Email to Friends from the Chair - 20 July 2025
Dear Friends,
Thanks to all who responded to our single question, and you will see what you voted below in our reasoned reply to the proposal in this rather long email (sorry, but also in the attachment and will be on the website) which we consider sets out why we oppose this proposal, identifies the major and very real risks, and offers other ways of achieving better access more safely. We know there are many different opinions, and we are not asking you to take any action on this.
Please do come to the 4th annual FOWWS dog show a week today (Sunday 27 July) starting at 12 noon – it’s fun with or without dogs and/or children.
Best wishes
Stephen
Dear Vicki and Osama,
As you know, I don’t see how we can complete your questionnaire on behalf of the more than 500 Friends of Wormwood Scrubs and therefore we are responding on behalf of FOWWS with a fuller, more detailed, narrative.
In summary we oppose the proposed path around the Scrubs on grounds of safety, especially for the less able, and the likelihood of greatly increased anti-social behaviour. We continue to favour improved access for the less able, and have proposed how this might be achieved.
You will know that significant numbers of Friends use the Scrubs multiple times every day and all year round and for all purposes, but especially for exercise and recreation, including walking – with and without dogs – and running, and for the study of, and taking pleasure in, nature, including birds and wildlife, and trees, wildflowers, and grasses.
We know that a few – mostly older - Friends are cautious about using the Scrubs in very muddy conditions because they are nervous of slipping, but they are not pushing us, as their Trustees elected to represent them, to encourage hard paths to alleviate this risk. To the contrary, as one Friend expressed it to us:
‘There are many excellent parks which wheelchair users can go to, Kensington Gardens, Regents Park, Holland Park, Ravenscourt Park are examples. They are policed and more regulated.
Wheelchair users need safe, regulated spaces. They are vulnerable. The Scrubs is not safe and cannot be policed or regulated.’
Because you made it clear that you were not consulting widely, we asked Friends to respond to us on the simple question of ‘are you in principle in favour of a hard path (of the compacted material used in the new entrances at Scrubs Lane and Braybrook Street) right around the Scrubs’. A reasonable number responded, and the result was 61.5% opposed and 38.5% in favour, with a number of those in favour clarifying that this was solely because ‘they supposed we must offer improved access’.
Those opposing did so – where they gave reasons – not because they don’t want to improve access, but because they think that such an extensive long path will result in a major increase in unsocial behaviour particularly by users of e-bikes and scooters and motorbikes.
Again quoting just one, some of whose comments represent those shared and expressed by many other Friends and are supported by us as Trustees on behalf of FOWWS :
I was the full time carer for an adventurous, active man with Parkinsons who needed a wheelchair in his last months. I also cared for two cousins who died of MND so, I’ve much experience in wheelchair use, on different terrains, slopes and surfaces. I was a Nursing Sister in a Neurosurgical Unit working with many wheelchair users after spinal injuries.
It is unrealistic to put a hard circular route around Big Scrubs for wheelchair users.
I’ve walked there almost daily with my dog for 20 years. From time to time, I encounter trouble, abuse, threats, XL Bullies without muzzles and dogs seriously out of control.
This has not and cannot, be solved by police patrols or LET teams or wardens.
In dry season fires are lit in dangerous conditions. I have called the fire brigade 4 times over recent years. It is not safe for anyone with poor mobility.
Imagine if a fire took hold and you were relatively immobile or in a wheelchair! (or pushing a wheelchair or pushchair) One fire did take hold several years ago and the fire brigade had trouble with access. The fire burnt an area of approx 100 yards by 50 before it was contained.
There is a wild element of young people on motorised and e-bikes and scooters and motorbikes who roar around the grassed areas from time to time all year. People bring out tiny powered motorbikes for children. The police are called but it takes time for them to come and the offenders are smart and leave.
This circuit would become a racetrack. On some evenings the Little Scrubs circuit ( a tarmac path) already is - and it’s dangerous. Youngsters roar around on big motorbikes. By the time police arrive, they’ve left.’
