As the LVRPA have been lobbying the local council and encouraging local people to support their application, every week for the next few weeks we will be sharing an objection to the new Lee Valley Ice Centre being sited at Leyton Marsh.
Each of these objections have been made on different grounds. You can still submit a relevant objection to the planning department at Waltham Forest Council.
First up is Celia who focuses on the industrial nature of a twin pad ice centre on Leyton Marsh – Metropolitan Open Land and some of the reasons it would be better situated at Eton Manor:
Development Management & Building Control
London Borough of Waltham Forest
The Magistrates, Town Hall Complex
1 Farnan Avenue
London E17 4NX
Re. Application No. 194162FUL Lee Valley Ice Centre
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to comment on the above proposal. Having fully read the document prepared by WSP/Idigo on behalf of the Lee Valley Ice Centre, and indeed been involved at various stages of the ‘consultation’ process, I am writing to formally object to the building of the ice centre on the MOL site of Leyton Marsh.
There are many reasons why the building should not go ahead on this site but for the purposes of this objection letter I am going to reluctantly confine myself to just two.
- There are insufficient good reasons to have chosen this site rather than the site of Eton Manor and a number of bad reasons, not least the building on MOL on less than ‘very special circumstances’.
- My first point is to address both the practicality and the environmental damage that continuing to operate the old rink whilst developing a new one on the same site instead of building a new one on Eton Manor, whilst being able to keep the old one not only operational for a longer period but also to minimise the disruption to the creatures that inhabit the site and the people who currently use it. Building work is always more disruptive to land than anticipated because of footfall and machinery over grass and supplies left around. In this case there would be even more disruption as mentioned under paragraph 14.57 of the report as this also includes the provision of temporary buildings.
- Eton Manor would also be preferable during the time of construction, as the Olympic site is still currently undergoing development and the road infrastructure for commercial vehicles would be less impactful than on the Lea Bridge Road and surrounding districts (as witnessed during the building of the temporary Olympic Basketball Training Facility).
- The ‘robust’ examination of other available sites in Appendix 1, does not provide sufficient argument to warrant going ahead with the Leyton Marsh site. If Eton Manor isn’t suitable, the arguments against Pickets Lock being effectively ‘too far to walk’ (20 to 30 minutes) could also be questioned (a) from the point of view of the levels of fitness the LVRPA aims to promote and (b)what of the other facilities currently based there including a cinema?
- I would conclude that the fundamental reason for choosing Leyton Marsh over the other sites is because it is seen in terms of the potential for expansion. If planning permission is granted under ‘special circumstances’, who can say, that future expansion would not be justified? Just as the current argument is made that a ‘building is there already’, even though, this building arrived before the current MOL status.
- The building is inappropriate for a green space site, despite the efforts to ‘dress’ it as a more environmentally friendly building.
- Having researched other ice centres (most, like the LVRPA one proposed are in fact ‘Leisure Centres’). I conclude that the proposed ‘twin pad’ most closely resembles Ice Sheffield (see photo 1 and compare the design for the Lee Valley Twin Pad, photo 2). This is an industrial building based on an Industrial Estate with a mixed occupation of industrial business and leisure buildings – not on MOL. If you take away the external enhancements of the Lee Valley Scheme and concentrate on the sheer size and scale of the building, the similarity is evident.
- In London (as mentioned under pages 37-40 of the Planning Statement), the examples of Streatham and Romford are included. Both of these ice/leisure centres are positioned in town centre urban environments (see photos of Streatham an Olympic sized rink nos. 3-5). Again, the sheer size and scale of the building can be imagined on Leyton Marsh and blocking the openness of the area, which is heavily used as a place for walking and escape by local people and visitors to the area – many more than would use the ice centre.
- Romford – which used to have very similar ice rink before the new Sapphire Centre was built – a new facility is also located in the town centre (see photo 6), near to transport links.
- As paragraph 1.53 of Appendix 1 states: “As a leisure facility, the proposed ice centre falls within the definition of a ‘main town centre use’ as defined by the NPPF.”
- There would seem to be a difference of opinion on what the LVRPA considers to be near town centre and what local people consider to be open space. The Regional Park Authority lends more weight to its own internal needs e.g. not to conflict with the Hockey Centre at Eton Manor, than to the value of the MOL at Leyton Marsh to taxpayers and local residents.
- While not strictly a ‘planning issue’ the very fact that the LVRPA’s unique organisational structure is a contributing factor in making its decision making difficult. It must, on the one hand, balance its arguments for justification across all the cash-strapped, London boroughs and increasingly need to make a profit from developments. This, set against the other requirements of its founding principles as regards the park, as set out in para. 2.5 (1) of the Planning Statement. The originators of the Lee Valley Act did not for-see the dilemmas we currently have in terms of lack of land; climate change and the effect on the environment as well as austerity cuts to local authorities. The overriding issue now must be climate emergency and the need to make sure our flora and fauna can survive in our green spaces. Such spaces are even more vital in conjunction with increased housing but smaller dwellings in the area, particularly as we now know that access to green space aids our health and mental health.
In conclusion, the justification of putting an industrial building on MOL adjacent to an SSSI is not proven, given as the report states there are other rinks “20 or 30” minutes by car away and a new Olympic ice centre, currently being built in Cambridge. They may not all be twin- pads but certainly most of the London ones offer similar sporting activities including Ice Hockey (e.g. the Sobell Centre). Many of the ice centres are also run by GLL, offering similar facilities (not, for some reason mentioned in the Planning Statement). Therefore the ‘uniqueness’ of the Lee Valley Ice proposals have been overplayed and should be weighed against stark environmental facts (e.g. 95 per cent of meadow land lost since WWII), not ‘greenwash’. If Leyton Marsh could be improved – why hasn’t the body responsible for it done enough before deciding to take away a large area of the land for development and so-called ‘enhancement’?
Yours faithfully,
Celia Coram