed
above. Diverse flowery meadows and low nutrient grassland will not remain in good,
biodiverse quality without such bin provision and strong encouragement of dog owners to
pick up and use them. If the wilder green spaces are going to be something to be proud of
in this city, they need to be treated with greater respect by the dog owners and this requires
more enforcement by the council.
Two Green Space city sites of major concern to me regarding dog pollution and other issues
are the Lye Valley and Port Meadow. Neither are in good state biologically and cannot be
considered 'World class'. Grazing issues on Port Meadow need to be resolved. Currently
Port Meadow is far too weedy due to over-grazing in the winter months and this needs
urgent attention.
Parks need to be healthy and attractive places for people. Bearing this in mind the upwelling
of raw sewage in some parks in the past (Florence Park in 2007, Headington Hill park in
2006 are ones I know of) is deplorable will not help in your aim of 'World Class Parks' - far
from it. The costs of cleanup of sewage spills need to be considered, because with the
system as it stands (old sewage system, no extensive upgrade) spills will keep happening.
Sewage systems get over loaded after rainstorms due to road surface water entering the
sewer systems. More and more road surface water gets into the sewers as housing
development is allowed all over the city. Reduction in rain infiltration to the soil happens
as impermeable surfaces spread, causing more rainwater to run off the land. Housing
development without due regard to the consequences at a distance from the site (i.e. a park
nearby) is the cause.
The other consequence of increased development and rain water run off is increased flashflooding
in water courses receiving road surface run-off. This can cause devastating erosion,
for example flash-flooding in the Lye and Boundary Brooks is already causing erosion which is seriously damaging the SSSI Fen in the Lye Valley LNR (one of the best 'countryside' green spaces within the city) - no chance of a 'world class' site with this happening. With climate change (by 2080 predictions are of 20-30% increased rainfall in the winter months as
heavier, more intense downpours) this already bad situation will get worse. Any short term
solutions to these problems discussed will be very expensive and unlikely to work long term.
Of course the other effect of this flash flooding is inundation of people's properties further
down the Boundary Brook beyond the LNR.
These last points prompt me to say the whole city urgently needs a Strategic Drainage
Plan (see 'Urban Flooding', Parliamentary Office of Science and technology Post Note N
289, July 2007) to consider water infrastructure, drainage improvement and land planning
strategies to promote a sustainable drainage system.
Green Flag awards. Whilst these seem a good idea, and are a good focus for local volunteer
effort and engagement,they actually make parks a lot more costly to maintain to keep to the
the standards. I see that Liverpool Council has pulled out of maintaining its 17 Green Flag sites
for this reason. My view is that parks can still be very good for wildlife without this award. Is
this desire for Green Flag status actually about doing good, or just about appearing to be
doing good for wildlife?
Increasing the amount of volunteers and the work of Friends Groups associated with Parks and Green Spaces may seem like a good way of cutting costs whilst getting sites cared for
and enhanced, but in fact volunteers sometimes (whilst full of enthusiasm) quite often have
little expert ecological knowledge and need council staff support and guidance. Helpers to
litter pick will probably be fine, but more specialist volunteer work in wilder natural areas may
produce problems if under-supervised. The more volunteers, the more expert council staff
time needs to be allocated to their guidance. It is deeply regrettable that staff cuts have
meant the loss in the last few years of council staff with long term service, expert knowledge
and vast experience in management of parks and green spaces. Remaining council staff
have now far too much to do to ensure quality delivery of aims and sufficient liaison with
volunteers in local groups, considering the very large number of parks and green spaces
that are now involved and for which staff are responsible. Volunteer work forces may
be good and dependable, but equally they might not be. They are not a reliable and
predictable resource that will substitute for skilled council employees.
The whole attitude of the Draft Green Spaces Strategy with its 6 Aims seems to be that the Parks and Green Spaces of Oxford are solely for people. This is not my view at all. Yes, Formal Parks, large and small, are focussed on the needs of the public using them but the
Green Spaces in Oxford City include sites of LWS, SSSI and SAC standard with the jewels
in the crown being Port Meadow and the Oxford Meadows SAC, Shotover and Brasenose
Woods and the Lye Valley Fen SSSIs. This strategy recognises the NERC Act 2006
biodiversity duty on the Council but there seems little real feeling that these sites are of
national and international importance for their wildlife FIRST and the care and protection of
this wildlife is as much the responsibility of Oxford City Council as the needs of the public
using and enjoying these sites. I would like to see this shift of emphasis reflected in the final
Green Spaces Strategy Aims.
Part 2: Playing Pitch & Outdoor Sports Strategies
Dr Webb did not submit comments on this part of the consultation