• THERE is still much confusion and conflict over a muddled Waterlow Park “consultation” on a proposal to turn a small wooded area into a hit spot for private businesses running children’s groups and the public.

The damage done to this area from “nature activities” promoted there has become very visible in just a few months.

The erosion greets the eye from the main upper entrance to Waterlow. Thus the recent “consultation” about it has been bypassed.

What is the point of “adding biodiversity” while encouraging the trampling, occupying and “exploring” which destroy it and a pleasing vista?

Where is the coherent approach to biodiversity and to landscape conservation? The effects and implications go well beyond a small wooded patch.

The Upper Pond conservation area has been badly damaged from overuse by groups including private businesses, and the general public; to the extent that it has to be closed to let it recover.

Why condemn another ecological space to the same fate? Rather, a strategy to keep everyone out of the little wooded area is needed. Waterlow cannot sustain intensified and destructive use of such places.

Waterlow Park as a unique “garden for the gardenless” is under many pressures and its essence risks being “lost” if the trees, plants, and wildlife aren’t properly respected.

To exploit quiet nooks and crannies with projects for yet more human invasion means biodiversity cannot be protected let alone enhanced.

The special variety, history and greenness of Waterlow are about its sweeping lawn, views over the city, well-tended diverse beds, wonderful trees, old walls and other fine historic features.

Yet the world of plants and wildlife left to themselves for nature’s sake are vitally important to it.

The idea that people should necessarily be invited to intrude on and manipulate more relatively undisturbed habitats and green pockets in the park is unworkable and wrong.

The Friends of Waterlow Park have done much good work, not least the volunteer gardeners who complement the outstanding horticultural job done by Camden’s head gardener and his team.

Yet this proposal which also raises bigger issues, is riddled with harmful contradictions and half baked notions.

The friends have made a peculiar pact with Camden to carry out a “consultation on the council’s behalf”.

Who is behind what or making key decisions over biodiversity, conservation, exploitation by private businesses, and a difficult balance of public uses in a most unusual and lovely park?

The facts for a whole picture and informed choices are lacking. What is evident is that the “consultation” proposal was and is already being implemented.

Encouraging use of the small wooded area by private business and the public has resulted in its serious degradation.

It’s biodiversity should be improved, with private groups and the public kept out permanently to allow nature to breathe and thrive.

This very muddled proposal and “consultation” has generated so much concern, conflict, confusion and mistrust that it needs to be set aside.

A careful discussion should be put in its place to work out the issues in a consistent, logical and open way.

SHARON LYTTON, N6