London Landscape Plans: 1829, 1900, 1929, 1943, 1951, 1969, 1976, 1988, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2004, London landscape architecture,
After the demise of the Greater London Council in 1986, responsibility for strategic planning passed to the London Boroughs. The new generation of London plans are described as Unitary Development Plans (UDPs) because they have an introductory strategic section which takes the place of the GLDP. Llewelyn-Davies Planning carried out a review of the 33 current and emerging UDPs in 1992. They found that only four boroughs do not refer either to the hierarchy or to areas of open space deficiency, though most have modified the concepts. Sadly, the UDPs make no attempt to deal with the historic lack of conceptual precision or with the serious theoretical criticism to which the concepts have been subject.
There is no guidance on open space planning in the standard textbooks and London's local authority planning departments are devoid of interest in the subject. UDP planners simply see what was done in the previous local plan, glance at any recent circulars, slap in a few platitudes and move on to something more interesting. Redbridge and Islington are cases in point, for both have better-than-average open space sections in their local plans.
The NPFA standard indicates that Redbridge should have at least 546 hectares of open space. Since it currently has 858.11 ha/1000, one might imagine that open space provision should cease. As the UDP observes, ‘the Borough is well catered for.’ But an increase of 125 ha of open space was made from 1976—87 and additions continue to be made. Should this be stopped? Islington, on the other hand, had 0.12 ha (0.3 acres) of open space per 1000 in 1966. The UDP states that the Council ‘inherited a severe deficiency of parks and sports areas in the 1960s.’ The standards recommended by the hierarchy ‘could not be achieved without unacceptable levels of demolition and blight’. Nor would it be desirable to implement the hierarchy throughout London. The effect would be to homogenise the urban form of the metropolis according to the ‘suburban’ morphology achieved by Redbridge in the 1960s. The 1992 Llewelyn-Davies report advises that the hierarchy is ‘the most sophisticated and appropriate means of planning the public open space provision in a large metropolitan area’,2’ without considering the implied homogenisation of London.
The draft UDPs are in terminological chaos with regard to green chains. Greenwich uses ‘Green Chain’ to mean a chain of parks, and ‘Green Chain Walk’ for a pathway connecting the parks. Barnet uses ‘Green Chain’ to mean linear parks, described as ‘strips of open land through developed areas’. Ealing uses ‘Green Corridor’ in a sense which resembles Abercrombie’s use of ‘Parkway’, to describe roadside pathways which link major open areas (e.g. a landscaped footpath beside Western Avenue). Havering defines a ‘Green Link’ as ‘a recreational resource to link the urban areas with the open countryside and the Thames waterfront’. lslington defines ‘Green Chains or Corridors’ as pedestrian links between open spaces, which can also provide opportunities for the movement of wildlife. Redbridge has not adopted a name, but is planning linear parks and ‘a network of strategic recreational footpaths and horse rides’. Southwark is not planning Green Chains. Waltham Forest regards the Lea Valley and Epping Forest as chains of parkland, and is also planning historic town trails and signposted pedestrian routes.
