UCL DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
UCL DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
From First to Second Nature: A study of the River Ravensbourne in South East London
Lawrence Beale Collins
Supervisor: Dr Ben Page
2010
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
M.Sc. in Environment, Science and Society
Please complete the following declaration and hand this form in with your M.Sc. Research Project.
I, .....................................................................................................................
hereby declare :
a) that this M.Sc. Project is my own original work and that all source material used is acknowledged therein;
b) that it has been prepared specially for the MSc in Environment, Science and Society of University College London;
c) that it does not contain any material previously submitted to the Examiners of this or any other University, or any material previously submitted for any other examination.
Signed : ....................................................................................
Date : .....................................................................................
Abstract
The Ravensbourne is a stream-fed river in South East London that rises in the village of Keston and meets the Thames in Deptford. It is one of the most engineered yet little-known rivers within the Thames catchment which rightly suggests a history of utility and constraint rather than of social inclusion and accessibility. Council, commerce and community partnerships have driven forward a series of regeneration projects that have successfully opened up sections of the river to allow a more natural appearance and ecology to develop. Social access to the river’s landscape is at an unprecedented level while perceptions of nature are also growing positively. This thesis will discuss the political ecology of these productions of space and nature and whether Smith’s theories of second nature, a nature under capital, are being challenged by growing social interactions and the subsequent perception change of urban nature. The experiential commonalities of urban water among stakeholders in river projects, using Burgess and Strang for guidance, will be compared with their visions for the future and the practical issues involved in delivering that vision. Practicalities facing governance include flood alleviation engineering, work by Gurnell, Tapsell and Wharton will be accessed, and capital growth through urban renewal. Often contradictions may occur when capital meets ecological concern and shared values within this realm will be unwrapped to discover how catchment management is negotiating its way forward. Community interventions have proved successful in mediating the landscape between scientists and councils as regeneration projects move into public consultation. While bridging this gap other issues come to light, such as the appearance or non-appearance of health and safety concerns or what kind of nature should be included. The wishes of some sections of the community for succession-led natural improvements have led to questions of aesthetics, the viability of a river with agency and a blueprint for urban nature. This cultural turn has added momentum to river regeneration as these new spaces provide greater social interest, yet there are constraints to full naturalization placed by funding and spatial availability.
Keywords: River landscapes, river regeneration, political ecology, first and second nature, perceptions of nature, urban greenspace, social interaction & flood alleviation
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Teresita Dennis for invaluable input and patience; the members of QWAG and Rivers for People that have had to put up with me in the summer of 2010, these include Chris McGaw, Nick Pond, Matthew Blumler and Trevor Phybus (of Pheonix Housing), the staff at Lewisham Library local studies department, the Environment Agency, Thames Estuary Partnership, the QUERCUS project, 3 Rivers Clean-up and lastly my MSc colleagues for creative input (and of course my supervisor, likewise).
Word count: 14,998
(Excluding text in figures and boxes)
From First to Second Nature: A study of the River Ravensbourne in South East London
1.Introduction
1.1 A summer walk up the Ravensbourne
1.2 Description and rationale
1.3 Aims and Objectives
1.4 Geomorphological context
2 Literature Review
2.1 Nature and Society
2.2 Productions of Space
2.3 Urban Rivers
3 Methodology introduction
3.1 Methodology rationale
3.2 Primary data description
3.3 Secondary data description
3.4 Personal motivations
4 Empirical Research
4.1 Historical both practical and spiritual
4.2 Ancient History
4.3 Holy wells and spiritual healing
4.4 Industrial heritage
4.5 A history of decline
4.6 The utility of nature
5 Discussion using ethnographies
5.1 Interviewees
5.2 How do local people describe how they experience the river?
5.2.1 Well-being and calming influences
5.2.2 Child’s play
5.3 Production of Space
5.4 Production of Nature
5.5 Flood Control
6 Conclusion
7 References
8 Initial Proposal & Autocritique
9 Appendix
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 A summer walk up the Ravensbourne
After a gruelling few hours clearing Himalayan Balsam, a non-indigenous invasive species, out of the river banks on the Ravensbourne at the Meadows Estate in June 2010, a small group of us sat on the grass verge by Bromley Road to take off our waders and casually debrief. During this post-3-Rivers Clean-Up discussion a proposal was put forward for a walk upstream along the channel of the river from the Thames confluence to as far as we could get within about four to five hours. It was decided that where we were sitting was a good destination and achievable end target but that the likely starting point would have to be Brookmill Gardens, as a large barrier just upstream at Deptford Creek made a Thames-side start impractical. A few emails later and a date was set for June 30th with a 10am start, ‘meet at the ranger’s office in Brookmill – bring lunch’.
A quick briefing (Fig 1), wader and walking-pole selection and head-torch check and we were off, entering the river just downstream from the Elverson Road DLR station. Immediately we got into conversation with a man sitting on his jacket on the shingle beach, he said he had seen foxes, badgers, kingfishers and plenty of herons over the last week, the kingfishers, he added, only appear at daybreak and dusk. Out of Brookmill and into the concrete culvert leading up to Lewisham centre, outflow pipes and bags of rubbish slung over the railings all creating meanders along the wide flat concrete substrate with banks of weeds slowing progress.
[pic]
Fig 1: Ravensbourne Walk 30/6/10
Passing the Tesco site, where my family once ran the Broadway Press, and up to the Ravensbourne/Quaggy confluence, the conversation turned to Lewisham council’s plans for the river. It was agreed that the Confluence Gardens plan, while highly contested, was a vast improvement on the current high-sided and oppressive banking, a JG Ballard-esque highway of concrete and brick (Fig 2) that laid testament to mid 20th century mindsets of over-zealous flood control through hard engineering. Taking the right fork, we entered the first of many tunnels under roads, the river flattened, slow and featureless, there was little talking here as we felt the oppressive weight of urbanisation, our waders glided through the marbled blackness as shafts of light streamed through ahead, a beacon of life in this dead world. Between tunnels we saw bus-queuers leaning over the balustrade above us as we soldiered on in single file and out the other side toward Cornmill Gardens and our second mid-stream view of river regeneration.
[pic]
Fig 2: Ravensbourne/Quaggy confluence
Shoals of dace and chub shot upstream in front of us and ducklings scattered as we edged forward, attempting to minimise the disturbance to this apparently abundant landscape. Nick stopped to dig out a giant hogweed, another species on the invasive hit-list, as Chris noted coltsfoot, burdock, speedwell and the ubiquitous buddleia (another non-native species) amongst the flora. Trevor became engaged in conversation with a group of pensioners above as we entered the tunnelled culvert to the south end, their laughter echoing behind as some deep water
focussed our concentration to the top of our waders and the first of many footballs drifted by (Fig 3). The culvert extended for 200m, on the way some stopped to pick cherries from a large tree
Fig 3: Upstream from Cornmill Gardens
leaning into our path, there was also a mature fig tree to admire, well out of our reach yet abundant in unripe and promising fruit. At Wearside depot we came across some nesting islands placed in the culvert by staff, chained platforms that rise in high water, these were populated by moorhens and we duly took the opposite bank with the message going down the line to keep silent. And so under the bridge by the adhesives factory (now demolished) and into Ladywell Fields. The Ravensbourne proper runs to the east past Lewisham Hospital while a new meandering
Fig 4 Ladywell Fields south
channel has been cut into the park, we stepped up into the open and made our way to the café for lunch. A round-table discussion talked of the beauty of Brookmill and Cornmill and the task that lay ahead in naturalising some of the more shrouded and challenging sections. The feeling was that while many stretches were ugly, to break out of this concrete would be difficult as buildings and other developments had driven right up to form the culvert banks. As we edged back into the stream after lunch a dead chub floated by, this prompted talk of a minor pollution incident the month before that had been reported by a member of the public, however very little was known of its extent and whereabouts but it did rather complement the dead rat found earlier in the wade. To the south of Ladywell Fields the river, while a straightened channel, reaches the most naturalised (Fig 4) of all the sections on our route with banking and woodland or fields on either side. There was abundant flora and fauna, the deep turquoise of the damselflies (Fig 5) catching the eye while far in the distance wagtails darted from bank to bank.
Again there was almost silence among the group but this time induced by the sense of privilege almost as if we had been granted an audience with nature,
Fig 5 Damselfly
and a feeling of relief that there was a counterpoint to the concrete culverting. Beyond the banks are three fields that lie between Catford Bridge and Catford stations and Ladywell. This ‘natural’ stretch of the river was cleared and straightened by railway engineers in 1892 and toe-boarded in sections through flood prevention work in the 1960s.
Sweeping east under the high bridge structure the river meandered through a series of high culverts before entering into the first of the two long tunnels we would encounter. Inside the tunnel the channel split into two, as a flood-prevention measure this enables one channel to be kept clear if there is a blockage.
Fig 6: Ravensbourne/Pool confluence
We take the left and walk to the distant aperture of light, there is vegetation and debris here which we are careful to step over. We progress further to the Ravensbourne/Pool confluence, while the Pool, to the right, looks inviting we take the left fork and enter a long, straight and dilapidated culvert section that forms the boundary for the trading estate to the east and a small industrial complex to the west. Flow pipes seep an oozing orange liquid into the stream while builders rubbish and supermarket bags litter the channel, there is little wildlife here except for our sentinel, the yellow wagtail.
Two police-vehicle engineers peer over the fence telling us we are mad and that we would very likely ‘catch something’ from the river, at this point, given the amount of rubbish strewn everywhere, we would not entirely disagree. The positive correlation between sections of concrete culverting and the amount of rubbish thrown into the river seems obvious, there is a sense that if you demonstrate
that the river is uncared for then the lead will be followed. This unloved section of the Ravensbourne gave way to the tunnel at Southend, just before the agreed end of the walk at the Meadows Estate. The river enters a small tunnel, possibly 1.5m high and 2m across. As we approach, two of the group decline this last challenge and
Fig 7: Southend tunnel (footballs, trees & flies)
opt to take the pavement. This tunnel is approximately 150m in length and travels under the Homebase DIY store and the Peter Pan Pool, it is littered with tree trunks and general flotsam. There is no distant light to aim for as clouds of midges stream into our head torches as we gingerly pick our way through. Trevor recounts a report of EA inspectors entering the tunnel last year with full breathing apparatus, we laugh as we spit out flies and head for the now visible distant light. Four and a quarter hours after we left Brookmill we are sitting back on the bank where the plan was hatched, exhausted but grateful for a chance to see both the wonders and terrors of the Ravensbourne. Enthusiastically, we agree to set up another summer walk from the source in Keston to where we were, discussing what other hurdles could possibly be encountered.
1.2 Description and rationale
“We have hidden away many of the rivers and streams that were much more of an everyday presence in an earlier, less built world. How many Londoners are even aware of the rivers concealed beneath their streets: the Effra, Westbourne, Graveney, Falcon, Quaggy, Wandle, Walbrook, Tyburn or Fleet?”
(Roger Deakin 2001)
The River Ravensbourne rises in Keston, Kent and joins the Thames at Deptford Creek, travelling through some of the most densely urbanised areas of London. The river is recognised as one of the most ‘engineered rivers in metropolitan London (Peddie 2010) and one of the least known (Deakin 2001). The 66km-wide catchment (Fig 8) has experienced pressures of both industrial and post-industrial development over time and, as such, its tributaries meander through a patchwork of concrete culverting and green space. However, in recent decades a change in attitude has seen urban nature revitalised as a complementary factor in commercial development and as a means to enhance public space. According to Gandy (2006, 71) there is now a ‘more dialectical, inclusive and culturally determined conception’ of nature in the city, this suggests a political ecology whereby the boundary between the social city and nature has become blurred and which also acknowledges that the relationship between the two is something we choose rather than something that is given.
But just how far do river regeneration projects succeed as ‘culturally determined conceptions’ and how do politics, economics and society mediate in their creation? River landscapes along the Ravensbourne encourage nature to have agency, once regenerated, rather than yield to the constant attention of park keeper’s secateurs.
The river regeneration process is, in effect, an invitation extended to nature to populate spaces vacated by industry and development, this project will discuss what kinds of nature are intended for these new conceptions and unwrap the roles played by capital, or the commercial world, and society in their development. This retrieval of nature opens discussions of the subsequent ‘crack’ in the urban fabric in which a produced nature appears and flourishes to create new relationships between place and nature (Smith 2008, 107). These relationships create realms for the local community to explore; familiarities with their environment are altered aesthetically and experientially as new meeting places are created and opportunities to socialise materialise. In Lynchian terms this presents a relocation of familiar ‘nodes’ (Lynch 1960) such as meeting places and recreation areas to a more nature-centred process of georeferencing – “I’ll meet you by the river.” As such, river restoration enables the creations of new pathways through the urban environment.
Recent river regeneration projects in the Ravensbourne basin at Sutcliffe Park, Ladywell Fields and Cornmill Gardens, while being multi-award winning and praised by the Queen, rely on increased public access as an indicator of success. Yet whilst these projects are generally unopposed there is little critical analysis given to the social processes at work in river restoration. These are significant new interventions not only in the urban landscape but in the way the relationship between nature and the city is imagined. This research project will locate itself within the amorphous stakeholder group known as ‘the public’ to assess how the expectations of local people are being met in these projects and how successful river regeneration along the Ravensbourne is in breaking down the barriers between the natural and the social. Water’s compelling effect on the senses (Strang 2004, 54) creates a feeling of calm and comfort, a re-awakening of a pre-natal state where the sound of water is constant and reassuring. This can act as an antidote to the hustle and bustle of everyday life and therefore solace is often sought by the river’s edge.
