London as a National Park?!?! Yeah, why not?

Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by girasol, Jan 27, 2015.

?

Would you like London to become a National Park? (read before voting!!!)

  1. Yes please

    56.3%
  2. mmm, no - and here's why (post below)

    37.5%
  3. pigeons, foxes, squirrels and parrots, cats and dogs too! (obligatory pointless 3rd option)

    6.3%
  1. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    Last Saturday we went for a 16km walk through green areas organised by this guy (Daniel) who is campaigning for London to become a National Park. London would be the first city in the world to obtain this status. I was actually surprised by some people who quickly decided this was a negative thing, fortunately most people were intrigued by it. I know I was...

    "London’s invaluable mosaic of gardens, woods, parks and nature reserves covers 47% of
    the capital. It is these spaces that make London enjoyable, healthy, prosperous and more
    resilient to climate change, whilst providing homes to over 13,000 species of wildlife."

    And here are some reasons why in detail:
    http://www.greaterlondonnationalpark.org.uk/get-involved/five-brief-reasons/

    I just felt very excited at the prospect of living in a National Park to be honest, the other questions seemed secondary to me, but of course, very important. So after reading up on it I decided to support it and see where it goes, and now I'm sharing it here.

    This is currently undergoing consultation stage, it's very early days, and ideas are welcome. Also this is the time to get various boroughs to add their support too, so writing to wards at this stage is very helpful as well as spreading the word. If you want to get involved or want to find out more, go here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  2. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

  3. plurker

    plurker tú no tienes la culpa mi amor que el mundo sea feo

    It's an interesting concept and could be a positive thing; but I can't see how it'd work?
    Our green spaces are not joined up - so to designate the city as a park would mean the 'park' would have heavily-polluted roads running through it, and densely-populated areas within it.

    I like my parks with no roads, and dense populations of squirrels and the like :)
     
    Greebo likes this.
  4. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    I don't think it has to 'work' - whatever that means, not sure I get it... I'm sure Dan would have a good answer for that if he was asked. He's been having good answers to other questions/doubts so far.
     
  5. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    Thimble Queen likes this.
  6. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    Also this would be a new kind of park, an urban park... Something new and more fitting to how humans live and how wildlife is having to adapt to deal with our impact in their environment? This is still new and up for discussion, if anyone feels this piques their interest, it's all open for questioning and contributions.
     
  7. Belushi

    Belushi 01 811 8055 R.I.P.

    Absolutely not, were a city not a park.
     
  8. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    That's your reason? We are a city and not a park? :D
     
  9. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    A bit more, Belushi

    "According to National Parks UK, the purpose of a national park is to ‘conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of national parks by the public.’

    If these objectives are central to the notion of a national park, why shouldn’t London, with all its green space, cultural heritage and diverse wildlife, be one too? I propose creating the Greater London National Park*.

    To be clear, I am not calling for London to be given a legal national park designation. But I do think there would be great value and benefits if London was named as a new kind of national park – an urban national park or a National Park City."

    From here http://www.greaterlondonnationalpark.org.uk/get-involved/five-brief-reasons/
     
  10. Maurice Picarda

    Maurice Picarda Actually, might as well flounce.

    No. It would make it tougher to build new housing and infrastructure because the vole lobby would have extra ammunition and routes to delay approval. Silly idea.
     
  11. JTG

    JTG Angry about not being able to be an astronaut.

    Sorry but Regents Park just isn't in the same ball park as Exmoor or the Peak District. It really isn't the same thing and the conservation needs are entirely different. We have listed buildings and the Royal Parks etc for London and the general built environment
     
    muscovyduck and Greebo like this.
  12. hash tag

    hash tag Pedicabo omnes

    Side tracking, i see pic 2 is a capital ring direction post. This is a fantastic circular walk around london along with the London Loop. These walks are a fantastic show of cooperation between many london boroughs to get the paths up and running. They made me feel like a stranger in my home town and they are all joined up and mostly green, even in East London. they are broken up into bite size chunks and always start/finish by transport links.
     
  13. youngian

    youngian Well-Known Member

    Sounds like the sort of bollocks Johnson makes up in the morning before signing off for a megascraper on Richmond Park by teatime.
     
  14. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    The whole point of this is to create a new type of national park - i.e. an urban, city park. It's not the same as Exmoor or Peak District, of course not. But these urban areas still have wildlife and ecosystems.

