Countryside Live: Driving Us Wild?

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Our response to the LVRPA’s draft Biodiversity Action Plan

Since its inception, Save Lea Marshes has banged on the LVRPA’s door and asked to join conversations about how the marshes are managed. Our entreaties have, largely, gone unheard. And then we discovered that the LVRPA was consulting on its draft Biodiversity Action Plan ( and we jumped at the chance to have our say. This is our response to the consultation.

Firstly, we welcome the opportunity for local people to comment on the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority’s plans relating to biodiversity, as this is something that has not happened as much as we would have liked in the past. There are, however, a number of issues with the plan as it currently stands. These are as follows:

1. This ‘plan’ contains many words describing the historical context and the current situation and very few words explaining exactly what you are planning to do. It is also missing all the maps. And without a clear understanding of exactly what you are planning to do – what your vision is and how you intend to move from the here and now towards that vision – it is almost impossible to provide cogent feedback (or, I would have thought, create SMART targets). The devil is in the detail, and we simply do not have the detail to comment on. To take just two examples:

    • You state that you want the community involved, but you do not mention how you intend to do this. As a group that represents the local community, we wanted to be able to comment on how likely your actions are to succeed, but we do not know what they are.
    • You state, ‘This species [creeping marshwort] will benefit from special management aiming to increase its cover, prevent it from being ousted by more vigorous competition and buffer it from extreme changes in water levels.’ Again, we might have been able to comment on the effectiveness – or otherwise – of your proposals for managing this species if you had provided them.

2. This plan does not explain how you intend to uphold the values of the biodiversity action plan in the face of conflicting pressures from other parts of the LVRPA. How will biodiversity be protected from, for example, plans to hold events on land managed as meadow or plans to sell off large swathes of green space for development?

3. It was challenging to determine why you have chosen to focus on the species and habitats you include in the plan. What is your rationale for including them? Your starting point, in most cases, seems to be to understand current distribution, but surely you already have such information to justify the inclusion of a species or a habitat? If not, would it not be worth taking a further step back and examining the diversity of species and habitats across areas of the park first, and then deciding which need their own action plans? If you do have such information, we would have liked to see it in the plan. Similarly, there is very little mention of the conservation status of the species and habitats that you mention, making it challenging for a lay person to determine whether or not your priorities should be challenged. For example, Barbel has been included because it is a good species to engage fishermen and the general public, whereas the European Eel – which you acknowledge is globally red-listed and is, from a conservation point of view, much more important – is not a priority for you.

4. This plan lacks a commitment to manage invasive non-native species without recourse to spraying pesticides and herbicides.

Save Lea Marshes would welcome further and fuller opportunities to engage in a meaningful way in developing a robust biodiversity action plan, that puts biodiversity and the protection and celebration of nature at the heart of the Lee Valley Regional Park’s vision, and look forward to hearing from you.

Posted in Lea Marshes | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What happened to our money?

Following the takeover of Leyton Marsh by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) for the construction of the absurd and rarely used temporary basketball arena, which was vigorously opposed by members of the local community and resulted in the creation of the Save Leyton Marsh campaign, now called Save Lea Marshes (SLM), the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) was given two pots of money to make up for the damage the ODA had done. First, according to an LVRPA feedback report to a meeting of the Walthamstow Marshes site management workshop held on 14th December 2013, £73,000 was provided for ‘Leyton Marsh enhancement works’. This came from the licence fee the ODA paid for using the marshes for the temporary basketball arena and the fine they paid when they handed the land back to the LVRPA later than agreed, and was to be spent on ‘community engagement and events’. Secondly, a further £75,000 was paid by the ODA for the botched reinstatement and this money was to be used to fund ‘the final reinstatement works on Sandy Lane and ongoing management works on Leyton Marsh’.

The point of these payments was to make good both the damage to the land and the loss to the community, which had had to put up with the invasion by the ODA and the loss of its amenity. However, we found the lack of responsiveness of the authorities – the LVRPA, the ODA and Waltham Forest Council – during the Olympics was repeated in the way the LVRPA handled the decision-making process around the spending of the money.