1.3 Aims and objectives
The methodology used in the research aims to access and discuss the differences of opinion and experiences shared by the stakeholders connected to the river. These may range from feelings of personal well-being, dissatisfactions with the proximity of development, personal memories of interaction with water to discussions on whether succession should be encouraged for river nature. Personal memories of natural water, especially those from childhood, can often provide a link to behaviours or attitudes developed in later life (Burgess 1994 & Tapsell 1995). These early interactions may be also be inscribed in later actions and elements of priority as clearly different groups of actors engaged in river restoration have different perspectives, yet they may have experienced similar encounters with water as children. Recovering such information through the interview and other ethnographic approaches may reveal more about their motivations now. The process of environmental governance is also multi-layered as public policy and environmental legislation mediate river projects. From the water quality and flood-alleviation demands of the Environment Agency and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EC 2000) to the potential funding stream created by the offset available for natural public amenity within Section 106 (Local Government 2006). The production of nature in this urban river context allows for a debate on perceptions of nature itself. From a nature overtly choreographed by capital and development to a nature interacted with by the local community. This thesis will therefore attempt to question whether the broad church of second nature, a nature under capital, is sufficient in theoretically analysing the kind of nature that is borne out of restoration projects along the Ravensbourne. There will also be a discussion on whether environmental legislation and constraints placed on such projects by organisations such as the Environment Agency can act as a barrier to a more natural landscape. Histories of urbanisation and development along the catchment may dictate how local communities perceive nature; the presence of the river, therefore, may allay fears of detachment from nature. The long history of utility and industrialisation along the Ravensbourne may mean that local residents have never known nature in this area and, if so, what impact does river regeneration have on these people? Therefore to find out we must talk to people about the river, to discuss flora and fauna, sounds and smells and hopes and fears, indeed, to talk about where it has come from and where it is going, both metaphorically and physically.
1.4 Geomorphology
The Ravensbourne is a spring-fed stream that rises to the south of Keston at Caesar’s Well (TQ 417637) on the north (dip) slope of the North Downs and flows northwards through the boroughs of Bromley, Lewisham and Greenwich to join the Thames at Deptford Creek. The main rivers in the catchment are the Ravensbourne, as the main branch, the Quaggy (E) and the Pool (W). The geomorphology reveals large areas of
[pic]
Fig 8 The Ravensbourne Catchment (Flickr 2010)
underlying pebbly Blackheath beds and smaller areas of underlying sandy Woolwich and Reading beds in places (EA 1996).
While the main branch of the Ravensbourne rises in Keston there is an eastern branch rising at Nobody’s Wood at Locks Bottom, this is the Kyd Brook. The confluence of the main and eastern branch is just below Mason’s Hill in Bromley. The length of this watercourse is 25kms. The Kyd Brook tributary draining the eastern flank becomes the Quaggy at Sundridge Park before joining the Ravensbourne at Lewisham High Street, the confluence being by the bus station (see Fig 2), and the total length of this system is 23kms. The Pool River, including the Chaffinch and the Beck, drains the western flank of the catchment, rising at Addington and entering the Ravensbourne at Catford (see Fig 6). The total length of this system is approximately 19kms. According to the EA report in 1996, the heavily engineered concrete channels and toeboarding sections make up 30kms of the 66kms of channel (EA 1996), however since the ‘daylighting’ of the river at Chinbrook Meadows, Sutcliffe Park etc, this ratio has altered. As is typical for any urban river, flows following rain events are dictated by run-off from tarmac, paved streets and walkways. The dense urbanisation within the Ravensbourne catchment ensures a fast return of rainfall into streams and gullies feeding the main branch.
Serious flooding has not occurred in Lewisham since 1968 (Fig 9), when Lewisham and Catford town centres were affected. Previous flood events occurred in 1928 and 1965 with the 1928 flood the product of overtopping from the Thames (EA 2010). The last flood was in 1992 when 50 properties along the Quaggy at Lee were affected (EACE 2009).
[pic]
Fig 9 Bromley Road flooding in 1968 (Wright 2010)
Probably the biggest event in Lewisham in 1968 was not related to global political movements but to the weather. In September 1968 there was flooding across the South East of England, with the Lewisham area badly hit: ‘Hundreds of families were… trapped in their homes in Lewisham, South London, which was one of the parts worst affected. All the families could do was to shore up their doors with planks, chairs, and carpets as the water swept into their homes. The worst affected part of Lewisham was the High Street. The River Quaggy, normally only 6 inches deep, rose in some places to 15ft. In Carthorn Street the water rose to 4ft. Traffic was halted as it stretched from Catford to New Cross. Extra police were called to filter some of the traffic through side roads’ (The Times, 17 September 1968).
The Environment Agency gauging station at Catford Hill, which measures flow and depth as part of the London flood warning network, states that river flow can change from low or mean to peak in just 30 minutes after a rain event. The discharges measured at Catford Hill are: Average is 0.43 m3/s (15 cu ft/s); Max 28.4 m3/s (1,003 cu ft/s) at 9 June 1992 and Min 0.09 m3/s (3 cu ft/s) at 23 May 1992 (EA 2010) with the average annual rainfall between 1961-1990 at 664mm. The potential for flood events to reoccur has led to the development of many of the restoration projects within the catchment, one example of this is at Sutcliffe Park.
The restoration at Sutcliffe Park in Eltham saw the creation of a flood storage area that extended across 35 acres of parkland, previously used as football pitches, which included several wetland zones. The park was an earth embankment 2.5m high and 480m long that surrounds an excavated site where floodwater is diverted into a 85,000 m3 storage area from the river culvert that borders the site. The photograph (Fig 10), taken soon after construction was complete, also shows the low and high flow inlets and outlets, the restored river channel with gravel beds including riffle and pool sequences with a variety of marginal edges, wetlands and lake with reed margins, set-back footpaths and buffer zones, wild flower meadows and native shrubs and trees. The excavated areas include flow control structures that allow containment and release of flood waters (EA 2009). According to Geraldine Wharton (2010), tests at Sutcliffe Park in 2008 revealed a sediment quality of 80% silt clays or contaminants. Heavy metal sediment results revealed that mean values of Cadmium, Copper, Lead and Zinc exceeded Canadian Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines. Mean concentrations of all dissolved heavy metals were below EA EQS guideline levels while mean nitrate levels were classified as moderate and mean phosphate levels as high. The culverting at the NE side (by the Ferrier Estate) prevented sediment improvement which, if allowed to develop, is likely to impact on the viability of the flood alleviation scheme as base levels will be raised in some areas of dense in-stream vegetation. It is possible that this interruption to flow and the potential impacts will be monitored under the WFD’ s River Basin Management Plan, in which the Ravensbourne catchment falls, as a 2% improvement Thames-wide is sought by 2015 in order to achieve a ‘good’ status (WFD 2010).
[pic]
(Fig 10) Sutcliffe Park after daylighting. Quaggy flows left to right. (EA 2009)
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Nature and Society
The literature used for this project addresses the theories and concepts that need to be unwrapped in order to understand our contemporary discourse of socio-natural relations. Disciplines of human geography, environmental science, social science and philosophy have produced a wide-range of progressive theories of society’s interactions with nature. Opinions vary widely about which theories are most useful, but there are some constant themes that cut across different approaches and analytical frameworks; for example the idea that nature is being polluted, degraded, endangered and lost is widespread, paradoxically, society’s interaction with nature is usually one that is characterised in terms of respect, with a desire to both control and protect nature (Soper 1999). While there may be an accusation that attempts to integrate natural themes into development are mere window-dressing or empty gestures (Smith 2008, 21) that conform to the paradigm shift in environmental attitudes during the 20th century, there is a widespread belief also that the impact of nature on development and the community creates a genuine concern for nature’s well-being. The impact on society of uneven development and degradation of landscapes has led to a debate about stewardship and a general desire to ‘draw the line’ on future destruction of nature. However, the nature that we see and the ideals we envisage for nature’s future are mediated through capital and the production of river regeneration is undertaken within the conditions of development.
Theoretical explorations of the many ‘natures’ under capital prompted Neil Smith (2008) to suggest that there may be different and contradictory definitions of nature at work simultaneously: there is the idea of an external nature: where nature is separate and outside of humans (nature is defined as that which is not social), but there is also the idea of universal nature where nature is defined as every material thing (including humans and their works): then there is human nature, which contains aspects of deontology and emphasises the unchanging biological character of human behaviour, and internal nature: which captures a sense of our personal feelings, a yearning for or fear of nature. Castree suggests that changing attitudes to society-nature relations, particularly those associated with conservation, rely heavily on ideas of external nature because of their abhorrence of the destructiveness of society, which in turn suggests that a more sympathetic valuation of nature occurs whereby its ‘essential quality’ (2001, P6) is recognised.
These ideas can be usefully explored using the concepts of first and second nature (Fig 11). Society’s internal yearnings for an abundant and unspoilt external nature are captured in the conception of “first nature” (Smith 1984, 2008), that is a pristine, primary nature that is untouched by human activity, the ambiguity here is that while it may appear that this nature is lost to capital there are perceptions that natural processes demonstrate elements of first nature, or wilderness leanings. In contrast, second nature includes all forms of nature that have been transformed by human activity - agricultural and urban landscapes, a commodified nature where the stuff of the environment is transformed into trade goods and economic resources.
|Concepts of first, second and even third nature, are not new. Neil Smith’s discussion on first and second nature is based on Karl |
|Marx’s work on nature under capital in the mid 1800s (Pepper 1993). Marx said that first nature gave birth to humankind, which saw |
|the creation of second nature; a nature ‘as part of the natural evolution of society’ (Bookchin 1987). However, Marcus Tullius |
|Cicero (106-43BC) mentioned first nature (wilderness), second nature (sowing corn etc) and third nature or terza natura (the |
|landscaping of gardens). The artistry of landscaping, it was believed, was capable of demonstrating all three aspects of nature |
|(Dixon Hunt 2000). |
(Fig 11)
Such forms of nature are located within society, whether they a resource utilised by industry or a landscape viewed from the top of a mountain. Such is the extent of human activity, Smith suggests, that it is now meaningless to try and actually find first nature – even those landscapes such as the poles, the ocean floor or unexplored rainforests have been transformed into potential commodities valued for the resources they might hold and claimed by capitalist states seeking to assert their ownership of resources that might be discovered in the future. As such, if it is agreed therefore that all nature is now socially mediated it places first nature in the realm of a utopian ideal that is unobtainable. According to Pepper (1993, 117), everything is a commodity, even amenity and aesthetic enjoyment, to such an extent that all of first nature has become second nature. But was there ever a time or place when this was not true? Schmidt (1971) argues that in its pre-bourgeois state, nature exhibited first nature tendencies. With regard to ancient indigenous civilisations, nature was not seen as a commodity but as a co-evolutionary partner. Cronon (1996), however, disagrees with this position, stating that consistently through time natural resources, including rivers, have been utilised and valued and this placing of value on an object is commodification whether or not it falls into a capitalist framework. In other words there is nothing distinctly capitalist about the process of transforming first into second nature.
If it is understood that there is no first nature as all nature is socially mediated, then creations of natural space, such as national parks, or in this context river regeneration projects, are appropriations and approximations of perceived first nature. By definition humans can’t create first nature, because first nature is that which is not human. Yet the essence of these projects is that there is a persistent idea that these landscapes are part of first nature. Such an idea, some critics suggest, must therefore be something of a delusion. Smith (2008, p77) states: ‘With the production of nature at a world-scale, nature is progressively produced from within and as part of a so-called second nature. The first nature is deprived of its originality’. Indeed, what is deemed as natural is in fact a social product that is tailored to current human needs and perceptions. As Kate Soper (1999, p56) observes: ‘Much of which ecologists loosely refer to as ‘natural’ is indeed a product of culture, both in the physical sense and in the sense that perceptions of its beauties and value are culturally shaped’. As urban cultures diversify so do perceptions of what nature really is.
The idea of a return to the ‘wildness’ of nature is of particular importance with regard to the Ravensbourne catchment as contemporary engagement through planning, development and community actions are remodelling a ‘nature’ where the organic and artefactual meet to create a revised and socially-produced nature. For example the reconstruction of riffles along a river bed using bricks or the dumping of lorry loads of ballast to recreate meanders into a newly ‘daylighted’ river does not necessarily mean that a false claim is being made about wildness, but perceptions of what nature is remain with the individual, as an internal assessment, so for some the introduction of a few reeds and a few ducks may well be an approximation to wilderness. As William Cronon (1996, p86) reflects:
‘How can we take the positive values of wilderness and bring them closer to home? I think the answer to this question will come by broadening our sense of the otherness that wilderness seeks to define and protect. In reminding us of the world we did not make, wilderness can teach profound feelings of humility and respect as we confront our fellow beings and earth itself’.
It is this sense of ‘otherness’ that may inspire to create ‘new’ urban natures that can replace or revitalise urban natures that have been crushed by development and neglect. By recreating a ‘natural’ river landscape it is possible to duplicate the internal nature of Cronon’s more localised feeling of a ‘sacred’ nature, seated by the babbling brook behind his house. Taken out of the context of capital development these naturalised sections of river are defined by perceptions of society. Communities may feel that they are ‘getting back to nature’ by integrating with this new nature and as such we may have gone beyond ‘second nature’ into new hybridised territory whereby localised aspects of wildness provide an antidote for society against capital’s domination through urbanisation.
2.2 Productions of Space
The creation of such localised ‘new natures’ and the general agreement by both community and commerce that they are of benefit, has led to an ‘urban revolution’ in the productions of space, new spaces, as described by Henri Lefebvre (Merrifield 2006, p102), where brownfield and previously neglected parkland sites are sculpted into havens for nature. A paradigm shift in urban green space development has enabled new stakeholder partnerships to form, which include the public, and the creation of these more inclusive groupings culturally defines new spaces, therefore ‘the shift from one node to another must entail the production of a new space’ (Merrifield 2006 p107). Lefebvre accused much development in the 1960s and 70s of being anti-humanist and, drawing critically from Marx, claimed the productions of space always underwrote landscapes of capitalism accumulation. Since then the creation of urban greenspace has seen a broadening of dialectics that concentrate more on public access and less on exclusivity whereby nature is recognised as a ‘good’ for the community as a whole.
