Hello Colleagues! How was your summer vocation? Productive??? )))
See All of you on Monday. And Good Luck!
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Monday, 21 February 2011
Conclusion
3.5 0ur experience of working as a team has shown us that there is no such person as ‘the perfect team member’. We all bring skills and challenges to the group. No one individual can be sensitive and forceful, dynamic and patient, decisive and reflective all at the same time. The personality test and Belbin test showed us that we have plenty of talented members but maybe, as a group of self-selected garden design students, some characteristics were more dominant and some were lacking. Out of seven of us we have at least two whose dominant traits are those of shapers and at least another two whose main characteristics are those of plants plus one resource instigator. There is no-one who, even as a secondary trait, fulfils the typical characteristics of a chairman. Belbin (1981, p.80) describes a team made up of such members as ‘a formula for a talking shop in which no one listens, follows up any of the points, or makes any decisions about what to do.’ I think many of us would recognise that this was what was happening during the initial meetings. Fortunately, people have secondary traits which also come in to play when circumstances make it necessary. A number of people had the characteristics of team worker, company worker and implementer as secondary traits which enabled a more consensus-based approach to be successful to bring the project to a conclusion
PDMF Report - missing elements
1.1 Opinions as to whether the Fountain creates an appropriate atmosphere for a memorial are divided in the team. Some think that it is a beautiful and engaging construction that invites further exploration and contemplation. Others think that it is rather gutter-like, sits awkwardly in the space and does not encourage one to linger.
1.5 What worked: A Memorial Fountain has been built which has become a controversial talking point much as Diana’s life had been.
It is beautiful and accessible. It is more engaging than a traditional fountain or a fountain sited in the Serpentine would have been.
The way the stone has been cut to shape the water is very effective.
Surprises: That such experienced and high-calibre people could get the project management so wrong. There seems to have been an expectation that emotion, good will and good intention would get the job done when, in fact, those are not enough and may even be obstacles.
3.5.3 Carolyn’s lessons learnt
I can’t recall working in an artificially created team before. Where I have worked with others, it has been a self-selected group seeking to achieve a commonly desired goal. In this case, I think we made progress once we had clarified the outcome we were pursuing. Establishing a clear set of ground rules and expectations at the start would have made the early meetings more productive. In order to assign roles to team members who you don’t know well it is necessary to do, at least, some type of ‘get to know you’ process or a more formal team profiling.
4 References
Belbin, R.M. (1981) Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann
ECHarris (2006)A report on the delivery of the project to construct the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain. London: ECHarris
City of Westminster (2010) Statues and Monument in Westminster. Available at: http://www.westminster.gov.uk (accessed 3/2/11)
1.5 What worked: A Memorial Fountain has been built which has become a controversial talking point much as Diana’s life had been.
It is beautiful and accessible. It is more engaging than a traditional fountain or a fountain sited in the Serpentine would have been.
The way the stone has been cut to shape the water is very effective.
Surprises: That such experienced and high-calibre people could get the project management so wrong. There seems to have been an expectation that emotion, good will and good intention would get the job done when, in fact, those are not enough and may even be obstacles.
3.5.3 Carolyn’s lessons learnt
I can’t recall working in an artificially created team before. Where I have worked with others, it has been a self-selected group seeking to achieve a commonly desired goal. In this case, I think we made progress once we had clarified the outcome we were pursuing. Establishing a clear set of ground rules and expectations at the start would have made the early meetings more productive. In order to assign roles to team members who you don’t know well it is necessary to do, at least, some type of ‘get to know you’ process or a more formal team profiling.
4 References
Belbin, R.M. (1981) Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann
ECHarris (2006)A report on the delivery of the project to construct the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain. London: ECHarris
City of Westminster (2010) Statues and Monument in Westminster. Available at: http://www.westminster.gov.uk (accessed 3/2/11)
Sunday, 20 February 2011
PDMF Report
Hi Everyone,
As you know, the report is due in on Friday 25th and we're aiming to hand it in on Thursday when we're in. The last thing we'll have to do on Thursday is allocate a proportion of 100% to everyone. We could all have 14.3% or, as was agreed initially we can devise a way to convert our (secret) scoring of each other into a proportion that reflects the average of our scores. I have some of the best brains in Mayfield working out how to do this - just hope a heavy lunch doesn't interfere with their sums.
Many thanks to Nick and Zana for producing material for the report. I've done some editing and I think everyone needs to contribute their voice for the following elements:
•1.1 We are asked about the 'atmosphere' of the built product - does anyone have a contribution?
•1.4 We are asked for the group's assessment of how the teams and processes worked together. Does anyone have anything more to say on this?
•1.5 For the judgement part I've suggested at table to show what worked, what didn't and surprises. We have a good list of what didn't work but could do with some appreciative comments, afterall, it is there, working, attracting visitors. Any fans out there willing to make a comment?
•3.5.3 Asks 'what ideas might you translate to your individual work'. Can we all write a short paragraph on what we have learnt from studying the PDMF and working as a team and let Zana have it as soon as possible?
•4 References. Forward these to Zana.
Carolyn
As you know, the report is due in on Friday 25th and we're aiming to hand it in on Thursday when we're in. The last thing we'll have to do on Thursday is allocate a proportion of 100% to everyone. We could all have 14.3% or, as was agreed initially we can devise a way to convert our (secret) scoring of each other into a proportion that reflects the average of our scores. I have some of the best brains in Mayfield working out how to do this - just hope a heavy lunch doesn't interfere with their sums.
Many thanks to Nick and Zana for producing material for the report. I've done some editing and I think everyone needs to contribute their voice for the following elements:
•1.1 We are asked about the 'atmosphere' of the built product - does anyone have a contribution?
•1.4 We are asked for the group's assessment of how the teams and processes worked together. Does anyone have anything more to say on this?
•1.5 For the judgement part I've suggested at table to show what worked, what didn't and surprises. We have a good list of what didn't work but could do with some appreciative comments, afterall, it is there, working, attracting visitors. Any fans out there willing to make a comment?
•3.5.3 Asks 'what ideas might you translate to your individual work'. Can we all write a short paragraph on what we have learnt from studying the PDMF and working as a team and let Zana have it as soon as possible?
•4 References. Forward these to Zana.
Carolyn
Saturday, 19 February 2011
Hi Zana
The first 2 paragraphs are to go on the all ready post page by Sally and I
Also my conclusion and Section £ of the project
The granite stone was quarried by Ennstone Breed Ltd at South Penquite Farm, Blisland, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL30 4LH. shipped to Northern Ireland were it was milled by McConnells and sons
The original contractors Geoffrey Osboune Ltd were replaced by Whitehorse Contractors Ltd who Sub – Contracted out the laying of 840 metres squared of Addastone TP stone with an aluminium restraining edge, this project was completed in a month.
My conclusion for this part of the project is this
The designer used materials which if installed properly would last the test of time as intended. As for the walking in the feature I think this was an oversight but as she states it was never intended for this and more quiet contemplation. The underestimating of the popularity of the memorial where around 5,000 people per hour came to visit the fountain, which like the M25 is inexcusable as well as the poor choice of pathway around the perimeter. The pump a freak of nature or poor for thorough, my thorough is poor planning the grill should have stopped the leaves. The granite I still think is a good choice and only will get better with age. It seems to me that the overall success or failure of the scheme comes down to how competent the contractors installing the feature were! There were a few problems with the pump but this has been solved. The other facture with the failure of this project is how the public have decided to use the space.
Section 3 A study of Your Team
1. Your team Details have been submitted
2. Team’s working methods
The team started off in a very ad-hock manure with one dominate member issuing sections of the project to individuals which they perceived to be appropriate to each person in the group.
A blog was set up and unfortunately this was not used as it was intended and a vast quantity of irrelevant material was posted
Another meeting was held and a more formal structure was unsuccessfully tried to be implemented as members of the team would not follow the layout of the meeting.
Then a very formal meeting happened with a far greater level of susses as the project seamed to move forward after weeks of going over the same ground. In this meeting task’s where allocated to members who wanted to do them, and these where achieved quickly.
Communication was an issue even with the blog as some members would not post their findings on the blog but send by email.
3. How your Team Performed
Following each member of the group completing the Belbin test and the other one (don’t know the name) it was obvious that there was no obvious leader within the group. One was found eventually (which the whole group had mutual respect for and the group started to move forward. The team was disjointed with members overlapping research areas or just ignoring what they were asked to do. Egos where battered and peoples noses were put out of place. The feeling from the whole group is for this project to be completed and never to be looked at again.
4. Did process evolve
Dictatorship didn’t work but it was important to have a strong leader to guide the rest of the group to reach a finished project.
Individual drive seamed to produce the best results.
From the start of the project getting the whole team to move in the same direction rather than pulling in different ways, as well as reducing the faffing and producing results by all members of the group for the deadlines that had been set by the group.
Surprises how badly we worked together, and how members of the group could not follow simple instructions. Also the eventual leader / Chair person was the strong quit type.
Sunday, 13 February 2011
DIANA MEMORIAL
Location
Diana Princess Of Wales Memorial Fountain
West Carriage Drive London W2 2UH
Disabled buggies run free of charge on
Half- hourly trips, and will even drop and pick you
up from your favourite spots.
Appearance
A large Cornish granite ring, with water running around it; which flows in two different directions at different speeds. The ring is designed to sit like a necklace on the contours of the land to represent Diana’s all encompassing approach / personality and how she was like the final piece (of jewellery) that finished us (Britain) in our makeup. It includes 3 bridges which take you to the heart of the fountain.
Atmosphere
An area of quiet contemplation ; next to hustle and bustle of the park – Alexs’ opinion.
An area for quiet contemplation and reflection of life – Sallys’ opinion. 
Time line and other data
Construction begins June 2003
Opened on Schedule July 2004
Cost £3.6m Size 80m x50m
Gustafson Porter's working methods
The design team, Gustafson Porter (GP), state on their website that they are ‘familiar with a wide range of working methods and best practice.’ They describe one of their core strengths as being ‘the ability to deliver high-quality design on prestigious projects, in successful, close relationship with our clients, on time and within budgets.’