Members of the community had been attending meetings organised by the LVRPA concerning the management of the Marshes, as shown by the feedback report. These were, therefore, the appropriate occasions to discuss this spending. The whole point was to involve the community in this process, not just to restore relationships that had been badly damaged by the Olympics, but also to deepen the participation of the community in the management of the Marshes. However, members of the public were not consulted in any way on the money provided for the ‘final reinstatement works on Sandy Lane and ongoing management works on Leyton Marsh’. Indeed no budget has been produced to show how this money was spent. We are now asking for this information in a Freedom of Information request. It is a measure of how the LVRPA does things that there has been no feedback on this critical aspect of restoring Leyton Marsh.

In fact, the community was not even made aware of the existence of the £75,000 pot of money until after it had already had discussions about spending the £73,000. This meant it included items, such as habitat management, in its proposals for the community spend, which should have been included in that ‘ongoing management works’ budget.

A feature of its engagement with the public is how the LVRPA has steadily cut back on public consultation. At the start of this process there were regular ‘forums’, at which, as the name implies, there was something approaching an open discussion with officers. These forums were then replaced by ‘workshops’. These had an emphasis on the LVRPA providing information rather than on open and inclusive discussions in which members of the public could contribute to policy-making. However, at least these continued to be opportunities for discussion. These more limited discussions were then replaced by the present walkabouts, in which a couple of rangers take members of the public on a ramble around Leyton and Walthamstow Marshes, an entirely informal event with no attempt at an agenda or any kind of record-keeping. At all times there has been a problem with advertising these meetings as the LVRPA has long had an aversion to putting up notices telling people about them.

Initially the LVRPA and local people discussed the various projects that could be funded from the £73,000 provided for ‘Leyton Marsh enhancement projects’. Very little went on projects which had originally gained support in the meetings with the community. We regard it as entirely inappropriate that money was spent on projects which the LVRPA would normally have funded itself. The whole point was to give the community a say and to include it in deciding what should be done, both because the money was provided as compensation for the damage done to Leyton Marsh and the community and because, supposedly, this was in line with LVRPA policy to engage the public.

To give an idea of the kind of projects the community supported, the list below is taken from the minutes of the forum meeting in January 2013:

  1. Community engagement projects
    Location: Walthamstow Marshes
    Aim: Provide learning opportunities and raise awareness of the marshes amongst the local community and visitors. This will be achieved by providing a range of ways for people of all interests, ages and abilities to get involved in the site and work undertaken by LVRPA.
    • Option 1: Young rangers, aged 8–12
    Estimated cost: £3,500
    • Option 2: Outreach for teenagers, perhaps through Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme
    Estimated cost: £3,000
    • Option 3: Special-interest events such as walks and talks
    Estimated cost: £2,500
    • Option 4: Open events, such as Lammas Harvest Day, Dog Agility Day and a Community Picnic
    Estimated cost £20,000
  2. Leyton Marsh habitat management
    Location: Leyton Marsh
    Aim: Diversify and enhance habitats on Leyton Marsh.
    • Option 1: Scarify and over-seed areas of grassland
    Estimated cost £1,000
    • Option 2: Planting hedges and trees
    Estimated cost of £7,000
    • Option 3: Planting wildflowers
    Estimated cost £750
    • Option 4: Digging a wet area
    Estimated cost £500
    • Option 5: Improving the entrance to the marshes
    Estimated cost £7,000
    • Option 6: Cleaning up the area around the oxbow lake
    Estimated cost £20,000
  3. Natural screening of Ice Centre
    Location: Strip of land between the rear of the Ice Centre and the southern footpath on Leyton Marsh
    Aim: Create a continuous woodland belt between the Ice Centre and Leyton Marsh for both aesthetics and nature conservation value.
    • Estimated cost £4,000
    APPROVED, with money put into escrow until a decision about the ice rink’s future is made.
  4. Art project on underpass
    Location: At the cattle creep and the Sustrans Lea Bridge Road underpass
    Aim: Through an art project engage with local children to raise awareness and educate them about Walthamstow Marshes.
    • Estimated cost £6,000
  5. Other
    • Option 1: Improving the footpath between the Sustrans route and the boardwalk
    Estimated cost £3,000
    • Option 2: New signage
    Estimated cost £10,000.

