8/11/2019 SHCA Redacted

1/31

www.feedleeds.org

SHCA13 Ash Grove, Leeds LS6 1AX

Dear Dawn

Re String o' Beads and The Leeds Edible Campus.

Thank you for your letter. I was very disappointed to receive it, not least because it suggests a number ofmajor misunderstandings.

Apologies for the delay in replying. I was initially waiting to hear what Cllr Dobson would say (because I 'd

heard that your group had contacted him, but was not permitted an opportunity to meet him myself on thematter), and then, following his decision, for the return from holidays of key members of our group.

Prior to the arrival of your letter I was under the impression that I had been invited by your chair to explainproperly to your group what we're doing, and had been looking forward to this opportunity.

I would certainly have appreciated a chance to clarify that it was the potential String o' Beads chain of 'pocket'forest garden sites which were then being assessed, (in academic terms only at that point - as they nowremain), not the pre-existing Leeds Edible Campus - to which the String could have become an addition ifapproved by all relevant stakeholders.

The Edible Campus is a much larger concept created in May 2013 following a suggestion by Pam Warhurst ofIncredible Edible Todmorden. Naturally the project mainly covers the two university campuses, but the Moorwas included because it's widely used by students, (both universities have allotments there) and being alreadyhome to a number of pollinator and edible projects was ideal as a research site.

Both Feed Leeds and the Parks Forum have an interest in exploring ways in which urban parks can be mademore productive and sustainable on behalf of both citizens and the environment, without undue compromise tohistoric and traditional functionalities. Last year Parks (the originators of both groups) opened the gates togrowers at a large number of Leeds parks, including Woodhouse Moor. This raised a number of questionswhich we at Leeds Met/Beckett were keen to research - in the context of productive green infrastructurecorridors which reach from the countryside into the heart of cities (my own area of interest). The Moor's historyand location as a node linking the Meanwood and Aire Valley corridors, along with ecological connectivitythrough the two campuses into the city centre, make it uniquely ideal for study.

Today the Edible Campus has two chief functions: One is to celebrate existing pollinator and edible planting inthe area (as a means of promoting public understanding of the value of both), and the other is to publishresearch and ideas mainly from our Landscape Architecture post-grads, which explore what might theoreticallybe possible in future, (such as Temporary Farms and Productive Roof Gardens), but which are not activelybeing proposed for the Moor. This element is purely academic - though there is no reason why schemesshould not be taken forward by stakeholder groups, locally or in other similar parks, following further work asrequired, if they see the merit and can secure the necessary resources and permissions.

String o' Beads is just one such project - but because it was born of suggestions that came, by coincidence,simultaneously from both Parks and Buglife, and which soon attracted support from a large number of local

stakeholders and also funding from Kew Gardens and the NUS among others, it did have at least the potentialto be taken forward to become the first scheme specifically created as an Edible Campus initiative.

The plan was to engage with local groups before submitting anything approaching an actual proposal to Parks(without whose permission and support nothing could have progressed in any event), and this we had startedto do.

8/11/2019 SHCA Redacted

2/32

But sadly in spite of our best attempts we had not been able to reach your group effectively. This is a greatshame, because I'm confident that your Association would, once you understood it, not only support what wewere hoping to achieve, but be keen to play an active role for the benefit of local people - and the city ingeneral.

I have to take your letter at face value and assume there are no other reasons for your opposition. In it you saythat 'Woodhouse Moor is a historic Victorian park (which it's hoped eventually to make a Heritage Park) andwe feel it would not be appropriate to encroach on or change the features of it.'

I entirely endorse and support the values behind this statement, but fear that your group has misconstruedboth what was being discussed, and the methodology being employed.

As you will see below, String o' Beads, if designed with due sensitivity and care, needed neither encroachupon nor change any features of the Moor in any way that would have compromised future inclusion in theRegister of Historic Parks and Gardens - or even full historic restoration, which I understand may also beunder consideration.

I can well see how confusion might have arisen. This being by definition a collaborative process, ideas (whichwe always encourage on principle) were placed on the table which might well appear at first glance to conflictwith the aims of your group or the personal preferences of some of your members. But in projects like this,ideas are seldom taken forward to installation as originally suggested, and many (even all, sometimes) aredropped for one good reason or another. The registration of concerns and obstacles, the investigation ofconflicts, and the systemic filtration of possibilities are as much part of the participatory design process as thecollection of ideas - but it is surprising how much can be achieved to universal satisfaction if all concernedenter into the exercise with open minds.

If there was in fact a major conflict between the stated aspirations of your group and the installation of smallwild flower patches or a few fruit trees, (which is what we were largely discussing here), then the processwould, perforce, rule these out. But I am confident, having checked with English Heritage, that our group'ssuggestions, once filtered though the collaborative system we are employing, would not have ruled outRegistration, or even full restoration.

