The comments shown below have been sent to the Conservators. If you want to make your own comments, please email the form yourself, see their webpage.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Friends of Mitcham Common 
Paragraph ref / Aim Comments/suggestions
20.7, 27.4, aim 4 States consideration should be given to opening up one side of Arthurs Pond, Arthurs pond is probably the oldest pond on the common dating from the 18th Century and over the last years has been allowed to become overgrown and disappear from view. The pond was an area of amphibian breeding and multiple species of bird and mammal activity. The area has degraded to an area of drug dealing, flytipping and lewd behaviour because the hiding places afforded by the overgrown vegetation. Last week Amanda Knight Merton’s ASB officer and the police discussed the area and the safety of residents using the area owing to the overgrown vegetation blocking the line of sight. The police recommendation is that the vegetation was cut down, enhanced lighting and a camera installed on the lamppost opposite the pond. The pond was previously open, photos available , and should be returned to it previous condition for the sake of residents, wildlife and safety.
I forgot to mention the concrete blocks that ASB perpetrators use for seating into the early hours at Watney’s barrier will also be removed. The removal of these blocks will not allow unauthorised access to Watney’s Rd
I don’t agree with ‘enhanced lighting’ as this will impact on wildlife, bats etc and possibly local residents.
where is that mentioned in the plan?
This may not be fully on the plan but will encompass part of p 20 concerning Arthur’s Pond. The rest comes from an initiative brought by a resident, me, over several years of anti social behaviour, flytipping, and other criminal behaviour near the barrier on Watney Rd. The police made recomendations.
By enhanced lighting, I obviously used the incorrect word, the intention was to cut back the tree foliage that has smothered the existing street lights. Not enhance the lighting.
Thanks for clarifying Robert
I agree with opening up Arthur’s Pond but on both sides. This would surely make the current regular use by drugs gangs more difficult which we have found evidence of on litter picks in that area. It used to be a walking route when crossing Watneys Road and is more pleasant than coming off the Common and back on again at that corner.
Arthur’s Pond should be returned to original state which was open on all sides this would enhance the area and not allow the anti social activity currently partially hidden by the foliage. This area was a breeding ground for amphibians, wading birds and a watering hole for many mammals. The original problem with the pond is that the council or conservators damaged the clay seal on the bottom of the pond with a digger, hopefully this should now have re-silted and repaired itself by now. We must remember this is the original pond on the common, pre-dating the 7 and 1 island pond. Should never have been allowed to degrade.
6.3 was suggested by Joyce Bellamy, received by telephone
Volunteers do exist and our role could be expanded. This of course depends on the rangers’ willingness to engage with volunteers. Regular volunteer days to help with tasks such as cutting back could be explored. The more volunteers you have, the more positive engagement there will be with the Common and its aim to preserve and manage Mitcham Common for current and future generations.
The proposal to increase revenue by allowing events attended by up to 5000 people per. day concerns me.
Parking? There is very little parking, and as events at the Ravensbury have shown, people do not arrive on public transport, parking cars dangerously round the Cedars Avenue roundabout and to the side of the main roads.
Noise? Again, as events at the Ravensbury have shown, these kind of events result in significant noise disturbance to residents.
Toilets? Paragraph 27.2 points to concerns around soil enrichment by animal faeces and urine, anyone who has ever been to an outdoor event knows that whatever toilets are provided they are inadequate to demand.
It seems to me that this proposal would directly cause the undesirable effects mentioned in paragraph 4.1 – ‘increased visitor pressure can have a detrimental impact on habitats, through disturbance and degradation, and lead to other issues such as littering, fires and pollution’.
I understand the need to attract revenue, but am concerned about large events destroying the very thing we are trying to preserve.