Save Lea Marshes

Yesterday, Save Lea Marshes bore witness to the Lee Valley Regional Park’s continued attempts to commodify our open green spaces. We went to look at the temporary campsite at the Waterworks Centre.

What shocked me most was the infrastructure. The campsite is home to students competing in Shell’s Eco-marathon, which is taking place at the Olympic Park, for a week. But the site is so much more than a few portaloos and some tents. There are ranks of trailers containing flushing loos and showers. There are huge bladders containing fresh water, carried to the site by tankers, and equally large pipes carrying away the waste matter. There are arc lights to ensure everyone can move around the site without torches. There are huge communal tents for cooking and eating, and temporary roadways so that the team’s equipment can be ferried to and from their tents by vehicle. Lots of rented lorries are parked, not in the car park, which is empty but closed to the general public, but on the grass behind the Waterworks Centre. And the staff and students have full use of the Waterworks Centre, which is also closed to the public for the duration.

We spoke to one of the site managers and I asked if all the infrastructure was really necessary. Well, he said, Shell does want it to be more than a rough and ready campsite. They want the facilities to be something special. So our meadow has been mown to within an inch of its life, the land compacted and polluted with vehicles and the wildlife disturbed because some people who are visiting for a week must be especially comfortable. Is it fair that the needs of a few are put before the needs of a whole community?

One of the things Save Lea Marshes is particularly concerned about is the closure of the footpath that runs from the Waterworks Centre down the eastern side of the Nature Reserve and along the southern side of the Nature Reserve to Friends’ Bridge and Hackney Marshes. We raised this with Councillor Chris Kennedy, Hackney’s representative on the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA), and he contacted Vibrant Partnership who are renting the land on behalf of the LVRPA. This is the response he received:

When Vibrant started to discuss with Imagination (the operations company providing the campsite for the Shell event) they discussed the possibility of moving the whole site so that it all was on the south/east of the permissive footpath, thus allowing for the continued use of the permissive footpath. Early discussions looked promising and this could have been done for the camping part of the site, by moving the fence 4-5m from the previous years’ location, so away from the path. Security of the site may have been compromised potentially but we were all willing to consider this fully.

Unfortunately  due to the bins, toilets and shower blocks, potable water supply and access to the in-ground services we were not able to move the compound and provide less space for the camping element. You will see from the plans that there is infrastructure associated with the welfare of the students. This area includes regular daily movements of lorries and other vehicles to manage waste and water. The turning area is close to the site security and a safe distance away from living quarters of the campers but is adjacent to the footpath, therefore we could not split the site as the security for access to the site is at the gates adjacent to the ‘paddock’ and could not reasonably be split and is shown on the plan

We understand the footpath is a well-used link and we are mindful of this when hosting events, unfortunately for this event we have had to close the route for the duration.

Which reads as if Vibrant Partnerships and the LVRPA did everything they could to keep the footpath open, but the company setting up the campsite refused. We asked the site manager we spoke to about this and he was very clear. It would have been perfectly possible to keep the footpath open. They have more than enough space to the south of the footpath, and could have designed the site so that everything, including the lorries parked behind the Waterworks Centre, was to the south of the footpath. So why wasn’t this done? If I am being kind, I might postulate that Vibrant Partnerships just aren’t very good at contract negotiation. But the cynic in me suspects that the LVRPA never had any intention of ensuring the footpath was kept open. It is in their interest to get us used to being shut out of the land, so that we don’t object so much when they try to sell the land. It allows them to flex their muscles and draw a distinction between public rights of way and the footpaths they insist, at every opportunity, are permissive. This ignores, of course, their statutory duty to develop, improve, preserve and manage the land for leisure and recreation. That, surely, requires them to keep well-used footpaths – regardless of whether they are official rights of way or not – open for people to use.

The campsite will be gone in just over a week, but its legacy will live on. It is up to us to decide whether that legacy is positive or negative. Personally, I’m going to harness the pain I feel when I see the heras fencing patrolled by G4S security guards and channel it into efforts to stop the LVRPA selling this land. This land is our land.

Dear Shaun Dawson,

We are writing to express our ongoing dismay at the LVRPA’s continuing erosion of meaningful community engagement in the lower Lea Valley, particularly with regards to Walthamstow Marsh, Leyton Marsh and the Waterworks and Filter Beds Nature Reserve. We are copying in Michele Walde, because we think it important that Keep Britain Tidy is aware that the LVRPA is not fulfilling this important Green Flag criterion.