While improving accessibility is essential, the proposal to install a continuous hard path around the Scrubs raises serious safety concerns. The Metropolitan Police have advised against formal hard surfacing in wooded or secluded open areas with high levels of antisocial behaviour, highlighting that it can unintentionally increase risk—particularly to women—by creating easier access and escape routes for those engaged in criminal activity.
An all-round hard path would significantly increase the volume of motorbikes and other illegal vehicle use, which already poses a serious and growing threat to children, dog walkers, and other pedestrians. The police and law enforcement team have made it clear that they do not currently have the resources to police this effectively. We understand from comments by officers at a recent residents association meeting that LBHF have declined the Met police’s application for CCTV on the Scrubs due to funding constraints.
In a park without CCTV, wardens, or adequate enforcement, infrastructure decisions must be grounded in realistic assessments of safety. In addition to retaining the hugely valuable “more wild than tamed” character of the Scrubs and its designated nature reserve areas as a green space sanctuary in an area of dense urban development*.
We urge WSCT to balance the important goal of inclusive access with the urgent need to protect vulnerable users in a space which already lacks sufficient resources to prevent persistent criminal activity. Prioritising safety does not mean rejecting access—it means ensuring that any improvements do not come at the cost of making the Scrubs less safe for the people who rely on it most.
The Friends consider that access for the relatively immobile, including wheelchairs and pushchairs, should be improved. We have maintained this position since Masterplan discussions began some five years ago.
We think, however, for all the reasons detailed above, that the proposed hard path may in practice discourage many walkers especially the less able, and also be too dangerous for wheelchair and push chair users. WSCT should be mindful of the ‘law of unintended consequences’.
We would remind you of, and draw your attention to, our response to your consultation in January this year, noting that many other providers of less park-like spaces (notably Hampstead Heath, the less urban Royals Parks in Richmond and Bushey, and the National Trust) have not responded to the needs and requirements to provide better access by creating hard paths but by providing specialist all-terrain Mobility Scooters (Trampers) free to those who need such access. These could be based at the Community Centre and (if there is one day such a place) the Ecology Centre.
We recommended then, and still do now, paths entering the Scrubs to good viewing points from (a) the Scrubs Lane Car Park; (b) the north end of the red brick path (20a on your plan); (c) adjacent to (just west of) the dog exercise area and then in front of the small copse on the left of this path; (d) from the Braybrook Street playground just beyond the woods to offer the view.
We are strongly opposed to the proposed route from 20a to 11a and from there on to on to 14, 18 and 19. Our reasons are the extremely high risk of a major increase in anti-social behaviour by irresponsible users of e-bikes and e-scooters (and larger motor bikes) all of whose users are unlikely to be deterred by their prohibition in the bye-laws, and – as we know – the Scrubs is not capable of proper policing by LET or even fuller-time Ranger(s). Such behaviour would have major negative impact on wildlife as well as the safety matters already described.*
If you are unwilling to recognise all of these very serious potential risks, then we would propose a much more limited – and much less expensive – testing of the reality of the risks by putting in a path from 11b to 14 for a trial period.
*In addition to the significant and concerning safety issues, there is a potentially negative impact on the nature and wildlife of all kinds for which the Scrubs is developing such a good reputation. Please see this recent Imperial College study.
This email comes on behalf of all the FOWWS Trustees representing our full Membership.
With best wishes
Stephen Waley-Cohen
--
Friends of the Scrubs: helping to keep Wormwood Scrubs more wild than tame.
If you see anything on the Scrubs that shouldn't be there, SEND AN EMAIL IMMEDIATELY to the Law Enforcement Team at:
LET.HF@lbhf.gov.uk
This email address is monitored 24/7.
Registered charity 1187120
website www.friendsofthescrubs.uk
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Friends of Wormwood Scrubs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fowws+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fowws/LO4P123MB656430D87ACA596D8AD4C623D352A%40LO4P123MB6564.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.