|
|
 |
| |
Theo Blackwell |
Space, it’s the final frontier of over-commercialisation
Allowing businesses to advertise in our parks would compromise some of the most crucial public facilities, writes Theo Blackwell
THE New Journal reports on concerns I have raised with the Liberal Democrat council on the over-commercialisation of our parks, public gardens and street furniture (like lamp-posts and benches) by allowing private firms to massively expand their opportunities to advertise.
Under new plans, outlined in a paper aptly called the “Commercialisation of Open Spaces”, Camden hopes to raise a hefty £500,000 a year from extra commercial activities in parks.
This represents a massive increase from previous arrangements, meaning that there could be more tacky adverts, sign-age, more advertising and more loud corporate events in our public parks.
Local people and amenity groups have fought hard against clutter. Efforts made over the years to clear obnoxious estate agents’ signs from houses or reduce ugly hoardings in or near our many conservation areas will be in vain.
Camden has high levels of overcrowding in our social housing, so keeping our parks a place for families and for people to relax outdoors should be paramount.
As such, I totally agree with Dame Joan Bakewell when she argues against the move to “commercialise every blade of grass”.
In 2004 I gave evidence in court for the famous Asbo against a firm illegally fly-posting for record labels in Camden. The result of this groundbreaking move – at considerable taxpayers’ expense – was the reduction in illegal fly-posting by 90 per cent, making our streets cleaner and greener. We also gained undertakings from big music giants to end flyposting elsewhere in the country.
Under these shortsighted plans, instead of keeping our parks clear of tacky ads, they may now be allowed back if the price is right. This would be a retro grade step.
While some, limited, events have always formed some part of our parks, what the Town Hall proposes is a radical departure from the past.
In response, the Lib Dems are arguing that a “poor settlement” from the government is to blame.
This is bogus reasoning given the amount of cash they have stored up over the last two years. It simply does not wash when they have announced a £14 million council-wide, end-of-year surplus in 2006/2007 and a £10 million surplus in 2007/2008 that they desperately need new revenue streams.
They say the money raised will go to front-line services, yet when I asked this year if a proportion of the cash from events run in Euston Square could be used to support local ward causes like the West Euston Community Festival, I was told that this was not possible.
Without proper checks and balances think of what could happen with some of the examples I have come across in my area.
In 2003 a firm came to me asking if they could advertise on the open space outside Rydal Water and Silverdale in Hampstead Road. Local councillors, local people and the housing department said “no”. Why? This would commercialise our open space, right outside of people’s blocks. Would this now be permitted?
In 2004 residents complained about the intensification of late-night, Christmas corporate events in St James’ Gardens. Councillors, who were not consulted from the outset, got more restrictions put on the event to protect residents. What would happen under the new rules?
In 2004 St James’ Gardens was used for the Green Fair – good use of public land in my view. But under new rules would charitable events only be allowed if they could afford the “corporate rate”?
Before they go ahead with their plans, now set out in a financial document, we should ask:
l Process: Final decisions on this financial policy will be made by a senior council officer, not the (elected) councillors for parks. Shouldn’t our democratically elected councillors set the parameters of policy here and be held accountable?
l Finances before principles: This is all about money, that’s why the response in the New Journal was from the executive member for resources, not the Lib Dem (Cllr Flick Rea) in charge of parks and open spaces. Just who is setting the policy here?
l Consultation: Crucially, conservation area committees and parks’ amenity groups appear not to have been consulted on this shift in policy – they should be, in order to establish what the appropriate limits are.
But if the Lib Dems do push ahead with this policy regardless, they should at least guarantee that the money raised from parks should be extra (not substitute) money invested in those parks.
Even better, it could be money decided on by local parks’ friends groups rather than the Town Hall.
I ask the council to look again at that these plans.
Even the Green Fair has been forced to attract more and more corporate sponsors, to the point that it resembled a corporate trade fair this year.
They support big corporates putting up adverts in our parks or renting them out for cash – without proper consultation.
When residents were threatened by changes in Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill, they argued with some success to the Royal Parks Agency to limit the number of mass corporate events planned.
Residents jealously guard their open spaces against such encroachments there. Shouldn’t we do the same for our open spaces and public gardens run by Camden, and shouldn’t the council listen?
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