Back in 2012, the LVRPA met regularly with local people through the Walthamstow Marshes User Forum. The Forum meetings were well-attended, and allowed lively, free-flowing discussions about the issues of the day. By 2013, the Forum meetings had been replaced by Walthamstow Marshes Site Management Workshops, where LVRPA staff delivered presentations on issues they deemed pertinent and local people were allowed to ask questions at the end. These became increasingly infrequent and, by 2016, sit-down meetings had been replaced altogether with occasional ranger walkabouts, which are given a different name each time. While wandering about the marshes with the ranger is a legitimate activity, their sporadic nature and the fact that there are no records of the conversations means that issues raised are easily forgotten and the LVRPA is able to sidestep responding to real and continuing concerns raised by the local community about the way the marshes are managed.

2012 was a difficult year for the LVRPA’s relationship with the users of Walthamstow and Leyton Marshes, because of the way in which the LVRPA offered up large swathes of the marshes to the Olympics. Opposition to the LVRPA’s actions was vehemently expressed at meetings of the Walthamstow Marshes User Forum, and it is difficult not to conclude that the Forum was disbanded precisely because it was an effective way for local people to express their dissatisfaction with the LVRPA. Promises that Walthamstow Marshes Site Management Workshops would better enable the LVRPA and local people to work more closely on specific issues came to nothing. We remember the disappointment we felt when we attended a meeting at which we thought we would be looking at mowing regimes, discussing the evidence for and against the various options, only to have to sit through another ’this is what we have been doing’ presentation. And now even these presentations have been taken away from us.

The Walthamstow Marshes User Forum was generally well attended. It is, therefore, erroneous for the LVRPA to claim, as it has done in the past, that the User Forum and the Site Management Workshops were halted because of poor attendance. If numbers did dwindle, perhaps local people, realising that they weren’t being listened to, voted with their feet? Furthermore, the ranger walkabouts are not advertised beyond the LVRPA website, despite local people continually pointing out that the people most interested in working with the LVRPA to manage the marshes are most responsive to information about events if they stumble across it when they are out and about, and that more use must be made of the noticeboards on the marshes.

Since 2012 we have raised these matters with you on numerous occasions. Each time you have purported to agree with the points we raise, and have promised that things will change. Yet nothing changes for the better. The LVRPA seems more and more afraid of critical friends and a recent Freedom of Information request reveals that the LVRPA does not have a policy on consulting local users. Why is that? Local people have a wealth of knowledge and experience about the marshes – about mowing regimes, habitat management and the management of invasive species, for example – and they are desperate to share their expertise with the LVRPA. Why, then, does the the LVRPA continue to shun these offers of help, to actively discourage those who want to work alongside your organisation to secure the long-term sustainable future of the open green spaces that are so central to our health and well-being?

Perhaps part of the answer lies in the LVRPA’s fear of scrutiny? After the Olympics, the LVRPA was given £73,000 to pay for ‘Leyton Marsh enhancement works’ and £75,000 to fund ’the final reinstatement works on Sandy Lane and ongoing management works on Leyton Marsh’. Local people were adamant that they should have a say in how this money was spent and the LVRPA appeared to agree, with the User Forum becoming the de facto decision-making body. And then the User Forum was disbanded. Local people are still trying to find out how the money they feel belongs to them, as compensation for what happened in 2012, has been spent and a summary of the situation can be found here: http://www.saveleamarshes.org.uk/2018/02/07/what-happened-to-our-money/

Local people, who value Walthamstow and Leyton Marshes, have always been open to repairing and improving their relationship with the LVRPA. We hope this email will be a catalyst for much-needed and long-awaited change.

With best wishes

Abigail Woodman and Vicky Sholund, on behalf of Save Lea Marshes

In 2012, following more than a year of local opposition, the “temporary” Olympic Basketball Training Facility, stood, fenced and controlled by security guards, like an open prison.  It was rumoured to have cost in the region of £5m but was barely used.   Save Leyton Marsh  which became  Save Lea Marshes, has continued the campaign that opposed the building being erected, turning its attention to restoring Leyton Marsh, as near as possible to its previous condition.  We wanted the site re-seeded.  Instead, imported soil from Rainham Marshes and turf – which was supposed to have been based on a variety of seeds present on the marshes, but was simply a football pitch-like monoculture – was laid on top of a plastic membrane.

Leyton Marsh after the Olympic development

After the so called “remedial” works had been completed, locals walked the area – if our eyes did not deceive us in being able to pick out the land that had been “Olympified”, our feet were certainly able to discern the area the monstrosity had occupied.  The turf simply felt different underfoot.  There was predominance of rye grass where a mixed range of grasses were meant to be, and some of it rotted when rain lay on top of the compacted soil leaving puddles and bare patches.  It was devastating to see how badly the land was being treated.

So, imagine our dismay when, in 2014, the fences were back, laid in an almost identical pattern as the Basketball Training Facility.  Fences, heavy vehicles and stalls were brought to Leyton Marsh by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA), as part of its annual Countryside Live event.  Psychologically it stirred bad memories but to add insult to injury, the land suffered even more.