    A lot of people living in urban areas don't even realise there's a lot of wildlife around them. I guess the idea of having national park cities is to make people appreciate and make use of that - and to get funds to facilitate the upkeep of those areas and redevelopment of neglected ones. It's nothing to do with with blocking new housing - but new housing that was built would be done with more thought towards creating green spaces to go with it.

    Also, there are tons of empty properties in London which could do with being redeveloped before we even had to think about building on fresh sites. I suggest reading up on the website for those who actually interested in giving it some thought for longer than 30 seconds ;) ;)
     
  15. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    I hope he doesn't get worn down by all the negativity :D I'm tired already...
     
  16. _pH_

    _pH_ .

    Hmmm. I dunno, not sure it fits the remit of being a National Park and perhaps seems a bit unnecessary, as there are already lots of organisations promoting green space in London and legislation to protect it. Interesting idea though, maybe it would bring all those organisations together in a more prominent way than the London Parks Forum.
     
  17. 8ball

    8ball Considerably more oppressed than yow

    It's a great idea. We have a load of nukes sitting around doing nothing. We could put them to good use and have a big lake in the crater with nature reserves around the edges.
     
    farmerbarleymow likes this.
  18. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
    Onket likes this.
  19. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    Designated areas, ie National Parks and AONBs, have a multitude of planning restrictions associated with them. There are all kinds of in-principle harms. For example, anything classed as "major development" would have to show exceptional circumstances to be granted permission, It would be nonsensical for that to apply to an urban area.

    It's not just a pretty name, you know, calling something a National Park. There are serious consequences.
     
    muscovyduck likes this.
  20. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    And given the reasons you set out, "the powers that be" would never allow it even if there was massive public sentiment in favour of it.
    I would like to see a strengthening of existing parks and commons protection legislation, though, and UK-wide too, not just for London. Parks are being nibbled at bit by bit.
     
    muscovyduck and girasol like this.
  21. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    Yes they are and yes they ned more protection. Both from development and from the kind of commercialisation that sees Hyde Park be out of bounds to the general public for large swathes of the summer.
     
  22. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

  23. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

  24. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    One of the proposals by one of the people making suggestions was to keep parks open 24 hours a day... Although I believe you are talking about enclosed music concerts? Would be worth mentioning that too. Anyone can take part in the discussion...
     
  25. Rutita1

    Rutita1 Scum with no integrity, apparently.

    girasol likes this.
  26. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

  27. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    Those people don't understand what a National Park is. Saying "we're going to make it a National Park but with no additional planning powers" is a meaningless statement. National Parks by definition have a whole raft of statutory planning law applied to them. The people who wrote that document just thought that it sounded like a pretty name.

    There's no way I'd trust them on such a legally delicate issue as planning status.
     
    muscovyduck likes this.
  28. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    'Those people'? :D They have the backing of some 'people' who understand these things a lot better than I (and I daresay probably you, because they work in the field). They have the backing of Queen's University - for example. I don't know why you keep saying this is just a 'pretty name'... I find it interesting you find the idea so repulsive by I guess it's not for everyone.

    Why don't you put your doubts to them, on the website? Then bring the answer here?

    Remember this is work in progress, ANYONE can contribute
    "We are currently developing a proposal for a Greater London National Park. The national park will aim to:

    1) conserve and enhance natural and cultural heritage,
    2) promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of London’s green spaces, and
    3) foster the economic and social well being of local communities."

    Unlike rural national parks, we are not proposing that a "National Park City" would have any additional planning powers.

    With all of this in mind, what do you think a Greater London National Park should do?

    - How could a London National Park improve the city's environment, economy or quality of life?
    - What would improve London that is not already happening?
    - Is there a piece of work that a Greater London National Park would be best placed to do?

    You can make as many suggestions as you would like until February 28th when this part of the consultation ends. A first draft of the proposal will be published in April. This is your opportunity to influence this proposal.

    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1eg-ekArlfONZ5iGCntjWgKgzbvY5cBusx2oPgJQ6tWc/viewform
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2015
  29. girasol

    girasol Ubuntu

    Also if you think this is a terrible idea and a lot of nonsense, you should say so! To them, as it won't make any difference saying it here kabbes...
     
  30. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    I have enough time invested in dealing with the planning process at a local and national level already (in fact, I'm being interviewed on the radio about it just after lunch). I have no interest whatsoever in opening up yet more of my time to it. If they want to pursue this, it's no skin off my nose. I'm just pointing out that what they are at least appearing to propose makes no sense.
     
    muscovyduck likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice