The Friends of Streatham Common (FOSC) welcome progress with the development of the Streatham Hub but oppose Lambeth Council’s proposal to appropriate a large area of the Common to allow for the construction of a “Temporary” Ice Rink.

FOSC believe that this structure has no legitimacy in relation to the status of the Common and considers Lambeth Council’s planning process to be an unviable proposition.

FOSC consider that Lambeth Council has not invested sufficient resources into considering other locations and that the Common has been targeted as an easy option, without reasonable consultation, to allow for this development, which, without sufficient effective guarantees, would be vulnerable to becoming permanent.

FOSC are concerned that Tesco has not been forthcoming in communicating with local residents/groups as to why they are unwilling to pursue their original plans and that Lambeth Council has in fact, capitulated to Tesco’s demands to the detriment of the Common.

Streatham Common is protected under an Act of Parliament from 1884. Lambeth Council has no legitimacy in appropriating this land.

FOSC understands the case for not having a period without an ice rink but believes it should be sited elsewhere than Streatham Common.

Facts

• Streatham Common is a Conservation area and Borough Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.
• Streatham Common is designated for public use and covered by the Metropolitan Commons Supplemental Act 1884 and specifically by the MCA (Amendment) relating to Streatham Common which states that “no house or other building shall be erected on the Common” except those necessary for maintenance or management” (of the Common).

The Friends of Streatham Common have four main objections:

• Common land should not be taken out of public use for more than a week or two other than in exceptional circumstances: the prefabs erected during World War 2 were in that category. A promise to provide continuity of an ice rink and pressure from commercial developers does not produce exceptional circumstances.
• The temporary structure might become semi permanent or permanent losing much used open space for the medium to long term. In addition it is questionable whether the location is suitable regardless of its Common land status.
• There would be major disruption during construction of the ice rink, with removal of trees, closure of footpaths and possible conflict with the playground and the newly laid out football pitches and cricket strip.
• The Council has failed to make public what other sites were considered and how they were appraised. It is therefore impossible to know how it has arrived at its decision and it has failed to consult properly.

In conclusion, erection of an ice rink on the Common could set a national precedent for developers to ‘borrow ‘open space, space that was hard fought for in the last century in urban areas. We strongly feel that although there should be a continuity of skating provision while the Hub is completed, the public should not be deprived of part of the Common for several, if not many, years while the Common suffers major disruption and damage and a wholly unwanted precedent is set for using up open space for development.

FoSC - May 21st 2010