The weirs placed in the water gardens cause the flows to slow almost to a standstill, releasing all of the silt and leaving not a nice looking channel. So ultimately, to keep Jellicoe’s ‘vision’ looking pristine is going to take a lot of time and expense. Not only that, but ecology does not benefit from the concrete channel, low flows and warmer water – except for the annoying and messy geese of course!

Why not restore the chalk stream to a naturalised course with huge benefits for ecology and amenity values too. How much nicer would it be to see an otter or a water vole rather than all those geese.

Perhaps Jellicoe’s vision could be recreated elsewhere in the town, and using water fed off the river, rather than being part of the river channel.

In the nearby town of Aylesbury, there is a huge monstrosity of a 60’s concrete tower block in the town centre. No doubt this is considered a good example of the brutalist architecture that was so prevalent at the time. Of course, the majority of residents think it is ugly and needs to be replaced with something more fitting for the 21st century. I think the same applies to the Water Gardens.

The only people who really care about the Water Gardens being restored to their original vision are older people with 50’s memories, ‘garden’ enthusiasts, and architecture scholars. I guarantee that if you gave Mr & Mrs Bloggs the choice of Jellicoe’s vision or a naturalised watercourse – the green, natural watercourse would win hands down.

Thank you for raising the issue of the chalk stream, which needs to be considered and discussed. Would you also argue that the River Thames in London should be restored to its condition when the Roman’s arrived? It was perhaps twice its present width and flanked by water marshes. I am pleased that landscape architects are doing habitat re-creation work on the river margins (eg on the east side of the Greenwich Peninsula) but I would not argue for the demolition of the buildings between the river and its old margin in Central London. The Strand, for example, was given this name because it was a waterfront route.

The destruction of the natural river channel through canalisation (i.e. concrete-lining the channel) and weirs has lead to slow flows, causing all of the silt to deposit on the bed of the channel. This is why without regular, ongoing, expensive maintenance, the channels look dirty and attract the geese. I think everyone who has seen them can agree that the geese have caused a lot of problems.

Surely as keen gardeners you would rather see a natural river channel with native planting to the banks, and improved green infrastructure in the town? Much of the actual ‘gardens’ can of course be retained and enhanced – in any style people wish.

I do not have a copy to hand, but there must be a plan in Michael Spens’ book The complete works of Geoffrey Jellicoe

I agree: the best hope for the Water Gardens is for volunteers to take over the work. Anyone who does not have their own garden is likely to find the work a great pleasure.

Grant, I have an idea: involve volunteers in park maintenance. This is normal practice in the US. Why shouldn’t it work as well in Britain’s public parks as it does in Britain’s National Trust gardens? You could even call it a Big Society initiative to make it politically correct.

The current park maintainance and management arrangements have to change if they are not working. Greenwich Council has improved its system in the past decade but still lacks responsiveness and, so far as I know, does not involve volunteers. Why shouldn’t Dacorum District Council change its ways? Have they commissioned a parks strategy in recent years? If not, why not?