I raised the issue of the state of the land and the number of holes, not of animal origin, after Countryside live event but did not get any response from the LVRPA, so I continued to monitor the land and have taken  “before, during and after the event” photographs every year since 2014.

After the 2017, event, I wrote to the LVRPA’s Green Spaces Manager, copied to the councillors from Hackney and Waltham Forest who represent the boroughs on the LVRPA, with photographs to demonstrate my points concerning damage to the land and the litter left behind after the event.  I received a prompt reply from the Green Spaces Manager, which stressed that the LVRPA believe   “this is a highly worthwhile event that is both educational and enjoyable for the family audience and is in keeping with the open space”.  The letter went on to say: “I accept the site suffers minor damage to the short grass areas, however this is of a temporary nature as the turf quickly grows back” and “small holes created during Countryside Live are the result of wooden stakes erected for signage and to create an otter pen.  These were filled in after the event.  Smaller holes for tents, pegs, fencing and the blacksmith’s metal rods all close up quickly after being removed.  Other holes often appear on Leyton Marsh as a result of wild and domestic animals digging up the soil, which are small, shallow and have not generally presented us with any great concern and are regularly filled.  It is not possible to tell from your photos which of these holes they are however we feel these are likely to be of animal origin.”

Damage left by Countryside Live

I would dispute this analysis.  Animals do not dig square holes.  The shapes of the holes and indentations can be matched to the shape of concrete posts and pole structures.  These are evident after events and the attempts to “fill in the holes”, e.g. covering over straw, left from the animal enclosures over the holes.

My overriding concern is that an organisation that should be protecting the land and the wild life that depends on it , should not be engaging in an activity which damages the land  and  un-does much of the work carried out by its own rangers and others to keep the land in good condition.

When Occupy camped on Leyton Marsh during the 2012, protests, they were criticised for leaving, flattened grass, where their tents had been and for burning local wood.  However, there was no long- term damage visible from this encampment – the protesters were environmentalists and knew how to live on the land.  This is in sharp contrast to the level of impact, caused by heavy vehicles, stands and fencing on the land.  You can walk around after Countryside Live and spot exactly where the toilets; the sheep and cattle pens and the biggest vehicles were placed.

Litter left after the event

No-one is arguing that educating children and families about the countryside is not a good thing but what sort of “countryside” does an event like Countryside Live promote?  In the urban areas of Hackney and Waltham Forest, with development increasing all around, the land that is Leyton Marsh is all the more precious to wildlife and people.  The LVRPA describes ‘dancing sheep’ as “light-hearted” but as also presenting “a lot of information about breeds of sheep across the country and highlights the challenges faced by sheep farmers.” Is this really a relevant matter to educate children about? Surely of greater relevance is the plight of small mammals and local birds struggling to adapt to an inner city environment?

Leyton Marsh has, historically, had a dual role as an open space and a recreation ground.  Today it is appreciated by many people in different ways.  SLM has long asserted that too much of it is mowed to short amenity grassland and that more bio-diversity should be encouraged.  Its location next to Walthamstow Marshes, a Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI), and the two could easily be managed in a similar way.

We are heartened to learn from the LVRPA’s South Ranger, that the LVRPA will be making some changes to the mowing regime and that this year’s Countryside Live, will be restricted to days for school children only.  However, it remains to be seen whether there will be any less infrastructure or be less intrusive and disruptive to the open space?

SLM made an Freedom of Information (FOI), request to the LVRPA about the income and expenditure linked to organising and running Countryside Live has revealed that the 2017, the event achieved a deficit of £45,815.30.  This is a staggering amount and does not even include the costs of clearing up or repairing damage which was carried out by in-house staff working on a 10 hour day.  With such a long working day, it is hardly surprising that items such as plastic ties (that could be dangerous to wildlife), were left behind and holes were not properly filled in.

SLM really does not want to be wholly negative of the work that the LVRPA does in maintaining its statutory duties in running the Lee Valley.  We understand the political, economic and environmental pressures that the Authority faces and its need to communicate and fulfil its community role, but seriously Countryside Live is not the best way of engaging with local people, maintaining the land or earning a profit.  The Countryside itself has become something of a battle ground itself with divergent interests amongst agri-businesses, lobbyists for now illegal hunting practices to be revived (relevant here as this event was previously sponsored by The Countryside Alliance) and those that would like more ecological approaches to managing land.  Let’s at least try to protect and improve one relatively small green space in East London together.

Back in 2011/2012, before they were given permission to build the new pavilion at Hackney North Marsh, Hackney Council carried out two ‘risk assessments’ at Cow Bridge. In fact they only chose to assess the risk at the Millfields Road end of the bridge. Bridges do have two ends so this was remiss, as we will show:

1. Risk of pedestrians or vehicles colliding with a recycling bin which had been sited directly on the pedestrian desire line across the junction. It transpired that it was not affixed to the footway surface and as a result could be moved.

