Waltham Forest Planning Committee Meeting 12th September 7:30pm

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Waltham Forest Planning Committee Meeting 12th September 7:30pm

  1. Timotheus says:

    I walk my dogs on Leyton Marsh every afternoon. I generally support the Save Leyton Marsh campaign and considered the authorities’ reaction to the protest heavy handed and offensive. I thought the installation of the centre typical of the extravagance that permeated the Olympics. This was reinforced by the apparent lack of use of the facilities during the Olympics but substantially mitigated by their consistent and (from the noise generated) enthusiastic use during the Paralympics.

    I am sure that all campaign supporters want to see the Marsh restored as soon as possible and in any case by the 15th October.

    I have read the report to Waltham Forest’s Planning Committee (see http://democracy.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/g3024/Public%20reports%20pack%2012th-Sep-2012%2019.30.pdf?T=10). The recommendation, which appears to be solidly based, from Council Officers is for agreement to the reinstatement proposals.

    If the Planning Committee do not agree the proposals, this will inevitably cause months of delay in getting the Marsh restored. I would urge the Campaign not to cause the Planning Committee to turn down, or defer consideration of, the proposals.

    • 1leytonmarshlover says:

      Hi Tim,

      We understand your concern and of course we wish to see Leyton Marsh returned to the public as an open green space as soon as possible. However, the very latest version of the reinstatement plan is troubling in several ways:

      1) The subsoil before excavation was a ‘silty loam’ which supported a range of organisms. This is to be replaced by coarse crushed recycled construction waste constituted mainly of concrete dust. This will not sustain the habitat that previously existed on the marsh.

      2) Using maximum sized pieces of recycled waste is not appropriate as this is normally placed for heavy load bearing purposes such as road construction and suggests there maybe future designs on the marshland involving construction.

      3) The ODA have acknowledged that the reinstatement plan timetable cannot be maintained without an extension of working hours on site. Any such extension of hours should be appropriate and not cause unacceptable noise and disruption to those living less than 50m away.

      4) We believe that a substance such as Thanet sand should be used in preference to the solid material proposed. This solid material has a very high alkalinity (pH 12, similar to domestic bleach) and is not suitable for an environmentally sensitive location such as this.

      5) The geo-textile layer that will be used to separate the topsoil from the subsoil will be included to “assist future excavation” in providing a visual identification of contaminated soil.

      Ultimately, we wish for the space to be made accessible to the public as soon as possible but not at the detriment of the long-term future and biodiversity of Leyton Marsh.

      • Timotheus says:

        This seems to me to be an instance of the perfect potentially preventing the implementation of the good, along the lines of “just say no” instead of the provision of contraception to reduce unwanted teenage pregnancy.

        Seeking to delay restoration of the Marsh, in order to head off unknown future use of the Marsh is perverse.

        • 1leytonmarshlover says:

          I do not believe that analogy is accurate. We lobbied very hard for the production of the reinstatement plan; that it be debated by the Planning Committee and that it was made available to the public for people like yourself to read. We are arguing that an appropriate plan be adopted and have qualified the aspects which we wish to see amended. Previous plans have been thoroughly examined by our Environment Group and for this reason, adaptations have been made to the present plan (including for example the inclusion of appropriate wildflower species in the turf). It is very important that the land is returned to the public but that further costly mistakes are not made which adversely affect the area and its wildlife.

Comments are closed.