The next meeting, on 18th March 2013, expected to review fully costs proposals for the options approved in January. This did not happen. Instead general budget figures were presented, as below:
• £49,000 for Community engagement projects, to be rolled out over two to three years;
• £10,000 for Leyton Marsh habitat management ;
• £6,000 for natural screening of the ice centre, with plans to be confirmed only after the future of the ice centre is known;
• £6,000 for the art project on the underpass.

That marked the end of the LVRPA’s ‘consultation’ on specific items to be spent from the £73,000 pot. No discussion ever occurred about the other £75,000 pot. After 18th March 2013 local people were excluded from any further discussion about how any of the money was to be spent.

Save Lea Marshes has made two Freedom of Information requests, in
2015 and 2017, about how this money was spent and how closely it matched what the community had agreed to. As we have never received any information about the £75,000 budget for reinstatement we are making a further request to see what exactly was done with that money.

Both the responses we have received only concern the £73,000. In fact, both accounts are imprecise and at times inaccurate. For example, the closing balance for 2013/2014 (£68,851.97), provided in the response in 2015, does not equal the opening balance for 2014/2015 (£67,000). In the latest statement in 2017 there seems to be an overspend of £4293, so this is not an accurate account of how the £73,000 was spent.

The latest Freedom of Information response shows that, among other things, the LVRPA spent £11,182 on habitat enhancement, which included £1,788 on scarifying, £3,695 on bramble removal, £340 on meadow-rolling and £1,829 on ‘meadow mix seed’. As stated above, if the community members had been aware of the £75,000 pot of money they would have said some of these items, like the scarifying, should have been met from that budget as they were directly related to the damage done by the construction of the temporary basketball arena. Likewise, we would always have objected to spending money on what would otherwise be routine maintenance, such as bramble removal and meadow-rolling, from either pot of money.

£584 was spent on hedge and tree planting which should probably have been spent from the £75,000 pot for ongoing management. Of all these expenditures it is likely only the £839 spent on bat boxes would have qualified as a project the community would have endorsed.

Another item was a ‘community’ film project which cost £5,000. Save Lea Marshes did get to meet the filmmaker at one point and then heard nothing more about it and have never seen the film. We know that there was some community involvement because we have heard that another group was involved. However, the idea of a film was never approved by the community in discussion with the LVRPA. We are trying to get more information about this film, when it was shown and to see a copy!

The LVRPA spent £4,846 on an event called Community Haystacks over three years. This is an annual event which is part of the LVRPA’s programme. Members of the community specifically rejected spending money on another ‘Lammas Harvest Day’.

Similarly, the LVRPA spent £4,615 on ‘Top Dog’. Once again the community members who attended the meeting in January 2013 rejected any spending on an event called ‘Dog Agility Day’. ‘Top Dog’ never gained approval.

Two other events, ‘Walthamstow Mysteries’ and ‘Love the Lea Festival’, received £2,000 and £1,667 respectively.

The LVRPA also spent £9,922 on ‘Casual Staff’. This appears under a budget heading entitled ‘Misc’. We don’t know who these casual staff were and what they were doing. The forum in January did include spending on ‘Junior Rangers’. There is no indication these casual staff fell into this category.

‘Misc’ also included £1,823 for ‘publicity’ and £1,485 for ‘tools for litter pickers’. Another related litter event, ‘Litter Bug, cost £3,000. Once again litter-picking would seem to be an ongoing activity for LVRPA staff, while it is not clear what the publicity was promoting. The purpose of the money was to engage the community and, while this could include some publicity costs, if it was spent on publicising events like Community Haystacks and Top Dog, this would not have been what forum members had in mind.

Other events which may or may not have gained approval if people had known what they involved include ‘Wild Family Days’ at a cost of £4,000, ‘Ranger Drop-in Days’ with £1,967 spent on ‘shelters’, ‘PA and Microphone’ and ‘Folding Tables and Chairs’, and £868 spent on ‘Bush Craft’.