2. Risk of side swipe accidents arising from large vehicles having to straddle the central line markings to negotiate the corner at Millfields Road and Mandeville Street.

3. Risk of collision with raised kerb as there was no street furniture to highlight the presence of the vehicle splitter island.

4. Risk of trip hazard as the splitter island is close to pedestrian crossing line and may result in pedestrians, particularly the visually impaired tripping on the raised kerb of the island.

5. Risk of right turn accidents because a prohibition of right turn sign from Mandeville Street which had been erected at a location where the forward visibility of the sign was reduced by virtue of the horizontal alignment of Mandeville Street and the foliage that was present on the adjacent boundary wall.

In fact there is now no prohibition of right turn sign, it has been removed. In addition there are no road markings indicating a no right turn.

6. Risk of pedestrian slip hazard because water may have formed a pond in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossing point resulting in the creation of a potential slip hazard, particularly during periods of cold weather.

7. Risk of injury to cyclists and pedestrians because when the barrier is in the closed position the bracket to enable use of a padlock protrudes into the potential path of cyclists and powered two wheelers.

8. Risk of shunt type collisions because the signal head is located on the offside of the exit road from the changing room car park. In addition a second access road forms a junction with the Cow Bridge access road between the signal head and the bridge structure. The audit team was of the view that the operation of the Cow Bridge access road will not be clearly understood by visitors to the site and this may result in vehicles attempting to exit the site without waiting for a green signal. In addition, the side road is not currently under signal control. If the above situation occurs it may result in head-on type collisions on the structure or it will be necessary for vehicles to reverse. This may result in vehicles reversing back into the highway on Millfields Road into the path of oncoming vehicles.

The ‘access road’ referred to is actually a second entrance/exit at the bridge off Millfields Lane. Two potential entrances or exits could indeed cause confusion.

This bizarre rigmarole of accidents came closest to describing the real hazards at Cow Bridge. However, they only assessed the risk at one end of the bridge. The real hazards occur on the bridge itself and at the Marshes end, as revealed in the pictures and video below, and were not examined in this ‘exhaustive’ investigation.

First, the nature of the bridge, its steep slopes and narrow roadway with high walls on both sides, means drivers’ view as they reach the summit is restricted – the 20mph speed limit in the first picture above no longer applies!

Having reached the top of the bridge, as has been repeatedly observed, many drivers are going too fast, which along with the restricted views make it harder for them to properly assess what is going on in front of them before they embark on the downward slope.

Second, the bridge is used by cyclists and by pedestrians, including children, sometimes accompanied by animals, usually dogs. The assumption is that pedestrians will use the pedestrian bridge on the side but many pedestrians prefer to use the bridge and cyclists are obliged to do so because they are prohibited from cycling on the side bridge. In many instances drivers will not be able to see these other users until they are virtually on top of them. There are no pedestrian or cyclist signals to warn drivers or to protect pedestrians and cyclists.

Third, on the Marsh side of the bridge the road is crossed by a pedestrian and cycle path which takes these users right in front of the bridge meaning drivers will only see them at the last moment as they come down the bridge.

Their view of pedestrians, cyclists or runners coming from either side is obscured by the wall of the bridge.

This cycle and pedestrian path which crosses right in front of the bridge is used by cyclists, pedestrians and runners and is not controlled by signals.

All these hazards passed unnoticed by the inspection team. However, that is not to say Hackney Council would not have been aware of them. At the public inquiry into the pavilion in 2015 objectors from Save Lea Marshes pointed out these hazards and played a video before the assembled witnesses and representatives from Hackney, which exactly demonstrated all these hazards. It is worth noting that the inspection team thought it possible visitors might not understand the traffic signals. What they did not reckon with was drivers coming from the pavilion car park understanding the traffic signals but deliberately driving through a red light and with them queueing up at the traffic signal on the wrong side of the road!

While Hackney Council did reduce the speed limit from the absurd level of 20 mph to 5 mph after Save Lea Marshes raised objections, it did not occur to the Council to revisit its risk assessment and examine any of the other issues at the Hackney Marshes end of the bridge in light of the information we presented at the enquiry. Hackney Council paid no attention to the testament to appalling driving presented to them and the full range of hazards it revealed with pedestrians, cyclists and runners all crossing the bridge or the roadway while we filmed before the queue of cars took off on a red light having lined up on the wrong side of the road.

This is a video of traffic going over Cow Bridge, highlighting these dangers:

Whilst we look forward to the upcoming opening of the Wetlands, we are disappointed to hear that the application for an extensive entertainment licence has been granted there and we expect the London Wildlife Trust to put wildlife before human pleasure and to protect bats and birds on this protected RAMSAR site.