At the initial stage of the selection procedure GP would have been asked to ‘describe their attitude towards teamworking’ (from The Royal Parks memo 27/7/01, revised proposal for the design team competition). In the design team interviews, as part of the process of evaluation GP would have been asked about their workload and ability to complete the project to the deadline, the structure and resources of their team and details of the experience of senior personnel responsible for the project.
In the scoring of the three top design teams by the Fountain Design Committee, the quality of key personnel in GP was given the equal highest score with another design team. GP had the highest score in the ‘ability to deliver to programme’ category.
GP expressed their concern about lack of co-ordination between the various parties involved in the contract. For example, GP noted (in a minuted meeting on 18/3/05) that contactors were not working from the latest drawings but from the drawing issued with the tender.
A lot of the subsequent revisions were associated with unexpected visitor numbers and behaviours. GP have presumably refined how they analyse how a construction will be utilised. There were delays caused by the design’s interface with drainage and this level of detailing is likely to have been improved by GP. They had difficulties finding a sub-contractor with the financial credentials to satisfy the appointment procedure. GP are likely to have improved their list of viable sub-contractors.
The re-sculpting of the landform by GP in 2005 resulted in further additional cost and delay. From the minutes of meetings it is apparent that there was a tension between GP wanting to achieve a high quality finished product and budgetary and time constraints that are the main considerations of other parties. For example, with regard to the hardstanding chamber covers, GP wanted to use bespoke expensive covers whereas The Royal Parks favoured a cheaper alternative and re-using an old cover.
The report prepared by EC Harris, built asset consultants, states that ‘serious shortcomings in the original design’ were highlighted in a review for The Royal Parks (TRP). The fountain design was complex and its scale and scope exceeded the original strategic brief. They assert that GP were appointed on the basis of their concept design and not on the basis of design services, as had been the original intention. This resulted in the capacity to develop the concept to meet the brief being severely curtailed. GP, it says, were ‘challenged by the detailed design of the Fountain’ as in order to facilitate the stone cutting they had to produce CNC design files. The lack of clear project ownership, leadership and management may explain why, when TRP tried to constrain costs, GP appealed directly to DCMS.
The City of Westminster has instituted a 10 Year Principle whereby no decision on a memorial will be made until at least 10 years after the death as decisions made too soon after an event ‘can lead to the emotional investment in the subject over-riding issues of aesthetic design or good planning.’ It may well be the case that the GP design team would be similarly wary.
At the initial stage of the selection procedure GP would have been asked to ‘describe their attitude towards teamworking’ (from The Royal Parks memo 27/7/01, revised proposal for the design team competition). In the design team interviews, as part of the process of evaluation GP would have been asked about their workload and ability to complete the project to the deadline, the structure and resources of their team and details of the experience of senior personnel responsible for the project.
In the scoring of the three top design teams by the Fountain Design Committee, the quality of key personnel in GP was given the equal highest score with another design team. GP had the highest score in the ‘ability to deliver to programme’ category.
GP expressed their concern about lack of co-ordination between the various parties involved in the contract. For example, GP noted (in a minuted meeting on 18/3/05) that contactors were not working from the latest drawings but from the drawing issued with the tender.
A lot of the subsequent revisions were associated with unexpected visitor numbers and behaviours. GP have presumably refined how they analyse how a construction will be utilised. There were delays caused by the design’s interface with drainage and this level of detailing is likely to have been improved by GP. They had difficulties finding a sub-contractor with the financial credentials to satisfy the appointment procedure. GP are likely to have improved their list of viable sub-contractors.
The re-sculpting of the landform by GP in 2005 resulted in further additional cost and delay. From the minutes of meetings it is apparent that there was a tension between GP wanting to achieve a high quality finished product and budgetary and time constraints that are the main considerations of other parties. For example, with regard to the hardstanding chamber covers, GP wanted to use bespoke expensive covers whereas The Royal Parks favoured a cheaper alternative and re-using an old cover.
The report prepared by EC Harris, built asset consultants, states that ‘serious shortcomings in the original design’ were highlighted in a review for The Royal Parks (TRP). The fountain design was complex and its scale and scope exceeded the original strategic brief. They assert that GP were appointed on the basis of their concept design and not on the basis of design services, as had been the original intention. This resulted in the capacity to develop the concept to meet the brief being severely curtailed. GP, it says, were ‘challenged by the detailed design of the Fountain’ as in order to facilitate the stone cutting they had to produce CNC design files. The lack of clear project ownership, leadership and management may explain why, when TRP tried to constrain costs, GP appealed directly to DCMS.
The City of Westminster has instituted a 10 Year Principle whereby no decision on a memorial will be made until at least 10 years after the death as decisions made too soon after an event ‘can lead to the emotional investment in the subject over-riding issues of aesthetic design or good planning.’ It may well be the case that the GP design team would be similarly wary.
Saturday, 12 February 2011
Fountain images
I have 24 images of the fountain that I took when I was there on a sunny day in January. I'll bring a set to the next meeting and email any that might be useful in the report/presentation.
Friday, 11 February 2011
Carolyn Morris-Jones - Background
In looking at how to assign roles to individuals within the team we tried three approaches: reviewing our various backgrounds and experiences, taking the Belbin self-perception test and the Jung/Briggs Myers personality typology test.
I qualified as a solicitor and worked for a couple of years before taking time out to raise four children. During this time I did a Masters degree in Medical Law and Ethics and did some voluntary work for a charity. I worked as a student midwife for a couple of years until family commitments necessitated a change in working pattern. Since then I have studied textiles, done some voluntary work in a garden and project managed the renovation of a Listed property.
My Belbin test results showed that my strengths were primarily as a plant or creative problem solver. My secondary strength is as a team worker, concerned with the cohesiveness of the team. My weakness is as a completer/finisher with an eye for the detail work. I broadly agree with these descriptions.
My Jung/Briggs Myers typology is INFJ – introverted, intuitive, feeling, judging - which is a better match with the team worker role as it is characterised as being concerned with relationships, consulting and cooperating.
I qualified as a solicitor and worked for a couple of years before taking time out to raise four children. During this time I did a Masters degree in Medical Law and Ethics and did some voluntary work for a charity. I worked as a student midwife for a couple of years until family commitments necessitated a change in working pattern. Since then I have studied textiles, done some voluntary work in a garden and project managed the renovation of a Listed property.
My Belbin test results showed that my strengths were primarily as a plant or creative problem solver. My secondary strength is as a team worker, concerned with the cohesiveness of the team. My weakness is as a completer/finisher with an eye for the detail work. I broadly agree with these descriptions.
My Jung/Briggs Myers typology is INFJ – introverted, intuitive, feeling, judging - which is a better match with the team worker role as it is characterised as being concerned with relationships, consulting and cooperating.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Monday, 7 February 2011
Princess Diana Memorial Fountain Chronology
Timeline: Diana memorial fountain
September 1999
Tony Blair announces that a fountain will be built in one of London's royal parks as a permanent memorial to Diana, Princess of Wales.
February 2001
The Memorial Fountain Committee, headed by the late princess' friend Rosa Monckton, is formed to oversee the project.
September 2001
A competition to design the fountain is launched.
July 2002
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell says she is "greatly concerned" over delays in commissioning the fountain and that a design team must begin work the following month.
The fountain is intended to open in summer 2003, for the sixth anniversary of Diana's death.
Reports claim the Memorial Fountain Committee chose a design back in January, from more than 100 entries, but that the Department for Culture Media and Sport delayed approving it.
30 July 2002
Tessa Jowell chooses a design by US landscape artist Kathryn Gustafson for the memorial. The culture secretary stepped in after the committee was evenly split over two shortlisted designs.
Ms Gustafson's plan for an 80m by 50m oval stone ring filled with water is said to be more traditional than the rival design - a 16ft dome of water - by Bombay-based former Turner Prize winner Anish Kapoor.
December 2002
The full details of Ms Gustafson's design are unveiled by the Royal Parks agency.
The designer promises "inclusiveness and interactivity", with people able to touch the water and paddle. She says the fountain's two halves - one gently bubbling, the other fast flowing - represent the joy and the turmoil of the princess' life.
June 2003
Work begins on the fountain.
Contractors begin groundwork in Hyde Park. Stone blocks quarried in Cornwall are cut in County Down.
20 August 2003
Tessa Jowell lays the foundation stone of the fountain.
6 July 2004
The Queen opens the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain, a year after the original target date.
The Prince of Wales, Princes William and Harry, and Diana's brother Earl Spencer are also present. It is the first time Diana's two families - the Windsors and Spencers - have been together publicly since the princess' funeral.
7 July 2004
The fountain opens to the public, but leaves blocking the drains cause it to flood. A few days later, a blocked pump stops the flow of water.
22 July 2004
The fountain is closed after three visitors slip and hurt themselves while paddling in the water.
The monument is surrounded by a 7ft-high barrier after the two adults and a child are injured and taken to hospital. The Royal Parks agency calls in health and safety experts, designers and engineers to discuss ways of improving safety.
20 August 2004
The fountain reopens to public, with signs spelling out new safety rules.
People can sit or stand in the water, but walking and running are banned. Six staff trained in crowd control and first aid will supervise the site in the summer. New fences manage the number of people using the fountain.
9 January 2005
The memorial closes for four months' renovation work, primarily to tackle problems of flooding and waterlogged ground around the site.
Drainage is to be improved, and a path around the site lengthened and resurfaced. Tougher grass will also replace turf being worn out by visitors.
6 May 2005
The fountain reopens again.
2 November 2005
MPs on the Public Accounts Committee question government and Royal Parks representatives about the fountain's repairs, budget and running costs.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4508889.stm
Published: 2005/11/02 12:07:45 GMT
© BBC 2011
Timeline: Diana memorial fountain
September 1999
Tony Blair announces that a fountain will be built in one of London's royal parks as a permanent memorial to Diana, Princess of Wales.
February 2001
The Memorial Fountain Committee, headed by the late princess' friend Rosa Monckton, is formed to oversee the project.
September 2001
A competition to design the fountain is launched.
July 2002
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell says she is "greatly concerned" over delays in commissioning the fountain and that a design team must begin work the following month.
The fountain is intended to open in summer 2003, for the sixth anniversary of Diana's death.
Reports claim the Memorial Fountain Committee chose a design back in January, from more than 100 entries, but that the Department for Culture Media and Sport delayed approving it.