An event, ‘Bat walk’, which cost £300, would probably have received community support along with bat detectors costing £1,724. However, ‘Ranger Rambles’ with spending of £245 on moth traps and £800 on binoculars sounds like it should have been LVRPA spending from a different budget. The point is, however, that none of these ideas were discussed by members of the community at the forums where spending was meant to be approved.

Of the items which the community did approve it seems the only one to survive was the ‘Lea Bridge Underpass’ arts project on which £15,528 was spent. Unfortunately, the underpass project was so badly done that it will have to done again. The mural-on-the-marsh project, which was originally the underpass project and which cost £6,252, was hijacked from its original proposer and artist, and turned into a completely different event which failed to provide children with the opportunity to create the mural as originally intended. We are as yet in the dark about whether or not the money set aside to screen the ice centre is still available.

The LVRPA promised it would allow the community to spend the money given to them by the Olympic Delivery Authority to compensate us for the damage done to Leyton Marsh by the temporary basketball arena. It has failed abjectly to keep this promise.

Posted in Leyton Marsh, Walthamstow Marsh | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cow Bridge

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:


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wetlands Licence

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Help Crowd Fund Legal Case to Stop Waterworks Sell Off

Text below from the Crowd Justice page, by Abigail Woodman, on behalf of SLM.

The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority (LVRPA) is planning to sell the Waterworks Centre and surrounding open green space for development. This is wrong, and I am asking for your help to fund a court case to stop them.

What are we hoping to achieve?

The marshes of the lower Lea Valley are a beautiful, amazing, unique open green space, a place for people to reconnect with nature and let their imaginations run wild right in the heart of the city. We want to make sure the marshes are there for future generations to enjoy. To do this, we must protect them from development. If the Lee Valley Regional Park is allowed to sell this patch of green open space, where will they stop?

I have spent the last five and a half years encouraging the LVRPA to recognise that they manage the Lee Valley Regional Park on our behalf, and asking them to respect our vision for our green open spaces. Again and again, the LVRPA have demonstrated that they are more interested in building an empire of large leisure venues than looking after our green lung. Now they are planning to sacrifice precious Metropolitan Open Land to pay for an ice rink that should be self-financing if it is a viable proposition. This is not acceptable, and I want to send a message to the LVRPA and others who want to develop Metropolitan Open Land: We will stand up for what we believe in. We will not tolerate attempts to rob us of our green open spaces. We will fight to protect them.

What are we planning?

With the help of Leigh Day, we are planning legal action to prevent the LVRPA from selling or developing the Waterworks Centre and surrounding land.

At the moment, we are waiting for the LVRPA to make its next move and we will need to be ready to act quickly when they do. We are therefore asking, at this stage, for your help to raise £1750. This will enable us to explore the viability of a case and pay court fees. If the case proceeds, we will need to raise additional money.

The Waterworks Centre and surrounding land provide a buffer to protect the Waterworks Nature Reserve, and the birds and animals that call it home, from noise and light pollution:

The Waterworks Centre provides facilities that enable people to enjoy green open space in one of the most densely populated cities in the world:

Save Lea Marshes enjoying a picnic on part of the site designated for development by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority:

The Lower Lea Valley, with the land under threat highlighted:

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Community Picnic 20th August

Join us for a picnic!
Save Lea Marshes is organising a picnic on Sunday 20 August, from midday, on the open green space in front of the entrance to the Waterworks Centre.
Leave your barbecue at home and bring food, drink and a picnic blanket, and help us celebrate our wonderful open green spaces.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A Victory Followed By Worrying Developments

We are pleased that the decision to refuse the car wash has been upheld and what’s more on grounds which uphold the legal protections for Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). However, running contrary to the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to safeguard MOL, the very next day we discovered that the Lee Valley Park Authority had written to local residents informing them it was pressing ahead with plans to replace the current ice centre with a new double-pad facility through disposal of treasured local space.