Viewing urban nature through the lens of Lefebvre’s ‘urban revolution’ and the idea of the production of space generates new insights about nature itself. As Gandy (2004, p364) observes: ‘Nature is not conceived as an external blueprint or template but as an integral dimension to the urban process which is itself transformed in the process to produce a hybridized and historically contingent interaction between social and bio-physical systems’ and (p365) to acknowledge a trend toward more community-friendly space production, rather than spaces that simply support commerce.
Seeing rivers as an integral element within the urban fabric has opened new opportunities. Communities historically excluded from the Ravensbourne, either through industrial development or flood alleviation practices, now find they have greater access to nature. This progression toward a more organic and nature-reflective mode of urban space production sees the urban redefined away from the industrial (Heyman 1999), which is not only a reflection on the importance of urban green space for the community but also how industrial landscapes themselves have changed. From a political ecology standpoint, where nature and urbanisation can be discussed within the same context, productions of space benefit the entire biotic community as access points and gateways for ecology. This implies the potential for ecological leanings within wider political and economic processes (Evans 2007). As urban nature becomes increasingly integrated into structures of governance, planning and fiscal considerations, so wide-ranging frameworks of political ecology emerge (Johnson 2003; Gandy 2004; Evans 2007) .
Castree (2001 p204) notes in ‘Social Nature’: ‘The production of nature approach implies that it is possible to balance human and ecological needs by recognising that all appraisals of nature and what to do with it are made by humans in the first place.’ With planning now leaning toward a more ecocentric line of development it has been possible to strip away some of the physical engineering constraints placed on nature in the past and allow communities to benefit from improved ecology. Kaika (2005 p14) believes that traditional ideas on the spirituality of nature have found their way to the boardroom: ‘Much of modern urban planning has been infused and inspired by particular scriptings of the ‘nature’ of nature and the ‘nature’ of the city’. The benefits of rejuvenated greenspace as a place of well-being in terms of physical and mental enhancement are well documented (see Fuller et al 2007, Whatmore & Hinchcliffe 2003, Pincetl 2007 etc) and the knock-on effect within communities prompts a deliberatively democratic approach to planning through discussions with local communities. Production of a new community space at Ladywell Fields, with the River Ravensbourne re-landscaped to become central to a green space previously blighted by crime and abandoned by the community (QUERCUS 2008). However, the influences of capital are ever-present in the productions of space in the area. The Lewisham Gateway plan intends to use greenspace such as Confluence Gardens and an avenue of trees to lead into a new commercial zone while the Ravensbourne Improvement Plan is designed to use river nature’s aesthetics to increase leisure possibilities and make the area more attractive to live in (Lewisham Regeneration Strategy 2008).
2.3 Urban rivers
The decision to partially remove the heavy engineering constraining the River Ravensbourne since the flooding of the 1960s (Fig 9) has led to discussions with the public as to how rivers may be revitalised to create more accessible, and pleasant, areas of public realm. Previous studies (Castree & MacMillan 2001, Burgess 1994, Tapsell 1995) discuss such community involvement in river regeneration and have influenced methodological choices for this project. In particular, the significance of childhood experience of rivers as a key to explaining motivations later in life is pursued here.
Allowing adults to freely recollect past enjoyment of rivers may provide a clue as to what the children of today may also wish for when encountering a newly regenerated river.
We had some jam jars with us, with a bit of string tied to the top, and
my brother and me would walk down this tree-lined avenue and down
the bank of the Quaggy. Now this was before it had a concrete overcoat
given to it, and when it just used to wander among the trees and shrubs
by the side of the farm. It's my earliest recollection of getting to know
the sounds of the country. ... And there were the sounds of the insects
and the sound of the water going over the pebbles. But the greatest
enjoyment was with this little net thing we had. Trying to scoop up
tiddlers or catch newts, or anything else we found.
(William’s comments in Burgess 1997 pgs7-8)
Veronica Strang (2001) found during her study on the Stour that: ‘Water can be aurally and visually mesmerising and has been shown to induce reflection and relaxation’. Burgess and Strang demonstrate that the meaning of landscape and culture are crucial for an understanding of the value and significance of rivers. The realisation that pollution and culverting makes us ‘shed tears for the landscape we find no longer what it was’ (Burgess 1994 p76).
The progression of urban-river studies into areas of perception, dealing mainly with enthnographic approaches (Strang 2001 & Burgess 1997), is due in part to the constant evolution of the subject away from a technocentric base, this broadly reflects progressions in geography studies from the physical to the more socially inclusive. There has also been an evolution in river studies on governance that has seen a progression from a predominantly engineering focus to one where geomorphology and ecology take a prominent role in decision making (Hooke 1999; Douglas 2000; Logan 2001; Morley & Karr 2002). These features have refocused river studies away from human asset protection to become assets in their own right. Studies of stream ecology, stream hydrology, stream geomorphology and water quality form the basis of many river classifications (Whiting & Bradley 1993; Chessman 1995; Brierley & Fryis 2000; Harris, Gurnell, Hannah, Petts 2000), including those specific to urban areas (Anderson 1999; Gregory & Chin 2002; Chin & Gregory 2005). The hydrological characteristics of urban catchments such as the Ravensbourne are of primary importance in determining how a river responds to urbanisation and regeneration (Findlay & Taylor 2006). The difference between river rehabilitation and complete restoration is often the difference between actual impacts and desired outcomes. Restoration, as Findlay and Taylor describe, often fails to target magnitude and frequency of flows. Informative studies on potable urban water have also been accessed (Gandy 2002, Kaika 2005, Kaika & Swyngedouw 2000). Aforementioned works by Tapsell and Burgess tackle social implications of restoration while Chin & Gregory and Wharton offer more contemporary scientific appraisals.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Methodology Rationale
The study of an urban river such as the Ravensbourne requires wide-ranging empirical research methods. From the more sedentary visit to local libraries’ collections of historical texts to the donning of waders for river channel work and walks. As such, a number of methodologies were employed in the classical ethnographic tradition in order to accumulate a more grounded view of the catchment, its history and the current state of affairs regarding the river and the surrounding communities. While the study area is the river Ravensbourne catchment within the London boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich and Bromley, the main focus is the river as it passes through Lewisham. Participation and discussions were also conducted within Greenwich at Creekside and Sutcliffe Park and Bromley at Beckenham Place Park and at the source in Keston. Initial exploration of the subject area involved, as advised by Cook and Crang (1995), initiating and developing contacts with organisations such as local borough planning and environment departments, voluntary local groups involved in river stewardship, NGOs delivering EU policy and LNGOs conducting clean-up operations and education-based community events serving all age groups. Participating in such events, such as the 3-Rivers Clean-up run by Thames21 and delivered through Rivers for People and the Quaggy Waterways Action (QWAG) group, enabled not only the development of a clearer understanding of the current issues involving the catchment but also enabled the gathering of subjects willing to be interviewed for the project. Before participation and subsequent interviewing could take place the prerequisite risk assessment was completed while all interviewees were made aware of the exact purpose of the discussion, who would be reading the end report and where it would be available for viewing. A deliberate attempt was made to conduct interviews at or near the river. All interviews were conducted in the public realm, often at the Ladywell Fields Café, except in the case of Matthew Blumler of QWAG where the interview was held in his garden which backs on to the River Quaggy.
3.2 Primary data description
Primary data gathering therefore involved ethnographies such as interviews and casual conversation (Strang 2001, 2-4), with note-taking throughout participation. This iterative inquiry would enable the grouping, linking and regrouping of data (Grbich 2007, 21) until a variety of narratives may be provided across chosen subject areas so that a balanced view may be presented. Also aiding the interview process would be information gathered during content analysis at local libraries. All resulting interview/discussion textual results would be subjected to analysis involving the selection of themes and keywords (Grbich 2007, 116).
The involvement of borough planners and community participants, the numbers of interviewees decided upon and the structure of the ethnography has been inspired by the methodologies and discussions within the work of Jacqui Burgess, Paul Cloke and Owain Jones and Noel Castree and Tom MacMillan. Interviewees were selected from a wide stakeholder base that reached into the local community, local governance and NGOs working on the Ravensbourne. Castree and MacMillan’s work on the re-imagination of nature contains a description of a study conducted by Eden, Tunstall and Tapsell (2000) whereby a project to naturalise a stretch of the river Cole, south-east of Birmingham, was envisaged using actor network principles. This work laid the foundation for a project taken up by the River Restoration Project (subsequently the River Restoration Council) to create ‘a collaboration between local and statutory authorities and volunteer groups to achieve a substantial increase in the wildlife quality of an 11km section of the Cole and adjacent land in Solihull and Birmingham. The objective was to replace a concrete channel with a less constrained river channel’ (RRC 2008). The parallels between the Cole project and the river Ravensbourne were clear, not least the desire to save the rivers from their ‘concrete overcoat’ (Penning-Rowsell & Burgess 1997).
In developing semi-structured texts for the interview stage it was helpful to locate similar ethnography-based studies where nature plays a prominent role in public assertions of green space value and well-being impacts. These studies included Burgess’s study of potential fear of greenspace (Burgess, Harrison & Limb 1988); the community valuation of nature (Burgess, Harrison & Clarke 1998); perceptions of the intrinsic/utilitarian values of nature (Cloke & Jones 2003); a commentary on river restoration within the Ravensbourne (Tapsell 1995); and Mark Whitehead’s (2009) paper regarding the everyday right to urban nature and environmental justice.
The interviews will provide the source for primary data while the secondary data, such as the Rivers for People survey and various EA reports, will take a supportive role (Strang 2001). The discussion chapter will open with the empirical data gathered in the main from Lewisham Library’s Local Studies department. This data is key in gaining an understanding of the history of the catchment to describe the journey of development to present day while also providing a link to theories of first and second nature, from unspoilt nature to a nature negotiated within the parameters of urbanisation. A late addition to the primary data gathering process was an online survey asking ‘What is your experience of the river Ravensbourne?’ This was agreed thanks to Jill Goddard of the Thames Estuary Partnership and Nick Pond and Chris McGaw of Rivers for People.
3.3 Secondary data description
Secondary sources include: The Rivers for People evaluation survey concerned with attitudes to nature within the borough of Lewisham, River Restoration Council work on Sutcliffe Park in the borough of Greenwich and their London Rivers Action Plan, the QUERCUS project data from the Ladywell Fields project, various Environment Agency initiatives including the 2100 action plan and an environmental assessment of the catchment, the Ravensbourne Improvement Plan and the vision for the Waterways Link and various borough data collections for flood alleviation, urban development, such as the Lewisham Gateway Project, and biodiversity reports to include Biodiversity Action Plans where available. All secondary data references will be cited as they appear.
3.4 Personal motivations
Travelling around Lewisham over the last few years I have seen the Ravensbourne given a new lease of life within projects at Cornmill Gardens and Sutcliffe Park. Families have enjoyed hot summer afternoons by the river at Ladywell Fields and pensioners sit and reflect further downstream in Brookmill Gardens, but still rubbish is thrown over the bridge by the bus station in Lewisham’s centre. So some people care about the river and some people don’t. Some people just see the river as water flowing through concrete and make no connection between the naturalised sections at Cornmill Gardens and the bleak engineering by the bus station, even though they are just 100yds apart. I want to find out what is being achieved by river regeneration and how much scope is there for changing perceptions amongst the community. I was born in Lewisham Hospital, next to Ladywell Fields, my parents lived by the source of the Ravensbourne in Keston at the time. As a boy I worked in my father’s, and grandfather’s, printing works next to the Quaggy/Ravensbourne confluence, always peering over the wall to look for fish. Out of school we would cycle round Keston ponds, build small boats, fish and sometimes swim in the water. I now live a mile from the old printworks, now a supermarket car-park, and I’m curious as to how communities in the catchment interact with the river. Perceptions of urban nature are wide and varied. The river regeneration projects along the Ravensbourne provide an ideal opportunity to gauge these perceptions and, as river nature is given the chance to bloom in a unique way, it is an important area in which to discuss concepts of wilderness, first and second nature and the historical impacts of capital. Also from a practical point of view, it meant that I could cycle to interviews and to various events, such as the 3-Rivers Clean-Up.
4 Empirical Research
4.1 History - practical and spiritual
‘On Keston Heath wells up the Ravensbourne
A crystal rillet, scarce a palm in width
Till creeping to a bed, outspread by art
It sheets itself across, reposing there
Thence, crossing meads, and footpaths, gathering tribute.
Wanders in Hayes, Bromley and Beckenham Vale
And, straggling in Lewisham to where Deptford Bridge
Uprises in obeisance to its flood
Whence it rolls to a swell the master current
Of the ‘mighty heart of England’
(William Hone 1827)
Histories of the river Ravensbourne show that it has been produced through utility and co-evolved as such through its engagement with the different societies that have shared this location with the river. The river’s bio-physical form and material character has engendered symbolic significance, its meaning, social function and economic value have been constructed through human engagement. In this next section of the thesis there is a narrative account of the transformation of the Ravensbourne from first to second nature over a two thousand year timespan. The aim is to show some of the key ways in which people and the river are co-produced and which the meaning of the river is forged through social relations between people.
To journey through the catchment of the Ravensbourne is to witness a river altering over time. The riparian landscapes that adorn the various tributaries remain a palimpsest of the cultural, economic and social history of the area. The present day utilisation of the river catchment contrasts sharply with periods in history when industry, such as milling and shipbuilding, was present. There have been times when spirituality and healing were deemed important properties of the Ravensbourne, this resonates with more contemporary ideologies of well-being and contemplation. So how did this ‘wretched stream’ (Chataway 1965, p916) journey through histories of celebration and constraint to finally be broken out of its concrete overcoat (Penning-Rowsell & Burgess 1997) and emerge a a newly blossomed community asset. The following is an empirical review of the historical texts that form the basis of the known history of the Ravensbourne catchment.
4.2 Ancient history
According to Walters (1930) the earliest recorded uses of the Ravensbourne are found in descriptions of Julius Caesar’s army camping near Holwood House, south of Keston, as he pursued Cassivellannus across the Thames in 54 B.C.. On seeing ravens swoop to drink at the source, Caesar decided on ‘raven’s-bourne’, or raven’s stream, to describe the place (Fig 12). Ackroyd (2007), however, suggests that Caesar was camped on Blackheath when making the discovery, a notion unsupported by most texts as Blackheath is closer to the Quaggy tributary some seven miles to the north east.
[pic]
Fig 12 The source of the Ravensbourne at Keston. (Charles Knight, 1824, p51)
To challenge both assumptions Hasted (1797) gives an entirely different explanation of the name and maintains that antiquarians argued that the praetor Aulus Plautius was camped by the Ravensbourne source awaiting the arrival of Emperor Claudius in AD46 when the ravens appeared. The connection with Caesar has, however, firmly attached itself to stories about the river ever since.
There were imperial connections at the other end of the river in Deptford too. By the late 19th century Deptford had become a notoriously tough place to roam, navvies, shipwrights’ mates and quay-hands lived and frequented the ale houses around Deptford Bridge while ships’ officer classes made off to gentrified Greenwich, however in earlier days Deptford had seen its fair share of pomp and pageantry.
Henry V alighted at Deptford Creek and was welcomed back after Agincourt in 1415 by magistrates and ‘chief citizens’ on Blackheath. In 1474 Edward VII was also welcomed back from France after alighting at Deptford. Anne of Cleves was met in 1540 by her ‘unwieldy lover’ Henry VIII, who had founded the Royal Dockyard at Deptford, as the king escorted her to Greenwich Palace before she became wife number four. In 1580, Queen Elizabeth I knighted Francis Drake onboard the Golden Hind in Deptford Creek after his circumnavigation of the globe. The year 1694 saw Peter, Czar of all the Russias, later Peter the Great, arrive in Deptford to study naval architecture and ship’s carpentry (Anderson 1969). In 1872, by order of the City officials, a board was put up in the Foreign Cattle Market, bearing the following inscription:—"Here worked as a ship-carpenter Peter, Czar of all the Russias, afterwards Peter the Great, 1698." The Czar's sojourn here is likewise commemorated by his name being given to a street in Deptford—a very wretched and woe-begone street, by the way, and quite unworthy of so illustrious a name. (Walford 1878, pgs 143-164).
Crossing the river Ravensbourne was not a trivial task in the past and traffic was funnelled over the bridge at Deptford creek. The bottleneck at Deptford Bridge, on the road from Kent to the city, has proved a strategic point of defence for London and over time has seen three major rebellions. The first of which was the Poll tax revolt in 1381, when Wat Tyler, the radical priest John Ball and Jack Straw led 60,000 people down from Blackheath Hill (later ‘Wat Tyler’s Mound’), above the Ravensbourne/Quaggy confluence and across the bridge at Deptford Broadway and up the Old Kent Road into London in 1381. Jack Cade set off in the same direction in 1450 as leader of the Kentish peasants, protesting against what they saw as the weak leadership of King Henry VI, unfair taxes, corruption and the loss of France (Baxter 1930). Finally in 1497 the troops of Henry VII, under Lord Daubeny engaged the Cornish Rebels (who had come to London to protest against the tax levied to defray the cost of the war against the Scots) at Deptford Bridge. It is said 2,000 Cornishmen were killed and buried on the heath, 1,500 more were taken prisoner (Barton 1962). Of the Ravensbourne, Ackroyd states in ‘Thames: The sacred river’ (2007, 48): ‘No other tributary of the Thames has such a history of insurrection and bloodshed’. Indeed Charles Mackay (1878) observed:
‘More than one tumultuous multitude has encamped upon its banks, shouting loud defiance to their lawful rulers. Blackheath, its near neighbour, was overrun by Wat Tyler and the angry thousands that followed in his train; and in the Ravensbourne, perchance, many of those worthy artisans stooped down to drink its then limpid waters, when, inflamed by revenge and by the hope of plunder and of absolute power, they prepared to march upon London. Jack Cade and his multitudes in their turn encamped about the self-same spot; and the Ravensbourne, after an interval of eighty years, saw its quiet shores disturbed by men who met there for the same purposes, and threatening bloodshed against the peaceful citizens of London, because, feeling the scourge of oppression, they knew no wiser means of obtaining relief, and were unable to distinguish between law and tyranny on the one hand, and freedom and licentiousness on the other."
(Mackay 1878 pgs143-164).
The story of the Ravensbourne can be woven into the grand narrative of British history and the machinations of European civilization. In this regard it is a story of conflict, violence, rebellion and bloodshed but this is only one side of what should be remembered of the river.
4.3 Holy wells, springs and spiritual healing
If the journey of the river Ravensbourne ends in martial fashion in the naval dockyards it begins in more peaceful waters. Veronica Strang (2004, p85) claims that:
‘The concept of water as a ‘sacred substance’ is ubiquitous in religious history: cultures located on alluvial plains made sacrifices and propitiary gifts to their river gods. Water has been used in baptisms, libations, holy ablutions, fertility rites. For blessing and protection from the ‘evil eye’ and for mortuary rituals’.
This is as true of this river as of many others. The history of oppression and conflict within the Ravensbourne catchment has been contrasted by the times of reflection and healing, most notably during the times of the Englightenment when natural resources were seen as God’s gift and presented an opportunity to those engrossed in capital gain during the Industrial Revolution to cleansethemselves.
Fig 13 Holwood
The Ravensbourne is associated with many holy springs and wells (Fig 13). According to Walters (1930, p2) three miles north of Keston’s ‘Temple’ above Caesar’s Well there rises at Bromley a ‘first-class holy well complete with saint’. The journey from Keston to Bromley saw the evolution of the Ravensbourne from a centre for Roman militarism to a ‘hot-bed’ of medieval Roman Catholicism (Walters p2) at St Blaise’s (or St Blaize’s) Well, St Blaise being the Armenian patron saint of wool carders. (Walters refers to Hope p82 and Arch. Cant XIII p155) At St Blaise’s there was a shrine to which pilgrims were attracted by the promise of a papal indulgence to those who worshipped there around Whit Sunday. Lucas, who was Legate for Sextus the Fourth of England, granted an indulgent remission of 40 days’ repentance of sins to all who visited this chapel and offer up their ‘orizons’ on the three holidays of the Pentecost (quoting Philipot p84). Hasted (p93) noted: ‘There is a spring in the Archbishop’s (of Rochester) ground called St Blaize’s Well which has historical importance on account of its medicinal virtues, and an oratory built nearby dedicated to the above mentioned saint’. The oratory was ruined at the Reformation and the well disused. The water of the spring, when re-opened in 1754, ‘were found a good chalybeate’ with a gravel soil. The well, situated close to Widmore Road, became popular as a spa destination and proved a great asset to Bromley, however, the popularity of the spa declined as that of Tunbridge Wells increased and the well fell into disrepair by the mid 19th century (Williams B, 1998)
Clinch (1889 p129) in ‘Antiquarian Jottings’ notes a spring of water by the roadside near the ornamental ponds in the grounds of Hayes Place, known locally as Jacob’s Well. Work was carried out on this well in promoting its healing properties by Mr Jacob Angus c1800. In Beckenham Lane a well known as Pin Well is situated. The tradition here is that ‘if a pin is dropped in the well and then water taken out, sore eyes wetted wherewith a cure will take place’ (H J Dunkin 1855 p114). Like Pin Well, Lady Well near the auspicious confluence of the Ravensbourne and the Pool was also ‘good for the eyes’. Hasted’s Hundred of Blackheath 1886 (p252) describes it as follows: ‘In 1472 a great spring broke out of the earth in this parish. There is also a sketch of this Lady Well in ‘Knight’s Journey through Kent’ 1842’. (Antiquary XII 56-8).
4.4 Industrial history
Tanya English (1992) notes that as early as the 11th century the Ravensbourne was a river of great importance in commercial terms. The Domesday Book noted eleven mills in the Greenwich/Lewisham area. By 1745, as demonstrated in Rocque’s map, the catchment supported a variety of industry tied to production by water power. From Deptford Creek, where there was stowage, wharfage and warehousing, successive upstream mills were in action; Tide (corn) Mill, Water (pumping) Mill, Armoury Mill, Corn Mill and Leather Mill. The ready transport of raw materials (grain, leather) along the Thames and along the established road network added significant importance to the area as a transport hub from Kent and Surrey and as armoury route from the mill in Deptford to the Royal Armoury in Woolwich.
From the source the Ravensbourne fed into Pad Mill at Hayes Common, just south of Keston village before journeying on to the specialist glass mill at Bromley (this mill at various times has been adapted to produce paper, blanket, corn and felt) (English 1992). At Southend, south of Bellingham, the ornamental ‘Peter Pan’s Pool’ (Fig 14), (now at Sainsbury’s Home Base), was formed from the former Cutlers Mill, home of the celebrated cutlers John and Ephraim How (Baxter 1930).
[pic]
Fig 14 Peter Pan’s Pool c1960 (Frith 2010)
The river flows north past Bellingham and through Knaphill Road to Catford. At this ‘Knappemill’ was situated a water mill, according to 14th century documents, named after the Knapp family at Knapp’s House, the largest house in Southend (Great Houses of Lewisham, Exhibition Notes). The artisanal corn mills at the confluence of the Pool and Ravensbourne were recorded in Domesday, three mills; Ford Mill, Grange Mill and Catford Bridge Mill were situated there with the millers and their families living in small houses on the riverbank. Changes in technology and implementation of the Corn Law in 1815, (designed to protect the home market against cheap imports from America) as well as the repeal of the law in 1846 saw the development of free trade and increased land prices. This in turn saw the artisans bought out by large corporations, an example of this is the Riverdale Mill in Catford, which was bought by the engineer John Penn of the Bridge House Estate of the Corporation of London. The largest of these corporation-owned mills were situated at the confluence of the Quaggy and Ravensbourne, these were the Armoury Mill and Lewisham Silk Mills (Macartney & West 1998). Among the last industries to use the Ravensbourne was the Seagar Brewery. This site on Deptford Creek began brewing and distilling from the mid 1800s when Norfolk’s Deptford Brewery was operational, by the turn of the 20th century the site was occupied by the Deptford Brewery and Distillery. The distillery expanded and in 1922 was taken over by Seager Evans, who further developed the site to front onto Deptford Bridge in 1953. Schenley Industries bought the site in 1956 and since then the distillery industry closed and the building fell into disrepair, since this time it has been occupied by artists as studios and more recently has been developed as leasehold accommodation (Freshplant 2008).
The industry on the river at Deptford even took priority over the emerging suburban rail lines into the 20th century. During a low tide walk through the creek during the early summer of 2010 it was noted by botanist and local historian Nick Bertrand that there was a unique rail bridge in the creek (Fig 15). On investigation this claim was supported in the written record. Barton (1962) states: ‘Even today, when the years of its glory long departed, the ships using Deptford Creek, at the mouth of the Ravensbourne, take precedence over the far more important Southern Electric trains which cross the creek on their way from London Bridge to Greenwich’. Barton quotes the ‘London Diary’ of the New Statesman in 1961 ‘By an Act of 1829, whenever a ship needs to pass up the creek, the bridge across it, which is in principle like a mini Tower Bridge, has to be lifted. The train load of city gentlemen sits and waits as twenty men work by hand to raise the bridge with ancient winding gear.
[pic]
Fig 15 Deptford rail bridge (2010)
4.5 A history of decline
The introduction of railway lines along substantial stretches of the Pool and Ravensbourne valleys saw an end to the natural signature of the river. A signature comprising a ‘network of small rivers, bounded by gravel terraces, which flow through water meadows and tidal flood meadows before reaching the Thames as a navigable channel, bordered by working wharves’ (Baxter 2009, 107) was lost for good as railways fed the Victorian suburban expansion in Bromley, Beckenham, Lewisham and Catford. Urban development continued through the interwar period, leaving large stretches of the Ravensbourne canalised and culverted as both rail and the burgeoning road network took priority over any claims made for nature. The impact of creating desirable residential areas for city workers in the commuter belts of Hither Green and Ladywell was to exacerbate the decline of local industry while providing expansion opportunities for the retail offering and residential development. Large department stores opened in Lewisham such as Chiesmans which ran until 1976 (Moss & Turton 1989), and the Army and Navy which was demolished in 1995. The Sainsbury store in Lewisham shopping centre was briefly the largest supermarket in Europe (politics.co.uk 2010).
Downstream, the docks at Deptford had been in decline since the mid 1800s when larger ships found Chatham in Kent more accessible and as this trade left the area other industry emerged, most notably the victualling industry. The largest of these, the Seager Distillery, was the last to go in the 1960s (Freshplant 2008) with small light industrial units introduced as a temporary replacement, these units themselves gradually closed during the 1990s to leave the area derelict. The socio-environmental changes, or metabolisms (Heynen, Kaika, Swyngedouw 2006), saw this abandoned landscape, already ripened for conversion, open up to the gentrification processes of riverside apartment construction. This is creating a socio-environmental condition that enables the wealthy to populate a previously desolate area, with heritage symbols of the occasional cobbled street and rusted wharf engineering providing the link to a historical past. The use of industrial heritage symbolism in port regeneration has proved integral to redevelopment in Hull, Baltimore and St Katherine’s Dock on the Thames. While this may be seen as a nod of gratitude to past labours it also enables a disconnection to take place. A casual visitor may feel that the inclusion of such symbolism suggests that all associated issues, such as river inlet viability, have also been considered and appropriately regenerated when in fact all that symbolic gesturing does is draw a line on the past. This disabling of responsibility sees the production of space in these locations provide a ‘definite stage in social development’ (Merryfield 2006, 107), not just as the wealthy replace the poor but in terms of a disconnect from the underlying environment. Metabolic changes of this sort are therefore never socio-environmentally neutral and this restructured urban political ecology has seen the river Ravensbourne at Depford suffer in terms of neglect and pollution as the machine of development grinds around it.
4.6 The utility of nature
The historical utility of the river Ravensbourne suggests that first nature has never, or at least not in the last 2,000 years, been present within the catchment. The moment first nature as an unspoilt entity was recorded in Caesar’s time the transformation into second nature was secured. The water, as an instrument for spiritual healing to miller’s friend, over time has seen its agency marshalled for commercial development. Key stages in this development have been the introduction of milling on the river from the 11th century, this continued through to the 19th century; the site of the Royal Dockyard at Deptford in the 16th century; the appropriation of the river resource during the 19th century for religious and spiritual reasons and the attempt to develop Bromley as a spa destination to rival Tunbridge Wells; the 20th century saw constraints placed on the river’s channels by the incoming railway and road network and these were exacerbated by heavy engineering and culverting during the 1960s following flooding. The GLC, after taking over from the LCC, responding to Parliamentary demand in 1965 by installing much new channelling to protect the booming residential development in the area. This can be analysed as an urban political ecology negotiating between commercial development, river mechanics, urban residents and a minimal concern for nature itself. In more recent times, as will be explained in later sections, a new synthesis of socio-ecology has been developed as a response to the changing commercial nature of the area and heightened concern for nature developed in a paradigm shift in environmental concern since the 1960s. Now, the river’s nature is ecologically modernised as an aesthetic dowry: a nature-capital marriage of waterside residences, greenspace promenades and commercial centres.
5 Ethnographies
Ethnographies gathered for this thesis were mainly gained through an interview process with selected actors (Fig 16) associated with the river Ravensbourne, either as planners, educators, activists or end users. All agreed to be named within the material and were happy for all recorded content to be used. The selection process for these volunteers has been explained in the methodologies section, but some interviewees emerged through the participatory element, namely the 3-Rivers Clean-up, and some were suggested by other interviewees. While the interviews were structured in that a series of questions were prepared beforehand, conversations were allowed to flow into areas of interest for the interviewee. Popular issues included: Safety aspects of productions of space; productions of nature, either contrived aesthetic spaces or perceived ‘wildness’ through succession; play in water; the calming effect of water; nature as an antidote to the pace of urban life; fear of development; the potential for full naturalisation of the Ravensbourne.
5.1 The Interviewees
|Abbr. |Name |Organisation |
|MB |Matthew Blumler |Quaggy Waterways Action Group (QWAG) |
|JavM |Javina Medina |Lewisham Council – Urban Design |
|MH |Martin Hodge |Lewisham Council – Project Manager |
|JM |John Miller |Lewisham Council – Head of Planning |
|CMcG |Chris McGaw |Rivers for People |
|TP |Trevor Phybus |Phoenix Housing |
|JG |Jill Goddard |Thames Estuary Partnership |
|LD |Luke Dameron |Kingston Univ. Graduate, Bromley resident |
|BD |Becky Dennis |Deptford resident |
|SH |Susanne Hayes |Deptford resident |
(Fig 16)
5.2 How do local people describe the way they experience the river? Discussions showed that interaction with water through sensory stimuli such as suggestion, imagination, touch, sound and gaze created new or altered existing perceptions of water and nature. The juxtaposition between nature and urbanisation creates relationships between society and nature of both wonderment and sadness as nature thrives or appears to have been abandoned. These feelings are mediated by general and localised concerns of political economy (Blaikie & Brookfield 1987). Biological and sensory issues may also be subsumed by layers of cultural meaning and practice, they remain foundational, providing an underlying stratum of commonality in human interactions with water (Strang 2001, 7). Both contemplation and play are common recollections of experiences or interactions with water. Individual recollections of water in nature reveal feelings that reflect both beauty and the sublime.
5.2.1 Well-being and calming influences
One of the more satisfying findings during this process was the ability of individuals to find solace by the Ravensbourne despite the river’s proximity to main road and rail routes. Step out of the river landscape and you are in Lewisham High Street or at Catford Bridge, both noisy and busy at the best of times and yet there is relative quiet within the river’s green spaces of Ladywell Fields, Brookmill Park or Sutcliffe Park. Interestingly, Ulrich’s (1984) paper on hospital patient recovery rates improving if they have a view of trees and nature from the window, is a fair reflection of the impact of Ladywell Fields for Lewisham Hospital, sited on the eastern bank of the river. One casual discussion by the café there one afternoon with a former patient revealed that he found it hugely beneficial to have the park close by as he recovered from a stroke. Issues of well-being generation are now an expected outcome for councils developing new river sites, and for the local community also, following the response to earlier developments along the river. Council officials and activists (QWAG) alike believed it was imperative that river regeneration projects should include elements that may promote well-being for the community, including riffling on the river bed and planting traditional flora for aesthetic value. Walk-ways and benches are provided to promote exercise along the river bank. There are now organised visits to the river by Nature’s Gym, for example, where older people can enjoy light work, such as weed-pulling (Himalayan Balsam) and rubbish clearing, while being in the open air. During the 3-Rivers Clean-up some participants in Nature’s Gym clearly used the occasion to socialise and also to just sit and watch the river. Some also said that they enjoyed sitting by the river on their own, when not in a group, as it gave them a feeling of calm and re-assurance. This desire links to maternal longings, like the pre-natal aspect to water described before by Strang (2004), a ‘getting away from it all’ or a return to the womb where no harm can come to you and you cannot be ‘threatened’ by the hustle and bustle of the road beyond the trees.
JavM: Because it is so small privacy is another important characteristic of this river and how privacy in the sense that it feels quiet enclosed and perhaps for example at Brookmill and the traffic is far away so you can get quite close to the river and there's a sense of intimacy there are not many people walking and driving. There are a lots of qualities in letting life and nature flow, giving you peace.
TP: It has the ability to slow people down, to stop and look at nature. It’s about the rhythm of life, it just slows you down, being by a river and being by water naturally slows you down. It becomes very much one, you are at one with the river, you can’t chase it, it flows through you and around you and that’s why I love it.
JG: I think they are very restful you can just sit and it’s quite pleasant to look at water, they say you should look at water every day to rest your eyes so in terms of it being good for your eyes, it’s not just bathing it’s the gaze.
The gaze and feelings of restfulness often creates a feeling or naturalness in one’s body and is often performed in opposition to urbanisation (Macnaghten & Urry 2000). Visual and audible aspects to the river, while providing a sense of calm and peacefulness, they create a link to memories of earlier life and these can also lead to memories of childhood and of play in the river. There is a sense that in adulthood the desire for contemplation by the river is an opportunity for reflection on life. It is this journey that creates the building blocks for the internal nature within the individual.
Childhood play by the river suggests a stage in life where there are no such nostalgic leanings but a time of experimentation, of physical challenges and of natural inquiry.
5.2.2 Child’s play
The recognition that the riverbank provides a sanctuary from urban life led many to believe that attracting children to the Ravensbourne could not only act as a cushion against perceived threats of urban living but could also enable them to engage with nature in a way, nostalgically, thought to have been lost. One scheme that encompasses both elements is that at Ladywell Fields. The project to ‘Design out Crime’ was an EU LIFE funded QUERCUS project (Quality Urban Environments for River Corridor Users and Stakeholders) in Lewisham. The introduction of play areas alongside a new and meandering Ravensbourne river channel ‘reflects the research evidence that children like and benefit from playing in environments which contain 'natural' elements such as vegetation and water (Fig 17). This approach is increasingly being supported nationally by Play England’ (QUERCUS 2008 p6). As the newly created river channel grew in popularity for the visiting children so the play apparatus was used less.
[pic]
(Fig 17) School children ‘river dipping’ (QUERCUS 2008)
Amongst stakeholders, the appearance of children playing in regenerated river landscapes along the Ravensbourne is seen as a measure of success, there is a clear relationship between desired outcomes for the stakeholder group and their own personal experiences of river interaction.
JG: I grew up in Eltham and we used to go down there to walk beside the River Cray and take jam jars to collect things. We also went to Eynsford, which had a ford, I thought it was magical, we used to drive through it and paddle about in it. Maybe there was a subconscious link between then and now (JG’s current work is directly related to the river Thames)
MB: Very early on (following the regeneration of Sutcliffe Park) we had an event celebrating the opening of the park, we provided fishing nets and jam jars and kids had no idea what they were meant to do with them. A few weeks later I went down there and it was full of kids with jam jars and nets and there was an older guy with his grandson saying it was their regular Sunday thing, he brought his grandson down to look for tiddlers.
The ‘daylighting’ of the river therefore has positive outcomes for the local community both in the sense of well-being and instilling environmental stewardship ideas within the younger generation. However, the successful introduction of spaces of play and contemplation are often only by-products of a more capital-induced production of space along the Ravensbourne.
5.3 Production of Space
Walk along the Ravensbourne and you will be struck by the constraints that engineering and development have placed on the river’s natural flow, there are no natural lines or meanderings and as such it remains a confection or artifice. This is not wholly due to the flood alleviation measures carried out in the 1960s but is founded on an industrial heritage going back some 2,000 years. Historically, the river has seen utility through artisan potteries to large industrial milling and brewing and, as we now move through the post-industrial landscape, it is now central to regeneration plans for urban renewal in the area. Emphasis for river regeneration strategies in the 21st century is based on residential and commercial development, with funding for river projects often achieved through offset packages like Section 106. Brookmill Gardens was achieved through Section 106 during the creation of Elvison DLR station, Cornmill Gardens was a London Quadrant project part-funded by EU Life and there are hopes for future offset opportunities in the area while the proposed Confluence Gardens will be LDA funded. Councils set aside additional monies for river projects but only if there is a development partner, whose interest will not be primarily in the river.
JM: That’s about people seeing the clear advantage of the site and taking the economic gain from commercial and residential uses above which will be sold on the strength of public access and locality but also the rivers.
However, funding streams are vulnerable to the impacts of the market. Prospects for increased naturalisation for the river remain under constant pressure as funding streams dry up. The EU now believe that they have ‘done rivers’ and will no longer get involved in Ravensbourne projects while commercial developers may well withhold potential monies for river regeneration because letting them go may jeopardise developments.
JM: The fundamental thing is that developers are nervous about how much of the land they may need to give over to delivering naturalisation and what is the net effect on value, they do see a value and a benefit from the river but if it eats into the amount of land they have and the profit they can make out of that development then it becomes an issue.
JM: Because of the economic downturn, the HCA (Homes and Communities Agency, the national housing body) are much more focused on incremental decisions about handing out affordable housing grants to keep development happy rather than the place-shaping that is part of their remit
The dominant role of commerce over social nature needs to be reviewed if the river is going to take a more prominent role in development. Traditional attitudes of dominance over nature place the Ravensbourne and the viability of its landscape on the periphery unless a more creative approach can be adopted for planning new urban spaces. One such idea is the branding of the Ravensbourne as a leisure destination, this is being tackled, along with flood-alleviation measures, in the Ravensbourne Improvement Plan. ‘Working with what you have’ is a popular mantra among planners but there are calls for a more creative approach to urban planning whereby more organic designs are created to fit in with the river.
MB: The river could be seen as something dynamic and changing and therefore of interest to an architect of someone who's trying to develop. There are exciting things in the art world, the development of land art, things being allowed to change and have an element of their own control over things.
The heavily engineered Ravensbourne landscape may not be an ideal candidate for full naturalisation with organic and sympathetic development, therefore councils have to work with constraints to develop nature as a support for design, yet it is widely considered that healthy biodiversity along the river adds value and enables spaces to be invested in.
JavM: I think the more evidence we get of more butterflies etc then it’s more extra pounds, at the end of the day a lot of people look at the money. People forget that when they create a park they can also create an equally important area ecologically.
The benefits of an inclusive relationship with the river are clear for planners in commercial terms and also in public amenity terms. If nature is to play such a central part in these productions of space the ‘right’ nature must be included if the local community is to engage with development and play a more supportive role in urban regeneration plans. If a project becomes popular then the perceived space (Merryfield 2006 p110) will be the river and the park and not the tower block next to it. At present, inclusions of natural spaces within development are acts of negotiation and compromise as urban development past and present create immediate barriers to development. Therefore finding the right nature to occupy these spaces as opportunities arise is a difficult process, it is here that a more organic interaction may take place.
JavM: People experience the river in different ways and the river has different functions, it worth trying to encapsulate these differences and realise that the river should not be treated the same way all along the stretch, it would be great shame to have a blueprint for all rivers and give the same treatment, we need to integrate the urban characteristic with the river to really marry this.
So what kind of nature can win approval from the local community and is it necessarily a ‘nature in capital’, whose behaviour is moderated by frameworks of development, or does it have a mind of its own, as Matthew Blumler suggested it could have?
5.4 Production of Nature
The new natures being created along the Ravensbourne catchment have a dual role: Firstly, to act as a support to development through the creation of a biodiversity that acts as an aesthetic crutch for residential, commercial and leisure activities and second, one that gains community approval through the removal of its ‘concrete overcoat’, and other aspects of engineering constraint, and the improved access that comes with it. There is no doubt that river regeneration is extremely popular yet there is a controlling of nature that does not win everyone’s approval. The question is how nature is produced and who controls this production of nature. Is there a loosening of the reins by which nature can ‘behave naturally’ and, if so, does this challenge theories based on capital intervention, such as second nature? If perceptions increase and the Ravensbourne as a naturally operating river is embraced further by the local community then a wedge can be driven between the idea of the river as a commercial prop and that of a piece of genuine wildness within the urban environment. The two views expressed here are firstly from an ecologist working in the borough of Lewisham and the second from the borough planning office, one urging a greater understanding of urban nature and the other demonstrating an imagined mastery over the river.
CMcG: Lewisham is absolutely awash with wildlife people don’t realise it. The depressing statistic was that 24% of Lewisham residents surveyed said they didn’t think there was any nature in Lewisham, it’s all about perception. (The figure of 24% was arrived at through a Rivers for People – see fig 18 - evaluation survey in 2008 – see appendix)
MH: The balance between allowing public access and enhancing ecology within a river project is a balance that finds itself. You’ve got to work with nature, perhaps pushing it to its extremes but without a detrimental effect.
The Rivers for People project is a three-year initiative that primarily introduces school groups and other interested parties to the river and its ecology. Natural history and local history experts are keen to create a greater understanding of the river’s heritage and the current flora and fauna. Chris McGaw illustrates why he is involved: ‘People no longer need the rivers as they did, they are not collecting water from them, not collecting food or plants or indeed using them for navigation so there’s no reason for people to have any use for the rivers and that’s why they’ve become completely separate and that’s exacerbated in the most part around here by the concrete culverting and channels. In the last half century people have become more and more remote from the river way or life.’
(Fig 18)
A subtle controlling influence over the river and its attendant nature is the stocking of flora and fauna. The Environment Agency, working with Lewisham, Greenwich and Bromley councils, stock the Ravensbourne with chub and dace while planting out river flora in all regeneration sites. There is an argument locally as to whether these sections of the river should be given over to succession, where a natural population occurs. The conflict lies with the indigenous fauna and whether it is possible for adaptation to occur. Already the river is managed sustainably with the periodic removal of non-indigenous species such as Himalayan Balsam and Giant Hog Weed so the introduction of non-naturally occurring flora and fauna may also create an uneven balance over time. Rivers themselves have the ability to introduce species and this should be allowed to develop.
LD: Rivers improve biodiversity, it adds to everything. It’s a keystone resource and without it you lose everything.
CMcG: Of all the stakeholders involved in Lewisham I’ve found the EA’s attitude the most disappointing, where we cleared the balsam they just chucked a load of seeds down to replace it, you just need to leave it and manage what grows there. In Lewisham they don’t have the resources to manage so it’s all about a quick fix, hoist the green flag and off you go for another year.
Allowing the river to have agency is one aspect of careful and sympathetic management that should be encouraged, this would be supported by attitudes held locally about health and safety in the river (see Fig 19). As mentioned above, children are actively encouraged to get involved with the river and, on organised trips, the safety measures taken involve a) warnings of fluctuating depth, often due to dumped rubble and b) hands are gel-washed as a prevention against Weil’s Disease, from rat’s urine. Warning against depth change is a common-sense measure and one that is immediately understood, even London Mayor Boris Johnson fell in the river during the 3-Rivers Clean-up in 2009, but there seems to be an element of unnecessary control over the Weil’s Disease directive. By instilling fear in the community it is possible to retain elements of control within the production of nature. These fears place science, or apparent expert opinion, against social construction and natural instinct.
TP: The long tunnel underneath Homebase (at the Meadows Estate near Bellingham) that we walked through, well the EA (Environment Agency) go through there earkier this year with face masks and oxygen tanks but there are no fumes. But if they get dressed up in all this gear and people see it then what message does that send about the rivers ‘It must be scary’ it’s another perception of the river to overcome. The kids know it’s OK but the EA go in all suited up.
JG: I think the safety issue is a fair concern but now we have enough evidence and maybe the idea is to publish something about figures because there aren’t any incidents, we had all that with ponds and ponds in back gardens. Safety comes down to the common sense. With shallow rivers you are not fencing off a river you are educating the people that use that space about how you approach water, you think about how deep it is and you make decisions
Qauggy Waterways Action Group (QWAG) chairman Matthew Blumler tells of an episode during proposals to regenerate Manor Park: In Manor Park we never got the public meeting. We were never allowed to have an open meeting with the officers and the guy who was in charge of the works in the park. We were again and again told that safety was a major concern in the park for people because they'd been consulting the public with questionnaires, and a lot of them had come back with concerns about safety. This is very interesting because you bet you’d get a very different result if you consult with people as individuals. Because the question was there, as individuals filling it in they felt obliged to answer it as opposed to a discussion as a community because it is through discussion that a very different result is reached, becoming conscious of one another's thoughts. The opportunity to get people together to discuss these things just doesn't happen on a desktop of an officer putting together a questionnaire. During the public meetings we had for Sutcliffe Park safety wasn’t mentioned once. (Since the completion in 2007 QWAG had to request that railings were taken down from the river banks)
(Fig 19)
There is a sense that interactions with water can enable a bridging between internal and external nature, a nature felt within to the nature experienced or perceived. This can help develop a sense of belonging or ownership of the natural space which engenders actions of stewardship and these feelings are often accelerated during community events. During the opening ceremony for Manor Park, Lewisham Mayor Steve Bullock said: ‘The environment was one thing the whole community possessed in common and could come together in supporting.’ It is possible to assume that natures that are socially mediated are different from mediated by capital. A nature in capital, a second nature, can be adopted socially and become a changed nature. Of course, communities rely on governance to finance the creation and maintanance of river regeneration projects but by taking ‘ownership’ of these spaces once work is completed a second nature can be transformed as community individuals develop their own sense of wildness or a perception of untouched urban nature. Some interviewees were asked if they thought that a primary, or untouched nature, actually existed within the Ravensbourne catchment. Some felt that the primary force of the river itself, its continuous flow and the presence of naturally occurring biodiversity was evidence of this could be happening.
CMcG: You can get quite close to the real thing, people imagine they’ve got closer than they think especially like Ladywell Fields, you think lovely meandering river but if you look what’s happened along the way the plants aren’t there naturally the EA came along and sowed loads of wild flower seeds and that’s a real shame because these things would occur naturally, it’s all about patience and management.
BD: In terms of where ‘wilderness’ is I would say in the country but then again there are probably some nice places in London, like along the Ravensbourne, that we don’t know about so wilderness could be there, it’s all about what and where you consider wilderness to be.
The improved access to nature created by opening up the river has allowed a greater number of people to develop perceptions of nature perhaps for the first time in their lives.
The creation of these new river spaces along the Ravensbourne is due, in part, to the more pressing need to address potential flooding in the area. By including community needs for greenspace within the remit for flood alleviation it has been possible to create dual purpose areas within Sutcliffe Park, for example, that mould useable public greenspace into holding areas for flood water.
5.5 Flood control
Empirical research into the Ravensbourne over the last 50 years throws up countless references to incidents of flooding. The events of the 1960s are still fresh in the minds of those over a certain age and in a way have allowed for a level of acceptance of the concrete culverting and other channelling measures. However, progress in engineering and environmental management has led to greater inclusivity for flood planning and an incorporation of defences into more community-based greenspaces. The risk of flooding within the catchment is exacerbated by the levels of run-off feeding into the stream. With such high levels of road and residential surfacing next to the river the effects of a rain event are immediately felt, experts say that the river can rise from base levels to flood capacity within half an hour of heavy rainfalls. As such, all river regeneration projects along the Ravensbourne and the Quaggy and Pool tributaries include areas in which flood water can drain into.
JM I think the main emphasis will remain on how do we creatively address flood-related issues
There is naturally a nervousness within council planning offices when it comes to flood potential along the catchment. In the last five years there have been events that have seen waters rise to within half an inch of the top limit in some sectors. During a Ravensbourne walk for this project some culverted sections were partially blocked with tree trunks and other detritus, suggesting the potential for flood-water back-up. Breaking the Ravensbourne out of its concrete is not just a greenspace-generating issue, but an essential part of flood management and engineering in the area. The problem lies in the reliance for funding on the myriad of funding streams that come and go. Opportunities for river regeneration rely on space becoming available, funding availability and the ability to integrate flood alleviation measures. The issue now for councils along the catchment is where is the money for essential engineering going to come from.
MH We have detectors up the Ravensbourne which tell us of potential flooding, some wall heights and spill points are so critical that any intervention is going to have an effect somewhere along the river. We need to be looking closer to the source and we’ve identified Beckenham Place Park, there’s an area between the railway and the river that was filled in post war and grassed over as a flood plain. We could make another Sutcliffe Park and hold the water back and store it and slowly discharge it down the channels, but everyone is talking about £3-4m to do it.
But…JG Funding in this climate is not great.
MH Coastal flood defences, people would say, are more important than our bit of flooding once every five years. EA measure how many people would benefit from a flood alleviation plan. Having submitted proposals to the EU recently I can tell you that they have said that they will not longer fund river-based projects, they have been done.
It could therefore be argued that if funding is not forthcoming from outside the Ravensbourne area of governance then the councils along its route will have to fund flood alleviation measures themselves. The floods of the 1960s had such an impacts on residential development that the Ravensbourne flood prevention act went through Parliament (Hansard 1961), following implementation the funding for improvements, which include much of the culverting we see today, became a joint effort between the newly-founded GLC and the county councils. These days, with responsibility since ceded to local boroughs, funding must be found locally. Therefore, there is a potential argument in favour of the kind of urban renewal that is widely contested within the Ravensbourne area as the creation of new funding streams, from taxes generated through residential offerings to rates from commercial ventures, may create the next pot of money with which to enhance the river for leisure purposes and for flood alleviation controls.
Conclusion
The river Ravensbourne has throughout history sustained great utilisation of its resources and, as such, still bears the scars of industrialisation and uneven development. Over the last decade a systematic programme of regeneration has seen, for the first time in a millennium, the river actively allowed to return to nature and to act freely with agency and intentionality (Plumwood 1993). It can be said with confidence that these new conceptions of river nature are ‘more dialectical, inclusive and culturally determined’ (Gandy 2006, 71) than those that went before but the role of capital in insuring the success of these projects maintains a strong link to the river’s histories of utility. Productions of space, or new pieces of public realm, while being reliant on capital, are becoming more socially mediated in terms of community involvement in planning and management. Social interventions through river clean-ups, educational visits and leisure activities are altering perceptions of nature among the community and creating a paradigm shift in attitudes to the river and its landscape. By taking ownership of these new spaces through increased socialising and perception change, the local community is reshaping the nature along the Ravensbourne landscape from purely capital confections into socio-natures that can no longer be solely analysed in second nature terms. Wildness is not confined to areas untouched by urbanisation but it is present all around us; this allows for a reappraisal of what external natures, the natures perceived as separate from humans, really are as aspects of first nature, an untouched wilderness, are being internalised through personal interactions and experiences. There have been two important outcomes of asking adults to recall their childhood play by water, firstly, the impact of these experiences has instilled a motivational force that is creating improved access to nature for children today, who may become our environmental stewards of tomorrow, and secondly, by integrating children with nature in this way then their memories will be of an upbringing ‘in nature’ which opens up discursive possibilities around first nature as the wildness they are experiencing is not ‘in capital’ as they have no perception of it. It is the epitome of sustainability if these children, instilled with the wonders of nature, grow up to defend the river’s nature against inappropriate development in the future.
The practicalities of river regeneration along the Ravesnbourne catchment reveal far greater reliance on capital and commercial investment. Priorities for local councils remain: capital investment in the area first; flood alleviation second and greenspace creation for the community third. There is scope for further study on the fluctuating funding streams that enable river projects to get off the ground and the evaluations made when Section 106 offsets become available. During an economic downturn, as experienced in 2009/10, the external finances previously made available for river projects, creative flood alleviation engineering and public realm creation, are no longer; therefore ongoing projects will have to be funded internally. The current trend in a realignment of social responsibilities from central Government to local suggests that the financial juggling act by local governance, whilst being commendable for its creativity, may mean a reduced momentum for river regeneration projects in the future. Ravensbourne river regeneration has created unique stakeholder alliances while captivating the local community, as such it is important that an interest in the river landscape in maintained for the well-being of the current, and future, generations along the catchment.
REFERENCES
Ackroyd, P. 2007. Thames: The sacred river. Chatto & Windus. London. p48
Anderson M.S. 1969: Peter the Great. Second Edition. Longman. London
Barton N. J. 1962: The Lost Rivers of London. Phoenix House. London.
Baxter A 2009: Ravensbourne River Valley – London Regional Landscape Framework. Natural England. At – accessed 19/8/2010
Baxter W. 1930: The Genesis of the River Ravensbourne. Sydenham and Penge Gazette. September 1930. (Accessed Lewisham Library 21/06/10)
Baxter W 1930: Quoting Williams Hone in ‘public interest’ pieces for the Kentish Times on the History of Bromley. Quoting ‘Hone’s Table Book, vol 2 – Hone W. 1827: The Table Book. Hunt & Clarke. York-Street, Covent-Garden, London
Beck U 1992: Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage. London.
Blaikie P and Brookfield H (1987): Land degradation and society. London, New
York: Methuen
Bookchin M 1987: Social ecology versus ‘deep ecology’ a challenge for the ecology movement. The Raven 1(3) 219-50
Brierley G J and Fryirs K 2001: Creating a catchment-framed biophysical vision for river rehabilitation programs. In Rutherfurd, Sheldon, Brierley and Kenyon eds Proceedings of the Third Australian Stream Management Conference Co-operative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Brisbane 59–65
Burgess J 1994: How do we know what people value?. In Water Quality: Understanding the benefits and meeting demand. University of Newcastle report at - accessed 05/06/10
Burgess J, Harrison C, Limb, M (1988): People, Parks and the Urban Green: A Study of Popular Meanings and Values for Open Spaces in the City. Urban Studies. December 1988 vol. 25 no. 6 455-473
Burgess J, Clark J, Harrison C (1998): Respondents' evaluations of a CV survey: a case study based on an economic valuation of the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme, Pevensey Levels in East Sussex. Area Vol 30/1 Pgs 19-27
Callon M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of transformation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, action, and belief : a new sociology of knowledge? Ed John Law. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London & Boston.