30 July 2002
Tessa Jowell chooses a design by US landscape artist Kathryn Gustafson for the memorial. The culture secretary stepped in after the committee was evenly split over two shortlisted designs.
Ms Gustafson's plan for an 80m by 50m oval stone ring filled with water is said to be more traditional than the rival design - a 16ft dome of water - by Bombay-based former Turner Prize winner Anish Kapoor.
December 2002
The full details of Ms Gustafson's design are unveiled by the Royal Parks agency.
The designer promises "inclusiveness and interactivity", with people able to touch the water and paddle. She says the fountain's two halves - one gently bubbling, the other fast flowing - represent the joy and the turmoil of the princess' life.
June 2003
Work begins on the fountain.
Contractors begin groundwork in Hyde Park. Stone blocks quarried in Cornwall are cut in County Down.
20 August 2003
Tessa Jowell lays the foundation stone of the fountain.
6 July 2004
The Queen opens the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain, a year after the original target date.
The Prince of Wales, Princes William and Harry, and Diana's brother Earl Spencer are also present. It is the first time Diana's two families - the Windsors and Spencers - have been together publicly since the princess' funeral.
7 July 2004
The fountain opens to the public, but leaves blocking the drains cause it to flood. A few days later, a blocked pump stops the flow of water.
22 July 2004
The fountain is closed after three visitors slip and hurt themselves while paddling in the water.
The monument is surrounded by a 7ft-high barrier after the two adults and a child are injured and taken to hospital. The Royal Parks agency calls in health and safety experts, designers and engineers to discuss ways of improving safety.
20 August 2004
The fountain reopens to public, with signs spelling out new safety rules.
People can sit or stand in the water, but walking and running are banned. Six staff trained in crowd control and first aid will supervise the site in the summer. New fences manage the number of people using the fountain.
9 January 2005
The memorial closes for four months' renovation work, primarily to tackle problems of flooding and waterlogged ground around the site.
Drainage is to be improved, and a path around the site lengthened and resurfaced. Tougher grass will also replace turf being worn out by visitors.
6 May 2005
The fountain reopens again.
2 November 2005
MPs on the Public Accounts Committee question government and Royal Parks representatives about the fountain's repairs, budget and running costs.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4508889.stm
Published: 2005/11/02 12:07:45 GMT
© BBC 2011
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Sallys’ test result Myers Brigg Typology
ENFJs are the benevolent 'pedagogues' of humanity. They have tremendous charisma by which many are drawn into their nurturant tutelage and/or grand schemes. Many ENFJs have tremendous power to manipulate others with their phenomenal interpersonal skills and unique salesmanship. But it's usually not meant as manipulation -- ENFJs generally believe in their dreams, and see themselves as helpers and enablers, which they usually are.
ENFJs are global learners. They see the big picture. The ENFJs focus is expansive. Some can juggle an amazing number of responsibilities or projects simultaneously. Many ENFJs have tremendous entrepreneurial ability.
Your Type is |
Extraverted | Intuitive | Feeling | Judging |
Strength of the preferences % | |||
56 | 25 | 50 | 44 |
Hard landscape information on the fountain
The fountain
1 Water enters fountain at highest point, pumped at 100 litres/second.
2 Water travelling east bounces down steps.
3 A specially sculpted channel makes the water rock gently.
4 Water picks up momentum and is invigorated by jets.
5 Water flowing westwards resembles a babbling brook.
6 Air bubbles are introduced as it approaches a waterfall before entering a water feature created by its flow over carved stone.
7 Final destination is the reflecting pool, where water from east and west meet before being pumped out to restart cycle.
2 Water travelling east bounces down steps.
3 A specially sculpted channel makes the water rock gently.
4 Water picks up momentum and is invigorated by jets.
5 Water flowing westwards resembles a babbling brook.
6 Air bubbles are introduced as it approaches a waterfall before entering a water feature created by its flow over carved stone.
7 Final destination is the reflecting pool, where water from east and west meet before being pumped out to restart cycle.
The granite stone was quarried by Ennstone Breed Ltd at South Penquite Farm, Blisland, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL30 4LH. The 520 tonnes was quarried from the Delanke quarry and shipped to Northern Ireland were it was milled to the McConnells cut the fountain design from DeLanke Cornish Granite into 550 stone sections of detailed carving to complete the 120m oval course of the fountain or ‘necklace of water’. Highly sophisticated carving of 520 tonnes of raw Cornish granite to a tolerance of 2mm produced the plethora of patterns which give the fountain its energetic water course, representing the Princess’s life, which comes to rest in a calm section before redistribution.
S McConnell & Sons completed the contract in 32 weeks. They had to buy in new cutting machines’ at a cost of over £40,000. The form of the stone was cut to mimic natural patterns such as ripples of the sand on a beach as well as other patterns. The stone was finished with a textured finish in the workshop, but extra anti slip channels were cut into the stone to help with the people walking in the fountain but as stated in the The Guardian article on the 12th October 2004 by Stuart Jefferies the fountain was not designed to be walked in.
The algae problem was looked into by a representative of Arup stated that there was no reason to think that the borehole which supplied the water for the fountain would cause excessive algae growth in the stone channels. But it is stated that algae shouldn’t settle at a rate of flow of 100l per minute, but like a mountain stream a build up over time will occur naturally. The solution for this problem is to have a weekly maintenance program.
The original contractors were replaced by Whitehorse Contractors Ltd who Sub – Contracted out the laying of 840 metres squared of Addastone TP stone with an aluminium restraining edge, this project was completed in a month.
We have enjoyed a good relationship with the Royal Parks over the last three years and have been pleased to assist with the regular maintenance, which is carried out annually. We carried out some routine maintenance works to the expansion joints and inspection covers in the resin bound pathway in November of 2007. We were also asked to install further land drainage to the inside of the fountain in preparation for a further section of porous resin bound pathway. This work was carried out as planned works and was completed within the programmed period.
Unfortunately, we had employed a Mr Munro as a site agent for a contract at the Bath Spa University, where he had supervised the contract satisfactorily. We then expanded his role to that of Trainee Contracts Manager for our Civil Engineering division. This brought the Diana Memorial into his remit for the drainage works.
Our MD Mike Sugg planned the operation and attended site with Mr Munro to ensure that the work was proceeding to plan. Whilst on site he inspected the excavation for the drainage and the exposed side of the fountain. He noted some small leaks along the fountain, but the condition of the foundations and the fountain generally was the same as it had been three years earlier when he had installed the porous pathway.
Imagine our surprise at the newspaper article, which stated that "the fountain was losing thousands of litres of water per hour and was subsiding and would need to be taken up and re-installed" and that "Mr Munro’s company CCE Ltd had been called into inspect the fountain"!
We would like to "set the record straight". Mr Munro had left our company, without explanation, before the comments appeared in the press. He was never a principal of the company and was not qualified to make judgement about any structure nor was he a spokesman for the company. His comments were made without our knowledge and are certainly not representative of the views of this company.
We consider the fountain to be a great success. It is a tranquil place in a hectic city. The number of visitors is a testament to its popularity. Unfortunately, everything about Lady Diana is covered in controversy by the press, and the fountain is just a small part of that controversy. We have been proud of our association with the Memorial Fountain, the architects Gustaffson Porter who designed the fountain and the custodians of the fountain, the Royal Parks.
http://www.cirencestercivilengineering.co.uk/news07.html
White Horse Contractors were delighted to be involved in this auspicious contract. The overwhelming popularity of the feature in itself led to the problems that the company was employed to remediate. The works required the replacement of the entire upper soil profiles surrounding the feature. A complex network of drainage was installed, over which a specially manufactured rootzone layer was laid and finally, the finished surface was turfed with a synthetically reinforced natural turfsystem.
Combined with a fully automated irrigation system, the specification for the grass surrounds is similar to that which may be found on a premiership football pitch.
The construction profile has been designed to assist the turf culture, thereby combining the qualities of a structurally sound surface for pedestrians, as well as the ability to grow quality grass.
The site is now equipped to withstand the rigours of both the best and worst of English weather. A revolutionary footpath system, designed by Gustafson Porter, was constructed, a resin bound, porous surface was laid over a fully permeable formation and inter connected to the drainage system. This non-slip surface will allow public access to the principle areas of the memorial fountain at all times, regardless of prevailing conditions.
http://www.whitehorsecontractors.co.uk/html/case-studies/diana memo
The original trees were removed as well and 3 new saplings where their replacements.
The pump in the fountain blocked after the opening due to a heavy summer storm which blocked the pump inlet and damaged the pump coursing the fountain to over flow and flood an area 15 m wide and 300mm deep. The water feature / fountain was used as a dog bath, and had dirty nappies dumped into it, as well as a pedalling pool
The Guardian 12th October 2004
'My job was to understand the essence of her' ... Gustafson unveiling the fountain. Photo: David Sillitoe
Kathryn Gustafson shows me a delightful drawing. It depicts two people kneeling before a rapidly flowing stream, one of them running their fingers moodily through the water. It is a scene of contemplation and calm.
This was one of the drawings that the American landscape artist submitted to support her winning entry to build the memorial to Diana, Princess of Wales, in Hyde Park. It bears little relation to reality. The day after Gustafson's fountain was opened by the Queen in July, high winds brought down a deluge of leaves, blocking grilles in the memorial's pool and causing a flood on the grass 15m wide and 30cm deep. It looked awful. Soon after, dog owners let their pets pollute the 210m oval water concourse. Humans too paddled in the streams during the hot weather, and some people dumped used nappies in the water courses that had been lovingly hewn out of De Lank granite from Bodmin Moor.
Gustafson had tempted fate at the memorial's inauguration. She said: "I've never seen a job go as smoothly as this. I sometimes wondered if we had a guardian angel. The best bit will be when the public likes it."
If the public did like it, their actions said otherwise. And then things got worse; several visitors injured themselves as they slipped over on the granite. At the same time, Gustafson's ring of bright water faced a tsunami of press criticism. Even sympathetic writers compared it to a giant Scalextric track or a Disney-like splash ride for children. The more vicious ones called it a puddle, a moat without a castle, part of a conspiracy to forget the woman it was supposed to be memorialising.