A letter sent to Essex Wharf and Riverside Close residents stated that they are ‘planning a new centre, which will cater for increased public demand and provide a regional centre of excellence’ on the site of the current facility. This, they claim, will be funded by ‘looking to redevelop 3.5 acres of under-utilised land that has previously been built on at the nearby WaterWorks Centre’. The idea that the 3.5 acres of land is ‘previously built on’ is misleading, since the majority of it is still green space, even if car parking and a community centre have been been built there. Furthermore when the WaterWorks Centre was constructed, in order to obtain consent under the restrictions in force for developing MOL, this would have been on the understanding this development would provide community facilities to maintain and serve the public green space. Not facilities that would later be ‘disposed’ of for private residential purposes.

Letter sent to local residents

If these facilities have since become ‘under-utilised’ as the LVRPA claim, then they are solely responsible as the sole managers of this venue and surrounding area. The Park Authority should be looking to supplement the revenue they have, around £15m, with funding bids if the new Ice Centre will indeed be commercially successful as they claim. Public protected land should not be disposed of to subsidise the building of any new commercial facility.

However this is far from being a foregone conclusion for several reasons. Firstly, an admirable group of local residents had the foresight to register the WaterWorks Centre as an Asset of Community Value. This means it will be harder for the LVRPA to sell the Centre, as the community will first be offered the opportunity to bid for it. The sale has to be delayed for a period of time to give one or more local groups time to put a bid together. We do believe that having an ACV status is a material planning consideration so it should be taken into account at the planning stage, whatever the nature of the ‘disposal’ process.

Secondly, in response to many local objections to the plans for the Waterworks and our petition of over 5000 signatures, the Council have amended the provisional wording of the Lea Bridge Eastside Vision document regrading the Waterworks from ‘Residential’ to ‘Possible Regeneration Opportunity’. This is in contrast to the definite and concrete plans for other parts of the Lea Bridge area.

The LVRPA have acted swiftly and it could be said secretively to ensure that there is minimal accountability for the plans. If you visit the website you are directed to in their letter to residents, you will discover that a private company has been contracted to deal with public communications. After several Lower Lee Valley Commitee meetings have been postponed, rescheduled, moved or cancelled, the Lower and Upper Lea Valley Committees have been rolled into one body called the “regeneration and planning” committee which means that there will no longer be specific local meetings dealing with local matters even when there are so many current issues and proposed developments in this area.  The assumption that the only issues of interest are to do with regeneration and planning is ridiculous and maybe an attempt to deliberately shut down opposition from the Lower Lee Valley Committee members who are regularly lobbied by local residents and groups.

This means the likelihood of acrimonious relationships between the LVRPA and local people and local groups will be far greater, since there are no intervening democratic bodies to lobby or to represent our views to the Executive, who are now solely responsible for the disposal of assets, rather than all Authority Members as was previously the case. The LVRPA know that their plans to sell off public land are the most controversial and legally tenuous of all their undertakings and it would appear that they have undertaken bureaucratic measures to officially distance themselves from those they are meant to serve.

Posted in Leyton Marshes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Car Wash: Appeal Dismissed by Planning Inspectorate

The cordoned off car wash at Leyton Marshes car park, on Lea Bridge Road.




The appeal lodged by the car wash business that operated on Leyton Marshes car park, in front of the Lee Valley Ice Centre,  has been refused by the Planning Inspectorate. Waltham Forest Council refused planning permission for the Morina Car Wash business back in November 2016 and it appealed the decision in April this year.

The grounds given for dismissing the appeal related to the status of the land and the impact on local residents. The two main reasons cited were as follows:

  1. The effect of the development on the openness, and the character and
    appearance of the Metropolitan Open Land and surrounding area; and
  2. The effect of the development on the living conditions of nearby occupiers,
    with regard to noise and disturbance.

These were two of the main reasons that Save Lea Marshes presented in our long-running opposition to the facility on protected open land. The Planning Inspector’s report cited the need to protect the appearance of the land as the ‘lack of built structures on the land immediately surrounding the appeal site allows clear views of the canopy from across the car park, the road, and the surrounding buildings.’ It is good to know that the relevant authorities are concerned with safeguarding the MOL status of this land, including its appearance and integrity.