Castree N 2001: Social Nature: Theory, practice and politics – Introduction. Blackwell. Oxford
Castree, N. and MacMillan, T. (2001): Dissolving dualisms: actor-networks and the
reimagination of nature. In N. Castree and B. Braun (eds.) Social Nature: Theory,
Practice, and Politics. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Chataway C 1965: Hansard quoting C. Chataway MP (Lewisham, North) p916 in HC Deb 09 April 1965 vol 710 cc913-22
Chessman B C 1995: Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: a procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family level identification and biotic index. Australian Journal of Ecology 20 122–9
Chin A and Gregory K J 2005: Managing urban river channel adjustments Geomorphology 69 28–45
Clinch G. 1889: Antiquarian Jottings relating to Bromley, Hayes, Keston and West Wickham in Kent. Turnbull & Spears. Edinburgh pgs 24–28
Cloke P and Jones O (2003): Grounding Ethical Mindfulness for/in Nature: Trees in their places. Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol 6 (3) pgs 195-214
Crang M and Cook I (1995): Doing Ethnographies. Geobooks. Norwich
Cronon W 1996: Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the human place in nature. Norton. New York.
Davenport A, Gurnell A, Armitage P 2001 Classifying urban rivers.
Water Science and Technology Vol 43 No 9 pp 147–155 © 2001 IWA Publishing
Deakin R 2001: Towards Enniston – a swimmer’s journey. Article for openDemocracy at - accessed 02/08/2010
Demeritt D 2001: Being constructive about nature. In Social Nature: Theory, practice and politics. Blackwell. Oxford (p36)
Dixon Hunt J 2000: Greater Perfection: the practice of garden theory . Thames & Hudson. London
Douglas I 2000: Fluvial geomorphology and river management Australian Geographical Studies 38 253–62
Eden S, Tunstall S, Tapsell S (2000): Translating Nature: River Restoration as Nature-Culture. Environment & Planning D. Society and Space 18: 257-273
English T. 1992: The Mills of the River Ravensbourne. Masters dissertation for degree in Industrial Archaeology: The Ironbridge Institute. Lewisham Archive 20/6/10
Environment Agency 2010: Lewisham Borough: Envrionmental Summary at - accessed 20/8/10
Environment Agency 2006: Groundwater Quality in the London Basin. Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Document. - accessed 7/7/10
Environment Agency Civil Engineers 2009: Sutcliffe Park Project - The Quaggy River flood alleviation scheme. At: - accessed 20/8/2010
Environment Agency 1996: River Habitat Survey, Field Survey Guidance Manual. EA. Bristol
Evans J 2007: Wildlife Corridors: An Urban Political Ecology. Local Environment. Vol 12, No.2, 129-152 April 2007
Findlay S & Taylor M 2006: Why rehabilitate urban river systems? Area (2006) 38.3, 312-325
Freshplant 2008: EIA Environmental Statement of Old Seager Distillery, Deptford Non-Technical Summary On Behalf of Freshplant Ltd July 2008 at - accessed 2/6/10
Fuller, R et al 2007 Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
Gandy M 2002: Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press
Gandy M 2004: Rethinking Urban Metabolism: Water, space and the modern city. City. Vol 8 No. 3 2004. Taylor & Francis.
Gandy M 2006: Ecology, Modernity and the Post-Industrial Metropolis. p 71. In In the nature of cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. Eds. Heynen N, Kaika M, Swyngedouw E. Routledge. Abingdon, Oxon.
Grbich C 2007: Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Sage. London
Great Houses of Lewisham – Exhibition Notes. Courtesy of Lewisham Local History library. Accessed 21/06/10
Gregory K J &Chin A 2002: Urban stream channel hazards.Area 34 312–21
Harris N, Gurnell A, Hannah D, Petts G 2000: Classification of river regimes: a context for hydroecology. Hydrological processes. 14 2831-2848
Heyman R. 1999: Postindustrial Park or Bourgeois Playground? Preservation and Urban Restructuring at Seattle's Gas Works Park. In Bennett M & Teague D: The Nature of Cities Ecocriticism and Urban Environments. University of Arizona Press. Tucson.
Hasted W. 1797: The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent Vol 1 (2nd edition ed. 1972). EP Publishing. Maidstone
Heynen N, Kaika M, Swyngedouw E. 2006: In the nature of cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. Routledge. Abingdon, Oxon.
Holwood History in: English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. English Heritage 2008. Swindon
Hooke J M 1999: Decades of change: contributions of geomorphology to fluvial and coastal engineering and management Geomorphology 31 373–89
Irving, JA 1985 The public in your woods Land Decade Educational Council. Packard, Chichester. Pg 82
Johnson B R 2003: The political ecology of water: An introduction. CNS 14 (3) 73-90
Kaika M. 2005: City of flows: Modernity, nature and the city. Routledge. Abingdon, Oxon.
Kaika M & Swyngedouw E 2000: Fetishizing the modern city: the phantasmagoria of urban technological networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24: 120–138
Lewisham Borough Council 1938: Lewisham Past and Present. The Official Guide. Burrow. London.
Lewisham Regeneration Strategy 2008: people, prosperity, place. Lewisham Borough Council. Publication number REG187 Communications Unit July 2008
Logan P 2001: Ecological quality assessment of rivers and integrated catchment management in England and Wales. Journal of Limnology 60 25–32
Lynch, K. 1960: Image of the city. MIT Press. Cambridge. MA. USA
Macartney S & West J 1998: The Lewisham Silk Mills and a history of the ancient site. At – accessed 2/6/10
Macnaghten P & Urry J 2000: Bodies of Nature: An Introduction.Body & Society 6:1
Merryfield A. 2006: Henri Lefebvre: A critical introduction. Routledge. Abingdon, Oxon.
Morley S A and Karr J R 2002: Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Peuget Sound Basin. Conservation Biology 16 1489–509
Moss M & Turton A 1989: A Legend of Retailing. House of Fraser, London. Glasgow University Archive Services. 2004
Oliver S 2006: The disciplining of the River Thames. (p94) In In the nature of cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. Eds. Heynen N, Kaika M, Swyngedouw E. Routledge. Abingdon, Oxon.
Pearce, J. 2007: Living in Victorian London: The Clay Pipe Evidence. Museum of London Specialist Services. Bell Green, Sydenham (MoL sitecode SYB92). At - accessed 3/06/10
Peddie R 2010: Ravensbourne River Corridor Improvement Plan. A talk at the River Restoration Centre 11th Annual Network Conference
Penning-Rowsell, E and Burgess, J. 1997: River landscapes: changing the concrete overcoat?. Landscape Research, 22: 1, 5 – 11
Pepper D. 1993: Eco-Socialism: From deep ecology to social justice. Routledge. London
Pincetl, S. 2007 The political ecology of Green Spaces in the city and linkages to the countryside Local Environment. Vol 12, No 2, 87-92
Plumwood 1993: Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge. London.
Pollution discharge in Pool: Environmental Health News:
QUERCUS project 2008: Evaluation Report. At – accessed 04/06/10
Rankin S. 2004: Granaries, Shipyards and Wharves. Maritime History Walk B. Southwark Council Culture & Heritage, Environment & Leisure July 2004
Richie A, Mant, J, Hannah D, Krause S 2010 ; The Hyporheic Handbook: Chapter 10 Groundwater – surface water interactions and river restoration.
Catchment Science Centre, Kroto Research Institute, University of Sheffield
Rivers for People Survey 2008: Appendix 1: Questionnaire_1_Results
LB Lewisham Rivers & People: URN: 100727. Author: A Taylor.
River Restoration Council 2008: River Cole: Yardley Brook. At – accessed 23/07/10
River Ravensbourne Improvement and Flood Prevention Bill 1961 at - accessed 5/9/10
Sainsbury’s Lewisham – At $1276440.htm – accessed 19/8/2010
Schmidt, Alfred 1971: The concept of nature in Marx. New Left Review Editions. London
Section 106 explained at: – accessed 2/8/2010
Smith N. 2008: Uneven Development. Nature capital and the production of space. Third Edition. University of Geogia Press. Athens, Georgia p 21
Soper, K. 1999 The Politics of Nature; Reflections on Hedonism, Progress and Ecology. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 10/2, pp. 47 – 70
Strang V (2001): Evaluating water: Culteral beliefs and values about water quality, use and conservation. Ipswich. Water UK Publications
Strang V 2004: The Meaning of Water. Berg. Oxford.
Tapsell S (1995): River Restoration: What are we Restoring to? A case study of the Ravensbourne River, London. Landscape Research 20 (3) Pgs 98-111
The Times 1968: ‘Flood chaos in south-east London’ at (Ravensbourne)- accessed 7/8/2010
Ulrich RS 1984: View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984; 224. 420–1.
Walford E. 1878: 'Deptford', Old and New London: Volume 6 (1878), pp. 143-164. at: – accessed 23/6/2010
Walters R.C.S. 1930: Holy Wells in the Valley of the Ravensbourne. Transcriptions from the ‘Sydenham and Penge Gazette’ August 1930. (Lewisham Local History)
Water Framework Directive: A Description. At - accessed 2/8/2010
Water Framework Directive: Ravensbourne monitoring in ‘Water for life and livlihoods’ accessed 2/8/2010 at :
Wharton G 2010: Evaluating the success of urban river restoration projects: The Quaggy. A talk given to QWAG in the summer of 2010.
Whatmore, S. & Hinchliffe, S 2003 Living Cities: Making space for urban nature Soundings. Journal of Politics and Culture Jan 2003
White K 1999: Quaggy River and its catchment area. Handscripted by the author, Ken White and accessed at Lewisham Library Local Studies. Ken White 12 Fermor Rd Forest Hill SE23 2HN
Whitehead M (2009): The Wood for the Trees: Ordinary Environmental Injustice and the Everyday Right to Urban Nature. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Volume 33.3 Pgs 662–81 Blackwell Publishing.
Whiting P J and Bradley J B 1993: A process-based classification system for headwater streams. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18 603–12
Williams, B. 1998: St Blaise’s Well, Bromley, Kent. The Holy Wells Journal, Issue 6 - 1998 – at - accessed 25/06/10 [Source Online Archive]).
Williams R. 1988: Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. Fontana. London.
Images:
Ravensbourne source (engraving) C Knight 1842: The journey book of England – Kent. Charles Knight & Co Ludgate Street. London p51
Peter Pan’s Pool c1960 by Francis Frith Photography at - accessed 10/08/2010
Ravensbourne Catchment map at accessed 9/8/2010
Wright P 2010: Bromley Road flooding 1968 at - accessed 12/08/10
All other photographs by the author.
Figures as text boxes are referenced throughout
8 Dissertation Proposal & Autocritique
From First to Second Nature: A study of the rivers Quaggy and Ravensbourne in South East London
Aims and Objectives:
The project will explore nature-society relations and the political, ecological and theoretical frameworks that dictate how the rivers Quaggy and Ravensbourne in South East London are flow from first to second nature, from the biological into social reality. The purpose will be to uncover the relationships between actors involved in flood alleviation schemes, urban regeneration and biodiversity enhancement within this riparian context. Both rivers have historically been viewed as problematic and even a threat to the residents of both Lewisham and Greenwich boroughs.
‘There are people in my constituency who live in a perpetual state of anxiety because of the danger of flooding—people who have seen their gardens ruined on many occasions; people who know what it is to have their lower rooms inundated with filthy muddy water; people who in heavy rain watch nervously the level of the stream at the bottom of their garden; people who have had to endure all manner of smells and all kinds of rubbish clogging up the rivers and rendering them at times more like open sewers than anything else. (Christopher Chataway, MP for Lewisham North) Chataway went on to describe the Quaggy as ‘a wretched stream’ (Hansard, 1965).
This project will look historically at the ‘disciplining’ of the Quaggy and Ravensbourne following floods in the 1940s and 1960s and how this impacted on future decision-making processes including reasons behind the creation of Sutcliffe Park and Chinbrook Meadows.
It will investigate and create both natural and social capital discourses centering on recent river restoration projects and their contribution in adding aesthetic interest to the landscape.
These restoration schemes incorporated flood alleviation within designs overseen by both the National Rivers Authority, a forerunner to the Environment Agency, and QWAG, a river Quaggy action group run by the local community.
Discourses of social and natural capital as outcomes of the restoration projects will be linked to an examination of the hydrology of the rivers concerned and the studies and secondary data accumulated in the decision-making process prior to the undertaking of the aforementioned schemes.
The framing of Lewisham centre by the rivers Quaggy and Ravensbourne will be discussed with the actors involved in the proposed £250m Urban Renaissance Lewisham regeneration project. This will define exactly how these rivers may engender frameworks of environmental discourses derived in part from the perception of an ecologically enriched public realm, the pragmatics of flood alleviation, capital growth and the metabolisms of ‘second nature’. This proposed hybrid network of people, rivers and urban regeneration may reach out beyond the flattening realms of strong actor network theory to create a more imaginative and inclusive socio-ecological future for the area and allow the rivers to rise from the quagmire and become a new foci for environmental politics and action.
The research questions:
The locus for the research discussion will be an examination of the perceptions of the actors involved in the restoration, conservation and general corralling of the rivers Quaggy and Ravensbourne within Lewisham and Greenwich boroughs. So, what is the motivation behind QWAG’s involvement in the planning processes and how do they negotiate their aims with both politicians and the local community? How do politicians perceive these rivers as part of the planning process and how is this concern demonstrated within the Urban Renaissance Lewisham project and as part of their Core Strategy? What is the importance of urban water both conceptually and pragmatically? Which theoretical frameworks can be discussed as part of the examination of relationships between river, people and the built environment? Marxian theory of urban metabolism and natural and social capital, Latour’s discussion on hybridity and actor network theory and Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomes will be applied to find a realistic ‘match’ that incorporates all actors.
“If I were to capture some water in a cup and excavate the networks that brought it there, I would pass with continuity from the local to the global, from the human to the non-human.” (Latour 1993: 121).