This is from an email responding to my request for advice about the impact of the growing of edible and/orpollinator plants in parks on potential qualification:

"The Register of Parks & Gardens is concerned with the more structural design elements in the landscapesuch as landform, built structures, walks and rides, water features, structural shrubberies, arboreta, hedgesand trees, and not the more ephemeral, shorter-lived plantings of herbaceous perennials, annuals, roses, andmost shrubs... In summary, it's not what is planted that is the key consideration, but how (i.e. what is the scaleof new planting, is it being planted in new or original beds, what impact does it have on the original landscapeand design of the park or garden etc.)"

All that was under discussion for the String was the promotion of pollinator migration (i.e. increased nest sites

and nectar provision) and low-level foraging (as I know is already enjoyed by a few locals) in small pockets inassociation with suitable existing planting - specifically avoiding historic annual beds because we had heardthat your group were opposed to any alteration there (although of course it's perfectly possible to recreateVictorian displays with edible species if you want to).

As you mention, there is an urgent need to develop people's awareness of edible plants and fruits, and wealso have a major crisis on our hands in terms of bee and other pollinator health. Exactly where the balanceshould be struck for the benefit of all users of the park - including insects - is a matter for open and informeddebate, as I hope your group would agree.

Urban parks are, of course, an entirely artificial construct that have surprisingly low biodiversity per se , and,like all landscapes, they change over time in response to changes in the environment around them - as

indeed they should.

If there was ever a future agreement by all relevant stakeholders for progression towards Registration orrestoration, then a number of current features might need to be removed. Much has, of course, changed since1857.

8/11/2019 SHCA Redacted

3/33

But small patches of (beautiful and colourful) wildflowers in suitable corners, edible bushes inter-plantedbetween similar existing shrubs, or fruit trees within existing stands (probably by substitution when newplanting became necessary for maintenance) - as under discussion for the String, need not be an obstacle ifsympathetically introduced. And nor, in fact, need new perennial or annual beds, if installed by universalagreement, because they would be easy to remove and re-grass should that be felt necessary in future.

After all, the Moor was largely made over to allotments during WWII, yet was easily restored to sward once theemergency was over. (And of course, we may see such an emergency again, if our food system comes understress from climate or economic pressures).

It is a great shame that we've not been able to discuss this properly, as we have here, or perhaps I should say'had' here, an opportunity to create something truly innovative: An historic park with its core functions andfeatures intact and protected, which managed to look forwards as much as backwards - a park activelymanaged for the benefit of insects and a population divorced from the natural origins of food, whichencouraged new, healthy community uses for the park, while still delivering all the traditional amenity,recreational and conservational facilities required by city dwellers. This would have been a credit to Leeds andall the groups involved - not least the SHCA.

Thank you for your offer to help us to find other sites in the area. We are of course already aware of many, andsome of these are being actively developed through one means or another by groups associated with FeedLeeds. Unfortunately, however, these peripheral sites cannot be part of the String o' Beads concept, bydefinition. The funding we were offered was for an ecologically-connected string of pocket sites linking the twoexisting forest gardens at Bedford Fields and the Sustainable Garden (a logical concept that most people 'get'straight away), which would perforce have had to cross the Moor which lies between.

There remains, of course, the problem of what to do with the decommissioned bowling greens. These arelarge enough to merit consideration as projects in their own right, beyond the String o' Beads concept, but wewere keen to explore the possibilities within the String if practicable, as they are ideally placed in ecologicalterms, and so could have been funded by the String budget. We were also asked by Parks for ideas, so ourgroup had been working on approaches which could maintain the key physical characteristics (as required forpotential Registration), while meeting the funding criteria for String o' Beads, but with innovative andnoteworthy designs suitable for a public park; (think Burle Marx-inspired low-level and largely green wild-flower/edible gardens, with subtle references to former use included).

The next stage should have been a participatory design exercise involving local community groups, before anyapproved and adapted plots (it was always likely that only a few of the less controversial target sites wouldever be actively pursued, as our statements have stressed from the outset) were worked up into a draftproposals, with further consultation and development then following, in an evolutionary, organic and above alldemocratic process.

Now it would seem that the entire initiative has been ruled out as a result of your appeal to Cllr Dobson, butwithout any opportunity given for us to clarify our position, take on board your concerns, or seek alternativeways forward together. This is a great shame in my opinion, and, I think, a wonderful opportunity lost.

I would like to hope that SHCA might yet reconsider its position, but recognise that the moment may very wellhave passed.

Yours sincerely

Tom Bliss Leeds Beckett University Landscape Architecture Tutor and Feed Leeds / Leeds Edible Campus co-ordinator. bliss@dircon.co.uk