Then the water stopped flowing. A 2m metal fence was put up to keep the public out while engineers investigated the problem. The fence is still there. For some the whole thing seemed a clunking metaphor for Diana - the cycle of her life had gone up, down, round and up again really fast, and then unexpectedly, erm, stopped.
It was an embarrassing debacle for an internationally renowned, award-winning landscape artist, and Gustafson, who has offices in London and Seattle, disappeared from British public view for a while. The brouhaha, she says now, gave her an irksome insight into what it must have been like to be the subject of her most controversial work. "I'm sure glad I'm not her," she says. "Just that little window into that level of scrutiny was enough for me."
For her first face-to-face interview since the debacle, Gustafson says she would prefer not to meet me at the Diana memorial, but rather at her offices in Kentish Town in London. There she concedes that she failed to predict how many people would visit the memorial, not to mention what unappealing things they would do when they get there.
"When it first opened, 5,000 people an hour came to see it," she says. A flicker of remembered dread passes across her otherwise serene face. "How could you anticipate that? How can you solve a problem like that quickly? If it was a question of a stadium with 70,000 seats that would be all right, but there was no precedent. The turf around the oval couldn't survive those kind of numbers. The level of management has had to be increased because of the level of people. We really underestimated that. I thought we had a guardian angel over the project; I really wish she'd come back."
But surely there was more to the problem. Didn't she feel revolted by how some of the memorial's visitors behaved? "There's something that happens in sheer numbers. Individuals lose their self-consciousness," she says diplomatically. "When one person does something, others follow. A friend of mine told me that with economic housing, if some kids throw a rock through a window, then you should repair it fast otherwise you'll have three windows broken. If you repair that first window quickly, it says it's not acceptable to do that and it stops that copycat behaviour. It is the same with the memorial." How? "Putting a fence up to protect it. Though I do hope as things calm down that one day that fence will go away." She is not sure when that will be feasible."We just need time to solve the problems."
Gustafson is appealingly contrite about some of the errors she and her partners made with the memorial. "I feel we made a mistake letting people walk in the water. I apologise for that," she says. But you didn't envisage that they would go paddling or dog washing? "No. I thought people would picnic near the memorial, walk by and run their hands through the water, think about their lives, think about Diana." There are now signs around the memorial telling visitors not to walk in the water - though they will become relevant only when the fence comes down.
Gustafson has had problems with the British public before. Her rhododendron dell, part of a planting project in Crystal Palace in south London, has been mangled by people stealing plants. "We even wired them to the ground, but they still dug them up." That project, too, had a water feature designed by Gustafson that has never worked properly. That said, what remains of the planting is very beautiful indeed.
She argues that, amid all the fuss, the true nature of her project has gone unrecognised. "Let's talk about water quality," she says, "because that has been totally overlooked." Approximately 100 litres per second of extremely pure water, she points out, is pumped uphill from a storage tank beside the Serpentine. As it is pumped, the water races over granite whose surface has been textured to oxygenate it and remove nitrates. That oxygenated water eventually winds up in the nearby Serpentine, helping to cure the boating lake's algae bloom problem.
Part of the aim, she points out, was to cure not just the Serpentine, but also the site where the memorial is built, a piece of flooded land where trees often died by standing in polluted water. It is an environmentally healing fountain, then, or at least was meant to be.
The granite knobbles that texture the water were created by computer-operated drills working from software that mapped how rushing, dappling, leaping water would look. Gustafson started with clay models, which were digitally mapped at Ford's research and development department in the US. "Everybody seems to have ignored the good news about this incredible British work on this project." The granite was cut in Northern Ireland, for instance, "Everybody who worked on it did a fantastic job. I called the team the A-team, they were so good."
But then the pump broke, and British pride in its native talents was restored to normal levels. "So the pump broke. It's not headline news," says Gustafson. Actually, it was; but her point is that it shouldn't have been. "So some people fell over. People fall in streams all over the world. I'm not saying these problems and people's injuries aren't important."
What drew her to competing to build the memorial in the first place? "Hyde Park is what lured me," she says surprisingly. "It's just gorgeous and also I had this concern for the park." Intriguingly, she suggests that her conception for the memorial, which has been taken as being a female riposte to high-rise phallic memorials such as the Albert Memorial nearby, was more a response to the park. "Hyde Park is one of the most important parks in the world and I thought it would be wholly inappropriate to impede or penetrate those views that go down from the site over the Serpentine."
As for Diana, Gustafson confesses she knew little about her until she died. "I have lived and worked in France for 30 years, so British royal news was hardly important. But I remember the day she died. I was in my studio in the US working with a horticultural expert from Wales. He was this irreverent guy. Then the morning she died he called his wife and she told him the news. He just went grey. And I thought whoa! this is the last person I would have thought would have been concerned about Diana's death. And it made me think: What kind of power is that?"
Gustafson's design was selected after a vote by trustees of the Diana Memorial Fund over a reportedly more avant-garde proposal by British artist Anish Kapoor. "My job was to understand the essence of her and why she was loved, so that when you go to that memorial you feel the essence," says Gustafson. "I read a lot but what impressed me was that like all of us she had positive and destructive things happening to her. But what are little bumps for us were, because of the spotlight, experienced like compressed pressure for her. What impressed me is that she stayed whole throughout it all. Her secret garden, her inner self, her basic integrity stayed with her. That's why it's an oval. It's also contemporary, feminine, and flowing. Like her."
Perhaps the Diana Memorial will experience the same evolution as Antony Gormley's Angel of the North, which initially faced a lot of hostile criticism, but is now very popular. "I hope it will be like that," says Gustafson. She says that she was very aware of how the London Eye became a hit with the London public and it's hard not to imagine she's a little envious. It will take time for people to love her £3.5m memorial to Diana - if they ever do.
Born 1951, Gustafson started professional life as a fashion designer who retrained in France as a landscape designer. "After I did that, my father, who was a surgeon but obsessed with gardening, was so pleased. He felt as though he could talk to me for the first time," she says. Gustafson has designed everything from elegant electricity pylons to a Garden of Forgiveness in Beirut. Next month, her garden at the Treasury in Whitehall will open.
Typical is the recently opened Westergasfabriek park in Amsterdam, a site poisoned by toxic gas holders but now a 15 hectare park with reed beds, flowing water and environmentally friendly paths not only for cyclists but also frogs. It's been a wholly lovely experience, she says. "I loved working on it."
Has she enjoyed working on the Diana memorial? "Yes. It's a fantastic thing to have done. It's the first time I've tried to represent a person. And what a person!" She pauses and then smiles. "But I'm not sure I'll do this kind of thing again."
My conclusion for this part of the project is this
The designer used materials which if installed properly would last the test of time as intended. As for the walking in the feature I think this was an oversight but as she states it was never intended for this and more quiet contemplation. The underestimating of the popularity of the memorial where around 5,000 people per hour came to visit the fountain, which like the M25 is inexcusable as well as the poor choice of pathway around the perimeter. The pump a freak of nature or poor for thorough, my thorough is poor planning the grill should have stopped the leaves. The granite I still think is a good choice and only will get better with age. It seems to me that the overall success or failure of the scheme comes down to how competent the contractors installing the feature were! There were a few problems with the pump but this has been solved. The other facture with the failure of this project is how the public have decided to use the space.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
PROJECT OVERVIEW Sally
INSPIRATION FOR THE DIANA MEMORIAL FOUNTAIN
The design aims to reflect Diana's life, water flows from the highest point in two directions as it cascades, swirls and bubbles before meeting in a calm pool at the bottom.
The Memorial also symbolises Diana's quality and openness.
There are three bridges where you can cross the water and go right to the heart of the fountain.
It was designed to express Diana's spirit and love of children.[
The two sides were intended to show the two sides of Diana's life, both happy times and turmoil
As Diana was a contemporary and accessible princess, the fountain's goal was to allow people access to the structure and to the water for quiet wading and contemplation.
Design and Construction Faults and Remedial Actions
Rory Coonan, the brains behind Nesta (National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts), described the fountain as "inherently unsafe." "The problem with the Diana design is that its dangers are not apparent to the user.
Supervision of children is difficult because the structure is too expansive." and said the latest changes were "bolt-on" measures: "They are an attempt to put sticking plaster on a poor design.
The memorial was shut on July 22 after three people slipped and hurt themselves. That came after a series of closures caused by a blocked pump, and flooding when leaves blocked drains after stormy weather
Under the new guidelines, drawn up with the help of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, people will be asked not to walk or run in the water. But they will be allowed to paddle their feet and dip their hands while sitting on the sides of the £3.6m feature.
The fountain was designed by the American architect Kathryn Gustafson as a tribute to Diana, nearly seven years after her death in a car crash in Paris.
Greg McErlean, the head of major projects for the Royal Parks, said the problems stemmed from overcrowding and people taking their interaction with the fountain too far.
- Health and safety experts were called in, with design and construction teams, and the fountain water was switched off on July 22 while the investigation, resulting in today's new guidelines, was carried out.
When Good Practice = Best Practice
• The implementation, design and construction team should
understand and commit to the commercial, legal and moral
benefits of inclusive environments.
• Appoint an appropriate project Management Team and:
(a) Empower them to act effectively within the project structure
in the interests of access; and
(b) Pay a fee for the services the Management Team will have
To undertake. Do not deem the services to be included within a
Designer's existing appointment.
• Actively consider and integrate access issues at all stages of
the project briefing process.
• Through the proactive and consistent contributions of the key
Participants, convert the access requirements of the project
Briefs into appropriately designed and constructed buildings
that meets the requirements of the briefs.
• Review projects upon completion and use any lessons learned
for enhancing the delivery of future projects
Sally’s brief CV
Hi you lot, looks like blog beginning to work, not sure if you have checked your emails, but Nick has come up with sample Management Programmes which if implemented would create a very efficient group Management Team in order to achieve a first class presentation. In order to establish the correct group member for the roles although we know each other relatively well having spent 3 years together, there are certainly talents,weaknesses , relevant experience that we are not aware of. His idea of a brief CV from each group member would be helpful in selecting the right person for the various roles, if we can do this before thur we could simply put the name of the person we feel would be most suited to each role into a hat anomynsly sort them out then we have our team without wasting time on discussions regarding these roles. I feel this is essential as it will form an efficient group and also will cover point one of the three aims page 1 ' YOUR PROJECT'S DESIGN TEAM AND IT WORKINGS' will also be a good platform to work from on point 3 'HOW YOUR OWN STUDY TEAM OPERATED. Will also provided the platform the first of the two assessed products ' A TEAM REPORT'.
What do you guys think feedback appreciated so we can get going ready for Thursday would suggest we work from 'NOBODYS PERFECT' Team structure
Outward looking Inward looking
Chairman Company Worker
Plant Monitor Evaluator
Resource Investigator Team Worker
Shaper Finisher
This is attached to Nicks' email and is based on 8 group members but one of us can take 2 roles, I don't mind doing it unless after reading brief CV's we decide otherwise.
Sally Kimmis
Brief CV
Left College in 1982 Worked in London for 5 years as a PA/Secretary in Export Company called Proudmain Limited.
1987 Decided commuting was wasting too much time, therefore joined Marley Waterproofing Limited as Export Administrator, after 2 years promoted to Export Admin Manager, based in Sevenoaks.
1991 Went on Maternity Leave, and decided to have career break.
1992 Took part-time position at local doctors as a Medical Secretary stayed at this position whilst having the girls (3) in total.
2000 Got Divorced and moved to Leybourne just me and the girls, left doctors practice and worked with Kings Hill Recruitment as a temp secretary.(To fit in with children).
2002 Trained at Hadlow to achieve National Award in Floristry (Distinction).
2005 Started my own business Fleurs de Filles, run from new home with Ian and Girls, Ian built a workshop on side of house so I could work from me as I wanted to be available for my children.
2006 First back operation continued to run Fleurs de Filles after initial recovery, 2007 Second Operation still running Fleurs de Filles but starting to do less due to back deteriorating.
2009 Decided a career change was necessary as I was struggling with running business, although still did some with Ians' assistance and started BA in Garden Design as I could still work even if in bed,
Numerous hospital procedures and appointments, in patient stays etc. as don't know from day to day how I will be and can only control my days with variations of different medications and timing of them
This usually enables me to attend uni without too many problems. Mobility continues to deteriorate, however will still be able to work on self-employed basis with Ian doing hard and soft tasks, whilst
Having certain problems resolved prior to the installation of a Spinal Cord Stimulator which should reduce pain dramatically (fingers crossed)-no guarantees but worth a shot!
Monday, 31 January 2011
Costing of fountain
Thank you for your letter of 12 January to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, asking for a complete breakdown of the costs which have been incurred in the construction and on-going maintenance of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain in Hyde Park.
We are unable to release the complete breakdown of all the construction costs, as the final account has not yet been agreed. The estimated cost of construction is £3.6 million.
In addition, since the Memorial opened in July 2004, £5,245 has been spent on fencing and £3,490 on signs. It is anticipated that the improvement works which are being carried out between January and May 2005 will cost in excess of £200,000.
The estimated annual maintenance costs are £143,000 in the first year and an average of £118,000 in future years and these figures have been released to the public. Actual maintenance costs incurred to date are £60,743. These include cleaning, removal of leaves and maintenance of the fountain’s mechanical systems between July 2004 and December 2004.
You also asked about staffing costs. It is not possible to provide information about staffing costs relating to the whole construction period or period since the Memorial opened. This is because various Royal Parks staff have been involved in dealing with the Memorial over this period but no staff worked exclusively on the Memorial and no records are kept of how much time staff spent on dealing with the Memorial. However, we are able to inform you that £45,405 was been spent on supervisors for the Memorial between July and December 2004 and we expect the costs of supervisors over 2005 to be at least £100,000
The embarrassing problems and spiralling costs that plagued the memorial fountain to Diana, Princess of Wales, have been blamed on poor management.
MPs attacked the soaring costs of the project in Hyde Park, London, which went more than £2m over budget and costs £250,000 a year to maintain.
Members of the Commons Public Accounts Committee criticised the Department for Culture, Media and Sport yesterday after costs rose from £3m to £5.2m and said that the annual estimated cost of maintenance had doubled.
They warned that cash to run the fountain was being siphoned away from other parks after the Royal Parks Agency was left to manage the memorial, and demanded that lessons be learned for the proposals to design a memorial to the Queen Mother.
We are unable to release the complete breakdown of all the construction costs, as the final account has not yet been agreed. The estimated cost of construction is £3.6 million.
In addition, since the Memorial opened in July 2004, £5,245 has been spent on fencing and £3,490 on signs. It is anticipated that the improvement works which are being carried out between January and May 2005 will cost in excess of £200,000.
The estimated annual maintenance costs are £143,000 in the first year and an average of £118,000 in future years and these figures have been released to the public. Actual maintenance costs incurred to date are £60,743. These include cleaning, removal of leaves and maintenance of the fountain’s mechanical systems between July 2004 and December 2004.
You also asked about staffing costs. It is not possible to provide information about staffing costs relating to the whole construction period or period since the Memorial opened. This is because various Royal Parks staff have been involved in dealing with the Memorial over this period but no staff worked exclusively on the Memorial and no records are kept of how much time staff spent on dealing with the Memorial. However, we are able to inform you that £45,405 was been spent on supervisors for the Memorial between July and December 2004 and we expect the costs of supervisors over 2005 to be at least £100,000
The embarrassing problems and spiralling costs that plagued the memorial fountain to Diana, Princess of Wales, have been blamed on poor management.
MPs attacked the soaring costs of the project in Hyde Park, London, which went more than £2m over budget and costs £250,000 a year to maintain.
Members of the Commons Public Accounts Committee criticised the Department for Culture, Media and Sport yesterday after costs rose from £3m to £5.2m and said that the annual estimated cost of maintenance had doubled.
They warned that cash to run the fountain was being siphoned away from other parks after the Royal Parks Agency was left to manage the memorial, and demanded that lessons be learned for the proposals to design a memorial to the Queen Mother.
Diana Memorial/ Designer
DESIGNER
"I'm very connected to the land; I can feel it physically inside me."
Kathryn Gustafson is an American-born, Paris-educated landscape architect and environmental artist who has been practicing since 1980, primarily in France, working as a sole practitioner in collaboration with architects, artists, and engineers.
American landscape designer Kathryn Gustafson, long one of the most respected in her field
Her 20 years of experience in landscape art followed an earlier career as a fashion and fabrics designer in New York and Paris.Through her private practice, she has won a series of high profile landscape projects including the corporate headquarters for Shell, Esso and l’Oreal near Paris, a new park in Terrasson la Villedieu which has become a listed landmark, the Square of Human Rights in Evry and Square Rachmaninov in Paris.Kathryn Gustafson now works throughout the world with the two offices, Gustafson Porter in London and Gustafson Guthrie Nichol in Seattle.
Her work pioneers an original vision in landscape architecture, rooted in Modernist abstraction; her artistic vocabulary also derives from the elusive qualities of intuition, memory and emotion.
Dominate her works-
Contoured land
Sleek structures
Restrained plantings
Monochrome
Simplisity
Harmony is the key to Kathryn Gustafson's work.
It is about harmony between the land and the mind, body and soul, she says, and harmony between the site's past and how it can be adapted for the future.
She also says she tries to create spaces where people can shelter from the incessant barrage of information that fills their daily lives - to create places of serenity and clarity.
One of Gustafson's recognized abilities is the way she sculpts and rearranges the land. Her intention is to create harmony, serenity and balance between people and nature. Many of her designs have an abstract style that doesn't fit into Modernism nor Minimalism. Her designs portray open areas with spatial orientation. Although her drawings begin as abstract drawings, the techniques are then turned into reality. Although her projects can range from being 1 acre to 150 acres, Gustafson tries to relate viewer's need for peace and calmness to the landscape. Much of her designs are conceptually influenced by her previous vocation as a fashion designer. Gustafson believes that the design for a site comes from the site itself and not the other way. Therefore, before coming up with a design, she tries to research about the site and achieve the best type of plan for the context of the area.
Gustafon incorporates water as a sculptural element, activating designs and contrasting the rhythmic but static forma of the land. Curved and very defined geometries are also distinctive in Gustafson’s work.
Designed by Kathryn Gustafson:
She completed her first major land movement piece, Morbras ( 1986 ), in Roissy-en-Brie.
Rights of Man Square
Rights of Man Square, based in the city of Evry, France, was completed in 1991. The theme for this design emerged from the French constitution, which consents freedom of expression. This is meant to draw people to gather at the plaza for personal, public, civic purposes. The plaza is primarily an open space with a few trees lined up on the sides with focal points leading towards the buildings. However, the site's granite floor with fountains of water surging upward from the ground dominates the viewer's
Shell Petroleum Esso gardens ( 1992 ) in Rueil-Malmaison
The landscape for Shell Petroleum Headquarters was completed in 1992. Before beginning this design, Gustafson studied the setting of the land and its relationship to the community. She tried to achieve a landscape that would relate to the company's current stance in environmental issues. Part of the land near the entry is shaped into rolling mounds of earth with stone walls protruding from the ground; the other part of the entry is a rectangular pool. The water in relationship to the water is supposed to signify the dependency people have for Shell's products.
Lurie Garden is a 10,000 m2 garden located at the southern end of Millennium Park in Chicago. Designed by Kathryn Gustafson, Piet Oudolf, and Robert Israel, it opened on July 16, 2004.
The garden has won numerous awards: Best Public Space Award 2005 Intensive Industrial Award by Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, 2005; Institute Honor Awards for Regional & Urban Design
Great Glass House interior (Wales)
Judgement:
The design does not include the requirements of the competition - improvement of water quality of the Serpentine (Required: the memorial to sit "on the edge of the Serpentine" on the former chlorination plant site. The Gustafson "moat" is between 50 and 100 metres away. The memorial was supposed to "contribute to the improvement of the water quality in the Serpentine" and "enhance the wildlife value of the water's edge habitat and vegetation")
Cost
the costs of building the memorial reflect that it is built from high quality Cornish granite
each year maintenance cost (120,000-250,000£ The Royal Parks budget is very strained and simply can't afford that sort of money, it means the money has to be found by neglecting some maintenance at another royal park.")