There will no doubt be a whole host of questions emerging during the course of the project that cannot be predicted here, hopefully enough to create a lively debate.
Literature:
The initial literature research for this project focuses on urban water-based studies, actor network theory and Marxian urban metabolism as well as practical publications based on previous water-based projects undertaken by organisations such as Thames 21, The London Rivers Action Plan and Qeurcus (an EU-funded project for urban rivers), for example. The main journals and books include: Castree & MacMillan’s ‘Dissolving Dualisms: Actor-networks and the Reimagining of Nature’ as this used the River Cole as the ‘quasi-object’ within the network (This river incidentally is included in work by Angela Gurnell, whose other work will be accessed for the hydrology discussion), Bruno Latour’s Politics and Nature to gain an understanding of ANT and it’s applications within nature-society issues as well as Sarah Whatmore’s ‘Hybrid Geographies’. Other works include: Deleuze & Guattari’s Thousand Plateaus, Michel Callon’s paper on the scallops and fishermen of St Brieuc Bay and more recently Erik Swyngedouw’s Dispossessing H2O, Stuart Oliver’s The disciplining of the River Thames (one of a few important papers in the ‘In the nature of cities’ publication), Matthew Gandy’s paper Rethinking urban metabolism etc, book section Urban Nature and the Ecological Imaginary and the book Concrete and Clay. For methodologies Neuman’s Social Research Methods will be accessed as will Hansard and the British Museum’s media collection for archive work. Landscape discussion will include Simon Bell’s Landscape (pattern, perception and process) and Malcolm Andrews’ Landscape and Western Art, hydrology will be aided by Stahler & Stahler’s Modern Physical Geography and possibly Meffe, Carroll et al Principles of Conservation Biology.
Methodology:
Ethnographies to principally include approximately 15-20 long interviews (30mins or more) which will be transcribed and textually analysed, each piece of analysis will be scrutinised using Krippendorff’s guide to content assessment i.e. How are the subject defined, from which population are they drawn etc. Textual analysis will be undertaken possibly using keyword frequencies and word/phrase frequencies but this strategy may be refined closer to the project start date.
Secondary data will be obtained from Lewisham and Greenwich borough councils, Quercus, Thames 21, Environment Agency, the plans for Operation Kingfisher (overseen by QWAG).
Archival work will be undertaken, looking into both governmental (Hansard etc) and media publications for relevant data. The paper by Penning-Rowsell & Burgess ‘River landscapes: changing the concrete overcoat?’ may also relevant as it discusses interactions between hydrologists and social scientists (in Landscape Research 22. 1997). Other possibilities for methodologies include, diary-keeping for the duration of the project, photo-journals and Landscape Assessments of Sutcliffe Park and Chinbrook Meadows. An initial risk assessment will be undertaken before the project is undertaken.
Timetable:
April-May - Revision and risk assessment of proposal
April-May - Background reading and investigation
April-May-June - Drafting of initial chapters (Aims, Methods, Literature Review)
May-July - Fieldwork and data acquisition
July - Analysis of research materials
July-Aug - Preparation of outline of contents and structure
Aug - Writing and revising empirical chapters
Aug - Preparation of figures
Aug - Final revision of text and typing draft to be submitted for inspection
Aug-Sept - Typing/photocopying, binding, submission
Outcomes, rationale and value of the research:
The rationale for this project is grounded in the belief that urban water plays an integral part in the well-being of the community while its quality dictates to what extent biodiversity and ecosystems can flourish. However, often the fate of urban rivers rests with politicians, the local community and committed activists rather than geomorphic and climate pressures. The learned outcomes of the project should be: A greater understanding of the processes through which stewards of our landscape interact with human and non-human actors; a greater applied knowledge of the theories framing contemporary environmental and social science and finally this project will hopefully enable a greater understanding of the riparian framework within the subject area and how different strategies may be adopted as a negotiation between nature and the urban environment.
Preferred supervisor:
Dr Ben Page, Prof. Matthew Gandy or anyone that likes it.
References:
C. Chataway MP. (1965): Hansard, HC Deb 09 April 1965 vol 710 cc913-22 at (accessed 10/3/10)
Latour, B. (1993): We have never been modern. Hemel Hempstead. Harvester Wheatsheaf (pg 121)
Autocritique
One aspect of ethnography collection, whether through interviews or casual conversation, and indeed through the gathering of empirical research material, is the appearance of the unexpected that can throw preconceived ideas into the wind like chaff from the seed. Remaining true to the thesis question requires constant negotiation with the material and often also means that important information (like 75% of interview transcription material) must be discarded because a) there’s not enough room and b) it represents another possible project. Examples of this include the hydrology debate with Geraldine Wharton where it became apparent that the flood alleviation scheme at Sutcliffe Park may be compromised by the over-silting of the Quaggy substrate. This could have been followed up with calls to Greenwich Council, the EA and further interviews with Matthew Blumler of QWAG, the Quaggy pressure group, but this was resisted simply because it seemed to be moving further away from the intended study.
Identifying key players within the subject area and booking early interviews is essential for maintaining momentum after the initial desk study, the downside to this is that questions raised by revelations later in the project could not be put to these individuals. If a decent relationship has been established with interviewees then there is no harm in sending them a later email with a specific question attached, this was necessary in the case of Matthew Blumler and Martin Hodge.
The linking of key theoretical issues garnered from the literature review, and essential early reading for the study, to semi-structured interview texts and the subsequent response from interviewees was illuminating. Things I should have done: Had some casual discussion with a key stakeholder very early on to see what the issues were. Probably isolated one or two key issues and concentrated on these rather than try and do too much. Researched the key theories early on so that I didn’t have to battle trying to understand and apply these during the writing up process, which was like herding cats at times.
Best bits: Practical work with the Rivers for People guys and working on the 3-Rivers Clean-up. Meeting the Lewisham Planners and QWAG for the different perspectives, tea in Matthew Blumler’s garden and Trevor Phybus’ ‘hippy shit’ interview about perceptions of nature.
9 Appendix
Excerpt of Matthew Blumler interview
…Q So the power of succession being allowed to flourish and take over in a space that's offered to them (flora & fauna)?
MB Absolutely, there's an extent to which we've done a little bit of that. If you plant deciduous trees they reflect the seasons and they add a little bit of dynamism and change to what otherwise is a landscape devoid of change and rivers, if allowed (noisy plane overhead) should have that impetus, a little bit of control over itself.
Q You worked hard in the development of Sutcliffe Park, how was it to negotiate with the stakholders involved and what proved to be the greatest constraint to the project ?
Eh the I think the first thing to say is that the people who would use the space were very quick to pick up what potential the river had and what a positive thing it would be to restore the river we are talking about the Ferrier Estate in Chinbrook meadows and those around that area erm the difficulty was peruading stautory organisations and local authorities both politicians and officers and I think there are a number of reasons for that, a statutory organisation like the NRA and now the EA is full of experts and the usual sequence for making a big change for an area is for the experts to think of an option or if you're lucky two options and then for them to 'consult' to find out what people wanted either which option they prefer or any changes they would like to make but once you've developed your options there is a tendency to defend them and that certainly was the case with the Quaggy flood alleviation scheme and they deveoped an option wich was the chennelising option and that was defended without good reason and without looking into it properly and something that illustrates that really well was that we argued with them for 18 months about the practicality or otherwise of a storm water storage scheme even with an academic on our side coming to the meetings when one day with a big room full of engineers we tried to return to sutcliffe pk the chair said 'we are the NRA and we are the experts here and we've done all the calculations and Sut Pk sits above all surrounding roads and therefore it would be impossible to fill it with water and it would all fall off into the surroiunding roads' and I happened to have a foto in my bag of a neighbour when we were trying to imagine how much water could be held in the park and he's atsnding in the middle of the park and I'm standing by the road and he's below the road with a measured pole in his hand as we tried to measure the depth in the park and I took this out and passed it to the chair, after he's spoken all the engineers sat round the table and said the same thing 'don't be silly the park is above the roads etc.' and this is after 18 months and th is was the first time some one had said anything about this, they'd argued about flows and hydrology and anyway the foto followed the comments around the room and the chair said 'clearly we look very stupid we need to do some serious work on this and there's no point in talking we need to do some serious work on this, and when he did get in touch he said 'not only were you right but clearly it's going to be much cheaper' and it's clear there was a lot of defence going on without properly looking and if the idea could have been developed with people it could have 'belonged' to the engineers as well and there would have been no need for any of this and going on to local authorities politicians and officers, there is an element of this sort of thing but mainly it's about them tyring to second guess what their constituents would want and there is a tendency to shy away from any change
Q What, that they would be nervous about the reaction
MB Yes, politicians and officers we had we were told that people didn't want their park to be changed and that they'd lose their facilities (football pitches) that they had that people would be worried about drowning and the dangers by the river and people would be worried about flooding because they currently had concrete channels and these prevented them from flooding however if we ever had a public meeting those concerns would disappear in a moment, but it was very difficult persuading officers that every time we needed to do things we should have a public meeting to find out what people want, and if safety was ever brought up it would be discussed and very quickly people would decide that this was not an issue - in one instance we had a 90+ year old
in a wheelchair in a meeting at Chinbrook Meadows who responded when someone said 'what would you do the first time a child drowned in the river' he said 'when I was a kid we used to pretend we were pirates and we walked in the river all the way down into Lewisham from Chinbrook and he was talking about the time before it had been put into a concrete channel and interestingly that comment about what would you do when a child drowns had come from an officer of Lewisham Council who lived in the area and just brough it up because he was concerned that no-one was bringing up safety - over Sutcliffe Pk no-one brought up the issue of safety someone brought up the issue of football pitches being lost and a teenager spoke very eloquently about how he wasn;t into football and that a lot of people were not into football and they would love a natural river and he got a standing ovation from everyone stood up, it was tear inducing, very emotional and the interesting thing was that there wasn't any anger in any of that and the meeting came to a very clear conclusion and a discussion and an airing of all the issues and that happened in both cases, Chinb. and Sutcl. whereas in Manor Pk we never got that because we were never allowed to have an open meeting with the offivers and the guy who was in charge of the works in the park we were again and again told that safety was a major concern in the park for people because they'd been consulted a questionnaire and a lot opf them had come back with concerns about safety - this is very interesting because you bet a very different result if you consult with people as individuals (note as transcribing : this may be because there was a question about safety in the q/naire therefore people are obliged to answer it) as opposed to a discussion as a community because it is through discussion that a very different result is reached, becoming conscious of one another's thoughts. The opportunity to get people together to discuss these things just doesn't happen on a desktop of an offiver putting together a questionnaire.
Q Do the awards given to the Sutcliffe Pk site alter the way in which councils demonstrate their commitment to the site
MB I think I don't know the answer to that I don't think it's clear it has made a big difference they certainly want all of these awards but i haven't noticed any change. Sutcliffe Pk is not used by primary schools because there are no toilets and they need to have access to toilets to take primary school kidss and it's a great shame that this hasn't happened, you'd think all this great status at a nature reserve and it's educational potential couldn't be clearer and they might try and find some funds for that …..
Rivers for People – Secondary Data
[pic]
Appendix 1: Questionnaire_1_Results
LB Lewisham Rivers & People: URN: 100727
Summary - Selection
The questionnaire was completed by 112 local people in November 2008.
• 60% of people said that they rarely get out in nature, or they felt they had to travel along way to access nature. These are exactly the people we want to reach through the Access to Nature project – those who are interested in the natural environment, and yet are not aware of the opportunities to enjoy it and learn about it locally.
• 24% of survey respondents stated they didn’t think there was any nature in Lewisham borough, as we live in the city. This is a key assumption that our Access to Nature project seeks to challenge – to show that even within an urban environment, we can enjoy, encourage and engage with nature.
• Local people are interested in the natural environment. Only 7% of survey respondents said they were not interested in nature – meaning that a huge 93% are!
Whilst 65% of people questioned recognised that there are at least two rivers in Lewisham borough, only 33% knew there were 3 or more. Even more notably, 72% people questioned had never heard of the Waterlink Way, and less than 15% had any understanding of what it is.
All other secondary data sources are cited throughout and can be accessed if hyperlinks and publications are accessed
-----------------------
The area of the river’s source, according to Walters (1930) is also known as ‘Novio Magnus’, or ‘The Temple’ and ‘Burial Ground’ suggesting a more spiritual history and connections to healing. Barton (1962) states that Robert Burrow celebrated the healing properties at the source, which he named ‘The Bath’, and built steps running down to the water in 1831. However, the English Heritage Register of Parks (2008) records that by 1784 John Randall, the eminent ship builder, had purchased the Holwood estate, which now covered 82.5 hectares, from Burrow (and a year later sold it on to Pitt). Randall has the distinction of living at the source and working at the mouth of the river since he conducted business, as Randall & Brent, at the confluence of the Ravensbourne and the Thames at Deptford Creek. In 1760 he rented both the South Shipyard and the Greenland Dock in Rotherhithe where he built war ships for the Admiralty. The 48-gun frigate HMS Endymion had its keel laid in Rotherhithe before being towed to the Royal Dockyard, at Deptford Creek, for fitting-out and commissioning (Southwark Council 2004)
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- ucl department of geography
- what do rolling stones guitarist keith richards film
- ms good evening
- on the psychology of positive transformation re chaneling
- analysis of stratfor
- introduction preparing for step 1
- abc australian broadcasting corporation
- understanding health policy a clinical approach
- 1 angelfire
- availability and utilization of cardiac rehab in the va
Related searches
- state of alabama department of education
- us department of treasury bureau of fiscal
- ucl master of finance
- 5 themes of geography examples
- 5 themes of geography activities
- 5 themes of geography definitions
- 5 themes of geography lesson
- 5 themes of geography printable
- 5 themes of geography project
- 5 themes of geography quiz
- five themes of geography worksheet
- five themes of geography lessons