The key passage regarding the impact of the car wash is as follows: ‘The core of the designation of the land as MOL is to prevent harm to openness.The appellant states that the land is already developed. However, the appeal development results in new structures being erected on an otherwise flat area currently used as a car park. Despite the presence of lighting poles with advertising affixed throughout the car park, and the nearby Ice Centre building, the site, the car park and the bordering green land, does currently have an
open character. Development, by its very nature, reduces openness. The development would result in new structures being erected, which although lightweight in nature and appearance, would reduce this openness.’

Whilst the structures are referred to in the future tense, they have in fact already been erected and we will do our best to make sure that they are removed as soon as possible by Council enforcement so that the views of the green land are as fully restored as possible, despite the presence of the Ice Centre itself.

Another notable aspect of the refusal to grant permission is also found in the grounds for dismissal, namely the impact on nearby residents. The report states: ‘Due to the open nature of the land, it is likely that any loud activities emanating from the car wash would be heard by residents. Such activities normally associated with hand car wash businesses could include pressure washers, pumps, vehicle movements and noise from workers.’

The fact the planning authorities have cited the impact of the business on Essex Wharf residents and seen fit to prevent development to maintain the openness of MOL will be useful in opposing future developments on adjacent or nearby MOL. The two free schools that are proposed for the former Thames Water Depot site opposite and the plans for high rise residential buildings for the Waterworks will both have far reaching detrimental impacts both on the openness and integrity of the MOL and on local residents.

We hope that consistency is maintained in regards to both small and large inappropriate developments alike.

We would like to thank everyone that originally objected to the car wash being located in such an inappropriate area. We hope that the business will be able to find a more suitable location which does not compromise the local environment.

Posted in Leyton Marshes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Amended Lea Valley Eastside Vision waved through by Cabinet

The Cabinet at the London Borough of Waltham Forest have waved through the amended Lea Valley Eastside Vision.

Although there are some things to celebrate about the amended plan, there are still serious problems with it.

Waltham Forest should be congratulated on changing the designation of the Waterworks Centre and surrounding land from ‘Residential led’ to ‘Possible regeneration opportunity’. And they should be congratulated for limiting the land under threat. This is a laudable direction of travel and is a strong indication that the Council knows, in its heart, that it is wrong to build on the marshes.

But of course it’s disappointing to see that the Council wasn’t brave enough to go further, to listen to the overwhelming opposition to the LVRPA’s plans to build on the marshes and to keep the area as green open space. Because that’s exactly what it is. The site in question is 1.62 hectares. 1.13 hectares is green space; that’s a whopping 70% of the site. Only 0.09 hectares, a tiny 5.5% of the site, is covered by a building (see Google image below). Given that the GLA says that, ‘Development on Metropolitan Open Land should be resisted with only appropriate uses or redevelopment of existing built footprints allowed’, it seems strange that the Council hasn’t recognised that developing just 0.09 hectares for housing is unfeasible.

In my opinion, it would be far better if the Council responded to the wishes of local people than pandered to the wishes of the LVRPA, which seems far more interested in feathering its own nest with elephantine sporting venues than it does with protecting London’s green lung – the very task it was created to do.

While it may be true to argue that we need housing, we do not need housing here. There is plenty of room in the borough for housing to be built without the loss of Metropolitan Open Land. This development is being proposed by the LVRPA because they argue they need the money to develop the Lee Valley Ice Rink, but it is fallacious to think that the borough will lose its ice rink if this land isn’t sacrificed for development. There are other ways the LVRPA could raise money and, perhaps more to the point, could we not site an ice rink on nearby industrial land and protect even more Metropolitan Open Land?

The marshes are intrinsically precious. They are also a valuable resource. Not only do they help combat air pollution, but countless studies have demonstrated how access to good quality green open space has a significant positive impact on health and wellbeing. And local people will continue to oppose, in the strongest possible way, all development on Metropolitan Open Land. This is only the beginning…

Posted in Lea Marshes | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment