Waterlow Park

• THERE is mounting public concern about a proposal to create an enclosed “nature area” at Waterlow Park.

The proposal comes from the Friends of Waterlow Park group and a consultation has been carried out by them on behalf of Camden Council and a decision is awaited.

Should the proposal proceed, the increased use of this area will ensure its destruction, as has happened at the previous “nature area” in the park, destroyed by overuse and now closed for regeneration.

The current public consultation is flawed, not fit for purpose, and should be abandoned.

— First, in order for a consultation to be sincere, it should take place at the formative stage of a proposal.

The proposal evolved from May 2021 (with hope it would be under way by Christmas) and it was not until late December 2021 that a consultation was first suggested.

By then there was already evidence that the outcome, in favour of the proposal, had been pre-empted; works had already begun and a private school was advertising that sessions would be held in the area from April 2022.

— Secondly, sufficient information must be provided to allow an intelligent and considered response.

This has not happened; some critical information was excluded and erroneous information included; the consultation notice did not advise that the enclosed space would be available for individuals, groups and organisations, public, private and commercial, to book and occupy effectively for their own exclusive use; nor did it reveal that a provisional agreement was in place with a forest school for an after-school club. This privileged use leads to what is effectively social exclusion.

And the reason given for enclosure was to exclude dogs, rather than the reality that enclosure is needed to contain small children.

The notice also claims that creation of a “nature area” will enhance biodiversity, whereas the fact is that any increased human occupation will damage the ecology and character of the area and will decrease biodiversity.

— Thirdly, it is not known how it was established a consultation period of three-and-a-half weeks was considered adequate for all to respond.

Additionally both information provided and responses submitted must be in an accessible range of formats to ensure equality of opportunity.

The fact the consultation notice only offered one response format – online – is in itself enough to render the consultation null and void.

— Fourthly, decision-makers are usually expected to be able to provide evidence that responses have been taken into account.

But in this instance, with the consultation being flawed, it follows the responses have been proffered from an inadequately informed position and, as such, can be assumed to be of limited relevance.

The proposal is undesirable and should be abandoned; instead efforts should be made by those with guardianship of the park to protect and preserve these important pockets of less formal garden which provide a haven for wildlife.

As it is the whole park is a “nature area” so please leave it alone.

HELEN RAPLEY
Waterlow Park User