Choice of Mat/ Finish/ Understanding the Mat properties
fountain is made from slippery granite
Taking into account the environmental factors
slimy algae would build up inside
leaves from the trees bunged up the drains
tech mistakes
poor drainage
too soft surfaces on some most frequently walked areas
Conclusion:
Designer declined to comment the ignorance of design requirements.
Another factor which might affect the quality of design is the fact that K Gustafson was in charge of massive project in Chicago - Lurie Garden is a 10,000 m2 garden. It opened on July 16, 2004 just 10 days after Diana Memorial.
Some of the problems with the fountain reflected basic project management failures. The fountain was a small-scale project, yet there were multiple stakeholders whose roles, responsibilities and accountability were not clear. Nor were there clear plans for managing the project risks. The relationship between architects, engineers, contractors has to be umbilical.
As the main idea of whole design was “to be interactive with and become part of /inclusiveness and interactivity" the design resolution seems to be poor, because the consequences/ problems might caused by overwhelming visitor member has not been taken into account.
"I'm very connected to the land; I can feel it physically inside me."
Kathryn Gustafson is an American-born, Paris-educated landscape architect and environmental artist who has been practicing since 1980, primarily in France, working as a sole practitioner in collaboration with architects, artists, and engineers.
American landscape designer Kathryn Gustafson, long one of the most respected in her field
Her 20 years of experience in landscape art followed an earlier career as a fashion and fabrics designer in New York and Paris.Through her private practice, she has won a series of high profile landscape projects including the corporate headquarters for Shell, Esso and l’Oreal near Paris, a new park in Terrasson la Villedieu which has become a listed landmark, the Square of Human Rights in Evry and Square Rachmaninov in Paris.Kathryn Gustafson now works throughout the world with the two offices, Gustafson Porter in London and Gustafson Guthrie Nichol in Seattle.
Her work pioneers an original vision in landscape architecture, rooted in Modernist abstraction; her artistic vocabulary also derives from the elusive qualities of intuition, memory and emotion.
Dominate her works-
Contoured land
Sleek structures
Restrained plantings
Monochrome
Simplisity
Harmony is the key to Kathryn Gustafson's work.
It is about harmony between the land and the mind, body and soul, she says, and harmony between the site's past and how it can be adapted for the future.
She also says she tries to create spaces where people can shelter from the incessant barrage of information that fills their daily lives - to create places of serenity and clarity.
One of Gustafson's recognized abilities is the way she sculpts and rearranges the land. Her intention is to create harmony, serenity and balance between people and nature. Many of her designs have an abstract style that doesn't fit into Modernism nor Minimalism. Her designs portray open areas with spatial orientation. Although her drawings begin as abstract drawings, the techniques are then turned into reality. Although her projects can range from being 1 acre to 150 acres, Gustafson tries to relate viewer's need for peace and calmness to the landscape. Much of her designs are conceptually influenced by her previous vocation as a fashion designer. Gustafson believes that the design for a site comes from the site itself and not the other way. Therefore, before coming up with a design, she tries to research about the site and achieve the best type of plan for the context of the area.
Gustafon incorporates water as a sculptural element, activating designs and contrasting the rhythmic but static forma of the land. Curved and very defined geometries are also distinctive in Gustafson’s work.
Designed by Kathryn Gustafson:
She completed her first major land movement piece, Morbras ( 1986 ), in Roissy-en-Brie.
Rights of Man Square
Rights of Man Square, based in the city of Evry, France, was completed in 1991. The theme for this design emerged from the French constitution, which consents freedom of expression. This is meant to draw people to gather at the plaza for personal, public, civic purposes. The plaza is primarily an open space with a few trees lined up on the sides with focal points leading towards the buildings. However, the site's granite floor with fountains of water surging upward from the ground dominates the viewer's
Shell Petroleum Esso gardens ( 1992 ) in Rueil-Malmaison
The landscape for Shell Petroleum Headquarters was completed in 1992. Before beginning this design, Gustafson studied the setting of the land and its relationship to the community. She tried to achieve a landscape that would relate to the company's current stance in environmental issues. Part of the land near the entry is shaped into rolling mounds of earth with stone walls protruding from the ground; the other part of the entry is a rectangular pool. The water in relationship to the water is supposed to signify the dependency people have for Shell's products.
Lurie Garden is a 10,000 m2 garden located at the southern end of Millennium Park in Chicago. Designed by Kathryn Gustafson, Piet Oudolf, and Robert Israel, it opened on July 16, 2004.
The garden has won numerous awards: Best Public Space Award 2005 Intensive Industrial Award by Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, 2005; Institute Honor Awards for Regional & Urban Design
Great Glass House interior (Wales)
Judgement:
The design does not include the requirements of the competition - improvement of water quality of the Serpentine (Required: the memorial to sit "on the edge of the Serpentine" on the former chlorination plant site. The Gustafson "moat" is between 50 and 100 metres away. The memorial was supposed to "contribute to the improvement of the water quality in the Serpentine" and "enhance the wildlife value of the water's edge habitat and vegetation")
Cost
the costs of building the memorial reflect that it is built from high quality Cornish granite
each year maintenance cost (120,000-250,000£ The Royal Parks budget is very strained and simply can't afford that sort of money, it means the money has to be found by neglecting some maintenance at another royal park.")
Choice of Mat/ Finish/ Understanding the Mat properties
fountain is made from slippery granite
Taking into account the environmental factors
slimy algae would build up inside
leaves from the trees bunged up the drains
tech mistakes
poor drainage
too soft surfaces on some most frequently walked areas
Conclusion:
Designer declined to comment the ignorance of design requirements.
Another factor which might affect the quality of design is the fact that K Gustafson was in charge of massive project in Chicago - Lurie Garden is a 10,000 m2 garden. It opened on July 16, 2004 just 10 days after Diana Memorial.
Some of the problems with the fountain reflected basic project management failures. The fountain was a small-scale project, yet there were multiple stakeholders whose roles, responsibilities and accountability were not clear. Nor were there clear plans for managing the project risks. The relationship between architects, engineers, contractors has to be umbilical.
As the main idea of whole design was “to be interactive with and become part of /inclusiveness and interactivity" the design resolution seems to be poor, because the consequences/ problems might caused by overwhelming visitor member has not been taken into account.
Friday, 28 January 2011
No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events - Acid Grassland
NOGOE
No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events
Greenwich Park, Application Nos 09/2598 and 09/2599
ANNEX D
to letter dated 27th January 2010
1
Acid Grassland in Greenwich Park
Lowland dry acid grassland is a scarce and declining habitat in the UK. There is approximately 1300 ha of lowland acid grassland in London, accounting for 4% of the total UK resource. Greenwich Park comprises the majority of the acid grassland in the borough (estimated at 14 ha). U1 acid grassland is included within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats (lowland dry acid grassland) and is listed in the London (regional) BAP as a priority habitat (acid grassland). The London Borough of Greenwich has a statutory duty to protect UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats like U1 lowland dry acid grassland, as enforced by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000, NERC Act 2006 and Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9). Greenwich Park is a Metropolitan Site of Special Importance for Nature Conservation.
LOCOG claims that its Acid Grassland Restoration and Enhancement programme is “a substantial three-year programme to improve the quality and extent of the acid grassland within the Park. This is a long-term programme to improve significantly the amount and quality of the acid grasslands in the Park, thus improving the Park’s ecology and offering a real legacy benefit. This is fully supported by The Royal Parks.” This programme for “mitigating” the damage to the acid grasslands in Greenwich Park is to dig them up, viz – as described in Chapter 11 (11.7.9 - 11.7.15) of the Environmental Statement – to remove the top soil and store it for at least two years (March 2010 until after the 2012 events).
“acid grassland will be stripped and stored in March 2010 to conserve the
seedbank. Following the 2012 Greenwich Park Events, the Cross Country
course topsoil will then be removed and replaced with the original topsoil. Additional seeding would be undertaken using suitable species of appropriate
provenance.(and agreed with the Acid Grassland Habitat Action Plan Working
Group24 and Natural England), and appropriate management would be carried out”
Although LOCOG say that its proposed “mitigation” programme “will ensure that there will be no net loss in the extent, quality and connectivity of the acid grassland habitats … would result in an overall positive effect for this habitat”, there are no details, and there is nothing to say that this intervention has been tried successfully elsewhere with acid grassland: it appears that this will be an experiment.
Having consulted some of the published literature in this area of research (see below), it is evident that LOCOG is promising something that it will be impossible to deliver.
We would ask Greenwich Council not to permit LOCOG to conduct what appears to be a naïve and reckless experiment – doomed to fail – on the most important habitat within Greenwich Park and a priority habitat within the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (Sustainability Statement 5.3.4), for the following reason: as any soil scientist could have told LOCOG, the topsoil that LOCOG brings back to Greenwich Park in 2012 (or later) will not be the same topsoil that was removed in 2010.
1 Stored top soil deteriorates
Biological, chemical and physical changes occur, mainly as a result of anaerobic conditions; there are also chemical changes, particularly in the forms of nitrogen present but also in the content of available nutrients, pH and organic matter levels; and biological changes include reductions in potential for mycorrhizal infection, soil biomass and especially earthworm population; stored soil contains high levels of carbon dioxide, methane, ethane and ethylene; and physical changes include reduction in aggregate stability and resistance to compaction, increase in bulk density and changes in pore size distribution and micro-structure. A. W. Abdul-Kareem1 and S. G. McRae, "The effects on topsoil of long-term storage in stockpiles", Plant and Soil, vol 76 nos 103, February 1984.
2 Decrease in viability of buried seeds
Micro organisms play a fundamental role on the bio geo chemical cycles and are involved in forming the structure of a soil. When soil is stockpiled “in piles that were more than a meter deep, chemical effects such as accumulation of ammonium and anaerobic conditions occurred in the topsoil at the base of the pile. Other detrimental biological effects include absence of propagules and decrease in viability of buried seeds … detrimental effects of topsoil storage including heavy losses in the microbial community and decreased nutrient cycling.” Harris J A & Birch P, "Soil microbial activity in opencast coal mine restoration", Soil Use and Management, 1989 5, pp 155-160.
