Present

at mee*ng (which was invita*on only at request of Manchester City Council): Rionne Avis, Nadine Andrews, Jenny Trigg - local residents Richard Sharland, Manchester City Council Eamonn ORourke, Manchester City Council Eddie Flanagan, Manchester City Council Eunice Long, Manchester City Council Sara Hilton, Head of Heritage LoLery Fund NW

The three of us here today are some of the people who have concerns. Another 10 local people have contributed to developing this presenta*on, incl professional arboriculturalist and an ecologist. Many people ques*oned the ra*onale for wildlife habitat destruc*on in our community, since rst nding out the scale of destruc*on at the Open Day in March 2011, and have never received a proper response. To date over 1600 have signed the e-pe**on

We object to the unnecessary destruc*on of wildlife habitats that will happen as part of these plans, that will only par*ally be compensated for. Once a mature habitat is destroyed, it takes decades for new plan*ng to reach that same stage of suppor*ng diverse wildlife. In a context where the UK is suering loss of species at a rate never experienced before in history. Scien*sts agree we're experiencing the 6th major ex*nc*on of species - you have to go back 65m years for the last one, when the dinosaurs disappeared. We are today losing House Sparrows at an average of 50 per HOUR. They are on the red list for conserva*on. And we have House Sparrows in the park - we should be proud of that and seeking to protect and support that popula*on to grow. Not put them and many other protected and BAP species under threat by destroying their habitat.

Firecrest sigh*ngs in past week have twitchers geang very excited (Firecrest on Amber list for conserva*on). One guy came all the way from Durham. Alex park is an eco tourism des*na*on!

Safeguarding our natural heritage is extremely important, as HLF recognise, especially in a highly urban environment

MCC survey shows importance of nature to local people - they want more nature, not less. The 1600+ people who signed e-pe**on agree.

The council also has legal duty to conserve biodiversity [7] NERC Act 2006 Yet under these plans, biodiversity is only par*ally compensated for. It should be fully compensated for - indeed further enhanced.

That the park is a local BAP habitat suppor*ng BAP species - these features were iden*ed as constraints by the consultant ecologists employed by MCC yet these constraints don't appear to have been taken seriously. So why did MCC select 'no' to this ques*on in the Planning Applica*on? Clear lack of integra*on of biodiversity into project from outset led to GMEU request to Planning to include condi*on for Biodiversity Master Plan to be submiLed prior to commencement of works. No tree felling should occur un*l this Biodiversity Master Plan has been approved by GMEU.

GM is amongst least wooded coun*es in England (7.7% compared to 10% na*onal average) according to Woodland Trust. MCC Green City target for 10% more trees per development. Current plans for renova*on are decreasing not increasing cover (approx -30%+ taking into account poten*al loss through high threat diseases and trees classed as vegeta*on classed)

Not just on Green City targets, the plans are contrary to other MCC policy too, and on Green Infrastructure policy, which we'll return to later.

10

11

FRAMING WIDER CONTEXT Already talked about biodiversity loss. Psychology Now not only are the plans very bad news for the protected and priority species that live in the park, psychological research proves that loss of nature is bad for us too - for our health and SWB. People have not just a biological but also a psychological bond with nature. Psychologists are proving through empirical research that what happens to nature aects us on a deep psychological level, whether we are consciously aware of it or not. People who feel alienated from nature suer greater mental ill-health and have a signicantly lower SWB. With regard to children, there are even aLempts to medicalise this aliena*on as 'nature decit syndrome'. Aware that some par*es have characterised people who've raised concerns as irra*onal and extreme, as tree-huggers. Cuang trees is an emo*ve issue. Of course it is, Its the human condi*on to be emo*onally bonded to nature, and there is something special about trees - they are the only other life form in the city that lives longer than we do. Once a 100yr old, 200 yr old tree is felled, that is it - its gone forever. Dismissing people's concerns because of the emo*on they feel is not only disrespecoul its also misguided. A passion for protec*ng and encouraging wildlife and biodiversity in the park should be recognised for what it is: a psychologically healthy human response. Its actually the people who don't care about nature and are alienated from it that have a maladap*ve response. You can see just how important nature is to people by reading the comments on the e-pe**on.

12

Our vision for Alex Park is for it to be an interna*onal exemplar of 21st c urban park design - meaning the design is user centred (user is both human and nonhuman), ecological and democra*c in both process and product, that enables people to connect with each other and with nature Victorian design Dominant theme is order and control: control of nature, control of people as expressed the original stated inten*on of the park to "promote a simple morale purpose - to keep families together in shared recrea6on. The reality, however, was probably more mundane - to dissuade men from spending their day of rest in alehouses." [hLp://www.manchester2002-uk.com] Alexandra Park was built (1870) in a socio-economic context of rapidly expanding industrial growth and imperial power. These values are reected in the design of the period. Roman*cism was over, the Arts & Crass Movement just about to start. They didn't have an understanding of ecology in the way we do now, about the rela*onship between the parts of a system, how they impact each other and the system as a whole. We are facing an ecological crisis of a magnitude that could not have been imagined in Victorian *mes. Simple inconceivable. Therefore some aspects of Victorian design simply are not r for purpose in 21st century. 21st century urban park design Inuenced by complexity theory - accept can't control nature. Its about working with nature. This is exactly the kind of progressive innova*ve thinking for which mcr likes to think is its signature - original modern. For a project with millions of pounds on the table, that's what this should've been.

13

Talking of democra*c design, what legal and moral rights do we have as ci*zens, local residents, council tax payers and park users to be involved in decision-making process , and have inuence over things that aect their lives? Its our public park, we live here and we use it. MCC stated aim to improve par*cipatory democracy. Don't know what dic*onary you use, but your deni*on of consulta*on isn't one that would be accepted in a Judicial Review. Legal precedence: if you're going to do consulta*on then it must be proper. Which means, when project in forma*ve stage (i.e. prior to Oct 2010 when plans produced), must give sucient informa*on (access to all relevant documents, understandable - use of keys, reasons for decisions) and have fair process. We have been informed by legal experts that we have strong grounds for reques*ng a judicial review [put up ipchart sheet] due to - breach of statutory duty to consult members of the public (public law) - ignoring relevant considera*ons (climate change, biodiversity, Planning Policy Statement) - unfairness in the process - legi*mate expecta*ons (wildlife panel that never materialised)

14

MCC website pages for Alex Park renova*on do not include important documents such as 115_E_Sos landscape Removal and Remedia*on showing all the trees due to be removed and shrub areas to be cleared. No link to portal with 81 documents.

15

List of consulta*on - but all 'consulta*on' aser Oct 2010 when plans were produced could be argued doesnt count as proper consulta*on, as is not whilst project was in forma*ve stage (in terms of legal precedence deni*on of consulta*on in judicial review). We know from our own experience that sucient informa*on has not given.

16

These comments show that people are not aware of the detail of the plans

17

This is what our experience has been like..!

18

What I and many others really want is a total rethink of the en*re project, from the perspec*ve of user-centred ecological and democra*c design. But it seems that a total rethink of the en*re project may not be possible. This is a real shame, a massive missed opportunity for crea*ng a truly exci*ng design of interna*onal standard.

19

If this is indeed the situa*on, then we would have to reluctantly reduce our vision, shrink our aspira*ons. The rest of the presenta*on we'll make here today is from that compromise posi*on. If we can't have a total rethink then what we're reques*ng is that the current plans are modied so that only absolutely necessary tree felling is undertaken, (eg for the sake of improving biodiversity of habitat) to not only fully compensate for but further enhance biodiversity. This is absolutely achievable, it doesn't have to cost more, all it takes is the will to do it. In any case in addi*on to HLF there are various funding pots specically for improving biodiversity in public spaces. But let me make it absolutely clear - a total rethink is our preference, and if there's a way for us to achieve that, whether through a judicial review and/or other means - we will pursue it.

20

Remember too that Mcr has a proud history of radical social protest - an*-corn law league, radicals and char*sts of the Reform movement, surageLes, RSPB, Kinder mass trespass etc. not forgeang WR own recent contribu*on to that lineage, the successful ac*on to stop the council felling street trees, which received so much press aLen*on. Our MP Gerald Kaufman is following the situa*on closely. He wasn't aware of the plans un*l we informed him last week. He told us he has started asking ques*ons. We're to update him about this mee*ng.

21

22

23

24

Alex park was a mossland, a lowland raised bog. Felling hundreds of trees and clearing shrub will only make the ooding situa*on much worse

25

Areas of map due to be cleared not showing trees situated there. All you have to do is walk around and see how many trees there are in those areas that have not been included in the 258 number (or 262 the plans are inconsistent re tree felling numbers)

26

This is exactly the area of the park where nature trails would be

27

28

Reminder of MCC visitor survey

29

Also courts at Moss Side Leisure Centre Fewer courts - would save signicant number of trees incl Black Poplar if only put in 2 to replace exis*ng ones, with possibility to extend to 4 if demand.

30

Previous tennis courts not maintained, so not used.

31

MCC survey 42% want improvements to lake area

32

33

34

Tree Hazard Evalua*on document is a damning cri*que of the tree survey conducted by MCC

35

We were very surprised to read this, shocking.

36

 - Not all that will be cleared as part of 'vegeta*on clearance' are counted within 258 number (we counted another 84 in D shape alone). Many more in shaded areas in plans due for clearance, not even shown as trees. - Not included number of Oak and Horse Chestnut already diseased, future disease including Ash. - We es*mate over next 10 years up to 432 trees could be felled. Forestry Commission advice: No more than 5m3 *mber / quarter year, with exemp*ons; large no. of Ash tree removals (59/151 = 33%); should have sought FC advice on disease and hygiene Why did MCC *ck no for Protected and Priority Species in Planning Applica*on Sec*on 13? Expecta*on that Wildlife Panel would be set up that I and others such as GM Ecology Unit would be part of to input into design this never materialised Friends of Alexandra Park mee*ng 27/11/12 mee*ng - given 3 schemes already designed by landscape architect for FoAP to choose one Want assurance that tree felling will not take place before Biodiversity Master Plan has been approved. We want to see copy of Plan

37

38