Experts at nearby Kew Gardens were consulted and their help and experience proved invaluable
BATTERSEA Power to the council!
to the 19th century features. Funding was also obtained from other
sources such as Onyx Landfill Trust, who awarded £100,000. A Section 106 Planning Agreement realised £40,000, and a splendid £20,000 was raised by the Friends of Battersea Park.
Project Management
The initial stage of restoration had many problems due to the lack of adequate project management. Costings and timings were severely miscalculated and there was a the breakdown of communication between some of the key individuals. The consultants involved were dismissed and two landscape architects, already on the WBC staff, were employed to complete the design work.
One of the landscape architects, also a qualified quantity surveyor, was able to deal with any problems on site on a daily basis rather than waiting days for external surveyors to attend. The resulted in a reduction in costs, with the added benefit of creating a direct link between the council and the contractors.
The first stage of restoration focused on The Promenade, Festival Gardens and Pump House. During this period additional funding was awarded by the HLF. This enabled the restoration, encompassing the heart of the parkland and the busiest routes through it, to be undertaken without interruption. The final stage was the restoration of the subtropical gardens. But, the restoration was not without its
problems. The work required the demolition of shelters and the removal of 150 mature trees. The latter caused a public outcry and Jennifer Ullman, Chief Parks Development Officer for WBC, acted as a mediator between the general public, the funding bodies and contractors. Many of the trees selected for removal were, in fact, either diseased or already dead and, therefore, a health and safety risk. Once this was explained the initial outcry calmed down. Interestingly, the debate attracted much wider support for the restoration projects.
One of the GLC’s ‘legacies’ of their tenure of the park was an ugly wall along
the embankment of the Thames. This one kilometre monstrosity along the promenade had been built without regard to aesthetics or practicality and used the cheapest materials. Historic watercolours, found in the council archives, showed that the initial design envisaged a pink granite wall. However, to follow this design was not cost effective. Initially, granite originally from a bombed out building in Central London, was offered but, because it required cutting to size, was rejected. A proposal to use granite sourced from China was also thrown out as plans specified materials from the UK. Hilary Taylor developed a bespoke cladding system that could be applied to the existing low concrete wall and dramatically reduce costs, transforming it into a feature that would echo the historic drawings and enrich the park. Granite aggregate was used as a vital ingredient in the final matrix. Appearance however, was not the only concern, as the wall, once clad, had to be robust enough to survive a busy river environment without fading or losing
15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138