3 Immediate loss (as much as 30 per cent) of organic carbon levels
Research shows that “one of the most immediate consequences of stockpiling … was the loss of organic carbon levels. Organic carbon levels were reduced by as much as thirty percent. This reduction in carbon was an immediate rather than a slow loss over the duration of the study.” Visser S, Fujikawa J, Griffiths C L, & Parkinson D 1984. “Effect of topsoil storage on microbial activity, primary production, and decomposition potential”, Plant and Soil Journal 1984, 82, pp 41-50.
Major losses of nutrients from ecosystems “generally occur when the nutrients are not incorporated in the food chains of soil. Losses occur when the input of organic matter ceases, such as when deforestation or strip mining occurs and soil is damaged … in order for soil to be productive, there must be a continuous flow of energy in the form of carbon compounds through the soil organisms“. Jordon C F, Working with nature: Resource management and sustainability, 1998; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
4 Loss of mycorrhizal hyphae (beneficial root-dwelling fungi die off)
Prolonged storage [this means for more than one month] intensifies the loss of the bacterial element of the soil. Mycorrhizal fungi are a very important part of the microbial community. These fungi are often reduced or destroyed by stockpiling. Mycorrhizae fungi grow symbiotically with the roots of higher plants. The general beneficial effect of the micorrhizal condition on plant growth is one of improved mineral nutrition, specifically, enhanced nitrogen and phosphorus uptake. Harris & Birch (1989).
The microbial community helps to create a soil structure conducive to the various biogeochemical cycles. Mycorrhizae hyphae form an extensive network in soil. These hyphae are covered with extracellular polysaccharides that form soil aggregates that are held intact by the roots so that they do not collapse in water, forming pore spaces and drainage channels. Mycorrhizal symbiosis is also documented as protection against pathogenic fungi. Tate R L, & Klem D A (Eds), 1985. Soil Reclamation Processes: Microbiological Analyses and Applications. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Edgerton D L, Harris J A, Birch P, & Bullock P. “Linear relationship between aggregate stability and microbial biomass in three restored soils”, Soil Biology and Biochemistry 1995, 27 (11) pp 1499-1501.
Stag beetles
Relevant legislation
EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1374
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
(photo credit: UK Biodiversity Action Plan)
The EC Habitats Directive promotes the maintenance of biodiversity by requiring Member States to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status, introducing robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance
The stag beetle is one of those species listed in Appendix II (Animal and plant species of the Community Interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation) to the Directive 92/43/EEC. Its larvae spends up to six years of life in the larval stage in decaying wood (often underground) of deciduous trees
Every six years, Member States of the European Union are required (by Article 17 of the Directive) to report on implementation of the Habitats Directive. The second Habitats Directive report focuses on a first assessment of conservation status of all habitats and species of Community interest. The reporting format set by the European Commission requires a separate analysis for each species and each habitat in each biogeographic region which that country covers. The Second Report by the United Kingdom under Article 17 on the implementation of the Directive from January 2001 to December 2006 (www.jncc.gov.uk/article17) stated that the main pressure on and threat to the stag beetle is the removal of dead and dying trees.
“This is likely to create problems for this dead wood feeding species. Stag beetle does not favour any particular species of tree; it does however have very specific micro-habitat requirements.”
LOCOG has not so far provided a detailed tree schedule to indentify precisely which trees are to be pruned or otherwise “managed” with the risk that the stag beetle’s habitat may be adversely affected1.
1 Note that LOCOG has already acknowledged that perimeter and security lighting may result in limited mortality to stag beetles (ES para 11.6.44)
In 1992, the UK government signed the 'Rio Convention' and committed the UK to halting biodiversity loss through the UK Biodiversity Action Plan: London is one of nine regions which form part of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan which is trying to increase the numbers of stag beetle. The stag beetle is a globally threatened species, protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and listed as a priority species for the UK and London Biodiversity Action Plans.
No up to date stag beetle survey has been carried out in Greenwich Park (required by Section D3 ("Design and Conservation") of Greenwich Council’s UDP). Despite the fact that a desk survey (Greenspace Information for Greater London - GiGL - data search) found records for the stag beetle Lucanus cervus in the Park for the period 1998 – 2008, and in ES Appendix 11H) it is stated that
“many of the veteran sweet chestnut and oak trees appeared to have dead wood at the base and extending down as large dead root timbers, thus the required subterranean dead wood habitat appears to be widely distributed. It is therefore likely and should be assumed that stag beetle is widely distributed within the Park in areas with veteran trees”
The Ecology Consultancy made four visits to the “target invertebrate species” - 26 May, 22 June, 22 July and 11 August 2009, but failed to carry out any stag beetle surveys to identify those areas of the Park that are used by this species.
Nevertheless, LOCOG has acknowledged that there are stag beetle colonies in the Park, but because no survey has been carried out, it cannot be certain as to their whereabouts. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1843) provide that it is no longer an adequate defence to claim that damage to any European protected species or their habitat was accidental, or due to lack of knowledge of the existence of a species. LOCOG therefore has an absolute obligation (subject criminal penalties if not observed) to ensure that stag beetles, as a protected species, and their habitats are preserved. It is suggested that the Council, as the local planning authority, should not consider the grant of planning permission until it is satisfied that LOCOG’s plans present no risk to stag beetles, whether from interference with their colonies or from the acknowledged mortality due to the provision of lighting in the Park
Bats
The law relating to the protection of bats and the attitude that a local planning authority should adopt to proposals affecting them is now quite prescriptive and, apart from any other consideration, bats like stag beetles enjoy the protection of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007.
The Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System (ODPM 2005/06, DEFRA 018/2005) further provides at paragraphs 98 and 99:
The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when considering a proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat . . . . LPAs should consider attaching planning conditions/entering into planning obligations to enable protection of species. They should also advise developers that they must comply with any statutory species protection issues affecting the site (para 98) The presence and extent to which protected species will be affected must be established before planning permission is granted. . . . Where this is the case, the survey should be completed and any necessary measures to protect the species should be in place, through conditions and/or planning obligations, before the permission is granted. In appropriate circumstances the permission may also impose a condition preventing the development from proceeding without the prior acquisition of a Habitats Regulations Licence (para 99).
The Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) has recently reported on a High Court decision on judicial review in June 2009 (R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council) , which clarified the legal duty of a local planning authority(LPAs) when determining a planning application for a development which may have an impact on an European Protected Species (EPS) such as bats (see)
According to the BCT report, the case addressed how LPAs should discharge their statutory duty under Regulation 3(4) of the Conservation Regulations (1994) to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions and in particular the need to properly consider the three tests set out in the Conservation Regulations that should be considered when harm to EPS is likely. The three tests need to be satisfied to allow derogation to be granted from the protection afforded to EPS. These tests are:
that there should be no satisfactory alternative to the plan or project as a whole or in the way it is implemented that the plan or project must be “in the interests of preserving public health or public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of importance for the environment”. and that the favourable conservation status of the species affected must be maintained.
In his judgment, His Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a judge of the High Court said:
“In my view that engagement involves a consideration by the authority of those provisions and considering whether the derogation requirements might be met. This exercise is in no way a substitute for the licence application which will follow if permission is given. But it means that if it is clear or perhaps very likely that the requirements of the Directive cannot be met because there is a satisfactory alternative or because there are no conceivable “other imperative reasons of overriding public interest” hand if it seems that the requirements are likely to be met, then the authority will have discharged its duty to have regard to the requirements and there would be no impediment to planning permission on that ground. If it is unclear to the authority whether the requirements will be met it will just have to take a view whether in all circumstances it should affect the grant or not. But the point is that it is only by engaging in this kind of way that the authority can be said to have any meaningful regard for the Directive”.
As yet, LOCOG has failed even to carry out an adequate bat survey, but is proposing to do so later this year. Having regard to the legislative protection that is afforded to bats, we would suggest that, until their roosts have been identified as a result of the further surveys, LOCOG should not consider itself in a position to apply for planning permission in respect of work that may affect the bats’ habitat. When these have been carried out, LOCOG would be in a position to apply for planning permission, but the derogation tests which the council is required to apply would not appear to be met. Even if LOCOG were to obtain planning permission in a form which satisfies the relevant legislation, it would still require a European Protected Species (EPS) Licence from Natural England. This Licence cannot be applied for until the relevant planning permission has been granted, and development works cannot commence until such a Licence has been granted.
Click here to see original source
No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events
Greenwich Park, Application Nos 09/2598 and 09/2599
ANNEX D
to letter dated 27th January 2010
1
Acid Grassland in Greenwich Park
Lowland dry acid grassland is a scarce and declining habitat in the UK. There is approximately 1300 ha of lowland acid grassland in London, accounting for 4% of the total UK resource. Greenwich Park comprises the majority of the acid grassland in the borough (estimated at 14 ha). U1 acid grassland is included within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats (lowland dry acid grassland) and is listed in the London (regional) BAP as a priority habitat (acid grassland). The London Borough of Greenwich has a statutory duty to protect UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats like U1 lowland dry acid grassland, as enforced by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000, NERC Act 2006 and Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS 9). Greenwich Park is a Metropolitan Site of Special Importance for Nature Conservation.
LOCOG claims that its Acid Grassland Restoration and Enhancement programme is “a substantial three-year programme to improve the quality and extent of the acid grassland within the Park. This is a long-term programme to improve significantly the amount and quality of the acid grasslands in the Park, thus improving the Park’s ecology and offering a real legacy benefit. This is fully supported by The Royal Parks.” This programme for “mitigating” the damage to the acid grasslands in Greenwich Park is to dig them up, viz – as described in Chapter 11 (11.7.9 - 11.7.15) of the Environmental Statement – to remove the top soil and store it for at least two years (March 2010 until after the 2012 events).
“acid grassland will be stripped and stored in March 2010 to conserve the
seedbank. Following the 2012 Greenwich Park Events, the Cross Country
course topsoil will then be removed and replaced with the original topsoil. Additional seeding would be undertaken using suitable species of appropriate
provenance.(and agreed with the Acid Grassland Habitat Action Plan Working
Group24 and Natural England), and appropriate management would be carried out”
Although LOCOG say that its proposed “mitigation” programme “will ensure that there will be no net loss in the extent, quality and connectivity of the acid grassland habitats … would result in an overall positive effect for this habitat”, there are no details, and there is nothing to say that this intervention has been tried successfully elsewhere with acid grassland: it appears that this will be an experiment.
Having consulted some of the published literature in this area of research (see below), it is evident that LOCOG is promising something that it will be impossible to deliver.
We would ask Greenwich Council not to permit LOCOG to conduct what appears to be a naïve and reckless experiment – doomed to fail – on the most important habitat within Greenwich Park and a priority habitat within the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (Sustainability Statement 5.3.4), for the following reason: as any soil scientist could have told LOCOG, the topsoil that LOCOG brings back to Greenwich Park in 2012 (or later) will not be the same topsoil that was removed in 2010.
1 Stored top soil deteriorates
Biological, chemical and physical changes occur, mainly as a result of anaerobic conditions; there are also chemical changes, particularly in the forms of nitrogen present but also in the content of available nutrients, pH and organic matter levels; and biological changes include reductions in potential for mycorrhizal infection, soil biomass and especially earthworm population; stored soil contains high levels of carbon dioxide, methane, ethane and ethylene; and physical changes include reduction in aggregate stability and resistance to compaction, increase in bulk density and changes in pore size distribution and micro-structure. A. W. Abdul-Kareem1 and S. G. McRae, "The effects on topsoil of long-term storage in stockpiles", Plant and Soil, vol 76 nos 103, February 1984.
2 Decrease in viability of buried seeds
Micro organisms play a fundamental role on the bio geo chemical cycles and are involved in forming the structure of a soil. When soil is stockpiled “in piles that were more than a meter deep, chemical effects such as accumulation of ammonium and anaerobic conditions occurred in the topsoil at the base of the pile. Other detrimental biological effects include absence of propagules and decrease in viability of buried seeds … detrimental effects of topsoil storage including heavy losses in the microbial community and decreased nutrient cycling.” Harris J A & Birch P, "Soil microbial activity in opencast coal mine restoration", Soil Use and Management, 1989 5, pp 155-160.
3 Immediate loss (as much as 30 per cent) of organic carbon levels
Research shows that “one of the most immediate consequences of stockpiling … was the loss of organic carbon levels. Organic carbon levels were reduced by as much as thirty percent. This reduction in carbon was an immediate rather than a slow loss over the duration of the study.” Visser S, Fujikawa J, Griffiths C L, & Parkinson D 1984. “Effect of topsoil storage on microbial activity, primary production, and decomposition potential”, Plant and Soil Journal 1984, 82, pp 41-50.
Major losses of nutrients from ecosystems “generally occur when the nutrients are not incorporated in the food chains of soil. Losses occur when the input of organic matter ceases, such as when deforestation or strip mining occurs and soil is damaged … in order for soil to be productive, there must be a continuous flow of energy in the form of carbon compounds through the soil organisms“. Jordon C F, Working with nature: Resource management and sustainability, 1998; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
4 Loss of mycorrhizal hyphae (beneficial root-dwelling fungi die off)
Prolonged storage [this means for more than one month] intensifies the loss of the bacterial element of the soil. Mycorrhizal fungi are a very important part of the microbial community. These fungi are often reduced or destroyed by stockpiling. Mycorrhizae fungi grow symbiotically with the roots of higher plants. The general beneficial effect of the micorrhizal condition on plant growth is one of improved mineral nutrition, specifically, enhanced nitrogen and phosphorus uptake. Harris & Birch (1989).
The microbial community helps to create a soil structure conducive to the various biogeochemical cycles. Mycorrhizae hyphae form an extensive network in soil. These hyphae are covered with extracellular polysaccharides that form soil aggregates that are held intact by the roots so that they do not collapse in water, forming pore spaces and drainage channels. Mycorrhizal symbiosis is also documented as protection against pathogenic fungi. Tate R L, & Klem D A (Eds), 1985. Soil Reclamation Processes: Microbiological Analyses and Applications. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Edgerton D L, Harris J A, Birch P, & Bullock P. “Linear relationship between aggregate stability and microbial biomass in three restored soils”, Soil Biology and Biochemistry 1995, 27 (11) pp 1499-1501.
Stag beetles
Relevant legislation
EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1374
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
(photo credit: UK Biodiversity Action Plan)
The EC Habitats Directive promotes the maintenance of biodiversity by requiring Member States to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status, introducing robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance
The stag beetle is one of those species listed in Appendix II (Animal and plant species of the Community Interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation) to the Directive 92/43/EEC. Its larvae spends up to six years of life in the larval stage in decaying wood (often underground) of deciduous trees
Every six years, Member States of the European Union are required (by Article 17 of the Directive) to report on implementation of the Habitats Directive. The second Habitats Directive report focuses on a first assessment of conservation status of all habitats and species of Community interest. The reporting format set by the European Commission requires a separate analysis for each species and each habitat in each biogeographic region which that country covers. The Second Report by the United Kingdom under Article 17 on the implementation of the Directive from January 2001 to December 2006 (www.jncc.gov.uk/article17) stated that the main pressure on and threat to the stag beetle is the removal of dead and dying trees.
“This is likely to create problems for this dead wood feeding species. Stag beetle does not favour any particular species of tree; it does however have very specific micro-habitat requirements.”
LOCOG has not so far provided a detailed tree schedule to indentify precisely which trees are to be pruned or otherwise “managed” with the risk that the stag beetle’s habitat may be adversely affected1.
1 Note that LOCOG has already acknowledged that perimeter and security lighting may result in limited mortality to stag beetles (ES para 11.6.44)
In 1992, the UK government signed the 'Rio Convention' and committed the UK to halting biodiversity loss through the UK Biodiversity Action Plan: London is one of nine regions which form part of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan which is trying to increase the numbers of stag beetle. The stag beetle is a globally threatened species, protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and listed as a priority species for the UK and London Biodiversity Action Plans.
No up to date stag beetle survey has been carried out in Greenwich Park (required by Section D3 ("Design and Conservation") of Greenwich Council’s UDP). Despite the fact that a desk survey (Greenspace Information for Greater London - GiGL - data search) found records for the stag beetle Lucanus cervus in the Park for the period 1998 – 2008, and in ES Appendix 11H) it is stated that
“many of the veteran sweet chestnut and oak trees appeared to have dead wood at the base and extending down as large dead root timbers, thus the required subterranean dead wood habitat appears to be widely distributed. It is therefore likely and should be assumed that stag beetle is widely distributed within the Park in areas with veteran trees”
The Ecology Consultancy made four visits to the “target invertebrate species” - 26 May, 22 June, 22 July and 11 August 2009, but failed to carry out any stag beetle surveys to identify those areas of the Park that are used by this species.
Nevertheless, LOCOG has acknowledged that there are stag beetle colonies in the Park, but because no survey has been carried out, it cannot be certain as to their whereabouts. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1843) provide that it is no longer an adequate defence to claim that damage to any European protected species or their habitat was accidental, or due to lack of knowledge of the existence of a species. LOCOG therefore has an absolute obligation (subject criminal penalties if not observed) to ensure that stag beetles, as a protected species, and their habitats are preserved. It is suggested that the Council, as the local planning authority, should not consider the grant of planning permission until it is satisfied that LOCOG’s plans present no risk to stag beetles, whether from interference with their colonies or from the acknowledged mortality due to the provision of lighting in the Park
Bats
The law relating to the protection of bats and the attitude that a local planning authority should adopt to proposals affecting them is now quite prescriptive and, apart from any other consideration, bats like stag beetles enjoy the protection of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007.
The Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System (ODPM 2005/06, DEFRA 018/2005) further provides at paragraphs 98 and 99:
The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when considering a proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat . . . . LPAs should consider attaching planning conditions/entering into planning obligations to enable protection of species. They should also advise developers that they must comply with any statutory species protection issues affecting the site (para 98) The presence and extent to which protected species will be affected must be established before planning permission is granted. . . . Where this is the case, the survey should be completed and any necessary measures to protect the species should be in place, through conditions and/or planning obligations, before the permission is granted. In appropriate circumstances the permission may also impose a condition preventing the development from proceeding without the prior acquisition of a Habitats Regulations Licence (para 99).
The Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) has recently reported on a High Court decision on judicial review in June 2009 (R (on the application of Simon Woolley) v Cheshire East Borough Council) , which clarified the legal duty of a local planning authority(LPAs) when determining a planning application for a development which may have an impact on an European Protected Species (EPS) such as bats (see)
According to the BCT report, the case addressed how LPAs should discharge their statutory duty under Regulation 3(4) of the Conservation Regulations (1994) to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions and in particular the need to properly consider the three tests set out in the Conservation Regulations that should be considered when harm to EPS is likely. The three tests need to be satisfied to allow derogation to be granted from the protection afforded to EPS. These tests are:
that there should be no satisfactory alternative to the plan or project as a whole or in the way it is implemented that the plan or project must be “in the interests of preserving public health or public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of importance for the environment”. and that the favourable conservation status of the species affected must be maintained.
In his judgment, His Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a judge of the High Court said:
“In my view that engagement involves a consideration by the authority of those provisions and considering whether the derogation requirements might be met. This exercise is in no way a substitute for the licence application which will follow if permission is given. But it means that if it is clear or perhaps very likely that the requirements of the Directive cannot be met because there is a satisfactory alternative or because there are no conceivable “other imperative reasons of overriding public interest” hand if it seems that the requirements are likely to be met, then the authority will have discharged its duty to have regard to the requirements and there would be no impediment to planning permission on that ground. If it is unclear to the authority whether the requirements will be met it will just have to take a view whether in all circumstances it should affect the grant or not. But the point is that it is only by engaging in this kind of way that the authority can be said to have any meaningful regard for the Directive”.
As yet, LOCOG has failed even to carry out an adequate bat survey, but is proposing to do so later this year. Having regard to the legislative protection that is afforded to bats, we would suggest that, until their roosts have been identified as a result of the further surveys, LOCOG should not consider itself in a position to apply for planning permission in respect of work that may affect the bats’ habitat. When these have been carried out, LOCOG would be in a position to apply for planning permission, but the derogation tests which the council is required to apply would not appear to be met. Even if LOCOG were to obtain planning permission in a form which satisfies the relevant legislation, it would still require a European Protected Species (EPS) Licence from Natural England. This Licence cannot be applied for until the relevant planning permission has been granted, and development works cannot commence until such a Licence has been granted.
Click here to see original source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)