Montpelier Park Proposals

[Des Bowring]

I recently submitted the following comments regarding proposals for the refurbishment of Montpelier Park.

The proposals are fine as far as they go, but have completely ignored the biodiversity issues which were raised in the original public meeting.

The interests of wildlife can be served within the existing proposals. I have recorded thirty-four species of bird using the park - I’m sure that this diversity can be sustained or improved if we take account of the natural assets of the park as well as the recreational potential.

Here is my vision of the park incorporating most of the proposals:

1) The writer states correctly that the park is a ‘green resource’, but the proposals could mean an increase in the area covered by concrete resulting in increased run-off and a change in the hydrological behaviour of the park and surroundings. This would exacerbate a problem already being encountered in the neighbourhood with a trend towards more building, concreting of front gardens, etc. The park is the only publicly accessible greenspace in ‘upper’ Montpelier and serves as a ‘back garden‘ for some members of the community - in this context, the less concrete the better.


2) The proposals recommend an overall reduction in trees. True, most of the trees involved are non-native Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and Horse Chestnut (Aesculous hippocastanum) which cause over-shading, obscuring of sight-lines and generally add to the park’s ‘unwelcome’ feel. Yet despite the former’s poor reputation amongst nature conservationists, it does have some wildlife benefit in an urban context. Its high aphid yield is particularly valuable as a food source for migrant and breeding birds. The proposals recommend removal or pollarding of these trees. I favour pollarding of mature trees. This would reduce the shading problem whilst still being a valuable resource for birds and invertebrates. If some trees have to be removed, then PLEASE make some compensatory provision of native species to mitigate the loss. Suitable species I think would be Field Maple (Acer campestre), Silver Birch (Betula pendula) and Wild Cherry ( Prunus avium) - the smaller leaves of these species would mean less shading and give the park an ‘airier’ feel. A community tree-planting session would be a great idea in areas of the park which will not affect sight-lines. As we now know, trees have an important role to play in combating climate change and reducing air pollution. They are active in lowering urban air temperature by up to two degrees. I think in the current climate, the removal of too many trees might be unpopular in local political terms.

One other point about the trees - I know there has been a Bat Survey in the past but I would urge another as I have recorded both Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus sp.) and Noctule (Nyctalus noctula) regularly in and around the park. I’m not saying they originate in the park but you can never be too careful.

Mature trees - please pollard rather than remove (as has been done previously - see furthest tree). The shrub-layer can be tidied up or removed to improve sight-lines.


3) Now the ‘thorny’ issue of shrubs! There is a perception that shrubs=crime and anti-social behaviour. However it would be throwing the ecological baby out with the bathwater were there too much shrub removal. They provide valuable shelter, feeding and nesting habitat for birds like Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), Dunnock (Prunella modularis) and Robin (Erithacus rubecula) and the invertebrates on which they depend for food. I see no reason why (mostly native) shrubs should not be a continuing feature of the park but perhaps limited to the periphery where they would attract less crime. Species like Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) have a built-in crime prevention component in that they are impenetrable! Other suitable shrubs to consider planting are Hazel (Corylus avellana) and Guelder Rose (Viburnum opulus) both of which seem to do well in the local soil. The planting for scent and colour suggested in the proposals will also benefit both people and wildlife. The hedge along the northern edge of the park (i.e. backing onto the Old Vicarage) demonstrates a fine example of hedge-laying - another opportunity for community activity might therefore be a hedge-laying session!

Hawthorn hedge-laying near the Old Vicarage.









3) The park contains the potential for developing ‘meadow’ areas . Native vegetation on the south-west-facing grassy slopes should be encouraged. The proposals recommend steps/seats along the steep slope between the ball park and higher children’s play area - a good idea as the slope is presently an eyesore. The Sycamore saplings and wiry old Buddleia (Buddleia davidii) bushes should be removed from the slope. Put in the steps/seating BUT PLEASE leave at least one grassy section for herbs that already grow along there, such as Lesser Celandine (Ranunculus ficaria), Green Alkanet (Pentaglottis sempervirens), White Deadnettle (Lamium album) and Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara). A grassy slope would also be great for lying on! Here is a possible scenario:

Steps interspersed with grassy meadow areas.














Finally, here is a photo of St Paul’s Park, which seems to me at least to be a successful balance between concrete, grass, trees and shrubs:

Des Bowring 05.08.08
www.wildmonty.co.uk

[simon humphrey]

Hi everyone, good to here things are still moving on with the redevelopment of the park, all sounds really good, I agree with Des's comments about the bushes and meadow areas, however where there's a will theres a way and the only thing a drug user is interested in is taking his or her drugs. Can I ask that when the plans get drawn up we make sure that they get seen by a ALO ( Architectural Liaison Officer ) who may have some suggestions re designing out crime. this may already happen through the planning office, however having three experts at my disposal speeds things up sometimes. Keep up the good work if i can help in anyway let me know. PS just an end note we must ticket at least a dozen cars in St Andrews road per week through inconciderate parking and obstructing the pavement. Please park carefully and consideratley. Thanks

[Tom]

Top job guys, thanks for all your hard work. Lets hope it pays off

[Shiona]

Montpelier Park.ppt
Yeay! It worked! Okay, here's the results of the community questionnaire too.

[Shiona]

Park rough drawings.pdf
Park_plans_08_v4_draft.doc


Here are the proposal files we submitted to the council last week - with a large chunk of Des' hard work included!

As you'll see, we want to get the Parks Department to come back with an estimate of how much budget will be allocated to the Park, and rough costs for some of these proposed ideas.

The ideas have come from the park questionnaire (if this works, I'll post up the results of that too). There were stong concerns and shared ideas that came from that consultation, that we've tried to address these in the proposals. However, nothing is set in stone, so all comments and further suggestions are very welcome.

[Dan Cook]

I think these proposals are really good - I love the way Des shows ways of using biodiverse methods of creating social effects, such as with the design for the bank - it would be good for wildlife but also I suspect cut down on anti-social behaviour as well. This proposal really opens the area up and would be good for wildlife. Thanks Des.